Good afternoon everybody. Um, calling to order our February 25th, 2026 Alam Marada Charter Review Committee. Um, morning. Can we please take the role? Committee member Richard Black.
>> Present. >> Committee member Lori Loland. >> Oh, present. >> Committee member Craig McBay. >> Present. >> Committee member Joe Stroth. >> Here. >> Committee member Roger Young >> here. >> Vice Chair Susan Raphael
>> here. >> And Chair Ty Harris >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> We we've successfully navigated item one. Um public comment Dave, anything? >> No. >> We have anybody online?
>> We do not. >> Thank you. Uh close public comment. Items for discussion under Roman numeral 3. A review and discussion of Alamada Village Charter Section 5 sub3 the mayor powers and duties.
Although I thought we were still talking about >> at the end you'd reserve comment for that even though it didn't make the agenda. It is in the minutes. Do we need to approve the minutes? >> I'm sorry. Keep me keep me on on track. Um, has everybody had a chance to review the minutes?
>> Do I have a motion to approve? >> Motion. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Uh, all all in favor? >> I >> I All right. Minutes approved.
So, back to where we were. We had we had reserved we were having public comment. Trying to jiggle my brain. >> We had done uh the motion to approve the three years with no staggered terms
um was uh denied with your reservation. Then of course that any of the five who denied could re um institute discussion and make a motion of any kind. >> Right. There we go. Thank you. >> Is that accurate, Marty? >> Yes.
>> Um I Mr. Chair, >> John, >> you all did approve a motion for threeear stagger terms. That was a vote of six to one. Um Vice Chair Raphael is correct that there was a motion that was
defeated to not stagger them, though. >> That is not the case. They there was a consensus about three years, but not about staggered terms. That's where we left things last meeting. >> Exactly. That's what I said. Sorry. Three years there was a there were two separate motions. There was a motion on
the three-year terms which passed and there was a motion um on whether to stagger them and and that that motion failed. >> I agree with that. That one I agree with. Go ahead. >> I think it was two to five. I mean five for two.
>> Yeah, we >> Yes. So, we were we were talking about whether it made sense to stagger if you're only doing three years because you're going to have a a funky election cycle every two or three years and whether that made
sense. So, are are we going to discuss again the staggered or we is that that horse uh run its race and we're we're comfortable with the three years that we left off with the motion to approve.
So, Well, there hasn't been a motion that has passed, >> right? >> So, we can just not have an action because I don't think by implication you can say that you approved
>> three years staggered when there hasn't been a motion to do such. We've only denied right >> right now >> three years no staggered. Um, I thought that a couple people and I can't remember who, Lori may have been one who wanted to, um, I can't remember
why exactly we adjourned other than a time frame and potentially I thought Richard and Lori wanted to talk to the public again and and come back for further discussion. Yes. >> Uh, and then we took the vote where it was denied. I I I believe in large part
so we could continue the discussion and make sure we fleshed it out. I >> I think you are correct. I think you also wanted some information from Lynn Tipton, which I think you received in your email today. Um, and I think she's also on Zoom if you want to speak with her again. >> Did everybody have an opportunity to see
Lynn's information? >> Shame on you. >> Some of us had to get up really early to do. Do we have Do we still have you on? >> Yes. Hi, Mr. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee >> and and for for whoever's out listening to this, it'd probably be good to to um
have you summarize the information that you provided to the to the committee members for the sake of the public record. >> Is she frozen? particular link directly to the section in there. Lyn, we can't hear you. You're you're
breaking up. Lynn, we we got about every tenth word. You were breaking up the whole time. I uh will see if I can reset the volume. Sorry about that. Okay, Lyn, it might be your internet
connection. We cannot hear you. Do you want to try to call it? Let me do that audio. Uh I think Frank provided a number. Oh, we hear you now. Okay, that's better. I simply sent the link to four different cities showing
the timing of their elections so that you can see how the seats are grouped. 1 2 and 3 or 1 13524. As the attorney and I had discussed at your last meeting, several other cities
have already done this. Whether you wanted to stagger or not, I wanted you to see some examples of how the charter language looks and that's what's on each of those uh linked sections. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. And um I I I paid particular attention to Winter Park, which I liked. Um they did not have staggered terms. Palm Beach Gardens had staggered terms. Um I found it more cumbersome uh to understand, but at least it was a
model of of how it could be done. >> Yeah. And you know, one thing that we didn't talk about, we were we were circling on on the three-year term. It also probably provides not only a little stability for staff as we've discussed, but also for the village manager
position. I mean, you got to change every two years. You don't you don't know how that's going to go, which is another reason to keep focusing, I think, on the on the three years as a as a good compromise.
>> We passed that. >> Yeah. >> Now we're talking about whether we should stagger those terms or not. >> Right. Right. But actually, we need a motion in order to continue discussion with it, I believe. Correct. >> Yes, we're going to need a motion if we're going to discuss the staggered
again. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to have staggered terms. >> Do I hear a second? >> I'll second it for discussion. >> Discussion. Richard, you want to start?
Um I I don't have a lot to add because we've you know kind of gone over this and my I mean my preference is to stagger them. I see both sides of it. Um seems like again quite a few people I've talked with like the idea of staggering and there's a few people that don't like
it. But I could go um you know my purpose of preference is is for it but I could probably go either way. Um I see pros and cons both. Joe, >> my preference would be to stagger it, but I am sensitive to making it too
cumbersome or making it too unruly to get there. But if there's a way that that seems to be orderly that gets us to a position where we don't have the possibility of overturning five people at the same time or even four people at the same time and retaining at least
some semblance of of institutional knowledge, then I'm for looking at that. Lori. >> Well, um I spoke to a number of different people over this past week with regard to
staggered terms and again the majority were in favor of staggered terms. I know that Lynn had told us previously that 90% of the cities have staggered terms. So I think that is um pretty good understanding of of the trend.
So, I'm still in favor of staggered terms. >> Great. >> Um, you know, I've been going back and forth on this. You know, I've been, you know, listening to discussion on both sides. Um, trying to kind of think it out. You know, talked to a number of number of people um their thoughts. Um,
I also talked with uh somebody on the marathon council um just to get their take on things and uh somebody who's basically living what we're talking about. Um, and they were supportive. They liked how it is working there. Um,
having a little bit longer term, you know, like like we've talked about how it takes a little bit of time to get up to speed and with two years, it just doesn't seem to be enough time to get up to speed and then get things done. And the 3 years definitely seems to be
helping that. Um I asked about election fatigue if it seemed like it was bothering um the residents, you know, because you're, you know, you're gonna have two years of elections then no election one year. So it's going to be more elections. Didn't seem like that
was much of a problem. Um and no problem with that had ever been voiced by any other elector. Um you definitely do have fewer um fewer turnout uh during the off year. That's it's just that's just the way it's going to be. Um I've heard some
people say, well, at least the people who do come out in an off year, um they're going to be more than likely a little bit more of an educated voter. So, at least if they're coming out, whether if they're coming out for whatever candidate, hopefully they're, you know, coming out for support of or,
you know, against somebody else. So, at least it's people who really want to come out and vote. Um, so you know, I think uh I'm supportive of doing the staggered. Um, I know it's going to be a little more cumbersome. I don't think we should worry too much about how we get
there. We know, you know, the first, you know, if this actually got approved, the the couple of election cycles, they're going to have to figure some things out, you know, maybe do some, you know, a threeyear and a twoyear to get things staggered out. I don't think that needs to be obviously anything we worry about
um the powers that be will kind of sort that out um if need be. But you know I think you know having the three-year and staggered I think is going to help a lot of stability um you know with our staff you know with a village manager um
hopefully we're not worried about another village manager for uh anytime soon. Um, but h I've heard some people say with more stability in a council can also bring better people to the table, you know, because, you know, if you're
might have new bosses every two years and, you know, could get fired right after an election, um, that can some people might say, you know what, I'm not going to go for that. I'm going to go over here where it's a four-year terms and, you know, it's, uh, a little more stability. So, I think uh for all the
reasons we've been looking at, I think it makes sense. People I've talked to um are supportive of it. Um so, that's that's where I'm going. So, stagger. >> Can I ask a question? Is Marathon staggered? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> I didn't see that in their city code. I just checked it again, too.
>> And they Yeah, they had the longest serving, longest tenure city manager up until last night. There's something to be said about that. >> Yeah. And they did have I think two times ago I think they had four seats up for election but that's only because somebody had to drop out. So it was a
temporary they had four people up and then the next one they got back to either three or two. So they got it sorted out after that. >> Roger got anything to add to that? >> I had some similar conversations as some some he had. I didn't speak to anybody on Marathon but I at this point now I
could go either way. see both and it's really going to come down to what the council decides, but I can go either way on it at this point. >> Susan, >> I said a lot last time, so I'll I'll keep it brief this time. I think that to stagger a three-year term, you do have
you do disrupt some of the continuity, which I could see being both good and both bad, right? Um I can see both sides of that one. Um, it does eliminate I think the uh council the budgetary I know that Tai had had commented upon
that that the budgetary three-year process would no longer be um applicable really because there would be no one there would be no group that would have seen that all the way through. Um those are my only two additional comments.
>> Okay. I I I could have gone either way, but I'm starting to think that maybe the staggered is the way to go, especially for the folks that u are concerned about not being able to to speak every two years. It may be not a perfect system,
but you know, at least you get a shot at least in the next election cycle. You don't like who's in to to make a change. And I think it would just be what we've discussed before, the how do you start the staggering? You
take the the top three vote getters and they go the full three and then you take the two that have the least amount of votes and they would be the ones that would have to run fairly quickly. >> I don't like that because that really
depends upon the seat. >> Well, and then the the other remember the other thing >> and who's running for the various other seats. The other thing, this is jogging my memory. It it will not work with the way we have our eight-year term set right now. We would have to do it the
way Lori had suggested. >> I thought that motion passed. >> Yeah, it did. >> Man, I am having a three terms, right? >> Did I think you left out your caffeine this morning? >> I have enough caffeine this morning. For sure. >> Got a little foggess going on. No,
because we we already clarified that and and we're we're not using the term years or counting years or counting. >> We're going to use terms terms, >> right? >> All right. So, we have a a motion in a second. Uh can we call the the role?
>> So, sorry. Um quick before we go on. So, do we need the term length um the number of terms and standard to are they all going to have to go on the ballot together? because I don't think we would want them to be separate if I'm correct
because say our you know our term length passed but then stagger stagger past year >> some people had exactly two years no staggered no-brainer um three-year we've had some wholesome discussion about whether or not it makes sense and I
think there's pros and cons that everybody's annunciated um for both so I think the motion really does the stagger needs to be tied to a referendum of of three years or kind of a subp part. How would you how would you see that?
>> Do we need to all go together or all fail together is I guess >> I think that's a question for Mr. Quick. >> Okay, >> John, can you >> Yeah, that's your preference. We can do it that way. That that would be an appropriate um uh lumping together. Not
a problem. >> Okay. So, do we have any more questions or are we ready to to take a vote? >> Public comments. >> Yes. Come on, Dave. >> For what it's worth, there's an
organization called Board Source that uh provides best practices primarily for nonprofit boards. And uh Habitat for Humanity, it turns out, has just spent a couple years looking at this as part of that practice. and uh their
recommendation and best practice is three-year terms staggered with a limit of uh six years or two terms. That's their standard nationally for all nonprofits. Admittedly, they're usually
a little bit uh larger boards. Don't know that that how much difference that makes, but typically you're 9 to 13 board members. >> Thank you for those comments, Marty. Do we have anybody else
that wants to chime in? >> No sir. >> Thank you. Uh public >> we have a hand up though in the panelists. >> Oh that's uh council member Freriedman would like to make comment. >> Hi. Can you hear me?
>> Yes. >> We got you. Um, I I just want to first say I really appreciate everything that you all are doing. It's it's very very informative. Uh, it really seems like uh we're really kind of uh wrestling with all of the
issues that we've been discussing and and hashing them out and and the only thing that I would urge you to do is to uh come at this uh not from the perspective of what you think the voters might do, but what you think is right. because I've heard that a couple of
times about what you think is going to pass and what's not going to pass. So I I my comment is really just come at this from the point of view of what you think is the best thing for the village, not what you think is going to pass in a in a referendum. Thanks again.
>> Thank you for those comments. >> All right, are we ready to call the role? >> Can you can you repeat the motion? The motion, as I understand it, is three-year terms staggered. >> What? It was tied to three-year. I didn't hear I We had already p We had
already passed the three-year term, the threeear terms. This motion is just to stagger the terms. >> This was just to stagger the terms. >> I just want to motion to stagger. >> I just want to give it some context that we're still talking about three years and staggered. >> But I don't But if that's not the motion, that's not what we're voting on.
We're only voting on >> the stagger. And that's a whole different ballgame. >> Right. >> Right. >> So, but but the reality of it is is if you pass this and John packages all this together, then it's an all or nothing.
>> Then we'd have to have that be the motion. >> Correct. >> So that John has the direction to package it. >> Well, that's where I'm going. Do you want to package this together so it's an all or nothing >> or do you want to package it or can you package it such that if the staggered is
not something that that passes then you still get the three-year term? You understand what I'm saying? >> I think it should stand like it is because then we have the option that it's a three-year term. We've all pretty much all agreed with that. We only had one um one dissenting vote there and
then the other would be to to stagger them. I think they should be separate. >> But then well but then you've got the potential if the three-year is voted down you have staggered two years which I I I think the consensus by and large
maybe one or two denters is no that doesn't make sense to do two-year stagger. >> Yeah. I I thought the consensus was if if you state it two stagger didn't make any sense that creates more chaos. >> So then in essence our motion should be for the three-year terms the two year
staggered and the and the ter and the three term limit. >> Yes. >> So >> so are we looking to have me to modify the motion? >> That's what I was going to ask. Would you amend your motion? >> Sure. I'll amend the motion to a
three-year term. of which there would be staggered terms >> with three year term >> with three year with three term three term limits. >> Got that Marty. >> Do we have a second for that motion?
>> Second. >> Thank you. Marie, can you call the role? >> Oh, sorry. >> Okay. So to clarify, we have a three-year term with staggered terms and a term limit of three terms. Correct.
>> Maker of the motion. That sounds correct. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Uh, committee member Loland. >> Yes. >> Committee member Young. >> Yes. >> Committee member Black.
>> Yes. >> Committee member McBay. >> Yes. Committee member Roth. >> Yes. >> Committee member Raphanelo or excuse me, Vice Chair Member Finanelloo. >> Yes. >> And Chair Harris. >> Yes.
>> And that motion passes 70. >> Thank you. All right. So now we're back to a review and discussion of Alam Marada Village Charter Section 5 sub3 the mayor powers and duties. >> This this item was added to the agenda
at the request of uh Lori. So, I don't know if she wants to. >> It was you had >> I did make a request of any of them >> in the on the first meeting when you all talked about your what your priorities were. This was your priority. One of your priorities. We we reviewed the meeting. If you don't want to talk about
it, we don't have to. But that's I just I'm going to note who made these requests so that they can >> tell you. But is that what we're on? >> I guess >> I think it was part of a lot of people's. I know it was part of mine, too. >> Okay. I mean, I don't really >> So, I'll take the heat if you want. Oh,
no. I just was like I was just like, am I having a tie moment here? >> Listen, everybody's having a tie moment right now. Ty's even having a tie moment. 38. I didn't >> Yeah, I think here's what I got. Here's what I got written in my little notes.
Okay. So, I think I said to to specify uh a clear term length to write um the mayor and the vice mayor shall serve one-year terms unless sooner removed by the council instead of the serve at the pleasure of the village council which is
vague and may invite challenges. And I guess the other change I had in my mind suggested would be to include maybe remove by majority vote of the full council at a duly noted public meeting. Again, they were just sort of like little sematic um changes. Nothing that
was really have anything to do with with power or duties. That's why it was on my list. Why was it on yours, Susan? >> Mine was that I believe the mayor should be elected, not appointed. Um, again
looking at some of the the the the forms or the ex exemplars for lack of a better phrase sent over by Lynn today, Winter Park seemed to have a good solution where the mayor was elected by the uh uh residents by the citizens and then
the vice mayor was appointed by a majority of the council. Wasn't there one municipality that the highest vote getter in the election received was appointed mayor? >> I think there are several municipalities throughout Florida that do that. I'm not
sure how many of them have the seats seat the head-to-head seat runoffs as opposed to the atlarge elections which I think impacts that analysis. Um, again, I go back to sort of, well, how many votes you get in large part depends on who you run against, and I'm not sure
that it is a fair barometer of uh the overall vote getter being mayor. >> I'm more concerned about the possibility that the person who receives the highest votes has no interest in being the mayor at all, >> which is why I >> or even has the skill set to be the mayor. >> Well, and that that is a fair critique and one that I would share, which is why
I think we should have um two council members in a mayor election. so that we know whoever puts in for mayor wants to be mayor and that the citizens elected them as mayor. >> Well, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.
>> Well, we have five council members, right? And the the the phrasiology of Winter Park, and we don't have to use the same phrasiology, is that you have an election of four council members and a mayor, even though the mayor is also a council member. So you have a council of five, but you have the people who would
like to be mayor run to be mayor. >> Even though it's not a strong mayor position. >> Yeah. It it was not instead of there being seat x number whatever it would be running for mayor and that would get you the first year
or is or is that is your idea that they would stay mayor the entire three years of their term? That I think is up for discussion, but I would say stay mayor for the entire three years of their term. >> If if we're not using a strong mayor
system and it's somewhat cere it's virtually ceremonial, I I just don't see the relevancy at all. I just I don't >> I agree. >> Yeah, I I agree. I mean, other than having the title by your name, it doesn't gain you anything. >> It gains you control of a meeting and in large part deciding who talks first
decides issues. I've seen it time and time again at these city council meetings in the village council is determining who is going to talk to an issue, decide an issue, um who runs the meetings. I saw it in the LPA when I was
there. I think in large part um does have an impact to the meeting if if they're so inclined to do so. >> I I I like I like that bag of monkeys staying with the electeds to figure it out who's going to be the mayor like it is now. But because I just see other
issues with the three-year, you're the mayor for three years and what what happens if that doesn't work out? Somebody's having um you know problems or or doesn't want to do it or you find out that they're someone that doesn't
read their package. I just I I like I like them having to actually solve a problem at the beginning and and and go through that that system. Do I do I think that somebody should be mayor um two years
consecutively? Probably not. I think everybody should have a a a crack at it if they want it. Um but I I like I like council having to sort that out. I mean, it's starts to kind of show how they're going to work
together or not work together, and there's something to be said for that. So, we kind of as the electorate kind of know what we're getting ourselves into after the first meeting. I Craig, you have any thoughts on on changing the system or leaving it like it is?
>> Um, I I think we should leave it as it is. Um, especially because it's it's on a strong mayor position. Um, I think adding that extra as we've been talking about trying to get our actual elections a little more civil. I think adding a mayor portion might
>> make it less civil. >> Yeah, possibly. So, I think I think that portion I think is uh and again it's good having that kind of turnover so it's not you know again whether or not it's going to be every year or not but potential of a different mayor every year. I think I think it's good like
that. >> Roger. I'm with Richard on the one part, but I I kind of see your point, but I don't know if I want to get stuck with the same person for three years as mayor either. I'm not sure if I'd be good with that. But, um, it's pretty
much ceremonious. >> Until it's not, right? >> Until it's not. Yeah. >> No, I get what I get what you're saying, too. I I consider that, too. I get it. But, yeah, I don't know if we want to go down that road yet. >> Yeah. Because as I understand it, any
any council member or Ron can put something on the agenda and we've sat up here and watched them and when they're having their, you know, council time and said, "I want to add this to the next agenda." And so
I I I think that this position is supposed to be ceremonial and and someone that runs the meeting and should not give that person any more power than anybody else. >> I agree with the should not and in large
part often does not and in large and in sometimes absolutely does. But that's just that that's going to happen no matter what. And and to me that's that's on the council. >> That's on the council if they let that happen. >> And that's a fair critique of of some of
the council if they're letting somebody act like a strong mayor. Um anybody have more thoughts on this or want to >> do you want to go back some more?
>> Yeah. I I think that that that piece has been discussed. I am interested then going turning the the baton back to Lori or anybody else with thoughts about it because some of your words smithing critique I I found good. >> But I didn't I didn't track it so I
needed to hear it again. But I don't but but but at the same token, you know, I think there's I think there's in in the the charter there's a lot of little little spaces where we could make some modifications with the terms of the words, but then to to to just just bring a verbage change or or simplify
>> substantive doesn't make a lot of sense. >> Correct. That's where Yes. Yes. Exactly. which you know there but this one has that that inconsistency that drives me nuts and we don't have to change it just because of that. But it adds some um uh
well actually now that we're if we go through your staggered terms this verbiage will no longer be redundant. Some of it is like you know what I'm getting at. It's like why are you talking that way when it's always going to be the same? Yeah.
But the three years fixes that >> despite ourselves. >> Despite ourselves, we'll fix something else without needing to do it. >> So, Susan, let me ask you this. When you were talking about the the perceived power that the mayor has, do you do you see that at um
are you are you coming to that conclusion in case in some in some instances because the mayor is sometimes last to to place a vote. in like he would be that person that seat would be the tiebreaker. >> Um, no. I think that's an appropriate role for mayor to have um regardless of
how he's appointed to be the last to vote in the tiebreaker. I see it more of um uh and I and I and I see it in committees as well or any meeting. Let me just branch this out. It's whether it's at a private industry meeting,
whether it's at a city council meeting, whether it's at a committee meeting, anytime you have a group of people that need to decide somebody, whoever is controlling who speaks first, who votes first, who votes second, etc., >> um, in large part can control the
meeting. And I know that the mayor does not control the order of the vote, but they they can steer and control discussion. And I'm not saying that that's wrong. It's just every meeting is like that. I mean, regardless of of your
industry or um whether it's municipality, private industry, you name it, >> right? >> And and and Tai is correct in the fact that that's only possible if others allow it.
>> Um but that is that is also a fact of life. Anybody else want to weigh in on this one? >> No, I don't really I think making a minute change that doesn't have an overall is, you know, I think
wouldn't say a waste, but it just, you know, it's >> especially in this instance when we're going to have more than more than a couple of um changes the voters are going to have to vote on. Yeah. >> Do we need to have an actual vote if we're not going to do anything to
>> I was just thinking about that. I don't >> suggested changes or are we just moving on? >> I think we can move on. If we're not making if we're not making changes, then I don't John can confirm it, but I don't think we need any kind of motion. >> Yeah, if if you're done, we can just
move on and there's you don't need a motion to like keep it as is or anything. >> Okay, perfect. Next up, All right. So, under B, review and discussion of Alamorado Village Charter Section 5 sub5 compensation and
expenses. This is always a fun one. >> So, for risk of getting yelled at again, um >> that was also Lori. >> No, that was uh Craig and I believe Susan. >> Not me. >> Maybe just Craig.
>> All right. All right. >> Sorry. Let's start with Craig. >> All right. Um yeah, like I think uh that first night, you know, I mentioned the I think council, you should be getting, you know, paid more, you know, might help attract, you know, some better candidates, you know. Um so again, it
might get shut down. It just was recently. Um but you know I think um you know something I you know talked about kind of one of the first meetings is whatever we agree upon here if it actually goes through council and goes through the
vote it's going to be up to a lot of us to cheerlead everything you know to try to get things passed. So I think say you know if compensation is one of them hopefully as we're going around if we're you know trying to let everybody know why we made these decisions and educate
them then maybe you know with the the pay increase that could be a part of it. So um so yeah I think we should uh bump up I what were they were they getting was a thousand >> they're $1,000 a month right now.
Um, does anybody know what the last uh last time I went to a vote was the >> 1,200? >> I think >> I thought it was 2,000. >> Oh, was it 2,000? >> $1,000 more. >> Okay. >> 100 bucks more a month. >> 100 bucks more a month there. What
you're talking about? >> I have a different >> I have a different take as per usual, I guess. um same goal as Craig, which is also um uh I think starting to become a norm. Uh but with this slanted view that
I fear that a pre raise is not going to attract the qualified candidates. We want people who are civically minded who want to be in the positions because they want to see what's best for Alam Marada occur rather than be like, I need the extra $2,000 a month or $1,000 a month
or whatever it may be. And the higher you go, I think the more it skews um the motivation and and the desire and conversely does not attract the quality candidates that we'd look to attract. Even though I completely understand the
reasoning on the other side, I think it actually in practice would be the reverse. I happen to disagree. Imagine that. Um, I think that for for some individuals that are are currently
employed and who are working or maybe even self-employed, uh, it takes a lot of time to serve on the council. I mean, it's it's a lot of, um, time outside of actually sitting right here in this room in order for you to be effective in um,
in in the in the position. And I think $1,000 is is quite ineffective, right? And I think that's prohibitive for some people to to be willing to step up and and and do the job. But I was thinking about instead of it being a situation
where we're trying to highly raise the um monthly salary, maybe we could base it annually on a consumer price index change where they're getting a um you know a very small and maybe insignificant pay
raise each year, but it's based on the consumer price index versus an actual dollar figure. >> Yeah. I I was even thinking about a a per meeting. Not that I'm encouraging any additional meetings that we already
have, but you know, ever since they bifurcated council meetings into >> to two that's a that's a a serious more amount of of commitment of time because just
physically getting and preparing twice as most of you know is a lot more effort than only having to get ready once. even if it's the same material. Um I I've thought that and this is just a number,
but trying to stay close without tipping it too far over that maybe it should be $800 a meeting instead of cuz essentially they're getting $1,000. Well, they're not. They're getting $500 a meeting right now. If you if if if you
were to go with the assumption that they're having two meetings a month, >> I guess that's the assumption then. Or does that break down to four? I I I prefer the annual broken down monthly um because it gives them the flexibility if they do decide, hey, >> we're not, you know, we're going to
Thursday's agenda is not heavy this month. We're going to pack it all into Tuesday. And they give the proper notice and everything like that. I wouldn't want them to get less money, >> right? >> Nor if an agenda looks particularly long. Um, and I do encourage them to shut off at a time certain, you know,
pack in six meetings in a month to get more when it hopefully averages out over the year, but um I I would not want to disincentivize or incentivize um the number of meetings by setting it up per meeting. >> No. And and and I completely agree with that. I just think that they put more
work on themselves when they said, "Hey, let's let's be comfortable with cutting meetings off on Tuesdays when we know we have a heavy land use agenda and just do it on Thursdays." But I also think that there should be additional compensation for taking that on because that is is
more responsibility. Where that number falls, I I don't know. And that's I guess we can try to figure that out. Um, I I like the consumer price index methodology. I don't know if it does enough. I like the I mean along those
lines, but to use an index that's well established for salaries and payroll increases, you can either use um the federal social security increase number >> um as a gauge, which I think is is more fair as far as what people in the
community would be looking at getting a raise each year. Um and and and the right thing to do. I I think federal retirees happen to be on the same index uh as as opposed to consumer price index which has more volatility to it because sometimes you know it it can go down
too. >> Sometimes it goes down >> but I mean nobody ever goes is going to be like oh well now we're going to get a pay cut. So whereas the government can stay zero for some periods of time if it does anything it goes up. Well, is
everybody of the opinion that that we should be having this conversation to increase? Is there anybody absolutely against having any kind of increase at all? >> I'll give you a chance Dave. Come on up. Uh not directly in response to that, but
I think it would be good to be informed by uh benchmark information from our consultant. I understand that they have complete information available. >> Yeah, that was after we got through this part of is anybody opposed to having this conversation. That was going to be
my next suggestion. We we hear from Lynn briefly and see if she has something to add to this conversation. >> Uh Lynn, can you can you jump on? >> The league does survey council and mayor pay every year. We do not get 100%
participation. And in your size range, I can give you what that range of pay is. You should know up in the panhandle, it's very common for the smallest cities to pay a dollar a year. So that skews the data, but let me get a note up to
Wade, our statistician, pull that data, and I will email it to you for your population range. Be glad to do that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. You want to go? >> You can go ahead. So, I did a little looking into this because just curious
and trying to figure this out. And I also asked some questions and um hard to pull this information together, but if you go out in the uh in the uh big Google world out there and do some googling and move your fingers around,
um city council member salary in the state of Florida as of February 1st, 2026, um the average for a city council member in Florida was $27,500 per year. Um, you know, obviously some were
higher, some were lower. I mean, the only commentary I would have on that is, you know, we are one of 67 counties and probably one of the largest or probably the most expensive county to live in. Um, you
know, there's you you mentioned that, you know, they've they've they're now working two different meetings. I don't know that the meeting times have decreased either. So now they're working two meetings, probably working the same number of hours for each meeting, probably having to prep more for each
meeting. Um, I mean, I think for you to really sit here and do this job, even do the job that we're doing, I mean, it's amazing how much stuff you have to read, um, you know, to come here and understand. Um, I think I I'm a firm
believer we should be at least where our peers are. We should maybe take that as a benchmark. I mean, what are our peer groups doing? What are similar size cities doing? Um, and then kind of drill down to what are they coastal? Do they have the same situation as we do with
coal building? >> I I like that approach. I My preference would be to table this part until we get the information from Lynn so that we're not just spitballing numbers out and burning through our our time. Yeah, we
could see it comparable and and I don't know if it I'm sure this information exists in in Google land and I haven't thought to do it, but we're all pretty aware that we have a high cost of living here, but on what percentage that might help guide the discussion dovetailing
with what Joe just said, number one, get from Lynn the information about what our peer cities are doing, but then to the extent, you know, almost like an appraiser does, you got to do your adjustables, right? um to figure out what might make sense for this community
and knowing the general um you know cost of living versus let's look pick a pick a county out of the middle of the state pick Miami Dade pick one from the panhandle might help with that analysis is my only thought >> I mean I was just scrolling through on
my phone the the information on MUN code on the lake cities that she gave us um for the other tab And uh just for example, Winter Park is is 15,000 from what I can see. >> 126 for the council.
>> Yeah. But those are 2020 numbers. We're talking six years. >> They have gone up. So, >> right, >> Richard. >> Um cost of living thing is a major deal here. Um, I I've put quite a bit of
thought into this because the constant thing that I hear is that we always have the same people that run and no one else goes up there. And to be honest, no one here and even counting us most part, you
have to put to do the job right, you got to put 34 30 to 40 hours a week into it. That's about to to be a good council member. That's what you need to put into. And anybody that owns a business or is working a full-time job in the Keys can't afford to put 30 to 40 more
hours of work into being accounts seat. So yeah, you're only going to get retirees for the most part because they're the ones that have the time to do it. I mean there there's some outliers there, but for the most part that's what happens. And then the same people that can manage to come up with
the amount of time, are they doing the job that needs to be done? because are they really putting that much time into it or are they just showing up? So there there's that thought. Um I know the research that I've done for mediumsiz cities, so 50,000 down to
about 20,000, their pay ranged from 20 to 35,000 a year. Our pay is pretty much on pace with most small municipalities that I've looked up. So between 12 and 15,000 is kind of the average for it.
Um, the way I look at it is the cost of living in the Keys and, you know, just everything involved with being down here. Um, I think we probably fall more in line with a medium-sized city versus a a small city. So, my my
thought here is to go with just an annual salary instead of writing this $1,000 a month, $300 a month, all this confusion. just start out at something, you know, 16 to 20,000, put that on there and say that there'll be a a
annual assessed increase price based on national averages of of pay increase and go from that. So that that's my two cents, >> right? Roger. >> Well, I'm I like the whole idea of paying them a fair amount more. I was
thinking that the 2,00 I like the idea of just a salary 25 not 20 I don't think 20 is enough but I think we are stuck getting either people with businesses that are at the tail end maybe of their career retirees but we're
not getting any of these younger people and there's a lot of people you know nurses attorneys these young kids making 100 a year 90 a year and they would they do want to be part of this and maybe that would take care of the extra things that
they're going to have to spend money on to give up time to be involved in the council. See where I'm going? I mean, I think there's a whole younger group. I mean, Richard's here. I mean, I don't know exactly how old he is, but I'm encouraged. I'm seeing more and more younger people in the community getting
involved where you you're right. It's usually pretty old. >> You know what I'm saying? Well, Steve has definitely dropped the median age on the council right now. Yes, >> I have. >> Um, one other thing to add, Susan, and I do see your side of it is if you pay
more, you attract, you know, someone that maybe shouldn't be there, but I think as long as you keep that pay within reason, you know, in that 20 range or something like that, you're going to help the council member out. But you're not going to attract, you know, Joe SM working around town. Oh,
that's 20 extra thousand I can make. They're not going to run for that. >> It's just not going to happen. >> Well, if if they did the analysis, they wouldn't. But >> um but I I and that's why I said that I'm when when Tai asked if there was
anybody who was not willing to consider a pay increase, I I didn't say anything because I am very open to it. But I do think that I would be interested in in knowing the uh um comparables that Lynn comes up with. Um, I understand your reasoning for going to a a mid city. I'm
not saying that you're wrong, but I don't think that a lot of the villagers are I there is some fatigue cuz I feel it myself with people consistently. You know, our budget is like a mid city. Well, why with nobody saying the why part of it? So, that's why I'd like to
see what table the discussion until we get the numbers back from Lynn. And you know, I will also try to do some research myself, but I would love it if if others already had it at the ready or if it's already something that Lynn has at the ready for just how
percentage-wise, rough guesstimate, how much more is it really cost to live in the Keys versus elsewhere? Cuz we all know it's more expensive. I know that when I go to Publix on the mainland versus down here. But, you know, what are we really looking at so that we can calculate an appropriate bump up? Not
because we're a midsize city, but because of our cost of living. >> Yep. Even if you doubled to $24,000, which starts falling kind of in some of the ranges that Joe looked at, I don't think we're taking anybody that's not civic-minded. I don't think 24 moves the
needle into well, I can I can stop doing work. I could I can retire and and uh and live on my uh my salary as a a council member. But I agree we should table this um until we have some of the information from Lynn. Really?
>> Right. I agree with you too. But but based on what you just said there, Ty, I said, I don't think there's any one of us that are sitting here at the table that would be willing to say, "Oh, I'm going to quit my job and take $24,000 and serve on the council." It's not going to happen, right? >> Not of those of us sitting at the table.
But that's but that gets back to my point of of there are some who would be like okay this is you know great um you know supplement or part-time job or now I can retire not because 24,000 is going to pay my all my expenses but it's
going to pay enough that I can do it now um even though I'm I'm not civically minded and I get it but that that's and that's why I'm saying all I am all I am suggesting is that if we do come up with a number we have a rational basis so that if it is taken to council and it is
taken to the voters who just voted it down, we don't just say, "Oh, we spitballled and we thought this was the right number." I think we we need to have some justification and backup for it other than >> we we we think that cuz I cuz I agree like your work on the LPA, our work
here, none of us would be none of us are doing it for anything. Um the point is okay the council does a lot more work than even this and what is a fair compensation that strikes the right balance >> and I don't think I don't think members
of the public have a real clear understanding of how much time and effort these councilmeners um put into it. I don't think they recognize the fact that they can't even walk in through a grocery store without being uh stopped by another resident to
to bring up an issue or have a conversation about an issue. They're calling them on their on their own personal cell phones all the time. They're sending them emails. They're bombarded. They're bombarded by the the residents um all the time. >> And it's not just it's not just
preparing with what and reviewing what is in in their packets. It's also all of the the other interactions with members of the community and it's time consuming. >> Well, and there are hours spent spent with the manager and and the director
department directors once the agenda is published and and all the material is produced. They all get an invite because they have to do it individually, but come in, they sit with the manager and with all the department heads and basically go through all the items on
the agenda. So, you know, first for everything that's on consent. You want to make sure that something on there shouldn't be on consent, but then all of the land use items and everything else. So, you're spending a couple hours just doing that on top of your own reading.
it it's a lot of work and like Rory said, it's kind of like being a doctor. You can't walk into the grocery store without somebody asking you a question about an ailment, you know. So, um I I'm glad that we're going to have this
conversation. I I'm I'm would be more comfortable knowing what Lynn comes up with. Um, so that as both Sharon and Joe have said that we can justify if we do come up with a number that we it's based on on something
>> and Lori. >> What's her name? Susan, not Sharon. >> What? >> It's better than what I'm often called. So, I'll take Sharon. >> Oh, S. Sorry. Listen. Listen. I'm sorry. So we also had as part of that
discussion expenses >> I think appropriate um travel done for the village should be um whether it's workshops um you know your glad hand meet and greets to a certain extent etc your networking all of which is if it's
village business I think it should be compensated I don't think this is for the charter but I also though think that if people do do those things they should do a brief report back to council about the you know the activity what they learned how it benefited the villager didn't and suggest that nobody ever go
again like a brief 2 or three minute report that's not for the charter that's just my view point >> 100% if you're if you're going to go spend our money and be in Jacksonville for 2 days to learn about tax increment financing or some new thing that FDOT's
coming up with a a five minute report back to everybody, including your fellow council members, is not an unreasonable ask. So, I I agree with that. But I also think they should have the ability to do those things because that's very important that that we stay connected to
other cities that face the same issues that we have. Any other comments about that? >> I I think the village has been pretty responsible and taking care of most of the councilman's expenses anyway. And I know we know there's been a few that
asked for more and didn't get it. So I I think the manager can take care of that and that like your job. >> That that definitely falls on the manager to improve those expenses. >> So
okay. So, we're going to we're going to table the rest of the discussion on salary until next meeting when we get some numbers from Lynn. We're what time are we at now? 628. We got a half an hour to go.
>> Well, let's see if we get through this. >> I'm struggling as it is. It was it was just one of those days at work that there's not a lot left in the in the tank. Um see if we we table that uh review and
discussion of alen village charter section 5 sub7 vacancies forfeitures of office suspension filling of vacancies. In my notes, I have that was a Joe Roth and I have subset five under that, but I couldn't figure out what subset five was
or not. So, >> see, I do listen when you guys talk. Joe, do you you want to >> recall >> you wanna >> Well, I I remember, you know, we we've talked about the the problems that we have when when someone either has to
voluntarily does voluntary resign or god forbid pass away in office. Um and as we know, the system is set up right now that there is no special election. It's a it's a a replacement by the council by
a majority. And if you recall this last time when Mayor Pender resigned, we spent a lot of time, you know, with the council with four and it took a while before that got
sorted out and they appointed someone. Is is that the system we want or do we want to talk about a different system? >> I would like to talk about a different system. >> Well, I think you need to talk about it in the context of whatever statute
applies. That's what I would say because I think there is. I'm not the attorney, but I think there is. Um, I think part of what I was talking about in five was whether or not um, we're in a different world than we were when we incorporated
and whether or not, you know, being absent means being absent in person or being absent electronically. We allow a lot of people to participate electronically. I'm not advocating that we do or we don't. I'm just bringing it up for discussion. That was my intent with them. So, so at least on land use
items, they cannot vote without being here in person. >> It's only quasi judicial. They can't vote. >> I >> quasi judicial. They can't vote. >> Yeah, they can't vote on quasi, >> right? But there are other land use items that aren't quasi judicial that they could vote. >> Thank you for putting a finer point on that. But it's it's quasi judicial
items. If you are not here in person, you cannot vote. You can participate in other parts of the agenda. So, I mean, do you if somebody's not here, I mean, here's here's the other part of this. As a land use attorney, um, you
are entitled as an applicant to a a fully constituted board for purposes of of a vote. So, you actually have an as of right um to request a continuance if you don't have everybody here. That's
that's a given. Um, but I I like the idea of them having to be here. I don't like the idea of of having people remote. Um, other than participating for purposes of of of
knowing what's going on, but not voting on items. That's just my take on it. I'd like to hear what everybody else has to say. >> I don't see any reason to have somebody coming in that way. They need to be here. >> If if they're voting on something, I think they should be here.
>> I mean, specific, you know, circumstances maybe, but not all the time. >> Well, and like we just said on Quasi, they can't vote. >> Yeah. >> Craig got some thoughts on that.
um hadn't really put any thought into this before uh started talking about it, but um I think in person, you know, um yeah, I I do we have we had many uh
recently many council members participating uh virtually. Haven't been watching the meetings. >> I think the last one I remember would be uh Pete. >> That's exactly the one I had in my mind. Yeah, he was in the hot woods. >> Council member Freriedman was uh recently on Zoom when he was on vacation
in the seells. >> I felt bad for him. He his his time lag was what 12 hours or something like that. That was that was a rough meeting for for having >> having that kind of time spread.
>> How long did we have just for when Buddy quit? >> It's not something that's used very often. We do have a remote attendance policy and um it it's very seldom that someone will take advantage of it when
they don't need it. >> I like the I like the I would leave it that there is some flexibility for you know justifiable excuses on the occasion um that they need to be absent but still want to make sure that their voice is
heard. they are a council member, but it would have to be the exception that makes the rule of being in person. Um, so I'm not sure that we need a charter change as opposed to continued administration of it. >> It sounds like what we have now is
working pretty well. And I I guess the first rule of this group is do no harm. I would hate to open it up and then you have five people via Zoom and nobody here in person and and but I do like the flexibility. There are circumstances that that uh warrant warrant an excused
absence in person, if you will. >> Could you imagine presenting an item in front of the village council and you just have five TVs? Everybody's on a split screen. It'll be so >> that would that would that would not be an enjoyable frankly at some point that
will occur in our lifetime. >> And after the Supreme Court made clear that you could hold evidentiary hearings and tri trials via Zoom. I would extend the albeit an you know excuse that makes the rule of being in person to quasi judicial. There's no reason to segregate
out this if if courts allow for a Zoom proceeding for a full trial. Um, I don't know why our quasi judicial has to have all five voters in here in person again with it having to be the absolute exception pre-permission required sort
of situation um to be able to participate by Zoom, but I would expand it to even that. >> I would I would not want to have a quas judicial with not able to look everybody in the eye. >> I don't like to have trials without doing it either, but I have to. Well, >> it happens and the Florida Supreme Court
has said it's absolutely appropriate and you don't lose any credibility judging. I have my own views on that, but um that's that's the that's the announcement from on high. >> Well, the good thing is we're just dealing with village council and I still like the idea of having them all here
and if there hasn't been an abuse of the policy, I don't think we should we should disturb it. Just to put you at ease, you could never have all five remote because under Florida law, the quorum requires at least three in person. So, because they don't count towards the quorum if
they're remote. So, you have to have at least three people in person. Good to know. >> So, are we sort of generally consensus that we're not making a change? Okay. >> Is that that's basically the consensus,
right? We've talked it through. It's not worth um trying to make a change to that. Can we though talk while we're on this subsection about filling of seats? >> Absolutely. >> Filling of vacancies. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> It's it's my view that if somebody resigns and we can debate whether or not be they knew they would do so before an election or shortly after an election. That's neither here nor there at this point. But I think if they resign within the first six months, especially if we're going to three-year terms, um that
they should be elected. And and I do recognize that a three-year term would fix the sentence in here that makes no sense um about when the seat would be filled, but at the same time, I think if you're going to have somebody resign within this first six months, it should not be the council that appoints
somebody for the next two and a half years to fill. >> I I like that. I and I like your idea about the six months because I think it preserves some of the integrity to the election cycle. If it's after six months, I I think we leave it the way it
is. But I I kind of feel the same way you do about if they if it feels it feels like they're gaming the system if they've if they're they've run and then they're going to immediately resign. And and I don't know what everybody
else's thought is about that, but I I I kind of like that approach. >> So under six months, you'd have another special election. >> Under 6 months, you would you would that seat would be open for for election again. So, obviously then that would have to be
special election, which I know we were, you know, talking about how much it cost to uh it's a $33,000 shot. >> And how many months would that take to have that special election for which we would have a vacancy?
Probably not any longer than we did this last time. That was that was months before Anna was seated. >> And then of course if it's more than 18 if we're assuming a three-year term if it's more than 18 months then if
somebody resigns somebody is appointed to fill the seat until the next generally scheduled election which is how you get to the marathon four and one but then it fixes itself thereafter. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, at least if we were doing if we got to the three-year, we would have more elections. You know,
it's still it's still if it fell in the year where there wasn't supposed to be an election, then they would have to be be another one. So yeah, I'm just I'm not I'm I'm definitely not opposed to doing something like this, but trying to figure out the wording cuz you know, do we word it for could be could work out
better with the if it's three-year terms because we have more elections. There's a better chance of there actually being an election already coming up as opposed to have have to have a special election, but having some sort of wording on time left on term or something like that. Um,
so yeah, I'm not opposed to it because yeah, having somebody elected for two and a half or appointed for two and a half years is a bit much. Even a year and a half is a bit much. But >> and I could see I know I raised this to talk about tonight, but I could also see
where given some of our votes about three years and and staggered terms, etc. might inform the word smithing or even concept thought process for this particular provision. So, I would like to raise it again next meeting um if
possible with the other. >> That's absolutely I mean we're we seem to be making a little bit better time this meeting so we have more time to talk about that. We get sunseted in May. >> Mhm. Hopefully we we don't
>> but at our first meeting we sort of threw out ideas of what we wanted to discuss and we had the big ones which were the ones we have now gone through and getting to these other issues um maybe putting some thoughts people's thoughts flesh on the bone without
necessarily a vote um one way or the other during a meeting so that we come back the next meeting better informed and ready to vote after having heard why people raised the issue because there was a lot the first meeting that people raised that I hadn't thought of but I
found valid and and intriguing and wanted to hear more of before I actually form my own thoughts. >> Yeah, I I don't think we need to vote on that. I think but I I like how the we're forming the discussion and maybe we could talk about it at the next meeting
um after we've done a little more research on it >> and I'm happy to hear other people's viewpoints on it tonight too. I didn't mean to cut off discussion. So, is everybody good with where we we stopped the discussion on that one and then we picked that up along with the
other item on salaries? Okay. So, I think we have time for one more. Oh, is everybody good to discuss D, which is review and discussion of Island Roder village charter section 5 sub9 village records. Now, who put that
one on? >> Lori. >> No, I think Joe did. >> I got bad shoe on your shoulders. >> I am blaming you for everything. >> You're the You're the whipping boy when we can't figure out who else did it.
>> I'll take it. I don't But I did. I have I have it as Joe Roth. >> Oh, Joe. I think it's just more of clarification of moving out from the stone ages from printed to electronic materials availability of that versus printing stuff. I think that's
>> good discussion item probably nothing that we need to touch in the charter. >> No. >> Okay. Um >> well no wait I think maybe we have to maybe let's have a question towards towards Marne who she happens to be you know the the record keeper here. Is
there something within the process that you would like to see streamlined or changed or something that you find is kind of cumbersome and you know not as efficient as it could possibly be that might be uh better addressed in the charter.
>> I'm not sure that there's anything that needs to be changed in the charter. The process is generally now that we're going more towards electronic um retention when we can uh you know of course if something needs to be kept in paper form we do but uh these days
there's not a whole lot that's required by the state retention system to to hold um paper. So you know I don't I don't think that changing the charter really would have much effect on on our workflow.
morning. Thanks for those comments. Um, didn't we we kind of move out of out of the majority of five knowing that we have two items left to discuss and we move into I know this is Susan.
Well, I think it's Susan's uh e review and discussion of island village charter section 8 elections. I could be wrong but I believe that was one of yours. I actually have it as Joe again. >> Joe, >> I don't recall why.
>> Damn, Joe. >> I think I think we beat up elections pretty good, though. No, >> it's it just it's general section 8. >> I think it was You had You had written referendums, Joe. You had said something about referendums and that's in that section. So, I didn't know if that
triggers your mind. >> Yeah. So on page 10 of 20 notwithstanding anything in paragraph sub B to the contrary referendum power shall extend to any ordinance leving ad florum taxes provided that the ordinance increases
the total village tax rate above 5 mills. I don't know if that threshold is acceptable not acceptable. I've looked in other charters to see how they deal with that. I mean right now ours is what about 1
mil. So that means that they could pass a budget that's five times greater and we wouldn't have the power to have a referendum about that. >> Is that the way I read it? >> Village rate too. I'm just trying to catch up now to it.
>> So I just wanted to have discussion about that clarification more understanding and see if that's something that is needs to be looked at. >> Right. And that's a that's a good one to to end on. We have time to discuss that at
least get a the beginnings of a discussion. >> And just to note in that section, Susan also did want to talk about supermajority versus simple majority requirements. >> Yeah. And those go really again um going back to some of the items I've seen on
the the sample uh ordinances or municodes that Lynn has sent around. Um there's a list that's much broader much broader than the aisle Marada list of what would require a four four out of
five rather than three out of five vote um to to dive into a little bit. Um but I also had on there the it kind of jumped out at me how high the taxes the millage rate could go. um which is you
know it's it's part of I think um somewhat of a okay we could pass four but we're going to save you money by only increasing you.5 I'm making up numbers I'm making that's okay it's the example >> but that's that's what we hear time and time again and it gets a little distressing well no you're not saving
money why is our budget increasing that goes more towards a budgeting process perhaps than a charter but I think it's really high >> to not have to go back to the electorate >> I I'd like to have more of a discussion on this, but I'm I'm hoping hopeful that
a three-year full budget cycle at least adds a modeicum of of additional accountability. So you can't So the folks that started the budget are going to end the budget and that conversation is basically going
to stay with that council and not flow to a halfway through to another council. But I I I think it's very worthwhile to have a discussion on at a certain point should there be a referendum once you
get to a a threshold on the on this. I I I know Suz and Joe feel about it. Lori, >> I have to think about it a little bit further. I don't really I can't really say that I have an opinion right now one
way or the other. >> Right. But and but the nice thing is we're setting up our agenda for next next meeting and you know we've got two pretty well-formed issues and if if this ends up being the third that's probably going to be >> um a pretty exhaustive discussion for an
hour and a half. >> Not to belabor it, but just put it in context one more time. you your your right to formulate a referendum is removed until such time that they approve a rate above 5 mills or at 5
mills. Just making sure that's clear and that's five times what the current mill rate is. So your your right to referendum is removed until you get to that point. There's all kinds of areas where we can make referendums and and >> silly stuff sometimes >> for for all kinds of things, but with
regards to the budget, it has to exceed it has to be above that threshold. >> I I think >> I'm wondering if that threshold's too big or too high or it should be. And and basically, I mean, maybe that's another information gathering point with regards to what are our peers doing. What's
what's the norm? Is this the norm? Maybe this is the norm. And that's why we need to we need to look at it. >> Big threshold. >> It does. It does. It jumps out at you, >> Richard. Thoughts? >> Yeah. No, I I agree. To me, there should be absolutely no reason that our budget
should change that much from year to year. I mean, there should be >> Well, and at least we should have a say. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Put the brakes on if if that's going to be the the case. Craig, what are your thoughts? Yeah, I think I agree with what everybody's saying. If we can get a
little more information, you know, why it was put in there to begin with, maybe there was some sort of reason, I'm not sure, but a little bit of background um before we kind of decide, right, we should stick with this number instead. >> Lynn, are you able to to give us a
little context on that for the next meeting? Sorry, was there a question? >> Yeah, we're we're we're worked our way out of most of five with a couple of issues still to discuss and we've started into section 8. And one of the
things that we're we're discussing and and have some concerns about is the the threshold in the millage rate upon which the citizenry of Isa Marada can call for a referendum. Um because it seems
awfully high before a referendum could actually u be initiated. And so we would we would like a little bit of context with other municipalities as to whether what we have in our charter five is
reasonable or consistent with others or if it's just us being the rebels that we are thinking that we need to control our tax money a little better. It is extremely rare to have anything in the charter at all related to the tax
rate as a cap or triggering a referenda. Just so you know, uh because under the state's perspective on ad valorum, it is completely up to the council to set that levy every year. And as such, I mean,
other than a county cap in Brevard, I'm not aware of other municipalities having the kind of trigger that you have in your charter. I can check with some of our city attorneys and see if they're aware of any other. The keyword search
function for MUN code may help with this. I need to see it may be too specific to actually keyword search it. Uh, so let me do a little digging on this. I did want to mention that with March 2nd, your next meeting, I have got
a conflict, but I'm checking to see if our data technician could be here for the salary discussion for you all cuz I cannot be. >> Or would it be okay for that to be on March 19th? I'm very sorry, but I had booked something on the 2nd for late
afternoon until 8:00 p.m. >> Don't worry, you're not getting off the phone. We're probably going to not have that meeting and have our next meeting on on the 9th. >> On the 9th. Okay. Then I will have ready and check any referenda for ad valorum
uh triggers or thresholds amongst some comparable charters for you. >> All right. Yeah, we're going to we're going to talk about next meeting dates. This is probably a good time to to do that. >> Yeah. I just want mention one thing about the supermajority. Um, while I have it in front of me, I looked it up.
Like Winter, just as an example, the Winter Haven one section 2.08 has a pretty full list of what that municipality at any rate considers a supermajority as opposed to a three vote issue before next meeting to form discussion. Now,
>> right. So, let's talk about meeting dates. One one quick thing to add to that because we skipped over it. U just to discuss next time is on uh section 58. I I would like to discuss the village council meetings and and add something to that tab. Okay. For
discussion just just so we can talk about it next time. >> Okay. 58 >> 58 >> 58. So I I I know we're getting into spring break time and other vacation time and I
I I know that we have these proposed um meeting dates. So, this be a good time to talk about those. I I know that >> just a note, they're all Mondays, uh, except for the, uh, April 15th, and
that's because LPA meets on that Monday. So, everything else is the every Monday going forward. But happy to take out whatever you want me to take out. Well, I mean, part of this is is kind of estimating how much more work we
actually have to do and the number of meetings that potential meetings that dates we have. So, eight, we have up to eight more meetings and that's gets you into April. That would be the last. I I can't
imagine that we would need eight meetings to finish up the the things that we have on our >> there there are other things. I don't know if you saw, >> right? I know. Okay. >> Yeah. But these were the the most involved with, you know, to me were
section five and 8. And then the other things are are important, but they're maybe not as in-depth as the stuff we've been discussing on on these sections. Um, so looking at those proposed dates, Joe,
you said you have a problem on the 9th. >> Yeah, I physically will not be here on the 9th. I'll be out of the state. >> And Sharon, Susan, I don't know. Sorry. >> You've done it for years, so I again
take no offense. Um, yeah, I have um conflicts with um the second I have medical appointments up in Miami. Okay. Okay. On Monday >> if >> otherwise I'm good with >> Could we move that one to the Wednesday? >> Um >> which one are we talking?
>> So the 32 meeting. Could we move that two more days to Wednesday? The 34. >> I'm okay with that. >> Yeah, that's good. >> Everybody good with that Wednesday? Okay. So
>> I appreciate that. >> No, no problem. So >> here >> I can tell you that that next week um the 11th basically
to the 17th I'm on 311 to 3:17 I'm I'm out of state as well. >> That's spring break. >> That's spring break. I I would like to leave that that week alone. >> So then let's eliminate the 9th and then
meet again on the 23rd. Yes. >> But we're eliminating the night. >> Yes. And then our next meeting would be the 23rd of March. And then I think we should probably just hold before we discuss the
rest of the dates after cuz anybody that knows their calendar that far ahead, it's way more organized than all of >> I see it differently. I see it differently. I see you you plan and you reserve and you hold the date and then you don't plan anything for those days because you know you have to be here.
>> Um I I will have a conflict coming up probably after that first meeting in April. Um I could meet via Zoom after that but I I will be traveling in a boat through the Bahamas for that month. So >> as you should be >> Oh
>> for work not as uh >> so I mean I could gladly join Zoom meetings then and partake if that would be allowed but if we go that far >> right I mean I keep the rest of these proposed dates on the on the calendar. I
don't we don't have the same rules that a village council has or LPA or anybody else. We I don't Does anybody have a problem with any of us attending by Zoom? If we needed to do that, >> I I personally would say best efforts to
show in person. If you can't and you can >> participate via Zoom, I would be okay with that. I mean, I I personally, if you guys said 39, we absolutely have to meet, I was going to say, well, if that's the case, >> maybe I could, you know, jump in on Zoom. But >> no, I
>> I'm just I'm just not physically going to be here. doesn't mean I couldn't set aside the time to do it at 5:30. >> I just think that >> if there was a problem at least either um Susan or myself has to be here as the chair, the vice chair, but everybody else if if there was a a conflict, you
could do by Zoom and nobody would have nobody would have a problem with it except for if your internet connection's as bad as Linds. >> But I I have to say on honestly I had that happening to me. I had Zoom calls all day and I had it glitching and
hanging up all day. Halfway through conversations, the entire day >> that was that whole my on my office had it too. We lost electricity and it glitched and it came in and out. You weren't alone. I got kicked off. >> I lost work. I lost all kinds of It was
So, I apologize for being a little off, but it was just one of those days. Um, is there anything else for us to discuss before we we call it a night, >> Mr. Chair? >> Yes. I just wanted to make sure that
with uh when it comes to remote uh attendance, you will always have to have quorum physically present. So, there'll have to be at least four of you physically present. um uh if you're contemplating remote attendance of uh of anybody else, if you're going to make vote and make recommendations, if you're
just if you're just meeting to discuss and not make any recommendations, then that's a different story for that meeting, >> right? I Yeah, I don't. Right now, I think we're going to have everybody um until we get into April and then Richard's going to be working and doing what famous fisherman do, which is going
on cool trips and taking people fishing in exotic places. So good good on good on Richard for that. Um so I think with that are we done for the night? >> Move to adjourn. >> Thank you. Second. All in favor. All
right. Thank you. Meeting is adjourned.