test. I didn't even ask you guys to quiet down yet. We still have Oh, there it is. Six o'clock. Um I'm going by iPhone. The clocks in the room are a little bit slow. Um but I'm going to I'm going to go go with Apple. So, welcome to the regular city council meeting for October
20th. We're going to begin with our invocation followed by the salute to the flag led by Mr. Sutton. Please rise. >> Let us pray. Lord, we thank you for your grace and mercy today. And um I lift up this council and pray for discernment
and wisdom for the decisions we have to make today. And we uh thank you for our our city staff and employees and leadership. And uh we lift up our military first responders and medical providers. And we thank you for their protection and the work that they do
every day. And any that are here, Lord, uh that need your touch and continued healing. We lift them up and thank you for your comfort. We ask these things in your son Jesus name. Amen. >> Amen. Forgot to move my gel. This meeting is called to order. Madam clerk, roll call.
>> Council member Golding, >> here. >> Council member Horn >> here. >> Council member Jansen >> here. >> Council member Sutton >> here. >> Council member Wagner >> here. >> Council member Wowers >> here. >> Mayor Hoffman >> here. We're moving on to approval of minutes.
>> I move we approve the minutes for regular city council meeting held on October 6th, 2025. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Approval of the agenda. >> I move we approve the agenda.
>> Second. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Council announcements. Miss Golding. She you paused. I saw one. >> I am. I'm trying to be
>> polite. Um, okay. I have several announcements. Uh, just to let everybody know that tomorrow night the city council is meeting with uh, Rep. Michael and Senator Clay Yarro to talk about the legislative session that's coming up starting in January. That's going to be
at 5:30. Um, also wanted to let everyone know that we are having our first ever meeting with the school board, which was part of the interlocal agreement that we have with the Duval County Schools that had never been done. And that's going to be Thursday, October 23rd at 5:00 PM at
Fletcher High School. Um, also want to let everybody know that our police department is having the DEA drug takeback day on Saturday, October 25th from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the police department. This is a great opportunity if you have any medications,
whether they're over the counter or they're prescribed that you don't take anymore or they're expired, you can take them to the police department, drop them off, and they'll dispose of them properly. Um, and again, that's at the police department. And uh I'm sure the
mayor will talk about the Sea and Sky Spectacular this weekend, so I'll let her take that. Um, just want to shout out to our parks and rec staff, Savannah and Allison, who did a take boo
um this past week, which was so cute because we have a lot of Halloween, well, we have a couple Halloween things coming up for the kids. Um, this Saturday, the 25th, we're having trunk or treat at the Carver Center. And
that's uh starting at 5:30 to 700 p.m. And I'm sorry, 4:30 to 6:30. And then on Halloween, we have a trunk or treat at the Seaw Pavilion from 5:30 to 7. And then that'll be followed by the Moonlight Movie Beetlejuice,
Beetlejuice, which is from 7 to 9. So, lots of fun for the kiddos and the adults, too. So hopefully um plan to bring your kids or grandkids or whatever out to enjoy some Halloween fun. And then uh last but not least,
several of us were in Orlando on Friday for our policy uh Florida League of Cities policy committee meetings. I serve on the municipal operations policy committee and we're in the process of narrowing down what are the priorities
our policy committee is going to focus on and for our committee we've narrowed it down to three issues and in December we'll decide which two will be the top two but just wanted to share with everybody the uh Florida open carry law
is one of the pro one of the top three um because there is a loophole in the open carry law that needs to be addressed. Um, sovereign immunity is also another one that is top on our list which has been for several years now.
And then the third one is public record exemptions for city clerks. So just wanted to let everybody know about that. >> Thank you, Miss Golding. Mr. Jansen. >> So to piggy back off of what Miss Golding said, uh, I too was there for
our policy committees. I sit on the development code compliance redevelopment committee and we're overachievers. We did identify our top two and um they are uh accessory dwelling units and CRAAS. The CRAAS, the community um redevelopment agencies
where we get some funding that helps uh build projects in our downtown and southern end of the city. the state's looking to end CRAAS altogether because of some folks that are in southern Florida who um let's call them bad actors. They're using the money in ways
that there probably shouldn't be. And so our stance is let's not punish everybody because of the feud. So we're going to be fighting to keep our CRAAS in place and then ADUs are accessory dwelling units. Um, that's a big topic especially for us in Jackson Beach because if that
gets passed with no preeemptions, then anybody that has a home in Jacksonville Beach can build an accessory dwelling unit and we don't want that to turn into a short-term vacation rental, which we already have an existing problem with that. But it right out the gate, it looks like it's going to be okay because
they're starting to put in some preeemptions that that might be okay. But we'll see when once we get a a first draft of the bill how it really looks. Also, I want to make mention that um a couple weekends ago, myself uh one of my colleagues, uh Councilman Waters and the
mayor spoke at the beach's uh veterans fallen war heroes wall that was unveiled. Uh our mayor did a fantastic job of representing Jacksonville Beach. If you get a chance to go uh by the veterans park, check it out. It's pretty pretty nice. That's it from me.
>> Thank you, Mr. Jansen. Mr. Sutton. >> Thank you, Mayor. um part three of the same thing. I sit on the Florida League of Cities uh Intergovernmental Relations, Mobility and Emergency Management Committee. Lot a lot there.
Um and we narrowed down our uh primary um uh focus for this upcoming legislative session as being a clarification and rewrite of Senate Bill 180. uh that really has far-reaching uh
implications and this uh in some opinions overreach um was really intended to um at least I believe affect uh and help out folks that are in storm damaged areas and their properties and exempt them from certain things and I
won't go into all the detail but um uh that's not really the way the um the the bill was passed and so uh there's some clarification needed on that and so that committee will be focusing on that. There seems to be some early energy in
Tallahassee as well and um and actually um you know entertaining some rewrite of that bill uh at least some amendments and I believe the other item was municipal elections uh was our number two item. Uh that was not my
number two vote uh but that was our number two item. effectively uh the state wanting to make changes to municipal mun municipalities and their elections. But uh truth be told, the changes they're wanting to make are uh
in line with where we already are uh locally here with four-year terms and the elections either being on the gubanatorial or the presidential election years. But there are municipalities that have everything you've ever heard of. no term limits,
odd number of years, three-year terms, everything. So, uh they're trying to bring some uh some normaly to all of that. But, um those were the two items that came out of our uh our committee. Had the opportunity today to
uh participate in the art with a heart and healthc care uh tournament. Great a great um cause there. and our own mayor Christine Hoffman was the MC and she did an exceptional job in uh helping uh
helping raise money for that uh nonprofit. So, thank you, Mayor Hoffman. That's it. >> Thank you, Mr. Sutton, Mr. Wagner. >> Thank you. So, uh wanted to share an experience that a another member of the
Wagner family uh got to take part in this week. Uh my wife who many have heard me talk about this from the dis who's a 14 and a half year breast cancer survivor took part in the fifth annual uh breast event best breast event which
was part of the Ed Men foundation and they had record-breaking fundraiser and my wife came home with about a three and a half foot tall pink uh Allen Dunovan uh seahorse which she's very excited about and I now understand will be our
front door display every October. So, I'm very excited about that. Um, because you would all be disappointed if I didn't also talk about the the very fascinating Florida League of Cities, uh, I'm also on one of the committees, uh, the really exciting finance and
taxation committee, um, which is just literally a laugh a minute. Uh, we also narrowed down our priorities, not to outdo councelor Jansen, but, uh, to one. Uh, so we have we have decided on one one priority. it is on the uh impact of
property tax. Um there was consensus on our group that we have to look for uh solutions that benefit the constituencies of the various communities in the state of Florida versus just opposing changes to taxation. Right? We know that there's
opportunities to be more effective and more efficient with with taxpayer dollars. And so we're going to be looking at uh uh friendly uh solutions uh particularly focused around potent potentially focused around seniors um uh
people who have served the the country and and and other various scenarios to propose a series of changes to the the state. Um the state has already preemptively uh the speaker of the house rolled out a series of eight potential
bills that could end up uh he's suggesting they would end up for a vote um in the next election cycle. So we want to get ahead of it and really end up with um something that really makes sense to the the constituencies around the state of Florida. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Rctor. Mr. Horn. >> Right. Couple of things. Uh first off, this is our first council meeting since uh it was been two weeks since uh I want to comment on the Jaguars and their wonderful victory football against the Kansas City Chiefs.
That was absolutely amazing. Our subsequent efforts, you know, well, we're doing the best we can. Um the Well, no, no, no. We're doing pretty good, but I just wanted to see us keep rolling along. That's right. Um I also sit on a committee at the Fort League of
Cities. Um and just so everybody knows these committees, we focus on these items because we know these are things that are coming down the pike from Tallahassee and they're things that are going to affect our cities. And we are trying to get ahead of this and we're trying to work together, local voices, local choices. Um all these small uh
small and large cities, municipalities, townships that are all working together to make sure that the citizens get what they need. Um I sit on the uh public utility or the utilities public works and natural resources committee. Um one of the things that this that has been brought up several times over the last few years and is going to come up again
this year. The two items we're addressing are number one enterprise fund transfers um which is transfers from the public utility in your area in this in our area would be Beach's energy service and as Beaches Energy uh you all
are the shareholders as it were of Beaches Energy and as Beaches Energy makes money and if it makes more than it spends that money comes back to the city and we put it back into other projects uh and you know paying for our staff paying for our upgrades, paying for
things that we need. Uh the other thing is extr territorial search charges. Um if you think of that concept, uh basically we don't serve just Jacksonville Beach. We serve multiple other areas. Uh we have and all according to the state law, um public
utilities have the opport have the right to charge more than it costs them uh to provide utilities in other areas. Uh the thing that's come out is people say this is taxation without representation because those citizens don't live in your area. They can't vote for you and they can't say whether you uh you know
they can't say whether you should change the rates or not. And unfortunately it's not taxation without representation. It's fee for service. Um if we're going to go and we're going to put down another 20, 30, 40 miles of whether it's electricity, water, whatever that that
that costs. Uh, Jacksonville Beach does not charge or we do not charge extra territorial search charges. There are other areas that do. I just want to make sure you folks understand that this is not coming from areas where there are people who are suffering. Unfortunately, what we're seeing is we're seeing some
legislators who are pushing this out. Legislators who work in areas where they are um they I'm trying to couch my my comments here. They're they're paid uh well yeah their their utilities are uh large
multinational corporations or large national corporations that are trying to run off places like Beaches Energy or JEA. They want us to be hamstrung by these uh rules at the state level and make it harder and harder for people like Beaches, organizations like Beaches Energy to and to to work. And then
ultimately then we just say, "Okay, fine. We're going to let a large company come in and take over." And that's not what you want. We're doing the best we can, but we're going to keep pushing for that and for the citizens of Jacksonville Beach. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Horn. Mr. Jansen. >> Yeah, pardon the revisit. Mayor, uh I would be remiss if I didn't mentioned to
you that the Fletcher High School band uh competes on the state level and they've had three competitions over the course of the last three and a half, four weeks. And on each case, on all three competitions, uh they came out victorious as the grand champion
statewide. So, mad applause for them and the work that they did. Thank you, Mr. Jansen. That was worth a worthy revisit. Um, you will all be glad to know that I do not sit on a policy committee with the Florida League of Cities. Uh, so I have no issue updates there, but it is a big week. It's a big
week for us. It is Florida Cities week. I think that must be why all the city staff is here. You guys all here to celebrate with us. Um it is a it is a Florida League of Cities initiative and uh we are participating by shedding some awareness on how hard our city staff and
everybody involved works to keep our city humming. So look out for information on that um on social media. Also um if anything that we've said so far intrigues you and you just want to learn more about these issues and about how a city works, we have a really wonderful program called the Citizen Information Academy that is coming back
around in April. And even sooner than that, so you have time to do them consecutively, is the Citizen Police Academy. That's going to be starting in January, but you need to start thinking about applying for it. They're taking applications nowish or soonish. Um
starts right in early January. So take a look at that. Great ways to learn about your city and get even more involved. Um but the other thing we have going on this week is the um air show as uh Council Member Golding alluded to. So the air show is on. um it will be
happening out here this weekend. The question mark is going to be around the Blue Angels uh whether they're going to be able to participate based on the government shutdown. So, we should know by Wednesday or Thursday and as soon as we know, we're going to let our uh citizens know. Um so, look for official
sources e the city of Jacksonville's event. So, if you see something from the city of Jacksonville or the city of Jacksonville Beach or our police department, those are reliable sources. anything else. Um, please just keep scrolling past it until you see something from an official source. We're hoping for the best. Um, but we are
planning on having a great air show with our civilian performers out here um, as scheduled. And then I did just want to add, thank you for mentioning the drug takeback. Um, another thing that you can drop off there are pet medications. And that is something that you might have
sitting in your little cabinet where you keep your dog food and um, flee and tick medication. you might have extra meds in there for your dogs that you can also drop off there. So, please consider a uh a cabinet cleanout and get those dropped off at the police station on Saturday.
Um it does a lot of good. And I think that's it. We got everybody with announcements. We're going to move on to courtesy of the floor to visitors. Um we have a lot of uh comment cards related to one topic. So, I'm going to go ahead and move the standalone uh to the top.
You're welcome, Mr. Curtis Loftess. Come on up. I'm gonna let you go first. You'll have give us your name and address and you'll have three minutes to address the council. >> There you go. >> Thank you. Am I on on the clock?
Curtis Loftess 11473 Oakfield Court number 102 Jax Florida 32258. Oo, that was hard.
Yeah, that's um it's good to see you all. Uh I still do have an office at the beach, so have no fear. Deck the chairs is right down the road, and that's why I'm here. Uh it's great to see everyone. I miss you guys. Um we've been working
very hard on this season's um event. It's within a a month, believe it or not. We're going to be in the park starting to do an installation around the 17th, 18th, and then it's all the way through January 1st. And uh I wanted
to share with you that last year when we spoke and I got to do an overview of the event, you heard a lot about student arts programming and uh we've once again dialed in on the stage. We've dialed in on the park space and uh we've got an
exciting schedule of events that you have in front of you. There were about 40 stage programs last year, uh student stage programs. This year there's over 45. Uh we also have 22 student decorating. The chair decorating
challenge is now at 22. So we have a broad list of um schools across Jacksonville and programs that are involved in the student decorating challenge. We will be doing a market which is kind of fun to see. Uh we're we're testing this. We've talked about
it. Um everything is about the experience. We're a small nonprofit still got a small staff, me and we um have a lot of volunteers still committed to deck the chairs. Uh there's still and will always be, I believe, so much love
for the event and it grows because of the park that you provide it. Uh it's the experience, the holiday experience that those families get to see. um we keep it free which has been very interesting over the years as we've
grown and expanded and some of these costs for sure have um grown along with us. Uh so anyways 40 seconds 30 uh please any questions call me contact me uh curtischairs.org
uh we're super excited about the season ahead so thanks again city for letting us do this. Thank you, Curtis, for all you do and for reminding us how close we are to Christmas. Okay. Uh the rest of the um comment
cards are related to um discussions of the uh Jacksonville Beach Golf Club and changes that are being proposed with regards to league play. So, this was something that council was briefed on uh a couple of weeks ago by our parks and wreck and golf staff. Um but there is not associated with an agenda item
today. Um, so I have some speaker cards that would like to um express an opinion but don't wish to speak. So I'm going to start with those. Um, if you want to raise your hand or just wave when I say your name or you don't have to, but um, just so we see who you are. Um, Gibby Peace opposes the league changes. I
think it's Gibby. And then Patrick Norris opposes. Thank you for being here, Patrick. Anthony Nuno also opposes. Thank you. Monte Lawrence. Thank you, Auntie. Uh, Joseph Sawyer
Jr., thank you for being here. Muriel Bremer Breman, thank you. Jim Bremer, John Larsy, did I get Sean Cardi,
thank you, Sean. Ed Cal, thank you. and Roger Donalan. Thank you all for being here and for letting us know your thoughts there. We have a few speaker cards. You're going to have when I call your name, you can come to the podium. Uh looks like the green light is already on, but give us your name and address.
You will have three minutes to address the council. I just encourage you, um if you're freestyling, um you don't necessarily need to repeat everything that the person before you said. Um and you will always have the opportunity to email and call us and speak again u when the item does come to us on the agenda.
So, we'll start with um Holden Hackbart. >> Hello, my name is Holden Hackbarth and I reside at 4515 Handover Park Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32224. Okay, good evening uh Mayor Hoffman and members of the city council, city clerk,
and fellow residents. Um, I am president of the Jack Beach Golf Club Seniors Golf League and uh I and the members of our league appreciate the opportunity to speak here tonight. We are here this evening to respond in city council briefing on September 8th and the
proposed changes of the golf course bylaws 2025 by Trevor Hughes, chief of the uh parts development and maintenance. Um, we discovered the details of the changes in the September beaches leader article
when a member came across the article. There was no attempt to contact and discuss with the league regarding the proposed changes for uh 2026 to golf league. The changes that uh we are most concerned about with were discussed in
uh the group and league play section page four as follows. uh the integration of both senior men's league into one Wednesday men's league. Same for the women on Tuesday. This includes league play controlled and administered by the pro shop staff. That's a very important
point. And also um the loss of Monday and Thursday for the women uh tea time blocks. It is my understanding that uh these league changes have been triggered by complaints regarding the inability to get weekday early AMT times at Jack's
Beach Golf Club as described in golf course bylaws by Trevor Hughes in the section titled concerns identified on page one. The Senior Men's Golf League uh including the Golden Putters have a long and rich history at Jack Beach Golf
Club. The Jack Beach Golf Club seniors have started was started by uh Joe Cincinnati in the mid 80s. The Golden Putters started a decade earlier. Although not all our members live in Jacksonville Beach, we have members that have lived in Jacksonville Beach all their lives, including longtime
residents of 20 plus years. Uh others built successful business here. Some have taught in Jacksonville Beach schools, while others reside in Pablo Tower. The veins of our league are deep and thread throughout the city of Jacksonville Beach. Before
the Jacksonville Beach uh course was remodeled, um it was in not very good shape. Um and these golf leagues continued to play year after year, contributing a major portion of the revenues collected. Um you must wonder if the course would have
been shut down and converted into another subdivision if it wasn't for the steady revenue generated by the the consistently green fees before uh the remodel. I would like to propose um that Mayor Hoffman, city council members, and the
department of park and recreations consider the following compromise. Um our first priority is the leagues maintain their individual identity and autonomous operation as we have been on Wednesdays. This includes no league fees charged by the course as has been in the
case has the case since the leagues were started. The second priority is to recapture our Monday tea times. If this priority cannot be achieved, we'd like to request additional tea times for 2026 on the Wednesdays to help offset for the loss of the Monday tea times. Our
current membership size of 74 members cannot be sustained in our current tea time blocks on just Wednesdays. The men leagues play all year round. cold days, windy days, rainy days, and the hot and humid days of summer. Basically, a steady stream of revenue
all year round. Weather forecasts are finicky, and it is expected of our members to show up at the course no matter what the forecast show to determine plain conditions. You would be surprised how many times we got our rounds in despite the gloomy forecast.
>> Mr. Hebarth, I'm just going to ask you to wrap up since >> Why don't I wrap up with my last >> and if you could email that letter to us, I think that'd be really helpful as well. >> Yeah. So, thanks Mayor Hoffman and council members for your time, attention. We appreciate your service to the community and respectfully ask you
to consider these issues carefully on behalf of uh the Jack Beach Golf Club seniors. Thank you. >> Thank you, William Besonette. >> We and we definitely don't need to have applause after every comment. Thank you so much, Mr. Bet. >> Uh, I'm William Beset, 19 Fairway Road,
Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32250. Uh, I came here with the Navy 40 years ago. Retired here, stayed here, and I've been playing golf at Jacks Beach all that time. Uh, as my previous gentleman said, we've played through bad times, good times, doesn't matter. We're here.
So, those 15 times or 17 tea times that we have, you know, they're going to be filled, they're going to be paid. We want to make sure that that does we don't want to lose those. The other biggest part on here that I'd like to go is where the golf staff wanted to take over management of our teams. I don't understand how they can do that when we
do all the work for them. Now through Golf Genius, I take all the names. I set up all the schedules. I set up all the tea times and everybody shows up when they're supposed to. The golf staff has a hard time taking care of us when we arrive in the morning if they're all there. So, we have a problem with that.
The other one I want to make sure of, they have access to our golf genius. They're the ones that tell me when I have too many members. They're the ones that say you've got to cut somebody out. They're the ones that say you can add on. I don't know why they want to take on or add a person in that you'd have to pay to take care of the management of
those leagues. I've got 67 members. I'm the one who has to tell people they can't play. Now, I don't know how the I don't understand how the golf course, if you get a manager, we're ready to take care of that. They see it. They take care of it. They tell us what we can and can't do. If you're going to raise a price, that's
fine. I understand inflation. If you want to raise a price, that's fine. I don't I don't have a problem with that. Go to other courses. Yes, it is more expensive to play, but I hate giving it up. We do give up our Mondays now for all your tournaments that you hold up at J Beach. Be it the kids, which I love. I
have nothing against the kids having their time out there. It's fine. You got colleges that come in. They hold special occasions that they come in and they could they take our Mondays away. We used to have Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays. They took our Fridays away. So then we were down to Monday and Wednesdays. Now you're going to take our
Mondays away. We take up on our thing, we take up 15 tea times on Mondays. We take up 17 tea times on Wednesdays. Yesterday the early ones I had two groups come up to me wanting to join our putters. And I asked, "Okay, well you can do that." And they said, "Okay, well we have a force of them that we always
play together. We always want to play at the same time every every time we play." And I said, "Well, I can't do that. I change my time." So everybody gets a chance to play early, everybody has to play late. and they went, "No, no, we don't want to do that, but we only want to play when it's nice out, which is
now." Which is our other problem that we have with people wanting to play, which is what the course wants. We're out there when it's raining, and you'll see nobody behind us. We're the only ones out there playing. 25 mph winds, we're the only ones out there playing. Are we stupid? Well, you know, we're retired,
most of us. But we have to because we all we have to change a lot during even when we have our schedules in because somebody gets sick, your wife gets sick, I've got to take a person out, I've got to throw a person in and we make the changes. Management for another from someone else can't do that that we can do. But uh that's all I need to have.
Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Bisinette. Bob Kamo. Uh, my name is Bobkumo, 4456 Apple Leaf Drive, East Jacksonville, 32224. I'm going to repeat some of the things that have been said. Um,
the effort put into the rate changes and the league changes. It's a lot of effort, but they did consult the people who are most affected, and that's all the golfers who play. Um, you're telling us who to play with. uh when to play
with the games, the teams. It It's like me telling you, you're playing canasta, but you can't play with your neighbors. You have to play canaster somebody else. And we play in the winter when it someone said it's 20°. We're
there 35 degrees. We show up and we play. And the people who might be complaining about the tea times, they're not going to play those days. you should have consulted the leagues first and then we would have had some kind of a
compromise or proposals that might have been better. Um, I've been here 15 years and it's great. I come over the ditch and I go to the Moose Club, I go over to the VFW, I go to the American Legion, I go to the restaurants. Don't discourage
people from crossing over the ditch to come here. >> That's all I have. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Kamo. I feel like no matter who you ask me to play canasta with, I don't you're gonna get a blank look out of me. Um, but thank you for
that example, Mr. John Sher. >> There we go. Now it's your turn. >> You're ready, Mayor Hoffman. Distinguished. Yes. Nice. city council members.
I have never own known too many of the members out here. I lived in Neptune Beach for 42 years. Known the house there and in 2018 I moved to Jacksonville Beach and my address is
184 Jordan May Jordan the Mayor Place 32250. Uh like some of the other other guys here uh unlike them I have something a little different. I
am the most senior senior playing with our group. I started playing golf at Jack Beach in 1977. I joined the the uh senior group in 1997
which is like 28 years. I knew Joe quite well. He was secretary for me and treasurer when I was president of the group back sometime in the early 70 20s 2000. Sorry.
Excuse me a little late. At any rate, I knew Joe quite well as I say. I had no idea until a few minutes ago that Joe founded our organization. I can tell you one thing better about Joe. He was a
having trouble for some reason or other with your membership. City man city member city help me somebody some >> city manager. >> Well, no city representative.
Okay. Joe was one of you and he was very high on golf, very avid golfer. He had an opportunity. He came across some acorage across 15th Street South.
Plenty of room for nine-hole additional golf course. He took it to the city. The city declined. Had they gone through with purchasing that, they didn't have the vision that Joe had as far as golf is concerned. Maybe nobody else played
golf. I don't know. But we wouldn't even be discussing this today, I believe, if he if the city would gone ahead and purchased that land. The land that I'm referring to was right off the 18 right here at Touch Beach, the golf
course, and it's now the p it's been developed as a uh a property situation and there probably I don't know maybe a dozen or a dozen and a half houses there. It's called March view. You might be familiar
with it. If you go down 15 before you get to the uh the curve, 90 degree curve. It's on your right. I'm sorry that he wasn't able to do that. I had a few more things that I wanted to mention, but things have the
other speakers so far have already covered that. So I won't bother you with anymore. Thank you so much for your time and it's a pleasure being here in Jacksonville Beach. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for providing
some historical context. Lloyd Archeald. Good evening, folks. Thank you for hearing me. Uh, my name is Lloyd Archabal. I live at 1277th Avenue in North right down the street here. I've been there for 25 more
years. And uh, I originally played this golf course here back in the 80s when it was nothing but a dump. But thanks to you and everybody else,
it's beautiful now. That's why everybody wants to play it. But uh I used to go come out here with my two boys. They I both sent them both to JU to college and said, "Come on, go play with us then." So I did. But he was horrible. you
didn't know whether you're going to hit your golf ball or a beer can or a baby diaper or what, you know, but uh it's a lot better now. Um but uh no,
it's a pleasure to play this course now and most of us here are all senior citizens. This is the only activity that we really get. You know, I can't go out and play football anymore. Can you guys you know,
and uh you know, it it just it keeps us busy two or three days a week, which is which is great. And when we all go out there, this is my course, your course, their course. We take care of our
course. We go out there, every time we divot, we get the sand, fill it in. We get on the green, we fix all the ball marks. You know, we got one nut that's a little extravagant. He comes in, fills his golf cart up with sand
and goes out and fills every divot he can find out there. We get a little upset because it's supposed to start a little bit, but he uh but you know, we got people like that that care about this course and I don't think we should
lose any tea times by us going off first in the morning. We're out there fixing the golf course up before the green crew has a chance to, you know, and we're making it better for everybody that comes behind us. So, I really think you
should consider this that we are taking care of the course. We're not hurting it in any way on purpose anyway. But it uh I I just uh that's about
really all I want to say. And uh you know the the uh crew that you have running the club there, the pro and the assistants, they're great. Absolutely fantastic. Like we'd spend a lot of money there buying stuff in the pro
shop. We go into the restaurant after golf every day and we spend money in there. We have a lot of fun and we love them. So, uh, please don't try to take away our tea types. That's all I'm asking. And we
can manage our own things. The pro shop is very helpful. But we manage our own thing. We just come in and sign up and pay them. That's about it. So, if you hear me out, I would respect that. >> Thank you, Mr. Archable. >> Thank you,
>> Pete Coban. Hi there. My name is Peter Hoban. I'm a longtime Jacksonville Beach resident. I live at 932 First Street North. I'm also a business owner in Jacksonville Beach in Neptune Beach. I own the Great Cliff Salons in uh both cities. And these
leagues are important to my business, to the restaurants, to the bars, to the shops. We market to the running group, to the biking group, to the bowling leagues, to the golf leagues. And it's important that you keep these leagues
because we need the business. You're talking about people coming over the ditch to come to Jack's Beach to spend money in Jack's Beach. And I'd like that to continue. And I'd like you to continue supporting the golf league and having people come over the ditch to support our businesses. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Hobian. That concludes our courtesy of the floor. We do we have a short agenda, but it's a a big agenda. So, if anybody wishes to depart the council chambers at this time, um please do so kind of orderly, quietly, and please exit the
building entirely before if you guys um want to stop and chitchat afterwards because we can the sound travels down the hall. So, um we'll give you that opportunity right now. You don't have to leave. You are certainly welcome to stay. Um but we're going to go ahead and proceed with the rest of the agenda. Thank you all for your courtesy of the floor comments. Moving on to consent
agenda. May I have a motion? >> I move that we approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Consent agenda approved. Moving on to resolution A. U Miss
Nelson. >> Uh good evening mayor and city council. I'm Karen Nelson, deputy city manager. Um, I'm presenting for you tonight resolution number 2198-2025, which will serve to amend the position classification and pay plan for
non-union city positions. U, this pay plan covers 417 employees across all nine city departments. That's 291 full-time positions and 126 authorized part-time positions. We are recommending amendments to the
pay plan based on a comprehensive classification and compensation study that was performed by Evergreen Solutions, which is an independent public sector compensation consulting firm. Evergreen employed a datadriven methodology combining quantitative
analysis and qualitative input from city leadership. Some key components of the study include a job assessment evaluation of internal EV relationships and equity, external market salary survey of 20 peer organizations
representing local and regional competition and a benefits comparison with peer organizations to assess total compensate compensation competitiveness. And then finally, a development of actionable recommendations that align with the city's compensation philosophy
and fiscal capacity. For the market study, Evergreen used objective market data and standard HR best practices. They evaluated benchmark positions across departments to ensure coverage at entry, mid, and senior level roles.
Market comparisons were made at the minimum, midpoint, and maximum of the pay grades. And then comparisons were made at the 60th percentile, which means the city is aiming to pay above average to attract and retain qualified employees.
The city's project team along with Evergreen's project manager conducted a briefing on October 8th with city council to discuss the findings and recommendations arising from the pay study. In addition to the pay study results, the city team considered many
factors, including available budget, legislative concerns, cost of living, and employee turnover rates before preparing the amended pay plan for council consideration. We are recommending a two-year pay plan that aligns positions more closely with the market while preserving the
integrity of the existing classification and pay grade structure. The majority of the pay grades are moving by 5%. With grades 203 through 207 in Beaches Energy moving by 6% and grades 333 through 336 for executive
management moving by 3%. I'm sorry, Beaches Energy is moving by 6%. Executive management by 3%. The annual cost was calculated based on a 5% acrosstheboard increase to all current employees. Those employed as of
September 30th of 2025, all of those employees across the board will receive a 5% increase effective October 1. Additionally, the employees who are position in positions that are reclassified classified by one pay grade will receive
an additional 4%. That includes 22 positions and 27 individuals. Across those 22 positions, positions that are reclassified by two or more pay grades will receive an additional 3%. That's 23 individuals
across 23 positions. No employee will receive more than a 12% increase. Um, I'm here along with Ashley Gosset, CFO, and Kim Bennett, HR director, to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, Miss Nelson. Before we have a
motion, we have um one speaker card. Um Joel Holden. He wishes to Oh, it says you do not wish to address address the council, but come on up. Come on up. If you give us your name and address, you'll have three minutes to address the council. >> Joel Holden. My address is 3551 San
Palmer Road South, Jacksonville, Florida 32224. Uh mayor and council members, thank you for your time. I'm a fourth year apprentice here at Beaches Energy and I would like to speak on the proposal 2198 2025. Um and I oppose it and I think it
should be revisited. Um you know we I went to the meeting there on the 8th and um they were showing Evergreen was showing that we were 13% underpaid among municipalities as well as bigger utilities. Right. And then I
looked at the slide again, page number 19, and it said that we are, it was readjusted at 3.5%. So the city is offering 5%, right? And I can only speak for myself, right? I have um current my I make $348 an hour and you put 5% on that, that's 36.54.
And then I plan on staying here to finish my apprentichip, become a lineman here to work for the city because I like working here. That will put me at $4059 an hour. However, on merit raises, if I get a 3% in two years, a 3% merit rate is $121, right? 2% is 81 cents. And if I
get a one, it's 40. So, I feel like we are the backbone of the city here. We bring in we have 38,000 meters of running. Um, and people enjoy working like when we come up, they enjoy us. We keep the power on, right? when
the storms come, when the city shuts down, who's on standby? Like, who's out there? It's us, right? We're doing the heavy lifting, the dirty work, right? Um, I chose this profession. I've been in the profession since 2017. I came to work here at Jack Speech. Um, it is a
bluecollar brotherhood. I take pride in my work. Um, but I feel like myself and my co-workers should be comp compensated better than this proposal that's being proposed right now. It tells me and this is how I feel. tells me that um you don't care about we I say you we're not
care but we're not cared about um as an electrical workforce um and um you know we service a wide area of places you know and like most of the customers are happy with how with our work you know the occasional you know whatever and um
I'll just finish with this you know as a as a father and a veteran I feel like again this our workforce um does a lot of heavy lifting here and like looking at this proposal and like the you know the wages um it's disheartening
and morale is low. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Holden. That was the only speaker card. We'll move on and ask for a motion. I move we adopt resolution number 2198 2025 amending the pos position
classification and pay plan for non-UN positions. >> Second. We have a motion and a second and is there any discussion from councel? Mr. Wowers. >> Uh thank you madame mayor. Miss Nelson,
um, can I ask you if we were, as we have previously discussed, if we were to recommend if we could find support on this honorable body for a 1% raise across the board, what would the cost of that be
approximately? >> Um, yes, Mr. Walders, you did ask reach out and ask if we added a 1%. I want to be clear that's what you're you're saying is um an additional 1% across all paygrades and all positions. >> Yes, ma'am. >> The cost of that would be an approximal
approximate $300,000. >> Right. Thank you. >> And let me ask you this. I'm sorry to do this on on the spot. But uh Beaches Energy is like 32 employees or something. Is that correct? >> It's more than that. Do we have an
employee count? I think it's 70. The total department is 7172. >> Okay. Well, we won't be able to then correctly calculate the the additional costs for our annual budget, but I would uh like to ask my honorable colleagues
if they would be will I I see this similar to what our police department was going through and how we stepped up for them. And I've been reading all the comments and emails we've been getting and I've have nothing but great things to say about Beaches Energy. And I was
hoping that there would be support for a 3% an additional 3% to the 6% for Beaches Energy as well as the 1% for the rest of our employees. I'll leave it to my colleagues if they feel
>> Thank you, Mr. Wowers. Any other comments or questions from council? Seeing Mr. Sutton. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you to um
Karen and our um administration uh and HR. Uh clearly we've made some great strides here. I think really over the past three years and and reading some of the memo to us and now have these recommendations here uh covering
the next two years. And I'd say congratulations, Kim, on maintaining a very competitive uh benefits package for the employees here uh at the city. Uh we certainly appreciate um all of our employees here inside the city. And I
think by evidence of administration and HR conduct conducting these occasional um classification and compensation studies, it further exemplifies the importance that we place on employee recruitment and retention. Um that being
said, I believe we as a council and representatives of our constituents in J Beach have an obligation to balance cost and expense with revenue, current economic conditions, and future economic forecasts. and generally using good fiscal responsibility with the budget
dollars that are afforded through our citizens. So with that, I want to propose uh an amendment to the resolution. Um and I'll outline part of that uh as follows. So for fiscal year 2026,
uh adjust payrades 203 through 207 by 6% as proposed. Adjust paygrades 333 through 336 by 1.5%. Adjust all other paygrades by 3.5%.
Uh employees who were employed on or before the effective date will receive a 3% increase with the exception of paygrades 203 through 207 which will receive a 5% increase.
uh positions reclassified to a higher pay grade. I believe Miss Nelson um indicated there were 22 that would be reclassified one level, another 23 that were two or more levels. Um, so
those employees that are reclassified may receive an additional adjustment at the discretion of HR and leadership, not to exceed 2% for one paygrade adjustment, and in no circumstance not to exceed 3% overall for
reclassification purposes of multiple paygrades. However, any reclassification will allow any impacted employee to be brought to minimum of the new job grade regardless of the salary increase that that may
equate to. For fiscal year 2027, adjust all paygrades by 2% effective October 1st, 2026, with the exception of paygrades 203 through 207,
which will which would receive a 3.5% increase. Employees who are employed on on or before the effective date of October 1st, 2026 will receive a 1 and a half% increase with the exception of pay grades 203
through 207 which will receive a 2 and a.5% increase. And specifically around beaches energy, I'll say while certainly all of our employees are important and valued, um I believe it's of utmost importance to keep our essential workers pay scales
and pay in as competitive a position as possible. Um, and as Miss Nelson outlined, uh, administration has done an outstanding job making necessary adjustments to Beaches Energy Services pay grades 203 through 207 since 101 of
22. Since that time, pay grades have increased between 14.4 and 18.5%. It was not outlined, but I presume salaries have increased accordingly. Um from fiscal year 21
through fiscal year 23 we saw 15 resignations in line workers and apprentice line workers turnover of 17% per year significantly higher than industry average of 7%. Then in 22 uh as I mentioned we implemented the
following increases following a pay study and collective bargaining process. 101 of 22, uh, those paygrades increased between 8.4 and 12.5%. Again, on 101 of 23, they increased
another 3% and on 101 of 24, they increased by yet another 3%. We have had zero resignations in these divisions since 2023. We are currently fully staffed in construction and maintenance, relay,
substations, and system operations. So, I commend administration for these moves which has answered uh some of the need. Um I think the recommended 6% additional pay grade adjustment is appropriate and that would
bring the total to between 20.4% and 24.5% in just the past three years. Um and then another increase next year, let's just say 2%. um
or 2 1.5% next year would essentially bring that to between 22 and 23% up to 26 and a half to 27% over 5 years. So um you know I think
and and respect the study that was done. I think um the the work that's been done is commendable, but at the same time um I think we need to be fiscally responsible and stewards of uh of our constituents uh dollars. So I'd
recommend that um amendment. >> Mr. Sutton, I'm not going to make you reread all the details again, but can you propose an a concise amendment just so we have something to vote on? Maybe just reference your statement.
>> Um yeah, make a uh proposed amendment to um incorporate the uh outline changes. Um and I'll be glad to submit those uh to the city clerk. >> Thank you. There's a motion on the
floor. Is there a second? >> Mr. Wagner. Second it. Discussion on Mr. Sutton's amendment. Mr. Uh, Miss Golding, I need you to if you could walk through
it and explain it because there was so much to it. Um, I think we really need to to better understand the details >> and I'll ask for Miss Nelson to help me along as far as what the what the
recommended changes uh entail. Um, >> so adjusting pay grades 203 through 207 by 6%. I believe that is as proposed. >> And I thought I understood you to say
five, but did you intend for that to be remain at six >> the pay grade by 6%. >> Okay. I'm glad you clarified that. >> Okay. >> Are you confirming that's as proposed? >> That is as proposed. Yes.
adjust pay grades 333 through 336 by 1 and a.5%. I believe that is 1 and a.5% less than proposed. >> Correct. >> Adjust all other pay grades by 3.5%. I believe that's one and a half less
than proposed. >> Correct. Then grades for 2026 that would be effective on October 1st of 2025. Then as far as salary adjustments,
employees who were employed on or before the effective date will receive a 3% increase. I believe that's 2% less than proposed. >> Yes. with the exception of paygrades 203
through 207 which will receive a 5% increase. I believe that's as proposed. >> Correct. >> On position reclassifications. Um Miss Nelson outlined that their plan
would be to u the 22 positions that would move one level. Their plan would be to um increase those individuals by an additional 4%.
Um my recommendation is to move those individuals by 2%. So that's um 2% less than proposed. And then for the 23 positions that are
two or more levels, um, Miss Nelson indicated that those would have yet an additional 3% on top of the 4%. I believe my recommendation is that they um would receive one
additional percent for a total not to exceed 3%. Um, if you're moving multiple pay grades, however, any reclassification where individuals would then fall below the minimum,
regardless, they would be brought up to minimum. >> And just to clarify, there may be other instances with the pay grade movements that you're you're proposing that we would have to adjust to minimum. In other words, if we move the pay
scales by 6% and we're moving the employees by five, there may be some situations where they would have to be adjusted. >> I think in in in my mind, in any circumstance, >> would be at the minimum if they happen to fall below the minimum. >> Okay,
>> those those are my recommendations for the current budget. for the subsequent year's budget. My recommendation was to um adjust pay grades
um by 2% and an additional 2% of what versus what we're doing this year. That's one and a half% less than proposed. >> You agree with that, Miss Nelson? >> Yes, that's correct. with the exception of paygrades 203 through 207
which will receive a three and a half% increase and I believe that's a point and a half less than proposed possibly >> uh one and a half >> one 1.5 less than proposed
and that's the grades and then as far as salary adjustments employees who are employed on or before the effective date. In this case, it would be October 1st of 2026, will receive a 1 and a.5% increase. That's 2% less than proposed
with the exception of pay grades 203 through 207, which will receive a 2 and a half% increase. And you'll have to help me there. Is that 2 and a half% less than proposed? >> Correct. Okay.
Did that answer your question? >> It did. Um but I would like to say that um my feeling is this that I would be inclined to propose that we defer any decision if we are going to make
adjustments like this because what I'm hearing is that there were recommendations for some of the employees to get increases that Mr. Sutton is now saying he wants to decrease what those employees are getting. And so I I'd really like to
better understand that as well as understand how does that impact our budget. So, I I'm just sharing my concerns because, you know, we've had we've had some time to look at this, but then to,
you know, I guess I have an uncomfortable feeling about now we're talking about reducing what was suggested to us would be making some of these other employees competitive. So I don't understand why
we would want to you know reduce for some of those employees if that is what what is recommended to make them make their positions competitive. So I I have some discomfort with this
>> Mr. Wagner >> I will do that. You know I'm going to mess up one button or the other. So, a a quick question of the reclassifications, what what's the number of those that are within the beaches energy infrastructure?
>> Um, none of those fall within the 203 to 207 range that we're talking about. Uh, within the beach's energy department, >> uh, there are >> believe it's nine. >> That sounds right. three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.
>> Nine in the in Beaches Energy that are >> in the reclassification bucket. >> Yes. >> And and not don't get specific on the actual like roles, but generally what area are those? >> Uh they're in a few different areas. Uh quite a few of them are technical
positions in the engineering division. Um there are also some um supervisory positions. >> Okay. >> Um I would like to propose an amendment
to councelor Sutton's amendment. >> Yep. >> Robert's rules cheat sheet. I used to let us do amendments to amendments, but apparently you're not supposed to. >> Yeah, I believe that's proper if >> to at least, you know, make a motion to
further amend. >> Okay. So, we can do an amendment on amendment. >> Go for it. >> May I ask May I ask a question? Point of order. >> Sure. Um before he makes a second amendment, could we finish across the dis with our
comments on the first amendment or >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wagner. Mr. Jansen, what >> comments on the original amendment offered by Mr. Sutton? >> Correct. Um so in 2007, the proposal that you were making was 3.5% which was
1.5% less. Is that correct? See, I would I kind of agree with councelor Gold on that. I think when it comes to our beaches energy uh personnel, those are essential services and I think they should be made whole.
Um I don't agree with a decrease in their pay schedule on that 2007 1.5 decrease. Um the question I have for Miss Gosset is the overall cost not on his amendment but from the original
proposed was how much? So the the overall cost over the adopted budget or >> Yes. >> So the total cost of what's being proposed is $300,000 greater than what was adopted in the 2026 budget.
>> Okay. So now the question comes that as Mr. Sutton alluded to, we have responsibility to balance this budget and our budget was a little bit over this past year. So, not we we're working off of some extra funds in our budget
this year. So, now the question comes um how does this affect us in perpetuity? Other words, if we pass this this year and it's $300,000 this year, what is it next year or the year after that or maybe three years down the road? Are we looking at a $1.2 million shortfall?
Because if you give these raises, they increase in perpetuity. So, they would be increasing over time. Am I am I not am I not wrong? No, you're you're absolutely correct. You know, the uh wages would always build. We have I have not seen an instance where we cut wages.
I've seen an instance during the Great Recession where we froze rate w um wages for a period of a couple years. Um but you're right, you know, we um experience growth year-over-year. >> Okay. um similar to our police department. Um
these these were essential employees and and we saw what happened when when that got when that slipped through the cracks. So I think it's important that that these folks especially at Beaches Energy are made whole and I would like to see the Beaches Energy rates be or
raises and proposals remain as the city um first uh gave me to us. Um, one other concern of mine is, well, two other concerns. One was
I see firsthand because my wife's a teacher at Duval County Public Schools, and I'm maybe this is not apples to apples, but they're having an issue where new hires are making nearly the same as in salary as veterans that have
15 to 19 years on, some of them within $5,000 of overall salary. And we have to make sure that we don't fall into that bucket as well. I think you're going to see something in the headlines probably within the next six months and and that arena as far as Duval County public schools are. And we don't want to fall
into that boat either. And also because of my previous employment uh with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. I worked in a portion of recruiting. I didn't do any of the recruiting, but I did do the interviews. But oftent times, now this is a couple decades ago, we were
poaching um police officers from the beach, from the beaches communities and from St. John's and and and I can see the same thing happening with with uh JA and Beaches Energy. If we don't keep them whole and we don't keep our police department starting salaries high and we
don't keep everything in line, that's we're going to fall right back into that realm again. The people are going to leave the beach and we're going to lose quality employees. So recruitment and retainment has to be a priority of ours. But in the same vein, we can't go over budget to a to a great degree because
then we end up having to take on debt. We're a debtfree city right now. So we have to manage this very carefully. >> Thank you, Mr. Jansen. Mr. Wowers. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Miss Godson, perhaps I should ask you this question.
Pardon me. What is our annual budget for non-union employees for 2026? >> Um, it's the $33 million. >> $33 million. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And if I remember correctly, our total budget was about 250 million
>> for fiscal 26. >> Yes, ma'am. 253, I believe. >> I don't want to say the wrong number, so I'm sorry. I can't go ahead anymore. um 247,900,000. >> Okay. So, our investment in our people
is roughly 15% tops. And I appreciate the comments of my colleagues saying we should be fiscally responsible, but as the esteemed councilman Jansen has noted, like in public schools, we see that the
employees are undervalued and we don't want to fall into the trap where new employees are being paid what veterans are being paid. But I certainly think this is not the right part of our budget to be cutting money from our people. And I will not support anything that does
that. Thank you. Mr. Horn, guys, sorry. We're not we're not going to do that. Everybody, please be um quiet at this point, attentive. Mr. Horn, >> um I guess one of the things that I didn't see in all of this and it's kind of come up
here. I thought about it the other day and I want to ask again. I'm I mean I know that you've discussed it, thought about it, all of these. So, um, so we had some employees had, you know, we we've done we've done what we've done. We've we've increased salaries, you
know, to to get people where we think they should be and we're continuing to do that. 10 years down the road, where does have you kind of done the numbers and just in the future and said, "Yeah, we can we can maintain everything that we're doing
here." the offer that you have provided to us based on this study. Is this maintainable? Because the we have seen significant increases in property value, but at the same time, we're also starting to see a leveling off and actually even some of
some of a dip. I guess I don't think you have a crystal ball, but I'm maybe asking you to look into said crystal ball and tell this day is tell the council that if we were to go through with the original
amendment or the original um resolution and the pace changes, is this sustainable in the long run? Understanding that there are going to be other changes in the future. um understanding that we're going to have more stuff's going to come down the road. Prices are going to continue to rise and we're gonna, you know, the cost
of us fixing the roads, the cost of us doing uh doing everything is going to continue to rise. Is this sustainable? >> Um so you're right. I don't have a crystal ball. Um and we prepare cash flows, you know, on a 5, 10 or 30 year
basis depending on what fund we're looking at. Um but we prepare them with the knowledge that the further you go into the future, the further you go into the future, the less reliable the data is. Um so we focus primarily on the five
years. Um and in the next five years, the the decisions being made by council and kind of through the strategic plan um as a priority, this is achievable. Um I don't want to say in the long term
everything is sustainable because we've seen a period of rapid inflation. Um that I hope you know settles down and we don't see it uh continue like that because I think we would struggle as an organization if we saw 8% inflation year-over-year like we saw after the
pandemic. Um, I guess I I would say it comes down to the choices and the priorities of the organization um, in terms of making sure things are sustainable. >> Okay. I mean, I just, you know, our
human capital is important. Um, and yeah, just it's uh, it's a lot to digest on all sides. And then councelor Sutton's um, amendment, it's yeah, I'm just trying to process everything here. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Waters, your light is still on.
>> Oh, I am so sorry. >> No worries. Mr. Wagner. >> Um, before I start, Councelor Jansen, do you have a comment? >> Yeah, one one last comment. Um, so as we have in the past, if somewhere down the
road, a year or two down the road, we have, I don't know, a 2009 2010 type year or we have the other direction. picker poison. We as a council on this das could certainly approach and talk to uh
the city staff about a cola adjustment in salaries in the future if we needed to. Is that correct? >> That's correct. I mean, as as we said, we we don't know what's going to happen in the future, but we're we are um putting forth recommendations based on
the current environment and based on the current um market, current conditions that we are are in today and uh trying to project just one year ahead and making sure that we're presenting something that will not only bring us
more closely aligned with the market, but that we feel like is is sustainable and reasonable. and that's what we're putting forth. If we find ourselves in a situation like we did in 2008, 2009, those were years where we had to put a pay freeze into into place. Unfortunately, we didn't have to cut any
salaries, but we certainly did have to put a freeze on merit increases. We did that for I believe it was a three-year period, and those were extreme circumstances. So, if we find ourselves in a similar situation again, we would have to react and we would have to come to council and talk about the bright
solution for that, >> right? And vice versa, if we have a a um a high increase in inflation, you know, we have to raise salaries and and and uh pay grades to meet the minimums, >> right?
>> Certainly could come back to you and say, "Hey, listen, >> right?" And we did come to you all just a couple of years ago for that across the board um cost of living increase because >> So that door is always open still. >> That door is always open. We can always adjust. What we're trying to do is put
in front of you a a plan that reacts to and adjusts to the market that we are in currently. Um because we're finding that across all of our city positions and all of our departments, we are lagging behind the market. >> And it's it's it's imperative that we
are able to attract and recruit and retain quality employees. And so we want to make sure that we have a plan in place that will help us to do that. Certainly, we can always make adjustments if we have to. Okay. >> Thank you. Back to you, Mr. Wagner. >> Thank you. So, one question just to make
sure I'm understanding things correctly. So, whatever uh increases that are approved through this process, um they do not um usurp or replace the annual merit increase as well, right? So, there'll be an annual merit increase on
top of whatever we approve. >> That's correct. So if we approve, you know, 3% and somebody in their merit increase got 3% in that year, they would end up with clo for the next 12 months a 6% increase. >> Yeah. The merit increases are in in the
pay plan are currently two or 3%. >> Right. Okay. >> I just didn't want folks to lose sight of the fact that this isn't the totality of the total cash compensation that folks are going to be getting through the process. Um so it's part of it. um
just make and make sure I was correct on that because >> so I'd like to uh propose an amendment to councelor Sutton's amendment and um and it kind of has two basic components. The first is I would like us to modify
the proposal as submitted to a one-year proposal a 2026on proposal. Uh the rationale for that is we have a property t a series of things. >> Mr. Wagner, I'm gonna just >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I know.
>> Let's state the the proposed amendments concisely and if you get a second, we'll turn it right back over to you to justify. >> Thank you. I'd like to propose that we make the proposal as provided a one-year 2026 proposal and that um we revert in
councelor Sutton's proposal uh anything that reduced uh uh two 203 to 207 back to the original proposal >> for beaches energy. >> There's a motion to amend. There's a
second uh discussion. Mr. Wagner, if you want to go ahead and give your discussion. >> Yeah, I wanted to provide the rationale for making it a one-year proposal. For one, in Tallahassee right now, we know there's lots of proposals around the reduction of property taxes. And I don't think there's anyone in this room that wouldn't be excited if their property
tax got impacted by a reduction through this cycle. And since it's in all likelihood going to come down to a vote of the people, the likelihood is relatively high that we're going to end up with lower revenue next year. Um point one. point 2. Um I don't know that
um based on at least a dozen uh letters that people took um a lot of their own personal time and energy and put some really heartfelt thought and insight into and provided to me and I would assume other counselors that we knocked this one out of the park and and I don't
feel like we knocked it out of the park well enough to memorialize it for two years. So I would really like us based on those two factoids to approve the amendment as as as modified for this year and really go back to the
drawing board for year two and think about those our essential services and how we ensure that they're online. Um so that uh that we creating a culture an environment where these people that are devoting their careers to our
community the way we're treating them aligns back to that. And so I'd really like to see that happen over this year. Um, and I think with the bringing the salaries back or to the original proposal, we're showing a good faith effort and helping to drive towards uh
that increase considering the the the nine um nine classifications and then the the 6% to everybody else and to them. >> Thank you, Mr. Wagner. Mr. Horn, I'll >> defer to councelor Sutton first. >> Mr. Sutton um
Just a question. Um, as I thought about your amendment to the amendment, um, if you are asking for only 2026 to be considered and 2027 not to be
considered, the only change I believe that my amendment recommended on the beach's energy um, paygrades andor salaries was in that second year. >> Oh, I thought it was the reclassifications percentages were
reduced first year. It was >> was it just second year >> that we wrote >> the reclassifications? Yes. But that had nothing to do with 203 through 207. >> Nine of them are in Beaches Energy, >> not 203 or two through 207.
>> Those pay grades are addressed separately. They're currently proposed to have a a higher percentage increase in 2026 and 2027. And so Mr. Sutton's original amendment did not make any change to th those two
those pay ranges. >> Okay. >> In 2026. >> So then the second half is mute. >> Then I would like to amend my amendment to the amendment. >> So do I understand? >> Still stands. your amendment
>> because >> was really it was your your amendment really was just to remove 2027 from the proposal >> and then Mr. Sutton's amendment would stand for every all the adjustments in 2026
>> is as long as and I just must have wrote it down incorrectly as long as the reclassifications weren't reduced for folks that are within beaches energy. >> The reclassifications will be reduced according to Mr. Sutton's amendment because that did not address pay grades 203 through 207
>> for so >> that's a carveout pay range that we're talking about but the amendment the reclassifications >> span those pay grades span other departments other than just beaches energy >> right >> so those were not addressed in his
adjustments those those reclassifications in beaches energy would be reduced by the same percentage as the other departments >> yeah I still think my motion. I'll leave it as stands for beaches. Well, I guess I've made it for what it is. I've made it for 2003 to 2007.
Correct. >> 203. >> 203 to 207. >> Yeah, that wasn't my intention, but >> let's continue down the the lights on the DS and we'll see where we end up after that. Mr. Horn. >> Yeah, sorry. I I was actually still
going to try for more clarification here. Um, so okay, conceptually we take 27 2027 off the off the And then was there the other portion of yours? I said I thought you said reinstate
the changes or No, >> I made I made an incorrect I made an incorrect assumption that 200 or 203 to 207 rep equal beaches energy. >> So I I made an inaccurate assumption with that. >> Okay. So, but so, so to clarify your
amendment, can you just restate it for me? >> So, how how you see it, what you would like us to discuss and and vote on. >> So, um the first part of it is to make this proposal for 2026. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And then uh to to bring back the
original proposals for the impacts the beaches energy. >> Okay. But okay. And that's we're okay. So it's just so basically you're saying 26. Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Jansen.
>> Yeah. So as he's amended, Beaters Energy as correct >> grades 203 207 which are the um the construction and maintenance relay substation and
system operations. >> Okay. Um I'm okay with that. But the one question I do have is how much did we spend on this uh company do the pay study? >> I think Kim about $40,000.
>> Okay. And how good how long does that study good for relatively speaking? >> Well, it it you know it's intended we we generally do a study once every three years with a recommendation to do a refresh or a kind of a limited market
study every year. So, we we a lot of that times we can do that ourselves, but the um the full-blown pay study, we tried to do that every three years. >> Okay. >> Um we're we're in a situation now where we've seen a lot of changes in the market just over the past three years.
So, so if we find ourselves in that kind of situation again, we may reach out sooner to the consultants or or do an RFP for consultants to go ahead and do another study if we feel like we're not if we're if we feel like we're not reacting quickly enough to keep up with the market.
>> Okay. So, um I agree with Mr. Wagner's uh amendment. I think that we should just look at uh 2026 with the study in place and it's good for in essence three years. We can certainly dive down a little bit deeper.
Um, my one and only concern as what I mentioned previously, what what what are we looking at in perpetuity? And I think that also affords us an opportunity to have a discussion about the rest of these uh proposals that uh Mr. Sutton
was discussing. >> Thank you, Mr. Jansen. Mr. Waters. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. So, uh, Councilman Wagner, so you basically want to adopt his motion, but just shorten it to one year. >> I just want to be clear in my mind.
Thank you, >> Mr. Wagner. Is it >> and just to kind of provide a little bit more on that uh councelor Wilders, it was really kind of reinforced by um Karen and her just recent comments
around like there's so much variation, there's so much unsettlement in the marketplace right now, the words are just not flowing. Um so you know I I do think us taking this you know one year at a time and really allowing us to respond you know if the inflation rates
really go up and there's really we really need to come at it differently next year there's that opportunity if revenues reduced like it has a high degree of likelihood of being we have we can come at it that way because of that and if there's a a gap that we're seeing
more broadly around our workforce then it gives us a chance to close that gap where if we've already aged agreed to their increases for next year. Um it wouldn't allow us that opportunity unless we brought this back to council. So to me that just seems to make sense.
It prots us to protect people. >> Yeah. I would just like to to add for um I would just like to advocate for this. I appreciate the sentiments of all these honorable council folks who want to spend less money and I appreciate that
very much, but I think if we turn that eye to the other 85% of our budget, we could find multiple opportunities. And I really think that we should not be substituting our judgment at this late
point for what was recommended to us by the folks we hired to do this. and I am in support of the original plan that we paid for. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss M. Mr. Wowers. Miss Golding, >> thank you. Um, I appreciate the the
desire to uh do more for Beaches Energy. Um, and so I'm I I don't take issue with that. I'm going to say it again. Now the 333 to 336 we know that that's more
executive level. Um so the reductions there I don't have as much heartburn with that perhaps but where I do have heartburn is with all the others reducing that recommendation from 5% to three and a
half% for the first year. Um I you know we have a lot of great employees here in Jack Beach and I don't want to um discount the great work that they're doing by reducing the increase that we
that was recommended at 5% to three and a half%. So I cannot support anything that's reducing what was recommended for all of our other employees. I definitely support making sure that Beaches Energy,
you know, that they are properly compensated, but I want to make sure all of our employees are properly compensated. So, at this point, I cannot support anything that reduces the the rest of the employees increase that they get.
>> Thank you, Miss Golding. Mr. Horn, >> uh, Deputy Mayor, Deputy St. Andra, deputy mayor, you've been given a promotion. Um, is or a demotion. Sorry. >> Answer to almost anything. >> Just just a just for my own edification. Merit increases occur on are those on
your higher date or are they >> they're on the anniversary position date. So, whatever date you your the anniversary of the date you started in that position annually. >> Okay. So I mean conceptually if we have somebody who has so they could be getting a 6% or whatever next number
percentage increase today and then another 3% increase next. Okay. >> Yes, they could. And when and when we budget we take the actual evaluation dates into account. So those are spread across a 12-month period. >> Okay.
>> Mr. Jansen. Uh and maybe I've overstepping my bounds and this is for you but um to our city attorney if there's if there's his amendment is juxtaposed from the original amendment that was made would he have to mod would Mr. Sutton
have to modify his because his included 2027. So right now we have Mr. Wagner's amendment to amendment on the floor. If that gets a
if that does not pass, that one's done. And we go back to Mr. Sutton's amendment, which was never voted on. So that would technically still be on the floor at that point because it was not amended if his is if his fails. Um if his and if if Councelor Wagner's
amendment to the amendment passes, then we still go back to decide whether or not to vote on Mr. Sutton's amendment as it's now been further amendments there. There's going to be three votes basically before uh there would be a final resolution on this matter if
things get approved. >> Even though if his were to pass it would eliminate the 2027 and it's >> then then it's now it's now a new version of an amendment. If that gets voted yes, that means you all then
agreed to amend the original motion to that and then we would need a third approval. So it's >> flowchart is out. >> I love the optimism that you think there's only going to be three votes on this. I really appreciate that. Mr. Sutton,
>> I just I just wanted to give everyone a little more context maybe around um my thought process here, which was to proceed with some caution. Um recognizing the value of our
employees and certainly um adjusting the both the pay grades and pay sum um and and trying to be fiscally responsible around that as well. and then further recognizing essential, you
know, sort of our essential um services that are provided by Beaches Energy by standing that up um in in the 2026 piece as as originally submitted. Um, you know, keeping in mind
that this has nothing to do with merit increases, which are also on top of this. And I don't know how reclassifications are looked at, Miss Nelson. Do you consider a reclassification a promotion or it's done because of a study?
>> Uh, the reclassifications are when the pay grades are moving as a result of this study. >> Right. So those >> I don't I don't I think it's important not to um get caught up in that a reclassification is not a promotion. Um but we are recognizing that people are
moving up. We're protecting that if they um because of the reclassification, if they fall below the minimum, they would at least be brought to minimum, which could result in some what whatever percent uh increase. But at a minimum, we're giving them a couple of point a
couple of percent bump for the one level reclassification or a maximum of a 3% bump for if if they were reclassified multiple levels. Obviously, if somebody's moved multiple levels, um that increases their chances of having
to be brought to minimum anyway because that minimum is going to be even higher if they're going two or three. I think there was even one that was four if I'm not mistaken. So, that was just sort of I just wanted to provide that. >> Miss Golding,
>> I just wanted to follow up to something that you said. Um, taking in to account the merit increases is one thing, but that still doesn't address the fact that if we reduce the increase that was recommended for some
of our employees that that's going to interfere with our ability to recruit and retain employees because the merit increase is not part of that. people are going to look at this is what the pay this is what the pay is that I could get and if we don't
increase it to what's recommended then we're not going to be as competitive as we were wanting to be. So that's I you know I understand I appreciate the conversation on merit increases and the fact that people can get more but it's
still the whole reason why we are doing some of these increases are to become more competitive. >> I feel it. Mr. Wagner go ahead. So, I uh you know, when I
heard the proposal and tried to kind of put my you know, I've worked and lived in this community for a long time hat on and run big departments and um the history of annualized increases and all
that, a seven, you know, or a five and a half to six and a half% annual increase. I looked at that as a pretty significant increase. Um, we would all love to be paid more. I'd love to be paid more. Um, on an individual basis, the merit does
allow for folks that are um, performing at a high level to receive additional compensation. So, I think those two layered together do create a pretty decent uh, package. That being said, I don't feel that same way as it relates to um, the our beach's energy brethren,
right? and and so based on the feedback we've gotten and the understanding that they've shared with us and I really do appreciate them taking the time to do that, I really feel we're off there. Um, but when you look at local markets, our largest employers aren't I mean like our
largest employers in this community for all of leadership provided zero raises this year um because of the the market conditions. There's a lot going on in the the the environment and where we actually compete with workers for
Beaches Energy. We're competing with all over the state. In some of our other areas of the city, we are as well, but in others, we're not. We're competing with other local businesses in this local market. And so, I'm trying to figure out how we strike that balance in
my mind and that we offer something that's fair and that people get get treated fairly. So, um, that's that's the piece where, um, I I think something in the range of what's on the table, um, kind of gets us there or gets us close
and and I'm open to to hear other people's thoughts on where we may have opportunities to tweak things. >> Thank you, Mr. Wagner. I don't see any other lights on the board for the amendment to the amendment. So, this is Mr. Wagner's proposal to u make this for
one year as well as to put 203 to 207 back to the original proposal. Um did I summarize that correctly? Okay. So, we're >> I think what what you're talking about then is needs to be more clearly defined because I believe what I'm hearing you
say is all of the positions in Beach of Energy would get more of a reclassification increase than the rest of the city. >> Can you turn your mic on? >> Sorry about that. in the back. My intent was related to the question I asked when
I started way on, which was how many people within the beaches energy group were getting reclassified? And and I thought I thought the answer to that was nine. And so my the second part of my amendment was to make sure
that those folks weren't um reduced this part of this amendment. So, you would you would want to reduce all the pay grades except for those? >> No, >> I'm I'm I'm I'm a little confused. I need some help. Um because Mr. Sutton's
proposal was for all of the other paygrades, which are those 300 series paygrades, except for executive management, would be increased by 3.5% instead of the proposed 5%. Are you
saying that those pay grades that fall within Beach of Energy would not be reduced to 3.5%. Because there those pay grades are shared across all the departments. They're not specific to Beaches Energy. >> Okay. So that's a third bucket that we're talking about.
>> Right. Right. Those the the 308 to 332 are pay grades that are spread across all of our departments. Some of them fall within Beaches Energy, but they also fall within every other department we have. What p well the questions I would want to ask I'm sure we couldn't answer right now
>> which would be like how many >> I mean I think I think what you're what you're talking about now would would require a a revisit and a restructure of the plan >> because the um the proposed amendments would encompass all the pay grades not
individual positions I'll We have a couple more lights on if you want me to. >> Yes. >> Go down the row. Mr. Horn. >> Thank you. >> I The way I thought I understood it in the beginning was that we were only doing 2026 and that we were
leaving the 2026 as amended originally by councelor Sutton. That's what I thought was and that's what I thought what what you were coming up with. I guess that's what but I I I'm still not 100% sure about the other part. That's
why my question I'm still trying to figure that out. >> Did you want to respond? I was going to say the the the poorly worded uh understood data intent was to try to bring back some of the reductions that
were impacting the beach's energy because that group or at least parts of that group were really um offm market. And so that was what I was attempting to do. It just it looks like um the way I did it may not have
been may not have fully accomplished that or it may have overshot it. And that's what I don't know >> a couple of things. We are the the biggest kind of portion of the beaches energy um employees that we found concentrated in those 203 to 207 that we
recognize needed a larger increase. >> Um so I think we all agree on on the increases there. uh those other positions with within beaches energy that are being reclassified to a higher pay grade that is to address any market realignment for those positions just
like it is throughout the other departments in the city. >> Right. >> So that's why we're recommending the pay grade reclassification for those positions. >> Right. So am I. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So So you're the you you find that as
stated then >> as stated by Mr. Sutton with the exception of 2027. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> No. No. >> It has It has to work for all of us though >> at some point or not.
>> Let's keep working down the lights. Mr. Sutton, >> I'm just going to try to provide some clarification. Um, I did not intend for the nine non 203 through 207 or whatever the
number is. >> Yeah, 203 through 207. I did not intend to carve them out in the reclassification. They were right along with everyone else on my motion. um the the 203 through 207
is what it carved out both on the and and none of them are being reclassified. None of those positions are being reclassified. It's other positions. So, um yeah. So, I didn't I I I wasn't
intending on carving out those positions if they happen to sit in Beaches Energy because they're not in the 2037 level positions. Just to just to clarify, >> Miss Golding, >> is there is there anything that's
forcing us to approve something tonight? >> No. Okay. No. Um the the employees have been have been patiently waiting for the outcome of the pay study. It's been underway since May.
Um it took us five months to get to this point where we put this recommendation together and um naturally we would very much like to have an approved pay plan amendment tonight so that we can go ahead and get those increases to those employees for the last month the last
payroll in October which is the end of the month. Um but there is no there's no you know regulatory or or statutory reason why it has to happen right now. Um, >> okay. Because again, I I'll just say it
again. I just feel like I'm not comfortable with with all of these changes that we're discussing, and I just don't feel that that um my concern is is approving something that's not as
good as it can be and should be. Um, so I I personally am going to say that I can't support anything at this point that's changing what's recommended unless we defer and and look at this a
little bit further and discuss some of these changes further so we can better understand the impact that those changes would have and make sure that we are
we're comfortable with any decreases if we are going to approve a decrease or we're comfortable with any increases if we're going to improve approve any increases. So that's that's just where I stand because I just don't feel comfortable with I feel like we're
making sausage right now, you know, and it's not that's not a really good way to do it. Um, I would like to say in support of the this project team, um, we've been working over the past five months really
really digging down into the details of our pay plan and we've been working real closely with Evergreen on the recommendations. Um we feel comfortable that we have put in front of you a recommendation that is um that is reasonable and equitable and
properly aligns our positions within the market and makes it puts us in a competitive position. Remember that we are recommending just 60th percent of the market at the 60th percentile. We're not trying to be at the 85th percent or the 90 90th percent of the market. We
want to make sure that we have a plan that will allow us to compete right now in the marketplace and attract and retain employees. Um, and we we wouldn't have put it forward if we didn't feel like it had been fully
vetted and was reasonable and sustainable. Um, I just want to also remind you that the longer that this waits and and goes on, um, the harder it's going to be on our employees. I think them not knowing
how to plan and not understanding where what the increases are going to be and what the impact is going to be to them has been very difficult for them already. So, I just wanted to remind you. >> Thank you, Miss Nelson. We have three lights on the board right now. are I'd
like to make sure the discussion is specific to Mr. Wagner's um amendment. If it's not, will you turn your light off for the time being until we're ready for you, Mr. Jansen? >> Yeah. So, pigging back off of what Council Member
Golding said, I think that Mr. Wagner's amendment does allow us by limiting it to one year allows us to take a step back and look at all the uh options that we have moving forward. I'm not a big fan of pausing the whole program because
that's kicking the can down the road. And to your point, employees want answers. And so, um, I think that's probably a nice neutral ground where we approve a one-year bite of the apple, so to speak, and then we can revisit
two, you know, 2027 because we have the pay study in place and we can re-evaluate, you know, how we look at everything. I still stand strong on keeping our um our essential services and beaches energy whole. They need to
be whole. Um we is as far as beaches energy is concerned we rank super high in the state and and downtime um or it's an amazing utility and we don't want to compromise that in any way shape or form. >> Thank you Mr. Jansen. Mr. Rogers.
>> Thank you Madame Mayor. Pardon me. I just want to touch on what Miss Nelson was saying about the study and the employees. And this reminds me of so many other things where communication has been lacking.
And for our employees at the last second to be told that this proposed pay plan is not what they're getting, I think they should have the opportunity to be heard before we vote on it. Thank you, >> Mr. Rogers. Your light is still on. Thank you. Um, okay. I don't see any
other Mr. City attorney. >> Okay. With no other lights on, let me just clarify. Uh, Mr. Wagner, um, so your understanding of of what you have on the table is to amend Mr. Sutton's motion so that it only affects
or it only applies what he said for fiscal year 2026. And then the 203 to 207 language was moot because he didn't he didn't propose changing any of that. Is that okay, everyone? I just want to make sure everyone's on the same page. Thank you.
Okay. So, a yes vote is to support um amending Mr. Sutton's motion to be applicable for one year. Madame Clerk, roll call. >> Council member Golding. >> Yes. >> Council member Horn.
>> Yes. >> Council member Jansen. >> Yes. >> Council member Sutton. >> Yes. >> Council member Wagner. >> Yes. >> Council, excuse me, Council Member Welers? >> No. Mayor Hoffman. >> Yes. Moving back to the original
amendment as amended um offered by Mr. Sutna, amended by Mr. Wagner. Conversation uh we'll start with Mr. Jansen >> uh for our city attorney. So now just for clarification for my benefit slow learner. So now that this is on the
table um that changes his original amendment as far as 2027 is concerned. Correct. >> Right. So, the next thing that will likely be voted on on if no further amendments are made is whether to approve his amendment, which just approves the original motion. There's
still going to be two votes in that scenario. Um, in more in more layman's terms, do you a yes vote for his amendment would be to reduce those numbers as he proposed? Um, and a no vote would to would to be you'd rather
ultimately vote on the original motion. is kind of a layman's way of describing it. Does that does that help? >> Yeah, >> Mr. Sutton. >> Okay. So, a yes vote would be to uh in support of the amendment that I made,
but anything for 2027 would be a mood issue at this point. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Because of the last vote. >> Got it. Thank you, >> Miss Golding. But I'll remind everyone that that means that that if we vote yes on this, that
means that we are reducing some of the increases that were recommended. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. If we were >> subject subject to a second, you know, that would then put that as the main motion on the table.
>> Okay. The other is it possible to um if if Mr. Sutton's motion doesn't pass. We could potentially make a motion to amend the original to just one year
if we wanted and then that may that way we maintain all the recommended increases that the staff has proposed but we just keep it to one year. >> That is procedurally possible. Yes. >> Okay.
>> Yes. because that is something that I could feel that I could support um because again I still can't support any decreases. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Golding, Mr. Horn. >> Want to thank uh Deputy City Manager
Nelson for pointing out and I remember we discussed it previously, but we are not going to the 100th percentile here. We're getting to 60. Um, I also thank Councilman Wagner for his comments and
reminding us all that there are a lot of uncertainties in the in the future. Um, yeah, I mean, if and again, every Hey, anybody out here, raise your hand if you like paying property taxes. Yeah. Zero hands. And if that hits the Oh, you're g
I saw that one hand. um if um if if that goes out on the ballot, everybody's going to vote yes and then we're gonna have zero money to pay anything. Um, I
agree that we should not I'm starting to feel that yeah, I don't I can't support cutting the salaries uh right now. But I also think that Councilman Wagner's point of maybe taking one year at a time
because if next year looks wonderful, we've already done the work. We can just implement it or discuss it again then. Um, just my thoughts. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Horn. Any other discussion on Mr. Sutton's amendment? I'm not going to reread the points.
Hopefully, everybody already has that. They would be applicable for one year per Mr. Wagner's amendment. See no other lights on the board. Um, a yes vote is to accept Mr. Sutton's amendment. A no vote is um we would go back to the original uh proposal um as presented
originally uh in this discussion by staff. Madame Clerk, roll call. Council member Horn, >> no. >> Council member Jansen, >> yes. >> Council member Sutton, >> yes. >> Council member Wagner, >> yes.
>> Council member Wowers, >> no. >> Council member Golding, >> no. >> Mayor Hoffman, >> no. Amendment fails. We'll go back to the original motion as presented. Discussion. Miss Golding.
I'd like to make a motion that we amend the original um proposal to limit it to one year as Mr. Wagner had suggested previously. >> Second.
>> We have a motion and a second to amend the original proposal to be good for one year. Any discussion by councel? >> Madam clerk, roll call. Council member Jansen. Yes. >> Council member Sutton. >> Yes. >> Council member Wagner. >> Yes.
>> Council member Wowers. >> Yes. >> Council member Golding. >> Yes. >> Council member Horn. >> Yes. >> Mayor Hawkman. >> Yes. Motion carries. Uh the original motion is as amended. Any other discussion?
This is this is what democracy looks like. Why aren't more people running for office? I don't know. Um Mr. Jansen. >> Uh, real quick that I would like to get a word if he's willing to give us one from our city manager since he's up here
on the dis and he's running our city. Uh, just give us your opinion and point of view, please. >> I think Miss Nelson summed it up perfectly when she said that this has been five months in the making. we pulled in an outside consultant to help us get to these recommendations to you
all and that if we weren't comfortable with them, we wouldn't be putting them in front of you. Um, strategic plan priority four, goal three, objective two, make sure that we maintain a highly qualified and motivated workforce. If we're not looking at all of our
employees and making sure that we are taking care of them both financially and from our benefits perspective and from an organizational culture, uh we won't be able to provide the services that this community needs to keep running. That includes our streets department out at 5 in the morning on Sunday cleaning
up after a festival. That includes our public works employees making sure that the water plants are operating at all times of the day to give us portable water and to make sure that our wastewater treatment plant keeps running. Um, so we do have a lot of very important functions that this city
provides that a lot of people never know go on behind the scenes and um I'll leave it at that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Stfoolis. Miss Goldie, >> just one quick comment and follow up to what to Mr. Stfoolis said. Um, you know,
there's been a lot of focus on beaches energy, but I'd like to mention we have public works and we have and those employees are out there when we have storms, too. And, you know, I don't I don't know that
you we want to make sure that we're, as Mr. Stopoulos says, that we are properly compensating all of our employees. And honestly, I think all of our employees are essential. I realize that some of them are doing way more dangerous jobs,
and I totally appreciate that because there are things that public works employees are doing that make sure that I can flush my toilet or I, you know, have clean drinking water, but also that we all have electricity and that sort of
thing. So, um, to me, I I don't want us to lose sight on the fact that we do have public work public works employees that are going out there and and working hard when the rest of us are maybe at home or
evacuated from a storm. So, um, I I think your points were very well made, Mr. Stopoulos. And I also want to mention that I do have the utmost respect for our city team who's worked on this. Um, you know, I I talked to
Karen and Evergreen has done a pay study for us before in the past. We were happy with the work that they did back then. Um, and so I just want to thank you all for I know it's not an easy job. It's very complex and it's complicated. Um,
but thank you all for all that you've put into this. >> Thank you, Miss Golding. Mr. Wagner. >> Um, I'll echo the the great comments of the two on either side of me. Um, with
that being said, there were a lot of people that showed a lot of courage to stand up for themselves and their teammates through this process. And I hope that we take this next year and we really um seize that opportunity to work with
those folks. Um they would not have done that if they didn't believe they were right. So it really doesn't matter what the stats or what anything else says to us. We wouldn't have people that took that brave step within the midst of their employment and came out and they
brought those issues to our attention. And and I really do I applaud every one of you for that. I I know how scary that must have been. I mean, this is how you guys bring uh money home to raise for your family to take care of your kids. And so I know that that to to display
that type of courage really is commendable. And so I want to thank you for that. I also want to make sure that we as a team we take this year opportunity we have and we really figure out what is the core behind what drove those comments and we address them. I I
you know we owe that we can talk all the nicities we want up here but if we're not going to fix a problem that a whole workforce raised to us it's all for not and so I really want to make sure that we seize that as an opportunity during this year. So thank you
Thank you, Mr. Ragner, Mr. Sutton. >> Yeah, I would just want to second that. I think um I think it's worth a look, Mike and Allen to uh see um if there's something more to that. It certainly seems like there could be more than just
pay. So, something more systemic and uh appreciate that being looked into. >> Mr. Wagner Light, you good? >> Um no, we're powering through Mr. Is that what you can Let's get through
this vote. Um I echo the comments of everyone else just now on the on the deis. I appreciate the um efforts of the staff um to put this together as well as the robust conversation that we had up here on the deis. I think there was a variety of different opinions on
approach and I think we handled it um maybe not expeditiously but very respectfully and I thank you all for that. Um this this is definitely the hard part where we have to make really tough decisions on allocating the resources of our city um in the best way
that we know how. Um I think that you also see that there's a lot of uncertainty right now. There's uncertainty in in the economy. there's uncertainty with our um projected budgets in the future that we want to be cautious and we want to and part of that is to protect our internal team, but
also um to pro protect our citizens, our taxpayers, and the the services that we um will continue to provide um no matter the cost. We're that's what we do and we're going to do that. So, um so, thank you everyone for participating actively in that. I do like the um one-year
amendment just because that does give us a chance to revisit this sooner than later. Um and I think that um uh Mr. Sutton's amendment was quite detailed and probably would have been um a little easier to consume if we had maybe had
three columns of here are you know here's one set of changes, here's another set so that we could see the fiscal impact on that kind of side by side. So, I I would like to see that um next year when we do consider this or probably less less than a year now probably um so that we can see those all
lined up and not really have to do it as consider it as much on the on the fly as we did tonight. >> I would suggest that we revisit this during budget assumptions. >> I think that is a great idea. Okay. So, thank you everyone um for your patience. We will go ahead and take Did we keep it
to No, four votes. This was a >> We still need one more vote. >> Yeah. No, I'm about to do that. I'm I was going to count the votes because I you said we're three votes and I said I don't think we're only going to have three. So the fourth vote on this item is um back to the original um proposal as presented and amended to be good for
one year. And madam clerk roll call. >> Council member Sutton. >> Yes. >> Council member Wagner. >> Yes. >> Council member Wowers. >> Yes. >> Council member Golding. >> Yes. >> Council member Horn. >> Yes. >> Council member Jansen.
>> Yes. Mayor Hoffman. Yes. Motion carries. Everybody good to go ahead? Keep going. Okay, we're going to go to the ordinances. Miss Nelson. Okay. Uh Karen Nelson, deputy city manager. Uh this there are
two ordinances before you tonight. Both of them are um looking to on the second reading amend the um pension ordinances for both the general employees and the police. Um, both ordinances will raise
the cap the minimum the maximum benefit cap from 100,000 to 110,000 effective October 1st, 2025 and then increase the maximum benefit cap to 111,000 effective October 1st, 2026
and increase the maximum benefit cap to 112,000 effective October 1st, 2027. Both of these ordinances will increase the rate of interest paid for backdrop benefits from 3% to 3 and a.5%.
The first one is the uh general employees retirement system. In addition to those two benefit increases, this ordinance will also this amendment will also add a service purchase option to the general employees plan which will
allow for um eligible members to purchase up to three years of credited service um for former government or military service. There is no cost to the city associated with that. It is considered though to to be an effective um recruitment and retention tool for
those who will qualify. Um so with that, we did add some additional background information since the first reading. We also discussed both of these ordinances in some detail at the October 8th briefing with council. Um so if you have any
additional questions, Dustin Scott, our pension plan administrator, is here and I am also here to answer any questions. Thank you, Miss Nelson. Um, Madam Clerk, will you read the ordinance by title, please? An ordinance of the city of Jacksonville Beach, Florida, amending chapter 2,
article 5, division 5, section 2-162, general employees retirement system of the code of ordinances of the city of Jacksonville Beach, providing for the purchase of prior government and military credited service, an increase
to the annual benefit cap, and an increase to the interest rate for backdrop providing for the repeal of conflicting ordinances, separability, scribners errors, codification, and an effective date. Thank you. This ordinance is before the council for a public hearing and
consideration on its second reading. I will now open the public hearing on ordinance number 2025-8229. I don't have any speaker cards on this item. Would anyone like to address this item from the public? 828. >> I mixed up my forms.
I will now open the public hearing on ordinance number 2025-8228. Would anyone like to can we delete that other part from the tapes in post production? Um well, is there any I
missed it. I'm glad I missed it. Uh any comments from the public for or against this ordinance? Seeing none, public hearing is closed. And can I have a motion? >> I move we adopt ordinance number 20258 228 on the second reading amending the city code of ordinances chapter 2
article 5 division 5 section 2-162 general employees retirement system. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? I was remiss. I'm sorry. Um Vice Mayor Jansen earlier in this meeting I forgot to thank you for covering the meeting on October 6. I was
like, why was it I don't remember the first week I was at the last Jaguar victory on uh Monday Night Football and I was really glad to be there and enjoy that moment. That was fleeting. So, uh we have a motion and a second. Any other
discussion on the second reading? Madam clerk, roll call. >> Council member Wagner, >> yes. >> Council member Waters, >> yes. >> Council member Golding, >> yes. >> Council member Horn, >> yes. Council member Jansen, >> yes. >> Council member Sutton, >> yes.
>> Mayor Hoffman, >> yes. Motion carries. I know you kind of covered both at the same time. Do you have >> did cover both? So, the next ordinance is AD 8229, which is the police officers ordinance. >> Thank you. May I have the ordinance read by title, please? An ordinance of the
city of Jacksonville Beach, Florida, amending chapter 2, article 5, division 6, section 2-163, police officers retirement system of the code of ordinances of the city of Jacksonville Beach, providing for an
increase to the annual benefit cap and an increase to the interest rate for backdrop. providing to the repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, scribers errors, codification, and an effective date. Thank you. This ordinance is before the council for a
public hearing and consideration on its second reading. I will now open the public hearing on ordinance number 2025-8229. We do not have any speaker cards on this item. Would any member of the public like to address this item for or against? Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. Can I have a motion? I move
we adopt ordinance number 20258229 on the second reading amending the city code of ordinances chapter 2 article 5 division 6 section 2-163 police officers retirement system >> second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Seeing none,
madam clerk, roll call. Council member Wers, >> yes. >> Council member Golding, >> yes. >> Council member Horn, >> yes. >> Council member Jansen, >> yes. >> Council member Sutton, >> yes. Council member Wagner. >> Yes. >> Mayor Hoffman. >> Yes. Motion carries. That was our final
item. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> I move to adjurnn. >> Second. All in favor signify by saying I. >> Any opposed? >> Meeting adjourned.