[Music]
All right. Thank you, commissioners, and uh thank you everybody for being here. We're going to kick off our scheduled 6 pm public hearing. Mr. Administrator, Mr. Chairman, uh the item before you is the uh uh our scheduled public hearing. I believe you've got the script. I think
you started. I believe I follow you. >> Okay. This is the second and final of the required public hearings in the Leon County budget for fiscal year 2526. If you wish to speak in person, please complete a speaker card and turn it into the clerk. Citizens registered to speak
in person or provide virtual comments will be asked to speak prior to the commission taking votes on the millage rates and budget. Now, the county administrator, Vincent Long, will read the millage rate into the public record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The proposed aggregate mill rate for Lyon County,
Florida, is 9.0644 mills, which is a 3.4% 4% increase over the aggregate rolled back millage rate of 8.7615 mills. Adalorum revenues will increase due to an upturn in property values.
This increase will be used to support uh sustaining a quality level of essential services countywide. Commissioners, you've been provided all the nec you've provided all the necessary guidance during the development of the tenative budget and all the direction provided in the various agendas and workshops during the budget process have been
incorporated into the 2026 final budget. Mr. Chairman, I'll hand it back to you. >> Uh, at this time, the individuals that are appearing in person and virtually are allowed to speak. Mr. County Administrator, do we have any citizens that wish to speak? >> Mr. Chairman, we have no speakers on this item.
>> All right. Florida statutes require the board to address the miller rate before addressing each budget. The board must vote on each mill rate and budget separately. I will now entertain motions. >> Yes, sir.
I make a motion for >> I'd like to declare a conflict on uh because I am president of >> would Can we move option one first? Is that cool? >> Yes. >> I think your motion uh >> I move option one. >> Okay, perfect. We got a motion and a
second for option one. Do we have any discussion? >> Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of option one signify by saying I. I. >> I. All opposed. >> Passes six to one with commissioner command in um what's the word? >> Opposition.
>> Opposition. Thank you. >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to uh declare a conflict. >> Yes, sir. >> Moved option number two without the CHSP homeless category funding. I am bending promise to the Big Ben CEO. >> Okay. >> For such reason, I have to recuse myself from that piece of it.
>> All right. Thank you. We've got a motion for option number two, uh, excluding the line item for CHSP funding, seconded by Commissioner Miner. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All opposed. Passes unanimously. We are
now on option number two with uh the Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We have to adopt line item funding for the CHSP homeless service category in the general fund budget minus Commissioner Miners Maddox's recusal. >> I'll move for the line item itself. Is
that right? >> Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Sorry. We have a motion for the line item. Second from Commissioner O'Keefe. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. All opposed. Passes 60 with Commissioner Maddox recused. We are now
looking for option number three. Commissioners, >> I have an option number three. >> Okay, we've got a motion for option number three. Is there a second? M second by Commissioner uh Cummings. Uh is there any discussion? >> All those in favor of option number
three. Uh signify by saying I. >> I. All opposed. Passes unanimously. We're now on option number four. >> Option four. >> We've got a motion for option four from Commissioner Maddox. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Commissioner Kan. Uh any discussion? Seeing none, all those in
favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. All oppose. Passes unanimously. Thank you uh commissioners and to the public for participating in this second uh public hearing on the budget. Mr. Administrator, I think we're on item or on general business now.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioners, uh item, let me just see what we've got. Item number two on the agenda. Your only general business uh item uh tonight uh commissioner, as you may recall, uh the board requested that you continue your discussion on this item, which was
previously on your agenda. It is the consideration of potential charter amendment topics to advance to the Lyon County uh charter review committee uh and amended bylaws. Uh very quickly, commissioners, in terms of an overview, as you requested at your July 8th
meeting, the item provides a legal analysis on issues proposed uh by the board to determine whether to advance for uh consideration uh uh to the uh to the Lyon County Citizen uh charter committee. Uh the item also provides additional
information on the CR CCRC's bylaws as amended by the board at your September 15th meeting. As you may recall, commissioners, at your last meeting, the board uh amended the CCRC's bylaws to lower the voting threshold for the committee uh to advance proposed charter
amendments uh to public hearing uh and uh final transmitt to the board. Uh there was discussion by commissioners uh about the CCRC having the same voting threshold uh as the board to recommend charter amendments. uh and the board uh
amended the bylaws uh to reduce the voting threshold from a 2/3 supermajority to a simple majority vote uh for the final transmitt of proposed charter amendments uh following the committee's three public hearings. uh commissioners. However, as detailed in the item, uh we just wanted to point out
that uh maintaining the twothirds majority threshold um is is something that we wanted to elevate uh again to the board's uh attention uh to ensure uh that that is is indeed uh what you uh the direction that you would like us to
follow. uh because that 2/3 voting threshold is required for the board on board initiated amendments to advance those uh uh charter uh amendments. If the board uh uh simply does not wish to do that, you wish to to to allow the um
the existing direction to stand to make it a simple majority voting threshold for both of those, you don't have to do anything. That's the way uh it is uh reflected in the attachment before you. But we did want to provide uh the option for the board uh to again revise the B
bylaws uh to require the twothirds vote for advancing proposed charter amendments to the board of county commissioners again for your consideration. If that's not something you wish to do, then the current u bylaws that are attached as amended uh uh reflect that previous direction. So
with that, commissioners, we're happy to answer any questions you might have and we do not have any speakers on this item. >> Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Commissioners, can we bifurcate these and sort of deal with the seven um commissioner ideas and then go >> do a motion here? >> Oh, wait. You say you want to deal with
the seven commissioners >> if that's okay. Or do you want to deal with the two/3 part thing? >> Can we do the two/3 part first? I think it's going to be easy. >> Sure. >> Um Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we make it mandatory that a a civil majority be the standard to go to public
hearing, but second out of public hearing that a two-thirds vote be the standard. >> Okay. Say that again for me. I'm sorry, Mr. Proctor. >> So, in order for an option to make it to public hearing out of the CRC, it needs to be a simple major a simple majority.
In order for it to make it out of that public hearing and to us, it needs to be a two/3 vote. >> Okay. >> Does that make sense? >> Sure. Mr. >> Yes, sir. >> That's option two. >> Option two. Second. >> Okay. Uh we've got a motion and a
second. Commissioner Proctor, Mr. chairman asked that we not support that that we keep this simple simple majority simple majority simple majority um you know in our community we have different rates and methodologies for
fire fees and fire assessments and uh charges of fires uh some operating by one standard flat some have a mixed dynamic of whatever that is and
democracy should operate operate on one standard. And it's been my understanding all my life that the majority rules. Uh I've learned more recently that it seems that the minority rules and if we are
doing democracy uh by way of flag pledge that we do uh every meeting that we start off if all the civics that is taught to boys and girls a majority 50.1 puts each of us on
this day to trick out the rules to get uh different standards uh meandering through uh is is it's technology that uh the county is not noted for and uh a
technology that we ought not to establish. I think that everybody by D B O D Y capital B everybody ought to operate by the same rule and standard. And for me, uh, all these years, most of
my life have been with a, um, a simple majority. And I think that for the lay citizen that we're calling here, uh, it may insult their sense of democracy if they realize that what the majority
thought isn't strong enough, but it takes a super majority. Uh, that can be um that can be um a dismay uh kind of uh encountering reality. So, I'd encourage uh that we not support uh Commissioner
Matters motion, and I offer a substitute motion uh that we have a simple majority uh for common lay people, ourselves included, and that we uh keep it across in every every stage of our encountering
with public policy. >> All right, we've got a substitute motion, a second from Commissioner Proctor. Uh we are still in discussion. Commissioner O'Keefe, you're next, followed by Commissioner Maddox, Commissioner Cummings, and Commissioner Miner. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Commissioner Proctor. Um
the this is what we decided at the last meeting um with all the information that was given to us. And so now we're being asked to undo this. The reference in the materials to the county commission having a 2/3 threshold is not part of the 8-year process. That is the
threshold for the other method where we just come up and say, "Hey, we want this year to do a referendum at the county commission originating it. The county commission needs a supermajority." That makes sense if we're just pulling it from the dis.
This process is a citizen-led process set in the charter every 8 years. And I disagree with setting a higher standard threshold for our citizens that we appointed than we do for the voters of all in Lyon County. Let's walk this back
from the end. In 2026, there will be charter amendments on the ballot. They make it through the process. And all we expect of our citizens is 50% plus one to pass those amendments. If we trust them with that threshold, let's walk it back.
before that it comes to our county commission and we only need a simple majority to take what's been given to us by the citizens committee and put it on the ballot. If we trust ourselves who have been put here by the voters with a simple majority, then we take it back to
what's trying to be changed at the citizens committee. We are saying thank you 21 citizens who volunteer your time every other Thursday night for 4 months, but you have a higher threshold to suggest referendums than anyone else in this process. And that doesn't make
sense to me. If our concern is that bad ideas are going to get on the ballot, this commission is where we stop those. This this commission is where we decide. So, for that reason, I will be supporting the substitute uh motion to stay where the bylaws are. Thank you,
Commissioner O'Keefe. Commissioner Maddox, >> I see things slightly different. I understand your logic. Um, but the first level of I guess scrutiny that any charter amendment will go through uh will be at the citizens committee. Um,
and that committee like is if if the motion passes that I put place forward and not the substitute motion, uh, we have the first opportunity to get a simple majority to go to a public hearing. uh in order for it to make it to us, it would take a 2/3 vote. Uh
well, you said it would take a it would take a simple majority for us to put on the ballot. Well, why would that be? Well, I think that would be because um it's been vetted by our citizens, not once but twice, and comes to us with a with a twothird vote, which lets us know
that that citizens group feels strongly about what they sent us. So, at that point, I agree with the fact that a simple majority from us after it's gone through two uh initial hearing and a public hearing with a two-/3 vote gives me comfort to push forward what our
citizens have have asked us to push forward on the ballot. Now, you said that it's it would take a twothirds vote from us to place something that didn't go through that vetting process. That's why because it didn't go through the vetting process, it should take a twothirds vote from us to make it to the
next level. But because it has gone through the vetting process and they have talked about it, discussed it and uh came to us not with one vote of super majority but a second vote of a two-thirds vote under my under my motion. It makes me very comfortable putting pushing forth what
what those citizens have said and makes it even more comfortable that once we put on the ballot that uh we be able to tout it as not only did it get a twothird vote from the citizens who vetted it twice but a majority vote from your commission who believes in what those citizens have done. So, uh I I
won't be supporting the substitute motion and I understand the logic that you say but like I said if it if it's coming from us it takes a two-3 vote. I believe that if there were just one hearing, if there was no no initial vote in a
public hearing, but there was just one sitting and one hearing to get it to us, then I would say that the that the that the citizens committee would have to do a two two-3 vote as well. But given the fact again, you get it a civil majority pushes it to a public hearing and that
public hearing gives us a two-third vote, then that makes me a little more comfortable because they've had twice the vetted and I know that super majority of that of that uh review committee uh enjoyed or or or liked uh what came to them. So, I'm I'm going to
stick with my original motion to vote against the substitute motion floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. Thank you, Commissioner Cummings. Uh thank uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I appreciate the fact that we've got citizens that we contacted who've agreed to work on the charter
review uh committee. These are citizens that are going to be giving their lending their time and talent uh to look at our charter and make recommendations uh to us. I I don't want to saddle them unnecessarily.
I feel like each of us uh have confidence in the individuals that we selected. We we have confidence in their their intell intelligence, their integrity, their their ability to look
at our charter and you know analyze it and look at what's best for the citizens, what's best for for Leyon County. I don't want to unduly burden them. Uh and so I believe allowing the simple majority
vote with that committee. We were talking about 21 people on the on that committee and I think we have to establish or or at least demonstrate to them that we do have um
respect for them and respect for their for their ability and that even if it's a even if it is a majority vote of that committee and once it goes to public hearing I don't I think we need to
straddle them with two/3 requirement. I think that majority vote should be consistent. I don't think we should confuse them with the level of approval in their committee from their committee members uh switching back and
forth. So, um I will support support uh the sub the substitute motion. Mr. Chair, thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Cummings. Commissioner Miner. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I um I hear the arguments on both sides. I think there
are strong points on either one, but I um I can't support the substitute motion. And the reason why is because uh I like the idea of having a majority vote for the CCRC to advance to public hearings. I think that debate
uh is going to be uh extensive among the CCRC. I think that's a part of the process. I think it's a it's a lower bar to bring an issue up for discussion and have it advance to public hearings. But I think after that time after deliberations have taken place I think
the bar should be higher. Uh I think it should be a two-thirds majority for those policy items to come to us. As has been said many times already both tonight and at the last meeting we have a twothirds majority bar u in order to to have something on the ballot on this
dis. So, I think it stands to reason that having that same threshold for the CCRC would make sense. Uh, I understand what what what everybody's saying. U, but we've got 21, I think, very competent, intelligent people. I don't think they'll be confused by having a
majority vote first and then a two-thirds majority vote second. I think we'll understand that. Um, but it actually puts more of the honest on them to debate the issues, to debate the merit of a policy idea of a of a potential amendment. they have to do the work between the public hearing and when
they recommend that amendment to us to make sure that they get a twothirds majority uh of that CCRC on board. I think that's a necessary step. So I I'm going to vote against the substitute motion and I will support the uh original motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Commissioner Miner. Commissioner Kaban.
>> Good afternoon or good evening, commissioners. Mr. Chairman, I I plan on uh sub uh supporting the substitute motion. And the the reason for that is if an item goes to the CCRC
and comes to us, then it's a simple majority. However, if it doesn't, if it's a commission discussion idea that we want to put on the ballot, it takes a super majority. And so I like in my opinion I like the the the principal the
principle uh basis of us being able to put something on the ballot with a simple majority. And so >> I'm sorry you said us being able to put something on the ballot. Correct. So if something goes to the CCRC and they approve it, then we can put it on the ballot with a simple majority. It
doesn't need a super majority. And so >> we already >> No. So if it doesn't go to the CCRC and it comes from us, it needs a super majority. And if it goes to them and comes up to us, then it's a simple majority. >> I'm sorry. Understand the motion on the floor. >> Your motion is a simple majority from us
or them. No matter. Correct. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> So So that that's just the basis of uh of my uh my reasoning for supporting the substitute motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. Um Commissioner Max, before we come back to you, I'm going to I'm going to agree with you on this. Uh, I support
the original motion. I cannot support the substitute motion. I think that, um, as articulated by Commissioner Max and Commissioner Miner, uh, I think the bar should be high. Um, I think it should be the same for us as them at 2/3. So,
that's where I'm at on it. Uh, so we're still on substitute motion. Commissioner Maddox, back to you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I think that I don't think we understand the the gravity of what we're doing and uh what
we're what we're discussing. We're talking about the charter. We're not talking about a simple agenda item. We're not talking about a simple policy. We're talking about a charter that governs Lyon County. Mr. Administrator, when was our charter created? 2000 2000 has the bar ever been that
low, meaning a simple majority from the commission and the CRC in order to put something on the ballot for the charter to change >> the the previous bylaws had both of these thresholds set at 2/3. So, so us
discussing going to a simple majority um to a two/3 vote is really less than what the student has been in the past. Correct. >> It's consistent with what with what was uh done in the past again and we also recognize that the board's vote at the
last meeting called for the simple majorities. This was again on our part seeking clarification. It was late to the night. The board decided to push this discussion. There was some conversation about consistency with the board. We just wanted to say just to be clear, let us articulate here again.
>> I voted in support. Thank you, Mr. I. I voted in support of the motion last time because I I took the word of my fellow commissioner and maybe understood what he was saying in that everything was a simple majority. Um the charter has governed us since 2000 and any change to
our chart to change just as just like a change to the constitution should require a higher level of scrutiny than a simple agenda item that we may be taking up here and there every month where we have this meeting. And so, yes, I I I think I
think you guys are are minimizing what we're doing here in that it should take a twothirds vote from us to put something on the on the on the ballot. Why wouldn't it take a two-thirds vote without the scrutiny of our citizens? We're going to put something on the ballot without without a two-thirds
vote. To me, that's that's crazy. This is this is not again, this is not an agenda item. This is the constitution that we're talking about. So, a simple I I I would caution every commissioner up here to really think about what you're doing. It shouldn't be as easy as a
simple majority to change the charter of our county. We're changing. We're talking about changing the charter of our county. What governs how we work, what we do, who we are in Leyon County. We're talking about changing that. And y'all want to go to a
civil majority across the board. I can't support it. >> Thank you, Commissioner Maddox. Commissioner O'Keefe and Minor Cummings and Proctor. >> Thank you. Um, I'd like to make sure that I'm understanding what we're voting
on in the motion here is this is specific to the bylaws of the Citizens Review Charter Committee. >> He's changing the fact that if we want to put someone >> Mr. Administrator, can you clarify? Or Mr. Mr. P may restate. Do you all
understand the motion? >> We do. I understood the motion to be what's before the board, which are the CRC's bylaws. There are two voting thresholds. One of the voting thresholds was um again, previously, prior to the board's most recent action was a
twothirds majority vote for the CRC to hold the public hearing on an item. The board at the last meeting, your direction was to lower that to a simple majority. The other part uh the other place where there's a voting threshold is the voting threshold required by the
CRC to recommend a chart amendment to the board of county commissioners which was previously also a 2/3 vote and the board um at the last meeting voted to similarly uh lower that to a simple majority. Again, we were seeking clarification on that, just
clarification on that to ensure that that's indeed what the board wanted to do. Uh and again, so so this at least from a staff standpoint, what was before you was just addressing those two voting threshold issues that are in the bylaws
that apply to the CRC. >> Commissioner Proctor, that as you understand your motion, >> I'm so sorry. I was locked in the room with the original founders u in Philadelphia in my head. Uh I had journeyed away to uh 1787.
I apologize. What was the the conversation? >> Can you repeat that, Mr. Administrator? >> Sure. >> Where we are right now with your motion, Commissioner Proctor? >> Yes. The item before you was seeking clarification on as to the uh the bylaws
and that and if the board wished to uh make the make it a simple majority vote um and to and we were seeking clarification from the board on one of those thresholds. That's the threshold that it that it takes for the CRC to
recommend a charter amendment to the board of county commissioners. In previous bylaws, that was a simple majority vote. At our last item, when we brought you the bylaws, the board uh suggested and directed that we uh lower
that threshold from 2/3 uh or uh from up uh from 2/3 to a simple majority vote. And so we were this item was simply seeking clarification that that is indeed what the board wanted. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Administrator. I'm now confused. >> Okay. So you said it was previously a
simple majority. Was it you? Did you mean it was previously 2/3? >> Yes, I did mean it was it was previously a 2/3 majority. The board lowered the threshold to simple majority. >> Correct. So >> we previously, previous iterations of this organization had a 2/3 requirement
for the CRC to elevate an issue to the board. Correct. We lowered that. >> Maybe inadvertently, maybe on purpose at the last meeting to a simple majority. >> Correct. >> And now we are debating whether to maintain it as a simple majority or back to 2/3. >> That's right.
>> And that doesn't include when it comes to us. Right. When it comes to us, I think we still have a 2/3. >> That's not part of his motion. Or if it is, can we bifrocate it? >> Okay. >> Vote on us. >> I I don't know. I'm confused now. Commissioner O'Keefe, you had the floor, I think. So, >> thank you.
>> Do we Can we get clarification before we continue? >> Yes. >> All right. So, Commissioner Proctor's motion is dealing only with the CRC's ability to elevate one to us at 2/3 versus a simple majority. Correct. >> That's correct. No, sir. >> Okay. No, that's not
>> my mot my substitute motion is that we put a majority vote at all levels um that we're not superior that it requires 2/3 for people to speak to us. I know we're the royalty of the county. Uh but I'm trying to create a level playing
field, one that is democracy. Um when you call on me, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Can he can he clarify now what you're asking? >> I just told you what I just clarified what I said. what my motion was. >> And we're we're not able to change our charter for that 2/3 process at this
time. >> Hold on a minute. Just let them clarify. >> So the chart if it's So we're two different processes. Amendments that come through the CCRC are separate from amendments proposed by the board of county commissioners. If the board on
its own outside of the CCRC process proposes an amendment, it takes a majority plus one vote to put that on the ballot. If >> that's in the charter, not in the bylaw >> and that's in the charter. That's something that this board can't change by voting today. It's actually written
in the charter. >> So, a simple majority. >> Okay. Okay. Majority. >> That's what it's saying. >> All right. So, so my motion would be limited to what can occur today and that would be a simple majority. and and I'll discuss when Commissioner O'Keefe's time is up, Mr. Chairman.
>> Okay. >> Commissioner, >> everybody. >> Okay. Commissioner O'Keefe, then Commissioner Miner. >> Um, I'll use my words carefully cuz there's confusion landmines all over the field.
I am supportive of keeping the citizen charter bylaw threshold as stands after our last meeting at 50% and not
touching the other three methods of of changing the charter. And I'm leaving it at that. And are we clear that's what Commissioner Proctor is doing? >> Vince said we can't change it anyway from the Right. It's in the charter. >> Yeah. All right. Commissioner Miner then
Commissioner Cummings and Commissioner Proctor. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Commissioner Proctor, you talked about being back in 1787 about the founding fathers. Um, >> you know, they wouldn't let me in the goddamn room. I was not in my mind, >> but >> I was in jail.
>> That that gave me a thought. And uh while while you guys were talking, I I did some quick uh Google searching. You know that Congress in order to propose an amendment to the US Constitution, >> yes, >> has to have a twothirds vote, not in one chamber, but two chambers.
You know that our state legislature in order to put an amendment on the ballot for the state constitution and both chambers needs a 60% vote, not a simple majority. you know that there's another option for getting uh an amendment on the state
constitution and that's the by ballot initiative with petitions that also requires the public at the ballot box to approve an amendment by 60%. The county commission here in order to have something on the ballot by ourselves we need a 2/3 majority to put
it on the ballot. So, we're proposing with this amendment on the floor now to lower that threshold for the CCRC to a simple majority. You know, big policy ideas shouldn't be decided on small margins. And if you
take a look at what the lessons of our founding fathers in 1787 gave us, who deliberated in independence all for weeks on end about what the right way to govern this country was. One of the things they decided was that they needed a a supermajority in order to get the
the process initiated to get an amendment on the US Constitution. Shouldn't we take a lesson from them? Especially since we also have a precedent here in this county commission in this CCRC bylaws for having a two
two/3 supermajority. So I, as Commissioner Maddox said, this is this is serious stuff. These are big potential policy changes to our constitution here in Lyon County that we call the charter. I think the bar should be high.
Big policy changes shouldn't be decided on small margins. I think we need to really think about this carefully before we vote on this substitute amendment. I'm voting no and I hope everyone else will here too and I hope you support the original motion on the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Thank you, Commissioner uh Miner. Just for uh I googled ratification limits which is 75% of the states have to ratify to get something on. >> Mr. Chairman, that's correct. You need a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate to initiate the process and
then additionally 3/4 of the state legislators need to ratify. All right, Commissioner Cummings. >> Uh yes. Uh thank thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure we're all on the
same page. This motion on the floor from what I hear is directed primarily specifically to the CCRC. Am I correct? That that committee. Okay. We the county
commission or the final arbiter, they can make proposals to us after the public hearing. it comes to us for acceptance or not as far as going forward with the referendum. Am I correct? That threshold with us is still
twothirds majority. Right. The motion on the floor does not address that. Right. >> It only this only the committee >> only the committee. >> There's some confusion there. Commissioner Maddox, >> that's what I need to make clear. >> You need some clarification. So, so if
we propose something that does not come from them, it takes a two/3 vote. Correct. >> Right. >> If it comes from them to us and it passes the public hearing, it takes a civil majority vote from us, not two/3 vote. >> Correct.
>> Has that always been the case? Oh, that has always been the case. Yes, ma'am. >> Right. So, you're lowering the threshold for the CCRC >> to recommend it >> to that level. >> Oh, okay. All right. But the vote on the floor right now is basically just for the committee. It's not changing
>> the commission's threshold. >> Correct. >> Meaning that if members is just a simple majority, it comes from >> Right. Right. Well, well, I'm comfortable with that fact that we are the final arbittors.
I think it should be twothirds majority because amending the bylaws is something serious. we don't get to do it every 10 years or so. I think it should have a a higher threshold because we're
talking about referendum is going beyond us to the citizenry and I think we should feel strongly that what we are putting forward to be voted upon by the citizens uh would probably have a likelihood of
passage. Um, perhaps not, but I think it it would require us to really think strongly about what we want to advance as a referendum uh pursuant to our charter. And that is serious. It is very
serious as we were talking about amending items in the charter. And I know we have uh several proposals here that we'll address that we want that committee to to look at and those are serious uh as well. So I like the
threshold that's already in place for the commission and I don't have a problem with lowering it a tad for the CCRC so that they won't be saddled down. But we I think we have to be serious and recognize that we are the
final arbiter when it comes to us. >> All right. Commissioner Proctor, then Commissioner Kaban, then Commissioner Maddox. >> Chairman, I agree with Commissioner Cummings that uh we bring the um and give respect to the 21 people we've asked to serve. Uh it it it strains my
brain to uh understand why uh there has to be this uh over layered uh condensed um need for intelligent people all of them extraordinary people all of them that we've got to have for our purpose
is to be totally convinced that they were serious and they've given this strenuous evaluation and and and arduous debate and that we got to get all of these 21 intelligent people to a super majority to speak to us with a policy
recommendation. That to me is ludicrous. We're in the 12th most intelligent United States city. Uh 47 48 people with college degrees and super super well- educated people we've assembled
and we need twothirds of them to tell us something. the people talking to us are better educated than this board cumulatively speaking. Uh I think it's an insult to their intelligence. So I don't know if Commissioner Miner uh is when you talk about voting. I teach
constitutional law. And you know I'm always on edge when you start um determining uh voting and stuff like that cuz constitution has been the one you're talking about has been so jacked up from the giddy up. So, it takes a
15th amendment in 1870 to let black men vote. It takes a 19th amendment in 1920 to let women vote. Uh, it takes a 26th amendment in 1977 to let 18 year olds who were dying in Vietnam to vote. So, this constitution
is uh jaded. Uh, this constitution when you talk about voting, there's nothing worse than this constitution. um his characterization of people who were citizens and those who are three-fifth for purposes of aortionment
and voting. I don't want to hear about that, Rick. This constitution ain't got no legitimacy to me with its respect universal to all people. We want to keep this I want to keep this simple cuz the history for which hell I got elected and
won by 12 votes. I sit here tonight because I won by 12. If it took twothirds majority, I wouldn't be. If it took two/3s majority, Curtis Richardson wouldn't be on the city commission. Um, a simple majority. We just voted on $400
million. And I don't think that it required twothirds of us, a super majority, to pass $400 million budget. That right there is more important than what these citizens going to talk about pertaining to this community. So if we ain't got a
super majority to spin up uh the entire um the entire budget of a county don't require nothing but a simple then the stuff they going to be talking about ain't all of that. So I I get really um
edgy cuz I teach the constitution. That's what I do. And uh it's funky and it needs to be simple. And for lay people who are coming here uh to give us their time and parts of
their mind, uh I'm willing to accept uh what the majority says and then we get to duke it out among ourselves as professionals. Um and if we can get to whatever our threshold is then um that's
that burden that we have as um uh electors and sworn with our hands up in the air um that we going to uphold this this constitution uh of United States. So I encourage us
to not complicate but to allow it to simplify in a time where democracy um many are concerned with the first amendment and so much more. And I think that as we simplify
uh and allow for people's voices to be an input inclusionary and not set the bar that we're lording it over them to be exclusionary. Uh then we keep people's faith in the
process. we we we keep their faith in democracy and maybe the next time we can get others to volunteer if we don't frustrate hell out of them. Thank you. >> All right, Commissioner Caban and Commissioner Maddox.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Proctor, what year were you first elected in Leyon County? >> 96 by 12 votes. >> 12 votes. I was four years old. You know, the the commissioners before
us were all duly elected to serve the same community that we represent and they established a charter based on where our community was at that time. That was 30 years ago. one person who
was part of that process is sitting at this table saying this needs to change. And so I I take some serious weight to that. And I say that because we're all sitting here in the same position that previous commissioners
were before us. And so their thought process and jurisdiction is no different than we are currently today. The only thing that's changed is the community and the time. And Commissioner Miner, I think you you
make a very strong argument and I actually, you know, had me thinking how you said it because I think that was a very strong argument about having a supermajority in both bodies. However, uh I've seen the dark side of supermajorities here locally with the
blueprint intergovernmental agency where you know unelected staff will lock in projects and bylaws and overspend on budgets, conceal budgets and limits our authority with a twothirds vote. And so
I like keeping um the power in the people which is the people that they represent, they elect to represent which is us. And lastly, I want to say that by us putting something on the ballot, we're not changing the charter. We're not changing
the constitution. We are asking our constituency if they would like to change the charter. And so I don't think that it's our decision to say, "Hey, we're going to make it harder to ask our constituency." You know, we represent
our community. I like the fact and I like the ability for us to be able to go ask our constituency, are you happy with the the way the charter currently lies? And I will say, and I believe this is, Madam Attorney, is it a simple majority
by the by voters to pass a charter amendment? or is it a super majority? >> It's a simple majority. >> So 50 50% plus one vote. >> Correct. >> Okay. Yeah. So that just, you know, that's that further embodies my
decision-m to support uh Commissioner Proctor substitute motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Commissioner Maddox. >> Mr. Chair, um may I may I address Commissioner Miner? >> Of course. >> Thank you, Commissioner Miner. Commissioner P about the the
constitutions and a bunch of amendments that were made to the constitution. When those amendments made to the constitution, what was the threshold to pass those amendments to the constitution? >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. >> In order for the uh Congress to initiate the amendment process for the US Constitution, they need two/3 vote in
both chambers, House and Senate to start the process. >> Wasn't simple majority. >> No. So all those all those constitutional amendments that our nation needed as we grew as people
went through the same process of needing that supermajority in both chambers. That's correct. I don't think there was a shortage of people who wanted to be on this CRC. There wasn't.
So don't don't don't believe that there weren't people knocking our doors down asking for the opportunity to be on this CRC. I don't believe that the folks who have been chosen to be on the CRC, I don't believe uh that majority of them will
fight against the fact that it would take a twothirds vote for them to get to the next level for us to approve what they have done to go to a ballot. I don't believe that. I don't believe we're simply saying we're simply asking our our our electorate would they like their charter
to be changed. What we're saying is that these are the things that we submit to you that we think may be good ideas coming from a citizens committee approved by this commission for your consideration to be changes to the
charter. It's not simply, oh, you know, we just going to throw these things forward and see what y'all think. No, it's it's it's our consent to say that we believe in these things and then we're asking you, do you believe in these things that should be changed on the charter? Because by our vote, by our consensus
vote that we would like to see it on the ballot, we're saying that we would like to see it in our charter. That's that's the whole point of approving it. So, take one and pass. There's a lot of words being thrown around. There's a lot of lot of lot of
ideas and and you know, philosophies about what we're doing, but as I've been known to say, we let's just call a spade a spade. This this ain't this ain't just a simple a process of well, we just going to throw it out there and see what people say. No, we we
are actively approving what we think should be a part of the charter. And Commissioner Pro talked about his constitutional law and teaching it. I'm pretty sure none of us agreed with what the what the Constitution said initially. I think we all would say that
parts of it just don't apply to us. Should have never applied to us. Three fence of men. Who said who where they do that at? But along the way, there was a process that they also put in place. We're not talking about the Constitution. We're talking about the process that was in
place to change that constitution. And that process that was in place to change that constitution, has it ever changed, Commissioner Miner? Has it ever changed? Did you Did you Did you look at that? Did the process? >> Not to my knowledge. No. >> Madam Attorney, has the process to change the Constitution of the United
States of America, has it ever changed? >> I have not looked at the history of that. So, I really don't know. I don't know. >> It doesn't. It hasn't. So, what we're doing is we're going to lower the threshold of our process for all the reasons that you guys have spoke of. I
think Commissioner Miner, I couldn't I couldn't have said it better. You you you did the best job of trying to explain how important this is and why we shouldn't change it. And I think the rhetoric that goes on goes on around why we should change it is just they're just they're just they're words that that
just doesn't to me justify where we're trying to go. it just doesn't justify it. So, so we don't agree with the constitution. So, we got a process to change it. That process has changed it every single time it needs to be changed and it may change it in the future. Um, but we're talking
about here we're just going to make it easier to put stuff on on the on on the ballot to say that we consent to and that we would like to see changed on our own charter. I just again I don't agree with it, but I I just wanted to to to talk about those points cuz if we're
going to if we're going to make a decision based off points, let's make a decision based off the points that make that really speak to the issue and are actual and factual on on what we're talking about here. So again, I won't support the substitute motion and uh I made my point so I won't speak again. I
just I just wish that we we we took this a little more seriously uh than thinking a simple majority would be the way to go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner uh Mattis. Commissioner Proctor, Mr. Chairman, I just Commissioner Maddox raises great great questions here and uh I just couldn't
leave it. Uh this the Constitution writes its own prescription for change and um of course when you believe you've reached perfection, you make it as difficult as possible to alter uh your
perfect thoughts. And that is the prescription written to frustrate and make very challenging to those um high-minded persons who believe they had hit the high mark. Um but what we
operate more so is not the federal constitution as much as under the 10th amendment states rights and whereas the federal government has not preempted states in the area of how to amend their constitutions or their local governments underneath them. So under under under
the 10th amendment um each one of these states is free to set up and do because the federal government has not spoken and told them what or announced it as their power. So all power is not reserved to the federal government. It goes to the people in the states. So we
do what we want. So if there's a comfort level um today we are operating in what we're doing right now. Uh we're actualizing and exercising the authority of the 10th amendment. uh states right and the powers that endure to the
people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> All right, commissioners. We've got uh a substitute motion by Commissioner Proctor, seconded by Commissioner O'Keeffe. Uh seeing no further discussion, all those in favor of the substitute motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> All opposed. No.
>> Passes 43. Uh Commissioners Miner, Welch, and Maddox in opposition. All right, commissioners. Uh now we are on to the second uh set of items here which are the seven issues that we had asked the county attorney to take a look at
for us bringing to the CCRC. Uh I figure the best way to handle that just to go through them one by one if that's okay. I mean is that seem reasonable to everybody? Um and I mean I think some of them the county attorney is advising we do not have the ability to do. So I
guess we can get into that. So we'll start with number one. Uh, we'll just go. Well, I got Commissioner Maddox and then Commissioner Cummings. >> Mr. Chair, um, you said we can go by one one by one, but I got to I mean, I personally I I um
wanted to make a motion that we we we not send any of them. Um, I could vote against every single one of them, but I believe if uh the conversations that's been had up here
about how smart and and intelligent um our CRC is, um, politically astute, uh, understanding what's going on within our community and what we may need, why why send them why why why try to tell them what we think they should be talking
about instead of giving them the opportunity uh as citizens to tell us what they want to talk about and the things they like to see uh changed within our charter. And so um Mr. Chair, you wanted to go one by one. So I don't >> That's a motion. I'll second it.
>> I'll make I feel we can do whatever you guys want. I mean I I don't know what the will of the board is. So if you want to make that motion. >> I'll make I'll make a motion that we send nothing and that we allow that. I I I'll second I'll second that motion to come bring us back ideas uh for a change of charge. Thank you.
>> All right, Commissioner Cummings, you're next. >> Then Commissioner O'Keefe. >> Yes. Uh thank you um Mr. Chair. Was that moved and second? >> Yes, ma'am. It was moved and seconded. So right now we are sending none of those to the CRC. >> Well, Mr. chair. Um
I had looked at the county attorney's analysis and I think um several of them are clearly a no from a from a constitutional standpoint statutory uh standpoint.
And I think if we want to entertain any of them, I think it'd be feudal for us to try to go behind what our county attorney has already scrutinized and told us um that we can't advance those anyway because it
can't it can't be achieved in the CCR in the CCRC. So, um I was looking at those that were emphatically no and a couple only one or two that we could
advance to the committee. But since the it the number is so low of the couple that according to our attorney that could be advanced to the committee. My position is really why waste their
time uh allow them to address what issues they feel is most prudent. And then the other side of it is that I don't believe it would violate the
sunshine law. And correct me if I'm uh if I'm wrong, Madame Attorney, if any of us contact or talk to members of the CCRC about any issues that that we might want
them to advance in the committee. >> That's correct. You don't serve on the same collegial body as the CCRC. So you any of the board members are welcome to talk to the CCRC members. just please keep in fact do not act as a conduit
between the CCR members and share their particular perspectives or views on anything that would come before the CCRC. >> Thank you. Thank you, madam attorney. So, having gotten that explanation uh and clarification, I I support the motion. It's on the floor. >> Thank you, Commissioner Cummings.
Commissioner Madam Attorney, can I get a clarification on is it number four or number seven that are capable of being forwarded by us? Yes. Yes, according to your analysis. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh for it's very
clear legally uh if it's in the charter county ordinances uh could supersede city ordinances if they are in conflict. And seven uh is the clean up the outdated references the statutes related to the establishment of the charter.
That is also possible as well. >> All right. Thank you, Madam Attorney. M Comm Commissioner O'Keefe, followed by Commissioner Miner, Proctor, and Kaban. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The um I'm right now I'm not going to support the
motion on the floor. Um I'd like to hear what everyone else says. I'm not going to offer substitute motion. Um because I think I'll leave it in the posture of letting this pass or fail. Um >> excuse me, Mr. Chairman. um procedural.
I like to withdraw my second because I didn't know that council had endorsed four and um hearing uh her voice on number four. We must You did say four. >> Four and seven. She didn't endorse them.
She just said that they're >> allowable to be um to be sent to the CRC by us. >> Yeah. Well, we we need four and I didn't recognize your endorsement of it previously. >> I don't think she's endorsing it. All right, sir. >> So, I will draw mine.
>> All right. So, we uh second was drawn by Commissioner Proctor and added by Commissioner Miner. We are still in discussion and I believe it is Commissioner O'Keefe. >> It is. Let me tell you guys and ladies that changes everything. Um, I'll just say I think
I I would hope that we because we may be a little worn from our prior debate like happened last week. I want to make sure that we flush out all of our thoughts here because I don't want us to come back in another week and say we weren't paying attention. >> Oh, the night is young. We
>> um and so I want to make sure that we are giving this all the due attention it deserves. Um and and you may remember I believe I voted against requesting an analysis for all of these at the at when we voted on this in July was the idea that let the citizens um figure it out.
I have a couple questions. Um can if we don't send anything, can the citizens committee pick up any of these items by their own decision? >> Absolutely. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then I had a question on our
current practice on one of the items. Now number two, now it's clear we do not have the authority to do number two, but it led me to a question. Right now for voluntary annexations, does the city and the county have to
vote and agree on voluntary annexations into the city from unincorporated area? the there are two ways to do voluntary annexations uh or or there's one way and involuntaries through the city. Um yeah,
the the county has a voice in that, but it's based on certain criteria that we can consider. Um if if the board applying that criteria still says no, it goes to like dispute resolution basically to break the tie if you will.
Um but but yes, it requires consent of both understanding that that the the county is limited to only consider certain criteria. >> Certainly. Thank you. Okay. Um point of information, Mr. chairman. Um to the question, the county um in my 29 years
has never stood in the way or objected to the city's uh push for annexation and request that we approve it. So while two bodies may be required, the county has never uh objected. We've had two or
three instances of um he and him and Horn, but no, we've never stood in the in the city's way. >> That's good to know. It's a new day since 2022. Commissioner Caban always tells me um >> I think we I think you need to specify what what what that objection has to be
based on though. >> Can you thank that was just a question I regret asking now that that was operational and it and it has nothing to do with the motion except for that there were issues of annexation in the in the
the materials. That's all. Uh councelor I withdraw the question. Um, I I think that we've had staff look at this all of these items. The majority decided after a long debate in July to have staff look at these items and
basically two came back that could be considered. Now, I don't I don't have a strong opinion on either of those, but I am of the opinion that if we said they were important enough as a board to look at and staff looked at them, let's let the citizens look at them. We're not
telling them um I don't think we're telling them yes or no on it. I think we're telling them we want this looked at and so look at it. Uh so I'm going to um uh vote for whatever motion ends up being voted on that has us passing through 4
and 7. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. Thank you, Commissioner Miner. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I'm going to support the motion on the floor and here's why. Um, if you look at the seven issues that that this body brought up at
the last meeting, and for those of you who are on your on the edge of your seats at home, that starts at page 89 and the agenda packet at the top. Um, of those seven uh issues, uh, our county attorney's office did an excellent job on the legal analysis, by the way, on each of these, and I want to thank the
county attorney and her staff for working on these. Of the seven items, um, five of them have been preempted by one entity or another. Whether it's the state preempted us on an issue, whether forming utility review board, we could create the board, but we have no
authority to regulate the city on what the city does for its utilities. So, all those examples I thought were very well done. Um, which leaves us with number four and number seven. Um, I think we're going to I think number four is a is a is a sticky spot for some of us. I I
look at that and I've got some grave concerns about it because if we were to ask the citizens review committee to take a look at this. What is what you're asking them to do is is take
a very blunt instrument on on something that should be done with a fine tooth comb. I used to work at the city 10 years ago and I wasn't a city commissioner or of course but but I I worked in the in the the staff over there and the ordinances that the city of Tallahassee constructs
uh by and large over the years over the decades have been very carefully thought out and you know the city has a different demographic than the county as a whole. You know much of it is urban and and there there are often very good reasons for why the city might establish its own ordinances. So what this number
four is proposing, the way I read it, is just a blanket declaration that county ordinances are going to have power and supersede city ordinances. That's a bull in a china shop with all kinds of things in that
china shop that are probably worth preserving. Now, we could go through every single city ordinance that would be superseded and evaluate that and have a debate on that. I mean, I don't know what good that will do, but I mean, you're talking about an incredible amount of time. U if
I were on the CCRC, I would want to have a good overview of of what the implications of what this number four might be before I would vote to approve or not approve it. So, you're you're asking an incredibly broad statement to be applied on
innumerable number of details and city ordinances that have been developed over decades. uh with careful deliberation. Um and I I think it's it's just it's not a very I don't remember who brought it up, but I just I don't think it's a very well thought up issue. So, I'm going to support the motion on
the floor, but I do want to talk briefly about number seven. Uh for those of you, it's basically cleaning up the outdated references to statutes related to the establishment of a county charter. Now, if you read the write up on this in the agenda item, this isn't a policy matter for debate. This is more of a technical
issue. So rather than ask the CCRC to spend some of their valuable time on a technical issue that doesn't really require an opinion on policy, let's go ahead and take that care of that right now. So what I propose to Commissioner
Maddox is, you know, keep with the the spirit of the motion, but add a friendly amendment to that, which is take number seven, direct staff to come up to do the work to take the technical attributes of that and then present that to us at some later date. So this body, this body with a twothirds
majority could vote on that to be on the ballot next year. That's where the work should be done because staff is going to be needing to do that work regardless of whether or not the county is going to deal with it, the county commission that is, or the CCRC. CCRC is going to be busy talking
about policy. Let's not burden them with technical issues such as this one. So, Commissioner Maddox, my friendly amendment would be to basically take number seven, ask staff to come back with the technical resolution on on how to address number seven so that we can then deliberate on whether or not we'll
get two/3s vote with that on the ballot through our own county commission. >> Commissioner Maddox, you cool with that? >> Yes. >> All right. So, we got a friendly amendment motion still. Commissioner Maddox is with Commissioner Miner and second Commissioner Proctor then Commissioner Kaban and Commissioner
Cummings. >> Mr. Chairman, I want to ask uh county attorney uh I have proposed uh an eighth item of consideration uh tonight and that is um that I've shared with you moments ago and that is to let voters
decide in 2026 uh whether the city of county uh should operate uh and manage the fire department beginning in 2029. And uh I wanted to um Mr. chairman to
understand are we confined to these seven mere points or I've come with an additional point tonight uh dealing with um uh uh placing uh the fire services issue before the voters and I've uh
illumined for each of you um 10 points that support uh in my opinion um this idea but it seemed like the conversation is just rattling around and the things that we've already uh gnawed on this bone before. Can I um introduce an
eighth point tonight? >> Can we Commissioner Proctor, I would like to ask if we could take that up in commissioner discussion time so that we can get through this item. I I don't know if staff is got an opinion on whether we can do that or not. But >> if if we did that, would I be able to
interject it in the bundle of directing staff? >> I don't want to miss a train. And I want I want this point on the train if it goes forward. >> Madam Attorney, could we hold off on this till discussion time or does it need to go on this train?
>> No, he could Commissioner Proctor could bring this up on his commissioner discussion time and if there's direction from the board that could be forwarded to the CRC, right, as well. >> So, can we hold off on that and just get through this and then come back to that? >> Okay. Okay. Back to um number four. This
commission remembers well uh I when when last year on the naming of the Wish way and the Alia Gibson Street uh we thought we were following well no we didn't thought we were following uh and the city went and changed their very
ordinance so as to trump the county and to extend Althia Gibson Way south of Orange Avenue all the way to Bragg Drive. That right there is enough to convince me that we need to have item
four. Uh, Commissioner Miner, you typically yourself um you seek uh the the path of least resistance and you never want conflict and with the city and nothing like that. Um I simply think that but what happened to this board uh
our authority to name streets uh all that uh we got clobbered and the city came back and put an ordinance forward and shut our mouth put tape across our lips and we ain't the only reason we had
to take that is because we hadn't number four was not established. We need that established because we got strong armed out of out of our own vote uh by getting preempted, usurpered, overpowered, and
run over. So that's why I withdraw my second cuz we need number four simply based on what happened and the inconveniences for my own family and other families who live south of Orange
Avenue on Wish Way. All right, Commissioner Caban, you're up. Then Commissioner Cummings, Maddox, and Minor. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to make a substitute motion to send items number four and seven on this list to the CCRC. >> All right, we have a substitute motion
for items four and seven. >> Second. >> Seconded by Commissioner Proctor. We're in discussion. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, listen there, Commissioner Miner, I you brought up some great points, but I I I I tend to disagree with a majority
of what you said. In one of our previous agendas, there was a map and I I was looking to find it to see if I could put it up on the on the screen that showed the annexation of the city of Tallahassee over time, particularly over the last 100 years.
And Commissioner Miner, as it sits right now, every time a piece of property is annexed into the city of Tallahassee of your district, you lose the ability to to represent your district. Anytime any property in Lyon County is annexed into the city, we lose the
ability to legislate policy that benefits our constituency. If you look at the map, there's continue of annexation in the northeast, on the east side of town, northwest part of town. And every time that happens, we
cannot represent our constituency to the fullest of our elected ability. Just last meeting, we passed an ordinance to change the way fire services assessment was collected
in the unincorporated area. The reason for that was case law from the city of Ocala that showed that the city of Tallahassee is collecting the fire services assessment in a unconstitutional manner.
Twothirds of our constituency lives in city limits. Yet our policy that we vote on is limited to the unincorporated area. Commissioner Miner, I think what we could do here is actually
pro propose a charter amendment that gives us the ability to decide if we want policy to to go countywide or if it's policy that we could dictate to the city. Madam attorney, could we have could we have a charter amendment
proposed that gives us the ability to if there is a conflict to decide if it supersedes the city and or defer to city limits? No, I mean the the charter has to be clear about in the event of a conflict whether a city ordinance uh basically
prevails or whether a county ordinance prevails. I mean we do it currently for minimum environmental uh standards thresholds or or requirements. Um, but that's clear. I mean, >> that's nothing. So, it's nothing, this
isn't new. It would be new if we proposed to expand it, but we currently do this with environmental standards currently in Lyon County. >> We set a floor. That's correct. That specific >> and and voters voted on that in the charter. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Correct. Commissioners, I I don't
know if um you all have been paying attention to some of the the the feedback that has been relayed over the last 10 days, but I would say now more than ever, it is imperative that this board has the ability to
legislate countywide. It's it's it's important now more than ever. And right now we are limited and over time as more properties annexed into city limits I will say this again we lose our
ability to fully represent our constituency. Additionally you see right now the city of Tallahassee serves folks in the unincorporated with utilities. We have very little say over how that's dictated with an ordinance like this.
This would be able to help that. And so I I I think it's imperative that we look at and have the conversation at least send this to the CCRC up for discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. Commissioner Maddox. Commissioner Miner, I appreciate your
second. Um, it'll come up anyway. I'm going to go ahead and resend my motion. So, I'm going to take up this main motion. doesn't pass, then um I'll make the motion again. Um I don't want anybody to think me resending my motion is approval
of uh sending four and seven to the CRC cuz it's not. I'll be voting against the motion on the floor. Um Mr. administrator. Um,
how many times have we had since you can count uh involuntary annexation by the city? >> Involuntary. >> Involuntary. >> They're far less frequent than voluntary annexations. >> We we tend to have those a lot, right?
>> We don't tend to have involuntary. >> No, voluntary we tend to have every now and then. >> Yes. Yes, we do. Voluntary meaning that there's a constituent that lives in the county who has elected themselves to want to be a part of the city and receive city services. Correct.
>> That's right. So, the city didn't coersse them or make them. They wanted to be within the city limits. Correct. >> That's that's generally how it happens. >> Um I don't
the way Mr. administrator. Uh, madam attorney, I don't know which one would be best to answer this question, but um, we have one municipality within Lyon County, correct? >> Yeah. Um, the city is incorporated and
in charge of of legislating um, everybody within the city limits. Yes. >> Yes. M and those folks who have annexed into the city are aware of that. I'm
guessing uh and know that along with the city services that they receive they'll receive the increased cost of living within the city and they'll also receive
uh a tax bill from the city. I there are there are instances where the county supersedes the city or sets the minimum requirements. Not even supersedes. We
set the minimum requirements on what the city can and can't do. Is that true, Madam Attorney? >> For minimum environmental standards. That's correct. >> Right. So when it comes to minimum when it comes to the uh environmental standards, we we set the minimum the the
the the bar and they can go above that bar, but they can't go below that bar. >> Correct. >> Right. Um I'm not There are cities all over the United States of America. There's counties all
over United States of America. 60 67 counties in the state of Florida. Uh in those 67 counties, there are all kinds of cities and those cities take care of their citizens within their jurisdictions, within their within their city limits. And those county
commissioners take care of those folks outside of the city limits if you're not consolidated. Is that correct, Mr. Administrator? >> Correct. Um, I'm not I'm not a city commissioner.
I'm a county commissioner. I don't run a utility. I don't understand the intricacies of how the utility works. I could learn. Uh, but I ran for county commission. Um, I I I believe that without consolidation,
which we've all know, we've all got calls about it. um the city which has existed now for over I think a hundred years right uh have ran their business without county oversight is
that correct Mr. administrator. >> Yes. >> And the only thing that we've ever set the minimum requirements on the city was that of environmental standards >> unless the city hasn't developed an ordinance on a policy in which place in which case they don't conflict and so
they may defer to a county policy just >> voluntarily. >> Yes. If the state, which they're doing, came down and looked at our budget and said, "We don't agree with the way y'all are spending your budget, and so we're
going to just take it from you and do what we want to do because we know better how to make a budget for a county than the county commissioner. I will sit here before you and tell you that the state would be wrong because I deal with
county politics every day all day and I've been here a while and I understand how counties work. Um I'm not uh I'm not arrogant enough to say to the
city that as a county commissioner I understand better how they should run the city. I don't have city staff. I have county staff. So
again, my my my if the if the citizens charter review committee sent back to us without us sending to them that this is something that they would like for us to put on the ballot. I would have liked to have from a supermaajority, but now it's
a simple majority. Then we would have I would have a discussion about it. But I am not uh in favor of sending sending this down to them to tell them that we would like for them to look at it. Uh because in essence it says it's something that we think that we should
do and should be in place. And so I can't support for seven. Uh if we're going down this road, Commissioner M already brought it up. I don't think it's a bad idea. It's one way or the other. We either send it to them and they come up to us or we do it ourselves. I can I can go with seven. I
can't I can't support four. Um again, I just I I caution us to understand that we are one municipality. We have one municipality within Lyon County and those city those city residents are there by choice. People who move into
Lyon County and choose to move into the city, they choose to move in the city. They choose to be represented by that commission. They choose to to have city utilities. they choose to to want to deal with the with the with the government that they're dealing with when they deal with the city of Tallahassee.
But I also want us to understand that those who choose to live in the county have chosen to live there. They want to live in the county. They don't want to they don't want city services. They don't want the city. What they want is they want to live in the county and they want to be represented by this
commission. those who are voluntarily asking to be a part of the city are choosing to be in the city. And madame attorney, what I was going to ask earlier when when Commissioner O'Keeffe asked what there are certain things cuz I we've had this discussion a bunch.
There has to be certain things in place for us to say no to a voluntary annexation. It ain't like we can just deny it. Correct. It's if we just don't want them want somebody to volunteer annex, we we can't just say no. There's got to be a reason, right? >> There has to be a reason. Like it
creates an enclave or something like that, there are certain statutory criteria to consider. >> Right. Right. And so for those citizens who want to live in the city and they're continuous to the the USA line, I think that's one of the one of the one of the standards, then I'm I'm not going to get
in their way. if they want those city services and they want to pay city taxes. I I understand the logic of well they understand too then that they're losing the jurisdiction that we may have over them to legislate on certain things but I'm sure they're taking that into consideration when they're moving into the city and they understand that now
they are going to the city commission for what they want. They're not going to the county commission. So, uh I think I pontificated enough here. I can't support four but I I will go ahead and support seven since it was a part of my original motion. Again, I just believe
that um we shouldn't supersede the city on everything. Uh that government, there's a government across the street that's called the city. There's a government across the street that calls the state. I don't necessarily like it when the state tries to supersede us on things. Uh and because I don't like it
when the state the state tries to supersede us on things, I'm not going to do that to the city. uh and and and over across the board um maybe considering things that may make sense, but I don't think across the board that we should say that we're superior to the city and our decision-m and we know their
business better than they know their business. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Maddox, um so you withdrew your substitute. We're back on we're now on the substitute, which is now the original motion, which is four and seven. So, Commissioner Max, did you want to come up with a way to get the
seven out of there or what? >> Um, I I mean, if we could I mean, you asked for us to bifrocate, Mr. Chair, and I I remove my motion. Um, I would ask the maker of the motion to just take up four. Uh, cuz I believe across the board
seven will probably cross uh will probably pass unanimously. Um, so I would ask to make a motion to remove seven and just have us vote on four. >> All right. Commissioner, who made the motion? >> I'm I'm fine to I'm fine to amend that and I was going to respond to Commissioner Maddox's comments as well. If you
>> Go ahead. So, we're on just item four now going to the CCRC. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, sir. Go ahead. >> I'm just confused a little bit by some of the comments, Commissioner Maddox, because we're not talking about city services. We're talking about ordinances
and uh twothirds of our constitu constituency lives within city limits and they vote for us as county commissioners and 100% of the city of Tallahassee residents are residents of Lyon County
and I don't know about other folks but I I I try my best to represent all residents across the county including the city Tallahassee and they elected me, elected us to represent interests across the county. And some of those
interests are within city limits. And I make it a point to be very aware of those issues within city limits. And in fact, I would say that
large portion of issues in my district are within city limits. And there is a lack of effort by the city of Tallahassee to address those issues. And I've made it very clear. I've talked about Pensacola Street over and over
again. We've extended how many olive branches across multiple issues. It's very clear that right now any issue that we bring up as a board to the city of Tallahassee in city limits, they make it a point to
ignore. And you know, I think right now, especially from what I'm hearing from residents across this county in city limits, outside of city limits, I think that it's very evident that they look at our body as the leading body across
across the county. And all I'm saying is let's ask voters if they would like to formalize that. And that's all I'm asking, you know, and if it's, you know, it's all I'm asking. So, thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. Commissioner Miner, then Commissioner O'Keefe, Commissioner Proctor, and then Kaban again and coming.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I've been listening to what people's comments have been u very carefully and um and Commissioner Gaban, I I I hear what you're saying about Pensacola. I've had, you know, I've had we've all, I think, had similar issues. Um but um there are
also ways where we have worked with the city like when it comes to public safety. I mean I work with the sheriff's office bringing in TPD and and there are ways to do that too. Um >> I've done that Mr. I've done that commissioner minor just so you know. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, but the
the question I have and and I heard your discussion about representation, um, and how anytime we get property annexed into the city, we lose our ability to represent that that neighborhood to the same degree that
they were in the incorporated area. But the people I think are most concerned about that are the people at this table. you know, most people out there don't care if if if if if the city is working on
something versus the county. They just want to see it done. Um and so I think I know where this motion is going and uh we'll have more discussion about number four, you know, at some point if it comes back, if it gets out of the CCRC,
uh we'll discuss this in more detail. But I did have one question before I before I leave number four. What specifically, what problem other than representation do we hope to address with this number four amendment? Like what what specific area do you want to
change or address a problem for with this number four? >> You asking Commissioner Command. >> Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What I would like to do, Commissioner Miner, is defer this to the C CCRC, have them discuss it, um, and see if there's
anything in particular that they would like to tailor this down to, or would they like to broaden it to be any ordinance, right? Know what I really want to do is just kick it down, let them have a conversation. If it dies there, it dies there. If it comes up to us, then we could look if we need to fine-tune it or not. And I'm I'm saying
this pretty much just based on any of the other topics that we would send to them. Does that answer your question? >> It does. It does. Thanks. I appreciate it. And uh let me wrap up and and say, you know, Commissioner Proctor said earlier that that uh I like to avoid conflict with the city. And um I just
want to I just want to say I don't look at this in anywhere near the same way that you are, Commissioner Proctor. Um you're looking at I'm going to tell you what I think. I think you're looking at this at like the city commission's got to win this or the the the the county
commission's got to win this and the city's got to lose. Um one side's got to win and one side's got to lose or we've got to show them or we've got to show them who's boss or we we've got to play hard ball, which is what you said at the last meeting. You know, we shouldn't be looking at like that. These are these
are two local governments that serve a common population with with overlap, right? We should be taking a look at what we need to do to work with the city to best serve our citizens. Not who's going to win, not who's going to beat the other guy at fire services, not
who's going to get a const a charter amendment to have superseding all their ordinances. I mean, that's a war that is going to have one loser and one winner at that particular stage. There'll always be another battle. And if we keep
on fighting that those battles, one side might win, the other side might lose, might flip the next time, but you know who's going to lose all the time are the citizens who live in Lyon County and the citizens who live in the city. So I I want to try to get us away from this
idea of like we got to show them or they've angered us, so we're going to push back. Listen, I've been angry at the city many times. Uh I have confronted and and engaged in conflict with the city. I've gone to CRA meetings and spoken for a position that I knew the city commission was not going to
support. I've written opeds urging them to do one thing when I knew they were probably going to do the other. I have no problem with conflict, but when it comes to a battle of city versus county, uh the people that are going to really lose are the citizens who live in Leyon County and the city of Tallahassee. And
I think we need to keep that in mind. It we're not here for us. We're here for serving those people and fighting about one thing or another over and over again. and it was never going to end and the people that are going to lose out are the people who live here. Um, those are my comments and I think I know where
this motion is going. We'll uh it sounds like we're probably going to move on with number four. We'll have that discussion first and I do want to hear what the CCRC is going to say and bring back to us and I look forward to that discussion at a later time. Uh, Commissioner Caban, will you accept a friendly amendment to take number seven
as something directing to staff to work up and then present to the county commission so that that way the CRC doesn't have to spend time on what I think the county administrator would agree be would be a technical issue as opposed to a policy one. >> I'll accept the friendly amendment. >> Okay, great.
>> All right. Uh, Commissioner Cumins, I got you in the queue, but you're behind Commissioner O'Keefe and Commissioner Parker, you want to jump ahead of them? So, we're on just number four right now >> with the amendment. >> Would you uh with the amendment that seven let staff handle seven? Um, Commissioner O'Keefe, Commissioner Proctor, y'all. I assume you're okay.
Let Commissioner Cummings go. >> I would say >> Yes, Commissioner Cummings, go right ahead. >> Thank uh Thank you. Um U Mr. Chair, you know, I think it's remarkable. We started out, I guess, at our last meeting with the items that we wanted the CCRC
to address. the county attorney and her staff did a great job on analyzing those seven items that we wanted to send to the CCRC and and I think very ablely
showed us statutoily, constitutionally uh and from a legal standpoint which ones were viable, which ones we really shouldn't uh saddle the CCRC with. I think it's commendable tonight that
we've had several motions on the floor, some withdrawn after hearing our discussion, but I'm just concerned and I just I don't want us to uh have the actions that we take be fueled by the situation that we find
ourselves in now with the city as it relates to the fire services fee. I know we received um correspondence this week from our county administrator where uh the city of course indicated that
they're terminating our fire services uh contract. So it's tension there clearly between the city and the county. I don't want us as a body to send items to
the committee as a as a result of a carryover of our tension uh tension with the city. I I don't want our emotions to get the best of us and we not get the best that we can out of this citizens review committee that's
going to look at at the charter. Of course, my uh Drethers were in support of Commissioner Maddox's initial motion that we not send anything to the committee. Let's trust them. let them
look at the charter independently and come back to us knowing that and correct me if I'm wrong, madame county attorney, any of the issues that we wanted addressed that the county attorney said that we could address that
we have the ability to do that as a body. Number four, we have the ability as the county as a county commission to address those without sending that issue to to the committee. And so if it's my
preference, and I know that's not the motion on the floor, but I wish uh that level heads would calm heads would prevail and that we allow that committee to do their work
independent of where we are, independent of our concerns with the city, with the city. Now, as it relates to fire services, as it as it relates to what body um has the power
for ordinances to prevail over uh municipal ordinance to prevail over the county or vice versa. That's something that we can uh address ourselves. So, I don't want to support the motion on
the floor primarily because it is sending our concern and our emotions and our disappointment with our negotiations uh with the city at this time. However,
I wish we would think about the fact that we maintain that authority ourselves. we can address it and we can decide that this should be a referendum for the
citizen to decide and not put that and I don't want to call it baggage because I know that it's out of genuine concern hopefully um our ultimate concern is as commissioner miner indicated the
taxpayers the citizens uh that we represent and so in in that respect we could take make it up ourselves uh as a body. And I I would hope that that um
Commissioner Kaban would consider that and perhaps um withdraw the portion of the motion where we're going to send item four to to the committee. And I just ask you to think about it. I I don't want our
emotions to get the best of and stle the committee with that. >> So, Commissioner Cummings, if I was going to do it for anyone, it would be you. Let me say that. >> The issue with that was just circles back to the conversation from earlier where if it doesn't go to the committee,
it takes five votes versus if it goes to the committee and comes back to us, it takes four. And so, that's kind of what's kind of holding me up on it. Um, but I will say that, you know, prior to even this fire services fee, you know, um, scuffle with the city, I had talked
to the county administrator about this going back in spring before this was an issue that I felt like this is better legislatively for us as a body just purely on the annexation process um, of, you know, I believe there was a map in one of our previous agenda items that showed how much land has been annexed
over time into city limits and that's going to continue to grow. What I worry is that there's a lot of folks in our rural communities that are going to get annexed in like Bradfordville is getting annexed in on the north side. We you know Woodville not saying I want that to be annexed but we don't have clearly
what we said if it's voluntarily we lose that authority we have to approve it which has been told to us in the past. Does that make sense? >> Yes ma'am. >> All right. Uh Commissioner O'Keefe and then Commissioner Proctor and then I think you good. Yep. We're going to have
a vote on the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Commissioner Cummings. Your wish is granted. I'm going to bring my level head um to this one. So, we're I'm of two minds of this because
we I have had an issue where um we get repeatedly um I'm very much uh focused on representing my constituents who are city and county residents as much as my uh unincorporated residents because I represent them. They pay county property taxes. That's that's why I fought for
them when we did the team award. Um, and often, you know, we'll get I'll get a call about an issue someone's having and it will be in the city limits and we'll send it over to the city and and the the feedback I get is that they don't get a response and they don't get as
responsive concern as they do with the county. And so I've actually seen it happen where people come to us with their issues more even when it's outside of our jurisdiction because we are very responsive >> and that is a good way to be. I don't know if that was the same I don't know
if there was that same difference in responsiveness five years ago or 10 years ago and I I don't know if that's the same difference going to be in 5 years or 10 years from now and that's the scope and the time frame with which I think about charter amendments. Um and that's why I'm of two minds of this.
the, you know, as far as annexation and people choosing to live in the city or outside of the city, when I'm knocking doors on folks in unincorporated area, of the few people who knew what the heck a county commission was, they said over and over, we don't want to live in the city and we keep having to move and we
keep having to move. So whether that's because of uh other, you know, whatever changes. So it is a a concern for people and the reason I originally was okay with forwarding
number four um was because I expected that the city citizens would look at ordinance topic by ordinance topic by ordinance topic because I don't think we should take over all the ordinances. I think that's w out of line for us and I
and I don't I don't assume that that's what was intended but I don't want anyone to misunderstand um my intention in supporting that to begin with because I think it's important that we and I trust that every one of my colleagues up here and I
believe this are not acting out of emotion or anything. These we all put that to the side and we make our votes individually on on what's in the best interest of the citizens. I see it day in and day out from this commission. Um that we not let what is a temporary
dispute factor into what is a charter amendment change. I think that's very important. That being said, even before any dispute came up recently about recent issues, I've had concerns that there's certain ordinance topic areas that it doesn't
make sense where we can have conflicting ordinances. We there are certain ones uh development codes we have a joint office but not the ordinances are not all the same. Uh we've decided in the past environmental management would be different and I think there are those specific areas for that but I'm not
going to support going forward on four now because I want well one thing I'm sure all 21 members watch this commission and so they know it's an issue and they I I trust them to bring up it topic by topic. I just I would hate for it to start off as a blanket
we're taking over, which I don't think is how it's intended, but I think that's where it's flowed down the river of conversation to um and uh and so that's why I'm going to change my mind on this um to not support it going through in the hopes that they will take up the
individual few issue topics for that. Um and and again I'll just leave it with um leave it with that and say how much we love our city colleagues too. That's why I know I'm a city resident. >> All right, Commissioner Proctor and then
I'll say a few words and then >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh the de facto city government that we keep talking about the city. We're talking about John Dailyaly, Curtis Rich, and Diane Williams Cox. That's who we talking about. Um and to your point uh uh
Commissioner uh Miner uh it is uh us versus them and you have to see that in the city's own handling within internal city government. There's three and there's two and if you don't see that
sir um I'm asking you to study some voting records of the city if you don't see that. So, not only is it applied outside beyond the three who it we're really referencing as the city, the de facto power of the city and they
practice an exclusionary uh strong arm, hardback, hard ball, and they don't even include certain commissioners voices. uh one of their little members can't
even be a vice chair or nothing. Can't be the vice mayor. I ain't telling you nothing that I don't observe. That's what I see. um involuntary annexation uh county administrator
did occur down there at uh between four four point between Crawfordville and Woodville Highway when the city went down and the people said please they voted they voted in front of uh it was 71
2 or 3% 70 some% voted not to be annexed and the city went down there and annexed gerrymandered particular properties. And if you look at that thing now, it look like we as cheese. This is why when you come to number
three, Commissioner Miner on how the city behaves on us versus them. I want this area inside of Capitol Circle inside of Capitol Circle.
uh from Spring Hill Road back over to uh all the way back round to Woodville Highway, back down to Blairstone, back down to um Orange Avenue, back down to Monday Street, all these areas that are
inside the USA, the urban services area, but they cannot be annexed in the city. Now I am looking at commissioners and I wanted number three to go but county attorney has
written all this written and seems like this this thing got disease but the question is about the voter suppression. Yeah. Uh is it dense? Yeah. Population wise people live side
by side by side across the street side by side. It's tight. It's tight end right for annexation. Um, is it contiguous to an existing city? Is it an enclave? No, it's not an enclave. It It's right. It It's
contiguous to an existing city line. There's no excuse except I am saying that black voters who pay city utilities are being excluded out of the city because the city does not want these black
voters to vote in city election. And there's a heap of them or let me say a whole lot of them or let me say they are many. That right there is racial politics and the annexation and who to keep out is
based on race and voting and power and white power. Now you might say we got two black commissioners up there with the with the mayor. I don't care about the lame duck quack quack mayor. He got two people
going to vote for the mayor. Period. that you you you you have you seen the voting commission miner look at it sometimes and when you say the city us versus them I don't know what color jersey you wear but when the mayor says
that I ain't going to have a city commissioner uh naming those streets or telling us what we can't do that's us versus them when the city proposes a 22% increase in fire fees leave and have not
done a rate study per the agreement. Have not talked to our administrator, no negotiation, and we said no, but they we offered a 17%. Uh they said no. So to
perpetrate this act of piracy against citizens that we stood up to say no, we're not going to allow piracy to occur and to violate the contract which we are abiding by. And then when um to
say well we need to we need to just build our own our own they need to build their own. See when you say that somebody needs to do their own thing that means it's us versus them. They don't want you a part of theirs. So they tell you get your own. That's what that
word own stands for. Separate. That's what they believe. So when the city goes and borrows $10 million beyond what we shook hands on and we didn't know nothing about it, $10 million.
and then says because we wouldn't allow them to commit piracy against the citizens of this community with an upcharge of 22%. And get then got mad and and have still level of 10%. They going to get 10% and
then say we're not going to build the Southside fire truck station because we don't have the funds. Well, damn. What you going to do with the 10 million extra? you done borrowed for the purpose of building it. See, so it is a us
versus them because even when you set money to build something for the Southside and then borrow 10 more million dollars and you got multiple times more money and we still can't get a a station built. That's just them
versus us. It keeps going down and lame duck himself got two people support him. That's crazy. But he ain't going to be there. They ain't going to be there. And we ain't going to be there. But that's the way it is today. And the only place
that I live and only place I can breathe is in today and go by what I see. And the city has extended sewer services um on the other side of Capitol Circle
in a place called Southwood, but the people on this side on Monday Street can't get sewer services. Uh HR Horton comes down there um the other day last year and HR Horton is building um yeah,
I said lame duck. Um, HR Horton is down there across the street from the from Capitol Circle and they in the city, but people who've been inside of Capitol Circle cannot get sewer. That's that's
them versus us. Commissioner Min, you don't have that problem on your side of town. I get pipes go way up late Jackson. I get that you you you okay. Your folk is okay. But I'm I'm right here, right down the street inside of
Capitol Circle and can't get people included, annexed in. They got everything going for them. Uh they contiguous, they got density and all the other elements there. But Mr. Chairman, they are paying they are paying
municipal utilities to the city of Tallahassee, but they cannot vote. we may see things differ. Um, my site uh is formed and the reality is what I've seen and the city
puts pipes way up in the chairman's district, way up in your district, way out in Commissioner O'Keefe's district, but I be damned. I can't get a pipe to come down in Capitol Circle to save my life. Something is wrong. something is
ary it's racial and uh quack quack lame duck and his two uh people who are the city that's what that's this is what they're running that's where we are and so number three ought to be a part of
this package but the um it doesn't got me for >> by the county attorney but I am um we're for because the city is out of control they out of control and they'll stand up and go up 22% on everybody and somebody
ought to be guarding this community and we are trying to. So I don't wear their jersey. If you want the color jersey, you wear it. All this peace in the valley and all like that. That's not what they're doing. 22% in these hard times. No, we must stand them down and
we deserve that power. Per power. Thank you. >> All right. So, commissioners, we've got the it's a not a substitute. It's the motion, right? The motion for to move forward to the CCRC excluding number seven to give to staff. Commissioner Miner, you're you're good. All right.
I'm going to support the motion only because I think that why not let the CCRC chew on it. Uh I may very well vote against it if it comes back, but I don't need to like pontificate on that. I think it's just why not? I mean,
the county attorney says it's within our jurisdiction. We already do it for environmental regulation. Why not let the CCR I mean, if we truly want to know a citizen, a representative citizen group, they'll they may very well say this terrible idea, too. So, why not? I
mean, like I said, we're not voting on its final passage now. So, uh, that's where I'm at. Commissioners, we've got a motion. And who was the seconder? I think it was Comm It was Commissioner Proctor. So, we've got a motion from Commissioner Kaban to move item number
four to the CCRC and a second from Commissioner Proctor. Uh, Commissioner Maddox, did you just jump in? >> I wouldn't make the motion. >> Okay. Um, Commissioner Commander, do you want to hop? >> Yeah. And also, was the um removing
number seven and giving that to staff >> whatever whenever he asked the amendment I >> rephrase. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Caban. Yes. So the the friendly amendment uh was to basically take number seven um off this list. So it's not presented to the CCRC
because it's a technical issue. Instead, what this friendly amendment would do was direct staff to do the the work, put the agenda item together, present it to the county commission, which hopefully would then attain a two-thirds majority vote to put it on the ballot, saving the CRC, CCRC time on something that's not a
policy issue. >> All right. So, and Commissioner Maddox, help me out here. So, we're voting on a motion, not a substitute motion. motion. >> Yeah. So, you're going to make a a motion after this motion. Can we do that once we dispense of this item? >> Of course. >> Okay.
Um All right. Uh so, all those in favor of the motion on the floor, seconded by or made by Commissioner uh Caban, second by Commissioner Proctor, signify by saying I. I. >> Uh all opposed? Nay.
>> Okay. So, it fails. 43. Uh >> wait, no. >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It what? >> The substitute motion failed. >> There's a motion. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, we just >> Did you vote four again? >> I voted four. >> Okay, it passed. >> Oh, okay. So, the substitute motion did
pass. >> Now, the main motion passed 43. >> Okay. The main motion passed 43. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we're done with the item, right? >> Okay. All right. So, uh, commissioners, I think we're now on commissioner time. Is that correct? >> Yes. That is or I'm sorry. Uh m Madam
County Attorney, do you have anything for us or >> No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. >> All right, Mr. Administrator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioners, I'm just seeking u your authorization to uh given the city's uh official notice uh to us on their intent to terminate the fire
services agreement to uh hire a uh consultant um uh through a competitive solicitation. Um and I uh to begin uh the process uh of evaluating alternatives um as we've
made very clear obviously the continuous level of ser the the current level service will continue through the remainder of the contract. However, it's not too soon to begin exploring uh alternatives and so I would just seek your authorization uh tonight uh to to
do that. Of course, I would bring back uh the results of of the competitive solicitation along with budget and timeline and all those details back to this board for your approval, but I would need your authorization to proceed with. >> Mr. Chairman, I move um authorization of the request made by uh our county
administrator. >> We got a motion second by Commissioner Miner. Is there any discussion? >> Discussion. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm going to ask also for a friendly amendment on that, Commissioner um Proer to also in
uh direct the our county attorney to request a um asset list for all the fire stations. I'm going to pass this on to go on there. >> That would be
applicable. That's yours in our in it in the transition and sale for the county. And this I'm passing some documentation to go along with that. >> I don't know if I said that correctly. >> Yeah. Could you restate that? >> So, >> I think we're good on this one.
>> Okay. Take that. >> Yeah. I need that one. >> I need I need one more coffee. Sorry, I messed that up. This one. I need that. I give it. >> It's all right. >> All right. So, commissioners, I'm I'm sending to you um a page from our
interlocal agreement. And Matt, can we put this up there by chance? [Music] >> Should be enough. But commissioner, tell us what these were extracted. >> I will. So, so this is the page from our interlocal agreement with the city and
uh this is basically the portion that talks about what happens to to assets if this agreement is terminated. And so in section two it says upon termination of this agreement the city agrees to sell at the sole option of the county fire stations 10 through 14 inclusive of land
or any interest therein and the structures attached there too to the county at a price equal to the city's investment in the same but in no event to exceed 525,000. So, Madam Attorney, based on our our briefing today, our your interpretation
is that stations 10 through 14 must be sold to the county for a total of $525,000, >> not to exceed it. >> Not to exceed. >> That's correct. >> So, 15. >> And then it says fire station 15 inclusive of land or any interest therein and the structure attached there
too to the county, the price equal to the city's investment. Insane. for my research this morning. Um I believe that was built in 1998 or 2000 maybe. >> Yeah. And um I believe it was built just
shy of $3 million. I could be wrong. I just obviously would defer to the city's documentation. And then furtherance, it talks about upon termination of this agreement, the city agrees to sell to the county at the sole option of the county all firefighting apparatus and
vehicles located in stations 10 through 14 for a price equal to the unamorrized portion of the equipment using a 15-year depreciation schedule for each tanker, pumper, engine, and a 10-year depreciation schedule for each quick response vehicles and brush truck. So,
from my interpretation of this, uh, the equipment for those fire stations must be sold to us on a 15-year depreciation schedule and a 10-year depreciation schedule. And so, um, I wanted to point that out because
I want to make sure that, you know, clearly there's we have discrepancies with our counterparts at the city on terms of this agreement. And I think it would be dangerous to wait until the end of the agreement to see to work on that transition of equipment. And so as part
of the friendly amendment, Commissioner Proctor, I would like the county attorney to start working through the asset transition process. So that way if there is a hold up at the end of the term of this agreement, we I mean we have to be able to have this infrastructure to provide service
to the unincorporated residents. Uh madame attorney is what commissioner caban uh gerine to the motion in terms of the scope of the uh consultant that would look at what administrators suggested.
>> Well, I mean it it could be because that would potentially any assets that the county would have to provide the services would be relevant to whatever the provision of those services would look like. after the termination of the
interlocal agreement. >> Absolutely. Then I'm I'm comfortable. >> All right. So, we've got a uh motion for um county administrators recommendation to hire a consultant included inclusive of this language dealing with equipment
and facilities. Uh and was there a second? I think yeah, there was a motion. Who was a second? >> Who was the motion? >> He made the motion. >> I made the motion. >> Who? We need a second. Okay, we got a second. Mr. Cavan, you
got minor. >> Oh, minor made a second. >> Is that >> If the affirming if the affirming amendment is accepted, I will send my second. >> Okay, so the friendly amendment is >> put point. Go ahead. >> So, Commissioner Miner, so you want to wait to the end of this agreement. What you're saying to start transitioning
assets to look at the dollar amount to make sure that the city is going to transition the assets to the county. That's what the motion is. So, what you're saying is we're not going to know if the city is going to transition the assets to the end of the agreement. So, what I'm saying is for the county
attorney to work with this to to see to start working on the process of the transition to assets and ask for an a inventory schedule. Otherwise, at the end of this agreement, we I mean, we have to have this infrastructure. M chairman.
>> Um, no, I'm not saying that at all. I think the friendly amendment is premature. I think we have uh and I'll ask the county attorney for county administrator for this question. Um this the friendly amendment that's been
described is not required to be done now. Is that correct? When >> just answer that question first. >> This would be upon termination of the agreement. These things would happen. It's not a matter of if they happen. And these things do happen based on a
depreciation schedule. So you're giving me the authorization to proceed with an exhaustive analysis of your alternatives. This would be included in that if the board wants that >> sooner. This will be a long-term thing. If you want that information earlier, our analysis would include this
information because it's going to consider all of the alternatives. But if you want that information sooner then maybe it would come out in through the process then certainly we could we could do that but this would be included in that process.
>> So so this would be included in meaning that in your evaluation you would be seeking and communicating with the city that they're going to transition the assets and they plan and intend to transition the assets. >> Yes, we would be evaluating this. We would be providing estimates to the
board on what these things would would cost ultimately what what the impact of all of this would be certainly because some some alternatives again may include you know again the the termination of this agreement. Some might include the the uh the continuation or or some other
revised agreements. But yes, we would begin working on this through the process. Okay. >> But if you want to put a timeline on that where when it would come back to you, we could do that. >> Okay. So just to clarify on the friendly amendment um this is basically getting the the getting the
starting the process but not executing the the sales not executing the transactions. >> Correct. My can I if I may for elaborate. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Right now we are currently in a disagreement over terms of this
contract. Okay. My fear is that as we go to the end of this contract, when it comes time to divide up the assets, if there is a disagreement, the city currently owns these and they may withheld transferring these to us. At
that point, we are in trouble because we have to provide fire. Correct? So, what I'm saying this is the infrastructure per our agreement to provide service. So, I would rather know sooner than later if they intend to say, "Yeah, this is correct. We're going to transfer these
to you." Or they're going to say, "No, we disagree." At that point, we need to know now so the our madam attorney has the ability to litigate that. That's my premise of >> Okay. >> the friendly amendment. >> So, just to be just be crystal clear, you're not the friendly amendment is not
initiating the sale of these stations. >> Okay, that's fine. I I'll support the friendly amendment. >> So, >> okay. Um, so let's get back in order, commissioners. Um, we've got a motion to the county administrator's recommendation, um, with a friendly
amendment. Uh, I let me just hop in here and say I I like that idea because I want to be able to go to my constituents and say, "Oh, by the way, so I would prefer we get that information back as soon as possible, not necessarily waiting how long it might take for the analysis to get to that information
because I want to be able to reassure my constituents that this is in fact true that that these stations have to be sold back to the county and all that kind of stuff." So you do. >> Yeah. I mean, in that sense, we just got confirmation that that's the case. >> On point, though.
>> Okay. Um, Commissioner Dermatics on point. And then we're going to go to Commissioner O'Keefe and then Commissioner Proctor. >> Can they say no? >> Can who say that? >> The city. >> Well, they did breach your agreement, but So, I would say no, but I can't
predict what the city will say or what position. Don't get me wrong, I know they can they can say no, but it's it's up there in black and white. We're asking for the cost estimate of what it will cost to transfer that property back
to us. So, >> so what Commissioner Command asked me about in the briefing related to this, the fire station pieces seem on their face to be pretty definitive, but what
value are they going to put on fire station 15? We don't know. It would be good to know that, right? >> So, we're asking about on 15. Okay, gotcha. So, and and we don't know what their inventory looks like for >> uh firefighting apparatus and vehicles
for fire stations 10 through 14, etc., etc. It would be good to have that information as you're planning if there is in fact a transition, a transfer of assets to get that information. That is, I think, what what was at the the heart of what Commissioner Caban was
proposing that we do is validate what they think would transfer an assets and then see if we agree so that if we don't, we can resolve those disputes sooner rather than later in the process. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. We've got a motion and a
second. Commissioner O'Keefe, you are up followed by Commissioner Pro and Commissioner Cummings. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. chair, you can direct this wherever um you need to. Is this information already going to be considered by a consultant that we're
giving you permission to do to analyze all the options um and all the possibilities? >> Yes, it will. However, we've got no problem again with with Yeah. And and you know, and I want to say clarifying with the city specifically and early
upfront what their valuation numbers are. We've got no problem doing that. Um, again, this would be included in that analysis, but we would also be receptive to this direction to get that sort of clarified early on in the process. >> And is this information news to you or you're well aware of this?
>> I wrote this. >> I thought so. >> Thank you. >> I thought so. I That's one of the questions I asked. I knew the answer. Um, and I appreciate Commissioner Kaban bringing this up because it brings to the public's attention that this is not such
a dire situation where we're going on the Amazon of fire stations and having to um to to do that. However, the reason I won't support the motion with the added stuff is because
my concern is that we're in a dispute and now we're in a series of disputes and we're in what we hope is a negotiation period over the next 3 years with some level of outcome that could be as hopeful as we're able to ink a
similar agreement into the future or as uh disastrous or more difficult as we're standing up a standalone fire system. Um all of which I trust our county commission can do in a way that supports a current or higher level of service to
our residents, but those are all outcomes. And I'm not a fan of trying to take all the future disagreements that we'd work through and pull them all to right now and say, "Let's find out everywhere where we disagree and are
going to fight over the next 3 years and do it now." I don't think that's I don't think that's how good negotiations work. And I don't think that helps us get to a resolution on what we're looking at now. And so I uh I'm not going to support this because I don't I'd rather just give the
information that says here's what we're supposed to get which is in the contract and I don't think we need to go ask the city hey are you going to honor your agreement 3 years from now. I think um that's going to be part of the process and I just
don't think we as a commission need to insert ourselves at this level of detail at this time. I trust that it it's it's in the works with our county administrator and our county attorney. And I would never want to be on the other side of the negotiating or court
or arbitrator table opposite them. And I just I'm I'm getting to the level where this is overmanaging letting them do the process and and and risking whatever collegiality the county administrator can still do. Um I can't
believe I said collegiality. That's really not my thing. Um just I think we're really stepping in to the process more so than we need to and I I don't like that. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um Commissioner Proctor followed by Commissioner C. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh the city the
city the city the city will the city the de facto city and the three commissioners allow all of the citizens of this community to vote on the fate of the hospital. will the city those three people let us vote on whether or not we
want TMH to go. Who is the city? It's three people. Okay, that's what we talking about. Now, council, when it comes to those three people uh who ultimately determine the city, I ask um
on the piece of paper uh does 1D do you read one uh or rather D1 uh conjunctively and it sets the context of two
A and 2 B. Um, I'm curious about that and I think that until I'm clear about D1, is it independent of 2 A and B? I read D1 as independent of 2 A and B
simply because D1 is is limited. It's very limited. uh it's it's predicated upon certain equipment and medical supplies provided by the county or purchased by the city solely with funding provided by the county reverting
to the county uh as is no warranty everything else. So that's a different category of property than you're dealing with under 2A or 2B. Those are very specifically
related to fire stations 10 through 14, fire station 15, and then from a firefighting apparatus and vehicle perspective, stations 10 through 14. >> Very good. I'm I'm I'm trying to understand the potency of 2 A and B and
that if in fact the rug is snatched uh from under our feet to indicate that fire stations 10 through 14 were not purchased by the county nor were they purchased through the city with county
money. that therefore um we're um a null and there is no merits to two A and B. >> Again, I read D1 is applying to a different category of property than D2 A and B.
>> Good. Good. Then um I think that we have a very u it's not a question of this is a question that the the u the pin is already pulled from uh the grenade. It's live. Uh this is nothing really
negotiated. It's already contracted. It's a provision. And so we look forward to uh those four stations for I mean and if you consider that uh 18hole golf course is about 1.1
one something of a million $1 million and certainly um um this is a this is we paying way more for these four stations at 500,000 uh than people who may get a deal for a
million dollars for 18 hole and uh almost 200 acres worth of dirt. So, yeah. All right, Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to vote for this and u let's do the right thing and support the motion. >> Thank you, Commissioner Proctor. Commissioner Cummings, followed by Commissioner Miner and the vice chairman.
>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I I don't have a major problem. Uh, Commissioner Kaban, and I thank you for putting this on the screen, but this is part of part of the agreement that I think it's prudent for us to have that
information at some point, but but I just feel like it's an integral part of what the county administrator is going to bring back, you know, is going to bring back to us at at any rate with some at some point. And I'm not sure
that we need a motion for that. Uh, Mr. County Administrator. This is integral part of what I know it goes along with your motion for authority uh to uh what do solicitation and what have you. This integral part of what you would
ultimately bring back to us anyway. >> It would be uh Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, it would be part of what we would do for sure. You would have again all of these issues dealt with in the analysis, but if it provides the the board more comfort clarifying very early on in the
process what the value of these assets are and that sort of thing, we'd have no problem receiving that direction and doing that. >> Right. Right. But do we need a a separate motion for for that to to come back cuz that's part of what you were going to do anyway anyway. >> Well, I I think it was I think it was authorized in the county attorney to to
start in that process, too. So again, if if if that if that clarification was desirable by the board, we'd be happy to accept it. >> Okay. >> All right. Commissioner Miner, then Commissioner Kaban. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very quick. Commissioner Caban, thank you for
explaining the friendly amendment uh in some more detail. Uh I I'll support the motion with the friendly amendment. Um my point when I didn't quite understand the full intent of the friendly amendment, it's I just want to say it's it's premature to initiate the transfer of the properties.
uh which is what I I I misunderstood you uh saying, but uh it's clearly that we're not doing that. So, I support the motion on the floor and the friendly amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Commissioner Command. You want to close us out? >> Thank you. I I do want to just clarify again that um the the spirit of the
motion is not to is not for um to re be redundant, but what the county administrator is doing. What I would like to do is seek have the attorney seek clarification that there's an understanding with the city that these are going to be transferred to us on that because right now it's too it's too
risky for us to wait till the end of the agreement and then say no we interpret this differently. That's that was the so we're all on the same page. Thank you. >> All right, commissioners. We've got a motion and a second. Um is there any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I. All opposed. Passes unanimously. Uh, anything else, Mr. Administrator? >> No. >> All right, we're in the commissioner discussion time. We'll just take it as it comes. Anybody want to go first? >> Mr. Chairman, I counted the rule. >> Commissioner Parker, let's get let
Commissioner Maddox go first. He he jumped you there. >> Great meeting, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Proctor, you're up. >> Thank you, M. Uh, Chair. Commissioners, I've shared with you uh a letter addressed directly to you um suggested
that let the voters decide whether Leyon County should operate fire services. I'd like to see this u uh matter sent to our new committee and um I've stated to you uh reasons u 10 of them of why my
confidence is solid that Leon County uh is capable and well able to sustain support coordinate uh the services of fire uh through professionals. I've also indicated in this letter to you that um
during the time which uh I held a town hall meeting uh last year on Commissioner Welch's district uh at the host uh library uh it was a standing room only of people from across the
community uh who were very disheartened. uh the morale of those who work as fire workers for the city is quite quite um shattered. And I do believe that um a strong point in our consideration of uh
accepting uh the idea that the county do its own fire services. Uh, I do believe that what is probably one of the stronger merits is that the firefighters
would likely prefer working uh the atmosphere uh in the ambiance of Leon County. Uh we are not a employer that bullies our employees. We're not a county that would take three
years um to negotiate a contract for. Uh we're just not that county that has great consternation with any segment of pocket of workers. And I don't think that we're a county that would stiff and make difficult uh
the occupation of those who did not support us for commissioner and for those multiple reasons of uh high morale um the stleness of uh what our county
represents. Uh all of those are factors with which uh I'm excited to offer you this letter and um ask your support of this being among uh and going with item uh four number four. And so I offer this
as a motion that we let the consideration of uh of uh the county and fire service let them know on the bone. Should we give uh voters consideration in 2026?
Uh our agreement ends in 2028. Uh we got four fire stations for 525,000. It's a good start. And maybe by 2029, we'll be ready ready to launch Leyon County's fire services. I've
indicated to you in this letter that Leon County uh operates emergency management. uh you're familiar outstanding job awardwinning. I've indicated to you in this letter that we do um recovery, we
do rescue, we do um um storm um aftermath. Uh lots of reasons here. And I also share with you probably one of the more outstanding features of why we can be excited is that our county is led by one of the nation's outstanding
county administrators who um in my years of observing him has never dropped a ball or failed at any challenge that um he's been faced with. And some of those challenges were certainly not encouraged
by the board, but such as the EMS. Uh the baby left on the doorstep and he picked that baby up, nurtured that baby. And that baby is an awardw winning. I see you over there, Chief. How you doing tonight? Chief is smiling. He has a
smile wrapped around the back of his head and he's he's smiling and um but he knows true that um it it may sound but I'm telling you nothing but the facts. Uh we have taken every challenge and there is nothing that the city is
pointing out that is intimidating that's going to leave us flustered. Uh crap. This is just an opportunity for us to take fire services to a higher level. And if you gave this to the union of uh
Tales firefighters, would you work for the county as your employer or would you rather be with the city? I stand up on all the money in Caban's back pocket that they will vote for the county. That's what I'm telling you. So,
I'm asking your support of this that it it continues in the spirit of the thrust of everything that's moving forward. So, that's my motion. Madame attorney, is this in the right posture? If the board um directs this matter to
go to the CCRC for consideration, it is something that um legal analysis would have to be provided to the CCRC to determine >> um what would be permissible in a charter related to taking over the fire services
department, which is the city's fire department. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have it come back as an agenda item first and then consider sending it to the CRC? >> I mean that that would give this body more information to go on beforehand.
Either way, I mean a legal analysis is going to have to be conducted. >> Mr. Prior, personally, I would feel more comfortable seeing some analysis on it before we send it to the CRC. I think I could withdraw my motion, reshape it in the spirit and the context of county's attorney that we look at this as an
agenda item. >> I'll second that. >> All right, we got a motion in a second. Commissioner O'Keefe, you're in the a queue to discuss. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh what concerns me about this is that it takes the
position in in here in the letter recommending that we end the fire service agreement in 2028 concluding the current contract. I don't think that's a smart legal move because we are currently in a dispute process directing our county attorney to
defend that same agreement that is allowing us to keep rates uh flat and that we are hoping to defend when it comes to buying and transferring assets. So I think anything that be could be construed as us preemptively accepting
ending a contract we are defending is is not a good idea. The other reason is I don't know that that we could hold both governments to the outcome of a referendum.
And so this seems like it's uh so for not this reason I'm not comfortable moving forward this to start with. Thank you, >> Commissioner O'Keefe. I think that analysis will probably cover all that, but I I hear you on that. I think there's some questions with the the
structure of it, but that's why I would rather see an item come back. So, uh, Commissioner Cummings, you're in the queue. >> Oh, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um, the motion is for an agenda item to come back on Commissioner Proctor's letter. Oh, okay. Because if I'm not if I'm not
mistaken, the city's already given us notice that they're terminating the Am I Am I correct, Mr. >> But that's three years. >> County administrator because we did get that letter. >> Yes. >> Saying that they've already told us that they are terminating it. Correct. >> Yes. But there's three years left, you
know. >> Right. Right. Right. >> We're hopeful for an out >> and Commissioner Proctor says in what 2028. So we want to >> well he's correct that we are fighting this >> right so we in that ADR process >> but but it is scheduled to um sunset in
2028 period. >> So so I I I agree Mr. Chair I think the best pro posture is for an agenda item to come back because a lot of discrepancy in here. We need some clarification and direction and I think the county attorney can provide that to
us. >> Perfect. Commissioner Maddox. >> Mr. Chair, I I um I can't support the motion on the floor. I I um understand the spirit of it. Um what analysis is coming back madam attorney is
um whether it be would it be suitable uh for us to send to the CRC and for their review us taking over fire services for the whole city and county. That's that's what you're going to look at. Correct.
That's not >> that's not that's >> that's not the agenda item. >> That's the agenda item coming. >> Uh what I have is to bring back an agenda item of whether to have the CCRC consider whether to put fire department operation and management on the ballot
because that's with the verbiage that's used in this document. But if my understanding of what the motion is is incorrect, please let me know. But that's what I understood the motion to be. Right. >> I think that was a motion. Um,
is is is fire services something? I guess this would be an analysis. I I I don't um >> Yeah, I'll vote against a motion on the floor. Thank you. >> All right, Commissioner Miner. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um,
we have a fire service analysis coming to us which will provide uh the range of options that are available to the the county on what to do. And so until I see that um I can't support the the agenda
item coming back. I I want to I want to see that analysis coming back outlining all of our different options. um that should very clearly tell us which options are the the the best for us in serving the people in Lyon County. And I I want to see that document and read
that through before I vote on something like this even as an agenda item for now. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Commissioner Mer. I um I'll support the item just because I'm willing to see an analysis, but I am unlikely to support this item when it comes back. Um, all right, commissioners. We've got a motion from
Commissioner Proctor and a second from Commissioner Kan. Um, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. All opposed? >> Nay. >> Okay. So, we've got four yeses, three nos. I think that's right. Commissioner O'Keefe, Commissioner Miner, and
Commissioner Maddox in opposition. >> All right. Uh, Commissioner Proctor, you're still up for commission, but please I wanted to say to u uh publicly to say because I've conveyed u to the county administrator as well as to the u
county attorney how delighted and pleased I was to read the uh op ed by our county administrator in Sunday's u newspaper um in times of um disarray,
mayhem, and uncertainty uh in government at multiple levels. It was absolutely good to read and garner a um sense of stability and
direction and vision. Uh, I thought that the 2025 uh annual report for the county uh was outstanding and even though I probably said these same words last week about that report
and looking glad about those pictures and not a whole bunch of words but those pictures captured the activity levels uh the excellence efficiency of our staff. marshalling
um multitude of projects same time and um I think I was prouder on Sunday and realize uh that beyond last Tuesday when initially we got uh last Monday when we
got the um report but to see it written in Sunday's paper um and to take it all in uh Vince It's a outstanding job. And then we saw um that back page um you
reported to the community, the annual report uh which our government rightfully ought share and put forth to the community and um that was transparency. Um
you you told the people and I appreciated that. And then we had uh which is a tradition we had an employment um section that the county is open for the best people to
make effort to apply for a job. So at multiple levels um our efforts to receive the talent of the community uh our doors are still open. I was excited.
uh the report was way up there and then the visual report of the to the community the annual report uh was exceptional. So shouts out. Uh I want y'all commissioners to know we uh ponder
about Rick Miner sometimes here and there once in a while and then he ponders about me all the time. Um you know um and it's okay but we shouldn't miss that we got a great staff of our
administrator and attorney and often times Mr. Maddox, we don't know how good our running back is. Um, until you're looking in the rear view mirror and that running back is not there and next
season everybody talking about we can't get a first down, man. We Nick, we Nick ain't here no more. You know, we miss people when they gone. And Vince, we going to enjoy you while you're here. Then finally tonight, uh,
ladies and gentlemen, gives my heart. um great um joy um that I received a telephone call about 10:45 yesterday morning. A young lady I know something about um
whose name is Haley Proctor uh called her daddy and said that she had taken it she had passed the Florida bar. So, so um I was all shook up and disturbed and um it was a beautiful thing. And so
tomorrow evening um shouts out the Florida&M whose passage rate was 76% uh on on bar passage. uh Florida State uh passage was um um great day 88% way
up there 92 or something and um both our universities uh did very good at the bar uh this year. So those things being said, Mr. Chairman, um I thank you for your leadership and your running of the meeting, your patience with I mean me
and you got more patience with these guys. I mean we we we think alike, Mr. German and we both are very patient with these jokers and u I appreciate you holding that end of the day us down and I'm trying to keep them from running wild on this side and uh we just
Commissioner Cummus why you looking at me in that tone of voice I'm through. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Commissioner Proctor. Commissioner, before we move on to the next commissioner, I wanted to uh ask if there's anybody in the audience that want to speak on non-aggended items since we this is a normal meeting. Um,
do we have any speakers? >> We have no speaker cards. >> Okay, >> Mr. Chairman. >> All right. Uh, Commissioner Cummings, you want to go next on uh, Commissioner Time? >> Mr. Chair, I don't have anything. Great meeting. Congratulations, Commissioner Product on your daughter. So, we've got another member of the bar. I don't have
anything. Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Commissioner Miner. You want to go? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Really quickly, um you may have seen this uh advertised already, but the um the Tallahassee Lyon County Planning Department is hosting a
series of public engagement meetings on the comp plan. And as you all may know, the the comprehensive plan for Lyon County and Tallahassee is done jointly together. Um that that basically is a plan on how this community is going to grow and where it's going to grow over
the next 25 years. The first one, the first community meeting is going to be held uh this Thursday, September 25th at 5:30 at the Lake Jackson Community Center. Um I encourage if if you've got the time and ability to go, please go. Uh there'll be discussions about the urban services area, which is the the
boundary where um infrastructure is committed. There'll be discussions about land use. Uh very important discussions, a little wonky, I understand, but but very important for the future of the community. So, if you have a chance to go to the one on Thursday, please go. Um, if you can't attend the one on
Thursday, uh, please take a look at our Lyon County website because, uh, they'll have the dates of the other meetings taking place in other parts of the county. And then the other thing is, um, you've got, uh, Haley Proctor, >> congratulations on on passing the bar.
Um, I've got two daughters in the back who have access to a box of cupcakes >> and u, they've already eaten six so far. So, I got to get back there and and put the kibash on that. But, uh, Mr. Chairman, thanks for, uh, running a great meeting. Appreciate it. >> Yes, sir. Well, they are good cupcakes. I hope they save some.
>> Commissioner O'Keefe, you want to go for it? >> It's funny, Commissioner M. I got a note in crayon that says, "Please talk longer." >> U, I I don't have anything. I just want to I appreciate everybody up here. It is, uh, what's better than having the
best county administrator in the world is being the best commission in Leyon County. Oh my goodness. That was that was that was something. Now, um, Commissioner Maddox, you want to go one more time. >> Thank you. Uh, that was that was pretty slick. There's only one commission in
there. That's pretty dope. Um, I wanted I wanted to I wanted to bring out a point. First of all, I said it earlier, but Mr. Chairman, great meeting. >> Thank you. >> Um, I wanted to point out something to our constituents and uh those who watch our meetings and to this board. Um, I
will say that the past couple meetings, uh, we have fought like cats and dogs. Uh, made points, been passionate about those points. Um, but yet and still there's a there's a sense of collegiality amongst the board and friendship that I appreciate. I want you
guys to know I value each and every one of you, your opinions, and what you believe in. And I like the way we do business at Leyon County. And I'm hoping that uh as we continue to to serve together that we'll always do business this way. But um you know it's just to
me I think it's a point to be made. the the passion in our conversations and even uh the way we we speak to each other in passion, there's still a sense of respect that happens between each one of us and that needs to be noted and uh
I wouldn't be a part of any other commission besides this one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. And I second everything you said. Uh Mr. Vice Chair, you want to take a shot at it? you know, uh, Commissioner Maddox, someone could say that, uh, we're the adults in the
room, but I don't know. Um, you know, I really, uh, I want to echo the sentiments of, uh, Commissioner Maddox, and, uh, appreciate all you, and I know that, um, we're all just trying to do the best to represent our our our districts and and community and neighbors. And, uh, I also want to give
a big shout out to the chairman. I think uh the that we we've had a tremendous leadership from our chairman particularly on this fire services fire services fee issue. Um I think that he's uh held this all to a a collegial standard. I really appreciated the oped
in the paper too laying out the timeline and I heard a tremendous amount of positive feedback about that and um I I do think we owe it to our chairman just how he's conducted these meetings not only this year but over the last few months as well. So that's true. >> Thank you Mr. vice chair and and thank
you all. I love our board and I love our government and I love our um our staff and the way we do things and I really appreciate everybody's collegiality and bearing with me as I kind of wink at you to wrap it up, but um uh I just have one
quick proclamation. Not ironically, uh I would like to ask someone to request a proclamation that we recognize our volunteer firefighters and volunteer fire departments at the upcoming fire truck roundup. I like the timing of that. Yes. >> Uh we've got a motion from Commissioner
O'Keefe and a second from anybody, Commissioner Cummings. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. It. And passes unanimously. Uh thank you commissioners and um uh we will see you all in October. And uh thank you for
a good meeting. We are journ [Music] right? So, you can use a a weather report, a to-do list, a public service
announcement, a police report, blah blah blah, a set of diction, whatever to tell your story or to tell Huck.