calling our meeting to order. It's uh 5:15. Um we'll start off with um call on the roll, I guess, since we do have one member present. Um and before we do that, Mrs. Marlor called and notified me
that Mr. Marlor um had been hospitalized here recently. I believe it was re uh released yesterday. So, he's going to be unable obviously to make the the meeting tonight. Um, so if anyone wants to make a motion to excuse Mr. Marlor's absence, please do
so. >> I make a motion. Second. >> All right. Motion by Mr. Tucker. Second. Second by Mr. Scra. Any public commentary? Any discussion? None heard. City manager, you call a vote. >> Mr. Tucker? >> Yes. >> Mr. Scra? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Switzer? >> Yes. >> Chairman Langford? >> Yes. Motion passes. is absent is excused. Um so moving on to item number two. Um additions, deletions or modifications to the agenda. Um so maybe
you have any um I would like to two things. First would be motion to um move items four and five after six and seven. Um,
I'd prefer to continue our discussion before moving on to tabled items that will open up other lengthy discussions. >> Okay. Is there any uh discussion regarding that? >> No discussion. Um, there's a motion to
by Mr. gray to move items four and five uh to it would become the new six and seven and six and seven seven would move up to four and five respectively. Is there a second? >> I'll second.
>> Okay, there a motion by Mr. Scra, second by Mr. Tucker. City manager will recall vote. >> Mr. Scra, >> yes. >> Mr. Tucker, >> yes. >> Mr. Switzer, >> yes. Chairman Langford, >> yes. Sorry.
Uh the other item would be um I would like to add after approval of the minutes um to discuss um the clerk final clerk language um for
the ballot question. It came up at the last city commission meeting. Um, and I think we should discuss that and set some final ballot language among and also talk about um if we're going to set it forth any other additional questions
because that's something that was asked of the committee uh by the commission. So >> would you consider adding to your motion the uh a discussion regarding deliverables to the commission and associated with a somewhat of a time
time frame? >> Sure. >> All right. Um so there's a motion on the table. Any discussion? Is there a second? I'll second. >> Okay. Motion by Mr. Scra, second by Mr.
Switzer. City manager. We call a vote. >> Mr. Scra. >> Yes. >> Mr. Switzer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tucker. >> Yes. >> Chairman Lford. >> Yes. Motion passed. Any other additions, deletions, or modification to the agenda? Okay. None heard. Uh moving on to item
number three. Approval of the minutes dated from the meeting dated January 21st, 2026. Is there a motion to approve? >> Motion. >> Motion by Mr. Scra to approve. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Motion by Mr. Scra. Second by Mr. Switzer. City manager. Is there any public discussion? Not heard. City manager. We call vote. >> Mr. Scra. >> Yes. >> Mr. Switzer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tucker. >> Yes. >> Chairman Lford. >> Yes. Motion passed. Uh so item number
well we we'll say now item number four the ballot uh question discussion. Uh this is your agenda. >> Um yeah so I was attended the last commission meeting. Um and there's
excuse me there was lengthy discussion amongst the commission regarding timing of uh a special election for the clerk ballot language. They talked about potentially doing on the super Tuesday
even though Linh doesn't already have an election. They talked about potentially doing it in May. It would be a special election. They also looked at potentially doing it in August with primaries and uh after I brought it up, they also considered November general
election. Um the mayor had asked Chairman Langford to share some information. Um after he spoke, I also went up to speak and share concerns that I have as individually as
a member of the committee. Um the commission effectively they want to move move forward and have the ballot language set up and they'll figure out when it's going to be
on the ballot. Um, they asked about bringing additional items forward and I have a concern with doing that and I think I've talked about this before is there's a lot of references later in the charter that refer back to things we're
working on and talking about now. My concern, for example, the only other thing we're really done with or close to done with is section six. Even if we put section six forward, there could easily become a situation later on in the charter where we when we find uh items
that need to be changed and we change those, it could then affect what we did in six. So my my preference would be that we discuss ballot language, agree on some proposed ballot language to send
to the commission and that we agree that the only thing that would go forth at this time would be the clerk with the goal being that we would continue working on future revisions to be put on
either the August, November, or even April. April city elections. So, I mean, there's three upcoming elections that Dallas will be produced and we could carve those out knowing if they were able to put forth a special election in
May for the clerk. If that passes, then we have the luxury of operating on this committee knowing there's a clerk. Whereas, if it fails, then we have the luxury of operating knowing that there's not going to be a separate clerk position. and the decisions we make as a
committee moving forward after that will be guided by that fact whether it's exists or doesn't exist and I think you did a great job at the meeting bringing that up because I don't think the commission had looked and we've done a
deeper dive into putting the cart before so to speak >> right I mean effectively we jumped ahead to whatever section or chapter number the clerk will now to to get that task and complete it in order to then go back to this beginning
and start over. But um you know, I've I've spent a lot of hours, I'm sure you guys have too, reading through the charter and stuff, and there's a lot of spots where we could easily make minor but important changes based on if
there's a clerk, separate clerk or not. Um, >> Mr. Switzer, do you have any thoughts regarding >> So, just briefly in summary just saying that we should get the language just for the clerk spot and submit that to the
commissioners, let them haggle over, you know, wording and all that and then they can make the decision. Um, >> what are the what are the dates again that we have um to uh kind of like to
add this onto the >> essentially May um August primaries and then the November midterm general election. The May one would be a special election just for Lyn Haven, right? And
then the August ones we would piggy back on primaries and the November one we could piggy back on the general of course >> there are some cost savings with piggybacking the primary or elections. >> I don't know that they're tremendous but
there are some. >> Yeah. And that those cost savings would I mean if we delayed from May to August that would effectively June, July and all of August that's three months worth of our meetings where we we we can continue working. We just have to work
knowing maybe this gets approved by the the voters, maybe it doesn't. I mean I personally believe there's a high probability that it'll pass. So I'm going to >> go forth with that understanding that I believe the probability of it passing
outweighs it failing. But you know we can easily make changes and then it something happens and it's like wow we got to go back and make all these changes. What I wouldn't want is for things to pass on the ballot that are
contingent upon a clerk and for some reason the clerk favors. >> Yeah. And then it's like, okay, then then what do you do from a legal standpoint? That's null then, right? >> Should be nice to know in three months if you have a clerk or not, >> right?
>> So I think the the discussion or the question rather of how many changes we push to the commission when requested. I think it really hinges on the timing, right? And that was kind of what I was
trying to to uh to explain. I was I wasn't prepared. He just asked me to get this speak, but I had no problem doing it. Um, but uh, you know, like I said, I I don't feel like we need to rush to failure, right? So, if if we have some time here to organically rewrite like
what we're doing without any rush or or anything, I I believe if the if the commission asks us for deliverables, we should deliver what we're what we're done within reason, right? And the point that I would bring up the the clerk
reference chap uh versus chapter 6 once we're done with with chapter 6, chapter 6 is pretty much not referenced anywhere else in the charter, right? So once we uh once we essentially slap the table on chapter 6, we're we're pretty much done with it. The clerk, however, it does
have some some areas within the charter that that are also need to be addressed. So, um, my point is is that, you know, if if we're saying that we're ready to push the clerk position to the commission now, but we don't want to add anything else on, I I think that might
be a little bit of a premature decision because we don't know the date that the commission is going to is going to require those deliverables by. So, for example, if we had to deliver something to the commission tomorrow night, I absolutely think that just the clerk and
the clerk only would be it, right? But if we're talking 2 months from now or a month from now, I'm pretty confident that we're going to be able to finish up with chapter 6 and then that would too be a deliverable because I think and you all heard it um when Mayor Lowry spoke
to us, you know, there's going to be a large quantity of proposed changes in the charter that we're going to push to the commission. So, the idea is is that the more we can put on the ballot for each of these piggyback elections or
opportunities, then the better. Um, so I would just I would just kind of keep that in mind as we as we talk through that. >> Do you recall what the date was for the May cuz like I know for the April it was like that in the February. So, it's like >> that was March 20th is the deadline for
May. >> Okay. So we would and and that's to get it to the >> March 20th is the deadline to for the commission to adopt a ballot like a resolution calling for the referendum on that date and setting the ballot which and getting it to an email
>> election falling on >> May I remember the May date um >> I mean ultimately they can pick the date right >> it's going to be May 20 the third week in May. Oh, okay. >> I don't know for sure. She just she just said you could hold stand alone election
in May without language by March 20th. >> 19th is a Tuesday. >> That's probably it. >> Okay. So, we would have to to March 20th. We would have to effectively finish six
by including ballot language by the end of next meeting. maybe one meeting after that if we do it early in March. >> So, which I think it's totally doable. I
just want to I just want to make sure that if we send more than the clerk up that we all five of us um feel confident at that time that nothing else in the charter would come back to force the
changes we made in six to be further changed whether a clerk exists or doesn't exist. Mr. Swisser, did you say? >> Yeah. Um, maybe you can give me some insight because I don't I don't feel any pressure to move to make decisions on
this and to submit it to um the commissioners. There was kind of last week that was a little different where the mayor came in is like, you know, let's do this now or whatever. You know, I didn't I didn't feel pressure from that either. It's just like he kind of
wants things to move. Um, so how do we how do how is the what is the normal process? Do the commissioners say, "Hey, send us what you're ready for," or when we're ready, do we send it to them? Which how does the information? >> There is a normal process. >> Well, I so I think probably in in my
small brain, probably what needs to happen is the commission as a body directs this committee to have deliverables available to them no later than X date, right? and then we as a committee determine what is finalized to
a a point within the charter that we feel comfortable providing to the commission. But um that that's just kind of the way I see it. Um my question though is on that date, is there any left or right wiggle room with that? And here here's why I'm asking this. There's
because there's there's one thing that we we may miss here is that once we push this to the commission, they're going to have to discuss this, you know, and some of these changes are are pretty substantive in nature, right? Um just because we push something to the
commission doesn't necessarily mean that they have to put it on the ballot either. >> Yeah. >> So, you know, they could kick it back to us for for redevelopment or or more development or or whatever. Um or they could say, "Hey, this is this is a fin this is a finalized enough product that
we're we're ready to push it to the citizens on the b via the ballot." And then they could do that. So >> my opinion, what we need is direction from the commission, from the body of the commission saying this is the date that we need deliverables.
>> And what the deliverables are is it? >> I don't think they they don't have the ability to make that decision. No, I'm saying like do they want the text of what we want put in the charter? >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> And ballot language for each section. Yeah. >> Right. >> Yes. >> I thought you were talking about the
areas of the charter. >> No, no, no. Like con um >> content, not subject. >> Correct. >> Like like a completed deliverable to me would be like, okay, we have the clerk
section and the clerk ballot language. Is that that rule for section six? Okay, here's section six, what we want it to look like if it if it passes, and here's a subsequent ballot language. So,
>> does that sound okay with you? >> Yeah, I I agree with you. I'd hate for I think the commission needs to understand the ramifications here. If they make a change in perhaps the the city clerk language and what they're looking for,
that could change the section six some and that puts us back at square one having to to revisit and and they need to understand. So deliverable is a good way of putting it that they understand this follows this follows this. It's dominoes,
>> right? And we also as a group we kind of kept it broad on the clerk language so they could come up with specific duties >> and based on their discussion it sounds like they have specific duties in mind. >> I mean as a citizen I would stand at the
podium and say don't put those specific duties in the charter because then you're stuck with those. like just get the charter language set and you have a clerk and then as a commission you guys set specific duties.
Um so so I I feel like based on what the clerk or what the commission wanted done with the clerk and other other ballot items I would like to when is the next commission meeting?
>> Next Tuesday the 10th. >> Okay. So, I would like to propose that um whether it's through the chairman or through the city city staff relay to the
commissioners that we can we I I want to discuss the ballot language and finish that for the clerk. So, at a minimum we can give them to the clerk. we have items tonight to go through six. If we get really good
progress on an or to finish six, we could also relay that say, you know, we have the clerk, we have section six, and we can deliver that by whatever whatever date they, you know, they need to. It would have to be obviously after February 18th because that's our next
meeting. Is that amable to to >> Yeah, I think it is. I mean, I I think I would request through the city manager that there be a or that the maybe consider having a an agenda item on the
next commission meeting to to discuss exactly what we're talking about as far as deliverables, dates, etc. >> So, would you like it just for you to give a presentation and discussion with the commission? >> I can give a presentation on on where we're at as far as a a a uh a review is
concerned. Um but the ask would be that the body provides us direction as to what items that they need from us and when they need them. >> And then once we you know once once we
have that date then you know we can uh we can obviously provide that data to them based on what we as a committee feel like is is kind of ready for showtime so to speak. I'm just curious other than the city commissioner, I know that's been a big
one. What are some of the other things that the are there other asks from the commission that we um that's kind of like their top priorities that we're already aware of? >> So, the reason we're sitting here today is because of the city clerk, >> right? So, that was our number one
objective to solve, right? And then, you know, if you remember, we we voted to do a comprehensive evaluation of the entire charter, right? So >> I think you know not this isn't I'm not I don't want to speak for them but you know I would assume that that is their >> their ask right is is for for a decision
on on that first >> the rest of the stuff is just >> whatever we we feel needs to be changed. Yeah, I feel the same way having stood there and or sat there and listened to them that uh it was kind of like well
they if we have more stuff ready they don't want to spend 20 grand on an election for just the clerk. >> If we have other items, other questions, if we can have two or three questions, they'll feel better about spending that money to do a special election for it.
Um, I mean, and and that's that's May. I mean, maybe after six we get really into it and we say we can have a third thing, but by the deadline, you know, who knows, right? We got to get there to
start processing before we can figure that out. But >> yeah, >> I feel I feel like we could solve I mean, every I think everybody has a proposed four different options for proposed ballot language for the clerk. I think we can probably pick one of
these now. >> Um, and then I my own drafting and then I let the computer do it. So, >> and the max is 75, right? >> The max is 75. The bot ballot title is going to be 10 questions, but I think there are 10 words. Sorry. Um, but I
think that will be fairly straightforward and non-controversial. >> Shall the city establish the office of city click? I like simple >> well >> and direct. I like >> and with 75 words you're forced to be
that. And so the danger is in oversimplifying it. And there are nuances to the words you use and the words you don't >> because people will read into it what is not there for them. >> So it's it can be tricky. It's a tricky
exercise and I like to get input from you the affected parties. Um but I have never had ballot language that was accepted as is. Politicians usually feel strongly about don't say this, do say this, find a way to say this.
>> Yeah. I feel like if we go with the shorter ones, they're going to be like, "Well, we need to add stuff." And if we go with the long ones, they're going to say, "Wow, that's a lot of words. We need to remove some." So, my vote my vote or preference would be um the
74word AI generated one primarily because of in the very last few it says these duties independently in accordance with state law, city policies, and direction from the city commission. That portion of the statement there is what I
think as a voter is going to be important knowing that they're independent. I mean, we could easily modify one of the other ones to include that, but I would be like, why why modify it when
it's already written? Yeah, >> I like where it says the of course the direction other duties. We've only only got 74 words. He couldn't but other duties. Uh but I do like that. My question is
listening to the mayor. He has said it now three times that I've listened to where he talks about the city clerk treasurer. If we go with something like this and the commission says, "Well, we want
city clerk treasur when they're writing the position description." Can they not put those activities in there? >> So, when they it doesn't need to be in the charter, in my opinion, it can be. It doesn't need to be um generally you can designate your the position of who
is a city city treasurer by resolution. You can do it by ordinance, but you can also change it if particularly if the duties of the city clerk um are not going to be finance-based and you want to make your finance director your city treasurer. Um they can appoint anyone to
be the city treasurer. Um they don't need to be locked in in the charter unless they want to lock themselves in. >> That's Mr. Spray is absolutely right. If we write too much and it locks them in, you don't want to put a position description in your city charter. >> Yeah. I I think I mean if this
commission today 2026 they want the city clerk to also be the treasurer that's fine. Maybe in 2040 the city's growing and that's no longer feasible. The commission can easily change that without us having to
>> as a community have another charter review and another charter vote. I mean it's just to to me that's not as the clerk existing yes or no that's huge that needs to be charter but the clerk
doing a specific duty like treasurer I mean that almost flavor of the day at that point >> I don't know why but I prefer hired over appointed for some reason >> um >> is there a legal difference between
those words Um in my mind, given recent events, yes, because the city manager has the ability to hire um to hire and fire all city employees, right? Um but with the city commission wanting to appoint and use
their advice and consent to appoint. I think it >> to me there has to be a difference in terms of what power is absolute and they want absolute power to hire. >> Correct. >> So they hire a clerk, they hire a city manager, they hire a city attorney. >> Yes. They they appoint commissioners.
They or appoint y'all. They do a lot of appointments, but I do think the power to hire is slightly different, more powerful than the power to appoint. >> So, would you just change like for example, if we went with the AI generated 74 words, just change appointed to hired?
>> Yep. That I'm fine with that. I don't have any issue with the AI generated one other than changing appointed to hired. I think it just resonates a little bit better with the citizens as well. What about this part in the second paragraph because it we like we like
that part where it says reporting directly to the commission. >> I like that as well. >> I don't see that in this AI generated. I think that might >> well duties independently in accordance with state law, city policies and
direction from the city commission. To me, who they report to falls under that. I I like what you're saying, Mr. Switzer. Like it's painfully evident in that one. >> Yeah, because that's kind of what they wanted. It's like like they wanted that
very clear. >> Yeah. Or how we could sneak that in or you'd be happy and >> Well, I'll start typing what you were saying. Serve as a city official.
I did not mean to distract you, but I did want to give this committee the opportunity to >> it. It is important because like what we were talking about, you know, obviously this will be a deliverable with the charter change, right? So, it's I mean it's a for lack of a better term, it's a
note we're going to have to crack at some point, right? We're going to have to we're going to have to figure this out. So, >> I think it's a tool. I honestly I don't know. I mean, this is for the commission ultimately to bless. I think you can recommend something and that will move things along a little bit faster. >> Um, but I also feel like somebody they
have to the the buck stops with them. So even if you didn't do this exercise, >> um, it would it would get done. >> I I don't I want you to use your time the way you want to use your time. >> No, it's like I said, I I think it's I think they would want this a at least a
a jumping off point, right, to to start from. And I think it's fine. Can you just put compensated uh by and reporting to the city commission? Make it simple. We can find >> That's literally what I just typed
Tommy. Yeah, it says hired and compensated by and reporting to the city commission. Who will serve as a I just got to figure out what words to take out now because I have to lose. >> Do we have to say who compensates?
Why is the compensation? >> Yeah. What is the relevance of having to compensate it by? Everybody's >> compens it's it arises from the express text of your charter amendment that the city commission will hire and set the compensation of. >> Okay.
>> So I mean if it's not important to the voters that hiring it entails setting the compensation. >> Okay. So it's setting the compensation not just saying that we're going to pay you right. >> It's saying how much we're going to pay you. It's it will be a contracted
position so they can negotiate different pension rates, different leave, severance, all all sorts of stuff. >> Um but it's all a negotiation. >> So we have to find two words to take it.
Well, um, so I think you can take out, um, to create the office of city clerk hired and compensated by and reporting to the city commission serving as the city's official custodian rather than who will serve as to
>> that'll take out too much >> to >> condense it that way. >> So >> CJ, do you have text? >> She does not. These are mine. Do you have them on your laptop? >> I don't have them on my laptop and I
don't have them saved on my computer. >> Sorry guys. >> I have a cool thing called air drop. >> I believe have to just mesh all three of y'all's hard drives together.
and his moving it to Microsoft. >> I'll put this in the form of a resolution for the commission. So, uh this is just the sausage making piece. And so yeah, I mean if we can get to a 90% product tonight and then you
know at the next meeting we can we can finalize this and we could even discuss depending on if we get done with chapter 6 tonight we could we could do the same thing on chapter six that we're doing tonight. >> What did we say to take out who we'll serve as? We're going to change who
we'll serve as to serving as good old word counter.net. It's getting 75 words. >> See, you did. >> Okay, I'm good with that. So I will
the final version would change um so if you're reading the AI generated 74 one it would say be um where is it appointed
>> no hired and compensated >> hired hired and compensated by and reporting to the comm city commission and then serving as the city's official
custodian and record keeper. And so that all is 75. Do we have to read it? Like I guess we have to make a motion if we want to vote on that language. >> Yeah. So I I think probably what we'll
the most appropriate way if if you want to draft that up and provide it to the at the next meeting and then we'll just we'll just vote on >> So it'll be in the work it'll be in the notes that I send out at the end that I usually do every meeting. >> Oh, got it. Do you want it? I I plan to put it in the form of a resolution so
it's ready to go as as a full deliverable to them. >> Okay. >> So the only blank they'd have to fill in is the date of the election at that point. >> That's fine. I mean, if we have the ability to vote on that, then then yeah, we'll we'll do that. And basically, it'll be a finalized document from us that they that they can start from.
>> Yeah. >> Um >> they want to butcher it up. >> And then based on whatever we do, like I said, with if we're able to finish chapter 6 tonight, perhaps we have something like this for chapter 6 that we can do the same thing for next meeting. >> I can do that. And then I think that'll
put us on schedule for the first meeting in March, our first meeting in March. We would be able to finalize that and chapter 6 to provide to them as well. >> What is your first meeting in March?
>> I don't think we said that. But um >> because if they want to adopt by March 20th, and this is a note for y'all as much as anybody, if they don't make action, so when y'all meet, if y'all meet March 5th, the agenda will have already closed. So I don't
>> if you put a placeholder on the agenda for whatever they decide here. Um, but if they if the commission doesn't act on the 10th or doesn't finally act, we'll have to do a special meeting between then and the 20th to get the final >> of March. >> Uhhuh.
>> When do the agendas close? >> Because they they'll only have that one meeting. >> The Wednesday prior to the meeting, >> they close Wednesday. So >> agenda for next week has already gone out to the commission. >> So if we continue doing every other week,
>> you'll be a day. based off of our current schedule, we'll be in the off weeks of the commission meetings. >> So, our meeting would be on the would effectively be on the 4th and then the agenda would close also on the 4th. >> The agenda is already done, though. >> Oh, you do.
>> You meet tonight. We've already sent them the agenda. >> Oh, okay. So, we would we could potentially meet on the 3rd, which is Tuesday in March. >> Finish that up and then he'll be able to close. >> There's a planning board meeting on third. Yeah,
that's part of why we picked web to do the second that Monday. Okay. So, >> we want to tenatively plan for then the first meeting in March would be the 2nd of March at 5:15
or do we need to discuss that on item number agenda number? >> I mean, we can confirm it down there. We can do that. >> Okay. So item number we were we're on item number four, the ballot language. I
think we've pretty much nailed that down and then we discussed the deliverables and kind of the request. Uh so the request from us then would city manager would be to put an item on the agenda for the next meeting. Um and then >> based on us tenatively planning to vote
on final resolution language at the next meeting. >> Correct. Okay. will vote on final resolution language for the city clerk at the last meeting of February, which is on the 18th. And then potentially the first meeting in March, we would be able to provide an that
additional deliverable to them, which could potentially be item number six or section six. >> But for Tuesday the 10th, you want to talk to the commission about direction for the charter review from from them for you on the deliverables. >> Correct. Yes, sir.
and then I can I can provide a brief summary of of where we're at, kind of where we started and where we're at as far as what they want from us. >> So, instead of making that announcement, can I just put that in my report? >> Well, I think you could even put it um
there's another presentation before the consent agenda. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think you could put it at the top because >> um is the second commission meeting in February is the 24th. Yes. So if we vote on the 18th on resolution language, is
the 24th the meeting that they would be going over it? >> Yes. >> Okay. Just making note for myself. So we're supposed to meet on the 18th of Well, we'll discuss this when we get down to item number. We're getting a car
for hours. Okay. Any any further discussion on um the new newly added number four? Okay. Not heard. We'll move on to item uh agenda item number five which is now review and confirm updates recommended
for article 1 section 6B1 through section 6 C 2B. So, we left off with like one thing, right? >> Confirm updates. >> I have a question.
>> Yeah. Um on 6B1 subb the ballot language check clearly states purpose duration and maximum annual amount of the proposed assessment. I just want to confirm amount is deliberate and not rate
>> 6B1 what >> subb 6B1 subbate purpose duration maximum payable amount >> that's that's the uh that's the maximum
amount that would be generated from the city the residents I think I'm going to go I can look at my notes because we had a whole list. >> Okay. >> 6C1 next
>> the better language. >> So the way when in a lot of in most assessments there is a rate the your your your legislation sets a maximum rate of assessment. Well, I'm I'm bringing up 6C1 because I know it's not
where we're at, but in 61, we said we ended up saying that the city shall provide a minimum the following information within each referendum, and we gave a list of seven things. So, I think we you basically you just identified a potential conflict there
>> between the two. Well, and anyway, my my concern too is that if y'all ever adopt the storm water assessment, I want y'all to adopt. It's based on property values, which change every year, which means that the amount you raise every year is going to change when more developed properties come into
the equation. And so, the maximum amount won't be known at the time of the referendum because property values will if it's based on property and improvement values, those will automatically go up. Well, I put for example in 61 estimated specific cost
per year by property rate and then because that's what Kevin had recommended. Where? Where? I didn't see right. >> Did the 6C1 thing that I typed up make it in there? >> Right. >> You'll see it's up there on the screen.
>> 6C1s 1 through 7. >> Wait.3 in case referencing. Oh, got it. Okay. >> Is that what you were talking about? >> Uh-huh. >> Right. So, for example, storm water, it would say, "Hey, if you're in a tier
two, your estimated storm water rate is going to be $250 a year or whatever." >> Yeah. But if we change methods to what Amy's talking about, there are no tiers. So, if you put that language in here, you're limiting that and then you're stuck with
>> Well, no, it's just you just have to be able to tell the voter what their estimated cost is going to be. Well, what the what a voter's estimated cost and what the annual amount a city could expect to receive as a revenue from the assessment are two different things. An amount and a rate are two different things. >> Yeah, they absolutely. >> So, I want to make sure I understand
what you're saying. And >> so, here here here's here was the genesis of this is that >> we can use whatever analogy whether it's the slides of the parks or whatever, right? It's it's that the the city has a project that they want to do, right? and
they said in order for us to do this project this is how much we need per year going forward >> okay >> to do the project right so what is the what is the amount that the city needs right >> 6C1 for >> items 1 through 7 gets into more of a
granular level of how the methodology is going to be in place so to use your what you're talking about if the city says I need $5 million this year or for the next four years We're asking for $5 million over the course of four years,
right? As a maximum. Okay. Then we get and the voters approve that. We get down to 6C1. The methodology could be whatever the city um provides to the residents, right? It doesn't have to reach that that 5 million. So like you
said, the property values increase dramatically, right? Well, remember we said that we're not going to go above 5 million. So, under the methodology that we were using and the property values increased, that's going to generate $6 million. Nope. That's not what the
voters approved. The voters approved 5 million. So, go back and adjust your methodology to get it back down to the 5 million. That's the intent of of this. So regardless of whether you use property values, whether you use tier one, tier two, tier three, whether you use
whatever methodology you use, here's what you're allowed to spend annually for the next four years on this project. >> So ballot and referendum mean the same thing. >> Yeah. So 6B1B and 6C1
items 1 through 7 are covering the same topic. So one of them needs to go away. >> They they are duplicative. >> Yes. So one of them needs to go away. I'm obviously going to vote that we get rid of 6B1B because it's less
comprehensive than 6C1 because item number four specifically covers what you just talked about, right? >> A total annual project cost and overall cost 1.25 million a year for four years is $5 million. >> Let me throw this at you. What if we
moved the one through seven to make it a sub paragraph of 6B1? Yeah, I don't I don't care where it is in the section, just as long as all seven. I >> And the reason I say that is is here's what we run the risk of if we if we remove because the the title on 6B1 is
requirement for voter approval, right? But then we go into 6C1 and we start saying, hey, this is the stuff that needs to be on the ballot. that really ones items one through seven need to be in section B1 is what I'm saying
instead of just removing 61 6B1B we would we would outline like we talked about in that granular level what what items are required on that ballot. So the two
so section 6B1 is requirement for voter approval. >> So focused more on that it needs to be approved and then 61 is the requirements that need to be on the referendum. So do we need to they don't need to be in two
sections. Can we just combine them into one section? >> Yeah. So all of 6C1 could be moved to 6B1. >> Well, I don't know that all of 6C1 could
because the your sub A, B, and C regarding the use of the funds is assumes after it's been approved at referendum whereas your elements of the referendum to me it's there two different steps in the process. A, B, and C are like it's
>> if it is approved, but here are the here are the strings attached. >> A separate um execution requirement. >> Yeah, I think they could stay in C1 and we just retitle it. Yeah. Okay. So, basically the city shall provide that
whole list of 1 through 7 would go into to replace 6B 1B. >> Replace it or undo it? replace it because it says the same thing effectively. >> Or you could say in in 6B 1B, the ballot
language shall clearly state the following. And then you list item 1 through 7 below that. Does that make sense? I'll get rid of that. >> Well, the ballot language shall clearly include
the following items and then yeah start okay >> and then you have them list out >> one through seven yeah >> I think by listing them out one through seven it's less of a I chart it's pretty easy to follow what needs to be on there >> so then I'll remove the city shall
provide a minimum of following information that's gone >> right so carried through from C. Can you read the the sentence? Shall
the ballot language shall clearly stay and then >> so yeah. So get rid of the city shall provide at a minimum. >> Well, not the whole thing, just the words that are before following
I'm sorry. What did you want me to do? >> So, if you drag um if you drag from purpose up above >> through the NC. So, go into B. >> Yeah. >> And go to purpose and start dragging
there down to the >> NC. Okay. So you're basically cutting off the second half of one and then the first half of the other. >> Okay. >> Without language shall clearly state the
and >> following information >> the following to get rid of city shall provide at a minimum the >> Got it. >> There you go. That's what we were
trying. Perfect. Yeah. Yep. Thank you. Is that >> that's the intent that I had with coming up with that list. >> Yeah. And then the example ballot referendum. I think there was u Yeah. The example referendum statement. I
think that would also follow this list over. >> So you want to move that up as well? >> Yeah. cuz that's just I think as Kevin put it, it's just >> it's it'sformational or educational purpose within the charter to explain like these seven things are going to look like this
in practice, >> right? That's how you get all seven things into 75. She didn't think it could be done and I didn't. So then that leaves us with uh
section 6 C1 uh with A, B, and C left over. And we discussed changing the the title of that to maybe kind of focus in more on this is the execution of the of the funds should it be approved. So do we have any
suggestions on what that title of 6C1 would be? >> Read these through again. >> Okay. um appropriate usage of nonadalorum funding something of that nature >> management and appropriate usage of
nonadalorum assessment funds >> something yeah like that that's to me that's what it's describing So, Miss uh CJ, we're we're going to re that section 6C1 up there. >> You rename it? >> Yes, ma'am. We're going to rename it to
say um and I'm just going to throw some stuff off >> management and you said proper >> of nonavalorum assessment funds. Yeah.
What you think? >> I have questions on 6B3. >> Okay. With the title, >> I think. >> Okay. >> You got revenues in there. Three places you want to change funds to revenues. >> Sure.
>> Oh, no. No. I think Are you saying change it in the title? Uh either way. >> Okay. >> You either change the form >> funds to revenues or revenues to funds. >> What's better from a fiscal standpoint? Is it better to say no? Doesn't matter.
>> Doesn't matter. Okay. >> Say revenue funds monies on >> dollar bucks. Is everybody good with that new title for 61? All right, Miss Amy, you had a question on 6B
something. >> Yeah. So, that's where you I think you want to set the maximum rate, the maximum increase here every year. >> 6B3A. >> Mhm. Um, and so the maximum percentage increase permitted for advorum.
Um, I'm not sure is exactly I mean, I'm not certain the intent here. Do you want it to be the maximum permitted for adv or do you want it to be the index >> because those won't necessarily be the same? >> We want we when we talked about this we
had we didn't want the annual increase to exceed the index. So like for example they use the index for the fire ones. Right. >> Right. So the average annual the language and which I can give to CJ is the average annual growth rate in Florida personal income over the
previous five years as determined from the Bureau of Economic Analysis affiliated with the US Department of Commerce. >> And it comes out as a percentage, right? >> And so if that percentage is >> 7.42% is what it was last year, >> then that's the maximum it could
increase for that one year. >> But it can't exceed your >> whatever. Right. >> Yeah. And now next year if it's 2% then next year can only go up 2%. >> Yeah. >> And really >> that would be intended. >> Really what I envision if the if the
voters approve the city to spend $5 million a year on a project guess what the city's going to figure out a methodology to generate $5 million. So, it's it's really it's really there as a as a
it it what it does is it requires the city to tell the citizens this is how much this cost and this is how we're planning to pay for it yearbyear. We're going to break it up and we're asking for approval for you for four years, right? Whether the city decide, let's
say the voters approved $10 million a year, okay? Um based on that that methodology and this is the estimated cost and based on that methodology it only generates 9 million that's completely
fine but the next year it can only increase by 7.42 like what you just explained. So that's kind of the the guidelines that we're that we're talking about discussing. So, I'll take out that insert index note
that was in there and >> shall not exceed the >> and put in what you've got there. >> If you can read my writing. Can you read my writing? >> We'll give it a go. So, do you just want me to add that at the end? >> I don't think you can have both. But I think they need to see all the words so that they can
>> shall not exceed and from there put in what you've put. >> That's correct. Okay. while she's typing that. Um >> in Florida. >> So from a real world standpoint, storm water is the only assessment that we
have in place right now. >> Assessment, don't you? >> Well, for the code enforcement. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, if storm water was subject to this and you needed to get it on the ballot,
do we have enough information that you could fulfill the seven items and plan ahead for these increases following that index? >> So, I mean, not really. No, because you have we use the non-level form to fund a
department. We don't use it to fund a project, >> right? >> Simple. But I would think you would know how much your department >> US Department of >> So sure we know what it costs like we talked about last meeting to runomic run the storm water department >> economic analysis >> affiliated personnel piping
>> the consumables the fuel. Yes, we know that >> but again there's no project being completed. >> So again that's the purpose of these guardrails and guidelines is that we're not funding departments with a non-abbor. >> We're going to fund projects. So to
directly answer it, the current one as it stands would not fit into this. So you'd have to find a different way to fund what you're funding now with it. >> I think what y'all are going to find that you're opening the door to is in the future you're going to have the
guard rails here to have a non-aval. So then the city's going to go find a way to fund the storm water department. Whether that's a bill, cut to the general fund, raise property taxes to cover it, however. And then
they're going to go and add a non-adable fee and say, "All right, we need to collect $10 million to do these three projects." So then you're going to have this you're paying for every year and now we're going to add a nonadalorm. You're not going to save any money by putting language in in here from >> Well, I don't think it's I don't look at
it as a saving money. I think it's more of a that the assessments are for singular purpose. that for example, we've used the sidewalk example. You're not going
to have a in perpetuity uh non-adorm assessment for sidewalks. Now, you can reintroduce multiple non-adorm assessments for sidewalks on an as needed basis. So, hey, we're going to do sidewalks on this section of town. We're going to need nonadworm for it.
It's going to last 5 years. When it's done, it's done. Now, this section of town needs sidewalks. We're going to do it for there. Um I think with the way we fund storm water capital projects is primarily grant funded. Correct.
>> I mean currently >> Yeah. I mean that's the goal, right? The goal is to use money that we isn't coming directly out of >> you should not have your goal to fund your capital improvement projects on grants. No. >> You'll never accomplish. >> You shouldn't. But that's what we're doing right now. So realistically at
some point if this all went through we would have to shift the storm water personnel cost back to another method and then right the commission could say hey we need like you said $10 million for the next
three years to do these capital projects that we have not gotten grants for. And then it goes on a ballot and it either passes or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then we see why storm water and impment's
bad. >> I do feel like there's a fundamental difference between non-adorm assessments that fund an essential government service and non-adorum assessments that fund a specific neighborhood or specific project. And I
do think there is potentially a collision between this referendum requirement as it applies to that provision of essential government services, particularly when there is a penalty or a limit on the amount of advalorum taxes you can levy and still provide all of those essential
government services because that nonadvalorum is even if not well-liked is a tool to supplement and still be able to provide those municipal services when you can't increase your property taxes or there's not a political appetite. to do so or you've reached the
limit of the law and you don't have the majority vote you need to do that. >> Yes. So this is a this is a major shift >> in mentality of what this non-abboral assessment is to be used for. >> We are what we're proposing here is that
the non-abalorum assessment not be used to fund departments. It be used to fund projects. >> So >> and that's where we're that's why all of these these guardrails of stuff are there. So, right, which I'm not, just to be clear, I >> I support guard roads. I'm still not
100% sold that we there never can be a scenario in which we don't fund labor for city personnel >> because I work in government contracts >> and so I look at it as a lens of my
entire subcontract is primarily funding labor and the the peripherals the other direct costs are a smaller portion. stuff. For example, if we wanted to non addorum
sewer to build a sewer plant. >> Yeah. >> And obviously there's a provision in there where we can pay a construction company. >> Mhm. Um, but if we wanted to, if we came to the conclusion, and I'm not saying
this is going to be h ever happen, but if we came to the conclusion that the best way to pay for sewer, the operations of the facility and the staff was not to have a utility bill, but to have a non-advel like a just a flat
assessment with a different methodology, we would be not allowing oursel. we would effectively be saying the only way we can pay for personnel costs in the city is adorum which very well can go away in the future based on behaviors in
the in Tallahassee. >> I just read an article today that they were talking about the different proposals and what was favorable and what was not favorable and the only thing it seems like Tallahassee has an appetite to maintain is adorum for
schools. Well, look around, guys. This isn't a school, you know. So, I I understand where you're coming from, and I have the same concerns. I just don't want to take an option entirely off the table. What I would rather see
is that if that's what we're going to do, if it's going to be a personnel based driven thing, >> there's more guard rails, there's more requirements, more hoops to jump through for them to to be able to do that because at that point you are effectively signing up for a a lifetime
assessment. >> Yeah. >> So, yeah, let's load on the requirements to to do to achieve that rather than saying outright you can't do it ever period. So I I have no problem going back to the last meeting. Mr. Lightoot
stated that if you're going to do a project, it's going to be a design bid build. >> City employees are not going to be utilized to to to do this. It's going to be fully contracted. >> But once that's done >> and then that it's time to operate it.
If the city, let's say the p city paid a a firm to come in and do a rate study or something and just hypothetical here, hey, the best way for you to pay for operations of your sewer big brand new $50 million
sewer plant is not through city utility bills. >> All right, let me let me >> we don't have that option anymore. Okay. So, let's talk about the wastewater treatment plant operator then. Right now, we there's no assessment. We don't have a non-avalorm assessment to pay a
wastewater treatment plant operator. >> Correct. >> But we needed one. So, the city had to go and contract that out to bring someone in because we had that vacancy, right? So they figured out a way to find
money within that enterprise fund to operate the water treatment facility without saying, "Oh, let's create a non-avalorm assessment. We need to pay this guy." >> But what I'm saying is be that's because we have sewage via utility bill. Maybe sewage is a bad example.
>> Okay, different example. The city of Lin Haven citizens decide that they want to have the best parks in all the land. Okay, >> but we don't want to pay for it with advalorum. >> Okay, >> how can we pay for it? If the citizens
made a push to the their own government to say, "Hey, we want to have this massive amphitheater out of Kinsel >> and we want a special nonadvalorum assessment that assesses in this certain methodology. We're eliminating the possibility of
them doing that." >> No, you take that. to pay for all of the people that would run the entertainment and the parts and stuff. No, exactly. I don't want to get rid of the option. I just want to make it really damn hard to achieve. All right. So, well, I'll bring
it a more realistic example for you. The splash pads. Let's say that the residents of Linhaven wanted splash pads built in Linhaven. City says, "Okay, if you guys want this, you can have a non-evalorum assessment. Here's how much it's going to cost us to
build all these splash pads, right?" And the citizens say, "Yep, we want we want we want to build the splash splash pads, right?" What this is doing is this is driving another decision to the city is to we can't just build something and not figure out how we're going to facilitate
it, right? Which is exactly what happened with the splash pads in Lin Haven. Mhm. >> They were built, but then we didn't think about how much it was going to cost per year to man >> to facilitate that splash pad with lifeguards or whatever, right? And then
it became a cost that the city was they didn't want that burden, right? So my my position is is that this is used to build the project, your amphitheater that you wanted that that you mentioned, right? Absolutely. You can have a nonvalor assessment to build the
amphitheater. You could have a non-avalorum assessment to build a brand new water sewer treatment plant, but guess what? If it requires 15 additional bodies on the city's payroll to manage and run that, then what is your plan to
do that? You're not using money to for now in perpetuity to manage that. >> Treat it like a fire assessment. >> That's what we're trying. That's what That's what I'm talking about. But >> this is not to fund departments. This is to fund projects.
>> And I'm saying I don't want to get rid of the option entirely. I just want to make it really challenging and hard and transparent. A lot of oversight, right? Cuz for example, if we get rid of the if if the state says, "Hey, there's no more property tax
right now." Today, if the adorum went away and it was only allowed for schools, how is the city going to pay for Linhaven Police Department? No, we're not. Police and fire are going to be protected. But if it went away that 40 to 50% of our budget is police and
fire, >> right? >> 40. Are you saying that the the the revenue generated from Avalorum? >> It's 40% >> is 40 to 50% of our budget. >> Police and fire. >> Police and fire. >> Police and fire take up 40% 40 to 50% of
the budget >> of the advalorum the Avalor revenues that come in. But for Avalor revenues that we bring in, what percent of those revenues make up our budget? >> I'd have to give that number before
margin was like 15%. Well, so I'm just trying to give examples of like >> so for example, he says police is going to be protected probably, but if it's not, >> then what? Um, how are we going to pay for a police department, you know, or fire's not protected? How are we going
to pay for? Sure, we have prior assessments. >> I don't want to get rid of the option. I just want to see that the option is available, but if we want to make it really challenging to be able to pay for people >> in perpetuity, >> then let's make it challenging because
ultimately that's the goal is that if this is the decision that you want the people to make to to pay a fee for the rest of forever, then there better be a darn good reason for it. >> Mr. just you had a comment. >> Yeah, the um the property tax isn't
going away just overnight. I mean, I think it's like a 10-year transition. So, >> so just wait for the charter review committee in 5 years and that's their problem. >> No, no, not at all. >> No, he I think what he's saying is there's a there's a graduated approach that the that we're not just going to
cut off funding immediately. There's going to be a method there's going to be time to figure out how to fund is I don't want to speak for you, but that's that's what I understand you saying. And what 62 does what 62 does is take away an option rather than just making
the option >> more challenging to achieve. So So right now exactly what is happening is what we're trying to prevent. We're funding a department. Okay. And and I and I'll say this, this discussion shouldn't even be happening at this table right now. It
should be happening in Tallahassee. the state has failed to provide the residents of the state of Florida with guidelines associated with special assessments. All right? And here's where I'm going with
this is that you you have restrictions and you have guidelines on fire assessment, but you don't have any any sort of restrictions on increases or anything on special assessments. Okay? So if if what we're doing is if if we say let's remove non if we're saying
let's remove abnormalum taxes then we could do that right now and let's just have a special assessment to fund the general fund >> and be done with it from now on. Right? >> So the discussion of removing property taxes in the state of Florida can't
occur until you address not abalone assessments >> because if not that's just what's going to happen. That's that's an easy kill. If I was a city manager, that's what I would do. I was like, "Okay, you want to remove that funding? Well, I'm just going to slap uh what were we getting?
$10 million a year or $15 million a year out of Avalorum taxes. Let's have a non-avalorum assessment now. $15 million and we'll just now we can use that money however we want to use it because there's no restrictions on it." >> Will it surprise you if that's what happens? Will you be genuinely surprised?
>> No. That's why I'm advocating for these restrictions. I mean, my big thing is I I want the community as a whole to have options. I want our citizens to know that if a situation arises where we need to fund a
department through an an assessment that we have the ability to do so, even if it's really darn hard to do it. >> Had you told me in 2021 or the city manager told me in 2021, Mr. Langford, we're we're creating this
non-abalorum assessment to fund the storm water department from now on. Okay. And and the money that is brought in to the storm water department, we'll be able to rely on grants to fix our flooding problem. I would have said no,
that's that's insufficient. That is not okay. Would you have would you have supported that in 2021 if it had been presented to you that way? I don't know because I have hindsight 2020 now. So I have a biased view of what I would have done back then and
>> and I'm saying that's this is where we were or this is where we came from and this is where we are now >> because this wasn't in place. >> To me, if I see a an a referendum that covers all of the seven things
>> and it's for funding um number five specific statement on usage of funds. This will fund the entire parks and wreck department. >> Then I know I'm informed. >> I'm an informed voter and I can vote accordingly.
>> However, you've got >> was talking. You've got >> this is how much it's going to cost per year. >> Mhm. >> Say five million. It's going to cost five years whatever one million a year. Just using as a hypothetical. If you have
operating costs especially than you have people people cost going to go up every year. Now you may not give an increase in salary your health benefits and everything related. The highest cost in most any business is your personnel
>> cost. >> So it's almost impossible to say million. And you're right if if you if you allow that it's going to go up. They're going to be stuck. if you fund a department for that non. >> But isn't that what we just put the index in place for? So there would actually be a limit.
>> It it won't even get close to coming. >> I tell you what I would do if if if I were the city manager and and what you want to happen actually happens. Here's the way I would do it. >> Write this down, Mr. Light. I would say, okay, we're going to have a
non-abboralum assessment and we're going to fund the entire police department. If you vote against this non-abboral assessment, you're defunding the police. You want to do that? >> I mean, if property tax >> Nobody Nobody's going to defund the police, right? >> If property tax goes away, we might be
needing to do that. If they don't protect it, I know they say they're going to protect it, but since from 1776 to 2026, how often have politicians lied to us? I'll trust them when it's in law written
down and signed by the government. That's when I'll trust them. >> I still don't trust them when they do that >> and they can right because they can change it next session. >> So when we talk about the non-adable arms funding projects only, right? So say something happened, we have an ISO
survey in 27 and our ISO rating jumped from a two to a four. And in order to stop that, we say we need a fire assessment not abunding the department. So now all of a sudden we've tied our our hands where we can't do that and our rating goes to a four and property insurance
go skyh high throughout the city. Don't make my insurance go up. >> My insurance has already went up the flooding. >> I want change. >> I want strong guard rails. I want transparency. I want the oversight. I want the restrictions. What I don't want
is to take an an option off the table >> because the state already does that a lot. For example, with our elections at the local election level, was there any reason for us to not have the ability to decide for ourselves if we wanted rank
choice voting? You know, at nonpartisan elections, they removed that. Tallahassee already two hours away. people that live down in the Keys, Miami, they decide for us already so much. I don't want to get rid of the
option. I just want the option to exist and we can guard rail the hell out of it. But I just want it to exist. That way, if the people decide that's what they want to do, they can do it. So, how what options do you have to fund the fire department?
>> Just comes out of the general fund. >> General fund. So, and and this is using his example. I'm glad that he used that example, right? Because fire is important to everybody, right? >> Do you think that if this was in place,
he wouldn't figure out to cut a less priority item than fire? >> Well, here's that. So if you start at the bottom, you start with events, you start at parks, you start at sports and wreck, >> you can't go without water, you can't go without sewer, you can't go without
police, you can't go without fire, >> you amenities, your quality of life, >> right? Essential services. >> And here's where I'm going with this is that the aval the nonavalorum assessment is not the immediate button that we push to fund departments. >> And I don't want it to be the immediate
button. I want it to be really hard to do it. Oh, >> I don't want it to not be >> an option at all. We are we're having the same discussion here at this table that cities in the state of Georgia are having and it's gone to the state
legislature because they said enough with the nonadalorum assessments because cities were seeing an easy way guess what to fund departments and now the state legislators legislature in Georgia is looking at
completely getting rid of it. That's going to be tough, >> which is which is a huge overreaction. >> Rather than overreact, let's not overreact. Let's do our due diligence to keep doing what we're doing on other
non-adorm assessments and just work on one work on language that makes the funding of personnel more challenging, have more oversight, more transparency, more homework. you could require um a study or something to
back up the data showing that you know this is how much it's going to cost um make the city work harder for it rather than saying you can't do it. Yes, >> Amy can talk about it much more educated
than I can just like Kevin did last meeting, but the nonadalorm is probably the most tight or the most transparent way of collecting the money that you can get because it comes in for storm water, it has to be spent on storm water. Comes in for fire assessment, it has to be
spent on fire assessment. If we put it in the general fund and raise property taxes, we can shift it around, do whatever we want to with it. We can spend it on the best fireworks show that cost $750,000 you've ever seen. We can compete with Disney. We can put on the best concert in the park. It was oh, we
raised property taxes to increase storm water. However, we diverted that money in the budget to something else. So, the non-avalorm is very restrictive already per state statute. And if I'm getting that wrong, >> no, you're right. It by its nature as a non-al assessment, it's restricted to the use
for which it is assessed and levied. It cannot be transferred, shared, used for any other purpose. >> For example, prior to 2024, $600,000 a year from the water department, $500,000 from the sanitation
department, we transferred to the storm water department to help cover the expenses, right? So, if we went back to building storm water and say that somehow miraculously storm water recovered in New Haven, it was great. Okay, let's start transferring 500 grand
to parks and all of a sudden your your storm water starts slapping back off. >> As the non-ador, it is restricted. We cannot do that, >> right? No, it it is it is restricted through that lens, right? And and I agree. It's it is it is transparent,
right? It's no different than me telling me telling you, hey, I'm about to rob you. That's me being transparent with you that I'm about to rob you. But right now, I can take all the money from you, not just a portion of it. Right? So,
when we I'm I'm transparent with the fact that I'm telling you it's going to happen. And I'm telling you that I'm going to be the one that's taking it. But right now, in the city of Lindhaven, there's no limit to how much I can take each time that I come rob you. Okay? This is going to say, "Hey, I'm about to
rob you, but I'm only going to take $10. I know you got $100 in your pocket. I can only take 10. And then next year when I come do it, I I'm only gonna be able to take 12. >> But you need 45% of the electors to agree that it's okay for you to rob. >> Correct. Absolutely. >> And what I would like to see is rather than getting rid of the personnel, let's
just put a higher approval threshold on it. >> Okay. You want to fund a department on nonadorum. Okay. It's not 45%. It's 60%. Or whatever. Come up with a higher number.
>> I'm more work. I'm okay with more work. I just what I'm I can't be okay with is getting rid of options just for the sake of getting rid of them. I feel like it's the easy way out to just get rid of it. I think if you put something like you
said at 60% then the voters property owners would understand that you have an non-advalu for a project that is connected and also has personnel costs operating cost >> and you need to understand that this is
going to cost X dollars this year X dollars next year whatever and 60% of you vote for that but if you if you say 40 it's different >> no I I I wouldn't be okay with the 45 >> if you did something like that that puts
your guard rail in place because you've got adalorum now not adorum now storm water if you wanted to have arts department I don't know
uh it's not in the budget and you wanted to fund it how would you fund it >> you have to cut something from from the general bond somewhere else to to pay that difference >> or not have to learn. >> Can you get rid of the uh animal shelter
to pay for it cuz that's general fund, right? >> Yep. So, you've got those two options and still you're going to have expenses related as Cory's saying, you build whatever you're going to build, then you've got the personnel costs that go along with it and the general operating,
maintenance, whatever, insurance, things like that. So, it's it's >> Yeah, >> I like your 60%. >> Yeah. I just I I just don't want to see options removed just to get rid of them. I'd rather see more more stringent
requirements to achieve it, you know. So, as long as the citizens have to vote 60% to to refund it every four years, I I would I would be willing to I would be willing to say, "All right, we can fund departments with a non-avalorum
assessment as long as it's only good for four years and 60% of the citizens have to say we're allowing this department to just be funded for the next four years. We're not going to Nothing's going to improve in the city. We're not going to get
anything new. We're not going to get anything nicer. We're just >> It's just four years status quo. >> We're paying for four years of status quo. >> Four years of of guaranteed service for whatever that department does. >> Correct. Whether that's parks,
entertainment, animal shelter, the gym, whatever it is, doesn't matter. >> Yeah. So we would have to work on a whole section for that. But I would be
I would feel a lot better about not taking away the option by making it, you know, more challenging to achieve. Is there any kind of legal push back on supermajority votes or
anything like that? So like if the if uh assessment for personnel for the we use the arts department, Mr. Tucker, >> the what? >> The art department. Well, I was trying to find something that would be more likely to garner a lawsuit. Um sewer
department. we're going to fund the sewer department personnel via this method and it requires a 60% vote and it gets 59%. And now we're in a very dooky situation, right? And then the citizens could be
like, well, we're going to sue the city for allowing this to happen. >> City's following the rules you have set for it, >> right? So then they do pay to defend a lawsuit that we didn't create >> sue themselves for voting this
>> well and I feel like that's where I I am fascinated by how the timing of all of this is going to work. I mean, this is an wholly academ another academic exercise. But in terms of educating the voters and from a budget standpoint, when does that start when
versus when the referendum is because we can spend some money before it goes on the ballot? And so timing all of that is um >> which is another reason I don't want to rush to put this on the ballot either.
>> Um because I do think the old I think the citizens need to understand here's the worst case scenario. You know, we need 60% if we get 59 this it doesn't pass and here's what happens. I mean the financial impact statement is also I've got to note to myself to what extent do we need to prepare the financial impact statement
for the commission when they consider these charter amendments because looking through here there's a lot of additional costs that these will need to be bud that will need to be budgeted and I think they need to know that going in and I think the citizens need to understand that too but also understanding for each referendum what
the what what that financial impact is this is what happens if it passes and here's what happens if it doesn't. So, if we bring this forward, the commission could technically say, "H, we don't want that." And it doesn't vote to ballot, right?
>> Okay. But then it's on the five of them, >> right? >> Yeah. >> You're making the recommendation they can take it or leave it or take it, >> right? >> I would venture to say, and we discussed this, the majority of people in Lynhaven
have no idea that storm water assessment is also paying for the department. I would agree that the most don't because the amount of apathy to start with and then the amount of education
that goes on. I mean there's no educa almost no education coming out. I mean, the city can try as hard as they want, but there's only so much you can do and the amount of willingness to receive information and
do I mean, just turn around and look, I I don't care what time we do these meetings, it's going to be the same outcome. I mean, maybe we get I appreciate you coming. Um, but it's just one of those things where I think the general idea that when
you live in a civilized society that structures as an incorporated city, you do that because you expect other people to put in the time to make sure that all of the quality of life stuff you have, whether that's fire, police, parks, a
flushing toilet, clean water coming out of the tub, you're signing up for that. and you're not, you know, there's a cost for it. You obviously you don't want it to be an exorbitant cost. If it's an exorbitant cost, I'm going to go find a
different city to live in. But I also know that it's going to cost me more to live in a good city than in a bad city. Because if I'm paying, you know, I lived in Buffalo for 6 months. Property taxes
were very high there, but quality of life was great. The roads were immaculate. I never had problems. And even in the coldest parts of winter, I never had problems with anything. And uh, you know, but I've also lived in places where there was next to no
property tax, very low property tax, and quality of life was very, you know, low. It was very rural area. But whatever we decide I agree here with Cory, whatever we decide nonadalorm assessments need to
be explained and be difficult because when you're adding a department and all those costs, it just keeps going never goes down. >> Yeah. For personnel, I want a high bar instead of it can't happen at all. I'd
rather a high bar than it can't happen. Because what you're doing is if you if you do the high bar then okay it can be achieved but you got to work for it. If you take it away altogether then you're you're saying hey you could have had this option even if you had to work really hard for it but nope it's gone.
Good luck finding another way. Are there other ways? Absolutely. And I want it to be difficult enough that they'd rather explore the other ideas first because they're going to be easier to achieve. >> Yeah. I'm okay because right now there is no bar. >> Yeah. To me, this is like plan Z, you
know? I want them to run through A through Y first. And I agree with you. There's no bar. There's one bar. It's three people. That's it. >> Right. We're We are We as residents are at the mercy of the five individuals that sit here.
>> Yeah. as to what he or she or whomever fills that seat, >> which could have easily been elected by 7 and 12% of the population. That's >> 15% turnout and 50% plus one. >> Yeah. So,
>> and we could go on and on and on about this. Um >> I think we have to continue a discussion on six at a later time. I think uh I think probably next meeting, Miss CJ, um we're going to keep nugging out six um and we're going to we're going to
kind of pick up where we left off on um the things that Mr. Scra brought up as far as, you know, a percentage-wise uh outlining, you know, the use of funding could be could be used for departments, but here are the requirements the city
must meet um before before using it in that fashion. And as far as agenda flow goes, like I'm going to keep tableabling my thing until we're done with six, but I I it can be after six on the next agenda. So, if we continue section six
discussion, that can be before my item because I don't want to touch my item until we're done with six. >> I mean, we can always delete your item and then bring it up in a at a later time. >> I just want to do it after six before we get in any other sections. Okay,
>> that's the one I'm here for. Citizens rights. >> Okay, >> I mean rather than tableabling it, I'm okay pitching. We have 30 minutes till we hit the 2our mark. If we're going to move on from six, I'm
okay even starting the discussion on my item and then get it gives us food for thought and we can pick up re rejoin on it later. Um, so what we have the opportunity here to do since we only have three people
here, Mr. Marlor and Mr. Switzer is no longer with us um for this meeting. >> Sounds good. >> No, for this that's why that's why I corrected. I said for this meeting um you know we we could um you know we
could we could move past uh the uh the next one which is continue the review of article one section 63. We've already discussed that we got some more work to do in section six and then uh we could get to to your item.
>> Yeah, I'm okay with that. >> You want to do that? >> Cuz mostly what I'm just going to be explaining my thought process and what I want to us to work toward. There's no decision making tonight with what I have. >> Miss Amy, we're not speeding here by doing that, are we? >> No, you're fine.
>> Okay. All right. So, are we all in agreement that we're just going to we're going to move on to then u the citizens rights uh guarantee um discussion since we've only got three members here and so I think for formality purposes I would
just motion to vote uh to t to sorry motion to table the continuence of section six until the next meeting I'll second it >> and then that way it's safe >> all right there's a motion by Mr. grade to uh >> table
>> table uh agenda item number six which is continue the review of article one from section 6C-3 um and uh move on from section five uh is there a second and there's a second by Mr. uh Tommy here is there Mr. Tucker
>> call me anything >> is there any public discussion >> done okay city manager recall a vote >> Mr. Mr. Frank. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tucker. >> Yes. >> Chairman Langford. >> Yes. All right. Moving on to um the new item number seven which was tabled from
last meeting and it's a discussion about Mr. Scra's request to add citizens rights guarantee to the charter. Mr. Gray. >> Okay. >> So I I I loved I loved civics class when I
was in school. Elementary school, middle school. I loved being in civics class. My daughter's in civics class at MOET right now. And the stuff she talks about that they're teaching her. I mean, it's it's the
it's the core of what it means to be an American citizen to me. And the Constitution protects our rights. The Bill of Rights further protects that. We have similar stuff at the state level.
The charter is what I see as our constitution here in Lhaven. This is what protects our rights as citizens. That's why we're here doing this. We've volunteered many evenings already to to protect our rights. And so to me, it's
imperative that we just continue that with a citizen's rights guarantee. I mean, we can call it a bill of rights. I doesn't matter what it's called. It matters what it does. And so I've proposed a citizen's rights guarantee that goes
through numerous guarantees. Um I'm not going to obviously take the time to read it all right now. And I will say this that there's very little in here that I'm absolutely going to be stubborn on that about changes. I'm willing to change
this in whatever way we think that would best serve the citizens of Linhaven. I think it's just important that these these guarantees be covered and talked about and so that way there's something to fall back on as a citizen where you can say, "Hey,
I live in Linhaven. I'm guaranteed that, right?" Like for example, I'll pull an example out. Guarantee 10, guarantee of essential public services. You'll see that the things I've listed, police protection and public safety, fire protection and emergency response,
potable water supply and sewer service, solid waste collection and disposal, disposal, storm water management and drainage, maintenance of public streets and associated infrastructure necessary for emergency access. To me, that's the core fundamentals. If you got rid of
everything else in Linhaven, you are guaranteed those services and you can maintain a quality of life here. And it's not going to be a very good quality of life in my opinion because you're lacking other things. But if the
city only met these things, technically that's what we need to have a community that is functional to me. Um, so my proposal is that we put on the ballot as
a as a standalone item the citizens rights guarantee in whatever final form that we all agree on. Um, so I guess what I would say is take the time to read through it, please. At
what point we're going to discuss it in detail, I don't know. I think it needs to be done. And my target date for this being on the ballot would be April 2027. So, let me ask the lawyer here. I'm
going to ask myself, but I'm attorney. Um, let me ask you, is there anything that you've read here that could cause nuisance lawsuit when someone who says, "Hey, it says I have a guarantee for
the roads. I don't like my roads." >> Are you talking about the guarantee 10 or the entire >> any of them? >> I I feel like there are some problematic things that >> I knew there would be. Okay. Yeah, I knew there would be because >> all over it.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> As long I wanted to make sure that I was reading the same thing and I agree with it. I think we need this, >> but I also don't want us to open ourselves up or the poor city open itself up where you have >> Joe Schmo the uh weekend attorney who
decides to give us a lawsuit over something. So much like Corey feels with the non-advorum, I feel like right now we're at zero and this is like a 100 and I'm okay settling somewhere closer to 50 if we need to, you know. Um,
some portion of a guarantee is better than no guarantee at all. >> Yeah, I I read through it obviously and I've got a bunch of notes and stuff marked on here as well. I I I agree that you know there's some fundamental areas that you know we as residents in the
city should say hey this is the city the city has to provide this to me right um and I don't think that the that the charter is a bad place to to outline that and we'll get into this later on now some of this stuff I don't believe needs to go in the charter I think it
needs to go into other or in effect sorry already in other other plans but Um, I don't see I don't see an issue with with having a citizen's right guarantee, a citizen's rights guarantee in in the charter just from a a wave top level.
>> Yeah. >> All right. Um, if you would not mind because um, it's on this topic and the member of the public that's present specifically said they came for this >> for taking a hard time to hear from her. Yeah, we're uh we're probably not we're
going to skip the next table discussion uh because the individual who who wanted to present that is no longer here. Um so it sounds like all the discussion is is complete uh for item number seven. Um and if someone would like to make a
motion to uh table Mr. Switzer's uh governing in a digital age. So moved. Second. >> All right. So there's a motion and a second. Any discussion from the public? No. City manager, will you call the vote? >> Mr. Spring, >> yes. >> Mr. Tucker, >> yes.
>> Chairman Langford. >> Yes. Now we move on to public comments number eight. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Hello, everyone. >> Feel free to come on up to the mic so everyone everyone that's watching at home can uh can hear you. >> You know, at a very broad level, I
really support this rights. >> My name is Lorraine Reer. Okay. >> And I'm a homeowner, not trial. And I almost at a broad level I think that the citizens rights would almost that we do have a gap and I think would almost be
like an appeal process so that if you've gone through appropriate channels like code enforcement even animal control even business licensing and you didn't went through all the channels and you disagreed even after you had conferred with an attorney that you still didn't
feel that your rights were met that it would be an avenue to appeal. And I and I think almost something like rather than you said something you didn't want to open up the city to be sued, it could almost be like a a mediation process like when you file a
uh um small claims court that the parties or the issues that you talk. It's not just one person like code enforcement making a decision and then and like that's the final thing that there's a gap and that it would be an additional appeal process. I think if
you framed it in that way and not that the uh city was picking sides uh sometimes I feel that the city it doesn't uh treat everyone the same or fairly or evenly and I think it would just be another avenue to to uh
remediate that feeling. That's all I have to say. I really support your endeavor. >> Thank you. >> I ask you real quick. In North Carolina there's an arbitration process. Um, and it's over civil matters. >> Amy, is that a possibility or is Florida
not tuned to that? >> So, we don't have municipal courts anymore. But, um, I think you can build in a due process procedure for appeal of any decision of the city manager or if building department, code enforcement, all of that ultimately is the city
manager who has the final say and issues those order. So, and I was just looking to see in the code because I know some of those appeals processes are already built in. Not everywhere. >> I've been working with uh code management and uh animal control and
even your business uh licensing and I just get the runaround to tell you the truth. >> Well, there there are some processes particularly for code enforcement and building licenses because I drafted them. >> I've been there. But I don't but I would also believe that staff isn't >> they actually
uh licensing they tell you to call code enforcement and code enforcement has told me to hire a private investigator to ent trap a person or to move and I feel like that's my rights aren't being served so that's why I'm here. So I
really support your project. >> No I mean obviously I don't think any of us want anyone to feel that way in our community. Um, I know I've spent many hours going through various codes and stuff and and I've I do contract law professionally. I've
been doing 16 years of government contracting primarily in in professional engineering. But so I mean I'm not going to say I'm up to Amy's speed at all, but when I read through codes and ordinances and and things, you know, I have an
ability to to read through stuff and then interpret it. And I've found many many times where I've needed to come to the city for interpretations >> ambiguity. Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. And and to to me, I look at that as in in the moment, I'm needing
the city's interpretation so I can determine if a change is needed. Um if the interpretation makes sense, if it's if it's the whole KISS thing, keep it simple, stupid. Um if it's sensible, if it's logical, if it if it meets the
needs of the citizens, then we don't need to make a change. But there are a lot of codes that when they were written, they were probably written with what made sense then or they were written in a way where there was a lot
of kind of general understanding like yeah people are not going to do that so we don't you know right >> it's it's 2026 it's not whenever these codes were written and I think more and more as technology grows more people are
doing that due diligence And especially people if they don't like something they're well how can I get around it? And with the advancements of AI for example you can I can take the city's codes and I can plug it in and I can say find me a way though that I can do XYZ
and it'll find me all the loopholes. >> Correct. And so, you know, not to be like not it's not always about being nefarious, but sometimes it's about putting together codes and ordinances and and policies that
find that balance of we need protections, but we also don't want so much so that you feel you don't feel like you can live a free life here, >> right? you know, so I would ask that um keep an eye on the agenda and um
given what we have ahead of us, I can't imagine that the next meeting I would love for you to come to the next meeting, but if you're coming solely for the purpose of the citizens rights guaranteed discussion, I don't anticipate discussing it further at the next meeting given what we have ahead of us with section six.
>> Right. I actually come from a compliance background for trade association. So, I found your information interesting. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much for coming. I appreciate it. >> All right. Uh no further uh public comments, we'll move on to item number
nine, uh which is the next meeting date. So, right now, it's set for February the 18th at 5:15. And unless anyone has any problems with that, I think we were going to lean forward a little bit further and talk about the first meeting in March. >> Is that for you?
>> Mhm. >> Yes. Yeah, I'm okay with the 18th and then looking at March, I think it was brought up about potentially doing it on Monday, March 2nd. Um, I don't have a conflict with that
for me. Um, I think with two members missing, we just need to coordinate and see if that's going to work for them. And I I think to the reason we were trying to lean forward on March 2nd is because we thought we might potentially get through
six tonight and then have ballot language, draft ballot language for the second meeting that it could potentially go on that next agenda item. I'm my confidence level that we're going to be done with section six next meeting is slim to none. So I don't necessarily see
a need to adjust our meeting date based on that. Um, so I mean if you guys are okay with it, we could stick it to or stick to the Wednesday night meetings which would be the fourth >> if that works for everybody a little bit better and then the next meeting on the 18th we can confirm with Mr. Marlor and
Mr. Switzer if that's good and then we can adjust as necessary. >> Yeah. And I mean also see what we get through. I mean, if that's the primary if the primary purpose of the meeting is to is to uh assuming the clerk stuff's
done and all that. Um if the primary purpose is to continue on six, I mean a good hour and a half discussion on six, I think we could easily get through a a good brunt of it. >> Yes, sir.
>> If at all possible, could we move the fourth to the 11th? It is the fourth and fifth is the FBL symposium >> that I'll be out of town. >> Absolutely. We could and I think we were we were originally on track for the 2nd and the fourth. >> Yeah. Supposedly after the commission
meetings and >> which day I think >> the 11th March 11th >> 11th at 5:15 instead of the 4th >> tentatively shoot for that. And then uh everybody's still good with February the 18th then I'm assuming.
All right. Uh that's our last agenda item. Uh we'll adjourn.