We'll go ahead and call the uh meeting to order. It's 501. I gave an extra minute. Hopefully uh some of the other members would show up. Uh inter city manager, will you call the role? >> Mr. Tucker, >> yes. >> Mr. Scrain, >> present.
>> Mr. Marlor. >> Mr. Spitzer. >> Chairman Langford >> present. Um I will say uh Mr. Marlor reached out to me um yesterday. he had uh an opportunity to have a medical procedure
done today. It was kind of the at the at the mercy of the the doctor's office and they were able to get him in today. Um it did involve some anesthesia, so he didn't feel like he would be uh able to make the meeting today. Obviously, he's not. So, um with that said, um
>> and in all fairness, Mr. Swedzer showed up last night for this meeting um and was here, so I would have expected him to be here because we' had a conversation about it, but >> Okay. So, um I guess we'll um we'll maybe add the a vote to the agenda to
excuse or how we do that now. Okay. >> Yeah. Motion to excuse because he got in touch with you yesterday and it's medical related. >> Second. >> And just to clarify that motion is that for Mr. Switzer or Mr. >> Oh, sorry. Um I'll restate my motion
motion. The motion is to excuse um Mr. Barlor. >> Still a second. >> Okay. There's a motion by Mr. Scra to excuse Mr. Marlor's absence. Uh second by Mr. Tucker. There's no public for discussion. Um
city manager, will you call vote? >> Mr. Scurry? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tucker? >> Yes. >> Chairman Langford? >> Yes. Um regarding Mr. Switzer, we could Did he reach out to anybody at the city? You said you had a conversation with him last night. >> He was here. >> He was here last night thinking the
meeting was last night. >> Okay. So, it's something that if we wanted to after item six, we could re we could revisit it if we decided to grow. I could >> for now. I'll take no action. >> Okay. All right. We'll revisit that uh before
we adjourn then at towards the end of the uh the agenda. Um so, moving on to item number two as far as additions, deletions, or modification to the agenda. I guess um
um I would like to add a discussion only regarding one of the emails that I had sent um regarding the citizens rights guarantee. I'd like to just have an initial discussion um and not really any action related to
that other than encouraging us to read through it and digest it but discuss it. Maybe if anybody has any questions if they've already read it kind of understanding my intent. So I motion to add uh an agenda item. I guess it would
go before number five like a 4B to uh review proposal for citizens rights guarantee. Okay. So there's a motion to uh add 4B or 4 alpha uh discussion of citizens right guarantee by Mr. Scay. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> It's a second by Mr. Tucker. >> There's no public for discussion. City manager, will you call the vote? >> Mr. Gray? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tucker? >> Yes. >> Chairman Lber? >> Yes. Motion passes. We'll uh have that discussion item after uh we're done with
item four. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other modifications? All right. Moving on to item number three. Uh, approval of the minutes from our December 10th meeting. Is there a motion to approve?
>> I move to approve. >> Second. >> Make a motion to approve by Mr. Tucker. Second by Mr. Scra. There's no public discussion. Uh, there's no public here. City manager. You call the vote. >> Mr. Tucker. >> Yes. >> Mr. Scra. >> Yes. >> Chairman Langford.
>> Yes. Motion passes. Uh moving on to item number four, review of uh sections 6 through 7. Um so before before we get through or or I guess before we get to that, uh I had emailed Miss CJ and my
apologies to everyone. Um I was a little bit late on that. Part of it's due to me traveling for the holidays, but what I did was I just printed those out uh for all the committee members um just so they would have a hard copy of what I sent in the in the email. >> Is this it? Okay.
>> And I believe she uh she incorporated it into that that packet that we have. So I just wanted to make sure that there was a a physical hard copy in case someone didn't see the email because I sent it to Miss CJ late. So my apologies on that. Um so I know Mr. Scra sent uh
quite a bit of information. Um and Miss CJ what she did was she incorporated all of that into um the document. So, it'll be this document right here is what she has up pulled up on the screen. Um, so I
guess we'll just get started from uh section 6A. And before we jump into that, Mr. Grace, since you sent the majority of this, is there anything that you kind of want to hit on before we go into >> Um, yeah, just in general, um, I look at section six as
the most important section in the whole charter, honestly, because this is the section as citizens that provides the guidelines for how we wish to be represented in our city by our elected officials. So, this is to me the
most important section because it dictates to the elected not only how they should represent us, but what they can and cannot do if it's spelled out here, which is kind of the uh nature of where some of my requested additions
came from. Um, that being said, obviously everything is up for discussion and consideration and I am open-minded to um adjustments if somebody can find a better way to achieve what I think is ne needed here.
So um so kind of the way I the way I see it is going out with um with how we have it in front of us. we can go line by line or we can just say hey you know what do
you what feedback do you all have etc. Um but I would so there was kind of a a discussion beforehand between Miss Mr. Tucker and Miss Meyers about um the the ballot like how things will look. So, I'm kind of curious about like something
just like take take section six for example. Um, if if this were to be approved by the commission and put on the ballot, you know, how how would what would be an example of that? I mean, and I guess what my question is is how indepth will that read on the ballot
versus what we have in the charter? >> Uh, it will not be very in-depth. It will be a statement of it if if there and it's hard for me to predict at this point um because I don't know where you're going to land but it would >> the question would be um addressing
commissioners powers um or limits of the commission um or form of government. And then the question itself would be shall the charter be amended uh to require the affirmative vote of three
members on all legislation or all actions um provide for agenda setting limits and limit the emergency powers. I mean that would be the briefest and we could annunciate or call out other parts
but >> okay >> that's my that didn't even address the non adorm I I feel like this is too much for one section you would have to do it >> it's 75 characters for the question >> yeah uh >> like for example if the B
>> 75 words it's not characters okay >> so bottom line it would it could be broad brush or or can If if you have all of these sections, if all of these provisions of section six are presented
and accepted as a section six rather than other sections of the agenda of the charter, um it will have to be a broad rush and it will really might even just be a list of amending the charter to provide for separation of powers, agenda setting limits, emergency powers, notum
assessments require I mean >> kind of by title. >> Yeah. I mean then there may not I mean that may be given the breadth and depth of these proposals I those headlines may get you to 75 words and that may be the end of it. >> So for example shall the city charter be
amended to clarify city commission powers require the commission to act only as a body reinforce separation between legislative and administrative authority limit individual interference of city operations define emergency authority and duration and so on. But you're basically, like you said, giving
little snippets of what each thing does, >> right? >> As a whole package, the voter reads that and it's like, do I do I think this is going to put us in a better direction or not, >> right? And then the other thing to also consider is given that we've got limits of the we've got sort of finance and
legislation and the finance piece the non-alarmm I feel like is so specific you may want to call that out as a special ballot question particularly if you're not certain it's going to pass or if if including it with everything else means that all of the other all the
other stuff will pass because it's all up together. So those are some of the strategic decisions that are required in creating the balance. So you're kind of saying like you could do a question 6A and a 6B and all the non-ABLORM stuff is in 6B because if as a voter I'm like I don't agree with that. I can vote no on that but I could still pass the rest.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> There's no there's no one way to do it. >> Okay. >> And I kind of shared the same concerns. I didn't want to chime in on the discussion until we were you know officially uh meeting. But I I I too
just hope that all of this work that you know the entire body has put together like it doesn't get lost because we just are out of room that type of thing. >> There's no limit on the page content or count, right? >> The commission hasn't given you one and the more pages you have to the ballot.
So you have you will have the ballot front and back that um to work with without having as soon as you get to a second or a third page if you will. Um the city has to start paying for all of the extra paper to be printed and
mailed. Um so as much as you can fit on the one side I feel like you have you have a lot of freedom there. Certainly more than one question maybe not 10. >> Okay. >> But as again depending on if you use all 75 words or not for each question. >> Sure. Do you recall how many pages the last one was? Ballot. I know there was
three races on it. >> The last Blind Haven one I think was just one page. >> No, the one with that charter amendments on it. It would have been two elections ago. >> I have no idea. >> Okay. >> I know there was three races up at the time because it was the mayor and the seat. It's the same seats that would be up this time, would it not? Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Um and if I remember correctly, they had five questions. >> I I have no historical knowledge or real knowledge. I have no idea. I think I would recommend that we go back and look at that ballot and see what they fit and maybe that'll help us understand as we
go forward what we're up against. Because if that was one page and she said we have the back, great, we got a lot of room. If that was two full pages, then we don't have a lot of room. And this next election is the the next election that this could be on is the
general election in November, right? >> Yeah. But I think for your part, I mean, create as many ballot questions as you think are are appropriate and if it's more than one I mean create as many ballot questions as you think are appropriate and let the commission decide the money part. If it's worth
this is important enough that it's as many questions as it takes and as many pages as it takes, let that be their problem. >> Okay. Yeah, I think it may be a little bit premature to solve that that challenge. Um, I think once we get done with the comprehensive review and then
we start kind of as a committee racking and stacking or or you know basically putting a bow on this thing to provide to the commission I think is probably when we need to we need to maybe tackle some of that. But uh >> um as far as this if you don't mind I
think we should just go through kind of paragraph by paragraph so to speak. Sure. Like for example, the first thing is the original paragraph that's from the charter now, but I made an adjustment that says requiring um
affirmative votes of at least a majority of the commission currently elected or appointed. >> Mhm. Um I I my own self who want this has also went to combat with myself on this statement because right now a quorum is three three members present
>> which we started this meeting with right >> thank you for doing this um which by the way do we have to adjust anything to okay you're marking him present >> time basically >> the day early we did hear that we
Um, so a quorum is three people on the commission. We've seen a few times in 2025 where we had three members present. I I think I remember at least twice a majority of a quorum is two members and
on one side I'm concerned is do we want executive decisions or legislative decisions not executive legislative decisions made by 40% of the elected or do we want to require that 60% and say
it has to be a minimum of three yeses period because you have five total members on one hand, I think it would be great to make sure we have a true majority of three or more. On the other hand, if you have people that are missing multiple meetings and you can't
get a consensus, it's that things are not going to move forward. But to go back to the, you know, the original argument I made, I don't know that that's a bad thing because if you can't get three people to agree, then maybe there's more work to be done before they
come to a conclusion. So, I'm torn on the sentence, but I would ask that we strongly consider it because of what I just said. >> So, here's kind of where where I stand on this and and and this happened um it
wasn't long ago. I believe it was uh when they appointed the interim city manager actually uh there were two members there were two members of the commission that were absent during that and I can't remember if it was a a split vote or not. >> It was three. So >> ultimately
>> ultimately >> it could have been 2-1 though legally. >> Mhm. >> So here's kind of where I'm going. I I am a firm believer that the city has to conduct business period in the story as long as there's a quorum and if there's
a if if there is a quorum and there's a split vote then it's a split vote. I I I feel like the city the city can't just not do business because we have people missing. I think the elected representatives our our representatives are elected. They're expected to be
here. They're paid every month to be here. If they're not here, I have a problem with that individual. And if they had an issue with a vote that took place because they weren't here, then I would ask them to be present. So, I just
I'm I'm a huge believer that a city has to do business when business needs to be done regardless of who is present as long as there's a quorum. That's kind of where I'm at with that. >> And that was the second thing that I made the own argument against myself for too because I am truly torn on this one.
On one hand, I want to make sure our citizen base is truly represented, especially in major decisions. >> On the other hand, I agree with you. Business needs to move. And I would push the commission, you know, if people are repeatedly absent, then stop approving
absences. Can the commission let's say it's an important fact important vote they could table and in their tableabling discussion state we're tableabling this because we would like more be here but if it's only
three next time you're taking >> absolutely sure that's what I would do >> but it's just up to the people elected >> right >> you know they have to be willing to do that >> yeah they got to show show some spying Right. And regardless of what the topic is, they have to be willing to do that
what you just described. So, um, so that being said, if the consensus here is that we don't want to do that restriction, effectively, that entire second sentence starting at all actions and finishing with four quorum could be deleted. and the rest of this paragraph
I still would like to make sure it's incorporated if there's any changes in there that weren't you you know >> I'm I'm good with that. I only had one comment on the first >> I think it the first paragraph largely I believe reflects what's already in the charter.
>> I have a question. Um the commission shall act in all matters as a body. What does that mean? I feel like that's very deliberate language and I'm curious what it means because in my mind the commission can only act as the body, >> right? But you're see the way I look at it is you're you're making a correct
assumption which the body is a legislative body >> and so no one commissioner should be providing any direction. >> I I feel like but I feel like that's the that's the current setup of a >> it's assumed but it's not written
anywhere. Okay. So it's just so if you have a commissioner that goes out and tells for example Chris, hey Chris, do this, right? That directly conflicts with that statement right there because that's not you're not acting as a body then you're acting as
an individual elect. >> Well, and it's also contrary to your city manager form of government because he can he is the only one who can direct any of his subordinates, >> right? So as a body they need to be directing him. If we get a clerk, the clerk and you as attorney, >> right?
>> That's the intent of that sentence. >> Okay. So, my second question, and I'm sorry I to the extent I will be called upon to interpret this and explain it. I just want to make sure I I am coming from the same place you are. >> Um, if the commission I believe already has the power to delegate to one to do a
specific thing, negotiate a contract, go to this meeting on behalf of the city, with the county, whatever. I I feel like they have the ability to do that. Um, and they can authorize that delegate to bind the city or at least the commission on their behalf. >> And that delegate would have a piece of
paper that says that, right? That the body empowered them to do that. >> Not always. I mean, I I can do it quick and dirty, right? Well, they may have a motion. They may not have a resolution depending on the nature of what that act is. I mean, that's because that's an administrative decision that they can
make on the t on the dis. So, I just I I want to be sure that they would still have that ability to delegate that I believe they have now. >> Yeah. I would I would want the legislative body to be able to delegate a representative. For example, hey, um I'm just going to take an example here.
Hey, Jamie, you're really strong in this field. Will you be the commission's delegate to go meet with X company and discuss whatever they're trying to bring to Lint Haven? Right. Um I would want the commission to be able to do that. Um, what I would want it though is I
would want to see that that's how it's done. They voted on it. There's a record somewhere that says they empowered him to do that on their behalf, not a commissioner just did it on their own. Cuz I've heard reports of that, right? I've heard that commissioners have done that in the past,
>> whether they're on this commission or past commissions. I've heard that's happened and that's not the form of government we have. >> Okay. Would an example of that? You remember when um I believe it was Mr. Peebles that was
selected to go and serve on the TPO board or one of the boards. How did that >> that's not a delegation of authority. That's just an appointment that has to be filled by an elected member. >> Okay. But the city of Linhaven had had a
seat on that board, right? And then that individual is representing the city of Linhaven. >> Yeah. But any actions he takes, even as a Glen Haven official, doesn't bind this the city commission. >> Okay. >> And nonetheless, the commission chose
him to do that. >> Is is there any other example of what we're talking about that's happened that >> the state audit? >> What What about whenever they voted for Commissioner Aldridge to negotiate with Vicki a contract to bring before the
board? >> So, in my mind, that's different because it's still coming back. I mean, he was sort of the representative to negotiate, but he couldn't bind to the commission. It still had to come back to them. So, he w he wasn't delegated. He was picked, but he wasn't delegated any authority of the board because it was still coming
back to the board. And they still could have said, "I hate this provision. I hate this provision. Let's change this. Let's change this." They absolutely could have done that. But if someone said, for instance, in Marina Island, um, you know, Sam or Jamie, go meet with Marina Island and finish negotiating
this agreement and your signature on there will be binding on behalf of the whole commission. We never have to hear it again. >> But if that if that didn't require a public hearing, that would be a good example. That's a terrible example because it requires public hearing. But >> but the commission would be deciding to empower one person to do that, which is
what I want. What I don't want is, for example, I'll pick on Pat. So if Pat comes into city hall and he goes to Chris is the city manager right now. So he goes to Bobby and says, "Hey, I need you guys to get that road paved. That's
not acting as a body." >> I completely I completely >> and I want to make sure somewhere in the charter that is written that they cannot be doing that. >> So if we need to reward it, I'm fine with that. But my intent is to somewhere in this charter state this is a legislative body that must act as a
body. Even if that means empowering one person to represent the body. >> Okay. That no that's fine. I just again I I come into it with my own experiences and >> prejudices >> and that's why I'm open to rewarding it but I feel like if I explain my intent then that helps you. >> Yeah. Absolutely.
>> What words do we need to see here? >> Yeah. >> I think it's a good discussion in that nature. Then if if we're going to keep sentence three, you could delete sentence one. Or if you're going to keep sentence one, you could delete sentence three. that starting at neither.
>> In that case, I would get rid of the first sentence because it's less words and I think more words here is a good thing. Usually less words better. >> So my question on or the only thing I would ask is the the word their
supervision. I don't like their I would like we would for us to state who their is. I'm assuming we're talking about the city manager's supervision. >> Is that his or her? >> Yeah. >> Well, no. city manager. >> Yeah. So, >> oh, change there to read city manager supervision
>> because their supervision. Who? The commission's supervision or the city manager. >> Right. I get what you're saying. >> Just kind of clear clear any confusion that might come from that. >> I'm sorry. I'm lost. >> So, this whole section will start with
the word neither. >> Yeah. So this whole section would start neither the mayor commissioner nor any commissioner shall individually direct blah blah blah and then the second to last word is there and it would say city managers >> and then did you say to get rid of that first sentence
>> the first two sentences starting with the city commission and ending with four core >> we'll start with neither >> start with neither. Yes ma'am. >> There you go. >> Yeah. Manager. Okay. Any other feedback
or questions on this paragraph? >> And I want to draw specific attention to the final sentence which limits the mayor commissioner's role over presiding over meetings representing the city ceremonially and carrying out duties
expressly delegated by this charter or by ordinance approved by the commission. I just want to draw attention to that so you guys understand that that's in there. >> So your section 18 of your charter is also specific to the duties of the mayor. Yeah. Do you want to do it in
both places? So, I had a note here or I think I had a note down at the bottom of the email I sent which said it I did find that conflict and we will probably have to touch on the differences between the two um
because of of that. So, I don't mind if it's only in one place or the other. I just want it to be clear that the mayor commissioner's role is that of the legislative lead of the body and is
primarily ceremonial. There's not an executive function to the mayor commissioner in the commissioner city manager form of government. >> Okay. My editor drafting preference would be that it stay in 18 since this article one is supposed to be fairly
general and generic. So I because the the article where section 18 is is more specific as to the functions and duties of the commissioners and the mayor. I would prefer to see that language on the mayor's roles stay in section 18. >> Yeah, I would.
>> This is still your document. So that's just a >> So what I'm doing is I'm just taking note today. CJ, you can delete it from there. I'm taking note to bring that up when we go through 18. Thank you. Thank you.
Um the second paragraph uh except for purpose of inquiries and investigations, mayor, commissioner, commissioner shall deal with administrative service solely through the city manager and neither the mayor commissioner nor any commissioner shall give orders to any sub subordinates of
city manager. Uh it is it does sound redundant now that I read it. So is the first sentence or the sentence above and that paragraph above is that legally adequate to say what I just read
off. >> Okay. If >> administrative authority and day-to-day operations of the city are vested exclusively in the city manager, is that legally equal to the second paragraph? >> Yes. And I think it's even stronger.
>> Okay. So this entire second paragraph except for and ending in city manager can be removed. >> I I'm okay with that. >> Yeah, I'm okay with that. I think it's redundant. >> And then the commission shall set their meeting rules of protocol in order at the first meeting following the swearing
in of a newly elected or appointed member as approved in majority by the commission. The purpose for this is if you've ever watched any congression any of our congresses function their very first thing they do as a body is to set their rules and right now what we have
is one person sets the rules for the meeting and how the how the body will fun the meetings will function and I would like to see every commission as a whole have that opportunity. So, it's it's a slight responsibility that I'd be I'd want to see added to the commission.
And that, for example, if um if, for example, this recall that's going on were to succeed and we have a new new uh mayor commissioner, that mayor commissioner currently has the
authority to set all the rules of the meeting themselves. And I want to see the entire body work together to set those rules. And those rules will last until a member of the commission vacates. So that whole body has the same set of
rules as long as that body is one body. >> Define rules. Um, have you when you attend the city commission meetings, there's a a a list that's usually on the TV the rules of the meeting and decorum and yeah, all
that that >> Okay. Yeah. Now I got >> and even further like they could decide as a body they could decide how they're going to like they could say, "Hey, this body wants to follow Robert's rules of orders." Exactly. They could do that.
Right now they don't have to follow Robert's rules of work, but as a body if they wanted to, they could decide that. And they would be then held to follow that because the whole commission decided with that. >> I have two questions. And again, sorry, I want to understand. I really do want to help you. I'm not trying to shoot anything down.
>> Um, just a practical pointer. I feel like this is a this is a great idea. I think it is appropriate for each commission when you get a new member to sort of set their own game plan. Um but it has been my experience that particularly when the
changes suggested are big changes that they can't get adopted in one meeting and particularly in that first meeting but they they can certainly initiate the conversation in that very first meeting. Well, they could also approve interim rules until they can settle it. >> But sometimes they can't, particularly when you've got three new, brand new
board members, a brand new chair who's never done it before, and two new chair members. They can't they don't know enough to say yes or no. >> Would you suggest saying that um >> shall set their meeting rules of protocol in order within first number of meetings or something like within three
meetings? Yeah. And so I think within the first 45 days would give them a deadline to adopt something and certainly get the conversation started but gives them some flexibility. >> Calendar days. >> Yeah. 45 calendar days. But my my other question too and this goes back to your statement that the mayor right now has
the has the authority um where because I'm my just I don't know where to look for that. I know that the commission has the authority to the commission shall adopt rules governing public participation in a decorum by resolution >> but I don't know where the mayor has
that specifically other than to >> um >> he conducts the an orderly manner. >> Yes, double check 18 and then also yeah there's a chairperson so they have that it I I feel like it's an assumed authority and that's why I want
something right. >> Okay. I don't like when contract law experience coming in. If I read the document and it doesn't say it, it doesn't exist. So right now to me when I read through the charter, there's nothing other than that assumed
authority of being chair that drives that. And so I want to actually take that assumption away and clearly write that the body decides how the meetings will function. >> Okay. I I No, I think that's a good rule. I >> that's my goal. I I think that's fine.
>> I don't I don't know. Do we need um of protocol/order or can we say shall set their meeting rules? And here's where I'm going with that. I and and maybe it's been a while since I've looked at the the rules, but I kind of think that there's some that there's
some doctrinal type of functions that we have on the dis like us using Robert's rules of order as a guideline, not as a set in stone type of thing. I see that kind of as more of a a doctrinal way that the commission would operate
versus, you know, >> that's where I use the word protocol was for that type of stuff. >> Yeah. >> And then order was meant to be literal like >> point of order, slapping the gavl. >> So, M. Myers, where where other than
those the rules that we have, right, where does it state that Robert's rules of order is is a guideline, not a requirement? So that's in chapter two of the code. Um it's 246 that says the Roberts of order
>> shall be directory only um and no active proceeding of the commission shall be initiated by failure to observe such provided the majority prevails. So that's in 246 and then 2200 is where it establishes that the commission shall set their rules of procedure for meetings participation which shall be
implemented by the mayor. So, >> okay. So, I didn't have to rescend that that ordinance that discusses Robert's rules of order. >> Yeah. If we potentially may um I think I consider the you setting the rules of
protocol. The rules of protocol are, you know, they're going to agree yes, let's keep the threeminut rule or no, let's expand it to a fiveminute rule, right? >> Um >> let's not require a sign-in sheet. Let's just let anybody speak. Let's move our the order of the agenda so that the
commission comments come at the end or let's put public comment at the end. I mean, that's what I consider to be the rules of order and protocol. >> And and that's where that's where I I I I want this to read as well. Like I I want this to refer the commission back
to those sets of rules, not well, we're going to change and now now Robert's rules of order is like that. That's how >> to me that's meeting protocol and they decide what meeting protocol is. If they can't >> if it's controversial and they can't move forward, I feel like this 246
Robert's rules of order is meant to come in and sort of save the day and give them some guidance. It requires a chair who knows those rules and >> is comfortable implementing them >> or bringing in a parliamentarian who can facilitate for him. Okay. to maintain
that order >> because my I mean my goal here is to ensure that having watched meetings from a lot of meetings that are on the city YouTube that go back previous commissions, previous mayors
um and watching other cities as well. What I want is the whole body to be that, a whole body. And if the whole body is deciding the rules and then the chairperson is not enforcing the rules, the body can refer back and say, "We
agreed to these rules and you're not enforcing." >> I call upon the mayor to enforce. They should absolutely say that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And that's just something I haven't seen locally here in Linhaven. Um >> and locally to ensure that that they feel empowered to do that. And I feel
like it being in the charter would provide that empowerment. >> Okay. >> As long as that's the case, I I'm I'm good with it. I just >> I just want whether we talk for three minutes or 5 minutes or whether public commentary is item two or item 12 or what that >> that should be their decision.
>> Yeah. I want them to decide. >> I want everyone to decide that. But I I also don't think that we just need to throw the baby out with the bathwater every time there's a new election and say let's change everything type of thing. there's there's doctrinal things that that need to remain in place. I just want
>> and to your point, I do think the slash order does call into question do do we mean Robert's rules of order and revisiting it or is it just simply the the rules of the game for commission meetings? >> Yeah, I'm fine leaving it at just protocol because in a way protocol
includes order because the rules currently state when you can get thrown out of the meeting for example >> that you can't clap, you know, stuff like that is already in the rules. So I just put them as almost like interchangeable. So if we want to say just protocol there and not slash order
fine with me. >> So can we say shall set their meeting rules and protocol or >> Yeah, you can do that >> and then remove the slant or dash. >> So rules and protocol within 45 days
following the swearing in of a newly elected or appointed member. Yeah, that forces an action but gives them time to do it. >> That's two, three meetings, >> which I which I appreciate. >> That's three meetings effectively. >> Yeah. >> And Amy, you're going to discuss with
the commission so they know what we're targeting here in this. >> Um well, I can or you can when you present it to them. >> Yeah. the last of the last meeting or committee they the chair person went and shared that kind of stuff and represented
um like if they had questions asked and such. >> Good luck. >> And they also to be >> I can back you up if >> they can also watch the the YouTube meetings because you know they're available. We watch theirs. So
>> all right is everybody is everybody good? I'm just trying to move this along because we'll we'll have we have a lot to talk about. Is everybody good with that before we move on to 6B? >> Yep. >> Okay, moving on to uh 6B. Um the only
Well, >> it is there. This is like one huge run-on sentence. I I was reading I was like, "Oh, where is the period here?" So maybe maybe looking at it
grammatically. Um, any member of the commission or city officers through the city clerk may add items to up. I I don't know. I just I read it was like, "Holy cow." So, I'm fine with hacking it up whatever way we want to, but it comes
down to it comes down to effectively one thing is that I at no point in time do I want a member of the commission, our elector of time to feel like they are not allowed to have something on the
agenda. Agreed. Unless the four three three other members vote to delete it from the agenda. But if they want it on the agenda, it should be on the agenda. And that's where the additions and deletions come from. And if three members of the commission feel like it shouldn't be on the agenda, they can
vote to remove it. And that that commissioner can be upset with the other three. And that's ultimately what it comes down to is I don't want any member of the commission or a city officer to be frank, to not feel like they can't get to feel
like they can't get something on the agenda. And I know that's happened in 2025, which is why I'm bringing it up. >> How does that work now? If what's the process now to put an agenda item forward? >> Manager, you want to answer that? How
>> it works? >> How the process So, Commissioner Tender has two items that she requested to put on the agenda um the 13th. Um so she in this case, she text me um some some of them email, some of them text. She texted me the two items and we added
them um on the agenda. >> Um >> internally there does seem to be confusion because I get a question just about at every single meeting. I want to add this to the agenda. Do I bring it up in my report or do I bring it up where the agenda says add to the agenda? Bring it up where it says add to the agenda. But what I'm referring to specifically
is in mid 2025, Commissioner Ward and I'm doing, you know, he I in a meeting he stated how he wanted things on the agenda and the chair chairman overruled it or the former city manager overruled it. That should never happen. If you
want it on the agenda and you're a member of the commission or you're the city manager or the city clerk or the city attorney, nobody should be telling you take that. You can't have that on the agenda. It's on the agenda. If the commission wants to say, "Hey, we're not ready to discuss this this meeting." We
they can vote as a body three or a majority can vote to remove it or table it or whatever. >> And when would they do that? >> Is that during the meeting? during the meeting. Item four, they could say, "Hey, I'd like to delete or they could
say, "Hey, I'd like to table agenda item whatever for one meeting so I have more time to prepare for it." >> Yeah. So, in this case, so Judy, let's say Judy Tinder wanted to add an agenda item. in that situation where Jamie
didn't have an agenda item. He was trying to add it just during the meeting >> and and the mayor unilaterally just said no. >> I I think it was before the meeting because it never appeared on the printed agenda and it was asked for in advance
is what I found when I researched. >> He also then asked for it to be put on during the meeting as well. That's al I know that's happened sometimes and stuff, but the bottom line for me is I never want a member of the elected
body of the city I live in to feel like they are not allowed to have something on the agenda that they ask for. Nor do I want our city officers >> to feel that way either. The commission can absolutely discuss removal, tableabling, whatever out in
the public for that agenda item that may be contentious. >> And what you're saying, if they can ask, put on the agenda, then it can be voted. We don't want to discuss it, >> right? Out in the public, the commission can decide, hey, we don't want that on
the agenda, but everybody sees that that it's being removed off. >> Is there an extra word in here? >> Yeah, it sounds like there's a lot of extra. >> So, so I think I think now that we now that everybody understand I I mean we could capture this by by saying you know
I I almost want to say this would go into the the duties and responsibilities of the city clerk or the city manager saying that the city clerk or city manager must um include agenda items requested by city officers and
commission members. So article article two regarding the city commission and >> I did steal part of this from Panama cities by the way. So theirs is also largely or longly worded. >> I but I added additional words that's why it looks so long. Miss, what were
you saying? >> So it article 2 is specific to city commission and section 13 right now is just sort of reserved and vacant. So, I feel like you have a placeholder to address agendas and meetings if you wanted to put that in the charter in the city commission article.
>> And where I'm going with this is I I I agree with you that this needs to be in the charter. I don't necessarily think that it needs to go here. I think this is more of a a beeps and squeaks type of type of uh administrative function
versus a you know, separation of powers and administration type of thing. So what section did you say that it could potentially >> article 2 section 13 >> right now it's just it's just a vacant sort of place over there you have a 12 reserved and 14.
>> So it's a >> article 2 section 13. >> Uhhuh. >> And what what's before that? >> Qualifications of members uh prohibited interest in city contracts prohibiting former members from employment. The ethics rules. >> All righty. I'll bring it back up then
so it can be deleted for now. CJ. >> Sure. >> Sorry. I I just want to make sure we don't we don't have some kind of >> uh >> I like that. >> Um >> really good idea. >> Emergency powers. Would that then should we discuss that at the same section or
is it more appropriate? >> I think that should go in section 17 with the mayor um or section 18 the mayor's function specifically. Um and you may want to you may want to even reorganize 17 and
18. So one is regular powers of the may of the mayor and then emergency powers. Um because what happens in an emergency is super specific. It's also set by sometimes statute and executive order. >> So >> so like just for example, I'm I'm I'm glad you brought up because I was going
to do it as well. So like section 18, which is the uh the functions of the mayor. Um it discusses um that he may take command of the uh police and fire departments and govern the city by proclamation during times of great public danger or emergency so on so
forth. >> I was originally thinking of taking stuff out of those sections and bring it up here. But if we want to leave this kind of stuff in the sections and now I'm fine with that. We can revisit it then. I'll keep it brief and I'll say under the current language I'm not satisfied at all with the current
language. the mayor can decide their own emergency regardless of what anything else is. >> Well, I will say too that the purpose the purpose of this in my mind the purpose of this section six and article one just very generally is to vest the broadest possible powers in the city
commission to do whatever legal act they need to do. >> Sure. >> And that is the that is the purpose in my mind of this section six. Now that doesn't mean you and and and you this is your opportunity if you do not want the commission to have all of those powers any and all powers they might have. I feel like this is the appropriate place
but particularly for not advant assessments to take away some of that power and give it back to the people that that to me is a that is appropriate in terms of what you as a body want them to have and not have. So if you want to make a note, I did have a comment
regarding this and my comment was um so on item B it says that uh if no such higher level de declaration exists the city commission may by majority vote at a duly noticed meeting
or by emergency of conference. Right? The key word here is is majority. Right? So the majority of the commission meets and they establish a state of state of local emergency. Then if we go into to paragraph D um it says that any emergency authority
you know will expire within 30 days unless ratified by a unanimous vote of the commission while in quorum. Why is there a difference between that they have to unanimously vote to extend the emergency past 30 days, but when they
create the emergency, it's only by majority vote. >> For sake of time, I will ask that we discuss this when we get to 17 and 18 because it's going to take more than the few minutes. I I want to allocate it to it tonight. >> No worries. I just wanted to >> Yeah. No, it's it's a great question and
I have an answer for it, but it's like a going to take a lot. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Yeah, no worries. Um, so, so that's six A. >> That's all of what I think, >> right?
>> Miss CJ, are you are we good with that? 6 A and and B. >> No, we moved 6B to article 2, section 13 as well. >> Yes, we section C to uh section 1718. Yeah. >> All that we've kept is article 6 section 168.
>> Right. what's left on the screen for her is what should be left at this side. >> All right. So then that uh section 6D would then be B and so on so forth. You don't have to change >> which is all your non-edible. >> Okay.
>> So um I I don't know if you all had a chance to see the email. Mr. Switcher, I told these guys before I got here. I printed out what I sent to Miss CJ today. I think somebody's already got a copy. So, just in cuz my apologies to everyone on the comm. I I sent it to
Miss CJ today and then she sent it out. So, if people hadn't had time to digest that, that's why I wanted to print it out to so we had a hard copy. So, >> um I think probably everyone here knows how passionate I am about non-advelor
assessments >> and it really has little to no nothing to do with storm water, right? My my mentality of non-advalorum assessments is the way in which the assessments are
levied and the lack of guard rails that municipalities have in place right now regarding assessments. Um, and when I say that, I mean that, you know, right now as we sit here today, those five individuals, yes, they we elected them
as our representatives, right? They have the power to levy a new tax, and I will call it a tax. I don't care what anybody says, it is a tax. um they have the power to levy a non-adabilorum
assessment against the residents of that municipality and they can increase that amount every year and there is zero guidelines on how they can increase or how much they can increase with the exception of one area and that's if that
non-abalorum assessment is um for fire for fire safety or fire right the city of Lindhaven said hey we're gonna We're going to create this fire assessment and we're going to pay our fire department. Why the state chose fire, I don't know.
But there's state statute that limits how much a city can increase that assessment each year when it's used for fire. That limit is it has to be um >> it's the index of income.
>> Yes. the five years the five-year average growth of of of income in the state of Florida, whatever that average is, that's the as much as they can increase it, right? So, if if the Florida income average has grown 5% over
the past 5 years, that's the average. They can only increase that assessment 5%. >> But Storm any other nonative form is unlimited. >> Unlimited. They can increase it a,000% if they want. For example, >> okay, >> for example, my storm water assessment
for my vacant lot across the street increased 75%. From last year, >> so from last year to this year, it increased 75%. Right? If we applied the same rules for the fire assessment to non-avalorm assessments across the
board, they would have only been able to increase it, I think, 7%. So my point is is that we have a process right now with non-abalorum assessments and this isn't just lin haven this is across the state of Florida because our state legislators have I don't know if
it's just because it's new or because they don't know or what there is it is no holds barred on residents when it comes to non-abalorum assessments with the exception of fire. So again, it's nothing against storm water. It's
nothing against fire. It's nothing against anything like that. It's simply me identifying the fact that we have a thing in Linhaven that residents can they can be they can be taxing >> an unrestricted tool that the commission
can wield and the only thing we as residents could do is to replace the commission. >> Correct. Correct. >> If you don't mind, what's the dollar amounts? um or a general dollar amounts like so so 75% yes what dollar increases
that >> but methodology change too and I think that matters >> I'm sorry >> the methodology changed too and that matters >> it doesn't matter >> it's it's the it's the at the end of the day it's the bottom line how much does this resident pay for service X
>> he's saying it's the fact I I think if I can I think he's saying the amounts don't matter because it's the fact that the tool rule can be used unlimited. The commission can decide percent, method, whatever. There's no guidelines restricting the commission. And what I'm
hearing and what I read is we need guidelines. And so that's what this discussion will be about is what guidelines do we want to ask the voters to put in place for non-ethor. And so is that >> Yeah, that's that's exactly and and I
get it. The methodology changed. Um, I could come up with 200 different >> method >> methodologies. >> Mhm. >> That each would change the bottom line for the resident. It could be a flat rate. You know, the city could have said, "We want to charge every resident
$500 annually for storm water." Well, last year we paid $100, right? So, whatever methodology you choose, it doesn't matter. What matters is is the percent increase that that resident is paying in that non-abalorum assessment each year. That's what this is going to
capture. So what this the way and it should be written that this will apply to any non-abalorm assessment whether it's storm water whether it's we want to create a non-abalorum assessment to fund park park beautifification or uh what
whatever whatever you want to dream up right this should be applicable to any non-avalorm assessment not just it's not targeted towards storm water it's not targeted towards anything So, okay. So, what I I'd love to just get right into
it. We got based on our normal temple, we have an hour left. Do we do do we all feel in general that there should be some guidelines to nonadalorum in the charter? I think that's the first question. And I think if you're going to put guidelines in place, that's the place because a commission can't just
get rid of them off of a twoerson vote, three people present. The charters, the only way you can change the charter is the people. So, do I think there needs to be guidelines? Yes. And that's where I would love to dive in because I don't
think all of this needs to be the guideline, but I think a lot of it could be. So, I'm ready to get into it whenever you guys are. >> Okay. >> So, so if it raised 75% is that was that $30? Was that $100? What was I
>> I don't have the number off. >> I can tell you what mine was. Mine went from 160 something to 300 and something. >> Yeah, that's big. >> And that that um Okay. So, I hear what you're saying and I I like that because you're just
>> So, storm let X and not storm water, it's just X because it could be anything. >> Sure. >> Just put that in line with the other stuff. >> A parks assessment goes from $500 a year for each property to a thousand, right? That's that's a huge increase. If a
park's assessment was $50 a year for a property and it went to a hundred, it doesn't seem like that big of an increase, but it's still percentage- wise the same. So, I think the core argument is not how big are the increases. The core arguments is there's no guidelines and we want to look at
creating guidelines. >> Yeah. >> So, storm water is the only one that's like that that or there >> storm water right now is the only example that we can use in Linhaven, >> but we don't have any others, >> right? But they can. So because we have such a big issue with it
>> there, they kind of added this in there to to help solve >> the limit is for fire. The state said you can't increase fire assessments more than the basic >> 5year average of the income growth in Florida. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> But if we followed that as an example and that's something we >> it's 5 to 7% generally is where that number falls. M >> but you couldn't like do 25% or 50% unless the state's numbers back that up. >> Yeah. >> So whether and we'll get into that, but
bottom line, the city could say, "Okay, you know what? We're we're done. We're done with storm water stuff. We're going to whatever put it back on the water bill, whatever. But we got this sewer plant issue. We got we got to build this new sewer plant, and this sewer plant is going to cost $20 million, right? So,
how are we going to get $20 million? We don't want to borrow it. Let's have a sewer plant assessment. >> Yeah. >> We're gonna now assess the residents of Linhaven um to to to gather this revenue to build a sewer plant, right? >> So, it could be in they can dream up we
could have a an assessment to buy clocks. >> I mean, they can dream up anything >> concert venue at Kaw. >> Yeah. So, that's kind of that's kind of where we're going with this. >> Okay. So, I get it. So, I started with um requirement for voter approval and
and this is I want to say this is a starting point. This is I'm not I'm I'm wed to some of these, but you know there there's going to be some give and take with this, right? The reason I said voter approval, this is literally a new
tax. It is a it's the the ability for our elected officials to say we can we can tax you on the millillage over here. We have all the the authority to do that, but that's not enough. We want to tax you on this. Yeah. >> And oh, by the way, if you don't pay it,
we're gonna take your house, and we can't take your house. >> Um, I think that's I think that's pretty serious. Um, I think that is a I think that's a lot a lot of power. Um, I get it that our elected officials can
vote on how much to increase our millage rate for our tax, right? But that's also regulated by the state level as to how much they can increase that. Right? This is something that is we are we are literally at the mercy of five people
that sat up here that we at some point the residents voted for. Right. >> So I think the voter needs to make that decision that I'm I'm this is this is a significant enough issue within the city. We've got a we've got a flood. I'm tired of my street flooding. I'm tired
of my house flooding. You know what? Hey guys, we we we need to fix the flooding in L Haven. Let's we need to vote for this. Right. >> So, I'd like to ask a few questions first of the attorney. Um is is when something's put on the ballot, is there any legal requirement in Florida that
the the success mark is 50% plus one? Could you set a lower bar? I think that so the city has adopted the state's election code and I do think there is a provision in the state election code that says it's 50% plus one. It may be
I I think I think there is something on that I I can check it but >> so when you say the city adopt how >> ordinance um I feel like it's in the general code of ordinances I can find it where the city says we have adopted states election code. So if we put
something in the charter that conflicts with that, would they have to repeal that to um comply with the charter? >> Okay. So that being said, my >> or they ignore it. If they don't repeal it, we just ignore it and don't report. >> It's not an effect on that specific
item, right? >> Stay adopted 18.4. >> Okay. So my concern, Mr. Langford is that previously the city attorney shared with us that the city cannot expend any funds on voter education activities.
>> That is a big problem to me because in Florida we already have low turnout >> and we there's next to no effort to educate the voter. >> You leave it up to the wild wild west of social media as Mr. Tucker alluded to
earlier and as an advocate in the city who is very strongly using social media, >> um I see that I understand the effects and the impacts that can be made in that regard. >> And so my concern is is that if we put
this in the charter, >> the the city the citizens will would probably approve this. And my concern with it being requiring a majority to levy anything is that we're never ever going to get anything levied, which
maybe is a good thing. However, here's my next big concern. We don't know what's going to happen with property tax in Florida. There's a lot of whatifs. But the one what if I'm concerned with is what if we are not able to collect advalorum taxes and the only way to
collect money for for example police and fire is an asset nonadvalorum assessment >> and the without voter education it gets turned down and we no longer have police or fire in the city of Lynhovven. So, I'm glad you I'm glad you brought this
up because there is a reason that the governor is proposing taxes going away. He's proposing that the taxes go away because the you never
own your own home. You're continually paying taxes on it, right? So let's just for example say okay Florida state tax or the Florida taxes go away. We don't then recreate that problem with something else called an assessment.
So if if we if if the the citizens of Florida say we are done with paying state taxes we don't want who are we tax >> property taxes I'm sorry property tax. Thank you. Who are we to say, well, we're going to create something else and we're going to call it different. It
looks just like this thing over here, but and the entire this this state voted to remove it, but we're going to create something else. It's the exact same thing, but we're just going to call it something different. That's what I have a problem with with with assessments, right? So, we can sit here and we can
debate on whether or not, you know, property taxes should go away or property taxes should stay. But what I would what I would do want to do is is separate those two those two issues because they're wildly different, but they're also a lot a lot. >> So what I would propose here is based on
some research that will come up later in the citizens rights guarantee thing that I proposed um having to do with runoff elections. Mhm. >> I found a lot of data that indicates that, you know, for example, what if
what if we had a lower bar such as like 45%. >> Or 40%. You know, some somewhere like that where yes, it has to go on the ballot, but it does not need to have 50% plus one. It has to have 40% or 45%.
Yes. >> I I would be I would still a lot of voters. >> Yeah, I would be supportive of that. And what I would compare it to, right, the um what is it the one there was like a recreational marijuana use or something I think was on the la one of the last
state uh elections or ballots or whatever and I think it needed what 50% or something or it needed 60 to pass. I think it got like 50 something or whatever. So it was more than the 50 plus one. But I I would be 100% on board
with defining whatever as long as the voters have a say. That's all I'm saying. >> And what the numbers are, it doesn't doesn't matter. And I'm in support of asking the voters via this charter committee. >> Do you want to put in the charter this
mechanism which would require 50% plus one to approve? >> Right. giving this the commission the responsibility that if they want a new a new non-advelorum that they would have to put it on the ballot and it would
need 40 or 45%. >> I would be okay with that. >> Okay. >> Pursuing down that road. But if it was a hard stop at needing 50% plus one, I wouldn't be able to support it. >> No, I'm I'm more than willing to go
either way on the numbers. All I want is the voters to have a say as to whether or not they want a new quote unquote tax levied on them. That's all. >> And I mentioned in the last meeting that Georgia, the Atlanta area has lost
which is taken to voters and it's on an annual basis. U they have a lot of elections there. But anyway, it is exactly for what you're talking about, Roy, uh, non-acloral assessments, and I'd say 80% of the time it passes. The
voters say, "Hey, I understand what you're doing. It's better my community, more, >> right?" Yeah. My my my concern though is again it comes down to the vote voter turnout and education is if the city can't even
educate the voters at the not not even like with a you should vote for or against this but the city legally you said cannot even send out like in the newsletter this is what's going to be on your ballot and this is what it means right they can't they can't do any of that
>> yeah that's >> and that to me that's a problem because when I lived in Colorado they used to get a book everyction election that would have all your amendments and things on it and they would let people who were for it put their statement and those against it would put their statement and you could read that.
>> So now until a few years ago >> the state legislator changed it, right? Yeah. So we'd have to go argue with Griff or Jay about it. But that leaves me and other members of the community who are active community engaged
citizens to educate the public on that matter. And as a member of this board like obviously I'm going to do that. Um, but my concern is is there going to be a counterargument of, you know, don't
don't vote for this because whatever reasons when we did all this hard work to try to actually give more power to the citizens just to watch it get turned down. So, that's kind of where my thought process comes from with this. >> So, I I think it I think it comes back to each commissioner
>> communicating with their constituents as well. >> Yeah. Um, I know there's been times that I've had commissioners reach out to me saying, "Hey, you know, this is this is kind of what's going on here, you know, and there was some education on on my part there. Oh, I didn't I didn't
realize that side of the story, right? And I may have changed my position. I may not have." So although the city can't spend money on voter education and is it wrong to say that Commissioner Adams could put out on his or her
Facebook page and say, "Hey, this is the problem that the city's facing." >> He could. >> Okay. >> Um I would recommend that he do that after the commission has already passed their resolution and their ordinance adopting the charter amendments >> so that it's no longer foreseeably to come before the commission. If there's
no city dollars being expended on that personal Facebook page, that's okay. >> So, let's just say, for example, all this passes, right? And then, you know, we want to dream up some assessment that we need park beautifification assessment, right? And Commissioner
Adams decides that he's going to educate his his or her constituents to say, "Hey, you know, here's here's why I'm I'm an advocate of this this assessment thing, and I would encourage you to vote yes on it." that that is that would be okay. Correct. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, my point is is that while I understand that the city can't expend money on it. >> Yeah. >> I I believe that the commissioners themselves if if they feel that that's necessary, then they should be the ones advocating for that vote um not
necessarily the city. >> Okay. No, I get that. You had a question. I know. Um, this may have been covered like when I was walking in, it sounded like maybe part of it, but uh, so I like I like what you're saying,
but when I read the charter and when I read what we're going over, these seem really like pinpoint ideas, whereas the charter is like broad like a broad guidance, right? >> It's it's your constitution. Yes.
>> Yeah. a um >> it seems like it seems like um like both of these documents well this maybe this one would almost double the
charter you know so it's it's it just seems >> and I I don't know I think that's okay I don't think there's anything wrong with like how short or how long that charter is >> I think so >> I'm just wondering how how we figure out like what is what how
far down into the weeds we go. That's right. >> Whatever you put in the charter, they have to follow it. So, and I agree with you, maybe this is a little bit more detailed than it needs to be or maybe not. As we discuss it, maybe we find it's not. But what I will say is if it's
not in the charter, the commission decides. So if you don't put some of the stuff that in the charter then the commission can do whatever they feel by majority to do as long as the state law doesn't prohibit it. Um so in this regard I think what Mr. Langford's goal
is to effectively say hey number one the the citizens he said it like four times the citizens have a say. That's this whole thing is about the citizens have a say >> and his number two goal is to give
top level restrictions for example I don't think I saw it in here but maybe something in regard to like you know top level restrictions like if they're passed they can't exceed the thing she was talking about but and I might be wrong and correct me if I am but so
citizens have a say and these are the restrictions the commission needs to follow for new non new nonadalorum assessments should they get passed by the citizens? Am I off on that? >> No, you're 100% correct. >> Are there other goals that I haven't mentioned, but I don't know about them?
>> No, no, that that's essentially the goal and and I'm glad you it is a valid question, right? This is this is pretty um I'll say it's rigid. >> Um but what it's I will I I would also ask this. Do you know which of these
commissioners up here would draft and put this for discussion and vote during a commission meeting? >> Yeah, I could venture and guess it's none of them. >> Exactly. So, and I know that because do you know how long this right here has
been discussed? >> Since 2022. >> And do you know who's been discussing them? >> Yeah. So my point is is that >> you know while yes it is in the weeds there are literally zero restrictions
right now >> on the city and the commissioners are not going to that should not be that way. >> Are there sections of the US constitution or subsequently the bill of rights that we feel like are in the weeds? >> You know some of them are length
sections are lengthier than the others. >> Some are very brief and pointed. Right. the right to bear arms. Very pointed and brief. Some of those are uh amendments are more wordy. >> So, >> yeah, >> but so yeah, you you kind of hit the
nail on the head as far as the the objective of this is to number one ensure that voters have a say and number two, should the voters approve that? Here are the guidelines in which you have to operate. >> I'm not discounting what you're saying at all. I hope you know that because I agree. Overall, I agree. Yeah. So
looking at your 6A1 >> that you've proposed number one I have no objections to I mean it's very pointed it's uh shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the city for approval by referendum. That's that's clear. Number two I
already talked about I didn't like majority. I'd like to do a lower percentage. >> Okay. So >> and I think you can I've been trying to research that. I can't I can't find it in the election code. I do actually see where your charter sets the approval threshold for candidates. It doesn't
address issues at all. So I do think that you have an opportunity to a and b it for conduct of elections for if you want to do 50% or a single rank choice runoff single >> you can't do rank choice but I have a proposal later for >> so if you want to address how candidates are elected and issues
>> because the legislature said we can't do rank choice in the state of Florida. >> Okay. Well you you I think you can you can make it there are ways to make it a single election. Yes. >> Yeah. I that and that's what I'm proposing there. I'll I'll just be up front. I'm proposing that in in three or
more member races, a candidate receiving 40% of the vote would be elected because I've done the research and the number of elections that required a runoff. Um that didn't result in a different candidate in recent history. It was like two elections out of the I think like
eight races or tw 12 races. only two of them that went to runoff um needed to go to runoff because in the in the cases it like for example when Commissioner War was originally elected there was four candidates
and he received more than 40% of the initial vote. So he would have effectively gone and gotten elected without a runoff. And as we know, subsequently his runoff was he he won. That's happened a lot. In fact, in the
last I think 15 years, I've only found two cases where that didn't happen. And neither of those candidates had gotten to the 40%. So, um, so that being said, I would like if if we're going to go forward with this, I would like to say
something like without receiving at least 40%. >> Or you just address it in section 31 when you get there. >> Expand on that, Ryan. Um, getting at
least 40% of vote. Let's see what where's 31 >> qualifications and election uh city commission candidates >> right now it only speaks to the candidates I feel like but it sets the voter the approval threshold um so that's where I feel like you >> so are you saying this non-addal I'm
thinking entirely would make more sense there or just how it's no just >> because I'm speaking unless you want to have a >> a 40% or a lower threshold that is specific for nonadalorm and not all ballot initiatives >> I was thinking of all issues.
>> Yeah. Not all ballot initiatives. I think in 31 what we would say is that the threshold is 50% plus one unless otherwise stated in you know elsewhere like this. I think this is unique to this. >> Am I not plugged in? It says my battery.
>> Um okay. So basically for example if using his example of sparks beautifification if we go to what's happening >> we just plugged in the the power cord. >> Oh okay. So for example his parks beautifification if that nonadalorum
would be proposed under this charter amendment gets passed that's proposed it goes to the voters it's a nonadalorum what what would happen is and what I'm proposing is you would only need to get 40% of the vote for it to be approved
not 50 >> and my argument was >> I think a lot of people without good proper voter education in this community are going to just be like oh that's tax Yeah, I I would I would be fine with with >> just thinking on the other hand, if if
40% of the people said yes, that means 60% didn't want it and it's still happening. >> Well, they didn't want it. But let's look at, for example, the zoning referendum question that failed. Did anybody know what it was? No. I did everything I could to educate the public
on that and why it would be good for the community and they just voted no because of how it was written. They didn't like they they not that they didn't like it to be frank. They didn't understand it. They didn't know what it was. So I don't know what that is. So no. >> Mhm.
>> So it's not that they don't want it. Now, if 60% of the population said, you know, I spent 5 hours looking into this and I researched it and I talked to the commissioners and da da da and I don't want this kudos. You shouldn't have it, right? That doesn't happen here. People
don't vote based on research and logic by majority. They vote based on impulse and reaction or what they heard on the news or what their neighbor said. And this isn't this is an item that isn't we're not saying
hey we we can never have non-advelors. We're saying we there are cases in which not worms may be appropriate and we're asking slightly less than a majority of the people to decide if that's appropriate you know
which if we end up with 50% and we never get non-analorums you know oh well then we can reflect back on this conversation >> and decide if the you know in five years they can decide if the charter needs to be changed again. I don't know that
we're I don't know that the commission is going to plan any other non-active warrants. I think storm water is the only one that's rooted itself to being a necessity at this point. >> Um but again, my concern is just if we
leave it at majority, we lose the the resolve of the community that's educating themselves as voters. And if you have 40% that educated themselves or even 20% that educated themselves and 20% that went off of feelings and the
other 60% went off of or you know 50 and 10 or something. You you get kind of what I'm saying there. >> My my main concern is that people are just going to reactionary that's that's taxes. So no >> and they did zero looking at it other than when they got to the ballot they
were like oh that's tax. >> So maybe that's what they care about. I mean, people vote with their pocketbooks and they don't want no matter what it is, they don't want something that >> Well, and that's why I didn't say 30 or 20%. I said 40 or 45. Give a little
leeway. And I'm okay with 40. And here's why. Let's just say that it's for storm water, right? And you've got 40%. Let's just say that every single registered voter in Linhaven actually votes. And that's it's a pipe dream. Okay? But
let's say that 40% of the city says, "I am so sick and tired of my house flooding and all of my neighbors houses flooding and so on and so forth. We need action, right? We need to fund this. We need to fix this." >> But then you got the other 60% of the
city lives on the other side of 77 and they say, "We're high and dry. We're good. I don't pay for that." Right? should that 40% of the city suffer because of the other 60% is fine. And that that's an extreme example, right?
I'm just saying that I'm okay with 40% in my head >> because that's how I'm thinking of it, right? I'm thinking of glass half full and I'm a huge majority wins kind of guy, right? >> In this instance, kind of >> what if you were on the other side of the hill
>> and like you're talking from the 40%, correct? What if you're on the other side of the >> dry the dry half that's kind of hoping you're a jerk for like you're hoping for the bad like the >> you're hoping for a feeling of of greater good
>> for the city right >> and I'll also say is part of my reasoning for that >> part of my reasoning for 40% is that this nonvalor won't even be on the ballot unless the people we elect it by majority
decide to put it on the ballot. Right. So at that point, our elected representatives have had meetings, public discussions, hearings, they've done research, and they've decided this tool, this non-ABLORM for storm water, park beautifification, fire, police,
whatever it may be. They've decided that that is the best mechanism to collect the funds needed for our city to operate. And so they're saying, "Okay, now that we've done our part, we're asking you as voters to decide if we can do this." And if it gets turned down,
then the commission is tasked with finding another way to fund the thing. >> Yeah. >> And that's that's a key point and I'm glad you brought that up because people think that, well, if we don't have an assessment, we there's we can't fund it. Oh, yeah, you can. There's a thousand
different ways to fund it. >> You do a calendar. >> Yeah, we just Assessment's the easy button. We're going to hit the easy button here and we're going to grab all this money and it's going to go into this nice little account for us and it we just write checks out of this
account. Right? There are other ways to fund a program, a department or an issue or whatever. It's just >> it causes a little bit more work. >> Can host a lot. just needs to be exposed to the people instead of >> correct which honestly I've talked
myself out of 40% and I'm okay with 45% cuz he convinced me that maybe 40%'s too low but I feel like 45%'s still not a majority and that like you if I'm sorry but if you can't get 45% you were never
going to get 50%. Right? >> You know and I guess that's where my thought process is. I know it's a little bit different >> for this, but I'm a play devil's advocate here. Majority rule. What type of case law could the city of
Lhaven be opening itself up to >> if a person at 60% says majority? >> Yeah, >> I want to go to court over this. >> So, you may have enough authority to set your own elections. I don't I don't I I
can look. I don't know the answer. I do know that as a municipality, you have a considerable amount of home authority. And since I couldn't find something in the state election code that set what that approval requirement is, I I think there's a pretty good chance you have the home roll authority to say what your
approval threshold is. And my basis on that as well as the the runoff situation that we'll talk about later is that I when I did research into that I did find for example Gainesville, a very large city had that situation up until
recently. Um did they change it? But for a long time they had where there was votes that would be passed with 40%. Um, and they only recently changed that and it sounded like from when I read through their minutes and stuff, it sounded like
they as a community just felt like that was the best thing to do, you know? So I guess my thing would be like as a community do we think that if we are going to put this on on ballot is do we want to have it be 50% plus one or is
45% or 40% you know like where should we put that benchmark? Yeah, >> I I think that based on everyone's feedback, I don't think we're ready to make a decision tonight to agree on that. And I I would say, you know, let's revisit the percentage, right? Whether
it's majority, 40%, 45%. That'll give Miss Myers if there are any issues that that you find, maybe, you know, you could bring that back before we before we agree on a number as well. >> Yeah. >> Number three in that section I'm totally good with because that is very
self-explanatory. Okay. Any other comments on one, two, or three from anyone? >> Well, I guess I do have a question. When it says maximum annual amount, >> Mhm. >> So, I'm a I'm a voter at the ballot. >> Can I see
>> give me a dollar amount that you envision being there? >> Right. Um, so let's say that we're the city wants to do a a park beautifification assessment um to put new slides in every park and
it's going to cost $2 million. >> Okay. >> And we only we only are are are saying that we need this for three years. >> So we we divide >> what? Let's let's use three million public math. So it's a million dollars a year, right? Um,
>> so that's that's the overall cost of the project. So what I'm going for there is is that >> overall cost. >> Overall cost. I want you to tell me how much is it going to cost to do what you're trying to do. >> But how much is it going to cost you? I
want to know how much the city and I've asked this question I don't know how many times at that podium. How much is it going to cost the city to fix the storm water in Lin Haven? and no one can tell me. >> I wanted to make sure it wasn't an expectation of that maximum annual
amount for the the property owner, the voter. Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Um so that's why that's why that's there. >> Any other questions on one through three? >> All right. So the limitation on duration
um four years. So my thought process to that we have an election every four years, right? Um, you know, this is I think it I think the residents need to meet the city halfway and say, "Hey, we're approving funding for this for four years." If you don't figure this
thing out in four years and there's not some sort of significant improvement, chances are we're not going to vote this in. So, and and we're not going to we're not going to go longer than four years. You got four years to make some serious impacts. I better see some new slides out in these parks within four years. So
let's say this past April, April 2025, we had one of these non-advorum votes on the ballot and we approved it for park beautifification. Correct. So it's good for four years. Correct. Right. And it now looking at budgets that budget year
doesn't start until January. You're right. >> Budget year is October. >> October. Sorry. October. The taxes don't get collected until January. So where does the 4 November, November. >> November or April depending on the >> Well, you get a discount depending on
when you pay, >> right? I pay I pay. I get the discount. Um, but I think what I'm trying to say is where does this four years start and end? Because at number three, you say um shall automatically expire at the
conclusion of the authorized term. Is the authorized term proposed in the in the non-advelorum assessment saying like starting would you start a nonadalorum in October or January? >> Well, it would start in October. It's
when because that's how it would fund the budget for that year. >> So, for example, the first year that the storm water hit, the budget was built >> October. >> October. The budget was built on the nonable that was passed. >> Yeah. I would.
>> So if if four years goes by, it started in October of 25, four years later, >> April of 2029, >> we vote down, no renewal. >> Mhm. >> But and September 30th.
>> Yeah. >> Is basically because the authorized term was October 1st through September 30th. Okay, I'm track. So, I think I think as long as the city had the voter results in order to in time enough to send out the trim notices to or the
>> which if they get it in April, they have until >> it would have to be done at the election in April for us to be able to build the budget and send out everything in >> and say, "Hey, that's not at forum. Just end it. You guys didn't renew it. So, it's done >> come October or September 30th."
>> Okay. But >> you you have to adopt it every year. It's an annual thing. I know we have had this conversation about they may plan to stay with the same methodology for 5 years to ditch it early, but if the voters don't renew it, the commission doesn't even have the choice to continue it at
that point is what he's saying. >> But again, if we're not caring about methodology every single year, this requires a referendum on an nonvarm assessment. And I don't think that's your intent, but that's how it reads. >> Yeah, it's not that based on health statute for
>> Yeah. No. So I think what you want is it's the voters said it's good for four years. The commission can work within that four years, but at the end of the four years, the voters have to be asked again if they want to renew it for another four years. >> I get that and I and I
want I want that to bind them to a specific methodology for four years. If they're going to change the methodology, I think it's got to come back in front of voters because it's absolutely going to change how it affects your pocketbook. >> Yeah. >> Um and they can stay with that methodology. I don't care if they want to do it for 10 years but >> well not necessarily >> but I think every 5 years is also sort
of the checks and balances you want to force for does this methodology even still work is this assessment still needed >> so the uh the increases um kind of restrict the methodology I don't really care what methodology you use I just
want to know how much this is going to cost the project um and then the fact that it it can't by X amount every year. >> So what you said was $3 million, right? Or a million a year. So for 3 years,
>> correct? >> And what you're saying is if the methodology originally was everyone's going to pay a hundred I mean just use don't nobody check my math on this $100 a property right a year and for year
one. But then year two they're like actually now the methodology is going to be everybody's going to pay >> $20 a month on their utility bill. That what you're saying is that drastically >> changes the methodology. Yeah. >> Yeah. But they're still capped at $3
million period. >> Well, hold on. What I heard from you if we say here's here's where I'm talking about that. All right. If we pay $100 a year, all right, and then the methodology changes to now it's it's $50 a month, well, the annual cost that the
resident is paying exceeds the I think I put millage rate in here. I didn't put the same as the fire assessment, but that would exceed the percentage allowable increase. So, I I honestly don't care if we call it $100 a year and
then we go to um what uh $10 a month in the next methodology. Well, that's $120 a year versus $100 a year. So, we're we're we're less than >> Well, you're saying that elsewhere in
here there's already a mechanism that >> that prevents increases. >> If the increase would be too high, then the methodology failed. >> Correct. >> So, a couple of questions. Let me be also devil's advocate. >> If the governor does away with property taxes and there's no longer a calculus
for maximum case of millage because mill doesn't exist. >> Um >> would you also consider >> putting in that index that limits the fire assessment and make that the maximum increase for any assessment? >> Yeah, I feel like that's the best measure >> and I'm glad you brought that up because
I wanted to discuss that once we got to the point. We have two options here. We can mirror the increases per the millage rate restrictions or we can mirror the increases as it relates to the fire assessment that's already in Florida statute.
>> I think the fire assessment one is there for a reason. It's an example. It was a starting point. Maybe whatever flavor of the day at the time was hot. I don't know. Firefighters union or cities going crazy with fire assessments. the legislature felt like that needed to be
happening. Clearly, the example wasn't park beautifification, otherwise we would have had that one, right? >> So, but I think that already provides us a mechanism to copy and paste and then edit. Yeah. >> And I think it's easier to justify as as
well that there's this restriction for fire assessment. Why shouldn't this restriction also apply to any assessment? Right. >> So, I'm 100% on board of that. just as long as there's an identified increase rest I don't want to call it restriction guideline limit whatever we want to use
right so I'm okay with that >> I have another question >> okay >> um just clarify so you're wanting to change section 6B 3A at the end of that first sequence to say a permitted for adorum
for the fire rate >> yeah I'll give you the language it has to do with an index and it's very it's wordy Yes, >> but I'll get it to you. >> Follow up. >> Just if you just want to put insert index cap, I can get you that language
to actually what it is. >> So, you were ready to finalize something? >> No, I just have a question. So for so a couple meetings ago um the commission was considering uh street lights and mil bayou I think or
>> a specific a specific neighborhood >> and it one of the mechanisms they have to pay for it if they didn't want the entire city to pay for it out of the general fund is that they could do a non-verarm assessment that it was specific to that neighborhood because that is the specific neighborhood that is being benefited by that project
essentially. And so my question is in that case if the commission had an appetite to assess a neighborhood for a very specific improvement um in my mind the referendum should apply only to those people who are subject to the assessment. >> Does the mechanism exist to execute that?
>> Yes. right now. >> Okay. I mean, if that's something that >> if they can meet all the requirements of law, which I know you say are zero, but if they meet all the requirements of law, which >> are are more than zero in my mind, >> because my concern would be like it can the city and the supervisor of elections
office facilitate what you just said? And if the answer is yes, then sure. If the answer is no, then why would we put extra burden on them? But it sounds like they can easily facilitate that. So I I mean I don't know if there's political appetite but it it is legally possible.
And so my question was >> I more like systematically possible. >> Yeah, it's possible. But my question is based on how this is written is submitted to the qualified electors of the city for approval by referendum. I read this maybe wrongly and this is where I want you to correct me. Is that
in that case where they want to do a neighborhood specific non-adalum assess assessment is that for the entire city to weigh in on or just that neighborhood? All right, let's say that I live on Louisiana Avenue, right? I don't live in Mil Bayou. Okay. >> Right. >> But the assessment is specifically
assessing Mil Bayou residents. >> Would I be a qualified elector? >> The way I think qualified elector is are you registered to vote in the city? Do you live in the city? You're a qualified elector. >> Okay. >> But what she's saying is we have the ability to reduce down. Yeah. >> Right. For so in my case
>> subject to the qualified elector subject to the assessment. >> So in my case, yeah. Yeah, it's fine. If the assessment was only to assess the houses west of Highway 77 and 390 >> Mhm. >> for sidewalks,
>> right? >> I have no sidewalks where I live. That's why I'm using this example. If only those houses got assessed for a sidewalks, only those living in that area when we get our ballot would it that question exists only for us. Cory doesn't live there. He's not going to
have that question on his ballot cuz he's not going to be assessed. >> That's what you're saying. >> Yeah, it's possible. >> I tell you what, we might be on to something here. Let's go back to the 6040. >> Yeah, >> the assessment. Let's We're going to assess everybody on the east side of 77.
Everybody on the west side of 77, they're high and dry, right? So, do we need 50 plus one on the east side of 77 because it's a narrowed assessment area? If it's an to me, if it's a narrowed assessment, yes, you need 50% plus one.
But if it's a atlarge assessment, no. >> Yeah. Slides in the park, right? >> The entire city of Linhaven uses or could use the >> but street lights in Mil Bayou. >> Correct. >> I love that example because that's something I thought of. Why can't the citizens of Mil Bayou just pay X dollars
for their street lights? >> They can. They absolutely. And it sounds like there's a mechanism that if they really want the street lights and the city to pay for them, the city can say yes, but you're getting a non out ofum if you approve it for your own street lights.
>> I like the verbiage that you could you say that one more time. The >> subject to the assessment, the qualified electors of the city subject to >> to the assessment. I I like that >> or to the proposed assessment, I guess. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I didn't even know that was possible. >> Yeah. Yeah. The county does it for several
neighborhoods for very specific uh projects. Um whether I don't know that it's street lights. I think it's more material and for road improvement, sidewalks, maybe even sewer or subject sewer conversion, stuff like that. But they do it for I think they have five or so non-adormous assets that are specific
to neighborhoods. >> Okay. >> You could do it on like some areas on the west side of the city that do not have sewer. You could do it, you know, from the 14-,900 block from Maine to Maryland and get sewer in there first. >> It only shows up on the ballot is for
those who are going to be affected, >> which feels appropriate to me. >> It does. >> And it's because they're on um >> septic. >> They're on septic. Yeah. >> Not all of them. >> Yeah. And I think that conversation is is interesting to pin once we get back
and we revisit the 40 45% 50 plus one. But I think probably in the essence of time we'll get through 6 A2 unless you guys feel otherwise. I think we can get through 6 A2 and maybe uh the rest of it until the next meeting
or you guys >> I mean we got B2. >> I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm I'm looking at this. Yeah, my bad. when I say I say I say let's plug on for 20 19 more minutes where we're at.
>> Well, what do we have left on the agenda? >> Um just the discussion of the citizens rights guarantee. >> Well, >> that was the after this public commentary next meeting and then we're we're done. >> Okay. So, I'll motion to table that till
the next meeting. Second. So item number 4 A will be tabled if we vote yes. >> Okay. Okay. So there's a motion on the floor to and and just to catch you up Mr. Switzer before when we we added an agenda item to discuss the citizens of
rights guarantee that Mr. Gray had had sent out or through Miss Rushing rather had sent out. So that was going to be on the agenda. Um the motion now by Mr. Stray is to uh remove the discussion >> table it until the next meeting. I'm
sorry. Yes. Table uh the newly added agenda item which was discussion of citizens rights guarantee until the next meeting meeting. There's a second by Mr. Tucker. There's no public commentary for comment. City manager, would you call the >> Mr. Yes.
>> Mr. Tucker? >> Yes. >> Mr. Switzer? >> Yes. >> Chairman Langford? >> Yes. >> Okay. With that done, I feel like we Let's plug on for 10 say 10 more minutes, then we'll talk about scheduling the February meetings and then wrap it up. >> Sounds good. >> If if you're good with that.
>> Yeah, absolutely. I think >> I'd like to just be out of here at around seven. >> Yeah. >> So, we got through one through three. Um, Miss CJ, you added the uh to that number one after qualified electors, correct? >> Um, what did you say, Miss Myers? The
subject to assessment. electors of the city. >> They're right there. Subject subject to the assessment they're the proposed. So basically anywhere it says voters throughout it should be that what you just said subject to
>> on this non-advalum assessment I would prefer it >> anywhere it says voters it should be >> qualified electors of the city or everybody who's qualified to vote in the city versus those subject to the assessment if they were ever to do something that was less than citywide. >> So I think anywhere throughout we could say we could cover all bases by saying
subject to the assessment for all spots because it's either going to be at large or specific. >> Okay. So basically my suggestion is that anywhere it says voters change it to >> or elector >> electors sub subject to assessment
>> electors subject to assessment that seems like it's the magic phrase >> by the voters subject to the assessment and one yes referendum and majority voter subject to the approval prior >> I don't think it's a I don't think it's
a what you're doing like as far as word of find and replace or whatever. But yes, in in the gist of it, >> we just need to make sure we capture everywhere. >> Yeah. So, we agreed on number two. We're going to revisit the percentage uh as it relates to 40 45 majority vote,
whatever. Uh is there any other questions or comments on one through three >> of 682? >> 61. >> I will just volunteer that I had some concerns about the ballot language. I'll clearly state all of those things.
within 75 words but I tried it on AI and it can be done so I have overcome my >> concern. So we're moving to hard copy would be 6A2 and up there is it what 6B2 >> starting at nine abalorum assessments authorized pursuant to this section
shall be established for a period not to exceed four years. >> No I think that's what you just did we >> No we were we were cleaning up though one through three. >> We started on it. >> Yeah we started on on B2. Um so did do we need to capture based on the
conversation of the April election do we need to drill down a little bit further in paragraph one to identify >> I don't think so because authorized term is would be on the the authorized term would be on the election you would say
for example they would need to say you know effective budget year xyz until budget year XYZ. So, for example, from October 1st, 2025 till September 30th, 2029. That's the authorized term. We use
period of performance in in my line of work. Same thing. Okay. >> It's good for this 4-year period. That's it. You're going to have to renew it in April 2029 if you want it to go beyond September 30th, 2029. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, I'm good with what it says now.
Yeah. >> Okay. Anybody else have anything on one? I just I'm I'm at the risk of beating a dead horse. This is this is the one that makes me concerned if the state will throw something back.
>> Um this is the one that makes me nervous just because the statute requires that assessments non special non-avor assessments be adopted annually every year in a public hearing. >> And so I just I feel like >> if I if I something to cover that
>> here's here's the trick. We're trying to take away a power that they already have. So, it's in the section six because we're trying to limit their power in a very specific way and I feel like that is appropriate. >> Um, but this reads to someone who has not listened or watched all of these YouTube videos as if you were trying to
give the commission actually a pass on that annual assessment by I can we can adopt an assessment once and it this is good for four years because the voter said so and that's contrary to state. So, what if we do a number four and we cover it in a number four in this section with a sentence that effectively
says and other words that I'm not going to try to generate right now in my brain, but effectively it says the commission still has to do that annually. >> Well, so I want to when you get through this entire conversation about nonver assessments, we'll come back to how we fix that problem. So, let's pin it for
now. I want to identify it because it is a real concern I have and I don't want you to be surprised when it gets turned back which I didn't know was a thing. Um but this is a part that makes me nervous because it is 197 is pretty procedural and jurisdictionally if they don't do all of those things it's also not valid.
>> Yeah. And we could say something as easy as that the voters are authorizing annual renewal >> within the authorized period >> right >> for a period of four years. So we're really what the citizens are doing is they're authorizing the commi the
commission to renew an annual assessment annual annually up to four years. After that it must go back to the voters to reapprove that annual >> and it still has to be annually renewed by the commission within the authorized term. Well, we'll we'll play with the
language because it I I want to make sure that we're going to still require compliance with state law, but also where >> where we're requiring extra I >> so I I I just want to pin it for now. I want to mention it, but we'll fix it at the end or I'll >> Yeah,
>> I may have some thoughts on how we fix it. Whether it's a blanket statement except as otherwise stated herein, you will always comply with court law regarding the assessments or if we need to address it in very specific places based on what
you ultimately decide to do. >> Okay. The the next section we already kind of talked about with the increases. I think that's where you were going to come up with language for the index. So, I think we need to revisit the the
limitations on annual increases the next meeting in order to hear what that language is. >> Copy it from the >> Oh, I can give it to you right now. >> I use the index on the Panama City Beach uh CRA assessment. Um, so I've already got it in legislative format. I just got
to pull it. >> So, I'll read the uh I'll read the verbiage right now. It says the rate of such assessment must be fixed by resolution of the board pursuant to the procedures contained in statute 191.011.
Non-avalorum assessment rates set by the board may exceed the maximum rates established by special act county ordinance or previous year's resolution or referendum and amount not to exceed the average annual growth rate in
Florida personal income over the previous 5 years. Non Avalorum I know nonavalorum assessments rate increases within the personal income threshold are deemed to be within the maximum rate authorized by law at
the time of initial imposition. >> I will get you language. It's a little easier than that. >> So that basically replaces number one of this section of instead of saying something about adalora millage blah blah blah. >> Correct.
>> It can literally be copy and pasting. Yeah. Okay. I'm Yeah. I want I want that because that's a more widely known and and and man, >> easy to determine every year. Kiki can
say this is what it is. This is your old >> somebody somewhere is paid to calculate >> the maximum rate department. You can certainly do less and they can do this. Yeah. >> But this is the max. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I like that. Um, so we're good on Well, so on to um
we need to match what's in paragraph two where we're talking about majority voter approval. Whatever we come up with in number two up top, we need to match, >> right? >> Everybody see what see what I'm talking about? >> That's the only
>> the the major the percentage and subject to Okay. If voter approval or renewal is not obtained, the assessment shall automatically expire at the conclusion of the authorized term. >> That would be that budget year, right?
>> Well, that that for Yeah. the previous election like he gave the example of uh I believe it was what uh September 29th. It would expire on September 29th. >> Gotcha. So the city would then have to come up either alienate that process or funding or what project or whatever it
is or come up with a new way of funding that project whether it be rework the budget to move or to fund something. I don't know. >> Yeah. >> Put storm water back on the water. I don't care. However you want to do it, you got to figure out a dumb way.
>> Yeah. They have from April election until the end of September to figure it out. >> Yeah. Otherwise, the program just ends and no more work takes place until they figure it out. >> Yeah. >> So, we already kind of So, the next par uh the next section we're in paragraph
one. It's making Chris's job harder. So, on six alpha 6 alpha-3 on the hard copy and then it's what? Six bravo-3 up there. >> Um so, one paragraph one, we've already talked about that the annual increases. It'll pretty much be a copy and paste
from the Florida statute. Any proposed increase exceeding this limitation shall be deemed invalid unless separately approved by the voters in a referendum. That that also matches what's in the Florida statute. Not word
for word, but it Florida statute does allow fire assessment increases of more than what that index is. >> It just has to go back to the voters to approve that. So, we're not saying that you can't do it. If you need if you figure out, holy cow, we need to increase this thing 200%. You could do
that, but guess who has to allow that? The voters. Can we um two things? One, one, I'd like to hear from the interimm city manager on concerns of this so far.
And then two, once we're done hearing his concerns, so we can digest them before the next meeting, I'd like to table the rest of this until the next meeting so that way we can set the February schedule so we have that in
place. Um, so we can still get out of here by 7. Is that okay? >> Yeah, I think that's >> So >> Mr. Lightoot, the the floor is yours >> for the non-adable for example. So, say it say we had an election last April and
this didn't pass, right? So, from April to October 1st, what were we going to do? We're going to put it back on the water bill. So, do we put the same amount to fund the entire department back on the water bill? If we do, that's a significant amount every month that people are paying. If not, we tell 12
employees October 1st, you no longer work here and nothing in storm water happens. We move the equipment that storm water bought to another department or we sell it and that's the end of storm water. >> Okay. >> Then then what um the examples of the
parks and the slides I think those are great examples for specific non-appables but something specific as the storm water and the fire assessment for example that funds an entire department I think we got to go about a different process. Um >> quick question for you attorney. So, so
far this all says new. Technically, wouldn't Linhaven storm water be exempt from this? >> Every every year your storm the assessment is new. It's considered new under the law. >> Yeah. But I'm saying specifically, wouldn't the the Linhaven storm water one not be subjected to this even if it
passed into the charter because it's already existed or it would become when would it become subject to a voter referendum? So well it and let's talk a little bit because they just adopted a new methodology this year which by their intention they plan to hold in place for
five years. So in my mind if I'm appreciating what you are saying and what they are saying in five years or before the end of five years they have to come up with a new plan that would at order to implement it >> without a gap would have to get before
the voters and that may be inside or outside of an election cycle but or far enough in advance we could plan for but in my mind that's when it would happen. Um, if I'm going to liberally cons construe it doesn't apply to existing I I I don't I I would not I I I would give
them the conservative advice that every assessment is a brand new assessment because they always have the authority to to make changes to it. And so every even next year they would have to put any assessment they want to budget on the on this referendum to get approved. So if they stick so conservatively, if
they stick with what they've agreed to at this point for the 5 years, prior to the five years, if this were to pass into the charter is when we as citizens could expect to see this on the ballot for the extension of the Linhaven storm water non-ador.
>> Yeah. I mean, and and and the reason I want to go conservative is because we do have a new election. we're going to have three new members and they don't have to be bound by that 5-year commitment of the prior commission and they can do whatever they want. And so, >> so understanding that to your concern is
from April to October or September 30th. So, and April is usually it's the latter half of April. So, you're really talking May, June, July, August, and September. five months for the city and the community to either A find another way
to fund said program or b prepare to transition out said program including um well it doesn't pay for labor though right non don't pay for labor >> does so so yes >> okay currently it does
>> so transitioning out any staff members and also any projects that were going to take place would no longer take place until the commission finds a solution or a nonadalorum would get approved is what you're saying. >> Yeah, I'm understanding that concern
that you have. >> Stormwater nonadalorum security bonds. Are they pledged for any bonds? >> No, not non- storm water. >> Um >> because that would also be problematic if in the future not proceeds were pledged for a bond. So, and and I would
say if you look at a an organization like a regional utilities, the the way they keep that organization going is you keep debt up. Nobody wants the debt. So, a smart commission would latch on, go bond storm water, and then the storm
water assessment couldn't go away. >> It's true. >> I mean, that's true. bonding will if if if you have any funding stream you are worried about the legislature taking away from you bonding it is the way to preserve that revenue stream and that authority. >> So can you enlighten me a little further
on that? So okay so in the case of storm water let's say storm water just got voted down in April and you had to end it September 30th. You're saying the commission would most likely if they
were trying to preserve it do what? No, not if it got from April to September. No, they wouldn't go to But >> if they were Okay, so it's passed and they're concerned that in five years the voters are going to vote no on it. >> I would rely I would recommend the commission go get a $15 million bond to
complete all the projects that we haven't done and drag it out for 20 years. Is that something that is I guess how is that mechanism working outside of the approval of the storm water nonadville?
>> What do you mean how's it working? >> So like for example if the stormwater nonadvalorum was was approved for 3 million a year and for 5 years that's 15 million. So what you're saying is they think it's going to get Novo at the end of the five years. So they can go get a
bond exclusive of this entire referendum pos uh option to be the new mechanism. >> It's not the new mechanism. The bond would only take care of the projects. So we talked earlier about we don't know >> company would have an obligation under the bond covenant to continue to assess
that non-abborne assessment till bonds are paid off. So, but okay, what I'm not understanding is we would have already been collecting 3 million a year. So, year 1, we got 3 million, 3 million, 3 million, 3 million, 3 million. Right? That's the 15
million. At the end of the 5 years, it goes away if it was voted on no in that fifth year. Right. So what you're saying is in year three they could have got a bond for not 15 million though what just left
>> because there's a cap of 15 million. >> I think one of the biggest misconceptions with the storm water assessment is we don't take in 3 million a year but just say for easy math we take in 3 million a year and that 3 million is being banked to do a project. It's not being banked to do projects. It's being funded or used to fund the
stormwater department. So you're funding 12 personnel. You're funding vehicles, you're funding equipment, you're funding the contract of digging ditches, um replacing piping, anything that a a grant hasn't paid for. We don't have any bonds on the storm water department.
That's why the projects take so long to do. Now, we could go bond 15 or $20 million and we could do probably eight stormwater projects by the end of this year. But under this, what he's proposing though is if the non-advelorum had been previously approved for the
fiveyear term, the fouryear term, right? Whatever we'll say five. So it's approved for five years and they do the 3 million, 3 million, 3 million, 3 million, 3 million. At some point, you're saying in that 5year term, the commission could say, "Hey, we're going to get a bond for $15 million." How does
that not already like they've already like let's say they did it in year three, they've already collected 6 million. How could you go get 15? Cuz 15 plus 6 is more than 15. >> So I take my annual salary and I can go get a $400,000 mortgage. I don't make
$400,000 a year, >> right? But they would be effectively violating the terms of the nonadalorum that the citizens approved at that point >> cuz it'd be more than 15. Here's here's the way I look at it. >> A bank may take that risk. A bank may take that risk. And if the bank takes
that risk and says yes, the city needs the project. Um the commission takes the risk that they get voted out of office by going contrary to the voters. But by approving that bond covenant, which also requires public hearing and all all of the dog and pony, um I I feel like at
that point the bond covenant and the rights of the bond holders are going to outweigh the rights of the voters of the city of Lhaven to prevent that. >> But the consequence of the commission gets voted out potentially. >> Yeah. >> Hold on. >> Two things. Number one, you can go take
out a bond or try to take out a bond for 30 years if you want to. There's no financial institution that's going to give you a 30-year bond when your charter says in five years the voters may not fund this. And correct me if I'm correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't
have the authority >> to assess voters if the charter says that the voters have to approve it and the voters did not approve it. >> I would have a duty to disclose that to the bank and then they can take the risk. >> Correct. >> And I can advise them and they can choose to ignore me. It happens all the
time. >> Yeah. So I just I just want >> it's a great concern. I appreciate you bringing it. >> Yeah. >> Well, again, I think we talked we talked about it this meeting and the last meeting. Anytime you put a tax on a ballot, it's
likely going to be voted no. So 3 years ago, four years ago, the rain that we had last weekend, we would have been working all weekend. We would have had people out with issues. We didn't get the first call out the last rain. We haven't gotten a call out during a rain
event in over a year. It's because the storm water assessment is working. It's funding things to get done. We're digging ditches. We have the fact trucks now. We're cleaning out inlets. We've replaced stuff. There has not been that many storm water capital improvement projects completed because the money is not there. It's all about the
maintenance and that's what the storm water assessment is funding. >> I want to keep talking guidelines. We hit I know we hit seven. Next meeting. I'd like us to continue talking about the guidelines. At some point when we wrap up this non-AD advorum thing, I would like us to discuss thoroughly the
differences of these guidelines being in the charter and requiring a referendum vote versus the guidelines existing and the commission can't violate the guidelines without, you know, with no referendum vote. They can implement them, but the guidelines still exist. At
some point, I would like to have that debate. >> Yeah, I think it's a I think it's a fair discussion to have. And I think there's some I think there's some core some core things we're going to have to I guess discuss first before we before
we get too far in the weeds. But I will say guidelines abs I feel guidelines for non-adalorum regardless of what we do there has to be some guidelines put into the charter >> because I agree with you it's a unlimited it's a blank check at this
point for the commission they can decide what they want to do. So y absolutely >> um so I think we're we're probably at a good stopping point as far as uh the nonabalorum assessment charter verbiage
is concerned um and uh we will move on to item number uh five since for alpha was was removed uh for public commentary not seeing any public here uh there'll
be no public commentary moving on to item number six. Um, next meeting. So, I I know that initial I think it was our first meeting, we kind of all discussed how many meetings a month do we want to have, etc., etc. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we discussed having
two meetings a month >> after each commission meeting. >> Correct. >> This week we were off because he's going to be gone next week. So, we exempted the four we switched the 14th to the 7th. Right. >> I have calcul I have calendared that our next meeting would be the 28th but we
and then we would our next meeting after that would be February 11th and then February 25th. Am I am I tracking correctly? >> So I I'm going to say there is the agenda will come out tomorrow but there is a an item to move the commission
meeting uh from the 27th to the 29th of the because it's the Florida League of Cities week in Tallahassee. um that the commission is interested in going to. So we will not have a commission meeting if approved Tuesday. We will not have it on the 27th. It will be on the 29th and we
would be coming back into town late on the 28th. >> So you would not be present if we met on the 28th. >> I could make it but would be cutting it close. >> Would we have availability given that we've just met this month on the 7th?
Would we have availability on the 21st? No, I'm open. I'm okay with the 21st. >> I'm okay with the 21st as well. Okay. >> Um, and then for February, we had a plan we have a planned meeting, I think, for the 11th. >> I am not available on the 11th.
>> Okay. I would if if possible, I would like to do that on the 4th. Tell you what, let's uh let's slap the table on the 21st right now for January and then at that agenda item, we'll discuss when we're going to meet in February. Does
that sound okay or do you want to try to figure out February now? >> Um I'm fine waiting. I'm just letting you know now if it's on the 11th or any portion basically from February 5th to
February 17th I'll be unavailable. So if it's if we didn't have it on the 11th we wouldn't be able to have it anywhere from the 5th to the 17th and me. >> So we could either do it on the 4th or the 18th is what you're saying. You would be able >> effectively. Yes. Either one. But and
I'm okay waiting until the next meeting to discuss it. >> Okay. Um, so next meeting then, Miss CJ would be the >> 21st. >> 21st at 5:00 pm. Okay. Um, so that's item six. Moving on
to item seven. Uh, we're adjourning. Thank you.