ahead and call the meeting to order. It's uh 5:15. Um I guess since we don't have a uh a member here, we'll uh we'll call the role and ask for that to be excused unless anyone else has heard anything.
I've I've not heard anything from Mr. Marlor. No. Okay. Um in that case, city manager, you want to call on the role? >> Mr. Fer. >> Yes. >> Mr. present. >> Mr. Tucker >> here. >> Mr. Marlor,
>> Chairman Langford >> here. >> So, with Mr. Marlor's absence, uh, does anyone want to make a motion to excuse the absence? >> Did he contact anybody? >> I have no information. >> He has been having medical issues. So,
yeah, I would make a motion that we excuse and change of course if he comes in. >> All right. Motion by uh Mr. Tucker. Oh, there we go. >> I resend my motion. >> Mr. Tucker has rescended his motion. No
need. Welcome. Welcome, Mr. Marlor. >> Glad to have you. >> I had you back. They didn't want it. I did one. >> It was almost not ready to give you a verbal warning. >> All right. So, uh, Mr. Marlor is is
present. Um, Miss Meers, do we need to close that out in any way that you send in the motion? Okay. All right. >> Moving on to uh item number two on the agenda. Additions, deletions, and modifications to the agenda. Are there any?
>> Okay. None heard. Um, we'll move on to item number three, approval of the minutes, uh, dated 24 of 26. Is there a motion to approve? >> Motion second. >> Motion by Mr. Scra for approval. Second
by Mr. Switzer. Any public discussion? None heard. City manager, will you call the role? >> Mr. Scra, >> yes. >> Mr. Switzer, >> y >> Mr. Tucker? >> Yes. >> Mr. Marlor? >> Yes. >> Chairman? >> Yes. >> All right. Uh, moving on to item number
four. Um, I guess we'll start off by receiving feedback from you, Mr. Lightfoot, regarding uh the commission's decision. I I know I watched it uh online. I wasn't able to be at the meeting in person, but for anyone who's here who didn't watch online or wasn't
there. Do you mind kind of going into that? >> Yeah, so they decided to go to the August referendum. um which means we have a June 12th deadline uh the commission has a June 12th deadline to approve the ballot language um which we would need the first meeting there in June uh to present and have them
approve. And so if I understood and maybe I misunderstood it. It seemed to me as though we the this committee had a one May deadline to provide that to the commission or was that just >> so it would be very beneficial if we
could have it by the 1st of May. That way we can prepare then it could go to the first meeting in May, right? If there's any issues, they would have the second meeting in May to adjust and vote or approve and give us the buffer. >> So partic in particular, if you want to add more than just the city clerk
language, if you are ready to move forward, yes, >> May is your drop dead date to get it before the commission for them to also consider it and put it on that August. >> Yes, ma'am. And I guess I should have prefaced that with the the discussion that I I had watched unfold was for
additional items for uh or items rather in addition to the city clerk, they would they would rec request those by one May, >> right? >> Cuz I feel like the clerk language is done. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I watched the meeting online, too. I didn't get to go, but there
wasn't I feel like our committee doesn't have anything left to do on the clerk position. I mean the com commission's going to decide if they want to add other stuff to it. We can all individually as members of the community
or even individually as members of the committee, you know, share our thoughts at commission meetings in that regard. But as a whole committee, I feel like there's nothing further we can do. I mean unless we want to discuss making a
re recommendation to or not to do additions to what we've come up with. >> My only thought the opportunity it presents the May August referendum uh the opportunity it presents to this committee in particular um is the
electioneering communications prohibition doesn't apply prior to something being put on the ballot. It's the being placed on a ballot approved by the commission by resolution that sort of cuts off your ability to educate and create those communications if you
wanted to. So, if you feel strongly um that the commission, you and the commission should could use this time uh before it gets on a ballot in June to educate the the world about the clerk position. I don't know if that needs to happen or not, but if there's another
issue in particular you want to raise up, >> um the sooner you get it done before it becomes on a ballot, >> you do have a little bit of wiggle in there and I just want to offer it up because it's >> So, for example, if we wanted to produce something like uh
>> you wanted to put something in a letter right now, >> if I wanted to put together like a little Canva flyer, >> pass it along to Chris, the city could, you know, present out data letting people know about the clerk charter,
>> what the charter review committee is doing and recommending. Y'all can do that. It could go in a newsletter. Even though city resources are being used for it, it doesn't count as an election electionary committee until they vote on that >> until it becomes until it gets placed on the ballot. So, while you're still talking about it, informing the community that you're doing it,
>> it's it's not a big opportunity, but it is one that it is a limited opportunity that you do have right now. >> I think that's definitely a discussion point. The only thing that I I would be worried about with that is is we we could we could provide something to the commission, you know, as as something
that we think should be on the ballot and the commission say >> no, we don't want that and it not go on the ballot and here we are. We've communicated this stuff to the public and the commission chooses to not put it on the ballot. So just just a discussion
point or or or just >> Yeah. I mean, if the if the commission is pro putting something that we bring forth on the ballot, for example, the clerk, then great. Like, I I don't think we need to spend committee time coming up with that. I mean, I think individually, if we know the city can do
that, we can all kind of take a homework assignment, if you will, if you want to. Or if you don't, no worries. But like like me personally, I'll put together some stuff that I would want to share out on Facebook and if the city so chooses to also share that out, great.
More people are being educated >> about this upcoming referendum, you know, and get simple stuff, not this get it not into the weeds, just there's going to be a referendum. It's going to happen. You're going to have to vote on it. You know, it's for a clerk. Here's
the pros of having a clerk separate, >> right? Um, >> here's what yes means. Here's what no means. >> Right. >> Yes. Means. And as a cleric, no means keep doing what we've been doing. >> Yeah. >> Does Oh, I'm sorry. >> Did you have
Sorry. We already know I heard three of them supporting it. So, it's like, >> yeah, the clerk is kind of an easy deal because they've already voted and they've already actually um put out, >> right, but like our section six stuff, we we have no idea if they're going to go for that. Yeah,
>> it might be a resounding no from all five or it might be, you know, three to two or it might be all five of them love it. Maybe not. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, I wouldn't want to spend much time trying to campaign that stuff or or
information campaign rather that stuff until we know like that they support it. >> So, agenda item number four is kind of a two-part agenda item. So before we move to the second part of confirming the the city clerk ballot verbiage, um does
everybody is everybody okay and comfortable with us kind of setting an internal deadline of one May providing those deliverables to the commission to give them those two meetings to to discuss >> and that's for any additional noncler
referendum questions? Yes, I think it's kind of be has it has to I mean we have to >> either we bring it forth or it goes on to the next one after that, you know, April 2027. >> You have something we want done. >> I feel like I feel like that tonight
we're going to be able to finish up section C because we've only got one small or section six rather. We've only got one small area to to close up and I don't want to move ahead here, but um that said, I think we would easily meet
the one made deadline for section six in addition to the city clerk. you know, even even looking forward, you know, into seven or or eight, I know there's some there's there's probably going to be some some pretty heavy discussion once we get over into uh you know,
section uh section 10. But, um, you know, if we were to, you know, get some lowhanging fruit there in seven, eight or nine, you know, we could we could potentially add that as well if if there's anything that comes up. Um, there may not be, but uh, so it sounds
like everybody is is kind of okay with a one May for any additional items to the clerk. >> Yeah, I mean it's kind of a set self invoked deadline of if we wanted to be on that ballot, that's our deadline. >> Okay, so moving on to the second half of
agenda item number four. Um, Miss Meyers, we'll kind of turn it over to you. Looks like we're going to confirm the final city clerk ballot verbiage and committee submitt to the commission. So with that, we would >> which I'm afraid I didn't make pretty. So I saw my markups from last meeting,
but I'm happy to read it. Um >> well, it's in the minutes, too. >> Okay, perfect. I didn't make it pretty, but >> um shall this was the AI generated one that we tweaked. Shall the city charter be amended to create the office of city clerk hired and compensated
by and reporting to the city commission serving as the city's official custodian and recordkeeper responsible for maintaining ordinances resolution minutes contracts and public documents managing public records request preparing meeting minutes administering oaths overseeing municipal elections as
required by law and performing these duties independently in accordance with state law city policies and directions from the city commission. So based on that, that's the ballot language and there's and and correct me if I'm wrong here, but I just want to make sure my small brain understands it.
We've got three, we're we're we're providing three deliverables for this one item. Number one is the charter verbiage. >> Number two is that ballot language. >> Yes. >> And then number three, which I think is what you were going to draft, was the um
ordinance or not the ordinance, but uh >> the resolution. >> The resolution. So there's two pieces of legislation. The ordinance that has the charter amendments attached >> and then there's the resolution that has the ballot language. Okay. >> So ultimately it's two >> two documents. Okay.
>> Um >> I'm probably not going to prepare I mean I'll I'll prepare the architecture for the resolution, >> but I don't if they're going to if if there's going to be more than one question in it, >> I'll pop those in the end. >> Um and then same for the charter. I'm
going to do it as an exhibit so that whatever you've got amended at that point fully baked >> will be attached. >> Okay. >> So it could end up with exhibit one charter exhibit 2 section six so forth. >> It'll be exhibit A and it'll have the following sections of the charter. I can
I can do it one of two ways. I can do it in the body of the ordinance which I prefer. Um particularly if it's not a whole hog charter >> amendment. We're going to we're revising the city clerk section. We're we're establishing a new section. We're amending substantially amending section
six. Calling those out focuses it in the ordinance in a really I think lovely way >> and that result in two questions. >> Keep flexibility >> that results in two questions, one each, right? >> Separate question. >> It could result in more than two
questions. Okay, >> it would be at least two questions, >> but because they're on one ordinance, it doesn't automatically group them together into one question or anything like that. Okay. >> So, based on that, um, we we've all already voted on the verbiage of the
charter and then based on what you've what you've heard um that we discussed last time and kind of amended and tweaked for the ballot language that we're going to and again, both of these two items, the ballot language and the and the verbiage in the charter is simply us providing that to the
commission. The commission can tweak, do away with, or approve as as written. Um, yes ma'am. >> Sorry. Um, I don't think you voted on that. >> No, it was just a consensus. >> Was it consensus? >> Yeah, it was consensus. The action was that you get the resolution with it in and then you vote on it.
>> Okay. >> So, the motion vote on it. >> And that's what I was about to miss Miss Meyers. Um, so I think at this point in because this is our first submittal to the commission, I think maybe it would be appropriate for for the committee to vote on, you know, everything in its
entirety to to push submit to them. Is that >> I would agree. >> Yeah. >> The form of ballot language and the form of the charter amendment. >> Okay. >> Are the two things. >> All right. That's a motion to approve and send forth the agreed upon ballot
language and the charter language that we've amended in regard to the clerk. >> Okay. So, there's a motion by Mr. Scay. Is there a second? Second. There's a second by Mr. Marlor. Any further discussion? Any public comments?
>> See manager, will you call a vote? >> Mr. Scra, >> yes. >> Mr. Marlor, >> yes. >> Mr. Tucker, >> yes. >> Mr. Switzer, >> yes. Chairman Langford. >> Yes. Motion passes. >> How does that get delivered to them? You just through that.
>> We'll submit it to >> Oh, David. It's in now. >> It's very messy process. I'm I was just wondering if there's if Corey would introduce it in a city commission or if it's just >> Well, I know in the past Yeah. the past
committee the only time somebody from the committee went like they give like periodic updates. Um, I mean, if like I would think like, you know, maybe before May 1 or close to May 1, like we could agree to have Cory go say like
these are the things we're going to be sending forth and >> if there's more than one other thing. >> I kind of like that idea all together just so we're >> we're here, right? We want to make sure this stuff gets put pushed through if we can.
>> I think we we talked about it briefly. I think it was during the last meeting about at least providing some sort of a status update. And now that we kind of got some direction on dates and and that type of thing, I I think it would probably be, you know, a little bit easier to align that presentation or
whatever you want to call it with the one May deadline or the one May date. Um, and then, you know, we may go a period of four or five or six months after that until the next opportunity to provide something. And that's where I think maybe we could focus on just a hey
status update. This is kind of where we're at. This is what we're we're done with. So >> like maybe between that second March and the first April meeting of ours, you can go to whatever applicable commission meeting is and say, you know, you have the clerk stuff. We're bringing forth s
you know, article six and if there's other stuff, boom, boom. And give a little brief update so they know to expect to work on that. in the April or May meetings. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, that's item four. Moving on to
item five. Um we're going to review the uh confirm the reviewed updates um for article 1, section 6B1 through section 6 C2B. And then uh where we left off was the uh
the final portion which was uh section 6C2 um specifically B and then 6C3. >> Um so since the first part of that agenda item is confirm reviewed updates
uh that we made through 6B1 through 6C2B. There was Mr. Gray had brought up for those of if if you weren't here or or if you left early or whatever, um kind of where we were at with section six. Um everybody kind of agreed on everything.
Mr. Scra brought up a a good point saying, "Hey, you know, let's don't completely say that we can never pay any city employee with non-avalorum assessments." >> Okay. Well, that's that's fair. Let's talk through that. So, um, tonight I
think we'll, you know, in a perfect world, we'll figure out how to make that charter verbiage say that if everybody's okay with that. Um, on the second item of that, he had mentioned that, you know, if that's the case, there needs to be a a higher threshold for voter
approval if we are going to pay for services using the not. So with that second part, that higher voter threshold, I'm curious if if you want to bring up how how that would look, right? Is that two questions on a
ballot? Is that saying, hey, here's the nonavalorum assessment we want you to vote on. And then the and question number two would be, oh, by the way, we want to pay city personnel with this nonavalorum assessment. And both of those would have different voter
thresholds, or do we want to make it one voter threshold across the board? So I think what you you have is if it's personnel it has a higher if you're paying personnel it has a higher threshold
and so that that question in itself and um so that question in itself shows up and I don't remember Amy maybe you know do they do they print on Florida ballots the percentage needed to pass something
here. >> I don't think so. I don't think it's on the ballot. >> It just kind of shows up on the news. >> I think it's on the draft ballot they send you in the mail. I think there's a a blurb on that, but it's not on the actual ballot >> cuz like the I mean the ballot the ballot would just say
um the ballot would just say the question like the clerk >> and I mean that that's where the pain in the butt is of the lack of being able to vote or educate. But we can educate the voter up until the point of it um it
goes on the ballot. And really the education effort for this amendment just getting the charter amendment explaining to people, hey, if you vote for this charter amendment, what it includes is yes, non-adorms will go on the ballot.
Yes, they will have a lower threshold if they're not um if they're not paying city personnel. if they're paying city personnel, they'll have a higher percentage. And but I don't think you need to put separate questions on there because the what it comes down to is do
you want this non-advorum to happen or not? And people are going to vote yes or no based on if they support it or not. >> So I think I should have probably framed my question a little bit better. I'm I'm saying that let's say that this this charter uh amendment goes through,
right? And the city wanted to put a nonabalorm assessment on a ballot. Would that then be two questions with different voter thresholds? Because one is the assessment itself. The second one is if we pass the assessment, can we pay
city employees with this money? You see what I'm saying? >> I do, but I I think that needs to just it's part of the non-adorum. It's for example, do you want to pass a non-advorum to pay, you know, for the grounds crew like Tyel department,
right? >> That's just one question. in one non-ad forum. It's all baked into itself. So that question in particular because it includes paying city personnel or have the higher threshold. If you're not paying city personnel, like if it's a
special project like you, we've used sidewalks as an example, then it doesn't have that higher percentage. So I just had an idea. I wanted to offer this as a as a potential solution, and I think it'll solve all of the concerns. You know, we had
discussed earlier on, you know, in order to to have a non-abloom assessment, it would require 45% voter approval. And, you know, we had discussed the 50 plus one and and we kind of went back and forth with that and said, "Okay, well, let's let's lower
that down to the 45%." But if we're saying that we want to pay city personnel with this money and that would be a higher percent, I think you mentioned something like 60 or 65%. >> 60. What if we just met in the middle and said 50 plus one across the board and be done with it?
>> Just keep keep them all out there. >> Yeah, just 50. If you want a nonabalorum assessment and it's voter approval, it's 50 plus one and that covers the assessment paying city employees with the non-ablorum assessment, etc. And just say 50%. >> I think the pro is it's administratively
easier on everybody including the voter. The con is sometimes you're gonna and what you're going to end up with is some non-advelors are going to not pass that maybe would have because people are like I just don't want to pay more and then also on the flip side maybe you end up with more
nonadalums that uh paying personnel because there's not a higher threshold. So it's really just tradeoff on each end. >> I'm okay with it. I think you know it's just that's democracy at its finest. Does anybody else have any thoughts on
that? >> I think if we if the commission does its job and educates I know you can't once it's on a resolution or once it's on. If you have a non-adorm item and you're going to build slides, let me go back to your
slides. If the education process is out there and you really want this and you know you're going to have to have staff to maintain those slides, somebody's got to grease them down or whatever. if it's educated properly and >> the people that want it will come out
and vote. >> Yeah. Because there's workshops and there's I mean they got to do workshops to come up with methodology and there's all this work that goes into even cooking up >> a recipe for a non-advorum. And so they
have all that time to educate and they can, you know, they all have their Facebook pages. They can push out stuff and they can ask for stuff to be put in the newsletter, Amy said, and all the way up to the point that it's on the ballot. And once it's on the ballot, well, then
they can rely on other community uh avenues of information flow and ask, hey, can you can you send out this information? >> And it works the other way, too. >> They could ask the news to do a story. You know, >> it works both ways.
>> So, with that said, I think Yes, sir. I think it should be uniform whatever percentage we choose because you know then you're getting questions why is one why why are they different >> we have to stick with what >> yeah that's >> and I like the 50 plus one just because that's easy
>> fair and like a well hold on >> I wasn't a 50 plus one >> yeah I mean I the lower threshold I came up with before we started talking about >> personel stuff so >> to get to be able to leave the tool tool
for personnel non-adorums on the table. I'm okay just meeting in the middle. >> I did like what Ryan was saying though because he was saying there's a lot of voter apathy out there and to have, you know, a better chance of good things happening.
>> Um it would be nice to have a lower threshold, but then it's a balanced. >> So what we need to do is we need to go back to 6B1A. >> Yep. >> And we would need to change that to that it's green if you want to look. >> Yeah, we would just need to change it to
basically >> because we gave the I thought we gave the commissioners a range. >> We did between 45 and 50 plus one, but now we're just basically saying it's it's simple majority, right? >> Is that what they call me? Simple majority.
>> Yep. >> So, it would it would be a change there. And then I think we also need to look at section 6B2, paragraph B. >> Y also >> as well. and match what you just did, Miss CJ, to that one right there, right
in that paragraph. >> You're going to keep just the verbiage simple majority. You're going to do 50 plus one. >> I mean, either way, >> it's the same thing. >> And I and I think we we we probably need to readress that minimum amount set by the commission. We can maybe massage
that since we're we're just saying, hey, it's a 50 plus one because that was what that that plus or minus. Hey, >> yeah. just say and receive approval by at least 50% plus one. So just that whole from
um second line after approval by it says uh >> a minimum. >> Oh yeah, that all the delete that all the way up until it says uh 50% plus one. >> You want that removed. >> Correct. approved >> cuz then it would just read referendum
and receive approval by 50% plus one. >> 50% plus one. >> Yeah. >> Just want to copy and paste that and then go back to that paragraph we were just on. 6B1 exactly as
>> Yes, ma'am. I think it was I think it was the exact same verbiage. >> The the whole >> um maybe not the whole not the whole thing. >> Receive >> maybe receive approval by Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah, it just says receiving instead of receive. >> Receiving. >> Having received. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Yep. >> You guys good with that? Those two just >> right. So, that kind of sets the tone that period um non
be voted in that way. >> Yeah. So one >> and then the second one is just basically a reiteration that renewal or continuation also has to be voted again. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> 50 plus
>> it's a little redundant but it's necessary because you're talking new ones versus the new ones. >> All right. So, so based on that, I feel like that we could just either completely delete section 6C2
or we would amend it. >> Walk out. >> Yes, sir. Go ahead. >> So 6C2 um discusses uh the prohibition on personnel expansion using assessment funds. Um so the idea and this came from Mr. Lightfoot. He had he had mentioned
that that in in one of our very very early eating meetings that you know we shouldn't increase the amount of personnel in a department because of you know a non assessment. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, but it almost became redundant at this point though because I mean if
you're going to, as we've already outlined in 6B1B, we gave the list of seven things. And if we're going to pay for personnel, it's got to say it in there, right?
>> Um, he's under five. Five is a catch on usage of funds. >> Yeah, five is a catch all there. So, we wouldn't necessarily have to >> we don't need they would say they would say when they're doing it and personnel labor costs.
>> Correct. >> So, I think again we could we could just remove the entire section of 6C2 and achieve what you wanted to achieve which is >> not eliminating entirely. >> Yeah. if you guys are okay with that. I
mean, it's just an idea. We can, you know, >> I agree. I think >> Yeah, >> it does. >> Less words say more sometimes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, if everybody's okay with with moving 6C2, then we'll just strike through
that, Miss uh CJ. >> And so, basically 6C3 becomes 6C2. >> Yes, ma'am. >> To her, not you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We'll just uh pause for a second. We'll make sure Mr. Tucker We'll
>> pause a minute for station identification tracking what we were just discussing. Cough my wife. >> Oh, it's okay. So, what we had discussed why while you just stepped out was, you know, we could just we could remove the entire uh section 6C2
and that'll that will allow the city to pay city personnel with with the funds. Okay. >> And then 6C3 would become 6C2 now, which is compliance oversight. Um, everybody's
okay with that. Um, we'll go to the new 6C2 now, which is compliance oversight. And guys, this is the last section of section six that we need to that we need to get through. I have the first I'm okay with 6C 2, compliance and oversight exactly as
written. I I mean I I don't think you can write it any differently. I tried with AI and it basically said like you've you're already saying what you need to say. So >> I have a question. >> Do you think there's something missing?
>> No, I just have a question about it. Um adopt implemented procedures. When I first read it, I thought we had two verbs here that were competing. Shall implement procedures to ensure compliance or shall adopt procedures to ensure compliance. I wasn't sure what
>> implemented procedures would be that we adopted. I know >> say adopt and implement. >> I think that's fair, but I I didn't know >> I didn't check for >> adopt and implement.
>> Shall adopt and implement procedures to ensure compliance. And just before we get too far into this, Miss Kiki, since you're here, thank you for being here, by the way. Um, this is a this is a finance flavored
area. Would you mind chiming in if we're completely missing the boat or if there's something that's completely confusing in what we're saying? >> I I don't see any issues with what you've got in the screen. I mean it to me it seems like we're
already we're just putting into the charter what you're likely already doing. >> Yeah. >> You want >> Yeah. I mean >> these are already done. >> I mean the only thing that's being added is B really. That's not something that is strictly written anywhere in the city
processes that um funds have to be repaid. they're not used for the original purpose. >> Like for example, we took from sewer or storm water for sewer, right? Under this
provision, that would be a a no-go and the city would be obligated to put the money back. >> So, you don't want to restrict it that way? >> No. >> No, I don't think this is what this is saying. I >> I don't >> Is that the intent of this paragraph? >> No.
So, and you definitely don't want that language on the charter that >> No, >> that's way too restrictive. >> I don't understand that. >> So, what would a failure be then? Describe to me what >> So, failure to comply with the restrictions set forth herein shall constitute a misuse of public funds. So,
if let's say for example the restrictions herein right in in section six. So let's say um >> but you can't you already can't use nonvorm funds for a different one.
>> No, no, no. That's we're perfect. >> Right. >> Well, that's not what we're saying. We're saying there's a way in which these funds can be used. All right. It's outlined in the ballot that the that was that the voters approved, right? That we were going to
build sidewalks. Okay. And then Mr. Lightfoot and his staff decides we're going to build slides and not sidewalks. >> That would be a misuse of funds. >> That's right. We're that he's restricted. Instead of just doing infrastructure upgrades, he put on the
ballot that he wanted to build sidewalks. >> Approved sidewalks for whatever that it. >> So using it for anything other than what was in the original. >> It already has to do that. >> Yeah. So >> Amy, would this be the belt and
suspenders kind of approach here that we're duplicating things that are already required? >> The their concerns are already addressed by state law. I mean the way a special assessment you have to show proportionality of all the payers and all of that. So the way you pay for
sidewalks, your methodology is going to be different than the way you pay for sides. You can't just change that. They cannot do it. I cannot. >> So under state law, what happens if someone does >> like to restart their methodology all over again. They have to restart their entire
assessment adoption process. So let's say >> you mean if we took the storm water assessment in and start >> they could not you could not what happens if you do >> state the whole legal ordeal I mean >> you just can't
>> let me let me point out or let me call out a a different restriction that we've written in the charter that's above and beyond what the state is this restrict the city from increasing annual annual increases to the previous 5 years as
determined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, blah blah blah blah blah. Right? Let's say that Mr. Lightoot says or and and and this the staff says, "Well, we're going to increase it by 80%." This year, >> the charter now says that you cannot do that. You can only increase it
>> based on what we had, right? So, that would be non-compliance with the restrictions here within. It's not t it's not referring to that that paragraph is coming >> I was kind of keying in on the restitution >> to restitution to the assessment fund. >> Yeah.
>> Like where does that come into play? >> Well, I know I want to follow your train of logic to make sure I understand it too because shall constitute misuse of public funds if the commission against the charter because my job would be to say the charter doesn't allow that and then their job is to do whatever they want. If they go ahead and adopt an 80%
increase, >> this shall constitute misuse of public funds, I feel like is now creating a private cause of action for you to sue each commissioner for them to be personally whoever voted. Yes. >> And I just want to make sure that that's the intention there. >> Yeah. So, >> yeah. Or recall.
>> So, the intent is they violated the >> they can be recalled based on that violation. >> Well, there there is the there was a criminal felony from misuse of public funds. I don't know if you're using that language on purpose to create that cause of action or >> so the intent behind this is that the the resident gets their money back.
>> If a if a commission takes $400 from me and violates the charter, they've violated the charter. My $400 is gone. I can try to sue them if I want. But this says that you have to give me my money back. He violated the charter and it was
a misuse of >> well you have to put it back into the >> fund. Restitution to the fund to me is different than restitution to the to the taxpayer. >> Okay. >> Restitution of the fund would be for example >> you transfer from the general fund back into >> Yes. If you use the money for not storm
water >> and it's found out that that happened well then you need to cut something else out of the general fund to put the money back in. So, a lot of this stuff means that it's way way more wild west than it really
is. Like, >> Mr. Lifeoot and staff can't raise rates by%. But the commission, they can do like M. Meer said, they can do whatever they want. But if staff doesn't recommend it, if the attorney says, "Hey, this is against the charter. You can't do that." >> It
>> the public has a lot of ammunition to hold them accountable. >> Sure. I mean, it's it's not near as wild west as it as it sounds like talking about here. >> Unfortunately, Mr. Lightfoot may won't always be here. So, but I agree. Um I I
know it it does have it does sound like it has a lot of teeth because it does. >> And I don't know if if if you guys are okay with that or or if we're not. If we're not, that's okay. >> Make sure we don't over complicate it. Okay. >> If that makes sense. I mean, I think what what if >> it's already like spoken for and it's in
the state law, then >> to me, putting non-level language in the charter is over complicating it. >> You just But what happens if the funds get misused? You said they cannot humans can do things wrong. We know
this. So, if the funds are misused, what is the legal course of action that occurs? So that way the city has to remedy that fund right now without this language. >> Yeah. I I feel like and it's mostly a financial rearrangement of of finances
to to make sure that it's been made right that the those funds are secured and and properly restricted. >> So if $30,000 went out of the storm water fund for non-storm water activities and it was found out and then we like the city says correct that that
happened. It's a mistake. What is the by law? What has to happen in Florida? >> I see what you're asking. >> I don't know because I've never seen it happen before. >> Okay. >> I don't I don't know. I feel like a bunch of people get fired and then a bunch of money gets transferred to make it whole again. But I I don't know. >> And that only is because it's an
assessment fund. >> So it was general fund like what you thought the sewer and stuff. It doesn't matter. It's it's essentially adversary. It can be used for any governmental purpose. But non-abbor assessments because of the way they're generated um are specific to the taxpayer and
>> it can only be used for that specific purpose. And I and in my experience um the finance directors who understand and have used non-thalm assistance are very careful to make sure that those funds are restricted and that they are used in that restricted manner. I mean, I just I
>> But if we're putting this language in there, we trying to say specifically, like you said, I don't know what would happen. >> Yeah. They have to be replaced. Like >> I think Yeah. And I think this fear and correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like, oh, somebody needs to be charged with a felony, per se. It's this is a
violation of what we agreed to in this community. And so if it's found out, when it's found out, it needs to be corrected and the fund need to be made whole. >> I think that that absolutely needs to happen. I just I'm curious that shall constitute a misuse of public funds.
Ultimately, you're saying these these five guys have misused our public funds or allowed it to happen. And on the one hand, that's not fair because they're not controlling they're they're approving the but they're not controlling really the administration. >> So maybe change it to say to a
violation of this charter and shall require corrective action and restitution. >> Well, I think for sure um shall require restitution to the assessment fund. I just I don't know what the corrective action is. I don't know. I I I don't I don't know how to make sense of the rest of it. I I just don't
>> The corrective action and accountability and restitution on Miss Fish. >> So, the whole point of this charter review committee was to establish a city clerk position, right? Or to to see if you all felt a city clerk position was should be established. So that takes
care of everything that you all are trying to accomplish in this section because if the city manager says, "Hey, we just took in a million dollars in non add." And I say, "We're going to transfer it. We're going to spend a million dollars on a park." Now you've
created a city clerk position. There's that checks and balance. The city clerk is controlling the checkbook. There is no just city managers. >> So if you're putting all this language in to to monitor money, but we just voted on >> Yeah. Serious. Also, if the commission doesn't go ahead and
put the treasurer position with it, >> cuz now if they if they do that, and we've been talking about that, if they do that, then you have one person holding both of the reigns, treasurer and clerk. And if you get the wrong person holding the reigns, where does the carriage go?
>> Until we know that it's just a clerk and not a clerk treasure, we need to have these other guards being talked about and worked on. But then you're still right now the city manager holds the checkbook, >> right? And if you get the wrong person in there, >> but so if you make a clerk that's not a
treasurer as well, you define the point. >> No, cuz you're having a check and then you're having a separate balance. If the clerk goes to the commission and says, "Hey, the treasurer and the city manager did this and it's a violation, right?" But if it's the clerk and the treasure
all in one, if that if that person is the wrong person, have any of you all watched that um all the queen's horses documentary? Yes. People can hide stuff and it takes somebody honest to find it. And the more people you have looking at it and the less consolidated the
authority and power is, the better off you are. It's not convenient. It's not administratively easy, but it is the right thing to do when you're doing for the community and the public. >> So, I think I think to to Mr. Lightoot's point, you bring up a good point, but
from hearing what I've heard and it's the same that that you've heard as well, um, you know, the the clerk/treasur, you know, Mayor Lowry's discussed that, you know, the city manager is the is the ops, right? And then the the clerk and
the treasur is the funding. So you you still kind of have two separate veins. You know, Mr. Lightoot would have to ask for money for something to be funded. In order for it to be funded that the city clerk and the treasurer is not just going to throw money at something that
doesn't exist, it has there has to be a pull to pull. >> Sure, they could. >> Okay. You get the wrong person in there and they >> he's also going to have to sign off on the checks as well. So it's it's both. >> So you're saying that's the balance. >> Say again. >> That's the balance. In other words, if there's
>> one like we're saying there's still >> but the whole point of this is this sentence does the sentence need to be in here or not? That's what we're talking about. >> And if you're saying that the existence of the clerk should it pass whether it has treasure or not negates the need for
the sentence, how I mean if anything negates the need for it, it's state law. I'm going to agree with I don't want to put words in Amy's mouth, but I don't think that this verbiage is
owned by the city commissioners. I don't think I think it's what you were saying. I think this is the finance department. This isn't really to me something that the commissioners would
they could do it, but it's not something that >> why would they do it? >> They're not like there's a whole department to do that. >> They're not thinking what's best for the community and following the advice of the attorney and the city manager saying that violates, you know, okay, we don't care. We're
going to do it any cities do that. People do. >> I have to ask a question. >> Oh, no. I >> Yeah. So to your point, Miss Meyers, it it doesn't say who would fail to comply. So it just says failure to comply with the restrictions set forth herein shall
constitute a misuse of public funds. That could be finance director. That could be, you know, someone who works for the finance director. That could be the city manager, the city clerk, the city commission. >> So I don't see how the commissioners
would be personably liable if it's something that they doing it >> fail to comply with the restrictions set forth there. There's a lot of restrictions here and so some of them are some only the commission can take and some only the employees can take. So
I feel like this private cause of action could be by a citizen against a whole litany of people or maybe all of them I don't know of the chain. I just I want to understand if that's the intention or not because it reads when I read this I I say cause of action really comes right
out of the floor statutes you know. >> Yeah. My my priority here would be if it's in the city charter, the priority is if you if you don't use the funds correctly, then something needs to be done to get the funds back into the fund. And >> that's the intention, right? Yes. >> At the state law level, if further
beyond that, people think it's a felony or whatever. State law covers that. >> Yeah. >> I don't need to think I don't think we need to be defining felonies in the charter. What we need to be defining is if you don't use the money the way the Fed, put it back. >> Yeah. I I think that's appropriate.
>> I I agree with that 100%. >> Changed to say instead of misuse of public funds, it would be a violation of this charter. >> You can say violation of the charter. >> Is that does that get rid of the state law portion? >> It does.
>> Does that make sense, Mr. Lightman? You >> heard of her? >> I mean, on city manager side, like you were saying earlier, like don't over complicate it. I'm just trying to make sure we're not >> In my opinion, the whole thing that we've added here is over complicated the chart. >> I agree with that. >> All of section six, >> right?
>> That's why >> we're we're we're still going to >> 6c2. >> We're still going to work through it. Well, no, he said all of section six. >> All of section, >> but guardrails need to be in place. So, we'll ask the people if if they this needs to exist or
not. that you want to >> if I understand it. >> Yes. I mean, ultimately, it's up to the commission if this goes on the ballot. And once it's on the ballot, it's up to the people if it passes. And if it goes
to the ballot and it passes, then city staff just work within the confines and guard rules that we're giving them. And I have the utmost faith that whoever is working for the city of Linhaven can follow the charter. If this is how it's written, they'll still figure out a way to get the job
done for us. So, let me make sure I'm right here. There's state statute. And if you violate the misappropriate funds, state statute says that's >> that's a felony. >> It's felony. So, can't you just say
constitute a violation of this charter? >> Uh, or >> and that's enough to trigger discipline action from the city manager of any of the employees. >> Yeah. >> Well, the problem with the state is she didn't she she told me there's nothing
in there that requires the um the fund to be repaid because >> I said I didn't know because I've never seen it before. >> Right. is not happening. >> I get that. >> I I just don't want to over complicate I'm just that's where I'm at. I don't want to over complicate anything. >> That's okay. That's all we're talking
through. So, Mr. Graves brought up a good point of, you know, if if something bad were to happen, >> the the fund has to be >> intention is guidelines and guards, checks and balances. >> Yeah. Well, it's like it's like with your kids, you say, "Hey, your phone's on the counter, you're not touching." If
you take it off of the counter, what happens? Consequences, right? One of those consequences is the phone gets put back on the counter. There's there may be more consequences. There may be a felony involved. That's at the state level to figure out, but at our level,
what we need to ensure the citizens is that if we take 30,000 out of storm water to go do something else and that's not proper that the money gets taken out of general fund to be put back into storm water. >> But does that language do that? >> I believe it does, but I'm not an
attorney. So, let's let's kind of let let's really kind of give a an example here to figure out and make sure that we're not painting the city into a corner. You know, we all know what happened during Hurricane Michael. There was a
substantial amount of money stolen from the city of Linhaven by an individual who went to jail for it. So if that money is, let's just say for example, Jane Doe works in the X department
within the city and takes $1 million from the sidewalk, not abnormal assessment. >> Yeah, we pull it out. >> Just I I don't even know if that's possible. I'm just saying just just lobbying. >> Well, just just just hear me out, right?
they they pull that money out and either they move it to a different fund or they go and spend it at Starbucks or what wherever I I don't know right but the money's gone this charter is saying that hey city this had number one that was that was wrong we know that that was
wrong it violated charter violated Florida statute etc but the city now has to replace that money to the assessment fund which I agree with >> but where does the city get that money from it. I mean, you can't squeeze blood from a turn, right? Jane Doe has already
spent that money and and makes $45,000 a year. Has no way of paying that money back. The city can't recoup that money. >> Did we get any restitution from Michael White? >> We're never going to get that money back. >> I imagine it was judgment. I imagine
>> the money that is allegedly stolen. >> Did we have projects we needed to use that money on? >> And did those projects happen? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Where' that money come from? the general funds. >> No fund well >> or insurance.
>> I imagine the project's either going to get done complicated. So bear with me for a moment. >> You've heard me talk about fund 101. Yes. >> Yes. >> So all of the expenditures have gone through fund 101 whether they
were fraudulent or not. So all the fraudulent expenditures were recorded in fund 101 and you've heard me say that fund 101 is out of money, >> right? It's in a negative cash position of about a million dollars today.
>> Part of that reason is because of those fraudulent invoices. Now, when Hurricane Michael is finally put to bed and done, we will have to transfer money from the
general fund to get that fund 101 cash account to zero. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, Hurricane Michael is not done today, but if it were, we would have to transfer a million dollars from the general fund into fund 101.
What happens anyway? >> Like that's the thing. If if your car payment's due, right, and somebody steals your wallet with your car payment inside the wallet, >> it's still due. >> They're going to want their money. >> So if the city has to if the city commission has to say, "Hey, there was
fraud and unfortunately we're going to have to increase the millager this year to make up for it." Then that's what has to happen. And some that's why they're up there to figure that out. What we're here to do is to help put in place in our city charter, our constitution guard
rails to help protect our citizens. >> So, can I speak? Do you mind if I interrupt? >> Let me go ahead. >> Absolutely. >> There have been massive changes since Hurricane Michael. My first disclaimer is I was not an employee of the city at
the time. We have added additional staff to the finance department. Back in the hurricane Michael days, there were two people in the fi that was the sum total of the finance department. There were no checks and balances at the
time. The city manager gave direction to the finance department and said, "Pay these bills." There were no way to check back and forth. Do we did it go to commission? has has a requisition in a purchase order be entered. It was just
do what the city manager says. I believe Mr. Lightoot will tell you it no longer works that way that we have checks and balances. We go through a certain process to get invoices approved
um to approve the purchase before the invoice happens. We've had Miss Meyers has helped us with training with our staff members about what is allowed and what isn't allowed. The finance department of the city of Lon Haven is completely different than it was at
Hurricane Michael. >> Can I guarantee you that there will never be fraud ever again? Absolutely not. But I want to give you some level of confidence that we've addressed what we can address thus far. We will always
be improving and my goal is always to make sure that I'm safeguarding the residents and taxpayers money. That's my job. >> So what are we afraid of happening if sentence B it stays with the adjustment
of saying it's a violation of the charter? What what is a scenario that I can hear right now from anybody that is like, "Oh, because of the sentence, if this happens, the city's screwed." >> I looked up violating a municipal
charter in Florida results in civil citations, fines up to $500 a day or 60 days in jail. >> So, whoever violates it can get fined and go to jail. Okay, I'm fine with that. If you violate it, you violate it and then you get to deal with the consequences. Um, what what is what
could happen with the sentence being here that could cause the city to be I mean, is there a scenario that's going to cause the city to go bankrupt because of this sentence? >> So, it does seem foreseeable to me that for instance, there is fraud. You've got to either raise and you've got to raise
the taxes to fix it. Um, state law does have certain parameters, let's say. Um, you know, you've got to have a majority to raise them so far and then a supermajority to raise them even higher than that and a unanimous vote to go higher than that. Um, if you only have
three, two, you have lost the utility of that tool to to make you to make the city whole again. And then you >> have to make some cuts to some luxury items like concerts and whatnot. But as the state and I just I'm going to be the devil's advocate because that's my job, right? So, as the state increasingly
puts more unfunded mandates on local governments and increasingly gives more exemptions to taxpayers, >> um there's increasing pressure on on that agile tax and even you can drop a lot of things, but there are still some fundamental services you have to figure
out a way to provide. And if you cannot raise your taxes because you've either gone too far already or you only have three modes, you just you can't. And I don't know that you go bankrupt, but the city does. I feel like the community loses on the whole. And that to me does seem foreseeable.
>> But if we don't have the sentence, what we're saying is if you're going to steal in the city of Laven, steal from the non-avorum funds because they don't have to be paid back. >> But the end result of all this is protect citizens money. >> That's it. >> Yes. Right.
>> It makes sure we don't get ripped off. >> So, we'll let's just say all this language in here. How does it over complicate it by putting it in there? >> Just that sentence cuz not all >> not all of it. I mean, the >> sentence. Yeah. >> No, I mean, I don't know. The whole the
whole section is over complicating when the state statute already sets forth language for nonvalor. >> Does state statute uh restrict how much you can increase a non-avalorum assessment each year? >> No. >> Not outside of fire. Does state statute vote either? Does that think does state
statute require this to go on the ballot for res? >> No, that's what I'm saying. It over it's over complicating and it's going to tie the hands of the city in the future. And that's okay because at the end of the day, it protects the citizens and I
trust that whoever is leading our city, whether it's you or whoever else they're considering, can make sure that this team gets the job done given the parameters that are in front of them. >> I'm stuck wondering if it's
an agenda that should be on the charter. >> What? What do you mean? What should it should >> should it need to be on the charter? >> That's kind of why I'm asking all these questions. >> Well, let's let the commission and the uh commission decide if it gets to the
charter um or to the referendum. The commission could shut this down, but I mean, I can tell you from my perspective, I didn't just spend three or what four meetings working through this for us to now scrap it. >> No, I'm not saying no. I'm not saying all of >> in one sentence. This one sentence did
not bring up this mindset of, "Oh, it's complicated." I respect Chris's opinion that this complicates and makes his job more difficult as city manager. He's right. It does, but as we've seen with past city managers, the last two in
particular that I know about, I don't know the pre all the history of the previous city managers, but >> um what we need in this community and communities all across the country, there's all the time I'm seeing news stories about different cities, things
misuse, fraud, more guard rails. That's what the community is about. That's what this country is about. That's why we have a constitution and a bill of rights. So if if we put this in place and our elected representatives can decide if it goes to the ballot. If they
agree with us, it'll go to the ballot. And if 50% plus one of the public agrees with us, it'll be in the charter and then the city just has to figure out how to get the job done. I mean what other non I mean at this point it's like storm
water is the only non-ador alarm and I'm pretty sure if you go to the public and you say hey either we can keep the nonadalorm happening or your storm water problems are going to come back with vengeance it's going to pass but what it's going to force the city to do is to
put a better plan in place of how it's managed what's what's happening um I personally feel like the city did a pretty good job of saying that this was just shifting from the the bill utility bill to the non Lauren and we know what
the utility bill is paying paying for people and we know what the ad floor pays for people for and I disagree on that he feels like that wasn't explained as much I do um but at the end of the day what this whole section talks about
is are those five elected people able to put an extra tax, a new tax in place, call an assessment fee if you feel like it, but a tax is a tax. A new tax in place without the voters approving it,
>> a heavily un unregulated tax, right? And that's that's the what Miss Meyers mentioned a while ago. And this is again part of the genesis of these amendments is that she just exactly explained how a city can increase a millage rate. You
have to a 3-2 vote. You have you can only increase it this much. A 4-1 this much unanimous that much. Right? >> None of that exists for non-evalu assessments. And that's why guardrails are very much required for
non-employ assessments. It this conversation I said at last meeting should be happening at the state level and it's not. >> So if the state's not going to protect the residents, the residents have to protect the residents because as of right now our only protection as
residents are those five individuals sitting up there. >> Absolutely. >> This is going to be our new way of protection. Let me go back to state statute again state something like this happens that there are procedures right?
>> Yes. >> What if we had violation of this charter with such remedies as prescribed by state statute period >> your remedies >> but do they prescribe remedies? That was my concern.
>> Yeah. I I I'm not I'm not sure about that. Um I'm not sure that's sufficient here that provided by law. Yes, maybe when you go to court and yes, there may be remedies at law. >> Um I don't know that they're in 197.
>> Would those remedies be the people having to sue the city to get a judge to say the fund has to be replenished? >> Yeah, probably. Yeah. >> Yeah. That's a lot of work, right? >> Yeah. >> It's a it's a lot to >> It's a class action. That's a lot of work for the citizens to do on our dime
to be reimbursed for projects that need to be done for our own community. >> Now, it yes, it's going to be harder for the city to if it's a small amount, it's not hard. If it's a million dollars, it sure it's going to be difficult. But the
city can do things to pursue that individual, too. Does that individual own pro that did the fraud? Do they own property? Maybe they can sue the person and get a judgment against them and over time re, you know, collect. Does the
city have insurance that pays out for fraud? >> Like if Yeah, there's >> so we can be reimbursed that way and move the money. >> The reason I asked this question though is there's a difference between overco complicating language and tying hands of
people who are doing the job. That's where I take issue with is if we don't want to we want those there, but we also don't want to put oursel in a position where we're tying the hands of people that are trying to do their best for the city. >> You got to do a little of both though, >> right? So that that's why we're
>> Are we talking about theft or are we just kind of talking about journal entries? >> No, I mean we're honestly we're just talking about the whole nonvorum thing in general is what I'm hearing. Yeah, I think if if we could let let's solve section 6 C3 paragraph A and B and then
we can move after we solve that we can we can move this to a more philosophical discussion about section 6 in general. Um because what I foresee happening here is once we finish section 6C3,
we're going to we're gonna vote to move this section six to the commission or not. >> Well, with language, right? That'll be that'll be So, I'm just kind of trying to lay out the hey, let's let's kind of let's kind of move this thing along one way or the other, whatever that way is,
right? >> And uh and kind of go from there. So, with paragraph A and and B and the new section 6C2, I'm sorry, Miss CJ, I misspoke earlier. In in section C 6C2, paragraphs A and B, is everybody okay
with that remaining as is, or do you have changes that need to be made? And if you have changes, what are they? >> I'm okay with the way it reads now with the the change we made about the violation. >> I'm okay with A and B as as written.
have fun with you. >> Mr. Switzer, are you Where are you at with it? >> You got changes that you need to see. >> You were talking about the new 6C2. >> Yeah, that's the new 6C2.
>> The old 6C2 was deleted. 6C3 became 62. >> The city commission It's it just seems redundant. It seems like the financial department is doing the procedures, the controls,
>> the reporting. >> The process requires action on by both, >> right? >> Yeah, it does. >> I mean, this would just require the city commission to review what's happening and we could say we're we're happy. We we believe what the finance department's
currently doing meets all of this. So, we're going to adopt that the current procedures remain in place per the charter. >> So, what are the city commissioners adopting? And what are they implementing? What procedures? >> Procedures to ensure she talked about
earlier that she already does >> how she how how Kiki and her department currently handle non-medum. uh funds is what they would be adopting. What this does is protects that in the future if the city policies change and
stuff and any of what they're currently doing does they stop doing it and it doesn't meet this they that that can't happen. They have to do it because it has to um have financial controls reporting standards and independent audit requirements. So, for example, if
they said, "Hey, no, we're not going to do we're not going to audit the nonadorum assessment file." >> No, you have to. >> Yeah, >> it's it says right there you have to. >> Yeah, I agree with that. >> Any other questions or comments, Mr. Spitzer?
>> Um, yeah. >> I don't know. Nothing. >> Okay. Okay. So, >> so that closes out section six. Miss Kiki, we'll get to you right in just >> Can I back up a little bit? Something I
didn't notice before. >> And in in the paragraph C above, the city shall maintain a separate accounting fund for each authorized assessment program and shall provide annual public reporting. I I think that needs to be tweaked just
a little bit on the very off chance that they would the commission would approve and the referendum would approve a second storm water fund or assessment, excuse me, a second storm
water assessment. I wouldn't set up a whole new fund for that. It would go in the same fund. >> How would you segregate those funds between the two assessments though? I project numbers. >> Okay. >> So the the term fund legally is
something different than I think what you're trying to get at here. >> So on the very off chance >> that any kind of assessment would be done twice for the same activity
>> I wouldn't set up a new fund. I would give it a project number and >> so the definition of program I'm gonna in that sentence it says authorized assessment program how would we be defining program because for example at work I'll get a prime contract that has
five task orders and the each five each task order has its own subf fund underneath the overarching ceiling fund >> project numbers >> using project numbers right the the second segment is different on each of
them. So, you know, like segment uh 0001 is for task order one, 002 is for task order two. >> You if you got two storm water ones, you'd have a 01 and an O2 >> somewhere in that project code. >> Yes. But the fund would stay the same.
in the fund, >> right? But would you consider pro for the definition of program would that be anything storm water as a program or do you consider each nonadalorum its own program? >> Again, it would depend on how it was
written, but it it would not constitute a new fund. It would all be in the same fund. You could give it a a program number. We refer to it as project number. Um I I would suggest that if you're going to keep this, it needs to
be a little more um uh >> less restrictive in the verbiage. >> What have we added after the word program? What have we added with differing purposes? >> Which paragraph are you talking >> accounting? Yeah. So I I think that
we're getting hung up on accounting fund. >> Correct. >> What word would you use? >> That is a legal term. So you're telling me I've got to set a whole new fund, >> which is um >> Yeah. >> So here here's what we want and then you tell me what words we need to use in
that section. So what we want is let's say for example we have five separate non-avorum assessments in the city of Lincoln. >> Sure. >> Five. We'll say sidewalks, slides, storm water, parks, and I don't know, name a few. Right.
>> Second storm water. >> Second storm water. >> Okay. >> Right. >> That money is generated through either an entire city, all of the residents may pay into three of those and then a a we'll use the instead of a second storm water, the street lights over at Mil
Bayou. >> Okay. >> There's a there would be an assessment for that, right? What do we need to write in here that would allow you or would require you rather to have five separate program numbers or whatever so that you
can clearly articulate where that money was separate the word assessment program. I would use that again. The city shall maintain a separate accounting program. >> The city shall separately account for each authorized assessment.
>> I'm okay with that. Yeah, >> because whether she does that whether she does that with a fund or with a project number that should give you the flexibility to >> perfect. Yeah, we >> the city shall separately >> the word fund here is >> is troublesome.
Can you repeat what you said? >> The city shall separately account for >> each authorized assessment program. >> Thank you. kind of achieving the same thing without you. She said like the fund kind of makes it >> Yeah, that's fine.
>> Is everybody okay with that on the committee? >> Again, we need to take out the word funds. >> Yeah. >> And provide annual public reporting uh of all expenditures >> or on programs and expenditures. >> Sure.
>> Well, what's the purpose of funds there? Is it like revenues and expenditures? I think it was redundant to begin with to be honest with you. >> Okay. >> Okay, Miss Kiki, does that satisfy what? >> That's much better. Thank you, thank
you. >> Okay, so that wraps up section six in its entirety. Um, we can do one of two things. We can we can discuss we can have the philosophical discussion now and
determine which way we want to go with this. we can take a vote on section six and if it passes then we can start addressing ballot language. How I I think the appropriate thing to do here is for us all to share our grievances
whatever talk through whatever we need to do. Um now we vote on section six. If we if we pass if we if we choose to push section six to the commission, then we we start attacking ballot language tonight and then the next meeting we
will have the opportunity to codify ballot language and push both of those deliverables to the commission and move on with the charter review. Does that sound >> Yeah, I have one concern though. Okay, as we just keep this in mind as we get into questions about language. Section
6A has nothing to do with section 6B. Right. >> So, if we put all of section six on one ballot question, to me, if for some reason it would fail because people don't like 6B,
we're getting rid of all the benefit of setting 6A, which is um to me very important. >> So, I think the reason 6A was in there was because section six covered powers invested in the commission,
>> right? Um I I agree. I completely understand what you're saying. >> Yeah. >> These are not one collective section six ballot question two separate ones >> because they're not even related to each. I mean yeah in the general sense that these are powers of the commission
but one of them has to do with separation of powers and the other one has to do with the commission passing non-adorm assessments. >> So >> or not. The purpose of section six in my mind is generally to this is where you want to take away and restrict that because the commission has all powers
given to them by law except except as you take away here. So I think your 6B absolutely is appropriate here because it is reigning in uh current powers that they have. I will >> just note that article two the very next article you're going to move to next has
to do with the form of government and the powers of the commissioners generally. Okay. >> So, it would not be inappropriate in my mind for language in 6A to land somewhere in article 2 that's specific to the city commission and specifically their relationship with the city manager
and city employees. Um, so to your point, Mr. Script, >> that would solve >> that would solve your your problem about >> moving it to where >> art somewhere in article two regarding the city commission. >> Oh, like section 10 or later. >> Yeah.
um it it it falls appropriately there in terms of what the commission can and can >> it's still restricting the commission regardless like if if the non-edalum section passes the commission can't still pass a non-adableum they have to follow the rules of the jar
>> but section six speaks to me about governance generally the powers of the city generally and 6B speaks to what the commission can and can't do with regard to governance that 6A has to do a lot with administration >> do Do you know of a section that already exists that would be more appropriate
for it or would it would be a new section all? >> I I think it would be appropriate for section 10 form of government >> because we're talking about the petition manager. >> I would put I would put it in section section 13. Um
>> just because it's an open slot right now in your >> but it speaks directly to the form of government. So it could be a 10 A or a 10B. >> Um it speaks directly to the form of government. So 10 is appropriate. I think somewhere in this article we could
rearrange 13 and move it up. I mean there are some things we could do here. >> I think for the purposes of of moving forward, why don't we take all of section 6A and you guys tell me what you guys think of this. Let's just for now take section 6A, pull it out and make it
section 10 A. And then if we get to 10 and we choose to move it to section 13 or or whatever, we can do that. >> But just for the purposes of of moving things along. >> No, she said 6B would make more sense somewhere else. >> No, no, no. A 6A is what goes in the
separation of powers is what >> I don't care. >> Yeah. >> M if if you could just did you track that or >> So you're wanting to move 6 A. >> Yes, ma'am. 6 A into will be become 10 A
tenatively and then all of 6B would become >> would it be 6 A or would it be 6.1 or 6-1 >> follow not to if it if you don't feel like it's too disruptive
>> the existing paragraph make it a and then you take out this move it to 10 and then you've got all of this It's exactly as it is. 6B. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's That's fine. That makes sense. >> Does that make sense? I didn't hear you
was working on the other one. >> Change recess. >> So, while they make those editorial changes, we're going to take a fivem minute recess for restroom break and we'll come back. I >> appreciate it. Yeah. 6A. So, I'll motion to approve the
change of section 6 to 6A and include all of the new section 6A for nonadvorum assessment procedures. I thought you got to start over with that one. Okay. >> I motion to approve
>> the change of section 6 to 6A and the creation of section 6B nonadalorum assessments and send it to the commission for further processing.
not part of the motion, but knowing we'd have to do a separate one for language passage. >> Yes, ma'am. >> I'll second that. >> So, there's a uh motion by Mr. Stray, a second by Mr. Tucker. Um any public
discussion? No. Any committee discussion? >> No one heard. City Manager, will you call the vote? >> Mr. Scra, >> yes. >> Mr. Tucker, >> yes. >> Mr. Barler, >> yes. >> Mr. Switzer, >> yes. >> Chairman Lber, >> yes.
>> So, motion passes to uh to codify what we discussed there in section six. Um, at this point, I think it's appropriate to start discussing um ballot language. Um, and maybe it could be a a wave top
level. Miss Myers, I think last time you you provided us with three options. I'm sorry, four. >> Um, is that fair to ask for that a second time? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Unless you want
>> It's fair to ask. Um, I'd like to think about whe What I may give you is here's what it looks like in one question. Here's what it looks like if you divide it up into two questions just to take your temperature and see what you like better in terms of what's clear for the voters. >> So, what do you all feel like we need to
do as far as balance? >> What would the two >> So, I think your maximum increase your maximum increase I think one I think there's the should we have a referendum for every assessment is one question in my mind. Um, and whether or not we have a referendum should there be an a
maximum increase set on any assessment that is levied. For me, those are the two those are two fundamental questions and they're a little bit different because I think your all of your points about there needs to be guard rails are even if the referendum doesn't there are two different guardrails I see here and
one is the referendum itself and then one is that maximum cap year over year and so I'd like to see at least two questions because for those two guard rails because they could live independently they could both succeed but they could each live without the other as well. I
don't know that it's appropriate for this committee to separate those out. I think that would be more appropriate for the commission if they chose to separate those out. That's just my personal opinion. >> But it highlights the guard rails and to the extent you want to deliver ballot
language to them, it also signals to them there are two guard rails here. We want to draw your attention to them and they can decide combine them into one. >> I get where she's coming from. thing if the commission doesn't like the whole thing, we could potentially still
include the restriction on the increases and get a small victory in one spot even if we don't, you know, win win the battle but maybe still lose the war for now. >> Mhm. >> Kind of thing where if you do just the
limit section 6A3 limitation on annual increases is one question. >> Mhm. And then the rest of it would be a separate question. So people say, "Yeah, I don't want them raising. They just raised it 50%. I don't want that to happen again." Right? Boom. That's a
win. And then the rest of it, well, also should all navlum assessments come to the ballot to begin with. Maybe 52% of people say no. So we still got the increase restriction, but we didn't get the whole thing. That's what she's
saying, right? But I'm going to present it to you so that you I would like to have the the freedom to present you both options. Here's what it looks like for all of six to be in one question and here's what six divided might look like. >> Um so you can have I think a more robust conversation about
>> strategically what makes sense and what you want to present to the commissioner. I think maybe and you guys let me know what y'all think if we like what she talked about she she would provide a six all-inclusive right but then we decide which
>> if we're going to break it out >> yeah we decide how it will be broken out if it's to be broken out so we would say okay Missy could could we please get ballot language for six all-inclusive and then we would like these four items
broken out into four separate ballot questions Is that fair? That way we're we're driving which sections that we feel maybe is most important um that we would want to be individually voted on. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I think so. Um end of the day, I mean, we want to make sure that language is there to public. >> Yeah. We might want to we might say not only is the limitation on the annual increases really important, but maybe there's one other subsection that we
want to bundle in with that and we just don't know it right now. >> I get I think that's what you're saying. >> Yeah. And and I think it's important at least >> rather than have you decide for us, we'll decide as a committee, >> right? >> I'm fine with that. I just I feel like I've heard the cap come up more than
once. So I feel like it's it's >> Oh, no. I think that for sure. like I I want to see that broken out, >> but I'm not sure if I want to see any of the rest of this packaged with that. >> Yeah. >> Um >> so obviously section six all-inclusive, right? Some ballot language uh to see
that. Um and you guys tell me what you think, but obviously voter voter approval would be its own its own section. What do you guys are you guys okay with that or do you want voter approval combined with something else? Well, I mean to put me on the spot for
it, I think um six where is it? 6 A3 limitations and 6A
well six well it'll be what 6B >> the compliance and oversight >> if we could just for just so everybody can follow along can we use the the paragraphs as they're as they're in the agenda packet and then that way we'll follow along
>> in the agenda packet 6B3 3 and 6 C3 to me are at minimum above bell. >> 6B3 and six what? >> C3 compliance and oversight >> and C3. >> I am contemplating the idea of including
the limitation on duration of assessment programs. However, there's ballot driven stuff in B, item B of that section that would be more appropriate with the
rest of it. So, >> I'm hesitant to include that one. >> So, yeah, the other two for sure I would like to see bundled. >> So, I see the the voter approval and then the limitation on duration of assessment programs. I see those as kind
of one item, >> right? Which is why I don't want to break them up, which is why I kind of want to include it, but because of there being one item, I don't want to include it into the other two. >> I think that would be appropriate to stay with the overall mindset of do you
want non-adorms voted on by the general public or not? Does anyone else have any any thoughts? No. Okay. So, we talked about item one. Then, Mr. Stray, what are you saying item one would would be for the ballot language? >> So, quest it would effectively be
question the clerk is question one. So, question two would be limitation on annual increases and compliance and oversight. And question three would be the rest of what we just changed.
>> Yeah. >> Because I feel like the compliance and oversight section I mean >> that's separate from >> it doesn't matter if they voted on it or not. It can be implemented. >> But can I just confirm I've got three. one for the referendum,
two for the restriction on increases and compliance of oversight, and three voting approval and limitations on duration. >> We're still working through this. So, don't I don't want you to I don't want you to wear your hands out typing until we till we get to a final answer here.
>> Can I uh and I don't want to throw a wrench in this, but I'm looking at 6B2, the limitation. Uh, this one has 45%. >> Well, we changed it in the official copy. We're just working off of this
copy. >> I want to make sure I'm right. >> Yeah. Thanks. Yep. >> Okay. So, Mr. Stray wants to section 6B3 and section 6C3 together in one one item, one question
on the ballot. And then the remaining changes would be in a following question. Is that >> what Amy would deliver to us is all of six and then two separate questions with what I just described was one question
and on the rest of it is this other question. So it kind of doesn't slow us down in that she can kind of bring us what she's proposing. Yeah. >> For us to consider and we can tweak it from there as well. So you called out two specific paragraphs that you would
like to see combined into one question and then the remainder being in a second. Yeah. I would like to call out >> two paragraphs that I would like to see combined and then the remainder be in a section. So the two paragraphs that I
think would be combined would be 6B1 and 6B2 and then the remainder in a combined ballot question which would be 6B3 through the remainder of section six. So 6B3
6 uh C in its entirety. >> So by title that >> so by title um requirement for voter approval and limitation on duration of assessment programs. >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> Would be one one question. >> That's what you're proposing as one question. And then the second question would be 6B3 combined with 6 C in its entirety. My justification for that would be th
those 6B1 and 6B2 are so closely related. I think the voters would be I think it would be very easy for them to call out with those two paragraphs called out. It would be very easy to address that one question. The remainder
I think would still be easier to call out, but we're we're really kind of focusing on annual increases, management of the funds, and oversight is really what we're talking about because remember we removed all of 6C2.
So what we're proposing is um in contrast to what he's proposing be one or the other. >> It's just no it's it's like we're just kind of proposing what we want Amy to prepare so we can see it as we're going to get all of section six as one
question. >> Then we're going to see two questions with what I proposed >> and then two questions for what he proposed. >> All right. Yeah. And then if you guys want to see something different combo. >> Yeah. Yeah. Bring it up now. >> I don't >> I think we just covered both of them.
>> I think there's two options really. So >> three all. >> Well, yeah, we're going to get all but as far as what we would like Miss Amy to to separate, you know, which which way do you guys want to go? Do you want to combine? Do you want to go with Mr. Gray's selection of
six >> limitation on annual increases in compliance and oversight and then the rest of it is the second question and then Corey proposed requirement for voter approval and limitation on duration of assessment programs and then
the rest of it is the second question. Okay. >> Well, it may make more sense when you say it all together. >> Yeah. >> I'll have with it. I'll do my best. >> Do you want to do >> Could you do his version, my version,
and and and all together and then and then we'll just kind of Yeah. >> Yeah. We'll see. >> Proposal, all of it. >> I'll play with it. >> We don't I don't want to I don't ask you like do >> spend tons of hours on this. I'm going to use AI to help me. So, it's I won't
spend hours, I promise. >> But I am going to play with it a little bit. >> Okay. >> Um, so I guess next meeting we'll we'll we'll see we'll have that ballot language there to uh to package up then and I kind of foresee
I kind of foresee the same process we used tonight to codify the ballot ballot language for city clerk etc. Um the intent I think next meeting will be to be to close out this item. Um and then we could we could move on to seven and
so on. Um so that that kind of satisfies um agenda item number five. Uh moving on to item number six on the agenda uh which was table multiple meetings um Mr. Switzer's request to add governing in a
digital age um for discussion. So Mr. Switzer you. >> All right. >> Didn't you have something you wanted? >> We discussed it last meeting. I um I guess my recommendation would be we some
in summary of stuff that I told people what I want and and I want to discuss it more in depthly as later on. Yeah. >> So what I provided is kind of a summary of intent of what I'm bringing. Okay. and kind of told them to digest it
because I want to get down into the nitty-gritty of the whole proposal >> section by section of that proposal later on. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I think Okay. So, I can just give you a little bit of background. When Pat
approached me, it was in September at the city uh 911 uh memorial remembrance here at the park. He just asked me to um if I wanted to do this and just to refresh I well I was didn't know what it
meant but I was like yeah I'll do what I can but he just said to try to get it up to date and I and I read the uh the charter and I just felt like this is this is what I'd um like to add.
It wasn't right away. It was like months in and I was thinking about it and then this came across my desk and I just kind of thought there isn't anything in the charter about how to manage things that I have real concerns about.
Um so I so I think this I'm I'm wide open to just you know have open discussion and just seeing where this goes. um whether it moves up to the city commission or the commissioners or not,
you know, it's kind of up to us, but I think that it's worth a real review from this group because technology is moving so fast
and um you know, I like to thank the commissioners you know, read what's on the agenda. But >> one of them >> they didn't they've missed some really big things
>> that I have a problem with that I think um um I don't want to see again. I don't want to I want something in the charter so that you know the the so that the digital age
so 50 years from now when my grandkids watch a video of this meeting they can say okay grandpa tried to do something about you know how intrusive things are be became you know so I'd like to just
have that discussion Um, my purpose is really with without this language is just to make sure that any of these kind of technologies
that come out are known by by whoever wants to know and that for sure it's talked about um in advance as much as possible. And we had the situation which was a
real concern for me with the um the flot cameras and law enforcement's not forthcoming with the information. The commissioners in my opinion kind of dropped the ball
and they still voted on this with and then they invited the flock guy. So, it's like the cart was before the horse. I believe none of them knew what they were passing
and um there's some real big concerns about that and I hope that we can come up with some sort of language to shoot up to the commissioners to where you know, yes, we have the sunshine
sunshine laws and I've trust me, I've done a lot of research on this. I looked at the uh Panama City Beach um because I I spoke at the Panama City Beach and and uh Old Davis said, "Oh, you know, that was
openly discussed in that flock was openly discussed in a city commission meeting." So I said, "Oh, really?" So I looked at the I had already seen the city commission meeting. The way these things are passed is they're passed in a um as a consent
agenda item with a a document of 250 pages or more. And if somebody doesn't see that or question it, it's um it's passed with
it's just read as CJ whatever or you know a flot camera not without any explanation and um you know and it's just a yay or nay and it was all there was no public there's been no public debate um until that
December 9th meeting um in any of the commission meetings here. Panama City and Panama City Beach. I'm not sure about uh Spring Springfield. >> Um so,
so let's just say and it was hidden. You know, the contract went through, you know, former Chief Ramy pass just signed off on it willy-nilly. It's like arbitrary power. >> Um he just signed off. There's there's
two separate things there. I do remember being in a meeting when they discussed and asked the commission about installing the cans. That was one thing that happened. I don't remember what meeting it is, but I'm sure if you go back and look through agendas and meeting minutes and it's there's there
is a point in time where the commission did discuss introduction and implementation of those cameras. >> That was on the 21st. >> There was no not Yeah. Yeah. Right. And then there was a separate procurement violation that occurred where right the former police chief didn't follow
procurement policies and stuff and the city the commission had to ratify that. >> Yes. >> Two to me two separate issues. >> I watched the one in 2021 and >> and you feel like it wasn't >> I would it came up. So the difference Lynhaven actually did it right. Lynhaven
put the flock agenda on the agenda under new business instead of what everyone else did. They put it in as a consent agenda item. A consent agenda item is like storm water things that are like run-of-the-mill ideas.
But so so we did new business and I was like pretty proud of that cuz I think you asked I think you had said something in >> I feel strongly about what should go on a consent agenda but I don't know if I was consulting you know this. >> Okay. So this >> 2021 it was probably Kevin. >> No it's not me. This was new business,
but nobody Chief Remy explained I'm trying to be nice here >> enough amount of information about the elementary like, okay, so you'll say,
okay, it's a it's a license plate reader. Well, you know what? It does a lot more than that. Takes a whole p picture of the whole back of your car and the side profile and it guesses. >> There weren't a whole lot of questions asked, not question. There was one question by um Judy about why CRA paying
for it rather than the police. >> Yeah, that's completely >> Yeah, there was nothing. There was no Hey, you know, you know what? There's been no gu there's been no guard reps. There's not in my um public records request. There's been
zero audits. the um deputy chief responded to my public records request to the audit of Ryan Scray asking for his data his I was like you know that's not what I'm so they're very guarded
um releasing information so when I was so in 2021 it was oh you know we're catching people you know with this license plate reader and uh we'd like to do a whole lot more of that. Um, so there's it's
nothing no explanation of Bayrock. All of this is piped in. All of this is retained for 30 days at least. It's shared with every with 158 different law enforcement agencies, not regionally,
countrywide. And I've got I I've got big problems with the way it was implemented. I got a big problem with the way that it was not explained. I got a big problem with when you ask information, ask for information, it's slow rolled and you
get, you know, a a fifth grade education response on something that is really intrusive in my opinion. So, >> but I I'd like to ask, so you want this limited to um surveillance or data
collection technologies, including but not limited to UAVs or drones, LPRs, which is license plate recognition systems, biometric identification tools, or similar technologies. That's like it's very honed in on that
stuff is what you >> Oh, well that that's my >> to me like digital age is a huge overarching umbrella, but then you go in to talk about just like this surveillance type section. So is your
goal for this to be protecting citizens from surveillance related technology only and having it be very transparent and audited and policies in place and such or is it a at a higher level than
surveillance as in regard to digital age? >> Well, I'm open. Um this is this is you know >> what was your original? Yeah, that's that's it. PI privacy and and governing in the digital age. If if we want to go into um
>> you know the use of AI in the city of Linhaven and are you know are the is our employees on their own? Do they have to get their own AI or does the city develop their own or is there one AI or
is can the city use multiple AI tools? Do they have to disclose that AI was used to produce stuff? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> AI. >> Yeah. That's a big discussion to have one that's longer than the 10 minutes we have left.
>> Yeah. And if we I mean we have an opportunity now to talk about AI whereas in five years from now who knows who knows what you know that we might have you know if we don't do anything AI might might take out half the employees. Nah. So that's too
>> Well, I'm I'm just It may you >> I think >> may or may not >> I think for the for the purposes of discussing this agenda item tonight, >> um I think I would like if we could to consider
um when we get to section 8. >> Section 8 is police power and general penalty. um that once we get to section 8 that maybe you um draft charter verbiage that you would want to see in section 8
associated with um governing in the digital age, whether that be um whether that be internal audits, the internal audit requirement, whether it be calling out specific, you know, surveillance equipment, drones, LPRs, whatever it is, right?
>> That independent over. >> Yeah. when we get to section 8, I think that is the appropriate time to to have a really indepth discussion, you know, as to as to which direction we want to go. Again, that's just my personal idea, >> which probably won't be long, David.
It'll probably be one or two more meetings because next meeting we'll go through the rest of the ballot language for six and then >> seven probably won't, in my opinion, have many changes. So, it won't be long till we're at eight. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I'm okay with that. And I'm I'm you know if you guys want to add whatever to it too. >> Well, I think if you can do like what he's suggesting, it'll kind of hone us in more. >> Yeah. >> Get meat and potatoes, >> right? >> Yeah. Propose like actual like what it
will look like when you go to the charter and you get to section 8 concrete. So we can go, okay, this is what it should kind of look like, >> right? Like almost like so the same commission shall have power to pass also Jordan or
the law and that is what with police power and then so what would like a 8B look like? >> Yeah. >> Okay. that's that you would drop like what a 8B looks like here >> keeping in mind like what we've done so far like for example with the nonadorum
that was a lot about guardrails and audits and oversight right >> so like draft something like that for sections 8B so we can kind of work through it like we did with his nonad >> okay >> David you bring up talk about AI my wife
works for a very large credit union federal credit union and uh Monday there's a memo that came down from the head hot show that said beginning right now you can only use these AI platforms
and they named them that was >> do you know which ones they named she knows I don't I don't care like my company my company we're not allowed to use any AIs except for the company's own proprietary AI >> which makes sense >> which and I don't like it
>> I I don't like their AI is no it makes sense. It's just like they introduce something too fast, which could happen. I mean, if the city's using AI, like >> part of it, >> you're right. >> It can give you nonfactual information.
>> Hallucinate like Cory brought up. It was >> I'll address that. >> I'll address that at the next commission meeting. >> What's that? >> I said I'll address that at the next commission meeting. Okay. So if if you're satisfied with that on item number six, we're bringing that up uh once we get to item number eight. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um we'll move on to item number seven which is public comments. >> Any public comments? None. None heard. Okay. Um item number eight, uh next meeting. I think um Miss CJ, do you have
a good a good understanding or or actually what we what what our intent is for for next meeting as far as agenda wise >> um ballot the ballot language for six and then we're going to >> we're going to probably shoot for seven and I would say eight um for the next
meeting. Do you guys have any objections or anything to that? >> No. And then as far as date and time, I know we had initially kind of threw something at the wall. You have the fall will be on March 4th >> on the 11th is what it's on the calendar. >> Yeah, some I got it on the 11th for some
reason. >> I have it on the 11th. >> It's in my calendar already. >> You got it on the 11th. >> I've got we changed it last meeting to go right back after the commission meetings. >> Yeah. >> So March 11th. >> So the 11th and the 25th would be the default for March.
>> So is it be 5:15? Yeah, we're I think we're all good on the 5:15 now. >> Unless you all want to come at lunch and we'll have it catered in and everything. >> I can do that. >> So, the 11th at at 5:15. Is everybody's
good with that? And then do we want to go ahead and and say the 25th as well? >> I'm good with that. >> 5:15. Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, everybody's good with that. Uh, this meeting is adjourned.