Good evening and welcome to our workshop proposed charter amendments. It's Monday, June 1st, 2026. Clerk will certify a time. Roll call. >> Commissioner Irvin >> here. Commissioner Santiago, >> present.
>> Vice Mayor Kelly, >> I am present. Let us stand for the invocation followed by the pledge of allegiance. >> Eternal God our father, we thank you for all of your many blessings. We thank you for life, health, and strength. We thank you for the grace of opalaka. Continue God to give us wisdom, knowledge,
understanding to those things which are pleasing in your sight. In Jesus name we do pray. Amen. >> Amen. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Thank you for everyone that is here. Um, we understand that our mayor and commissioner Bass will not be able to make it. We're going to move to uh public comments. Public comments. Madam clerk, do we have anyone online?
>> No, Vice Mayor, we do not. >> Okay. Thank you. Um we're going to move into our discussion of potential charter uh amendments. And I believe thank you to the clerk um and the manager providing information. I know that there's been a couple of uh workshops
regarding proposed charter amendments. uh both with the charter review board and with the commission. I know one of them I was not able to attend but there were some um information given out and some information that was requested from
the manager that is provided in the packet. Um so we're going to go through it. It is a workshop. So we will just um if you have any questions um we will try to work through it and answer any questions. The bottom line is that I want to point out uh to my colleagues if
you notice within the document and I'm pretty sure we discussed before um the deadlines to submit um anything to the supervisor elections for charter amendments or any other questions. We see of course one day we've already um
passed in terms of well not passed we would have passed about June 12th to be on the primary election. And the other one of course is general election for November 3rd no later than Friday August 21st the deadline no later than Friday July
246 in terms of charter submissions. Um, with that backdrop, Madame Clerk, I would like for you to just uh remind us um again uh the process in terms of your uh requirement to ask a request of the
supervised elections. So that is notated as well. >> Um yes, thank you um vice mayor. So, um, pursuant to state statute, before a municipality can call a special election, we must first request from the
supervisor of elections of Miami date county permission and also receive consent from from the supervisor of elections in terms of that date. So, that that is a requirement, vice mayor. >> Okay. Having heard that so we know not
only will we have to pass but has to be requested the supervisor of elections as a part of the um process um because I have requested to have um the workshop because getting close to the deadlines and
requiring two um readings by way of ordinance. I did not want to push us into a situation where at the last moment trying to make some decisions if it was the intent of the commission to put any charter amendments on. So I have
asked the clerk to kind of list some of the things that have been mentioned um in your previous workshops and meetings and of course if it's something that you want to add or uh discuss or alter or otherwise we can entertain that. Again,
we're not voting today, so it is just discussion. There was um some various things come up about compensation and obviously health insurance um for not only the official but the families as well. Um, I didn't hear a
lot of discussion in the minutes, but I asked the clerk to also include life insurance for elected officials and of course any other related matters um that uh we might think of. So, having said that, um I'll open up the floor and I'll
reserve any, you know, comments I may have after I hear from my colleagues since, um some of you had already weighed in before on some of the items. >> So, the floor is open. Uh, Vice Mayor, >> Commissioner Santiago, >> thank you. Um, it's only a question to
uh make clear um two points that you mentioned about the election. Uh, do we have to be in August and the PI prime May 1st and then after that we going through November? No, the
the all um the date I was referring to was really for qualifying, but that was for candidates. For our purposes, the um date, and the clerk correct me um would be July the 24th, 2026. If you see it in
the package, I think it's on page 35. It's the no later than for submission for charter amendments or any other questions. Um Madame Clerk, is that correct? Um yes, but just to clarify just so that um Commissioner Santiago has an understanding. So um with these
proposed charter amendments, we had two options of two upcoming election. Um the countywide primary election which um is scheduled for August 18th. However, that deadline to submit um for that ballot
has passed. That deadline was Friday, May 22nd. And then the second option would be the general election in November. And that deadline for us is um July 24th. >> That mean we going to November.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. The real question cuz we know the the dates cuz that's proposed. We can't change that if we want to. The real question is what we want to see if anything in those charter amendments. um
that that's really the the question because that has to be framed. Obviously, you have to come back and vote on it, two votes, and then put it before the other process. So, the reason we're here today is to try to determine um what if any charter amendments we
want on the uh proposed ballot that would take place in November. that that's the real discussion. Or maybe we just want to leave it as is. We want to leave it as is, then we don't have to say anything. But what you say
to leave it like that. >> No, no, no. I'm saying like this is >> No, I'm saying if we don't want to make any changes, then we don't have to do anything. But I'm going by the discussion that was had uh previously by the charter review board, their recommendations and the joint workshop
that the commission had where um it was weighed in by some of my colleagues cuz I wasn't here at the time on proposed changes. So the workshop was designed to kind of um refine whatever that's going to be so the attorney could
work on whatever that will come back before us to actually vote on. But if we don't want to change anything then we leave it as it is. So that's the real purpose of the the workshop because we can't just go into a meeting without having some kind of direction uh giving
uh the attorney what to put on um that can be sent down to the supervisor election. But be before we do any any decision today, I know that we're not voting, but uh can we uh learn a little bit more about uh
the benefits that you're talking about before for you asking for life uh life insurance uh for the elected official? >> Okay. Um >> I want to ask a question. It's kind of the same as his question, but I think
it's for the manager. Um, we we are considered employees. Does there the employees of the city, they have a life life insurance policy that's paid for by the city? That is correct. Okay.
So, we would if we decide to add the life insurance policy for us, then we would fall under whatever it is that you all do for them. That's the same thing. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the city employees, Commissioner
Santiago, they have a life insurance policy that's paid for the city, paid by the city. So if we if we decided that we wanted life insurance to be an option, then we would receive the same benefit
that they they're already getting. >> The city is going to pay for us. Well, to be clear, madame manager, >> well, >> same benefits like any regular >> currently the city of Opalaka's
employees receive everybody receives $50,000 life insurance benefit that's paid for by the city. >> Mhm. >> That's the discussion that's here today. If the city commission will also be getting that same benefit that wasn't previously discussed, but it's coming up today. It is any reason that we can uh
not get that type of cover >> as a if I heard my college he say that we are uh a city employment too. >> It mean we supposed to have the same rise >> as it stands now the commission doesn't get any of those benefits. So that's why
the discussion is coming up today to see if that's going to be included in the compensation >> before we have it. >> Yes. >> They took it away from us. Now you don't have that. So that's why it's up for discussion. >> And I don't want to say that, but I
believe my colleagues that we are the only elected official in the whole uh county uh day county and probably Broward County too that we don't have any of these benefits and we serving the community.
>> That's why we're here now to make sure it's included in the in the charter. >> Okay. um to to my colleagues, you know, since we're jump to the um life over the insurance, if you notice page 56, page 56 cuz I had the manager to add the
actual cost into the document and as mentioned, if we do the basic um if they do the basic life, which the employees have, which is the $50,000, um you see the cost that it is um for
us. So, it's listed there. Um, and as an employee, if you notice, the annual cost and the annual cost per employee really is minimal. I I think that's important and that's why I want to add it because when you serve uh in this capacity
um and you serve four eight or whatever years and as it stands now with minimal compensation but nothing for your family in terms of life benefits if something should happen to you while you're here.
Uh I think that's a disservice. Um, and it it's not a big cost in my opinion on the budget and since we're listed as employees, that cost would just be factored into the budget process. So that is why I wanted to make sure that
was added in. So you see the numbers for that and you also see the numbers for um health, dental, and all of the others because I wanted all of that included because that had been part of the previous discussion if you notice. Uh and again, madame uh manager, if you
could just elaborate to the commission because there are really four tiers um in terms of the coverages uh what it would mean for um the commission if that were to pass. I mean we were to elect to go that route. >> Are we on the insurance port? Okay. So
>> E only would be the employee only which would mean the the elected official only. E E and spouse will be if the elected official chose to include their spouse. E and child if the elected official chose to choose elected
official and one child and family if the elected official choose themselves, their spouse and kids. So that would be the family cost. >> And if if I may ask um vice mayor, >> go ahead, commissioner. Um,
so it's just me and my husband, but let's say that I chose family because it's more than so I would be responsible for a certain part of this cost as well. Am I correct?
That's correct. Which would be okay. Okay, that's I just wanted to make sure. So what to to be very clear, what part would we assume? >> The city will pay for the elected official the same as they do for the the
employees. All employees are paid for under the city. >> If you choose to add spouse, child or family and that's that was a discussion during the charter review board meeting that that portion is supposed to come from the elected officials. >> Come from where?
>> From the elected official. >> Okay. Well, there was two different discussion. One was to come from any increase in salary. The other one was to just come from the um elected official. And again, that's why we're here because that's the discussion that needs to um
take place to give direction to uh the manager and the attorney. Um so I I don't know how my colleagues feel if you want to weigh in um now because it was two different proposals. One was of course the insurance only which the city
pays now for employees as she said spouse, child, family and the elected official would pay um the balance after I'm the 63955. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And the other discussion that was
had was that if you increase the commission's salary to a thousand, then the insurance would come out of the thousand. That was part of discussion, too. Um cuz I read through it cuz I wasn't here. No, it's in it's in there. That's a part of your
minutes. That's why I wanted the clerk to put in there. That's what was discussed. Um of course, I'm not a fan of that, but that was discussed. Um, but the commission can decide whatever it wants to bring forth, but we need to decide on whatever that is and bring it
forth. So, I'd like to hear um whatever thoughts. I'm quite sure management needs to know because they're preparing the budget and whatever is going to be encompassed needs to be in the budget process. Uh, I would just say I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner. No, I'm
>> I would just say at the minimum at the minimum um cover um the elected official at the minimum, you know, and then at the maximum the spouse that that's just me and I'm only saying that because if
you look at the annual cost and the monthly rate um and if you do all five, it does jump up there. But I definitely believe you ought to cover at least um each of us. But if you cover us, you know, each of us and the spouse, you can
see that number to the right because that's the total number for all five of us. Um but that's just my thoughts. I'd like to hear your thoughts on on the um health dental vision because they're all right there in packets. Commissioner
Irvin. Well, well, I was going to say I know there was some concern of I mean there was some um chatter about um with the increase that we got they would take our portion out of the increase. I don't agree with that at all. Um
I'm okay if they only I know um some of the employees I think is it just police or is it that the spouse also get covered or that's or that's the whole city? >> All employees have that option but they have to pay that difference.
>> Right. So that's what I was but with the police they pay the difference too or it's free. >> Yes they pay the difference. >> Okay. Okay. So, I'm I'm okay with it being um elected officials, the city covering us. And if we want to bring our spouses in, then we pay the difference
for our spouses. I don't I don't want anything to be done for us that is not being done for the employees. Um that's that's that's my two cent. I don't if if we're if we're doing it for already doing it for the employees and we are
employee, I I accept it. but not don't do it for us and we're not doing it for employee other employees. So if we get covered under the insuranceances and then we want to pay for our spouses to receive the same benefits then we
should pay just like the other employees. So let me if I if I may can I add to that? So for employees the city pays 100% for the employee. If they have dependent, the city still pays a portion. The city pays 50% for their
dependent. >> Okay. >> Now, like, >> okay, hold on. Could you define dependent so everybody knows? >> So, if they choose spouse, the city pays half of that for their spouse. Employee and child, if we pay half,
>> family, we pay half for their dependence. >> And and that's why I'm want to clarify that because Commissioner Irvin is correct. I feel the same way. We want the same thing. But the reality is the city's already paying half for, you know, the child or the spouse,
whatever. So, they're actually getting more. People don't even realize that that we're probably one of the few cities that pay half of the dependent or whatever. Um, so need That's why I want you to clarify that when you say dependent. So, we're we're paying that
now for employees. >> That's correct. Yes, we are. >> Okay. But vice mayor, >> hold on for a second. Go ahead, Commissioner Sand. >> No, I'm I follow uh Commissioner Irving and let me say let me tell you that you say something that is right. I going to
feel comfortable if we going to have the same treatment to the other regular employment. But now I heard something different that they pay half of the benefits for the children at the sponsor. You see now we getting in
something that is not equal for us that we supposed to have the same you know benefits like them. >> That's why we're here so the commission can direct us on which path. I only want to make clear that it's not we're not even yet because if they get that why we
don't have the two vice mayor >> yes so I agree um um commissioner Santiago that's why I was saying to the mayor I mean to the manager whatever it is that they do for employees then we would get the same um treatment the same
benefit so if I want to add my husband then I'll pay h and the city will pay the other have um however it stands right now for employees. We're I don't know cuz we never had the the benefits.
So I don't know but that's that would be my suggestion. >> Yeah. And let me make that point uh vice mayor and my colleague commissioner Irving >> uh we don't thinking madame manager today about
who is here now for futures of people that coming in and everything it have to be the same thing like me I'm here because this is something that I have to know and sharing with my colleagues when
that thing coming to us we know what you know what we're going to Um myself I'm fine uh because I already over 65 year old and I receive what they calling Medicare >> bragging
>> it mean I'm free you know for that type of covery that the city pay it but it's people coming that they going to need it here and that's what we here and we want to be sure that they be treating or we be treating the same thing like the
other ones. same thing. >> Okay, let let me let me say um one of the reasons why I wanted to host and convene a workshop because we do need to clarify all of those points and make a decision. Another thing is for the future because there will be folks
coming along but if you were to ask someone now, some upand cominging um individual who may be interested in public service, there's no way they can take care of their family and give to this position without something um other
than just what we're getting now. And a part of that would be insurance. A part of that would be dental and vision, especially if they got children. And that's why it's important, I believe, for us to put something on the ballot so the voters would approve. So folks
coming uh after us, even though we might be getting older and or established, can take care oursel, but there might be somebody who's 30, 40, got a family, would like to give public service, but nobody can do it and not have any um
benefits coming, whether it's insurance, whether it's dental, whether it's vision, whatever. And that's why it's so important that we um put something in place or at least propose something to the voters. And so I would just um
suggest or since we seem to be along the same um lines, Madam Manis, if you could just uh in a nutshell for um what the employees get because that's what we're hearing. What the what you do for the employees now, what would that
look like for all of us? In other words, if you did the employee plus spouse for dental, same thing for um I guess vision, what would that total be? What would that amount be? Because
that's what you'd be looking at. I mean, I can look at it um in a sense if I had time to add all the numbers, but um that that's the real cost that you would be looking at from a budgetary standpoint. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. um
it's correct, but we still won't be able to give a um a actual number because everybody may choose something different. So, we still can't give a hard number because one may just want themselves, one may want a family. So, we won't be able to give you an exact
number right now. >> Right. No, no. I wasn't I wasn't saying if someone were to were to pick, let's say, the family. I'm saying definitely employee and the spouse. >> Yes. >> Uh what that number would be. Obviously, someone decided to go for a higher uh range, they could uh and in the future
this should pass and be part of our uh process, then whoever coming in would have that same option, but they would at least know what it is. Um but in terms of the cost of how to do it, cuz this is proposed for the upcoming budget. So, you would basically have to
do it based on the five sitting here now, which obviously could change. So then you'd have to come back or make some kind of adjustments but based on the five here now and and our current status whatever it is that's what you
have to base the budget on. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. So hearing the discussion want to uh behold just like the employees would be obviously with the option. Um so to get that final number I guess you would speak to us
individually to find out what we would like per se. Um and then that will give you a base total. >> Yes, definitely. >> Okay. Um so to my colleagues and of course you will make sure uh the mayor and commissioner Bass gets it. Madam
clerk, we'll make sure they get the the minutes. Okay. And and um to the attorney or let me do this last part. Um cuz I wanted to kind of leave here with some some real structure. So we got the insurance um and families. Uh
I think the life insurance I I kind of weighed in. I don't know if my colleagues weighed in along the same thing being whole like employees. I thought I heard that too. Um did I hear that correct? >> Yeah. do have the same the same >> I want to put on you know I don't want to speak for you okay so those are taken
care of the compensation again there was discussion about uh moving it to a th00and but having um whatever insurance come out of it I'm definitely not for that as uh my colleague mentioned I've
never been for that so uh my thought process is to uh raise it to the thousand but Um it's just that's just salary not tied to insurance coming out or anything else. That's just my thoughts. I'd like to give my colleagues
so we can um be on the same page or give some consensus on how to manage to move forward. >> Vice Mayor >> Mr. >> Yes. I do not I mean if if we chose a plan that cost over then we'll be like
employees that money comes out of their check. But if I'm just going with myself, then my check should be $1,000 RA minus um whatever Uncle Sam gets and
his sister social security and whatnot. Um so yeah, I I totally agree with just um the $1,000 per month. Okay, Commissioner Santiago, >> I I agree you want with the same idea.
um uh for the uh thousand $1,000 raise. Um but it's a little question to the manager. Okay. For that salary that we're going to receive for $1,000, we're going to have deductible for the
uh the taxes from there. >> Yes. >> And that's okay with us. No. >> Yeah. The taxes. Well, that's automatic. >> Yeah. >> That's automatic. We don't we can't get around that. But um nothing would come out of it other than taxes. >> Okay. >> The other discussion was insurance
possibly coming out of it. >> So >> I agree sir. >> I agree with the idea. >> Okay. So the proposed compensation I'm just trying to kind of give these so the attorney can weigh in if she has to weigh in at some point. Um and my colleagues I'm just trying to trying to
um tell them it's a thousand. So um just trying to get a consensus. So um yeah. Any discussion on any sales? Well, well, Vice Mayor, like we're saying only taxes, but if we make a choice where we have to pay $200 or $300
for our spouse, then that would come out of our that would come out of our check. Correct. >> No. Well, >> how else would the city cuz the city got to get paid for? >> They only paying half. >> No, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. You're
getting excited down here when you say take his money. >> Commissioner Commissioner Irvin is asking a question. because it came up, that's where it kind of came up in the discussion of it coming out of the thousand. I think that was proposed by the charter uh review board. Now, that doesn't necessarily
have to be that way, but she's asking the question, would it come out of that thousand? >> But we're not talking about the insurance for us. We're talking >> I know you're talking about the spouse or or family, >> right? Because if you if you all are saying that you want the same as the employees, that's what it is for the employees. So, I I would need some
guidance from you all as to which way you want to go >> just the way you do this. the employees. >> Say it again. I'm sorry. >> I said you all said that you want to do it the same way we do the employees. The employees pay a portion for their dependence, >> right? >> I would need some guidance from the
elected officials on if you want it to be like that or you don't want it. I don't know because you said you wanted the same way as employees. That's how we do it for the employees. They pay a portion. >> So it it comes out of the check. >> Yes. >> Okay. So the thousand Okay. If it goes
to a,000 and you pick the I'm just using example here. This is dental >> plus. >> Yeah. The employee and spouse and I'm looking at dental. That 2285 would come out of the thousands. >> Yes. >> That's what you're saying. >> Yes. But only half of that.
>> I'm just using dental now. I'm just using dental. >> Yeah. But it would be half. >> And but that would be the spouse. Half of that which would be 12 whatever would right. >> That's what we pay. And go to the big one cuz that's really the one which is which is the medical. So if you did the
spouse, okay, and the it's 1227910. Okay. The city pays half. So that's six. >> Yes. >> Okay. So if we go to a,000 that means 600 is coming out of the,000.
>> No, we would pay the 639, >> right, >> for the employee, the elected official >> and half for the spouse. So be responsible for the remaining half. >> And what's the remaining half? >> Half of the 639. >> Half of the 639, which would be whatever
that is. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> 334. >> Yes. >> And 50. >> And if you go to the family, it just goes the same way. Okay. Um how it breaks down if that's I mean I
don't know exact numbers, but I don't have a problem with that. Just be be clear if that's how it works. Again, you have to see what plan all of us want. >> I was going to say and after I meet with each of you individually, we can give you those numbers so you'll know exactly what it is, what it would look like.
>> Okay. All right. And just for a futuristic thinking positive, the voters vote for it is approved, but um of course it's going to maybe change because of November. Anybody coming in then would have to >> it it initially be based on that or just
you have to do amendment or you do something budgetary wise to adjust. Okay. >> They'll be able to elect their their >> right and then you make a budgetary amendment. >> Right. >> Okay. All right. Um having heard all that we on the same page now. Oh go ahead commissioner. Well, no, we are,
but now it's coming, you know, thing, you know, news, you know, like about that $600 and something dollars that, you know, cut it in half that he's going to come out from our check and everything. We're going to be almost in the same situation because if he uh
Commissioner Irving had to bring his sponsor, you know, your husband in and I had to bring my wife for you. Okay. We going to have less of the money that we supposed to, you know, have. Okay, now we're not talking about $1,000 pro minus
the taxes minus the insurance or whatever. We going to have almost the same thing like $600 every month. You know what I I I think uh I don't know if we can change that $1,000 vice mayor here or
you know or or give you like an opinion that I have. I >> give your opinion. That's why it's a workshop. We're not voting. Give me your opinion. I believe to, you know, to make the team more comfortable or, you know, uh, that $1,000 supposed to be $1,500 a month and that that we can count, you know, with the discount that we going to
have for the insurance. >> So, you would suggest instead of a,000 per month that it go to, 1500 per month. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Um, so therefore, that total for five would be whatever it'd be times 12.
Okay. Um, and what would that be? >> Yeah, you got fin. Well, wait a minute. We're find people here to count. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We we counting the license is very expensive right now. >> The compensation will be 90,000.
>> What now? >> 90,000. >> Okay. So, it be 90,000 with the compensation side at 1,500 a piece. >> 1,500 a piece. It'll be,000. >> Mr. Sano was saying, which I kind of understand what he's saying. by the time you take out insurance, especially if you get the family, but
even with a spouse, you're at about $300. So, you're kind of back to even. Um, so he's proposing 1,500. So, you would be getting some conversation. I guess question becomes
is the health benefits more important or not important but more succinct than the thousand as is and you just go do whatever you're doing with insurance. Um I I mean that that's really comes the question. So we know it's 90,000 if you
go to um 1,500. Okay. and insurance then obviously you'd have a little more that you would have on your check even if you were treated as employees with the minus. Okay. Uh let me ask a question attorney and then
commissioner Irvin I see your hand so I don't know if that's a you know I'm good at seeing those body languages. Um >> I I guess my my my question probably would be one for the attorney too but >> yeah I'm headed to the attorney so you can bring yours behind mine.
>> Okay. um how language-wise um and I' I've seen the language in in previous how it's worded shall whatever uh I guess the question becomes the number side of it
does would the language kind of read shall whatever and have the numbers laid out or is more just the wording or verbiage >> to answer your question um instead of the
$1,000 per month that's in the draft right now, it would be $1,500 a month is what I'm understanding you all saying. So, it would just change to $1,500, but everything else would remain the same >> in terms of the compensation side.
>> Okay. So, um just the wording of that amount. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And in terms of the insurance, because again it's going to depend, I guess, on all of us which
plan, but from a general standpoint, >> um the insurance would have some language to the effect of it, um the same as and I don't I'm not sure how I'll word it right now, but basically the same as that afforded to
um regular employees of the city. >> Okay. Now, the thing is because the one that's in the book, I guess it was semi or not semi, it was proposed dealing with the compensation but also taking the money out of the um you know the health insurance whatever. Um that
language would still say the same. >> From what I'm hearing, that's not what you at least the majority here would want. You all don't want to see that. So, no, that language would not be in there. would just have language to the effect of the insurance would be um
afforded to elected officials, the mayor and all other you know city commissioners to the same extent as regular city employees. >> So that would be a separate >> that would be a separate ordinance. Yes, >> separate ordinance. Okay. Um all right,
let me let me um yield now. Commissioner Irvin had a question for you as well. Commissioner, >> yes. Just wanted to know since the um the charter review board, you know, came up with the amount and whatnot, do we have to go back through them? No. >> No, you do not. It is an advisory board
of the commission and so you are considering their um recommendations, but you are free to change in any way that you feel appropriate. >> Okay. I just wanted to know. Thank you. >> Yes. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Um did you have a question for
attorney? Um no no I think we okay uh with that two changes that we make and reminded the same thing like we're going to have the same treatment like the uh regular employment is fine. >> Okay. So the um language would be 1,500 instead of
a,000 and then it would be a separate um recommendation or charter amendment I guess for the insurance and that part. Yeah. >> Um, which you would obviously put together the language. Um, but again, would it have that amount or would just
say insurance as employees currently get >> the latter? >> Yes. >> The the latter. >> The latter. So, it wouldn't have an amount. >> No, it wouldn't be an amount because you don't know what the amount is. But you all could, if you wanted to, you could say up to an amount of blank.
>> No, I don't want to put I don't want to put amount in there at all. I just >> Okay. >> You know, I don't want to put amount in there. >> We'll just say afford it. that way you get. >> And I'm going to just say this, you're the attorney, so I know you will word it legal sufficiency as much as it can say
um like other black employees. So it's known we're not getting something more. >> That's exactly what it will say. >> Yeah. Okay. Not so it doesn't get appearance. We're getting more than employees are getting. We're along the same lines. I I think that would be it
um sufficient um for that. So even though we got them separated um into like five bullet points, I think the reality is they they will come down to really two at this point. Correct. Two proposed charter
amendments. Okay. in terms of the well before I ask my last questions any other related matters um or anything else before I give my last comment and allow um colleagues I just want to kind of make sure because I
always like to lead workshops with a with a structure and some kind of plan. So the the concept would be um the manager would meet with us on the insurance and all that get those numbers get what our preference put that in some
kind of not some kind put that in a package obviously attorney would weigh in um if need be um but I don't that's not your area not the numbers not the numbers I get that >> but once that's done you're going to be working on the language for the actual charter
>> okay and then the other one would be just the compensation which kind of mirrors what's already here. All right. So, those will be the two proposals and the the time frames. Madame clerk, um I know the man is going to have to meet with everybody. I don't know how
quickly. My goal as I mentioned the clerk was try to have the first reading uh by the first no the second meeting in June and then the first the second meeting no the first meeting in July will be the
last one that would give us or give the clerk enough time way ahead of the um 24th deadline of July and I want to get that clarified would that give you enough time madam clerk >> um vice mayor if I may. So, in looking
at the draft legislation in the packet, it's actually a resolution. So, it's my understanding that a resolution will not require two readings and and um Bernardet the city attorney can chime in. >> Right. A resolution will not require two
readings. Um in most cities there it it is done as an ordinance, but I don't think that's required for the city of Opalaka. So >> well I I was basing it on most of them are done by ordinance. So it gives the public a chance to weigh in. So it's not
seen as something that's under the the rug as they say because it was only a resolution and nobody knew. So that's the only reason I said the ordinance because it's requires two reading public notice public can speak etc. as opposed to three minutes they may get. I I mean it can go either way. I I that's just my
preference for um transparency. So, it can't be said that, you know, we didn't know this was coming or whatever. Um, again, to my colleagues, that's up to to um us. I I can do it either way, but I don't want the
public to think like we passed resolution to put this on the um to the voters, as they say, and they had no real input because they wasn't here for that resolution. Of course, the ordinance requires two readings, public notice, and gives a little more. Um, I just want to make sure whichever way
we're doing it that it meets enough uh time frame for the clerk to submit to the supervisor of elections. So to my colleagues, can I hear your thoughts? >> Yes, sir. >> Oh, you want to start first? >> Oh. Oh, thank you. Um,
we be dealing we've been dealing with this situation already like uh from the beginning of the year. If we make a mistake a mistake, Madame Clerk. Yes. >> Yes. Okay. And um and like the
recommendation for the city attorney about uh this is not a a first or second reading. This is that's a resolution. Uh >> that's not the recommendation. I'm I was >> can't hear you. Can't hear you. >> I said that's not a recommendation. I
just said I don't know that that's necessarily requirement a requirement in Opalaka. So >> yeah, we follow I'll take a look at it. >> Yes, but we'll follow you. But what I what I need to let you let know my is uh
I don't know if we're going to require madam manager after uh this uh resolution or ordinance pass if this is have to go through the state. Oh okay that's time there too. Let's
keeping that in mind because after we passing in the two meetings first reading second reading and the second reading is going to be uh the first meeting of July in July. What date of July? Because we have July 4th they are closed. Uh
second meeting of July is going to be what the 10 11 12 >> we have um July 8th and July 22nd are >> okay. July is the first meeting in July. Okay. And the uh time limit that we have is uh July 24.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Yes. Thinking about that we're going to have that in the middle the state you know to wait for they approving. It's me myself. I think uh people know
about that already from the beginning of the year or the meeting the the community have and they uh agree with that and I think that we already be talking about that before it's the the community outside they know what's going on and they're going to have it in the
ballot to make the decision yes or no uh problem I don't think that we that we be clear in transferring um my recommendation is to go only, you know, like for the second meeting of this month to bring that resolution to
the table like that. We have time to send them to the state and get it in the ballot. >> Okay. I don't have a problem with that. But be very um clear, the community is not really weighing because you've had workshops. You haven't had any meetings
and as you see now, nobody's even here. And from the other workshop, you didn't really have a lot of folks. I just want to follow whatever the requirement is because I'm not sure if the attorney is saying it only requires a resolution. >> Not saying that. >> Well, I
I in fact, I just shared some language with Joanna. I think you should do it as an ordinance and I think it looks like that's the way to do it. So, but and Joanna has some dates in mind. >> Say them first names. I prefer y'all say last name. Yeah. The clerk dates and
minds that she can she can share with you. >> Okay. I I don't I don't technically really have a problem with the resolution. I just know for um so the public has ample time because they've not really waited. We've not really pushed to say be here for this or had
any town hall or it hasn't really been discussed about it. Um I just want to make sure from a legal standpoint if a resolution is all it takes, I don't have a problem with that. But I still think the July 8th meeting uh if it passes because the state is fully aware they watch all our meetings anyway. um it
would still have time to go to them, but more importantly that the clerk would have time to get to the supervisor elections. That's really my major concern that we meet that deadline. Um so I'll in terms of u you can let us know madam attorney um your legal
opinion should be ordinance versus resolution. My colleagues weighed in. He think it should just be a resolution and if that suffices um the commission can go that route. um if you say it's an ordinance and obviously that way I think either way I just want to make sure we
meet the deadlines properly but I also want to make sure we give the public as much notice as we can to weigh in on it um to to not say like they feel like we kind of didn't know we having this at 5:30 some other workshops was with the
charter review board people may not have fully been even though they're hearing about it but I can go either way I just want to make sure that u your legal opinion is resolution is fine versus ordinance. You can let us know individually. Um, Commissioner Irvin,
>> well, I just want us to do whatever it is. It will be nice if we can bring it back to the commission in that July 8th meeting. That way, it gives us a couple couple more weeks for it to go travel
abroad, Florida, and back and whatnot, you know? Um, so that's what I'm for. for I'm for whatever is going to get us get it on our July 8th meeting. >> And I think to that um and I know the manager can weigh in if she likes. I
know historically we have major not major we have financial situations. We kind of run it by the state in advance. It's not like something they don't know about. So if there's some challenges I'm quite sure it be known prior to but either way it go I think
July 8th. Uh, madame clerk, excuse me, if it comes back to the commission. If we do go ordinance, uh, would be sufficient time for you to get a supervised election. I don't think the state's going to take that long to weigh in. >> Um, vice mayor, if I may. So, if it if
it does require an ordinance and based on the language that um, the city attorney just um, showed me uh, in the charter, um, that's what we're leaning towards. So our recommendation would be to do first reading at the June 24th meeting and second reading final
adoption at the July 8th meeting. That way it will give us that time to be able to submit to the state for approval and also you know be timely to the supervisor of elections by their deadline as well. >> Okay question
>> um commission. Okay, let's go back with the time that we have to submitting to the ele election of comm department out there and the time that we're going to have also to sending to the state to
be approved. Uh you say that we're going to do the first reading if it has an ordinance uh the 24th of this month. First reading. Now the second reading is going to be the 8th >> July 8th. >> July 8th. Okay. Uh passing in the in in
the second in the second uh reading is me is already passed. We don't have to bring it back. >> That That's correct. All we have to do is submit it to the safer approval. Once we get that approval, then we go ahead and submit it to the elections
department. And we're hoping to have that all done prior to July 24th, which is the supervisor of elections day. it is going to be enough time to submit it to then and submitted it to the state because the problem I don't want to lose the chance to bring it now in November 4
because if it's not we had to wait for the 28 >> I think what you're hearing he's asking um based what the clerk is saying to ask your question yes I don't want to speak for her but based on what she said that would meet the um requirements and be
sufficient of time >> so that's what he's asking I mean, I know you can't say it was a perfect world, but >> So, so, Vice Mayor, I I would say yes. However, um I I would recommend what you stated earlier, Vice Mayor, that we
communicate to the state prior to this is legislation that we anticipate and we would, you know, appreciate uh approval, you know, ASAP or whatever so that we can get it to the super and I'm sure Miss Lawson can can submit something like that to um the state. Well, that's
why I mentioned it because I know we've had other things. They always watching anyway, especially with infrastructure things. So, um I'll let the manager weigh in because she would know those numbers anyway. >> And that's a a warranty that you can do that or the state going to passing. It's
it's not guaranteed, but what we can do, and we have did it in the past, we would send them the draft legis legislation before the meeting, letting them know that it's going to be presented to the city commission for consideration and ask them upon uh approval of the city commission once we send it to them if
they can review it on an expedited basis, if they can take it out of the order and and just review that one to get it back to us as soon as possible. And they have did that in the past. >> Okay. But we don't have any warranty about that. And I know when the state uh
see all these changes that we doing tonight uh to to passing they going to starting you know to asking question about oh well the spenser that we're going to ask the Spencer. >> Well as part of the discussion we're
going to have with the ordinance that's what we're going to have to discuss. That's why we have workshop. The manager will get us the numbers um of what it equals or what it totals. And that's why you have the uh two ordinances or rather whichever comes back. I'm going to say ordinance um that would come before us.
Not only would the public get to weigh in, but we would get to weigh in. Maybe after seeing the numbers, we might decide something different. My biggest thing is whatever we're going to do, we need to move on doing it because we're right up against the the um deadline of
anything to happen in this particular election cycle where we don't have to pay for it. It's we're already piggybacking, but we tried to do this on an off election and had to pick up the cost even more. So, whatever we're going to do, I would have preferred, for example, to have this on the August
ballot, but we didn't get it there. So, here we are now. Um, I just want to give some consensus. Um, and I'm quite sure they're going to be watching now. The manager can reach out. Um, usually I would say probably have a mayor to to reach out to the state as well. Um, and
see if there are any concerns. But as you get the numbers, you meet with us to see what our totals are. The attorney will do her due diligence. The clerk will do hers. If something else changes, uh, let us know. But I think that gives us enough time to um do what needs to be
done to get it before the voters and and hopefully they would um approve it. Uh that that's my final comments. My colleagues, any final comments and we'll be be done unless the manager last question for the city attorney about the
uh the two auction that we presenting to you. uh you already putting out of the side uh the way to doing it in a resolution or you want or you want to make a little story about that and come back and let them know us.
>> I already have the language that in mind and I can do it fairly quickly. >> Okay. Yeah. But you're going to bring him in an ordinance, not in a resolution. Well, >> he's he's asking that question, I guess.
Oh, okay. >> Let's see what happen. Let's counting, you know, like we're going to have enough time to bring >> uh that in the ballot in November. >> Yes, that's a discussion you all just had. I think >> Okay. Okay. Madame Clerk, uh anything
else, Madam uh manager? Anything else that needs to be um asked or any concerns? cuz I try to want to leave here with a consensus so that you all have what you need to do to formulate legislation and get it back for us before us and the public. So,
>> not at this time. I don't have anything. >> Not this time. Okay. All right. Hearing nothing else. Motion to adjurnn. >> Move it. >> Move it by Commissioner Santiago. Commissioner Irvin has second. This workshop is adjourned. The clerk will
certify the time. Thank you very much.