[CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:00:12]
          >> GOOD EVENING EVERYONE AND WELCOME TO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION. 
          GLAD TO HAVE EVERYONE HERE. CALLING IT TO ORDER. WE WILL START WITH, PLEASE 
          [MOMENT OF SILENCE ]
STAND FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE AND THEN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 
          I WILL ASK SUSIE IF YOU WILL LEAD THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. THANK YOU. 
          [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
          >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. 
          >> THANK YOU, PLEASE HAVE A SEAT. I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME 
          [WELCOME]
EVERYBODY AS WE GO AROUND THE ROOM. WE WILL START WITH OUR GUESTS MISS CAPO WHO IS OUR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT. KRISTI BLANCHETTE FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE WILL TAKE THE MINUTES AND IT JUST FOR EVERYONE IN THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING BECAUSE OF THE SHORT TIMEFRAME ARE NOT READY YET BUT THEYWILL BE SOON . 
          RATHER THAN WAIT TO THE NEXT MEETING IF THEY ARE FINISHED BEFORE HAND I WILL ASK TERESA TO PUSH THEM OUT TO EVERYBODY SO THAT YOU CAN REVIEW THEM AHEAD OF TIME. 
          OKAY. AND I SEE MR. CARTER BACK THERE. 
          WELCOME BACK, MR. FORBES, HAS DECIDED TO JOIN US. AND TO BE BLUNT THANK YOU. 
          [ROLL CALL]
WE WILL START WITH ROLL CALL. MR. HODGES. YOU CAN BE FIRST. 
          >> TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING THERE. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS, SORRY BRIAN, I STOPPED RIGHT THERE. 
          [PUBLIC COMMENT]
ELCOME. OKAY I WILL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ESCAPE I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS. SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. LIEUTENANT THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, SIR. 
          WE WILL PUT THE MICS UP TO REMIND EVERYONE TONIGHT IF YOU ARE SPEAKING TO TURN ON THE MICROPHONE AND OF COURSE FORT RANDY AND MR. HODGES USE THE MICROPHONE AS NEEDED. 
          [OLD BUSINESS]
SO LOOKING AT OLD BUSINESS THE FIRST ITEM WAS A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BCC SALARY INCREASE. 
          WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ITEMS HERE TONIGHT AND IT RATHER THAN GET INTO THE WORDSMITH ON THE TEXT FOR ANY OF THIS WHAT I WILL PROPOSE TO THE GROUP IS WE WILL AGREE ON SOME PRINCIPLES. 
          AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO ASK MR. TAYOR TO TAKE THAT BACK AND COME UP WITH A PROPOSED TEXT. IN BETWEEN THE MEETINGS THEN THAT WILL BE SHOWED OUT TO EVERYBODY AND YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT. BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT HE HAS TO ADHERE TO THAT HE CAN TALK ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, SIZE, NUMBER OF WORDS AND A FEW OTHER THINGS. RATHER THAN GET BOGGED DOWN TONIGHT I THINK IT WOULD BE EASIER TO ALLOW THE FLOW OF THE MEETING TO GO SMOOTHER IF WE JUST AGREE ON PRINCIPLES AND THEN TURN OVER TO THE EXPERTS TO TWEAK IT AND COME BACK TO US. 
          AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING. IS THAT AGREEABLE TO EVERYONE, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? OKAY, THAT'S HOW WE WILL PROCEED. 
          I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR HERE. THE LAST MEETING ACTUALLY TWO MEETINGS AGO WE VOTED TO RECOMMEND RAISING THE SALARY FOR THE COMMISSIONERS. WHAT WE DID NOT DECIDE WAS HOW LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND TO WHAT LEVEL. I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR UP TO DISCUSSION TO SEE IF WE CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON THAT. ASSUMING WE DO THEN WE WILL TURN THAT BACK TO MR. TAYLOR FOR WORKING INTO A PROPOSED TEXT. 
          SO THE FLOOR IS OPEN. 
          >> LOOKING AT SOME OF OUR HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS. 
          [00:05:03]
I DUG INTO THAT AND IF WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE VERBIAGE AND PASS RESOLUTIONS THAT WERE USED OVER THE LAST YEARS, STARTING IN 2008 WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED AND BRING ITALL THE WAY OUT . WHATEVER POINT YOU WANT TO START AT BUT SOME OF THAT VERBIAGE AND I THINK WE HEARD MR. CHAMMAS DISCUSSED THAT, THINGS DID NOT GO WELL WITH THE COMMUTERS OR THE VOTERS AND IT MIGHT HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE VERBIAGE. 
          IF WE LOOK TO SOME AT THAT VERBIAGE I THINK THERE WAS ONE ATTEMPT TO INCREASE IT TO A 70 PERCENT LEVEL. AND OF COURSE MR. CHAMBLIS HAD MENTIONED A LOT OF TIMES AND ELECTION PROCESS THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS BRINGS OUT FEWER VOTERS VERSUS THE GENERAL ELECTION. AND THIS ONE IS COMING UP IN NOVEMBER IS A MIDTERM. 
          WHEN YOU TAKE THIS APPROACH TO THIS THING I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO LOOK AT A COMPARISON TO SOME OF THE VERBIAGE THAT WAS USED IN THE PAST SO WE CAN TRY NOT TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE. 
          DOES THAT HELP? 
          >> SINCE I SEEM TO BE THE ONE TALKING A LOT ON THIS. FIRST OFF, I REACHED OUT TO TERESA AFTER OUR LAST MEETING. THE QUESTION WAS IF YOU LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT THAT YOU ALL HAVE SALARIES OF ELECTED COUNTY CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, ETC.. THE FIRST THING YOU'LL NOTICE AND IF YOU GO TO THE FOOTNOTES ON THE FULL TEXT OF THAT DOCUMENT THEY TELL YOU THAT ALL OF THOSE NUMBERS ARE DERIVED BASED ON THE STATUTE. NOT BASED ON WHAT COUNTIES ACTUALLY PAY THEIR COMMISSIONERS. THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS I ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE LAST YEAR BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS CORRECT BUT I DO NOT HAVE A DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF ME. ANYWAY I WENT BACK AND LOOK AT THAT. 
          THAT IS NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, HOW MANY CHARTER COUNTIES DO NOT FOLLOW STATE STATUTE IN PAIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS? WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU TO FIND OUT WE ARE IT. OKAY, WE ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT DO THAT. 
          I SAY THAT A LITTLE GUARDED BECAUSE I CALL THREE OR FOUR PERSONALLY AND THEY ALL SAID WE DO LIKE THE STATUTE, HOW ELSE WOULD YOU DO IT? GOING INTO DISCUSSION. 
          TERESA SAID SHE SENT AN EMAIL TO NUMBERS OF COUNTIES PREVIOUSLY AND THEY ALL RESPONDED BACK THAT WE DO IT BY STATE STATUTE SO I CANNOT SEE YOU AND TELL YOU ALL 19 OF THE OTHER COUNTIES I CALLED AND GOT AN ANSWER BUT THE ONES I CALLED DID HAVE AN ANSWER. 
          IT STRIKES ME THAT WE ARE THE ONLY COUNTY THAT IS NOT COMPENSATED COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BASED ON THE STATE STATUTE. I FIND THAT DISAPPOINTING. 
          I FIND THAT DISAPPOINTING BECAUSE CLAY COUNTY IS NO LONGER A SMALL RURAL COUNTY. 
          AND MAYBE THAT WAS PART OF WHAT PROMPTED THAT AT THE TIME THEY WANTED TO SETTLE ON 37 FIVE, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THOSE THINGS.I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO MOVING FORWARD INTO THE 21ST CENTURY. WITH THAT IN MIND I LOOKED AT SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND MINE WOULD BE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO, IF OUR MOTION IS GOING TO BE THAT WE MOVE TOWARD STATE STATUTE THERE IS A HUGE GAP BETWEEN WHERE WE ARE NOW. THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT GAP BETWEEN WHERE WE ARE NOW IN THE STATE STATUTE THAT WE WOULD DO THAT IN SOME PERIOD OF TIME LIKE 3 TO 4 YEARS. 
          IN THAT AMENDMENT WE WOULD NEED TO SPECIFY HOW THAT NUMBER IS GOING TO CHANGE YEAR-OVER-YEAR. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE CHOSE TO DO IT IN THREE YEARS AND MIGHT BE SOMETHING LIKE WE WILL DO 30 PERCENT IN THE FIRST YEAR, 50 PERCENT OF THE BALANCE BECAUSE REMEMBER THE STATE STATUTE NUMBER CHANGES YEAR-OVER-YEAR. SO, MAYBE THE SECOND ONE WE WOULD DO 50 PERCENT AND THE THIRD ONE IT WOULD BE UP OR YOU COULD GO TO FOR YEARS AND HAVE A SIMILAR FORMULA. 
          THAT WOULD BE MY APPROACH AND THE OTHER THING I WOULD SUGGEST WE LOOK AT AND ADDING INTO THE VERBIAGE WOULD BE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF CLAY COUNTY IS THE ONLY, WE HAVE TO VERIFY THAT, THE ONLY COUNTY, ONLY CHARTER COUNTY IN FLORIDA THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW STATE RECOMMENDED COMPENSATION FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONS, IT'S LESS THAN HALF OF THE STATE RECOMMENDED LEVEL. I DON'T WANT TO HIDE THAT WERE INCREASING SALARIES. 
          IT THE QUESTION WOULD BE SHOUT CLAY COUNTY ARTICLE 2 BE THE AMENDMENT TO FOLLOW GUIDELINES TO INCREASE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO $52,000 A YEAR. 
          [00:10:08]
AND PROVIDE THAT FUTURE CHANGES TO SET SALARIES ARE CAPTIVATED BY FLORIDA LEGISLATURE'S OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH PURSUANT TO THE STATUTORY FORMULA IN CHAPTER 145 FLORIDA STATUTES. IT WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT I SUGGEST WE TAKE TO THE VOTERS IF WE ARE GOING TO TAKE IT TO THE VOTERS. THANK YOU, MR.CHAIR . 
          >> COMMENTS? HAVE A SEAT. 
          >> JUST ONE MINOR POINT THERE IS AT LEAST ONE OTHER COUNTY WHOSE CHARTER I LOOKED AT, I BELIEVE IT'S BROWARD THAT STATES 70 PERCENT OF IT. PROBABLY WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT EXACTLY BUT I THINK THERE IS AT LEAST ONE. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> I ALSO FOUND THAT I THINK IT WAS IN MIAMI-DADE IT'S SORT OF RIDICULOUSLY LOW AMOUNT SO I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO FIND OUT WHY. I THINK IT WAS LIKE $7000. 
          I ACTUALLY LOOK THAT UP A COUPLE WEEKS AGO BECAUSE SOMEONE BROUGHT THAT TO MY ATTENTION. ITHOUGHT THAT WAS , DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THAT? 
          >> THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. >> BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT AND THEN THEY HAVE A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES IN THAT COUNTY. 
          >> IS MIAMI-DADE A CHAPTER CHARTER COUNTY? I'M LOOKING AT THE POPULATION ON THE BACK OF THIS. 
          >> I WAS CURIOUS IF ANYONE ELSE HAD. 
          >> THERE IT IS, 2.8. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM AT LOOKING AT THE CHART WE RECEIVED IN OUR ORIGINAL AND IT DOES SAY MIAMI-DADE IS BY CHARTER ADJUSTMENTS TO ACCELERATE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. 
          >> COUNTY. 
          >> YES, SIR. I THINK WOULD BE BETTER EQUIPPED, I'M SORRY I APOLOGIZE, I WOULD THINK WE WOULD BE BETTER EQUIPPED IF WE KNEW WHAT THE CURRENT SALARY WAS, OR IS IT. 
          >> WE DO. WE HAVE A BY STATE STATUTE. 
          >> WHAT THE CURRENT SALARIES OF THE COMMISSIONERS. 
          >> 37 FIVE. 
          >> SO THEN WE NEED TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OFFORMULA TO INCREASE . 
          >> WHICH IS WHAT MITCH WAS ADVOCATING. DO YOU TAKE IT UP ONCE OR DO YOU FACE IT IN, WHAT IS HE FEELING? 
          >> MY FEELING IS THAT WE FACE IT IN. 
          >> WHO ELSE? 
          >> I AGREE. 
          >> WAS THAT THE CONSENSUS? ALL RIGHT, THEN THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE PHASING GOING TO BE? IS IT TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, FOUR YEARS? 
          >> NOT TRYING TO SET IT DOWN THE ROAD TO THE NEXT COMMISSION BUT PERHAPS THE PHASING SHOULD BE THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT THIS COMMISSION ENDS AND THE NEXT COMMISSION BEGINS. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? 
          >> WE ARE TALKING, I'M SORRY. 
          >> WHAT IS THE THOUGHT ON THAT? 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK AS A WAY OF GOING BACK I THINK ONE OF THE ITEMS WE SUGGESTED THAT WE LOOK AT IS NOT ON THIS AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE BUT WHAT IS THE TIME OF PERIOD BETWEEN CHARTERCOMMISSION AND IF THAT GOES TO SEVEN OR 10 YEARS . 
          >> THAT ACTUALLY IS A DISCUSSION POINT WHEN WE GET INTO SECTION 4. SO MY OWN FEELING IS THAT WE SHOULD DECOUPLE THAT AT THIS POINT. LET'S ASSUME IT'S FOUR YEARS IF BESSIE AGREED PHASING. PERIOD YOU HAVE TO DO THE PERCENTAGE PER YEAR. 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF WE PHASE AND AT THE 33 1/3 PERCENT INCREASE THAT WILL BE 100 PERCENT IN THE THREE YEARS, NINE POINT NINE. AS MITCH JUST SAID BASED UPON THE POPULATION AND HE ACTUALLY CORRECTED ME, TO MEETINGS AGO, MY PODUNK TRAILER PARK DISTRICT WHERE I AM AT IS GOING TO GROW BY 14,000 HOUSES IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS. 
          YOU CAN ASSUME THERE'S TWO ADULTS IN EACH HOME WITH THAT SAID THE POPULATION WILL EXPLODE BECAUSE WE ARE THE NEW ST. JOHNS COUNTY. 
          >> SO, IS THE CONSENSUS WE WOULD PHASE THIS IN OVER FOUR YEARS FROM THE CURRENT SALARY 
          [00:15:07]
TO THE PROJECTED STATE STATUTE AT THAT POINT? BECAUSE REMEMBER THE STATE STATUTE WILL INCREASE BY SOME COST-OF-LIVING OR SOMETHING FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS SO IS THE PROPOSAL TO TAKE IT TO WHATEVER THE STATE STATUTE IS AT THAT POINT IN TIME? 
          >> THAT VERBIAGE IS A GOOD AND IT BRINGS A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION IS THAT WHEN WE PUT THE VERBIAGE TOGETHER ON THIS MAKING SURE THAT IT'S PHRASED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE OBJECTIVE IS NOT JUST A PAY RAISE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS BUT IS TO GET IN LINE WITH A FLORIDA STATUTE. AND YES THE BYPRODUCT OF THAT WILL BE A PAY RAISE FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. IT WOULD BE PHASED IN GRADE 3 YEARS, FOUR YEARS, WHATEVER WE COME UP WITH. 
          >> TO MS. TERRY'S POINTS IF WE USE FOR YEARS THAT TAKES IT BETWEEN THIS COMMISSION AND THE NEXT. CORRECT? OR SHOULD IT BE THREE YEARS? I AM THINKING WE STARTED THIS COMMISSION IN OCTOBER. SO IF IT WENT ON THE BALLOT THIS MIDTERM AND IT WAS EFFECTIVE SAY ONE JANUARY YOU WOULD BE INTO YOUR, I AM TRYING TO THINK... NO, I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IT IN THREE YEARS TO MAKE IT TO WHERE IT IS DONE BEFORE THE NEXT BOARD CONVENES IF THE NEXT BOARD CONVENES IN FOUR YEARS. 
          MITCH. 
          >> MR. CHAIR, WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF CHINA TO THE NEXT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION? 
          >> SO IT WOULD BE COMPLETED. 
          >> BUT WHY? I AM JUST ASKING WHY ARE WE SAYING IN FOUR YEARS. DON'T HAVE A PREFERENCE BUT WHY ARE WE TRYING TO TIE IT TO A FOUR-YEAR PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE THE NEXT CHARTER REVIE . IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT FOUR YEARS THEN MAKE IT FOR YEARS. IF YOU DO 25 PERCENT AND THEN YOU DO SOME OF FORMULA BASE TO GET THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH YEARS SO WHEN YOU HIT THE FOURTH-YEAR YOU ARE CAUGHT UP. 
          >> OR YOU COULD TAKE THE DIFFERENCE OF IT AND DIVIDED BY THREE. 
          THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CURRENT SALARY. 
          >> 50 PERCENT OF THE DIFFERENCE. 
          >> I PROBABLY DID NOT STATE IT BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE IT COMPLETE BEFORE RECYCLE INTO THE NEXT REVIEW FOR MORE AMENDMENTS. I DON'T CARE WHATEVER THE TIMING IS IT MIGHT BE THREE, BOY THAT'S LOUD, IT MIGHT BE THREE YEARS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE COMMISSION ENDS THE WAY WE GET ON THE BALLOT. I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT YOU DON'T LEAVE SOMEONE ELSE WORK IN PROGRESS, IS MY POINT. I DON'T CARE IF IT'S THREE YEARS, I DON'T CARE IF IT'S TWO YEARS. THIS BOARD WILL HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT THE TIMING IS. I AM JUST SAYING IT SHOULD BE FINISHED WE NEXT CONVENE AND OF COURSE THAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION IF WE SAY THEY SHOULD MEET EVERY EIGHT YEARS. 
          I, WE ARE GETTING DOWN IN THE WEEDS I AM OPEN TO SOMETHING ELSE. 
          >> CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION?F THE CONSENSUS OF THE GROUP AS WE FINISH THIS BEFORE THE NEXT BOARD SO THAT WE DON'T LEAVE UNFINISHED BUSINESS THEN LET'S LEAVE IT TO GLENN TO WORK OUT THE VERBIAGE TO WHERE WE ACCOMPLISH THAT. 
          >> AND THE MATH. 
          >> AND THE MATH AND OF COURSE YOU CAN WORK WITH TERESA AND THE STAFF TO PUT THAT TOGETHER. 
          >> CAN I ASK A DUMB QUESTION? 
          >> THERE IS NO DUMB QUESTION. 
          >> YOU HAVE NOT HEARD OF THIS ONE. SO WE ARE TALKING, WE ARE NOT REFERRING TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION BOARD WERE REFERRING TO THE CHARTER REVIEW, THIS GROUP MAY OR MAY NOT CONVENE IN FOUR YEARS? I WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE WHEN YOU SAY BOARD I AM THINKING BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION. 
          THIS IS A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE, THAT'S ALL. 
          >> WE ARE AND MAYBE WE COULD USE THE ACRONYM CRC SO WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS AND WE CAN GO THAT WAY. 
          >> SIXTH GRADE WAS THE HARDEST THREE YEARS OF MY LIFE. 
          >> TOO MANY YEARS OF ACRONYMS. OKAY SO, DID WE NEED A MOTION ON PHASING? AND WHAT WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH? 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PRESENT IT TO OUR ATTORNEY TO COME UP WITH A 
          [00:20:04]
CALCULATION TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF THE COMMISSIONERS FROM THE CURRENT AMOUNT TO THE STATUTORY AMOUNT OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. 
          >> OVER THREE YEARS? >> FOUR YEARS? SEE I THOUGHT THAT WAS A DISCUSSION, I SAID THREE FOR THE REASON WE ARECOMPLETED BEFORE THE NEXT . 
          >> WE WANT IT BEFORE THE NEXT BOARD SO THERE'S NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS. 
          THAT RIGHT THERE COULDN'T DRIVE THE TIMEFRAME. WHATEVER THAT IS GOING TO BE. 
          AND SO, THE QUESTION IS DO WE PHASED IT IN OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE STATUTE AT THAT POINT IN TIME AT THE END OF THAT PERIOD OF TIME? 
          >> THAT IS MY MOTION. 
          >> I WILL SECONDS. >> OKAY, SO IT IS THREE YEARS. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO PHASE IN THE SALARY INCREASE OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE STATUTE AT THAT POINT IN TIME. IS THAT CORRECT? 
          >> YES, SIR. 
          >> OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. ANY A MINUTE OR DISCUSSION? 
          >> THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THIS THIS VOTE WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT AMENDMENT? 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> MY POSITION WAS MADE CLEAR IN THE LAST MEETING HOW I FELT ABOUT IT. 
          CITIZENS OF CLAY COUNTY VOTED TO NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH AN INCREASE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SALARY JUST THREE YEARS AND THREE MONTHS AGO. BY THE WAY, MY POSITION I DID NOT SUPPORT THE BALLOT ISSUE WHEN IT CAME UP. SEVERAL YEARS AGO. 
          I NEVER VOTED TO CUT THE COMMISSIONERS SALARIES BUT I HAVE ALWAYS VOTED AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL FOR THE RESIDENTS AND THE CITIZENS OF CLAY COUNTY. LET ME SAY WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN FOR ALL YOU PEOPLE, ALL YOU COMMISSION MEMBERS THAT SUPPORT THIS. 
          FIRST, LET ME MAKE A COMMENT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS BY MITCH AND OTHERS WITH THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET GOOD QUALIFIED PUBLIC SERVANTS UNLESS WE RAISE THE SALARY. I ARGUED THAT LAST MEETING THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE BASED ON THE SALARY. THEY SHOULD BE RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC. AND THAT IS CLEAR. 
          WE GOT FIVE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT RAN AND I THINK ALL FIVE ARE EXCELLENT. 
          THEY ARE DOING A GREAT JOB, THEY RAN, KNOWING THE SALARY BUT IT WAS AT THIS PRESENT TIME. IF THAT ADAGE HOLDS TRUE MITCH I KNOW YOU DID NOT RUN FOR THAT CITY OF SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE OF THE UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU WOULD BE MAKING. WOULD YOU MAKE AS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, BECAUSE HE DID A GREAT JOB. 
          >> 6000. 
          >> $500 A MONTH. YOU CAN SEE KEYSTONE HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AND THE PENNY FARMS TOWN COUNCIL HAS ALL HAD EXCELLENT REPRESENTATIVES SERVING ON THOSE BOARDS WHO ARE COMMITTED TO THE PEOPLE NOT BASED ON HIS SALARY BUT BASED ON THEIR COMMITMENT TO THE PUBLIC. NOW, IN CONCLUSION, EVERYBODY IS GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS SOME OF YOU APPEAR MAY HAVE SOME POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS. SOME MAY HAVE RUN FOR OFFICE BEFORE. TWO THINGS IS GOING TO END YOUR POLITICAL CAREER OR ASPIRATION IS IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS. NUMBER ONE, YOU WILL DISREGARD THEIR VOTING THREE YEARS AND TREATMENTS AGO FOR THIS EXACT SAME ISSUE. NUMBER TWO, YOU ARE GOING TO BE VOTING IF WE RAISE THE SALARY FROM 37 FIVE 279 248 YOU ARE GOING TO TELL THE VOTER OF THIS COUNTY THAT I'M GOING TO BE RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE AND I AM A VOTED TO SUPPORT A 111.33 PERCENT SALARY INCREASE FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. WHETHER YOU IN SUPPORT OF THE SALARY DECREASE AS IT IS NOW OR YOU'RE NOT IN SUPPORT THAT WILL BE APPLICABLE ISSUE IF ANYBODY ON THIS BOARD HAS ANY POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS. THOSE TWO WILL BE AT. 
          BECAUSE YOU WILL FACE THAT AS A CANDIDATE. I WOULD SAY, AGAIN, THAT I WAS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE DECREASE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SALARY WHEN IT WAS VOTED IN. 
          I HAVE NOT VOTED FOR THE DECREASE AT ALL. BUT THE VOTERS HAVE VOTED FOR 
          [00:25:02]
IT. AND WE DON'T NEED TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL BY 111.33 PERCENT BECAUSE I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT THE LAST 30 YEARS THE COUNTY EMPLOYEES HAVE NOT GOTTEN 111.33 PERCENT PAY RAISE CUMULATIVE OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS. THANK YOU. 
          >> COMMENT, YES MA'AM. 
          >> I HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS, AS WELL. LIKE I SAID BEFORE AND I WANT TO GO ON THE RECORD FOR THIS. THE VOTERS VOTED AGAINST THAT AND WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THAT OR NOT IHAVE HAD FEEDBACK , I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT FOR IT, I PERSONALLY AM NOT OPPOSED FOR THEIR BEING A PROVISION ONLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROVISIONAT ALL . 
          BUT TO ME, IF YOU EVEN WANT TO CONSIDER GETTING SOMETHING PASSED IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT BACK UP AND YOU WANT TO TRY TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF A FARE INCREASE FOR COST-OF-LIVING IT SHOULD BE A VERY SMALL STEP YEAR-BY-YEAR. IT MAY BE THE SAME RATE IF COUNTY WORKERS GET IT BUT IF NOT THAT IS JUST FEEDBACK I HAVE BEEN GIVEN. 
          PEOPLE ARE NOT FOR IT THAT I HAVE TALKED TO PERSONALLY. THAT IS JUST ME. 
          I WANT TO GO ON THE RECORD FOR SAYING THAT. 
          >> MR. CHAIR, SINCE I WAS ADDRESSED IN THE LAST COMMENT WHICH IS FINE AND I DON'T MIND THAT AT ALL. I WILL TELL YOU AS A CITY COUNCIL PERSON AND I BELIEVE YOU AS A COMMISSION VOTED TO RAISE TAXES. I NEVER HAD A CITIZEN SAY WE WANT TO PAY MORE TAXES. BUT I WAS ELECTED THREE TIMES. WHAT HAPPENED WAS WE SAT DOWN AND TOLD HIM WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO WITH THE TAXES AND HOW THOSE TAXES WERE GOING TO BENEFIT THEM IN. THE MOST RECENT ONE FOR THE CITY OF GREENE CO. 
          PWAS A WATER TREATMENT FACILIT. WHEN YOU SIT DOWN WITH PEOPLE AND EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT THE STATE IS DOING TO COUNTIES BY WAY OF NUTRIENT LOADING TO THE RIVER AND WHAT THE FINES WILL BE AND THE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN BUILDING A NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PEOPLE SAID, OH, WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT WOULD BE NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, IF WE REALLY THINK THIS IS IT YOU WANT TO SERVE THE PEOPLE THEN SET THE SALARY AT ZERO. 
          BUT I DON'T HEAR A LOT OF PEOPLE SAYING THAT. AND I'M NOT RECOMMENDING IT. 
          BUT I DO THINK IT IS INTERESTING WHEN YOU LOOK ACROSS THE STATE AND YOU LOOK AT THE COUNTIES THAT ARE CLOSEST AND POPULATION TO US EVERY ONE OF THEM PAY THEIR COMMISSIONERS AND I AM TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLEWHO LIVE IN THE COUNTY , THEY PAY THEIR COMMISSIONERS ACCORDING TO THE STATE FORMULA. BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT IS APPROPRIATE. WE OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE. 
          THE OTHER PIECE WAS THREE YEARS AND TREATMENTS AGO THERE WERE ALMOST 100,000 LESS PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT VOTERS ARE GOING TO DO THIS TIME. 
          IF THEY VOTE NOT TO DO IT THEN THAT'S OKAY BUT OUR JOB IS TO SAY WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO? IT'S NOT TO SAY WHAT ARE THE VOTERS GOING TO APPROVE? I NEVER CONDUCTED MYSELF IN APPLICABLE ARENA BY SAYING I'M GOING TO STICK MY FINGER UP IN THE AIR AND SEE WHAT PEOPLE WANT AND THAT'S WHAT I WILL SAY I WILL DO. 
          I HAVE ALWAYS FELT A LOT BETTER ABOUT STANDING UP AND SAYING THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR IT THEN I WILL REPRESENT YOU EITHER WAY. 
          THAT'S FINE. I AM STILL GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. 
          I WILL SUPPORT THE IDEA OF INCREASING THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SALARY BECAUSE I THINK THE ISSUES THAT ARE GOING TO FACE CLAY COUNTY WILL NEED TO COMPENSATE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO ADDRESS THOSE. ONE OTHER POINT, I DIDN'T SERVE ON THE CITY COUNCIL FOR SIX YEARS AT 6000. THERE IS A BIG REASON. THAT WAS BECAUSE I HAD SUFFICIENT INCOME THAT I COULD TAKE TIME OFF AND STILL DO IT. AND I COULD STILL SERVE AS A CITY COUNCIL PERSON AND I COULD STILL SERVE IN MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER. 
          THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO CAN'T DO THAT. I WILL TELL YOU NOW THE AVERAGE PERSON IN CLAY COUNTY THAT'S MAKING 30, 40, $50,000 A YEAR Y THEY CANNOT GO TO THE EMPLOYER AND SAY I'M GOING TO TAKE THREE DAYS A WEEK OFF. SO THAT DOES BY THE VERY NATURE OF THAT COMMENT EXCLUDE A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE. I THINK WE NEED TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT BY WAY OF PUTTING US IN LINE WITH OTHER COUNTIES OF SIMILAR SIZE, SIMILAR COMPLEXITY AND ISSUES WEARE GOING TO FACE. AND THEN LET THE VOTERS MAKE THEIR DECISION. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR . 
          >> MR. HODGES. 
          >> YOU GUYS YOU REALIZES THE PART-TIME JOB WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. 
          I'M FRIENDS WITH EVERYONE ON THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND UNDERSTANDING YOURAISE , 37 FIVE IS NOT A LOT OF MONEY. BUT 111 PERCENT HOW ARE YOU LOOK AT EVERY COUNTY WORKER IN HIS COUNTY AND SAY WE CAN GIVE OUR COMMISSIONERS 111 PERCENT RAISE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WORKING IN THIS COUNTY FOR THIS LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT MAKE LESS THAN THAT A YEAR. 
          [00:30:10]
IF YOU HAVE A POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS AND YOU VOTE FOR THIS IN HIS COUNTY YOU WILL NOT GET ELECTED. I WAS JUST KEEP YOUR MONEY IN YOUR POCKET AND DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME. THAT'S A HUGE INCREASE. A VERY HUGE INCREASE. 
          I SEE A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE BUT AGAIN I AM FRIENDS WITH MANY COMMISSIONERS I KNOW HOW MANY HOURS THEY SPENT ON THIS IT'S NOT A FULL-TIME JOB AND WHERE ARE PAYING FOR THAT. 
          $70,000 IS A LOT OF MONEY. 
          >> COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WAS REDUCED IN 2008. I'M SORRY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SALARY WAS REDUCED IN 2008 TWO $37,000. I FIND THAT INTERESTING BECAUSE THAT WAS 14 YEARS AGO. AND THE DEMOGRAPHIC OF CLAY COUNTY 14 YEARS AGO WAS WAY DIFFERENT THAN IT IS TODAY. A LOT. AND YOU CAN LOOK AT FLEMING ISLAND YOU CAN LOOK AT LAKE ASBURY YOU CAN LOOK AT PENNY FARMS A LOT HAS CHANGED IN 14 YEARS. I SAID THIS ABOUT THREE MEETINGS AGO, I SAID THIS COMMISSION, THIS CRC SHOULD BE LOOKING AT WHAT IS GOING ON TODAY AND WHAT HAPPENED FIVE YEARS AGO AND EIGHT YEARS AGO. I WOULD THINK OUR FOCUS SHOULD BE ON WHERE THE COUNTY IS GOING AND WHAT WE CAN DO TO HELP THE COUNTY FUNCTION BETTER IN THE FUTURE OR AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. SO THAT WAS MY WHOLE POINT. YOU ARE RIGHT A LOT OF THINGS HAPPEN 14 YEARS AGO THERE WAS A LOT OF LUNAR ASPIRATIONS AND IT GOT SLASHED AND IT WAS LOOKED AT TWO YEARS AGO YOU ARE RIGHT, THERE WAS A TWO-YEAR DIFFERENT WHEN THEY VOTED FOR SEVEN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TOO LARGE. TWO YEARS LATER THEY KNOCKED THEM OUT. 
          THINGS CHANGE, PEOPLE CHANGE, PEOPLE REALIZED IT WAS A MISTAKE, SOME PEOPLE WANT TO TAKE THAT ON SOME PEOPLE DON'T. I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING BECAUSE WE NEED TO ATTRACT GOOD PEOPLE. I THINK I HEARD A COUNTY COMMISSIONER A MONTH AND AND A HALF, SIX OR SEVEN OR EIGHT WEEKS AGO AT THE PODIUM AND SAY I JUST LOOK AT THE STUFF I THINK IS IMPORTANT ANDI DON'T OPEN ALL THE EMAILS I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THAT ANYMORE . 
          BUT ANYWY, IF THAT'S THE KIND OF PERSON WE WANT OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHO GETS PAID FOR A PART-TIME JOB AND TREATED LIKE A PART-TIME JOB THEY ARE NOT AN OPEN ALL THE EMAILS. 
          I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO ASK THEM HONESTLY THAT TWO INCH BINDER, IT MIGHT BE A THREE INCH BINDER, I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO ASK YOU WENT TO HONEST ANSWER ONE QUESTION. 
          HOW MANY OF YOU LOOK THROUGH EVERY PAGE AND THAT BINDER AND CAN SPEAK INTELLIGENTLY ON THAT ISSUE YOU ARE FIXING TO VOTE ON? THANK YOU. 
          >> I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. MR. TIMBERLAKE WHEN YOU RESENTED GREEN COAT SPRINGS, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE YOU REP IS ANY TOTAL? GUESSTIMATE THEN WHEN YOU ARE ON THE COMMISSION. AND HOW MANY COMMISSIONERS DID YOU HAVE? I UNDERSTAND MR. JETS THINK THEY SHOULD RUN BECAUSE OF THE MONEY. 
          BUT WHO DO WE GET THAT WON'T RUN BECAUSE OF THE MONEY? WE HAVE GOTTEN GOOD CANDIDATES FOR THE COMING FROM A VERY SPECIAL POOL. I CAN ARGUE BOTH SIDES OFTHAT. 
          AS FAR AS POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS , BEEN THERE DONE THAT, GOT THE T-SHIRT. 
          THAT WOULD NT EVEN ENTER MY THOUGHTS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I WOULD NOT BE SITTING HERE TODAY, PERSONALLY, I CANNOT SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE. I WILL VOTE ON WHAT'S BEST FOR THE COUNTY. I DO AGAINST WHAT CHARLES SAID, MR. HODGES, SORRY, IT'S HARD TO VOTE FOR AN INCREASE WHEN HE OF PUBLIC WORKS WORKERS BEING PAID WHAT THEY ARE. 
          LET'S STEP THAT UP. WE ARE BLEEDING ANY OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY PEOPLE, WE ARE BLEEDING POLICE, FIRE, EMTS FOR LACK OF MONEY. SO THIS COMMISSION IS TO LOOK LONG AND HARD ABOUT WHAT THE OVERALL AND WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OF THOSE SALARIES BUT WHAT THAT LOOKS FOR THE STANDPOINT. I WASN'T AGAINST, I WASN'T FOR CUTTING THE SALARY I THINK IT WAS STUPID. THERE SHOULD BE A MINIMUM COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE BUT IT'S GOING TO BE REAL HARD FOR ME TO LOOK AT A FIREFIGHTER OR A COP OR AN EMPTY IF I VOTE FOR THIS. BECAUSE I CAN GUARANTEE I NEED A COP, A FIREFIGHTER OR AN EMT A LOT FASTER THAN ANY TO COUNTY COMMISSIONER. 
          YOU GOT TO LOOK AT THE OVERALL PICTURE. I THINK WE ARE POORLY PAYING OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BUT WERE POORLY PAIN A LOT OF PEOPLE. 
          SO DO WE STARTAS A VOICE FOR THIS ? I MEAN, WE CAN'T AFFECT CHANGE 
          [00:35:01]
THROUGH THE COMMISSION HOW WE PAY OUR FIREFIGHTERS OR OUR COPS BECAUSE THE COUNTY COMMISSION DOES CONTROL THAT. SO THAT DOG IS CHASING ITS TAIL AND I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE GO WITH THAT. I THINK AT THE VERY MINIMUM WE CANNOT FREEZE THESE SALARIES. 
          WE HAVEGOT TO HAVE SOME KIND OF INCREASE . 
          >> I HEAR WHAT EVERYONE IS SAYING AND THERE'S A LOT OF PASSION AND RESPECTFULLY WE VOTED ON THIS AT THE LAST MEETING AND WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW IS THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE WHICH IS THE PHASE IN PERIOD. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO THAT THAT RATHER THAN THREE YEARS I THINK WE PUT IT TO GLENN TAYLOR TO CALCULATE WHAT IT WOULD BE FOR THAT TO BE COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEXT COMMISSION, CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS EXCEEDED. 
          TO THE MOTION, THAT IS WHAT I WOULD SAY. THE REST OF THIS WE DEBATED AT THE LAST MEETING AND WE MADE A VOTE AND WE AGREED ON IT. 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S NOT CORRECT. WE VOTED LAST MEETING TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY COME UP WITH THE WORDS FOR THE BALLOT ISSUE THAT WE WERE GOING TO VOTE EITHER ACCEPT OR DENY AT THIS MEETING. IS THAT CORRECT? 
          >> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE NOTES. I HAVE THE NOTES THAT THE COMMISSIONER INCREASE TABLE TO THE NEXT MEETING. 
          >> WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DISCUSSING THE MOTION RIGHT NOW. 
          >> TWO MEETINGS AGO WE AGREED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. THE LAST MEETING WE STARTED THE DISCUSSION ON HOW THE COMPENSATION WOULD BE HANDLED AND IT WAS TABLED UNTIL THIS MEETING. 
          >> WE NEED TO CLARIFY WHERE WE ARE. 
          >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WAS ALREADY DECIDED TO INCREASE THEIR SALARIES. 
          IT WAS JUST HOW MUCH. 
          >> HOW MUCH OVER HOW LONG PERIOD OF TIME. THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION FOR TONIGHT. 
          >> THAT IS THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED IF THERE'S MORE INFORMATION ON THAT. MR. JETT I HAVE A QUESTION TO THAT I WOULD LOOK AT. 
          YOUR CALCULATION 111 PERCENT BUT AT THE SAME TIME IF I WENT BACK IN TIME TO WHAT WAS THE SALARY BEFORE IT WAS CAPPED? DOES ANYONE KNOW? 
          >> 50 SOMETHING. 
          >> 52 OR SOMETHING. WE CUT IT BY $12-$15,000 OR WHATEVER THAT WAS. 
          >> 14 YEARS AGO. 
          >> IT'S ONE THING TO SAY IT'S 111 PERCENT INCREASE BUT IT WAS 111 PERCENT INCREASE FROM WHAT IT WAS CUT 214 YEARS AGO. YOU CAN PLAY WITH NUMBERS ALL YOU WANT BUT GOES BACK TO WHAT IS FAIR. THE SECOND, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY THE COUNTY BUDGET IS $350 MILLION THIS YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT? TERESA, DO YOU KNOW? THE COUNTY BUDGET THIS YEAR IS ABOUT 350 MILLION? OKAY, I KNOW THE VAST MAJORITY GOES TO PUBLIC SAFETY. THAT IS THE OTHER PART OF THAT, TOO. 
          IF WE ARE GOING, TO YOUR POINT, THAT'S A WHOLE RANGE OF ISSUES FOR THE BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO LOOK AT. IT'S NOT IN OUR PURVIEW TO CONSIDER IT. 
          WE ARE ONLY TO CONSIDER RIGHT NOW IS THE MOTION FOR THE CRC. 
          >> CORRECT, THANK YOU. 
          >> A COUPLE THINGS. THE CHARTER MR. MITCH, I'M SORRY, I WANT TO READ SOMETHING QUICK. THE MOST PRESSURE POWERS CITY IN FLORIDA HAS AS ITS HOME RULE POWERS. THE ABILITY TO ESTABLISH ITS GOVERNMENT THERE IS CHARTER. 
          TO THAT AND ACT ORDINANCE, CODES, PLANS AND RESOLUTIONS WITHOUT PRIOR STATE APPROVAL IS A TREMENDOUS AUTHORITY. I ASSUME, I WAS NOT HERE WHEN THE CHARTER STARTED BUT THE REASON WE WENT WITH THE CHARTER IS TO GET OUT FROM UNDER I THINK THE ATTORNEY TOLD US WE COULD DO ANYTHING THE STATE SAYS WE CAN'T DO. I AM A PARAPHRASING HIS WORDS. 
          SO TO ARBITRARILY SAY WE MUST GO TO THE STATE REGULATION OR THE STATE STATUTE I DON'T THINK THE STATE TELLS US WE HAVE TO, OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD HAVE.THAT IS BY DEFINITION WHY WE ARE CHARTER. BECAUSE CLAY COUNTY WANTS TO DO THINGS DIFFERENT, APPARENTLY, AND THEY VOTED FOR IT. SO, I SUPPORT THAT. LOOK, I GREW UP IN ORLANDO BEFORE DISNEY. THE PROVERBIAL HORSE HAS LEFT THE BARN. 
          I GET IT. BUT HOW DO WE LIVE IN A SPACE, I BELIEVE IN SMALL GOVERNMENT. 
          [00:40:07]
THIS IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE WHERE EVERYONE HAS A PERSONAL APPEAL THAT WE ARE NOT PAYING OUR PEOPLE ENOUGH AND IT SHOULD BE BASED ONSERVICE , I GUESS THAT'S A LOST ART, BUT THIS IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO MORE BUREAUCRACY AND BIGGER GOVERNMENT. 
          IT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS. IS IT FAIR? I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T LIKE THAT WORD ANYMORE, FAIR. THE REALITY IS WE ARE GOING TO PUT THIS THING ON THE BALLOT AND I BET A DOLLAR TO DOUGHNUTS IT WILL NOT GET PAST. WE ARE FACING 7 1/2, THEY SAY 7 AND A HALF PERCENT INTEREST, I'M SORRY INFLATION, JIMMY CARTER ERA BEFORE IT'S OVER. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE THIRD OR FOURTH QUARTER THIS YEAR SO WE'LL ASK THIS PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR THIS I THINK WE ARE SADLY MISTAKEN BUT THAT'S ANOTHER ARGUMENT. 
          I LEARNED A LONG TIME AGO IN BUSINESS, DON'T PLAY GAMES WITH PRICING. 
          TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT, PUT THE NUMBER TOGETHER AND OFFER THE PRICE. 
          THIS PHASING STUFF IN 3 TO 3 AND A HALF PERCENT OR WHATEVER WE ARE GOING TO DO IT WILL CONFUSE THE VOTER AND THEY WILL SAY NO. IF THERE'S A SHOT AT GETTING THIS DONE AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO I THINK I VOTED TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES I WAS HOPING TO SEE THAT. I SAY TAKE YOUR SHOT IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS LET THE VOTERS ULTIMATELY THEY WILL CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. 
          I DON'T THINK THEY ARE STUPID, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO EDUCATE THEM ON WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. THEY CAN SEE THE PRICE AT 37 FIVE AND SAY IT'S NOT ENOUGH. 
          IF WE GO TO 50 OR MEET THEM HALFWAY WHATEVER THE BEST PRICES I THINK WE ARE FOOLING OURSELVES TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF CHARADE ABOUT NUMBERS AND PROGRESSION AND LET THE NEXT CHARTER OR THE NEXT COUNSEL OR THE NEXT CITIZEN INITIATIVE FIGURE OUT WHERE THEY WANT TO GO NEXT. BUT IF WE WILL BE FAIR TO THESE GUYS AND SAYING THE HORSE HAS LEFT THE BARN WE HAVE TO GET SOME PEOPLE AND PAIR THEM A FAIRLY DECENT WAGE, SO BE IT. 
          I AM NOT A BIG ADVOCATE FOR THIS. MR. JETT, RESPECTFULLY, I WOULD VOTE REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL FUTURE. I DON'T KNOW IF EITHER OF POLITICAL FUTURE SO I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT. IF I WERE WORRIED ABOUT THAT I WOULDN'T LEAVE THE HOUSE, PROBABLY, THE THINGS I SAY. MY WIFE CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THAT OR VOUCH FOR THAT. I AM ABOUT TO SAY SOMETHING I AM NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY, LET'S NOT BS THIS, PICK A NUMBER AND PUT SOME STONES TO IT AND THROW IT OUT THERE AND SEE WHAT THE VOTERS WILL DO. BUT I THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO ADDRESS, DRESS IT UP AND PUT LIPSTICK ON IT WE ARE FOOLING OURSELVES. 
          >> SUSIE. 
          >> RESPECTFULLY, THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT YOU COULD PROBABLY SELL A LOT OF THINGS ON WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT. VERY DIFFERENT THAN GIVING COMMISSIONERS A REALLY BIG PAY INCREASE. THAT WOULD BE A HARD SELL. I WILL TELL YOU IN THE PART OF THE COUNTY I LIVE IN WE DON'T HAVE A POLICE SUBSTATION. WE GET OFFICERS THAT COME DOWN THERE AND THEY DRIVE ANDTHEY GO OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE . THE PEOPLE IN MY DISTRICT WOULD THINK THIS IS A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY, WHY CAN'T WE HAVE SOME OFFICERS CLOSER OR A SMALL SUBSTATION? OKAY. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT YOU CAN'T GET QUALITY PEOPLE BUT WE ARE ASKING TO HAVE QUALITY SHERIFFS, DEPUTIES AND QUALITY EMTS AND PAIR MEDICS AND THEY GET PAID LESS THAN WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, HOW DO THOSE PEOPLE FEEL? WHEN YOU SAY YOU CANNOT GET QUALITY PEOPLE FOR THAT. 
          HOW ABOUT THE COUNTY WORKERS THAT MAKE 25,000 OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PAY IS BUT I LOOKED BEFORE THEY DON'T MAKE A LOT OF MONEY. DO THEY NOT FEEL LIKE QUALITY WORKERS? THAT'S A FULL-TIME JOB TO RAISE THEIR FAMILY ON. 
          I AM JUST SAYING WHEN YOU MAKE OUT LIKE THAT IS THE SAME AS THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, IT IS NOT. ALSO,WE USE THE WORD COMPLIANCE , OKAY WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE INCOMPLIANCE . WE ARE NOT OUT OF COMPLIANCE. WHEN WE WORD IT IF WECAN SAY PURSUANT TO OR SOMETHING BUT WE ARE MAKING OUT LIKE WE ARE NOT COMPLYING . 
          IF WE WERE NOT COMPLYING WE WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPLIANT. LET'S NOT MAKE IT SOUND LIKE WE ARE NOT COMPLYING WITH SOMETHING. ANYWAYS, SORRY, BUT THAT IS MY OPINION ON THIS. 
          >> MR. HODGES. 
          >> YOU HAVE TO TEMPER THIS VERY CLOSELY BECAUSE WE HAVE NO SHORTAGE OF PEOPLE THAT WANT TO RUN FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. I THINK THE NEXT RACE TO BE QUITE A FEW ENTRIES. 
          THEY KNOW WHAT THE JOB PAYS THERE'S NO HIDDEN MYSTERY TO IT. 
          THEY KNOW IT PAYS WHEN THEY GO IN. YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT DO THAT JOB BECAUSE THEY WANT TO AFFECT POSITIVE INFLUENCE IN HIS COUNTY.HEY ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT 
          [00:45:03]
DOING IT FOR THE MONEY. DO THEY NEED A RAISE? YES. 
          DO THEY NEED THATAMOUNT OF RACE? PERSONALLY I THINK NO . 
          IN OUR AREA KEYSTONE, MIDDLEBURG, CLAY HILL, OUR EMERGENCY SERVICES ARE VERY CLEAN. I THINK I'VE SEEN MR. TAYLOR MAKE A COMMENT TO THE SHERIFF AND HE SAID WE ARE TRYING TO PGIVE EVERYBODY MONEY I CAN, I WOULD RATHER SEE THIS MONEY IN ANOTHER POOL FOR SOMETHING ELSE BECAUSE FOLK SOME HONEY RIGHT NOW AS SOON AS THEY OPEN UP FOR COUNTY COMMISSION ELECTIONS YOU WILL SEE A CANDIDATE STEP UP FOR THE PRICE HER PAIN TODAY. 
          WHEN A CANDIDATE COMING CIVILLY FOR THE MONEY NOT BECAUSE WHAT IS GOING ON IN HIS COUNTY. 
          THIS IS A JOB, YOU SET UP ON THAT DAY AS YOU'RE GOING TO GET BEAT UP EVERY COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING NO MATTER WHAT YOU VOTE FOR. YOU WILL GET BEAT UP FOR IT. 
          YOU KNOW THAT GOING INTO IT. YOU ARE SWINGING THE POT YOU WILL ATTRACT THE WRONG PEOPLE, I BELIEVE, IN MY OPINION. 
          >> FURTHER COMMENTS, GLENN. 
          >> I HAVE ONE ON THIS PHASE IN. THERE IS A STATUTORY LIMIT FOR 75 WORDS FOR THE BALLOT. 
          SO TO HAVE A PHASE IN OVER THREE OR FOUR YEARS AND GET ALL THIS AND IT 75 WORDS AND MAKE IT CLEAR MAY BE DIFFICULT TO ACCOMPLISH. MAYBE TO DAVID! POINT IT MIGHT BE MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD TO HAVE A SET AMOUNT. 
          ALSO THERE'S CASE LAW THAT STATES IT IS TO SAY WHAT IS BEFORE AND WHAT IS AFTERWARDS. 
          IF YOU PUT ALL THAT IN THEIR THE OBJECTIVE OF IT IS TO KEEP IT STRAIGHTFORWARD FOR THE VOTERS. SO THAT IS ALL I WAS GOING TO SAY. 
          >> MR. TIMBERLAKE, IN LIGHT OF THE COMMENTS, TOO MUCH TO THE MOTION AS IS OR DO YOU WANT TO AMEND IT? 
          >> MR. PRESIDENT, IT WAS MY MOTION. I UNDERSTAND THE DISCUSSION I CAN AMENDMENT AMEND IT. I BELIEVE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DO NEED A RAISE. 
          I THINK WE ARE LIMITING THE POOL OF ELIGIBLE, WONDERFUL CANDIDATES THAT WOULD BE THERE WITH THE AMOUNT BEING SO LOW. AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS YOU HAVE A LOT OF GOOD PEOPLE OUT THERE WOULD LIKE TO SERVE AND NOT TAKE IT AS RETIREMENT INCOME. 
          BUT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE JUMP MAY BE A LITTLE HIGH. SO IF WE TAKE IT TO AT LEAST A PERCENTAGE HIGHER. YOU SAID THEY WERE AT 52 BEFORE, CORRECT? SO IF WE ARE TAKING IT TO 79 NOW IF WE COULD EVEN COME TO SOME SORT OF MEDIUM BUT AT LEAST PAY THESE PEOPLE FOR THEIR SERVICE. THIS COUNTY IS GROWING. 
          IT IS BECAUSE THERE ARE ROADWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TO HAVE QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO CONTROL WHAT IS HAPPENING IN HIS COUNTY.ND THEY HAVE TO BE DEDICATED TO THE JOB OF BEING A COUNTY COMMISSIONER AND NOT SUPPORTING, THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES AND THEIR JOB IN ORDER TO DEDICATE THEIR TIME. 
          >> MR. TAYLOR, IN THE LAST BALLOT CAN YOU PULL THAT UP FOR HOW IT RED? I THINK THAT WAS THE PHASE IN. 
          >> IT WAS THE PHASE IN. DO ME TO READ IN ITS ENTIRETY? SO THE CAPTION IS A CHARTER AMENDMENT REVISING COMMISSIONER SALARY PROVISIONS AND THERE'S ALSO A 15 WORD LIMIT ON THAT. 
          OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE INTHAT AREA THERE. IT BEGINS SHALL THE COUNTY , CLAY COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REMOVE THE CHARTER SPECIFIED COUNTY COMMISSIONER SALARY OF 37,000 REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT COMMISSIONERS SALARY CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF ELECTORS IN A GENERAL ELECTION SO WE REMOVE THAT PROVISION ALSO AND PROVIDE THE COMMISSIONERS ALLEYS WILL BE INCREMENTALLY ADJUSTED TO EQUAL ONLY 70 PERCENT OF THE SALARIES SET BY GENERAL LAW FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND NON-CHARTER COUNTIES. 
          PHASED IN ROUGHLY AN EQUAL INCREMENTS OVER FOUR BUDGET YEARS. 
          >> A BIT MORE THAN A 75 WORDS. 
          >> THAT WAS LIKE 80 SOMETHING WORDS, I COUNTED. IT'S NOT TO SAY YOU CANNOT DO IT BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE THE SUBJECT CHALLENGES FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE OBJECTING OUT THERE THEN THEY COULD CHALLENGE THAT THROUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE OR THE COURTS. 
          >> THAT TOOK IT TO 70 PERCENT. THE COUNTY YOU WERE LOOKING AT 80,000, 79 AND SOME CHANGE. 
          [00:50:10]
WHAT NUMBER DID YOU COME UP WITH? SO, 55,000. 
          >> WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO IF YOU WERE TO GO LOOK AT THE LAST BALLOT WHICH USED 70 PERCENT AS A YARDSTICK IT WOULD TAKE THAT SALARY TODAY BASED ON CURRENT 79 AND SOME CHANGE TO ABOUT 55. 
          IF YOU ARE GOING TO PUT A NUMBER OF WHAT WITH THAT NUMBER BE IF YOU FOLLOW THE PRESIDENT FROM THE LAST BALLOT AT 70 PERCENT OF THE CURRENT NUMBER? THAT IS ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD BE, WHETHER OR NOT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO THAT IS FINE LET'S COME TO A NUMBER. 
          I'M USING THAT AS A STARTING POINT BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO AMEND THE MOTION THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A NUMBER OR A DIRECTION YOU WANT TO GO IN. THAT'S WHERE I WILL STOP. 
          >> IF I MAY, THIS YEAR DESANTIS CAME UP WITH A FIRST YEAR TEACHER SALARY OF 47,500. 
          A TEACHER IS A COLLEGE GRADUAT , BACHELOR DEGREE, IF YOU GET A MASTERS DEGREE I DON'T KNOW. 
          THEY WORK NINE MONTHS A YEAR. TEACHERS PROBABLY WOULD STAND UP AND SHOOT ME, I'M ACTUALLY TEACHING AT THE HIGH SCHOOL RIGHT NOW SO I CAN IDENTIFY WITH THAT RIGHT NOW. 
          IT'S NOT A FULL-TIME JOB ALTHOUGH IT FEELS LIKE IT. 
          >> YOU GET SUMMERS OFF AND CHRISTMAS ANDTHANKSGIVING . WE HAVE SPRING BREAK COMING UP YOU NEVER GET THAT AS A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. I LOVE MY FELLOW TEACHERS BUT FOR COMPARES SIN SAY CONSIGNMENT OUT OF THE YEAR. 47 FIVE. 
          IF I WERE TO NEGOTIATE THIS THAT WOULD BE MY NUMBER. AND LET THE VOTERS CHOOSE. 
          >> RESPECTFULLY, CAN I SAY DURING THOSE NINE MONTHS THOSE TEACHERS ARE NOT WORKING PART-TIME JOBS AND ARE NOT WORKING EIGHT HOURS A DAY. 
          >> I AM DOING IT RIGHT NOW AND I UNDERSTAND IT SO NOT TO PSLIGHT ANY TEACHER IN THIS COUNTY I'M JUST SAYING THE PUBLIC OPINION IS NINE MONTHS. I NEVER WORKED AT A JOB WHERE I GOT TWO WEEKS OFF AT CHRISTMAS, WE COVERED THANKSGIVING, A WEEK OFF AT SPRING BREAK ON MY FIRST HIRED.CALL IT WHAT IT IS. > WE WILL TAKE UP THE TEACHING ISSUE ARE YOU FULL-TIME CONTRACTED TEACHER OR A SUB? 
          >> THANK YOU I AM IT CLAY COUNTY SCHOOL FULL-TIME TEACHER. 
          >> GOD BLESS YOU ALL MY FAMILY ARE TEACHERS I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE ON THAT ONE BUT LET'S BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND WHAT THEY ARE WHAT WORTH. 
          IF YOU COULD BRING APPLES TO APPLES. MY DAUGHTER GETS THEM IS OFTEN THE SUMMER BUT THEN AGAIN HOW MUCH TO OUR POLICE WORK, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO EQUATEIT TO? WE ARE TO BRING BACK TO CONNIE'S MOTION SHE MUST'VE PHASE IT IN . 
          YOUR GOOD POINT WAS I THINK FACING WILL PROBABLY CONFUSE PEOPLE ALREADY. 
          PEOPLE WANT A NUMBER AND THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS. THEY CANNOT FIGURE OUT BUT IF THE FORMULA CHANGES FOR THE NEXT YEAR THEN THE NEXT PERCENTAGE WILL BE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER AND THEN IT GETS TO MORE MATH THAN WHAT I WANT TO DO. I THINK YOUR POINT WE SHOULD G FOR A NUMBER . WE HAVE THIS PHASE IN. I'M CONFUSED AND CONFLICTED ABOUT DOING IT AT ALL. 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN I WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION. I LOVE IT SCHOOL TEACHERS I HAVE A SISTER-IN-LAW THAT IS ONE. MR. TO RELAX WAS MY FIFTH GRADE TEACHER AND THAT WAS A HARD FOR YEARS AND FOR ME. I BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC WILL BE SUPPORTING THE VOTERS OUT THERE FOR PAIN TEACHERS MORE, FIREFIGHTERS, LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE LIKE THAT I THINK THEY ARE ALL FOR THAT. BUT I WAS ON THE LAST CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AND GLENN TAYLOR READ WHAT WE PUT OUT AT THAT TIME. 
          IT WAS VOTED DOWN. I THINK IT IS SENT TO MEETINGS AGO WHEN HE FIRST VOTED ON THIS LIKE MS. LUDWIG THERE I HAD PEOPLE CALL ME ABOUT THEY DON'T WANT NO INCREASE NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF FORMULA WE USE OR HOW MUCH MONEY WE PUT ON IT. THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY THE 
          [00:55:03]
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ANYMORE MONEY. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE. 
          THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT. SO, I THINK GIVEN THEM SOMETHING AGAIN THREE YEARS LATER OF A CHOICE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR IT. IT WILL NOT PASS THE MATTER WHAT KIND OF TOILET FORMULA YOU USE AND WE ARE COMPLIANT WITH THE VOTERS IN CLAY COUNTY WE MAY NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE STATUTE AND I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT THE VOTERS AND CLAY COUNTY DO NOT WANT TO RAISE THE COUNTY COMMISSION SALARIES . 
          NOT TOO LONG AGO ONE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSION RAISES THEY HAD NINE PEOPLE, QUALIFIED AND RUN FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSION SEAT. IF YOU MOVE IT TO ZERO THEY ARE STILL GOING TO RUN. THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE WANT TO SERVE ON THE COUNTY COMMISSION. 
          IF WE PUT IT OUT TO THE PUBLIC AGAIN DO WE WANT TO INCREASE THE SALARIES, I THINK WE ARE ASKING FOR A LOSS. I DON'T THINK WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN MY OPINION. 
          >> JUST CLARIFICATION PLEASE, MR. PRESIDENT, THE COMMISSION ALREADY VOTED TO INCREASE THEIR SALARIES, CORRECT?NOW IS JUST A MATTER OF FIGURING OUT HOW MUCH? 
          >> TO MEETINGS AGO. WHAT WE AGREED TO TABLE WAS A DISCUSSION THAT WE ARE HAVING TONIGHT. 
          >> LET ME FINALIZE A THOUGHT. RESPECTFULLY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THE WAY I SAID THAT. BEFORE I GET HAILED TOMORROW AT SCHOOL. 
          I AM TRYING TO PUT A POINT OF REFERENCE FOR THE COMMON FOLKS THAT ARE NOT TEACHERS THAT MR. DESANTIS PUT TOGETHER A PLAN FOR 47 FIVE. BUT THE GENERAL PUBLIC CONTRARY TO WHAT WE ALL MAY THINK THOSE WHO HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ARE PERSONS WHO ARE TEACHERS AND NOW THAT I AM WHEN I UNDERSTAND MOST PEOPLE THINK THEY ONLY WORK NINE MONTHS A YEAR. 
          NOT FULLY REALIZING HOW CHALLENGING THE JOB IS. TO THAT POINT, IT'S A POINT OF REFERENCE FOR THE FOLKS THAT MAY BE THINKING ABOUT THIS AS A SOMETHING THEY WANT TO ACCEPT. 
          TEACHER MAKES 47 FIVE I CAN SE MY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAKING 47 FIVE . 
          THEY ARE BOTH PROFESSIONALS, THEY PUT UP WITH REASON IS IN THE CLASSROOM, HERE THEY PUT UP WITH CRAZINESS FROM THE CITIZENRY. IT'S KIND OF A MATCH. 
          BY NO MEANS IF I WANT TO HAVE A POLITICAL FUTURE WHAT I SAY SOMETHING BAD AGAINST TEACHERS. 
          PLEASE I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT NO, THAT WAS NOT MY POINT. 
          I WILL SHUT UP AFTER THIS, 47 FIVE. I THINK THAT IS THE NUMBER THAT MAKES SENSE. IF YOU ARE MOTION SO I BELIEVE IT ALONE. 
          >> MR. CHAIR, I THINK WE HAVE TWO MORE COMMENTS. 
          >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WILL ASK ANOTHER CRAZY QUESTION. 
          LET'S LOOK AT THIS 2018 BALLOT REFERENDUM THAT MR. TAYLOR READ TO US. 
          AND I WILL ASK A QUESTION MAYBE SOON AS ANSWER I DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER. 
          WHAT PART OF THIS REFERENDUM WAS VOTED NO? HAS ANYONE ACTUALLY READ THIS? I KNOW HE READ IT TO US BUT IS IT THE PART THAT SAYS SHELBY COUNTY CHARTER BE ADMITTED TO REMOVE CHARTERS COUNTY COMMISSIONER SALARY AT 37,000, DID THEY VOTE NO TO THAT OR WAS THE NEXT PART AFTER THAT REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SALARY MUST BE APPROVED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORS IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, WAS IT THAT PART OF IT? THAT'S THE SECOND PART. THE THIRD PART WAS AND THEN PROVIDE COUNTY SALARIES AND CRIMINAL ADJUSTMENT TO 70 PERCENT. 
          WHAT KIND OF THIS IN THIS THREE-PART VOTE, WE DON'T KNOW. THEY PROBABLY GOT LIKE WHAT? AND THEY GO NO. IT'S A THREE-PART QUESTION. GOING BACK TO OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT THREE MINUTES AGO WHEN WE PUT THIS THING TOGETHER IT SHOULD BE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SIMPLE AND KIND OF WORK AT AN. THIS IS A THREE-PART QUESTION THAT THEY HAD TO VOTE ON. THAT A VOTE ON ONE, CHANGE, AND THE BIRTHRATE MAKE IT 70 PERCENT. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING ON OR IF THEY VOTED NO ON ALL OF IT. I WANT TO PUT THAT PERSPECTIVE OUT THERE IN THE CONVERSATION. 
          >> MR. CHAIR, I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION BUT I THINK WE HAVE THE SAME DILEMMA THIS TIME 
          [01:00:05]
BECAUSE THE CHARTER SAYS THAT HERE IS A SALARY AND HAS TO BE VOTED ON BY THE ELECTORATE. 
          IF YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE THAT YOU HAVE TO CHANGE WITH ASSESSMENT. 
          AM I CORRECT, GLENN? HE WAS SO HAVE TO LAY THAT OUT TO MOVE IT FROM 37 FIVE TWO REMOVE THE STIPULATION THAT THE ELECTORS HAVE TO VOTE FOR PAY RAISES THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THERE IF YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE AND TIE IT TO THE STATE STATUTE. 
          >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT'S WHY THE WORD LIMIT IS A LITTLE TIGHT, TOO. 
          >> SO TO CHANGE THE SALARY, WE AGREED TO CHANGE THESALARY . WE WILL INCREASE THE SALARY SO THE SALARY, THE NUMBER 37,000, IF THE GOAL IS SET AT THE FLORIDA STATUTE THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO VOTE TO APPROVE THAT. BUT IF IT WAS ONLY 60 PERCENT OR IF WE CHANGE THE NUMBER FROM A 37,000 TO 45,000 OR 60,000 THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO VOTE ON IT AND THAT REQUIRES ONE OF US TO BE THERE. MAYBE WE BE SMART ENOUGH TO INCLUDE COST-OF-LIVING ON TOP OF THAT AS WELL BUT THAT WOULD BE SEPARATE LINE ITEM I WOULD THINK. 
          >> MR. HODGES. 
          >> WHY CAN WE SUPPLY THIS AND SAY WE ARE GOING TO SET A PRICE LIKE $47,000 YEAR AND THEN WE PUT ON THE BALLOT YOUR VOTED TO RAISE YOUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SALARY TO $47,000 A YEAR. 
          WE ARE JUST RUNNING IN A CIRCLE HERE. LET'S MAKE IT SIMPLE FOR THE VOTER.OTER LOOKS AT THE BALLOT AND HE CAN SEE IT HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE BEING PAID AND WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PAID . 
          >> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. 
          >> MR. CHAIR, IF WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO... 
          >> SO I WOULD SAY THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO SET AMOUNT IF WE DON'T REMOVE THE PROVISION IT HAS TO BE CHANGED BY VOTE WE WERE AS COMPLICIT AS THE FIRST CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION THAT SET THIS AND MADE IT BE BY VOTE INSTEAD OF COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE.HAT HAS TO BE REMOVED OR EVERYONE IS GOING TO BE DEALING WITH THIS EVERY YEAR OR EVERY FOUR YEARS GOING INTO THE FUTURE. TO THE 47 FIVE THAT'S NOT A BAD AMOUNT BUT I WOULD SAY ARE WE WANTING OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO BE FIRST YEAR PROFESSIONALS OR DO WE WANT THEM TO BE SEASONED PROFESSIONALSWHO WILL LEAD THIS COUNTY INTO THE NEXT , YOU KNOW, DECADES. 
          >> BRIAN. 
          >> I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WE TIE IT TO THE STATE RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE AS TIME GOES ON IF WE PICK A NUMBER NOW AT SOME POINT WHEN IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ARE GOING TO BE MAKING LESS MONEY THAN THEY COULD MAKE WORKING AT MCDONALD'S AS I STATED LAST TIME THEY COULD ALREADY MAKE MORE MONEY AT AN ICE CREAM STORE SERVING ICE CREAM. I THINK CHINA TO THE STATE RECOMMENDATIONIS IMPORTANT . 
          RIGHT NOW THERE ABOUT 50 PERCENT OF THE STATE RECOMMENDATION. 
          I THINK WE COULD SAY SIMPLY FIRST STEP IMMEDIATELY RAISE IT TO 65 PERCENT OF THE STATE RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH PUTS IT ABOUT 52,000 WHICH IS WHERE IT WAS 12 YEARS AGO WHEN IT WAS REDUCED. I DON'T THINK YOU GET A WHOLE LOT OF COMPLAINTS TO RAISE THEM UP TO WHERE THEY WERE 12 YEARS AGO BEFORE IT WAS REDUCED. THEN IT MAY BE A STEP IN ONE YEAR TO FIVE PERCENT, THEN A STEP IN ANOTHER YEAR TO FIVE PERCENT. 
          THAT WOULD PUT IT ABOUT 80 PERCENT OR IF YOU WANTED TO DO IT 100 PERCENT. 
          LIKE I SAID START WITH A 65 PERCENT OF THE RECOMMENDED AND THEN IT TWO STEPS AFTER THAT TO WHATEVER THE BOARD DECIDES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN, TWO QUICK QUESTIONS. IF I HEARD THIS CORRECT. 
          IN THE DECEMBER MEETING THIS COMMISSION VOTED TO PLACE THIS ON THE BALLOT. 
          WHAT WAS THE VOTE? IT WAS ALMOST UNANIMOUS? 
          >> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK ON THE MINUTES. 
          >> SECOND QUESTION, MR. TAYLOR, YOU MENTIONED ON THE BALLOT QUESTION THAT YOU ARE GOING TO COME UP WITH MUST STATE THE PRESENT SALARY AND THE PROPOSED SALARY. 
          >> IT DIDN'T MUST STAY THAT BUT THAT'S WITH THE STATE LAW INDICATS YOU SHOULD HAVE A BEFORE AND AFTER. THIS WOULD ARGUABLY DID NOT DO THAT AS CLEARLY AS IT COULD 
          [01:05:04]
HAVE. 
          >> I DON'T CARE, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE VOTED IN. PUT WHATEVER YOU WANT TO UNDER THEN. IF YOU MENTIONED BOTH SALARIES THE PUBLIC WILL NOT. 
          PERIOD. 
          >> RESPECTFULLY AGAIN I DON'T THINK WE KNOW THAT. JUST A REMINDER THAT THIS COUNTY VOTED TO INCREASE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO SEVEN MEMBERS AND IT TWO YEARS LATER PUT IT BACK TO FIVE. TO SAY THAT JUST BECAUSE THREE YEARS AGO OR 3+ YEARS AGO THEY VOTED ON THIS DOESN'T MEAN, I MEAN, YOU MAY BE RIGHT BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO SPEND MORE MONEY THAT IS WHY MESSAGING AND WE CAN'T PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT BUT HOPEFULLY MESSAGING THINK ABOUT WHERE YOU WANT YOUR COUNTY TO BE. 
          >> THEY DO NOT WANT TO PAY ADDITIONAL SALARIES THAT'S WHY THEY VOTED IT BACK. 
          >> I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW THAT. 
          >> I WAS HERE WHEN THAT VOTE WENT ON AND THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE AND THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT AND IT WAS ABOUT WE HAVE TO PAY THIS MUCH MONEY AND THAT MUCH MONEY IN THE BUDGET OF THE SELLERS THE COUNTY COMMISSION. THAT WAS A BIG TOPIC AT THE TIME. 
          >> AGAIN, JUST WHERE I LIVE SPEAKING YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT KEYSTONE I WILL TELL YOU. 
          I LIVE ON A PRIVATE DIRT ROAD BY CHOICE. MY RENT WILL NEVER GET PAID, THAT'S A CHOICE I MADE I DO THAT WHEN I BUILT MY HOUSE. HOW MANY OF YOU COME DOWN THERE? MOST OF OUR ROADS ARENOT PAVED. YOUR VEHICLE , YOUR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND EVEN COUNTY MAINTENANCE IS A HUGE DEAL. JUST TO GETA GREATER , OR CLAY OR WASHING. AT LEAST IN MY AREA IF YOU GUYS GO AND PUT THIS TO YOU KNOW HOW PMUCH JUST THAT ADDITIONAL SALARY FOR COMMISSIONERS PEOPLE WOULD SAY THAT COULD GO TOWARDS THIS. WE DON'T GET A WHOLE LOT OF PAVED ROADS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO, YOU GUYS WANT TO MY SAY I'M GIVING YOU MY SAY. 
          I'M JUST TELLING YOU IF YOU WANT TO GET SOME KIND OF INCREASE AND YOU WANT TO BE MORE REAL WITH THE PEOPLE PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND A COST-OF-LIVING WAY BETTER. 
          THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. YOU ARE NOT BETTER THAN SOMEONE WHEN YOU SAY WE WANT QUALIFIED PEOPLE. WE WANT QUALIFIED POLICE AND QUALIFIED FIREMEN AND ALL THAT. 
          THEY LEAVE IT TO GO TO JACKSONVILLE. WE ARE NOT COMPARING WHAT THEY MAKE WITH WHAT MIAMI-DADE MAKES OR JACKSONVILLE MAKES. I KNOW THAT'S NOT OUR JOB BUT THAT'S WHY THEY LEAVE AND GO TO BIG CITIES. BECAUSE THEY GET PAID MORE. 
          >> I AGREE WITH WHAT MOST EVERYONE IS SAYING.O THEY DESERVE A PAY RAISE, YES. 
          I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU CAN'T DISCOUNT THE FACT THAT WHAT MR. JETT WAS SAYING 3 AND A HALF YEARS AGO MR. TAYLOR THAT THE VOTERS VOTED THIS DOW . 
          THIS IS I THINK ONE OF THE SIDE EFFECTS OF US MEETING TO FREQUENTLY AND THAT WE TALKED EARLIER ABOUT WHY ARE WE DOING THIS EVERY FOUR YEARS. WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS EVERY 10 YEARS BECAUSE THE SAME THING WILL COME UP AND WE WILL BRING THE SAME STUFF BACK AND FORTH TO THE VOTERS AND I THINK IT'S AN INSULT TO THEM, HONESTLY. TO TRY AND BRING THIS BACK TO THEM WHETHER OR NOT IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AT THE END OF THE DAY THIS IS ABOUT WHAT THE VOTERS WANT AND I JUST DON'T SEE THE VOTERS VOTING TO INCREASE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SALARY. WHETHER I BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE INCREASED OR NOT OR ANY OF US DO I THINK WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR AND I DON'T THINK THEY WILL VOTE FOR IT. I THINK WE WILL SPIN OUR WHEELS APPEAR FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS TRYING TO FIGURE THIS ALL OUT AND AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S NOT GOING TO PASS IN A BE A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. I SAY IF ANYTHING WE GIVE THE COMMISSIONERS A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE. I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING FOR THE MOST PART COUNTY EMPLOYS GET. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE ONLY CHANCE ANYTHING WILL GET THROUGH IS MAYBE A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE BUT I DON'T THINK CERTAINLY NOT 110 PERCENT INCREASE THAT WILL NOT FLY. MY PHONE RANG A COUPLE DAYS AG . SOMEBODY SPOKE ADAMANTLY IN OPPOSITION OF RAISING COMMISSIONERS SALARIES. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. 
          [01:10:03]
I THINK WE ARE WASTING OUR TIME. TO BRING THIS BACK TO THE VOTERS. MAYBE IN FOUR MORE YEARS OR MAYBE IN 10 YEARS WE MIGHT TRY AGAIN BUT TO DO THIS EVERY FOUR YEARS I THINK IS JUST A WASTE, I REALLY DO. 
          >> THE MOTION IS YOURS BY THE WAY. 
          >> I WOULD AMEND IT. THE ONLY REASON NUMBER ONE THE CLARIFICATION ON THE 110 PERCENT BUT WE ALSO MADE THE CLARIFICATION THAT WAS AFTER A REDUCTION FROM 52,000 PER YEAR. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN ACCURATE REFLECTION ON WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING. 
          THE SECOND POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS THAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO AMEND IT TO THE 47 FIVE THAT WOULD BE MORE REALISTIC WHEN YOU SEE THE GAP FROM THE 32 FIVE TO THE 47 FIVE. 
          I'M SORRY, 37 FIVE. THAT WOULD BE MORE REALISTIC. I THINK THAT THE VOTERS UNDERSTAND. THAT'S NOT EVEN, YOU NEED TO LOOK AT YOUR PROPERTY LINES. 
          I KNOW YOU ARE SAYING THIS ISN'T THAT THEY NEED TO DO THIS FOR SERVICE BUT I THINK CLAY COUNTY NEEDS GOOD SERVICE. WHEN WERE COMING UP INTO A SNOWBALL OF A LOT OF ENTITIES THAT WILL BE COMING IN TO CLAY COUNTY AND WE SHOULD HAVE QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE THE DIFFERENT CONTRACTS THAT ARE COMING IN. 
          >> DO YOU WISH TO? 
          >> I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND MY EMOTION TO 47 FIVE. THE REASON I SAID THE STEP INCREASES I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE COUNTY BUDGET TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE DIFFERENT ADJUSTMENTS FOR THOSE SALARIES AND NOT TAKE AWAY FROM THE DIFFERENT BUDGETS FOR THE POLICE OR THE FIREMEN. THAT IS WHY I PROPOSE THE STEP IN THE INCREASE. 
          BUT I ALSO AGREE THAT THE PUBLIC MAY HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THAT. 
          SO, I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW THE STEPS, THE INCREASES AND AMEND THE MOTION TO 47 FIVE. 
          >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? 
          >> MR. CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND. CAN WE AT LEAST TAKEN BACK TO THE POINT THEY WERE AFTER BEFORE BEFORE THEY REGISTER SALARIES? BUT THAT IS 52. THAT'S NOT 47 FIVE. OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER WAS. 
          >> I SEE, SO TAKE IT TO THE 70 PERCENT? 
          >> IT WASN'T A 70 PERCENT. 
          >> THESE ARE THE TWO FIGURES. I HAVE 59, 436 AND 47, 54. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THE 50 PERCENT. WE MADE THE DISCUSSION THAT COMMISSIONERS SALARIES WERE REDUCED IN 2008. IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND PUT A NUMBER OUT THERE INSTEAD OF TYING IT TO OR REFLECTED THE STATE STATUTE THEN PUT AT WHAT THEY WERE BEFORE THEIR SALARIES WERE REDUCED. I MEAN, THE INCREASE TO 47 IS LESS THAN WHAT THEY WERE GETTING PAID BEFORE THAT IT WAS REDUCED AND THAT WAS EIGHT YEARS AGO. 
          >> I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER WAS. I'M JUST SAYING WHATEVER. 
          >> SO THAT WOULD BE 54 PERCENT INCREASE. 
          >> CHAIRMAN, FOR CLARIFICATION, IN THE MINUTES THERE WAS A MOTION TO INCREASE THE SALARIES, HOWEVER, THERE WAS NEVER A MOTION FOR IT TO GO TO THE BALLOT. 
          33 CLARIFICATION IF YOU WANTED TO GO ON THE BALLOT THEN YOU MAKE THE DISCUSSION OF THE CHANGE AND WITH THE CHANGE SHOULD BE. FIRST CHAPTER VOTE FOR IT TO GO TO THE BALLOT. AND THEN WITH THE INCREASE WOULD BE AND THEN WITH THE VERBIAGE WOULD BE. 
          >> SO, LET'S LAY THAT OUT. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATIO . 
          VOTE TO PUT ON THE BALLOT. 
          >> YOU WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR YOU WANTED TO GO TO THE BALLOT. THEN YOU WANTED TO BE CLEAR WITH THE INCREASE WOULD BE OR DECREASE OR WHATEVER THAT VOTE MAY BE. 
          AND THEN THE VERBIAGE. 
          >> MR. CHAIR, I BELIEVE IT WAS MY MOTION, CORRECT? 
          [01:15:02]
          >> THERE WAS A CONSENSUS TO INCREASE BUT NOT TO WHAT AND IT WAS MOVED TO THE NEXT. 
          IN THE LAST MEETING IT WAS THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE ITEM FOR DISCUSSION ON WHETHER TO GO ON THE BALLOT AND THEN IT, FOR THE INCREASE THERE WAS A VOTE, NOT THIS LAST MEETING, THE PREVIOUS MEETING. 
          >> WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY MY MOTION LAST WEEK TO TABLE THIS WAS TO GIVE US TIME TO COME BACK AND LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. THE INTENTION OF MY ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO GO TO THE BALLOT WITH IT. NO ONE CLARIFIED WE HAD TO MAKE THAT LANGUAGE. 
          IF THAT IS THE CASE THEN I GUESS WE HAVE TO GO BACK. 
          >> WE NEED A CLARIFICATION ON WHETHER WE WANT TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. 
          IT WAS SET FOR THE INCREASE AND WHERE WE WANT IT TO GO FROM HERE. 
          >> MR. CHAIR, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH AND I SENSE THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE THAT HAVE A CHANGE OF HEART. MAYBE THEY DID KNOW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR MAYBE THEY KNEW, I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST TO THE CHAIR THAT WE TABLE THE EXISTING MOTION GO BACK AND PUT A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO TAKE A SALARY INCREASE FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO BALLOT WITH THE NUMBERS TO BE DETERMINED IN A FOLLOWING MOTION TO SEE IF THIS GROUP, IF THIS COMMISSION STILL WANTS TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT. 
          >> OKAY, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? 
          >> I HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION. DO WE WANT TO DO THAT? 
          >> THE ONLY WAY TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND AND THEN PUT UP FOR DISCUSSION AND THEN VOTE. 
          >> UNDER ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER YET THE TABLE THAT MOTION AND WHOEVER SECONDED IT AND THEN START OVER. 
          >> SO, TABLE MY MOTION AS AMENDED. WITHDRAW MY MOTION. 
          >> AND I WITHDRAW THE SECOND. 
          >> WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT. OH, THAT'S RIGHT. 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MOVE FORWARD WITH PUTTING THE SALARY INCREASE FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE BALLOT WITH FINAL NUMBERS TO BE DETERMINED IN A SUBSEQUENT ACTION TO THIS VOTE. 
          >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO PUT THE SALARY INCREASE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE BALLOT WITH FINAL NUMBERS TO BE DETERMINED AT A LATER DATE, IN A SUBSEQUENT ACT. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? YOU HAVE A SECOND. UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          >> POINT OF CLARIFICATION, DOES INCREASING THE SALARIES WITH THAT INCLUDE JUST A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE OR IS THAT A SEPARATE ITEM? 
          >> WE DETERMINED THAT THE NEXT MOTION WOULD INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION. 
          IT'S JUST AN INCREASE IN A GENERAL. 
          >> WE ARE DISCUSSING TO PUT ON THE BALLOT WHICH IS WHAT WE DISCUSSED. 
          >> REPORTS ARE VOTE TO PUT ON THE BALLOT, SECOND IS DECIDE WHAT THE INCREASE OR DECREASE SHOULD BE. THAT WOULD BE A SECOND MOTION AND A VOTE. 
          AND THEN FINALLY, IF IT WAS TO INCREASE OR DECREASE YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE VERBIAGE TO MATCH WITH THE ACTION OR INTENDED ACTION WILL BE.SO THERE ARE THREE PARTS TO THAT. 
          THANK YOU CHRISTIE FOR THE CLARIFICATION. OKAY, SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US A MOTION TO VOTE TO PUT AN INCREASE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE BALLOT. 
          AND IT HAS BEEN SECONDED. NOW IT IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. AND THEN EVENTUALLY A VOTE. 
          >> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE CLARIFY TO YOUR POINT, MA'AM, WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY VOTING FOR. I THINK THAT'S WHAT A DETERMINE HOW WE VOTE ON THIS. 
          IF THIS IS JUST A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE OUR VOTES MAY BE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN IF WERE VOTING TO INCREASE THEIR SALARY TO 50 OR 60 OR 70,000. 
          I KNOW THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ITEMS BUT I THINK THE VOTE MIGHT LOOK DIFFERENT IF WE KNO . 
          >> JUST REAL QUICK. IF I UNDERSTAND, STEP ONE WE ARE VOTING OR DISCUSSING 
          [01:20:02]
WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD PUT A RAISE ON THE BALLOT. WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OR NOTHING WE ARE VOTING IF WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. I GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BUT WE NEED TOMAKE A DECISION DO WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD AND INITIATE A RAISE ON THE BALLOT ? 
          >> FURTHER CLARIFICATION THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE WITH A MOTION THAT WOULD BE SECONDED AND VOTED BY THE COMMISSION. IF THE MOTION DOESN'T CARRY THEN YOU GO BACK. 
          >> ARE WE CONSIDERING A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE?S THAT CONSIDERED A RAISE? 
          >> THAT WOULD BE THE SECOND DISCUSSION. 
          >> THE FIRST ONE IS AN INCREASE OR NOT ON THE BALLOT, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT IT IS. 
          EITHER YOU MOVE FORWARD TO PUT INCREASE ON THE BALLOT OR YOU DON'T. 
          IF THAT CARRIES IN THE NEXT THINK WOULD BE A DISCUSSION ON HOW MUCHWHETHER IT'S COST-OF-LIVING , WHETHER IT'S A PENNY OR TAKEN TO THE FULL STATUTE. 
          THAT IS THE DISCUSSION THEN A VOTE IN A MOTION IS MADE ON THAT THE VOTE IS TAKEN AND IF THAT PASSES THEN THE FINAL VERBIAGE WOULD HAVE TO BE VOTED ON AFTER MR. TAYLOR WORKS IT THROUGH AND IT WILL BE VOTED ON AGAIN. 
          >> MR. PRESIDENT, MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT BEING HERE AT THE LAST MEETING. 
          FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AND THIS IS WHERE I AM COMPLETELY CONFUSED IS THAT THE WHOLE IDEA OF RAISING THE SALARIES WAS AND WE DON'T HAVE THE MINUTES BUT WHAT WAS THE VOTE TAKEN AT THE LAST MEETING BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT SAID YES WE ARE GOING TO RAISE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SALARY. SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST PART, CORRECT?BUT THEY MADE THE CLARIFICATION. SO THE MOTION THAT CARRIED LAST MEETING IS NULL AND VOID? 
          >> IT DID NOT SPECIFY IT HAD TO GO ON THE BALLOT. 
          >> OKAY, THAT IS WHAT I NEEDED. 
          >> MR. TIMBERLAKE WITHDREW THA . 
          >> OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          >> ALL RIGHT, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A MOTION TO PUT A PAY INCREASE ON THE BALLOT AND IT HAS BEEN SECONDED. NOW WE HAVE DISCUSSION. 
          >> NOTE DISCUSSION. 
          >> SO, NOW WE HAVE A VOTES. DO WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE MOTION OR MR. MCNEARY YOU HAVE A COMMENT? 
          >> LET ME STEP IN BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD. I HAVE HEARD A LOT, IT HAS BEEN AN INTERESTING PROCESS HERE. AT THE END OF THE DAY I WILL LET YOU KNOW WHERE I STAND AND THAT IS, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO HAVE CONSISTENCY. I HAVE HEARD A LOT OF REASONS WHY AND WHY NOT. FOR ME, IF NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE IN 14 YEARS, 10 YEARS, 14 YEARS, YOU KNOW, I SUPPORT DOING SOMETHING. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.IF SOMEONE TAKES THE POSITION OF DON'T DO ANYTHING AND LEAVE THIS LIKE IT IS THE STATUS QUO FOR THE LAST 10 OR 14 YEARS THAT'S TOUGH TO COUNT AS REASONABLE. 
          I DON'T HAVE THE HISTORY AND MAYBE THAT'S A GOOD THING BECAUSE I AM COMING IN TO THIS PURELY FROM A STANDPOINT OF A VOLUNTEER BUT SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE. 
          WE ALSO NEED TO PUT IN PLACE HOW DOES THIS FLOW AS WE GO THROUGH THE YEARS. 
          AND THE NEXT COMMITTEES HIT IT. IF SOMEONE PUT A SALARY IN PLACE AND THERE'S NO MECHANISM FOR INCREASES NONE OF OUR EMPLOYERS DO THAT AND I AM SURE WE WILL BE RAISING CAIN IF THAT WAS THE CASE. BUT SOMETHING HAS TO BE CLEANED UP HERE. 
          SOMETHING JUST DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. AGAIN, I SUPPORT DOING SOMETHING. AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE NOR CAN I SPEAK FOR THE ELECTORS OUT THERE. I CAN'T READ THEIR MINDS. BUT I WILL TELL YOU I THINK MOST REASONABLE PEOPLE WILL SAY IF IT HADN'T BEEN TOUCHED IN 14 YEARS, DO SOMETHING. 
          BECAUSE WE ARE GROWING, WE ARE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT COMMUNITY AND IS CONTINUING TO CHANGE. 
          [01:25:01]
IT IS NOT 20 YEARS AGO. I HAVE BEEN AROUND HERE SINCE ABOUT 89 OR 90 SO I HAVE SEEN THE CHANGES. SOME GOOD, SOME BAD BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WE HAVE TO GET IN FRONT OF THE GROWTH THAT IS UPON US AND THAT IS COMING. THAT IS OUR REALITY. 
          SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY. 
          >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? 
          >> I DO HAVE ONE COMMENT ABOUT THE MOTION AND THAT IS THAT I DO SUPPORT SOME KIND OF INCREASE IN SALARY BUT I THINK EQUALLY AS IMPORTANT IS REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE VOTERS HAVE TO APPROVE ANY SALARY CHANGES GOING FORWARD. I WONDER DOES THAT HAVE TO BE PART OF THIS MOTION, AS WELL, IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THAT KIND OFLANGUAGE ? 
          >> MR. CHAIR, THAT WOULD BE TAKEN UP AS THE SECOND PART OF THIS. 
          WHAT THE SALARY INCREASE WOULD BE A PART OF THAT WOULD BE IS IT A FIXED NUMBER OR SOMETHING SO THAT WOULD BE HANDLED IN THE SECOND PART OF THIS MOTION, THIS ACTION. 
          >> OKAY, ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION? THE VOTE IS WHETHER OR NOT TO MOVE FORWARD AND PUTTHIS ON THE BALLOT . SECOND DISCUSSION FOLLOWING THAT WOULD BE IF IT PASSES TO HAVE AN INCREASE OR DECREASE OF WHATEVER THE MECHANISM IS GOING TO BE AND THEN FINALLY WHATEVER IS DECIDED THERE THEY PUT THE VERBIAGE TO SUPPORT IT. 
          IS THAT CLEAR IN EVERYONE'S MIND. ? MR. TAYLOR, IS THAT APPROPRIATE? ALL RIGHT, GREAT. 
          THAT SAID, TIME FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF PUTTING THIS MOTION ON THE BALLOT SAY AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED? 
          >> NAY. 
          >> LET'S GET A FURTHER RECORD WE HAVE MR. BECK SCHEIDER, MR. HODGES, MR. TAYLOR AND MR. JET. 
          SO THAT GIVES US ONE, TWO, THREE AND HOW MANY AYE'S DO WE HAVE? ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE. FOUR OR FIVE AGAINST, IS THAT ACCURATE? CHRISTY, DO YOU HAVE THAT? IS MY MATH RIGHT?SO THAT CARRIED. SO NEXT DISCUSSION IS A MOTION TO EITHER INCREASE OR DECREASE AND IF SO BY HOW MUCH AND THAT DISCUSSION SO I NEED A MOTION ON THAT. 
          AND A SECOND. 
          >> AN EFFORT TO INTERJECT A LITTLE HUMOR, THE MOTION WAS TO INCREASE SO IT WOULD NOT BE TO DECREASE. 
          >> YOU COULD GO DOWN BUT THE MOTION IS TO INCREASE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? 
          >> I SECOND THAT MOTION. 
          >> I SAY THE MOTION WE JUST VOTED ON WAS TO INCREASE. MY COMMENT WAS NOT INTRODUCE A NEW MOTION I THINK IF YOU LIKE TO GO AHEAD. 
          >> NOW THE NEXT DISCUSSION IS HOW MUCH AND WHAT MECHANISM. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THAT? 
          >> DO WE WANT TO GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS MOTION AND RESTATE IT? 
          >> EXCEPT THAT THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN. 
          >> I KNOW BUT SHE CAN RESTATE THE MOTION NOW. 
          >> WAIT A MINUTE, TIMEOUT. MR. TAYLOR, COMING BACK I DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE. 
          WE JUSTVOTED TO PUT FORWARD ON THE BALLOT AND INCREASE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS. 
          CORRECT? 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> SO NOW THE NEXT ITEM, THAT P WOULD BE HOW MUCH AND WHAT MECHANISM. 
          >> MR. CHAIR, MY SUGGESTION AT THIS POINT COULD BE TO REINTRODUCE THE ORIGINAL MOTION THE ONE THAT WAS WITHDRAWN OR WE CAN SAY WE WANT TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE WITH IT. 
          >> I CAN MAKE THE MOTION AND I WILL MAKE THE MOTION WHICH IS MY MOTION PREVIOUSLY AS AMENDE . I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO INCREASE THE COMMISSIONERS SALARY. I WILL SAY MY MOTION WILL BE 47 5000 WHICH IS 60 PERCENT. 
          [01:30:06]
          >> MOTION TO INCREASE TO $47,500. AND WE ROUNDED UP. 
          >> YES IT TO $47,550. 
          >> WHY DON'T YOU JUST MAKE IT 50. ? WE ARE STILL BELOW WHAT WE PAID WHEN IT WAS REDUCED. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT IN ORDER TO GET IT PASSED AND THE TIME WERE SPENDING AND THE MONEY WERE SPENDING TO GET ON THE BALLOT I ALSO HEARD THE INPUT ABOUT THE TEACHERS. 
          THAT IS WHERE MY MOTION WILL GO TO THE 47 THOUSAND $550. I THINK IT'S OUR JOB IF WE ARE GOING TO BE HERE AND DEVOTE OUR TIME TO THIS COMMITTEE THAT WE SHOULD PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT THAT WOULD BE REALISTIC TO ACTUALLY PASSING RATHER THAN IF WE ARE GOING TO PUT OUT THE PROPAGANDA AND THE ADVERTISEMENTS AND TRY TO GET THAT PAST BECAUSE WE PUT THE TIME IN AND THE MONEY AND TRADE IT'S EXPENSIVE TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT. 
          THAT WE SHOULD PUT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE REALISTIC THAT WE COULD PRESENT TO THE PUBLIC AND THAT'S WHERE I WOULD SAY THAT TEACHERS SALARIES ARE EQUIVALENT TO THAT AND THAT WOULD BE MORE REALISTIC. TO PASS. 
          >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO INCREASE THE SALARIES TO $47,550. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OKAY SEEING NONE. MOTION FAILS. DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION? 
          >> MR. CHAIR, MAKE A MOTION TO INCREASE THE COMMISSIONERS SALARY TO THE LEVEL IT WAS PRIOR TO WHEN IT WAS DECREASED IN 2008. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER THE NUMBER BEING TOSSED AROUND WAS 52,000. SO 52,700. 
          DO WE ALSO IN THIS MOTION I'M ASKING A QUESTION OR DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE THE INCREASES GOING FORWARD AS A SEPARATE ITEM? WE WILL HANDLE IT IS A SECOND ITEM SO MIGHT MOTION IS WE INCREASE IT TO 52 SEVEN. 
          >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? 
          >> I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION. 
          >> OKAY. IT WILL BE UP FOR DISCUSSION IN A SECOND. 
          WE HAVE A SECOND ON IT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO INCREASE TO 52,700 AND IT HAS BEEN SECONDED. FOR DISCUSSION. 
          >> I WOULD ASK YOU AMENDED YOUR MOTION TO MAKE IT A PERCENT, AGAIN, OF THE STATE REQUIRED MAYBE MAKE IT AT THE PERCENT THAT BRINGS IT TO THE SAME NUMBER BECAUSE IF YOU JUST DO A NUMBER 10 YEARS FROM NOW WERE IN THE SAME SPOT WE ARE NOW. IF YOU TIE IT TO THE STATE THEN THERE IS PROVISIONS FOR IT TO INCREASE AS NEW PEOPLE MOVE INTO THE COUNTY AND THE COUNTY GROSS AND COST-OF-LIVING IS BUILT RIGHT IN AND MAKES THINGS EASIER. 
          >> OKAY, YOU KNOW, I AM THINKING LIKE YOU AND MAYBE KILL A COUPLE BIRDS WITH ONE STONE. IT WILL NOT BE WHAT MOST PEOPLE WILL WANT. 
          SOME PEOPLE WILL HAVE HEARD A HIGH AMOUNT BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BEING FAIR AND ALWAYS TRYING TO HAVE A PROVISION FOR SOME TYPE OF RAISE THAT REASONABLE PEOPLE WOULD BE WILLING TO VOTE FOR AND NOT JUST SHUT THE DOOR ON IT. 
          IF YOU TIE IN AND SAY 50 PERCENT OF THE STATE, WHAT DO THEYCALL IT , STATE SALARY FORMULA AND THEN THE THREE PERCENT PER YEAR. IT'S STILL GOING TO INCREASE AS THE STATE GOES UP SO YOU ARE TYING THAT IN TOGETHER SO THAT 50 PERCENT WOULD RAISE IT TO 39 624 IF YOU JUST STICKING WITH PERCENTAGES. THEN EACH YEAR IF THEY DO COST-OF-LIVING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT REGULAR COUNTY WORKERS GE , THREE PERCENT, YEAR ONE IT WOULD BE LIKE 40,008 ONE. AND THE NEXT YEAR 42,000. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A GOOD IDEA OR NOT LIKE I'M SAID I'M OFF WHAT THE VOTERS SAID BUT I ALSO REALIZE IF WE NEVER HAVE A 
          [01:35:02]
PROVISION OR A RAISE I PERSONALLY DON'T AGREE WITH THAT AND I THINK WHERE PEOPLE WOULD BE WILLING TO GO ALONG WITH A SET AMOUNT. 
          >> SUSIE I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT IS IF WE LOOK AT THE 52 SEVEN THAT WE HAVE A MOTION ON AND THEN WE LATER GO BACK AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS AND MR. CHAMBLIS AND MR. GLENN CAN GO THROUGH ALL THIS. WE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER AMENDING IN A DIFFERENT BALLOT ITEM, I GUESS, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORK THAT. BUT I DO THINK COST-OF-LIVING IN THE LINE ITEM OR THE CITY VOTERS HAVE TO APPROVE ALL RACES INSERT AND EDIT EXCEPT FOR ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING BASED UPON WHATEVER YADA YADA YADA, HAVE A NICE DAY. 
          THIS WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE THEENTIRE PARAGRAPH . WE CHANGE THE SALARY AND EDIT CHANGE TO THAT ONE STATEMENT EXCEPT FOR. I THINK FOLKS WILL PROBABLY UNDERSTAND THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ITEMS TO VOTE AT AN ANGEL EXEC WE HOW THIS WORKS OUT BUT I'M SURE THE EXPERTS COULD FIGURE THAT OUT. THE FIRST THINGS THE VOTERS WANT TO VOTE ON WE WANT THEM TO VOTE ON IS THE SALARY INCREASE. AND THEN THE SECOND REFERENDUM ITEM WOULD BE TO INSERT ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING THAT WOULD BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE VOTERS RAISING THE SALARY. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. 
          >> ONE THING I KEEP HEARING IS THAT WE NEED TO PUT IT BACK TO WHAT IT WAS AS IF THE PEOPLE HERE GOT A PAY CUT. THEY NEVER GOT THEIR PAY CUT MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT CORRECT? WHEN THEY RAN FOR OFFICE THEY KNEW IT WAS 37 FIVE. WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT LIKE IT'S SOMEONE THAT'S THE NETWORK AND WE DECIDED TO CUT IT. GRANTED I GET IT, I UNDERSTAND THAT PAST CONDITIONERS MADE THAT. BUT MY POINT IS WHEN WE KEEP SAINT RAISE IT BACK TO WHAT IT WAS VOTERS DON'T REALLY AS A VOTER IF I WASN'T ON HIS COMMISSION AND UNDERSTOOD WHAT'S GOING ON HERE JUST GONNA GIVE THEM THAT BIG RAISE. 
          HOW WILL THEY KNOW YOUR RECENT BACK TO WHAT IT WAS? 
          >> THAT IS WHY I SAID THE 47 FIVE. 
          >> IF YOU FEEL THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE ACTION TO SAY WHY YOU CAME TO 52 SEVEN WOULD BE TELL PEOPLE TO RAISE IT BACK TO WHERE IT WAS IN 2008 TO 52 SEVEN. 
          >> AND THEN EVERYONE WILL SAY WELL WHY WAS IT LOWERED AND THEY WILL SAY BECAUSE THE VOTERS VOTED FOR IT? 
          >> I DON'T CARE WHAT KIND OF RAISE PEOPLE WILL SAY WHY ARE WE GIVING THEM A RAISE. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT TYPICALLY FAIR-MINDED PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR A LIVING AND DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MONEY THEY KIND OF GET THE COLA SORT OF THING SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO PDO IT NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE AVERAGE PERSON CAN GET ON BOARD WITH. 
          >> SO I WILL ASK THE QUESTION WHY DO THOSE AVERAGE PEOPLE WHO SEE GOOD VOTE TO REDUCE IT? 
          >> I WAS NOT HERE. THAT'S NOT MY PLACE. BUT IF PEOPLE VOTED TO REDUCE IT BECAUSE IT IS A SERVICE NONE OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RIGHT NOW MONITORING FOR OFFICE, THEY WANTED TO DO IT. AND THEY RAN AT THAT RATE IS WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          >> I THINK WE ARE GOING AROUND AND AROUND. WHAT I WOULD ASK THE GROUP FROM THE DISCUSSION PERSPECTIVE AND I CAN MODIFY MY MOTION DO WE WANT TO HAVE ONE ITEM BECAUSE WHAT I THINK YOU SAID WAS TO HAVE MULTIPLE BALLOT INITIATIVES. 
          I HAD NOT ANTICIPATED THAT. SO, DO YOU WANT ONE BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT SAYS WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING BY WAY OF INCREASING THE SALARY PAID WE WANT TO MOVE IT TO THIS NUMBER AND WE ALSO WANT TO SAY IS TIED TO THE STATE ADRS WHICH IS BASED ON POPULATION AND SOME OTHER FACTORS THAT FIT THE FORMULA OR DO WE WANT TO SAY WILL DO COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT EVERY YEAR SO THAT SALARY IS CAPPED? I GUESS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO AS A GROUP? 
          >> I WOULD THINK THAT COMING UP WITH WHAT THE NUMBERS GOING TO BE AND THEN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO PUT AN ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM ON THEIR AND WITH A ROLL THAT INTO ONE 
          [01:40:01]
BALLOT STATEMENT OR INITIATIVE ARE KEPT AT TWO. YOU COULD PROBABLY ARGUE THAT WHEN, AS WELL. 
          >> IN AN EFFORT TO KEEP IT SIMPLE I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORD IT BUT I WOULD SAY THE COMMISSION SALARY WAS 52,000 AT THE TIME, YOU CAN SAY RETURN THE SALARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM WHEN IT WAS REDUCED TO WHAT WAS AT THE TIME. IF IT WAS 52,000 AND THEY REDUCE IT TO 37 FIVE OR WHATEVER IT WAS YOU CAN SAY WE ASK THE VOTERS TO RETURN TO SALARY TO WHAT IT WAS AT THE TIME IT WAS REDUCED. WHATEVER THAT NUMBER WAS. 
          THAT WAY YOU DON'T HAVE A FORMULA CONFUSING TO THE VOTERS OUT THERE. 
          COST-OF-LIVING AND ALL THAT. YOU JUST SAY WOULD LIKE TO RETURN SALARY TO WHAT IT WAS AT THE TIME IT WAS REDUCED. 
          >> DISCUSSION. 
          >> I THINK IF WE, I GREATLY NEED TO BE AT SOME PERCENTAGE, SOMEHOW TIED TO THE FORMULA. 
          IF WE JUST HAVE A FIXED NUMBER WERE IN THE SAME POSITION FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, 10 YEARS FROM NOW. IF WE DON'T REMOVE THIS PROVISION IT HAS COME TO THE VOTERS EVERY TIME THERE IS A CHANGE. WE'RE JUST GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE IN THE SAME POSITION. I WOULD IT BE FOR PHASING INTO UP TO THE FORMULA, ABSOLUTELY. 
          BUT IF WE FEEL STRONGLY THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO PASS I WOULD AT THE MINIMUM WHEN A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE AND GET IT SO DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ON THE BALLOT EVERY TIME THERE IS A SALARY ADJUSTMENT. NOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENS LIKE WHO MAKE THAT DECISION IS AT THIS BOARD? IF IT'S NOT THE VOTERS, DO WE KNOW THAT? 
          >> MR. CHAIR, I WILL AMEND MY MOTION THIS WAY. I WILL MAKE A MOTION I WITHDRAW THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WILL YOU WITHDRAW THE SECOND? THAT WE INCREASE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SALARY OF 52 SEVEN WHICH IS 66 PERCENT OF THE EDR NUMBER. 
          AND THAT WE STATE THAT WE ARE CHANGING THE MECHANISM OF CALCULATING SALARY TO THE STATUTORY EDR AND THAT WILL MAINTAIN 65 PERCENT OF THE EDR FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 
          WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO INCREASE THE SALARY, WE ELIMINATE THE PART OF THE CURRENT CHARTER THAT SAYS IT HAS TO BE HANDLED BY A VOTE AND IT'S TIED TO THE STATE EDR. I AM SAYING THAT FOR CLARIFICATION. 
          IS THAT CLEAR? 
          >> SO YOUR MOTION, FIRST OF ALL YOU ARE WITHDRAWING TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION AND THE SECOND WAS WITHDRAWN. 
          >> IT IS TO INCREASE THE SALARY TO 66 PERCENT OF THE STATE EDR THAT WE ARE GOING TO REMOVE THE SECTION OF THE CHARTER THAT SAYS THAT ANY INCREASES IN THE SALARY IS UP TO THE VOTE OF THE ELECTORATE AND REPLACE IT WITH TIED TO THE STATES STATUTORY EDR ON A YEAR-OVER-YEAR BASIS. 
          >> WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY SAID WAS INCREASE THE SALARY TO 52 SEVEN AND CHANGE THE MECHANISM TO 66 PERCENT. 
          >> 52 SEVEN IS ROUGHLY 66 PERCENT. 
          >> FOR THE MOTION LET'S GET IT CLEAR THAT WHATEVER YOU ARE STATING. 
          SO WHAT YOU'RE CLARIFYING IS THAT YOU WANT TO INCREASE SALARIES TO 66 PERCENT EDR AND YOU WANT TO TIE ANY FURTHER INCREASES TO STATE EDR. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? 
          >> YES, HOW WE WERE THAT GLENN WILL COME UP WITH SOMETHING BECAUSE OF YOU STATE EDR NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THAT IS. 
          >> EXACTLY, IF WE NEED TO TAKE IT TO 52 SEVEN WE TELL THEM WHY THAT IS. 
          >> LET'S SAY WE WANT TO GO TO 66 PERCENT OF THE EDR THAT WILL BE 52 S. 52,700. 
          I AM FINE WITH THAT. GLENN HAS TO TELL US HOW TO GET ON THE BALLOT. 
          [01:45:12]
I DO NOT WANT TO ACT LIKE WE ARE HIDING NUMBERS FROM ANYBODY I HAVE NO INTENTION TO DO THAT. 
          >> SO THE MOTION IS TO INCREASE THE SALARIES TO 66 PERCENT OF THE STATE EDR AND HAVE IT TIED TO THE STATE EDR FOR FUTURE INCREASES. AM I GETTING THAT CORRECT? 
          >> IF WE ARE GOING TO BE CLEAR MY MOTION IS WILL INCREASE COUNTY COMMISSION IT SALARIES TO 66 PERCENT OF THE EDR WHICH IS AND SOMEONE HAS TO CALCULATE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER. 
          >> I HAVE 52,003 03. 
          >> 66 PERCENT OF THE EDR AND THE FUTURE INCREASES IN SALARY WILL BE TIED TO THE EDR. 
          AT THAT SAME RATE. EVERY YEAR THE LEGISLATURE PUTS OUT THIS DOCUMENT THAT WE LOOK AT AND THIS NUMBER THAT IS LISTED AS A COUNTY COMMISSIONER SALARIES CHANGES EVERY YEAR BASED ON POPULATION IN THE COUNTY IN A MULTITUDE OF OTHER FACTORS. 
          >> I WILL RESTATE THIS. YOU TELL ME IF I HAVE IT CORRECT. 
          THE MOTION IS TO INCREASE THE SALARY TO 66 PERCENT OF THE STATE EDR AND ALL FUTURE INCREASES WILL BE TIED TO THE STATE EDR AT THE SAME RATE. 
          >> YES, ONLY CHANGE I WOULD LIKE IS IT WILL BE INCREASED TO 66 PERCENT OF THE EDR WHICH IS, AND STATE THE NUMBER. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT TONIGHT. 
          FOR THE BALLOT INITIATIVE. 
          >> IT CAME UP WITH 52,303 BUT WE'LL VERIFY THAT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? > I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. 
          >> ALL RIGHT, NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. MR. JET. 
          >> SO EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE 41 PERCENT INCREASE. 
          >> DOES NOT BEEN FOR 14 YEARS. 
          >> REGARDLESS, BUT THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. 
          >> IF I CAN GO BACK TO MIDDLE SCHOOL MATH FOR A SECOND. THAT IS $14,803 ROUGHLY PER YEAR PER PERSON, PER COMMISSIONER. THAT'S 135,200 PER YEAR FOR ALL OF THEM. AND THEN IF THEY SERVE EIGHT YEARS TERMS THAT'S OVER $1 MILLION FOR THE EIGHT YEARS. OKAY, I AM SORRY, YOU ARE RIGHT. 
          I HAD A DIFFERENT, THANK YOU. 
          >> HOW MANY YEARS WILL THEY SERVE? 
          >> SO, 74. SO THEN OVER AN EIGHT YEAR TERM FOR THEM THAT'S $592,000. 
          AGAIN, POLICE, FIRE, WE WILL HAVE MORE PEOPLE MOVING WE WILL NEED MORE POLICE OFFICERS, MORE FIRE, PUBLIC WORKS, ROAD MAINTENANCE COMING DOWN THERE DUMPING SOME CLAY AND UPGRADING SOME OF THE ROADS. I WOULD VOTE AGAINST THAT. 
          >> THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THIS COMMISSION IS TAKING UP.IF YOU FEEL THAT FIRE AND RESCUE AND ROAD MAINTENANCE AND ALL THE 70S BE INCREASE COUNT CONTACT YOUR COUNTY COMMISSION AND SAID VOTE FOR TAX INCREASE. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT IF YOU WANT TO GET SOMETHING PASSED VOTERS LOOK AT IT THAT WAY. 
          >> ONE MORE IF I MAY. I WAS CONTACTED BY THE SAME PERSON THAT CONTACTED MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHEN THE PERSON CALLED ME SHE SAID HAVE I TALKED TO YOU AND SHE SAID THEN WE GOING TO TALK ANYMORE. WHEN I ASKED HER WHY SHE DIDN'T WANT RAISE SHE SAID THEY MADE MORE THAN I GET. THAT WAS THE ANSWER. THAT WASWHAT SEVERAL PEOPLE SAID. PEOPLE DON'T DESERVE ANY MORE MONEY THAN WHAT I'M GETTING OR WHAT MY HUSBAND GETS . THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE DOING. IF THE ISSUE IS DO WE WANT TO PUT SOMETHING OUT THERE THAT'S GOING TO PASS THEN PUT ZERO. PEOPLE WILL VOTE FOR THAT EVERY 
          [01:50:03]
DAY. BUT I THINK WE HAVE GOT TO SAVE ARE GOING TO INCREASE THEIR SALARY AND WE THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD ON THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT IS THE RIGHT SALARY , A VOTE ON IT. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE KURT WITH THE GROUP BUT IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF 52 SEVEN THAT DON'T VOTE FOR THE MOTION. 
          LET'S SEE WHERE IT GOES. WE ARE GOING AROUND AND AROUN. 
          >> I DON'T WANT TO MUDDY THE WATER AT ALL BUT THE COUNTY EMPLOYEES IS NOT UNDER LABOR CONTRACT. HOW DO THEY FIGURE THEIR PAY INCREASES, COST OF LIVING? LIKE THE PERCENT LIKE IF YOU WERE TO TIE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR THE PUBLIC, IF YOU SAID THE COUNTY EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN FIRE AND WHOEVER, IS NOT UNDER LABOR CONTRACT IF THEY GET A COST OF LIVING RAISE WHICH IS THREE PERCENT A YEAR, THE COUNTY COMMISSION WILL BE PAID LIKE THEY WILL GET A RAISE WHEN THE COUNTY EMPLOYS GET A RAISE. 
          I THINK THAT WILL GO BETTER WITH THE PUBLIC OUT THERE. THEN IT SETTING A NUMBER OR A FORMULA JUST FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSION. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DO THAT. 
          >> ESTHER TAYLOR I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU SINCE YOU WERE ON THE LAST BOARD. 
          YOU SAID THE BOARD SAID THAT NUMBER AT 70 PERCENT, RIGHT? WHY DID THEY PICK THAT NUMBER? I AM JUST CURIOUS. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. 
          >> YES, 70 PERCENT. 
          >> WHERE DOES THAT NUMBER COME FROM, WHAT WAS A DISCUSSION BEHIND THAT, DO YOU REMEMBER? 
          >> AT THE TIME THE THOUGHT PROCESS WAS TO MEET THE STATE STATUTE AND WITH THE STATE FORMULA WAS. THEY HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT AT THE TIME. 
          SO I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHY I CAME UP WITH 70 PERCENT BUT THEY WERE TRYING TO MEET THE STATE FORMULA FOR POPULATION OF CLAY COUNTY. 
          >> THAT IS ANOTHER QUESTION. GOING BACK TO THAT POINT OF TIME WHAT WAS THE GENESIS FOR THE REASON OF THE INCREASE? 
          >> SAME AS OF TONIGHT. THEY FELT LIKE THE COUNTY COMMISSION HAD BEEN PUNISHED IN THE PAST FOR PAST SINS OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT WAS ON THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME. 
          THAT'S HOW WE GOT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS THAT'S HOW WE GOT A REDUCTION IN PAY AND IT WAS A LOT OF ANIMOSITY BY LOTTA VOTERS TOWARDS THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT THAT TIME. 
          SO THEY WERE BEING PUNITIVE TO FUTURE COMMISSIONS. THEY DIDN'T WANT PAST ERAS OF PAST COMMISSIONS THAT WAS IN THERE. 
          >> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WE ARE THE SAME POINT WE KNOW WHERE WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO. 
          BOTH CRC'S HAVE VOTED TO PUT AN INCREASE ON THE BALLOT. FOUR YEARS AGO THE DECISION WAS TO RECOMMEND A 70 PERCENT INCREASE. OR TAKE IT TO 70 PERCENT, EXCUSE ME. WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IS TO DECIDE FOR OUR GROUP WHAT THAT INCREASE SHOULD BE AND WHAT IS COLORING SOME OF THAT IN SOME MINDS IS WHAT WOULD PASS, WHAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE OR MAYBE IT WON'T. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DECIDE IS WHAT THAT NUMBER IS GOING TO BE. 
          >> SO, THAT IS WHAT I WOULD ASK THE GROUP. LET'S GET OPINIONS OUT THERE. 
          THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE IS FOR 52 SEVEN. 
          ACTUALLY, 52 THREE BECAUSE IT 66 PERCENT. 
          >> YES. 
          >> IF THAT'S NOT THE NUMBER WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON IT AND THEN WE GOING TO DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ANOTHER NUMBER SHOULD BE. 
          >> IF I MAY, I BELIEVE I MAY HAVE A BETTER MORE PALATABLE TO THE VOTERS IF YOU SAY THE CURRENT COUNTY COMMISSION SALARY OF 37 FIVE OR WHATEVER IT IS WE WANT TO BRING, WE LIKE FOR THE VOTERS TO BRING IT BACK TO WHAT IT WAS AT THE TIME IT WAS REDUCED 52,500 OR WHATEVER 
          [01:55:02]
IT WAS. DON'T BOG THEM DOWN INTO THESE PERCENTAGES AND THE EDR. 
          PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND. MOST PRUDENT PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND. 
          THEY USED TO BE PAID 52,000 AND OTHER GET 37,000 THAT WAS 14 YEARS AGO LET'S BRING IT BACK TO 52,000, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? IT'S NOT A LOT OF MONEY. 
          WHAT YOU ALL WANT TO DO? AND DO IT LIKE THAT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE SIMPLE. 
          IF YOU WANT TO GET SOMETHING DONE YOU HAVE TO KEEP IT SIMPLE IN MY OPINION. 
          >> MR. TIMBERLAKE. 
          >> MR. CHAIR, FOR THE RECORD WHAT IS A TWO PERCENT A YEAR INCREASE IN 37 FIVE IN 14 YEARS? I AM NOT SURE I GOT ALL THE RIGHT YEARS, IT'S RIGHT AT 50,000. 
          >> YOU MEAN ROUNDED UP TO PERCENT EACH YEAR? 
          >> TWO PERCENT EACH YEAR BUT AS FOR BACK TO 37 FIVE IT WOULD BE AT 50 SOMETHING THOUSAND RIGHT NOW. AGAIN, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. 
          >> AND ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION I CALCULATED TWO PERCENT OF THE 37 FIVE AND TIMES TO BUY 14 AND IT IS $10,500. 
          >> YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S TWO PERCENT A YEAR. 
          >> IT'S A CUMULATIVE. 
          >> THE GREATEST INVENTION OF ALL TIME IS COMPOUND INTEREST, ACCORDING TO MATHEMATICIAN. 
          >> NOTE SIR, I WAS NOT. 
          >> MR. CHAIR, IN THE INTEREST OF MOVING THINGS FORWARD. 
          >> WOULD YOU KNOW THAT IN THE RECORD, PLEASE. 
          >> I WOULD LIKE TO CALL A MOTION. 
          >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND I WILL READ IT BACK AGAIN. 
          UNLESS YOU WANT TO AMEND THIS. MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO INCREASE THE SALARY OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO 66 PERCENT OF THE STATE EDR AND ALL FUTURE INCREASES WOULD BE TIED TO THE STATE EDR AT THE SAME RATE. AND I SHOULD ADD, LET ME GO BACK BEHIND THAT 66 PERCENT EDR IS THE NUMBER $52,303. THAT'S WAS ON THE FLOOR AND SUFFER VOTES. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AS STATED SAY AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> WE HAVE THREE. WE HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? 
          >> AYE NAY. 
          >> WE HAVE FOUR OPPOSED. 
          >> I ABSTAINED. 
          >> WE HAD FOUR THAT SUPPORTED IT. 10 THAT VOTED AGAINST IT AND ONE ABSTAINED. BUT ON THE LAST ONE I'M LOOKING AT MY NUMBERS THE LAST ONE WE HAD NINE UP AND FIVE DOWN. 
          >> NINE AND SIX. 
          >> I COUNTED WRONG. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.THIS ONE WAS 14. 
          VERY GOOD. THE MOTION DID NOT CARRY. ALL RIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION? MR. GILLIS. SINCE WE ARE PUTTING MOTIONS UP TO DATE IT IS YOUR TURN. 
          >> FOR THE RECORD I DID NOT VOTE FOR THE LAST BALLOT INITIATIVE BECAUSE IT TOOK THE POWER AWAY FROM THE VOTERS. I DON'T LIKE REMOVING POWER FROM THE VOTERS. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN ELECT MAKE A MOTION THAT OUR FIRST PROCEDURE TO INCREASE THE PAY OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION IS SIMPLY TO ESTABLISH A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION IS TO INCREASE BY CPI. 
          COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE.ALL RIGHT SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO INCREASE THE 
          [02:00:24]
SALARIES THE COST-OF-LIVING INDEX. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? > SECOND. 
          >> ALL RIGHT, THE MOTION IS TO INCREASE THE COST OF THE SELLERS BY THE COST-OF-LIVING, LABOR DEPARTMENT COST-OF-LIVING INDEX. THAT WAS PUT FORTH BY RANDY AND SECONDED BY MRS. TERRY. OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. 
          >> WHAT WILL THAT BE TIED TO, THE DECISION BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION OR THE CPI? AND SO WE WILL PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT. 
          >> THAT WOULD BE THE FEDERAL CPI. 
          >> GENERALLY THAT'S COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS AND PEOPLE ON FIXED INCOME AS WELL SO IT TIES INTO THAT. 
          >> A POINT OF CLARIFICATION YOU ARE SPECIFICALLY NOT WANTING TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE VOTERS HAVE TO APPROVE ANY SORT OF OTHER CHANGE? 
          >> MR. CHAIR THE MOTION WE ARE TIED TO THE CPI WHICH MEANS IT AUTOMATICALLY INCREASES. 
          >> THAT TAKES IT AWAY FROM THE VOTERS. 
          >> WHERE THE CONFUSION WAS YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT YOU DO NOT WANT TO REMOVE THE ELECTORATE. 
          >> COST-OF-LIVING IS NOT THAT ISSUE IT'S PAY INCREASES THAT ARE OUTSIDE THAT REALM THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE. 
          >> THE MOTION REALLY IS TO INCREASE THE FEDERAL COST-OF-LIVING INDEX. 
          >> I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S A STATE ISSUE THAT PREVENTS US FROM USING CPI FOR THE CALCULATION. 
          >> THAT WILL BE SOMETHING FOR MR. TAYLOR TO RESEARCH. SO THE MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR AND IT HAS BEEN SECONDED AND OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. 
          >> I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THE VOTER WILL UNDERSTAND. ESPECIALLY, WHEN YOU SAY SOCIAL SECURITY IT INCREASES LIKE THAT. I THINK HE VOTERS WILL UNDERSTAND THAT BETTER THAN THE OTHER FORMULAS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. 
          >> MR. TERRY. 
          >> I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THEY WILL UNDERSTAND USE THE WORD PUNISHMENT. 
          I THINK THIS WHOLE THING STARTED WITH A PUNITIVE NATURE RATHER THAN AN APPROPRIATE NATURE. FOR WHATEVER REASONS LIKE I SAID WE CANNOT GO BACKWARDS BUT I THINK SOMETHING TO NEVER SEE A PAY INCREASE FOR THE NEXT 40 YEARS IF YOU LOOK AT IT DOWN THE ROAD IS FOOLISH. A COST-OF-LIVING, I AM NOT SURE CPI, IS THAT HOW THE COUNTY EMPLOYEES GET THEIR COST INCREASE? 
          >> NO. 
          >> HOW DID THEY GET THEIR COST INCREASE OR DO THEY GET WHEN? THE COUNTY COMMISSION, OKAY. 
          >> MR. PRESIDENT, WHEN YOU SAY COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE WHAT ARE THE FIGURES? IF YOU CAN USE THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE. 
          >> CPI IS AN INDEX. 
          >> OKAY, IT IS AN INDEX BUT WHERE IS THE BASIS? 
          >> THAT'S A CUMULATIVE. 
          >> AND TRY TO SUPPLY SEPARATE THE ISSUE OF A PAY INCREASE FROM COST-OF-LIVING AND SEE IF WE CAN MAKE SOME PROGRESS ON THAT PART OF THE EQUATION. 
          [02:05:01]
          >> THE FIRST INCREASE WOULD BE? 
          >> THREE PERCENT, TWO PERCENT, 10 PERCENT NEVER NEXT YEAR'S CPI IS. 
          THEY WOULD NOT GET A RAISE THIS YEAR. 
          >> IT WOULD START JANUARY 1, 2023. 
          >> I AM ALL ABOUT THE COST-OF-LIVING. MY WHOLE THING IS THERE WAS NO PROVISION. MY ONLY CONCERN BECAUSE I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF THAT WENT BUT THE ONLY THING I THINK AGAIN MAYBE WERE NOT HERE FOR THIS AND SO IS NOT BUT I AM THINKING AS FAR AS BUDGETING IF THEY DID GET 10 PERCENT IN ONE YEAR, I KNOW THAT'S PROBABLY NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN I DON'T KNOW IF IT BE BETTER TO TIE IT TO WHATTHE COUNTY WORKERS GET ? 
          >> YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THE COMMISSION APPROVES THAT. 
          >> OKAY THANK YOU. I BEHIND YOU RIGHT THERE. 
          >> I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD FOOL OURSELVES INTO THINKING THAT 10 PERCENT IS EVEN ON THE TABLE. 
          THIS YEAR WAS SOMETHING LIKE 5.2 OR 5.3 AND THAT WAS DRAMATICALLY HIGH. 
          USUALLY IT'S SOMETHINGLIKE 1.2 . IT'S A VERYLOW . 
          >> THE CONSUMER PRICES FROM DECEMBER ROSE 7 PERCENT.HE LARGEST PERCENTAGE INCREASE I KNOW CPI IS TIED TO LABOR AS WELL AS CONSUMER PRICING BUT THAT'S JUST, THAT'S A FLUCTUATING NUMBER. THIS YEAR WE WILL SEE IT EVEN HIGHER. 
          I WOULD RATHER TIE IT TO A FLAT RATE INCREASE LIKE A THREE PERCENT. 
          I HAVE FRIENDS THAT WORK FOR THE STATE IN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS THEY DID NOT GET A RAISE. 
          , STUFF HAPPENS. FOR TO PLAY THAT GAME CPI IS A MOVING TARGET. 
          IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE CHINA TO INCREASE IS MY POINT. 
          I WOULD NOT PICK A NUMBER. >> I WOULD ARGUE IF WE PICK A NUMBER WE STILL KEEP PUTTING OURSELVES IN THIS ANTIQUATED SITUATION THAT WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW. 
          >> I WILL VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION I THINK IT'S AN INSULT. WE HAVE A GROUP OF PEOPLE ON THE COMMISSION THAT THEIR COMPENSATION WAS REDUCED FROM 52,002 37,014 YEARS AGO. 
          THERE HAS BEEN SO WE ARE SAYING THAT'S A. WE ARE NOT LOOKING FORWARD WE ARE ALREADY AT HALF OR LESS IN HALF OF WHAT OTHER STATES OUR SIZE AND OTHER COUNTIES OUR SIZE PAY THEIR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. WE ARE NEVER GOING TO CATCH UP. 
          >> I RESPECT YOUR OPINION I FEEL THE SAME WAY AT SUMMIT MEASURES HERE. 
          HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME BETTER NOW? THAT MAKES ME WANT TO SING, BY THE WAY. MITCH, I AGREE WITH YOU BUT I WOULD RATHER MORE VIGOROUSLY DEBATE THE AMOUNT OF RAISE WE GET AND SEPARATE THE COST-OF-LIVING. 
          I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY LET'S DON'T GIVE THEM A RAISE I'M TRYING TO SAY LET'S GIVE THEM A COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT. I'M TRYING TO MAKE THAT ONE AS EASY AS POSSIBLE. 
          IF YOU LIKE TO MAKE IT 10 PERCENT, PLEASE DO BUT I LIKE TO CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS ISSUE. LET'S GO BACK TO THE DISCUSSION ON RAISES OR SOME ALTERNATIVE COST-OF-LIVING. 
          >> I AM NOT SURE THAT WAS CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD. 
          >> THAT I DIDN'T SINK? 
          >> THANK GOD BUT WHAT I'M SAYING THAT WAS NOT CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD BECAUSE WE INTERPRETED IS YOUR MOTION WAS IN LIEU OF AN INCREASE THAT WE BEEN DISCUSSING BEFORE. 
          >> IS ONLY TO SATISFY THE COST-OF-LIVING COMPONENT. YOU CAN LEAVE THE SECONDARY PART FOR FURTHER DEBATE. WE CAN THEN MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THAT PART BUT IF WE CAN'T DECIDE ON ANYTHING TONIGHT THAT'S FINE, TOO. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH MR. MITCH THIS SEEMS TO BE NOT ENOUGH TO ADDRESS WHAT WE EXPECT OUT OF OUR COUNTY COMMISSION. 
          HAVING A WIN MAKING A STEP FORWARD IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION IN PLACE FOR COMMISSIONERS. 
          [02:10:05]
SO, SORRY. 
          >> IS EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THE INTENT? 
          >> I WOULD ASK THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO SATISFY THE SECOND PRONG OF THE RULES? WASN'T THERE THREE STEPS? SO WE ARE ON THE SECOND STEP? 
          >> CORRECT. THAT INCREASE COULD BE A FIXED NUMBER, IT COULD ALSO HAVE COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE BUT WAS ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF A MOTION IS JUST A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE TO THE SALARY EDIT IS TODAY. 
          >> IT WOULD NOT GO TO THE VOTERS. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THAT WOULD ILLUMINATE PART OF THAT DISCUSSION NO ONE SAID YOU CAN HAVE TWO MOTIONS WHEN ADDRESSING THE GOAL AND WHEN ADDRESSING THE PAY INCREASE. 
          >> I THINK THE ISSUE THAT MR. JETT IS BRINGING UP IS THE CURRENT CHARTER SAYS ANY INCREASE HAS TO GO TO THE VOTERS. SO IF YOU'RE NOW GOING TO INTRODUCE A COLA GET TO GO IN THERE AND SAY WE ARE MOVING FIRST OF THE VOTERS HAVE DEGREE TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT ANY INCREASE GO TO THE VOTERS. THAT BY DEFINITION HAS TO HAPPEN. AND MR. CHAIR. 
          >> I RESCIND MY SUGGESTION. >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE COLA OR WHATEVER IS A PROCESS WE ARE GOING TO ESTABLISH IS WHAT WERE GOOD IT INCREASE THE SALARY TO? ARE WE LOOKING FIRST OF ALL TO GET TO A NUMBER, WHAT DO WE WANT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER TWO? 
          >> WELL, THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO. SO FAR WE HAVE HAD THREE MOTIONS COME UP AND THREE COME DOWN. 
          >> AS A CREATIVE SOLUTION WHY DON'T WE HAVE EVERYBODY ON THE COMMISSION WRITE DOWN A NUMBER ON A PIECE OF PAPER THAT THEY THINK IT OUGHT TO BE GETTING TO AND LET'S FIND OUT WHAT RANGE WE ARE DEALING WITH AND COME UP WITH A NUMBER. FIND A MEDIUM, WHATEVER THE ANSWER IS. 
          >> THAT WOULD GO BACK TO MY EARLIER COMMENTS WITH REGARDS TO AMENDING A CHARTER, THE VERBIAGE WHERE IT SAYS CAN ONLY BE RAISED BY THE ELECTORS DURING A GENERAL ELECTION. 
          IN PARENTHESES EXCEPT FOR ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING BASED ON THE CPI. 
          HAVE A NICE DAY, PERIOD, END OF SENTENCE.I'M NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE CHARTER JUST THAT ONE STATEMENT I WANTED TO INCLUDE THE COST-OF-LIVING BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T HAD ONE IN 14 YEARS. THEY HAD NOTHING IN 14 YEARS. THE FEEL IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT IT SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCLUDED IN THE CHARTER. IT WOULD JUST BE A SIMPLE WORD CHANGE INSERT INTO THE EXISTING SENTENCE WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE IT JUST TRIPLE SPACE IT OUT THERE, HAVE A NICE DAY. THAT IS WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THE WHOLE THING. 
          >> I THINK THE THING YOU KEEP SAYING THAT THEY'RE NOT HAD AN INCREASE IN 14 YEARS. 
          WE'RE STILL NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE. IT'S LIKE THESE PEOPLE APPLIED FOR A JOB AT 37,500 I GET THE PEOPLE THAT USE OF THE JOB IT MADE MORE MONEY. 
          THEY DON'T NOW. SO THAT IS THE ONLY THING I WANT TO SAY. 
          IT'S NOT THE SAME BECAUSE YOU KEEP SAYING WHAT THEY USED TO MAKE THIS. 
          WELL, THE PEOPLE WORKING HERE NOW IT NEVER MADE THAT. THEY APPLIED FOR THE JOB AT THAT SALARY. BUT THE ONLY THING I WANT TO SAY, I AM FOR THE COST-OF-LIVING AND FOR THE VOTER GETTING TO DECIDE. I THINK WE TALK ABOUT NEVER SEE HER AND WE EITHER NEED TO FIGURE OUT I MEAN I MIGHT BE WRONG BUT IT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE MIGHT BE FOR THE COST-OF-LIVING BUT AT SOME OTHER BIG PAY INCREASE IN ADDITION TO THAT. I DON'T KNOW SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTION FOR DIFFERENT COST INCREASE AND WE VOTE IT UP OR DOWN OR WHATEVER AND IF WE VOTED DOWN BUT I THINK LISTENING TO EVERYBODY IT SOUNDS LIKE MORE PEOPLE ARE FOR COST-OF-LIVING. 
          >> EVERYONE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT MOVING IT BACK TO WHAT IT WAS AND IT SEEMS LIKE PEOPLE THINK THIS COMMISSION HAS BEEN DONE WRONG AND I'M WITH MS. LUDWICK WHEN THESE PEOPLE TOOK THIS PRICE FOR THIS JOB. THEY KNEW WHAT WAS GOING TO PAY. 
          [02:15:06]
I KNEW WHAT IT WAS PAIN THE DAY I WAS THERE. DO THEY OBSERVE AN INCREASE YES,, 40,000 INCREASE THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY, I AM NOT GOING TO JUSTIFY THAT TO OUR VOTERS. 
          THEY WANT SOMEONE'S HEAD ON A STICK WHEN THIS IS OVER WITH. 
          >> WE AS A BODY NEED TO SEE IF THIS ISPHILOSOPHICAL, REALISTIC , A LOT OF THINGS. 
          MS. LUDWICK TO MEETINGS DOWN THE ROAD WE ARE AND HE SPOKE ABOUT THE COST-OF-LIVING. 
          I AM WITH MR. HODGES, THEY DESERVE IT INCREASE. HOWEVER, IF WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A REALISTIC EXPECTATION AND TAKE IT TO THE VOTERS MR. TAYLOR IS RIGHT. 
          THEY ARE NOT, AND MR. JETT THREE YEARS AND THREE MONTHS THEY SAID NUMBER SO PERSONALLY, I THINK THE WAY TO DO THE MOST REALISTIC THING THAT WILL MOVE SOMETHING FORWARD IS A COST-OF-LIVING. PHILOSOPHICALLY I CAN AGREE WITH A LOT OF YOU FOR A LOT OF THINGS BUT I THINK WE NEED TO END THE DISCUSSION, TALK ABOUT COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE AND PUT IT TO BED. 
          >> OKAY, HERE WE GO. MOTION NUMBER TWO FOR YOU. 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. PLEASE KEEP ME HONEST IF I GET THE WORDS WRONG. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PUT A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE IN PLACE FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSION TIED TO THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND THEN MODIFY THE WORDING IN THE COUNTY CHARTER TO KEEP COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES IN PERPETUITY WITHOUT FURTHER APPROVAL FROM THE VOTERS. 
          >> I SECOND, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          >> BEAR WITH ME FOR A SECOND I AM WRITING THIS OUT TO MAKE SURE I GOT IT THE WAY YOU WANT IT AND IT'S CLEAR. THE MOTION IS TO INCREASE THE COMMISSIONERS PAY BY COST-OF-LIVING TIED TO THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND THAT WE ARE GOING TO MODIFY THE CHARTER TO KEEP THE FUTURE INCREASES IN PERPETUITY. IS THAT ACCURATE? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MR. JETT SECONDED. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A SECOND ON IT AND NOW IT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. 
          >> WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PERPETUITY DO WE MEAN EVERY COMMISSIONER THAT STARTS EIGHT YEARS FROM NOW THEY START AT 37 FIVE AND THEN THEY GET THERE COST-OF-LIVING BASED ON THAT OR WHATEVER ENDED WITH THE PREVIOUS WE ARE JUST ROLLING IT UP? I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MAKE THAT IS CLEAR AND THE VERBIAGE. 
          >> THE IRONY IS THAT ONE OF THESE THINGS HAPPEN WITH THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE THEY THINK BEFORE THIS MOTION TO DECREASE. SO THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN THE CITIZENS INITIATIVE 10,000 SIGNATURES? OKAY, BUT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THOUGH.MORE THAN I HAD TO GET FOR SIGNATURES. I HAVE A MINUTE LISTENING TO US. 
          I AM A VOTER AND I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS BEING ILL MINDED ABOUT WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE MAKE THE LANGUAGE SO THE VOTER CAN UNDERSTAND IT. E HAD TO BE CAREFUL HOW WE CONSTRUCT IT SO THE VOTER CAN UNDERSTAND IT. I AM ALMOST INSULTED BUT I GIVE EACH ONE OF US CREDIT. I THINK MOST OF US MANAGE OUR HOMES AND BUSINESSES AND GO TO 
          [02:20:01]
THE BALLOT TO VOTE PRETTY WELL INFORMED. WE CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT SUMMIT DON'T SOME DON'T TRADE I WILL SPEAK PHILOSOPHICALLY, THIS IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. 
          WE ARE GUARANTEEING THAT OUR GOVERNMENT WILL GROW BY CPI. I BELIEVE SERVING MY GOVERNMENT AND MY PEOPLE'S SERVICE.TO YOUR POINT OUT FIND OUT THE 37 FIVE AND THOSE WHO WANT TO SERVE IN THE FUTURE CAPACITY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WEIGH THAT OUT. 
          I DON'T WANT TO PUT A GUARANTEED SYSTEM THAT MY GOVERNMENT GROWS BY 3 TO 7 PERCENT EVERY YEAR. I WOULD LIKE TO STOP IT FROM GROWING. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT SMALLER. MAYBE THAT HORSE HAS LEFT THE BARN, TOO. I DON'T SUPPORT THIS. 
          >> I AM CERTAINLY IN FAVOR OF A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE. I DO THINK WE ARE KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD. WE ARE A GROWING COUNTY THIS IS INADEQUATE AND IT WILL REMAIN INADEQUATE. I HAVE FOLLOWED CPI BECAUSE I FOLLOW SOCIAL SECURITY INCREASES IN MY OWN PERSONAL LIFE NOT FOR ME BUT FOR A LOVED ONE. 
          IT IS NOT FIVE OR SEVEN PERCENT IT'S 1.2 R1.3 IT'S A VERY, VERY MINIMAL AMOUNT. 
          BE REALISTIC ABOUT WHAT WE THINK WERE DOING. I AM NOT SAYING IT COULDN'T BE HIGHER BUT PROBABLY IS NOT GOING TO BE. ANYWAY, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT THING. BUT DO I THINK IT MIGHT PASS? I THINK WE ARE UNDERESTIMATING THE ABILITY THE VOTERS TO ASSESS WHAT WE NEED IN OUR COUNTY IN THE COMING YEARS. 
          BUT COULD THIS CAST PASS? I THINK IT PROBABLY COULD. 
          >> MR. CHAIR, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THIS ITEM. AND I WOULD SUGGEST IF WERE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT THE VOTERS WILL VOTE FOR WHY DON'T WE JUST VOTE THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO OFFER ANY CHARTER REVIEWS AND THEN IS REALLY SIMPLE. WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO VOTE, WE DON'T HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE VOTERS WANT AND LET'S JUST KICK IT DOWN THE ROAD ANOTHER FOUR YEARS AND THAT THE NEXT CHARTER REVIEW DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. 
          I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DYNAMIC. I HAVE NEVER BEEN AFRAID WHEN I WAS AN ELECTED PERSON TO STAND UP AND SAY I THINK THIS WHAT IS PRIGHT. 
          I DIDN'T WANT ALL THE VOTES. I CAN TELL YOU THAT FOR CERTAIN. 
          BUT I'VE NEVER BEEN AFRAID AND I'VE HAD PEOPLE COME TO ME FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AFTER I LEFT AND SAYING IT WAS REFRESHING TO HAVE SOMEONE TELL US THE TRUTH. 
          JUST TELL US WHAT THEY WANTED. I THINK THE VOTERS WILL GO FOR THAT. 
          BUT I COME BACK TO I CAME A REQUEST TO MAKE AN EMOTIONAL WHILE AGO THAT WE JUST SUSPEND THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AND SAY WE FOUND NOTHING TO CHANGE THIS TIME AND THAT'S CALL IT QUITS AND GO HOME. IF WE ARE GOING TO SIT HERE AND WE HAVE A DEBATE STUFF LET'S BE REALISTIC ABOUT WHAT WE ARE DOING. WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD 19 OTHER CHARTER COUNTIES THINK THEIR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DESERVE TWICE WHAT OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DESERVE? IT'S MORE THAN TWICE BECAUSE SEVERAL OF THE COUNTIES MANY OF THE COUNTIES IN THE CHARTER COUNTIES ARE MUCH LARGER THAN CLAY COUNTY. 
          IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF RESIDENTS. THAT'S A QUESTION WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES. WHY IS IT THAT SOMEBODY IN LEON COUNTY OR WHY IS IT IN THE TWO OR THREE OTHER COUNTIES THAT ARE RIGHT IN THE SAME BRACKET THAT WE ARE IN A POPULATION ARE PAYING THEIR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TWICE WHAT WE ARE PAYING HOURS? THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. I HAVE NEVER WANTED TO BE THE CHEAPEST GUY ON THE BLOCK AND I WILL GUARANTEE YOU I DON'T WANT TO GET IN A CAR BUILT BY THE CHEAPEST BUILDER. 
          I DON'T WANT TO GET IN A SPACESHIP BUILT BY THE CHEAPEST BIDDER. 
          I WANT TO KNOW IT'S A QUALITY PRODUCT. I DON'T BUY THINGS IN MY HOME TO BUY THE CHEAPEST THING I COULD GET. THEN I BUY SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO LAST. I THINK WE GET WHAT WE PAY FOR AND WE NEED TO START ACTING LIKE ONE OF THE LARGER COUNTIES IN THE STATE INSTEAD OF A SMALL RURAL COUNTY THAT DOESN'T WANT TO PAY ANYBODY ANYTHING. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          [02:25:02]
          >> I UNDERSTAND WITH REALISTIC ON HOW THINGS WORK BUT I THINK REALISTIC COMES FROM DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW. WE HAVE FIVE IT REALLY DISTINCT DISTRICTS IN THIS COUNTY. 
          IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN DOWN TO KEYSTONE HEIGHTS I SUGGEST YOU TAKE YOUR CAR AND FROM MY HOUSE IT IS 45 MINUTES AT MORE THAN A LEGAL SPEED TOGETHER. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT THE LOWEST BIDDER BUT SOMETIMES THE LOWEST BIDDER IS THE BEST JOB. 
          WHAT WE HAVE TO BE REALISTIC ABOUT IS WHAT THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO TOLERATE AND WHAT IS TOLERATED ON A CLAY ROAD IN A KEYSTONE I LIVE THE RESPONSE TIME WHERE I LIVE IS TWO MINUTES FOR POLICE AND FIRE. THERE IS OTHER ISSUES BUT WE ARE FIVE DISTINCT THINGS. 
          WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LARGER VIEW OF IT MY REALISTIC IS DIFFERENT THAN YOUR REALISTIC. 
          I DON'T THINK THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO STOMACH A PAY INCREAS . 
          WE ARE NOT PUNITIVE AND I PERSONALLY THINK THAT COST OF LIVING ALONE IS PROBABLY WHERE WE NEED TO BE IF WERE GOING TO BE REALISTIC ACROSS FIVE DISTRICTS. 
          FLEMING ISLAND MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT RULES AND HAS APPOINTED TIME YOU READ THIS COUNTY? OAK LEAF IS DRIVING IT NOW. ABOUT FOUR YEARS LAKE ASBURY WILL BEDRIVING THIS COUNTY. PEOPLE HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF REALISTIC MINE PERSONALLY AS WE NEED A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE AND FOR THE DISCUSSION BUT WE NEED TO PUT THIS MOTION. 
          >> I LIVE IN DISTRICT 4. WE ARE THE BIGGEST LAND AREA AND LAND OWNERS IN OUR AREA. 
          I SPENT MOST OF THE DAY TODAY WITH MY COUNTY COMMISSIONER. AT HER JOB NEVER NOT WANTING TO HEAR THAT LADY SAY I NEED A RAISE. I TOOK THIS JOB FOR THE MONEY. 
          I NEVER HEARDTHE OUT OF ANY COMMISSIONER . I NEVER HEARD MONEY ABOUT QUALITY. COUNTY COMMISSIONER. IS THERE A PREREQUISITE THAT YOU HAVE A COLLEGE DEGREE, NO THERE'S NOT. YOU NEED A DOCTOR, KNOW YOUR YOU DO NOT. 
          >> YOU NEED TO WANT TO SERVE IN THE HERS INTERNET. YOU TOOK THE JOB BECAUSE YOU CARE ABOUT WHERE YOULIVE , YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR VOTERS AND CONSTITUENTS IN YOUR DISTRICT AND YOUR COUNTY. I SIT APPEAR MEETING AFTER MEETING IN WHICH THESE COMMISSIONERS GO BACK AND FORTH TO TRY TO SAVE MONEY IS COMING BECAUSE WE INHERITED A WHOLE NEW SET OF COSTS. WE HAVE A COUNTY MANAGER THAT WE ARE PAYING MORE THAN WE EVER PAID. DON'T FOOL YOURSELF THINKING THAT MONEY BUYS QUALITY BECAUSE ACTUALLY DOES NOT. AS PART OF THE DIVISIONAL SERVING AND ANYONE THAT TAKES THIS JOB TAKES THIS JOB BECAUSE THEY CARE ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS COUNTY AND THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING IN THIS COUNTY. DO THEY NEED A RACE? SHORT, DO THEY NEED $20,000 YOUR RACE? PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK SO. YOU'LL NEVER GET THAT AT YOUR JOB. I WILL NEVER GET THAT IN MIND AND I OWN FIVE BUSINESSES. 
          THINK ABOUT THAT. YOU HAVE TO WANT TO SERVE IN HIS COMMUNITY TO TAKE THAT JOB AND IF YOU DO YOU'RE NOT TAKEN FOR THE MONEY YOUR TICKET FOR THE POSITION. 
          A LOT OF TIMES ARE DESERVING OF POINT OTHER THINGS. BUT YOU'RE TAKING IT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING IN HIS PANIC IS YOUR PASSION IS IN THE COUNTY NOT THAT YOUR PASSION IS IN YOUR POCKET. IT'S A PART-TIME JOB. 
          >> SORRY, I KNOW IT'S A LOT. SOMEONE MENTIONED EARLIER TONIGHT A COUPLE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WE HAVE COME AND SPEAK THAT ONE OF THEM SAID THEY DIDN'T OPEN THEIR EMAILS. 
          MAYBE I MISSED THAT PART I THOUGHT THEY JUST IN GENERAL THEY KIND OF LEARNED WHAT THINGS YOU HAVE TO BE AT MAYBE. MAYBE I TOOK THAT WRONG BUT I DIDN'T HEAR THEM AND UNDERSTAND THEM TO SAY THAT THEY MISSED OPENING EMAILS BUT I ALSO HEARD THEM WE TALKED ABOUT DO YOU THINK EACH ONE NEEDS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT AND THE ANSWER WAS NO. 
          AND THEN IT WAS LIKE SURE THEY HAVE ANOTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT AND HAVE TO TRADE MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WAS ALSO NO, THEY DO NOT FEEL THAT WAS WANTED AT THIS TIME AND IF THEY FELT LIKE IT WAS WANTED MORE INTO, WHO WOULD THEY GO TO? THE COUNTY MANAGER TO ASK TO HAVE ANOTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IF THEY FELT THEIR WORKLOAD WAS TOO MUCH. 
          I WANT TO POINT THAT ONE MORE THING OUT. 
          >> I WOULD LOVE TO ELABORATE ON THAT. IT WAS THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER 
          [02:30:06]
HE IS ON HIS LAST TERM SO HE'L BE DONE IN A COUPLE OF YEARS. HE SAID IT'S ONLY A PART-TIME JOB, I HAVE LEARNED WHICH EMAILS I HAVE TO OPEN AND WHICH ONES I DON'T. 
          BECAUSE HE SAYS IS A PART-TIME JOB SO GO LOOK FOR THAT IT WILL BE THERE. 
          AND YOU ARE RIGHT THE WHOLE THING ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT WAS ABOUT TERESA TAKING A VACATION AND I KNOW WHEN YOU GET INTO HIGHER LEVEL MANAGEMENT SUCH AS A COUNTY COMMISSIONER YOU'RE BUSY. YOU HAVE A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON YOU HAVE GOT PEOPLE TO TAKE CARE OF THINGS, JUST AS THE COUNTY MANAGER HE HAS FOUR OF THEM AND I'M SURE HE'S OVERPAI . BUT IF TERESA TOOK A VACATION FOR THREE WEEKS AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAD NO ONE TO TURN TO AND THEY HAD TO DO THEIR OWN EMAILS AND OWN DRAFTING IN THEIR OWN THIS AND THAT THEY WOULD BE GOING I NEED HELP. 
          I NEED SOME HELP. IT WOULD BE A FULL-TIME JOB. BUT THIS SCENARIO AND THE ENVIRONMENT IS IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY CAN MAKE IT A PART-TIME OR A FULL-TIME HOW MUCH THEY WANT TO BE INVOLVED. SO THAT IS WHERE THAT WAS COMING FROM AND IF THEY DON'T WANT AN ASSISTANT THAT IS FINE. 
          >> SO THE THING ABOUT THE EMAILS, I PROBABLY GET 100 EMAILS A DAY OR MORE. 
          A LOT I DON'T HAVE TO READ BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT'S IN IT AND I CAN FILE IT KIND OF THING. 
          I AM KIND OF THINKING MAYBE HE DOESN'T SKIP CONSTITUENT EMAILS. 
          MAYBE IT'S LOBBYIST OR SOME OTHER KIND OF EMAIL. I DON'T THINK HE MEANS HE IS SKIPPING CONSTITUENT EMAILS. I UNDERSTAND IF TERESA WAS OUT I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          WE HAVE ISSUES BUT THE POINT WAS THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T FEEL THEY HAD ENOUGH WORK THAT THEY WOULD NEED THAT. I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. 
          >> I WAS CURIOUS WE ARE BACK ON EMAILS. THANK YOU. 
          I WAS TRYING TO GET STRAIGHT. 
          >> WE STILL HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. WE ARE IN DISCUSSION ARE WE AT A POINT WHERE WERE READY TO TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION? PLEASE, OKAY. 
          MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO INCREASE THE COMMISSIONERS PAY TIED TO THE CPI TO MODIFY THE CHARTER TO KEEP THE FUTURE INCREASES IN PERPETUITY THAT IS A STATED MOTION AND THAT'S HOW IT WAS SECONDED. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS STATED SAY AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> WE HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN,EIGHT, NINE , 10. 
          ALL THOSE OPPOSED? 
          >> NAY. 
          >> ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR. WHO ARE WE MISSING? SO WE HAVE 10 THAT APPROVED AND FIVE THAT DISAPPROVE. THAT MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT, THE COMMENT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP DURING DISCUSSION WAS WHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE AN INCREASE NUMBER AND OTHER WAS TO TAKE IT FROM WHERE IT IS EXCLUSIVE OF THE CPI. THAT WAS COMMENT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN PURSUING OR DO WE LEAVE THIS AS IT IS NOW? I AM ASKING BECAUSE IF SOMEONE WAS TO BRING THAT FORWARD THEY WILL HAVE TO BRING A MOTION BECAUSE THE SECOND PART OF THE THREE LEGGED STOOL THAT WE ORIGINALLY DISCUSSING WAS AN INCREASE AT WHATEVER RATE IT WAS GOING TO BE. 
          RIGHT NOW WHAT ONLY PAST IS AN INCREASE BASED ON THE CPI. 
          >> UNLESS I MISUNDERSTOOD THE MOTION BECAUSE HE WENT BACK AND FORTH AND THAT IN DISCUSSION I THINK THE MOTION AS IT WAS IS THAT WE START WITH A 37 FIVE AND INCREASE IT BASED ON THE CPI. AT THIS POINT, WHATEVER THE CPI IS AT THE END OF THIS BUDGET CALENDAR IS WITH THE COMMISSIONER RACE WILL BE INCREASED AT. 
          >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR BECAUSE DURING THE DISCUSSION THERE WAS TALK ABOUT A SECOND DISCUSSION AND BRINGING THAT FORWARD. EXACTLY. 
          [02:35:07]
IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO HAVE A RACE IN ADDITION TO THE MOTION THE PAST THAT SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE A MOTION AND IT IS TO BE SECONDED AND UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          >> I AM BETTING 600 TONIGHT. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PROPOSE A PAY INCREASE ONE TIME FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSION IN THE AMOUNT OF $5000. 
          >> THE MOTION IS A PAY INCREASE 5K COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 
          >> I LIKE MITCH'S PROPOSAL OF THROWING NUMBERS IN A HAT AND DRAW THEM OUT IN THE NEXT MEETING WE AGREE ON WHICHEVER WHEN WE PICK. 
          >> ONE TIME, THAT'S A PAY INCREASE IN YOUR CPI OF COURSE WILL BE TIED TO THAT BASE SALARY WHICH WILL TAKE THE BASE FROM A 37 FIVE TWO 42 FIVE. 
          >> ISN'T IT 37,000, EVERYBODY SAYS 37 FIVE BUT WHEN I READ IT SAYS 37,000. 
          >> THE PIECE OF PAPER I HAVE FROM THE STATE SAYS 37 FIVE. LET'S CLARIFY THAT. 
          >> I WAS SITTING OVER THE STATE IS ONE THAT'S WRONG. THAT'S MY THOUGHTS ON IT. 
          >> WE TAKE IT FROM 37 TO 42,000. I NEED A SECOND ON THAT.OKAY. 
          THAT IS NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. 
          >> I DON'T THINK THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO PASS A RAISE. I THINK THE COST OF LIVING HAS A GOOD CHANCE OF PASSING BUT I DON'T THINK ANYTHING BEYOND THAT THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO VOTE. 
          >> HERE IS MY QUESTION IS IS GOOD BE TIED TOGETHER IN ONE STATEMENT OR TWO? 
          >> TWO BALLOT QUESTIONS. 
          >> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. 
          >> I THINK WE NEED TO STICK WITH THE COST OF LIVING INCREASE ON THEIR PAY AND BE DONE WITH IT. I THINK THAT'S THE MOST WILL GET OUT OF THE VOTERS. 
          CAN ANYTHING BEYOND THAT WHETHER IT'S RIGHT OR WRONG OR WHETHER WE AGREE OR NOT I THINK IS GOING TO COME DOWN TO THE VOTERS AND I DON'T THINK THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO APPROVE A PAY RAISE, I DON'T THINK THEY WILL. WHETHER THEY ARE DESERVING OR NOT. I THINK WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT. 
          >> AND ITS WAY OVER 10 PERCENT. EVERYONE'S SALARY HAS TO ADJUST TO THIS YEAR, ANYWHERE. 
          > I DON'T THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY IT MATTERS WHAT WE THINK THEY DESERVE AND WHAT THEY ARE WORTH I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN THIS WAS ON THE BALLOT WHAT ARE THE VOTERS GOING TO VOTE FOR? THREE AND HALF YEARS THEY VOTED TO NOT GIVE THE COUNTY COMMISSION A RAISE. I THINK TO SAY WERE GOING TO GIVE THEM A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE I THINK WE ARE CUTTING HER THROAT. 
          >> I AM WORRIED. I MORE THAN WILLING TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION. 
          >> YOU WILL WITHDRAW FOR THE 5000 INCREASE? 
          >> YES, SIR. 
          >> YOU HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION. 
          >> I WITHDRAW THE 5000. 
          >> WHAT ABOUT THE SECOND, MR. HODGES YOU ARE GOING TO WITHDRAW? 
          >> A COMMENT MR. PRESIDENT, I PROPOSED 47 550 AN HOUR AND HALF AGO. 
          AND NOW WITH WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IF WE WOULD GIVE THAT COST-OF-LIVING WE ARE PROPOSING A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS DIFFERENCE THEN WHAT I HAD PROPOSED A WHILE AGO. 
          SO MAYBE WE SHOULD STREAMLINE THIS. 
          [02:40:05]
          >> WAIT A MINUTE SAY YOUR NUMBERS AGAIN. 
          >> WE ARE AT 43 775 AND I PROPOSED 47 550. 
          >> WHERE IS THE 43 COMING FROM? 
          >> THE WAY I CALCULATE IT WHEN WE WERE TALKING I THINK RANDY JUST WITHDREW HIS MOTION. 
          SO I HAD DONE THE 37 5+5000. IT'S 42 FIVE. PLUS THE THREE PERCENT INCREASE. 
          >> IF YOU USE SIX PERCENT BECAUSE IT'S AN OUTLIER STARTED WITH THE 37 IT GIVES YOU ABOUT 39 SO THAT IS NOT MUCH. 
          >> CAN WE MAYBE VOTE IF WE ARE GOING TO GIVE THEM OR PUT ON THE BALLOT A RAISE COMPONENT TO THIS AND CAN WE VOTE ON THAT AND THEN WE CAN DECIDE AFTER THAT WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO BE SPINNING OUR WHEELS UP THERE BACK AND FORTH. 
          FIRST HE MADE VOTE ON AS IF ARE GOING TO PROPOSE TO GO ON THE BALLOT. 
          BECAUSE WE DON'T IF WE DECIDE AFTER THAT EVERYTHING ELSE IS POINTLESS. 
          IF WE DECIDE TO THEN WE CAN DECIDE WHAT THAT WILL LOOK LIKE. 
          >> WE APPROVED THAT THE RACE WILL BE TIED TO COST-OF-LIVING. THAT'S A DONE DEAL. 
          THAT WAS PASSED ON $37,000. 
          >> THE COST-OF-LIVING. 
          >> IT IS PASSED NOW. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION TO PUT A ONE-TIME INCREASE IN THEIR SUCH AS MR. GILLIS DID AND THEN WITHDREW YOU CAN DO THAT. 
          OR WE CAN LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS AND THAT'S IT. I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION. SINCE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER MOTIONS TO PUT A ONE-TIME INCREASE IN THEIR WORK OUTSIDE THE COST-OF-LIVING THEN THE MOTION THAT WAS VOTED ON IS ONE THAT CARRIED IS THE ONE THAT WE GO FORWARD FORGETTING THE VERBIAGE CORRECT. 
          AND THEN IF YOU TAKE THE VERBIAGE AND PUT IN A PROPOSED TEXT AND WE CAN PUT OUT TO EVERYBODY TO TAKE A LOOK AT BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING SO IT'S CLEAR IN YOUR MINDS SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTION ON THAT THEN WE CAN DISCUSS IT AT THE NEXT MEETING. 
          , IS THAT CLEAR? NO, WHAT DID I SAY? OKAY. 
          I DIDN'T MEAN TO DO THAT. 
          >> SO, WHAT IS BEYOND THAT? >> AT THIS POINT, NOTHING. 
          ALL THAT HAPPENED AS MR. TAYLOR IS GOING TO TAKE THAT PUT IN PROPOSED TEXT FOR EVERYONE TO TAKE A LOOK AT BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING. 
          >> MR. CHAIR I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA WOULD BE TEXT FOR ILLUMINATION OF TERM LIMITS FOR ELECTED CLAY COUNTY CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS.INCE WE ARE AFRAID OF GOING TO THE VOTERS WITH SOMETHING THEY REJECT I MAKE A MOTION WE DROP THAT ONE. 
          >> WE HAD A MOTION THAT PAST CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG THE LAST VOTE THAT WE TOOK ON THIS WAS WE TOOK A VOTE TO ELIMINATE OR PUT ON THE BALLOT THE LIMITATION OF TERM LIMITS FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, IS THAT CORRECT? 
          >> DEGREES THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IS INTENT OF MY ORIGINAL MOTION WAS THAT THE SALARY INCREASE WAS GOING ON THE BALLOT. BUT BECAUSE. 
          THAT WAS CLEARLY THE INDICATION. I MADE A MOTION THAT WE WENT INCREASE THE SALARY AND THAT THE AMOUNT TO BE DISCUSSED AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING. 
          NO, THE LAST MEETING IT WAS TABLED UNTIL TONIGHT. BUT THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS 
          [02:45:06]
MINUS. IT WAS FOR SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS ON WHAT KIND OF INCREASE. WHAT I THOUGHT YOU SAID WAS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT WAS GOING TO THE BALLOT.I THINK THAT'S A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE. IT WAS COOL HE MIGHT INTENTION NOT TO DO INCREASE. 
          THAT WAS A QUESTION >> FOR MY CLIFF OCCASION IS ANY TYPE OF SITUATION THAT WE PUT SOMETHING OUT THERE THAT IT WOULD NOT GO ON THE BALLOT? ISN'T THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS COMMITTEE? 
          >> THE PROCESS WOULD BE IF SHE IS CORRECT WE ALL APPROVE THE MINUTES WHATEVER'S IN THOSE MINUTES WAS GETTING APPROVED. 
          >> FOR MY PERSPECTIVE THERE IS NO INTENTION THAT WOULD BE LEFT OPEN AS A SECONDARY ISSUE. 
          NO ONE MADE A COMMENT DURING THAT FIRST MEETING THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MOTION TO SAY SPECIFICALLY IS GOING TO THE BALLOT. 
          HAD THAT BEEN DONE I WOULD'VE MADE THAT. SO THOSE THINGS WE ALREADY VOTED I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GO BACK AND RESTART THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. 
          BUT I WILL STAND THAT I THINK SINCE WE ALREADY MADE A PRESIDENT THAT WE CAN PUT THINGS ON THE BALLOT THAT THE VOTERS AREN'T GOING TO VOTE FOR THEY DIDN'T VOTE FOR DOING AWAY WITH TERM LIMITS THE LAST TIME SO I SUGGEST AND I MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE DROP ANY ITEM THAT IS ON OUR AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION WERE VOTERS THAT PREVIOUSLY VOTED AGAINST IT AND NOT WASTE PEOPLE'S TIME TALKING ABOUT IT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE A SECOND TO CARRY IT FORWARD. 
          >> YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION, WE HAVE NOT APPROVED THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING YET BUT IN THE LAST MEETING WE TOOK ABOUT THERE WAS I THINK WILL REAP PUT FORWARD A BALLOT INITIATIVE TO ELIMINATE THE TERM LIMITS FOR THE CONSTITUTION OFFERS OF CLAY COUNTY. 
          >> THAT'S CORRECT BECAUSE WE DO ASK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN EITHER MYSELF OR MITCH TO WORK WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS TO DRAFT THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE. 
          >> WE THEN DECIDED TO KEEP THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS OUT OF IT. 
          BECAUSE IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. SO THAT MOTION IS ALREADY CARRIED. 
          IT DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ARE GOING TO BALLOT. 
          >> DOESN'T NEED TO DO THAT? 
          >> AT THIS POINT THE MOTION IS CARRIED THAT THE BALLOT INITIATIVE RECOMMENDATION AND THE ONLY QUESTION THEN IS THE VERBIAGE ONCE AGAIN FOR MR. TAYLOR TO PUT TOGETHER FOR EVERYONE TO TAKE A LOOK AT. CORRECT? 
          >> THIS IS REGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS?I DID PUT TOGETHER A PROPOSED DRAFT ON THAT. I DON'T THINK EVERYONE HAS A COPY OF THAT. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF NOW IS THE TIME OR JUST SEND IT OUT GIVEN THE HOUR. 
          >> WOULD'VE LECTURE GIVEN THE HOUR IS SEND THAT OUT AND REMIND EVERYONE THAT IF WE GO BACK TO THAT DISCUSSION THAT THE KEY TO THAT DISCUSSION WAS CONSIDERATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS VERSUS THE ELECTED OFFICIALS. 
          AM I CORRECT? THAT WAS A KEY ARGUMENT.THAT WAS THE KEY ARGUMENT. 
          [02:50:03]
          >> THE GENERAL PUBLIC DOESN'T KNOW THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS ARE. 
          >> WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WAS MADE CLEAR WHAT THE VOTERS MET WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS WHO THEY WERE AND AT THE PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS THAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS CONTINUITY WITH THOSE JOBS. GOING FORWARD. 
          AM I MISSTATING THAT? 
          >> THAT WAS MY IMPRESSION THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION IS THAT THEY WERE MANAGERS. 
          THERE MANAGING SPECIFIC TASKS FOR EACH ONE OF THEIR DEPARTMENTS. 
          >> MR. TREVOR LIKE I VOTED THAT WHEN WE TOOK THE VOTE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PAY INCREASE I TOOK PAY INCREASE AS ANY PAY INCREASE. ARE WE GOING FORWARD WITH A PAY INCREASE? AND MY MIND THAT INCLUDED COST-OF-LIVING AND I WAS FOR COST-OF-LIVING SO I VOTED TO GO FORWARD. I DID NOT GO FORWARD BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO BE RAISED TO $80,000. I WANT TO BE CLEAR I DID VOTE FOR A PAY INCREASE BUT IT WAS BECAUSE I THOUGHT COST-OF-LIVING IS STILL AN INCREASE SO THAT IS WHAT. 
          >> WE DID NOT SPECIFY ANYTHING MORE THAN AN INCREASE. 
          >> TO ME I VOTED FOR THAT BECAUSE I AM LIKE OKAY COST-OF-LIVING IS A TYPE OF PAY INCREASE AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT. SO THAT IS WHY VOTED FOR THAT. 
          WE WERE NOT TREATING THEM AS TWO SEPARATE THINGS AT THAT TIME. 
          I VOTED FOR AT LEAST A GO FORWARD TO DECIDE HOW MUCH AND HOW WE COULD DO THAT. 
          I DO WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD THAT THAT IS WHY I VOTED FOR THAT. 
          AND AS FAR AS THE CONSTITUTION I'M FINE IF THE ELECTORATE IF THEY WANT TO VOTE IT DOWN AND KEEP THE TERM LIMITS BUT I WAS MORE FOR PUTTING IT BACK ON THEIR TO CLARIFY WHAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL WORK.SO PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR AND IT WAS TRANSPARENT. IF THEY STUMBLE AGAINST IT THAT'S UP TO THE VOTERS.THAT WAS MY FAULT THAT WAS MY THOUGHT ON BOTH OF THOSE. 
          >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR WILL PASS IT TO MR. TAYLOR TO PUT THE VERBIAGE TOGETHER AND SEND OUT TO EVERYBODY. 
          >> ONE QUICK QUESTION WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO ADDITIONAL MINIMAL QUALIFICATIONS, NOT TONIGHT WERE NOT EVER? 
          >> IT WAS ON THERE BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT UP BUT IT CAN BE TAKEN OFF. 
          >> I MOVE THAT WE DO NOT DO ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> LET'S ADJUST THAT WHEN DOWN, TOO. THE NEXT ONE IS ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS. SO THAT WAS MR. JETT. WHO SECONDED? MR. TIMBERLAKE. I WILL PUT DOWN TO SECOND. ALL RIGHT, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF NOT HAVING ANY DISCUSSION ON ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATE AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OPPOSED? IT CARRIES. DID EVERYONE VOTE? SO WE HAVE 14 FOR IT. ANY NEW BUSINESS? NO, OKAY. 
          [NEW BUSINESS]
          [PUBLIC COMMENT]
I HAVE TO DO THIS. PUBLIC COMMENT IS OPEN. SEEING NONE, PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED. YOU DID NOT MOVE FAST ENOUGH. HOLD ON, PUBLIC COMMENT IS BACK OPEN FOR MR. CHAMBLIS. 
          >> I HEARD SOMETHING I BELIEVE HEARD IT WRONG BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I CLARIFIED THAT IF I DIDN'T HEAR IT WRONG. I HEARD THE STATEMENT THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ON THE 2018 SALARY INCREASE FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WAS LONGER THEN THE 75 WORDS FOR THE BALLOT TEXT. IF I HEARD THAT CORRECTLY AND I DON'T KNOW IF I DID, THAT IS 
          [02:55:03]
INCORRECT. SO THE STATUTE SAYS IT 75 WORDS AND IF YOU LOOK AT RULES ONE S2.009 IT ACTUALLY HAS WHAT YOU UTILIZE FORWARD COUNT. SO USING THE GUIDELINES IN THAT RULE I COUNTED AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. REMEMBER I'M A PRODUCT OF CLAY COUNTY SCHOOLS BUT I HAD 49 WORDS THAT WAS IN THERE. SO AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I ASSURE YOU THAT IF YOU HAD SOMETHING THAT WAS ON THE BALLOT LONGER THAN 75 WORDS I ASSURE YOU THAT THE COURTS WOULD HAVE THROWN IT OUT. SO, AGAIN I HAVE COUNTED, I HAVE READ I HAVE LOOKED AT THE RULE AGAIN AND I COULD BE WRONG BUT I DON'T THINK SO. 
          >> FOR THE LAYMAN ARE YOU SAYING THAT SOME WORDS ARE NOT COUNTED AS WORDS? 
          >> I'M SAYING THAT PUNCTUATION AND HYPHENATED WORDS IF YOU LOOK AT THE RULE IT ACTUALLY DICTATES WHAT EXACTLY THAT IS AND I COUNTED IT A COUPLE OF TIMES AND I KNOW THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS AND OURSELVES WE WENT OVER THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. 
          WE ACTUALLY HAD CITIZENS INITIATIVES THAT WERE THROWN OUT BECAUSE OF WORDING. 
          SO I KNOW THAT AGAIN RULE ONE AND 2.00 NINE IS USED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVES AMENDMENTS AND THAT IS THE GUIDANCE THAT HERE AND CLAY COUNTY THAT WE AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS UTILIZE FORWARD COUNT. 
          >> VERY GOOD, THANK YOU. 
          >> SO I WANT TO SAY THERE'S A TOOL THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR YOU WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT LANGUAGE AND VERBIAGE FOR THE WORD COUNT THAT COULD BE A GUIDANCE FOR THAT. 
          >> THANK YOU. TECHNICALLY YOU SHOULD FILL OUT A CARD SO PLEASE DO. 
          NAME AND ADDRESS. 
          >> 2141 CARTER ROAD. FINALLY GOT TOGETHER ON THE COST BECAUSE IF YOU GET UP WITH THE COMMISSIONER AT 35,000 AND YOU'RE GONNA RAISE IT TO 70 SOMETHING THOUSAND THAT WOULD BE A SLAP IN THE FACE TO EVERY PERSON IS SITTING RIGHT THERE, RIGHT THERE AND RIGHT THERE. 
          BECAUSE THEY ARE PART-TIME. THESE LADIES RIGHT HERE IS WHAT KEEPS SO 75,000 THEY WOULD BE AT 100 BECAUSE THEY HAVE FIVE COMMISSIONERS TO DEAL WITH. THAT MAN BACK THERE PUTS HIS LIFE ON THE LINE FOR $40,000. AND YOU TELL ME THE COMMISSIONER IS DOING 75,000 80,000 LESS RETIREMENT BENEFITS. COST-OF-LIVING RAISE, FIND, THAT'S EXEC WE WHAT IT SHOULD BE BECAUSE YOU DO IT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS. 
          YOU RAN TO HELP THE PEOPLE YOU DIDN'T RUN BECAUSE YOU NEEDED A JOB. 
          YOU SURE WOULD NOT WANT THIS JOB AT $35,000 PER YEAR. BUT YOU READ IT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO HELP PEOPLE. WHEN YOU PUT IT AT 75,000 YOU'RE MAKING IT A JOB. 
          YOU'RE MAKING IT A JOB YOU ARE NOT MAKING IT FOR THE PEOPLE OF CLAY COUNTY. 
          YOU MAKE IT FOR A JOB. YOUR ARE PUTTING IT THIS LANGUAGE, PUT IT STRAIGHT UP. 
          GIVE A FIVE PERCENT INCREASE THE SALARY OF THE COMMISSIONER IS $35,000 WHATEVER IT IS QUIT TRYING TO HIDE BEHIND NUMBERS. THIS WHOLE SECTION RIGHT HERE WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT OTHER WORDS TO PUT IN THERE. PUT IT STRAIGHT AND SIMPLE TO THE PEOPLE. 
          I'M NOT SAYING EVERYBODY, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING. SAY AN EXACT WORDS THAT YOU WANT. WE ARE GOING TO INCREASE IT BY 66 PERCENT, TELLING YOU THE PRISON BY 100 PERCENT. BUT IF YOU DO A COST-OF-LIVING LIKE EVERYONE ELSE THE SAME AS THIS LADY GETS 2 TO 3 PERCENT IF SHE GETS THAT THIS MAN SAID THEY DIDN'T GET A COST-OF-LIVING RAISE. SO IF YOU GET ONE WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE? YOU'RE ALREADY GOING AT SEVEN PERCENT INFLATION THE REASON THEY DEDUCT THE INTERNET MISTAKING WAS BECAUSE OF THE BUDGET OF THE COUNTY WAS GETTING IN BAD SHAPE. 
          THEY DEDUCT THEM BACK THEN AT THE TIME. BUT THE PEOPLE THAT RUN FOR COUNTY COMMISSION SEAT THEY DO IT FOR THE LOVE OF THE COUNTY. NOT FOR THE JOB AND THAT'S ALL 
          [03:00:03]
I HAVE TO SAY. 
          >> THANK YOU. GLENN. 
          >> ONE A COMMENT FOR CHRIS ON THAT IT WAS EVERY FOUR BUT IT WAS THE WORD COUNT THAT HAD AT LIKE 81 SO THAT INCLUDED THE TITLE AND THE YES AND NO SO I APOLOGIZE. 
          I AMEND THAT TO DISTRACT THAT FROM THE WORD COUNTS. I DID NEED TO GET HIM RILED. 
          >> ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM. PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED. SETTING THE NEXT MEETING DATE. 
          [CRC MEMBER COMMENTS]
I WILL THROW AN IDEA IDEA OUT THERE HOW ABOUT MONDAY, 28 FEBRUARY? I CHECKED WITH TERESA WE GO ANY DAYS THINGS START TO GET CROWDED IN THOSE NEXT TWO WEEKS SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FIND A DATE THAT'S OPEN AND IT CAN WORK WITH MOST SCHEDULES AND WILL KEEP THE SAME TIME AT 7 PM. 
          >> I CAN BE HERE EVERY DAY EXCEPT THE LAST DAY OF THE MONTH AND IS USUALLY THE WORST POSSIBLE DATE FOR ME. I CAN TRY. I PROBABLY AT 75 PERCENT. 
          IF I'M THE ONLY COG IN THE WHEEL DON'T LET ME BE. 
          >> 1 MARCH IS A TUESDAY NIGHT IT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION HOW ABOUT 2 MARCH, TO RESET THAT'S A WEDNESDAY. MARCH 2 DOES THAT WORK? OKAY, DOES 2 MARCH WORK BETTER THAN THE 28TH? OKAY, SECOND OF MARCH. 7 PM. 
          ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS 2 WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.