[CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:09] >>> ALL RIGHTY EVERYONE, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. IT IS 5:00. I WANT TO WELCOME EVERYONE THIS EVENING. HAPPY NEW YEAR. LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH OUR INVOCATION. I'VE ASKED OUR VICE CHAIR TO LEAD US IN PRAYER. >> BOW HEADS PLEASE. HEAVENLY FATHER THANK YOU FOR THIS DAY, THANK YOU LORD FOR PROTECTING EACH OF US AS WE'VE WORKED HARD THROUGHOUT OUR DAY. WE ASK FOR YOUR GUIDANCE ASAS WE IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS ON THE AFFAIRS OF THIS COMMUNITY. HELP US MAKE DECISIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THIS COMMUNITY. IN YOUR NAME HEAR THIS PRAYER, AMEN. >> I'LL ASK SUSAN TO LED THE PLEDGE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL RIGHTY, WONDERFUL, THANK YOU SO MUCH. BEFORE I GET INTO MY WELCOME, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET TO ROLL CALL, THEN I'LL CIRCLE BACK. IF WE COULD START OVER HERE. AND WRAP AROUND FOR ROLL CALL. GRAB -- SCOTTY, COULD YOU GRAB THE MIC FOR US. >> STEVE ANDERSON. >> SCOTTY, ANNOUNCE YOURSELF. >> SCOTTY TAYLOR. >> THANK YOU. >> CHRISTY BARRY. >> BILL. >> TIM NGUYEN. >> SHARI WARREN. >> DEBBIE PASCO. >> RHONDA JET. >> COURTNEY CONNER. >> MCNAIR. >> CALLAHAN. >> MITCHELL. [WELCOME] >> HERRING. >> GLEN TAYLOR. >> DID WE MISS ANYONE? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK WE GOT EVERYONE. WELCOME EVERYONE TO THEIR JANUARY SESSION OF THE CRC. LOOK FORWARD TO EXPLORING ALL OF THE TOPICS ON THE AGENDA TODAY. I KNOW WE'RE PROBABLY FULLY AWARE, BUT REMIND EVERYONE THE CRC, ONLY AUTHORITY VESTED WITHIN US, THIS IS FOR THE AUDIENCE AS WELL AND THOSE LISTENING ONLINE, ONLY AUTHORITY WITHIN THE CRC IS MERELY TO EXPLORE TOPICS FOR THE REVISION OF OUR CHARTER. TOPICS THAT THE COMMUNITY IS INTERESTED IN PURSUING AND SUPPORTS. SHOULD THERE BE ANYTHING THAT WE RECOMMEND, THIS CHARTER PROVIDES A VERY DETAILED COURSE OF ACTION THAT WE MUST FOLLOW. THERE'S NO UNILATERAL ACTION THAT THE CRC CAN TAKE. IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE RECOMMEND, IT MUST FIRST -- WE HAVE TO HAVE THREE MEETINGS IN AT A SPECIFIED TIME FRAME. R. - ONCE WE FULFILL THAT, THAT RECOMMENDATION THEN PROCEEDS TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND UP TO THEM TO SAY YEA, WE APPROVE, OR NO, WE DON'T, THEN IT'S DEAD. IF THEY DO APPROVE IT, NEXT IT GOES TO THE VOTERS ON THE GENERAL BALLOT. THE VOTERS ULTIMATELY HAVE THE FINAL SAY, NOT THE CRC. IT IS THE VOTERS THAT WILL DETERMINE WHATEVER -- AGAIN, IF WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, IT WILL BE UP TO THEM, SHOULD IT MAKE IT TO THE GENERAL BALLOT, TO SAY YEA OR NAY. I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT TO THE MEMBERS HERE AND OUR AUDIENCE. CLARIFY THOSE THINGS. ALSO, I NOTICED SOME DISCOURSE ONLINE WITH REGARDS TO TRANSPARENCY. TO TAKE A MOMENT TO SETTLE THAT RIGHT NOW. AGAIN, IN OUR CHARTER, THE CRC IS A PUBLIC FACING BODY. EVERYTHING THAT WE DO IS OPEN TO [00:05:01] THE PUBLIC. WE'RE UNDER THE SUNSHINE LAW. WE HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING IN THE PUBLIC'S PURVIEW, OKAY. AND WE ARE HERE TO SUPPORT THE INTERESTS OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS, ALL RIGHT, NOT OUR INDIVIDUAL AGENDAS. I DO NOT NEED CASE LAW, STATUTE OR RULE TO TELL ME TO BE TRANSPARENT. GIVEN OUR PUBLIC POSITION IN MY OPINION IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL DUTY FOR US TO BE TRANSPARENT IN EVERYTHING THAT WE DO. SO THAT SHOULD WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING AND RECOMMENDING. SO THAT THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS, SHOULD IT MAKE IT UP TO THEM, THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS WE ARE REMG. SO RECOMMENDING. SO WE WILL BE TRANSPARENT AND IN ORDER TO REMOVE ALL DOUBT WITH REGARDS TO ALL OF THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MEMBERS OF THE CRC AND ALTERNATES HERE TONIGHT -- DOES ANYONE HERE DISAGREE WITH OUR DUTY OF TRANSPARENCY? IF YOU DO, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. SEEING NO HANDS RAISED, I JUST -- I BELIEVE THAT THAT CONCERN, THAT ISSUE, I BELIEVE THAT IS SETTLED, OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND ABIDE BY THAT AND WORKS TOWARDS FULFILLING THAT DUTY OF TRANSPARENCY FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED. YES? >> CAN I ASK GENERALLY THE ORIGINATION OF THE CONCERN? >> THERE WAS DISCOURSE ONLINE, VARIOUS SOCIAL MEDIA AVENUES I'VE READ, SOME CONCERNS BY COMMUNITY MEMBERS WITH REGARDS TO BEING TRANSPARENT IN OUR PURSUITS AND WHAT WE DISCUSS. SO I WANTED TO REFRESH EVERYONE WE ARE A PUBLIC FACING BODY WITH A DUTY TO BE TRANSPARENT AND BASED ON EVERYONE'S RESPONSE OR LACK THEREOF, WE ARE ALL [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] IN AGREEMENT TO ABIDE BY THAT DUTY OF TRANSPARENCY. WITH THAT SAID, LET'S MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF MINUTES. DECEMBER 15, 2025. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES. >> I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I SECOND. >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. MOTION HAS BEEN PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION, REVISIONS, OBJECTIONS? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL OPPOSED SAME SIGN. [1. Overview of Clerk of Court Responsibilities as ex officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners - Speaker] HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES, MINUTES ARE APPROVED. WE HAVE, MOVING ON TO DISCUSSION ITEMS, NUMBER ONE, OVERVIEW OF CLERK OF COURT RESPONSIBILITIES AS EX- OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. BEFORE I ASK THAT SHESHE FORWARD TO GIVE HER PRESENTATION, IF MEMORY SERVES ME, MR. NGUYEN I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TOPIC. PLEASE PROVIDE THE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF REASONS YOU RAISED THIS. >> OKAY, I HAVE NOTES ON MYMY PHONE I BELIEVE. I AM THE ONE THAT RAISED THE ISSUE INTO LOOKING INTO THE COMMISSION AUDITOR, TO RESEARCH IF THERE WAS OVERLAPPING OF DUTIES. I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE ON THE BOARD FOR ALLOWING THIS TO MOVE FORWARD AND ASK WE ALL, INCLUDING MYSELF, KEEP AN OPEN MIND AND LISTEN TO THE FACTS. I HAVE QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO BE EDUCATED ON SO I OR WE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ON THE SUSPECT TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF TAXPAYER MONEY, MAKE GOOD DECISIONS AND STREAMLINE GOVERNMENT. THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION GIVES THE CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT'S AUTHORITY AS AUDITOR OF ALL FUNDS. AND COUNTY COMMISSION AUDITOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PERFORMANCE, EFFICIENCY AND COMPLIANCE RELATED TO ALL PROGRAMS IN GOVERNMENT AND INTERFACING WITH ALL EXTERNAL AUDITORS. THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE REDUNDANCY OR OVERLAPPING OF SERVICES? SECOND THING, WE HAVE [00:10:02] THREE AUDITS. FIRST IS CLERK OF THE COURT, SECOND IS CONDITION AUDITOR, AND THIRD AN EXTERNAL ANNUAL AUDIT BY AN OUTSIDE FIRM. ARE ALL THREE NECESSARY? AND THIRD, IN THE CHARTER IT STATES THAT THE COMMISSION AUDITOR REPORTS TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SHOULD IT ALSO REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER? WE HAVE 65 COUNTIES AND CITIES IN FLORIDA, ONLY TWO HAVE INTERNAL AUDITORS, HILLSBORO AND CLAY COUNTY. HILLSBORO IS GETTING RID OF THEIRS. MY QUESTION IS WHY OTHER COUNTIES DON'T FEEL IT'S NECESSARY OR IMPORTANT TO HAVE A DEDICATED INTERNAL CITY COMMISSION AUDITOR. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK OUR CLERK OF THE COURTS, TARA GREEN, FOR TAKING TIME TO BE HERE AND EDUCATE US ON HER ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES. >> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK OUR CLERK OF COURT MS. GREEN TO STEP FORWARD AND PROCEED WITH HER PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU, GOOD EVENING. IS THE MIC ON? CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> I BELIEVE SO, YES. >> OKAY. WHAT I DID IS PROVIDED A COUPLE OF DOCUMENTS TO PROVIDE A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE. SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S ONE OR TWO YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO FOCUS ON. AFTER THE HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW, MIGHT BE BEST TO ASK AND ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AS RELATES TO THE DUTIES I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR. FIRST THING I WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU GUYS IS THIS DOCUMENT RIGHT HERE. THIS IS JUST HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE DIFFERENT AREAS WITHIN MY OFFICE THAT ARE STATUTORILY GIVEN FOR THE CLERK AND COMPTROLLER. SECOND IS A BIG CHART THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS TO SHOW ORGANIZATIONALLY HOW WE PERFORM THOSE DUTIES. BECAUSE THOSE DUTIES CROSS OVER FROM TIME TO TIME. AS IT RELATES TO -- IF YOU WANT ME TO GET INTO IT, SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT MR. NGUYEN ASKED, THE ONES I CAN ANSWER ARE THOSE UNDER MY PURVIEW. FOR A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY, BACK IN 2018 THERE WAS AMENDMENT TEN THAT PASSED IN THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION THAT REVERTED BECOME SEVERAL DUTIES REMOVED IN THE CHARTER I BELIEVE IN THE MID TO LATE 1990S. THESE DUTIES WERE THE COUNTY AUDITOR, THE FINANCE OFFICER, CUSTODIAN OF FUNDS, EX- OFFICIO TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. WHICH IS THE ROLE WE PLAY WITH KEEPING MINUTES, RECORDS OF THE BOARD AND SEVERAL DOCUMENTS -- AGREEMENTS, RESOLUTIONS, CONTRACTS AND ORDINANCES. WE ARE THE CUSTODIAN OF THOSE AND MAKE SURE THEY'RE ACCOUNTED FOR. THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED 2020 UP TO TODAY BECAUSE OF AMENDMENT TEN. AS IT RELATES TO THE ROLE OF COUNTY AUDITOR, I INSTITUTED -- IT'S ON THE ORG CHART AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES, THAT FALLS UNDER INSPECTOR GENERAL. ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO ROLES IN THE CONSTITUTION IS WE IMPLEMENTED A FRAUD WASTE AND ABUSE HOTLINE. IT'S A MECHANISM FOR INDIVIDUALS IN THE COUNTY AND IN THE PUBLIC, IF THEY HAVE ANY CONCERNS, THEY CAN CALL THAT HOTLINE, PROVIDE US WITH INFORMATION, THEN THAT TEAM DOES DUE DILIGENCE ONON SUBSTANTIATING OR NOT ANY ACCUSATION OR CONCERNS ON BEHALF OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS. IT MIGHT BE EASIER, SINCE YOU HAD SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, TO ASK -- I DIDN'T KEEP TRACK. I FOLLOWED A LITTLE BIT. TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS, THEN I CAN DO MY BEST TO ANSWER. TO YOUR CONCERNS OR -- >> OKAY. WELL, DO YOU FEEL THERE'S A DUPLICATION OF SERVICES? >> THAT'S ONE I DON'T FEEL LIKE I CAN ANSWER BECAUSE I CAN'T ANSWER WHAT THE CURRENT COMMISSIONER/AUDITOR DOES. WE DON'T COORDINATE EFFORTS ON ANYTHING, SO THAT MAY BE -- I CAN TELL YOU WHAT WE DO, MAYBE YOU CAN ASK THE COMMISSION AUDITOR WHAT THEY DO [00:15:02] AND YOU CAN DETERMINE -- >> REPHRASE THIS. 65 COUNTIES OR CITIES, HILLSBORO IS DOING AWAY WITH THEIRS, WHY SO MANY COUNTIES FEEL THERE'S NOT A NEED. >> I DON'T KNOW. HILLSBORO STILL HAS THEIRS, LISTED IN THEIR CHARTER AS COUNTY AUDITOR. I BELIEVE MIAMI- DADE, ALSO IMPACTED BY AMENDMENT TEN, STILL HAS TITLE OF COUNTY AUDITOR. I DON'T KNOW THEIR PLAN, I THINK IMPLEMENTATION DATE WAS 2026. I THINK THAT'S YET TO BE DETERMINED. AS FOR THE OTHER 64 COUNTIES ANDAND THEY DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO HAVE A DIFFERENT AUDITOR TO REPORT TO THE COMMISSIONERS, I DON'T KNOW THAT. >> DO YOU FEEL YOUR ROLE COVERS IT? >> I MAKE SURE POST AUDITS ARE DONE ON ALMOST ALL PAYABLES FROM THE COUNTY FINANCE SIDE. WHEN THE COUNTY IS DOING THEIR BUSINESS AND CREATING PURCHASE ORDERS AND SPENDING COUNTY MONEY AS WE PAY THOSE BILLS, WE MAKE SURE IT'S PUBLIC PURPOSE, MEETS TO THE CONTRACT. WE POST AUDIT THOSE. FROM TIME-TO- TIME -- PREAUDIT, SORRY. THOSE TYPE OF EXPENSES ON THE COUNTY FINANCE SIDE. TIME-TO-TIME WE POST AUDIT IF THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT ANAN INVOICE BEING NOT PAID. WE MIGHT, WE DO THOSE BASED ON CONCERNS. INTERNAL AUDIT IS MORE ABOUT CONTROLS. FINANCE SIDE WITH PRO- AND POST AUDIT I FEEL IS ONLY DONE IN MY OFFICE WITH THE COMPTROLLER FUNCTION. INTERNAL AUDIT IS MORE BROAD ANDAND OPERATIONAL. I CAN TELL YOU THE ONES WE'VE DONE OR ARE IN MIDDLE OF DOING WITH THE INTERNAL AUDIT, WHICH WE CALL RISK ASSESSMENT, IS. WE'VE COMPLETED ONE ON FLEET MANAGEMENT, USE OF VEHICLE AND POLICIES ON THAT. WE DID ONE ON -- WE'RE ABOUT TO DO ONE ON PUBLIC WORKS FOR RESURFACING. LET ME BACK UP. THESE RISK ASSESSMENTS THROUGH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE ARE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH GETTINGGETTING FROM ALL FIVE COMMISSIONERS AND COUNTY MANAGER AND ANOTHER COUNTY MANAGERS WITH SUGGESTIONS WHERE THEY WANT SOMETHING LOOKED AT OR IN THEIR DEPARTMENT. WE WORK WITH THE COUNTY ON THAT. FLEET MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC WORKS RESURFACING, THAT'S COMING UP, COMMISSIONER RECOMMENDATION. JUST WRAPPING UP THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, EOC, ON THEIR POLICY AND PROCEDURES. WHEN WE DO THE AUDITS, WE IDENTIFY WEAKNESSES OR INTERNAL CONTROL ISSUES AND MAKE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER, DEPARTMENT HEADS AND MAYBE THE COUNTY MANAGER TO CLOSE THOSE GAPS. IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO HAVE OUTSIDE LOOK IN FOR A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW, CLOSE THE GAPS AND MAKE THE OPERATIONS BETTER. WE JUST FINISHED ANIMAL SERVICES FOR THE NEW BUILDING. WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE TODAY WOULD BE APPLICABLE, EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE IN THE NEW BUILDING WITH THE SERVICES EXPANDING. WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH, I THINK WE HAVE A MEETING THIS WEEK, WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT POLICY AND PROCEDURES AROUND IMPACT FEES AND MOBILITY FEES. THOSE ARE THE INTERNAL AUDITS WE DO OUTSIDE OF THE FINANCIAL PIECE UNDER THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE. >> THERE'S ZERO WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMISSION AUDITOR AND YOUR OFFICE? >> IT'S LIMITED. FEEL LIKE IF WE NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION OR NEED TOTO TOGETHER, WE HAVE GREAT PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE COUNTY, IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO. I BELIEVE FLEET MANAGEMENT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A HAND- OFF TO US OR HAND- OFF BACK TO HER. I WILL TELL YOU, WHEN WE FINALIZE OUR RISK ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS, I BELIEVE THE PROCEDURE ON THE COUNTY SIDE IS FOR THE COMMISSION AUDITOR TO THEN WORK WITH ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGERS OR DEPARTMENT HEADS ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT AND/OR RESPOND TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS. I DO BELIEVE THERE'S A ROLE THERE. >> WITH THE ANNUAL EXTERNAL AUDIT, IS HE OR SHE INVOLVED? >> NO. FIRST YEAR, LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION, IT WAS OVERSEEING [00:20:03] A CONTRACT. BUT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL AUDIT, THAT'S 100% THE COME COMP TROLLER'S OFFICE. THAT'S PROVIDING ALL THE DOCUMENTATION AND SAMPLING AND HAVE THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PRODUCED. >> MR. NGUYEN, JUST ONE SECOND. DON'T WANT TO GET TOO DEEP INTO THE QUESTION AND ANSWER PART BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE RESERVED UNDER NEW BUSINESS. CLERK OF COURT, I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE FLOOR TO -- IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL -- TO FINISH YOUR PRESENTATION FOR US. HOWEVER, IF IT'S -- IF YOU PREFER MORE BACK AND FORTH QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION, IF I COULD ASK FOR YOUR INDULGENCE TO GET THROUGH THE HOPEFULLY QUICK ITEMS TO DISCUSS AND THEN GET INTO NEW BUSINESS AND MAKE SURE -- >> I'M HERE FOR YOU, WHATEVER THE PREFERENCE IS. >> IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND. >> JUST SO I CAN RESOLVE WHAT I'M FEELING IS A CONTRADICTION. UNDER THE COMPTROLLERCOMPTROLLER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE AUDITING, PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING. UNDER THE INSPECTOR GENERAL -- I THINK THERE'S A CONTRADICTION OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING AS AUDIT. THAT'S A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS SUPPOSED TO WATCH PROCEED, POLICY, IMPLEMENTATION, EXECUTION, USE -- IT'S WHOLE DIFFERENT LEVEL OF AUDITAUDIT AUDIT FROM A -- EVEN INDEPENDENT AUDIT TEAM IS ONLY LOOKING AT FINANCIAL, NOT PROCEEDS, POLICIES AND EVERYTHING ELSE. UNDER THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, AM I CORRECT, THEY CAN GO IN AND TEAR APART A POLICY TO MAKE SURE A PARTICULAR GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS ARE COMPLYING WITH THE POLICY AND PROCEED? THAT WOULD BE AN AUDIT? >> CORRECT, INTERNAL AUDIT. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE TALKING EXTERNAL AUDIT FOR THE AUDITORS, THERE'S FINANCIAL PRE- AND POST AUDIT AND INTERNAL AUDIT PROCEDURALLY. >> ASK WE POSTPONE THE QUESTIONQUESTION AND ANSWER FOR NEW ACTION. IF YOU COULD INDULGE US HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES TO GET THROUGH TO NEW BUSINESS, WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> SURE, YEAH. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. WITH THE UNDERSTANDING WE'LL HAVE HER BECOME TO ASK QUESTIONS, SO EVERYONE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK EVERYTHING THEY WANT TO ASK. WE HAVE THAT RIGHT. WITH THAT SAID, WE'RE AT POINT OF PUBLIC COMMENT, SO I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT. FOR ALL THOSE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE INTERESTED. ALL RIGHT, SEEING AND HEARING NO ONE MOVE UP TO THE PODIUM, I'LL [1. Updated Charter Topic List] CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT, BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND MOVE ON TO OLD BUSINESS. WE HAVE AN UPDATED CHARTER TOPIC LIST. 25, 31. OKAY. I GUESS I'LL REQUEST A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE UPDATED LIST. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE UPDATED LIST AS PRESENTED. >> ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? PAGE 25 OF 31. >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. MOTION, PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. HEARING NO OPPOSITION, MOTION CARRIES. WE'LL PROCEED WITH THIS CHARTER TOPIC SUGGESTION AS PRESENTED ON [2. Article II Organization of County Government, Section 2.2: Legislative Branch, C. Salaries and Other Compensation] PAGE 25. ALL RIGHT. UNDER OLD BUSINESS POINT TWO HERE, WE HAVE SALARIES AND [00:25:03] OTHEROTHER UNDER SECTION 2. 2 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, C. BEFORE I OPEN IT UP TO THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION, I DO HAVE A FEW WORDS TO SAY, THEN I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. AS WE PROCEED THROUGH THIS, I JUST WANT TO, I THINK, RESET THE DISCUSSION HERE. I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO WHAT OUR SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS GAVE US, LEFT US WITH THINK AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE BEFORE HE STEPPED AWAY, AND THAT WAS TO REALLY ASK THE PRIMARY QUESTION -- WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD REALLYREALLY HERE TODAY WITH REGARDS TO THE COMMISSIONER SALARY. IN MY YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITHIN CLAY COUNTY, SERVED AND LIVED IN CLAY COUNTY,COUNTY, ONCE HAVE I HEARD A COUNTY COMMISSIONER REQUEST OR SEEK A PAY RAISE. IT'S NEVER COME UP TO MY KNOWLEDGE -- IT'S NEVER COME UP IN ANY OF THEIR CAMPAIGNS, ANY OF THEIR -- WHILE THEY'VE SERVED, NEVER ONCE HEARD ANY OF OUR COMMISSIONERS COMPLAIN ABOUT A PAY RAISE, THE MONEY THEY'RE MAKING WHILE THEY'RE SERVING OUR COMMUNITY. AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. IF THEY AREN'T SEEKING A PAY RAISE, WHERE IS THE PROBLEM? WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO FIX? I WOULD REFER TO THE OLD ADAGE, IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT. ALL RIGHT? A NUMBER OF OUR COMMISSIONERSCOMMISSIONERS ON THEIR SECOND TERMS. COMMISSIONER CONDON JUST FILED FOR HER SECOND TERM AND NOT ONCE HAVE I HEARD HER COMPLAIN ABOUT A PAY RAISE. THAT'S NOT THE FOCUS. THE FOCUS IS ON PUBLIC SERVICE. THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSIONER IS TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY AND THE PUBLIC. ONE ARGUMENT I'VE HEARD, I GUESS IT'S FAIR, WELL, RAISING THE PAY FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME HIGHER LEVEL OF QUALITY FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, HIGHER CALIBER, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PHRASE IT. I DON'T WANT TO DEMEAN ANYONE BY ANY MEANS. HOWEVER I BEG TO DIFFER. JUST LOOK AT THE COMMISSIONERS WE HAVE. WE HAVE A VETERAN, AN ATTORNEY, A DOCTOR, A BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL, AN AWARD WINNING SPORTS LEADER. THOSE ARE OUR CURRENT COMMISSIONERS, THAT IS AN IMPRESSIVE SLATE AND THEY'RE DOING THE JOB WITH THE CURRENT SALARY BECAUSE THE FOCUS IS ON PUBLIC SERVICE, NOT A PAYCHECK. AND I WOULD CAUTION THE PURSUIT OF INCREASING THE PAY, WHICH COULD TURN THIS ROLE INTO JUST ANOTHER JOB THAT PROVIDES A PAYCHECK. ALL RIGHT? INSTEAD OF, POTENTIALLY DETRACTING FROM REALLY THE ONLY FOCUS FOR THIS PARTICULAR ROLE WHICH IS PUBLIC SERVICE. POINT TWO WITH REGARDS TO THAT IS THIS ROLE IS TOTO OUR COMMUNITY, AND OUR COMMUNITY, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE ON SOCIAL MEDIA, HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW COMMENTS FROM OUR COMMUNITY AT LARGE, THEY HAVE VOICED STRONG OPPOSITION OUR PURSUIT OF THIS PARTICULAR EXPLORATION. TO ALIGN THE COMMISSIONERS' PAY TO THE STATE STATUTE. VERY RETICENT WITH THIS APPROACH. I REMIND EVERYONE WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY IN OUR [00:30:02] DISTRICTS, NOT PURSUE INDIVIDUAL AGENDAS OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT THOSE WITHIN OUR DISTRICT WISH FOR US TO PURSUE. WISH FOR US TO EXPLORE. DID THEY VOICE THEIR CONCERNS IN HERE, THESE CHAMBERS, NO, THEY DIDN'T. BUT NEVERTHELESS THEY'VE MADE THEIR OPINIONS QUITE KNOWN AND VERY, VERY CLEAR. I THINK WE HAVE A DUTY TO LISTEN TO THE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE BEEN PUT HERE TO SERVE. THIRDLY, IN MY OPINION, JUST ON THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETINGS I'VE WATCHED, ATTENDED, IN MY VIEW THE FINANCIAL POSITION WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE NOR BENEFICIAL TO CONTINUE PURSUIT OF THIS PARTICULAR AVENUE WITH RAISING OR ALIGNING THIS PAY WITH THE STATE STATUTE. SO AS CHAIR, IT IS MY RECOMMENDATION, ALL THAT SAID, ALL THOSE POINTS, KNOWING WHAT THE COMMUNITY POSITION IS, KNOW THAT WE HAVE NOT HEARD ONE COUNTY COMMISSIONER SEEK A PAY RAISE, COMPLAIN ABOUT THE PAY, NOT ONE, IT'S MY RECOMMENDATION THAT WE END ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE COMMISSIONERS' PAY AT ALL, ANY FURTHER PURSUIT WITH REGARDS TO THAT AND JUST MOVE ON TO OTHER TOPICS. NOW, IF THE MAJORITY OF THE CRC WISH TO PURSUE ANYANY DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC, MY ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE PURSUE EXPLORATION OF OPTIONS THAT ARE MORE FINANCIALLY MODEST AND FINANCIALLY BALANCED. WITH THAT ALL SAID, I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION. I WELCOME EVERYONE'S VIEWPOINT. >> COURTNEY I'LL STARTSTART OFF, I THINK LIKE YOU SAID, THE COMMUNITY AND VOTERS NOT ONLY MADE THEIR OPINIONS CLEAR ONLINE RECENTLY BUT TWICE. NOT ONCE, NOT TWICE, OR -- IF WE PUT IT ON, IT WILL BE A THIRD TIME THEY'LL MAKE IT CLEAR. IT'S A WASTE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARSDOLLARS IN MY TO PUT IT FORTH BECAUSE WE KNOW THE OUTCOME. THAT'S MY OPINION ON IT. SO I'M WITH YOU. >> I WASN'T HERE LAST WEEK, AND THE STATEMENT YOU MADE, THAT SPEECH, WAS VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT. AND I SUPPORT YOU. I AGREE. WE DO NOT NEED TO PURSUE A PAY RAISE. >> ANY FURTHER? >> NOT THAT I CARE A LOT, BUT I DO HAVE ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE OF IT. KNOWING THE PAY HAS NOT CHANGED IN 18 YEARS, THE JOB IS BIGGER WITH MORE PEOPLE HERE AND THE COST OF LIVING HAS INCREASED. I WONDER IF IT WOULD BE MORE DIGESTIBLE -- I DON'T THINK 100% HAVE HEAD NO, SAID NO, A LOT OF PEOPLE BUT NOT 100%. WITH THE STATE STATUTE, OF OF - WOULD LIKE TO INCREASE BY 10%, 15%, SOME NUMBER THAT'S COMMENSURATE, MORE MODEST BUT FOR PEOPLE DOING AN IMPORTANT JOB. I THINK IT'S FAIR TO COMPENSATE THEM APPROPRIATELY. WHAT ABOUT ADJUSTING PERCENTAGE ANNUALLY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, MORE MODEST AND MORE COMFORTABLE, PERHAPS. >> THAT'S UP TO MEMBERS HERE. >> I WOULD NOT POURT SUPPORT THAT. I WOULD SAY DROP IT. >> LET'S HEAR FROM OTHERS, CHRISTY, THEN GLEN. >> SO WE DID DISCUSS THIS LAST TIME, I THOUGHT IT WENT TO A VOTE WE WERE GOING BACK TO SEE WHAT LANGUAGE WOULD BE PUT ON THE BALLOT DURING THIS DISCUSSION. [00:35:04] I MAY BE WRONG, I STILL BELIEVE CLAY COUNTY SHOULD ALIGN TO THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTE, NOT AN ARBITRARY NUMBER. IT'S STATEWIDE, NOT JUST OUR COUNTY, NOT ARBITRARY BUT SELECTED BY INFLATION, SIZE OF YOUR COUNTY, DISTRICTS, THOSE THINGS. IF YOU LOOK INTO CHAPTER 145 THAT THAT STATUTE ALIGNS UNDERNEATH, IT ALSO TALKED ABOUT HOW OTHER PUBLIC SERVICESERVICE COMPENSATED, TO INCLUDE SHERIFFS, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND COUNTY CLERKS FOR EQUITABLE, TRANSPARENT AND CONSISTENT COMPENSATION ACROSS FLORIDA AND ALSO ALIGNS US WITH COUNTIES AROUND US. JUST BECAUSE A COMMISSIONER HAS NOT COMPLAINED THEY'RE NOT GETTING ENOUGH MONEY, DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULDN'T COMPENSATE THEM FOR THE WORK THEY'RE DOING FOR CLAY COUNTY. I WOULD SAY I THINK WE NEED TO ASK THE VOTERS DO WE BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE ALIGNED TO THE FLORIDA STATUTE OR CONTINUE TO HAVE A NUMBER MADE UP IN A CHARTER 18 YEARS AGO? ME AS A RESIDENT OF CLAY COUNTY WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW FLORIDA GOVERNANCE AND STATUTES THAT OTHER COUNTIES AROUND US ARE DOING TO MAKE SURE IT'S TRANSPARENT TO ALL MEMBERS OF CLAY COUNTY, THEY CAN LOOK IT UP, READ THE STATUTE AND SEE EXACTLY HOW COMPENSATION IS WORKING. I THINK THAT'S NOT ONLY FAIR FOR RESIDENTS, I THINK IT'S ALSO FAIR FOR OUR COMMISSIONERS. AND I THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, WE HAVE GREAT COMMISSIONERS WHO WORK REALLY, REALLY HARD. I THINK WE OWE THEM ALSO THE COMPENSATION FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING FOR US, TOO. THAT'S WHERE I STAND, ALWAYS BELIEVE IN FOLLOWING THE STATUTE AND GENERAL LAW AND I THINK IT'S PROBABLY A MORE FAIR AND BALANCED WAY OF DOING IT. >> GLEN, THEN RHONDA. >> I FULLY AGREE. I THINK IT'S ALMOST DISRESPECTFUL IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS HAS BEEN HANDLED, EVEN BY THE CLAY COUNTY RESIDENTS, IF THIS IS THE CASE. I KNOW IT'S BEEN TURNED DOWN TWICE. BUT TO THINK AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOT WORTH WHAT A PERSON WHO WORKS FULL- TIME AT MCDONALD'S, AND IS EXPECTED TO DO THE THINGS THAT THE TAXPAYER WANTS THEM TO DO, THEN COMPLAINS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET IT DONE, THEN SAY YOU'RE BEING PAID MORE THAN ENOUGH TO DO WHAT YOU'RE DOING BECAUSE AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, YOU DON'T DO WHAT I NEED DONE ANYWAY. I MEAN, YOU CAN READ WHAT'S IN THE MAIL, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SATISFIED AREN'T WRITING IN THE MAIL. THAT'S THE SAD PART OF WHAT WE'VE GOT IN SOCIAL MEDIA TODAY, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, POST IT. IT'S NOT THE RESPECT FOR THE PERSON WHO HAS DONE THE JOB. AND MAKING ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT INDIVIDUAL IS COMPENSATED BECAUSE THE MORE I'VE DONE HERE, MORE I LEARNED, EVEN IF I WANTED TO, I WOULDN'T. NOT ONLY ARE WE ASKING THE COMMISSIONERS TO DO WHAT THEY'RE DOING FOR A MERE $37,000 A YEAR. SOMETIMES FIVE TO SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY STAFF. THERE'S ZERO STAFF ASSIGNED TO A COMMISSIONER. THERE'S ONE PERSON IN THIS ROOM WHO TAKES CARE OF ALL OF THE THINGS THAT FIVE COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DO IN THIS COUNTY. SO WHAT HAVE WE DONE TO PROTECT THE RESIDENT PAYING THE TAXES, THEN THEY COMPLAIN AND WONDER WHY THEY HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE COMMISSIONER, THAT'S BECAUSE ONE INDIVIDUAL HAS 15 OTHER ITEMS ON HER LIST. I'M DEALING WITH IT LOCALLY BECAUSE POOR BETSY DOESN'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE TO GO TO BUT HER. SO WHEN YOU TURN AROUND AND SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT FAIR, YOU'RE NOT ABIDING BY THE LAW. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THE STATE OF FLORIDA PASSED A LAW, AND YOU'RE SITTING HERE TELLING EVERYONE WE DON'T CARE. I'M SORRY, IT IS A DISCUSSION ITEM. IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU JUST DISMISS. I THINK THE PROBLEM HERE IS IF YOU WANT TO GET THIS DONE, YOU NEED TO EDUCATE THE TAXPAYER. BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMPLAINING ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA PAGES ARE COMPLAINING [00:40:04] BECAUSE NOTHING IS BEING DONE THEY THINK SHOULD BE GETTING DONE. AND FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THERE'S NO STAFF TO DO WHAT THEY'RE DOING. AGAIN, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND FIGHTING GARBAGE WITH PERMITS AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS AND POOR BETSY IS LITERALLY UP TO HERE. DOESN'T HAVE ANY MORE TIME OR STAFF. I'M SAYING, OKAY, BETSY, 37,000 A YEAR IS MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR YOU TO DO WHAT YOU'RE DOING -- I DON'T THINK YOU CAN JUST SAY OKAY, DONE. WE'RE A LAW ABIDING COUNTRY, THE STATE PASSED A LAW. WE'RE BLATANTLY VIOLATING IN WRITING THE LAW, AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED AND CHANGED. I THINK TO NOT DO SO IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW. >> AND I WOULD ADD TO THAT THAT I WONDER IF THE VOTERS KNOW THERE IS A STATUTE THAT DETERMINES COUNTY COMMISSIONER PAY. LOOKING HERE AT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE, THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO GO BACK TO ASK THE VOTERS TO VOTE ON, DO YOU WANT TO COMPLY WITH FLORIDA STATE STATUTE FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER PAY. IF I WAS ASKED THAT WAY, I WOULD SAY YES, I WANT TO FOLLOW THE LAW. IT'S CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT AND WHAT I VOTE ON FOR DIFFERENT OFFICIALS. >> IF I MAY -- >> ONE SECOND, I HAVE RHONDA. DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? >> I DID HAVE TWO. I THOUGHT WE WERE AT THETHE AT THE BOARD OF MOVING THIS TOTO DISCUSSION. THAT'S CLARIFICATION TO ME WHERE WE WERE WITH THE TOPIC. AND SECONDLY, WE HAVE TO REALIZE HOW THIS TRANSPIRED 19, 18 YEARS AGO. WE HAD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, MAKING $60,000 A YEAR. OTHER THREE WHO GOT ELECTED WERE HIT, DROPPED DOWN TO 37, THAT WAS DONE OUT OF VENGEANCE AND POLITICAL RHETORIC THAT WE ALL DESPISE÷÷ AS CITIZENS GOES ON. NOW LOOKING AT THIS, SORRY ABOUT YOUR LUCK. I THINK IT WOULD BE HARD PRESSED TO FIND ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL TO GO I NEED TO GET PAID FOR. THAT'S A LITTLE UNFAIR TO OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WE ALL KNOW THAT WOULD BE SUISIDE. I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS FOR WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. MOVING FORWARD, WE'VE GROWN FOUR TIMES OVER IN THE LAST 18 YEARS, AND WE CONSTANTLY, CONSTANTLY CRAM DOWN AND TALK ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE. THIS IS INFRASTRUCTURE. WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM MORE PEOPLE TO HELP THEM ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE. WE DON'T WANT TO DO TWO MORE PEOPLE AT LARGE. WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM MORE MONEY TO DODO AS A FULL- TIME INSTEAD OF PART- TIME JOB WITH TERM LIMITS. SO WHAT IS THE ANSWER THEN? I GO BACK TO, STILL THINK WE WERE PAST THIS POINT OF DEBATING THIS ISSUE AND WERE SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING BALLOT DISCUSSION -- AT. >> MATT. YOU'RE ALL SET. VAN, THEN DEBBIE. >> ALL RIGHT. TWO THINGS, ONE, LEGAL QUESTION, TALKING ABOUT FLORIDA STATUTE, SINCE WE'RE A CHARTER COUNTY, CAN WE SET THOSE RIGHTS WITHOUT VIOLATING STATUTE, I THINK WE CAN. TWO, TO MATT'S POINT, WE HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE, AND WE DIDN'T GET IT RIGHT. I DON'T THINK THAT JUMPING -- SOMEBODY BEING ABLE TO SAY I'M GOING TO DOUBLE THE SALARY -- I APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING TO CUT OUT LAST WEEK. I WILL NOT CUT OUT ANYMORE. BUT DOUBLING THAT SALARY IS A HARD PUSH, NO MATTER HOW YOU DO IT. TO MS. PASCO'S COMMENT ABOUT [00:45:04] SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN, THEY DESERVE THE INCREASE. LAST THING I WANT TO POINT OUT, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS, I ALMOST SAID SOMETHING, I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT THAT'S THEIR DECISION. THEY'VE GOT AN ENTIRE BUDGET. THEY CAN SAY WE NEED AN ASSISTANT, AND WE CAN -- THEY HIRE PEOPLE IN EVERY DEPARTMENT, PERIOD. THAT'S NOT BY US OR THETHE PUBLIC. THAT'S THEIR DECISION. OKAY, RATHER THAN SPEND IT ON ASSISTANT, I'LL PAVE ANOTHER 500 FEET OF ROAD, WHATEVER IT HAPPENS TO BE. BUT WE SHOULDN'T LEGISLATE IF THEY NEED AN ASSISTANT, IF THEY NEED IT, THEY GO GET IT. IF WE DON'T THINK THEY NEED IT, WE GO TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND SAY WE DON'T WANT IT. BUT THAT'S THEIR DECISION, NOT US, NOT THE CITIZENRY SAYING YOU CAN'T HAVE AN ASSISTANT. THAT'S THEIR DECISION WHEN THEY MAKE THE BUDGET. >> DEBBIE? THEN MATT. >> FOLLOW UP A LITTLE BIT. IT SHOCKS ME A LITTLE BIT WE CAN -- WE KNOW IF YOU PUT PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET AND LET THEM COMPLAIN ABOUT A THING, THEY WILL DO IT. AND WE CAN BE SO MEAN. PEOPLE WILL SAY THINGS ONLINE THEY WOULD NEVER SEE IN PERSON. I'M SHOCKED WE'RE THINKING -- SITTING HERE THINKING TO BOW DOWN TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY MEAN ON FACEBOOK OR SOCIAL MEDIA. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BOW DOWN TO PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ON THE INTERNET, IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S VOTED ON. I DO AGREE WE NEED TO CHANGECHANGE WORDING AND AGGRESS VALID CONCERNS. SAYING CAN WE DOUBLE THEIR PAY, MIGHT BE ASKING WAY, WAY TOO MUCH. BUT BACK TO MY SUGGESTION OF ADJUSTING PERIODICALLY OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. OTHER QUESTION, LAST TIME WE WERE VOTING, LOOKING AT ABORTION, MAKING THESE -- ADJUSTING THE LEGALITY OF THAT, AND THERE WERE SO MANY PUBLIC MEETINGS AND EDUCATION MOMENTS, PEOPLE GOING DOOR-TO-DOOR. THERE WAS A TIME THAT THE VOTERS WERE -- THEY HAD BEEN GIVEN TIME TO BE INFORMED ABOUT WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE, WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT, WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S OUR PURVIEW OR SOMEONE ELSE TO GIVE THE JOB, BUT WOULD HAVING SOME PUBLIC DISCUSSION SO WE COULD DISCUSS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHY WE'RE DISCUSSING IT AND WHAT DOES IT EVEN MEAN TO EDUCATE PEOPL BEFORE THEY GET TO THE BALLOT SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE FIRST TIME THEY SEE IT IS WHEN THEY GO INTO THE VOTING BOOTH. >> MATT. >> JUST LAST PIECE. WE DO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW. THAT'S A SCARE TACTIC IN MY OPINION, WE TELL VOTERS WE DON'T COMPLY. WE ARE COMPLYING WITH STATE LAW, WE'RE AA COUNTY. IF WE DIDN'T, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHANGED 18 YEARS AGO. WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW. PART TO ITIT IS, WE'RE ASKING OUR VOTERS TO DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH, WHICH I AGREE, EVERY VOTER SHOULD DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH, BUT THE QUESTION AT HAND IS WE SHOULD BE FULLY TRANSPARENT IN WHAT WE'RE PUTTING FORTH, NOT SAYING WE'LL PUT -- THOSE SET BY GENERAL LAW FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER, QUOTE, UNQUOTE STATE STATUTE. WHAT IS THAT? IF A VOTER DOESN'T UNDERSTAND HOW TO READ STATE STATUTE IS A CONCERN. IF A VOTER DOESN'T KNOW OUR POPULATION SIZE NOW OR IN TEN YEARS. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS NOT TRANSPARENT LANGUAGE AT ALL. NOT AT ALL. AND I JUST FEEL LIKE IT HAS TO BE TRANSPARENT. AGAIN, I WAS THE ONLY NO VOTE ON THIS LAST TIME. I WILL PROUDLY CONTINUE TO BE A NO VOTE ON THIS. NOT BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, I LOVE EVERY SINGLE ONE, ALL FIVE. CAMPAIGNED FOR THEM, LOTS OF THEM. I JUST DON'T THINK WE'RE IN POSITION RIGHT NOW TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. >> STEVE. >> I'LL CONTINUE ON, I THINK SHOULD SHOW IMPACT. 0.36% INCREASE. THAT'S HOW MUCH IT AFFECTS [00:50:02] OUR BUDGET. SO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE. 0.036% IS WHAT THIS IMPACTS. PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT. I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK THE BIGGEST THING WE'RE MISSING RIGHT NOW, WE MEET EVERY FOUR YEARS. SO WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE VOTERS, VOTERS MAKE THE DETERMINATION, WE DON'T, THEY DO. GOES WITH WHAT YOU SAID. IT'S COMPLETELY UNFAIR NOT TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO MAKE A VOTE. THAT'S THE GREAT PART OF BEING IN A REPUBLIC. LET THEM MAKE THE DECISION. SO WE TALK ABOUT A BIG INCREASE. THIS 37,000, I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM. I WENT BACK AND LOOKED. I DON'T KNOW WHO CAME UP WITH IT, IT WAS SNATCHED OUT OF THIN AIR. AND COMPARE TODAY'S SALARY BASED ON THAT ARBITRARY NUMBER? CAN'T DO THAT. ALSO WITHOUT ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION, THAT'S 59,000. COMPARE THAT. I LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY. I THINK IT'S OUR OBLIGATION TO GIVE THE VOTERS A CHANCE TO VOTE. I THINK OUR COUNTY IS GROWING, WE ALL AGREE WE WANT OUR COUNTY TO BECOME THE BEST THAT IT CAN BE GOING FORWARD. WE NEED COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTY IN MIND. HOW MANY PEOPLE RAN FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER LAST TIME? WERE THEY STACKED WITH MULTIPLE PEOPLE TO PICK FROM? OR MOSTLY RUNNING UNOPPOSED? WHY? WHY WERE THEY UNOPPOSED? I'M ASKING THAT BECAUSE I THINK PART OF THAT -- I AGREE WITH YOU THAT SOME OF THIS IS PUBLIC SERVICE, BUT SOME OF IT IS, IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY YOUNG --- ER THAN ME, A LOT, MAY WANT TO DO IT FULL- TIME, IT IS A FULL- TIME JOB. WE WANT IT TO BE FULL-TIME BECAUSE WE NEED FIVE PEOPLE THAT SPEND THE MAJORITY OF THEIR TIME DOING, NOT HOLDING DOWNDOWN FULL-TIME JOB AS DOCTOR, LAWYER, GREATEST SPORTSPERSON, WHATEVER. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. WE NEED TO COMPENSATE THEM FOR WHAT THEY DO. MATT, I RESPECT WHAT YOU SAY, BUT THIS HAS SUCH A TINY IMPACTIMPACT ON 797 MILLION BUDGET, REALLY NONE AT ALL. I DON'T THINK IT'S OUR JOB TO EDUCATE VOTERS. THAT CAN BE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER, WHOEVER THEY CHOOSE. THAT'S NOT OUR JOB. OUR JOB IS GO OUT TO THE VOTERS, SAY WE WANT WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR COUNTY GOING FORWARD, AND BELIEVE WE SHOULD COMPENSATE PEOPLE FAIRLY FOR THE JOB THEY DO. STATE STATUTE GIVES US THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. HAD AS FAR AS TRANSPARENT, I HAVE NO PROBLEM SAYING WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE STATE STATUTE AND IT'S GOING TO IMPACT YOUR BUDGET 0.336%. 0.036%. >> I WAS HERE LAST WEEK, I WOULD HAVE VOTED NO WITH YOU. IF IT GOES TO THE COMMISSION, I THINK IT WON'T MAKE THE BALLOT. IN MY CAREER, I PROBABLY WOULD DO THIS FOR FREE AND WOULD NOT GIVE UP -- IF I RAN FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER, I'M NOT GIVING UP MY PENSION AND CAREER TO DO THIS FULL-TIME BECAUSE OF THE PAY. IF YOU PAY SIX FIGURES, STILL WOULDN'T DO IT. MOST OF THESE PROFESSIONALS ON % THE COMMISSION, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE UP THEIR PROFESSION TO DO IT FULL-TIME. I DON'T THINK INCOME IS GOING TO MATTER. I THINK IF WE ASK BETSY IF SHE WANTS A PAY RAISE, PRETTY SURE SHE WOULD SAY NO. I THINK I DID ASK HER AND TOLDTOLD NO. IF IT GOES TO THE COMMISSIONERS, I THINK IT'S A DEAD SUBJECT AND WON'T MOVE FORWARD. IF IT'S ELECTION YEAR FOR THEM, DEFINITELY NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT. JUST MY TAKE. >> SO WE -- SORRY, BRANDON. >> CLARITY ON THE PROCEDURAL RULING FROM THE LAST ONE, WHETHER THIS IS NOW A DISCUSSION FOR THE BALLOT OR NOT, PROCEDURALLY SPEAKING. >> LAST MEETING WE VOTED TO MERELY PURSUE/EXPLORE LANGUAGE FOR A POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE TO THE BOARD OFOF COMMISSIONERS, WHICH I BELIEVE OUR ATTORNEY HAS PREPARED FOR US. EVERY ONE OF US SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF IT. I MERELY MADE THE PREFACE BEFORE THE DISCUSSION TO PUT FORWARD MY POSITION ON THIS MATTER. THEN BASED ON THE POINT THATTHAT [00:55:05] I MADE, I WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. BUT YES, PROCEDURALLY WE'RE HERE TO PURSUE WHAT IS BEFORE US. AND ON THAT NOTE, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO OUR ATTORNEY TO ENLIGHTEN US ON WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US TODAY. >> WHAT I DID WAS RESEARCH ON THIS, AND I WAS OF THE OPINION, TOO, THERE NEEDED TO BE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE. THERE'S A RECENT SECRETARY OF STATE OPINION LETTER WHICH SAID THERE IS NOT TO BE WHICH I THOUGHT WOULD BE SUPPLEMENTARY. EVERYBODY WOULD TALK ABOUT IT. EVERYONE'S FRIEND JOSH ALLEN HAS MADE IT KNOWN, BUT FOR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE, NO, THERE'S BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS FOR ORDINANCES, NOT FOR AMENDMENTS. I LOOKED AT TALLAHASSEE AND TUSCALOOSA, THERE'S A COUPLE OF WAYS TO DO IT. ALLOW THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO PASS AN ORDINANCE. WE CAN DO AN AMENDMENT. I CAN DRAFT IT, A LAS THE VOTERS TO GIVE THE AUTHORITY TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO SET THAT'S ONE WAY TO DO IT. I JUST TOOK THE SAME -- INTERESINGLY ENOUGH, THIS IS THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD -- CLAY COUNTY HAD IN THEIR CHARTER BACK UNTIL THE PERIOD 1991 TO NOVEMBER 6 OF 2006 -- THAT'S IN OUR LITTLE BOOKS THAT WE ALL MAY HAVE ON PAGE 18. SO GIVEN THE SENSE I HAD FOR WHAT THE COMMISSION WAS HOPING TO SEE IN PRINT FORM, I USED THE SAME LANGUAGE PREVIOUSLY IN THE CHARTER. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU. JUST AMENDED IT. YOU CAN SEE THE STRIKE- THROUGHS AND THE ADDITIONS, WHICH ARE NOT THAT SIGNIFICANT. AND THEN THE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, TOO. THERE YOU HAVE IT. HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS CLARIFY. >> COUNSELOR, CAN YOU READ FOR US -- AND FOR THOSE VIEWING ONLINE, THE PROPOSED CONTENT OF THE AMENDMENT YOU'VE PREPARED FOR US. >> SO, WHAT THE BALLOT WOULD SAY IS -- TITLE DIDN'T COME THROUGH ON THIS, BUT -- IT'S AN AMENDMENT REGARDING COUNTY COMMISSIONER SALARY AND COMPENSATION. SAYS SHALL THE CLAY COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REMOVE THE SALARY OF $37,000 AND REQUIREMENT THAT CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY MAJORITY IN A GENERAL ELECTION AND PROVIDE THAT COUNTY COMMISSIONER SALARIES SHALL BE THE SAME AS THOSE SET BY GENERAL LAW FOR FOR NONCHARTERED COUNTIES AND NOT BE LOWERED IN THE TERM OF OFFICE. THERE'S A WORD LIMIT TO THE STATUTE, THAT'S 70 THERE. AND THE TITLE HAS 15. I'VE ADDRESSED THAT. THEN UPON PASSAGE OF THAT, THE TEXT OF THE CHARTER WOULD BE CHANGED TO SAY THIS IS SECTION C, UNDER -- >> 2.2. >> YEAH, 2.2. SALARIES AND OTHER COMPENSATION. SALARIES AND OTHER COMPENSATION OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHALL BE SET THE SAME AS BY GENERAL LAW BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF NONCHARTERED COUNTIES AND SHALL NOT BE LOWERED IN THE TERM OF LAW, PERIOD. THIS IS REVERTING BACK TO 1991. >> AND GENERAL LAW, WHAT IS IT, 96,000? >> THERE'S A CHART RIGHT HERE. [01:00:03] >> BASED ON POPULATION. >> EACH DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MAY NOT MAKE THE SAME AMOUNT, BASED ON THEIR POPULATION. >> IT'S NOT BY COUNTY BUT DISTRICT. >> I'M SORRY, YEAH, BY COUNTY. MEANT TO SAY THAT. >> EVERY COMMISSIONER WOULD BE PAID THE SAME THEN. >> SO THAT NUMBER HERE IS $96,455. >> OKAY. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WOULD BE PAID. >> THAT IS. OR CLOSE TO THAT. >> THAT'S AFTER THE FORMULA. >> THAT'S AS IT STANDS. >> THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER VARIABLES TO ARRIVE AT THAT. THAT'S THE BASIS ON SALARIES OF ELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICIALS. >> I FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE. DUVAL COUNTY IS MUCH BIGGER AND ONLY GET 90-SOMETHING- THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND WE'RE MUCH SMALLER. I CAN'T BELIEVE, NOT SAYING YOU'RE DISHONEST -- IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SALARY WOULD GO UP TO 90,000. I DISAGREE WITH THAT. I DO CONCUR WITH CHRISTY AND LYNN ABOUT THIS. IF WE'RE A CHARTERED COUNTY, DOESN'T OUR SCHOOL BOARD FALL UNDER THAT? THEY JUST GOT RAISES BY THE GOVERNOR. BUT WE PAY PROPERTY TAXES TO -- >> THERE'S ALSO BEEN LANGUAGE IN THE PAST, AS A POINT OF REFERENCE, TOO, PRIOR CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSIONS SAID 70% OF THIS NUMBER. 70% OF THE 96,455. DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HARD BOUNDARY. >> THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE PALATABLE THAN 97,000. >> I HAVE NO OPINION. >> VAN, YOUR HAND HAS BEEN RAISED. >> I WOULD, ONE, REMEMBER, THEY'VE GOT 17 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, THEIR GOVERNMENT IS DIFFERENT THAN OURS IS. I BELIEVE I REMEMBER THE STORY, WASN'T ARBITRARY NUMBER OF 37,000. THAT WAS BEGINNING SALARY OF A TEACHER, 17, 18 YEARS AGO. WITH NO CHANGE. THE 59,000, 3% PER, YOU GO WOW, THAT'S -- HATE TO SAY MORE PALATABLE TO YOUR POINT -- WHAT DO WE BELIEVE AS A COMMISSION CAN BE PASSED? WE CAN THROW ANYTHING ON THERE, SAY IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. BUT IF WE REALLY LOOK AT IT, SAY WHAT CAN WE ACCOMPLISH IN DISCUSSIONS, I WILL TELL YOU THAT 96,000, 97,000, LESS THAN 30 -- 96,000 WILL BE A TOUGH SELL. SOMEBODY'S GOING TO GET IT OUT THERE, ONLY ONCE AND WILL BE OUT THERE. 59,000, 3% PER YEAR PLUS COLA OR WHATEVER, TO ME -- I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING HERE LAST WEEK, WOULD HAVE SAID THE SAME, THAT'S A NUMBER THAT AGAIN, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT FACTORING FROM BEGINNING TEACHERS' SALARY 18 YEARS AGO, ADD 3% ON, SEEMS FAIR ENOUGH. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. >> SUSAN, THEN DEBBIE -- SORRY. BRANDON, SUSAN, DEBBIE. >> IS THERE A LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR AFFIRMATIVE NUMBER TO BE IN PLACE OF THE NUMBER BEING REMOVED. >> MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORATE -- IS THAT THE QUESTION? >> 37,000 NUMBER IS ON THERE BECAUSE IT'S COMING OFF. IS THERE AN AFFIRMATIVE NUMBER THE COMMITTEE HAS TO LAND ON TO PUT IT INTO WRITING? OKAY. >> SUSAN. >> YES, I SPOKE TO A LOT OF PEOPLE ABOUT THIS SINCE THE LAST MEETING, AND I LOVE OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THEY DO A GREAT JOB. PEOPLE THINK IT'S A FULL- TIME JOB BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S PART-TIME. I'M RETIRED, WOULD I DO IT FOR 37,000, NO, YOU HAVE PEOPLE CONSTANTLY EMAILIN YOU, CALLING [01:05:01] YOU. I WOULDN'T DO IT, EVEN THOUGH A DO A LOT OF THINGS FOR FREE. DO WE WANT THE HIGHER CALIBER OF PERSON? THE COUNTY IS SO BIG, WE WANT PEOPLE TO COME IN AND HELP US BECOME THE COUNTY THAT WE WANT. I WANT TO DO HIGHER GROUND, BUT THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN. WHAT I WAS COMING TONIGHT, I WAS GOING TO SAY CAN WE GO FOR 3% COLA EVERY YEAR, SOMETHING EVERYONE WOULD AGREE ON. I STILL WANT A HIGH CALIBER PERSON, HOW DOES A LAWYER, DOCTOR, WORK A FULL- TIME JOB AND DO IT PART-TIME. PEOPLE ARE SO UPSET WITH THE COMMISSIONERS FOR ALLOWING ALL THIS OVERGROWTH. IT'S NOT OUR COMMISSIONERS NOW THAT APPROVED IT, IT WAS WAY BACK. IF THEY HAD BEEN DOING THE JOB FULL-TIME, WOULD IT NOT HAVE FALLEN THROUGH THE CRACK? HIGHER CALIBER PEOPLE FULL- TIME WOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP THEIR FINGER ON THE -- THANK YOU. SO I AGREE WITH -- THEY NEED SOMETHING MORE. I JUST KNOW WE'RE NEVER GETTING THAT PASSED. I VOTE FOR MORE 3%, EVERY YEAR A 3% RAISE. >> DEBBIE, THEN RHONDA. >> JUST A POINT TO MAKE. IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP BEFORE, KNOCKED DOWN BEFORE. I THINK THE WAY WE APPROACH IT CAN BE ADDRESSED AND CHANGED. IT'S NOT -- IT WOULD BE WHAT IS FAIR. QUESTION IS, WE'RE LOOKING AT A A THAT HAS NOT -- THE PAY HAS NOT CHANGED IN 18 YEARS. IF WE DO NOTHING NOW, NEXT TIME IT WILL BE 22 YEARS, THEN 26, THEN 30. HOW LONG DO WE LET THEM GET GET PAY FROM YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AGO AND NOT ADDRESS IT. THAT'S MY POINT. >> RHONDA. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, SOMEONE EXPLAIN 3% COLA SO EVERYONE KNOWS HOW IT'S DERIVED AND WORKS. I'M NOT A TAX EXPERT. >> ANYONE? HOLD ON. WHOEVER IS SPEAKING, TURN ON YOUR MIC. >> VAN? >> IT'S NORMALLY DONE BY CONTRACT. THE STIPULATION IS CONTRACT PROVIDES A NUMBER, AND SOME ARE DEPENDENT ON HOW IT WORKS. CAN BE A NUMBER PLUS CURRENT. SO IF THE CURRENT IS HIGHER THAN THE 3%, THEY CAN GET MORE THAN THAT. BUT THEY WON'T GET LESS. SO 3% CAN BE DONE BY CONTRACT, SO YOU CAN PUT IT THIS THIS STATEMENT, 3%. YOU CAN'T MAKE IT LESS BUT CAN MAKE IT MORE. THAT WOULD BE BASED ON THE CURRENT PERCENTAGE. SO IT'S JUST LIKE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY. SAME NUMBERS SOCIAL SECURITY BYBY ANNUM, BUT THERE'S GUARANTEED NUMBER LIKE THIS. CURRENTLY YOU HAVE TONS OF INDIVIDUALS IN PUBLIC SERVICE WHO HAVE THAT SAME CONTRACT WRITTEN -- SAME PERCENT AND WRITTEN IN THEIR CONTRACTS. >> IF INFLATION IS NEGATIVE 3%, YOU STILL HAVE TO GIVE 3%. >> VAN, GO AHEAD. >> >> WE CAN'T HEAR YOU, I'M SORRY. >> I'M SORRY. >> RED LIGHT'S ON. >> FEDERAL NUMBER. AND THE -- I THINK THE STATE WAS THE COLA INCREASE. 2. 7 IN -- THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IT, JUST SAY COLA INCREASE EACH YEAR, NO DIFFERENT THAN JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER EMPLOYEE AROUND IS GETTING. TO SUSAN'S POINT, I'M NOT SURE THAT MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T GET A LITTLE BIT OF A BUMP TO START FROM RATHER THAN START AT 37. THAT CAN BE ARBITRARY BUT PROBABLY WOULD LIKE TEACHER'S SALARY, FIND IT'S CLOSE TO 57 OROR RIGHT NOW FOR STARTING TEACHERS. BUT I DON'T KNOW IT NEEDS TO BE ARBITRARY BUT WE NEED SOME RATIONALE FOR IT. SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF WHAT THE COLA INCREASE WAS FROM 2017, IF YOU ONLY HAD COLA INCREASE AND GOT TO 57,000, THAT'S WHERE [01:10:03] WE CAME UP WITH THE NUMBER, AND JUST ASKING TO GO FORWARDFORWARD WE THINK THAT'S FAIR. THIS DOESN'T AGAIN ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT THE JOB IS TWICE AS HARD. IT'S THE SAME PAY, JUST HATE TO SAY PROPERLY ADJUSTED, BUT ADJUSTED. THE 37 NUMBER WAS TO RHONDA'S POINT A PUNITIVE NUMBER. IT WAS PUNITIVE AT THE TIME. NOW WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY I THINK -- I REALIZE HOW DIFFICULT IT IS -- >> WAIT, STEVE HAD HAND UP FIRST. THEN RHONDA. >> QUICK QUESTION. IS THE STATE STATUE TIED -- DOES IT HAVE COLA IN IT? REASON I'M ASKING, IF IT DOES, THEN COULD EASILY GO BACK TO 70% OF THE CURRENT STATE STATUTE PUTS IT RIGHT AT 60,000, WHICH WOULD TAKE CARE OF INFLATION SINCE 2008. THEY WOULD BE PAID IN TODAY'STODAY'S DOLLARS EXACTLY WHAT THEYTHEY WERE PAID BACK ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. IF THE STATE STATUE HAS COLA ALREADY ADJUSTED, THAT TAKES CARE OF IT GOINGGOING FORWARD. THE SAME AMOUNT, BUT INFLATION ADJUSTMENT. MAKE SENSE? >> MAKES SENSE. RHONDA. >> JUST WANTED TO ADD, TOO, THE HISTORY OF IT, IT WAS A BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT GOT ON THE BALLOT OF HOW IT GOT DUCED DOWN ALSO. IT WAS DISGRUNTLEDNESS OF SOME ACTORS. WASN'T THE CRC SAID WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, THAT FLORIDA SAID WE'RE GOING TO DOCK YOU GUYS. AT THAT POINT THEY WERE MAKING 60, THEN NEW GUYS CAME IN AND THEY GOT HIT. THAT'S JUST SOME OF THE HISTORY. >> TIM, GO AHEAD. >> I HAVE NUMBERS FOR YOU GUYS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. PRESIDENT MAKES 75,000 FOR ONE YEAR. >> OF COURSE IN THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTE, COMMISSIONERS CAN VOLUNTARILY REDUCE THEIR SALARY. IF THEY HAD RETIREMENT AND DIDN'T NEED THE FULL, THAT'S ALSO AN OPTION FOR THE COMMISSIONERS IF THEY FOLLOW THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTE. >> SO WE HAVE A LOT OF NUMBERSNUMBERS THROWN OUT HERE, LOT OF GOOD DISCUSSION. SCOTTY, YOUR HAND IS RAISED. MAKE SURE IT'S ON. >> THERE WE GO. AS Y'ALL PROBABLY KNOW, I'M A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF CLAY COUNTY, FAMILY GOES BACK LIKE SIX GENERATIONS. I THINK THE ONLY PERSON IN HERE THAT WAS HERE AT THE TIME WHEN ALL THAT WAS GOING ON WAS VAN. GLEN MIGHT HAVE BEEN HERE, TOO, BUT I DON'T KNOW. BUT WE DO KNOW THE HISTORY. THIS WAS THE FOURTH CHARTER VIEW. I SERVED ON THE INITIAL CHARTER COMMISSION. THIS IS THE FOURTH COMMISSION I'VE SERVED ON. ALTHOUGH THIS TIME AS AN ALTERNATE. THE -- OUR REPUTATION AND OUR RESPECT WE GET FROM -- COLLECTIVELY FROM THE PUBLIC OR VOTERS OR TAXPAYERS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US. I APPLAUD THE WORK THAT OUR ATTORNEY, GLEN TAYLOR, HAS DONE, TRYING TO MASSAGE THIS, MAKE IT LOOK RIGHT. BUT DON'T WANT TO COME ACROSS TO THE TAXPAYERS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PULL A FAST ONE ON THEM. THEY'LL SEE THROUGH THAT IN A MINUTE. AND YOU MAY BE ABLE TO REMIND ME OF WHEN -- I KNOW OF TWO, THREE TIMES WE TRIED TO TIE IT TO THE INDEX, TRIED TO GET COLA, TRIED TO GET A ROLLING RAISE. ALL KIND OF DIFFERENT FORMULAS WE TRIED TO DO AND WENT TO THE VOTERS, TO THE BALLOT. ON THE BALLOT FOR THE VOTERS TO VOTE ON. IT WAS SOUNDED DEFEATED EVERY TIME. I THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT BEING A COUNTY COMMISSIONER [01:15:02] IN CLAY COUNTY IS A BIG JOB, LOT OF RESPONSIBILITY, AND LIKE SAID EARLIER, FIVE COMMISSIONERS, ONE ASSISTANT NOW. THEY CAN HIRE FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, IT'S UP TO THEM TO MAKE IT HAPPEN ANY TIME. WE DON'T NEED TO GET INVOLVED IN THAT.IN BUT TRYING TO PUT SOMETHING OVER ON THE VOTERS, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T THINK WE ARE, WE THINK WE'RE TRYING TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR OUR COMMISSIONERS, BUT IT'S GOING TO COME ACROSS TO THE VOTERS WE'RE TRYING TO PULL SOMETHING OVER ON THEM AND THEY WILL BE VERY ANGRY. NOT AT THE COUNTY COMMISSION BUT THOSE OF US HERE. WHEN THEY HAD THE INITIATIVE, THERE WAS A GENTLEMAN WHO SAT IN THE FRONT ALL THE TIME -- DERWOOD SMITH, A SCHOOL TEACHER, A GOOD GUY BUT A TAX WATCH PERSON. HE WATCHED EVERY NICKEL THE COUNTY COMMISSION SPENT, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. THE BALLOT INITIATIVE RHONDA TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, THE PEOPLE GOT OUT THERE AND STOOD IN THE HOT RAIN IN THE SUMMER AND GOT THOSE PETITIONS SIGNED, HAD SPEECHES, AND THEY WERE LIKE JUMPING UP AND DOWN ABOUT IT, ADAMANT ABOUT WHAT A SCHOOL TEACHER MAKES, SHOULDN'T MAKE ANYTHING MORE. PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS, HOW MANY TIMES WE HEARD THAT. PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS. I THINK, ALTHOUGH NOBLE AS WHAT WE SEE AS A CONCERN, I RECOMMEND WE DON'T TRY TO PULL SOMETHING OVER ON THE VOTERS, EVEN THOUGH WE MAY NOT THINK WE ARE, BUT IT'S GOING TO APPEAR THAT WAY WHEN IT COMES OUT. I'M NOT A BIG SOCIAL MEDIA PERSON, BUT I EAT OUT A LOT AND TALK TO A LOT OF PEOPLE ALL THE TIME. ONES THAT SAY WE DON'T NEED TO RAISE THEIR SALARY, SALARY,OUR ARE HIGH ENOUGH NOW, BLAH BLAH BLAH, ALL THAT. I WOULD RECOMMEND WE DON'TDON'T PURSUE ANY FURTHER. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. >> THANK YOU, SCOTTY. LYNN, LEN, THEN VAN. >> I HEAR YOU, BUT BUT THINK THIS IS A POINT OF EDUCATION. LOOK AT WHAT IS PROPOSED RIGHT NOW, BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING, ASKING EVERY TAXPAYER TO CONTRIBUTE $2. GIVE ME TWO BUCKS AND I'LL FIX THE PROBLEM. THAT'S WHAT IT EQUATES TO. SO WE HAVE AN EDUCATION ISSUE TOTO THIS RIGHT. AND I APPRECIATE YOU, VAN, WHAT'S THERE. BUT I STILL BELIEVE THAT WHAT I'VE GOTTEN FROM THE COMMISSIONERS I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO IS, THEY'RE SCARED TO DO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. DEATHLY AFRAID TO DO WHAT IT IS YOU PROPOSE TO INCREASE STAFF BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE WILLING TO MAKE THE NOISE. AND YET WHEN THEY CAN ANT GET IT DONE, OR YOU CAN'T GET REPRESENTATION THAT YOU EXPECT TO DO THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, AS THIS COUNTY CONTINUES TO EXPAND, THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL GET. THROUGH EDUCATION, EXCUSE ME, WE WERE TOLD OUR GARBAGE FEE WOULD GO UP $19 AND I LOST THE ABILITY TO DO RECYCLING. NOW I TAKE IT IN MY TRUCK AND TAKE IT TO THE DUMP. WE DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF CONVERSATION THERE. SO ARE WE NOT DOING THE SAME THING? WE DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF EDUCATION, JUST TOLD THAT'S THE WAY IT'S GOING TO WORK. I BELIEVE AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IT'S ALL ABOUT EDUCATION. WHAT YOU SAID, OUT OF RETRIBUTION THEY ARE SALARIES IN THE CHARTER WERE FIXED. NOW YOU ASK A COUNTY COMMISSIONER TO MAKE LESS THAN SOMEONE WORKING AT MCDONALD'S FULL-TIME. I THINK THAT'S ABHORRENT, AND NOT WHAT THE REPUBLIC IS ALL ABOUT. THE REPUBLIC IS NOT ABOUT PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS, BY THE WAY. AS A MATTER OF WHAT, WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS GET RID OF THEM SO PEOPLE WHO ARE CAN REPRESENTREPRESENT WHO NEED TO BE REPRESENTED, NOT JUST POLITICAL POLITICIANS WHO LIVE THEIR LIFE IN THAT WORLD. [01:20:01] THAT'S WHAT A COUNTY COMMISSIONER IS. WE CAN'T EXPECT THAT OF THEM. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT VERBIAGE NEEDS TO GO IN THIS THING, AND THEN IF NECESSARY, START A CAMPAIGN OF EDUCATION THAT PUTS INTO WORK A SUCCESSFUL -- TO A SUCCESSFUL EVENT THAT ACHIEVES THE GOAL OF GETTING THIS RIGHT. PUTTING THEM ON THE RIGHT PATH TO TOMORROW. THIS IS NOT IF WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US IS TRUE, THIS IS OUT OF RETRIBUTION. WE ALL, FOUR TIMES OVER, IF THAT'S HOW MANY TIMES IT'S GOING THERE, SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF OURSELVES. WE HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACT RETRIBUTION IS THE WAY WE WANT OUR POLITICIANS TO BE HANDLED AND NOT VOTING IN WHAT THEY'RE DOING, OR WORSE, WHAT THEY'RE EXPECTED TO DO, WHERE I REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM, 24/7, AND I HAVE GOTTEN PHONE CALLS FROM BETSY AT 7:30, 8:00 AT NIGHT TO ANSWER A QUESTION I THOUGHT SHE WOULD WAIT UNTIL MONDAY TO TAKE CARE OF. SO WE'RE EXPECTING MORE AND OFFERING THEM SIGNIFICANTLY LESS MONETARILY, AND THEY DON'T GET REPAID FOR EVERYTHING THEY DO WHEN THEY DO THINGS. NOT A HERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR WHAT YOU DID, THEY DON'T GET THAT. WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THIS DIFFERENTLY. THERE NEEDS TO BE A DEPARTURE THAT GETS YOU TO A POINT WHERE YOU FIX THIS. AND THEY'RE NOT SO AFRAID TO GO BACK AND SAY I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HIRE A STAFF MEMBER. BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID TO WHAT I UNDERSTAND, AFRAID TO COME TO OUR BUDGET TO SAY I NEED $50,000 FOR SOMEBODY TO WORK FOR A YEAR IN STAFF. EVEN INTERN, 35,000 TO 40,000 A YEAR, ADD IT TO THE BUDGET. THEY'RE AFRAID TO DO THAT. WE SIT AS CITIZENS AND COMPLAIN NOTHING GETS DONE BY THE COMMISSIONERS. I THINK WE REALLY DO NEED TO -- WE CAN'T PUT THIS THING AWAY. I THINK IT WOULD BE THE WRONG THING TO DO. AND EVEN IF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO SAY I DON'T AGREE, THEN THEY'RE DOING IT ON THEIR OWN, BECAUSE AGAIN, I BELIEVE THEY'RE AFRAID TO GO TO THE TAXPAYER AND EDUCATE THEM ON WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO BRING THEM TO WHERE THEY SHOULD BE BECAUSE RETRIBUTION IS HOW THIS STARTED. >> VAN. >> AT SOME POINT, AT THAT POINT, AS JB POINTED OUT, WE ARE LESS TAXED PER CAPITA THAN SO MUCH THE REST OF THE STATE. SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION TO RAISE SOME OF THE FUNDS TO DO IT. AND THEY SHOULD. I HAVE FINALLY GOT ELECTED TO OFFICE AND HAD TO RAISE TAXES AND FEES, THINGS LIKE THAT. MY SUGGESTION, PART OF THIS TOTO POINT IS A SALES JOB. 70% OF THE STATE STATUTE WITH A DOLLAR AMOUNT SPELLED OUT IF WE CAN IN PARENTHESES AT THE CURRENT÷÷ TIME. IF IT'S ONLY 70%, I'M STILL GETTING A BARGAIN, NOT PAYING WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS PAYING. THEY COULD HAVE GONE UP. STATE PAYS EVERYBODY ELSE THIS, BUT I'M TAKING 70%. TO SCOTTY'S POINT, SPELLS IT OUT. WE HAVE TO BE TRANSPARENT OR THEY'RE ALL GOING TO THING WE'RE HORNSWOGLING THEM. I THINK THAT'S SELLABLE. I SAID THAT FIRST TIME I SAT OVER THERE, THIS IS AN EDUCATIONAL PROCESS. IF WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE GET OUT, GOING TO GET DONE BY SOMEBODY. WE HAVE TO GET THE COMMUNITY BEHIND US TO SAY TO THE LEADERS, THIS IS LIKE A HALF CENT SALES TAX FOR CHILDREN, 1 CENT SALES TAX, BOTH HAVE PASSED OVERWHELMINGLY. WE HAVE TO DO THE SAME THING. BUT I RECOMMEND IF WE LOOK AT 70% OF THE STATUTE, WHICH STATUTE DOES ALLOW TO DO, PUT A DOLLAR AMOUNT IN THERE IN PARENTHESES. >> I GOT TO CORRECT LEN'S CALCULATION. EACH REPRESENTS 50,000 RESIDENTS, APPROXIMATELY, [01:25:02] POPULATION, ASKING TO BRING THEM FROM 37 TO 57, 58. THAT'S ONLY 20,000. I USED 30,000. THAT'S ACTUALLY 60 CENTS. >> I WAS USING FULL AMOUNT, 96 WOULD BE $2 APIECE. 54 OR WHATEVER IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS. NOT A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY PER TAXPAYER. >> BUT EDUCATION IS KEY. ANYTIME AS A BUSINESS OWNER I HAD TO DEAL WITH MEDICARE REGULATIONS AND EVERY YEAR DEAL WITH CHANGES THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MADE. BASED ON THAT, WE HAD TO MAKE CONCESSIONS WITHIN THE COMPANY. BACK TO THE EDUCATION, I HAD A KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE, FROM THAT PROCESS WE WERE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT EMPLOYEES, TELL THEM WHAT WAS GOING ON. WE HAD A MAJOR CHANGE IN REIMBURSEMENT IN 2020 TO MAKE A DECISION EITHER REDUCE OUR WORK FORCE OR TAKE A TEMPORARY PAY CUT. ALL THE EMPLOYEES SAID WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY OUT OF WORK, SO THEY TOOK A TEMPORARY PAY CUT. THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE EDUCATION. WE SPENT SO MUCH TIME ON EDUCATION, AMENDMENT THREE, AMENDMENT FOUR, IN OUR SMALL COUNTY, THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO SOME EDUCATIONAL PROCESS AS WELL. I THINK IF IT'S SHED IN A POSITIVE LIGHT OF SHOWING THE FACTS, THAT IT IS 60 CENTS OR MAYBE LESS, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD REASONABLY BALK AT IT. I AGREE WITH COLA. AND HOWEVER WE GET TO THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE SHOULD BE. >> THANK YOU, BILL. STEVE, RHONDA. THEN SO LONG AS, IF THE MEMBERS ARE READY, WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER DISCUSS, WE CAN. IF WE FEEL WE'RE IN POSITION TO MAKE A MOTION, I'LL ASK SOMEBODY HERE TO MAKE A MOTION. FIRST, JUST TO MOVE ON, SHOULD WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE READY TO DO SO, IF NOT, I LEAVE ITIT TO THE MEMBERS. STEVE, THEN RHONDA. >> QUICK QUESTION. LAST TIME WE MET I MADE A MOTION TO RAISE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER SALARIES TO STATE LAW. IT WAS 10 IN FAVOR. SO I MAKE ANOTHER MOTION? THAT'S BEEN MOTIONED AND PASSED. >> THE MOTION WAS TO EXPLORE THE CONTENT OF THE LANGUAGE FOR A POTENTIAL AMENDMENT. THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED HERE TODAY. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE HERE. I WILL HEAR FROM RHONDARHONDA YOU HAVE A COMMENT. >> I HAVE A COMMENT. FIRST OF ALL, THEY DO, THE WAY IT'S BROKEN OUT, REPRESENT 50,000-ISH, BUT THEIR ACTIONS DO ALL OF THE COUNTY. NOT JUST REPRESENTING THAT PER DISTRICT, BUT THE DECISIONS ARE MADE BY THE BOARD TO AFFECT THE ENTIRE COUNTY. CLARIFY THAT. BUT I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. WING THIS, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. MOTION TO CHANGE THE VERBIAGE GIVEN TO US BY GLEN TAYLOR TO READ -- SHALL THE CLAY COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED TOTO THE SALARY TO 70% OF THE STATE STATUTE, IN PARENTHESES, THAT AMOUNT, WITH COLA, TO BE APPROVED BY -- AND GO FORTH WHAT YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE, GLEN. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU GUYS? OKAY. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION. DOES EVERYONE FIRST UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MOTION BEFORE US IS? THE VERBIAGE? SLIGHTLY OFF. 3% COLA IS REDUNDANT. EITHER -- >> 3%. MY BAD. >> THAT WAY YOU DON'T HAVE -- WHAT IS COLA. SECOND, WE NEED TO CHECK ON THIS. IF THE STATE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE CHANGED ANNUALLY FOR A COLA OR [01:30:01] SOME TYPE OF ADJUSTMENT ANNUALLY, IF THEY ARE, IT'S BUILT IN ALREADY. >> RETRACT MY MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION FOR GLEN TO GO BACK WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE VERBIAGE OF THE BALLOT THAT YOU BROUGHT FORTH FOR US TO TOLOOK TO THE NEXT MEETING AND VOTE ON THAT VERBIAGE. >> WHAT VERBIAGE ARE YOU REQUESTING? >> 70% OF STATE STATUTE IN PARENTHESES WITH THE AMOUNT, WITH THE 3%. >> AND AMOUNTS ARE A LITTLE, I'LL AGREE WITH BILL ON THAT, THEY'RE A LITTLE CONFUSING ON THIS. THIS IS THE CHART FROM THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH. FOR CUSTOM, TIM SAYING THATTHAT DUVAL COUNTY, 60,000, AND THIS HAS 127,000. I DON'T HAVE 99 EXPLANATION FOR WHAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE. I'M SORRY? >> >> RIGHT NOW, THAT DISCUSSION IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, BEFORE I GET TO YOUR DISCUSSION AT THE MOMENT, WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AS PRESENTED BY RHONDA. IS THERE A SECOND? ONE SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION, PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. AT THIS POINT, TIM, GO AHEAD. >> LET ME UNDERSTAND THIS, THIS IS MOVING FORWARD WITH THE RAISE. WE CANNOT DROP THIS AND JUST DO A COLA ONLY, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME? >> THE MOTION CURRENTLY IS FOR GLEN TO TAKE THE LANGUAGE AS AS PRESENTED, THE 70%, INCLUDING IN PARENTHESES WITH THE COLA, CORRECT? >> 3%. >> FOR GLEN TO PUT THAT INTO ANOTHER PROPOSAL, ON A PIECE OF PAPER, AND TO BRING THAT BACK TO OUR MEETING IN FEBRUARY FOR US TO HAVE A VOTE ONCE WE ALL SEE IT IN WRITING AND TO VOTE ON THAT. IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? >> FOR THE RECORD, WHAT IS THE 70%? FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING? OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GETTING NUMBERS THAT DON'T SEEM TO ALIGN. >> THAT'S WHY I ASKED HIM TO BRING IT BACK TO LOOK AT IT. >> BUT FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THIS MOTION, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT 70% IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. >> WHAT I WOULD -- 70% IS EASY, A HARD NUMBER IS NOT AS EASY. BUDGET DIRECTOR IS TRYING TO FIGURE HOW THE HOW THE SALARIES ARE DETERMINED, COULDN'T GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER, I'M SURE WE CAN BUT NOT AS EASY AS ONE MIGHT FIRST THINK. I DON'T HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR DUVAL COUNTY, I GET IT'S BIGGER BUDGET, 18 PEOPLE ON THE BOARD, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS. MAYBE CLERK GREEN CAN. >> I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL WHEN WE SAY 3% COLA BEING FIXED, SO THAT THERE'S NOT CONFUSION HERE BECAUSE COLA BY MOST IS DEEMED TO BE WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHES IT, BY NUMBERS. 1989, 11.4%. AND SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THROUGH A FEW OF THE YEARS WHERE WE SAW TREMENDOUS RAISESRAISES SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER THINGS. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CONSISTENT, IT'S AN ANNUAL SALARY ADJUSTMENT OF 3%. JUST SO WHEN YOUYOU THE AGREEMENT, THE AGREEMENT IS FIXED AT A PERCENTAGE, IF THAT'S WHAT IT IS THAT YOU WANT, OR YOU WANT IT TO BE ADJUSTED PER COLA, FEDERAL OLA, THAT'S MADE ON THE 10TH OF JANUARY. >> SINCE THAT MOTION'S ON THE TABLE, CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO SAY NO 70% AND JUST -- >> NO, AT THE MOMENT, WE HAVE A MOTION THAT'S BEEN PROPERLY MADE, SECONDED. DO YOU WISH TO RETRACT OR VOTE? >> I'VE GOT ONE MORE COMMENT. >> GO AHEAD. >> TO YOUR POINT, THIS IS A GOOD ONE. SINCE WE CAME UP WITH A HARD NUMBER, 37,000, WE CAN BETWEEN NOW AND 30 DAYS COME UP WITHWITH [01:35:02] NUMBER THAT'S IF NOTHING BETTER A BESTBEST GUESS SOONER OR LATER WE'LL MAKE A BEST GUESS ANYWAY. WHATEVER IT IS YOU COME UP, THAT IS THE NUMBER I STILL SUGGEST WE PUT IN PARENTHESES PER RHONDA'S MOTION. AND I THINK THAT OUGHT TO BE THE NUMBER. THEN GOING FORWARD, THE ADJUSTMENT OF 3% COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT, 3%. >> STEVE. >> MY ONLY DISCUSSION WOULD BE THE STATE STATUTE IS SET BY STATE LEGISLATE KRUR URE EVERY YEAR. I WOULD JUST TIE IT INTO THE STATE, THEY ADJUST EVERY YEAR WHEN THEY VOTE ON IT. >> MIC'S OFF. >> I WAS TRYING TO TALK LOUDLY. OKAY. I WAS SAYING THAT THE STATE STATUTE IS GOING TO BE ADJUSTED BY THE VOTE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE EVERY YEAR AND MORE THAN LIKELY THEY TIE IN A COLA. THIS WOULD BE REDUNDANCY. I WOULD JUST DO THE 70%, WHATEVER THE STATE SAYS, TIE IT INTO THAT AND DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT ADJUSTMENT. OR WORRY ABOUT 11% ONE YEAR, 2% THE NEXT YEAR. SET BY STATE STATUTE IS MY SUGGESTION. >> RHONDA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO REVISE THE MOTION BASED ON THE DISCUSSION HAD? >> LET'S DO THAT. I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR AND THAT WE HAVE IT SPELLED OUT ACCORDINGLY. AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND ANNUAL SALARY, 3%. BUT 70% OF STATE STATUTE, MY CONCERN WITH PUTTING A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON IT, SPECIFICALLY WE'LL BE BACK WHERE WE WERE WITH 37,000. PUTTING IN 70% OF THE STATE STATUTE AS IT IS, I I IT'S 48, 49 ANYWAY? 60? >> WHATEVER IT IS. APPROXIMATELY. I LIKE THE IDEA FOR TRANSPARENCY, SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S IT WILL LIKE THAT. I LIKE THAT, I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH REMOVING THE COLON, ASSUMING THAT THEY'LL TAKE -- >> IT'S NOT GOING TO GO DOWN. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT IN THE SAME SITUATION AS WE WERE BEFORE WITH NO GROWTH FOR THAT, SO THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS EMBEDDED IN THIS INSTEAD OF WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY HAVING THIS DEBATE. I THINK 70% OF STATE STATUTE WITH 3% ANNUAL SALARY. >> REVISE THE MOTION. >> I REVISE IT TO INCLUDE 70% STATE STATUTE WITH 3% ANNUAL RAISE. >> ONE MORE THOUGHT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION REVISED. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MOTION PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? GLEN. >> WITH A SUGGESTION, BECAUSE YOU COULD GET TO A POINTPOINT IF YOU INCREASED IT YEAR IT WOULD GO UP A PERCENTAGE TO THE ACTUAL STATE. COULD PUT IT IN FOR TEN YEARS FROM NOW IT WILL BE THERE SO PEOPLE TONIGHT SEE TOMORROW IT'S 67,000 YEAR AFTER THAT, WHATEVER. BUT I STILL THINK IT'S -- IT SHOULD BE THE TAXPAYERS' REQUIREMENT TO PAY WHAT THE STATE BELIEVES IS THE COMPENSATION THAT THEY'RE DUE. TO DO THAT, WE CAN GET THERE BY SAYING 5% PER YEAR UNTIL WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU ARE AT THE STATE LEVEL. THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT BECAUSE THERE ISN'T AN INCREASE BUT A DECREASE. THERE'S A STATE AUTHORIZED LIMIT ANNUM BASED ON THEIR BUDGET, AND YOU'RE OUT OF THE REST OF THIS FOREVER. >> YOU MAKE THAT DISCUSSION BUT IT IS CONTRARY TO THE MOTION AS PRESENTED AND SECONDED. THANK YOU FOR THAT DISCUSSION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AS IT IS BEFORE US RIGHT NOW? >> MAY I ASK ONE QUESTION, RHONDA? IS YOUR INTENTION -- I'LL TALK CLOSER. IF THE STATE ADJUSTS EVERY YEAR, IS IT STILL YOUR INTENTION TO ADD 3% ON TOP OF THE STATE INCREASES EVERY YEAR? >> THAT'S HOW I SEE IT AS WRITTEN HERE, STILL 70% OF STATE STATUTE WITH 3% COST OF LIVING. [01:40:02] >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BEFORE US? >> IF WE'RE AT 70% NEXT YEAR, LET'S SAY 60,000 AND STATE GOES UP TO 61,000 AND WE'VE GOT 3% INCREASE ON OURS, MAKES IT 62,000, EITHER WE'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE STATE OR WE'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE 3%, AGAIN WE MAY WANT TO JUST PUT 70% AND ASSUME THE STATE IS GOING TO SOONER OR LATER -- >> ADJUST IT. >> LOOKING AT THE STATE FORMULA, THERE'S SEVEN FACTORS OF NUMBERS THAT GO INTO THIS NUMBER. IT'S PRETTY ROBUST. >> STICK WITH 70% OF THAT. >> AND TO YOUR POINT, PROBABLY LESS CONFUSING, TOO, WHEN YOU START -- I AMEND IT TO READ JUST -- LAST TIME. 70% OF STATE STATUTE, AND FOR GLEN TO HELP US WITH WHAT THAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN THE PARENTHESES. >> WE HAVE A MOTION THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED. >> I SECOND. >> AS AMENDED. DO WE HAVE A SECOND. >> I SECOND. >> I SECOND THAT. >> SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE REVISED MOTION? >> CAN WE PUT A DOLLAR AMOUNT -- OKAY WOULD BE A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON THAT? >> I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. ARE WE SAYING WE'LL STAY AT 70% FOR THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE OR WHATEVER? WHERE ARE WE AT ADJUSTING ANNUALLY TO BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE STATE OR STAYING AT 70%? >> AS PRESENTED, IT'S 70%. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO TAKE -- CALL THE VOTE. EACH MEMBER PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOUR NAME AND YOUR VOTE FOR THE MOTION BEFORE US. >> THIS IS FOR THE VERBIAGE MOTION? >> KURT. >> KURT, YES. >> CHRISTY, YES. >> BILL, YES. >> TIM, NO. >> SHARI, YES. >> DEBBIE, YES. >> RHONDA, YES. >> COURTNEY, NO. >> YULE, YES. >> SUSAN, NO. >> MATTHEW, NO. >> GLEN, YES. >> VAN, YES. >> BRANDON SALTER, YES. >> STEVE ANDERSON, YES. >> ALL RIGHT. THE YEAS OUTWEIGH THE FOUR NOES FOR THIS. MOTION CARRIES. GLEN, I WILL TOSS IT OVER TO YOU. NO NEED TO ANSWER NOW, BUT IT IS YOUR JOB TO PUT HER REQUEST INTO VERBIAGE, BRING THAT TO THE NEXT MEETING FOR FURTHER [2. Article II Organization of County Government, Section 2.3: Executive Branch, D. Commission Auditor] DISCUSSION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, LET ME -- LET'S GO INTO NEW BUSINESS. WE HAVE ABOUT 20 -- LET ME JUST GO INTO NEW BUSINESS POINT TWO FOR THE SAKE OF TIME. COMMISSIONER AUDITOR, ORGANIZATION OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT, SECTION 2. 3, EXECUTIVE BRANCH, PARAGRAPH D, COMMISSION AUDITOR. I'D LIKE TO BRING BACK OUR CLERK OF COURT, MS. TARA GREEN, WHO HAS BEEN GRACIOUS WITH HER TIME AND REMAINED HER, THANK YOU SO MUCH, TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE GROUP HERE. NOW, IF THERE IS -- DEPENDING ON WHERE THIS GOES, IF WE NEED TO FURTHER EXPLORE THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC, JUST KNOW THAT WE CAN TABLE IT AND MOVE IT OVER TO OUR NEXT MONTH AS MEETING SHOULD WE NEED TO HEAR IN ANOTHER INDEPENDENT SOURCE, I GUESS, WITH REGARDS TO WHAT THE INTERNAL AUDITOR DUTIES AND RULES ARE. THAT'S JUST TO PUT THAT FORTH. RHONDA, I HAVE YOUR MIC ON. >> I THINK IT WOULD BE APROPOS FOR US TO BRING THE CURRENT INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS THIS POSITION WITHIN THE COUNTY AND GET A BREAKDOWN FROM HER OF WHAT THAT JOB IS AND ENTAILS SO WE CAN SEE -- TARA HAS DONE A GREAT JOB BRINGING TO US. THE ROLES, WHAT IT FOLLOWS [01:45:04] VER, TO SEE FOR OURSELVES IF THERE'S A LAPOVER AND WHERE IT IS, IF IT'S EFFECTIVE. I THINK THAT'S FAIR IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ROLE. >> SO WITH REGARDS TO THE PARTICULAR ROLE, WHAT I WANT TO AVOID -- I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT AND DO BELIEVE WE DO NEED ANOTHER VOICE TO, I GUESS, SHARE BOTH SIDES. HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO AVOID THE -- WHAT COULD BE PERCEIVED AS AN AWKWARD POSITION FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS THIS PARTICULAR -- WHO IS IN THIS ROLE TO COME IN AND FEEL LIKE SHE NEEDS TO DEFEND HER JOB. AND I WANT TO AVOID ALL OF THAT. NOT TO SAY WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY A PERSON'S LIVELIHOOD, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I WOULD EVEN CONSIDER. SO MY THOUGHT, I DID GIVE THEM SOME CONSIDERATION, IS HAVE ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL, WHO HAS A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC. I CAN'T SAY NAMES BECAUSE I HAVEN'T ASKED THIS PERSON TO COME UP AND SPEAK. HOWEVER I DO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL IN MIND TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE INTERNAL AUDITOR. BUT WE HAVE THE CLERK OF COURT HERE, PRESENT BEFORE US. TIM, I WANT TO TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU, IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. MEMBERS OF THE CRC, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS TOPIC. >> THANK YOU AGAIN FOR BEING HERE. I THINK SHE ANSWERED MOST OF MY QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. OPEN THE FLOOR. >> CAN I ASK WE WE THE MISSION STATEMENT FOR EACH OF THE POSITIONS? >> THE RESPONSIBILITY CHART? >> AN ACTUAL MISSION STATEMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL AUDITING EFFORTS. THERE'S A REASON THERE'S AN AUDITOR UNDER THE GENERAL, IF YOU WILL, THE LEGAL SIDE OF THE BUSINESS. AND THEN THERE'S AN AUDIT TEAM ON THE FINANCIAL SIDE. IS THERE A MISSION STATEMENT FOR EACH OF THOSE TEAMS? >> YES, THERE ARE DUTIES THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO FOR AUDIT. >> CAN WE BE PROVIDED THE MISSION STATEMENT OF THOSE TWO SPECIFIC TASKS? >> YES, WE HAVE A CHARTER, I CAN PROVIDE IT. >> ADDITIONAL? >> MY QUESTION IS NOT TO CRITIQUE HERE BUT UNDERSTAND. SHE'S IN THE TRENCHES IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT SHE DOES. IT'S NOT DEFENSE OF HER POSITION. THAT'S NOT OUR SPACE TO DECIDE THAT. IT'S UNDERSTANDING BOTH MODAL CITIES. MAYBE THE COUNTY MANAGER EXPLAINS THAT ROLE? HE DOES THE HIRING, SO MIGHT BE APROPOS FOR HIM TO DO IT IF YOU'RE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE ONE WHO HAS THE POSITION. WE'VE ASKED HER TO COME AND PRESENT. >> HEY, TARA, SINCE THE MISSION AUDITOR ONLY ANSWERS TO THE BOARD, DO YOU THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE OR SHOULD THEY ANSWER TO THE CITY MANAGER? >> I THINK THAT'S THE DECISION OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT. >> HOW MANY PEOPLE ONLY ANSWER TO THE BOARD? HOW MANY POSITIONS? >> UM, I BELIEVE TWO, COURTNEY? THREE. THREE. THE COUNTY MANAGER, COUNTY ATTORNEY AND COMMISSION AUDITOR. >> THANK YOU. >> AND JUST SO I'M CLEAR ON THE REASON THIS WAS RAISED AS A TOPIC. THE CONCERN IS -- >> I FEEL LIKE BEFORE THAT AMENDMENT WAS PASSED, THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. NOW THAT ROLE BELONGS TO THE CLERK, MAYBE THE INTERNAL -- IF WE KEEP EVERYTHING THE SAME, MAYBE THAT PERSON SHOULD ANSWER TO THE CITY MANAGER ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS. >> I CAN SPEAK TO THAT AS FAR AS BEFORE THE CHANGE ON AMENDMENT TEN AND THE FINANCE DUTIES SPECIFICALLY, WHICH INCLUDES COUNTY AUDIT -- THE CONFUSION A LOT OF TIMES WITH JUST THE LAYMEN IS THE TERM COUNTY AUDITOR, THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLERK, AND COMMISSION AUDITOR, AN INDEPENDENT APPOINTED POSITION TO THE COMMISSIONERS. I'M APPOINTED WITH THINGS I HAVE TO DO WITH THE COUNTY AUDITOR. I THINK WHEN THE CHARTER CHANGED THE FIRST TIME TO REMOVE THOSE DUTIES FROM THE CLERK OF [01:50:04] COURT AND BRING THEM IN- HOUSE TO THE LOCAL COUNTY GOVERNMENT, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHEN THE ORIGINAL COMMISSION AUDITOR TITLE WAS CREATED. I'M NOT 100% SURE BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S WHEN IT WAS CREATED, SO THAT INDIVIDUAL ACTED AS A FINANCIAL CONSULTANT TO THE BOARD IN A WAY AT THE TIME, AND THE COUNTY FINANCE KIND OF FELL UP AGAINST THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WHICH HAS CHANGED AND MATURED OVER THE YEARS. WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY MADE THE CHANGE, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY, ARE DIFFERENT. THERE'S A SEGREGATION OF DUTIES THAT HAPPENED. >> COULD THE COMMISSION AUDITOR DO THINGS THAT WOULD AFFECT YOU IN A NEGATIVE WAY? >> NOT SUPPOSED -- OKAY. THAT'S A -- NOT EFFECT ME IN A NEGATIVE WAY. I'M REQUIRED TO DO X AMOUNT AND TYPES OF AUDITS, AND IT DOES NOT PREVENT ME CONTINUING TO DO THOSE THINGS. >> WOULD IT CONFLICT IF THEY DID SOMETHING, WOULD IT CONFLICT WITH YOUR POSITION? >> WELL, THERE ARE SPECIFIC DUTIES PRESCRIBED UP UNDER THE COMPTROLLER ROLE THAT ARE SPECIFIC WHEN IT COMES TO THE AUDITING PIECE OF IT. IT COULD CREATE CONFUSION. WE HAVE NOT HAD THAT YET. BUT IT COULD CREATE CONFUSION BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY, THE WAY THE AUDITING ROLE AND CLERKS OVER THE YEARS ACROSS ALL THE COUNTIES -- CLAY COUNTY IS UNIQUE IN THIS, THIS IS NOT NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE TALKED ABOUT A LOT IN OTHER COUNTIES BECAUSE THERE'S NOT THAT -- WHERE IS THE LINE IN THE SAND, WHO DOES WHAT. BECAUSE IN STATUTES THERE ARE A LOT OF SILENT AREAS AS FAR AS THE ROLE OF COUNTY AUDITOR TO BE HONEST. FINANCIAL IS DEFINITELY IN THERE. IT HAS EVOLVED OVER THE YEARS WITHIN ALL THE COUNTIES IN WHICH THE COUNTY AUDITORS WITH THE CLERK OF COURT ALSO TAKE ON OTHER TYPES OF AUDITS. INSPECTOR GENERAL BEING A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF OPERATIONAL AUDITS, PERFORMANCE AUDITS, INTERNAL AUDITS. THE ARGUMENT IS IF THE CONTROLS ARE NOT IN PLACE AND THERE ARE INEFFICIENCIES, THAT CREATES FINANCIAL IMPACT. IT CAN BE CONFUSING WITH MULTIPLE ROLES WITH VERY SIMILAR TITLES, WHO DOES WHAT. >> SCOTTY, YOUR HAND IS RAISED. >> I GOT A QUESTION IF I COULD FOR THE CLERK. THE COUNTY AUDITOR, UNDER THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >> COUNTY AUDITOR IS CLERK. >> SPEAK INTO THE MIC PLEASE. >> SO THE COUNTY AUDITOR, THE CLERK, DOES EVERYTHING. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT -- >> THE PURVIEW OF THE CLERK IS ONLY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CLERK OF KOURT. COURT. I DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION FOR ANY OTHER OFFICER UNLESS I'M INVITED IN TO DO SO OR THERE'STHERE'S MOU. WE DO THE EXTERNAL FINANCIAL AUDIT, THE GOVERNMENT- WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR ALL CONSTITUTIONALS WITH AN EXTERNAL AUDITOR. WE OVERSEE THAT, PURELY GOVERNMENT FINANCIALS. ANY PERFORMANCE AUDITS, EFFICIENCY AUDITS, OPERATIONAL AUDITS CAN BE DONE BUT HAS TO BE BY THE INVITE OF THE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER. >> UNDERSTAND. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? IF NOT, MY SUGGESTION, AND I WOULD WELCOME A MOTION FOR THIS, IS THAT -- AGAIN, I DO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL IN MIND THAT WILL PROVIDE COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS FROM THE INTERNAL AUDITOR'S PERSPECTIVE INSIDE. SO WE CAN, I GUESS, FURTHER EXPLORE THIS, AND WE'RE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF OUR CLERK OF COURTS FOR HER COMMENTS. AND SHE WILL BE PROVIDING US EDUCATION ON THAT, BUT WE CAN POTENTIALLY TABLE THIS UNTIL NEXT MONTH TO HAVE THAT INDIVIDUAL COME, SPEAK TO US, PROVIDE THAT EDUCATION, GIVE US A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE EDUCATION FROM OUR CLERK WITH REGARDS TO THIS, THEN FURTHER EXPLORE [01:55:01] THIS SHOULD WE ALL BE WILLING TO DO SO. I SAW A HAND. GLEN. >> JUST A QUICK QUESTION. IN YOUR ROLE, YOU HAVE SPECIFIC SCHEDULES FOR AUDITS? >> YES, SIR, ANNUAL AUDIT PLANS WE WORK WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CITY MANAGER ON. >> IN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL -- >> THAT'S WHERE THEY EXIST. FINANCIAL AUDITS ARE SPECIFIC, DONE ANNUALLY BY A CERTAIN DATE WE HAVE TO PROVIDE TO THE BOARD AND TURN INTO THE STATE. THAT'S THE FINANCIAL, REALLY THE EXTERNAL AUDIT. THERE ARE A MULTITUDE OF OTHEROTHER THAT GO ON THROUGHOUT THE OFFICE. INSPECTOR GENERAL, FLEET MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC WORKS, MANAGEMENT OF EMERGENCIES, ANIMAL CONTROL. WE WORK WITH THE BOARD AND MANAGER TO SET WHAT THOSE LOOK LIKE ANNUALLY OR TWO-YEAR PLAN. >> AND LAST QUESTION, IF THERE WAS A QUESTION OF -- I DON'T WANT TO IMPLY INTEGRITY IN YOUR AUDIT POSITION, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S AUDIT TEAM WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUCT ING THAT AUDIT, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. >> CAN I CLARIFY, YOU WANTED TOTO STATEMENT FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE, WHO DO I SEND TO? >> TERESA. >> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS TOPIC UNTIL NEXT MONTH FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION, DO -- >> SECOND. >> SECOND. >> SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES, WEWE TABLE THIS FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION IN THE NEXT MONTH WITH ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS. TARA GREEN THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND APPRECIATE THE INDULGENCE. [1. Article II Organization of County Government, Section 2.2: Legislative Branch, I. Initiative] YOUR TIME IS VALUABLE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE UNDER NEW BUSINESS INITIATIVE UNDER ARTICLE II SECTION 2. 2 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH PARAGRAPH I. GIVEN THE HOUR, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THAT FOR DISCUSSION FOR NEXT MONTH? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE FOR NEXT MONTH. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECONDED. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. SO WE WILL GO AHEAD AND REVIEW THE AUDITOR, THE INITIATIVE. AND LET'S LOOK AT PAGE 25 FOR -- LET'S SEE. ACTUALLY, THAT'S GOING TO BE ENOUGH. WE'RE COMING BACK WITH SALARIES AND COMPENSATION, TO EXPLORE THAT LANGUAGE. COMMISSION AUDITOR, THEN SHOULD WE GET TO IT, THE INITIATIVE. THOSE ARE THE THREE ITEMS NEXT MONTH. NEXT MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR [PUBLIC COMMENT] FEBRUARY 9TH, 5:00 P.M. AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. I DON'T THINK YOUR MIC IS ON. >> HI, I'M HELENA, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU'RE DOING AND THE COMMUNICATION AND DISCUSSION YOU HAD OVER THE SALARIES TONIGHT. I PERSONALLY AM JUST VERY GRATEFUL YOU CAME TO SOME TYPE OF MEDIAN IN THIS ONE. I FEEL THAT -- I'VE JUST BEEN TAUGHT IN OUR CHURCHES AND PLACES WHERE PEOPLE SERVE THAT PEOPLE ARE WORTHY OF THEIR HIRE AND WE SHOULD COMPENSATE THEM FOR THEIR SERVICE. AND SO IT'S JUST ONE OF THE PHILOSOPHIES I DO LIVE BY. AND I KNOW THIS IS A PART-TIME POSITION FOR OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, BUT THEY ALMOST FILL A FULL- TIME ROLE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE BREAKDOWN ON THE STATE NUMBER, THAT 70%, ON A PART-TIME OR IF THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FULL TIME POSITION, BUT KEEP THAT IN MIND AS Y'ALL ARE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. WE DO LOVE OUR COUNTY [02:00:02] COMMISSIONERS AND THE WORK THEY DO. WE DON'T KNOW WHY SOME DON'T RUN A SECOND TIME, IT'S THEIR PERSONAL DECISIONS. AND WE DON'T KNOW WHY THERE'S TIMES THAT YOU HAVE UNOPPOSED ONES ALREADY IN OFFICE AND THEN AN OPEN SEAT THAT RAN UNCONTESTED. WHY? YOU KNOW. DOES THE MONEY COME INTO PLAY? WHEN YOU HAVE SUCH AN OBLIGATION AND FULFILLMENT TO SERVE IN CLAY COUNTY, IT'S HARD TO BALANCE THE JOB, WHATEVER YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE TO YOUR HOME AND YOUR FAMILY, AND ALSO THE COMMITMENT IT TAKES TO BE AN EFFICIENT COUNTY COMMISSIONER, SO WE DO HAVE TO SHARE THE EDUCATION. I THINK THAT IS IMPERATIVE. WE DO SEE PEOPLE SHOUTING ON FACEBOOK AND THE NEGATIVE THINGS THAT MAY GET SAID. BUT WE STILL HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WE ALL LIVE HERE AND WANT THE BEST FOR OUR COUNTY, AND WE WANT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABLE TO TAKE ON THAT LOAD THAT WE ASK OF THEM. IF WE AREN'T WILLING TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE INCREASE OR THE AT- LARGE POSITION OR SOMETHING TO TAKE THIS BURDEN SO OUR COUNTY CAN BE EFFECTIVELY TAKEN CARE OF AND MANAGED AS OUR GROWTH HAS ALREADY HAPPENED OVER ALL THESE YEARS AND PROJECTED TO BE IN THE FUTURE. SO JUST THANK YOU AGAIN FOR EVERYTHING THAT Y'ALL ARE CONSIDERING. AND I HOPE THAT THE VOTERS WILL UNDERSTAND THIS IS STILL FAR LESS THAN THE STATE NUMBER. I DO UNDERSTAND MATTHEW'S POINT IT IS IMPERATIVE THEY UNDERSTAND WE'RE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE LAW BUT WE DON'T EVEN MATCH OR COME CLOSE RIGHT NOW. BUT TRYING TO IMPROVE IT IS JUST THE BEST THING WE CAN DO FOR THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE. SO THANK, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE REST OF THE ITEMS AS WE MOVE FORWARD. >> THANK YOU, HELENA. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE PUBLIC? NOT SEEING ANY, I'M GOING TO BRING IT BACK. DO I HAVE -- BEFORE WE CLOSE, MEMBERS, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE CRC? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.