[CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:36] THE DAY LORD >> DECISIONS DEAR LORD TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY AND I PRAY A SAFE TRAVEL FOR EVERYONE AT HOME. >> 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. >> FRONT HERE GRAB THE MIC. >> T-SHIRT. > SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. >> COMMISSIONER WARREN. >> TIM WINNING AND COMMISSIONER CONNOR. >> COMMISSIONER PASCOE. >> COMMISSIONER PASCOE. >> FANTASTIC WE HAVE A QUORUM HERE. >> ONE OR ONE MEMBER MISSING. >> SO FANTASTIC. >> APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S TIME [WELCOME] COMING COMING HERE AND HOPEFULLY HALFWAY THROUGH BUT SEE. SEE WHAT WE IS WHERE IN [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] FRONT OF US TODAY AND WHERE WE WANT TO TAKE THEM GET IT ON THE RECORD. >> APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 2025/2026 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 2026. INCLUDED IN THE PACKET CAN I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES DO . DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> HAVE A SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSIONS OR REVISION? >> HEARING NONE,. > ALL IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE." >> AYE. Select to skip to this part of the video">>> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE.". >> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE." >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? SAME SIGN MINUTES ARE HEREBY APPROVED. [PUBLIC COMMENT] >> FOR YOUR EXTENSION IT IS RECOGNIZED>> ALL RIGHT. ANY. >> I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? >> 1985 FOR THE TRAIL OF MIDDLEBURG I ACTUALLY CAME DOWN HERE TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION TO THIS RIDICULOUS ATTEMPT THIRD TIME IN A ROLE TO JACK-UP THE COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS JUST RIDICULOUS. WORD OF MOUTH IS KILLED ARTHRITIS AND WHY I CAN'T TAKE A HYPOCRITE IT #Y0E7BD ME AND FRANKLY WILL BE ANNOYING MORE AND MORE THE CITIZENS AS YOU GO ONLINE. >> I JUST GOOD GET IT. EVERYTHING SHOULD BE A LEARNING EXPERIENCE BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWING THAT COLLECTIVE EXPECT EXCEPT FOR THIS ISSUE BUT LOOKS LIKE ANYONE WANT TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO GET RID OF OUR CHARTER. OUR CHARTER IS OUR CONSTITUTION WE ARE NOT A WE ARE HERE TO MAKE OUR OWN RULES AND DON'T WANT THE CHARTER TAKEN AWAY AND SUBJECT TO A BUNCH NAMELESS FACELESS PEOPLE HEARSAY OF MILES AWAY IS RIDICULOUS AND YOU CAN'T IS A CONSTITUTION FOR THE PUBLIC AND REPEAL IT AND SAY I CAN'T HAVE IT ANYMORE. >> THE CRC FREQUENCY WAS VOTED DOWN. AND ANYBODY WANTED IT WELL - MORE PEOPLE THAN NOT DIDN'T WANT IT IS VOTED ON AND [00:05:02] DECIDED WHY YOU FIGURE OUT A MIDDLE FINGER SALUTE TO THE COUNTY IS BEYOND ME. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT? >> HEARING NONE, (GAVEL) THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION HERE. >> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE - ITEMS ON THE DISCUSSION I DO HAVE A SPEAKER PLANNED FOR THE EVENING TO GO OVER THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC BUT UPON FURTHER DISCUSSION I DECIDED TO CANCEL THAT PARTICULAR SPEAKER AND HOLD OFF ON THAT UNTIL WE GET TO OUR NEW BUSINESS AN AGREEMENT DOING THAT AND CUNCIL WILL GET INTO THAT IN JUST A MOMENT. [1. Updated Charter Topic List] >> SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO HOLD BUSINESS WE HAVE AN UPDATED CHAPTER TOPIC LIST. LET'S SEE - HERE. >> PAGE 17 OF OUR PACKET. A LARGE PACKET TODAY. >> EVERYONE IS GOOD WITH THAT, I GUESS I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT TOPIC. >> ALL RIGHT. A ADMISSION TO APPROVE THE TOPIC LIST AND SECOND ANY DISCUSSIONS. > AYE. >> ALL IN ANY OPPOSED? MOTION Select to skip to this part of the video">>> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE." >> AYE. >> ALL IN ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. >> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE OUR TOPIC LIST IN FRONT OF US. ALL [2. Article II Organization of County Government, Section 2.2.C. Legislative Branch, Salaries and Other Compensation] RIGHT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO ART 2 HAVE SALARIES AND COMPENSATIONS. >> 1. NEW BUSINESS: ARTICLE IV HOME RULE CHARTER TRANSITION, AMENDMENTS, REVIEW, SEVERANCE, EFFECTIVE DATE, SECTION 4.2: B. AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS BY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION REPEAL OF COUNTY CHARTER UTILITY TAX CRC FREQUENCY. WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE COUNSELORS A MEMORANDA ON THE PARTICULAR LANGUAGE. THE LANGUAGE WAS APPROVED. AND IN THE PRIOR MEETING AND REASONS AS TO WHY PROVIDING US WITH ANOTHER OPTION TO CAN'T REMEMBER I WANT TO - I LET MR. TAYLOR TO OF AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE NEXT. >> AND HAVE YOU KNOW, WE WENT THROUGH AND VOTED ON THE AMENDMENT THAT IS WAY PROVIDED TO. I AM EXACTLY AS YOU VOTED ON AND APPROVED AT THE LAST MEETING ON PAGE 25. WHICH I'M IDENTIFYING AS OPTION ONE. AND THEN I'M ALSO PROVIDING YOU WITH THE SECOND ADDITION TO IN A MINUTE AND GIVEN YOU THE BOARD OF STATUTES AND TRYING TO MAKE THAT CONCISE BUT WHAT THE REALLY I THINK PROBABLY EASIEST PLACE IT IS DENSE AND TO APPLY IT TO REVIEW BUT THE CASE ON THE LAST PAGE 55 I TRIED TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT MY CONCERNS WITH AND I'M COMPLETELY FINE WITH WHATEVER YOU ALL LIMOUSINE YOU'VE CHOSEN IN OUR FINE WITH THAT AND WE APPROVED IT. OTHER ISSUES ARE CONCERNS AND WE CAN PUT THAT IN PLACE I FELT MY OBLIGATION TO PRESENT THIS TO YOU AS A CONDITION AND THE CONCERNS ARE "3 REALLY KIND OF COMES DOWN TO THIS IS THIS DIFFERENT THAN THE AMENDMENT CHARTERS SPECIFIC VERY SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR $37,000 FOR THE COMMISSIONERS SALARIES AND HERE'S THAT COURT DECISION THAT ARE SOMEWHAT DATED. BUT STILL GOOD LAW AND IN THE ONE WE OR AMENDMENT HAVE A RULE AND HERE WITH THAT CASE A LOT FOCUSES ON WHATEVER IF IT IS REPEALED OR RESISTING THE LIMITATION THE THIRD $37,000 FOR THE AMOUNT AND THAT IS MENTIONED IN THE DIFFERENT CASES WHEN CHANGES [00:10:07] AND WITH THE SINCERELY SO THE COUNTY AND THE THIRD CASE REPEAL WHETHER THAT LANGUAGE WHETHER THE LANGUAGE WE VOTED ON IS FINE OR WHETHER IN THE SECOND OPTION REALLY THE PRELIMINARY DIFFERENCE THAT IT IS JUST HAS THE COMMISSIONER BURKE SALARY THAT IS REMOVED IN THE CHAPTER. AND OTHERWISE YOU THE TWO WERE CLOSED POSSIBILITY TOGETHER AND THERE IS A RISK TO THE COUNTY WHICH I DISCUSSED IN A MEMO THAT TRANSPARENCY OR NOT TRANSPARENCY AND WITH THE LEG CHALLENGES I SUGGEST IT WILL BE BUT THEN AGAIN MAYBE ANYBODY WILL I'M I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO PRESENT TO YOU ALL. >> OKAY. >> I DIDN'T SEE ANY HANDS UP AND. - >> (MULTIPLE VOICES). >> SO MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, IN REFERENCE TO THE 1.1 POINT OF ONE. ATTACHED TO IT AND IT IS PERMITTED IN LANGUAGE MY INTERPRETATION FOR THE CLAY COUNTY COUNTY COMMISSIONER AND MY POINT IN THE LIMBS TO ESTABLISH THAT STATUTE THAT IS VERY CLEAR AND NO AM GONE OUT AND CHAIR HERE'S WHERE IT THE IT SAYS SHALL BE PRINTED UNAMBIGUOUS AND THAT WAS WHERE I'M COMING FROM. >> YES. THAT THAT. >> TRUE YES. I AGREE THAT IS CLEAR. BUT THE CASE LAW REFERS TO CHANGES OR SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERNATING THE REPEAL PROVISIONS. THAT IS WHAT I'M SUGGESTING TO YOU CHANGED FROM THE 37 THOUSAND A YEAR TO THE STATUTORY AMOUNT THAT WAS VERY CLEARLY BROUGHT FORWARD. >> AND THAT'S WHERE WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS DECIDE. >> OKAY. ON PAGE 20 AND 21 OF OUR PACKET 25 GOT THE PROPOSAL HAS LETTER K ON PAGE $337,000 PER YEAR AND THE SALARY CHANGES SHALL BE PROUD OF IN THE GENERAL ELECTION AND PAGE 21 AGAIN, LETTER C STRUCK DOWN THE $37,000 PER YEAR AND ADDED THE SET ANNUALLY AND THE NEXT SENTENCE SAYS ANY SALARY CHANGES SHOULD BE APPROVED IN A GENERAL ELECTION. AND IF WE STILL HAVE THAT IN THERE. YOU KNOW, IT IN REASON TO EVEN VOTE IF THE ELECTORS OR CITIZENS OF THE COUNTIES ARE STILL VOTING YEAH OR NAY. I THINK THE WHOLE IDEA WAS TO GO AHEAD AND ALLOW US TO FOLLOW THE STATE GUIDELINES OF THE WHATEVER 90 PERCENT OF THAT I'M WONDERING ABOUT THE 70 PERCENT AND I DID BUT HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION VERSUS ANOTHER COMPENSATION. NOW IS THAT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE COST OF LIVING THE SF PERCENT WAS VOTED DOWN AND THAT WAS GENERAL LAW. AND ATTEMPT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR EACH YEAR WILL CHANGE AS THE STATUTE CHANGES AND THE POPULATION CHANGES WILL CHANGE SO HOPEFULLY MAKE THAT A CLEAR THING NOT IN THE FIRST LANGUAGE OF THE BILL AND THE THIRD POINT WAS I STRUGGLE WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT THE SALARY CHANGES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE GENERAL ELECTION AND STRUCK THAT LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER? >> BUT AFTER RESEARCH AND THEORY CONSIDERATION I THOUGHT THAT MAY FURTHER THE COMMISSIONS BY RETAINING THIS LANGUAGE. [00:15:04] >> AND THE FOURTH QUESTION I THINK I HAD WAS (LAUGHTER). >> IT WAS THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT IN THE COMPENSATION. >> THE OTHER COMPENSATION IS INDEPENDENT WILL BE CONTAINED IN THAT I SUGGEST UNDER THE - THE CALIFORNIA LAST UNDER THE STATUTE FOR THE COST OF LIVING. >> I BELIEVE THAT IT IS IS. >> SO UNDER THE OTHER (UNINTELLIGIBLE) TO MAR THE OTHER COMPENSATION IS TITLED AS IT SAYS THE MEN AND WOMEN OF IT DIDN'T INCLUDE ANYTHING ABOUT COST OF LIVING. >> I WOULD SAY HISTORICALLY NO, BUT THE RETIREMENT PLAN THEY HAD IN PLACE. AND MAYBE DAS OFF THINGS LIKE THAT. >> IN THIS STANCE THIS IS APPROVED AS A COUNCIL EXCUSE ME - AT THE COMMISSION, SO TO SPEAK HAS THE LAST LANGUAGE IT IS CRITICAL. >> I WANT TO GO BACK TO ANOTHER SENTENCE BEFORE THE VOTE ANY SALARY CHANGES SHALL BE APPROVED BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION IF YOU KEEP IT IT IN THERE WILL YOU IT IS IRRELEVANT CITIZENS STILL HAVE TO VOTE REGARDLESS IF THIS IS IN THERE OR NOT. OPEN YOU CAN LOAD IT IN THERE THEY THEY'LL GET THIS AMOUNT. >> IF WE WANT TO CHANGE IT 23 FROM THE STATUTE WE CAN VOTE ON THAT PATIENTLY WAITING. >> ANY TIME A SALARY CHANGE IT IS APPROVED BY THE MAJORITY 6 OF THE ELECTORS. >> WHY HAVE IT WE'RE DON'T GO IT PER STATUTE IT IS CHANGED REGARDLESS. >> (MULTIPLE VOICES). THAT'S WHERE I STRUGGLE. >> THIS IS LIKE THE FOURTH ROUND. I MEAN ITS IS OR NOT. >> AND INTERPRETED THAT IF - IF WE WISHED TO CHANGE IT AGAIN WHICH WE WANTED TO TAKE IT OFF THE STATUTES IS A 70 PERCENT AT LEAST THAT WILL HAVE BE TO APPROVED BY THE MAJORITY OF GENERAL ELECTION. >> SO YOU DO (UNINTELLIGIBLE) SOMETHING THEY CHOOSE TO DO LATER ON? >> WOULD BE IN THE (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I FIND THOSE TWO STATEMENTS EITHER WE'RE TO DO THIS OR (UNINTELLIGIBLE). >> I'M SORRY. >> I MEAN, I STRUGGLED GOING AROUND TO GET WHERE I REALLY WANT - I DON'T KNOW, I CAN'T EXPRESS THAT. >> I LIKE TO STRICT THAT SENTENCE AND EYE OPTION TWO A CLEAR EXAMPLE. BUT I FEEL LIKE THIS IS WHAT FURTHER I'M TRYING TO TAKE MY VOTE OUT OF THAT THIS IS THE CLEAREST LANGUAGE AND STILL WILL SURVIVE BY SUSTAIN THE CHALLENGES. >> LET ME MATTHEW DO YOU HAVE I WANT TO FOLLOW UP. >> GO AHEAD. >> IS THAT OKAY? >> I THINK WE HAVE I INTERPRET IT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS INTERPRETING WE ALL SIT HERE AND GIVE ONE HUNDRED DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS WILL INTERPRET THIS DIFFERENTLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS COUNSEL GIVES US ADVISE AND THEN AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE DECIDE TO GO WITH OPTION ONE [00:20:07] LAST TIME THE COUNCIL SUGGESTED THAT WILL NOT PASS AND YET HAVE OPINIONS OWN THAT AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, COINCIDENTAL DIDN'T KNOW UP TO THE JUDGE THAT WE'RE NOT JUDGES SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT IS WHO IT COME DOWN TO KIND OF PIGGYBACKING ON THE FIRST QUESTION. SO WE CAN SIT HERE AND SAY WE DON'T KNOW BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, COMES DOWN TO WHO SAY IS JUDGE. AND IF IT IS OR ISN'T BUT LIKE COUNCIL SAID I THINK TO PREVENT US 80 FROM FURTHER LEG ACTION SHOULD WE WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THAT INITIATIVE I THINK WE SWITCHED TO OPTION TO PREVENT ANY CHALLENGES THAT COUNCIL HAS. >> I'D LIKE FOR THE WE'RE GOING TO RUN WITH THAT LIKE TO BE MORE SPECIFIC. WHERE IT SAYS WILL BE ADJUSTED TO THE SALARIES SIT DOWN E SIT DOWN BY THE BOARD OF STATUTES AND TALKED ABOUT EARLIER NOT AMBIGUOUS BUT REFERENCING TO - STURLT UPDATED ANNUALLY? SO I SEE I WASN'T HERE LAST TIME BUT I LOOKED AT IT EXTENSIVELY SO THE REAL QUESTION IS JUST BEEN WEEDED OUT AND IF I PUT THE EVERYTHING THE STATE RISE IT'S STATUTE IN ORDER TO DO WHAT YOU'VE BEEN ASKED TO DO HAS TO BE DONE BY THE ELECTORS SO IN ORDER FOR YOU TO DO WAS IT IS WRITTEN HERE WILL HOLD AND SPECIAL ELECTION. I DO IT SOME OTHER WAY BUT THAT'S THE PROBLEM. >> (MULTIPLE VOICES). >> I GUESS THE CONCERN WAS VOTED DOWN TWICE OR 3 TIMES ALREADY AND AND THE COMMISSION SEEMS DETERMINE TO TRY TO PLACE THIS ONE THE BALLOT. I VIEW ANY ROLL AS PUTTING ON THE NUMBERS TO HAVE CHALLENGES AND FELT LIKE THAT HAS REINSURANCE AND, YES, I WON'T INTERPRET THAT AS TIME AND CHALLENGES THEY HAVE TO APPROVE BUT TRECHT IF WE CHANGE FROM THE GENERAL THAT HAS TO APPROVED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORS IN GENERAL YES AND YES. YOU KNOW, BUT. >> I'M SUSAN WE FIGURE OUT WITH A TERMINOLOGY DON'T FOLLOW ON THE OPINION FOR EVERY RAISE IT IS INTENDED FOR COMMISSION. - >> (MULTIPLE VOICES). >> I AGREE WITH YOU AND I WOULD LIKE CLEARER LANGUAGE I REALLY WILL AND RECOMMEND BUT - >> I FELT LIKE THE COMMISSION IN THE LAST MEETING WAS QUITE CLEAR AS TO THE CHANGES WE'RE TRYING TO MENTION. >> I'M KIND OF RIGHT IN THE CENTER. YES. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE - WAS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE AND THAT'S FINE. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CLARITY OF THE STATEMENT NOW WRITTEN ON BOTH SIDES ARTICULATES THE REALITIES OF THE STATUTE CHANGES ANNUALLY AND THERE IS STILL REQUIREMENTS FOR AFTER THIS PARTICULAR POINT THIS WILL BE ADOPTED. AND WITHIN THE ELECTORS SO THE STATE HAS ALREADY DETERMINED WHEN IT IS THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE AND A WAY FOR YOU THE CHAPTER IF WE MOVE AWAY FOR THE STATE TO ADJUST IT AND F IN THE CHARTER THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THE ELECTORATE APPROVE ANY CHANGE FROM THAT POINT GOING FORWARD. >> I AGREE 100 PERCENT AND IF YOU WANT MY OPINION I'LL SAY REMOVING THE $37,000 [00:25:08] REQUIREMENT IS A SIGNIFICANT LIMITATIONS THAT'S GOT - I'LL SAY THAT WHATEVER THE ONE I SUBMIT ON THE LAST ONE THAT WAS MY PREFERENCE AT LAST MEETING. I - I DON'T IT IN HERE BUT HAD OPTIONS WHATEVER IT IS. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). >> OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> AND SOME OF THAT IS TRUE. AND I HAD REQUESTED THE COMMISSION WAIT FOR THE LANGUAGE FOR A TO BE DRAFTED BY EVERYONE WAS CLEAR. AND THEY WERE CLEAR IN THE LANGUAGE I HAD IN OPPOSITION ONE AND NOW I'M POINT OUT THE CONCERNS. >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU I AGREE I READ THAT AND SAW OKAY. HERE'S WHAT A WE HAVE ON THE BALLOT AND IT IS REDUNDANCY OR WE NEED TO CHANGE THE WORDING AND CONTRADICTING ITSELF. >> YEAH. WE'LL HAVE MORE TIME TO ASK YOU THIS. >> I THINK OBJECTIVE PEOPLE THOUGHT ABOUT CHANGING THE SALARY. AND SO SOME PEOPLE THINK IT SHOULD BE AND NOT BE. >> PERHAPS WE USE THIS WHAT MORE COMMEMORATE WITH THE STATE STATUTE AND IT WILL BE FAIR AND NOT JUST TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH MORE MONEY. AND MAKE IT SEEM TO JUST MAKE IT FOR CLEAR WE'RE TRYING TO DO IT APPROPRIATING AND THAT'S MY QUESTION IS THAT CONE DICTIONARY. IT IS IN AND OUT. >> MY PREFERENCE SO TAKE TO FRANKLY THAT IS WHY I HAD IT READ AT THE LAST MEETING AND BUT IT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE KIND OF TRYING TO THREAD A NEEDLE HERE IN THIS CASE LAW. YOU KNOW, WITHOUT WHICH THE CASE LAW IS VERY CLEAR. YOU KNOW, THE NOT THE PATH I RECOMMEND BY THE VOTERS HAVE VOTED IT DOWN VERY WELL COULD BE THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE WAS NOT EXPLAINED TO THEM AND THEY WILL BE COMFORTABLE VOTING NO FAVOR OR NOT IN FAVOR. >> TO LOOK AT IT IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT AND STILL ACHIEVE EVERYONE'S OBJECTIVE. >> TWO THINGS I GUESS I HAVE ONE I THOUGHT THIS LANGUAGE AN OPTION ONE HAS ALREADY GUN TO THE GENERAL ELECTION IN OUTSIDE COUNTIES AND BEEN PASSED THAT'S WHY THAT LANGUAGE IS RECOMMENDED AND A MOTION LAST MEETING TO USE IT LANGUAGE HAS GONE THROUGH THE COUNTY AND ALREADY APPROVED. AND FEEL LIKE IT IS VERY CLEAR NOT AM - YOU CAN SEE WITH THE FORMAL AND MY THE OTHER THING IS WE VOTED ON THAT 9 TO 4 AT LAST MEETING SO WE'RE DISCUSSING IT AGAIN FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD THAT IS PLANK SO SUBSEQUENT LANGUAGE I AGREE WITH THE SALARY CHANGES AND CONSTRUED CONTRADICTY MY RECOMMENDATION TO TAKE THAT OUT AND VOTE ONYOU VOTED OPEN THEY LAST MEETING. >> WE VOTED ON SOMETHING AND THIS COUNCIL GAVE LEGAL ADVICE 100 PERCENT AND. >> (MULTIPLE VOICES). >> AND VOTED ON THAT AND, YES EXACTLY ANY POINT SO JUST BECAUSE WE VOTED ON THAT COUNSELOR IS SUGGESTING NOT WE HIRED COINCIDETAL TO PREVENT US FROM WE INVITED COUNSELED WE HAD COUNCIL TO PREVENT US FROM GETTING INTO ISSUANCE AND PRIORITY WHAT WE VOTED ON AND PROVIDED THE SECOND OPTION [00:30:05] WHICH WITH THAT OPTION WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RESEND AND THEN. >> I GUESS MY QUESTION IF THIS IS USED AND FOR ELECTIONS THIS IS THE LANGUAGE EYED IN STEP 4. WHY DO YOU THINK THIS IS NOT. - >> (MULTIPLE VOICES). >> ALL DIFFERENT FACTS WAS ON THE BALLOT AND THEIR CHARTER WAS SET UP DIFFERENT AND TURN OUT THE STATE IF I RECALL USING THE STATE FOR THE CALIFORNIA LARGE PROJECTS AND PRINTED THAT ISSUE AND ALSO DIDN'T HAVE IN $1,000 LIMITATION. DIDN'T MEAN WE CAN'T USE IT HERE I MEAN, I'M NOT RECOMMENDING >> TIM AND THEN - >> I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR FOR THE PEOPLE PUBLIC SCHOOL WATCHING ON TV THE RECOMMENDATIONS DON'T AUTOMATICALLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IT IS THE BOARD COMMISSION - COMMISSION EITHER DECIDES TO - SO THIS WILL GO TO THE COMMISSION PASSED IS MY UNDERSTANDING. IT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL GO TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THEY CAN CHOSE. >> AND. - >> (MULTIPLE VOICES). >> OKAY. >> THAT'S WHAT I'VE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. >> AND SO GOING ON THE LANGUAGE, SO WHAT IS THE STATE THAT'S THE MIDDLE SO WHEN YOU PUT WEATHER VERBIAGE. >> I AGREE. >> VERBIAGE. THAT'S THE MINIMUM WE CAN GIVE MORE THAN THE STATE IF WE WANT TO AND CORRECT WE CAN SERVE TWO TERMS AND GET HEALTHCARE FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE WILL HAVE TO GO - FOR EXAMPLE. >> THAT WOULD HAVE YOUR VERBIAGE. >> YEAH. YEAH. >> (MULTIPLE VOICES.) >> HALLWAY PAY THEM $200,000 A YEAR. >> IF YOU ADD IT ON THERE AND THE MINIMUM WE WANT TO GIVE MORE AND FOLLOW THAT WHERE THE PARAGRAPH YOU'RE ASKING. >> DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> NO, WE FOLLOW I'M SAYING IT IS JUST WE CAN GIVE EXTRA BECAUSE OF THAT VERBATIM YOU PUT THERE WILL ALLOW THAT WE WANT TO GIVE MORE. >> BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'M AGAINST THE BIG PAY RAISE. I VOTED "NO". BUT I'LL JUST SAYING HAD YOU ADD THAT PART THAT ALLOWS FOR US TO GIVE THEM EXTRA BENEFITS OR - SO THAT'S GOOD THAT IS IN THERE. >> (MULTIPLE VOICES). >> RIGHT. >> THAT - I FELT LIKE AFTER MUCH C MADE IT CLEAR THE VOTER HAVE A VOICE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS SALARIES ARE THAT'S - >> EVEN THOUGH IT IS BRASS MAYBE GOOD GOD. >> EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES STEPHEN HAS BEEN WAITING. >> THIS IS FINE BUT. >> WHAT'S OUR JOB? >> I THOUGHT WE MADE RECOMMENDATIONS. >> WE DO MAKE RECOMMENDED. >> ARE YOU SAYING I'M SORRY WE'RE GOING TO GO WHATEVER DIRECTLY TO THE BALLOT? >> (MULTIPLE VOICES.) >> AND DO IT ALL. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> BUT ANYONE ELSE SHOULD USE IT SO IT GOES TO THE COMMISSION. >> FOR PASSING AND THEY ARE THE RIGHT TO APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE. >> OUR RECOMMENDATIONS GO DIRECTLY TO THERE. >> WE HAVE. - >> (MULTIPLE VOICES). >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE BEING ACCURATE AND LET'S BRING UP OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY HERE. >> SO THE PROCEDURES FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BALLOT FROM THE CRC YOU PASSES THEM AND - BUT THE BOARD HAS TO PASS THEM ON DIRECTLY TO THE SUPERVISOR OF THE ELECTIONS. IT [00:35:07] IS BECAUSE OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND THE ONE THAT IS IN POWER TO HAVE A PERCENT OF THEM THEY CAN'T CHANGE THEM BUT THE WORD HAS TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY THEY THEMSELVES CAN PUT THE CHARTERS IN AND MOVE TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX THAT IS A SPRAT PROCESS WILL NOT COME TO YOU BUT DID PROCESS AND THE CHARTER THEY THEMSELVES COMES BY ORDINANCE AND DIDN'T COME TO YOU. >> BUT THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE NOT - WHATEVER OUR FINAL DECISION NOW THE ONLY PERSON CAN SHOOT IT BACK TO ME TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. AND THEY'LL COMPLY WITH THE STATUTES. >> WE NEED CLARITY TO UNDERSTAND. IF THE 3 MEETINGS WE HAD IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US THE CHARTER TO AMEND BASED ON THE PUBLIC OPINION THAT BEFORE THAT MOVES FORWARD. >> THAT WAY YOU, HAVE ANOTHER MEETING AND BRING IT BACK. >> THE (INAUDIBLE). >> THE CONCESSION CLOSE THE PUBLIC INPUT AND WE ARE STILL WORKING WITH THE MAY OR JUNE TO GET SOMETHING FINALIZED TO MEET THE DEADLINE. >> SO. OKAY. SO WHAT WE PUT IN GOES FORWARD AND SO MY QUESTION WHO WILL TAKE IT BACK? YOU BROUGHT UP AND SAID THIS MIGHT BE EXCHANGED. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING THE MEMO - SAY A CITIZENS GROUP SAYS I HATE TO GO DOWN THIS PACT BUT MAYBE A COMMITTEE OR SOME, YOU KNOW, SOME LEGAL ACTION AGAINST US AND TO JUST TAKE IT OFF THE BALLOT. BECAUSE OF LANGUAGE BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE IS NOT IN THEIR OPINION AGREED TO BE THE JUDGE IT IS NOT TRANSPARENT SO MY CONCERN IS THAT TO TRY TO HELP YOU THREAD IT THROUGH THAT NEEDLE ALL THIS TIME TOGETHER AND THEN HAVE A JUDGE KICK IT OUT THANKS I RAISED - >> I I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RESCIND THE LAST BALLOT LANGUAGE AND SUBSTITUTE THAT WITH THE LEGAL COUNCILS ADVISE SO MY MOTION IS AGAIN RESCINDED WHAT WE VOTED ON AND SUBSTITUTE THAT WITH OPTION 2. >> ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. DO I HAVE A SECOND. >> SECOND. >> I MOTION PROPERLY SECOND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> AND THEN AND VICE CHAIR. >> THE ONLY PROBLEM I SEE IS IN THE SECOND OPTION WE ARE NOT PUTTING IN THE STATUTE YOU'RE NOT GIVING PEOPLE A CHANCE. SO I'D LIKE TO STAY WITH (UNINTELLIGIBLE). >> OR ADD IT. >> USE OPTION TWO. >> THE COUNCIL WE SHOULD BUT TWEAK THIS WE CHANGE THE VERBIAGE WITH THE WORD - >> MY COMMENT WAS AND SO FORTH IN THE BOARD OF STATUTES. >> I - >> (MULTIPLE VOICES). >> AND I BELIEVE. >> 68 POINTS. >> CHAIR SORRY. I MOVE TO STRIKE THAT I MADE I TOTALLY MISSED IT UP RESCINDING. >> FOR IN ANY FURTHER DECISION? >> ON THE TABLE? >> RIGHT? BUT. >> HOLE ON ONE SECOND. >> SO LET ME HERE BILL VERSION. >> EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE LANGUAGE IS NOT DONE CONTRADICTY WITH RETAINING THE LANGUAGE SHALL BE - >> STILL YEAH. YEAH A, DO THIS BUT. >> IT IS WHETHER THE ANNUAL [00:40:03] HAS TO AN PREVIEWED BY THE MAJORITY OF ELECTORS. >> I AGREE. ACTUALLY I AGREE. I THINK WOULD BE CLEAR AND LESS LIKELY TO SUBJECT TO LEGAL CHALLENGE IN THE RESTRICTING. >> HAVING THAT TAKEN OUT. >> AND . >> THAT WILL BE MY PREFERENCE. >> STRIKE THAT OUT. >> STRIKE IT OUT AS WELL. >> AT THE LAST MEETING. >> AND ABOUT TO HAVE A REVISED AMENDED VERSION ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE FLOOR FOR THIS REVISION. >> OKAY. GO AHEAD. >> TO DISCUSS UPDATED CHANGES TO THE COUNTY BALLOT LANGUAGE MY THAT MOTION SO RESCIND THE LAST VOTE ON LITTLE BALLOT LANGUAGE TO OPEN UP DISCUSSION ON THE BALLOT LANGUAGE >> SO I MAKE A MOTION TO RESCIND THE LAST. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO RESCIND AND PROPERLY SECOND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ON THIS MOTION? >> HEARING NONE,. > ALL IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE." >> AYE. Select to skip to this part of the video">>> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE.". >> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE." >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? AYE. >> PASSES THE YEAHS HAVE THAT THE MOTION PASSES. SO THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION OWN HIGHWAY WE LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THOSE TWO OPTIONS BEFORE US. >> ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO GO TO OPTION 2? >> GLEN ADD IN THE STATUTES ONE 45031 AND LIKE TO SEE ANY SALARY CHANGES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE MAJORITY OF ELECTORS AND THAT'S WHERE I STAND. >> (UNINTELLIGIBLE). >> SECOND THAT MOTION. >> AND OKAY HAVE A MOTION AND > I 0 CLARIFICATION WILL BE Select to skip to this part of the video">PROPERLY SECOND ANY DISCUSSION? OWN "3 MOTION? >> I 0 CLARIFICATION WILL BE PASSED FOR A BALLOT I RECOMMEND THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE THAT CRC APPROVED MOVED TO APPROVE IT ALLOWS THE COUNCIL TO PUT IT IN THE CORRECT FORMAT TO INSURE GRAMMATICALLY CONSENT AND WORD COUNT IS ALL WITHIN THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT WE'RE HELD TO. >> SO THE MOTION WE MADE IS SO DEFER TO COUNCIL; CORRECT? I UNDERSTAND THAT IS EXACTLY HOW THE LAST LANGUAGE WAS RECEIVED. >> EXCEPT WE HAVE QUITE A BIT MORE LANGUAGE. AND FOR VERBALLY BEFORE US. >> (MULTIPLE VOICES). >> I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I I'M CLEAR WHAT I VOTED ON. WE EITHER HAVE VOTING OWN PCA TO YOU ON THE APPROVED BALLOT OR VOTING ON YES WHATEVER YOU COME UP WITH A MISSION THAT WAS JUST MADE I SECOND THAT. >> OKAY. >> SO - >> I THINK WE SHOULD SIPPED IT TO THEM TO CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE FOR THE BALLOT (UNINTELLIGIBLE). >> YEAH. >> (MULTIPLE VOICES) >> THE LAST TIME I WAS NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE LANGUAGE AND RIGHT NOW HAVE THE LANGUAGE WE GOT SOMETHING EVERYONE 19 CAN SEE AND AT CASE LAW. >> JUST MADE. - >> (MULTIPLE VOICES). >> THAT'S THE POINT. >> WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OVER HERE? >> OKAY. SO GLEN CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME GOOD CAUSE WHAT THE VERBIAGE WILL SAY. >> THE LANGUAGE WILL SAY UNDER OPTION TWO OR THREE SHALL THE CLAY COUNTY ADMINISTERED COUNTY COMMISSIONER $30,000 AND PROVIDE THE COMMISSION SALARIES [00:45:15] >> WILL LIMIT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO WORK ON THE WORDING BUT LIMITED TO SALARIES AND SO FORTH FROM THE STATUTE 145.05 A ADJUSTED ANNUALLY AND HAVE THAT ANNUALLY A TYPE ADJUSTMENT. AND SAID BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THIS JURISDICTION AND IT IS HARD TO BE SPECIFIC TO - >> AND THEN DOWN -; RIGHT? IN THE PROVISIONS WILL BE TO STRIKE THE $37,000 PER YEAR AND STRIKE THE SALARY CHANGES SHOULD BE APPROVED BY THE VOTER OF ELECTORS. >> MOTION. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> ALL RIGHT. AND SEEING NONE, LET'S DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. >> START REQUEST COMMISSIONER MUSSER. >> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> NO. >> NO. >> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> YES. >> NO. >> MOTION PASSES. YEAHS HAVE THAT AND 3 NOS. >> ALL RIGHT. THAT IS HAVING PUT TO BED THAT DISCUSSION. THANK YOU ALL AND THANK YOU, COUNSELORS FOR YOUR ADVICE AND TENNIS RESEARCH YOU DID A LOT OF HARD WORK THANK YOU. THAT WAS A LOT. AND ALL RIGHT. MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS AND THE FIRST FOR - >> I'M SORRY. >> SO THE ONE ITEM FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SORRY ABOUT THAT. >> AND GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD. WE HAVE A SUGGESTIONS FOR THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. >> IF DO YOU WANT YOU HAVE SCHEDULED OUR APRIL 4, '01K MEETING AND SCHEDULE OUR MAY 18TH MEETING WITH THOSE FOR THE THIRD MONDAY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER 3 MEETINGS 10 DAYS APART AND NOT HAVE THE HEARING BUT HAVE THE MAJORITY. AND THE OPTION WILL BE TO PLACE IT FOR MAY THE 4TH. AND APRIL THE 20TH AND MAY 4TH. AND YEAH. YOU CAN WEIGH IN AFTER YOU DECIDE IF YOU'RE DOING ANYTHING ELSE IN THE NEW BUSINESS. >> THOSE 3 MEETINGS WILL HAVE MORE 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS. >> AND YOU CAN VOICE OTHER - (UNINTELLIGIBLE). >> YOU WANT TO COMBINE THEM. >> RIGHT? AND THE SCHEDULE MEETING FOR THE APRIL 20TH THAT WAS ON A MONDAY BUT YOU CAN SQUEEZE - IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE WE CAN PUSH IT. >> (UNINTELLIGIBLE). >> THAT'S WHAT I WANT. >> CAN YOU REMIND US WHAT IS DEADLINE FOR. >> I WOULD SAY NO JULY I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT WITH ME BUT HAS BEEN BY AUGUST AND I THINK YOU HAVE TO SIT THE SET THE FOUR MEETINGS IN JULY. SINCE WE'RE ON THE TOPIC AND SEE THAT THERE IS MAY 4TH WORKS FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE FOLKS HERE. >> I THINK WE WAIT; RIGHT? BECAUSE THIS IS JUST MY THOUGHT IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT SOMETHING ELSE ON THE BALLOT HAVE THEM ALL 3 AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE NOT MEETING JUST YOU SAID 6 MEETINGS? >> OKAY. >> AND DECIDE AFTER THAT MEETING. >> OKAY. >> AND WAIT AND DECIDE IF SOMETHING ELSE IS ADDED TO THE BALLOT. >> OKAY. >> LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. AND IN [1. Article IV Home Rule Charter Transition, Amendments, Review, Severance, Effective Date, Section 4.2: B. Amendments and Revisions by Charter Review Commission] ANYTHING ELSE MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS. >> 1. NEW BUSINESS: ARTICLE IV HOME RULE CHARTER TRANSITION, AMENDMENTS, REVIEW, SEVERANCE, EFFECTIVE DATE, SECTION 4.2: B. AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS BY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION REPEAL OF COUNTY CHARTER UTILITY TAX CRC FREQUENCY. THE FIRST ONE HERE IS REPEAL OF THE COUNTY CHARTER I'M TO GO AHEAD AND PUSH IT TO OUR COUNSELOR TO EXPLAIN THE REASON WHY I [00:50:10] CANCELLED OUR GUEST SPEAKER ON THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC. >> THANK YOU SO A SECOND MEMO DIDN'T COME IN OUR PACKAGE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ON THAT. WHETHER WE HAVE A JURISDICTION OR CHARTER WILL BE THE COMMISSION HAS THE JURISDICTION TO BE ABLE TO REPEAL THE CHARTER. AND ONE OF OUR SPEAKERS IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION SUGGESTED A POSITIVE WE KIND OF HAD - NOT HAD A CHANCE TO READ THIS MEMORANDA THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE PACKET THIS EVENING BUT TO SURMISES WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION AND NOT MENTIONED WE'RE NOT LISTED TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF MEMO REPEAL IS MENTIONED IN THE BOARDS CONSTITUTION, HOWEVER, NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ELSE AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A SERIES OF PROVISIONS THAT NOURMENT OF MONUMENTS TO AN APPEAL LIKE THE COMMISSIONERS SALARIES AND THEN THE CHARTER IT'S THE LANGUAGE THE GUIDING DOCUMENT FOR ROCKEFELLER CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AND NO MENTION WHATSOEVER WILL REPEAL. SO NO CASE LAW IF THERE IS NOT BEEN A CHARTER REVIEW. AND SOME ATTORNEY GENERAL I PROVIDED THOSE AS EXHIBIT A ONE AND IT ONE IS THAT IS FORMAL OPINION AND ONE AN INFORMAL OPINION AND DIFFERENT WAYS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DON'T PLACE MUCH VALUE ON THAT AND THE STATE BOARD. BUT THOSE OPINIONS DON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION THE TRUTH IS KICK IT BACK TO THE FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE BUT THE VEHICLE TO GET IT ON OF THE WROOLT AND THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WRITE THAT LANGUAGE AND CAN THE COUNTY XISHGSZ DO THAT ARE THE LEGISLATIVE THE 3 BODIES THAT DO THAT AND OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION FOR YOU ALL. AND SO REALLY FOR THIS AND PROBABLY REASONS FOR THAT AND THE LEGISLATIVE THOUGHT ABOUT PASSING THAT BUT LIKE TURNING LIGHT SWITCHES ON AND OFF 0 SUGGESTS REASONS WE CAN'T PUT THAT LANGUAGE ON THERE BECAUSE I CAN'T IMAGINE IF YOU GUYS THE 15 OF YOU DECIDED TO ELIMINATE IT AND IN THE COUNTY WILL BE QUITE A BIT OF CHAOS AND EXPERTS AND STUDIES - I SUGGEST. >> REALLY MY LAST TIER AS THE LEGISLATOR TALK TO THE LEGISLATIVE ON THAT. THAT'S ALL. >> SO GOOD. >> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING LET ME ASK YOU THIS. ARE ALL COUNTIES HAVING A CHARTER. >> NO. >> POTENTIALLY 20. >> SO THE NEXT QUESTION IS HOW DID CLAY COUNTY GET THIS CHAPTER. >> THE COUNTY - THE COMMUNITY COMMISSIONERS HAVE A MISSION - I GUESS HAD MEETINGS ON THAT AND MARK DISCUSSED THAT BUT COMMISSIONERS RECOMMENDED THE LANGUAGE FOR A STANDARD CHAPTER. >> SO BRING A CHAPTER UP TO HAVE IN THIS COUNTY CAN WE NOT BRING IT UP TO - REACH THAT. >> VERY LOGICAL QUESTION. REALLY I WOULD SAY NO BECAUSE WE WE BOUGHT IT IN DIDN'T PATENT WE CAN BRING IT OUT AND THE CHAPTER CAN PROVIDE. NO [00:55:03] AFFIRMATIVE- >> SO AWARENESS IT IS SET IT IS SET FOREVER. >> NO CAN BE REPEALED BUT NOT BY A CHAPTER. >> NO EXPRESS AUTHORITY IN THE CHARTER THAT PROVIDES THAT. >> I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED SO THE STATE LEGISLATURES. >> THE STATE LEUKEMICS CAN. >> SO WHAT WOULD BE - THE PURPOSE OF US HAVING A CHAPTER NOT ALIGNED WITH THE TALKING HEADS SO IF THEY'RE ABLE TO COME BACK IN AND DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU'RE DOING WE WILL TAKE AWAY OUR CHAPTER WE HAVE HAD THE JURISDICTIONS AND WE PUT IT IN BUT THEY CAN COME BACK AND SAY - SOMETHING SOME KIND OF BARRIER. >> I MEAN NOT A STATUTE OTHER THAN THAT. >> BALLOT INCHES A BALLOT INITIATIVE (UNINTELLIGIBLE). >> HAVE TO GET A PETITION SO AND TECHNICALLY THE PROCESS IS THERE AND THE CITIZEN DRIVEN BALLOT REQUIRES I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY SIGNATURES BUT LIKE HERE THAT CAN HAPPEN. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE AREN'T AVENUES FOR THE VALIDATION AND TRYING TO HELP US OUT WE AS A BOARD AS A COMMISSION CAN'T GO OKAY. WE WANT TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT. >> AM I CORRECT? >> YES. >> THERE ARE REASONS TO DO THAT ANY JUST THIS BODY. >> AND TWO 2 POINTS I WAS GOING TO MAKE. >> SO MY ANOTHER ASPECT OF THIS IS THE GENTLEMAN STAYED EARLIER THE CHARTER IS NOT OUR CONSTITUTION WE HAVE TO HAVE A GUIDING PRINCIPLE HERE AND I DON'T THINK IN OUR EARLIER CONVERSATIONS AS A BODY THAT MOST OF US WAS TALKING ABOUT GET RID OF THE CHARTER BUT A GAME TO DISCUSS SOMEHOW IS STILL AROUND BUT I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION AS THE COUNCIL STATES CO C POSITION ON THE POSSIBILITIES IS TO PUT FORTH SOMETHING FOR THE JORMENT SO - CHAIR? >> NO OTHER DISCUSSION I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. >> MAKE A MOTION. >> SURE. >> MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE THIS ITEM FROM IN DISCUSSION FOR CONSIDERATION. BASED ON OUR LEGALS GUIDANCE HERE. BUT ALSO THE CITIZEN I'M A PRO-CHARTER GUY SO APPROPRIATE POSITION TO TAKE I MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE THIS IN FROM THE POSITION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? >> HEARING NONE, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AND, AYE. >> AND ANY ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN? MOTION PASSES. >> WE SHALL REMOVE THIS IS A A TOPIC. >> OKAY. AND NEXT IS UTILITY I WAS THAT COMMISSIONER MUSSER. >> THE POSSIBILITY OF DELETE THE CHARTER IN THE UTILITY CHARTER NON-CHARTER COUNTY CAN'T HAVE A UTILITY TAX WHERE THE CHARTER COUNTY CAME INCORPORATED AREAS AND - SO I I THINK THAT WAS THE LAST DISCUSSION AND THE ONLY REASON I BROUGHT IT UP WAY THE TOPIC DELETING THOSE COUNTY CHARTERS AND AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT. [01:00:04] >> NOTHING AGAINST LAWYERSS BUT YOU GUYS MAKE IT HARD (LAUGHTER). >> OF ALL THE CHARTER COUNTIES AND NON-CHARTER COMMUNITIES CONSIDERED IT BECAUSE AFRAID TO SET A PRECEDENT WHETHER I VETO THINK THAT. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). >> RIGHT? >> NO, I KNOW (LAUGHTER) I EXPECT THAT IF A LAWYER. >> IT IS HARD TO SAY YES OR NO, IT IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING ME THE PROVISIONS THE OPTION FOR THE COUNTY CHARTER AND A PROPOSAL MIGHT BE INITIALED BY A CHARTER. >> BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT. >> SOMEONE TO - LIKE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WOULD VOTE ON ONE BALLOT INITIATIVE. >> IT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING IS MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE ON A BALLOT WE'RE NOT SAYING FOR SURE. BUT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US ANYONE WANT TO BE THE FIRST. AND AT LEAST PUT IT ON THE BALLOT TO FIND OUT IF WE WANT TO BE A CHARTER COUNTY OR NOT. >> THE LAWYER EASY BUT I MAKE A MOTION WE DELETE THAT. >> AS THAT PERTAINS. >> I HAVE MOTION AND SPEEDY SECOND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION. >> SEEING NONE, THOSE IN FAVOR. >> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE." >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. >> MOTION PASSES. WIRING TO STRIKE THAT AND ACTUALLY LED US DOWN TO THE CHVGS FREQUENCY WITH OUR TOPIC LIST ON PAGE 17. AND IN THE MY EYES DECEIVE ME THIS IS THE LAST TOPIC ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO BE RAISED? >> LET'S FIRST ADDRESS THE CRC THE FLOOR IS OPEN. >> CHAIR IF YOU DON'T MIND I THINK I THOUGHT ONE OF THE ONES THAT BROUGHT IT REALLY QUICK. MOVING THE CHARTER REVIEW HERE A COUPLE OF THINGS PHYSICALLY - PHYSICAL AS THAT COSTS ABOUT 20 TO THIRTY DEPENDING ON THE ATTORNEY COSTS AND THE COUNTY EVERY 4 YEARS FOR THAT AND THE GOVERNMENT EFFICIENT WITH THE BUREAUCRACY CHARTER LIKE SPINNING THE CYCLE TO HAVE A PAST PERFORMANCE BEFORE WE START IT'S ON THE TIP OF MY TONGUE WITH OUR COUNTY CHARTERS AND DOCUMENTS WITH THE WITH SPECIAL INTEREST RATES WE FIND THAT EVERY AFFAIR YEARS BACK AT THE SAME TURN AGAIN AND SPECIAL INTERESTS AND IF I'M GOING TO RUN FOR SOMETHING OR NOT RUN FOR SOMETHING I THINK THAT PUSHING THE PROCEDURE NOT ONLY GETS SOME OF THAT OUT OF THE WAY AND THE COSTS OUT OF THE WAY BUT GETS MORE - EVERY OTHER CHARTER THAT MOST OF THEM ARE 12 YEARS AND I CAN DO FABULOUS REALLY QUICK. >> 11 OF THEM MEET 8 YEARS AND THE OTHER ONCE 10 TO 12 IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. WHAT THE - LIKE LAST ELECTION CYCLE LAST TIME NOT 6 MONTHS TO A YEAR AND THE LAST CYCLES (UNINTELLIGIBLE). >> THEN TO COME HERE AND (UNINTELLIGIBLE) AND WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT THAT WAS MY DISCUSSION ON MY TOPIC. AND BRINGING THIS HERE EVERY FEW YEARS. THAT'S - ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION. >> HOW MANY COUNTIES EVERY 4 YEARS? >> SO THE LOWEST IS 8? [01:05:16] CHANGES ON A CHARTER. >> THANK YOU, LOOK AT THE HISTORY TO MAJOR REFORM AND THERE IS LOOKS LIKE A T FOR THAT WE HAVE NOT - THE ONLY THING WE'VE DONE AN INITIATIVE CHANGES. 4 YEARS IS A LONG TIME. AND 8 YEARS IS OLD. >> YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM A - >> (UNINTELLIGIBLE). >> I THINK WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM A GOVERNMENT SIDE OR VIEW YOU HAVE TO LAST YEAR HAD AN ELECTION AND NOW WE'RE ALREADY INTO THIS CHARTER HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT PASSED ON THE BALLOT WE'RE NOT GIVING THIS BOARD ENOUGH SPACE TO BE ABLE TO DO ANY CHANGES THEY WANT. ALL WE'LL DO IS BATTLE OR APPROVE THE NEXT CYCLE I'D LIKE TO MO' MAGIC E MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE THIS TO 8 YEARS. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? >> YES. >> WE HAVE THE OPTION THAT EVER CRC MEETING FOR FROM THE VERY BEGINNING BRIDGING EASTERN OR EVERYONE TOGETHER TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS THAT'S NOT; CORRECT? >> YOU APPROVE WHAT, WHAT? >> THE CHARTER. SO AT THE BEGINNING MEANS IN OCTOBER. IF WE LOOKED AT THE AND SAID LOOK WE LIKE IT HAS IT IS SO WE'RE VOTING TO KEEP THE CHARTER AS IT IS AND DONE; CORRECT? >> MY UNDERSTANDING YES. >> NO CHALLENGES RAISED ONCE IT IS AS IT IS AND KEEPING IS THAT SHORT. >> I AGREE ARE HAVING IT EVERY 4 YEARS BECAUSE OF POSSIBLE CHANGES. BECAUSE I THINK THE #2K3W06789 CHANGES ON A WHIM EVERY SINGLE DAY AND I KNOW WHEN I TELL MY EMPLOYEES WHAT I DO TODAY MAY NOT BE WHAT I DO TOMORROW BECAUSE OF ENVIRONMENT SO IF WE IN THE 4 YEARS - 8 YEARS IS TOO LONG BY 4 YEARS IS APPROPRIATE LISTEN THE CHARTER IS IN EXCELLENT POSITION WE WANT TO JUST GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO PUT THE CHARTER IN AND WE'LL SEE EVERYONE 4 YEARS AFTER THAT. >> I AGREE, HOWEVER, WHAT ARE THE ISSUES WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT AS THAT PARTICULAR PIECE LET'S SAY THAT GETS APPROVED AND THE PREVIOUS DOES NOT. >> WHICH MEANS (UNINTELLIGIBLE). >> SO THERE ASPECTS OF THIS PARTICULAR CHARTER THE MAJORITY - AND IF WE ALLOW THAT TO OCCUR IN THE SECOND PASSES, WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO READDRESS THAT. CEILING FOR (UNINTELLIGIBLE). >> THAT IS WHAT I WAS GOING TO ALSO SAY IF WE HAVE A SPECIFIED SALARY DID CHARTER I THINK THAT 8 YEARS IS A LONG TIME TO RELOOK AT THAT SALARY OR MAKE CHALLENGES BECAUSE OF REFRIGERATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH A LOT OF CHANGES, HOWEVER, THE SALARY GETS REMOVED OUT OF THERE THAT IS A FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT THAT IS THE CHARTER NORMALLY IS AND 8 YEARS IS - >> WE STICK TO THIS CHARTER. >> YOUR MIC ON? >> OKAY. >> ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS. >> REALLY QUICK ON THAT. THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLECT A PAY INCREASE ALSO; CORRECT? >> I UNDERSTAND WE'RE CHARTER COMMISSIONERS SO- >> THEY HAVE MAY HAVE [01:10:04] (UNINTELLIGIBLE). >> SECOND PASSED. SO WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT MONEY THAN THEY SHOULD JUST BE EVERY 8 YEARS. >> ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> IS THERE ANY OTHER CHARTER OF 20 CHARTERED COUNTY ANY CHARTER HAS COMMISSIONERS ARE AT THAT KIND OF SALARY OR IN THE STATE STATUTE? >> I DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS. THE NUMBERS WHO IS GETTING PAID FLORESCENCE WITH THE STATE SALARIES OR I DON'T HAVE THAT. >> I'D LIKE TO SAY I AGREE ONE COUNTY DOES THAT EVERY 6 YEARS. >> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE THE CRC FREQUENCY FROM 4 TO 8 YEARS AND BEEN SECONDED ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? > AYE. Select to skip to this part of the video">>> ALL RIGHT. >> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE." >> AYE. >> IT'S A ROLL CALL VOTE. >> YES. I'M IN FAVOR OF 8 YEARS. >> COMMISSIONER SALTER. >> NO. >> GOING DOWN THE LINE. >> THAT'S OKAY. >> YES. >> NO. >> NO. >> NO. >> YES. >> NO. >> NO. >> NO. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER MUSSER NO. >> YES. >> NO. >> NO. >> NO? >> OKAY. >> WE HAVE - 9 TO 5 NOS HAVE IT MOTION IS NOT CARRIED. >> ALL RIGHTY THAT IS THE LAST TOPIC BEFORE US. I WANT TO OPEN IT UP BEFORE I MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THAT THAT COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE? YES, IF NOT WE WILL CONSIDER THE STATE TO REVIEW THE AMENDED PART. >> ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO AHEAD HEARING NONE, I'M GOING TO TAKE THAT AS NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. >> I THINK I DON'T KNOW - I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BEST WAY TO GO INTO BRINGING BACK THE CRC I KNOW WE VOTED 8 YEARS DOWN BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT PIECE OF THAT. MAYBE NOT AT THAT MEETING. NEXT MEETING BY THE, LOOK AT IT 6 YEARS EVERY 6 YEARS AND THE BOTTOM LINE I DON'T KNOW WHERE EVERYONE IS AT ON THAT BUT - >> THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. >> OPEN UP TO THIS BOARD AND NOT TAKE AWAY ANYTHING YOU ALL WANT TO DISCUSS. ANYONE WANT TO - >> I'M GLAD BILL BROUGHT THAT UP FOR EVERYONE SO UNDERSTAND THAT AND - THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CHANGING ALL THE CHARTER HAS TO DO IS GET TOGETHER AND SAY I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WE NEED TO CHANGE FOR THIS YEAR BUT COME BACK TO NEXT YEAR. >> I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. >> ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OR A MOTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER? [PUBLIC COMMENT] >> I'M GOING TO - ANY MOTION. >> ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, FURTHER DISCUSSION OWN THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC LET ME GO AHEAD AND PUBLIC COMMENT AND ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? AU >> THOSE ARE TRICKY SOMETIMES. [01:15:12] >> ONE OF THOSE TELEPHONES. >> OKAY. IOTA THINGS I WANT TO BRING UP I WAS THINKING IF WE SKIPPED THAT AT MY AGE BUT MISS FINDING THIS CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION SEEMS TO HAVE A FULL-TIME JOB AND NOT LIST BUT A PART-TIME JOB AND ANYTHING OVER ABOVE IS VOLUNTEER YOU GOT TO LOOK AT IT AND THE THE OTHER THING IS WE'RE IN A VERY, VERY TIGHT BUDGET SEGMENT WE'RE THE ECONOMY IS NOT DOING THAT GREAT. AND CLAY COUNTY DON'T MAKE THOSE KINDS OF SALARIES. AND FRANKLY, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS MOST ELECTED OFFICIALS OR GENERAL APPOINTED ALREADY MAKE WAY TOO MUCH MONEY AND ON THE FACT THAT OUR GOVERNOR MAKES ONE HUNDRED AND 40 GRAND A YEAR. AND HE'S RESPONSIBLE TO WATCH OUT FOR 0 TRICKIER - 3 MILLION PEOPLE WE HAVE 200 AND THIRTY THOUSAND PEOPLE IN THIS IN COUNTY AND 5 COMMISSIONERS TO DEAL WITH THAT AND THE RATIO DID WORK OUT AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT MOST OF OUR COMMISSIONERS AND FOR AS LONG AS I FOLLOW THIS. SINCE 2008, HAVE ANOTHER JOBS. THEY HAVE NORMAL INCOME AND FRANKLY LIKE TO SEE THAT FOR A RETIREMENT FUND REMOVED UNTHAT IS TOO BITES OF AN DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT AND AFTER ONE YEAR. >> ANYWAY IT IS TRUE THOSE WHO DON'T LEARN IF HISTORY ARE DEEMED TO REPEAT IT AND SOME ARE REPETITIOUS AND 8-YEAR AGO IS CAME UP ABOUT CHANGING THE FREQUENCY OF THE CHARTER TO 10 YEARS. THIS WAS PROPOSED BY IS ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED WELL KNOWN PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY. AND IT WAS PUT ON THE BALLOT. AND IT FAILED. SO - AGAIN LEARN FROM HISTORY I CERTAINLY DO. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. SIR. >> ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? >> SEEING NONE, [CRC MEMBER COMMENTS] (GAVEL) THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR CRC MEMBER COMMENTS. >> YEAH. I THINK WE GO AHEAD AND SCHEDULE THAT MEETING SINCE WE HAVE NOTHING ELSE. >> GREAT. SO MAY 4TH WORK FOR THE MAJORITY? >> HEY, I WAS ONE OF THE NO VOTES I'D LIKE TO BE THERE. YOU GUYS MIND COMING IN THE FOLLOWING MONDAY? >> OR IF NOT, I'LL JUST TAKE OFF WORK. >> I'LL TAKE OFF WORK. >> SO THAT WILL MAKE 3 REQUIRED PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT APRIL 20TH THE MAY 4TH AND AGAIN, 5 O'CLOCK OUR TIME AND THE THIRD MEETING WILL BE MAY 18, 5:00 P.M. START TIME ALL MONDAYS. AND YOU'LL YEAHS WE'RE GOING TO G AHEAD WITH THOSE TIMES. FOR THE REQUIRED MEETING. >> ALL RIGHT. WITH DID SCHEDULE OUT OF THE WAY ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? >> AND SORRY. >> (LAUGHTER.) >> AND REFERENCED TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE GOVERNOR ACTUALLY INCREASES THE SALARY DIDN'T TAKE A SECOND FOR HIM FOR THE OFFICE TO TAKE EFFECT FOR THE NEXT ONE AND HE'S STILL [01:20:10] NOT IN THE TOP - SALARIES. GOVERNORS THAT IS CASE AND POINT WHERE WE ARE NOW. >> I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ARE EXPECTED TO ANSWER CALLS 24/7. AND NOR HAVE I HAD A PART-TIME JOB JUST TO BE CLEAR. >> I OF THE GOING TO MAKE THE POINT WE'VE HEARD SUPERVISOR LUEBKE TALK ABOUT SO IT IS NOT - IF THEY HAVE ANOTHER JOB THEY NEED ANOTHER JOB THEY HAVE AN OPTION. BECAUSE THEY NEED TO MAKE MONEY. AND ANOTHER JUST POINT IS THAT NOT ALL OF THE JOBS YOU HAVE ARE PAID BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE RESPONSIBILITY IS LUNAR FASHION WILL I A MONDAY AND ONE O DON'T MAKE ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR AND OR MAKES 2 - THERE IS A COST OF LIVING FACTOR AND MANY OTHER THINGS WE CAN'T NECESSARILY SAY THAT GUY NEED TO BE BE PAID THIS MUCH BECAUSE OTHERS MAKE THIS MUCH. >> SO WITH THE RETIREMENT THEY DON'T GET A FULL RETIREMENT AFTER SERVING ONE YEAR IS HOW THE F R S RETIREMENT SYSTEM THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO DO A PENSION BUT HAVE TO HAVE THE OPTION TO INVEST AND 23 THEY GO THE INVESTMENT AFTER ONE YEAR THEN THEY ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO PUT IN 3 PERCENT OF THEIR SALARIES. THE STATE WILL TURN AROUND AND MATCH IT SO NOT A FULL RETIREMENT THEY GET $37,000 OFF OF SERVING ONE YEAR OUR THE COUNTY COMMISSION. >> DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW-UP. >> I'M SORRY SO WE TALKED BEFORE DO THINK A LOT OF MISINFORMATION OUT THERE. AND PART OF THIS THE REASON FOR AN OPINION VERY STRONG OPINION ABOUT THE LANGUAGE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THE WORDING AND BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. AND SO I WANT TO MANSION ANOTHER SUGGESTION WE HAVE TO HAVE A Q AND A OR EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO HEAR AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WHAT THEY'RE VOTING FOR. AND SO AN OPTION. >> PUBLIC COMMENT. >> HEARINGS ARE FOR THAT AND Q AND A BEYOND THAT AND GO BEYOND WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO. THAT IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE. I WANT TO THANK THE GENTLEMAN THAT CALM U CAME UP HERE TONIGHT. BUT I UNDERSTAND IF HE REALIZES WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE A RAISE TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR 18 YEARS. THEY'VE BEEN STUCK AT $37,000. AND THAT IS THE REASON WE ALL FEEL LIKE OUR COMMISSIONERS DESERVE MORE BECAUSE THEY ARE WORKING MORE NOT PART TIME AND COMMISSIONERS COME UP AND TELLS US THEY'RE WORKING PRETTY MUCH FULL-TIME THEY HAVE A JOB BY WORKING FOR FREE PRETTY MUCH BUT WE COULD GET MORE QUALITY PEOPLE QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO RUN FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF WE GAVE THEM MORE MONEY. I WOULD NEVER DO THAT JOB FOR THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY I'M RETIRED. I THINK LIKE WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET LIKE I SAID, A BETTER POOL OF PEOPLE WANTING TO RUN ANYBODY WANTS TO RUN. NO BODY WANTS TO RUN. >> WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WE CAN CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> WE'LL TALK AFTER. [01:25:01] >> SO MATTHEW HAVE COMMENTS SO IF YOU DON'T? >> OKAY. >> AND THIS IS JUST A QUESTION. THAT TIMES APPROVED. IF THE COMMISSIONERS REALLY IS PART TIME SO WHY DOES THE COMMUNITY ON THE COMMISSIONERS ARE PART TIME. >> EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS A ANYTHING ELSE COMMENT ABOUT POTENTIAL TO INCREASE THIS PERSONALS SALARY, FIRST ONE IS A PART-TIME JOB THE FIRST THING THEY SAY THE EXPECTATION FROM THE COMMUNITY IS THAT YOUR FOR THE DOING IT T THIS IF NOT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED YOU'RE WORKING FOR ME 24/7. AND SOME OF THEM EDUCATION PERSPECTIVE NO, THAT THE DEFINITION AND THE EXPECTATION OF THE COMMISSIONER IS NOT A PART-TIME. >> ROLE. >> AND SO OR TO YOUR POINT THAT GOES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE. >> I'M GOING TO PULL YOU BACK AND NOT OUR SCOPE AND FOR THE COMMISSIONERS ARE WELL-EQUIPPED TO EDUCATE THEIR COMMUNITY HOW THEY SEE FIT AND APPROPRIATE. THERE ARE POINTS I HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THAT MEETING FOR SURE BUT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE. >> I'LL LEAVE IT TO THE COMMISSIONERS. >> WE CAN REACH OUT TO - >> SECONDLY, I'M MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> ALL RIGHT. A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE." * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.