[1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL]
[00:00:03]
WELCOME NEIGHBORS, RESIDENTS AND GUESTS BEFORE WE START THIS SPECIAL MEETING.
WOULD YOU JOIN ME FOR AN INVOCATION, PLEASE? PLEASE. IN THE PLEDGE? DEAR LORD, PLEASE GIVE YOUR PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY A SPIRIT OF UNITY AS WE FOLLOW YOU, SO THAT WITH ONE HEART AND MIND, WE MAY WORK TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF OUR CITY, OUR CITIZENS AND STAFF.
[2. PUBLIC COMMENT]
WE'LL OPEN OUR MEETING WITH PUBLIC COMMENT.SO, DONNA, WHO DO WE HAVE TO SPEAK? BRINKLEY HARRELL.
FAMILY. NEIGHBORS. COMMISSIONERS.
MAYOR, I'M REALLY PRETTY EXCITED ABOUT GETTING TO THIS POINT WITH THIS NEW CONTRACT AND THIS NEW CITY MANAGER, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN AN ARDUOUS PROCESS, AS YOU ALL WELL KNOW.
AND LIKE SOMEONE SAID, SOMEWHERE, GOVERNING IS NOT EASY.
GOOD GOVERNANCE IS ACTUALLY DIFFICULT.
AND I THINK ALL OF Y'ALL HAVE KIND OF EMBODIED THE DIFFICULT ASPECTS OF IT.
SO ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU, KUDOS FOR ME.
SO BUT ANYWAY, MY KUDOS TO ALL OF YOU GETTING TO THIS PROCESS.
I'VE READ EVERYTHING POSSIBLE ON IT.
AND AS THEY SAY, MY HAT'S OFF TO YOU, BUT FORGOT TO BRING MY HAT.
ANDY ANDERSON? LET ME JOIN MR. HAROLD IN SAYING CONGRATULATIONS AND GETTING TO THIS POINT.
SO FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SAY, I THINK YOU'VE GOT A GREAT GUY FOR CITY MANAGER.
I ALWAYS BELIEVE ON STARTING ON A POSITIVE NOTE.
SO, I'M HERE BECAUSE I FIND IT DISTURBING THAT THE PUBLIC NOTICE FOR THIS MEETING WAS PUT OUT ON THE WEBSITE LAST FRIDAY, WHICH WAS TWO, THREE DAYS AGO, MAYBE THE WEEKEND THAT THE CITY CITIZENS GOT IT THROUGH THE OTHER VEHICLES, EMAILS, ETCETERA.
THIS MORNING WITH NO ATTACHMENTS, NO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT TO REVIEW.
AND THAT DID NOT SHOW UP UNTIL 4:30 THIS AFTERNOON.
SO, SPEAKING AS A CITIZEN, I FIND THAT REPREHENSIBLE IF THIS IS NOT AN EMERGENCY.
OKAY. I DON'T CRITICIZE THE PROCESS.
I CRITICIZE HOW THIS PART WAS HANDLED.
AND I THINK YOU'VE GOT A GOOD GUY.
I DON'T SEE WE DON'T HAVE AN EMERGENCY HERE.
AND I FEEL LIKE THIS WAS A SIDESWIPE TO YOUR CITIZENRY.
NOW. LET ME TALK ABOUT THE CONTRACT ITSELF.
BECAUSE I JUST GOT TO SEE THIS A LITTLE WHILE AGO.
I'M NOT. I'M GIVING YOU MY BRIEF OFF THE CUFF.
CONCERNS. FIRST OF ALL, YOUR RESOLUTION NOTES THAT THE AMOUNT BUDGETED, I THINK. I'M NOT SURE WHERE IT SAYS THIS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
YOU HAVE A BUDGET ASSIGNED OF 205,000 PLUS BENEFITS.
YET WHEN I ADD UP YOUR PROPOSED SALARY OF 185,000 PLUS THE CAR ALLOWANCE OF 6000 PLUS A HOUSE ALLOWANCE OF 20,000, PLUS A MOVING ALLOWANCE OF ANOTHER 5000 FOR THIS YEAR? YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A 216,000 BUDGET.
THAT DOES NOT COUNT WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE CALLED BENEFITS.
[00:05:01]
AND TOWARDS THAT, I NOTE THAT THE CITY MANAGER, HIGHLY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL, WAS MAKING 144,000 AND SO GOING UP TO 185.MINUS THE MOVING OR NOT MINUS THE HOUSING ALLOWANCE WILL STILL BE A NICE BUMP FOR HIM.
I JUST DON'T THINK THE HOUSING ALLOWANCE IS A GREAT IDEA.
I THINK I LOOKED AT THE FACT IN YOUR LAST YEAR'S CITY BUDGET, YOU NOTED YOU BEING THE CITY NOTED THAT THE HOUSEHOLD MEDIAN INCOME IN ATLANTIC BEACH IS SEVEN HOUSEHOLD MEDIAN INCOME IS $79,000.
AND THAT MEANS THERE ARE PEOPLE LIVING WITH MUCH LESS THAN HALF HERE IN ATLANTIC BEACH.
THAT MEANS THEY CAN LIVE IN ATLANTIC BEACH BECAUSE THEY DO LIVE IN ATLANTIC BEACH.
THEREFORE, I'M SAYING TO YOU, I DON'T THINK THIS HOUSING ALLOWANCE IS NECESSARY, NOT AT A SALARY OF 185,000 WITH THE OTHER PIECES ADDED ONTO IT.
OKAY. THAT GOES TO THE MONETARY ASPECT.
NOW, LET ME TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE PERSONAL LEAVE PORTION.
RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE IT WRITTEN IN THE CONTRACT THAT PERSONAL LEAVE IS AT THE RATE OF EIGHT YEARS AND ONE DAY THROUGH THE 10TH YEAR.
BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IN HERE.
IT DOESN'T SAY USE IT OR LOSE IT.
SO YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE BENEFIT OF REQUIRING AN INDIVIDUAL TO TAKE TIME THEY OUGHT TO TAKE.
SO, YOU'RE GOING TO END UP IN A SITUATION WHERE THAT'S GOING TO COME INTO QUESTION AND IT'S BETTER TO ADDRESS IT NOW IN THE CONTRACT, WHETHER IT'S A USE IT OR LOSE IT SO THAT THEY COULD DO SO.
ANOTHER THING THAT YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS CONTRACT IS THE FACT THAT IF THIS PERSON IS TERMINATED UNDER YOUR CAUSE PROVISION, THEY SHOULD LOSE THE LEAVE BECAUSE IF THEY'RE TERMINATED FOR CAUSE, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE IN APPEARANCE OF HAVING IT.
OH, AND WE GAVE THEM FOUR MONTHS LEAVE ON THEIR WAY OUT THE DOOR AFTER THEY DID SOMETHING HORRIBLE.
OKAY. I COULD TELL YOU MORE, BUT YOU'VE LIMITED MY TIME.
THERE ARE THINGS IN THIS CONTRACT THAT OUGHT TO BE ADDRESSED.
NEXT? MAYOR? OKAY. WHO ELSE? PLEASE, COME ON.
AMY ROSE. I WASN'T PLANNING ON COMING UNTIL 12 MINUTES AGO, SO SORRY FOR THAT.
I DID SEND AN EMAIL TO THE COMMISSIONERS, AND I HAD PLANNED ON, I GUESS, JUST, HIGHLIGHTING WHAT I HAD SAID. BUT THEN I READ THIS, READ THIS, UH, AGREEMENT RIGHT BEFORE I CAME AND RACED OVER HERE.
SO JUST, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS WHICH ARE GOING TO SOUND PROBABLY NOT VERY ORGANIZED, BUT I WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF HAVING ONLY TWO CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC INTERVIEW.
I WAS NOT NECESSARILY IN FAVOR OF THIS PARTICULAR CANDIDATE BEING CHOSEN.
UM, HOWEVER, I THINK HE'S VERY QUALIFIED.
I'M SURE WE WILL ALL BENEFIT VERY WELL FROM HAVING HIM AS A AS A CITY MANAGER.
THAT SAID, AS OF JUNE 12TH, YOU DID HAVE TWO CANDIDATES, INCLUDING THIS PARTICULAR ONE, AND THEN YOU DECIDED TO RAISE THE SALARY RANGE PUBLICLY TO 200 TO 225,000, TO BE FAIR TO THIS CANDIDATE. UH, HE'S MORE THAN WELL QUALIFIED FOR THIS POSITION.
HE MORE THAN MEETS OR ACTUALLY EXCEEDS YOUR PROBABLE EXPECTATIONS FOR.
THE TYPE OF PERSON WE WERE LOOKING FOR ATLANTIC BEACH.
I BELIEVE THAT HE SHOULD GET THE TOP.
I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD MATTER JUST IN LIKE IN ANY OTHER POSITION.
WHAT HE MADE BEFORE; I THINK THAT'S RIDICULOUS TO EVEN BRING UP.
I'VE BEEN IN JOB INTERVIEWS BEFORE PERSONALLY, WHERE THEY ASKED ME WHAT I MADE BEFORE, AND I DID NOT THINK THAT WAS RELEVANT TO THE POSITION I WAS INTERVIEWING FOR AT THE TIME. BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS CAN MAKE THAT DECISION.
[00:10:02]
BUT I DO FEEL THAT JUST THE SALARY ALONE, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU BOXED YOURSELVES INTO THAT, BUT I DO BELIEVE HE'S AT THE TOP.SO WHY NOT GIVE A PERSON WHO'S WELL QUALIFIED THAT YOU ASKED FOR THE MAXIMUM? I DO REALIZE IT'S A LOT.
I DIDN'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH IT AT THE TIME.
BUT I DID TALK TO FERNANDINA BEACH REALLY QUICK JUST TO FIND OUT WHAT THEIR RANGE IS, STILL THAT SALARY RANGE, AND THEY'RE CURRENTLY NOT OFFERING A HOUSING ALLOWANCE THAT OBVIOUSLY GETS NEGOTIATED WITH EACH.
BUT AS FAR AS THE SALARY, I DO BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD START AT START AND END AT THE 225.
AS FAR AS THE OTHER BENEFITS, I'M NOT AN HR PERSON AND I JUST READ THIS CONTRACT TWO SECONDS AGO.
AND WHEN DALE MARTIN WAS HIRED IN 2015, HE WAS GIVEN $5,000 IN MOVING EXPENSES.
SO, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM.
I'M NOT TRYING TO CRITICIZE ANYONE.
THE PERSON AND YOU ALL WHO ARE NEGOTIATING THIS ARE A LOT MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE THAN ME.
IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE HE'S ACTUALLY GOING TO GET A CAR.
HE'S JUST GOING TO GET AN ALLOWANCE FOR IT.
AND I'M PRETTY SURE IT'S HARD TO FIND A JUST A LEASE ALONE FOR $500 A MONTH.
BUT AGAIN, I'M WAY OUTSIDE OF MY AREA OF EXPERTISE.
AND IT'S I FEEL LIKE IT'S EMBARRASSING TO HALF OF OUR RESIDENTS TO SAY OUT LOUD THAT WE CAN'T LIVE HERE FOR THIS THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THIS PERSON IS GOING TO BE MAKING OR EVEN THE PREVIOUS PERSON WAS MAKING IN THIS POSITION.
AND I THOUGHT WE TALKED ABOUT WHERE YOU GUYS TALKED ABOUT 24,000.
THAT'S REALLY ONLY $2,000 A MONTH, WHICH I THINK IS AN EMBARRASSMENT TO THE CANDIDATE.
YEAH, I'M SURE YOU CAN PROBABLY FIND A RENTAL FOR $2,000 A MONTH.
SO, I DO REALIZE AT THE SAME TIME THAT THIS IS A VERY HIGH SALARY AMOUNT AND BENEFITS ALTOGETHER.
BUT THIS POSITION ABSOLUTELY DESERVES IT.
IN THE SAME BREATH, I'M GOING TO SAY, WHEN YOU DISCUSS IN YOUR BUDGET MEETING LATER TODAY THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE VERY LOW SALARIES OF THE LOWEST PAID EMPLOYEES THAT WE HAVE IN ATLANTIC BEACH AND CONSIDER THAT AS WELL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS ROSE.
WHO ELSE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD? OKAY. THANK YOU ALL.
[3. ACTION ON RESOLUTIONS]
I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE SINGULAR ITEM THAT WE HAVE ON ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS ACTION ON RESOLUTION THREE A.I'M GOING TO READ THE RESOLUTION.
AND THEN WITHOUT REQUIRING A MOTION TO APPROVE IT, I WANT TO GO THROUGH THE CONTRACT AND AT LEAST READ THAT TO THE COMMISSIONERS SO THEN WE CAN ACT ON IT.
THE ITEM THREE, A RESOLUTION NUMBER 23-30, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, APPOINTING MIKE NEW, THE CITY MANAGER, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DESIGNATING HIM AS SUCH.
2023 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO EFFECTUATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF MIKE NEW TO SERVE AS CITY MANAGER AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
FIRST THING IS THE BLANK IS YET TO BE.
THE BLANK IS YET TO BE DECIDED.
I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO END UP BEING SEPTEMBER 25TH IF WE APPROVE THIS CONTRACT TONIGHT.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS MR. NEW COULD HAVE STARTED THE FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER, BUT THAT'S HOLIDAYS AND LABOR DAY, AND THEN THE SECOND WEEK OF SEPTEMBER, HE IS BOOKED FOR TWO WEEKS IN EUROPE. AND SO, PART OF OUR DISCUSSION AND NEGOTIATION IS WE WOULD NOT DERAIL THE FAMILY VACATION.
WE AGREED THAT WE WOULD START HIM WHEN HE RETURNS AND THAT WOULD BE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25TH.
SO, WE'LL NEED TO FILL IN THAT BLANK.
[00:15:01]
BUT I'D LIKE TO JUST READ THROUGH THE AGREEMENT AND I'M NOT GOING TO READ EVERYTHING.I WANT TO READ WHAT'S PERTINENT, THE ACTUAL NUMBERS IN THIS AGREEMENT.
AND SO, RECAPPING SOME OF WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD AND SOME OF WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY READ, THIS BETWEEN CITY ATTORNEY JASON GABRIEL, MYSELF AND THE CANDIDATE, WE CAME TO AN AGREEMENT ON 185,000 AS THE BASE SALARY.
THERE'S MORE TO THAT SUB, THAT SECTION THREE, BUT THAT'S THE SALARY.
WHEN WE MOVE TO SECTION FOUR FOR VISION DENTAL AND COMPREHENSIVE MEDICAL INSURANCE.
WE DID ALLOW FOR THE MIDDLE TIER.
OUR CITY HAS THREE DIFFERENT TIERS FOR INSURANCE AND SO WE AGREED TO MOVE TO THE MIDDLE TIER.
WE ALSO ARE PROVIDING SHORT- AND LONG-TERM DISABILITY AT CITY EXPENSE.
WE ARE PAYING THE PREMIUM FOR A $50,000 LIFE INSURANCE POLICY AND AS HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED, WE'RE ALLOWING A $20,000 HOUSING ALLOWANCE.
AND I'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN A MINUTE TO A ONE-TIME MOVING ALLOWANCE NOT TO EXCEED 5000, WHICH WILL BE A REIMBURSEMENT BASED ON PROOF OF EXPENSE, PERSONAL LEAVE.
WE DID. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT.
AND WE DID UPGRADE THIS FROM THE NORM.
I COULD I COULD SEE BOTH SIDES ON THIS.
THIS CANDIDATE IS WELL ENTRENCHED AND SUCCESSFUL IN HIS CURRENT JOB.
WE ARE LOWERING WE ARE TRYING TO ENTICE HIM TO LEAVE NEWBERRY, FLORIDA AND COME TO ATLANTIC BEACH.
SO THE AGREEMENT IS TO PUT HIM IN AT THE LEVEL OF EIGHT YEARS AND ONE DAY, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE HIM FOR 203 ACCRUED HOURS OF LEAVE PER YEAR STARTING IN YEAR ONE AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE, $500 PHONE ALLOWANCE.
THIS IS SECTION SIX, PHONE ALLOWANCE, $50 PER MONTH.
RETIREMENT IS 10% OF THE CITY MANAGER'S BASE SALARY.
THIS IS A GOOD BENEFIT, BUT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER HAD AS WELL AND WHAT OUR DEPUTY CITY MANAGER HAS ALSO. I WANT TO GO BACK TO ONE THING.
I WANT TO JUST ADDRESS ONE THING FOR THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE HOUSING ALLOWANCE.
IT WAS CERTAINLY MY DESIRE AND I HOPE IT'S SHARED WITH THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
BUT YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO VOTE ON THIS AND OR AMEND IT IF YOU DISAGREE.
I PERSONALLY WANTED TO SEE A SEPARATE HOUSING ALLOWANCE BECAUSE THIS IS A RADICAL, RADICAL INCREASE IN OUR EXPENSE FOR OUR CITY MANAGER. BUT ALSO IT IS MY HOPES THAT OUR OUR CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WILL ACTUALLY BRING FORTH A AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER THAT WILL ALLOW FOR FUTURE CITY MANAGERS TO LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY AND WHATEVER THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE IF THEY DO THAT WITH WHATEVER GEOGRAPHY.
BUT I WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT WE ARE UPGRADING OUR COMPENSATION BECAUSE IT IS EXPENSIVE TO LIVE IN PARTS OF THE CITY AND IT'S NOT EXPENSIVE. THERE ARE PLACES THAT ARE INEXPENSIVE TO LIVE IN THIS CITY AND I'LL COME BACK TO THAT.
SO IF AT SUCH TIME IN THE FUTURE, EITHER THIS CITY MANAGER OR ANY SUBSEQUENT CITY MANAGER WAS TO RESIDE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY, IF PERMITTED BY OUR CHARTER, THEN IT WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THAT WE MIGHT MODIFY OUR COMPENSATION TO REFLECT THAT.
AND THEN FINALLY, I DID TWO THINGS BEFORE I NEGOTIATED THIS WITH, WITH THE CANDIDATE.
I DID RESEARCH AND DID COMPS ON RENTALS IN ATLANTIC BEACH IN DIFFERENT AREAS, AND I DID COMPS ON HOME SALES IN ATLANTIC BEACH. AND SO AS SOME OF YOU WHO ARE RELATED IN REAL ESTATE KNOW, IT'S ALL OVER THE MAP.
WE'VE GOT LESS EXPENSIVE HOUSING, WE'VE GOT MORE EXPENSIVE HOUSING.
SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE'RE AT.
[00:20:03]
AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO NOW IS OPEN IT UP TO TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND LEAD OFF.AM I READING THIS RIGHT? UNDER SECTION 11.
AM I READING THAT PROPERLY THAT HE WE HAVE TO GIVE HIM NOTICE? SHOULD WE TERMINATE HIM PRIOR? I'M READING IT REAL QUICK.
AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS NOT AGREED TO OR PUT IN HERE.
AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT FURTHER.
BUT LET ME LET ME JUST TAKE A QUICK LOOK, THOUGH, WHILE YOU'RE ASKING THAT QUESTION.
SO, IN SECTION C, IT SAYS WE HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PAY THE AMOUNTS.
AND IF YOU GO BACK TO LIKE 5.B, SO HE'S GOT ALL THIS UNUSED LEAVE IF WE FIRE HIM FOR CAUSE THERE'S SORT OF A CONTRADICTION IN HERE, WHETHER WE PAY HIM FOR THE ACCRUED OR WE DON'T HAVE TO.
AND LET ME ANSWER MR. BOLE'S QUESTION FIRST AND THEN WE CAN DO.
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR NOTICE.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT THAT DID COME UP.
I'D STRONGLY ADVISE AGAINST SUCH A THING, BUT THAT'S A POLICY CALL.
SO I WAS JUST THINKING, IF THAT WAS IN FACT THE CASE, THAT'S ALMOST A SUNSHINE LAW VIOLATION IN ITSELF, RIGHT? IF THREE COMMISSIONERS KNEW THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE TERMINATED, WE WOULD NEVER WRITE THAT INTO A CONTRACT, RIGHT? YEAH. AT LEAST I WOULD SAY THAT'S NOT IN THERE, TOO.
IF I MAY, TO MS. KELLY'S POINT, THIS THAT PART ABOUT PAYING ACCRUED LEAVE FOR CAUSE OR NOT FOR CAUSE IS TWOFOLD.
SO IF WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO CHANGE.
THAT IS A VESTIGE OF THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT.
JUST TO FOLLOW ON MY SECTION FIVE PERSONAL LEAVE, I KNOW THIS IS KIND OF THE 680 HOURS IS SIGNIFICANT TO THE PRICE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S IS 240 HOURS USE OR LOSE.
I KNOW WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION A FEW TIMES.
THAT THAT'S A THAT'S A HUGE NUMBER WHEN YOU DO THE MATH.
AND THAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION NOW.
AND OF COURSE, IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT, WE CAN CHANGE IT.
BUT THAT, I BELIEVE, CAME DIRECTLY FROM THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER'S CONTRACT.
SO, THERE WAS ONE POINT I DID NOT FINISH WITH, AND I APOLOGIZE.
SO, I HAVE DONE MY BEST TO ANSWER ALL ISSUES THAT ARE PERTINENT TO THIS HIRE, EXCEPT ONE IS NOT IN THIS CONTRACT BECAUSE I WANT THIS COMMISSION TO MAKE THIS THE DECISION.
IT WAS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO MR. NEW THAT WE INCLUDE A CLAUSE IN HIS CONTRACT FOR FIVE DAY NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO TERMINATE.
FIRST OF ALL, HE HAS SUCH A CLAUSE IN HIS CURRENT CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF NEWBERRY.
BUT WHAT HIS BELIEF IS OR IS, I SHOULD SAY, HIS CONCERN IS AND HAVING BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS FOR SO MANY YEARS, HE'S SEEN OTHER CITY COMMISSIONS AND CITY COUNCILS ACT WITH HASTE FROM TIME TO TIME.
SO, HIS BELIEF WAS HE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A COOLING OFF PERIOD, THAT IF THINGS ARE RUNNING AMOK ON A GIVEN NIGHT, IT DOESN'T SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL, GIVING HIM TIME TO AT LEAST RESPOND AS OPPOSED TO A QUICK VOTE, 3 TO 2 OR HIGHER TO SAY YOU'RE FIRED. THAT, OF COURSE, IS WITH THAT IS NOT IF WE ARE TERMINATING FOR CAUSE. SO IF THERE IS FOR CAUSE AND THERE IS A VALID REASON, MALFEASANCE, WHATEVER, THEN THEN THAT WOULD NOT APPLY.
BUT WITHOUT CAUSE HE WOULD PREFER TO HE WOULD LIKE.
[00:25:06]
I DO NOT KNOW UNTIL WE RESPOND TO HIM WITH OUR APPROVAL WHETHER THAT COULD CHANGE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS CONTRACT.I WOULD STRONGLY SAY YES, THE COMMISSION CAN VOTE A CITY MANAGER OUT.
YOU CAN WATCH IT ON VARIOUS CITIES COOLING OFF PERIOD.
IF THERE COMES A TIME WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE HE'S VOTED OUT.
I'M SORRY. THAT'S THE WAY THE PROGRAM WORKS, AT LEAST IN MY VIEW.
OKAY. SO, TO BE CLEAR, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS NOT ADD A CLAUSE, NOT.
OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? COMMISSIONER RING. UM, COULD YOU ELABORATE WHAT YOU MEAN? SO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH OR WITHOUT A.
YES. THAT WOULDN'T VIOLATE SUNSHINE LAWS.
NO, NO, YOU COULD ALWAYS IF IF THE COMMISSION.
LET'S SAY WE WERE HAVING OUR REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING AND WE DECIDED AS A GROUP OR THERE WAS A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH POSSIBLE TERMINATION, WE WOULD THEN NOTICE THE COMMUNITY, WHICH WOULD BE HIS NOTICE AS WELL.
AND THE SOONEST WE WOULD HAVE THAT NEXT MEETING TO TAKE ACTION WOULD BE FIVE DAYS LATER.
SO IT COULD BE LATER THAN FIVE DAYS, BUT IT WOULD BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE DAYS.
AND BY THE WAY, I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR OR AGAINST THIS.
I AM SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO MR. NEW. I'M BRINGING IT TO YOU FOR CONSIDERATION.
MR. BOLE HAS EXPRESSED HIS POINT OF VIEW.
SO SO IS AND AND LET ME JUST AT LEAST IDENTIFY SOME OF THE PROS AND CONS HERE.
IT OCCURRED TO ME, AND I AND I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT MR. NEW WOULDN'T AGREE WITH THIS IF YOU HAVE THREE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE NOT FOR YOU AS CITY MANAGER, YOU CAN PUT FIVE DAYS, 15 DAYS, 30 DAYS IN THERE AND IT ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING.
THEY ARE GOING TO UNSEAT THAT CITY MANAGER BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE VOTES AND THE WILL.
I THINK HIS HIS MOST IMPORTANT POINT THAT HE MADE IS SOMETIMES PEOPLE GET INTO A FRENZY FAIRLY QUICKLY AND MAKE DECISIONS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT HAD THEY HAD A COOLING OFF PERIOD.
THAT'S WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR, WHICH IS WHAT HE'S ASKING WITHOUT CAUSE.
YEAH, WE CAN TERMINATE IT IMMEDIATELY, IN MY OPINION.
HE WANTS FIVE DAYS OF COOLING OFF.
HE AGREED TO THAT TODAY. IS THAT WHAT HE AGREED TO? HE DID NOT AGREE TO ANYTHING.
ASKED FOR THAT. HE ASKED FOR THAT FIVE DAYS WITHOUT CAUSE.
SOMEBODY MAKES A SECOND, BUT THEN WE DON'T ACTUALLY VOTE ON IT UNTIL FIVE DAYS FROM THERE.
I'M GOING TO ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO OPINE ON WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE, I.E., WOULD THAT BE A MOTION OR JUST A CONSENSUS THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH NOTICE? YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK THE WAY IT WAS PROPOSED WAS IT COULD COME THE NOTICE COULD COME FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY.
IT COULD COME FROM THE CITY OR THE COMMISSION OR I THINK THE MAYOR.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, TYPICALLY, AT LEAST IN THE PAST, IN MY EXPERIENCE, A TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE WAS REALLY THE GENESIS OF IT WAS TERMINATION FOR CAUSE. BUT THE COMMISSION IS IN A POSTURE WHERE THEY DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO LITIGATE THE ISSUE OR GO TOO FAR DOWN THE LINE.
AND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING FOR CAUSE THERE'S AN ACTUAL LEGAL THRESHOLD YOU'VE GOT TO MEET AND THINGS YOU HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, PROVE BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY TERMINATE SOMEONE FOR CAUSE.
AND SO OFTENTIMES WHAT I'VE SEEN ARE COMMISSIONS OR COUNCILS OR WHAT HAVE YOU PREFER TO GO THE ROUTE OF WITHOUT CAUSE, BUT THEY WANT TO DO IT IMMEDIATELY AND GET IT OVER WITH, PAY THE 20 WEEK SEVERANCE, ETCETERA, AND MOVE ON WITH IT.
I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT IN MY EXPERIENCE, A COMMISSION TYPICALLY WANTS TO BE IN A POSITION TO PULL THE PLUG IF YOU'RE EVER IN THAT POSTURE AND GOD FORBID, WE'RE NEVER IN THAT POSTURE, YOU'LL YOU'LL REGRET IT GIVING MAKING IMPOSITIONS ON YOURSELF NOW AT A LATER DATE.
WHY WOULD WE TIE THE HANDS OF A FUTURE COMMISSION AND WRITE IT INTO A CONTRACT? RIGHT. SOME OF US WON'T BE HERE FOREVER.
[00:30:02]
RIGHT. BUT IF YOU WRITE IT INTO THE CONTRACT, HE LEGALLY HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY, HEY, WAIT A MINUTE.SO I WOULD SAY THAT THE WAY WE HAVE IT SET UP NOW IS, HEY, THE MAJORITY VOTE AND YOU PRESS FORWARD.
I'D LOVE TO HAVE FIVE DAYS OF LAST TIME I WAS FIRED.
YOU KNOW, AT LEAST THINK ABOUT IT.
YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S A VALID POINT, COMMISSIONER BOLE.
BUT LET IT BE KNOWN THAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, MR. NEW HAS NEVER BEEN FIRED FROM A JOB, CERTAINLY NOT THE JOBS THAT WE SHOW ON HIS RESUME.
JOE, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR FEEDBACK ON THAT? WELL, A LITTLE BIT, I GUESS.
MAYBE. UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE DISCUSSED HOW THIS MIGHT WORK MOVING FORWARD, IF THAT WAS THAT CLAUSE WAS INSERTED INTO THE CONTRACT. I DO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BOLE.
YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO TIE THE HANDS OF A FUTURE COMMISSION.
AND I'LL JUST TELL YOU ABOUT MY STORY COMING TO ATLANTIC BEACH.
MY FIRST VOTE WAS APPROVED 3 TO 2.
SOMEONE MADE A MOTION TO MAKE IT UNANIMOUS, AND THEY DID THAT.
AND AS A CITY MANAGER AFTER BEING HERE EIGHT DAYS, THAT CERTAINLY WASN'T A COMFORTABLE FEELING.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU, THE PEOPLE THAT REPLACED.
THE THREE THAT LOST WERE WONDERFUL PEOPLE TO WORK WITH.
NOT ONE OF THEM HAD ANY ANGST ABOUT ME BEING HERE.
COMMISSIONER KELLY WAS ONE OF THE ONES, AND I WILL GUARANTEE YOU THAT.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD THE LEAP OF FAITH BEFORE.
I THINK THAT MR. NUGENT NEEDS TO GIVE THIS COMMISSION A LEAP OF FAITH.
THAT'S. THAT WOULD BE MY FEELING.
I'VE NEVER HEARD OF A FIVE-DAY COOLING OFF PERIOD.
IT MAY MAKE SOME SENSE OR IT MAY NOT.
BUT I THINK IF THERE'S THREE PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT YOU HERE, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO WORK HERE? OKAY. THANK YOU.
SO, IS THERE MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT? OKAY. SO, ONE OTHER HOUSEKEEPING ITEM.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S NECESSARY TO PUT IT INTO THIS CONTRACT.
WE TALKED IN HERE ABOUT PAYING PROFESSIONAL FIELD FEES AND MEMBERSHIP FEES AND SO ON.
MR. NEW HAS A ENGINEERING LICENSE.
IT COSTS APPROXIMATELY $150 A YEAR, WHICH IS NOT EVERY YEAR.
DO WE NEED TO ADD THAT TO THE CONTRACT? WE JUST NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S PART OF PROFESSIONAL FEES.
I WOULD SAY IT'S PART OF HIS PROFESSIONAL FEES.
BUT AGAIN, I WOULD DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.
SO, IN WHICH PARTICULAR FEE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? IT DOES TALK ABOUT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT PAGE ARE YOU ON? EIGHT BE ON PAGE FOUR.
BUT I'M SORRY, I MIGHT HAVE MISSED WHAT YOU JUST ASKED.
WAS THERE A PARTICULAR SHOULD WE EMBED THAT? I MEAN, IT'S $150 A YEAR.
SO IS THAT NOTEWORTHY TO EMBED IN THIS? I'M SORRY, WHICH AND WHAT IS THAT? THAT'S THE FEES FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION CLASS AND UPDATING OF LICENSE AS AN ENGINEER.
THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IS NOT IN THE CONTRACT.
WHAT DID YOU SAY IT WAS? HE IS INDICATED TO ME IT'S A COUPLE HUNDRED DOLLARS UP TO $300 EVERY TWO YEARS.
SO IF WE WANTED TO WRITE IT INTO THE CONTRACT, I ACTUALLY DON'T THINK WE NEED TO WRITE AN AMOUNT.
I'D SUBMIT THAT WHEN WE CAN DO THAT, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU LIKE.
BUT I'D SAY THAT THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN IS PRETTY BROAD.
AND IT GOES ON TO SAY A FEW THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO CALL IT OUT.
YOU COULD BUT SAY THAT IT CAPTURES IT.
YEAH, I DIDN'T THINK WE NEEDED TO.
AND AT A CERTAIN POINT, YOU KNOW, YOU JUST YOU GOT TO PUT YOUR PEN DOWN AND MOVE FORWARD.
[00:35:04]
SO I WAS GOING TO LEAVE THAT THE WAY IT IS.ON THE OTHER HAND, I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MY OWN CERTIFICATION FEES.
SO EVEN THOUGH IT WAS PART OF MY JOB TO HAVE ONE.
HE'S OUR CITY MANAGER. HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER.
IT'S NOT A REQUIRED AN ENGINEER.
IT'S A MATTER OF WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
BUT. SO WHY DON'T I ADD A PROVISION IF IT'S THE DESIRE OF THIS BODY TO SAY WHEN IT SAYS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, I'LL ALSO ADD PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER CERTIFICATION.
IS THAT GOOD? YOU'RE GOING TO SAY HAVE IT SAY WHAT IT'S GOING TO.
IT SAYS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY MANAGER.
AND THEN IT SAYS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ICMA ANNUAL CONFERENCE, THE FLORIDA CITY AND COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE, THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE. IT DOES SAY OR OTHER SIMILAR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES.
OH, I'M SORRY, YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY THAT IF THAT'S IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY THAT.
REALLY, WE'RE NOT HIRING TO BE AN ENGINEER.
WELL, THEN I'D SAY, STEVE, PART OF THIS IS I MEAN, THIS IS I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE PIE BEING AN ENGINE OF A CITY MANAGER, THIS IS ONE PIECE OF THE PIE THAT'S PRETTY BIG. SO, I THINK YOU CAN INCLUDE IT.
I MEAN, I WOULDN'T INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, MY FEES FOR BEING A PHYSICIAN, BEING CITY MANAGER.
THAT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO BEING A CITY MANAGER, BUT BEING AN ENGINEER DOES.
SO. WELL. AND AFTER NEGOTIATING.
YEAH. THANK YOU. AND AFTER NEGOTIATING SO MANY DIFFERENT PIECES THAT ADD UP TO A FAIR AMOUNT OF MONEY, I DON'T THINK $150 A YEAR IS THE FINAL DECISION-MAKING ITEM.
BUT YOU COULD PLAY THAT EITHER WAY.
YOU COULD SAY, MR. NEW, YOU PAY IT OR WE PAY IT.
BUT I'LL LOOK INTO IT IN THE IN THE FUTURE.
YOU THE FUTURE COMMISSIONS UNDER THE BUS EITHER WITH.
IT'S LIKE PART OF IT TOO. WHY COMMIT OURSELVES TO A RECURRING EXPENSE THAT WE DON'T NEED TO PAY? IT IS MENTIONING THOUGH ALL THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
IS THERE SPECIAL CERTS THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY YEARLY? I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THAT IS THINGS LIKE MEMBERSHIP IN FLORIDA, LEAGUE OF CITIES AND PARTICIPATION IN THOSE EVENTS AND SO ON.
BUT THE FACT THAT HE HAS A VALID ENGINEER THAT HE'S HAD FOR 20 SOMETHING YEARS, HIS LICENSING, IT MAKES SENSE TO KEEP IT UP AND KEEP HIM VERY, VERY SHARP IN THAT AREA.
AND THAT'S TAKING NOTHING AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A FABULOUS CITY ENGINEER IN MR. SWANN. BUT I, LOOK, I CAN GO EITHER WAY ON THIS, BUT WE'VE WORKED HARD TO GET TO THIS POINT.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IS A MOTION FROM SOMEBODY TO TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS CONTRACT.
AND ACTUALLY, YEAH, WE WOULD NEED A MOTION ON THIS AS A AS A RESOLUTION.
SO, I'D LIKE TO HEAR THAT MOTION AMENDED WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR THE FIVE-DAY CLAUSE OR NOT AND OR AMENDED WITH THE $150 PER YEAR STIPEND FOR MAINTAINING THE ENGINEERING DESIGNATION OR NOT.
I HAVE MORE THINGS TO DISCUSS.
BUT I REALLY FEEL THAT THIS WHOLE CONTRACT NEGOTIATION TOTALLY VIOLATED OUR PROMISES OF TRANSPARENCY, THAT THE ONE PERSON WHO BUILDS THE BUDGET, THE ONE PERSON WITH TEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A COMMUNITY MANAGER, CITY MANAGER, AND NOT PLUS MORE YEARS AS A MAYOR AND A COMMISSIONER WAS NOT INCLUDED AND NEITHER WAS HUMAN RESOURCES.
AND THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST.
AND I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT ONLY ONE COMMISSIONER OUT OF FIVE GOT TO DECIDE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GO TO THE AND TO THE TO THE NEGOTIATION.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE PROMISED PEOPLE.
WHEN WE SPOKE ON MONDAY, I THOUGHT WE WOULD GET THIS CONTRACT SOONER.
AND I, FOR THE RECORD, GOT IT.
WHEN WE WHEN I WALKED IN TODAY AT 5:05.
SO, I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ THROUGH THIS.
BUT SHE TIMED OUT AT FIVE MINUTES.
[00:40:01]
BUT THE POINTS THAT SHE MADE, I THINK WERE WERE VALID.SO, I BOTH JASON AND I WERE IN COMMUNICATION MULTIPLE TIMES THIS PAST WEEK AFTER THE PREVIOUS MEETING WITH MR. NEW. WE DID NOT FINALIZE OR BUTTON IT UP UNTIL OVER THE WEEKEND.
AND TODAY, MONDAY MORNING, JASON AND I COMMUNICATED TO WHERE HE COULD MAKE THE FINAL CORRECTIONS ON THIS AND IT WAS SENT TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AND IT WAS THEN POSTED.
I DON'T LIKE A SLOW PROCESS AND I DON'T LIKE A LATE PROCESS.
SO APOLOGIES TO ANYBODY WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WISH TO DO.
WE COULD ALWAYS DECIDE TO PUNT ON THIS AND I'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN A SECOND AND ALLOW MORE TIME.
BUT THE REALITY IS, AS SOON AS WE HAD IT AN ACTIONABLE CONTRACT, IT WAS POSTED.
NOW, FOR THE RECORD, WE POSTED EVERY OTHER PAGE.
BUT NONETHELESS, THE REASON WHY THIS MEETING WAS SET UP A WEEK AGO AND EVEN THOUGH WE DIDN'T NOTICE ON OUR WEBSITE UNTIL I BELIEVE LAST FRIDAY, WE STATED IN LAST WEEK'S MEETING, I BELIEVE THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THIS SPECIAL MEETING TODAY.
BUT. THE THE REALITY IS WE DIDN'T WANT TO DELAY.
AND I'VE HEARD FROM SO MANY PEOPLE AND I'VE HEARD IT ON BOTH SIDES, WE SHOULD SLOW DOWN.
BUT ALL WE WERE TRYING TO DO, OR AT LEAST I WAS ACCEPTING OF LAST WEEK, WAS PUTTING IT IN TIED TO THIS MEETING SO THAT WE COULD EASILY DISCHARGE TWO EVENTS TONIGHT.
ONE IS BUDGET AND THE OTHER IS THE SELECTION OF THIS CANDIDATE AND THE APPROVAL OF THIS CONTRACT.
SO IT'S VERY HARD ON THE COMMISSIONERS TIME WISE.
SO I HOPE THE CITY, THE CITIZENS THAT ARE PAYING ATTENTION EITHER HERE TONIGHT OR ON THE VIDEO LATER RECOGNIZE THE DIFFICULTY OF TAKING WHAT'S A PART TIME GROUP OF PEOPLE HELPING TO RUN THIS CITY AND WORK OUT THE CALENDAR TO GET EVERYBODY ON THE DAIS AT THE SAME TIME AND GET THIS DONE.
OKAY. JUST BACK TO THE NUMBERS A MINUTE.
SO 185,000 IS THE BASE SALARY.
YES. AND THEN THE 6000 CAR INSURANCE I'M SORRY, CAR ALLOWANCE.
AND THEN YOU HAVE THE 20,000 HOUSE YEARLY.
AND THAT'S NEW BECAUSE THAT WASN'T IN THE OLD.
SO I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO DO MY CALCULATIONS.
BUT I THINK MS. ANDERSON SAID.
216 BUT IF YOU DON'T INCLUDE THE 5000 ONE TIME MOVE AND HE'S AT 211, RIGHT? HE'S ACTUALLY WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT SURE.
WELL, 205 IS THE COMBINATION OF HOUSING ALLOWANCE AND SALARY.
THE OTHER ITEMS ARE ANCILLARY TO THAT.
BUT WE'RE PARSING AS FAR AS BUDGETING, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE EVERYTHING IN THE BUDGET.
BUT I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE HERE IS WHEN WE NEGOTIATED, WHEN JASON AND I NEGOTIATED THE SALARY AND COMBINED HOUSING ALLOWANCE AT 205,000, WE ARE BELOW THE MIDPOINT OF THE RANGE OF 200.
SO, WE ARE WE DID NOT SPEND THE CITY PURSE.
WE NEGOTIATED A FAIR DEAL THAT WAS, I BELIEVE, VERY GOOD FOR MR. NEW BUT FAIR FOR US, AT LEAST RELATIVE TO WHAT WE ALREADY AGREED AS A COMMISSION ON THE SALARY RANGE.
SO, WE DID NOT HIT THE UPPER END OF THE RANGE.
RIGHT. BUT THE 20,000 HOUSING ALLOWANCE REALLY IS COUPLED WITH HIS BASE SALARY.
SO, YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT THAT? ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. SO THAT'S WHAT THE 205 CAME FROM.
CORRECT. SO REALLY HE'S AT THE 205 AND THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN SHANE OR PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER WHO WAS AT 155 WHEN HE RETIRED OR WHEN HE LEFT. SHANE WAS A LITTLE HIGHER, I THINK I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER.
SO, WE ARE OFFERING MR. NEW, YOU KNOW, A 205,000.
[00:45:01]
VERSUS THE, 256, WHICH IS WHAT SHANE IS AT.AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS LOST ON ANY OF OUR CITIZENS IS WE MADE A DECISION AT A PREVIOUS MEETING, ACTUALLY, I THINK IT WAS THREE MEETINGS AGO WE MADE BEFORE WE MADE THE DECISION TO SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE COMPENSATION.
AND NO, THAT'S NOT COMPLETELY ACCURATE.
WE MADE THE CHANGE OR AGREED TO THE CHANGE AT THIS DAIS AFTER WE ALREADY HAD THOSE TWO CANDIDATES.
BUT I HAD ALREADY SPOKEN TO ONE OF THOSE TWO CANDIDATES ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE WERE ADDRESSING AND DISCUSSING POSSIBLE SALARY INCREASE FROM WHAT WE ORIGINALLY POSTED IN THE BEGINNING.
AND IT'S THAT CANDIDATE, MR. NEW, WHO WAS ACTUALLY IN THE FIRST TRANCHE WHEN WE DID THE FIRST ITERATION OF THIS PROCESS AND BACKED OUT BECAUSE OF OUR SALARY LIMITS.
IT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO COMPEL HIM TO UPROOT HIS FAMILY, LEAVE NEWBURY AND MOVE TO THE COAST.
AND SO SO I THOUGHT, THIS IS MAYOR FORD, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE ADJUST SALARY TO REFLECT WHAT WE'RE SEEING.
AND JOE AND I HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT ABOUT OTHER SALARIES AROUND THE STATE.
SO WE FEEL VERY GOOD THAT WE'RE WE DIDN'T DO SOMETHING THAT IS RIDICULOUSLY OUT OF LINE.
IT'S JUST THE REALITY OF WHAT IT'S COSTING TODAY.
AND DID WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ATTRACTED THE BEST CANDIDATES? AND QUITE FRANKLY, WE WERE HOPING THAT THAT SALARY CHANGE WOULD ATTRACT EVEN A FEW MORE IN SUPPORT OF THE CITIZENS REQUEST TO HAVE MORE, NOT FEWER, CANDIDATES.
AND IT SHOULD NOT BE LOST ON ANYBODY THAT WE DID HAVE MORE.
WE HAD MR. LAMAR WE HAD I'M SORRY, DAV DAVID STROHL.
BUT THIS IS AGAIN, ONE OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT DILLY DALLYING IS ALONG THE WAY, YOU CAN LOSE YOUR CANDIDATES BECAUSE THE PROCESS OPERATING IN THE SUNSHINE AND DOING WHAT IS RIGHT TO INFORM CITIZENS IS A PROCESS THAT IS DRAWN OUT AND TAKES TIME.
AND I THINK, COMMISSIONER BOLE, YOU'VE EXPRESSED YOUR OWN POINTS ABOUT TRYING TO NOT LOSE TIME IN THE PROCESS AND PAY ATTENTION OR ELSE YOU LOSE GOOD CANDIDATES. I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, I THOUGHT THIS IS GOING TO BE LIKE A TEN MINUTE, YES, WE WANT HIM AS OUR CITY MANAGER.
AND PART B IS THESE OTHER SALARY ISSUES, THE BASE SALARY.
I MEAN, REMEMBER, WE WANTED 225 TO ATTRACT MORE CANDIDATES.
I DO REMEMBER THAT THE BASE OF 185 PLUS $20,000 HOUSING.
I HEAR CINDY'S AND OTHERS COMMENTS ABOUT HOUSING.
UH, DO WE NEED HOUSING? WHEN PEOPLE WHO MAKE $79,000 STILL LIVE HERE.
68. EXCUSE ME? I MAKE 68 AND I LIVE HERE.
SO. I KNOW THAT TRANSPARENCY MEAN WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO GET TRANSPARENCY.
I BELIEVE ISSUES WITH ANY PROCESS THAT WE DO.
BUT, I MEAN, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW EACH OF US STANDS ON THE HOUSING, DO WE? DO WE KNOW HOW WE STAND ON THE BASE? I MEAN, THE BASE AND THE HOUSING AND THE WHOLE PACKAGE, INDEPENDENT OF ALL THE BENEFITS.
DO WE REALLY KNOW? HAVE WE VOTED ON WHAT WE REALLY WANT? AND THAT'S WHAT I'M I WAS NOT PREPARED TO VOTE ON THIS.
I WAS NOT PREPARED TO VOTE ON HOW MUCH WE'RE GOING TO BE PAYING THIS GENTLEMAN BECAUSE THAT'S OKAY.
SO, I'M MISSING SOMETHING HERE.
AND THE NUMBERS ARE 20,000 BELOW WHAT THE MAXIMUM END OF THAT RANGE WOULD BE.
WE DID NOT AUTHORIZE YOU TO MAKE THE HOUSING ALLOWANCE PART OF THAT NUMBER.
IN OTHER WORDS, 205,000IN SALARY.
I'M QUITE CERTAIN THAT MR. NEW WOULD BE HAPPY WITH THAT.
INSTEAD OF 190 PLUS 195 TRY TO REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THAT FUTURE DECISION AND THAT, YOU KNOW, DOES HE LOSE THAT 20,000 TO CLEAN IT UP A LITTLE BIT WITH THE HOUSING AND MAY LEAVE THAT OFF.
[00:50:07]
AND THEN DO 205.COMMISSIONER WATERS WE COULD DO THAT.
YOU KNOW. YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE MAY SEE THIS AS A SMALL POINT.
I DON'T. UNDER SECTION FIVE, 680 HOURS.
YEAH. LOSER. DO THE MATH ON THAT FOR A MINUTE.
AND THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT COST TO THE CITY.
AND WE'VE RUN INTO THIS PROBLEM BEFORE.
I DON'T THINK WE NEGOTIATED THAT.
YOU SAID THAT JUST CAME FROM THE OLD CITY MANAGER.
BUT THAT, IF I MAY, ON THAT ONE, I DID ASK KATHY VARIAN, OUR DIRECTOR OF HR.
AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S TWO THINGS.
YOU WANT THEM TO TAKE VACATION.
HEY, IF I COULD ACCRUE IT RIGHT? HEY, I DON'T KNOW.
FOR ME. OKAY, THAT'S THAT'S A POINT THAT I THINK IS, IT'S HIGH.
I THINK COMMISSIONER WATERS MADE A GOOD POINT.
IF WE DO THE 20,000 AND ITS DESIGNATED HOUSING, IF IT DOES GO THROUGH TO CHARTER THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE AND CHANGES, DOES HE LOSE THE 20,000? WHAT HAPPENS THEN? SO THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS THE 20,000 IS THERE UNTIL IF AND WHEN TWO THINGS HAPPEN.
ONE IS THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTUALLY CHANGES OR CHARTER REVIEW RECOMMENDS IT COMMISSION PASSES IT BALLOT CHANGES IT SO THAT IT ACTUALLY DOES CHANGE WHERE A CITY MANAGER COULD LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS AND THE CITY MANAGER MOVES OUT UPON THAT THRESHOLD OF THOSE TWO THINGS HAPPENING, THAT $20,000 GETS TAKEN BACK.
THAT'S HOW IT'S WRITTEN, AT LEAST.
SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW WHY I PUT THAT IN THERE THAT WAY.
AND WE HAD TALKED ABOUT HOUSING ALLOWANCE, BUT I DON'T HAVE I DON'T HAVE A HARD POSITION EITHER WAY.
I MEAN, IF THIS BOARD WANTS TO SWITCH IT AND MAKE IT ALL SALARY, THAT'S FINE.
I JUST I WAS TRYING TO DRAW ATTENTION TO HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE, MEANING WE'VE PLUSSED UP OUR COMPENSATION TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE TO LIVE IN THIS COASTAL CITY AND KNOWING THAT IT WOULD IT MIGHT LIKELY COME FROM THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE TO AMEND OUR CHARTER ON OCCUPANCY OR RESIDENCY IN THE CITY.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THIS IS CLEAR.
THAT'S ALL I THINK WE SHOULD DO 205 AND LEAVE THE DECISION UP TO MR. NEW. ABOUT WHAT HE WANTS TO DO MEAN.
IN THE CITY IS GOING TO IS GOING TO GO OUTSIDE THE CITY, YOU KNOW, TO SAINT LOUIS.
TOO MANY VARIABLES. THAT'S JUST WHAT I FEEL.
YOU KNOW, I KNOW THERE'S THERE'S PEOPLE THAT JUST HAVE SEEN THIS.
I HAVEN'T SEEN THE WHOLE THING UNTIL AN HOUR AGO.
I THINK I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE CHEW ON THIS.
I KNOW I'M THE GUY WHO SAID PUSH, BUT WE'VE GOT A COMMISSION MEETING NEXT MONDAY.
RIGHT. THIS IS THAT WOULD MAKE US TOTALLY TRANSPARENT.
I TONIGHT JUST I'M JUST SPEAKING FOR ME.
SO FOR ME, I WOULD HAVE TO VOTE AGAINST THAT TONIGHT.
I MAY NOT NEXT MONDAY, BUT I'M JUST.
BUT HERE'S A CONCERN I HAVE ON THE ONE THING ABOUT THE PAYOUT ON THE LEAVE.
I HEAR YOU AND I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU.
WELL, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
THAT ACTUALLY IS A THAT'S A VIABLE SOLUTION.
SURE. AND RIGHT NOW IT'S 680, SO.
SO DEFAULT TO CITY POLICY ON THAT.
WELL I DO KNOW IN SPEAKING TO MR. NEW HE ACTUALLY AGREED WITH THAT HE'S HAD TO DEAL WITH THE SAME ISSUE IN NEWBURY OF NOT HAVING CONTROL OVER LEAVE THAT ACCRUES AND THEN SOMEBODY LEAVES AND GETS PAID OUT.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE ALL KNOW FROM BUDGETING IS WHEN YOU PAY OUT LEAVE THAT'S ACCRUED FROM YEARS AGO, IT WAS AT A LOWER SALARY WHEN IT ACCRUED, AND IT'S GETTING PAID OUT AT A HIGH SALARY IN THE END.
YOU CLARIFY THAT THE STANDARD LEAVE, DON'T.
WELL, RIGHT NOW, JOE, CAN YOU CLARIFY, ARE ALL CITY EMPLOYEES AFFORDED THE SAME NUMBER OF HOURS?
[00:55:07]
YES, THE SAME NUMBER.THERE ARE ALL. ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE UP TO 608 HOURS, 80 HOURS OF LEAVE.
YES. RIGHT. SO, IF AND WHEN THE CITY EVER CHANGES THAT NUMBER UP OR DOWN, THAT WOULD AFFECT THIS CITY MANAGER, BECAUSE HE WOULD GO WITH WHATEVER THE STANDARD IS AT THE TIME SHOULD HE LEAVE THE CITY? YES. SO INSTEAD CROSSED OUT THE 680 AND JUST PUT WHAT STANDARD PROTOCOL FOR THE CITY, WHICH PUTS THE ISSUE IN WHATEVER THE STANDARD NUMBER IS ON THAT POLICY.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE LOWER THAT NUMBER? NO. AND MAYBE ANOTHER TIME.
WANT TO TACKLE THAT ONE? THIS IS NOT FOR YOUR BUDGET RIGHT NOW.
OKAY. I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
AND YOU WOULD. THEY'D BE GRANDFATHERED.
YEAH, THEY'D BE GRANDFATHERED IN, BUT I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT.
OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, MR. NEW'S CONTRACT. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S GRANDFATHERED IN.
NOW, WE COULD TAKE LICENSE AND SAY THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO FOR CITY EMPLOYEES.
BUT IF WE CHANGED IT IN THE FUTURE, IT OCCURS TO ME THAT NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO GIVE PEOPLE NOTICE AND MAKE SURE THEY HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO USE ANY COLLECTED UNUSED LEAVE THAT WOULD EXCEED THE NEW NUMBER.
AND I'VE BEEN DOWN THAT ROAD ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MY CAREER WHERE WE DID JUST THAT AND WE GAVE PEOPLE TWO YEARS TO WORK THROUGH EXCESS LEAVE TO BRING IT DOWN.
SO WE'RE GOING TO. WE'RE GOING TO.
WELL, I NEED A MOTION TO DO SOMETHING.
ARE WE PUNTING DOWN TO MONDAY? I'M WITH BRUCE BOLE ON THIS.
SO THEN IN MY HEARING, THE CONSENSUS IS THAT WE MOVE THIS FOR REVISIT THIS COMING MONDAY.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TIME TO HEAR FROM THE CITIZENS.
SO, WE'LL TABLE THIS ISSUE UNTIL MONDAY.
AND PLEASE, LET'S ADD IT TO THE AGENDA AND NOTICE.
CAN WE PUT SOME CLARITY ON THE FIVE-DAY NOTICE.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT WE'RE BRINGING BACK CONTRACT.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S WHAT WE READ AND WE'RE NOT DEBATING IT AGAIN MONDAY NIGHT.
YEAH. AND I THINK TO PIGGYBACK ON WHAT CITY MANAGER JUST SAID, RIGHT NOW, THE WAY IT STANDS IS THIS EXACT SAME CONTRACT WILL BE ON THE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE ANY DEBATE ON DRAFTS OR LAST-MINUTE THINGS OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
SO CERTAINLY COME PREPARED WITH ANY CHANGES YOU WANT TO THIS DOCUMENT.
AND TO THAT POINT, THERE IS NO FIVE DAY NOTICE IN THIS DRAFT FOR TERMINATION.
BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE'S OTHER THINGS YOU GUYS HAVE TALKED ABOUT.
SO CERTAINLY COME PREPARED WITH THOSE THOSE COMMENTS.
BUT I MEAN, UNLESS I HEAR SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO.
I THINK THE COMMISSION WOULD CAN VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE AND WE DON'T TIE THE HANDS.
YOU KNOW, I ENCOURAGE YOU NOT TO PUT THAT IN THERE.
IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD VOTE NOW ON WHETHER TO DRAFT IT? UP WITH IT OR NOT.
WOULD WE DO? SHOULD WE VOTE ON THIS VIA MOTION OR JUST TAKE ANOTHER CONSENSUS? AND I THINK YOU CAN TAKE A CONSENSUS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT VOTING ON THE CONTRACT ITSELF AT THE MOMENT.
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO REINVENT THE WHEEL NEXT WEEK.
AND AND CAN I REQUEST THAT ANY FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS WITH MR. NEW, PLEASE INCLUDE THE CITY MANAGER.
HE KNOWS THE JOB, HE KNOWS THE BUDGET, AND HE'S VERY EXPERIENCED.
SO TO YOUR POINT, COMMISSIONER, THE CITY MANAGER HAS BEEN CONSULTED ON THIS.
[01:00:04]
HE DID NOT SIT IN ON THE NEGOTIATIONS.BUT CERTAINLY BETWEEN NOW AND MONDAY, HE WILL BE CONSULTED FURTHER.
IF THERE ARE OTHER THINGS TO CONSULT, IF THERE ARE DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS, MR..
NEW REQUESTS THAT THE CITY MANAGER BE PRESENT.
I WANT TO SECOND THAT BECAUSE THE HUGE ADVANTAGE OF JUST STAYING THIS LONG IS TO BE AS INVOLVED AS HE POSSIBLY CAN WITH THIS PROCESS AND TRUST HIS JUDGMENT AND I TRUST HIS LEADERSHIP AND WANT HIM FULLY INVOLVED UNTIL SEPTEMBER THE 8TH.
RIGHT. I REALLY WANT THAT, SO I'LL GO WITH THAT.
DO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS ON THAT ISSUE? YES. OKAY.
SO BE IT. WHAT ELSE? YOU'RE WELCOME. THE CLAUSE, THE FIVE DAY CLAUSE.
DID WE GET A CONSENSUS? DID WE HAVE A CONSENSUS NOT TO INCLUDE? I BELIEVE WE HAD THAT CONSENSUS.
UNLESS ANYBODY SAYS OTHERWISE.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CONSENSUS IS NOT TO INCLUDE THAT.
AND IT'S NOT IN THE CURRENT DRAFT.
WELL, LOOK, I APPRECIATE ALL THE FEEDBACK.
AND I REALLY DO THINK WE HAVE AN EXTRAORDINARILY GOOD CANDIDATE FOR THIS POSITION.
BUT MONDAY, YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO TO VOTE AND RATIFY THIS CONTRACT.
IN THE MEANTIME, JOE AND I AND JASON WILL REACH OUT TO THE CANDIDATE, LET HIM KNOW WHERE WE STAND.
I'M SURE HE'S PROBABLY WATCHING THIS RIGHT NOW.
BUT WE'LL REACH OUT TO HIM AND MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED.
ANY FURTHER BUSINESS ON THIS? OKAY. NO FURTHER BUSINESS.
THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.