Loading...
09-10-2007 - Regular -.. CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 8:15 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Thomas called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:15 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Mayor Michael Thomas Councilwoman Debra Rogers Councilman Dennis Vincenzi Councilwoman Harriet Rhodes Councilwoman Judith Lichter City Manager Jon Williams City Attorney Carolyn Ansay City Clerk Susan Wadsworth Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Due to the invocation and pledge being done during the Special Meeting, there was no silent invocation or pledge of allegiance to the Flag. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting of July 2, 2007 Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve the July 2, 2007 minutes, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . 3. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/PLAQUES/CERTIFICATES/DON ATIONS There were no Presentations at this time. 4. CITIZEN COMMENTS The following citizens spoke: Page 1 of 37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 Matthew Negedly, 540 Coral Trace Blvd, stated the potential exists for the staffing of eight to be six per day. That is by definition a reduction in the level of service in the Fire Department. He urged Council to hold the City Manager's feet to the fire on this. It is an atrocity that the Fire Chief doesn't know if it is included in his budget to balance that budget. The two in and two out that Ms. Wagner, Melanie, spoke about is State law. By definition our firefighters hands will be tied if they are running reduced manning that day. He feels they are playing Russian roulette with their safety. One June 9th they told them they would not cut their safety. Dot Carlson, 1714 Edgewater Drive, representing ECARD, stated she was present tonight to inform the Council that ECARD has met the requirements of the State law of the City Charter. Having gathered the required number of signed petitions to their proposed Charter Amendment, density west of 1-95, placed on the November 2007 ballot. Their position is based on the fact that as of August 17, 2007 the Volusia County Supervisor of Elections notified the City Clerk that she had certified 1,529 petitions. Those submitted represented more than the required 10% of registered voters in the City at the last General municipal election. At the last Council meeting as a result of misinformation from the City Attorney, the Council saw fit to make a determination that some 340 petitions within the verified group signed prior to November 2006 were invalid. Ms. Ansay's assertion was based upon a case in Pinellas County where a Supervisor of Elections had at her discretion rejected a number of ballots due to their date and so had not certified the issue at hand as ready for the ballot. Case law is well settled that the Supervisor alone no other officer has that discretion. Not a local clerk, City Attorney or Council. Remember ECARD had received their certification from the Supervisor so this case was not even relevant. Rather than engage at that time in a dispute of the lawfulness of the City's action, ECARD proceeded to get 327, 234 of the original 340, plus 93 new voters to sign another petition bearing the current date. These were presented to the City Clerk on September 4th and subsequently to Ms. McFall on September 5th. For a second time, ECARD has submitted more than enough valid petitions to meet the requirements of law for placement on the ballot. It is a fact of law that the local Supervisor of Elections is the only State officer with the authority to certify or disallow petitions. It is Page 2 of 37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 their position that the Council had no legal basis for their action in having refused to accept 340 petitions that the Supervisor had validated. Their petition is underscored by the fact that on September 6th Ms. McFall's office had informed ECARD that of the 327 petitions submitted last week 234 could not be accepted because she has not disallowed the other ones and so considered them to be duplicates. ECARD has met all the legal requirements at least twice. Mayor Thomas thanked Ms. Carlson and asked City Attorney Ansay if she wanted to respond now or wait until her report. City Attorney Ansay agreed to do it now. City Attorney Ansay stated after they left the last Council meeting she was tasked with writing a letter to Ms. Carlson and she also sent one to her attorney describing the action that Council had taken. She then subsequently learned that there were additional signatures that had been submitted to Ann McFall's office for certification. She was told that there were 90 some or so that were considered authentic or passed the test and the rest were not certified by Ms. McFall's office. She didn't know that was because they were considered duplicative of the ones that were signed prior to the November date. She didn't know they corresponded to the same 340. Be that as it may, the Supervisor of Elections office notified the City that they were not valid and that they still had the issue of whether or not there were enough signatures. To address what she thinks is the bottom line, this agreement and opinion between ECARD and her view of the case law as well as her communications with Ms. McFall's office and Ms. McFall personally who reviews these matters, is that there is some confusion that the Supervisor of Elections at the County controls everything as it relates to City elections. That is just not the case. Ann McFall's office certifies the signatures. They look at the signatures and make sure that the person who signed it is a registered voter. They actually confirm that the signature matches so there is no forgery. When dealing with issues of whether or not the measure itself is legal, whether the petition is legal, whether it's legal for placement on a particular ballot, their position when she approached them with this specific legal issue was that isn't their call. That is the local elections Chief that we have in the City Clerk. That is her call. They had conversations and that is why they brought this back before Council at the last meeting. Page 3 of 37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 Susan's not comfortable doing it without direction. She isn't comfortable. At the end of the day the Council needs to know there is a legal issue based on a case that says the Supervisor of Elections. That was a county case so it was a county supervisor of election. It was a county ballot measure in Pinellas. Therefore because it was a County issue there, it was a County Supervisor of Elections that made the call there. That is the distinction. Here the County Attorney's position and Ann McFall's position is because it's a City measure, that is a City issue. She will compare the signatures but that is where her contract with the City of Edgewater ends. They didn't want to have to put the Council in a position that they had to make that call, Susan didn't want to have to make that call and she didn't want to have that conversation but it was because Ann McFall's office, and she thinks rightfully so, said it was the City that was in control of this issue. They verify signatures and that is where their duty ends. That is where they are. They also conferred with the County Attorney to make sure she clearly understood the position of the County Attorney and the Supervisor of Elections. It's that they again are not going to make the call as to all of the issues they have described. They merely certify that those signatures match. While she agrees that there is a lot of case law saying the Supervisor of Elections and the Elections Chief are the final authority, here quite honestly other than for verifying signatures the final authority with direction from Council is sitting over there when it comes to City issues because it is a City election they are talking about. Beyond that nothing has changed. She received a letter from counsel for ECARD again reiterating a number of the issues they have discussed. She feels there are differences of opinion and some of it is inaccurate. There were a few issues that were discussed at the last meeting that they responded to. At the end of the day it is a policy call on the City's part whether they want to take the risk on this side or take the risk on the backside. Councilwoman Lichter stated one part of the equation seems to be answered. She asked if this is true, that they have enough legal signatures. City Attorney Ansay didn't know the answer to that because she was told by Ms. McFall's office that of the recent 300 and some odd signatures only 90 were valid. She didn't know if the rest of them were knocked out because they were duplicates of the ones they previously said were being knocked out. This is the first Page 4 of 37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 time that has come to her attention. She was just told they were duplicative. She didn't know of which particular signatures. To the degree that there are signatures that have been submitted that they are saying are duplicative but they are duplicative of the ones the City said were invalid they would now come into play and be valid and go towards the final number. Councilwoman Lichter sees that as two parts. She sees the second part is that it has been stated if certain signatures were gotten before a particular election or that this is only meant to go on a national election, not local. That part is still valid no matter what is in effect with the signatures. City Attorney Ansay stated right. Ms. Carlson stated no. City Attorney Ansay explained the position of the County Attorney when she spoke with him about this matter was because the ballot states that the signer is asking that this measure be placed on the ballot at the next general election. State law defines General Election, we don't. State law defines general election as occurring in even numbered years. It is the County's position that this would be right for placement on the ballot in 2008 because the signatures said please place this on the ballot at the next general election which would equate to the 2008 election. Councilwoman Lichter stated she wasn't sure that everybody is aware of what this petition is about. She thinks they have some people that haven't been following it and maybe it could be reiterated what the signatures are for and what the vote is going to be. She wasn't sure if that was relevant or not but she wasn't sure if everyone is aware. Councilwoman Rogers stated this decision was made at the last Council meeting and she was not able to attend. From what she is understanding, first of all around July 30th when they were up there and they were making votes and approving things she remembers being directed at one of the meetings to change from a term municipal to City. At the time she didn't understand what that meant. When you are directed to change a word by the City Attorney, she isn't an attorney. She trusted our City Attorney so she just did it. Part of her hearing what she is hearing now and what she read in the paper after the fact plus listening to the minutes of the meeting she missed, that had something to do Page 5 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 with this. It is confusing to her. To make matters even more of an issue what she is understanding is at that meeting 340 petitions were thrown out because those petitions were signed before a certain date. ECARD went out and got 340 or thereabout signatures again of which 90 were people that didn't sign the first time so those petitions were allowed by Ann McFall and the additional petitions that are considered duplicate are considered duplicate because Ann McFall's office was never notified by the City that those petitions would not be valid. In another sense, she is thinking how could anybody sign two petitions. That would be illegal for the same item. Who was responsible to notify Ann McFall to say that the petitions that were signed prior to this date aren't going to be valid? That should have been done and right now they wouldn't be saying there was only 90 valid. They would be saying everything that these people went out and worked on was valid or not. Nobody said they weren't valid. Who would have called Ann McFall and alerted them? City Attorney Ansay went back to the first issue of the changing and the resolutions related to the election. She wanted to ensure that everybody knew what happened at that meeting. There were two resolutions on the agenda related to contracts between the City and the Supervisor of Elections. Those contracts are forms that have been in place for years, long before some of the Statutory changes related to election calendars etc. and the way in which we refer to elections. The bottom line is, when she spoke to the County, she was told again, reiterated, just recognize this is not a general election the City is holding. This is a City election, a municipal election. When she looked at those resolutions she wanted it to be clear based on what she was directed by the County, that they were referring in our own resolution to the election accurately. There was no ulterior motive on her part if that is what is being insinuated to change the resolution to reflect that this was a general election so she could somehow torpedo ECARD. It was merely a way in which she had to reflect what she had been told by the County. Quite frankly make the resolution match what State law says which is this is a City election, not a general election. That is what the reason was for that change. It was then at this meeting where they also heard County Councilman HaYman reiterate the argument now along those same lines since this is a general election. You can call it whatever you want. The reality is it still is a general election. Page 6 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 City Attorney Ansay stated going forward with the issue of how the signatures were handled after this Council meeting last time where Council decided it wanted to not consider the signatures that had been obtained prior to the 2006 election because based on what happened in the Pinellas case those were signed by people who said put it on the election at the next general election and that general election had come and gone. That was then communicated to ECARD. It was communicated verbally to Ann McFall, Jack Hayman and to Dan Eckert on a telephone call she had where they described that is where they were headed. ECARD knew it and that was why they went out and got the 300 and some odd additional signatures. It was never brought to her attention that the duplicates were duplicates. To this day she hasn't been provided the signatures. She doesn't know for a fact that all of the duplicates are duplicates that had previously been knocked out by this Council. If they are then they certainly have to look at those and get with Ann McFall's office and make sure that the duplicates that they are saying are invalidated are also otherwise valid and therefore not duplicative of another signature that had been obtained post election 2006. It is a very complicated issue. They've got unfortunately multiple bureaucracies with their hands, multiple attorneys, multiple staffs, and elected officials from the County Council that came to the meeting last month and voiced their opinions on the subject. It's not very cut and dry. They are being asked to make a hard decision. The fact of the matter is up until today when she received correspondence from Ms. Blackner and have now heard comments from Ms. Carlson, it's the first she is being told by anyone that those signatures are indeed duplicative of the ones the City previously knocked out. Nobody has said otherwise those would be valid. That is what they need to make happen. Councilwoman Rogers confirmed that what City Attorney Ansay was saying was that Ann McFall and Dan Eckert were both made aware verbally that the 340 petitions signed prior to the 2006 election were not going to be valid. City Attorney Ansay informed her she didn't speak to them after Council took action. She spoke with them the day of or two days before the council meeting where she discussed she believed this was an issue. Jack Hayman was a part of that conversation. He had come to this meeting and encouraged Council to take certain action or voice his opinion and then left. There was no direct communication between her Page 70f37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 to Ann McFall's office saying she was telling her the Council has taken certain action. Councilwoman Rogers stated so therefore there is confusion as to whether those petitions are truly invalid because no one was notified at Ann McFall's office. City Attorney Ansay informed her that could be easily rectified. Councilwoman Rogers stated so basically if they are going to say that now and grandfather so to speak and make those invalid then the petitions they have now since acquired are valid so then they have their numbers so they are back at the same as they were. City Attorney Ansay stated if they have indeed obtained additional signatures that would otherwise be valid but for the fact that Ann McFall's office thinks they are duplicative of the ones they have said are not valid and they have met the numbers, then they have met the numbers for this to be placed on the ballot. The question they now have to face is since the petitions direct that it be placed on the ballot at the next general election do they follow the encouragement of the County that that means the 2008 election or do they pass a resolution at the next meeting asking that that be placed on the ballot on this election. She didn't know how that would be received. Councilwoman Rogers stated and then at the same time what was mentioned in this letter from Ms. Blackner to City Attorney Ansay's firm, the eight is enough case. She asked if that pertains to this thing they are on right now. City Attorney Ansay explained the eight is enough case is the case that supports the proposition that if signatures were signed prior to an election saying put it on the ballot at the next election and that election comes and goes that those ballots are no longer in play for all successive future elections. That was a case she discussed with Council at the last meeting where they described how they were coming to that conclusion. That is the only guidance. The problem they face is that you've got one case. Councilwoman Rogers stated they have no case law and as City Attorney Ansay had mentioned her opinion and attorneys each have opinions based upon case law. Since there is no case law. City Attorney Ansay informed her there is case is one case. It is the eight is enough case. Page 8 of37 law. There Councilwoman Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 Rogers stated but then that is up for a matter of interpretation as to how you would interpret it depending upon which side of the fence you are sitting on in this issue. City Attorney Ansay stated she isn't sitting on any side of the fence because quite frankly she could care less where they go with this. It would have been a lot easier for her had they just placed it on the ballot the first week. She has no ax to grind. It is rare in law that you find a case that is so factually analogous to the issues they have at hand where everything lines up quite as similarly as it did here. The language in their ballot was identical to the language in this ballot. That is upon what she bases her opinion. Clearly Ms. Blackner represents ECARD and she has made an argument that it shouldn't be considered and she respects that. Mayor Thomas informed Ms. Carlson if she wasn't done with her presentation she could come up during the second session of citizen comments. Barbara Herron, 465 Wildwood Drive, New Smyrna Beach, County resident, stated Ms. Carlson asked her to review some e-mails that she received from the City Clerk's office and Ann McFall's office and nowhere in those documents since April Ms. Ansay was there any written directive from the County Attorney to her to disallow any of these petitions or that she had informed him of anything that he transposed or transmitted to her in terms of giving her direction of how to act. In fact she has certified the appropriate number of petitions for this item to be placed on the ballot. She asked if that was correct. City Attorney Ansay informed her that was exactly correct. Ms. Herron stated then is it the ministerial duty of this Council tonight to place that item on the ballot and let the voters decide. City Attorney Ansay informed her no. Ms. Herron asked what their ministerial duty was tonight. City Attorney Ansay informed her the case law describes the fact that the Council cannot look at a ballot measure and determine whether they like the substance of it and determine whether or not to place it on the ballot based on the substance of it. That isn't what is happening here. The Council is reviewing the legal issues associated with whether or not the measure itself is appropriate for Page 9 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 placement on the ballot at this coming election. their legal duty. That is Ms. Herron stated if you will review any ballot presented to the State or any supervisor, they all contain that verbiage, general election with a lowercase g. She asked if it isn't true that in State Statute that that general election with a lowercase g refers to a variety including municipal elections, special elections and so forth. City Attorney Ansay informed her general election is defined as elections occurring in even numbered years. Ms. Herron stated with a capital G. Presidential elections. General Election with a lowercase g refers to all sorts of elections. Dave St. Mire, 1914 Juniper Drive, stated wow. Apparently certain people aren't listening at these meetings. It's going in one ear and out the other or they have a block up here or something. The law clearly states and they have had two attorneys confirm this that General Elections whether they are capital g or small g makes no difference. He doesn't care whether you have valid votes or invalid votes, it's all moot. This can't be done this year. It can't be. If the City goes ahead and does this, our Attorney is going to be busy with all kinds of lawsuits. General elections are even numbered years. This cannot be placed on the ballot now. The City will be in violation of State law. If you are going to place it on the ballot, do it next year. He can't understand why anybody would want to take several hundred acres west of the city and keep one residence per twenty acres. We need growth and we need income into this City. Everybody is trying to downsize this thing. You think positive and bring things into this City to make money. Listen to what the law says. General election, even numbered years. Not going to happen in 2007. Bob Lott, 2112 S. Riverside Drive, Economic Development Board Chairman, stated he has a preliminary budget and in this preliminary budget he is a little confused because he has heard at the last few meetings and when he talked to Councilpeople individually that they are trying to get some economic growth going in this City. He sees his budget was cut 90%. He only had $14,000 in his budget. He feels they are alienating the Chamber of Commerce, who has supported the City year after year. He then commented on SCORE and the people they have counseled. He is a counselor for Page 10 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 SCORE and he counsels these people and will continue to do that. They are going to cut $1,500 that goes to SCORE. He doesn't understand. If they are supposed to be promoting economic development, everybody else had to cut their budget 10%, 20% or 30%. They cut his budget 90%. He asked for a response to that. Councilman vincenzi stated he isn't arguing that those are all worthy causes. The City is tight on money. He asked City Manager Williams if the Economic Development Board submitted some kind of plan with what they want to do with the money. City Manager Williams stated the money Mr. Lott is referring to is specifically related to the Chamber of Commerce. Councilman Vincenzi stated Mr. Lott said his budget was cut 90%. Mr. Lott stated that is his entire budget, $10,500 for the Chamber and $1,500 for SCORE out of the $14,000. They didn't say reallocate it or do something else with it. Councilman Vincenzi stated the Chamber, year after year, he has been a member. He is an individual member. He hasn't joined up again this year yet but he probably will. The Chamber, even though he is a member individually, he isn't aware that the Chamber really supports Edgewater. Chamber, New Smyrna, Edgewater and Oak Hill. Mr. Lott informed Councilman Vincenzi he fights everyday. Councilman Vincenzi informed him it was his turn. He asked Mr. Lott to tell him what the Chamber does besides putting Edgewater on their website. Mr. Lott stated in October they are doing a Trade Show. The Chamber supports that Trade Show. It doesn't cost Edgewater anything. They used to do their own Trade Show and it was very unsuccessful and it cost the City money. They put that off onto the Chamber. The Chamber fights for their rights in Tallahassee. They go up there every year and they fight for our tax deductions. The Chamber represents the City every single day. He can't imagine that Councilman Vincenzi could sit there and say that the Chamber doesn't support Edgewater. He is on the Board of directors for the Chamber as well as Elected Vice President for the Chamber and he fights every day. Councilman Vincenzi stated he feels alienated because does enough for Edgewater. to show up once in a while. majority of their effort is as a representative of this City he doesn't think the Chamber Mr. Lott informed him he needed Councilman vincenzi feels the focused on New Smyrna Beach. Page 11 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 He asked Mr. Lott to tell him what the Chamber does for Edgewater with the $10,000. Mr. Lott informed him he just did. Councilman Vincenzi informed him he didn't. Mr. Lott stated he doesn't know what else to say. Councilman Vincenzi stated the Chamber needed to focus on Edgewater more. Mr. Lott stated the Chamber does focus on Edgewater. That is what he has been doing for the last three years. Councilman Vincenzi informed him it wasn't evident. Mr. Lott informed him he needed to pay attention. Councilman Vincenzi stated he does pay attention. Mr. Lott asked Councilman Vincenzi if he knew what was happening on the 21st. Councilman Vincenzi told him to tell him. Mr. Lott informed him if he was paying attention he could tell him. Mr. Lott stated the Chamber is putting on a breakfast for all the business people in Edgewater only. Councilman Vincenzi stated that was the first e-mail about anything in Edgewater that has been sent out in quite a while. Mr. Lott informed him he shows up at some of the events. He informed Councilman Vincenzi he wasn't keeping up. If he wanted to go toe-to-toe with him on this he didn't have any problem. Councilman Vincenzi informed Mr. Lott he didn't think the Chamber did enough for Edgewater. Mr. Lott stated so you are going to cut their funding. Councilman Vincenzi informed him he felt they needed to sit back for one year, re-evaluate what they do and come back next year with a proposal of what they are going to do. That is taxpayer money. It's not a free gift. Mr. Lott stated not a free gift. He asked if Edgewater was going to participate in the Trade Show this year. Councilman Vincenzi informed him he had no idea. Mr. Lott asked him if he thought the businesspeople of Edgewater would like to participate in the Trade Show. Councilman Vincenzi felt the business people that are Chamber members will, some of them. Jim Sylvester, 2209 Orange Tree Drive, stated there are two things he would like to see changed about the way they conduct these meetings. First he would like to see the Council develop a vision or mission statement and at the beginning of each meeting restate that statement. This will help build teamwork and will help the community identify with them and where they are planning to go. He would also like to see prior to Citizen Comments, an update on all the hot topics. They have to wait until the end of the meeting to maybe hear something about the hot topics such as the Shuffleboard, the Animal Shelter, things like that. Just a one-minute update at the beginning of the Page 12 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 meeting will save time on people getting up and asking questions they already planned to answer. He feels the answer to the tax problem is to expand the tax base. Dave Ross, 2803 Needle Palm Drive, stated he has a IS-page document, which is nothing less than a mud slinging, smear campaign aimed against three Edgewater citizens. Those people are in the room tonight and they know who they are. He isn't here to protect or defend them. He didn't agree with everything they say and do. Because of the nature that is so malicious of this document, he feels compelled to address it. This document was provided by Mr. Don Mears of Restorations to City Manager Williams. He was concerned as to why Mr. Mears felt it was appropriate to inform City Manager Williams of the contents of this document. It is totally personal in nature and certainly not City business. He is very perplexed at why City Manager Williams felt that it was appropriate to express his thanks to Mr. Mears for giving him the information. It's all in writing. He is very interested why the smear campaign as written as the stated intention of using the Edgewater Firefighter friends to spread it around. There are many other questions that should be asked. He hopes this Council will look into it and the man with the answers. He would like the Council to ask themselves if this is indicative of the level of professionalism that they will accept in dealing with the individual who intends to double the population of this City. He congratulated Mr. Mears and this through advertising to really define to the citizens of Edgewater what mud slinging is all about. City Manager Williams stated certainly something that was expressed by Ms. Carlson to him on Friday that she felt like it was something that he should have informed the Council about. What he told Ms. Carlson and what he would tell Mr. Ross and the new citizens is that he generally responds to everybody in a polite manner. He cannot control what e-mails are sent to him. As Mr. Ross has pointed out, the information was malicious in nature and it was personal in nature and therefore not City business, which is why that information was not passed along to the Council. Councilwoman Lichter clarified that someone sent City Manager Williams an e-mail. City Manager Williams stated and he responded thanks for the information. Page 13 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 Richard Burgess, 2724 Juniper Drive, member of ECARD, stated ECARD isn't some kind of space alien that came down here to invade. For people that have lived here for many years, his parents are planted at Sea Pines. He has owned a home here since 1979 and they are involved in what this City does and they will stay involved in what the City does. He is upset bye-mails he has read. He is angry. He is almost livid but he can control himself so they won't have to throw him out. They really need to talk to the citizens of the town and communicate with them. He suggested they put it in the Shorelines. He has been reading that since 2005 and there hasn't been a word in there about doubling the size of this City. He first caught onto it by ECARD. He said what are the implications and then he found out about the Marshall Study, a study paid for with County funds on that property. That is the only tax paid study he knows about on that property. He feels they need to look at the executive summary. Any other study that is done by people who stand to fatten their bank accounts probably might be a little swayed. He suggested they check into the accuracy of those. He doesn't think they paid and hired a PR firm to say bad things about them. He couldn't believe some of the stuff he read. He feels the citizens need to know why they think it is a good thing and they need to hear all of the information. He hasn't heard jack. He commented on changing the name of an election. He read information that is available on the website. He commented on the time he has put into collecting signatures and talking to people. Tomorrow he is going to ask the Attorney General and the State to investigate this. It just smells. It stinks. Carol Stoughton, 2740 Evergreen Drive, read the e-mail that was sent to Don Mears from City Manager Williams on August 1, 2007. She referred to a document that contained talking points, counter points and various quotes for use against ECARD and Ms. Carol Ann, which is who she is. This started in July. She then referred to another document entitled ECARD report card. She asked what they are all afraid of. The people to speak and the people to sign a petition and the people that want what they want and not the developers. She then commented on Jerry Doty's involvement with regard to the talking points, counter points and various quotes for use against ECARD and Ms. Carol Ann and the ECARD report. She commented on the point about Ms. Carlson moving from town to town. She confirmed Ms. Carlson has been here for 23 years. They want what they want in our Page 14 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 town. They want the ballots validated, counted and they want an election and let the people decide. The people run this town and that is the way it should be. Bill Glasser, 1703 Needle Palm Drive, stated you people are not the only ones that is confused. Even the Supervisor of Elections is confused as to what a General Election is because if you go to their website and look at the results of elections from 2000 to 2006, you see General Election, Municipal Election, a Municipal General Election, and a General Election and in 2003 it was a Primary General Election and all it was was the cities in Volusia County voting for their Councilmembers or representatives. 2003 is an odd year and it was called a Primary General Election. Amazing grace so even she is confused. Mr. Glasser stated there were some folks that were incensed that 10%"of the people in this town could vote on an amendment to the City Charter to make 35-foot height limit in the Charter. He stated in the 2005 Election, three of the Councilmembers are 10 percenters. They were elected by 10% of the people. Only 2,579 people out of 14,500 registered voters came out to vote. That is 18% of the registered voters in the City of Edgewater. He guessed they could say that 18% care and 80% don't. In the 2003 election, two other Councilmembers were the high rollers. Out of the 14,079 people, 3,014 came out to vote that year and one of the Councilmembers got 14%% of the votes and the other one got 12.8% of the votes. Three are 10% and the rest are the high rollers. It all boils down to 10% of the folks is what runs the City. Ted Cooper, 3028 Mango Tree Drive, stated he thinks they know what this last series of rhetoric was all about. The City needs growth. They listened for an hour on how they need to raise revenue to help offset the taxes and help offset the expenses. Let them vote. Let them do what they want to do. Put it on the ballot if they feel they have to. Challenge the legality. Go through all that expense. Cost the City tons of money. Let the voters speak. They know they need to raise revenue. He believes every citizen here knows that. If they don't do things to bring business and industry to Edgewater, who is going to foot the bill? 5. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Page 15 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 Councilwoman Rogers stated she wanted to clarify something for a certain concerned citizen. She was sure the concerned citizen would know what she was getting at. At the last Council meeting, there were some minutes that she had held off from being approved from the previous Council meeting and they got approved last time. She stated City Clerk Wadsworth wasn't present at that meeting and what she understands is if they have a question or concern with minutes if they feel that something needs to be changed what they are supposed to do is approve the minutes and then what they do is they make a comment so they could have it amended or added to those minutes. The minutes she pulled she later found out were not the exact minutes she needed pulled. The minutes she needed pulled they have not yet received. They were from the Town Hall meeting that was held on a Saturday. At that Town Hall meeting the city Manager asked the City Council for direction so he could go to Volusia County to get a quote for police protection and fire, just a quote. She believed it was a quote for police protection. That meeting was held in June and tonight Linda Small brought to their attention something dated previous to that meeting dated in April whereby the Chief of Police had already received that quote. She felt it would have been becoming for them to have received that information at the Town Hall meeting since they were discussing it and since this is something the Chief did know. She wanted to put that out there on the record that that was why she held up that one set of minutes and the fact that this was brought to their attention tonight just to say that this had something to do with that and now it has been resolved. They did take a vote and it was voted down. She believed it was 3-2 that the City Council was not going to give the City Manager direction to receive the quote. Councilwoman Rogers commented on the petition. She isn't for the one house per twenty acres west of 1-95. She has made mention of that to ECARD. However what she is for is this is a group, like anybody else has a right to do what they believe in, the petitions she feels, they worked for it, they did what they did, and the way it was turned down she doesn't agree with. That is the only reason she is bringing that to the attention of the Council and the public tonight. Her understanding is the land west of 1-95 is owned by a single owner. She has been told this by a certain authority, which she would not mention at this time. That authority told her since it is a single ownership that the petition if it were to pass could not be Page 16 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 legally enforceable. She isn't an attorney so she doesn't know that. She just wanted to disclose that. She is an elected official and she informs the public what she knows about what is going on in the City. Councilwoman Rogers commented on a comment made about attracting a business as well as all the comments about the 35-foot height limit. They have not had a 35-foot height limit in this City all these years. It's not like they have businesses knocking down their doors to come in. Even at this point they don't. Everybody in the State of Florida seems to be at a certain standstill across the board because of the market conditions upon the interest rates and everything else that is going on. They have citizens that have businesses in the City but maybe they don't operate their businesses in the City. If they want to and if they were to come to Council and indicate that they would like to move a business to the City she thinks what they need to do for those people first is start giving them incentives to move their business within our City boundaries so we could receive the taxes. She has clients that have manufacturing concerns and they are looking for locations. She is trying her hardest to get them to come here. They would bring jobs and save her the time of not having to travel to Orlando. Councilman Vincenzi stated since people that weren't here at the last meeting are weighing in on the issue west of I- 95, his opinion is there are a lot of issues with the petition collection and a lot of issues that need to be considered if it were placed on the ballot and approved. There are some stipulations about petitions or rulings that have to apply to five owners or more or something like that. Since there is only two property owners out there west of 1-95 that would possibly make it an invalid initiative anyway. These are all legal issues that need to be considered. They can argue all day of who is right and who is wrong. The City gets chastised every time it does anything outside any type of legal boundaries. The City has to stay within these legal boundaries and has to do things by the book. Unfortunately everyone else does too. He is willing to talk to the person that owns the property west of I-95. He wants it developed probably not to the extent they want to develop it but he wants to develop it in a reasonable manner and bring affordable housing and businesses into town and that will in turn attract other businesses. Hopefully the developer will be forced to pay Page 17 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 his own way and not pass the cost of roads and new infrastructure onto existing taxpayers. It is up to people they elect to make them do that and they have to elect the right people. He is for developing out there. He hasn't seen any plans other than the original one submitted a year ago when it was called Hammock Creek. He doesn't know what the guy has in mind. If it is the same as what they proposed before, he isn't for it. He was sure they could talk to the guy and get him to develop something a little more less impact and more reasonable that will still benefit the City. Councilwoman Rhodes feels Councilman Vincenzi said it very well about the ballot initiative. They have to heir on the side of caution because they are responsible for taxpayer dollars and they don't want to spend any more than they have to. She feels that is what they are doing right now. She has no problem with it being on the ballot and the voters deciding that issue. It makes her job easier. She is for that. Councilwoman Rhodes stated as for economic development, she thinks everybody up there is in agreement that they need more economic development. They have an Economic Development Board which had their budget cut and while she is not necessarily thinking that the $10,500 should go to the Chamber, she feels they should have it to help develop commercial and industrial business in this City and whatever they need to do to make that happen take the $10,500 and do it. They can say this is where their focus is, to bring in more commercial and broaden the tax base in this City. Until you put your money where your mouth is all you are doing is running your lips. Councilwoman Rhodes briefly commented on the e-mail. She didn't get it so she didn't have anything to say about it other than if it was mud slinging she doesn't agree with that. Councilwoman Lichter stated she would like City Manager Williams to talk to Fire Chief Barlow about safety issues with the Fire situation and the trucks and see what they can work out within the framework they have. Councilwoman Lichter agreed Economic Development needed attention. She also thinks it can be concentrated locally.' She wished before tonight when they were voting on the Page 18 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 budget these things were brought to them like they have been in the past by the SCORE people and by Economic Development. They are on the last minute here with a lot of antagonism and anger and negative feelings in the audience between them and us. That isn't the most conducive atmosphere to work in in a democracy and in this situation. There are going to be many ideas. To get rowdy and abusive is hardly conducive for good government. Councilwoman Lichter stated in terms of the petition, she isn't taking a chance of being sued one more time. She doesn't know how many lawsuits they have in the works at this moment. In terms of the industrial park, she had even been brought on a non-profit group when she was on the Board of Directors for the Pet Society. There was a person sitting in the audience that took her to the Attorney General's office and that cost $1,000 to get a letter back before the lawyer even sent one saying they could be a member of a non-profit group. There are too many lawsuits going on in this situation. She knows City Attorney Ansay due to dealing with her with the Water Authority where she is also their lawyer and she is one of the best City lawyers around. She has to hear what City Attorney Ansay is saying in terms of each factor. That doesn't mean this isn't going to be put on a ballot but if there is a question at the moment of which election then she is going to vote no for the local election. If there is a question in terms of they are horning in on one property owner out there or two and saying that they are being discriminatory against them, she feels they have to realize that people have a right, not only do they need proper growth and development but they have a right to sell their land in a manner that meets the laws. She commented on the permitting authorities. There are many things that block development that isn't good. Nobody is allowed to build in wetlands. She will go with caution on the petition at this moment. It's not a black and white situation with developers. They aren't all evil. She doesn't look at it that way. She gets calls from people that moved in three months ago into a new development that don't want a new development in town. She spoke of still having to protect the environment and no one caring more about the environment more than she does. She commented on a meeting she will be attending regarding protecting their water supply and all our resources. She can't slam dunk every project that might have some validity to it because property owners have a right to sell their land. She commented on interacting in Page 19 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 a nicer manner, not such a sarcastic manner and it would be profitable to them all and their health. Mayor Thomas stated at the last meeting he asked City Attorney Ansay if anyone instructed her to find a way to disallow the petitions and her answer was no. He thinks her job is to research and find out the case laws and instruct Council to keep the City out of lawsuits. He appreciates her finding that case law and letting him know how it fell and letting him know the definition of General Election. He thanked her and informed her he trusted her. Mayor Thomas called a ten-minute recess. The meeting recessed at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. Mayor Thomas asked for a show of hands of how many City employees were present at the meeting. He thanked them for coming. Mayor Thomas stated Councilwoman Rogers forgot to say something and she wanted the floor. Councilwoman Rogers stated regarding the preliminary budget they approved earlier tonight, in Ordinance 2007-0-16 there were some items she wanted to clarify because individuals are concerned that they did something irresponsibly. Item #1 in the Ordinance states that the City Manager has submitted an estimate of expenditures and Item #2 refers to an estimate of revenues. When they approve something, it wasn't that they approved something irresponsibly. These are just estimates. 6. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request from Police Department, Criminal Division (CID) to transfer $500.00 from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund to defray costs associated with criminal investigative activities with CID Police Chief Taves made a staff presentation. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if it was in their budget. Chief Taves informed her no. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they spend more than they budgeted. Chief Taves stated they do not know when they budget if they are going to work a fraud case and are going to have to get 100 pages from the bank and pay them their fees to duplicate and research them. Page 20 of 37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they assume that at some point in time during the year they might have those costs. Chief Taves informed her this is above the budget cost. Councilwoman Rhodes stated then the answer to her question was yes. Councilwoman Rhodes asked how much was in the trust fund now. Chief Taves informed her the last number he got was about $26,000. Mayor Thomas entertained a motion. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve the transfer from the Law Enforcement Trust Funds in the amount of $500 to defray the costs associated with criminal investigative activities with CID, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . 7. PUBIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS There were no Public Hearings, Ordinances or Resolutions to be discussed at this time. 8. BOARD APPOINTMENTS A. General Employees Pension Board - nomination by the City Manager to fill a vacant seat due to the resignation of Christi Moeller City Manager Williams recommended Robin Matusick be appointed to the General Employees Pension Board. Mayor Thomas stated he thought she was already on it. City Manager Williams stated she was and this was just the follow up paperwork. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve City Manager Williams nomination, second by Councilwoman Rogers. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . B. General Employees Pension Board - nomination by SPEA to fill a vacant seat due to the resignation of Robert DeLoach Page 21 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 City Manager Williams recommended Michael Tenney be appointed to the General Employees Pension Board. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve the SPEA's appointment of Mike Tenney to the General Employees Pension Board, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . C. General Employees Pension Board - nomination by City Council to fill a vacant seat due to the resignation of Councilwoman Rhodes Mayor Thomas stated they decided it was going to be Councilman Vincenzi because they all try to share the load. He pointed out the different boards other Councilmembers serve on. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to appoint Councilman Vincenzi to the General Employees Pension Board, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . D. Planning & Zoning Board - nomination by Councilwoman Rogers to fill a vacant seat due to the resignation of Charlene Zeese (continued/tabled during the 8/20/07 meeting due to the absence of Councilwoman Rogers) Councilwoman Rogers stated she had a concern because the individual she wanted to appoint to this position is also a candidate for Council. She hasn't spoken to this individual since she is also a candidate. She doesn't know what the norm is in the City when someone is a candidate and also looking to be appointed to a board. If the individual wanted to make any comments, she was open. Mayor Thomas asked to get a legal opinion on that. City Attorney Ansay stated she didn't know with regard to Planning & Zoning Board but she was sure she would have to resign because of the dual office clause. She would be able to be on there until such time as she was sworn in as a Councilperson. She informed Councilwoman Rogers she could make the appointment but at whatever point she would hold two offices then she would have to give up one. Page 22 of 37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 Councilwoman Rogers stated it was a concern of hers because if she was appointed to this position and were later elected to the Council seat then she questioned if she is being responsible in her position appointing her when she is only going to be in that position for two months, which would only be two meetings. Ms. Bennington stated she understood her concern but they just appointed her opponent on a Board too. Councilwoman Rogers stated but he's on a Board but he's serving in a council position and is able to serve on that Board. You have to be on council to serve in that position. Ms. Bennington stated if she wins, he would be kicked off that Board. It's a double edge thing. She would like the opportunity to serve on the Board. Should she lose she would still like to serve the City. Councilwoman Rogers felt Ms. Bennington had a good point. Councilwoman Rogers recommended Gigi Bennington be appointed to the Planning & Zoning Board. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Councilwoman Rogers' recommendation of Gigi Bennington to the Planning & Zoning Board, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . 9. OTHER BUSINESS A. Discussion/motion for Council action relating to the silent vote taken by participants of the General Employee Defined Benefit Plan City Manager Williams stated after their August 28th Workshop with the General Employees Pension Board they had moved in a direction that would allow them to under fund the pension plan while they explored additional modifications. During that workshop he disclosed what he thought would be a method to allow employees to come forward in a silent vote and express their desires with regard to modification of the plan. The next morning he was approached by a few employees that said they recognize the benefits with a silent vote and they encouraged him to go ahead and produce a document to allow them to have a silent vote. They came up with the ballot that was included in the agenda packet. They sent it out and asked Page 23 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 for the employees to respond no later than September 7, 2007. He then went over those results. City Manager Williams stated the bottom line is after receiving these votes and today prior to them tabulating the votes he had extended an invitation to the employees and departments, those of which would like him to come out and discuss those issues. He met with the Water Plant employees this morning. They all supported the modifications however, expressed some concern and would like to have seen the modifications include specific language that addressed when they were to be moved over to the defined contribution plan specifically the percentage. Right now that percentage is at 12% and they said they felt like they would be able to support these modifications if the City were to come back and clarify that percentage. City Manager Williams then went over the recommended motion he thinks clearly communicates the Council's intention. City Manager Williams then turned the meeting over to the Council for their questions, comments and concerns. Mayor Thomas asked how many are in that plan. City Manager Williams informed him 57. Mayor Thomas asked why they only received 28 votes. City Manager Williams stated half of them didn't respond for whatever reason. He hasn't heard any feedback regarding that. Councilwoman Lichter asked how much time they had to vote. City Manager Williams stated it was dated August 30th and went out right away so they had about a week. Councilwoman Lichter stated it is strange to her that they didn't reply. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if there was anyone at the meeting that knew why they didn't reply. Mr. Tenney stated he couldn't answer for everybody but he didn't think the vote was quite legal. Who knows who voted. It was never signed. It was a piece of paper put in a check to vote and send back. He feels if they are going to do a legal vote they should do it in front of the Board and get all the members here, put their names down, let them vote and sign by their name that they voted. Councilwoman Rhodes commented on this being informal and they just wanted the employees' opinions. Page 24 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 City Manager Williams stated to eliminate any accusations or legalities, City Attorney Ansay was present when the envelopes were open. What has been brought forward to them is they heard the employees express during the Budget workshop that the setting with which they were asked to come into which they did at their request was rather intimidating. They have some employees that feel like they can't openly express their opinion for the fact that some of these supervisors that are directly affected by this are their subordinates and their may be potential consequences that come out about that. That is why they brought forward the silent vote. Councilwoman Lichter asked if that was the end of the voting. She asked City Attorney Ansay if it was legal to move on with that kind of vote. City Attorney Ansay stated it is her understanding that the ballots that were submitted were just a desire to get feedback. City Manager Williams stated they could take action here tonight. They are meeting tomorrow as a Board. There is a provision that exists that says the Board and Council need to mutually agree. He feels this goes a long way in communicating to the employees the seriousness of the issue and the need to get the modifications in place. It also communicates to the residents that the Council is seriously moving forward with a solution to correct this problem. Councilwoman Lichter stated it is kind of like the public voting for Council and a small percentage of the voters getting the Council elected. She feels if the pension people that this applies to really want to express their opinion they are going to be given an opportunity to do so they better do so and not let a small percentage make the determination. Councilman Vincenzi stated one thing is for sure. It seems like there is a group that is willing to accept modifications and there is another group that is just not willing to accept modifications. They want to leave it the way it is. From his understanding of the financial situation of the City, that can't happen. It can't stay the way it is. This was unfortunately something that was promised a long time ago and because of a variety of reasons, the City can't fulfill those promises anymore and something's got to change. They are talking about a contribution to employee retirement benefits of 24% last Page 25 of 37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 year and something close to 48% this year. That is a phenomenal amount by any standard. The City is proposing as evidenced by those modifications are not the same retirement benefits but still benefits that are good, better than most people have. Unfortunately it wasn't what was promised a long time ago. In the interest of survival for the city and allowing the City to provide services and buy equipment and spend taxpayer money wisely, some modification has to occur and there has to be some compromise. They want to continue the way they are with such a high retirement contribution. He wished it could be done but it is not financially possible according to what they have been told by City Manager Williams. As more people retire this benefit is going to continue to increase. Even if it was possible this year, it probably wouldn't be possible next year or the year after. It has to come to an end sometime. City Manager Williams pointed out that the recommendation for a motion does not bind the City or those employees to those specific modifications. What this does is it gives them a document that they can go back to Principal Financial Group and say provide us with a scenario or group of options that allow them to meet at a minimum these requirements, long term sustainability, they control the funding to ensure the long term sustainability and at the end of the day whenever they find a successful modification that they all can agree upon Item #4 is available for those employees to take advantage of. Mayor Thomas asked City Manager Williams what he was looking for. City Manager Williams stated he is looking for direction from the Councilor action on the proposed motion that is before them tonight. Councilwoman Lichter stated this is something where people are going to disagree but she feels it is very difficult for any city to fund large groups of people that retire and then stay on board and accrue benefits. She didn't think it was done in most places. It was a very unique idea and obviously they got wrong information about how many would take advantage of it. Many places and organizations give incentives for people to take early retirement. She thinks they are at a point where they have to look at the whole work force, the others who do not have that benefit. She agreed with Councilman Vincenzi that they couldn't continue. She thinks a lot of them agree. It can't go on. Page 26 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 Other employees in the City must feel that way also. The City doesn't have it and probably was ill advised of the plan. Councilwoman Rhodes feels everybody in the pension plan realizes that modifications have to be made. Even though maybe they lose a little bit or it is rearranged a little bit she thinks they are all aware of it. She thinks they are all moving in that direction. She has a problem with the time period. She doesn't feel they should limit themselves. She has a problem with making it six months. She also had a problem with termination. If she was in their position it would feel like a threat. She doesn't think that gets them the best working relationship that they can have. She thinks a better way to go about it is to agree that they must make modifications and they will all work towards that and leave termination out of the discussion. She feels they get better response if they don't threaten people. City Manager Williams agreed and clarified that was just a recommendation. One of the things they have to ask is at the end of six months if they have it modified, what happens. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she told City Manager Williams that she thought when she was on this Board that they could have this done by October. Whether all the legal language would have been worked out she didn't know. She honestly believes that and still believes that. She also believes that they can say in six months they will look and see where they are and if they aren't accomplishing what they think they are supposed to be they could look at in two months and say where are we on this and are we moving in the right direction. If they aren't, why aren't they. Councilwoman Rogers made the suggestion and she agreed with her at the time that they should receive progress reports on this on a continual basis. That could have happened at any time. City Manager Williams stated he sees value in what Councilwoman Rhodes was presenting in that respect. He reminded the Council that they did adopt a budget or have the first hearing on that budget tonight that incorporated funding this over the next year. If for some reason they aren't successful in six months, they will not free up any of those identified dollars to address those needs they Page 27 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 spoke about on Friday. He feels it is imperative from Council's perspective to clearly communicate the need to get something done very quickly and move very swift with it. Councilwoman Rogers stated she was wondering if they have a handle on the liability of the actuary because of the mistakes made. She was also wondering if there was any liability with the CPA firm because this is a pension and it should have been an accrual and should have been listed more so in the financials. This is unusual that they had a Defined Benefit Plan and they have this benefit that none of the other municipalities apparently had. She thought it would have been responsible of the firm to have listed it in the notice of the financials, something along those lines. They are supposed to be their check and balance at the end of the year. Here they are faced with making a decision like this and ultimately these employees are going to pay because they have to do what they have to do for the benefit of the citizens of this City but they have liability on the actuary and also she would think there is liability on the CPA part. Councilwoman Rogers referred to Item #4, when they talk about receiving a pay increase, which is equivalent to the aforementioned Defined Contribution contribution amount. She asked where that money is going to come from. They aren't even talking about that. That is going to be more than the $600,000. She feels they need to speak and get legal counsel on the liability of the actuary and the liability because the CPA firm should have been alerting them to this. City Manager Williams agreed and stated he thought that was Item #2. That is something that they kind of always get lost in when dealing with this. He commented on Item #1 being a short-term focus and he doesn't like the fact that it is short term. It is a short-term focus that has some pretty major consequences to the City to the extent that they have just brought forward in the form of a proposed operating budget. Item #2 is the legalities of such. Although he has provided Council and the Board will be getting it as well, with an e-mail dated October 2003, which describes communication from then, Corey Weber and Tim Hollinger who were representatives of the Principal Financial Group who very clearly went on the record describing that if a large amount of these employees began Page 28 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 to take advantage of this benefit and emphasize could get to an expense level that would be necessary for the City to go back and modify this plan accordingly. They have had Brad Heinrichs with Foster & Foster, who brought forward back in May, four options, two of which are the same options that they brought forward from Principal Financial Group, freeze the plan or terminate the plan. The third option was to move everybody into the Florida Retirement System or the fourth option was to pursue modifications to the plan. They have been down this path. They are going back down this path and they have to at some point make the decision and go down the path and stay going down the path. Councilwoman Lichter agreed but was wondering since they were warned and they were told there isn't as much meat to the case as she thought there could be. In other words they said do something. Councilwoman Rhodes stated they were supposed to do something. The City wasn't supposed to do anything. Councilwoman Lichter stated they made four suggestions. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that is two separate communications, two separate guys and two separate times in history. City Manager Williams stated he thinks Principal Financial Group is listening very tentatively here and they are posturing themselves appropriately in the event any action is taken. Mayor Thomas asked Mr. Tenney to come up to the microphone. Mr. Tenney stated he thinks most of the employees know there has to be something done but they don't know what it is. If they did they would fix it. They have a Board meeting tomorrow and the attorney will be there and there are some issues they will ask him and talk about then and see where they are going to go. City Manager Williams stated and he thinks what this action is is for the employees and everybody here. This isn't binding to a certain amount of modifications. He spoke to Lee Dehner referencing the under funding of the plan and basically they are saying at this point Principal had this provision and now they should come back and do their job and give modifications that achieve what they want out of this plan and make sure its consistent with State Statutes Page 29 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 and then they will facilitate being a change agent to another actuary, investment manager. That is what they have before them. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she didn't think City Manager Williams was going to like what Principal was going to say about this. She thinks they are going to come back with is going to be unacceptable. That is her guess. Mayor Thomas asked if anyone else wanted to speak. Ted Cooper, 3028 Mango Tree Drive, stated they are arguing over people's lives and a pension. Anybody that wants their pension taken away from them is lying. For Council to put something like this out and start negotiations on a Board where they just put three new people on, he feels they are taking advice from a Board that has quit. He feels this should all be tabled and let these people meet again. Let them come up with a sound proposal to come up with something else. The Council voted on the funding years ago. They stopped funding this plan because they moved people out of it and that was the people that would have been funding this plan. Now they are taking 57 people that are the nucleus of this City that have 25 and 30 years in and they want to take their pensions away from them. Councilman Vincenzi stated nobody is taking their pension away. Mr. Cooper stated when they start talking reduction they are taking it away. It isn't going to be a fun thing to do. They have a brand new Board and they should be listening to the new board instead of taking advisement from areas that are wrong. They have ten people that voted for under funding and that is illegal. So those ten votes don't count. Now they have 15 people out of 57 that they are taking advice and that is why they want to put this forward. He feels this is the wrong thing to do. They have to re-look at this. Let the Board speak, let them meet and get it out there. Give Mike and his guys give it a chance to get out in the public before they start messing with people's pensions. Linda Small, 1629 Willow Oak Drive, stated if she were running for office she would be asking for equal time right now. She would like to ask Council to consider, probably Councilman Vincenzi since he is the new Councilmember on the Board, that when they discuss modifying the plan and the plan can still be a fantastic plan even if the modifications are done correctly. She would like the Page 30 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 Council to think about permitting people to return to work after they have retired. She knows the accrual piece has to go away. That is ridiculous. Is it really such a good idea to not encourage people to go away when they retire? She thinks there is a misunderstanding that attrition is not a good thing. Attrition is an excellent thing for an organization. It allows for the younger people in the organization to develop themselves and gain new skills. It permits them to take leadership roles that perhaps they didn't have before. They have taken the top level of the pay scale and now they are hiring and eliminating that and now they are hiring in at the entry-level part of the pay scale, which she feels is good economically. It also brings new attitude to jobs. It brings new eyes to situations. She has taken over organizations where if she heard it once she heard it a hundred times that they have always done it that way and will continue to do it that way because they have a layer of embedded seniority at the top. She isn't saying there won't be learning curves when they lose people with that much experience, that they should be honored for their experience and they shouldn't be permitted to stay for another ten or fifteen years at the top of the scale when they can be hiring people in at the lower end of the scale and then permitting your people to move up. Sometimes there is a tremendous stalemate at the top when you permit that situation to exist. There are some other modification opportunities before them but the Pension Board will decide those. Mayor Thomas stated he would like a couple of things researched. He thought the Federal Government had set a standard of 65 as a retirement age and 62 as an early retirement age. He would like to know when the 65 got changed to 55. He thinks that has a lot to do with this. Councilwoman Rhodes stated it really doesn't because to fund that change it was going to cost 5%. The employees where they didn't put in money before now they put in 2 1/2% and the City put in the other 2 1/2 % to fund that change. City Manager Williams informed Mayor Thomas it was back in 2001. The modification was to the extent that after 30 years of service or at age 60 they would allow the participants to retire after 25 years of service or at age 55. Page 31 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 Mayor Thomas questioned that not affecting the plan. City Manager Williams stated there were some costs associated with it but the one really driving this cost at this point in time is not necessarily the continue to work part of it but the continue to accrue a benefit. That is really to the extent that the modifications affect. Those employees that have not retired have the same benefit. They can still retire at 25 years of service or age 55. The difference is once they elect to do that it is their choice 100% that amount of their annual or monthly benefit is frozen. Those employees are then moved over to the Defined Contribution Plan and get the opportunity to start earning benefits under that plan and they go on. The employees that are here today, which are your most senior, and a majority of those are directors and he has had the pleasure of talking with those folks recognizing there is a need to modify this plan. A lot of them have said take me now. They want to voluntarily go now and get out of this thing. They all recognize there is a need and go forward. They recognize that their benefits after this year's accrual will freeze and then they will be moved over and begin to earn benefits in the other plan. There are a few out there that are fairly vocal about these modifications and the affects it has on them personally. They have had numerous conversations over the fact that this affects 57 different people 57 different ways and at the end of the day it is his intention to see modifications that ensure the long- term sustainability of the plan that treats everybody fairly and attempts to address the greatest good for the greatest number of folks. Mayor Thomas felt they had enough discussion and that they needed to give City Manager Williams direction. Councilwoman Lichter felt they got some direction. If you have several new members on a Board and they are meeting a lawyer tomorrow. City Manager Williams didn't feel this was an issue but he felt it was a valid point. A majority of the folks that have been appointed have been participating. This is not a new topic. This is something that has been discussed previously. Councilwoman Lichter stated that wasn't really a total vote. Page 32 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 City Manager Williams explained he was looking for in the form of a motion if they don't want him to do that, that's fine. They will walk away from it and leave it alone. Councilwoman Lichter stated they have to pull the new group together and Councilman Vincenzi has to meet them and they have to see what is what. Mayor Thomas asked if it would hurt to table this until after tomorrow. City Manager Williams informed him that was solely 100% Council's discretion. He felt the important issues that they have to point out and he hates to be the one to point it out is that this is what happens all the time. They talk about it and get nowhere. At some point they have to make a decision and go with it. That happens at the Pension Board level and the employee level. You do what they want you to do. It's perpetual to the extent you never get anything done. Councilwoman Lichter asked City Manager Williams what he sees as the next step. City Manager Williams informed her the next step is to clearly go back to Principal Financial Group and tell them modify it that incorporates these ideas and come back with a solution. Councilwoman Lichter feels they are going to have to wait for the moment to meet with Councilman Vincenzi and the new group. Tell them that is the plan and then get their input and then do it. They have a new group on board. It seems to her if they are going to meet tomorrow how can it hurt to wait until the end of the week. Mayor Thomas asked Councilwoman Lichter if she was making a motion to table that. Councilman Vincenzi stated he has no problem putting this off a little bit. He meets with the new Board tomorrow at 11:00 and he thinks he will be able to get a feel for what they think and what they might want to do and give them a fair chance to express their opinions. One thing he was thinking he wanted to do was start meeting at a different time in the evenings when other employees could go and voice their opinions. An employee in the audience asked if they could have the green light for them to go tomorrow since it is at 11:00. City Manager Williams stated he couldn't go out and give them that green light at this point in time. Page 33 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 Councilman Vincenzi stated the first thing he will do at the meeting will be to schedule a new date and time for future meetings. The first future meeting won't be after the next Council meeting. It will be before that. It will be within a week or so. At that time it will be in the evening and employees can go and express their views. He is willing to put this off for a little bit. If he meets with the Board once or twice and he gets the impression that it's not moving anywhere, he doesn't want to be part of it so he will probably hand in his resignation too. He feels this has to be resolved. He thinks keeping a positive attitude he feels with new people on and the idea that modifications have to be done to this thing, it can't stay the way it is, he hopes they will be able to make some headway. They will keep a positive attitude on that and see how things turn out. Councilwoman Rhodes made a motion to put this off until the next Council meeting, by then they should have more answers. Mayor Thomas asked Tommy Smith to please stand up. He stated it seems like the meetings he has been going to it is going around and around in a circle. He doesn't see as being one of the last ones on it that it's got to be modified. He feels determination isn't for him a scare tactic. It is just the way it is. They can't afford to keep funding something like this. He is tired of hearing it. Something's got to be done. He got the letter and it wasn't anything for him to fill it out and stick it in the mailbox. Whoever didn't turn it in was either frustrated with it or didn't care. Mayor Thomas stated they have a motion on the floor to table this until the next meeting. Councilwoman Lichter asked when the next meeting was. Councilwoman Rhodes informed her September 24th. Councilwoman Rogers stated the night they approve the final millage. Councilman Vincenzi seconded the motion. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . B. Motion directing the City Manager to under-fund the General Employee Defined Benefit Plan by $600,000.00 recognizing the consequences on future year ARC (Annual Required Contribution) to Page 34 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 cost, at a minimum of $110,000.00 as outlined in the attached e-mail from K. Claypool of Principal Financial Group, dated August 24, 2007 City Manager Williams informed Council Item 9B was being removed from the agenda. The reason they are pulling this item is as late as Thursday, September 6th they found that there was some State Legislation that would prohibit the City in under funding next year's annual required contributions to the extent that by under funding that plan it would shift additional cost to future taxpayers and therefore was determined to be prohibitive. 10. OFFICER REPORTS A. City Clerk Wadsworth had nothing at this time. B. City Attorney City Attorney Ansay stated she wanted to ensure that there wasn't any additional direction Council wanted to give her on the issues related to the ballot and if there is, great. If there isn't let her know. They have all made comments and heard the discussion tonight. She wanted to be open and make sure there wasn't any further direction anybody wanted to go in. Councilwoman Lichter asked her what feeling she was left with to do next. City Attorney Ansay stated she is left with leaving tonight and doing nothing and never focusing on it again. The City Clerk gave her tonight the additional 300 petitions that were referenced by Ms. Carlson earlier tonight, of which the Supervisor of Elections indicated only 90 were valid. She feels they at a minimum they need to go through those and determine whether or not again any of those matched up with what had previously been surrendered over to the Supervisor and the ones they had knocked out and let the Supervisor of Election know those conflicts exist. If they have met this number for future election, this doesn't just go away. They want to make sure if they have the signatures, they deserve to be on the ballot at the proper time. She is left leaving tonight with reviewing those and communicating with Ann McFall's office and making sure ECARD is in the loop. Page 35 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 C. City Manager City Manager Williams provided an update on the status of the Animal Shelter. They have a draft RFP that they have received and they are putting the final touches on it with the intention of hopefully getting it on the street and having the contractors come forward and bid. Councilwoman Lichter asked City Manager Williams to explain what an RFP is for the people that might not know, which he did at this time. Councilwoman Lichter asked if it is also allows for a contractor that wishes to donate a particular material to also give. City Manager Williams stated it is being designed with those intentions in mind. That has probably been one of the number one hurdles they have faced. Councilwoman Rhodes asked City Manager Williams if he had talked to Habitat for Humanity. City Manager Williams informed her no. Councilwoman Rhodes felt they might have a process that will help him as far as telling them how to do things with volunteers and make it work. Mayor Thomas asked if the other option was still on the table that he discussed with him. City Manager Williams stated those options are still out there. He hadn't had the opportunity to discuss those in great detail with the other Councilmembers so he would not be addressing that option tonight. 1) Tentative Agenda Items There were no Tentative Agenda Items to be discussed at this time. 11. CITIZEN COMMENTS The following citizen spoke: Chris Balmer, 148 William Street, stated sometimes they are so caught up in what they are doing in the City they don't look at what other boards are doing that affect them. He wasn't sure if everyone was aware that the School Board had a rezoning meeting tonight at Indian River Elementary at 6:00 p.m. and they also had one at Oak Hill at 5:00 p.m. that he and his wife attended. They are rezoning Indian Page 36 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007 River Elementary and those changes will be voted on October 23rd at the School Board meeting and it will affect Indian River Elementary students. No one showed up at the Indian River rezoning meeting. Oak Hill was packed. He didn't know how they disseminated the information but he felt this was something the Council needed to keep their eye out for. Mayor Thomas asked Mr. Balmer if he had specifications. He heard that they were taking the line to the north City limits of Oak Hill. That those students would go to Indian River and Oak Hill would go south. He asked him if that was what he heard. Mr. Balmer informed him it was william Street south would go to Oak Hill. Everything at Terra Mar Village north would go to Indian River Elementary. City Manager Williams stated he and staff have participated in those discussions with the School Board. His understanding was the School Board was looking at shifting those attendants' boundaries south to Ariel Road and that was still something that was in negotiation. Something must have developed since then. Mr. Balmer stated they said the Board would vote on October 23rd and what they have is what they are going with. Councilwoman Lichter stated when Mr. Balmer said south from Oak Hill, she asked if he was still talking within Volusia County. Mr. Balmer stated from William Street to he guessed the County line. 12 . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Councilwoman Rhodes moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:29 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page 37 of37 Regular Meeting September 10, 2007