[9. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person who wishes to comment on an agenda item which is not under Public Hearings on the Agenda may be heard at this time and must sign up to speak in advance. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less, as directed by the Mayor, as this section of the Agenda is limited to thirty minutes. The City Commission will not be able to take any official actions under Comments from the Public. Speakers will address the Mayor, Commissioners, and the Public with respect. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated.]

SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE AGENDA ITEMS NOT REQUIRING

PUBLIC HEARINGS. >> WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER. YOU WILL BE GIVEN A 10 SECOND MORNING.

[00:10:02]

>> FIRST OF ALL, GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. AND, I WANTED TO SPEAK ON A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

>> STATE YOUR NAME. AND YOU WANTED TO SPEAK ON 13 B? SO THIS IS THE TIME TO SPEAK ON THIS. STATE YOUR NAME.

>> -- JOHNSON. 605 BEACH COURT , FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY THAT I DO NOT ENVY YOUR EFFORTS IN ANYTHING THAT YOU DO BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND YOUR JOB AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT JOB BUT WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS YOU ARE THE JUDGE AND THE COUNCIL BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASK QUESTIONS BUT YOU ALSO CAN MAKE FINAL JUDGMENT ON ITEMS. SO I WAS LOOKING AT THE AGENDA ITEM WITH MR. MIMS AND WHEN I LOOK AT IT, ANYONE HAS THE ABILITY.

>> EXCUSE ME. I NEED YOU TO SPEAK CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.

>> ANYBODY HAS THE ABILITY TO CAN WRITE AND PRINT AND PRODUCE AND RELEASE. PEOPLE CAN BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT WAS STATED. SO IF THAT PERSON WAS HERE, YOU BEING JUDGE AND COUNSEL, THE QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ASKED, IS, WAS A CRIME COMMITTED ? WAS MONEY TAKEN? WAS THEIR INFLUENCE? IF ALL OF THOSE ARE NO AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU NEED TO SAY NO TO SETTING ASIDE SOMEONE'S JOB. AND POSSIBLY GIVING THAT JOB TO SOMEONE ELSE. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I KNOW NICK MIMMS WELL AND I HAVE WORKED WITH HIM MANY TIMES. HE HAS BEEN NOTHING SHORT OF EXEMPLARY AND EXCELLENT IN HIS EFFORTS AND IF HE MAKES 99% RIGHT, IN ANY KIND OF WAY, TO HAVE SOMEONE QUESTION ANY BEHAVIOR OR ACTIONS OF HIS, IF THAT PERSON DID IT 99 TIMES, MOST LIKELY THEY DID IT 100 TIMES RIGHT. SO 99.5 IS CLOSER THAN 99 AGAINST ONE. I AM 100% IN SUPPORT OF HIS EFFORTS AND 100% IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE

HIS JOB BACK. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> WE WILL MOVE ON. THAT IS THE ONLY PERSON THAT SIGNED UP.

[a. Solid Waste Debris Removal Plan and On-Line Mapping System launch]

>> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS , SOLID WASTE DEBRIS REMOVAL PLAN AND ON-LINE MAPPING SYSTEM

LAUNCH. >> WE HAVE OUR NEW SOLID WASTE MANAGER, MR. LEWIS, WHO WILL GIVE US AN UPDATE . THEY WILL ALSO BE -- THEY WILL BE SHARING THE SOLID WASTE DEBRIS REMOVAL PLAN AND ONLINE MAPPING SYSTEM.

>> WELCOME, MR. LEWIS. >> GOOD EVENING., I DO WANT TO SAY, FIRST OF ALL, A BEAUTIFUL PRAYER. IT WAS REALLY NICE.

SHOW AND TELL , I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE BEST WAY. ARE WE

ABLE TO GO TO THE WEBSITE ? >> WE CAN BUT WE NEED SOME

ASSISTANCE. >> FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE?

>> SARAH CAN HELP. OR MAYBE IF DERRICK JOHNSON IS LISTENING HE CAN JOIN US IN CHAMBERS SO YOU CAN HELP WITH THE PRESENTATION.

>> JUST TELL ME WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO CLICK.

>> JUST GO TO THE SEARCH BAR ON THE TOP RIGHT-HAND CORNER. COME DOWN. IF YOU TYPE IN HARRY KING RICK PREPAREDNESS. ACTUALLY, IF

[00:15:02]

YOU SCROLL UP OR SCROLL DOWN TO HARRY KING PREPARED THIS ,

OCTOBER 31, 2024. >> THERE WE GO. THANK YOU, SO MUCH. THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT WE ARE ENCOURAGING RESIDENTS TO DO . IF THEY CALL IN AND SAY, CAN YOU GIVE ME A TIME FRAME WHEN MY DEBRIS WILL BE PICKED UP. SO WE CLICK ON THAT AND IT IS GOING TO TAKE US TO A LINK AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE GIS TEAM AND WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS WE LOOK AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT SIDE WHERE WE HAVE THE STATUS OF EVERYONE IN THE CITY SO EVERYTHING IN THE COLOR RED IS SELF-EXPLANATORY. IT IS COMPLETED AND IN PROGRESS AND THINGS IN YELLOW ARE SCHEDULED TO BE PICKED UP BY THE END OF NOVEMBER SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WILL SAY PERSONALLY, MYSELF, ONE DAY PAST THANKSGIVING, WE ARE TRYING TO SEE IF WE CAN GET EVERYTHING CLEANED UP BY THANKSGIVING BUT IF WE TAKE A LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. IF A RESIDENT CALLS IN AND SAYS, CAN YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHEN MY ITEMS WILL BE PICKED IT UP, WHETHER IT IS BRUSH OR JUNK , RIGHT HERE WHERE IT IS SHOWING CITY OF FORT PIERCE, CAN WE GET A REAL ADDRESS? DOES THIS

KEYBOARD WORK? >> YES.

>> WILL SOMEBODY PROVIDE ME AN ADDRESS?

>> TELL THE RESIDENTS IS YOU ARE SCHEDULED TO BE PICKED UP ON THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 13 . IS SO WE ARE ON A REALLY GOOD TRACK AS FAR AS STAYING ON COURSE AS FAR AS EVERYTHING IN THIS LEGEND. WHAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY DONE, NORMALLY ON WEDNESDAYS WE RUN TWO TRUCKS AND WE HAVE SIX TRUCKS AVAILABLE SO EVERY WEDNESDAY WE RAMP IT UP AND WE RUN ALL SIX TRUCK ON ONE DAY AND NORMALLY WE DON'T RUN AT ALL ON SUNDAYS. OUR STAFF HAVE BEEN REALLY GOOD AS FAR AS VOLUNTEERING AND COMING IN EVERY SINGLE SATURDAY WHERE WE ARE ABLE TO RUN SIX TRUCK EVERY SATURDAY . THE ONLY DOWNSIDE IS WE CAN ONLY RUN HALF A DAY BECAUSE OF WHAT TIME THE DISPOSAL FACILITIES CLOSE AND WE NEED WAY TICKETS. SO THAT IS THE ONLY DOWNSIDE BUT IT HAS NOT HINDERED US AT ALL FROM STAYING ON TRACK WITH WHAT WE HAVE COMMITTED TO ON THE LEGEND FOR THE INFORMATION WE ARE PROVIDING AS FAR AS DEBRIS REMOVAL. I HAD A CALL TODAY WITH A RESIDENT AND SHE WANTED TO KNOW WHEN HER ITEMS WOULD BE PICKED UP SO WHAT I EXPLAINED TO HER, SHE WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE SHE SAID THE REST OF THE CITY, SHE SAW THERE WERE STILL ITEMS THAT HAD BEEN PLACED OUT SO THE ONLY THING THAT WE CANNOT CONTROL IS ONCE WE DO THE FIRST PASS, ONCE WE DO ANOTHER PASS, IF WE HAVE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE TAKEN STUFF FROM BEHIND THEIR HOMES AND THEY ARE PUTTING THAT OUT FRONT , THAT IS STUFF THAT WE WILL SEE. IF YOU SEE STUFF ON THE CURB IT IS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE PUTTING STUFF BEHIND THE AREA THAT WE HAVE CLEANED UP. THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO MAKE THE FIRST PASS WHEN IT COMES TO BRUSH AND JUNK AND IT IS TO CONTINUE BACK ON THE REGULAR ROUTES AFTER NOVEMBER 29.

>> DO RESIDENTS HAVE TO CALL YOU IF THEY PUT STUFF OUT AFTER

THAT? >> THE ONLY TIME -- THEY WON'T HAVE TO CALL BECAUSE, TRUCKS WILL BE BACK ON THE NORMALLY

[00:20:03]

SCHEDULED ROUTE. THE ONLY TIME A RESIDENT WOULD CALL THAT I COULD FORESEE IS IF THEY ARE SAYING, THERE IS STILL A LOT OF STUFF OUT. WHEN WILL MY STUFF BE PICKED UP. SO THAT IS THE KIND OF THING WHERE WE WILL HAVE TO RELAY IT TO THE CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM. WE MAY HAVE TO SAY WE MADE OUR FIRST PASS . YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED DAY.

>> I DON'T THINK RESIDENTS REALIZE HOW BIG THE JOB IS.

>> I AGREE, 100%. I THINK THEY THINK IT JUST SHOULD BE PICKED UP ON THE REGULAR DAY. I DON'T THINK PEOPLE REALIZE WHAT AN OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF RUBBISH AND THINGS THAT WERE RUINED BY WATER AND WHATEVER'S SO, I JUST DON'T THINK THEY REALIZE

WHAT A BIG JOB IT IS. >> I KNOW FROM MY CALL TODAY, ONCE I EXPLAINED IT, THE LADY I WAS SPEAKING TO, SHE WAS VERY KIND AND UNDERSTOOD WHEN I EXPLAINED IT TO HER. AT THE END OF THE CONVERSATION I WAS LIKE THANK YOU AND PLEASE BE

PATIENT. >> THEY REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND. COMMISSIONER GAINES .

>> I SAW THE TRUCKS IN THE COLOR RED AREA COME THROUGH.

AND I SAW MORE DEBRIS WAS PUT OUT AFTER YOU PICKED UP BUT THIS IS MY ONE CONCERN. I HAVE AREAS OVER THERE WHERE DEBRIS IS BLOCKING SIDEWALKS. AND KIDS THAT ARE TRYING TO CATCH THE BUS AND GO TO SCHOOL ARE GOING INTO THE ROAD SO WITH THAT SITUATION, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANT A CALL TO CLEAN IT UP QUICKLY? I DON'T WANT A KID TO WALK OUT AND --. I HAVE TRIED TO GO AROUND AND LOOK AT CERTAIN AREAS BUT I KNEW THIS WAS COMING. IN SITUATIONS LIKE THAT, DOES YOUR DEPARTMENT WANT TO KNOW? AND IF IT IS SERIOUS, CAN WE HAVE YOU DOUBLE BACK JUST TO GET THAT ONE? I KNOW IF YOU DOUBLE BACK, PEOPLE WILL WILL SEE YOU GET THAT ONE TO PREVENT A TRAGEDY. HOW SOME PEOPLE HAVE PLACED THE DEBRIS, I GUESS THEY DID NOT CARE ABOUT THE SIDEWALK AND MAYBE THEY DIDN'T THINK THAT THE KIDS NEEDED THE SIDEWALK. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT -- YOU WANT TO ADDRESSES OR AND, HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THAT?

>> 100%. HOWEVER YOU WANT TO GET IT TO ME, PLEASE GET THAT TO ME. I WILL MAKE THAT EIGHT TOP PRIORITY . I WILL BREAK SOMEBODY OFF THE ROUTE AND MAKE SURE IT IS TAKING CARE OF.

>> THANK YOU. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING SO THANK YOU FOR RINGING THAT UP. YOUR STAFF HAS THE QUICKFIX ANNOUNCEMENTS OR NOTIFICATIONS AND WHEN THAT COMES IN THAT IS THE SYSTEM THAT SHARES WITH YOU THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITHIN THE CITY. IS THAT A GOOD WAY TO IDENTIFY THESE SO THAT IT HITS TO YOU FASTER? WHAT IS THE QUICKEST WAY TO GET YOU THAT INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF YOU GIVING US YOUR

CELL PHONE NUMBER TODAY. >> THAT IS A GREAT WAY ALSO . I ACTUALLY GET THOSE AND EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE 24 HOURS TO RESPOND I GET THOSE TAKING CARE OF USUALLY WITHIN A FEW HOURS.

ONE OF THE THINGS I AM PASSIONATE ABOUT IS SAFETY SO I MAKE ANYTHING THAT IS SAFETY RELATED A TOP PRIORITY.

>> THANK YOU. >> SO, WITH THE AREA IN RED, IS THIS BASED ON THE FRONTAL FACE OF THE HOUSE? OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE GETTING FEEDBACK FROM THE GRAPPLE TRUCK ON WHAT THEY PICKED UP. ARE THEY CHECKING THIS OFF AS THEY MOVE THROUGH

THE CITY? >> WHETHER IT IS MYSELF, THE FOREMAN, THE OPERATIONS MANAGER, WE COME THROUGH THOSE AREAS EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN SERVICED ON A SATURDAY. THIS SATURDAY THE OPERATIONS MANAGER WAS OUT THERE AND SHE DID A GOOD JOB I HAVE FOLKS COMING IN TODAY SAYING SHE WAS OUT THERE

[00:25:09]

WAVING AT US. WE DO A COMB THROUGH OF THE AREA JUST TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE BEING SERVICED. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE

THE CITY IS TAKEN CARE OF. >> I HAVE A LOT OF ONE-WAY STREETS AND WE MADE OBSERVATIONS ON THINGS LIKE 16TH CORE , THESE BACK ONE-WAY STREETS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PICKED UP BUT IN THE COLOR RED IS COMPLETED SO I NEED TO GET A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT THAT MEANS BASED ON WHAT YOU ARE SHOWING ME. TECHNICALLY I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS THE BACK OF SOMEONE'S HOUSE OR THE FRONT BASED ON HOW THE STREETS RUN. I AM GOING TO BE MORE CRITICAL OF THIS AS WE MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE I DO CUT THROUGH SOME OF THOSE SIDE STREETS AND WE ARE DOING A DECENT JOB ON THE MAIN CORE DOORS BUT THE SIDE STREETS, THE BACK STREETS, THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANT DEGREE -- DEBRIS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE ARE MANAGING THIS. THIS IS , WE NEED TO HAVE SOME EYES ON THIS BECAUSE THE MAP HERE, IN MY OPINION, IS A LITTLE BIT DECEIVING, TO ME. I TRAVELED THE STREETS AND I SEE STUFF AND THE OTHER QUESTION, WE HAD CONCERNS WHEN I MET WITH YOU ABOUT PEOPLE PUTTING TRASH UNDER WHAT I WOULD CALL NOT SECURE AREAS MEANING IT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE FOR THE GRAPPLE TRUCK TO GET INTO CERTAIN SITUATIONS., HOW MUCH OF THAT IS IMPACTED AS WELL? I HAVE ASKED FOR THE VIDEO TO BE PUT OUT THERE. IF YOU ARE PLACING DEBRIS IN THAT AREA, WHAT IS THE WORKAROUND SOLUTION? I NEED TO KNOW HOW WE WILL ADDRESS

THAT. >> THE FIRST THING I WANT TO ADDRESS IS WHAT YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT. THERE IS JUST SO MUCH STUFF OUT THERE AND WE HAVE BEEN INUNDATED. IT'S LIKE WHEN YOU ARE RAISING A CHILD, IT TAKES A VILLAGE SO IF YOU SEE SOMETHING PLEASE BRING IT TO OUR ATTENTION. THE FIRST PASS, WE CANNOT CONTROL BUT IF YOU ARE GOING UP AND DOWN THE ONE-WAY AND YOU SEE SOMETHING, PLEASE BRING IT TO MY ATTENTION SO WE CAN GET IT TAKEN CARE OF. ON THE OTHER ITEM YOU JUST SPOKE ABOUT , WE DO HAVE A TAGGING SYSTEM. SO IF THERE ARE LOW HANGING WIRES OR TREES, FOLKS ARE TAGGING THOSE THINGS AND WE HAVE SUPPORT FROM STREETS. SO, I THEY MIGHT SAY THIS IS THE SECOND WEEK I HAVE BEEN HERE AND THE RESIDENT HAS NOT MOVED THEIR STUFF. WE CAN GET ASSISTANCE FROM STREETS TO GO OUT AND MOVE WHATEVER THE OBSTACLE IS SO THAT THEY CAN

GET TO IT. >> I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND. I DON'T KNOW HOW PROACTIVE YOU ARE WORKING WITH STREETS BECAUSE I SEE THAT AND I PAY ATTENTION TO THAT AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE PROGRESSIE, OR I MEAN, MORE PROACTIVE . A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE NOT AWARE THAT THE BED OF THE TRUCK IS HIGH SO TRYING TO GET THE BOOM OFF THERE IS A CHALLENGE SO, I GET THAT. BUT THE PUBLIC DOES NOT GET THAT. IF IT CONTINUES TO SIT THERE WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT . SO I WOULD LIKE TO FIND A WAY TO ADDRESS THIS GOING FORWARD SO WE ARE PUTTING MEASURES IN PLACE TO MOVE THE STUFF FROM UNDER THE POWER LINES. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK.

>> THANK YOU. I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN BUT, I WOULD HAVE TO SUGGEST THAT I THINK YOU AND YOUR TEAM HAVE DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB IN PROACTIVELY TACKLING THE MONUMENTAL PROBLEM. THE OVERTIME AND ALL OF THAT. I APPLAUD THAT. THIS IS A TESTAMENT TO THE COMMITMENT TO THE CITY . THANK YOU AND PLEASE TELL THEM THANK YOU FOR US.

>> IF THEY CHOOSE TO CALL , THERE IS A HUMAN BEING THAT

[00:30:04]

WILL ANSWER THE PHONE BECAUSE SOMETIMES THEY DON'T KNOW IF THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN RECEIVED. IT IS TRUE IN ANY INDUSTRY .

THEY DON'T KNOW THAT SOMEBODY HAS GOTTEN THE MESSAGE. I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF STAFF TO DO THIS BUT IF THERE IS A WAY FOR PEOPLE TO BE CONFIDENT THAT SOMEBODY KNOWS A MESSAGE HAS BEEN LEFT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

>> I JUST HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT. I AM A LITTLE UPSET THAT THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR IS NOT HERE TO TALK TO US BECAUSE I DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT STREET SWEEPING BECAUSE THAT IS IMPORTANT. STREET SWEEPING AND CLEANUPS ARE ALL THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT AND MAYBE WE CAN CATCH UP ON THAT OFF-LINE AND HAVE THE DEPARTMENT PREPARE THAT INFORMATION. YOU GUYS ARE NOT STOPPING AND GETTING OUT OF YOUR TRUCKS AFTER THE FACT. THE GRAPPLER CAN ONLY PICK UP SO MUCH.

>> THAT WOULD CONSUME TIME. >> IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THAT SECONDARY FUNCTION COMING IN BEHIND. MAYBE NOT ON THIS EXACT PATTERN OR SCHEDULE BUT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD

WORK AND DILIGENCE. >> MADAM, MAYOR. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON , DEREK JOHNSON IS ACROSS THE HALLWAY AND IF YOU

WOULD LIKE I CAN GET HIM. >> WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT

LATER. THANK YOU. >> WE WILL GO GET HIM FOR

LATER. >> YOU COAT FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK AND WELCOME TO THE FAMILY.

>> THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT ITEM IS THE CONSENT

[11. CONSENT AGENDA]

AGENDA. >> IS THERE ANY ITEM THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO PULL FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA?

>> I MOVE APPROVAL. >> SECOND .

>> THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

[a. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 24-041 - Impact Fee Moratorium within Urban Infill and Redevelopment Area. SECOND READING.]

24-041 . IMPACT FEE MORATORIUM WITHIN URBAN INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT AREA. SECOND READING. ORDINANCE 24-041 WILL PROVIDE A MORATORIUM ON THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF CITY IMPACT FEES WITHIN THE FORT PIERCE REDEVELOPMENT AREA FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. THE CITY COMMISSION ADOPTED THE INITIAL URBAN INFILL IMPACT FEE MORATORIUM VIA ORDINANCE 20-007 ON MARCH 16, 2020. THIS IS THE SECOND READING.

>> I MOVE APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 24-041.

>> SECOND. >> THERE IS A MOTION AND A

[a. Resolution 24-R56 expressing support for Project Hammy as a Qualified Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption applicant.]

SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >>

>> THE NEXT ITEM IS RESOLUTION 24-R56. PROJECT HAMMY IS SEEKING CONSIDERATION AS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT FOR AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION. AS AN EXISTING BUSINESS WITH A CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, PROJECT HAMMY SEEKS TO EXPAND ITS OPERATIONS BY CONSTRUCTING A NEW EXPANDED 25,000 SQUARE FOOT HEADQUARTERS AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY. THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR THIS PROJECT IS PROJECTED AT $2.2 MILLION WITH $150,000 IN TANGIBLE PROPERTY CAPITAL INVESTMENT.

>> WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION. I THINK IT IS ALREADY LOADED.

>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS WES MCCURRY AND I AM THE DIRECTOR FOR THE ECONOMIC COUNSEL . THIS IS MY FIRST TIME BEFORE THE

[00:35:02]

COMMISSION AND THE IMF HAPPY TO BE HERE TO REQUEST THE TAX EXEMPTION ON BEHALF OF PROJECT HAMMY. PETE CASH IS JOINING ME TONIGHT AS WELL AS MIKE ROSSMAN WHO IS A CITY RESIDENT AND ALSO THE OWNER AND CEO OF SPORT LIFE DISTRIBUTION, THE COMPANY BEHIND THE PROJECT HAMMY CODENAME.

>> CHEYENNE IS GOING TO COME FORWARD TO HELP WITH THE PRESENTATION.

SO, MR. RUSSMAN OPENED THE COMPANY IN 2015 AND THEY ARE LEADING NATIONWIDE DISTRIBUTOR OF HEALTH PRODUCTS AND THEY HAVE SEEN SIGNIFICANT GROWTH SINCE OPENING 10 YEARS AGO.

THEY HAVE GROWN INTO THREE WAREHOUSE LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES. ONE IN OHIO, ONE IN NEVADA, AND ONE IN TEXAS ALLOWING THEM TO SERVE RETAIL STORES ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES. THIS LOCATION IN FORT PIERCE IS THEIR HEADQUARTERS.

IT IS THE MAIN LOCATION WITH ALL OF THE EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS . THEY CURRENTLY OPERATE IN ABOUT 11,000 SQUARE FEET THAT THEY LEASE ON SOUTH FIFTH STREET. THEY ARE PROPOSING AN EXPANSION WHERE THEY WOULD BUILD A NEW 25,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE AND HEADQUARTER FACILITY ON OLEANDER AVENUE THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD RESULT IN AN INVESTMENT IN BUILDING AND EQUIPMENT OF ABOUT $2.5 MILLION AND WHEN THE FACILITY IS COMPLETED IT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO EXPAND OPERATIONS BY ADDING 30 NEW EMPLOYEES AND THE AVERAGE WAGE WOULD BE ABOUT 53,000 PER YEAR WHICH IS WELL ABOVE THE COUNTY AVERAGE. THIS GIVES YOU A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS THIS PROJECT WOULD BRING TO THE AREA. THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD RESULT IN A TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ABOUT $3.5 MILLION THEN THERE WOULD BE A RECURRING IMPACT THAT RESULTS FROM THE CREATION OF 30 NEW JOBS AND THE IMPACT WOULD BE $1.6 MILLION IN NEW PAYROLL AND WHEN YOU FACTOR IN THE IMPACT OF THAT PAYROLL, THAT RESULTS IN A TOTAL IMPACT OF ABOUT $21.5 MILLION ON THE TOTAL ECONOMY. SO THE AD VALOREM TAX IS AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE THROUGH STATE STATUTES AND IT WAS FIRST APPROVED IN FORT PIERCE IN 2002 AND THE COUNTY VOTERS APPROVED IT IN 1992. IN 2022 IT WAS AUTHORIZED TO BE RENEWED BY ABOUT 61% OF FORT PIERCE VOTERS. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PROJECTS HERE OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS THAT THE COUNTY HAS APPROVED TAX EXEMPTION FOR AND THAT HAS RESULTED IN CAPITAL INVESTMENT TO THE OVERALL COUNTY ECONOMY. SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PROJECT HAMMY, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE THE RESOLUTION ON SEPTEMBER 17 OFFERING -- WHICH INCLUDED A AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION, MITIGATION OF ROAD IMPACT FEES AND A JOB GROWTH INVESTMENT GRANT. AND THE AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION DOES REQUIRE AN APPLICATION BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY APPRAISER AND THAT COMES IN RIGHT BEFORE THE TAX ROLL AND IT REQUIRES ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AFFECT THAT EVALUATION THEN IT IS A PERFORMANCE-BASED MATTER. THE

[00:40:05]

BOX ON THE RIGHT OF THE SLIDE SHOWS YOU A BRIEF ESTIMATE OF WHAT THE VALUE OF THAT EXEMPTION WOULD BE AS FAR AS THE -- CURRENTLY . THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE EXEMPTION AND WHEN YOU FACTOR IN JOB CREATION , THEY WILL COMMIT TO OPENING 10 NEW JOBS AND WHEN YOU COMPARE THAT TO THE VALUE OF THE EXEMPTION IT IS ABOUT A 36 TIME MULTIPLE. IN CLOSING, THE PROJECT DOES MEET THE STATE STATUTES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION THEY ARE CREATING NEW JOBS AT ABOVE AVERAGE WAGES AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY GOALS OF PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH THROUGH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INCREASING EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES. I AM GOING TO ASK MR. ROSSMAN TO COME UP AND SHARE A FEW MORE DETAILS ABOUT HIS COMPANY AND THEN WE WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> GOOD EVENING. JUST A FOLLOW-UP .

>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> MICHAEL ROSS. >> I THINK HE COVERED IT PRETTY WELL. WE HAVE BEEN HERE FOR 10 YEARS. I LOVE FORT PIERCE AND I WANT TO BRING JOBS HERE AND I THINK THIS IS A BIG STEP FOR US BUILDING THE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS. I HAVE BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS, THE DISTRIBUTION SIDE FOR 10 YEARS AND IT HAS BEEN EXCEPTIONAL GROWTH. WE ARE IN FOUR DIFFERENT STATES ALREADY SO THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES. WE HAVE LOOKED AT ARIZONA, LAS VEGAS, CLEVELAND . THEY HAVE THEIR BENEFITS BUT I BELIEVE THAT FORT PIERCE IS WHERE THEY BELONG. I WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE OUR HEADQUARTERS. I AM HAPPY TO

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER

GAINES. >> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO WAS. THE PAST FEW YEARS WE HAVE SEEN PRESENTATIONS LIKE THIS AND WE GOT WAREHOUSE IS BUILT. I HOPE THAT WE ARE NOT JUST BUILDING A WAREHOUSE AND YOU DON'T MOVE IN BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE OPEN WAREHOUSES SO THAT IS THE FIRST THING . WHEN YOU SAY YOU ARE BRINGING IN ABOUT 30 JOBS, ARE YOU LOOKING TO HIRE PEOPLE FROM INSIDE OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BRINGING PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE TO COME INTO FORT PIERCE? I WOULD LOVE FOR SOME OF THE RESIDENCE TO BE ABLE TO GET SOME OF THESE

JOBS. >> PREDOMINATELY I WOULD EXPECT MOST OF THESE JOBS TO COME FROM ST. LUCIE COUNTY WITH AN

EMPHASIS ON FORT PIERCE. >> THE LAST THING, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE IN THE ROOM WHEN THE YOUNG LADY GOT THE APPRENTICE PROCLAMATION. SO I AM LOOKING AT YOUR PROJECT AND I READ UP ON YOUR COMPANY AND I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN UP APPRENTICESHIP TO A YOUNG KID THAT MIGHT HAVE A VISION LIKE YOU SO, I HOPE THAT YOU WILL LET SOME YOUNG KID TRYING TO -- SOMEWHERE ELSE, I HOPE THAT YOU WILL DO THAT. I AM GOING TO KEEP HARPING ON THAT. I DON'T

HAVE ANYTHING ELSE RIGHT NOW. >> COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON.

>> CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOUR CURRENT MODEL IS AS I AS FAR AS HIRING AND HR STATISTICS AND TO YOU HAVE

[00:45:01]

EMPLOYED THUS FAR WITH THE PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR YOU NOW.

>> IS TO GO BACK TO THE APPRENTICESHIP, I HEARD YOU LOUD AND CLEAR. IT IS NOT JUST A HIGH SCHOOL KIDS. IN TERMS OF THE MAKEUP OF OUR EMPLOYEES, OF COURSE, IT IS A LOGISTICS OPERATION, A WAREHOUSE OPERATION SO QUITE A FEW WAREHOUSE ASSOCIATE, MANAGERS, THEY ARE ALL IMPORTANT . A LOT OF ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF AND ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, HR DEPARTMENT, ALL OF THAT IS HOUSED HERE CURRENTLY AND THAT IS WHERE WE NEED TO GROW. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE LACKING. THAT IS WHERE THE BULK OF THE JOBS COME FROM

>> SO IT IS MORE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION AS FAR AS LOGISTICS AND WAREHOUSING GO, THIS IS A DISTRIBUTION CENTER SO YOU WILL HAVE PRODUCTS THAT YOU WILL

DISTRIBUTE ACROSS FLORIDA? >> OUR MOTTO IS TO BE THE AMAZON OF THE WHOLESALE SECTOR. WE WANT TO BE NEXT DAY NEXT DAY EVERYWHERE. THIS IS NOT OUR BIGGEST DISTRIBUTION HUB BUT IT IS OUR HEADQUARTERS SO THAT IS WHY WE REALLY WANT TO RAMP UP

STAFF. >> THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. >> FIRST, HUGH, FOR CHOOSING FORT PIERCE FOR YOUR HEADQUARTERS. IT IS, IN MY OPINION, A GOOD CHOICE. THANK YOU FOR THE EFFORTS IN KEEPING YOUR COMPANY HERE. I KNOW YOU HAD OPTIONS AND I'M SURE YOU HAD ENTICEMENTS TO GO TO OTHER LOCATIONS. THIS TYPE OF INCENTIVE PROGRAM IS GOING TO BECOME A DRIVER IN OUR COMMUNITY. THIS IS THE FIRST ONE I HAVE SEEN SINCE I SAT ON THE COMMISSION. IN THIS INSTANCE WE HAVE A COMPANY WITH POTENTIALLY 30 EMPLOYEES BUT THERE WILL BE SOME THAT WILL BE LOOKING FOR THE SAME PACKAGE DEAL SO THIS IS A GREAT PLACE TO START. YOU ARE THE TRAILBLAZER AND I SUPPORT YOUR INITIATIVE COMPLETELY. THANK YOU FOR COMING TO FORT PIERCE

AND STAYING IN FORT PIERCE. >> DITTO TO ALL OF THE COMMENTS BUT I WAS CURIOUS, WHEN I FIRST HEARD ABOUT THE PROJECT, ALSO, OF THE LOCATION, I WAS INTRIGUED BY THE LOCATION BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN , THAT IS THE NORTHERN END OF THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, OLEANDER, AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH. DID YOU LOOK UPON THAT PROPERTY? WHAT MADE YOU CHOOSE THAT LOCATION?

>> GENERALLY THE PROXIMITY OF BEING CENTRALLY LOCATED. WE ARE NOT TOO FAR FROM WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY AT AND IN TERMS OF WAREHOUSE SPACE, THE FOOTPRINT WORKED. NOT ONLY ARE WE ADDING WAREHOUSE SPACE BUT ALSO OFFICE SPACE TO SUPPORT STAFF. I WOULD NOT SAY THERE IS ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR ABOUT THAT SPOT OTHER THAN IT MET THE NEEDS IN TERMS OF THE ACREAGE, THE

CLASSIFICATION. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. YOU WILL SEE OVER TIME, YOU HAVE HEARD US TALK ABOUT GROWTH AND EXPANSION THAT EDWARDS ROAD IS ALREADY SOMEWHAT EXPANDED WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES OF TRANSPORTATION BUT, EVENTUALLY, JENKINS ROAD, A CONNECTOR TO THE WESTERN END WILL CONNECT THROUGH SO I SEE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY . I SEE A LOT OF BONUS TO WHAT YOU HAVE GOT. YOU HAVE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT. SO YOU TALK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT ABOUT LIVING, WORKING, AND PLAYING SO IT SURE WOULD BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO BIKE OR WALK TO WORK. I WAS INTRIGUED OVERALL WITH THE CONNECTIVITY OF IT SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE AND I WANTED TO SAY WE ARE HERE TO SUPPORT AND YOU SEE ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING. THE ITEM BEFORE THIS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MORATORIUM IMPACT FEES BECAUSE WE ARE -- MAYBE THE PRESS IS

[00:50:01]

HERE AND MAYBE THEY WILL LISTEN TO IT AGAIN BUT IT IS A PHENOMENAL OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE WE CAN SEE THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT. I CONSIDER IT TO BE OUR INVESTMENT AS RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

>> THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING US AS YOUR HEADQUARTERS. IT SOUNDS GOOD AND I APPRECIATE THAT. I APPRECIATE THE INVESTMENT AND THE COOPERATION WITH EDC. I AM GLAD THEY BROUGHT IT TO US.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ALL RIGHT. GENTLEMEN, IS

THERE A MOTION OR DISCUSSION? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

>> THANK YOU. >> THE NEXT ITEM IS FOLLOW-UP

[b. Follow up discussion and direction regarding the following: Status of City Manager, Nick Mimms. Status of the appointment of Linda Cox as Acting City Manager.]

DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING THE FOLLOWING. ONE IS THE STATUS OF CITY MANAGER, NICK MIMMS. AND NUMBER TWO IS THE STATUS OF THE APPOINTMENT OF LINDA COX AS ACTING CITY

MANAGER . >> CAN USE AT THE STAGE ON THIS

FOR US? >> AT THE LAST MEETING ADDRESSING THIS TOPIC IN SEPTEMBER A MOTION WAS MADE TO SWITCH MR. MIMMS'S STATUS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITH PAY TO ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITHOUT PAY AND THE COMMISSION REQUESTED HIS RESIGNATION. THE CITY HAS NOT RECEIVED HIS RESIGNATION. HE HAS INDICATED TO HIM AND RESOURCES THAT HE WILL NOT BE RESIGNING SO THE STATUS TONIGHT IS TO ADDRESS HOW YOU WISH TO PROCEED WITH HIS EMPLOYMENT. THAT MAY IMPACT YOUR ACTING CITY MANAGER SO WITH YOUR PERMISSION, THERE IS ONE ITEM THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION. MR. MIMMS HAS INDICATED TO HUMAN RESOURCES, HE HAS ASKED ABOUT HIS CAR ALLOWANCE AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE COMMISSION SO I WOULD, BEFORE WE GET INTO HIS STATUS, I WOULD LIKE TO INQUIRE WHEN YOU ARE DISCUSSING HIS ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE ON IF YOU INTENDED HIS CAR ALLOWANCE TO BE PAID WHILE HE WAS ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BENEFITS AND I THINK EVERYONE'S UNDERSTANDING WAS RELATED TO HEALTH COVERAGE BUT HE HAS ASKED ABOUT HIS CAR ALLOWANCE.

>> THE CAR ALLOWANCE DID NOT OCCUR TO ME. I WAS MERELY CONCERNED ABOUT MEDICAL BENEFITS. LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING. IT IS NOT THAT BIG OF AN AMOUNT BUT WHAT KIND OF PRECEDENT DOES IT SET IF, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE EVER HAD ANYBODY ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE AND NOT BEING PAID SO I DON'T KNOW. THIS IS NEW TERRITORY, I THINK.

>> I THINK THIS IS NEW TERRITORY. IT WAS SET A PRECEDENT . EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE WILL BE LOOK AT ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. NONE WILL EVER BE THE SAME. HUMAN RESOURCES IS HERE AND CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING PAST PRACTICES. ESSENTIALLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE STATUS THAT HE IS ON IS A SUSPENSION. HE IS NOT WORKING FOR THE CITY AND HE IS NOT GOING TO MEETINGS USING HIS PERSONAL VEHICLE OR PERSONAL GAS. IT IS , IF YOU INTENDED WHILE HE IS ON LEAVE AND NOT WORKING IF YOU PLAN TO CONTINUE TO PAY HIS CAR

ALLOWANCE OR NOT. >> WHAT SECTION AGAIN IS IN HIS

CONTRACT IS THAT ADDRESSED? >> THAT IS GOING TO BE SECTION 4. 4 C ADDRESSES THE CAR ALLOWANCE. IF YOU ALL DO NOT

[00:55:12]

HAVE IT HANDY I CAN READ OUT LOUD WHAT 4.C. SAYS.

>> IT IS IN THE AGENDA PACKET. >> IT IS ON THREE AND FOUR.

>> I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP COMMENT. THIS CONTRACT IS THE CRITICAL DOCUMENT RELATIVE TO THIS SCENARIO. AND IT IS MY PREFERENCE THAT , NO MATTER THE OUTCOME OF THIS DELIBERATION TONIGHT , THAT THE CITY OF FORT PER PEERS HAS CLEAN HANDS AND IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT OTHER VEHICLE IS BEING USED OR NOT USED. I BELIEVE THAT CAR ALLOWANCE, WHEN WE GET TO THIS POINT IT IS RELATIVE, THAT IT NEEDS TO BE PAID. THE CONTRACT DOES NOT QUALIFY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER SO IT NEEDS TO BE PAID.

BUT, IN THE SCHEME OF DOLLARS AND CENTS IN THIS MATTER IT IS -- IF IT WAS MORE SUBSTANTIVE IT WOULD WARRANT MORE IN DEPTH SKIRT AND VISITATION BUT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING AT SOME POINT IN TIME THE MONIES THAT ARE POTENTIALLY OWED IN DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. HAVING SAID THAT, THAT IS JUST MY

SENTIMENT. >> YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT. THE CONTRACT ITSELF IS, WE DID TALK ABOUT BENEFITS BUT WE DIDN'T SPECIFY THE BENEFITS SO, YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT.

>> TALKING WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, WE HAD TWO VOTES. FIRST WAS WE VOTED SUSPENSION WITH PAY THEN WE CAME BACK AND I UNDERSTAND THE CAR ALLOWANCE WAS NOT PAID ON BOTH OF THOSE?

>> CORRECT. >> EVEN THE FIRST VOTE THAT WE TOOK, SUSPENSION WITH PAY WITH BENEFITS THEN WE HAD NO PAY WITH BENEFITS. I AM WITH YOU AS FAR AS THE EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACT AND THE CAR ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE PART OF THE PACKAGE WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO BOTH OF THE VOTES.

>> COMMISSIONER GAINES. >> THIS WHOLE CONTRACT SITUATION, AND HOW IT READS, WE MIGHT NEED TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND REVIEW THIS CONTRACT AND JUST READ IT WORD FOR WORD. IT IS OPEN-ENDED IN EVERY SENSE OF THE CONTRACT. WE ARE TRYING TO INTERPRET THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES THAT DRAFTED THE CONTRACT. CONTRACT LAW IS SOMETHING , IT GOES AGAINST THE CREATOR OF THE CONTRACT BUT I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE CONTRACT LAW 101 . ONE OF THE CONCERNS , BEFORE WE EVEN GET STARTED ON THIS IS, I AM UPSET AND I AM MAD BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT MR. MIMMS DID NOT RECEIVE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF OUR REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION UNTIL FRIDAY AFTERNOON. THIS PAST FRIDAY AFTERNOON. AND I KNOW THE FIVE OF US SAT UP HERE AND ASKED FOR THAT TO BE DONE SO, I AM JUST LOOKING AT EVERYTHING AND HOW WE ARE RUSHING AND DOING EVERYTHING.

WHEN THIS FIRST HAPPENED I SAID THAT HE BELIEVE IN DUE PROCESS.

IT IS JUST BOTHERING ME NOW THAT FIVE OF US UP HERE, I DO REMEMBER HOW THE VOTE WENT. I THINK IT WAS 3-2. I CAN'T REMEMBER AT THIS POINT. TO SEND THAT LETTER OR TO SEND SOME TYPE OF WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OR, IF IT WAS NOT WRITTEN NOTIFICATION, I'M SEEING PEOPLE SHAKE THEIR HEAD, IF IT WASN'T, THE REQUEST TO SEND WRITTEN NOTIFICATION, MY

[01:00:02]

QUESTION IS, WHY WAS NOTIFICATION JUST SENT TO HIM FRIDAY AFTERNOON? YOU SAID THE COMMISSIONER BROUGHT IT. HE SAID, CLEAN HANDS. WE HAVE TO LOOK LIKE WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING AND RIGHT NOW, IT DOES NOT LOOK RIGHT. IT DOESN'T SMELL RIGHT, IT DOESN'T TASTE RIGHT. IT JUST DOESN'T. I AM WEARING TWO HATS APPEAR. I HAVE A DUTY TO MAKE SURE AT THAT THE CITY IS RUNNING PROPERLY DURING THIS TIME. THAT IS ONE OF MY DUTIES BUT I ALSO HAVE THE DUTY TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FROM ANY POTENTIAL LITIGATION THAT COULD HAPPEN BASED ON OUR ACTIONS.

SOME OF THE STUFF THAT WE ARE DOING, IT JUST DOES NOT SIT RIGHT WITH ME AND I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. I HAVE ASKED SEVERAL TIMES, I HAVE ASKED SEVERAL TIMES THAT IN THE SITUATION LIKE THIS, IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, HAVE WE TERMINATED ANY CITY OF FORT PIERCE EMPLOYEE THAT HAS BEEN ARRESTED BUT NOT CONVICTED OF A CRIME. I HAVE ASKED THAT AND ALL I HAVE BEEN TOLD IS THAT THEY ARE PUT ON SUSPENSION.

WITHOUT PAY. SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WILL OF THE BODY IS TONIGHT BUT YOU JUST SAID THAT WHATEVER WE DO IT IS LIKE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE ARE DOING WHATEVER. WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL HERE BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS LOOKING AT US. EVERYBODY.

AND I KNOW WE WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING BUT THE WAY WE ARE GOING ABOUT IT, IN MY OPINION, SOME THINGS WE ARE JUST NOT INAUDIBLE ] WE HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY SITTING OVER THERE BUT, I TRY NOT TO PUT ON MY -- HATS BECAUSE THAT IS NOT MY JOB SITTING IN THIS CHAIR BUT THAT IS HOW I WAS TRAINED TO THINK.

JEREMIAH IS AN ENGINEER AND I KNEW FOR A FACT THE QUESTION THAT HE WAS GOING TO ASK . I KNEW WHERE HE WAS GOING.

LOCATION, LOGISTICS. THAT IS HOW HIS BRAIN THINKS AND HOW HE WAS TRAINED. I AM TRAINED IN BLACK AND WHITE LAW BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES. A LOT OF QUESTIONS IN MY MIND AND I CANNOT CALL YOU GUYS IN PUBLIC TO DISCUSS IT SO I DON'T WANT TO BRING IT OUT BUT I AM JUST TELLING EVERYBODY, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME DEEP DISCUSSIONS AND IF WE ARE HERE TONIGHT, IF WE ARE GOING TO GO TO ONE SECTION WE NEED TO GO TO THE FRONT OF THE CONTRACT AND REREAD ALL OF THE SECTIONS AS COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON SAID, WE SAID SUSPENSION WITH PAY. I AM NOT TRYING TO BE THAT ONE BUT, IF I SEE SOMETHING I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING AND I HAVE GOT TO DO THAT BECAUSE, WHATEVER WE DECIDE , WHATEVER WE DECIDE, IF THE VOTE COMES THAT MS. COX IS PUT IN THAT POSITION, IT IS NOT FAIR IF WE DON'T TREAT THE FORMER CITY MANAGER BASED ON OUR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

NOT ONLY IS THE PUBLIC LOOKING AT US BUT I AM TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW THEY WON'T TELL YOU GUYS, I DON'T KNOW WHY AM THE ONE THAT THEY COME TO, BUT EVERYONE ON THE SIDE OF THE CITY HALL BUILDING, FROM 8:30 UNTIL 4:30 OR WHEN THEY GO HOME, EVERYBODY IS LOOKING AT US RIGHT NOW TO SEE HOW WE

[01:05:03]

HANDLE THIS SITUATION BECAUSE THEY ARE THINKING, IF THEY CAN DO THAT TO HIM THEY CAN DO THAT TO ME. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO COME TO YOU ALL OR SPEAK TO YOU WELL. THEY ARE PROBABLY GOING TO GET MAD AT ME FOR SAYING WHAT I AM SAYING BUT WE ARE HERE NOW AND THAT IS WHAT I AM HEARING. SO, LET'S JUST TAKE ALL OF WHATEVER IS ON THE OUTSIDE AND LET'S LOOK AT THE CONTRACT AND LOOK AT THE DECISIONS AND LET'S DO THE BEST THING FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

>> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON. >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.

THE CITY IS LOOKING AT US. NOT JUST WITHIN WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY LIMITS AND I AM OKAY WITH THAT. CITY EMPLOYEE LEVEL, IT IS ILLEGAL FOR US TO BE INVOLVED IN CITY GOVERNMENT OUTSIDE OF THE CHARTER OFFICERS SO, I UNDERSTAND IT. I HAVE BEEN A PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEE MY ENTIRE CAREER. I HAVE A GOOD GRASP ON THAT THE COMMISSION, WE LEGISLATE IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND IT IS NOT A LECTURE. I AM JUST SHARING A PERSPECTIVE OF MY CAREER. WHILE YOU DO WORRY ABOUT THAT, AT THE SAME TIME IT IS WITHIN THE CONFINE OF THE DIRECT HERS AND THE MANAGERS THAT HANDLE EMPLOYMENT ASPECT OF IT, THE HR ASPECT OF IT. SO, THERE IS A SEPARATION THERE FOR THE RIGHT REASONS. FLORIDA HAS PUT IT THAT WAY AND I AGREE WITH THAT. IT HAS BEEN IN LAW FOR MANY YEARS. AS FAR AS THE NOTIFICATIONS, I BLAME MYSELF.

AS A RESIDENT I BLAME FIVE SITTING LEGISLATORS AND I AM ONE OF THEM. IT IS OUR DUTY AND JOB TO DIRECT THE CHARTERED OFFICERS TO CONDUCT CERTAIN TASKS AND REVIEWING THE MINUTES AND HAVING THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CAR ALLOWANCE, I SAID, OH MY GOODNESS. I AM TELLING THE PUBLIC I DID NOT TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. WE ARE HERE TO RECTIFY, FIX, AND MOVE ON. I TOLD MY SON THE OTHER DAY, IT IS PROBLEM-SOLVING MODE. I LIKE THE IDEA THAT YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS CONTRACT BECAUSE I WANT TO. BUT WE CANNOT DO IT INDIVIDUALLY .

WE HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT HERE. SO, I AM GOOD WITH THAT. I PERSONALLY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT IS OUR DUTY TO DIRECT ANY ACTION, WHETHER IT IS THE CITY MANAGER, THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER, THE ACTING CITY MANAGER OR THE CITY ATTORNEY THEY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY THERE TOO. HR HAS THAT RESPONSIBILITY. BUT I THINK IT CAME OUT AND NOTIFICATION DID HAPPEN. BUT, I KNOW IT DID HAPPEN SO AS FAR AS THAT ASPECT OF IT I AM READY TO DIG IN AND HAVE GOOD DISCUSSION, MADAME MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS. WE HAVE TO TAKE A LOT OF INFORMATION AND RESPONSIBILITY WHETHER IT IS LOOKING AT THE EMPLOYMENT FACTOR. I GIVE YOU MY PLEA AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT OUR CITY MANAGER SERVING HERE AND I RESPECT THE MANY YEARS THAT HE HAS BEEN HERE. OUR PUBLIC HAS COME UP AND SPOKE WITH US ABOUT THAT. THEY HAVE CALLED US ON THE PHONE AND SPOKE WITH US PRIVATELY ABOUT THAT. THERE IS A RESPECT AND HONOR DO AND I AM OKAY WITH THAT AND I AM PASSIONATE ABOUT THAT BUT WE NEED TO HAVE A REAL CONVERSATION ABOUT THE MOVEMENT OF THE CITY. THE FORWARD MOVEMENT . WE NEED TO HAVE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BUDGET AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES IMPARTED UPON US AS ELECTED OFFICIALS TO HANDLE THE BUDGET AND THE SPENDING OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS, PUBLIC MONEY THAT COMES HERE. ALONG WITH HAVING OPPORTUNITIES

[01:10:02]

IN MOVING FORWARD. NO MATTER WHO THE PERSONNEL IS. I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THE PERSONAL TODAY. I'M TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT OUR CITY. I AM TALKING ABOUT MR. MIMMS ON A PROFESSIONAL LEVEL AT THE SAME TIME. I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW HE HAS BEEN MY FRIEND FOR MANY YEARS AND HE HAS BEEN YOUR FRIEND FOR MANY YEARS. I AM GOING TO HOLD IT TOGETHER AND I WILL ACT UPON AND MAKE A DECISION WITH YOU ALL WHETHER IT TAKES FIVE MINUTES OR FIVE HOURS. I AM HERE.

>> MADAME MAYOR. BACK IF I COULD JUST MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION. MR. MIMMS WAS NOTIFIED OF THE STATUS A LONG TIME AGO BUT THE WRITTEN EMAIL WAS ON FRIDAY . HE WAS NOTIFIED BY HUMAN RESOURCES. VERBAL DISCUSSIONS WITH HUMAN RESOURCES. HE AND HUMAN RESOURCES HAVE HAD MULTIPLE

DISCUSSIONS. >> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SAID, COMMISSIONER GAINES, HE HAS A CONTRACT EMPLOYEE AND WE DEAL WITH THEM DIFFERENTLY THAN PERSONNEL BECAUSE PERSONNEL HAS CIVIL SERVICE AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS APPLY FOR THEM AND I DO WANT TO SAY THAT WHATEVER WE DO TONIGHT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW WE FEEL ABOUT MR. MIMMS, IF WE BELIEVE HE IS INNOCENT OR GUILTY . AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE HE IS IN THE HANDS OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. HE IS NOT IN OUR HANDS ANYMORE. THIS IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE BECAUSE WE ARE FACED WITH A SITUATION WHERE IT IS NOT PRUDENT TO HAVE MR. MIMMS CITY MANAGER WHEN HE CANNOT WORK HERE . SO, IT GRIEVES ME . I HAVE WORKED WITH HIM SINCE HE , I WAS THE MAYOR WHEN HE WAS MADE CITY MANAGER SO, I FEEL LIKE WE ARE FACED WITH A SITUATION THAT NONE OF US REALLY ARE HAPPY ABOUT EITHER WAY. WHATEVER WE DO WE ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT. BUT WE HAVE TO RUN A CITY. WE HAVE TO RUN A CITY. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK?

>> MADAME MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE CAN DISAGREE ON A LOT OF THINGS AND I HAVE READ THE INDICTMENT SEVERAL TIMES AND I HAVE READ WHAT'S THE JUDGE INSTRUCT IT MR. MIMMS NOT TO DO AND THAT WAS TO MAKE CONTACT WITH ANYBODY ON THE WITNESS LIST AND AT NO POINT DID I SEE IN THERE WHERE HE SAID HE COULD NOT IT SAID HE COULD NOT WORK AT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. WE SIT HERE AND WE APPOINTED AND PAID TWO DEPUTY CITY MANAGERS. SO, THERE IS A SITUATION WHERE MR. MIMMS WOULD NEVER HAVE TO SPEAK TO ANYBODY ON THAT WITNESS LIST BECAUSE EVERYTHING COULD GO THROUGH THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGERS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE THAT WE ARE PAYING FOR.

SO, I DON'T UNDERSTAND, MAYBE YOU CAN SHOW ME THE INDICTMENT AND WHERE IT SAYS HE CAN'T WORK HERE. ALL IT SAYS IS NO CONTACT WITH ANYBODY ON THE WITNESS LIST. IT IS MAKING IT SEEM LIKE HE CANNOT BE HERE BECAUSE THE INDICTMENT SAYS SO AND I THINK WE ARE SAYING HE CAN'T BE HERE OR PEOPLE ARE SAYING HE CAN BE HERE BECAUSE OF THE WITNESS LIST. I DON'T REMEMBER THE ORDER I REMEMBER THE JUDGE SAYING NO CONTACT

[01:15:01]

WITH WITNESSES ON THE LIST AND THAT CAN BE EASILY REMEDIED.

FOR CLARIFICATION I UNDERSTAND THE CHARTER MEMBERS -- BUT MY QUESTION WAS, BEFORE OUR TIME, HAS ANY CHARTER MEMBER BEEN LET GO BASED ON AN ARREST? NO ONE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT ANSWER. I AM JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CROSSING OUR TEAS AND DOTTING OUR EYES. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE GOT TO RUN A CITY AND THE CITY HAS BEEN RUNNING SINCE THIS HAPPENED. WE HAVE NOT FALLEN OFF. WE HAVE EVEN GONE THROUGH A HURRICANE, A MAJOR STORM AND THE CITY IS FUNCTIONING. THERE ARE JUST SOME THINGS THAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT. WE WILL GET INTO IT , BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS COMING UP WITH OR WITHOUT PAY AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WILL OF THIS DISCUSSION WHERE THIS IS GOING BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT IT IS ON THE AGENDA AND WE BROUGHT IT BACK I AM JUST VASE VOICING MY CONCERNS TO FELLOW COLLEAGUES AND THE MADAME MAYOR THAT THIS IS WHERE I AM SITTING RIGHT NOW. THIS IS NOT PERSONAL. IT IS NOT PERSONAL. IT IS JUST HOW I AM FEELING AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE WHO PUT ME HERE SO IF I DON'T SAY IT NOW, WHEN WILL I EVER HAVE A CHANCE TO SAY IT? THAT IS WHERE I AM COMING FROM. I HAVE CONCERNS AND I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF PEOPLE IN THIS CITY THAT HAVE COME TO ME AS THEIR COMMISSIONER AND I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE THAT HAVE COME TO ME AS RESIDENTS OF THE CITY SO I CAN'T CALL MADAME MAYOR AND SAY, OR SEE HER IN PUBLIX AND SAY LET'S GO OVER BY THE BAKERY AND TALK. I KNOW I MAKE SOME STRANGE ANALOGIES. I'M JUST A COUNTRY BOY FROM FORT PIERCE BUT YOU CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE , IF WE WERE IN TALLAHASSEE WE WOULD DO THAT BECAUSE WE COULD JUST SIT DOWN AND TALK ALL THE TIME. I AM NOT GOING TO DO IT BECAUSE WE HAVE A GOVERNOR WHO LOVES TO COME FOR PEOPLE LIKE ME AND PUT THEM IN JAIL FOR VIOLATING THE SUNSHINE LAW. IF HE IS LISTENING TO ME, YOU KNOW I AM TELLING THE TRUTH. I AM TRYING NOT TO GET UPSET AND I'M TRYING TO SAY HOW I AM FEELING BECAUSE I WANT US TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND WE NEED TO DO THE RIGHT THING BUT IF I DON'T TELL YOU HOW I AM FEELING, YOU DON'T KNOW AND THEN DOWN THE ROAD IF I DON'T SAY IT NOW YOU WILL SAY WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY IT

AT THE OTHER MEANING. >> MADAME MAYOR.

>> COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON . >> THIS ACTUALLY CAME UP IN OUR DISCUSSION. WE WERE TRYING TO LOOK AT WHAT COULDN'T HAPPEN AND WE NEVER EXPLORED WHAT WE COULD DO. I HAD CONCERNS THAT MR. MIMMS, HIS INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE, THE ASPECTS OF JUST KNOWING WHAT WAS IN HIS INBOX THAT HE WAS DEALING WITH . SO MUCH STUFF HAPPENED AND I RECALL WE ACTUALLY MISSED SOME STUFF AS A RESULT OF NOT REALLY BEING AWARE OF EVERYTHING HE WAS JUGGLING AND I RECALL THAT MEETING AND WE SPENT MORE TIME SAYING WHAT WE COULD DO AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE CAN DO. I THINK COMMISSIONER GAINES MAKES A SOLID POINT. WE HAVE NOT EXPLORED HOW WE CAN UTILIZE A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN WITH THE

[01:20:05]

CITY AS LONG AS HE HAS BEEN WITH THE CITY TO ADVISE AND WORK THROUGH . WE HAVE TWO DEPUTY CITY MANAGERS BUT THEY ARE NOT ON THE WITNESS LIST. I HAVE READ THE AFFIDAVIT LIKE MOST OF US HAVE. COULD THERE BE A WORKAROUND. CURRENTLY, WE HAVE MISS COX WHO IS THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY CLERK. I AM CHALLENGED AND CONCERNED THAT WE DID NOT HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO. WE DID NOT PUT ON THE CREATIVE ASPECT OF CAN WE UTILIZE EXPERTISE WHILE THIS IS ONGOING. WHAT COULD HE DO TO SERVE US -- SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE A BETTER TRANSITION AND UNDERSTANDING SO THAT WE ARE NOT MISSING THINGS WHEN IT COMES TO THE PROJECTS HE WAS WORKING ON. THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD ADD IS, IT FEELS A LITTLE FLIP TO ME. BASED ON WHAT IS ON THE AGENDA, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HIS FATE. IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE ALMOST OPPOSITE IN MY MIND FOR THE SIMPLE REASON , IT SEEMS AS THOUGH WE ARE GOING TO PUT OURSELVES IN THE POSITION TO TRY TO HOLD A VOTE ON THE STATUS OF MR. MIMMS. IT FEELS THAT WAY AND I THINK THAT, AGAIN, I HAVE HAD VERY LIMITED CONVERSATION WITH HR AND I HAVE EMAILS FROM THE ATTORNEY VIA HR BUT WHEN IT COMES TO OUR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THAT IS ACTING ON BEHALF OF US ON THE DASHBOARD, INITIATING SOMETHING IN THE OPPORTUNITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE, IT WOULD JUST SEEM TO ME THAT THIS WOULD HAVE GONE A LITTLE MORE IN DEPTH IN INVESTIGATION AS FAR AS WHAT WAS THE VIOLATION SPECIFICALLY WHEN IT COMES TO OUR POLICY. AS FAR AS THIS PROCESS IN-HOUSE, THAT BOTHERS ME AND CONCERNS ME AND FURTHERMORE, THE QUESTION WAS ASKED, WHAT IS THE VIOLATION? WAS IT CIVIL ? WAS IT MONEY? THERE ARE THINGS THAT I AM NOT CLEAR ON . HE IS BEING ACCUSED OF RIGGING A BID BUT THE PERSON THAT HAS HR BACKGROUND, TO ME, THAT IS A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY AND IT COMES INTO AFFECT US AND THAT IS A DIFFERENT COURSE AS FAR AS WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

WE STILL HAVE SOME UNANSWERED QUESTIONS THERE WAS THE THAT THIS WAS NOT THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE THOUGHT IT PROBABLY WAS SO WE COULD BE IN BREACH OF CONTRACT POTENTIALLY SO THAT TROUBLES ME . THE ASPECT OF WHAT I HEARD AND LEARNED TONIGHT, AND WITH ANYTHING, I UNDERSTAND VERBAL BUT IT IS ALWAYS ON THE SIDE OF ANY JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT I HAVE KNOWN THAT IT HAS TO BE IN WRITING AND IF IT IS NOT, EVEN IF IT IS A WRITTEN EMAIL THAT YOU CAN TIMESTAMP OR DATE STAMP, THAT TENDS TO BE THE LAW. VERBAL COMMUNICATION OVER THE PHONE, ANYTHING CAN BE HAPPENING TO BOTH PARTIES RECEIVING INFORMATION. THAT IS WHERE I AM AT WITH THIS. WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE CAR ALLOWANCE AND NOW WE ARE AT THAT POINT WHERE WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO GET CORRECTED BUT BEYOND THAT I AM OPEN TO DISCUSSION AS FAR AS WHAT WE WILL DO MOVING FORWARD. WE DO

[01:25:05]

NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE CAN DO WITH A PERSON WITH THAT LEVEL OF EXPERTISE TO SERVE THE CITY.

>> I FIND IT UNIQUE THAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ARE DRAWING ON DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE REAL WORLD. I FEEL THAT TO BE INVIGORATING THAT THEY ARE PUTTING THAT MUCH HEART AND SOUL INTO THIS DISCUSSION. ANALYTICS ON THIS ARE DRIVEN FROM BEING A BUSINESS PERSON IN THE COMMUNITY FOR DECADES. CONTRACTS ARE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO ME. IN THIS INSTANCE WE HAVE A VERY UNFORTUNATE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THIS BODY IS COMPELLED TO DEAL WITH. WITH THE LEADERS OF THE CITY, THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND FROM A BUSINESS ANALYTIC PERSPECTIVE THIS ABORTIVE DIRECT HERS NEEDS TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN SOME DIRECTION REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT TEAM. WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE RESIDENTS, THE EMPLOYEES AND OURSELVES AS ELECTED OFFICIALS TO BE AS CERTAIN AS WE CAN THAT THE CITY IS MOVING FORWARD IN OPERATIONAL FORMAT THAT IS PROPERLY PACKAGED, PROCEDURALLY, TO CONTINUE THE OPERATIONS OF THE CITY. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS LOOMING OUT THERE THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH WITH STAFF. THE QUESTION IN MY MIND, IT IS VERY SIMPLE, WHAT IS THE BEST METHODOLOGY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT AND WHERE DO WE PLACE OUR CONFIDENCE AND OUR FAITH MOVING FORWARD? I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE WITNESS LIST . I HAVE READ THE AFFIDAVIT. SO MANY TIMES I THINK I COULD REPEAT IT VERBATIM. I HAVE READ THE CONTRACT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AND, COMMISSIONER GAINES , AGRI THERE HAVE BEEN FAILURES NOT JUST ON STAFF BUT ON THIS COMMISSION TO MAKE SURE THAT THINGS WERE ACTED UPON . WE NEED TO TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT BUT WE DO HAVE WAYS TO MANEUVER AROUND , TO CORRECT THOSE THINGS AND STILL TAKE SOME TYPE OF ACTION RELATIVE TO THIS. MY CONCERN IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A NECESSITY TO MOVE FORWARD IN A PROACTIVE MANNER. ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS THAT I HAVE IS THE INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT IS CONTAINED AT THE UPPER LEVEL OF CITY. JUST LIKE ANY COMPANY, THE SENIOR MANAGEMENT STAFF WILL HAVE CONTROL AND UNDERSTANDING AND MANIPULATION OF THAT INFORMATION TO MOVE THE AGENDA FORWARD. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE THERE TO DO. THE QUESTION IN MY MIND IS NO LONGER ABOUT THE ARREST AFFIDAVIT . THAT IS NOW IRRELEVANT . IT IS NOT IRRELEVANT TO THE PEOPLE INVOLVED BUT IT IS FROM THE OPERATIONS OF THE CITY. THEY ARE BIFURCATED. ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER. SO, HOW DO WE MAKE THAT DECISION? I KNOW EVERYBODY HAS AN OPINION AND THAT WILL COME OUT OVER THE COURSE OF THE EVENING. HAVING SAID THAT, THE CITY CONTINUES OPERATING WITH CONTINUITY AND INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE TO MOVE OUR AGENDA UPWARD, AND I PERSONALLY BELIEVE WE ARE ON AN UPWARD CLIMB AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT STALL BECAUSE I CONSIDER A STALLED RIGHT NOW.

WE MAY BE CLEANING THE STREETS , MAKING SURE THAT THE WATER PLANT IS PROVIDING WATER BUT THE HIGH-LEVEL DECISION-MAKING THAT THIS BODY IS CHARGING SENIOR STAFF TO UNDERTAKE AND EXECUTE ON , I DON'T THINK WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE PERMANENTLY IN THESE POSITIONS THAT HAVE THE AUTHORITY. THEY MAY HAVE IT TECHNICALLY BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THIS IS AN UNCOMFORTABLE LEVEL OF THAT

[01:30:02]

LEVEL OF AUTHORITY AND THAT DOES NOT WORK. WE NEED TO HAVE A PERMANENT SOLUTION. I HAVE HAD HEARD SOME UNIQUE IDEAS TONIGHT BUT THIS COMES DOWN FROM MY PERSPEX LIVE. YOU TAKE THE ARREST AFFIDAVIT AND YOU PUT IT ASIDE. DO I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN CONTINUING IN THE SAME VEIN OF MANAGEMENT THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY IN? I DON'T. I SIMPLY DON'T. WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES RIGHT NOW, I DO NOT HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT IS A WORKABLE SCENARIO. I WILL STOP THERE SO THE MAYOR CAN JUMP IN.

THERE WILL BE FURTHER DISCUSSION TONIGHT AND I HAVE SOME FURTHER PROPOSALS THAT I WILL PUT ON THE TABLE LATER.

>> IT IS INTERESTING WHAT YOU BRING UP, COMMISSIONER C.

JOHNSON, ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS COMMISSIONER GAINES SAID WAS THAT YOU CAN RETAIN A CITY MANAGER BUT WOULD NOT HAVE CONTACT WITH THE WITNESSES.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT IN REALITY, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT COULD WORK BECAUSE THAT IS THE BOSS. THE CITY MANAGER IS THE BOSS OF ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES EXCEPT FOR THE OTHER CHARTER OFFICERS. AND SO , YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE DIRECT CONTACT BUT YOU HAVE CONTROL OF WHAT GOES ON IN THE CITY IN TERMS OF EXECUTION IF YOU ARE THE CITY MANAGER. THE EMPLOYEES THAT WORK FOR THE CITY MANAGER HAVE PROTECTIONS SO, BELIEVE ME, I WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO WORK BUT I DON'T SEE HOW IT WOULD WORK. I THINK THAT ALSO, BEYOND NOT HAVING CONTACT WITH WITNESSES, ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT, THIS BOARD UP HERE, THIS IS HARD FOR ALL OF US. BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS PERSON AND WE'VE HAD THAT FOR A LONG TIME, ESPECIALLY ME WHO HAS WORKED WITH HIM THE LONGEST, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE IS THE CHARGES ARE WITHIN THE OPERATIONS OF THE CITY PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE RFP PROCESS. AND THE INTEGRITY OF THAT PROCESS. SO, WE NEED THAT PROCESS GOING FORWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT PROCESS IS DONE EXACTLY RIGHT AND BY THE RULES AND I ALSO SAY, WE CAN'T TELL WHO BENEFITED IN THIS PARTICULAR THING BUT THE FACT REMAINS, THE CHARGES ARE THERE, WHETHER HE IS LT OR INNOCENT, AND THAT REFLECTS ON THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE UNTIL IT IS DECIDED IN THE COURT. WE ARE BETWEEN THE PROVERBIAL ROCK AND A HARD PLACE. IF WE TRY TO DO THE COMPASSIONATE RIGHT THING BY THE PERSON THAT HAS BEEN SERVING US, AND AS FAR AS WE KNOW, SERVING US WELL, WE ARE HAMSTRINGING THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND THE TAXPAYERS OUT THERE SAYING, ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE WITH SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE? ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE THEM FOREVER? ARE YOU SUGGESTING

THAT? >> NO. WHAT I AM SUGGESTING IS, WE CONTROL THE CHARTER MEMBERS SO, WE CAN DICATE TO WHAT, IF WE WANT TO BRING THE KNOWLEDGE THAT MR. MIMMS, WE CAN DICTATE HOW YOU CAN DO THIS AND THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN'T. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT HE STARTS WALKING AROUND THE CITY HALL.

THAT DOES NOT LOOK RIGHT. I HAVE HEARD TONIGHT THAT WE HAVE MISSED SOME THINGS AND SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER J.

JOHNSON SAID, WE NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS, THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT THE

[01:35:02]

CITY MANAGER DOES AND HAS HIS OR HER HANDS ON AND WE NEVER SEE IT UNTIL IT IS FINAL BUT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DID NOT ELECT A CITY MANAGER BUT THEY DID ELECT US.

WE NEED TO HAVE OUR EYES ON THAT. ALL I AM SAYING IS WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION AND WE NEED TO SEE WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CITY AND IF WE CAN PICK SOMEBODY'S BRAIN WHO HAS BEEN WORKING FOR THE CITY FOR ALL OF 30 YEARS WHO KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT THE SYSTEM AND EVERYTHING ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO, EVEN IF IT IS JUST GUIDANCE TO SAY , DEPUTY MANAGER JOHNSON, THIS IS WHAT I WOULD DO AND HOW I WOULD DO IT AND THEN TAKE IT AND RUN.

I THINK WE OWE THE RESIDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IF IT COULD WORK. NOW, I CANNOT SPEAK FOR MR. MIMMS BUT A NORMAL PERSON WITH AN INDICTMENT WOULD COME BACK AND RISK GETTING MORE CHARGES BY VIOLATING A COURT ORDER OR SOME OTHER LAW. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN WITH HIM BEING HERE BUT I AM JUST TRYING TO PICK HIS BRAIN AND I KNOW HE STILL WANTS TO WORK AND HELP THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE KNOW THAT. IT IS UP TO US TO SEE IF WE CAN DO THAT AND IF WE COME TO A VOTE TONIGHT AND WE SAY, WE CAN'T DO IT, AT LEAST WE BROUGHT IT UP. I PUT IT ON THE TABLE AND I WANT TO HEAR THE OTHER OPTIONS. I WILL TELL YOU NOW, I DON'T HAVE THE PERFECT SOLUTION TO SEE HOW WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK. I DON'T.

AND BEFORE I GET EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS, LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MISS COX AND WHAT HER ABILITY IS IF SHE WERE TO GET THIS POSITION AND RUN WITH IT .

WHAT WE ARE DOING AS A CITY AND ALL OF THE DIRECTORS AND EVERYBODY ELSE, EVERYBODY LOOKING AT US, I JUST WANT TO SEE WHAT IS THE BEST SOLUTION FOR THE CITY MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE WHAT HAS NOT COME UP, IF THERE IS A VOTE TO TERMINATE, , BECAUSE I AM NOT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I JUST HAVE A FEELING THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE GOT, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WRITE A BIG CHECK. THAT IS ALL WE HEAR ABOUT, SPENDING MONEY SO IF I HAVE TO WRITE A BIG CHECK, WHY NOT USE THAT MONEY TO TRY TO GET SOME OF THE KNOWLEDGE, SOME KIND OF WEIGHT.

MAYBE MAKE HIM STAY HOME AND WORK. SO HE CAN ONLY CALL CERTAIN PEOPLE AND DEAL WITH CERTAIN PEOPLE. I DON'T KNOW.

I AM JUST THINKING. I HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE. LET'S MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION AND THE CITY DID NOT STOP. I KNOW MANY PEOPLE THOUGHT THE CITY WAS GOING TO STOP FUNCTIONING BUT IT DID NOT AND WE CAME THROUGH A HURRICANE AND WE ARE HERE TONIGHT AND WE ARE WORKING. I AM HAPPY THAT I HAVE THE COMMISSIONER NEXT TO ME SAYING, WE WILL TAKE FIVE MINUTES OR FIVE HOURS BECAUSE THAT IS HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS SITUATION BUT WHAT I DON'T WANT IS FOR FEELINGS AND US TO GET INTO, WHICH WE HAVEN'T DONE AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN IN THE SEAT, ARGUMENTS. BUT, LET'S USE THE COMMONSENSE KNOWLEDGE THAT GOD GAVE ALL FIVE OF US TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION THAT BENEFITS THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. IT IS NOT ABOUT MISS COX. IT IS ABOUT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. IF YOU WANT TO

[01:40:02]

KNOW HOW WILL WORK -- IT WOULD WORK, I CAN'T GIVE YOU THAT TONIGHT. WHAT I DO KNOW FROM MY MEETINGS IS FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, FROM THE CONTRACT, WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE FOR TERMINATION. I KNOW WE ARE NOT THERE YET BUT, WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE AND WITH CAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF PROOF OR EVIDENCE. WE HAVE , BUT WITHOUT CAUSE, THAT IS A BIG CHECK WE WILL WRITE. IT IS A BIG CHECK AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT NUMBER IS GOING TO COME UP . IT IS A BIG CHECK WE ARE GOING TO WRITE AND SO, I AM JUST SAYING, LET'S MAKE THE BEST DECISION AND IF WE CAN FIND ANY KIND OF WEIGHT TO PICK THE BRAIN OF THE CITY MANAGER TO MOVE THE CITY FORWARD , WHO HAS BEEN DOING IT FOR ALMOST THE LAST 30 YEARS, WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT IN ANY KIND OF CAPACITY THAT WE CAN.

>> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON . >> I BELIEVE HE STARTED IN 1998. SO, MANY YEARS. I HAVE ALL OF THESE BOXES ON MY PAGE WRITTEN DOWN. CAR ALLOWANCES, WE NEED TO DEFINE THAT BETTER.

THE WAY IT IS EXPLAINED, WE WILL GET OVER THAT. I CAN TELL YOU NOW HAS A PUBLIC-SECTOR EMPLOYEE, WHEN YOU GO TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND YOU SAY WOULD YOU LIKE A CITY VEHICLE OR ALLOWANCE, YOU JUST USE -- VEHICLE. YOU GET LETTER A OR YOU GET B. YOU GET A CONTRACT AND THAT PUTS IT ON BENEFIT . I AM NOT SAYING WE SHOULDN'T PUT THAT OUT BUT WHEN I AS A TAXPAYER AM USING THE CAR, I WON'T BE HERE BUT I WILL SEND IT TO THE PODIUM AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE NEXT CONTRACT. THAT MAKES ME CRAZY. BECAUSE, THAT IS WHAT IT IS FOR. CHECK THAT ONE OFF MY BOX. NO CONTACT ORDER. I DID NOT MEMORIZE THE NAMES ON THE LIST. I DON'T KNOW THE NAMES BUT I ALMOST HAVE TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT AND LOOK AT THE NAMES OF INDIVIDUALS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONTACT . I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE. THE REASON I BRING THIS UP IS BECAUSE IN ARTICLE 4, THE CITY MANAGER DUTIES, SECTION 42, THERE ARE FOUR VERY CRITICAL ITEMS THAT OUT OF 10, LETTER A THROUGH J , SITTING WITH AN EMPLOYEE, ONE OF THE CHARTER OFFICERS, WE SHALL MAKE SURE -- ARE ENFORCED BUT I WANT TO JUMP DOWN TO A FEW OF THE LATER ITEMS. TO COMPLETE A REPORT ON FINANCES. I DON'T KNOW IF OUR FINANCE MANAGER AND DIRECTOR WAS INTERVIEWED. I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE NOT DONE THE COMPARE AND THE CONTRAST. TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION. IF THERE IS A NO CONTACT ORDER, CAN THE INDIVIDUAL BE IN THE ROOM WITH SUCH INDIVIDUALS ? I DON'T KNOW THAT. MAYBE THERE ARE DIFFERENT CASES AND DIFFERENT TIMES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. I JUST FIGURED I WOULD

ASK. >> I TAKE A CONTRACT AND AN ORDER FROM A JUDGE LIKE IT READS. IT SAYS NO CONTACT. NO CONTACT MEANS , WHEN I ISSUE AN EMAIL OR WHATEVER. SITTING HERE AND JUST BEING HERE, TO ME, THAT IS NO CONTACT. HOWEVER, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE HIM SIT HERE. WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE HIM SIT HERE BECAUSE WHEN HE HAS BEEN OUT OF TOWN WE HAVE

[01:45:01]

HAD DEPUTY MANAGERS SIT HERE AND BUSINESS HAS GONE ON SO IF WE ARE GOING TO SAY, HE CAN'T DO HIS JOB BECAUSE HE DOES NOT SIT HERE, WE HAVE DONE JOBS AND WE HAVE DONE BUSINESS WHEN HE HAS BEEN AWAY AND NOW WE HAVE TWO DEPUTY CITY MANAGERS. WE HAVE TWO DEPUTY CITY MANAGERS THAT REMAIN. THE CITY ATTORNEY MIGHT SAY HE CAN BE IN THE PRESENCE OF SOMEBODY.

>> WE ARE GOING TO PLAY PING-PONG A LITTLE BIT. IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, SITTING HERE , ITEM H, ATTEND ALL MEETINGS.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN HE IS AWAY AND WHEN THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE AWAY FROM THE DAIS. BUT, WE WILL PLAY PING-PONG ON THAT ONE LATER. IN THE ORDER, COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU INTERPRET IT . HOW DO YOU MANAGE IT. DO YOU SEE MY DILEMMA?

>> MADAME MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS, SPECIFICALLY, WHERE THIS IS FOUND SPECIFICALLY IS THE ARREST AFFIDAVIT FROM AUGUST 13 FROM JUDGE MERMAN AND IT SAYS THE THE DEFENDANT SHALL HAVE NO CONDUCT DIRECT OR INDIRECT WITH -- AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA SUBSEQUENTLY FILED A DISCOVERY LIST AND SCROLLING THROUGH HERE, I SEE GILMORE, ADRIA WELLS, CARTER, LATONYA HUBBARD. TRACY TELLY, KAREN LOWE, LINDA COX. IT IS NOT SIMPLY DIRECT CONTACT. IT IS INDIRECT CONTACT AS WELL. THE WAY THIS WOULD PLAY OUT FUNCTIONALLY IN A COURTROOM, MOST LIKELY, OBVIOUSLY, I COULD NOT GUARANTEE HOW ANYONE OTHER THAN MYSELF WOULD BEHAVE, HOW IT WOULD GENERALLY PLAY OUT IS , THE STATE WOULD FILE A MOTION TO REVOKE HIS BOND AND AT THAT POINT A HEARING IS TYPICALLY SET WHERE A JUDGE DECIDE IF HE VIOLATED THE BOND. WHEREBY HE WOULD SIT IN JAIL WHILE HIS CASES PENDING WITHOUT BOND

UNTIL THE CASE IS RESOLVED. >> SO, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IF THERE WAS AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF DIRECT OR INDIRECT. SO, I HAVE SOME NAMES. THE OTHER PART OF THE CHARTER AND THE ORDINANCES WHERE IT IS TALKING ABOUT THE DIRECT APPOINTMENT AND APPROVA OF THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, WHICH I DID NOT HEAR, PERFORM OTHER DUTIES AS DESCRIBED BY THE CHARTER OR AS REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION. THOSE ARE IMPORTANT ITEMS THAT I HAVE WRITTEN DOWN AND THOSE ARE A FUNCTION OF THE JOB THEN OF COURSE THERE IS JUST THE CONVERSATION WHICH I WANT TO BRING UP WHICH HAS BEEN A QUESTION ON A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT INSTANCES. CAN WE MAKE UP A HYBRID APPROACH? SO, OKAY. SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD OPTION. SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD DISCUSSION. I AM OKAY WITH THE HYBRID APPROACH. BUT, AS A TAXPAYER I AM NOT OKAY WITH PAYING FOR A HYBRID APPROACH.

IT IS NOT THE AGREEMENT THAT I THOUGHT COMING IN HERE TO SERVE. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS THE WAY I WOULD GO ABOUT DOING THAT AND YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE HIGHEST-PAID EMPLOYEE

[01:50:02]

SITTING IN CITY HALL NOT FUNCTIONING IN FULL CAPACITY.

DO I AGREE WITH THE HYBRID APPROACH? IN MANY INSTANCES, INCLUDING OUR SISTER CITY TO THE SOUTH OF US AND PORT ST.

LUCIE, THE CITY MANAGER RETIRED AND THE CITY MANAGER IS NOW A CONTRACTED EMPLOYEE. I HAVE BEEN IN CASES WHERE THERE IS A CITY MANAGER THERE WITHOUT -- SO, UTILIZE THAT EXPERIENCE AND THOSE OPPORTUNITIES. I AM JUST THROWING OUT THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO ME AND THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE CITY AND THE PROGRESSION FORWARD FROM HERE. DO I WANT TO HONOR HIS SERVICE? 1000%. THIS IS THE THIRD MEETING TALKING ABOUT THIS SITUATION AND I AM GOING TO DO THAT. WHATEVER IT TAKES TO DO THAT. I AM NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS. I HAVE NOT DEFINED IT BUT THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. I AM STANDING IN SUPPORT OF SERVICE TO THIS COMMUNITY THAT MR. MIMMS HAS DEDICATED HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER TO . AND I DON'T THINK YOU ARE AGAINST IT . I AM JUST SHARING MY WORDS. THIS IS RIPPING MY HEART IN HALF BUT THERE ARE SO MANY DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS AND SO MANY LAWS AND ORDINANCES THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FOLLOW, INCLUDING THE CONTRACT. SO I HAD TO CHECK THOSE THINGS OFF MY LIST AND SHARE THOSE WITH YOU.

>> COULD I JUST -- I WANT TO GET SOME OTHER PEOPLE IN HERE.

MISS HEDGES, I THINK THIS IS PERTINENT TO WHAT YOU ASKED. I HEARD FROM SOMEBODY THAT THIS INVESTIGATION IS ONGOING AND THERE MAY BE OTHER WITNESSES. IS THAT RIGHT?

>> WE DID HAVE THAT CONVERSATION SO WHEN AN ARREST IS MADE, THE INVESTIGATION DOES NOT NECESSARILY STOP THERE.

OFTEN TIMES THERE ARE TIMES WHEN ADDITIONAL CHARGES ARE INVESTIGATED AND ADDED AT A LATER DATE. IN THE EXAMPLE THAT JEREMIAH JOHNSON GAVE THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT REPORT DIRECTLY TO HER . SHE IS NOT CURRENTLY LISTED BUT THAT IS NOT TO SAY SHE COULD NOT EVENTUALLY BE LISTED. THEY MAY NOT ADD ADDITIONAL WITNESSES OR DO ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT DOES HAPPEN. WHERE WITNESSES ARE FOUND LATER RON OR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS FOUND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO, THE CASE IS NOT OVER UNTIL THERE IS A VERDICT OR SOMETHING FINALIZING THAT CASE . THE INVESTIGATION IS NOT

NECESSARILY COMPLETE. >> SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP THE NAMES , I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP. THERE MIGHT BE OTHER

PEOPLE. >> FIRST OF ALL, LET'S PUT A PRICE TAG ON THIS SO EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF THE DOWNSTROKE. IF WE WERE TO TERMINATE WITHOUT CAUSE, THE CHECK RIGHTS A -- THE CITY WRITES A CHECK FOR $84,000.

>> THAT'S A SEVERANCE PACKAGE?

>> IT IS PART OF THE CONTRACT.

>> WE ARE CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO DO IT. PUTTING ASIDE THE CAR ALLOWANCE , IT WILL BE APPROXIMATELY $84,000.

AND I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH HONORING THAT PART OF THE CONTRACT. NOW, I AM THE SHORTEST TIME GUY HERE SO MY INTERACTION WITH HIM HAS BEEN THE LEAST. MAYBE I CAN FAIRLY EASILY REMOVE THE EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT TO THIS. AS I HAVE ONLY BEEN HERE 23 MONTHS. THERE WERE THREE OPTIONS

>> THOSE OPTIONS REMAIN STATUS CHANGES, ACTING CITY MANAGER STAYS IN PLACE. CONTINUES WITH OR WITHOUT PAY, CURRENTLY

[01:55:01]

WITHOUT PAY. ITEM TWO, TERMINATE WITHOUT COST. IT IS PROVIDED FOR IN THE CONTRACT. IT IS VERY SPECIFIC. THE LANGUAGE IS VERY CLEAR. OPTION THREE, REAPPOINT HIM TO HIS POSITION. AS IF NOTHING HAS TRANSPIRED. THAT IS CLEARLY AN OPTION AVAILABLE TO THIS BODY. ITEM FOUR, THE MULTIPLE HYBRID SCENARIOS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED TONIGHT. I AM GOING TO SHORTEN THAT LIST. OR AT LEAST GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT ENSURING THAT LIST. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT REAPPOINTMENT WITH EXONERATION FROM THE SOMEBODY. IN MY MIND, IT IS NOT EVEN A THOUGHT. FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THAT OPTION, FROM MY SIDE OF THINGS, IT IS NOT VIABLE. TWO, THE HYBRID OPTION, I SHARE COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON'S CONCERNS. I AM PAYING TOP DOLLAR FOR A FULL-TIME COMMITMENT TO A POSITION. IF -- IS NOT CAPABLE OF FUNCTIONING IN THAT ROLL, I HAVE A SERIOUS ISSUE WITH THAT. IN THIS CASE, WE ARE THE EMPLOYER OF THE CHARTER OFFICERS. HAVING SAID THAT, I DO HAVE MY RESERVATIONS. OF A WORKABLE SCENARIO OF A HYBRID

CASE. >> I WANT TO THROW THIS IN WITH YOUR TRAIN OF THOUGHT. A HYBRID SITUATION IS SOMETHING WE CAN COME UP WITH, WITH A SALARY, WHATEVER. BASED ON EVERYTHING ÚTHAT IS GOING ON. AND WE CAN PRESENT THAT TO MR. MIMMS . HE CAN SAY YES OR NO. JUST LIKE WE SET OUT SOMETHING FOR RESIGNATION. DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? APPARENTLY, TONIGHT, HE SAID, NO. BECAUSE BASED ON WHAT JEREMIAH JUST READ, THESE ARE THE DUTIES. AND WE ARE NOT GETTING THE DUTIES.

AGAIN, I AM TRYING TO PICK THE BRAIN TO HELP THE CITY MOVE FORWARD. IF WE CAME UP WITH SOME TYPE OF HYBRID SOLUTION AND WE SAID, HEY, YOU'RE NOT HERE FULL-TIME, THIS IS WHAT IT IS. HE HAS AN OPTION TO SAY, I DO NOT WANT THAT, OR, I WILL WORK WITH THAT. I AM JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE BEFORE WE THINK ABOUT THIS HYBRID. JUST LIKE WE GAVE HIM THE OPTION TO RESIGN. I AM THROWING IT OUT THERE. BEFORE YOU SAY, I AGREE, I DON'T WANT TO PAY FULL SALARY FOR HALF WORK .

>> I DO AGREE THE INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. WE RELY ON OUR CHARTER OFFICERS TO BRING THAT INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE EVERY DAY.

>> WE ARE COMING UP WITH SOLUTIONS TO MOVE THE CITY FORWARD. IF WE SIT DOWN WITH THE DIRECTOR OF HR , AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, IF THAT IS SOMETHING WE DECIDE TO DO, I AM GOING TO RELY ON THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE GOT THEM FOR. THAT IS WHAT I'M TELLING YOU, MADAM THE MAYOR. I WAS HOPING JEREMIAH WOULD HIT THE PING-PONG BALL BACK TO ME. I KNEW YOU WOULD ADD THAT TO YOUR

LIST. >> FOR YOU FINISH?

>> NOT QUITE. I AM CLOSE. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER J.

JOHNSON'S COMMENTARY. WE WILL STAY HERE UNTIL 2:00 IN THE MORNING IF WE HAVE TO. ONCE WE START NARROWING THE SCOPE OF OPTIONS, I BELIEVE THAT IS THE DIRECTION WE NEED TO START MOVING IN FROM A DISCUSSION STANDPOINT. I GET THE EMOTIONAL OVERLAY ON ALL OF THIS. I UNDERSTAND IT. I AM NOT AS ENGAGED AS YOU GUYS ARE, I HAVE NOT BEEN HERE AS LONG. THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR ME. THIS IS BUSINESS. YOU HAVE A BUSINESS TO RUN. WE NEED TO MAKE BUSINESS DECISIONS. WE ARE THE BUSINESS LEADERS OF THE CITY AND WE NEED TO EXECUTE. WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS? I JUST ENUMERATED THE OPTION. OPTION NUMBER ONE I CONSIDER IT TO BE A NON-OPTION. TWO, -- BACK TO HIS POSITION, THAT IS NOT AN OPTION. IT NARROWS IT DOWN TO TWO, IN MY OPINION. TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE, OR SOME TYPE OF HYBRID SCENARIO. THAT IS WHERE I AM DWELLING RIGHT NOW.

>> COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON. >> I WOULD ECHO A COUPLE OF THINGS. I AM GLAD YOU TOOK THE OPTION OF RETURN BECHTEL FULL STATUS. -- NOT ONLY WITH HIS CONDITION BE VIOLATED, WE ALSO

[02:00:06]

HAVE PEOPLE THAT WORK HERE AND WE WOULD END UP IN AN HR NIGHTMARE. THAT IS TOTALLY OFF THE TABLE. AS I SAID EARLIER, THE HYBRID APPROACH AND IS LOOKING AT, HOW DO WE UTILIZE AND EXTRAPOLATE INFORMATION FROM A PERSON THAT HAS BEEN HERE ALMOST 30 YEARS IS PARAMOUNT AND HOW WE FIGURE THAT OUT. NOT ONLY HR, BUT I THINK IT'S A LEGAL MATTER , AND MY CONCERN, FROM A JUDGE 'S PERSPECTIVE. I HAVE TO LOOK OUT FOR THE CITY. I PROTECT THE CITY AS WELL. WE CAN DO OUR END, BUT IS THAT PERSON GOING TO RECEIVE THAT? THE JUDGE, WHOEVER. I DO NOT WANT TO PUT US IN THAT SITUATION. I AGREE WE HAVE AN EMPLOYEE HERE THAT CAN BE BENEFICIAL TO NOT ONLY US BUT THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, BECAUSE OF THE KNOWLEDGE.

AND I THINK COMMISSIONER GAINES, YOU MENTIONED IS AN OPTION GOES BACK TO HIM TO ACCEPT OR REFUSE, AS FAR AS A HYBRID APPROACH. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I AM FOLLOWING YOU A LITTLE ON THIS AS FAR AS HOW YOU OUTLINED THE DUTIES. THERE ARE DUTIES MR. MIMMS PERFORMED AS CITY MANAGER WITHOUT JUST RUNNING CITY HALL. HE WAS OUR FACE FOR A LOT OF THINGS HE HAD TO GO THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND REPRESENT US ON. THOSE CALLS THAT INITIALLY COME IN , HE WOULD DEAL WITH. I THINK IN THE PROCESS OF IT, WE HAVE DEPUTIES CITY MANAGERS. I THINK WE ARE CLOSE TO FIGURING THAT OUT. I HAVE ONLY HERNE -- HEARD ONE -- SHE COULD HAVE CONTACT WITH THE OTHER DEPUTIES CITY MANAGERS, ET CETERA, IF THE NEED TO BE ANY FEEDBACK. OBVIOUSLY, OUR MEETINGS COULD BE HELD WITH THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGERS, LIKE WE ALREADY DO NOW. MAYOR, I THINK I HEARD YOUR NAME ON IT. SO YOU COULD NOT HAVE CONTACT AT THAT POINT. AND WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER A CONSULTANCY TYPE ROLL TO HELP US GET THROUGH THESE MONTHS. WHAT I AM CONCERNED WITH IS A BUDGET, STRATEGIC PLAN THAT WE ARE ABOUT TO GET INTO, AND QUITE FRANKLY, SOME OF THE THINGS WE HAVE READ ABOUT IN THE NEWS ABOUT PROJECTS WE HAVE GOING ON AT FORT PIERCE. WE ARE GOING TO BE NEEDING TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHERE IS THIS AND THAT. I KNOW WE HAVE SOME INFORMATION FROM STAFF THAT IS STILL HERE. BUT SOME OF THAT INFORMATION, I THINK, MAY NEED TO BE WEIGHED UPON BY THE KNOWLEDGE MR. MIMMS HAD WITH THAT. LIKE I SAID EARLIER, WHAT I AM LOOKING AT AND WHAT I AM HEARING IS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT HOW DO WE BENEFIT THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. QUITE FRANKLY, BENEFIT US TOO. SO WE ARE NOT WASTING TIME SPENDING UNNECESSARY TIME ON THINGS WE DO NOT HAVE TO. BECAUSE WE COULD UTILIZE THE EXPERTISE OF A PERSON WHO IS BEEN HERE FOR 30 YEARS. THAT IS WHERE I SIT.

>> WHAT I AM HEARING , AND THIS IS WHAT I HAVE COME WITH NOW.

SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON JUST SAID. AND COMMISSIONER JEREMIAH JOHNSON. I DO NOT KNOW IF IT'S LEGAL TO DO A HYBRID. I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE THAT, SITTING DOWN WITH CITY ATTORNEY, OR HR DIRECTOR TO SEE IF THAT IS SOMETHING WE COULD DO. AND BASED ON THAT, IF WE CANNOT DO IT, THAT TAKES THAT OPTION OFF YOUR LIST. HOWEVER, -- WHAT IS YOUR LAST MEETING? THE SECOND MEETING IN NOVEMBER? THIS IS JUST TO MADAM ATTORNEY AND OUR HR DIRECTORS IN THE AUDIENCE. CODE A REVIEW OF OUR POLICIES AND THE STATE LAW BE DONE REGARDING SOME TYPE OF HYBRID PROPOSAL COULD LOOK LIKE? BASED ON EVERYTHING . I DO NOT KNOW

[02:05:01]

WHAT'S ON YOUR DESK, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. WHAT I DO NOT WANT TO DO IS WHOEVER IS ABOUT TO TAKE THESE SEATS UP HERE, I DO NOT WANT THEM TO BE LIKE ME AND GET UP HERE AND THE AUDIENCE IS FULL. AND EVERYBODY THINK FOR THEM, AND THEY WERE

HERE FOR KINGS LANDING. >> I FORGOT ABOUT THAT.

>> I WAS THINKING, THEY LIKE ME.

>> YOU ARE A CELEBRITY. >> THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA WAS KINGS LANDING. I DO NOT WANT TO DO THAT TO ANYBODY THAT IS RUNNING TOMORROW. MADAM ATTORNEY, I AM LOOKING AT YOU.

THAT IS NOT MY AREA OF EXPERTISE AS FAR AS STATE LAW AND THAT WE COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DO NOT KNOW A TURNAROUND TIME AND WHAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR AGENDA.

>> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? WE ARE THROWING THE WORD OUT, HYBRID, A LOT. I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HYBRID AS MR. MIMMS BEING THE CITY MANAGER? OR USING HIM

IN SOME CONSULTANCY WAY ? >> THAT IS WHAT I'M ASKING.

>> SORRY. >> I AM GLAD FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. THAT IS WHAT I AM ASKING MADAM ATTORNEY AND MY HR DIRECTOR. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS POSSIBLE? RIGHT NOW, HE IS ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE. IF WE COULD TRY TO CREATE SOMETHING TO BE ABLE TO PICK HIS BRAIN IN A LIMITED MATTER THAT SO NOT PAYING FULL SALARY, GUSSIE IS NOT -- BECAUSE HE IS NOT DOING EVERYTHING IN THE CHARTER. IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN WORK AND PRESENT TO HIM. AT THE END OF THE DAY, HE COULD SAY, NO. I DO NOT WANT TO GO DOWN THAT PATH OF MY HR DIRECTOR OR CITY MANAGER SAY, GREAT IDEA, BUT WE CANNOT DO THAT BASED ON THIS LAW, THAT LAW, OR CITY CODE OR PROCEDURES, WHATEVER. IF THAT IS THE CASE, WE CAN SCRATCHIT

OFF AND STOP TALKING ABOUT IT. >> A FEW THINGS ARE RATTLING AROUND IN MY BRAIN. I DO NOT THINK THAT IS A VALID OPTION WITH HIS CONTRACT AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN. HIS CONTRACT SPELLS OUT WHAT HE IS REQUIRED TO DO. OUR CHARTER LINES OUT WHAT A CITY MANAGER IS REQUIRED TO DO IN ADDITION. I DO NOT SEE HOW WE CAN HAVE WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING AND COMPLY WITH OUR OWN CHARTER. ADDITIONALLY, IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A CONTRACT, THAT LAYS OUT HIS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. WOULD YOU ARE PROPOSING WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. AS HIS CONTRACT CURRENTLY EXIST, I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU CAN DO WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED AS A PROPOSAL TO DO. YOU WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THAT CONTRACT OR TERMINATE THE CONTRACT AND THEN YOU CAN LOOK AT WHAT I HAVE HEARD ABOUT A CONSULTANCY. WHAT THAT THEN BRINGS UP, AND IN THAT SO IF MS. MORRIS IS LISTENING, SHE MIGHT WANT TO HEAD ON DOWN.

SECTION 2 DASH 265 OF OUR CODE RELATES TO EMPLOYMENT AFTER RETIREMENT. THERE ARE PROVISIONS RELATED TO WHEN YOU LEAVE EMPLOYMENT AND YOU'RE IN THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, AND THEN WHEN YOU CAN COME BACK IN WHAT CAPACITY YOU CAN COME BACK. AND HOW THAT AFFECTS YOUR BENEFITS. THAT MIGHT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS IF HE WERE TO COME BACK AS A CONSULTANT FOR THE CITY . AND I'M PRESUMING MS. MORRIS IS COMING DOWN IN CASE YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT

THAT. >> MADAM ATTORNEY, SO WE ARE CLEAR. THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO RIGHT NOW IS MESS WITH THAT CONTRACT. I'VE ALREADY GOT ENOUGH HEADACHES AND HEARTBURN ABOUT HOW THE CONTRACT WAS WRITTEN. MY THINKING IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WHERE IT IS SOMETHING HE WOULD HAVE

TO SIGN OFF ON AN AGREEMENT TO. >> TO PLAY DEVILS ADVOCATE, HOW DO WE DO THAT WITHOUT HIM COMMUNICATING WITH THE MAYOR? IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE THIS A BODY TO VOTE ON HIS CONTRACT, AND THE MAYOR PRESIDES OVER.

>> HE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THERE TO DO IT. WE CAN READ THE CONTRACT AND SAY, YES OR NO. HE DOES NOT HAVE TO COME TO

[02:10:03]

PRESENT THE CONTRACT. IT WILL BE PRESENTED BY THE HR DIRECTOR. THIS IS WHAT WE WORKED OUT. IT WOULD BE A SIGNATURE. I AM TRYING TO DO THE BEST THING FOR THE CITY OF

FORT PIERCE. >> MY CONCERN WE ARE POTENTIALLY CREATING A RISK FOR HIM.

>> THAT IS WHAT I NEEDED TO HEAR. THAT THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO IS CREATE ANOTHER RISK FOR HIM. THAT IS WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION. HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE FOR YOU GUYS -- US TO ME. I COULD MEET WITH YOU GUYS. AND SEE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING. IF WE CANNOT, WE CANNOT. AND TIME IS OF ESSENCE BECAUSE I ONLY HAVE ONE MORE MEETING WITH COMMISSIONER JEREMIAH JOHNSON HERE. AND POTENTIALLY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON HERE. WE ONLY HAVE ONE MORE MEETING WITH THEM. I DO NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH JEREMIAH JOHNSON AT THE MIKE -- MICROPHONE. I WILL NOT LOOK FORWARD TO HIS THREE MINUTES.

HE IS GOING TO SAY EVERYTHING HE WANTS TO SAY. HOWEVER, IF I AM GOING DOWN A PATH WITH A DEAD END AND I WILL HIT A WALL, TELL ME. THIS IS MY TIME TO DISCUSS WHAT WE CAN DO. IF IT CANNOT WORK, AT LEAST I TRY. I DISCUSSED IT AND WE GO FROM

THERE. >> MS. MORRIS IS HERE. IF YOU HAVE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO FOLLOW UP ON THE RETIREMENT ASPECTS.

>> MS. MORRIS, COME FORWARD, PLEASE. DID YOU HEAR WHAT WE

WERE DISCUSSING? >> COMMISSIONER GAINES IS TALKING ABOUT PERHAPS A HYBRID APPROACH CONTRACT WITH MR. MIMMS . NOT AS A CITY MANAGER, BUT SOME OTHER -- ONE OTHER THING MS. HEDGES THOUGHT IS IT MY DESK MIGHT AFFECT HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS BECAUSE OF HIS STATUS. MAYBE YOU CAN HELP

US OUT. >> IT IS SOMEWHAT TRICKY.

BECAUSE HE IS A CURRENT EMPLOYEE IN THE DROP. DROPS ARE A REVOCABLE CONTRACTS, SO TO SPEAK. ONCE YOU ENTER. AS OURS IS WRITTEN, IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR EMPLOYMENT AFTER YOU HAVE LEFT. BUT HE TECHNICALLY WOULD NOT BE RETIRING. YOU WOULD BE ALTERING HIS CONTRACT AS OPPOSED TO HIM BEING ACTUALLY RETIRED, IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT. IT IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE

CURRENT CONTRACT. >> DID YOU SAY WE COULD NOT

AMEND IT? >> YOU COULD, THEORETICALLY, AMEND THE CURRENT CONTRACT. THE PROBLEM I WOULD FORESEE IS -- I DO NOT KNOW THAT WE CAN THEN COMPLY WITH OUR CHARTER RELATED TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY MANAGER. HIS CONTRACT IS CURRENTLY FOR EMPLOYMENT AT THE CITY MANAGER. IN THE CHARCOAL ARTICLE 4, I THINK COMMISSIONER JEH JOHNSON OUTLINED THE PROVISIONS -- IF YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO EMPLOY HIM AS THE CITY MANAGER, THOSE WOULD BE HIS DROP RESPONSIBILITIES. WHAT I AM TAKING AWAY FROM THIS IS A THIS CONTRACT IS TERMINATED AND HE COMES BACK IN SOME SORT OF CONSULTANCY OPERATIONAL ROLE.

IF I AM UNDERSTNDING, COMMISSIONER GAINES CORRECTLY.

>> BEFORE YOU ANSWER THAT, MS. MORRIS. IN THAT SCENARIO, HOW

DOES THAT AFFECT HIS -- >> HE COULD NOT. BECAUSE HE IS CURRENTLY A DROP EMPLOYEE. ONCE OUR EMPLOYEES ENTER THE DROP, IT IS A REVOCABLE. IT SAYS THEY CANNOT COME BACK TO WORK IN ANY CAPACITY . IF IT WAS NORMAL RETIREMENT, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AS IT'S WRITTEN NOW. BEFORE THE RETIREMENT BOARD, BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW THE ORDERS TO SEE WHAT IT IS AND THEN STOP THE CURRENT PENSION. BECAUSE YOU CANNOT WORK AND GET A PENSION AS WELL. BECAUSE IT IS A DROP, AND THE WAY OUR CURRENT DROP IS WRITTEN, AN EMPLOYEE CANNOT COME BACK TO BE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

>> IF HE RETIRES AND HE COMES BACK IN FRONT OF THE PENSION BOARD, COULD HE BE HIRED ON --

>> HE IS A DROP EMPLOYEE. IF HE WOULD HAVE DONE REGULAR

RETIREMENT, YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. MORRIS?

>> WHAT DOES IT SAY IF HE COMES BACK AS MIMMS LLC.

[02:15:10]

>> HE CANNOT. IT IS CLEAR YOU CANNOT WORK FOR US IN ANY CAPACITY. I WAS HERE WHAT WAS ESTABLISHED. THE THOUGHT WAS, WE WILL GIVE YOU A PENSION THAT IS GOING INTO A DROP ACCOUNT AND YOU WILL STILL BE EARNING A SALARY BY WORKING THOSE YEARS DOING THE DROP. ONCE YOU LEAVE, WE WERE NOT GOING TO ALLOW, AT THE TIME, THEY DID NOT WANT TO ALLOW FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO COME

BACK AND EARN AGAIN. >> BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE GETTING TWO DIFFERENT PAYCHECKS FROM THE CITY. ONE FROM PENSION AND ONE FROM WORKING, IS THAT WHY?

>> RIGHT.

EARNING.'S -- >> I THINK WE ARE DONE.

>> DESCRIBE FOR ME WHAT BENEFITS ARE ALLOWED TO THOSE THAT RETIRE , AND ARE IN THE DROP AND RETIRE. THEY ARE RETIREE STATUS. WHETHER IT'S A DROP, AND A DROP EARLY OR RETIRED AT 25 YEARS OR QUALIFYING AGE. WHAT BENEFITS ARE GIVEN TO THOSE EMPLOYEES THAT MEET RETIREMENT STATUS?

>> SAME BENEFITS FOR EVERYBODY. YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN, BUT IT IS SELF-PAY. WE ALLOW THE EMPLOYEE TO BE A PART OF OUR PLAN AT A DISCOUNT COST FOR THEM. BUT THEY PAY THE FULL COST. WE

DON'T PAY ANY PORTION. >> TAXPAYERS ARE NOT ON THE

HOOK? >> IF THEY REMAIN ON OUR PLAN,

THEY PAY THE FULL COST. >> THEY HAVE TO OPT IN AND KEEP IT ACTIVE? DO I REMEMBER THAT CORRECTLY?

>> THEY HAVE TO OPT IN AT THE TIME THEY RETIRE. IF THEY EXIT, THEY DO NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN BACK IN.

>> THANK YOU. >> IT IS ALSO TO HELP US SURMISE IT. I THINK WE WENT DOWN THE PATH WE TALKED ABOUT HYBRID RETIREMENT, ET CETERA. WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS A CURRENT CONTRACT WITH MR. MIMMS THAT HAS A TITLE OF CITY MANAGER -- SO MANY DUTIES, ET CETERA. IF WE WERE TO REPURPOSE THAT CONTRACT AND MOVE A TITLE OR CHANGE THE TITLE AS TO WHAT THAT RESPONSIBILITY ROLE IS, AND REPURPOSE WHAT HIS RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES ARE, IN WHATEVER TITLE CAPACITY WE CALL IT, IS THAT PERMISSIBLE WITH THE DROP?

>> I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE LEGALITY OF THAT. IF YOU WERE TO DO THAT WITHOUT ANY TERMINATION IN HIS CURRENT STATUS -- TO SAY, WE WILL RESTRUCTURE YOUR CURRENT CONTRACT. WE WILL GIVE YOU A NEW TITLE WITHOUT ANY BREAK IN THAT, YOU CAN DO THAT. THAT IS AN AMENDMENT TO A CONTRACT WITH A TITLE CHANGE. IT WOULD NOT AFFECT DROPPED -- DROP. THERE IS NO TERMINATION, JUST A REPURPOSE THING OF HIS

SERVICES. >> COMMISSIONER, I THINK THAT IS WHAT WERE TALKING IN ONE ASPECT OF CALLING IT A HYBRID APPROACH. IN THAT SENSE, IF THAT WAS SOMETHING WE WERE AGREEING WE COULD UTILIZE THE EXPERTISE OF A PERSON THAT HAS BEEN HERE 30 YEARS WITH INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE, THE REPURPOSE OF THIS. NOT TILING WHATEVER IT IS, AND WHATEVER SALARY APPROPRIATE FOR THAT LEVEL OF INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE, AND WHO THEY'RE REPORTING STRUCTURE WOULD BE TO IS HOW THIS COULD MAYBE BE DISCUSSED AND HANDLE. AND STILL FIT WITHIN RETIREMENT AND STILL BE IN THE DROP. AND THAT WILL GO ON UNTIL WHATEVER, WHATEVER. THAT IS THE THOUGHT THAT CAME TO MY MIND. CLARIFICATION ON SOME QUESTIONS WE ASKED. IT IS STILL POSSIBLE. AS I STATED EARLIER, I WANT TO FOCUS MORE ON WHAT WE CAN DO, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE CANNOT DO. THAT IS, AGAIN, WHY I WANT TO BRING US BACK AND REFOCUS ON THAT. MAYBE WE'VE GOT DOWN A PATH OF TALKING ABOUT CALLING IT A CERTAIN THING. IN ESSENCE, WE ARE REDOING THE CONTRACT, PER

[02:20:01]

SE, AND PURCHASING AND TITLING IT AND SETTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF WHAT HE CAN AND CANNOT DO.

>> MADAM MAYOR. IF I CAN ASK, WOULD THAT REQUIRE ADDING AN

FTE TO OUR BUDGET? >> NOT REALLY. THE POSITION IS ALREADY RE-BUDGETED. IF YOU'RE GOING TO RECLASSIFY IT, IT'S

ALREADY BEEN BUDGETED. >> THERE WOULD STILL NEED TO BE A CITY MANAGER. HE WOULD NOT BE CITY MANAGER. HE WOULD BE A NEW

POSITION. >> I GUESS IF YOU'RE GOING TO HIRE A NEW CITY MANAGER, YES, IT WOULD. BUT I GUESS I AM TALKING IN TERMS OF, WE RIGHT NOW HAVE AN INTERIM CITY MANAGER WHO IS ALREADY A BUDGETED SITUATION , JUST A DIFFERENT FUNCTION. HER POSITION WAS ALREADY TAKEN BY SOMEBODY WHO WAS ALREADY A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE. THERE WAS NO REAL ADDITION THERE. THAT POSITION IS STILL VACANT. IF WE HIRE SOMEONE TO TAKE THAT POSITION, AND THOSE OTHER POSITIONS AS WELL, THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL FTE.

>> THAT WOULD REQUIRE A BUDGET AMENDMENT, CORRECT?

>> NO, WE DO NOT HAVE TO AMEND THE BUDGET. BECAUSE IT IS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE, WE DO NOT HAVE TO AMEND OUR BUDGET UNTIL THE END OF FISCAL YEAR, WHICH IS WHAT WE DO. COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE BETWEEN LINE ITEMS AND INCREASE IT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, OR MAKE ADJUSTMENTS. YOU DO HAVE THAT OPTION. WE AMENDED AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

>> PRESUMING HE'S IN A DIFFERENT ROLE THAN CITY MANAGER. I PRESUME HIS SALARY WOULD CHANGE. DOES HIS SALARY DIRECTLY IMPACT HIS DROP BENEFITS AND WHAT HE IS PAID

OUT? >> NO. DROP IS CALCULATED BASED ON THE TIME THE EMPLOYEE LEAVES. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL PENSION ADJUSTMENT. THE TIME YOU LEAVE, YOU WILL NEVER GET AN ADJUSTMENT TO YOUR PENSION. IT IS JUST EARNINGS YOU WERE CURRENTLY EARNING IN YOUR DAY-TO-DAY. IT WILL NEVER

AFFECT YOUR PENSION. >> THIS MIGHT BE MORE HR. IF HE IS NO LONGER CITY MANAGER, HE IS NO LONGER A CHARTER OFFICER,

CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> SO HE WOULD BE HIRED BY THE CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK, OR CITY ATTORNEY. HE WOULD NOT BE DIRECTLY HIRED BY THE

COMMISSION? >> RIGHT NOW, HE IS CURRENTLY -- HE WORKS FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THESE INDIVIDUALS. IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO AMEND THE CONTRACT TO STATE THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO CONTRACTUALLY DO,

THEY CAN DO THAT. >> I AM GOING TO HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH MS. MORRIS ON THAT. I DO NOT THINK THE COMMISSION HAS THE ABILITY TO CREATE A FOURTH POSITION THEY

ARE HIRING -- >> I WILL SAY THIS, COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO STRUCTURE WITHIN THE BUDGET ANY POSITION.

EVEN WHEN THE CITY MANAGER WANTS TO HIRE SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN BUDGETED, HE OR SHE IS SUPPOSED TO GET THE APPROVAL FROM THE CITY COMMISSION TO HIRE THAT INDIVIDUAL, OR TO CREATE THAT POSITION, SO TO SPEAK.

>> THE ADDITIONAL FTE. >> TECHNICALLY, YOU ARE

APPROVING IT. >> THAT HIRING WOULD COME

THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER. >> THE POINT YOU'RE MAKING IS REPORTING TO THE COMMISSION WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE WITHIN

THE CHARTER. >> CORRECT. YES, MA'AM.

>> MADAM MAYOR, I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT I HEARD. WHAT I JUST HEARD FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS, I HAVE AUTHORITY TO TERMINATE A CONTRACT , BUT I DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY , AS A CITY COMMISSIONER, TO AMEND THE CONTRACT.

>> YOU HAVE AUTHORITY TO AMEND THE CONTRACT AS HE IS EMPLOYED

AS THE CITY MANAGER. >> WHERE DOES THAT SAY THAT?

>> IN THE CHARTER. >> I CAN AMEND THAT CONTRACT TO BENEFIT THE RESIDENT S OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

>> ONE SECOND, I CAN PULL UP THE CHARTER PROVISION FOR YOU.

[02:25:07]

I WILL GO TO SECTION 30 OF THE CHARTER. AND 31 OF THE CHARTER.

SECTION 30 IS TITLED, COMMISSION TO KEEP OUT OF MANAGERIAL DUTIES. NEITHER COMMISSION OR ANY OF ITS MEMBERS SHALL DIRECT THE REQUEST THE APPOINTMENT OF ANY PERSON TO OR HIS REMOVAL -- BY THE CITY MANAGER OR ANY OF HIS SUBORDINATES OR IN ANY MANNER TAKE PART OF THE APPOINTMENT OR REMOVAL OF OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES AS HEREINBEFORE SPECIFIED, EXCEPT FOR INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION. -- SOLELY THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER. SECTION 31, NO COMMISSIONER SHALL GIVE ORDER TO CITY EMPLOYEES. NO COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS INDIVIDUALS SHALL GIVE ORDERS TO THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS SUBORDINATES, PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY. -- SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND SHALL CEASE TO HOLD OFFICE.

>> THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM DOING. I AM AMENDING A CONTRACT TO TAKE HIM OUT OF BEING CITY MANAGER. IF HE AGREES THE AMENDMENT OF THE CONTRACT, I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER HIM. HE IS NOT THE CITY MANAGER AND NOT A CHARTER MEMBER. THAT FALLS

UNDER THE ACTING CITY MANAGER. >> THAT WOULD BE HER DECISION WHO THE HIGHER. IF YOU ARE AMENDING HIS CONTRACT, THE MAYOR WOULD BE SIGNING THE CONTRACT. PRESUMING IS APPROVED BY THREE OF THE FIVE MEMBERS. THAT IS A CONTRACT WITH THE COMMISSION, NOT EMPLOYED BY THE CITY MANAGER.

>> IF THE CITY MANAGER HAS NO PROBLEM DOING THAT, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? I DO NOT WANT VIOLATIONS. BUT WE ARE READING STATUTES THAT ARE NOT REALLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION. I CAN AMEND THE CONTRACT WITH MY EMPLOYEE. THAT IS CONTRACT 101.

THAT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF OUR CITY CODE , OUR CITY CHARTER. I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT -- HELP ME WHERE I RENTED THE VIOLATION OF OUR CHARTER IF I'M IN A CONTRACT WITH MY EMPLOYEE?

>> BECAUSE YOUR APPOINTMENTS, UNDER OUR CHARTER INCLUDE THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK.

>> AND CITY AUDITOR. >> CURRENTLY YOU HAVE THREE CHARTER OFFICERS CURRENTLY EMPLOYED. SO THE CHARTER ALLOWS YOU TO SUPERVISE, ESSENTIALLY, THOSE THREE CHARTER OFFICERS.

YOUR DIRECT SUPERVISION DOES NOT EXTEND, UNDER THE CHARTER TO THE SUBORDINATES TO THOSE THREE CHARTER OFFICERS. WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING WOULD BE FOR THIS COMMISSION AS A BODY TO AMEND HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT TO MAKE HIM SOMETHING OTHER THAN A CHARTER OFFICER, WHICH I DO NOT BELIEVE IS PERMITTED UNDER THE CHARTER. YOU WOULD THEN BE ASKING HE BE HIRED BY THE CITY MANAGER , WHICH YOU DO NOT UNDER THE CHARTER HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE OR FIRE ANY SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL.

>> THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING. I HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS CONTRACT. AMENDMENT HAS TO HAVE TWO SIGNATURES. I CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS CONTRACT. HE CAN SAY, YES, OR NO. HE MIGHT TELL ME TO FLY A KITE. ONCE THE CONTRACT IS AMENDED AND ALL OF THE PARTIES AGREE, THEN IT GOES TO THE MANAGER OF THE ACTING CITY MANAGER. NOT US. I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW I AM IN VIOLATION IF WE ALL AGREE AND HE AGREES THAT NOW HE IS UNDER THE -- OF THE ACTING CITY MANAGER, AND TO THE LIMITED ROLE THAT WE AGREE TO AN AMENDMENT CONTRACT. HOW AM I IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE?

>> I DO NOT BELIEVE UNDER OUR CHARTER YOU CAN DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO HIRE ANYONE. ADDITIONALLY, YOU ARE NOW SAYING YOU WOULD BE PUTTING MR. MEMES UNDER YOUR CURRENT ACTING CITY MANAGER WHO HE HAS A NO CONTACT ORDER WITH. SHE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SUPERVISE HIM UNDER THIS SCENARIO.

>> I HAVE SAT HERE AND APPROVED SEVERAL PEOPLE COMING HERE TALKING ABOUT POSITIONS INSIDE THE CITY. WE HAD TO APPROVE ON IT. NOW THAT I AM TRYING TO DO SOMETHING, NOW I'M IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE WHEN WE HAVE APPROVED OTHER HIRES. I AM IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE NOW THAT I WANT TO TRY TO BENEFIT THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. NOW I'M IN VIOLATION BECAUSE I CANNOT TELL MRS. COX WHAT TO DO. I GET THAT. AND I KNOW THE VIOLATION. HE CANNOT TALK TO MISS COX. WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT HIM UNDER MRS. COX. HE CAN WORK IN

[02:30:06]

JACK'S OFFICE. HE CAN WORK IN SHAY'S OFFICE. I AM JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO

AMEND THE CONTRACT. >> I AM NOT SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO AMEND A CONTRACT. I AM STAYING THE WAY YOU ARE PROPOSING DOES NOT FIT WITHIN OUR CHARTER AND WHAT YOU ARE PERMITTED TO DO. AND IF HE REPORTS TO DEPUTY CITY MANAGER JOHNSON OR ANDREWS, THEY THEN REPORT TO ACTING CITY MANAGER, LINDA COX. SO THAT IS IS DIRECTION OF COMMAND.

>> HOW IS THAT A VIOLATION OF HIS ORDER? THAT IS NOT INDIRECT OR DIRECT CONTACT WITH MS. COX. THAT IS HIM TALKING TO TWO DEPUTY MANAGERS AND THEIR TALK TO MRS. COX.

>> AND WHEN THEY SAY, MR. MEMES ASKED ME TO TELL YOU, XYZ --

>> THEY ARE NOT GOING TO SAY THAT. NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND IS GOING TO SAY THAT. EVERYBODY KNOWS THE POSITIONS AND THE RULES WE ARE PLAYING WITH. WE ARE GOING TO DISAGREE.

NEEDS TWO LAWYERS DISAGREEING, THAT HAPPENS EVERY DAY. I AM

DONE. >> MADAM MAYOR.

>> YES, SIR. >> GREAT CONVERSATION, ARNOLD.

THAT WAS VERY BENEFICIAL. I LEARNED A LOT OF INFORMATION I WAS NOT EXPECTING TO HEAR TONIGHT. THAT DISCUSSION, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IS NOT GERMANE TO WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES RIGHT NOW. THAT DISCUSSION, ALTHOUGH I'M WILLING TO HAVE IT MOVING FORWARD ONCE FURTHER INVESTIGATION ON THIS ISSUE IS DONE, I SEE THE CONFLICT, I LOOK AT IT SIMPLY, YOU ARE LOOKING TO SHIFT OUR CHARTER OFFICER TO A NON-CHARTER OFFICER IN SOME TYPE OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.

AND WE CANNOT COMPEL THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO DO THAT. I KNOW IT'S A SIMPLE ANALYSI I AM APPLYING TO THIS, BUT I THINK IT IS THE CORE ISSUE HERE. HAVING SAID THAT, THE SENSE I'M GETTING FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HERE IS THAT CONTINUING ON IN THE STATUS QUO WE ARE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE MODUS OPERANDI CURRENTLY. SECONDLY, REAPPOINTING HIM BACK TO HIS EXISTING POSITION AND FORGIVING EVERYTHING THAT HAS TRANSPIRED DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A PALATABLE SOLUTION TO THIS BODY. TO MOVE THIS CONVERSATION ALONG, I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION IF THAT

IS OKAY WITH YOU? >> PLEASE.

>> I AM GOING TO MOVE FOR THE TERMINATION OF MR. MEMES ' EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT QUAD BASED ON SECTION 5 OF HIS CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. I'M GOING TO QUALIFY THAT STATEMENT , AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I DO NOT HAVE THE CONFIDENCE HE IS ABLE TO EXECUTE HIS POSITION, IN ANY CAPACITY, BE IT THE LIST PROVIDED BY THE COURT THAT HE HAS NO CONTACT WITH, OR SIMPLY BEING ABLE TO FUNCTION IN THIS POSITION IN ANY CAPACITY AS CITY MANAGER. CONSULTANCY IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT ISSUE. THAT IS A PICKED UP ON SAYING.

SELECTIVE REQUESTS. THAT IS MY MOTION. I AM PUTTING UP THERE

TO SEE IF WE CAN GET A SECOND. >> IS THERE A SECOND ?

>> THAT INCLUDES HIS FULL COMPENSATION PACKAGE OUTLINED

IN THIS CONTRACT. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> MADAM MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION. SPECIFICALLY STATED

WHICH SECTION? >> SECTION 5.

>> MY INTENT HERE IS THAT ALL BENEFITS ATTACHED TO THAT TERMINATION ARE INCLUDED IN MY MOTION.

>> ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT SECONDING ? THAT MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND.

[02:35:06]

>> I HAVE BEEN A LITTLE LENIENT. PLEASE DO NOT APPLAUD.

THIS IS A BUSINESS MEETING. AND THIS IS HONESTLY SOMETHING THAT IS SO VERY, VERY DIFFICULT FOR ALL OF US. AND I WOULD PERSONALLY LIKE TO ASK YOUR INDULGENCE THAT YOU ALLOW US TO HAVE OUR CONVERSATION UP HERE WITHOUT COMMENT OR APPLAUSE. I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK WE ARE TRYING TO HAVE -- NOT TO HAVE A BREAKUP. WE ARE TRYING EVERYTHING WE CAN IT NOT TO HAVE A BREAKUP. I THINK WE ARE TRYING TO SHOW COMPASSION. BUT WE ALSO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO OUR TAXPAYERS AND CITIZENS . AND THE CITY HAS TO MOVE FORWARD. I JUST HAVE TO SAY, I DO NOT SEE HOW WE CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TOUGH. I THINK THE MOST COMPASSIONATE THING THAT WE CAN DO. AND THE THING THAT ALLOWS MR. MIMMS TO CONCENTRATE ON WHAT HE SHOULD BE DOING RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS CONCENTRATING ON HIS DEFENSE .

IT IS THERE, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. HE IS IN THAT SITUATION, AND WE CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT THAT. AND WE CANNOT HELP THEM, AND WE CANNOT HURT HIM. THIS IS A BATTLE HE HAS GOT TO FIGHT. WHAT IT HAS DONE TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, AND THIS COMMISSION , AND STAFF , IS PLACED US ALL IN THIS BIG?. CAN HE COME BACK? WHEN CAN YOU COME BACK? WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, WE DO NOT KNOW. IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO YOU, THE CITIZENS, TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. THE RIGHT THING FOR MR. MEMES.

THE RIGHT THING IS GIVE HIM THE CHANCE TO DO WHAT HE NEEDS TO DO TO DEFEND HIMSELF . AND HE NEEDS TO PUT ALL OF HIS ENERGY ON THAT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HE DID AS A CITY MANAGER IS EXPECT EVERYBODY TO BE A PROFESSIONAL AND MOVE AHEAD.

AND THAT NO ONE PERSON IS ABSOLUTELY INDISPENSABLE. SO, THE BEST THING WE COULD DO FOR HIM IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT COMMISSIONER BRODERICK PROPOSED. BECAUSE HE GETS THE PAYOUT, HE GETS THE BENEFITS, AND HE GETS TO RETIRE. HE GETS HIS PENSION, AND HE GETS TO FIGHT IN HIS OWN LEGAL DEFENSE.

>> MADAM MAYOR, HOW CAN WE ACCOMPLISH THAT IF WE DON'T

GET A SECOND ON THE MOTION? >> RIGHT. I THINK WHAT WE ARE DOING IS PROLONGING SOMETHING. THIS IS GOING -- THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE DECIDED QUICKLY. THIS IS GOING TO GO ON AND ON BECAUSE, IN LEGAL CASES, THAT IS WHAT THEY DO. THEY GO ON, AND ON, AND ON. WE HAVE TO HAVE A CITY MANAGER, AND WE HAVE TO MOVE THE CITY AHEAD. WE HAVE A CONTRACT. WE CAN HONOR THE CONTRACT. WE CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. WE CANNOT STAY IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. MIMMS FOREVER . NO MATTER HOW WE FEEL . MR. BRODERICK MADE A MOTION. NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IF SOMEBODY ELSE HAS SOME OTHER IDEA.

>> QUESTION. MS. MORRIS LEFT THE ROOM? DO WE KNOW WHAT HIS

START DATE WAS IN 1998? >> I MIGHT HAVE THAT IN SOME

[02:40:02]

DOCUMENTS. >> I WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WHILE YOU DO THAT. AGAIN, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE IDEA OF CELEBRATING AN INDIVIDUAL THAT HAS GIVEN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER TO THIS CITY, IN LIGHT OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAPPENING HERE. AND THE CHALLENGING TIMES. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A CHALLENGE. THE OTHER QUESTION AND CONVERSATION PIECE THAT I'M GOING TO DISCUSS WITH YOU , I HAVE MET WITH MR. MEMES. AND I HAVE MET WITH HIM IN PUBLIC. IT'S NOT EVEN A HIDDEN THING. I AM NOT ON THE LIST. I HAVE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH HIM. BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT HIM AS AN INDIVIDUAL. BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT THE CITY, AS DOES HE. WE HAD SOME CONVERSATION . A LOT OF THAT I'M SHARING WITH YOU TONIGHT IS VERY PERSONAL. I PRAYED WITH MR. MIMMS. AND WE HAVE HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION DURING THESE TIMES. A PART OF THE CONVERSATION WAS A DISCUSSION BETWEEN HE AND I. I WILL APPROACH THE VERY GIST OF THE CONTRACT. IT WAS ABOUT THE ENDING OF THE CONTRACT. IT WAS OUT -- IT WAS ABOUT JULY OF 2026. THAT IS WHY ASKED ABOUT WHEN HE STARTED. I NEVER LINKED THE DATE OF WHEN HE STARTED IN 1998 AND JULY OF 2026. I ASSOCIATE IT WITH HIM BEING OUR CITY MANAGER, AND A CONTRACT IN FRONT OF ME. NOT CELEBRATING WHEN HE STARTED IN 1998, OR WHATEVER YEAR. I AM WORKING THROUGH THE IDEA OF THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE, AND THE IDEA THAT IT WAS NOT SECONDED. I AM GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU ALL THAT THE PART OF IT FOR ME THAT I DID NOT SECOND THE MOTION IS BECAUSE OF THE PARTS OF THE CONTRACT AS FAR AS THE SEVERANCE PACKAGE . I THINK IT SHOULD BE MORE THAN THE 120 DAYS, I AM GOING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. THERE IS A CALCULATED NUMBER COMING FROM OUR HR

DEPARTMENT. >> IS A STATUTE ON THIS AS

WELL, FIVE MONTHS. >> THERE IS A STATE STATUTE.

>> DID THEY SPECIFY DAYS, OR NO? MADAME HEDGES?

>> THE STATUTE BEING REFERRED TO IS 215.425. WHAT THAT ESSENTIALLY SAYS IS WHEN THERE IS AN EMPLOYEE CONTRACT THAT INCLUDES A SEVERANCE AGREEMENT, IT CAN BE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED GREATER THAN 20 WEEKS OF COMPENSATION. THERE IS A SECONDARY PROVISION OF THAT STATUTE THAT TALKS ABOUT WHEN YOU ARE PAYING SEVERANCE THAT IS NOT PROVIDED FOR A CONTRACT IF THE SEVERANCE REPRESENTS AN EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE IT MAY NOT EXCEED AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN SIX WEEKS OF COMPENSATION.

>> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON, I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO AMEND THE MOTION TO MAXIMIZE THAT. THE OTHER THING I WAS LOOKING AT IN THE SAME CONTEXT JUST APPLIED IT IN YOUR HEAD IS THE EXTENSION OF CITY PAID HEALTH INSURANCE. THAT IS REGULATED BY

THE SAME TIMELINE AS WELL. >> IS UP TO THE SAME 20 WEEK

PERIOD. >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE INSURANCE, I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE THE LATITUDE TO EXTEND

THAT FURTHER. >> BACKTRACKING A LITTLE BIT, WE HAVE AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT THAT OUTLINES EXACTLY WHAT HIS SEVERANCE IS TO BE. I THINK IS IS 120 DAYS, FOUR MONTHS. IF YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT AMENDING THAT, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING HE WOULD NEED TO AGREE TO DO. BECAUSE YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY AMENDING THE CONTRACT HE IS ALREADY AGREED TO DO. SO WE ARE UNILATERALLY CHANGING A CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE

WITH HIM. >> WE WERE ALREADY TALKING

ABOUT THAT ANYWAY . >> ANY CONTRACT AMENDMENT WOULD

HAVE TO HAVE BOTH SIDES AGREE. >> IF NOT, IT FALLS BACK TO THE CONTRACT TERMS. IF YOU WANT TO AGREE TO IT, IT DEFAULTS TO

WITH THE CONTRACT IS. >> CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION? RIGHT NOW, MR. MIMMS IS ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE WITHOUT PAY . RIGHT? THE CITY IS NOT PAYING HIM. WE STARTED THIS

[02:45:02]

CONVERSATION ABOUT AN ALLOWANCE FOR A CAR. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT THAT. WE KNOW WE OWE HIM FOR THE FIRST WHATEVER ALLOWANCE WAS WHEN WE HAD HIM WITH PAY. WE OWE HIM THAT ALLOWANCE. HE IS ACTUALLY SITTING HOME, NOT GETTING A PENNY FROM THE TAXPAYERS. BECAUSE HE IS WITHOUT PAY. WE

ARE NOT PAYING HIM, RIGHT? >> CORRECT.

>> HE IS NOT GETTING HIS WAGES. >> WE SAID ADMINISTRATION WITHOUT PAY. BUT WE ARE PAYING FOR HIS BENEFITS. IS THAT WHAT

WE ARE DOING? >> I AM GOING TO ASK THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION FOR YOU. I WANT TO CORRECT ONE THING. HR INFORMED ME WE DID PAY HIS CAR ALLOWANCE PRIOR TO THE VOTE FOR IT TO BE WITHOUT PAY. THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY ISSUE. REGARDING HIS CURRENT STATUS, I WOULD ASK THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO SPEAK ON THAT.

>> I'M GOING TO ASK OUR HR MANAGER TO COME FORWARD. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO --

>> I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO A LOT OF DETAIL. BUT AFTER THE LAST MEETING WE HAD I WAS CONTRACTED -- CONTACTED BY MR.

MIMMS. >> I FORGOT ABOUT THAT. THIS IS MY POINT. WHAT YOU DECIDE. HE IS OUT ON THAT. MRS. COX WAS APPOINTED AN ACTING AS THE CITY MANAGER, SO SHE IS DOING CITY MANAGER DUTIES. SHE IS DOING CITY MANAGER'S DUTIES AND SHE CAN SIGN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. ACTING CITY MANAGER, YOU HAVE THE FULL RIGHTS OF THE CITY MANAGER -- TO RUN THE CITY

OF FORT PIERCE? YES OR NO? >> WHEN YOU MADE ME ACTING CITY MANAGER YOU BASICALLY TOLD ME YOU DID NOT WANT ME TERMINATING ANYONE. TERMINATION S HAVE OCCURRED IN THE NATURAL COURSE

OF BUSINESS. >> OTHER THAN TERMINATION, YOU ARE DOING EVERYTHING AS CITY MANAGER.

>> YES, SIR. >> WE HAVE THE FORMER CITY MANAGER ALAN LEAVE. -- OUT ON LEAVE. WHY ARE WE RUSHING? WHY DID WE TAKE OUT STATUS QUO? THE CITY IS RUNNING. SHE IS DOING EVERYTHING IN HER POWER. WE ARE NOT CUTTING MR. MIMMS A CHECK BASED ON HIS DUTIES, BUT BASED ON BELIEF HE TOOK. WHICH HE IS ENTITLED TO BY LAW. I AM TRYING TO SEE, IS IT JUST TO CLOSE THIS CHAPTER AND SAY, OKAY, WE CANNOT WAIT ON ABOUT COME UP A CRIMINAL TRIAL? THAT'S FINE, IF THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING.

I COULD SEE IF THE CITY WAS AT A STANDSTILL . THE CITY IS NOT AT A STANDSTILL. THE CITY IS OPERATING. WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO AS A CITY. AM I MISSING SOMETHING THAT I DID NOT GET BRIEFED ON THAT WE ARE FALLING SHORT ON? SOMETHING NOT BEING DONE IN THE CITY? BECAUSE MRS. COX HAS STEPPED IN. AND SHE IS RIGHT HERE. AND I ASKED HER IN OUR FIRST MEETING, WHY DID YOU JUMP INTO THE FIRE ? DID I NOT ASK YOU THAT? SHE SAID, BECAUSE SHE LOVES THE CITY. SHE IS DOING WHAT SHE CAN DO. I AM JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY WE ARE RUSHING. IS IT BECAUSE WE WANT TO REMOVE THE STATUS OF , ACTING? AND WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE THAT OVER US? BECAUSE HE IS OUT THERE GETTING WHATEVER HE IS GETTING A BASED ON THE LAW, BASED ON BELIEF HE TOOK. WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. THAT IS FEDERAL LAW. I AM JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY WE TOOK OUT OF YOUR FOUR, WHY DID WE TAKE STATUS QUO OFF? I DO NOT SEE HOW THE CITY IS NOT OPERATING. BECAUSE WE ARE. NO ONE HAS MISSED PAYCHECKS. DOORS HAVE NOT BEEN CLOSE. WE HEARD TONIGHT FROM OUR NEW DIRECTOR THAT IS PICKING UP TRASH. WE

[02:50:11]

HEARD COMMISSIONER JOHNSON TELL HIM, HEY, YOU NEED TO GO GET WITH THE DIRECTOR -- BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE COORDINATED. STUFF IS MOVING. I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, IS IT JUST BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT THIS HANGING OVER OUR HEAD? AND WE WANT TO REMOVE THE TERM, ACTING CITY MANAGER? I AM JUST CURIOUS. I AM TRYING TO SEE WHY WE ARE RUSHING TO DO THIS. IF IT IS BECAUSE YOU THINK WE NEED TO MOVE ON , I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. RIGHT NOW, AS I SAID, I DO NOT SEE US -- ON TRYING TO BE CAREFUL. I KNOW THIS IS WITH HIS -- WE ARE NOT PAYING TWO CITY MANAGERS. WHATEVER MONEY HE IS GETTING, HE IS GETTING BECAUSE HE IS ENTITLED TO IT ON A FEDERAL STATUTE.

>> I THINK YOU ARE DIRECTING THE QUESTION TO ME. I AM MORE

THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER. >> I AM LOOKING AT YOU FOR PUTTING IT OUT THERE. BECAUSE I AM SITTING BACK TRYING TO FIGURE OUT , WE'VE BEEN HERE THREE HOURS? I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT , IS IT BECAUSE WE JUST WANT TO MOVE ON? I JUST WANT TO HEAR. MAYBE I AM MISSING SOMETHING AND THE CITY IS NOT OPERATING TO THE FULL CAPACITY LIKE I THINK IT IS. IF THAT IS THE CASE, I NEEDED TO HEAR IT AND WE GO FROM THERE.

>> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON WANTS TO TALK AND MRS. COX

WANTS TO TALK. >> COMMISSIONER, I HAVE A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS ON THAT. THE FIRST IS A HYPOTHETICAL. LET'S SAY THE CASE WAS RESOLVED IN TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY. WE WOULD THEN HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION AT SOME POINT ALSO IN TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY. ARE WE JUST PUSHING THE INEVITALE DECISION DOWN THE ROAD? THAT IS MY QUESTION. IT IS HYPOTHETICAL. ARE WE MAKING A DECISION TODAY BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE HERE. IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? I WILL SUBMIT TO YOU THAT IN MY EXPERIENCE, AND IN MY YEARS OF BEING A SUBORDINATE , BEING A LEADER , IT EFFECTS THE MORALE -- IT AFFECTS THE MORALE. IT AFFECTS THE POSITION OF INDIVIDUAL THAT ARE UNKNOWN AS TO, WHO DO I REPORT TO. IT IS CLEAR, BECAUSE WE HAVE SAID ACTING, INTERIM, WHATEVER WORDS WE HAVE USED.

EVEN IN THE CASE OF A DEPARTMENT HEAD WHERE WE DO NOT ADVERTISE POSITIONS, AND IS JUST A STATUS QUO , WHEN WE USE THAT, OR INTERIM TYPE POSITION. THERE IS STILL A LINGERING EFFECT THAT IS NEVER MEASURED. THIS IS FIRST-HAND, REAL WORLD, MY EXPERIENCE. I AM SHARING THAT WITH YOU BECAUSE I HAVE EXPERIENCED IT BEFORE. I HAVE EXPERIENCED IT AS A SUBORDINATE NOT KNOWING , CAN I FULLY COMMIT TO THE TEAM? CAN I FULLY COMMIT THAT I AM GOING TO BE PROTECTED AS AN EMPLOYEE ? CAN I COMMIT THAT I WILL HOLD THAT PERSON RESPONSIBLE BUT I REPORT TO, AND AT THE SAME TIME THE PERSON I'M REPORTING TO IS GOING TO HOLD ME RESPONSIBLE IN A FAIR AND EQUITABLE MANNER? THOSE ARE THE UNKNOWNS THAT ARE FACED. I HEAR YOU. AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. BUT THE DIRECTION IS NOT CLEAR.

WHEN YOU ARE STATUS QUO, THE DIRECTION IS LIMBO. THE DIRECTION I FEEL OTHERS PERCEIVE FROM AN EXTERNAL PERSPECTIVE IS THEY CANNOT EVEN MAKE A DECISION. THERE ARE SO MANY FACTORS TO THE DECISION BEING MADE THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT. WHETHER PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL, OR OTHER. AT THE END OF THE DAY, FOLKS OPEN FOR THE LEADERSHIP TO MAKE THE DECISION , TO STAND UPON IT FOR THE BETTERMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY. WHETHER WE AGREE OR DISAGREE. THOSE ARE SOME FACTORS I AM SHARING WITH YOU, THAT ARE REAL.

>> LET ME GO BACK TO HIM REAL QUICK. YOUR HYPOTHETICAL TWO WEEKS FOR NOW, THE CASE IS OVER. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE VERDICT IS. BECAUSE OF THE VERDICT IS, NOT GUILTY, WE HAVE

[02:55:12]

A WHOLE SITUATION WHERE WE GO BACK TO THIS CONTRACT, WHAT DID HE DO WRONG? HE WAS ACCUSED OF SOMETHING, HE DID NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG, KIDNAPPERS -- HE SHOULD HAVE HIS JOB BACK.

THE SECOND ONE, I AGREE, YOU NEED SOME DEFINITE, CONCRETE POSITION. HAVE WE MADE THE DECISION? I DO NOT KNOW . HAVE WE MADE THE DECISION TO APPOINT HER PERMANENT CITY MANAGER?

>> NOT AT ALL. >> UNTIL WE MAKE THAT DECISION , AND SO WE RAISE OUR HANDS AND SAY -- YES, MA'AM. THAT LAST PART, PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE THAT HESITANCY. THEY DON'T KNOW IF MRS. COX IS GOING TO BE THERE OR SOMEONE IS GOING TO COME IN AND SAY, LET'S DO WHATEVER. THAT HESITATION IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE THERE. IF WE ARE SAYING IT DOES NOT MATTER. IF IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE VERDICT IS, WE NEED TO MOVE ON. I REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM AND I NEED TO BE QUITE. BASED ON YOUR HYPOTHETICAL, COUSIN TWO WEEKS -- I WOULD SAY , WE DID TERMINATE THE CONTRACT. NOW I HAVE SOMETHING I CAN TERMINATE THIS CONTRACT ABOUT. HE'S BEEN GUILTY OF VIOLATIONS OF ABCD. BUT IF HE IS FOUND NOT GUILTY -- I STILL THOUGHT IT WAS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

UNTIL HE IS FOUND GUILTY, WE CANNOT USE YOUR ANLOGY. THE OTHER PART, I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. THEIR PEOPLE OUTSIDE LOOKING AT FORT PIERCE SEEING BUSINESSES, OTHER THINGS, TRYING TO SEE, AM I GOING TO BE GOING WITH MRS. COX, SOMEBODY ELSE. I GET THAT PART. UNTIL WE MAKE MRS. KOPP, IF THAT IS THE DECISION THE BOARD WANT TO GO, MAKE MRS. COX THE PERMANENT CITY MANAGER, THAT IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE THERE. MRS. COX CAN DO THE JOB. SHE HAS BEEN DOING THE JOB. DO NOT GET ME WRONG. IF THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING NOW, WE HAVE MADE THAT DECISION -- I WANT TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION BECAUSE IF WE ARE GOING THIS PAST TO PROTECT MRS. COX AND PROTECT ANYBODY ELSE THAT COULD BE SITTING IN THIS POSITION, WE NEED TO DO IT RIGHT SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE EVERYBODY, AND KNOW EVERYBODY'S CREDENTIALS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE TWO WEEKS. I AGREE IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE ARE KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD. I WILL SAY IT. I AM JUST CURIOUS WHY. NOW THAT I UNDERSTAND, I HAVE HEARD WHAT YOU SAID.

>> MRS. COX, DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING?

>> THANK YOU. WHEN YOU ASKED ME IF I'M DOING THE JOB OF THE CITY MANAGER, YES. I BELIEVE IN THE CITY AND WHAT WE ARE DOING.

I WILL ALSO SAY, WE ARE KIND OF IN A HOLDING PATTERN. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT STRATEGIC PLANNING COMING UP. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THE CITY WANTS TO DO MOVING FORWARD. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS. MY TEAM DOES NOT KNOW THE FUTURE HOLDS. IT IS CHALLENGING FOR ALL OF US. I THINK IT WEIGHS HEAVILY ON ALL OF US. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE EVERYBODY DOING THE RIGHT THING, FOR THE RIGHT REASONS IN THE RIGHT WAY. AND TO BE EMPOWERED TO SAY WHEN THEY ARE NOT. RIGHT NOW, I THINK EVERYONE IS WAITING TO SEE FIRST OFF WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. THEY ARE WAITING TO SEE WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO FOR OUR TEAMS PERSPECTIVE. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS, WE ALL WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. WE ALL WANT TO DO THE BEST AND POSSIBLY WE COULD DO FOR THIS CITY. BUT WE ARE IN A HOLDING PATTERN.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT, MRS. COX. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. THAT IS WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION. ARE YOU DOING ALL OF THE DUTIES OF THE CITY MANAGER. YOU SAID EVERYTHING EXCEPT TERMINATION. I GET YOU AND I UNDERSTAND THE HOLDING PATTERN.

[03:00:02]

FROM WHERE I AM SITTING, YOU ARE THE CITY MANAGER OF FORT PIERCE. YOU CAN PUT, ACTING IN IT. FOR THE LAST MONTH AND A HALF OR HOWEVER LONG, YOU HAVE BEEN RUNNING THE CITY AS THE CITY MANAGER. AND THE CITY HAS BEEN MOVING. TONIGHT, -- THE ONLY THING I'VE HEARD TONIGHT IS, TERMINATION. TOOK THE POWER OF TERMINATION FROM YOU. OTHER THAN THAT, BETWEEN ME AND YOUR MEETINGS, WHICH I WILL NOT DISCUSS, BECAUSE THEY ARE OUR MEETINGS. I KNOW EVERYTHING YOU HAVE DONE SINCE YOU HAVE TAKEN A POSITION TO GET CITY HERE, TO CHECK THIS. I GET THAT. I AM JUST HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING HOW THE CITY IS NOT FUNCTIONING. I UNDERSTAND THE LIMBO. BUT UNLESS WE, AGAIN, MAKE SOMEBODY PERMANENT SIT IN THE SEAT, THAT LIMBO WILL BE THERE. I AM SAYING, WHY NOT JUST KEEP IT GOING AS IT IS. UNTIL WE GET TO A POINT WHERE WE SEE THE CITY IS NOT WORKING. BECAUSE THE CITY IS WORKING. I UNDERSTAND PEOPLE ARE HESITANT AND DO NOT KNOW, BUT THEY DO NOT KNOW BECAUSE THEY DO NOT KNOW THE FIVE OF US, OR WHOEVER IS GOING TO BE IN THE TWO SEATS. HOW ARE WE GOING TO APPROACH THIS SEAT. IT COULD BE A MOTION THAT WE MAKE HER THE PERMANENT. OR IT COULD BE A VOTE THAT WE PUT IT OUT FOR BID , I DO NOT KNOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. I HAVE NOT BEEN PRIVY TO THAT, I HAVE NOT

TALKED TO ANYONE. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK.

>> TWO POINT. I APPRECIATE YOUR SENTIMENT ON THIS. I THINK YOU HAVE A COMPELLING ARGUMENT YOU'RE MAKING. COMMISSIONER J.

JOHNSON, HIS POSITION REGARDING ACTING AND THE LACK OF AUTHORITY THAT COMES FROM ACTING POSITION, I BUY INTO THAT THEORY COMPLETELY. HAVING SAID THAT, COMMISSIONER GAINES, I SUGGEST YOU CAN EXTRAPOLATE THIS TO SAY, I AM EXTRAPOLATING WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, I COULD BE WRONG, IF THIS TRIAL TAKES THREE YEARS OUT, WE WILL STILL SIT HERE, MAYBE NOT ALL OF US, BECAUSE ELECTIONS ARE COMING UP IN ANOTHER TWO YEARS. YOU AND ME SPECIFICALLY, IT IS OKAY TO HAVE AN ACTING CITY MANAGER, AND WAITING FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THIS COURT CASE TO TAKE PLACE. IF IT TAKES TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS. IF THAT IS THE CASE, MAKE A MOTION ON EFFECT. LET'S GET ON THE FLOOR AND SEE IF WE CAN MAKE SOME MOVEMENTS HERE.

>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. WE ARE SITTING HERE TALKING ABOUT WHERE WE ARE AND WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING.

COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON, I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING DOWN THIS PATH. WE'VE ALL HAD SOME SIMILAR TYPES OF CONVERSATION AT SOME POINT. HAVE WE EVER THOUGHT TO ASK WHAT HE WANTS? HE IS AN EMPLOYEE THAT IS SO CLOSE TO REALLY BEING DONE WITH HIS FULL WORK SERVICE HERE WITH US . AND I AM SURE HE IS NOT GOING TO WORK ONE DAY LONGER THAN WHATEVER HE HAS TO ON HIS A DROP PROGRAM. I CAN GUARANTEE THAT. THAT IS WHY I WAS SAYING EARLIER, HOW DO WE CREATE THAT PATH AND FIGURE IT OUT TO GO FORWARD TO UTILIZE THAT? THAT HORSE HAS LEFT THE BARN AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO DOWN THAT PATH AGAIN. THERE HAS GOT TO BE SOMETHING HERE THAT WE CAN FIGURE OUT. THERE IS A PART OF THE ARGUMENT I UNDERSTAND. THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS A BEAST. IT CAN DRAG YOU OUT FROM TWO WEEKS TO TWO YEARS OR WHATEVER. I GET THAT. AND WE CANNOT FOREVER HAVE AN ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT. FOR CONTINUITY, FOR BASIC DIRECTION AND CULTURE OF HOW WE WILL RUN OUR CITY. MR. MIMMS WAS THE HEAD OF THIS AND HE SET A CERTAIN CULTURE ON HOW HE RAN CITY HALL. I UNDERSTAND FROM A SEO PERSPECTIVE THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POSITION WE HAVE THAT REPORTS TO US. AND WE ARE THE QUAGMIRE RIGHT NOW. MY WHOLE CONCERN IS THAT THESE ACTIONS RIGHT NOW , BASED ON AN HR SITUATION THAT IS BEFORE US. WE ALL KNOW HE IS ON A FEDERAL LEAVE. I HAVE A HOLD ANOTHER CHALLENGE WITH THAT AND ANY TYPE OF PENDING ACTION . I AM SIDING WITH COMMISSIONER GAINES

[03:05:09]

ON THAT. TO ME, MY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT, AND HAVING BEEN IN SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAD TO DEAL WITH THAT, THERE IS NO COMMUNICATION UNTIL THAT PERSON RETURNS. SO ANY ACTIONS TAKEN TONIGHT, I WOULD CHALLENGE TO SAY HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE WITH SOMEONE WE PROBABLY SHOULD NOT BE COMMUNICATING WITH, BASED ON HR POLICIES I AM AWARE OF. I WOULD SAY, AGAIN, WE HAVE GOT TO FIGURE OUT NOT ONLY OUR SIDE, BUT THE OTHER SIDE AND DEALING WITH THE EMPLOYEE THAT WE HAVE THAT WORKS FOR THE CITY. AND AT THE TIME OF HIS ACTIONS, HE WAS UNDER THE CONTRACT OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, ACTING AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE FORT PIERCE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO GO A LITTLE FURTHER TO EVEN TALK ABOUT WHAT DOES THAT RIGHT GIVE HIM IN THAT CAPACITY. BECAUSE THIS WHOLE SITUATION, I DO NOT THINK WE'VE EVER DISCUSSED THAT. HE WAS ACTING ON BEHALF OF US, PEOPLE WHO SIT ON THAT AGENCY AND THAT PROCESS. AGAIN, THAT GOES BACK TO TALKING TO HIM AND WHAT RIGHTS SHOULD WE BE EVEN EXTENDING TO HIM, BASED ON THE SITUATION HE FINDS HIMSELF IN NOW. AT SOME POINT TONIGHT, I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY GET A MOTION AND A SECOND. AT THAT POINT, WE WILL ACTUALLY EXECUTE OUR VOTE. IT COME DOWN TO WHAT THAT NUMBER LOOKS LIKE WHEN WE DO BOW. I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, TO ME, IT DOES NOT FEEL LIKE THIS IS AN ACTION THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN AT THIS POINT. I AM JUST LETTING YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL. I'VE MET TOO MANY OPEN CHALLENGES. I THOUGHT WE COULD FIND A PATHWAY. OBVIOUSLY, THAT HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN AND REFUTED. THERE IS NO MORE APPETITE FOR THAT. I AM JUST NOT COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT. NOR AM I COMFORTABLE WAITING 20 YEARS. OR TWO YEARS.

THAT IS THE WAY IT IS. >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON.

>> THERE IS A TIMESTAMP, JULY, 2026. THERE IS THE PROLONGED APPROACH IF IT WERE TO EVER HAPPEN. THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS THAT COME TO MIND . I WANT TO TALK ABOUT HIS RETIREMENT. AN EMPLOYEE, NO MATTER WHOM THEY ARE, WHEN THEY ARE ENTERED IN DROP PROGRAM, THEY HAVE OFFICIALLY RETIRED.

THEY HAVE OFFICIALLY SAID, I AM IN IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE THE OPTION -- THE STATUTES ALLOW A NUMBER OF YEARS BEYOND THAT DATE OF RETIREMENT FOR THE DROP OF DEFERRED RETIREMENT. THE FINANCIAL POSITION IS ACTUALLY FAIRLY POSITIVE. THAT IS WHY I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE DATES AT SOME POINT. BECAUSE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, THOUGH THE SETTLEMENT RETIREMENT BOARD, YOU TALK ABOUT 3% A YEAR -- PER YEAR OF SERVICE. I WILL LET EVERYBODY THAT OF THE MATHEMATICIANS IN THE ROOM TAKE CARE OF THAT AS THEY SEE FIT.

IT IS HEALTHY, IS MY POINT. IT'S AN OPTION, IS MY POINT.

MR. MIMMS EXERCISE THAT OPTION. GOING BACK TO THE MATTERS OF RESPONSIBILITY, MR. MIMMS WAS ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF CITY MANAGER/CRE MANAGER. ABSOLUTELY. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE IN THE IDEAS OF WHEN OPPOSITION IS CHALLENGED BY LEGAL AUTHORITIES OUTSIDE OF THIS CITY HALL GOVERNMENT, THAT I STAND BEHIND THOSE EMPLOYEES AT THOSE CHALLENGES IN THOSE CHALLENGING TIMES, AS LONG AS THEY PERFORM THEIR DUTIES WHOLEHEARTEDLY, WITH HONOR, WITH RESPECT, HONESTY. THE RULES OF THE LAW THAT WE HAVE WITHIN OUR CODES. WHEN THAT HAPPENS THAT WAY, AND THE COURT FIND WHATEVER THE RULE , AND WE DECIDED THEY PERFORM THE DUTY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND THE RESIDENTS, THE CITY IS OBLIGATED , PROBABLY EVEN IN THE CONTRACT. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT SECTION IT IS. TO BACK THEM UP , FOR LACK OF -- THAT MIGHT EASIEST LEGAL TERM.

[03:10:11]

THAT IS FINANCIALLY WITH ANY EXPENDITURE, ET CETERA. WE HAVE HAD THAT. I HAVE WATCHED OTHER COMMISSIONS BACKUP COMMISSIONERS FACED WITH LEGAL CHALLENGES. IN THOSE LEGAL CHALLENGES WERE PAID BY THE CITY, BECAUSE THEY WERE ACTING IN THE CAPACITY IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

>> AND THEY WERE UNFOUNDED. >> THOSE ARE VERY REAL FACTORS.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT -- KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROA. THERE ARE SOME MILESTONES THAT NEED TO BE REACHED. THERE ARE NO AGENDAS OR HIDDEN ANYTHING. EXCEPT FOR THE POSITIVE MOMENTUM OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. IF I'VE ASKED IT ONCE, IT IS BEEN 10,000 TIMES. IF I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AFTER A COURT CASE , WHICH I WON'T . IF I WERE POSED WITH THE OPPORTUNITY, WOULD I REINSTATE MR. MIMMS AS CITY MANAGER. THAT THE REAL QUESTION I THINK WE ALL HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES. DOES THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THAT INITIATIVE. WE ARE HERE TO BE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE. I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER. YOU DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER UNTIL YOU SIT THERE AND FACED WITH IT. IT'S ABOUT THE MOVEMENT OF PUBLIC VOICE, PUBLIC OPINION, PUBLIC TRUST, PUBLIC DISCUSSION. SERVICE TO HIS COMMUNITY. KNOWING THERE ARE MILESTONE DATES , DOES IT PUT US IN A DIFFERENT WAY OF THINKING.

>> THAT'S THE WRESTLING I HAD WITH MYSELF. I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU THE RETIREMENT PART. THERE IS A FINANCIAL DECISION THAT WAS MADE A FEW YEARS AGO. TWO YEARS AGO. I THINK IT'S

ABOUT 26 OR 27 YEARS NOW. >> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IF HIS CONTRACT WERE TERMINATED AND HE WERE NO LONGER --

>> ALL OF THOSE IN THE DROP, GORN ASKED THEM .

>> THAT IS YOUR POINT. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> YOU GET YEARS OR AGE. >> YES, SIR.

>> MADAME ATTORNEY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. WOULD I BE OUT OF ORDER -- I DO NOT KNOW WHICH ONE OF YOU GUYS SAID IT.

WHAT DOES HE WANT? CAN WE REQUEST ?

>> I CAN TELL YOU. >> AND REQUEST, WE CAN EITHER LAUGH, -- BEFORE YOU SAY, I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. NOW THAT THE DIRECTOR OF HR HAS SAID HE IS OUT ON LEADS , I WANT TO BE

[03:15:07]

VERY CLEAR -- I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU, CAN WE REQUEST SOME TYPE OF SETTLEMENT OFFER FROM HIM. I KNOW COMMISSIONER JOHNSON BROUGHT IT BACK UP WHEN WE ARE OUT ONLY WE ARE NOT REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING . AND ANOTHER DATE YOU TALKED ABOUT, 2026. THERE SO MANY WEEKS WE HAVE THE WORRY ABOUT ON LEAVE, UNLESS THE LAW HAS CHANGED. I THOUGHT IT WAS 12 WEEKS OR SOMETHING. I'M TALKING TO THE DIRECTOR, EVERYBODY. IT'S LIKE 12 WEEKS ON THAT .

>> YES, 12 WEEKS. >> I AM NOT SUGGESTING WE KICK THIS DOWN THE CAN FOR 12 WEEKS. I JUST WANT TO THROW IT OUT THERE. I WANT TO KNOW, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO GIVE US AN

OFFER. >> COMMISSION AGAIN, LET ME TRY

TO ANSWER THAT. >> IF YOU KNOW WHAT, SHARE IT.

>> I DID NOT BRING THIS TOPIC UP, I HAD TWO MEETINGS WITH HIM. AT THE END OF OUR FIRST MEETING, I SAID I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO MEET THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THIS PROCESS. AT OUR LAST MEETING, THIS PAST WEEK, THE REQUEST WAS FOR ONE YEAR SEVERANCE PAY AND TWO YEARS OF FULL BENEFITS. BY STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, WE CANNOT DO. IT IS CAPPED AT FIVE MONTH. THAT WAS THE REQUEST. I DID NOT SAY YES, NO, MAYBE. I DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO. I SAID, THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION. THE QUESTION WAS ASKED, THAT IS THE ANSWER.

>> WE CAN ANSWER THAT. NOW THAT WE KNOW WHAT HIS WANT IS. WE CAN ANSWER THAT BY SAYING WHAT YOU JUST SAID. STATUTORY CAP.

AND WE ARE BOUND BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. AND TO MADAME ATTORNEY, ARE THERE ANY EXCEPTIONS, OR ANYTHING OUT THERE YOU HAVE SEEN OR WE NEED TO GO LOOK AT -- OR ANY SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE HAS GOTTEN AROUND THAT STATUTE.

>> MADAM MAYOR, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND TRYING TO GET AROUND

A STATUTE. >> DO NOT ANSWER.

>> I AM TIRED. >> I OBJECT.

>> PLEASE OBJECT TO THAT. LET ME REPHRASE MY QUESTION. YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THERE ARE STATE STATUTES, AND THERE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS AND KEYS RULING THE COME OUT THAT ALLOW CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS, OR A PLAINTIFF IN A CASE TO SAY, THIS IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE STATE STATUTE. HAVE YOU SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT? OR HAD ANY OPINIONS FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL . BASED ON ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THE STATUTE WHERE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO ALLOW PEOPLE LIKE US TO SAY, THEY'VE MADE A DEAL TO SEVER THIS IN THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED IT.

>> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. NO, SIR. BUT I HAVE NOT SPECIFICALLY LOOKED FOR WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR BECAUSE IT IS KIND OF PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE. I HAVE NOT DONE A CASE LAW SEARCH FOR WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.

>> I AM JUST CURIOUS. WE LOOK FOR EXCEPTIONS.

>> I AM TRYING TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE. I HEARD IT WAS A DISCUSSION POINT . IT WAS SOME INFORMATION THAT CAME TO THIS COMMISSION. NOT A BAD DEAL. LET'S JUST CALCULATE INPUT NUMBERS ON THE TABLE. 171,000 ANNUAL SALARY. THERE WAS A CHAIN TO THAT WITH COLA, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

[03:20:02]

>> THERE WAS ADDITIONAL -- I'M NOT 100% CERTAIN.

>> I DID NOT DO THE CALCULATION. DID WE EVER FIND

THE DATE? >> I BELIEVE IT'S EVERY

SECOND, 1998. >> I REMEMBER WHEN HE ENTERED DROP IT BEING AROUND THE SPRINGTIME. WE HAD A DISCUSSION

ABOUT IT. >> -- 27÷3% MAKES 81%. 81% OF HIS SALARY AVERAGE -- I WILL USE THE NUMBER ON MY PIECE OF PAPER BECAUSE IT IS EASIER WITHOUT GENERATING COMPANY. IS $138,500 ANNUALLY RETIREMENT PACKAGE. THAT IS THE TAKE-HOME PAY. NOT TOO SHABBY. BECAUSE WE CHANGED, YEAR AND HALF AGO, THE CAP ON OUR RETIREMENT SYSTEM, WHICH WAS 100.

>> IT IS NOW 115,000. >> THAT IS THE REAL NUMBER, 115,000. OKAY. THE CALCULATION SHOWS -- IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THIS COMMISSION AT 115 CAPPED. THERE IS THE RATE.

ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS OF SALARY AT THE CURRENT RATE. -- I'M JUST SAYING, THERE'S FOUR MONTHS OF SEVERANCE. THERE'S A DELTA OF EIGHT MONTHS, DIVIDED INTO 171. I THOUGHT THAT IS THE CONVERSATION I'M HAVING WITH HIM MYSELF. ALONG WITH OTHER THINGS. THAT IS THE SIMPLE MATH OF IT. THIS IS A BENEFIT. I AM NOT VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW AND NOT SAY HOW OLD ANYBODY IS. THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IN THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM IS PROFOUND.

IT IS AMAZING. IT'S AWESOME. NO MATTER WHAT YOUR AGE IS.

>> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. BECAUSE OF HIS HIRE DATE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE $115,000 CAP APPLIES TO HIM.

>> I LIKE THOSE NUMBERS. I AM PUTTING MY LAWYER CAP ON. THE SEVERANCE COMES IN IF WE FIRE OR TERMINATE WITHOUT CAUSE. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE STATUTE TO SAY THAT WE CANNOT TRY TO COME UP WITH A SETTLEMENT TO GET OUT OF THIS CONTRACT? FOR

2016? IS THAT NOT ALLOWED? >> I THINK YOU COULD AMEND HIS CONTRACT, BUT YOU ARE BOUND BY THE MAXIMUM, WHICH IS THE FIVE MONTHS. HE NEGOTIATED THE FOUR MONTHS AS PART OF HIS CONTRACT.

>> I THOUGHT THE FIVE MONTHS CAME IN ONLY IF WE TERMINATED

WITHOUT CAUSE. >> THE FIVE MONTHS I AM REFERRING TO IS FROM THE STATE STATUTE. IF YOU HAVE A CONTRACT IN PLACE THAT HAS A SEVERANCE PROVISION, THE MAXIMUM FOR THAT

IS 20 WEEKS. >> HE CAN ONLY GET SEVERANCE IF WE TERMINATE WITHOUT CAUSE. IF WE GET NEGOTIATIONS TO WORK OUT

[03:25:06]

SOME SETTLEMENT, THIS CONTRACT GOES AWAY. IS THAT ALLOWED?

>> THERE IS A SECONDARY PROVISION OF THAT STATUTE THAT TALKS ABOUT WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO SETTLE AN EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE. THAT SAYS ONLY SIX WEEKS. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A HYBRID SITUATION THAT THE STATUTE DOESN'T ACTUALLY CONTEMPLATE. IT WOULD MAKE ME UNCOMFORTABLE TO SAY 20+6 IS 26. I DO NOT KNOW I COULD COMMIT TO YOU THIS SECOND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE . YOU ARE THROWING A LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT ME.

>> SORRY. AS COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SAID, THIS CONTRACT GOES UNTIL 2026. I WOULD JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT -- I TRY TO MEDIATE CASES EVERY DAY AND TRY TO GET IN THE MIDDLE OF SITUATIONS AND TRY TO GET A NUMBER. WOULD HE SAY, ONE YEAR?

>> ONE YEAR AND TWO YEAR BENEFITS. YOU LOOK AT IT IN MY FIELD, I'M $40,000 BETWEEN SOME TYPE OF AGREEMENT. MEET ME HALFWAY, GET THIS MONEY AND WILL BE DONE WITH IT. THAT IS HOW I AM OVER HERE THINKING. LIKE I AM SITTING ACROSS FROM A DEFENDANT. IF HE SAID I CAN'T DO THAT BASED ON THE STATUTE, I WILL TAKE IT BACK. I AM LOOKING AT A WIN-WIN SITUATION IF HE WOULD AGREE, BASED ON WHAT WE SAID.

>> WE HAVE A CONTRACT IN PLACE WITH HIM THAT HE NEGOTIATED FOR THE 120 DAYS. IF YOU WANT TO PAY SOMETHING ABOVE THAT, I THINK YOU ARE LIKELY LIMITED TO THE 20 WEEKS. -- I WILL SAY, I HEARD COMMISSIONER BRODERICK BEGIN TO SAY HE DID INFORM MR. MIMMS ABOUT THE FIVE WEEKS. I DO NOT KNOW IF THAT RESULTED IN THE CONVERSATION OF WHETHER HE WOULD ACCEPT THE FIVE WEEKS -- MONTHS. OR IF HE WAS STUCK ON THE ONE YEAR.

>> THERE WAS NO FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION.

>> THERE IS NOT AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION OF WILL -- IF HE

WOULD ACCEPT THAT. >> COMMISSIONER JEREMIAH JOHNSON, YOU BOIL THIS DOWN TO A FEW NUMBERS. WHERE WERE YOU IN THIS? AT SOME POINT, COUPLE THINGS HAVE TO HAPPEN. EITHER THIS COMMISSION HAS TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE STATUS, OR WE OPEN NEGOTIATION TO THE CITY MANAGER TO SEE IF WE CAN WILL

BE ON THIS CONTRACT. >> THE BARE-BONES OF IT, I BELIEVE IT WILL BE HIGHER THAN WHAT I'M GOING TO STAY. WHEN I DID THE CALCULATION BASED ON WHAT I KNOW FROM THE RETIREMENT BOARD AND JUST BEING ACTIVE -- THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM HAVE 3% OF YOUR HIGHEST FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE TIMES NUMBER OF YEARS AND SERVED. YOU HAVE 27, ASSUMING HE IS GOING TO, WHICH HE WILL, OR GIVE GOOD TO A POINT ALMOST AT 20 YEARS. TIMES A PERCENT OF WHATEVER FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE NUMBER THAT MEANS. MY CALCULATION WAS 171, WHICH CAME

UP ALMOST 140,000. >> I BELIEVE HIS SALARY IS

HIGHER THAN THAT AT THIS POINT. >> I'M LOOKING AT A

FOUR-YEAR-OLD CONTRACT. >> I THINK IT'S ABOUT $201,000, HIS CURRENT SALARY. YOU'VE GOT TO REMEMBER, THE CALCULATIONS STOPPED WHEN HE ENTERED DROP. IT IS --

>> HE DOES NOT KEEP GOING. >> RIGHT.

>> OUR PRODUCT -- FORGOT ABOUT THAT ASTERISK

[03:30:06]

>> I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT AND THE RAISES AFTER THAT CONTRACT.

>> IT'S A CLOSE NUMBER, AND IT IS NOT CAPPED.

>> HIS SEVERANCE IS OVER AND ABOVE THAT.

>> CORRECT. THE SEVERANCE IS ON TOP OF HIS SEVERANCE.

>> HAS THAT BEEN PUT INTO A FORMALIZATION AND OFFERED AT

THIS PARTICULAR POINT? >> I THINK HE SIGNED UP FOR A.

>> WE ARE NOT IN A NEGOTIATION. YOU MIGHT BE TRYING.

>> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE EITHER THERE WILL BE A VOTE. OR WE ARE AT THIS STILL MAY. I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE NEED TO GO TO MOVE THE CITY FORWARD. I THINK WE ALL AGREE WITH THAT.

WE HAVE TO HAVE A STANDARD CULTURE HERE RUN BY A CITY MANAGER. THAT IS A WHOLE OTHER PATH WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT.

>> THAT'S A CONVERSATION WE HAVE AFTER WE DECIDE IS THERE A

VACANCY. >> WE ARE LIMITED BY STATUTORY REQUIREMENT. THE FIVE MONTHS INCLUDE BENEFITS AS WELL,

CORRECT? >> I THINK IT IS JUST HER SALARY. I WOULD HAVE TO READ BACK THROUGH TO CONFIRM.

>> BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION, OR SOMEBODY ELSE MAKES A MOTION, I WAS TRYING TO STAY AWAY FROM THIS. THIS NEEDS TO BE SAID.

WITHOUT GETTING INTO PERSONAL DETAILS. MR. MIMMS IS CURRENTLY% ON FEDERAL FMLA LEAVE . THROUGH MY PROFESSION, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN TAUGHT THAT YOU REALLY COULDN'T TERMINATE AN EMPLOYEE ON FMLA. I UNDERSTAND THE MEMOS CAME OUT. AND I UNDERSTAND OTHER THINGS. HOWEVER, THIS IS WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING EVERYDAY. AS MADAME ATTORNEY WILL TELL YOU, I HAVE SUED A LOT OF CITIES IN MY DAY. FOR FMLA VIOLATIONS. IT IS GOING TO COME DOWN TO -- I KNOW THE TIMING AND EVERYTHING IN THIS ONE. THAT IS GOING TO COME DOWN TO A JUDGE. MAKING THAT FINAL DECISION, IF HE FALLS UNDER IT OR NOT. I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL HERE. I HAVE OUR HR DIRECTOR IN THE AUDIENCE. AND I WOULD LOVE WOULD HIS TAKE ON IT IS. I DO NOT WANT TO ALSO BE IN VIOLATION OF A FEDERAL STATUTE. I AM JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW. BECAUSE HE HAS FEDERAL PROTECTIONS

RIGHT NOW. >> HE HAS PROTECTIONS UP TO 12 WEEKS. BYLAW. THE ODD PART IS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, I BELIEVE OUR HR DIRECTOR OR MANAGER TALKED ABOUT IT. FMLA DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU GET FREE PAID TIME OFF. THEY USE WHATEVER LEAVE THEY ARE PROVIDED. SOME USE PTO , SOME USE VACATION AND SICK TIME . I BELIEVE HE IS USING HIS SICK TIME FOR HIS FMLA. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I DO NOT WANT TO VIOLATE ANY LAW. IF WE EXTEND THROUGH THE 20 WEEK PERIOD, OR WE INITIATE THE SEVERANCE CLAUSE, HE GETS PAID

[03:35:01]

THE SICK TIME NO MATTER WHAT. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT IS

TODAY OR ANOTHER TIME PERIOD >> IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE HE HAS FEDERAL PROTECTIONS IN THE FEDERAL STATUTE THAT SAYS HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE TERMINATED WHILE HE IS OUT ON LEAVE. I FILE LAWSUITS ON THAT EVERYDAY. AFTER 12 WEEKS, WHAT THE LAW SAYS IS, -- WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING -- HE IS OUT ON FMLA. I KNOW THERE ARE PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO TAKE FMLA , AND IF THERE TERMINATED, A TRIGGER STUFF IN THAT STATUTE. IF THE LAW HAS CHANGED, --

>> THE LAW HAS NOT CHANGED. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS, HE HAS A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION UNDER THE FEDERAL LAW. HE IS A KEY EMPLOYEE, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES. HE'S IN THE TOP 10% OF THE HIGHLY COMPENSATED EMPLOYEES AND AGENCY. HE IS ENTITLED TO PROTECTION UNDER FMLA, WE DO NOT HAVE TO REINSTATE HIM IF IT CAUSES ECONOMIC HARM ON THE BUSINESS. ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE THAT QUESTION, WE WENT OUTSIDE COUNSEL -- THEY WERE THE ONE , I BELIEVE, ARE INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE OF HER EXPERTISE ON IT. THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD TALKED ABOUT.

>> I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT REINSTATEMENT. WHERE DOES TERMINATION FALL IN? WE HAD A MOTION TO TERMINATE WITHOUT CAUSE. WHERE DOES THIS PROTECTION COME FROM?

>> FOR ME, I HAVE NEVER TERMINATED SOMEONE WHEN THEY'RE ON FMLA. TYPICALLY -- I'VE NEVER HAD TO DEAL WITH THE KEY EMPLOYEE AS FAR AS TERMINATION. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE I'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH. THAT IS WHY WE WENT WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND ASKED THEM TO WEIGH IN ON IT. ONE OF THE THINGS YOU COULD TALK ABOUT, THOUGH. IF YOU WANT TO DO AN OFFER TO MR. MIMMS. YOU COULD ALLOW HIM TO FINISH OF HIS SICK LEAVE FMLA.

IF HE STARTED IN SEPTEMBER 15TH, -- IF HE ACCEPTS THE PACKAGE, AT THAT POINT, -- THAT'S WHEN THE SEVERANCE

PACKAGE WOULD KICK IN. >> DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH SICK

LEAVE HE HAS? >> I KNOW HE HAS ENOUGH TO GET HIM THROUGH -- I BELIEVE 700. I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY

HEAD. >> SO WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT

TERMINATES? >> YOU MEAN BEFORE FMLA ENDS? FMLA IS BASED ON PAID OR UNPAID LEAVE. HE HAS ENOUGH SICK LEAVE TO COVER HIM UP UNTIL DECEMBER 15TH.

>> THANK YOU. >> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS.

FMLA DOES NOT PROTECT AN EMPLOYEE FROM TERMINATION WHILE ON FMLA. IT PROTECTS THEM FROM BEING TERMINATED OR HAVING ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE ON FMLA. THIS DISCIPLINARY ACTION WAS INSTITUTED PRIOR TO FMLA. AS OUTSIDE COUNSEL EXPLAINED IN HER MEMORANDUM, YOU CAN TERMINATE AN EMPLOYEE OUT ON FMLA, SO LONG AS IT'S NOT RELATED TO HER THEIR FMLA STATUS. HER OPINION WAS THIS DISCIPLINARY ACTION BEGAN PRIOR -- AND YOU ARE FREE TO TERMINATE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE IT'S NOT RELATED TO HIS FMLA STATUS. AT NO POINT HAS ANYONE ON THIS DAIS TALKED ABOUT HIS FMLA BEING SOMETHING HE IS BEING TERMINATED FOR. IT'S BEEN WHOLLY UNRELATED TO HIS STATUS

ON FMLA. >> WE WENT TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL BECAUSE I WANTED HER TO WEIGH IN ON IT.

>> QUESTION TO YOU, MS. HEDGES. THE DELTA COMMISSIONER JEH JOHNSON -- COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON WAS GETTING AT. THE PROTECTION ALLOWS HIM TO EXPIRE HIS SICK TIME , HIS PTO, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO REFER TO IT AS. THAT NUMBER IS DEDUCT

[03:40:07]

FROM THE $84,000 ANALYSIS? >> NO, I DO NOT THINK SO. I DO NOT THINK HE GETS PAID OUT SICK LEAVE, ONLY ANNUAL LEAVE. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD AFFECT THE SEVERANCE AND THE ANNUAL

LEAVE PAYOUT. >> HE GETS PAID OUT -- IN THE

$84,000 NUMBER, -- >> THE SEVERANCE PACKAGE OF THE FOUR MONTHS DOES NOT CHANGE BECAUSE HE IS EXHAUSTING IS

TIME. >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON, DOES THAT ADDRESS TO YOU THE DELTA ISSUE? LET ME POSE THIS HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO . WE ALLOW HIM TO CONTINUE EXHAUSTING HIS PAID TIME OFF, VACATION TIME, HOWEVER WE ARE GOING TO REFER TO IT THROUGH DECEMBER 15TH. AT WHICH POINT IN TIME, HE IS TERMINATED WITHOUT CAUSE. WITH FOUR MONTHS SEVERANCE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ? I THINK YOU WERE DRIVING THAT POINT HOME SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THAT. I THINK IT PUTS IT -- HIM OVER HIS ANNUAL PAY.

>> IT DEFINITELY BRINGS A CLOSER COME WITHOUT A DOUBT.

AND FOR HIS BENEFIT. THAT IS THE GIST OF MY CONVERSATION. IF THERE IS A TIMESTAMP IN HIS BRAIN THAT IS NOT FULLY VETTED HERE, WE DO NOT KNOW THAT. IT GETS CLOSER TO THAT DATE.

>> LET'S SAY HE PROPOSED A YEARS PAY. IN ESSENCE, YOU ARE GIVING 5 1/2, SIX MONTH, GIVE OR TAKE.

>> IN LIEU OF. >> AND ABIDING BY STATUTES. AND PROVIDING THE PROVISIONS UNDER OUR --

>> IT SEEMS TO CHECK SOME BOXES.

>> IT ALSO PROVIDES FOR FEDERAL PROTECTION. WE ARE ALSO MEETING

THE IDEA OF THE STATE STATUTE. >> I JUST FALL BACK TO THE CONTRACT. ALL PARTIES SIGNED THE CONTRACT. I THINK MOST , OR ALL OF US ARE CONTRACT FOLKS. THERE ARE FOLKS THAT LIKE TO ARGUE ABOUT CONTRACTS AFTER THEY SIGN IT, I LIKE THE BLACK

AND WHITE LETTERING. >> MY POINT IS, WE SEEM TO BE STUCK HERE. IF WE COME UP WITH SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE CREATIVE, THROW SOMETHING IN THE PARK, IS THAT GOING TO MOVE THE NEEDLE TO TRY TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING HERE TONIGHT?

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, WHILE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS, THE DEFINITION OF SEVERANCE PAY DOES INCLUDE A SALARY AND BENEFITS. I WOULD HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND DO MATH TO SEE WHAT IT ADDS UP TO FOR THE 20 WEEKS. IT DOES INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF WHAT THEY ARE CALCULATING A SEVERANCE.

>> THAT IS SEPARATE FROM HIS VACATION PAY THAT HE IS BURNING

THROUGH CURRENTLY? >> IT DOES NOT, UNDER THE STATUTE, INCLUDE ANNUAL, SICK , COMPENSATORY OR ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE, WHICH I WOULD ASSUME IS VACATION.

>> WHAT IS TAKING PLACE NOW IS A SEPARATE BLOCK.

>> YES. HE IS BEING COMPENSATED RELATED TO SICK LEAVE.

>> OKAY. >> MADAM MAYOR. IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER. THERE IS ANOTHER ROLE IN THE BACKGROUND ABOUT DROP. AND COMPENSATION WHEN YOU ARE IN AND DROP. I HAVE A CONTRACT IN FRONT OF ME THAT SAYS IT DOES. THE CONTRACT SAYS YOU WILL GET PAID ALL ACCRUED LEAVE, SICK AND

VACATION. >> I THINK IT SAYS IN

CONFORMANCE WITH -- >> THAT IS WHAT I WAS GOING TO QUESTION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS NOT A CONFLICTING

STATEMENT. >> THAT IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO DRIVE AT. IS THERE A CONFLICT HERE?

>> OUR FINANCE MANAGER WILL LIKELY BE ON THE WAY DOWN TO

VERIFY THAT. >> ALSO, THE NUMBER OF HOURS.

DO WE HAVE THAT? >> THE NUMBER OF WHAT HOURS?

>> 700 HOURS, I THINK I HAVE HEARD.

[03:45:08]

>> LET ME SEE IF I CAN LOGIN. >> ONCE THAT DETERMINATION IS MADE, THE ENTIRETY OF THE COMPENSATION PACKAGE, EXTENDING THROUGH DECEMBER 15 ON FMLA, AND THEN APPLYING THE SEVERANCE PACKAGE AS OUTLINED IN HIS CONTRACT, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT. BUT I WANT TO HEAR THE NUMBERS FIRST-PERIOD

-- >> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, IN SECTION 6 , SEVERANCE, THIS IS MR. MENSTRUAL ALSO BE COMPENSATED FOR ACCRUED SICK LEAVE AND VACATION TIME PAYABLE UPON TERMINATION AS PROVIDED IN THE PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATION. HE WOULD NOT GET TO SICK LEAVE PURSUANT TO THE PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATION.

>> HAVING NONEXPERIENCED TO DRAW MYSELF, BECAUSE I'M NOT THERE. HOW DOES THAT WORK FOR FOLKS THAT ENTER DROP? DO THEY

CASH IN TIME? >> THEY DO.

>> THERE IS A MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT YOU CAN SELL BACK.

>> IT IS A CELL BACK BY IN SO YOUR RATE IS INCREASED. I DID KNOW THAT MUCH. I HAD EMPLOYEES WHO DON'T DO IT.

>> MS. MORRIS MAY HELP US WITH THIS.

>> SHE IS SO EXCITED ABOUT WALKING THROUGH THOSE DOORS. I

THINK YOU WILL BE STAYING OUT. >> I THINK YOU NEED TO STAY IN

CHAMBERS AFTER THIS. >> THE QUESTION WAS, ON MR. MIMMS AS POP ACCOUNT. HOW MUCH ACCRUED VACATION TIME -- SICK

TIME COME PTO. >> -- ARE SPECIFIC TO WHAT HE IS ALLOWED TO GET AT RETIREMENT.

>> HE WILL NOT GET SICK, BUT HE CAN DO HIS VACATION UP TO 240

HOURS. >> ZERO SICK TIME.

>> DO EMPLOYEES WHEN THEY ENTER DROP CELL BACK LEAVE TIME? DO THEY USUALLY SELL SICK TIME AND VACATION TIME?

>> THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO DO SICK OR VACATION. -- WHICH IS WHY -- WHEN YOU ARE LEAVING DROP, YOU CANNOT SELL ANY OF YOUR SICK TIME. YOU COULD HAVE 1000 HOURS, .

>> YOU DO THE CALCULATION A LOT, DON'T YOU?

>> YES. >> THE CONCEPT I AM CLAIMING FROM COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON, KIND OF EXTRAPOLATING, DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY FROM FINANCE'S PERSPECTIVE TO ALLOW HIM TO BURN THROUGH HIS -- VACATION TIME -- SICK LEAVE , WHICH EXPIRES APPROXIMATELY DECEMBER 15 . AND THEN, EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 16, WE EXERCISED THE PROVISION IN HIS CONTRACT FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT CAUSE. AND HE GETS PAID -- THE WHOLE PACKAGE OF BENEFITS FOR FOUR MONTHS. IS THERE A PROBLEM IN YOUR PERSPECTIVE FROM THAT.

>> NO, AS IT RELATES TO HIM BEING ON FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE, HE IS ENTITLED TO THAT. HE HAS THE HOURS, IT WOULD NOT BE

GIVING HIM ANYTHING. >> HE BURNS THROUGH THAT VERSE

IS NOT COLLECTING IT. >> RIGHT.

>> THE REASON WE ARE DRIVING TO THAT POINT IS THE DIFFERENTIAL

[03:50:05]

IN RETIREMENT PAY COMPENSATION FROM HIS SEVERANCE PACKAGE AND HIS CURRENT PAY SCALE. I THINK THAT ELIMINATES THAT DELTA.

>> I THINK TO CLARIFY SOMETHING YOU ARE SAYING. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE ARE SAYING THE AMOUNT OF SICK LEAVE HE HAS TO UTILIZE ENDS ON DECEMBER 15TH. THAT IS THE DATE HIS FMLA

STATUS AND. >> IT BECOMES THE TRIGGER DATE.

BECAUSE OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. WE AVOID THE STATUTORY ISSUE WITH FMLA. THAT'S NOT EVEN A DISCUSSION POINT . HE IS COMPENSATED BASED ON HIS BANK OF TIME, WHICH IS REASONABLE. AND THEN, THE PROVISIONS IN THE CONTRACT KICK IN. THAT IS WHERE I'M DRIVING THIS TO. AND YOU DO NOT SEE ANY

ISSUE WITH THAT? >> NO. TO BE HONEST, WE HAVE ALREADY CALCULATED AN ANNUAL YEAR OF SALARY, SO TO SPEAK.

THAT IS ALREADY IN OUR BUDGET AS A BUDGETED NUMBER. WE ARE GOING TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THAT TO WHERE WE WILL NOT BE FAYE -- PAYING A FULL YEAR OF SALARY TO THAT INDIVIDUAL. IT WILL BE SOMEWHAT AN ADJUSTMENT. IT IS THERE.

>> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>> ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS, WHAT SICK LEAVE BANK NUMBER IS?

>> 599. >> 599.

>> JARED JUST GAVE ME THAT. >> CURRENT TODAY.

>> AS OF RIGHT NOW, HE IS 15 WEEKS.

>> AND HE COLLECTS 16 IN HIS SEVERANCE PACKAGE.

>> WE DEDUCED -- >> HE DOES NOT GET SICK LEAVE

AS PART OF THE SEVERANCE. >> HE GET 221 DAYS VACATION, AS

OF TODAY. >> HE IS CONTINUING TO ACCRUE.

IN DECEMBER, -- >> HE CANNOT GET OVER 240.

>> HE IS AT 221. ANYTHING HE APPROVES OVER 240 HE WILL NOT

GET ANYWAY. >> THE DELTA JUST CHANGED FROM EIGHT MONTHS , FOUR SEVERANCE OUT OF THE OR CONVERSATION, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 18 WEEKS ON THE BOOKS. JUST ABOUT EIGHT

MONTHS. >> THANK YOU.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION. >> YOU WANT TO RESTATE IT?

>> I'M GOING TO TRY. I WOULD MOTION THAT BASED ON CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN SECTION 5 , WE WOULD TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT CAUSE -- CAUSE. . WE WOULD CONTINUE HIS LEAVE ON FMLA THROUGH THE TERMINATION DATE OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME HE HAS AVAILABLE TO HIM THROUGH HIS A BANK OF TIME. I

GUESS THERE IS 12 WEEKS. >> MAY BE ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS

A DAY. >> ARE YOU TRYING TO DETERMINE HIM -- TERMINATE HIM IN A FUTURE DATE? IT SHOULD BE TO

TERMINATE AS OF X DATE. >> DECEMBER 15. HE WILL BE PROVIDED ALL BENEFITS AS PER HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.

>> DECEMBER 16TH. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> I'M GOING TO SECOND WITH DISCUSSION. I MIGHT WITHDRAW THAT. HERE IS MY QUESTION. I BELIEVE IN THE FACT OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE BEING ABLE TO UTILIZE THEIR LEAVE OF BANKS. I BELIEVE THEY WERE AFFORDED THAT. I BELIEVE THEY WORKED YEARS OF

THEIR LIFE ACCRUING THAT. >> I DO NOT DISAGREE.

>> THE POINT OF MY STORY IS, THE DATE IS OKAY. HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALL SICK LEAVE CAN BE EXHAUSTED AND WHATEVER THE CALCULATION IS, THAT BECOMES THE DATE.

>> I THINK THAT IS EQUITABLE. >> I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT DATE

[03:55:01]

WOULD BE. >> WE HAVE TO PUT THAT ON

PAPER. >> IT WOULD BE AS OF THE

EXHAUSTION OF ALL SICK LEAVE. >> AT 599.

>> 599. I GUESS YOU NEED TO SPECIFY THAT. HE WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE. THAT NUMBER WILL CHANGE.

>> FINANCE WOULD HAVE TO DO AN ANALYSIS.

>> NO. CURRENTLY THERE IS 599 TODAY.

>> BASED ON THAT, -- IT'S 15 WEEKS.

>> 15 WEEKS OF LEAVE TIME OF. THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE HERE.

>> I FORGOT ABOUT THAT. >> IT WILL STOP AFTER SO MANY

DAYS. 16 DAYS. >> I DID NOT UNDERSTAND.

>> AFTER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS, IT DOESN'T STOP. HE WILL

RUN INTO THAT STOP. >> OR ELSE HE WOULD TAKE LEAVE UNTIL INFINITY. HAVE TO STOP AT SOME POINT. WHAT DATE DOES THAT

PUSH US OUT TO? >> HE IS ON 599. HE WILL ALREADY HAVE EXHAUSTED THAT. HE HAS THE BURN OF THE 599.

>> DECEMBER 15TH IS WHEN FMLA IS.

>> IT'S ESSENTIALLY 14.99 SOMETHING WEEKS FROM NOW. YOU WOULD HAVE TO COUNT BASICALLY ALMOST 15 WEEKS FROM TODAY.

>> JEREMIAHS OVER HERE. >> THAT WOULD BE FEBRUARY 17.

>> I AM IN MY MOTION TO FEBRUARY 17TH.

>> I WILL CONTINUE TO SECOND THAT MOTION, WITH DISCUSSION.

>> DISCUSS. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE QUALIFY BENEFITS. I HAVE THAT MARK IN MY NOTES. I NEEDED TO KNOW WHAT THAT, BENEFIT LOOKS LIKE, FEEL LIKE, AND HOW FAR

THAT CARRIES US. >> I THINK MS. MORRIS CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. HEALTH INSURANCE, OBVIOUSLY.

>> MS. MORRIS. >> IT WOULD BE THE CAR ALLOW WITHIN THE HEALTH INSURANCE. FEBRUARY 17TH.

>> THAT IS HEALTH AND CAR. >> AT THAT PARTICULAR DATE, IF THIS PASSES EVERY 17TH, HE WOULD BE TERMINATED WITHOUT

CAUSE. >> THE FULL SEVERANCE PACKAGE.

WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL APPROXIMATELY $84,000.

>> IF I COULD, OBVIOUSLY, WE TALKED ABOUT SECTION 5. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU QUALIFIED IN THE MOTION THAT THE SEVERANCE PACKAGE IS ACTIVE IN SECTION 6. A KIND OF IS

SELF-EXPLANATORY. >> LET'S BE SPECIFIC. THE SEVERANCE PACKAGE AS OUTLINED IN SECTION 6. TERMINATIONS OUTLINED IN SECTION 5. LET'S PUT IT INTO THE MOTION THAT

WAY. >> THE ONLY OTHER LEGAL QUESTION I WOULD HAVE, MS. HEDGES . IS IT ACCURATE THE WAY WE HAVE STATED IT IN REFERENCING THOSE TWO SECTIONS.

SECTION 6 SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PACKAGE TO BE INITIATED AT THAT

[04:00:01]

DATE? >> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS.

IT'S ACCURATE THAT SECTION 6 IS ABOUT SEVERANCE . AND

SECTION 5 IS ABOUT TERMINATION. >> NO MORE QUESTIONS.

>> IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> MADAM MAYOR . I HAVE SAT HERE AND LISTENED TO THIS. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED . I GET THAT. WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE WE ARE GOING TO -- WITH THE CITY MANAGER EFFECTIVE FOR EVERY 17TH, 2025.

IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTAND ? >> TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE.

>> BUT IS THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.

WITH ALL RIGHTS, BENEFITS, ET CETERA. THE RETIREMENT PACKAGE IS IN PLACE, NONE OF THAT IS IN JEOPARDY? RETIREMENT SYSTEMS THAT HE WILL BE ABLE TO DRIVE THAT BASED UPON THE TERMINATION THAT IS IN JEOPARDY?

>> THIS TERMINATION WOULD NOT JEOPARDIZE THAT. OF THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD JEOPARDIZE THAT IS A CONVICTION FOR -- OF WHICH HE HAS BEEN ARRESTED FOR. IF HE IS CONVICTED, THAT WOULD AFFECT HIS PENSION WITH THE CITY UNDER STATE STATUTE. HE WOULD BE PERMITTED TO BE PAID BACK UP TO WHAT HE HIMSELF HAS PUT IN, BUT ANYTHING ABOVE THAT, HE WOULD NOT RECOVER IF HE IS CONVICTED AS CHARGED . YOUR TERMINATION DOES NOT AFFECT HIS PENSION PAYMENTS , HIS RETIREMENT PAYMENTS.

>> ONE QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION. AND I HEARD EARLIER IF HE RETIRES HE COULD NOT COME BACK. THIS TERMINATION GOES THROUGH WITH A VOTE. AND FEBRUARY COMES IN HE IS TERMINATED. JEREMIAHS HYPOTHETICAL. IN MARCH, OR APRIL. THE TRIAL GOES AND HE IS ACQUITTED OR FOUND NOT GUILTY.

DOES THAT PREVENT HIM FROM TRYING TO COME BACK? WHAT WE DID NOT DO -- DOES THAT PREVENT HIM FROM COMING BACK OR REAPPLYING? WHAT WE DID NOT DO IN THIS MOTION WAS PART TWO OF THIS EVENT. ARE WE GOING TO KEEP MRS. COX IN ACTING MANAGER

UNTIL FEBRUARY 17? >> UNDER THE WAY YOU HAVE DONE THAT MOTION, I THINK YOU WOULD BE PERMITTED TO KEEP HER AS THE ACTING CITY MANAGER. MR. MIMMS IS STILL THE CITY MANAGER YOUR

DESKTOP UNTIL -- >> EVERYTHING I SAID EARLIER .

THEY WERE BEATING ME UP WITH THIS UNKNOWN UNTIL FEBRUARY,

25. >> NOT NECESSARILY. IT'S THE

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. >> YOU CANNOT APPOINT HER CITY MANAGER UNTIL YOU HIRE A CITY MANAGER.

>> CORRECT. >> WE ARE GOING TO GO DECEMBER,

JANUARY, FEBRUARY. >> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS.

IF I MAY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MS. MORRIS COULD NOT FROM THERE. IF HE WERE FOUND NOT GUILTY COULD HE COME BACK, I THINK THE ANSWER IS STILL, NO. BASED ON THE RETIREMENT ISSUE.

>> NOT NECESSARILY. IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE. HE IS NOT RESIGNING HIS POSITION. IS BEEN TERMINATED BASED ON WITHOUT CAUSE. HE COULD, THROUGH LEGAL CHANNELS, -- IT'S A TOTALLY

[04:05:03]

DIFFERENT INSTANTS, SO TO SPEAK. ONCE HE TERMINATES IN FEBRUARY, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO START TAKING HIS PENSION . HE

CAN ELECT TO NOT. >> THERE IS A WAY HE COULD

THEORETICALLY COME BACK? >> JUST NOT TAKE MONEY FROM

BOTH PARTS. >> HE HAS THE OPTION, EITHER OR. HE CANNOT DO BOTH. ONCE HE IS TERMINATED, HE STILL IS NOT HAVE TO TAKE HIS PENSION UNTIL HE DECIDES TO.

>> DOES THAT MEAN HE ALSO HAS THE DROP YEARS LEFT?

>> HE COULD. BECAUSE HE DID NOT GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO UTILIZE THAT. THAT IS ILLEGAL STUFF THAT IS WAY ABOVE MY HEAD.

>> HE HAS ESTABLISHED HIS RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN.

>> IT IS LOCKED. HE CAN'T GET ANY MORE MONEY IN HIS PENSION

WHATSOEVER. >> THAT WAS BEFORE THIS

HAPPENED. >> IS ESTABLISHED PENSION AMOUNT FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. HE CANNOT GET ANY MORE

MONEY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ARE WE READY TO VOTE?

>> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS COMMON FROM THE PUBLIC. I APOLOGIZE.

>> WE ARE NOT AT FIVE HOURS YET.

>> THE STATUS OF THE APPOINTMENT OF LINDA COX AS

ACTING OF CITY MANAGER. >> I THINK WE WERE TALKING EARLIER ABOUT THE UNCERTAINTY -- NOT HAVING SOMEONE IN A PERMANENT POSITION . I BELIEVE MISS COX QUALIFIES FOR IT. I WOULD BE -- I HAVE BEEN VERY HAPPY WITH HER IN THE ACTING ROLE. I BELIEVE THE STAFF NEEDS TO HAVE SOMEONE LEADING THEM RIGHT NOW. I THINK THEY NEED CLEAR DIRECTION. AND I THINK THE CITY NEEDS CLEAR DIRECTION. IF YOU LOOK AT HER RESUME, SHE HAS A MASTERS -- SHE HAS AN MBA , AND HAS AN EXTRA WORK FOR CERTIFICATION. SHE HAS BEEN A CHARTER OFFICER. AND SHE KNOWS THE RULES. RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE NEED IS SOMEONE THAT KNOWS THE RULES AND FOLLOW THE RULES. AND IS VERY WELL AWARE OF WHAT THE STAFF NEEDS, AND WHO THE STAFF DIRECTORS ARE. SHE HAS THE OUTSIDE CONTEXT BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. AND HAS A LOT OF CONTEXT THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.

I WOULD BE HAPPY WITH THAT CHOICE IF WE WERE GOING TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD TO PICK A CITY MANAGER TONIGHT. I WOULD BE GLAD TO KNOW WHAT OTHER CITY COMMISSIONERS THINK.

>> I WILL CHIME IN. >> I BELIEVE PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF US MOVING FORWARD IS CONTINUITY THROUGH INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE. INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP SEVERAL TIMES TONIGHT. THE CITY FIND ITSELF AT AN INFLECTION POINT. WE HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF VERY SERIOUS HIT RECENTLY, IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.

ECONOMICALLY, STAFF WISE, ET CETERA, AS BE DELIBERATED HERE TONIGHT. WE NEED THE SUPPORT OF SOMEONE THAT HAS BEEN IN THE SYSTEM, UNDERSTANDS THE SYSTEM, KNOWS THE ISSUES RESONATING HERE IN CITY HALL. I DO BELIEVE MRS. COX BRINGS THAT TO THE TABLE. SHE UNDERSTANDS THE CLIMATE. SHE UNDERSTANDS THE EMPLOYEE ISSUES , WHICH I THINK AS COMMISSIONER GAINES HAS MENTIONED, ARE PRETTY SERIOUS. I FIND MRS. COX TO BE A TEAM PLAYER. BUT, SHE IS VERY BLACK AND WHITE. IT IS DONE THE RIGHT

[04:10:02]

WAY, ONLY. I BELIEVE RIGHT NOW BUT IS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE THAT THE MESSAGE IS SENT TO THE STAFF OF BY SOMEBODY WHO HAS FULL SUPPORT OF THE CITY COMMISSION, NOT IN ACTING POSITION. I SUPPORT MRS. COX FOR PERMANENT POSITION OF CITY

MANAGER. >> MADAM MAYOR . I HAVE NO DISAGREEMENT WITH YOU AND COMMISSIONER -- WHAT YOU AND COMMISSIONER BRODERICK SAID. I BELIEVE WE HAVE A CITY MANAGER UNTIL FEBRUARY 17TH OF 2025. I THINK THIS DISCUSSION IS PREMATURE. BECAUSE UNTIL FEBRUARY 18TH, OR 17TH AT WHATEVER TIME WE HIT THAT BUTTON, THE CITY MANAGER OF

FORT PIERCE IS NICOLAS MIMMS. >> WE ALREADY HAVE A CITY MANAGER BASED ON THE VOLTAGES HAPPEN UNTIL FEBRUARY , 2025. I BELIEVE MRS. COX CAN DO THE JOB. I KNOW HER BACKGROUND. BUT I ALSO KNOW THE SENTIMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY. I KNOW SOME OF THE SENTIMENTS HERE. AND TO PROTECT MRS. COX, AND TO MAKE HER JOB AS EASY AS POSSIBLE, I THINK WE SHOULD POSTPONE WHATEVER WE ARE GOING TO SAY TONIGHT UNTIL WE GET RID OF -- THE TERMINATION OF MR. MIMMS IS FULL AFFECT. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A REPLACEMENT WHILE HE IS STILL EMPLOYED. AS FAR AS UNTIL FAIRBURY 17TH, 2025. AT THAT TIME, I FEEL WE CAN DISCUSS MOVING FORWARD WITH MRS. COX. HOWEVER WAY THE -- DECIDE. BECAUSE I KNOW MRS. COX ' BACKGROUND, I WOULD LOVE THAT INSTEAD OF APPOINTING HER, WE OPEN UP A SEARCH AND LET EVERYONE SEE HOW QUALIFIED SHE IS . AND LET EVERYONE HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE THAT. THAT IS JUST ME. WHAT I DO NOT WANT IS, THIS WAS THE PLAN ALL THE TIME BY THE CITY COMMISSION TO PUT HER IN A POSITION. IT IS NOT FAIR TO HER. IT IS NOT FAIR TO US. SHE DID NOT DO ANYTHING TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. SO ON TRYING TO PROTECT HER AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT HER TO BE PUT IN -- AND EVERYTHING SHE DOES THE QUESTION. UNTIL FEBRUARY 17, 2025, SHE SHOULD BE ACTING CITY MANAGER BECAUSE WE JUST VOTED. THERE WAS A VOTE THAT NICOLAS MIMMS IS THE CITY MANAGER. THAT IS WHERE I STAND ON THAT. I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST MRS. COX. I THINK SHE IS DOING A GREAT JOB NOW. I DO NOT WANT HER GOING INTO ANY POSITION OR ANYTHING WHERE WE DO SOMETHING TO GET ALL OF US IN TROUBLE. I THINK WE SHOULD ASK THIS COME BACK AT THE TIME OF WHATEVER IT IS -- AND LET HER KEEP THE ROLL AS ACTING CITY MANAGER TO

PROTECT EVERYBODY INVOLVED. >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON.

>> COMMISSIONER, YOU ARE RIGHT ON WHERE I WAS AND GO. THERE IS NO CHANGE. I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO DISCUSS TWO POINTS OF INTEREST. WHETHER TO HOLD MRS. COX AS ACTING CITY MANAGER, AS SHOULD BE THE CASE. UNTIL WE DO NOT HAVE AN OFFICIAL CITY MANAGER WITHIN CONTRACT AFTER THE DATE OF --

[04:15:02]

>> IT WAS THE IDEA THAT THIS TIMEFRAME HAS PROVIDED US -- A FUTURE COMMISSION LATITUDE OF ADVERTISING THE POSITION. I NEVER AM AGAINST ADVERTISING TO SEE WHAT IS OUT THERE. THERE ARE SOME PHASES, SPECIFICALLY ONE THAT WILL CHANGE ON THIS COMMISSION. THE FUTURE COMMISSIONER THAT IS GOING TO HOLD THE SEAT SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO JUST REVIEW. I BELIEVE THAT. I BELIEVE IT'S MY DUE DILIGENCE AS THE SEAT HOLDER TO PROVIDE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO THEM. I AM JUST SHARING MY THOUGHTS AND WHAT I HAVE CONTEMPLATED. I THINK AND KNOW THAT MRS. COX IS LEAPS AND BOUNDS BEYOND THE FOLKS THAT MIGHT APPLY FOR THE POSITION. THERE COULD BE AN OUTSTANDING MEMBER THAT JUMPED IN THERE. MRS. COX IS DOING A TREMENDOUS JOB. SHE IS TAKING ON RESPONSIBILITY. SHE HAS ADDRESSED THINGS HEAD-ON EVEN WITH A FINGER OR TWO TIED BEHIND HER BACK. BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN LIMITED. SHE AND I HAVE HAVE -- HAD SOME GREAT DISCUSSION POINTS IN TERMS OF WHAT I'VE SEEN IN THE FUTURE. JUST BECAUSE I WILL NOT BE HERE WITH AN OFFICE KEY. WE HAVE HAD SOME GREAT CONVERSATION. I HAVE FULL TRUST IN HER TAKING ON THAT TASK. BUT I ALSO SEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO POST IT ON THE STREET. NOT A NATIONAL SEARCH.

WE ARE NOT GOING OUT AND SPENDING A BUNCH OF MONEY. LET IT JUST BE OUT THERE. LET THE CARDS FALL. AND I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO RISE TO THE TOP ANYWAY, MRS. COX. I JUST SHARE WITH YOU I THINK THAT IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR US. I'M TRYING

TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE TIME. >> YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD?

>> I WOULD ECHO THE SENTIMENTS OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID. A LITTLE MORE EMPHASIS ON A COUPLE OF THINGS. I DID NOT AND WILL NOT BE PREPARED TO TAKE ABOUT TONIGHT ON PERMANENT CITY MANAGER. FULL STOP. I THINK WE, IN THE NEXT 24 OR 48 ANSWERS -- HOURS WILL KNOW WHERE WE WILL MOVE FORWARD IN THE CITY, WHEN IT COMES TO THE SELECTION. I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE THE TIME BETWEEN NOW AND FEBRUARY TO REFLECT ON WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE TONIGHT. REFLECT ON WHAT OUR CITY AND NATION IS ABOUT TO GO THROUGH. AND UTILIZE THAT TIME TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE REALLY GOING TO BE CHALLENGED WITH, AND WHAT WE HAVE ADOPTED -- WE WILL BE CHALLENGED LIKE NO OTHER STARTING TOMORROW. TO MAINTAIN THIS COMMISSION , THE VISION OF THIS CITY, THE LEADERSHIP. AND WHAT WE WILL NEED TO DO TO ENGAGE OUR COMMUNITY. IT IS ALL OVER THE PLACE RIGHT NOW. I AM NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON MRS. COX ' QUALIFICATION. WE HAVE HAD GREAT MEETINGS. I THINK SHE IS DOING THAT. I KNOW FROM MY EXPERIENCE OF HAVING COME INTO CHALLENGING SITUATIONS OF GOING FROM PEER TO LEADER -- THAT IS VERY DIFFICULT WHEN YOU ARE APPEAR , AND NOW YOU HAVE THE, THE LEADER. AND I UNDERSTAND THOSE PRINCIPLES THAT I LEARNED WHAT IT WAS THRUST UPON ME. I WANT TO REFLECT ON THAT. I'M GOING TO CHALLENGE US TO REFLECT ON THAT. IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THAT SITUATION BEFORE, IT'S A CHALLENGING THING. WE ARE GOING TO BE TASKED WITH TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHO CAN HANDLE THAT.

AND IN SOME CASES, IT IS DIFFICULT. I SAY THAT TO SAY I DO NOT WANT TO SHORTCHANGE THIS CITY AND COMMUNITY, OR ANYTHING ELSE. I WANT COMPETITION FOR THIS. FORT PIERCE DESERVES THE VERY BEST WHEN IT COMES TO THE NEXT CEO OF THIS CITY. THAT PERSON COULD BE HERE. THAT PERSON COULD BE IN THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. I WANT THAT OPPORTUNITY AND THAT CONVERSATION. I WANT US TO GO THROUGH THAT EXERCISE. BECAUSE IF WE DO NOT, I CAN GUARANTEE YOU, NO MATTER HOW PREPARED WE THINK WE ARE , THE FIRST PICKUP AND WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK HERE

[04:20:05]

AGAIN. WE HAVE HAD TOO MANY HICCUPS IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE , WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DO THAT ANYMORE. I'M TIRED OF OPENING NEWSPAPERS AND READING ABOUT KING'S LANDING. THE PORT AREA. I AM TIRED. LET'S ADMIT IT, WE ARE CITY COMMISSIONERS.

THAT WORK FULL-TIME, GET COMPENSATED PART-TIME, BUT EXPECTED TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON. BUT THERE'S ONLY ONE PERSON THAT RUNS THE CITY EVERY DAY, 365 DAYS A YEAR, THAT IS THE CITY MANAGER. THEY HAVE THE MOST EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY. WHEN YOU GO FROM PEER TO LEADER, IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT BALL GAME. AS I SAID EARLIER, WE ARE LOOKING FOR THAT PERSON THAT IS GOING TO SET THE CULTURE AND CLIMATE OF 101 NORTH U.S. HIGHWAY 1. THAT WILL RESONATE THROUGHOUT THE EAST AND THE WEST, THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH OF THESE 20+ SQUARE MILES WE CALL THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WITH 50,000+ PEOPLE. I WANT SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT THAT, I THINK WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT

THAT. >> OF MADAM MAYOR. I WANTED TO SAY, IF YOU DECIDE TO ADVERTISE OR SOMETHING, LIMIT THE ADVERTISEMENT PERIOD. JUST WE CAN GET A BASIS. HONESTLY, I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE ADVERTISED WITH A 45 TO 60 PERIOD, THEN YOU HAVE 35 DAYS TO REVIEW AND ANALYZE. AND THAT'S THE TIMEFRAME OF GETTING THROUGH THE HOLIDAYS AND GETTING THROUGH SPRINGTIME. I WILL SHARE, BECAUSE AGAIN, I WILL NOT BE HERE. IT WAS PARTIAL INSANITY TO DO A LIVE INTERVIEW IN THIS CHAMBER. FOR A CITY ATTORNEY. YEARS AGO. NOT HER POSITION. THE ONE BEFORE. I CAN MAKE FUN OF MYSELF OR DECADES FOR ALLOWING THAT TO HAPPEN. MY POINT IN THE STORY IS, WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO HIRE A CHARTER OFFICER, HAVE YOUR ONE-ON-ONE, HYPER PROCESS. DO NOT DO IT IN A PUBLIC FORUM TO WHERE INDIVIDUALS -- IT WAS PAINSTAKING. YOU CAN CALM AND DELIBERATE AND HAVE A GOOD DELIBERATION HERE. THAT IS MY ONLY WORDS OF ADVICE. ALLOW THE PROCESS TO HAPPEN. -- DO NOT DO AN INTERVIEW PROCESS RIGHT HERE. IT FELT ORGANIZED, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK I LOST BRAIN CELLS THAT DAY.

>> I WANT TO SAY, I'M LISTENING TO THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT TO ADVERTISE. I THINK THE COMPETITION -- I DO NOT WANT TO DO A NATIONAL SEARCH AND SPEND THAT MONEY. BUT I DO NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH COMPETITION AT ALL. AND I AM GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT FORWARD. I ALSO DON'T WANT TO WAKE UP ON FEBRUARY 18TH WITH NO CITY MANAGER. SO THAT PLAYS INTO THE TIMEFRAME YOU ARE TALKING IN TERMS OF ADVERTISING THE POSITION, HAVING A CUTOFF DATE. SETTING UP AN INTERVIEW PROCESS. THAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN. I DO NOT KNOW, MRS. COBB, IF THAT SHOULD

BE YOU OR THE CITY ATTORNEY OR >> I TOO WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE ADVERTISE AND INTERVIEW PROCESS. WHAT I THINK WE COULD DO IS COME BACK TO YOU AND WE WILL HAVE THE HR MANAGER COME BACK WITH A TIMELINE . I THINK IT IS

[04:25:02]

IMPORTANT TO HAVE SOMEONE IN PLACE AT THE END --

>> THE EMPLOYEES BADLY NEED TO KNOW THAT AT SOME POINT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE MARCHING ORDERS THEY CAN TRUST.

>> I THINK YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. IT WILL NOT BE MRS. CAR CLEANING UP THE CITY MANAGER SEARCH. THE TERMINATION OF MR. MIMMS WAS NEVER A 17. WE HAVE A REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMISSION MEETING ON FEBRUARY 18TH, THE FOLLOWING DAY. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE THE POSITION POSTED FOR X NUMBER OF DAYS AND HAVE HR SET UP -- OR HOWEVER WE ARE GOING TO FOLLOW THIS CORRECTLY -- AND THEN IT COULD BE ADDRESSED ON THE 18TH. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT, WE CAN DO THAT TONIGHT. OR AS MRS. COX HAS INDICATED, WE CAN BRING IT AT A LATER DATE TO GIVE YOU A MORE SOLID DEADLINE. -- UNLESS YOU WANT TO DO A SPECIAL

MEETING ON IT. >> WE COULD DO IF WE WANTED TO.

>> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. >> I UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF A SEARCH, CLEARLY. AS AN EMPLOYER, UNDERSTAND HOW THESE DYNAMICS WORK. WE DO FIND OURSELVES IN A VERY UNIQUE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. WE HAVE ONE LEADER DESIGNATED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. IF YOU OFFER A SEARCH, REALISTICALLY, THE SEARCH WILL LAST A FEW MONTHS. THE TRAINING TURNAROUND TIME IS EXUBERANT. I WOULD SUGGEST IT IS A YEAR AND A HALF TO GET UP TO SPEED ON THIS CITY, PERSONALITIES INVOLVED, THE WHOLE SPECTRUM OF WHAT IT TAKES TO RUN NOT JUST THE CITY GOVERNMENT, BUT ALL OF ITS MOVING PARTS OUTSIDE OF THAT. I THINK THAT IS QUITE EXTENSIVE. HAVING SAID THAT, I'M PUTTING THIS INTO MOTION TO GET INTO THE RECORD BECAUSE IT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER TO DO SO, I KNOW IT IS GOING NOWHERE. I MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE MRS. COX AS ACTING CITY MANAGER ON FAIRBURY 17TH AND THEN CONVERTED TO PERMANENT CITY MANAGER

EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 18TH. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> I AM FINE. I AM GOOD. >> SO WE CAN GET OUT OF HERE , THE REASON I BROUGHT THIS UP WAS BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH

THIS -- -- >> DURING THOSE INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS, IT WAS DIFFERENT TALK TO CANDIDATE SARAH THAN IT WAS WHEN WE WERE TALKING TO ASSISTANT ATTORNEY SARAH IN OUR MEETINGS. I LEARNED A LOT ABOUT SARAH THAN. -- I KNOW WHAT SHE DOES. IT WILL BE GREAT ONCE WE HAVE A SITDOWN, ONE-ON-ONE, AND WE DISCUSSED EVERYTHING SHE WANTS TO DISCUSS.

>> IS AN INTERVIEW. >> BETTER YET, WE ARE SHOWN THE PUBLIC AND GIVING THE PUBLIC A CHANCE TO SAY, HEY, HERE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT APPLY. HERE ARE THEIR BACKGROUNDS, AND THIS IS WHY WE VOTED ON XYZ. AS COURTESY , I AM TIRED OF PICKING UP THE PAPERS AND SEEING WHATEVER . COMMISSION IS UP TO THEIR OLD TRICKS, OR WHAT WE ARE DOING. YOU GUYS WON'T SAY. I AM GOING TO SAY. IF MRS. COX IS THE CHOICE, IT TAKES AWAY THE ARGUMENT FROM HER. BECAUSE SHE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS JUST LIKE MADAME ATTORNEY DID.

>> THAT IS A VERY GOOD POINT. >> I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO SET A STATUS TO GIVE A SPECIFIC DIRECTIVE OF WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. UNLESS YOU ARE GIVING THE DIRECTIVE TODAY TO

[04:30:06]

POST THE POSITION. OTHERWISE, WE SHOULD SET A STATUS ON THIS.

MAY BE THE 18TH. OR MAYBE THERE IS A MOTION TO POST THE POSITION AND BEGIN THAT PROCESS.

>> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON HAS SOMETHING TO SAY.

>> I HAVE DONE ALL THE NUMBERS FOR YOU. MY LAST GIFT. SHE BRINGS UP SOME GOOD POINTS. IF WE ARE GOING TO ADVERTISE, I FEEL LIKE YOU COULD GET SOMETHING ON THE STREET BY NOVEMBER 12TH , MAYBE NOVEMBER 15TH. ABOUT 50 WEEKS THAT'S ABOUT -- TWO WEEKS. AND THEN YOU CAN ADVERTISE UNTIL ABOUT EARLY JANUARY. WHAT REMINDED ME OF THIS, I REMEMBER SEEING A CALENDAR INVITE OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP AROUND JANUARY 23RD. IF YOU WERE TO DO YOUR INTERVIEWS, HERE I AM SETTING YOUR SCHEDULE FOR YOU. I WOULD WANT MY INTERVIEWS TO BE DONE LIKE FEBRUARY 3RD. YOU CAN HAVE A MEETING ON FEBRUARY 10TH AND THEN INITIATE SOMETHING BEFORE THE 17TH COMES AROUND. I AM DONE WITH YOU.

>> THAT WAS A NICE SUGGESTED OUTLINE. DO YOU NEED A FORMAL

MOTION , MS. HEDGES? >> I KNOW WHAT MY OTHER QUESTION WAS. I'M SORRY. I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE MOTION -- THE MOTION TO HOLD ACTING CITY MANAGER. DO WE NEED THAT? OR BY FUNCTION, ALREADY VOTED ON THAT LAST WEEK. WE DID NOT GIVE A CLOSURE DATE, TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

>> CORRECT. I BELIEVE SHE WOULD STAY IN THE POSITION SHE IS IN.

IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A CLEAN, IT DOES NOT HURT TO MAKE THE MOTION TO HAVE HER CONTINUE AS ACTING CITY MANAGER. IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER DIRECTIVE YOU WILL GIVE REGARDING A CITY MANAGER SEARCH. I THINK A MOTION FOR THAT SO THERE IS A CLEAR DIRECTIVE WOULD BE PRUDENT.

>> I DO NOT KNOW THAT WE WILL DO A SEARCH.

>> A POSTING. >> THE QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK. FROM AN HR PERSPECTIVE. AS FAR AS HER GOING INTO ACTING STATUS AS OF FEBRUARY, DID YOU WANT TO REVISIT THE COMPENSATION YOU HAVE BEEN GIVING HER?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE NUMBERS. NEXT MEETING.

>> I AM NOT READY TO MAKE THAT DECISION TONIGHT.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE

FAIR. >> CAN YOU EMAIL ME THAT

TIMELINE? >> MS. HEDGES, DID YOU WANT TO

SAY SOMETHING? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO THIS QUESTION. ONE, WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE FACT WE HAVE APPOINTED HER AS CITY MANAGER. OR ACTING CITY MANAGER. UP UNTIL THIS DISCUSSION TONIGHT. DOES MRS. COX WANT TO CONTINUE IN THE POSITION OF ACTING CITY MANAGER ? THEIR QUESTION.

>> WE JUST SET ALL NIGHT WE HAD TO KEEP THE CITY MOVING.

>> WE NEED TO KEEP THE CITY MOVING. I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO CONTINUE SERVING IN THE CAPACITY. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMPENSATION, THOUGH.

>> THAT IS FAIR. >> WE NEED A MOTION TO CONTINUE MRS. COX IN THE ACTING MANAGER POSITION. AND FOR THE DIRECTIVE AS TO HOW TO PROCEED WITH THE CITY MANAGER POSITION.

>> IS SOMEBODY WILLING TO MAKE THAT MOTION?

>> WHAT SHE SAID. I WILL MAKE THE MOTION.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I DO NOT HAVE THE DIRECTIVE.

IS THE DIRECTIVE -- >> WHAT COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON

SAID. >> FOR CLARITY, SHOULDN'T IT

BE TWO MOTIONS? >> IT SHOULD BE.

>> THE FIRST MOTION IS FOR MRS. COX TO CONTINUE AS ACTING CITY

MANAGER . >> I WOULD SAY TO CONTINUE

UNTIL FURTHER DURATION. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND . >> IS THERE DISCUSSION? CALL

THE ROLL, PLEASE. >>

[04:35:04]

>> THE SECOND MOTION WOULD BE SOMETHING ABOUT --

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO BEGIN A SEARCH FOR A NEW CITY MANAGER STARTING, THE 15TH ? NOVEMBER 15TH.

>> OPEN THROUGH EARLY JANUARY. ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED?

>> WOULD YOU LIKE THAT READDRESSED AT A SPECIAL MEETING? WHEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY MANAGER

POSITION? >> DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A DATE

CERTAIN? >> WE CAN GIVE YOU A STATUS

ALONG THE WAY. >> IF WE SAY EARLY JANUARY, WE CAN SET A DATE. WE CAN SET A STATUS DATE FOR THE SECOND

JANUARY MEETING. >> YES, SIR. AND OTHER

APPLICATIONS ARE CLOSE. -- >> EVERYBODY GO FOR THAT?

>> THAT WOULD BE THE 21ST. THERE IS THE 13TH DAY MEETING AND THEN THE 21ST EVENING MEETING.

>> I WILL SAY THE 21ST EVENING MEETING. IT GIVES PEOPLE AND RESIDENTS TO COME AND BE A PART OF THE MEETING.

>> I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION TO BE TO ADVERTISE THE POSITION AND TO BEGIN THAT APPLICATION PROCESS AND TO READDRESS THIS JANUARY 21ST AT THE 5:05 MEETING . IS THAT CORRECT?

>> F. >> I SECOND THAT MOTION.

>> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? >> YOUR LOWE'S -- CLOSING THE ADVERTISEMENT AT A CERTAIN DATE, OR NOT? I DID HIT -- DID NOT HEAR A CLOSURE DATE. TYPICALLY WHEN YOU ADVERTISE, YOU SAY IS OPEN FROM NOVEMBER 15TH THROUGH JANUARY 10TH.

>> WE WILL DISCUSS IT ON THE 21ST.

>> THERE WAS NOT A CLOSURE DATE ON THE ADVERTISING.

>> HOW MANY DAYS YOU GUYS WANT? >> YOU WANT TO DO A CLOSE DATE

DECEMBER 31ST? >> IS THAT ENOUGH TIME? IT IS

FALLING ON YOUR DESK. >> THE ONLY CONCERN I WOULD HAVE IS ENOUGH TIME TO BET THE CANDIDATES .

>> I PREFERRED THE CLOSE OF SUMMER AROUND 12:15 TO ALLOW ME A LITTLE MORE TIME WITH THE HOLIDAYS. LIKE 31 DAYS.

>> KEEP IT OPEN FOR A MONTH? >> YES, SIR.

>> IS EVERYONE GOOD WITH THAT? >> BUT INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINES

OR ADVERTISES. >> WE WOULD REACH OUT TO LOCAL AREAS DOWN HERE. AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE LOOKING FOR THIS. PLEASE

PASS IT ALONG. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO START A SEARCH FOR THE POSITION OF CITY MANAGER STARTING NOVEMBER 15TH, CLOSING DECEMBER 15TH. FOR DISCUSSION ON JANUARY 21ST.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> DISCUSSION? >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

[14. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Any person who wishes to comment on any subject may be heard at this time. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less, as directed by the Mayor, as this section of the Agenda is limited to thirty minutes. The City Commission will not be able to take any official actions under Comments from the Public. Speakers will address the Mayor, Commissioners, and the Public with respect. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated.]

PUBLIC. >> THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FROM ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MARIO WILCOX, 5227 OAKLAND LANE CIRCLE. MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MEMBERS IN THE AUDIENCE, I GREET YOU TODAY. I KNOW THIS IS BEEN A PROCESS. IT

[04:40:02]

COMES WITH THE TERRITORY. YOU WERE ELECTED INTO THOSE SEATS.

SO EVERY RESPONSIBILITY THAT COMES WITH IT, THE DECISIONS, GOOD BAD OR INDIFFERENT, THAT IS WHAT COMES WITH BEING A PUBLIC SERVANT. THAT IS WHY THEY CALL YOU A SERVANT TO THE PUBLIC. IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT THE PUBLIC THINKS. IT IS ABOUT WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST. SOMETIMES, YOU CANNOT GO WITH THE POPULAR DECISION. SOMETIMES THE MOST DIFFICULT DECISION IS THE UNPOPULAR DECISION. WHAT I LEARNED IN MY YEARS OF LEADERSHIP, IT IS LONELY AT THE TOP. BUT YOU HAVE GOT TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT. MOVING ALONG, WHEN IT COMES TO THE HIRING PROCESS. I HEAR YOUR DISCUSSION. I'M KIND OF CONCERNED ABOUT THE 30 DAY TIMEFRAME. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. YES, I WAS IN THE MILITARY. I HAVE DONE PERSONNEL AND HR. I HAD TO HIRE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTORS. WE HAVE CIVILIANS WORKING ON THE BASE. 30 DAYS IS REALLY NOT ENOUGH TIME TO EFFECTIVELY ADVERTISE . YOU HAVE DIFFERENT CERTIFICATES. YOU HAVE MONSTER.COM, INDEED.COM. YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL EEOC POLICY. IT WOULD BEHOOVE OUR HR DIRECTOR TO CONTACT EEOC IN TAMPA AND GET THEIR GUIDANCE AS WELL. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT WANT TO DISENFRANCHISE ANY APPLICANTS.