Do we have mics or am I just yelling?

We have mics.

Okay.

I couldn't tell.

All right.

So I say good evening and thanks for coming out on this cold lustery night.

Uh this is not a workshop in terms of um the city council discussing things.

That's what's happened in the last we've had eight meetings about this following and presentations from the Charter Review Committee, and this process started way back in April, and now it's just um ready to come onto the referendum uh in onto the ballot, excuse me.

So um in any case it's a little bit different.

We're gonna get a roll call and then um our city clerk's gonna kind of walk us through each question that's on the ballot, and hopefully all of you picked up a ballot in the back, and you can write notes to yourself.

Um after she does one, you know, she's gonna make it clear it means this.

Vote yes if that this is what you want, vote no if this is we're never gonna tell our opinions, we're never gonna make any suggestions on how anybody should vote, because that's not what this meeting tonight is just to make sure that everybody is clear so that they in fact get to vote the way they want to vote for the outcome that they particularly want.

Um so with that, oh, and and during her presentation, what she's gonna do is she'll talk about a bill, then she'll see if there's any um uh clarifying questions or any anything that we want to say, and then she'll also there will be an opportunity for you to come up on each bill if you choose.

If you have any additional questions, if it's something that w we're not comfortable that our city clerk can answer, we do have attorney Evans here tonight to um do that for us, okay?

Everybody understand the procedure.

And again, preferably one conversation at a time, always to whoever has the mic and is doing the presentation.

So with that, roll call, please.

Councilmember Early present.

Vice Mayor Thanos?

Here.

Councilmember Shaw.

Present.

Mayor Love here.

Attorney Evans?

Here.

Councilman or excuse me, City Manager O'Reilly.

Here.

City Clerk Carico is present.

Uh Councilmember Jackson has asked to be excused.

Okay, so we'll go right into this this evening.

Uh so tonight this is just going to be the what the questions are, and this is directly from the ballot that is located at the back of the room.

I do want to say uh if you cannot see the the screens, I do have this on my website for the city clerk already.

Uh so if you needed to pull it up on your laptop or your iPad, you you can do so if you cannot see the screens here.

Uh so we're gonna go on into page one.

And there are seats up front too.

If you would like to come closer to see the screens.

Uh this is a very small, this just outlines what is on my my city clerk web page because this is where you're going to find all of all of the election information, such as the candidate information, the ballot, uh, and uh the council members are excuse me, the candidates' financial reports, all of that is on the city clerk city clerk's website.

I do have the web site up in the top right-hand corner for you if you need to write it down.

Um how did we get to this point today?

So this process began back when our new council was uh put in place in April of 2025.

One of the first things that they actually tasked us with with was to uh get a charter review committee put together and start reviewing parts of the charter.

Uh so May 6th is when that uh began.

City council actually appointed their charter review members, and they were Deborah Adkins, Aaron W.

Beaman, Josefa Gonzalez Hastings, and Joe Gunther and Robert Rubin.

Uh May 15th, they had their first meeting and they met consecutively.

Um excuse me, they met bi-weekly for 12 meetings through October 15th.

September 3rd, City Council reviewed the charters uh recommendations.

The committee members were here.

Uh there was no formal presentation made, but that was our first discussion that council had after seeing some of the recommendations that the committee had submitted.

Uh then October 21st, Charter Review Committee formally presented its recommendations to uh for the city charter changes to city council.

November 4th was our first reading on ordinance 2025-12.

Uh, that was before council and it was approved.

November 18th should have been the second reading of the ordinance.

However, there were a lot of questions by council and and wanted some changes, so attorney Salzman did advise at that time to table the ordinance so that there was additional time to make changes for council.

So our second reading actually occurred on December 2nd uh with the final recommended changes, and that was approved.

Uh city clerk's deadline to submit the the charter questions was on December 9th.

So that gave us one week from the time that it was approved to go ahead and formulate these questions and get them over to the um supervisor of elections.

And then December 10th, the ballot and questions were posted on my website for everyone to view at any time that they needed to.

All right, so right into question number one.

So, and before I begin, we are limited to the number of words that we can put in a ballot question.

So we're limited to 15 words for the subtitle, which is limiting leases of city owned property to five years.

That is our subtitle, and no more than 75 words for each ballot question.

So this may be why there's several questions for one section.

So, question one limiting leases of city owned property to five years.

The city charter currently allows leases of city-owned real property for a maximum of 30 years.

Shall the city charter be amended to reduce the time period for all leases of real property owned by the city of Gulfport to a maximum of five years?

Should you vote yes on this item?

The city charter will be amended and it will reduce the maximum lease term of city-owned properties from 30 years to five years, meaning that is the maximum term we would be allowed to write a lease for.

If you vote no, the city charter remains unchanged.

The maximum lease term remains at 30 years.

Any questions from the public?

Come on.

You do would have to use the podium, please, so you could be heard on the case.

Yeah, we're still gonna ask you to use the mic.

Thanks.

Lenny Gukenheimer, uh 5213 Dillet Avenue South.

And personally, I think that we should have had this workshop at the very beginning instead of at the tail end of this before these uh ballot issues or are drafted.

Uh just the two things concerning the lease of property.

Um I think we really need to be more careful about that.

So we have the Yacht Club, the Book of Sega Yacht Club, and then the other yacht club.

They're providing services.

We saw uh previous meeting where they're helping with maintaining the the basin, the mangroves, and they have investment that they build, they have buildings there, they have equipment, and to say that you might have five years and then you gotta vacate.

Um how does that affect them?

And then this next amendment that you're gonna talk about is about the amount of making it um uh appraised value.

the the basin the mangroves and they have investment that they build they have buildings there they have equipment and to say that you might have five years and then you gotta vacate um how does that affect them and then this next amendment that you're going to talk about is about the amount of making it um praised value if uh the lease offers a service to the the city such as maintaining that ground does that include does that become part of the negotiation are you gonna have to say that this value is 1000 and you have to come up with 1000 dollars or so those are my comments okay and we're not we weren't really looking for that so much because you had an opportunity when we talked about these things what we're trying to do right now is just to make sure that everyone is clear on what the what it means depending on how you vote so based on what you just said you want to vote no no and you want to get everybody you know to vote no well that's what I'm saying I okay well I made my comment thank you okay thank you okay yeah if you do you have a question okay thanks so with the five year lease limits um one thing that I would want to know is if there are short term leases then how would the um leasees um possibly be able to have any kind of capital recovery in any investments that they put into these properties these are not properties that are maintained by the the city currently they're not giving any money into them they're only receiving the the lease from them and all the repairs maintenance ground keep and everything else is being taken care of by these particular entities so that would be my first one how why would these entities put any capital into these properties because they won't be able to recover it in five years it would be a waste of money um the other thing is is that it would shift if if if they became five year leases they're not gonna want to put this money into it so wouldn't that mean that Goldport would have to absorb those costs and does Goldport have the funds to absorb those costs that would be my first question.

My second one would be that it seems like most of the discussion that I've heard has been about the use and what Goldport wants to use these properties for and it seems that the most common I'm sorry but what you're talking about that's not what this is for we're here to talk about the what questions are on the ballot to make sure you understand what they mean.

Okay that this is me wanting to know what it means because if I vote yes how are all these costs going to be absorbed but then we just went into something else that it has nothing to do with this you said in my second question to understand how I'm gonna vote I would need to know the answers to these questions.

Okay I'm sorry what did you just no what did you just say your second question was I was just getting ready to to to to ask it okay that because we're only dealing with that one this is about the the five year lease okay um and uh going back again yeah uh to you know different ideas that we've heard playgrounds um marine if uh bathrooms stuff like that if if if the the property is not able to be leased because people don't want to invest in those leases because of the costs associated then how is goldport going to absorb those properties back into the city and if they are then become public use then how are we going to absorb those costs?

Okay so I'm not prepared to answer the first one because that might be a little bit of a legal question for the for um uh attorney evans but on the second one that would be a decision for council to make down the road we are not calling the shots here the voters are calling the shots great but I think the voters need to know we don't have a plan okay so there's no plan no there's no plan we've made that totally so we're voting we're voting yes or no on something that doesn't have a plan the citizens asked if if the citizen the charter review committee asked if they wanted the citizens to continue or the residents want it to continue to have 30 year leases or should they shorten them to five years that's the only question here.

Okay but uh I think I'll be quiet then and let the attorneys handle it city manager okay that would be strictly the term of the we're talking about specific term when you negotiate that lease you could put just as we're dealing with the issue with the Lions Club that we have a payout clause you could those are issues that would be addressed in the lease agreement this is specifically to speak about term okay I think then that I will just zip it because I was just trying to keep us on track with the questions and I can see where they're saying well what about the terms of the lease and that's not the question either but thank you for coming forward okay any other questions on the first question yes good evening good evening my name is Lee Nell and uh I live at uh what do I I got flooded out I have to remember uh 2157 29th Avenue um I don't know if this is one you want to address tonight but where did the idea to shorten these lease terms come from was there some basis

Any other questions on the first question?

Yes.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Lee Nell, and uh I live at uh what do I I got flooded out?

I have to remember.

Uh 2157 29th Avenue.

Um I don't know if this is one you want to address tonight, but where did the idea to shorten these lease terms come from?

Was there some basis under the uh reasoning for that?

I'm just curious what what the uh thought is and how does that benefit the city that would from the from the charter review committee process as the mayor touched on a little bit.

Um there was a series of committee meeting meetings, and that was the feedback received from the citizens uh that led to that being the recommendation of the committee to the council that came from the came from the uh ground up.

Yes, yes, we did ask them to address two or three things that was not one of the things that we asked them to address, but they did, and they explained to us why, and that's how it ended up on the can you tell me why?

I'm I'm just curious about this.

Do you have a lot of people?

No, because I'm not gonna do anything that would make it look like I'm giving any kind of opinion.

Because I'm a voter in the city just like you.

Right, but I thought maybe if the voters had said something about it that that was the basis for the change.

Uh can you explain that or tell us about that?

Or would that be too?

I'm I'm I'm not I'm not trying to no, I know.

I'm I'm just you know all of the videos that I did mention where we spoke about this, they are um uploaded onto the website if you wanted to go and you you don't have to listen to the whole meeting.

Uh you can it is indexed so that you can just click on the part where the charter review may be giving their presentation, or there may have been public comment.

Um but I'm like I said, this is out on my website right now, so you could reference what dates are on here and look at those videos to see what their reasoning was.

Okay, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Okay.

And if I could, I I know the commenter left, but I did want to make a comment.

There's nothing in this question stating they can only have five years.

That that just says they're limited to the term of five years.

Uh then that then it would need to be renegotiated with the city again.

Um that that's good point.

Okay, moving on.

There's no more questions.

Moving on to question uh number two.

Leases required to be at fair market value.

The city charter presently does not provide the amount or process for a lease of the city-owned real property.

Shall the city charter be amended to require that all leases of city-owned real property be based on fair market value as determined by a licensed appraiser.

Oh my goodness, I'm sorry, I'm doing too many things up here right now.

So if you were to vote yes on this item, the city charter will be amended.

All leases of city-owned real property will be required to be based on fair market value by a licensed appraiser.

Should you vote no on this item?

The city charter remains unchanged.

There will be no charter requirement that leases be based on fair market value as determined by a licensed appraiser.

Do I have any council questions or comments?

Do we have any public?

I have one comment.

I don't know if we have any idea.

I mean, because we only have two leases, what the fair market value for those properties might be.

Because they still have time on some of those leases.

They're not scheduled to be renewed at this time.

So you would look at it if this was to happen, you would have the appraisal done at that time.

We'll have any idea right now.

I wouldn't want to guess.

No.

Okay.

Okay, so I do have a question now.

The um the other night uh at the last meeting, I believe it was it was mentioned that the little league field and perhaps Whitefield were also on a rental basis.

Previously, the line Gulfport Lions Little League had a lease for the use of a for the facility for the fields.

Um, what we would do is when that with that or the lease or their use agreement, it would become more of a recreation facility use agreement because they don't there's no capital investment by them or anything to that effect.

It wouldn't this would move outside the purview of a lease.

You it was a the length of the lease is one of the issues that we're talking about in the past.

You it was a the length of the lease is one of the issues that we're talking about in the past, little league had signed tenure leases, things to that effect.

Once this, if this was to pass, little league would be in more involved involved as a recreation program.

Okay, so that would convert to a recreational usage agreement.

So they would not be impacted.

That's correct.

Just the other not for profits.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have any questions from the audience?

Um with this being a vote on fair market value, I I think my only concern would be how would we be able to even do fair market value?

Since fair market value presumes a few certain things, it presumes that there's a transferability or the ability of redevelopment for these particular um city owned waterfront properties, the buildings can't be sold or relocated.

Um their use on the water is dependent on these facilities providing those um these recreations um not just through maintenance but through insurance and liability and everything else.

Um if there isn't if there isn't an ability to redevelop or to sell or transfer these properties, then how will there be a fair market value?

Okay, that's my first question.

If anybody wants to address that would you like to address that, I I can address it if you like.

Basically, what it would be if you rented a facility that you have the cost associated with what is the fair market value of a per square per square foot.

I've learned a lot about appraisals in the last two months.

You can identify what exactly you're buying or renting.

But that's if those properties can be redeveloped or transferable.

No.

As Vice Mayor spoke of the last over a couple months ago, we're talking about the use of the facility.

If what is the cost, if you were to go out in the market and rent that same facility, what would be the cost associated with it?

Even if those facilities can't be rentable, even if those facilities would have to be raised before they could be used.

I think now we're talking about two different things.

I'm talking about to have fair market value, it would be fair market value on what you could potentially rent that for.

But you you're saying that you would want it based on the facilities that are there, but those facilities wouldn't be able to remain from my understanding because of the condition that they're in.

They if they were going to exceed 50 percent, it would have happened this last year.

Oh, that's not about the 50 percent rule.

I thought that's because these properties have been grandfathered in under old regulations, and that if they change hands, that there has to be a city property amount of.

They're technically city properties.

We're all we are doing is saying there needs to be a fair market value to the cost of renting the building.

But when these conditions that are necessary for fair market value are absent, you can't really do fair market value.

I think we're talking about two different things, Mary.

No, I don't I don't think so.

I get I get what you're saying.

You're saying that, say, for instance, the Book of Sega Yacht Club vacated that building.

Yeah.

That if we were to rent that to somebody else, chances are it would have to be upgraded before we could do that.

And so it's not a comparable fair market value.

Because and if it had to be raised, then there's nothing to compare it with at all.

That would be up to the council to at that time to determine what it would like to do.

If it wants to rebuild something to rent or not rebuild, you have that option.

Councils, this isn't what council directed in this question, correct me if I'm wrong, Teresa, was to have a charge of that is market right to per to rent the.

Compared to a dollar a year.

Exactly.

But how can you do fair market value with the club still remaining in it to then determine what the club would have to rent it at because the fair market value would change if the club were not in it?

Yeah, there would be no there'd be no lease though.

If the club's not in it, there's no lease.

But for the lease to be signed, to get another lease.

I get her question.

Yes, Jonathan.

Jonathan, Jonathan McCoachy.

Sorry.

Can we turn that off?

Do you not want me to?

So I think that fair market value is such a terrible idea that it deserves even more attention.

And I appreciate your description of how you see it, because that was my first question.

But I think usage is is usually with a property.

What determines?

I mean, are we gonna what can you do?

So assuming the club was to leave, and that building, which is the only building there were to be rented per square foot.

Is that per square foot?

Is it a gambling casino?

Is it a uh you know, a knitting club?

What we would allow out there would have a lot to do with that value.

You would have to tell an appraiser that beforehand.

Appraiser can't go in called and just uh, you know, highest and best use is always luxury condos and and beach bars or something along that line, and it's not gonna be either one of those, I can tell you.

So I think it's fatally flawed, and that's my comment.

I know you're not here for comment.

The question is if you have a way to address that usage issue regarding fair market value.

So anyway, food for thought.

Thank you.

Got it.

anybody else?

Lauren.

I guess I just want to clarify my understanding.

Is it a short list of which properties this impacts?

I don't know for sure.

I mean, I gather Boca Siega Yacht Club, the Gulf Club, Gulfport Marina, um, these athletic fields, and are there any other properties?

No, it's just the two yacht clubs.

The two yacht clubs and the athletic present, the only two leases would be the Gulfport Yacht Club and the Boca Sega Yacht Club.

Okay, and there aren't other properties right now without active leases that could potentially be impacted.

I mean that would be up to the council at the time if there was a property they wanted to lease.

Okay.

And I guess um currently it's all not-for-profit renters that we have.

And I guess kind of what getting towards what Jonathan was getting to.

Is there any thing in place in the future to for to screen or make a decision about what would be um uh uh granted a lease?

Would this the city council have input?

Would the residents have input if for if one of those two entities that are currently there ever left?

What's the process for getting to decide who gets to move in?

Is my question.

Those are very simply council would have to authorize an ordinance issuing the lease.

So the council would have input if someone came to you and said we'd like to lease this property, you would have to adopt an ordinance granting the lease.

Leases are granted by ordinance.

All this to get back to the specific.

The uh one is term and this is the cost associated with your minimum rent would be based on the fair market value to rent the square footage.

Oh, did you have still I'm sorry?

Yes, please.

Um do I need to introduce myself again?

I'm usually not very memorable.

Anyway, um my question is whether or not the the last time we had discussions about Boca Seaga Yacht Club and what was going on down there, we learned that um many of the residents in the surrounding area were opposed to any kind of uh significant development in terms of uh additional traffic and stuff like that.

Is that a factor that would be considered in the uh assessment of the uh fair market value?

Is that something that I don't think that would be considered in the assessment of fair market value, but I mean the way I would want to expand on that is as soon as we became aware that we were getting the lease back from the Lions Club, we didn't say, oh great, this is what we want to do.

The very first thing we did was say, residents come to a workshop and tell us what you want with the property, and they did, and there was a consensus.

So I mean, I think it would be very much along those lines, meaning we don't have a plan for anything.

I I personally didn't equate this suggestion that we have leases at fair market value, and for a shorter term, I didn't equate this to any organization.

It just seemed like a sound decision, business decision, and certainly the presentation we received made me comfortable with that, and that's how it ended up here.

And that's how it ended up here.

But again, the voters will decide.

But if you're asking me, if sitting here today when I don't even know if this is going to pass and I don't know what the future brings, what the plan is down the road, I I I would not have a clue.

I mean, we're up here to represent the the residents, and the residents would have to tell us what they want.

But that would be would that be before or after the appraiser had a look at the place?

Would that's my my question is whether the appraiser would be looking at that sort of thing?

Is that information that the appraiser would have at the time he or she uh looked at fair market value?

I I mean the most honest answer I can give you is I don't know.

I'm not gonna make up an answer.

I don't know.

I I don't know if the review committee that was made up of residents in Gulfport, if they went into that detail.

I think that they I think that they were reacting to people saying, why do we have 30-year leases?

Things change.

That's prime real estate.

That's what I think the thinking was on that.

And so they were trying to look out for the residents of Gulfport, all of the residents in Gulfport, and say we should not lock anybody into a lease for 30 years.

That's what I think.

That's what I got from the presentations.

A minute ago, you said you thought a five-year lease was a sound business decision.

Oh that I said that's what I think that they were telling us is that they thought five years made more sense in 30 years, locking in on city property.

Right.

Okay, thank you.

Any Regina?

Just a quick question.

We're talking about the yacht clubs as being the only city owned properties, and obviously they are not.

So if you make this an ordinance, is this going to carry over to all city-owned properties?

And how many are there?

Well, there's multiple properties that could be, and I'll if mayor, if I may.

Yeah, please.

If someone came in and wanted to rent the casino or lease the casino, the city would have that minimum requirement to retrieve that.

When we talk about the casino as these public as spoke, the casino is a certain role in the community as a meeting space such as that.

When we looked at other facilities, their comparables were to lodges in the area for the clubs or the Lions Club was a lodge reference in an appraisal.

The properties theoretically, yes.

All city properties could be leased.

They cannot be sold.

Right.

And I believe they may some of them may not even be leased due to the fact that they're in the or in the charter now, due to the fact that they're used for the public good.

So though those those protections are in place.

But to identify you you would take the what re recreation like Hoyt Field, something like that, it cannot be sold leased for any length of time or sold or leased due to the fact it's dedicated as a park for recreation.

Right.

Those are those items are identified in the charter.

Right.

But city-owned buildings.

Right.

You theoretically could lease City Hall.

Or say Scout Hall.

Or if something, you know, if the fire department decides to move to 49th Street, which was spoken about who if somebody wanted to lease that, would that be market value?

Yes.

If this passed.

If this passed only if this passed.

Okay.

Amy.

Um just for clarity.

So with the leases, if all of this goes through, does the city still reserve the right to negotiate terms, like say farm uh fair market value is one cost, but you decide for this organization, this building, we're gonna put this rent instead.

Like is it set at that, or can you negotiate?

It is set by that a minimum.

Now other terms can be negotiated by the city council, but this is the minimum charge.

Minimum.

Okay.

Jennifer.

Is the lease?

Sorry, Jennifer Don't Premier Drive.

Um, is the lease specifically for things that are leased long term, like maybe for five years, or is it um like a one-time lease, like if you rented the casino for if you're a resident and you rent the casino, it's like $500 or something for a residential rate.

That cost would be so much more expensive to rent a facility somewhere like a hall for a wedding or something like that.

So does that apply to like single uses or just a long-term lease?

Long-term leases.

Okay, cool.

Thanks.

Anybody else before we move on?

Okay, thank you.

Moving on to item number three.

This is regarding terms.

The city charter presently provides city council members are elected for a two-year term.

Shall the city charter be amended to allow city council members to be elected to a three-year term?

Should you vote yes on this?

The city charter will be amended.

Future city council members will be elected to three-year terms.

If you vote no on this item, the city charter will remain unchanged.

Future city council members will continue to be elected to a two-year term.

Do I have any questions from council?

No.

Just to clarify for people, this election.

So if the people who are up for wards one and three, they're only going to be two-year terms.

Correct.

Because this won't have passed yet.

Yes, this is on the same ballot as the one in three uh wards currently.

We have to determine the election results, and we have things we have to do with the state, and I have to codify everything before it can take effect and be put into the charter.

Yeah, so it would just be for one in three next time.

I mean two and two or four.

If I yes, any other questions?

Yes.

I apologize for being a little late to the party.

Um can you maybe this isn't the right time for the question?

Can you uh tell me where this comes from?

Why this was thought of as a as a good charter amendment?

Again, it comes from the the charter review committee that that met.

I I'm wondering about the reasons.

Does anyone care to comment on that?

I think part of it was that a lot of the other cities have longer terms, um, and that it can make more sense for people just learning to be a council person that three years makes more sense in two if if people choose to pass it.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Anything else?

Okay.

This is on the term limits.

Uh the city charter presently does not provide term limits.

Shall the city charter be amended to establish that the mayor and city councils, excuse me, city council members may not serve more than three consecutive terms.

Should you vote yes on this item?

The city charter will be amended.

Future city council members would be limited.

I know it says elected, I do apologize.

I am going to change it.

It would be limited to three terms.

The mayor's three-year term would be on or would be unchanged.

Uh if you vote no on this item, the city charter remains unchanged.

Uh the second item says again, I have it a little incorrect, but it really should say that there would continue to be no limit to the number of consic consecutive terms that a council member could serve.

So currently there is not a limit.

They can continue to serve if they're elected each time they want to run.

And the mayor would also be limited to three terms.

Because it doesn't quite say that.

Yes.

Yes.

Anyone on council have questions about that?

No questions?

No.

Anything from the audience?

Anybody in the public have a question on that?

Okay, moving on.

This is the third one about terms.

The city charter presently does not provide term limits.

Shall the city charter be amended to require city council members who have served three consecutive terms in their ward to wait two years prior to qualifying for a subsequent election for their prior office, unless there are no qualified candidates for their prior office.

What this means is if you vote yes, again, the charter would be amended.

City council members who have served three consecutive terms in the same ward would be required to wait a waiting period.

So the a two-year waiting period before they could qualify again for that same office.

Um exemption would apply if no candidate qualifies for that office.

If you vote no on this item, the city charter remains unchanged.

There would be no waiting period or term limit restriction for the city council member seeking re-election.

We have any council questions or comments?

No.

Any comments from the public?

Okay.

Item number six.

Prohibitions.

The city charter presently provides that council members who are convicted of directing staff or requesting the appointment of or the removal of a city employee are guilty of a criminal second degree misdemeanor.

Shall the city charter be amended to remove the language regarding the potential criminal conviction of a council member of a second degree misdemeanor?

Should you vote yes on this item?

Once again, the charter would be amended.

The provision states that it is a criminal second degree misdemeanor for council members who direct staff or request the appointment or removal of a city employee.

That would be removed from the charter.

If you vote no, the city charter remains unchanged.

The existing provision establishing a criminal second degree misdemeanor would remain in effect.

Do we understand this question?

Any comments?

Yes?

No?

Okay.

Yes.

Do we have any comments from the sure?

Yes.

Hi, all Jennifer Webb.

I was wondering because this all because criminal misdemeanors are set forth and state statute.

So how do you make sure that this doesn't fall out of alignment with state statute?

What what this if mayor, if I may.

Uh-huh.

What this does at present, you would have to be adjudicated according to state statute of a second degree misdemeanor.

Okay.

What this does is remove that language from the charter that you have to be convicted.

Okay.

Because theoretically, you could have an issue that's a state's attorney will not prosecute.

Right.

Subsequently, then you cannot obtain a second degree misconviction.

Conviction misdemeanor.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Moving on to question seven.

This is regarding vacancies.

The city charter generally provides for filling a vacancy on council.

Shall this the city charter be amended to provide that the office of a city council member shall become vacant upon death resignation, removal from office in any manner authorized by law, or forfeiture of office upon a majority vote of remaining city council members.

So should you vote yes?

The charter will be amended.

This does clean up a little bit of the language and puts the sections together.

It adds forfeiture of office as a reason that city council seat can become vacant.

If you vote no on this item, the city charter remains unchanged.

Vacancy provisions would continue to apply as currently provided without adding this the specified circumstances and as such, adding that language for the forfeiture of office.

Moving on to question eight.

Should you vote yes on this item, the city charter will be amended.

It establishes criteria under which a city council member can may forfeit their office, including lack of qualifications for the office, conviction of a crime involving involving moral turpitude, or failure to attend three consecutive regular meetings or four meetings within a 12-month period.

Should you vote no on this item, the city charter remains unchanged.

There would be no specific provision for forfeiture of office by council members.

Do we have questions on this one?

I I don't have a question, but I just wanted to say that I struggled with this one initially because it talked because it references lot lack of qualifications for the office.

And in my brain, I was saying, well, what do you mean lack of qualifications?

There's no require requirement necessarily.

And then I realized, and um, and I wanted to point out in case anyone else is struggling, that for example, if you moved, you no longer are qualified for the office of that ward if you've moved to another ward or if you've moved out of state.

Okay, those would be reasons that you were no longer qualified for office.

I was thinking, you know, differently.

My brain went somewhere else on that one.

Any questions from the all right?

Moving on to question number nine.

I do, I'm sorry.

Okay, yep.

I went there too.

Like, why would you run if you're not qualified?

And why would you be allowed to run if you're not qualified?

Right.

But okay.

But in extenuating circumstances, such as, and I'm thinking about when Sam Henderson's had a parent out of state who was on his deathbed, right?

Was it his father or his mother?

I don't remember.

His mother.

And he wasn't here for uh for a few meetings.

Those are extenuating circumstances.

Does the council have the ability to override this?

At every meeting, uh, just like you heard me say this evening, uh, council member Jackson has asked to be excused.

Okay, so they they do have the opportunity to say no, they're not excused, and that counts as an ex an unexcused absence.

Okay.

Um so they have the opportunity to have to miss meetings for a good reason.

Uh but this is putting a limit on it.

Correct.

Okay, that wasn't a good idea.

So that's why that's my question.

But if they miss three meetings consecutively or four, no matter what the reason.

The consecutive ones, uh I guess if you do have four consecutive ones, the charter does state that you would be removed.

Now, again, people have asked for excused absences, like she is saying, uh, there was a time that the mayor had to be out because of the sickness in the family.

So uh we asked for them to be excused, no objections to it.

And so that it does it doesn't so that's my question.

This is I didn't this is limited to three consecutive or four in a 12-month period.

Correct, yes, ma'am.

So do you have the ability to override that?

That's my question.

If there's extenuating circumstances, the council does, yes.

Okay.

But if it doesn't say that, no, it doesn't say that.

Uh it's the wording.

It's the wording that's okay.

I I'm okay with that.

Um that's probably our fault for putting it together, but for not putting me on the charter board this part is already in there that's a good thing.

This is one part of our charter for 30 years.

No, this is not a change.

This this part well the the uh restraint is the three in a row or four in twelve months.

It's currently in our charter.

I thought you said it was four consecutive that's in the charter now, and they're changing it to three.

So, Teresa, are you saying that even though we're we're changing the number of meetings and such, you're you're saying that in the charter it says that it can be overridden.

Yes, and we're not changing that.

Okay, correct.

We're just spelling out that if you miss three consecutive or four within twelve months, then excuse then.

Uh right, you could you could be.

But if if we said, oh yeah, but you know, this happened and you know they were recovering from some horrific accident and we want to let that slide, that's in the charter, and we're not taking that away.

That was my question.

I imagine so I can read if if you like the current language of uh section 306 uh as to vacancies, which touches on some of this.

Uh so Section A vacancies, a member's seat on the council automatically becomes vacant when such member subsection one fails to attend three consecutive meetings or a total of six regular meetings.

So that's the current language in a 12-month period other than work sessions, unless a majority of the other council members vote to excuse any such absences.

So the the extenuating or circumstances at the council's discretion still would be excusable.

If so, this will not replace that?

Only the because if it does, then you need to get the case are going to be changed, but not that other part it would reduce just the uh total in six months or in 12 months from six to four, and then the rest of it will stay the same.

Effective, yes, effectively, right?

Exactly.

Okay.

Thank you.

No problem, thank you.

Did that raise any other questions for anybody?

Okay.

Question number nine, removal from office.

The city charter does not provide a provision for removal of a council member from office.

Shall the city charter be amended to provide for council member removal from office for violations of the city charter or adopted rules after an independent magistrate hearing upon which there is a finding of intentional, willful, flagrant, or continuous violations.

Should you vote yes on this item?

The city charter will charter will be amended.

Council members could be removed from office for violations of the city charter or adopted rules after an independent magistrate hearing.

If there is a finding of intentional, willful, flagrant, or continuous violations.

If you vote no, the city charter remains unchanged.

There would be no specific provision for a removal of council members for such violations.

Mayor, if I may, this is the companion language to the question number six.

So I do have a question.

It was about sorry.

Um under seven, um, you know, we had the vote of um upon a majority vote of remaining city council members, and when we were discussing that, I thought that if if say the majority of the council members voted somebody off, then they would be able to have a hearing before a magistrate to confirm that.

But if seven passes and nine doesn't you would be in conflict.

You would have to revisit that to bring them into compliance to coexistence.

Yes.

I mean, there's the items in here that that you could have different questions that could cause create a conflict.

So they could be in conflict if if they don't if they either both don't fail or both pass.

Exactly.

And if they were in conflict, because I see the same thing.

Sure.

Um if they were in conflict, is it possible then that that could be addressed in policies and procedures?

It depends on which question is the one that fails or passes.

Okay.

Because the one that allows you to set policies and such, you could address it there.

But if you're not, if you don't change the second degree misdemeanor aspect, then you've got the conflict.

But the second degree misdemeanor was even different, because in in question seven, it doesn't say why the council would be voting somebody off, but just that they could.

It says upon a majority vote of the remaining city council people.

So they it wouldn't have to be something that comes under the second degree misdemeanor.

Exactly.

But you could theoretically, you could say second that language in question number six stays.

Now you have you to take any action, you're requiring the conviction.

If number six does not change, you will still require a conviction.

Okay.

Is that for that one specific thing of directing?

Ex or for that.

That's what it was in there.

Well, that would be council can address something else in their policies and procedures.

If that other question passes.

See what we were trying the council had and the charter review was had taken that language, as the city attorney had spoke about at the time, and as I explained earlier.

The others provide for you to have policies and such that what rises to the occasion that someone violates.

But that's also investigated by the special hearings held by the special magistrate or the magistrate appointed.

I I'm not trying to confuse the two magistrates.

But the that's where the conflicts could happen.

You could have that language still in your charter that requires conviction of a second degree misdemeanor.

But you also have other mechanisms that you're looking at.

So one stays in, you're still prolipp provided that you must be convicted if it doesn't change.

But but say the second degree misdemeanor is eliminated.

Okay.

So nobody's getting that's correct.

But still, if if the majority vote of the council votes somebody off, but we haven't put in the procedure for having a magistrate.

Um that would be adopted by your policies.

And we could adopt all the yes, that's a process.

But we are well, I I misspoke, then let me put it in a different procedure.

Procedure, okay.

Procedures.

Because then you're tied specifically to that.

You're when you set your policies and procedures, you could create the procedure of how you're gonna hold the hearing for that person.

Because it has to be based on a report of the magistrate.

If you look at the the question where in regards to the magistrate, yeah, but I'm wondering again, like say question seven passes.

Right.

That that the council could vote off a council member, but not the second degree thing is out of the picture.

Right.

But we don't pass number nine, then we could still make a procedure that if that happens, they could have recourse to a a hearing.

Yes.

Okay, Mr.

Nell.

I'm sorry.

I'm not familiar with Florida law as there how do we identify what an independent magistrate is?

Can you come up because I can't hear you?

Apologies.

Um independent magistrate.

Do we do we know who that is right now?

I mean, do you how do you identify that office in in this kind of a situation?

We have a magistrate that we use for things now.

Okay, and that's the that would be the same person here.

Not necessarily could uh theoretically, but it's not definitely not definitive that you would have that the council may elect to do a request for qualifications and then have a different magistrate for the specific case.

Are these court appointed people?

Is that no?

They are counsel retained.

So I I could be a magistrate.

Yes, if you're a if you're a member of the bar and such and meet the minimum requirements, yes.

All right, thank you.

Magistrate requirement to be a magistrate that is laid out in state statute.

I see, counselor?

It is I couldn't tell you exactly which one, but I could find it if you if you give me a second.

No, no, I just uh yeah, independent magistrate.

I just wondered if that's a term of art and and who those folks might be.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Before we move on.

Okay.

Our last and final uh question is question number 10, and this is the about the charter review.

The city charter presently provides review every 10 years.

Shall the city charter be amended to provide for complete review of the city charter by a citizens committee appointed by the city council every five years?

Should you vote yes on this?

A citizens committee would be need to be appointed by the city council every five years to conduct a full charter review.

If you vote no, the charter review would continue to occur every ten years as it is currently stated.

I have a question on this one.

So this is saying that there if if this were to pass by the voters in Galport, that there would need to be a review every five years instead of every ten.

But does it restrict that it couldn't be done a year or two down the road?

If a new counsel came on board and said this is this is what we want to do.

You can request that your that we do this for you at any time.

However, the charter, our policy statement says, regardless of what council says, we need to do this every 10 years.

Or right now it's every 10.

Right.

But uh what they're asking is to change that to five years.

So it would be a requirement of us every five years to put together a committee for charter review and review it in full.

Got it.

But if something came up, a particular item that we wanted to change, we could get a committee together to evaluate it and have a referendum on just that one thing if we council has the ability to call any committee at any if they like, yes.

Council has the ability to call any committee at any if they like, yes.

Okay.

Yes.

So then is it five years from if you decide to have one or five years from the last full one?

From it would be five years from the last full one.

So it were to pass it, would be this we did one in 2025.

Right.

Um, the next required if you were to choose five years would be in 2030.

So, like if the next council in July says we want to have something reviewed, and it is reviewed, and then it would still be five years from when this one was reviewed previously.

Cool, thanks.

Any other questions?

That is all I have for you.

Those are all the questions.

Um we want to take public comment at this point or is that to you?

Okay.

And if anybody would like to comment or just so I know I was very definitely trying to limit the questions to what was on here and not to debate whether you know if you liked it or not.

I was trying to stay away from that.

But if if in closing, if anyone wants to do a public comment first, we'll accept it.

Does uh but before I do that, does anybody from the charter review committee want to have say anything?

We're not gonna make you.

It's a it's it's totally voluntary.

We're not gonna make you, and we're not gonna make anyone do public comment.

We're just saying if you want to, you know.

Oh, goodness.

You notice I did the same thing.

Madam Mayor, this is open.

Yeah.

Okay.

So you know, a lot of people have come up here.

I think the biggest hot button originally was the leases and how we looked at that in the terms.

And I want to kind of explain it to people so that they understand where the charter committee and our constituents, which are the city uh residents came about it.

If you do a 30-year lease, and the pricing goes up, the city loses money.

The first line in our charter says everything is in the benefit of the city.

Okay, sorry.

Everything is in the benefit of the city and for its constituents.

You always have to remember that.

Okay.

So we end up talking about, of course, two buildings.

The yacht club, Boca Sega.

Yes, they've been here a long time, they've done things, we've done things for them also.

So a couple remarks were made about being non-profit and not for profit.

It's a big difference.

Nonprofit is for the public.

Not for profit is for the members.

So the question that should be asked is how many people are part of the city who vote and use their money, or part of the nonprofit or nonprofit.

It makes a big difference.

So the people who are gonna vote here, it's the city people, and that's what it's gonna come down to.

Who you're gonna vote for, or what are you gonna vote for?

Whether to go with the leasing or the market value, it's based on what is good for the city.

That's the bottom line.

Anyone else from the committee want to speak?

No, nope.

I see all nose.

Okay.

Public comment.

Yes, Jonathan.

I was gonna leave it well enough alone.

What's best for the city, as I just heard the gentleman, almost certainly sounds like that was financially what is best for the city, is if the city is a corporation, a C Corp, it has quarterly uh reports, and that is all that matters.

A business does that, a city does not.

A city is measured by the quality of a life, it is measured uh by the environment, by the opportunities it provides its citizens.

And uh it has to be run responsibly, of course.

That's a given.

And uh we all in favor of that.

But this business focus on a city, how a city should operate, I think is misplaced and comes from people who probably are in business, as I am, and look with blinders and think perhaps everything should be measured that way.

And I don't.

Thank you.

So we just saw heard two sides of the coin, but the good thing is that every single resident in Gulfport gets to vote, and they're the ones who are going to call the dis make the decision.

We just heard an argument for both sides.

So, you know, if you feel strongly about it, I would really encourage you to get out and talk to your neighbors and tell them why you think this is good or why you think it's bad, you know, and get them to see things your way.

I would encourage that.

It would be totally wrong of us to give any kind of opinions, which is what we tried to not do tonight.

Um the voters will decide.

Did you still have your hand up?

Not to beat a dead horse and talk about the benefits to the city as opposed to you know the benefits to the not-for-profit that may be there.

Um this kind of leads me back to what are you looking at for benefit.

Um, if you're wanting organizations to come into your community that provide things for the city that are not for profit, they have to have a place to be able to do it where they can afford to be there.

And when you look at the entities that are there, what are they providing for the city?

Is it only monetary?

Or are we looking at things like Sea Scouts?

Are we looking at the youth sailing, which is completely provided for free for the youth of Gofport for every single citizen in Goldport, their kids can get free sailing lessons every summer at two-week camps?

Um, the scouts completely free organization, um, sales school for adults and things like that.

When you take those opportunities for those not profits to come, now you're taking away co like uh social benefits and things that bring communities together just to replace it with maybe getting a little more money.

So that's kind of my first thing.

When you put a five-year cap on an organization, it limits them into what they feel that they can provide or offer because when they invest and put so much into it, the the the fact that in five years that may just come all for naught.

They're probably gonna try and find somewhere else to move into where they can see long-term investment in the community that they're in, and that the community sees a long-term investment in them.

So that's as far as that five year that that's how my brain sees it.

As far as the fair market value, I still go back to questioning that because to get real fair market value, you kind of have to know what you're valuing.

Is this going to be a commercial use property?

Is this going to be um a social club property?

Is this going to be a public use property?

That would affect the value of all of that.

And so without knowing what that's going to be, how is it that the fair market value is going to be assessed?

And I've done quite a bit of research too, and I'm still seeing a disconnect.

So if you're looking at um an overall fair market value that includes public or commercial um commercial use, you are then elevating the cost of that property to where a lot of not-for-profits would not see that as an something that was available to them.

And then that then brings it back into who is going to be able to handle that fair market value.

Is it the entities that the communities have expressed they don't want?

Where they may not even understand that by by adding this fair market value um amendment into this, that they could potentially leave the city with either having to make up the cost or it going to an entity that they don't they don't actually want in their community.

That's just kind of my point.

My questions are more of a policy, not about fighting for who gets it or who doesn't get it.

These referendum bring up policy issues to me that don't seem to make sense.

It's the fair market value.

I I still haven't heard anybody explain how we'll arrive at the fair market value.

So can I just address one thing there?

I think that the point of this was that people before were not pleased with um them getting dollar leases for a whole year.

And so this is to to bring it into something that's like a more normal kind of rent.

And I agree with you, there could be some questions about how you get to fair market value.

Yeah.

Yes, please.

Laura Oldaney, Ninth Avenue South.

So I'm still not sure which way I'm voting on this.

I guess I'm just talking out loud myself, continuing this conversation.

But in a climate where we have state leadership that is looking to eliminate property taxes, I just encourage us to think about the fact that the hurricane took out a major revenue source for us in the casino.

And I think the yacht club and the marina are some of our other revenue sources.

And so we don't have that many revenue sources as a small town.

So again, I get the other forms of value.

I'm not questioning that at all.

But I also come back to being a fiscal pragmatist looking down the barrel of potential property tax losses.

So that's just something for us all to think about as well, because I don't know if we have other, you know, the manager and the city council members, but I don't know if we as residents have a clear understanding of what our city's income sources are and how much they have been impacted by the hurricane and how much they could potentially be impacted by the loss of or decrease in property taxes.

Laura, take if you I know you don't have a lot of time, but if you'd look at the website, a lot of those answers are there.

Okay.

We've been working on it routinely.

Anyone else that hasn't spoken?

Alrighty.

This meeting is somebody to address something that was brought up by one of the council members.

Yeah, that just no.

When you come up for public comment, I know you haven't been here that I know, but when you come up, you get one chance to speak, and that's it.

And you did.

I understand.

Okay.

Having seen none, then I'm gonna say this meeting.

If I may clarify one point, I'll come up and and that it I think I might know what she was talking about.

I'm sorry.

But no, but right now the council members, and then I'm gonna call you up, Julie.

Okay.

Um so historically, some of our leases have been a dollar a year, but there were other incomes that contributed, those are not a dollar a year now.

I believe they're 2,000 a month now.

So I I just hear so much of that over the year, how their leases are still a dollar a year, they are not.

So I didn't want anybody leaving here or for that myth to continue.

So that's all I had to say.

Okay, yeah.

I agree.

Thank you.

Julie, I'm sorry.

Oh, that was it.

Can I just make one comment about voting?

Yeah, of course.

I just want to remind everybody that February 9th is your deadline to register to vote.

Um, and you have until February 26th, if you would like a mail ballot, uh, so you can go online to the votepanellist.com and request a mail ballot to be mailed to you.

Uh, those do expire every two years.

So if you had one on file, it did expire in 2024.

So if you did not re-up it since then and you're expecting a mail ballot to come to you, it will not be coming unless you have gone to the to the uh supervisor of elections website and re-requested that mail ballot for another two years.

Yeah, and ballots did drop already.

I got mine already.

So if you don't get it in the next day or so, then you're not getting it.

And that's vote panelist.org, by the way, and at that back table, there's some voting information, I believe some little postcards, etc.

So I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

One of our residents was kind enough to contribute those.

Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.