[Music] [Music] all right everyone good evening uh meeting date uh special Commission meeting meeting date Thursday February 29th 2024 4 at 600 p.m. commission Chambers 500 Southwest War Avenue U roll call Madam clerk cler know the absence of commission here okay he's here all right let's uh stand for the pledge Alle remain stand for vocation please the United States of [Music] America God indivisible andice for pray today that you grant us wisdom and Revelation as we sit here today to make decisions for this town bless us bless this city this beautiful city bless our police and our firefighters bless our County our state and your entire nation the military and continue to uh continue to pray for Israel that continue to defend them against their enemies in Jesus name pray amen amen amen man do we have any public comments for today we don't no thank you we on to item five an ordinance of the city of Sweetwater Florida adopting Forida retirement system for General employees providing for exceptions providing for Authority providing for cability providing for clarification providing for an effective date second read and public hearing mayor Diaz opening public comments show com public comments close and may to our attorney he has to add something to it right so uh here's the circumstance um the the collective bargaining agreement with the general employees otherwise known as the civilian employees provides for pension contributions towards their pension plan or towards the 457 plan that we've established the new collective bargaining agreement that has been negotiated by the mayor uh provides for the third option for the F FRS the Florida retirement system and then that was going to be voted upon yesterday ratified and then we would be voting on the second reading of that ordinance today based upon the authority that would have been granted Yesterday by the membership unfortunately the membership for reasons unknown voted against the collective bargaining agreement it wasn't even close it was eight votes yes 29 votes no so obviously there's something going on here but and they're they're unhappy somehow but that means that the ordinance as written cannot go forward because the that ordinance provides for immediate applicability so I have drafted a substitute version that makes it applicable upon the ratification of a new collective bargaining agreement by the city commission so we can pass that ordinance today get that and get get everything done have the mayor signed it and everything and it will not take effect until such data in the future as a collective bargain agreement is path that contains this information or contains this provision so right now since there's already been a vote on the first reading there is an item in front of the commission that we want to substitute that item so we need a vote we need a motion on the second and then a vote to substitute and then once it's substituted we need a motion in a second and a vote to pass it okay just to understand there's there's one here I see one that reads substitute on top right corner and I just received that's the one we're seeing now that's one we're speaking about now so eliminates this one be clear please I there are two I that one is and the next one for the following it got it yeah so have you correctly here yes on item six substitute that's the following it this is item five substitute this the one we just received okay it's item five substit there's going to be a substitution for item six as well but for different reasons okay so I need a motion and a second and then a vote to substitute and a motion second second and I vote to adopt to substitute second whatever move been second roll call Madam clerk commissioner yes commissioner re yes commissioner yes commissioner yes commission Mar yes commission yes president R yes okay so we need a motion a second for adoption adoption move second move second we call M first commissioner re yes ma'am commissioner yes commissioner yes commissioner Martin yes commissioner V yes commissioner yes president Ray yes he passes passes let's go to item six an ordinance of the city of the city of Sweetwater floor determining the elected officers retirement trust transition elected officer to the Florida retirement system providing for exceptions providing for Authority providing for cability providing for codification providing for an effective date second reading and public hearing mayor Diaz open public hearings public comments mayor Diaz I have something right so this has been substituted as well in order to take care of the blanks that are found in paragraph a and paragraph C we have the ACT so okay so paragraph a it's changing terminated effective blank to terminated effective date hereof and then paragraph C um terminate or fills in the date of you know um this blank day of blank 2024 it makes it effective from uh service from the 9th day of May 2023 forward so those are the the changes that have been proposed um if they're acceptable then we would need similarly to the general employees ordinance we would need a motion and a second and a vote to to substitute the items and then a motion in a second and a vote to adop the okay so do I have a motion to substitute move second so we have a move in a second roll call First commissioner di yes commissioner yes commissioner Martin yes commissioner yes commissioner yes commissioner re yes president Ray yes okay I right don't we need a motion to adopt future go ahead I have a few questions okay so I have have pondered this I have discussed it with the mayor and I see the great benefit this plan offers I see this as a huge cast shavings to the city of Sweetwater it's my understanding um through the chair uh can I uh ask our finance director to the podium please sure how you doing sir good CH mberg Finance director thank you sir so first can you please tell me if we were to adopt this plan how much would the city of sweet waterer save every year Well currently just for the Commissioners um the pensionable earnings and the cost are $630,000 a year um joining the F FRS at regular class covering both the Commissioners and the mayor would cost $37,800 at your current pay rate and the regular class so that's about $600,000 be freed up from what we need to contribute to the current city um elected official retirement plan I think that's a huge savings and to be perfectly honest with you I've always said that and I want to put this on the record again I've always said that the uh pension plan that the elected officials have had in the city of Sweet Water is highway robbery um and I'm I'm happy that we're moving moving forward and we're obviously uh you know being fiscally responsible so for that I thank all my colleagues and the mayor and staff for doing it I do have some causes for concern I want to put it on the record so this new plan um if we were to adopt this new plan it would mean that an elected official would receive this benefit immediately is that correct there are AC crude benefit that per current uh Net v president value that ACR benefit based upon their years of service would be 100% but not at 9 years it would be whatever 100% of what they have now got it so next year we have elections we have a new commissioner does that new commissioner receive that retirement benefit immediately the new the new retirement benefit yeah that benefit would go into they would be in the Florida retirement system okay and that would be one benefit and then we have a proposed C 401 which would be another and would take them a year to vest in both great so this is only a this is basically a big mess in my opinion because in order to solve the problem and stop the bleeding we have to basically uh change the existing benefit from every elected official here to F FRS but in doing so there is going to be a financial instrument that's a benefit that has to be moved into another vehicle whether it's FRS or mutual fund or 401K um now this benefit is based on years of service and age correct so for example I am the senior commissioner I've been here continuously longer than everyone else a but somebody who's been here less time who's older would get more money that part still baffles me but I'm not really concerned with that what about a commissioner who served four years then left for two and now is serving again does that commissioner's time count towards the benefit because this is an unfunded liability correct the only thing that counts is the current term non-consecutive years prior years do not count why because that's the what the system says they have to be consecutive and you have to reach the nine so we're saying we're not going to count the nine we'll only count the numbers you have and then we'll net present value of it until you can collect because you're in your young 40s um can't collect that money without penalties for quite some time so that's why yours is slightly less than someone who has slightly less service but is older well I'm not concerned with the amount of money that I would be receiving I'm not going touch money um I'm I'm not concerned with that the concern that I do have is under the under the current ordinance you have a 9-year vesting schedule but in order to fix this debacle we basically have to throw the baby out with the bath water it's an ugly mess in order to fix it and have the resident stop paying $600,000 a year for retirement and that's just for the Commissioners so this I'm I'm aware so this is where I'm conflicted because this makes Financial sense for the city the city has a huge savings and I think Al together we're talking about you know almost $800,000 a year is that more or less accurate yeah once you factor in the mayor to it too this perhap first mayor is one thing the next mayor could have been covered under your current plan which would be you know 180% of salary I completely understand I um I do have an issue and I'm and I'm having a personal conflict with receiving a monetary benefit that I have not vested yet so for example I've been here seven years under our current ordinance it says n years I don't believe that I deserve any benefit until I reach the N9 years so this is my first conundrum I also understand that in order to fix the problem and save the city $800,000 a year we have to stop the leing somehow long you wait the more I'm also looking at the political implications of something God forbid something comes out in the media the Commissioners paid themselves all this money and now we have to sit there and explain no no no we were saving the money $800,000 a year may to help you let me finish if I can okay um I'm having an issue with this I've sat down with you I've sat down with my own experts I sat down with my own legal team and I'm really conflicted now I will go let's just say for example I vote Yes on this I will go ahead and take my financial instrument I'm not going to touch it I'm just going to roll it over into something is there a specific plan that the city's offering that I can roll it over or I have to choose my own plan you have to choose your own does that also mean that any one of the Commissioners here can go ahead and cash out that money yes that I have a problem with because now it's a benefit that we're not I don't believe that we deserve state law says we can't take away something even though it's not fully vested we can't take away one Pension Plan without providing another I understand I understand what the state law says and I research it I also understand it's an unfunded liability and nothing says you have to take the money I understand thank you for answering my questions uh that I thank no no hold on and commission R I understand your your conflict as you see it but first and foremost that's why we've done this by the book that's why we and you're right to settle one problem you have to sometimes look at it and it's not perfect for everybody but for this case this is not only the law but it's something that's been established to help the employees of the city to solve a situation that we were trying to figure how to do so that's not going to cost us an arm anday and dealt with a with a policy system that pretty soon we're going to be coming up to when things settle on a current situation and we have to pay out a large sum of money Ser pension well um everybody here is going to understand and it's going to be backed up with something that was done to not have that happen again in the city of SW so the greater good is exactly what you're doing to I don't see it as an unfunded mandate I see it as the law that to take one vehicle and stop the bleeding on one side you have to create another would it be perfect all the time absolutely not and never is but by law we've checked it we checked expert attorneys on this and everything states that everything's done exactly the way it should be but at the end of the day the citizens of Sweetwater are the real winners here because it's not putting out the kind of money that you ask the right questions is to ask the amounts and everything so it could be very career this is why I brought this forward because it benefits not only the citizens the employees but everybody and it's the most solid pensionable system that is out there today so this is why I ask for your support on this through the chair go ahead thank you R would you like to expand upon the conversation that we had with Pedro the penion attorney sure so um over the course of the last week I have been I've received several questions from different people same question from different people and that is uh A variation of U commissioner V was concern that you're taking or we're taking money that is unvested in the old pension and then we're moving those benefits over into a new pension and either making them invested right away or making them invested within the year and so we're changing the vesting procedure um my View at the time and please Rec call not a pension expert my view at the time was that we were merely closing down an old plan and opening up a new plan and the old plan has certain rules and the new plan will have rules that will by the nature of the plan be different and as long as we do not diminish the value that people in the old plan have in their current plan when we switch over to the new plan there nobody's diminish as long as nobody's interest is um diminished then at that point it's fine and then there is no issue but there there was up and through today there's been that question so I conferred commissioner You Know M and I confirmed confirmed with uh Pedro erera who's the lawyer for the police pension and for the elected officials pension on this and asked specifically that question and the the response that uh Mr herera gave was exactly what I've just said that there's no legal prohibition to this on the contrary this is exactly how things happen how it works when you close down one old pension to open up a new pension the rules are different we have to take the Assets in the old pension have to move them over roll them over into the new pension even if the rules in the new pension are different even if they're more favorable to the uh to the beneficiaries of the pension uh there's no he say specifically this is commonplace this is not anything that's out of the ordinary in fact it's completely consistent with the legal requirements I mean am I forgetting anything here commissioner no I I think you're on point uh so in essence you each have a vested balance whether you're whether you have a balance that you've accured to today whether you're vested or not and that's being trans that amount is calculated by the actuary that amount what's transferred into the new retirement vehicle and then if the vesting period is one year then one year from today is when you vest on that money the conversations that we did have with Pedro that you didn't touch upon is that nobody should be cashing this money it should be moving into a retirement vehicle of the city so uh if I need to make a motion that we go to a retirement vehicle of the city being uh the 401 with Nationwide or the investment plan with h with f FRS for the for the 401 contribution then then that's what I think we need to also talk to to Carlos I forget his last name our auditor the CPA who talked about um because I know the limit on the 401s and that's a that's a government sponsored plan um is 69,000 a year and I don't even believe there's a catchup provision on it um but I believe the individual retirement account when you're rolling it over there isn't going to be a limit but he might say rolling over makes no limit on the 401 either but he he said he would talk to everybody and give them individual advice if they wanted on what vehicle they what vehicles they could use so so in essence there's I I think your your concern commissioner Yan is that nobody should be touching money you've got an acred balance on the current plan that's being moved to the new plan and there's a one-year vesting then you can't touch that till the onee vesting moving forward and the other question that you asked is if there's a new commissioner that commissioner would then have a one-year vesting period also that pretty much question so look let me let me make it abundantly clear by changing this retirement when I ran the numbers the Commissioners end up cting the city less money and the Commissioners end up making less money I'm all for that I honestly believe that our current plan is ridiculous and it's it's like milking the cow I I don't think it's fair that we would end up getting that amount of money in our current plan I'm all for giving us less I think this is a public service job um I've always said it's not fair that we get a healthy retirement and our police officers get a less uh you know lesser retirement and then our civilian employees have have a crap retirement that we need to work on and and make it better for them in this new plan we will be receiving less money check in this new plan it would cost City less money check if what you're saying is correct and all we're doing is voting upon the vessel changing the plan itself and we are not receiving a monetary cash value where we can pull out I'm all for that because all we're doing is basically saying we're moving from plan a to plan B I am great with that I have a problem with us saying we're going to move to plan a plan B and I'm going to pull out 100 grand and I'm going to go to Europe with that money I think that's wrong so if you can tell me that what I'm saying or my my my fears if you can quell my fears and say no nobody can cash out that money then you got a yes for me is that accurate my I I don't want to cut Scott off here Scott has a different take on this but my view is that perhaps this is being over comp overly complicated you have the old plant you're moving the assets from the old plant into the new plant check the new plant has its own rules and I'm not an expert on what those are I don't know if you only pull them out on Tuesdays if if there's a full moon in the sky or if you can pull it out the day that the day after you turn 45 or you can only pull it up a day after you turn 65 I don't know what those rules are okay but whatever those rules are when you move the assets from the old plan into the new plan you're governed by that set of rules if you can if the rule if the new plan says you can pull out all the money if that's what you want then that's what the plan says I don't think it says that because it's a it's a retirement vessel like any other are they getting the the 401 or are they getting the retirement okay in the in the F FRS okay they will get to choose okay in we also have the city 401 okay right which they are not participating in right now but that we can make them participate in the question is can the assets from this go into that City 401 on their behalf or they have to go into an individual retirement I think that they have to go into the fs no the F FRS won't take that money you're not buying P service you are covered by plan you can't bypass service the only people who can byass service can't roll that in there you you have to roll it you can put it into an individual retirement account tax deferred the vehicles May and the the vehicles are specific to the need of the rollover in specifying and he's right that it should be to the anur also this should be rolled over simply into a new vehicle and and just leave it there I don't think by the way he's right in the way he stated it but again everybody's kind of right but then we're you're you're missing certain points each plan has options for instance in the plan that in the county you could pull out money based on emergency stuff and you could also replace that money but it's going to cost you and when you pull it out it's a taxable event and also you have a penalty so most people don't pull it out because but that's whether you're one plan or another if we put it into the city 401 the current vest which we're going to change is three years we're going to change it back to one year because it used to be one year and that's what the vest is in F FRS for the 401 for the defined contribution plan the vest is only one year there's no reason for it to be any more so that would limit if we did put it into the city's defined contri Define uh 401 plan your ability to touch it right now for 3 years or until one year when the mayor makes decision that all employees should have a one-year vest which is something we've talked about and we agreed we don't know why it was changed it used to be one year and then at some point a few years ago without going to the commission the mayor changed it to how many years to three to three so we we would is that even relevant come to the commission then so really it's one year I was told he was allowed to do it I can't give you the legal opinion about whether he was but either way the 401 plan administrator told me it was done by the previous mayor I said well if it's done by the previous mayor it could be undone by the new mayor yeah we're going to we're we're rectifying everything for our employees for everybody in the city and I've said it already four times especially and I'm like the way it's been said to protect the money of the citizens too so this has every option that we're looking for I advise you uh it's your decision at the end of the day if there's a provision for you to take out your money I I tend to agree that this should be put in and the money is invested within a year and you should put the money into that and not touch that money uh because the penalties and stuff and everything that will require is not it's high and it's not worth it if there is that but that will be brought to you by uh you said the ACT you'll meet with them individually caros which what they do for Liv because they audit the things and they know what they're doing along or with which ever professional but our lawyer is already stated and and cons he didn't feel comfortable on it and he consulted an expert attorney on the matter and it's been stated very clear so guys there's more checkups positive on this there's nothing perfect but at least this gets us in a better state for our citizens and it makes us move forward professionally and and by the way I'll say it again as the commission said as we grow we need more people here and we need talented people and this is also a great recruiting vehicle for us and I'll state it one more time as everybody here stated so with that I think uh unless anybody has anything else I'll wait so if we um there's any way SEC train that we can change this ordinance the uh the language on it you can change as much of it as you want as a regular ordinance this ordinance was proposed to us by the people at F FRS so it contains specific language that they require um I would but on this language that we have right now do we have anything that says that you have to be within you know you know like like I me I'm agree with what the commissioner is saying not to cash it now just go over it well the thing is again whatever vehicle you put the proceeds in that vehicle will have its own controlling rules so if you put it into a 401 then those rules are federal and they said you can't pull up any of the money unless you reach a certain AG for I think it's 59 and a half yes yes and once you reach 59 half you pull off that money at that point but once you start pulling out the money you have to pay taxes on that money and penties no no no penalties after9 before before you have to pay ta and the taxes and the penalties so these are all federal rules so I don't think that we have the authority to implement rules that contradict whatever the federal government says on us the federal government is fair preempted this area of Finance so I don't think that we have the authority to do so right I don't know that you know yeah again I don't think we have the authority no so that's why I'm saying you might have a mixture of a 401 and an individual retirement account part of it in the city 401 part of an IND of require retirement account all will defer taxes until you're 59 and a half which is I think what the objective of most people is yeah the only thing I'm getting from this only thing I'm getting from this is what what I'm trying to understand from what sa was saying and and commissioner V was saying is the language that they want to I don't know language that he wants to probably implement is so we won't be able to cash it out that's that we have to force the yeah but that's the whole thing the money goes into a vehicle okay it goes into FRS FRS has its own rules it goes into uh our city 401 or the FRS 401 those are federal rules at that point okay so actually all this is a risk is a federal rule exactly all all of it has Federal rules this what if I can Mr President and I don't want to interrupt uh take me you was next but this is balanced exactly to to do everything that we basically discussed but it's not our balance it is the balance that was brought by F FRS itself and their guidelines and their rules I repeat it one more time I suggest to everybody here roll the money over into a vehicle that you're not going to get taxed fined and everything else unless you retire which is what is being said if you decide to retire if you're 59 and a half and you decide to take that benefit then you retired you take what it is because it's a whole new plan so everything I think is pretty methodical involved here and everything's been pretty much spelled out so it's up to you individually but I don't think anybody here is of the return and age except for nobody nobody thank you so okay this is my concern and the marriage right this does check off a lot of boxes and there's a lot of positives my problem is looking at this from a financial standpoint we have the greatest of intentions of a city to go ahead and change a retirement benefit for the elected officials it's going to cost the city and the residents a lot less money we're going to save $800,000 a year and the elected officials are going to be receiving a lot less money in that retirement I think that checks a lot of boxes my problem is that we don't have a vehicle because we can't roll that money into FS so right now we're basically voting upon this ordinance to go ahead and change to FRS but the existing money that we have that Financial instrument is B basically you guys decide where you want to put that money now I know how where I want to put that money I'm going to put that money in something separate but now you're giving me that option which means I now have a cash value I can actually if I want to say you know what I'm not doing it I'm taking that money I'm cashing it I'm paying the penalty and it is what it is and that's where I have a problem with this I don't like the language I like the intent I see the mayor's intent and I applaud you for the intent I know know that that this is going to stop the bleeding and I applaud you for what you're doing but I have a problem with the language and I'm I'm trying to dialogue again I'm not trying to be difficult I I have a problem with this with this vehicle and I don't I don't know that there's another way to do it that's the problem um you know uh if there was a way to to restrict it we would have probably come up with it but I don't believe there is and what we do hold on hold on cuz I that's that is my point my point is and that goes to the City attorney and and I'm agree with you mark 100% 100% with what you're saying there's any way we as a commissioner can change the language that's that's what I mean that's the point I'm can't change the language wait a minute wait a minute language how can we do something even you know at the board at the pension board or anything anywhere that we can change that that they cannot cash it out well what you're done with this if this ordinance is passed then at that point most of the work of the pension board will be wound down with the exception of whatever needs to be paid out under the old pension ordance so the new pension board will really not have any effect on any of us I don't believe it will have an effect because it's still the penion board that has to review everything and for the city well the the FRS yes this has been balanced so it works if there's something that could be later on done after we get the F FRS and work with f FRS and try to put that could be done I will look at it and bring it back to you guys but for right now this is the balance that we have to have to go forward which stops the bleeding and it does a lot of other things that benefits everybody I've said it several times if we try to change something or do something we risk that this won't work so this is why I needed to go intact the way it is I could understand the reservations I respect everybody's opinion but the greater good is always the way we have to do this and this is the greater good in every aspect I would tell you and I think everybody's been very clearly stated that you self-govern yourself not to have that money and pulled out but this is very clear we don't know the exact rules you do not we do not know if you cannot do that because you still have to go and be vested for a year okay so I don't see them opening up where others nobody does because it's pretty much the same rules so it's just the issue that we have to it's Scott's right how are we going to do this okay how are we going to do this from stopping one and starting another without this system because this is the only mechanism that there is and you cannot get a better system than we got we're very we're very happy that we're within this system so we got to follow their guidelines and this is why they're telling them we can't change this it has to go forward this way so this is why I'm asking to please move forward with this all right through the chair one last and I'll be brief so I have a few Solutions number one what if we add language to this and I feel a lot more comfortable what if we had language that says we will go ahead and change the F FRS change the F FRS it's it's monetarily beneficial but the elected official cannot collect until he or she is invested for 9 years n years 9 years the only problem with that the only problem with that is that by changing this we're converting to F FRS that money cannot go into F FRS that money has to go into another vehicle right now so we can't do that you know it's not going in for no I get it I'm trying to find to take my money right I'm trying to find I'm trying to find to have another I'm trying to find a solution here so I can fix my my moral conflict and I obviously have one look you know what I I spent enough time on this I've spoke enough I thank you for answering my questions Mr may I want to make it abundantly clear you're you're doing you're doing the right thing because you're stopping the bleed you're doing the right thing because it's going to cost us $800,000 less every single year that's $800,000 that go for everything else or reserves or whatever it is and look I know that you and I have been adversaries in the past but if it wasn't for you we wouldn't have asked the first time we wouldn't have asked the second time you brought peace to our city you and I we didn't speak for 15 years you've been nothing but a gentleman you know that I don't have any hair on my tongue and if I got to say something I'm going to say and I don't care who I piss off so you've been nothing but a gentl a professional I like what you're doing I just have a moral problem with this and I want you to understand this is not a personal attack on you I just I have a problem so thank you for listening to me without I do question Scott can we I'm sorry just one last question what's the what's the IRS guideline for 401 is there a maximum number $69,000 per year yeah can we do can we do 69 this year and then 69 the next year and then it's got the onee vesting tied to it when the city holds the money and nobody can touch it if if the if the person is willing to let the city hold the money we can hold the money and distribute it out that way you know if the person wants to put it in an individual retirement account they can't touch you know we can do it that way but I don't believe there's a way to put all of it in a 401 right now one one shot because people have more than the 69,000 recomending a vehicle City how about the city recommend a vehicle that has a oneyear vesting that at least now everybody feels like well that would be that would be the city 401 we put the first $69,000 into that and in the new year you do the next 69 until you're paid off you're paid off that pretty much should cover will that work for everyone and that will be separate from that will be separate from the annual contribution that you get I just don't know how does that fit with the that fits everybody well except for Mr Diaz here right 69 and 69 were right there you a couple1 short I can hang on I'm almost there can we add a deferred a 457 and put the difference in there you could you could but I I there's a there's a contribution maximum on 457 and I don't know it off the top of my head I think if we did the two together I don't think it'll be $170 I don't think it'll be that high cuz that's all based on your income I believe remember it's a rollover no I know but it's still based on the rollovers you got to see the guidelines 457 is usually a Deferred Comp from from active income and this is different so that's why I would ask Carlos that question car said car talked to Scott he said it be fully tax deferred everybody can choose their own vehicle obviously if we put it all 69,000 into 401 everybody has a little bit less and they would still be able to choose or they could choose to do it year after year or or is there a possibility to do uh another city sponsored Ira that has a limit of one year before you can access the money is that a thing don't think so I mean can it be by contract that everyone signs uh that's getting into some real hypothetical right so the right intent is here listen guys I'm going to ask you go ahead and meet with uh the auditor Mr TR he might have the solution for each one of you I think he does do that and I think it'll satisfy exactly what all of you might have a little bit of discomfort with in doing and I think that talk to him after this this is separate from this and by the way this component does not hurt the other and he M Mr made it very clear okay this component is just the way we have to do things it's up to what you do with that that's the issue that's discomfort and I think looking at everybody here nobody here is going to I don't see anybody doing that but that talk to tr at the time and I think he's going to Scott already repeated that a couple of times and you'll find that you should not have an issue uh and moving those money into those Vehicles okay all right so we have a motion and we have a second we have a motion by commissioner second by commissioner call commissioner by yes commission yes commission no commissioner yes commissioner re yes commissioner yes President we pass it all right item seven an ordinance of the city of Street waterer Florida amending ordinance 4806 codified as statute 2-20 city code for of ordinance by changing the number of tests required by employees exposed to covid-19 prior to returning to work providing for reimbursement of certain medical deductibles removing removing retroactivity of ordinance providing for cability providing for codification providing for an effective date second reading and public hearing commissioner opening public hearing coming public hearing commission second roll call M clerk commissioner Martin yes commissioner yes commissioner Yan yes commissioner GRE yes commissioner yes commissioner yes pres R yes for than you very much