The meeting began with discussions led by Greg Forehand, the attorney representing the PBA, who provided background on his experience in public sector labor law since 2013. Forehand explained that the formation of the police union was driven by concerns about unjust terminations, especially under a previous mayor’s administration. He stressed the need for job protection clauses to ensure that officers are not terminated without just cause, particularly during critical incidents that lead to criminal investigations.

Commissioner Justin Campbell expressed support for law enforcement but questioned the adequacy of the proposed benefits package. He sought clarity on the specific benefits requested by officers, emphasizing the importance of understanding the underlying issues causing the negotiation stalemate. Forehand responded that the key requests included job protection clauses, take-home cars, and window tinting for police vehicles. He argued that take-home cars are a significant recruitment incentive, offering financial benefits and convenience, especially in light of competitive salaries offered by nearby cities such as Jacksonville.

The discussion on take-home vehicles intensified as Forehand suggested that allowing officers to take home cars could improve recruitment efforts. He noted that Jacksonville offered starting salaries of $65,000, higher than Palatka’s, and that the take-home vehicle policy could be a cost-effective recruitment tool. Commissioner Will Jones raised concerns about the logic behind this request, questioning whether the incentive of a take-home car would suffice if salaries remained lower than in surrounding areas. He also emphasized the need for clarity on the geographical implications of the proposed 30-mile radius for take-home vehicles.

Jones further elaborated on the importance of defining the 30-mile radius, arguing that this detail needed thorough consideration before making any decisions about the vehicle policy. There was an acknowledgment of the need for clarity, particularly since police officers work long shifts, which could impact their ability to commute.

The meeting included a representative’s concerns about the legal liabilities associated with officers driving long distances after shifts. They cited risks such as fatigue and potential distractions like deer on the road, emphasizing the importance of insurance provisions included in the contract negotiations. The representative explained that the “dangerous instrumentality rule” holds vehicle owners responsible in case of accidents, but legal precedents protect the city from lawsuits when officers are off-duty and not engaged in official business.

The representative also highlighted the need for a precise map to establish the 30-mile distance more clearly, noting that road miles are typically longer than air miles due to road layouts. They confirmed that the air miles provision was intended to cover all current officers, indicating that only three officers exceeded the road mileage limit, with potential for a fourth.

The broader context of negotiations was discussed, with a commissioner expressing a desire to understand the proposal better and inquiring whether the city had provided any concessions or responses to the union’s requests. The representative explained that negotiations often involve asking for more than what is realistic, anticipating a back-and-forth process. They noted that the city had rejected including adjoining counties due to the vast area and potential complications in mileage.

There was also discussion on how other municipalities handle similar issues, with variations in policies regarding mileage and officers’ responsibilities for private insurance. Some agencies required monthly fees from officers for take-home privileges based on their distance from the jurisdiction. The commissioner highlighted the importance of clarity in understanding the negotiations, given their first experience with such matters. The representative reiterated that they were negotiating primarily around mileage and potential insurance concerns.

As the conversation progressed, there was a suggestion to explore further negotiation sessions to clarify distance provisions before making definitive decisions. The representative proposed that the city commission could provide directives in an executive session regarding future negotiations, including specific mapping requirements or adjustments to the proposed distance. This prompted a discussion about whether to adjourn the public meeting or proceed into a private session to address the negotiation details further.