Mayor & Council

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING by teleconference by calling 646-931-3860 and entering Meeting ID number: 867 8616 0416 Passcode: 508594 or by visiting Join Zoom Meeting at: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86786160416?pwd=oka9gJTT8gvjP932SNridprBEK8muV.1 Special Council Meeting Council Chamber, Smyrna Town Hall 27 S. Market Street Plaza, Smyrna, Delaware April 8, 2025 – 7:15 PM* Agenda 1. 7:15 PM – Call to order The meeting was starting before the room’s video started. All members of Mayor and Council were present, except Councilwoman Gott who couldn’t be present because she is also running for the Mayoral seat. 2. Hearing to consider qualifications of candidate running for Mayor in 2025 municipal election, including discussion and possible action by Town Council on result of the hearing The Town Solicitor, Barrett Edward, talked about how the meeting will go. Information and evidence will be presented. This is a fact finding hearing. Members of Council are sitting kind of like judges. They will have to determine what standard of review they are applying. Like in a criminal case, it’s clear and convincing evidence and if there’s any shred of doubt, then you can’t convict. They are going to hear evidence from both sides and whichever one they think is slightly more convincing than the other, doesn’t mean that there are no holes in either case, but it just which one they think is more convincing than the other; 51% preponderance of the evidence, the one with the greater weight. Barrett said that they will talk about the term bona fide domiciliary, but before that, they need to make sure that everyone on Council, can hear this case in an impartial way. This is an opportunity for anyone to recuse themselves. They can sit in the audience and listen. To hear this matter, they have to have no preconceived emotions. They have to be able to hear everything and make a decision based on what is presented without any bias or prejudice. He asked if anyone needed to recuse themselves. Mayor Johnson and Councilman Pope recused themselves and sat in the audience. Barrett explained why Councilwoman Gott was not present. Per the Charter, with her running for Mayor, she isn’t allowed to be a part of the hearing. This left Vice Mayor Rasmussen, Councilwoman Dr. Upshur, Councilman Pressley, and Councilman Johnson.  Barrett said that under the Town Charter, the question is whether or not Mr. Coates has been a bona fide domiciliary of the Town for at least one year prior to the date of the election. He will read some definitions and then they’ll hear factual evidence from both side and they’ll be able to apply that. Fritz vs Fritz, the Delaware Supreme Court from 1962, and it quotes a US Supreme Court: a domiciliary is defined as a dwelling place with the intention to make that place the resident’s permanent home. It requires a concurrence of the fact of living at a particular place with the necessary intention of making that the permanent home. Absent this intent, no domicile exists at the place of living. Black’s Law Dictionary: the definition of domicile says that the place at which a person has been physically present, and that the person regards as home a person’s true fixed principle and permanent home to which that person intends to return and remain event though currently residing elsewhere. Some commentary on the difference between a residence and a domicile. A residence usually just means bodily presence, as an inhabitant in a given place. Domicile usually requires bodily presence plus an intention to make the place one’s home. Barrett asked if they had any questions. They did not. He said that there are four of them remaining; not an odd number. If there is a tie 2-2 vote, it’s not in terms of winning or losing, but it’s the Town Manager, under the Charter, the Town Manager is presenting evidence, his burden to show that Mr. Coates is not a bona fide domiciliary in the Town. So if there’s a 2-2 vote, that means the Town Manager did not meet is burden and Mr. Coates would remain on the ballot. For Mr. Coates to not be on the ballot, it would require three votes. He asked if they had any questions. They did not. He handed the floor to the interim Town Manager, Torrie James. Torrie James presented first. He said that after establishing the list of candidates, he received some telephone calls from some residents that were questioning whether or not one of the candidates lived within the town limits as a true domicile. He has prepared a kind of opening statement for this, and the question is not Mr. Coates wants to run for Mayor, it’s whether or not he can. The Town of Smyrna has a clear and lawful requirement: a candidate for Mayor must reside within the corporate limits of the town and must be their domicile area. This isn’t ceremonial, it’s foundational. It ensures that the person elected serves the community and it truly part of it. The ordinance doesn’t ask whether you receive mail, it asks where you live your life. For the Blacks dictionary, a domicile is defined as the place where a person has their true, fixed and permanent home and principle establishment to which they have the intention of returning whenever absent. It’s not a mailing address. It’s not a property that you own. It’s not a one room apartment. It’s your domiciliary. It’s where you lay your head, and you intentionally come back. Importantly, Blacks defines residents whether the context of a domicile as included in the place where one lives with our family or where they maintain a permanent household. The home must be clearly permanent and lawful. The Town of Smyrna own ordinances uphold this principle. They require that a Mayoral candidate must reside within the Town’s corporate limits, not occasionally, not symbolically, but permanently and lawfully. Mr. Coates does claim that the residence at the property that he lives at is where he lives. He does own several other properties, most of them that are not, I think, within the Town of Smyrna. Under his own admittance, he does lay his head at each of them at different times. The evidence that will be presented will show that Mr. Coates has a paper trail that he’s living at this residence, and it appears that he is satisfying the requirements that appears for the residency, but the law demands more. It demands that actual presence, lawful occupancy in the intent to remain, and he doesn’t feel that none of that is present. In saying all this, he does not feel that Mr. Coates is eligible to run for the Mayoral candidacy within the Town of Smyrna. Some things to focus on and some things that will be talked about is that definition. We’re not defining whether or not he lives there a couple of day, whether or not he is there for a couple of months. The thing is you must reside there for a year. It must be your domicile. By his own admittance, that is not the case. His electric history has been looked into. Past permits have been looked into. There’s some question as to if there is an apartment that’s there. The Town operates under the ICC, International Code Council. It is a family of 15 coordinated modern building safety codes. They help ensure the design and construction of safe, sustainable and affordable structures. The I codes are most widely used and adopted and set of model codes as the world. All 50 U.S. states and many other countries have adopted these codes. On another Town of Smyrna Ordinance, Section 18 Dash 1600 adoption, that certain documents, at least one copy of this is on file in the Office of the Department of Planning and Inspections, being marked and designated as ICCA 117.1 Dash 2009. Basically, what that's saying is that we adopt the ICC codes and that's what we follow under that. To make it a legal domiciliary and residents, you must have certain things that are there. You must have a shower, you must have a working refrigerator, you must have a bed, you must have a kitchen. He can show you electric rates that show that in the building from behind, which is where the apartment is, there is electric rates that fluctuate, and they fluctuate Monday through Friday 8:00 to 4:00. So, Monday through Friday, 8 to 4, those, those rates are higher and after that on weekends and holidays, they do lower. With that being said, he is going to rest at this point. Barrett asked if there was any additional evidence to present. He can give them all of that, they can refer back to the hard copy of Black’s Law Library, with a definition, he can also give them copies of the International Codes, which is what we have for our standards, as well as the Town ordinance that is there. He asked Barrett if this is going to be done in exhibits. Barrett said that’ll be good. That was kind of like an opening statement and we’ll get into the evidentiary part.  For peace of mind, Barrett swore Torrie in and asked him for his name and to raise his right hand. Torrie said his name is Torrie James. Barrett said ‘do you solemnly swear from the testimony you’re about to give us the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.’ Torrie said ‘I do.’ Barrett said he may proceed. Torrie presented Exhibit A: daily usage of electric starting March 17th, 18th, and 19th. He said that what they see are all the dates and the spikes. The spikes start at about 9:00 in the morning to about 5:00 in the evening and then they go down. They are based off of kilowatt hours. Barrett asked if that was one set. Torrie said yes. Barrett said to let members of Council glance over it and give a copy to Mr. Coates for him to review. Exhibit B is the Town Code, which shows that we adopted ICC and the definitions of what the ICC is. These are the ICC standards and the requirements, which you have the plumbing, lighting, ventilation, and occupancy limits, limitations, and the plumbing, facilities and particular requirements from ICC. There was discussion between the four Councilmembers. Councilman Pressley asked Torrie about the reports that were provided to them; specifically asking if Mr. Coates stayed up all night on some of the evenings. Vice Mayor Rasmussen and Torrie said that the scale is different. Torrie showed them what they should be looking at on the reports; it should be the kilowatt-hours. Barrett asked if Torrie had anything else. He did not. Barrett told Mr. Coates that the floor was his. He swore George Coates in, saying ‘do you solemnly swear from the testimony you’re about to vie us is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.’ George said yes. Barrett said he can continue. George started off by saying that his hasn’t been this nervous since his son was born 32 years ago. He said that this is the biggest, most interesting, thing he has ever done. He understands why it’s being done. He understands there is a process that needs to be handled and taken care of. He is standing here today to defend himself on behalf of the Town of Smyrna. He is standing here to defend himself and the process because he believes that Smyrna deserves better than what it’s doing right now. By the character assassinations that have been going on. By the things that have been happening. It’s a travesty. This town is so much more, has so much more potential than what’s being shown by this type of nonsense. He honestly applauds the opportunity to do this because he doesn’t want a blank eye after the election. He wants to settle this now; today. He has spent more energy, more time, he has lost family over this; it is ridiculous. He announced he was going to run for Mayor in November. He had talks with people on Council. It is not a secret. It is not something he dreamt of yesterday. He approached his opponent in November and told her of his intention to run. He is fully, 100%, vested in becoming the Mayor of Smyrna, and he had the conversation with other people on Council. He wants what is best for Smyrna. If this is what is takes to make the best for Smyrna; his opponent openly and blatantly told him that this is what she was going to do, that this is the way it was going to go down, whether he won or lost, she was going to contest his candidacy, and here were are. He can’t say she isn’t a woman of her word. He can’t say that there’s any question as far as what’s going on here, being in the best interest of the Town. He’s not here to do any of that stuff. What he is here to tell them is that having a residence and a domicile in town are two completely different things. A domicile as stated is some place that you return to, some place that you call home, some place that you have all your paperwork, that’s all of your life, your family, all the things that you hold dear in charity, are at that address. He is there. Everything that he has done for the last 10 years, since he bought the property, has been to make that address his domicile, so that he will live in town. His driver’s license, all his documentation; he’s registered to vote at this address. If that is not his domicile, he wants to know if they are going to hold him in contempt for the last 5-10 years for voting from that domicile? Where does this end? Where does this stop? Where is the nonsense coming to a completion? He said he is tired. He can’t imagine how they do this every day. He said that maybe he isn’t the right guy for the job, he doesn’t know. But right now, his domicile is 215 N. Main St. That’s what the code says. That’s what it says in every piece of literature everywhere. He said that you can have multiple residences in multiple States. He asked if they’ve ever spent the night at their girlfriend’s house; at their boyfriend’s house. Gone to the beach for a week? Residency is a pillow law. You have 183 days to stay in the same State to maintain residency in that State. It doesn’t matter which State, but you have one domicile and that’s where you call your home. That’s where you raise your family. That’s where your heart is. That’s where you’re fighting for. That’s 215. It looks like a crap hole. It’s a terrible place. Upstairs is pretty much done. There are no lights in the house. He is restoring that house. He is not resurrecting the house. He is restoring the house to 1768. He has painstakingly restored, researched, and rebuilt that house. The same methods, the same ways, the same construction methods that they did in 1768. It’s got real lime plaster. It’s not drywall. He did that. He put that stuff up there with his two hands. In the summertime. He doesn’t have the benefit of sleeping with his wife. He enjoys sleeping in that house. He enjoys spending time in that house. He enjoys resting his head in that house. Is it 183 days? No. He has a toy box in the backyard. That’s where he spends his days. He has machines back there. He enjoys working on things. He got tired of having an electric bill; it was so high. He put 10 kW of electric solar panels on the roof. He’s not hooked up to the grid. There’s no benefit. He did all that to try and make the impact of where he lives and where he enjoys and where he stays the least it could possibly be as a footprint to the house. He moved the electric panel from the side of the house to a pole so that he could clean the side of the house and try and maintain that 1768 look. He has one breaker in the house; a 15 amp. It runs six little candle hour lights. That is all that’s in the house because that’s the way he wants it. When he stays there in his toy box, he has a shower, he has a refrigerator. It’s his garage. It’s his mancave. It’s where he spends his days. It’s where his office is. It’s where he does things. It’s where he thrives. It’s where he does his research. It’s ridiculous to say, from 8:00 to 5:00 the lights are on. No crap. He told people to come by, he’ll show them. Things are happening. Things are moving. He’s doing stuff. He’s not a human ‘being’, he’s a human ‘doing.’ He has been completely caught flat footed by this. He didn’t prepare a statement. He did not prepare any type of evidence. He doesn’t have packets to say this is exhibit A or this is exhibit B. He can tell them where law school is, but he didn’t go. He’s smart enough to get himself out of a wet paper bag, but this is something else. They have gotten together here and again, he understands why. He holds no harm against anybody who’s brought this along. Do what’s right for the town. If what’s right for the town is not taking the interpretation of a domicile that he’s presented, so be it. If they are going to take his and leave him on the ballot, so be it. Headed forward, bringing this town to the next piece, next forward, to the next stage. He wishes he had more. He has pieces of paper he can share with them, but it’ll make no sense at all. He has a driver’s license. Barrett said that instead of turning in those exhibits, he can explain it. He can say what he has that demonstrates that’s where his domicile is. George said he has everything there. He said it’s important that the letter the Town sent to notify him of this meeting, which he hasn’t received yet; he got the notified consent that the USPS sent out, he had to print it from that because he was supposed to have the letter. He said it’s funny that the town says he doesn’t live someplace, but they send certified mail to his address. It’s kind of silly. He showed a family court document. Someone decided he might be the baby daddy of some fine individuals. He was subpoenaed because he has the same name as someone who doesn’t live at 215 N Main St. They decided he lives at 215 Horn St. Family Court can find him. Family Court knows where his domicile is. Family Court knows where he resides. He printed the Town Code, but they’ve already been through that, so he won’t bore anyone with the details. He show them his voter registration card; which says 215 N Main St. He asked again, where does this end? Where is he going to stop with the nonsense? Are they going to hold him in contempt for election rigging for the last ten years? He said it’s ridiculous. His driver’s license. Anybody can get a driver’s license anywhere, except this is the most secure federal instrument that they’ve come up with for personal identification. It says 215 N Main St. He's had less than 24 hours to prepare for this. He feels a little bit abridged on his 14th Amendment. Due process was definitely not to call here. He appreciates the heads up, because he still hasn’t receive the letter of notification saying that this was even happening. He learned this from Facebook. Nobody had the intestinal fortitude to call him. He said that he guesses the thing to say at this point is that he rests. He asked if that’s what he does now. He’s pretty much done pleading his case. Barrett said that if he doesn’t have anything else to add, Council can ask him any questions; they can ask Mr. James any questions. If he doesn’t have anything else, then he can sit down. He asked if Council had any questions for either individual.  Councilwoman Dr. Upshur said she does. She was confused as to why Mr. Coates would have not received a certified letter if that’s where he gets important mail. She also does the MailOnline. Torrie presented Council with a copy of a certified mail receipt from the US Postal Office that was sent on April 4th at 2:42, that was delivered. That was sent to the address, which is absolutely on the driver’s license and it’s on the registered information for candidacy; the affidavit that he signed. So, by law, he is required to send it to the address, which was sent on Friday, certified. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur asked if he shows that domestic code so that they can see that he made that attempt. Mr. Coates said that he received the notification that the letter was sent, he just hasn’t received it yet. He looked before the meeting and it’s still somewhere in Wilmington being processed. He can’t blame anybody for not sending it, but he hasn’t gotten it. His point is that the Town sent a letter to his registered address as his domicile, as his residence, and here they are. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur asked Mr. James if he sent the letter to the address that was placed on the affidavit, correct? Mr. James said yes ma’am. She addressed Mr. Coates and said that the letter was sent to the correct address, he just hasn’t received it. Mr. Coates said yes and that was correct. She said that was on the 4th and today is the 8th. She was curious as to why he, [Mr. Coates], is saying that he’s still looking for it and he learned about it on Facebook. Mr. Coates said that was correct. Councilman Pressley asked if they’ve dealt with the Smyrna Post Office lately. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur said she has. Councilman Pressley said they are the worst. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur said that she hasn’t had any problem. She’s had things sent to Florida the next day. Barrett said that unless there is something new to add, they do not need to go off onto the values of the Smyrna Post Office. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur said that they were talking about his, [Mr. Coates], driver’s license, his voter registration card, and his statement about his driver’s license being the most credible form of ID, if he has a passport, that too. Mr. Coates said that people can still travel on a Federal ID. She said absolutely, but at the same time, someone can have a driver’s license someplace that they don’t necessarily reside. She said if you are living with someone else, they can get a driver’s license there. Mr. Coates said he cannot speak to that. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur asked Chief James if she was correct in what she was saying. Mr. James said that if you do not live in a residence, it’s mandatory that people must change their residency within 30 days of going to a different address. It’s a State statue. Mr. Coates said that there was that word again, residency or domicile. Mr. James said that he doesn’t speak to that. He’s telling them what the law is. That does not define residency domicile. What he can tell them is that he spoke with Amy Anthony, the Director of the DMV and confirmed as far as the requirement for that. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur asked Mr. Coates to explain his lack of electricity and water. Mr. Coates said that through this process, the Public Works department came out yesterday and inspected the meter because it apparently has not been operating properly for an unknown amount of time. He was questioned about this, and he can’t honestly answer when he remembers when the meter stopped working. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur talked about how she has engaged with him and his wife and they are advocates for the residents and for yard meters and for not wasting money, so she is surprised that as a business owner, he wouldn’t follow up on that. Mr. Coates said that he had an assistant up until March 7th who handled those things. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur asked Mr. Coates if his family all live at the address. Mr. Coates said that his family spends most of their time not at that address. He said that three years ago his mother died, and they took his in father. He bought a house in Clayton. A lot of the static that’s happening is because they see him in Clayton quite a bit. He mentioned that his father was in the room and will be 78 in July. As a family person, it is important to him that his father is taken care of and that he’s overseen, he takes precedent over quite a bit. On his behalf, Mr. Coates bought that house. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur asked where he lived prior to that. Mr. Coates said 215. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur said she was confused because she thought he just said he bought the house. Then she clarified her own confusion by remembering he said he bought the house in Clayton. Mr. Coates said he bought 215 ten years ago, and it has been his domiciliary for the last six years. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur clarified that he also has a house in Clayton. Mr. Coates said he does. He also has a house in Kenton, a house in upstate New York, and a house in Chesapeake City. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur asked that he resides though at the address on Main Street. Mr. Coates said that was correct. Vice Mayor Rasmussen asked about the various houses and which ones Mr. Coates claims for mortgage deduction on his taxes. Mr. Coates said none of them. Barrett asked if either of them had any final comments. Mr. Coates did not. Mr. James said that while Delaware has not codified a single definition of a domicile, it’s in its statutes. Delaware courts have consistently aligned with the general legal standard. There are a few case laws out there. Pope vs. Pope. Delaware Supreme Court reaffirmed that a person’s domicile established by actual residence, coupled with the intention to remain there with the use of an address for legal or official purposes. Harrison vs. Evans: the domicile requires more than ownership or registration, it requires actual physical occupation of the property that’s a home. He said that according to the Town of Smyrna Charter and Municipal Code a candidate for Mayor must be a bona fide resident of the town, reside within the corporate limits at the town of filing. This requirement presumes lawful and consistent physical habitation, not paper residency. According to Mr. Coates’ statement, they know that he does stay at other residencies and by that statement alone, Mr. James felt that Mr. Coates does not meet the legal standards of domicile. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur said she could not hear Mr. James. Mr. James repeated his statement that he doesn’t feel that Mr. Coates has met the requirements, and he respectfully requests that they consider Mr. Coates to be ineligible to run for Mayor for the Town of Smyrna.  Councilwoman Dr. Upshur asked Barrett if they could call witnesses. Barrett said that would be up to Mr. James and Mr. Coates. Barrett asked Mr. Coates if he had anything to say in response to what Mr. James said. He said that Mr. Coates did not have to speak, he’s just given him the opportunity. Mr. Coates said he is on his own; this is flat footed. He had a 24-hour notice. He does not have a positive response that he’s willing to share. Barrett said thank you and closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and Council can discuss amongst themselves and then entertain a motion. There was silence and so he continued that under Delaware code there’s no executive session exemption. This is a public hearing and so they have to discuss amongst themselves and the public. He knows it’s awkward. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur said that it’s transparent and she’s find with that. Councilman Pressley said that Mr. Coates has proved enough. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur asked for others thoughts. Councilman Johnson said that he’s concerned because Mr. Coates isn’t there all the time. Councilman Pressley said that the Charter doesn’t say anything about how long he has to be there; how many days a week. Barrett asked if they would like him to read the definitions that they started with. A 1962 Delaware Supreme Court case ‘A US Supreme Court case: a domicile is defined as a dwelling place with the intention to make that place the resident’s permanent home. It requires a concurrence of the fact of living at a particular place with the necessary intention of making that the permanent home. Absent this intent, no domicile exists at the place of living.’ Black’s Law dictionary says ‘domicile is defined as the place at which a person has been physically present and that the person regards as home, a person’s true fixed principle and permanent home to which that person intends to return and remain even though currently residing elsewhere.’ Councilman Pressley said that Mr. Coates said that he was fixing the house up to reside there, and he uses the man cave as his workstation. When he relooks at the electric bill, it make sense because Mr. Coates has solar panels. Barrett read an explanation on residence. ‘Usually just means bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place. Domicile usually requires bodily presence plus an intention to make the place one’s home.’ Councilwoman Dr. Upshur asked if they could ask Mr. Coates a question. Barrett said probably not because they closed the public hearing. Councilman Johnson said that his [Mr. Coates] intention is to fix it to live there, but he’s not living there now. There was overlapping discussion between Councilwoman Dr. Upshur and Councilman Pressley on where Mr. Coates resides. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur said that she’s confused with Mr. Coates’ explanation and it’s not clear to her that he resides there. Vice Mayor Rasmussen said that the strictest definition is ‘do you reside there as your home’? He is unsure of the question of if it is intended to be a home. Councilman Pressley said that it’s what he said; it’s intended to be his home. He said who are they to tell Mr. Coates when he finishes it, he ain’t moving there. Barrett asked if they would like him to read the definitions again. They said they were okay. Councilman Pressley said that he owns other homes, but doesn’t live at them. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur said that he wasn’t running. There was overlapping discussion between Councilwoman Dr. Upshur and Councilman Pressley and between Councilman Johnson and Barrett. At some point Councilman Pressley mentioned that he’s been in the home being discussion. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur said he should have recused himself. He asked her why? Mr. Coates has had tours of his home, that’s how he’s been there. He’s been in a lot of people’s homes. Mr. Coates asked Barrett if he could speak, not as a public comment, but just to clarify. Barrett said that was okay. Mr. Coates said that his house has been open for tours in the past and he has entertained people with interests in old houses, to show them the work that he’s doing throughout the house and that is why Councilman Pressley was one of his guests. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur said that it sounds like more of a tourist attraction than a home. They do focus on downtown historic Smyrna, and they do want people to come downtown and see the historic homes and he is trying to get it back to what it looked like. Councilman Pressley said that was the problem because Mr. Coates is putting it back to 1766. He has to find parts to put it back to the residual parts. It’s not like he can go to Lowes and buy. He has to find it somewhere. He commended Mr. Coates on the job he's done so far. A gentleman spoke up on behalf of Mr. Coates regarding the house. He said that Mr. Coates has taken scraps of existing hardware to have them reproduced so that it’s exactly as it was then. Mr. Coates has put a lot of time and effort into doing that a person would not do if they weren’t going to move it right away, as quickly as possible. If you want to restore the house as opposed to preserve it, right? Councilwoman Dr. Upshur said that based on that statement he wants to preserve it. The gentleman said no, Mr. Coates wants to restore it. Mr. Coates spoke up and said that to their point, there were twenty houses on the house tour. He said were they not residences and domiciles at the same time, because there are people in the audience who had their houses open for exactly those same Christmas tours. Barrett said if someone wants to make a motion, they can vote on the matter. Councilman Pressley motioned to keep Mr. Coates on the ballot. Barrett clarified the motion, stating that Councilman Pressley deems Mr. Coates a bona fide, domiciliary of the Town. Councilman Pressley said yes. Barrett asked for a second to the motion. Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. Barrett asked if there was further discussion. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur said that she would like to discuss further. She said that it does not appear to her, from the evidence presented by the Town Manager, the Chief of Police, who she was sure did his due diligence, or they wouldn’t be there on a Tuesday night; they were just there last night, and she had to continually check her email because this meeting was pushed back. She cares about the town. She is not on social media. She has respect for Evie and George. She is going to stand her ground with her decision from the evidence that was presented that he [Mr. Coates] does not reside in the house. Barrett asked for any other discussion before the call to vote. Vice Mayor Rasmussen said that he wants to express that he doesn’t think he’s qualified to make the determination about the legality of this. He can hear the definition and the different ways that it can be interpreted. He thinks there is a problem if their code is not clear enough to define this in a way that he thinks makes it more reasonable. There’s a legitimate, legal, way that both sides could be defended and he’s having a really hard time trying to pretend that he’s a judge or an attorney and able to make a legal determination. He doesn’t think this is something the Town Council should be dealing with. After hearing this, he has a hard time thinking that anybody could be truly informed enough to make a decision like this, except for someone, maybe a judge, who does this all the time. He said it’s very difficult to determine whether or not a preponderance of evidence is a standard that either side is actually able to meet. Councilman Pressley said to him that he understands that, but the Town Code says that they are the ones that make that decision. Vice Mayor Rasmussen said that he gets it. Councilman Pressley said that right or wrong, the Charter says they make that decision. He said that he is with Vice Mayor Rasmussen, he is no judge, but he has to go by what he feels inside and that’s all he can do for the town. He’s had to make some decisions over the years that he’s had to come back on. Barrett said that he’ll try to guide them through the process without inserting himself into the process. The only comment that he’ll make is that they are similar to being a juror on jury duty, where they have a judge kind of guiding them through, but at the end of the day, the jurors are said, here are the facts, here’s the law, you’ve got to put it together. Keep in mind they get a little bit more time than they have. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur said that they also don’t have snide comments from people in the audience. They are trying to make a decision on where their candidates are from. And again, people are judge and jury on social media and it’s the same because if they come and just meeting people and have a conversation with them, they wouldn’t be in this situation. She said it’s very frustrating to her right now.  Barrett asked if there were any other comments before they call a vote? There were none so he did a call vote. Councilman Johnson – no Councilman Pressley – yes Vice Mayor Rasmussen – no Councilwoman Dr. Upshur – no Barrett said that the motion fails one to three. Unless there’s any other questions or business, the meeting can be adjourned. Councilwoman Dr. Upshur said that for clarity, could Barrett share what decision was just made. Barrett said that Council just voted that Mr. Coates does not meet the bona fide domiciliary standard in the Charter and so he’ll be declared ineligible to run as Mayor. 3. Adjournment Barrett asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. All of them agreed. He asked for a second, but they were already packing up. The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 P.M. Posted 4/7/2025 at 1:45 PM (#1) Posted 4/8/2025 at 11:00 AM (#2) *change of time NOTE: This agenda, as listed, may not be considered in sequence. This agenda is subject to change to include additional items, including Executive Sessions, and/or deletion of items, including Executive Sessions that arise at time of meeting.