Feb 25, 2020 Charter Review Committee

[Item 3]

[00:00:05]

>>> IN THE FIRST SENTENCE ABOUT MEMBER KOSACK'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE COMMISSIONERS INTERFACING WITH THE ADVISORY BOARDS, SHE SAID ADVISORY BOARDS OR STAFF. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE WORDS OR STAFF THERE. THE REASON IS BECAUSE IN THE NEXT SENTENCE, WHICH IS THE -- ACTUALLY THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH ABOUT WHAT I NOTED, MEMBER DAVIS, AND IT SAYS OPINION RELATED TO ADVISORY BOARD INTERFERENCE, AND ACTUALLY WHAT I WAS REFERENCING THERE WAS ACTUALLY STAFF. VICE MAYOR KRIEGER TALKED ABOUT THE DUTIES BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF. I'M GOING TO CAPTURE THIS CORRECTLY.

IN THE REFERENCE SENTENCE ABOUT MY COMMENT IT SHOULD BE ADDED TO IT ADVISORY BOARDS AND STAFF,

AND/OR STAFF. >> WE HAVE ONE CHANGE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> I HAD PRECISELY THE SAME COMMENT, BUT I DO NOT GO BACK AND REVIEW THE MINUTES AND THE VIDEO. I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT I THOUGHT STAFF WOULD BE MORE

APPROPRIATE THERE THAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SO THANK YOU. >> CORRECT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE MINUTES? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE

THE AMENDED MINUTES? >> SO MOVED. >> I SECOND.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.

THANK YOU. THE MINUTES ARE ADOPTED IN THEIR AMENDED FORM.

[Additional Item]

SUBCOMMITTEE. >> YES. AND MAY I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST I FORGOT TO PUT THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE INVITED MRS. KELLY GIBSON, THE PLANNING AND CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, TO THIS MEETING SPECIFICALLY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS RELATED TO ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE CONSERVATION LAND USE CATEGORY. THE USE OF ZONING CATEGORY AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT ALLOWABLE USES, IS SHE'S HERE.

SHE WILL HAVE TO LEAVE AT 3:30. SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE ABOUT 21 MINUTES TO QUERY MRS. GIBSON.

>> WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE REST BOARD, I WOULD ASK MISS GIBSON TO GO FIRST FOR THE DISCUSSION

ON THE AGENDA ABOUT THE SURVEY. IS THIS GOOD? >> THAT'S GOOD.

>> ALL RIGHT. MISS GIBSON. DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS TO DIRECT TO MISS GIBSON? SHE DOES NOT HAVE A PREPARED PRESENTATION.

MS. DAVIS. >> THANK YOU, MISS GIBSON, WAS ATTENDING.

WE WERE LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION ON REFERENDUMS FOR CONSERVATION LAND TO BE -- THAT THE CITY OWNS TO BE DISPOSED OF. THE QUESTION HAS COME UP WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE THE ABILITY TO LEASE ANY CONSERVATION LANDS, AND WHAT PURPOSE WOULD YOU LEASE CONSERVATION LANDS FOR? WE ALSO HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT

THAT DID NOT WANT THE RIGHT TO LEASE CONSERVATION LAND AT ALL. >> JUST FOR PURPOSES OF SPECIFYING, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT PUBLICLY OWNED CONVENTION LAND OR PRIVATELY HELD CONSERVATION

LAND? >> PUBLIC. THIS IS WHAT THE PROPOSED REFERENDUM THAT THE CITY COMMISSION HAS ALREADY APPROVED AND IS TO BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE

CHARTER. >> THIS IS ONLY PUBLICLY OWNED CONSERVATION LAND.

>> IT'S UNDER ST. PETERSBURG SECTION 10A OF THE CITY CHARTER. RIGHT NOW IT'S RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND GOLF COURSES. WE CAN'T LEASE THEM FOR 40 OR MORE YEARS OR SELL THEM AS A CITY, AND THEY'RE ALL CITY OWNED, WITHOUT A REFERENDUM AND APPROVAL BY REFERENDUM.

SO THERE'S AN ORDINANCE ADOPTED A FEW MONTHS AGO BY THE CITY COMMISSION THAT PROPOSED TO ADD CONSERVATION LANDS AND ALSO THE TYPE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY THAT COULD NOT BE LEASED FOR 40 OR MORE YEARS OR SOLD WITHOUT A REFERENDUM. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT LANGUAGE NOW TO SEE IF THERE'S -- THEY'VE ALREADY PROPOSED ADDING THE DIVISION OF CONSERVATION LANDS FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND SO THERE IS JUST SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S EVEN A NEED TO HAVE IN HERE 40 OR MORE YEARS OR A SUGGESTION THAT THERE WILL BE A PROHIBITION AGAINST LEASING FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME. SO THEY NEEDED TO KNOW WHAT KINDS OF THINGS -- WHAT KINDS OF USES ARE ALLOWED ON CONSERVATION LAND THAT MIGHT LEAD TO A GROUND

LEASE WITH ANOTHER PARTY. >> EVEN IF IT WAS SHORT-TERM? >> POTENTIALLY YOU COULD HAVE

[00:05:05]

>> MEMBER CLARK. >> JUST TO PUT A LITTLE FINER POINT ON IT.

THE WAY IT READS NOW, THE PROHIBITION ON LEASING IS A 40-YEAR LEASE OR MORE.

SO AS CURRENT CONTEMPLATED A LEAST IN 39 YEARS WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS PROGRESSION.

IT WOULD JUST BE LEASES MORE THAN 40 YEARS. SO I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU.

I THINK THERE ARE EXAMPLES WHERE THE CITY MAY WANT TO LEASE IT TO A CONSERVATION ENTITY THAT WILL MAINTAIN OR PRESERVE THE LAND IN ITS CURRENT STATE. IT COULD BE VERY APPROPRIATE.

SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, YOU THINK THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE THAT SORT OF CONSERVATION LEASE, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT, MIGHT VERY WELL BE MORE

THAN 40 YEARS? >> NO. IT WOULD BE MORE THAN APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A LIMITATION AT 40 YEARS, GIVEN THAT YOU WOULD HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO RENEW A LEASE AT A SPECIFIED INTERVAL FOR LESS THAN THAT. SO I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE

NECESSARILY. >> SO TAMMI, IS THERE ANY -- WOULD THERE BE ANY RESTRICTION ON A LEASE THAT SAID AFTER, YOU KNOW, A LEASE THAT'S SUBJECT TO RENEWAL AT THE END OF 30 YEARS SO THE COMMISSION CAN LEASE IT TO CONSERVATION SOCIETY FOR 30 YEARS, AND THEN AT THE END OF 30 YEARS, IT CAN DO ANOTHER 30 YEARS AND THAT WOULDN'T VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER AS

WE CURRENTLY CONTEMPLATE? >> BECAUSE IT'S A RENEWAL TERM? >> CORRECT.

>> NO. I'VE HAD THIS QUESTION PRIVATELY BEFORE.

I DON'T THINK THAT THIS COMMUNITY WOULD THINK -- 40 YEARS IS 40 YEARS, AND THAT'S IT. IF IT'S GOING TO BE WITH RENEWAL TERMS, ESPECIALLY IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH A WHOLE BUNCH OF PERFORMANCE REVIEWS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT THAT'S REALLY MORE THAN A 30-YEAR LEASE, AND WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER IT, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE RENEWAL TERMS. WE CAN CLARIFY THAT, BECAUSE MY SUCCESSOR MAY NOT AGREE, BUT --

>> SO IF I CAN JUMP IN REAL QUICK. LIKE WE CAN'T -- THE WAY I READ IT RIGHT NOW IS THAT AT THE END OF 40 YEARS, YOU COULD DO A -- THEY CAN'T EXTEND THE LEASE PAST 40 YEARS WITHIN THE LEASE, BUT WE COULD -- WITH THE WAY ITS WORDED CURRENTLY, AT THE END OF THE 40 YEARS YOU COULD ENTER INTO A SECOND 39 JAVIER -- 39 1/2-YEAR LEASE.

>> IT WOULD BE A NEW LEASE. >> WITHOUT GOING TO PUBLIC VOTE. >> THAT'S HOW IT HAS TO BE DONE.

THE WAY I READ IT, YOU COULD HAVE 60 YEARS' WORTH OF LEASING? >> YES.

>> THAT'S HOW THE RECREATIONAL USES ARE NOW, RIGHT? >> UH-HUH.

>> IT HASN'T BEEN A PROBLEM? >> RIGHT. >> NO.

>> HUH. >> MEMBER DAVIS. >> WE'VE ADDED THIS DEFINITION OF CONSERVATION LANDS TO MEAN THOSE THAT ARE -- WELL, LAND OWNED BY THE PURPOSE OF THE CHARTER, LAND THAT'S OWNED BY THE CITI AND IS DESIGNATED AS SUCH IN THE FLUME.Y AND IS DESI SUCH IN THE FLUME. DOES THAT ELIMINATE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS? LIKE A PRIVATE CITIZEN COULD GRANT IT TO THE CITY THAT WOULD NOT BE ACTUAL LAND DESIGNATED ON

THE -- >> IT DOES SAY CONSERVATION EASEMENT IN THIS.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. I MEAN LEGALLY, WHICH IS THAT GIN THE WAY FROM PARAGRAPH 3 IS

[00:10:07]

IF YOU HAVE CONSERVATION LAND AND IT'S DEFINED AS BEING THE FLUME IN NUMBER 4, THEN YOU'RE CONFLICTING WHEN YOU SAY LAND BURDENED WITH AN EASEMENT OR IS ZONED CONSERVATION.

>> THAT'S TRUE. >> SO I PERSONALLY THINK ALTHOUGH WE WENT DOWN THIS ROAD,

I DON'T THINK WE NEED NUMBER 4. >> MEMBER LASSERE. >> I CAUGHT THE SAME -- I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE SAME WAVELENGTH THERE. I CAUGHT THE SAME CONFLICT THERE. SO I PROPOSE SOME LANGUAGE FOR 10A-3 AND 4 TO BRING THE DEFINITION AT 4 AS THE DEFINITION OF PARAGRAPH 3 AND STRIKE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR LAND IN THE CONSERVATION ZONES DISTRICT, BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE THESE CONFLICTS.

MY FEELING WAS THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS THE OVERARCHING PICTURE OF WHERE THE CITY WANTS TO GO AND WOULD BE THE MORE APPROPRIATE LAND FOR THE CONSERVATION LAND TO BE DEFINED.

ALTERNATIVELY AND ORIGINALLY I HAD IT THIS WAY WHERE I HAD CITY CONSERVATION ON SUBPARAGRAPH 3, CITY-OWNED CONVENTION LAND WHICH INCLUDES LAND IN A CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND A CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICT OR THREE, FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN CONSERVATION. I THINK EITHER WAY WE FIND THAT, BUT I THINK TO AVOID THAT CONFLICT ONE OR THE OTHER SHOULD BE DONE IN 3 AND 4.

>> YES, AGREED. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> IS THERE GENERALLY CONSENSUS AMONG THE BOARD, YOU THINK, THAT WE ALL SEE THE VALUE IN ALLOWING THERE TO BE LEASES UP TO 40

YEARS AS PART OF THE LANGUAGE OF IT? >> PERSONALLY I THINK THE POINT THAT KELLY MADE ABOUT LEASING IT TO A CONSERVATION ENTITY IS A NICE TOOL FOR THE CITY TO HAVE.

SO I WOULDN'T WANT TO PRECLUDE THAT ABILITY. >> MEMBER DAVIS.

>> SHOULD WE BE MORE SPECIFIC ON WHAT LEASES ARE ALLOWED? JUST SAYING LEASING OF 40 YEARS, WE'RE SAYING, WELL, IT SHOULD BE FOR NATURE-ORIENTED PURPOSES. I WOULD SAY PHOTOGRAPHY TOURS COULD BE MUCH MORE USE OF THE PROPERTY THAN WHAT WE WOULD WANT NECESSARILY.

I MEAN, YOU'D WANT SOMETHING THAT DID NOT, YOU KNOW, DAMAGE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVE NATURE OF THE CONSERVATION LAND OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, I WOULD THINK.

>> MEMBER LASSERE. >> UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF MY COMMENT I THINK WE JUMPED AHEAD AN AGENDA ITEM. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT AFTER MISS GIBSON LEAVES. BACK TO THAT, THE USES ALLOWED IN CONSERVATION ZONING AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATED FLUME IS ALL ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. THE PLANNING AND CONSERVATION'S WEBSITE, SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S VERY LIMITED USES AVAILABLE. THE ONLY ONE IN CONFLICT IS THAT YOU CAN PUT A WATER TREATMENT FACILITY THERE. SOMETIMES THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT THEM, I SUPPOSE. THAT WAS MY ONLY COMMENT AS FAR AS USES, BUT THERE ARE A

HANDFUL. >> MEMBER BEAN. >> I HAD A SIMILAR QUESTION.

I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK TO CLARIFY. BEFORE WE PUT ANYTHING IN HERE, SO JUST BY NATURE OF BEING CONSERVATION LAND, WE -- AND I WAS READING UP ON CONSERVATION LAND AND ALL THE RULES ON IT TODAY AND BEFORE AS WELL, BUT IT'S -- JUST BY NATURE OF IT BEING THERE, YOU CAN'T USE IT FOR ANYTHING ELSE ANYWAY, OTHER THAN WHAT -- WHAT HE JUST STATED, RIGHT? THAT'S IT? AUTOMATICALLY THERE'S NOWHERE TO

TAKE IT OUT AND IT'S LOCKED IN AS CONSERVATION? >> THEY WORK TOGETHER AS IT RELATES TO LAND USE, AND THEN THE CORRESPONDING PIECE OF IT IS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH SAYS IN THERE THAT YOU'RE LIMITED TO A TABLE OF LAND USES. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COURSE RESPONDING ZONING DISTRICT OF CONSERVATION, YOU'LL SEE VERY DEFINED USES THAT CAN EXIST WITHIN CONSERVATION. THOSE ARE SET FOR BOTH PRINCIPAL AND ANY ACCESSORY USES ALLOWED.

THEY ARE FAIRLY LIMITED, AND WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER AS MORE PASSIVE RECREATION, IF ANY RECREATION AT ALL. ACTIVE RECREATION WOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM WHAT IS ALLOWED

ON CONSERVATION PROPERTY. >> THANK YOU. >> SO MIGHT IT MAKE SENSE, THEN, TO HAVE A REFERENCE TO THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR LDCS IN

[00:15:01]

>> LEASES FOR ACTIVITIES AS DEFINED? >> RIGHT.

>> OR AS LIMITED BY THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> OR LEASES IN FURTHERANCE OF

THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> YEAH. SOME REFERENCE TO IT THERE.

TAMMI, DOES THAT WORK? >> IT DOES. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR

QUESTIONS? >> WHAT'S YOUR PREFERENCE ABOUT KEEPING THE SERIES OR THE LIST IN SUBSECTION 3 AND KEEPING 4 AND DELETING IT AND MAKING 3 MORE LIMITED IN TERMS OF THE

DEFINITION OF CONSERVATION LANDS? >> WELL, OUR TWO ATTORNEYS UP

HERE INDICATED THERE'S CONFLICT BETWEEN THOSE TWO. >> AND ONE OF THEM DRAFTED THIS.

>> THERE YOU GO. I WOULD SUGGEST MEMBER LASSERE SPEAK.

>> THE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ARE -- TO THE EXTENT THE CITY WOULD OWN ONE, THE TERMS OF THE EASEMENT ARE UNIQUE FOR EACH EASEMENT. IF IT'S THERE, YOU CAN'T LEASE AN EASEMENT NECESSARILY. YOU COULD CONVEY THAT INTEREST UNLESS IT'S LIMITED.

CONSERVATION COMES IN ALL SHAPES AND COLORS AND TYPES. IT'S NO WAY TO REALLY SAY THE CITY CAN OR CAN'T DO WITH THESE I THINK IN THE -- IT WOULD BE MADE UP AND BE ADVISE I BELIEVE -- ADVISABLE TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO IT. WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT MORE WITH THE AGENDA ITEMS, BUT I HAVE SOME REVISIONS. 40 YEARS IS A LONG TIME.

SITUATIONS MAY CHANGE AND THEY WILL CHANGE. WE KNOW THAT.

I'LL HOLD MY COMMENT UNTIL WE GET TO THIS AGENDA ITEM, UNLESS WE'RE ACTUALLY THERE NOW.

>> WELL, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE, TOO, I'M SURE THE CHAIR CAN LET MRS. GIBSON GO IF WE'RE DONE?

>> YEAH. LET ME CALL ON MEMBER DAVIS. >> I'LL WAIT UNTIL -- IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT 10A IN MORE DETAIL. WE CAN LET MRS. GIBSON GO?

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MRS. GIBSON? >> VERY HELPFUL.

>> THANK YOU, KELLY. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> ALL RIGHT.

SO NOW WE ARE AT THE BACK TO THE AGENDA AT THE SURVEY. ITEM 4.1.

[Item 4.1]

WHAT YOU ALL HAVE PROPOSED? >> YES. IF I COULD JUMP IN AND SAY

THAT -- >> PLEASE DO. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE, I WAS ACTUALLY UNABLE TO ATTEND. I HAD TO GO TO GEORGIA FOR A WORK ASSIGNMENT. SO BEN WAS THE LEADER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

>> TAMMI AND I BOTH, YEAH. >> ALL RIGHT. >> I KIND OF FEEL LIKE BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT THE SURVEY, I KIND OF WANT YOU TO GIVE EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD AN UPDATE AS TO WHAT

YOU TOLD US BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING. >> YES.

SO FOR SEVERAL DAYS UP TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON THE 19TH, I HAD FOUR OUT OF FIVE COMMISSIONERS CHAT WITH ME PRIVATELY ABOUT WHETHER A SURVEY OF CITY EMPLOYEES WAS REALLY NECESSARY. THE BOTTOM LINE WAS GIVEN THAT I HAD SAID AT A MEETING THAT I THOUGHT THAT VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 10 WERE OCCURRING, AND WHY NOT INSTEAD OF SURVEYING -- I DON'T THINK THE COMMISSIONERS ARE APRFRAID OF WHAT EMPLOYEES WILL SAY, BUT WHAT THE VALIDITY OF THE SURVEY RESULTS WILL MEAN TO US AND HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT WHAT WE END UP DOING.

IF WE DO IS ADDRESS THE FACT AND ASSUME THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH SECTION 10, WHETHER KWHIGSERS ARE NOT FOLLOWING IT, THE CITY MANAGER IS NOT ENFORCING IT AND EMPLOYEES ARE NOT REPORTING VIOLATIONS THAT WE ADDRESSED THIS SECTION AS IF EMPLOYEES CAN COME BACK WITH THE ANSWER THAT I STATED WAS THAT VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 10 ARE GOING ON ALL THE TIME FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

>> SO WHEN TAMMI AND I -- AFTER HEARING THAT AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, WE BOTH FELT LIKE THERE CERTAINLY MIGHT BE SOME VALIDITY TO THAT APPROACH OF SKIPPING THE SURVEY AND JUST OPERATING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM AND WE'RE GOING TO FIX IT REGARDLESS.

WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS A DISCUSSION THAT THE BOARD NEEDED TO HAVE AS A GROUP OR WHATEVER.

SO WE CONTINUED FORWARD WITH WHAT WE WERE TASKED TO DO ON THE SURVEY REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE

[00:20:07]

AS FAR AS THE QUESTIONS ARE CONCERNED, YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, THE SECTION 10C OF THE CHARTER, AND I THINK THAT'S THE SECTION THAT I'M THINKING.

>> THAT'S RIGHT, C. >> 10C. AND SAID WHAT IS IT WE TRY TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS SURVEY OR THE GROUP WAS ACCOMPLISHING WITH THE SURVEY.

AT THE END OF THE DAY THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE WE FELT LIKE WE WERE TRYING TO GET AN ANSWER TO IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY -- WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY VIOLATIONS AS FAR AS THE CITY COMMISSIONERS OVERSTEPPING FROM ASKING QUESTIONS OF CITY STAFF, ACTUALLY DIRECTING CITY STAFF. SO THE INTENT OF THE FIRST QUESTION WAS JUST TO SORT OF WEED OUT THE PROBABLY 95% OF CITY STAFF THAT HASN'T EVER HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WHAT SO FAR WITH A CITY COMMISSIONER TO BEGIN WITH. THE SECOND QUESTION RELATES TO THE 5% WHO HAVE, AND JUST ASKING KIND OF BLUNTLY WHETHER OR NOT THEY FEEL -- WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE EVER BEEN DIRECTED BY A CITY COMMISSIONER TO DO A CERTAIN TASK.

WE TRIED TO ASK THE QUESTIONS IN A WAY THAT DIDN'T LEAVE ROOM FOR KIND OF PERCEPTION BUT WERE KIND OF FACT-BASED. ANYWAY, IT'S JUST A -- IT GIVES EVERYBODY AN OPPORTUNITY TO SORT OF LOOK AT IT, AND I'M INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS ARE NOT ONLY ON THE QUESTION BUT WHAT TAMMI SAID EARLIER IN REGARDS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO

PROCEED WITH THE SURVEY AT ALL. >> MEMBER FILKOFF. >> I APPRECIATE ALL THAT WENT INTO IT AND ALL OF THE XHEPTS YOU MADE, BEN, REFLECT SOME OF MY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS.

IT SEEMS AS A PRACTICAL MATTER THERE'S 250 EMPLOYEES. IF YOU DO A SURVEY LIKE THIS, MOST OF THEM AREN'T REALLY GOING TO HAVE ANY PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE.

SOME WILL, BUT MOST OF THEM WON'T. SINCE IT'S ANONYMOUS, THEY MIGHT PROVIDE A RESPONSE, BUT IT'S GOING TO BEG ANOTHER QUESTION AND ANOTHER QUESTION.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WE WOULD LEARN FROM THIS PARTICULAR SURVEY, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, I THINK THERE ARE SOME ALTHOUGH NAIB WAYS TO THINK ABOUT. ONE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE INVITED COMMISSION MEMBERS AND THE CITY MANAGER IN TO SPEAK WITH US.

WE HAD A PRETTY GOOD DISCUSSION THERE. MAYBE AN ALTERNATIVE TO A FORMAL SURVEY LIKE THIS IS TO REACH OUT TO DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS AND HAVE A CONVERSATION.

WE COULD MAKE ASSIGNMENT IF THE CHAIR THINKS THAT'S APPROPRIATE WHERE WE CAN CALL SOMEBODY AND SAY, WHAT'S GOING ON? HOW DOES IT WORK FOR YOU? ARE YOU ENCOUNTERING ISSUES? WE CAN REPORT BACK. THAT MIGHT BE MORE ENLIGHTENED IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S AN ISSUE OR A PROBLEM IN THIS REGARD. THE OTHER THING IS I THINK IF THERE IS -- AS TO THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION, ARE COMMISSION MEMBERS EXERTING UNDUE INFLUENCE ON CITY STAFF MEMBERS? I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. THERE ARE SOME WAYS TO DEAL WITH THAT.

ONE IS THAT YOU SIMPLY SET UP AND PUT IT IN THE CHARTER THAT COMMISSION MEMBERS, IF COMMISSION MEMBERS REACH OUT TO CITY STAFF MEMBERS TO MAKE AN INQUIRY, THE WAY IT WORKS IS THEY HAVE TO ADVISE THE CITY MANAGERS AND SEND THE MANAGER AN E-MAIL OR A LETTER OR SOME COMMUNICATION THAT'S TRACKABLE THAT SAYS, ON SUCH A DATE I CONTACTED SO-AND-SO, AND THIS

[00:25:04]

YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE -- THE PUBLIC CAN SEE THAT INTERACTION IF THEY WANTED TO, AND THAT WOULD SORT OF ADDRESS THE ISSUE, I THINK, WITHOUT MAKING IT DIFFICULT OR CUMBERSOME.

THERE'S PROBABLY OTHER SOLUTIONS, TOO, EVEN SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS A SUGGESTION BOX WHERE EMPLOYEES COULD PUT INFORMATION OUT THERE IF THERE WERE CONCERNS OR ISSUES, AND THAT WOULD BE A WAY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN THAT'S RELATIVELY -- SORT OF A LOW TECH SOLUTION.

PERSONALLY I LIKE THE IDEA OF A STANDARD PROCEDURE THAT WOULD SAY, IF A COMMISSION MEMBER REACHES OUT TO SOMEBODY ON CITY STAFF THAT THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO REPORT THAT TO THE CITY MANAGER, AND THERE'S SOME RECORD OF THAT INTERACTION. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WOULD MAYBE ADDRESS WHATEVER CONCERNS MIGHT BE OUT THERE. MY THOUGHT IS THAT THE SURVEY, I'M NOT SURE, WE'LL LEARN VERY MUCH FROM THIS THAT'S HELPFUL. WE COULD SIMPLY ACT ON THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE AND INSTITUTE SOME SORT OF PROCEDURE.

I MENTIONED ONE. THERE MAY BE OTHERS. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

>> MEMBER DAVIS. >> AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SURVEYS AND WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED MORE SPECIFICS. MY THOUGHT ON THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED HERE WAS IF WE WENT FORWARD WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE MORE DEFINITION PUT IN PLACE BY AROUND A WORD DIRECT. WHEN YOU SAY DIRECT YOU, BECAUSE IF A -- IT SEEMS TOO BROAD TO ME IF A COMMISSIONER JUST CALLS UP A STAFF PERSON AND SAYS, HEY, I NEED YOU TO RIGHT NOW LOOK UP HOW MUCH MONEY IS LEFT IN THE IMPACT FEE FUND BECAUSE THAT COMMISSIONER IS TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S MONEY TO DO A PROPOSAL WITH. THAT STAFF PERSON WILL FEEL DIRECTED BY. REALLY IT'S INFORMATION GATHERING.

SOMETIMES PEOPLE HAVE WAYS OF EXPRESSING THINGS THAT SOUND MORE LIKE AN ORDER WHEN THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO GET INFORMATION, OR IF A COMMISSIONER SAID, HEY, CAN YOU -- I NEED YOU TO TELL ME WHAT PART OF THE COMP PLAN ADDRESSES THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. AGAIN, I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT THE STAFFER WOULD SAY, THAT WAS BEING DIRECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER.

WHAT THE COMMISSIONER IS TRYING TO DO IS, YOU KNOW, GET INFORMATION.

I THINK WE WOULD WANT TO DEFINE DIRECTION. AS FAR AS MEMBER CLARK'S SUGGESTION, SENDING AN E-MAIL TO THE MANAGER EVERY TIME A COMMISSIONER REACHED OUT TO A STAFFER, I REALLY DON'T THINK THE CITY MANAGER WANTS THAT -- AT LEAST THE CURRENT ONE DOESN'T WANT THAT MANY E-MAILS. ANYTIME YOU CALL TO MAKE AN INQUIRY, BECAUSE THAT'S WHY HE'S GIVEN BLANKET AUTHORITY ALREADY. MAYBE THERE'S SOME GENERAL COMPLIANCE, YOU KNOW, SPREADSHEET OR SOMETHING AND YOU COULD FILL IN AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S JUST KEPT SOMEONE GENERAL LIKE A COMPLIANCE AREA MAYBE. I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE CHARTER OFFICERS WANT MORE THINGS COMING

INTO THEIR INBOXES. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS ON THIS. >> MEMBER LASSERE.

>> SO, I GUESS, JUST THE VIRTUE OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME WE SPENT ON THIS TOPIC, I THINK WE ALL AGREE IT'S IMPORTANT. WHETHER THERE'S A PROBLEM TODAY, REAL OR PERCEIVED, THERE'S DEFINITELY BEEN A PROBLEM IN THE PAST. I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THE CONVERSATION. SO AS FAR AS THE SURVEY, I THINK IT WAS NOBLE TO TRY AND GET THE FEEDBACK OF STAFF. I THINK WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO TELL US THERE'S A PROBLEM TODAY OR NOT, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO ACT IN THE WAY WE'VE BEEN, WHICH IS TO LIMIT THE CONTACT THAT THE CITY COMMISSIONER HAS WITH THE STAFF MEMBERS BECAUSE I THINK IT CREATES A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR THEM. I ALSO -- EVEN IF THERE'S JUST INFORMATION GATHERING, IT CAN BE PERCEIVED IN A WAY IT'S DIRECTING THEM IN WHAT TO DO BY VIRTUE OF HOW THEY ASK THE QUESTION. SO MY FEELING HAS BEEN AND WOULD REMAIN THAT THEY SHOULD GO THROUGH OR AT LEAST HAVE THE CONSENT OF THE CHARTER OFFICER, THE STAFF MEMBER REPORTS TO. I KNOW IT'S BURNEDSOME, BUT THAT'S PART OF BEING IN THE OFFICE AND WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT. THEY NEED TO BE DONE

TRANSPARENTLY. THAT'S MY FEELING ON IT. >> MEMBER MORRISON.

>> I FEEL LIKE IN MY PERSONAL OPINION THAT IS SORT OF WHAT SOME OF YOU GUYS HAVE SAID AS

[00:30:05]

THE CHARTER WAS TO BEGIN WITH. >> MEMBER BEAN. >> I'M SENSING A CONSENSUS HERE, AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THE GROUP THAT WE CAN PROBABLY HANDLE THIS PROBLEM WITHOUT NEED OF -- THIS WOULD BE A LOT OF WORK, IS WHAT I CAN SEE. SO WE MIGHT NOT NEED TO DO THIS, AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PLAN STATED BY EVERYBODY ELSE. I'M IN FOR THAT.

>> LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE PLAN AS STATED BY EVERYBODY ELSE.

>> YES. >> SO ONE PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT WE'VE RECEIVED TODAY IS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS AREN'T SAYING THAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT IN THE SURVEY WILL GIVE US VALID RESULTS, AND THAT WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND OPERATE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE CHARTER HAPPENING? WHEN IT COMES TO COMMISSIONERS EITHER CONTACTING, INTERFERING, OR DIRECTLY STAFF. IS THAT FAIRLY STATED?

>> YES. SO OUR TASK PER THE CHARTER IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER IS CLEAR ENOUGH ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

RIGHT? AND THAT WE HAVE A CONSEQUENCE PERHAPS STATED ALSO IN THE

CHARTER. >> I THINK THERE IS, ISN'T THERE?

>> SO IF WE LOOK AT THE CHARTER LANGUAGE AGAIN -- TELL ME WHERE WE ARE ON THIS?

>> WAIT. IT'S SECTION 10, AND IT'S SUB C. >> MAY I JUST MADAM CLERK, AS A POINT OF ORDER, SO I PROVIDED INFORMATION ABOUT A MONTH AGO REGARDING JUST SOME SUGGESTED CHANGES FOR SECTION 10C PARTICULARLY FOR YOU ALL TO CHEW ON AS WE DISCUSS THE SURVEY.

NOW THAT IT SEEMS THAT MAYBE WE'LL HAVE A VOTE, BUT IT SEEMS THAT THE SURVEY WON'T BE DONE, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE UP SECTION 10C TODAY? IT WAS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA.

DO DO WE WANT TO SAY AT OUR NEXT MEETING WE WILL COME IN FULLY PREPARED? IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE LISTED ON THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS IT AND VOTE ON IT TODAY.

I WONDER IF YOU KNEE MORE TIME TO LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE AND -- >> MEMBER MORRISON -- NO, IT WAS TAMMI'S THAT WAS ON. I'M SORRY. I'M ONE PERSON OFF HERE.

MEMBER FILKOFF. >> TWO THINGS. NUMBER ONE, I THINK OUR REAL EFFORT TO DELVE INTO THIS WAS AFTER REVIEWING THE SURVEY. SO I WOULDN'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR INTO IT. WE'RE DECIDING, I BELIEVE, NOT TO HAVE IT AT ALL.

SO I WOULD DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, LIKE FOR US TO HOLD OFF UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING AND BE MORE WELL PREPARED FOR IT. MY SECOND IS I DON'T SEE 10C ANYWHERE.

I SEE 10A AND 10B. >> IT'S SUBPARAGRAPH C OF 10. >> ALL RIGHT.

I WAS LOOKING AT 10A AND 10B, BUT NOT 10 SUB-C. THANK YOU.

>> MEMBER CLARK. >> I AGREE WITH MR. LASSERE. WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. I'M COMPLETELY IN FAVOR OF HAVING CLARITY IN THE CHARTER ABOUT THIS ISSUE IN TERMS OF HOW THIS SYSTEM SHOULD WORK. SO I'M JUST LOOKING AT IT AS A SURVEY AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT WILL YIELD THE RESULTS WE'RE AFTER.

WE NEED CLARITY IN THE CHARTER ITSELF IN TERMS OF HOW THIS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STAFF

[00:35:01]

AND COMMISSION MEMBERS WORKS. SO THAT'S MY COMMENTS. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

MEMBER DAVIS. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY IT'S INTERESTING IF YOU -- THE MINUTES WE JUST APPROVED ON JANUARY 13TH INCLUDING OUR DISCUSSION ON THIS AND INCLUDED -- WE JUST HAVEN'T DONE ANY OF THE REVAIREVISIONS. WE NEED TO GO BACK TO IT.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE TALKED ABOUT A SLIDING SCALE FOR PENALTY FOR VIOLATION, SO OTHER THINGSES.

IT JUST SO HAPPENS IT'S ON THE ONES THAT WE APROOUED TODAY FROM JANUARY 13TH.

>> IS THAT THEN, MADAM CHAIR, A DESIRE OF THIS BOARD, TO HAVE MEM GO AND LOOK AT THE MINUTES

FROM JANUARY 13TH AND MAKE PURT REVIGS BASED ON THOSE COMMENTS? >>.

>> THAT WHAT THOSE OF YOU WHO MADE COMMENTS ARE ASKING FOR? >> YES.

>> IT'S A GOOD STARTING PLACE FOR OUR DISCUSSION. >> SO IF I UNDERSTAND THIS, AND I'M JUST GOING TO STATE MY PEACE A LITTLE BIT HERE, THE THING THAT IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE A CITY MANAGER, A COMMISSION, FORM OF GOVERNMENT WORK IS CLARITY AROUND ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. I MEAN, IF YOU HAVE A SINGLE, STRONG MAYOR, THERE'S NO WORRY ABOUT IT. IF YOU HAVE THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT, YOU CONSTANTLY HAVE TO BALANCE THAT. THE WORDS THAT I'VE ALWAYS HEARD USED TO DESCRIBE THE WAY THIS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK IN THE PAST AS COMMISSION FOCUSES ON POLICY AND STRATEGIES.

THE CITY MANAGER FOCUSES ON OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION. IF THERE IS ANY CROSSING OF THAT LINE TO SAY THAT THE COMMISSIONERS ARE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT THE OPERATION AND THE IMPLEMENTATION WILL BE, THAT'S A VIOLATION. WHAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE OF WHEN WE REVIEW THESE WORDS UNDER 10C AT THE NEXT MEETING IS THAT STATES THAT THAT WAY CLEARLY IF

EVERYBODY IS IN AGREEMENT THAT THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. >> I THINK IT'S WELL-SAID.

>> OKAY. WE WILL COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING WITH 10C.

WE WILL NOT DO THE SURVEY AT THIS TIME. ARE WE LEAVING OPEN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF INTERVIEWING DEPARTMENT HEADS? WE STILL WANT TO LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION DOWN THE ROAD AFTER OUR NEXT MEETING

MAYBE? MEMBER BEAN. >> POSSIBLY.

I LIKE THE IDEA. VIE CHAIR, I VERY MUCH LIKE THE IDEA, BUT AFTER WHAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY ABOUT THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED FROM THE COMMISSIONER, WE'RE OPERATING ON THE ASSUMPTION THERE'S A PROBLEM, AND WE WILL FACE IT. MORE INFORMATION IS NEVER A BAD THING, BUT THAT MIGHT TAKE UP VALUABLE TIME THAT WE NEED TO COMPLETE OUR TASK.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? I'M QUESTIONING DO WE NEED THAT? >> MEMBER MORRISON.

>> THE OTHER THING, TOO, WITH THE INTERVIEWING OF THE DEMOCRATIC HEADS IS THE CITY MANAGER HAS ALREADY SAID HE DOESN'T THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM HERE.

SO I FEEL LIKE IT'S AWKWARD TO ASK DEPARTMENT HEADS TO COME IN AND GIVE A DIFFERENT ANSWER WHEN THE BOSS SAID THERE ISN'T AN ISSUE, YOU KNOW, JUST FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.

>> MEMBER CLARK. >> I SUGGESTED THE THING ABOUT REACHING OUT TO DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE SURVEY. I WON'T CARRY A TORCH FOR THAT PARTICULAR IDEA. I WOULD SAY IF -- ONE WAY TO APPROACH IT, IF YOU WANT TO DO IT, AND I'M NOT SURE WE NEED TO. IF YOU WANT TO DO IT, SIMPLY ASK FACT QUESTIONS.

HAVE YOU HAD -- DO YOU ROUTINELY HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH COMMISSION MEMBERS? IF SO, WHAT'S THE NATURE OF THAT CONVERSATION? YOU DON'T ASK FOR JUDGMENT ABOUT IT SO MUCH AS GATHERING INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON.

>> SO THE DIRECTION WE HAVE AT THIS POINT IS THAT IN OUR NEXT MEETING, THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA SHOULD BE SECTION 10C? ALL RIGHT? SO ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON IN

THE AGENDA? >> I THINK SO. >> I GUESS I WOULD CONSIDER IT OLD BUSINESS ITEM. I'D LIKE TO RAISE IF THAT'S OKAY.

MAYBE NOW IT'S MOOT. I WAS THINKING -- IF WE WERE GOING TO DO -- I WAS GETTING CONCERNED BETWEEN SOME OF THE SCITIZEN COMMENTS WE'VE RECEIVE AND OUR IDEA OF DOING THE SURVEY WITH OUR ABILITY TO COMPLETE OUR TASK IN, YOU KNOW, BY THE JUNE 30TH DEADLINE, WHICH WAS SET FOR US BY THE COMMISSION, AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANY WAY OF GOING BEYOND THAT SINCE SOME OF -- IF WE'RE

[00:40:07]

>> AFTER THIS NOVEMBER ELECTION, WHEN IS THE NEXT ELECTION? >> 2022.

>> SO IF WE DON'T MAKE THIS ELE ELECTION, WE HAVE TO SCHEDULE A SPECIAL ONE FOR THIS CHARTER CHANGE? IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OR WAIT UNTIL 2022? >> UH-HUH.

>> WHAT'S THE COST OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION? >> I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF

MY HEAD, BUT I WOULD SURMISE UPWARDS OF $60,000. >> SIXTH?

>> UH-HUH. >> WOULD THAT INCLUDE A WRITE-IN ELECTION??

>> UH-HUH. >> WOULD THAT INCLUDE A WRITE-IN ELECTION?Y?

>> UH-HUH. >> WOULD THAT INCLUDE A WRITE-IN ELECTION?

THAT WAS PROPOSED BY A CONSTITUENT. >> WRITE-IN BALLOTS ARE OKAY.

>> MAIL BALLOT. >> SO MAIL ONLY, I'VE NOT DONE A MAIL ONLY ELECTION, SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE EXACT COST OF THAT. YES, IT WOULD REDUCE THE FEES ASSOCIATEDED WITH AN ELECTION BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE POLL WORKERS AND TRAINING AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

>> HAVE YOU EVER DONE A MAIL-IN ONLY? >> I'D HAVE TO RESEARCH IT.

>> NOT IN RECENT HISTORY? >> NOT IN 16 YEARS. >> CAN WE REQUEST THAT YOU GIVE

AN ESTIMATE? >> I GUESS -- >> GO AHEAD.

>> WHAT'S THE DATE WE WOULD TO FINISH OUR WORK BY TO MAKE THIS ELECTION THAT'S GOING ON?

>> THE DEADLINE FOR BALLOT LANG WAUJ IS AUGUST 19TH. >> SO WHY CAN'T -- WHY NOT TRY

TO MAKE THAT DAY? >> THAT'S WHY I THINK THE COMMISSION GAVE US A JUNE 30TH DEADLINE. WE HAVE TO PRESENT AND DO OUR WORK THEN AND PRESENT IT TO

THEM, AND THEY HAVE TO VOTE ON IT AND THEN IT GETS. >> IT'S ULTIMATELY THE COMMISSION'S DECISION, BOUGHT I THINK WE SHOULD ORGANIZE OUR WORK SO WE GIVE THEM AN OPTION

THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN. >> LET ME JUST DO A PULSE CHECK AT THIS POINT.

DID WE FEEL THAT WE'RE RUSHING THROUGH ANY OF THOSE THINGS? DOES ANYONE UP HERE FEEL THAT

YOU'RE RUSHING ON YOU'RE BEING RUSHED? >> NOT AT ALL.

>> NOT YET. >> I THINK WE'RE GIVING THE P BE -- THE PUBLIC HAS PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY TO INTERACT WITH US AND PARTICIPATE IN THIS FEPT TO. THE IDEA IT RUSHES THEIR ABILITY

IN SOME WAY, I DON'T SEE A VALIDITY TO THAT. >> WHAT I HAD LIKE US TO DO IS CONTINUE TO ASK OURSELVES THAT QUESTION BASED ON YOUR INTERACTIONS INDIVIDUALLY WITH THE PUBLIC OR WITH PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME TO THESE MEETINGS OR LETTERS TOO THE EDITOR OR WHATEVER OTHER SOURCE WE CAN GET TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT PULSE CHECK TO SEE IF WE ARE RUSHING ANYTHING. I THINK THAT SO FAR I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE MOST THAT WE HAVE -- THAT TIME HAS BEEN USED UP BY LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T DRAGGED OUR FEET ON THIS SO FAR. I THINK WE HAD HEALTHY CONVERSATIONS. I THINK THAT THE CURRENT SCHEDULE HAS WITHIN IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND REVIEW EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE NOT SO FAR AND DETERMINE IF WE NEED MORE TIME TO DISCUSS ANY COMPONENT OF IT. MY ASSUMPTION IS AND I'LL SAY THIS OUT LOUD BECAUSE I SAID IT TO THE COMMISSION THAT IF WE NEED MORE TIME, THAT ALL OF US

ARE WILLING TO DO THAT. >> I BELIEVE, MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY, THE DEADLINE THE COMMISSION PROVIDED IS BECAUSE OF THE BALLOT LANGUAGE DEFINED. SO YOU'D HAVE TO TAKE IT TO THE COMMISSION TWICE, ORDINANCE FIRST AND ORDINANCE SECOND READING MEETING THE AUGUST 8TH BALLOT. IF YOU'RE RUSHING POSSIBLY DOING TWO MEETINGS A MONTH INSTEAD OF ONE MEETING A MONTH, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER MEETING WITH MORE FREQUENCY.

[00:45:02]

>> I THINK THAT SINCE THERE ARE PEOPLE UP HERE WHO WORK FOR A LIVING, IF WE END UP IN THAT CATEGORY, WE HAVE TO DO MORE IN THE EVENINGS I WOULD SUGGEST. IT SEEMS THAT PEOPLE ARE WILLING

TO DO THAT. MEMBER LASSERE. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY MAYBE IF WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE THE MATTER NEEDS MORE ATTENTION THAT WE COULD MAYBE CIRCULATE THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS TO GET ONTO THE BALLOT.

THEN WE PRIORITIZE THOSE FROM THAT TIME FRAME. IF SOMETHING NEEDS MORE TIME AND ATTENTION, WE CAN LOOK AT FOR A FOLLOW-UP MATTER AND MAYBE CONTINUE TO MEET TO GET IT ON TO THE 2022 BALLOT OR MAIL-OUT BALLOT. LEAVE AN OPTION THAT WE HEAR A LOT FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT OR SOMETHING THAT DOES NEED MORE. SAY WE GET INTO PEOPLE WHERE THIS WILL TAKE ANOTHER MONTH OR TWO, MAYBE WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT.

>> WHETHER IS THE PLAN TO DO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS? IS THAT APRIL OR MAY OR

SOMETHING LIKE THAT? >> I'M SORRY? >> THE PLAN TO DO THE PUBLIC MEETINGS. IS THAT APRIL OR MAY. THE UNIQUE MEETINGS, SORRY.

>> RIGHT. THAT'S A STATED PLAN. I'M NOT SURE WE'VE PUT THAT IN

CONCRETE YET. >> NO MEETING BEFORE APRIL. >> MEMBER CLARK.

>> I AGREE WITH MR. LASSERE SAID ABOUT STAGING THE WORK AND PICKING UP THE ELEMENTS TO GO WITH THE REFERENDUM. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO STANL OUR WORK SO WE GET IT DONE AND AT LEAST GIVE THE COMMISSION A FIGHTING CHANCE TO GET IT ON THE BALLOT IN ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SET OUT. I FEEL LIKE WE'RE MAKING REALLY GOOD PROCESS AND OUR CONVERSATIONS ARE SUBSTANTIVE IN EVERY MEETING MOVING THE BALL DOWNFIELD EFFECTIVELY. IF WE NEED ADDITIONAL MEETINGS IT'S AN OPTION.

KROPT TO -- I DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP ON MEETING THE SCHEDULE WE WERE ASKED TO.

>> I'LL THANK ALL OF YOU FOR THAT SENTIMENT BECAUSE, THIS IS A VOLUNTEER EFFORT.

WE ALL ARE DOING IT BECAUSE WE CARE ABOUT THIS CITY. SO I THINK THAT IT'S WORTH IT FOR COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT. MISS BACH.

>> THE REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO HIGHLIGHT FOR CITIZENS, THE WAY WE HAVE DONE THE BALLOT QUESTIONS FROM THE 2007 AND TOOK SEVERAL YEARS BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL BIG QUESTIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE POSE THE FORKED REPORTS. COMMISSIONER FOUND JUST A FEW AT ITIME IS ENOUGH. DON'T PUT PA QUESTIONS ON THE BALLOT JUST FOR THE CITY WHEN WE'RE ON THE BALLOT WITH EVERYBODY ELSE NOW, TOO. SO YOU CAN HAVE AT THE END OF THIS A FEW QUESTIONS THAT I'M JUST GOING TO THROW OUT. LET'S SAY FOR TERM LIMITS, UGSD WE'RE DOING AWAY WITH TERM LIMITS. THAT'S ONE BALLOT QUESTION.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE JUST THE WAY I SEE US PROGRESSIVING.

AFTER THIS MEETING, I THINK SECTION 9, THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE OF OTHER SECTION THAT IS DEAL WITH HOW OUR COMMISSIONS IS ELECTED AND THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

THE REST OF IT I HAVE DONE BEFORE AS ONE BALLOT QUESTION. I'VE -- AND WHAT IT DOES IS IT SAYS THAT -- THIS IS LEGAL IN FLORIDA. YOU CAN DO IT FOR BIG QUESTIONS, TOO. I HAVE NEVER AS A CITY ATTORNEY FELT IT WAS THE RIGHT THIPG TO DO. YOU NEED TO POSE THOSE QUESTION TO SOMEONE INDIVIDUALLY SO THEY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOODING FOR. YOU READ THE RATE ON YOUR BALLOT.

YOU CAN PICK PUT THEM TOGETHER, ANY YOU DECIDE AROUND MAJOR ISSUES FOR THE COMMUNITIES.

SOME SECTIONS I TAKE OUT THE SHELL AND REPLACING MUSK AND HE AND SHE TO MAKE IT MORE GENERAL NEUTRAL. THOSE WOULD UNDER THE STATUTE STILL HAVE TO GO TO REFERENDUM.

THEY'RE NOT SUBSCRIBE NER'S ERRORS SO TO SPEAK. THEY CAN BUNDLE TOGETHER IN ONE PACKAGE, AND THEN THE OTHER TYPES OF QUESTIONS GET SEPARATED OUT.

>> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? LET'S MOVE ON TO SECTION 10A.

[Item 4.2]

SO THE CHANGES WE SEE THERE IS SECTION P 3. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH MRS. GIBSON, SECTION 3 AND 4. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WANT TO COMBINE THOSE TWO STATEMENTS OR REDUCE THE CONFLICT IN THEM IN SOME WAY.

[00:50:07]

MISS DAVIS. >> WELL, IN NUMBER 4 WE'RE USING THE -- WE DEFINE THE TERM "CONSERVATION LAND" WITH A CAPITAL C AND L, AND YET, THERE IS NOWHERE THAT CONSERVATION LANDS CAPITALIZED LIKE THAT IS USED. SO I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY WE ADDED IT, AND SO I WOULD PREFER JUST TO NOW REMOVE NUMBER 4 AND LEAVE NUMBER 3 THE WAY IT

IS. >> MEMBER LASSERE. >> I LOOKED AT 10A1 AND 2 FOR QUITE A WHILE. IT'S VERY CONFUSING. IT'S WHAT MEMBER DAVIS MENTIONED. YOU HAVE LOWER CASE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND THE DEFINED RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DIRECTLY FOLLOWING IT. IT ADDS THINGS TO IT AND DOESN'T INCLUDE THINGS IN THE FIRST PART. THE GOAL, I BELIEVE, TO SAY WE DON'T RECREATIONAL OR CONSERVATION LAND SOLD UNLESS IT'S EXTREME.

WE WANT IT LEASED FOR 40 YEARS AND WANT A REFERENDUM BEFORE THAT EVER HAPPENS.

THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE RESTRICTION NEEDS TO BE.

IT'S JUST REALLY WHAT OUR RECREATION AND CONVERSATION LANDS.

THOSE ARE BOTH DEFINED ELEMENTS WITHIN HERE. WE WANT THE SAME RESTRICTIONS ON THEM, REFERENDUM. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED PARAGRAPHS 1, 2, 3 AND 4.

I THINK WE JUST NEED PARAGRAPH 1 THAT'S CLEAR, CONCISE, UNDERSTANDABLE BY THE PUBLIC, BY THE COMMISSION, BY SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO GET A 41-YEAR LEASE. IT WILL TAKE A REFERENDUM -- A 40-YEAR LEASE. SKUGS EXCUSE ME. PRESENTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE CITY-OWNED LANDS ONLY. THOSE CONSIST OF PARKS, CENTRAL PARK, UCLID STREET PARK, SUNRISE PARK, ATLANTIC PARK, MAIN BEACH, AND THE GOLF COURSE, THE CITY GOLF COURSE.

THERE'S OTHER PROPERTIES ADJOINING IT. THERE'S YOUTH SOCCER FIELDS.

THERE'S LANDS NORTH OF THE GOVERNMENT COURSE THAT ARE VACANT, ONE IS PROPOSED FOR A NEW PARK LINE BUT NOT SOLD. THAT MAKES UP THE RECREATIONAL ASPECT OF THE CITY.

THAT'S NOT TO SAY OTHERS WON'T BE ADDED. CONSERVATION LAND CONSISTING OF THE GREENWAY, THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT, WHICH I THINK IS WHY THAT'S INCLUDED AS ALLOWED USE IN THE ZONING CODE EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT ALLOWED FOR A PLANT.

THE PROPERTY OF RIVER GOLF, THERE'S A PORTION OF IT OVER THE AIRPORT ALSO CONSERVATION LAND USE DESIGNATION. SO THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

THOSE ARE LANDS THAT AT SOME POINT IN THIS COMMISSION OR ARE WHAT WE DON'T UPPED AT LEAST FOR A LONG TIME WITHOUT THIS REFERENDUM. THAT'S THE GOAL.

THIS IS A CONFUSING WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL. IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE IN A CHARTER AND THAT'S WHY IT'S HERE. WE MAY NEED TO LOOK AT 10A TOO MAKE IT WHERE SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS IT A LITTLE BETTER. THE GOAL IS THE SAME FOR CONSERVATION REGULAR REEGS. NOBODY SELLS IT OR LEASES IT. IT'S NOT TRANSFERREDED TO ANYBODY IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN BY REFERENDUM IF THE LEASE EXCEEDS 40 YEARS.

THAT'S IT. WHY CAN'T WE JUST SAY THAT? THERE ARE OTHER -- EXCUSE ME.

ONE THING. THERE ARE OTHER RECREATION CONSERVATION LANDS IN THE CITY.

THEY'RE NOT PRESENTLY OWNED BY THE CITY. PARKS ARE OWNED BY THE STATE, PRIVATE SGLINTS AND OTHER ENTITIES. I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT.

>> MEMBER DAFS. >> I THINK THAT IF WE DEFINE CONSERVATION LANDS HERE, THIS LANGUAGE COULD GET USED FOR OTHER THINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THIS NEW CONSERVATION FUND THAT THE CITY HAS SET UP. WITH THE FUNDS THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, GOING TO RAISE TO THE INCREASED TAX IS ONLY TO ACQUIRE CONSERVATION LANDS, PEOPLE MIGHT POINT TO THIS LANGUAGE.

JUST THINKING ABOUT WHAT THE CITY IS CONTINUING TO GET NEW CONSERVATION LAND PROBLEMS, HARVEY WEINSTEIN THEY -- THEY JUST RECENTLY HIRED THEM TO GET EVEN MORE.

IT'S CERTAINLY GOING TO BE GROWING, AND IT WILL BE BEYOND JUST THE GREENWAY.

WE CAN'T MAKE OUR DECISION BASED ON TODAYMENT ISN'T THIS LANGUAGE IN NUMBER 3 PRETTY WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION DEBATED AND THEY PASSED THEMSELVES AFTER SEVERAL REA

READINGS? >> YES. >> THEY ACTUALLY HAD ALREADY A

[00:55:02]

I WONDER HOW MUCH SHOULD WE STEP IN HERE ON THAT, GIVEN THAT THAT'S GONE THROUGH A PRETTY

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ALREADY. >> THAT'S ALREADY DAIB IT HAS NOT BEEN ON THE BALLOT, OBVIOUSLY, SO WE PROPOSED A BALLOT QUESTION AND THE COMMISSION DID APPROVE LANGUAGE IN NUMBER 3. I'M GOING TO SPEAK FOR THE -- I THINK JON MAKES A GOOD POINT, AND I DON'T KNOW THE COMMISSION WOULD BE OFFENDED IF WE MARRIED ALL OF THESE SECTIONS INTO SOMETHING THAT MADE SENSE AND WAS CONCISE, BUT THAT ITS UP TO YOU.

THIS WAS THE EASY WAY TO DO IT. THIS IS THE WAY THAT IF I'M NOT GIVEN OTHER DIRECTION BY THE COMMISSION I'LL PROPOSE IT BECAUSE IF I JUST START STRIKING THROUGH AND THEN SUGGEST SOMETHING TOTALLY NEW ESPECIALLY AS SENSITIVE AS EVERYBODY IS ABOUT KVSHGS LAND, I WANTED TO KEEP IT SIMPLE TO READ IT LIKE THE OTHER AND THEY ASKED TO ADD CONSERVATION.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S UNREASONABLE TO SAY THAT -- AND I, OBVIOUSLY, FEEL LIKE I COULD DO THAT FOR YOU IF YOU WANTED ME TO COME BACK AND CONSOLIDATE THESE.

I AGREE WITH JON. THE MORE PARAGRAPHS WE'RE WRITING HERE, THE MORE CONFUSING THAT IT'S GETTING. ARE WE CAPTURING EVERYTHING THAT WE INTEND TO? ARE WE TOO MUCH? I WOULD JUST ADD TO THAT THAT JUST BECAUSE I'M INVOLVED IN LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE RIGHT NOW NOT PURCHASED BY THE CITY. GENERALLY SPEAKING THE GREENWAY IS THE GOAL BUT NOT THE ONLY ONE. THERE ARE OTHER PARCELS IN THE CITY THAT ARE GOING TO BE PURCHASED I'M SURE THAT ARE NOT ON THE GREENWAY.

THOSE NEED TO BE PROTECTED, TOO. THAT'S THE INTENTION OF THE PROVISION.

>> THEY WOULD BE PROTECTED AS CONSERVATION LAND. >> WHETHER THEY'RE SOLD OR

LEASED? >> RIGHT. NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE CHARTER, BUT UNDER THE TERMS OF CONSERVATION LAND THAT WOULD BE PROTECTED NO MATTER WHERE THEY

ARE AND HOW MANY THERE ARE. MEMBER LASSERE. >> THE CITY HAS ACQUIRED TWO NEW PROPERTIES RORECENTLY. THE LAND USE IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THE ZONING IS R2 TODAY. SO IT WOULD BE PROTECTED BY THIS CHANGE IF IT WAS IN EFFECT TODAY AND THE NOT BY WHAT'S IN PLACE NOW. THE ZONING AND FLUME DON'T MATCH. I ASSUME THEY MAKE THAT CHANGE VERY SOON, IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY STARTED THE PROCESS. SO THE PROPERTIES THAT AREN'T IDENTIFIED AS RECREATION AND CONSERVATION WILL HAVE A FUTURE AND SEFRNL BE RECOGNIZED THAT WAY.

THAT'S CERTAINLY THE INTENT. THE OTHER THING AND THIS WILL BE MUCH LESS POPULAR THAN ANYTHING I PRESENTED. I THINK THAT IF IT GOES TO REFERENDUM THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED A TIME FRAME WHERE THAT'S BINDING AND IT'S DONE FOR SURE.

MAYBE FOR A TIME FRAME ONLY. CAN THEY BRING IT BACK UP IN A PERIOD OF YEARS, FOUR OR FIVE YEARS? I DON'T KNOW. DO WE BUY IN THE HANDS FOR EVERY FUTURE COMMISSION TO EVER CONSIDER A SALE IF ONE IS TURNED DOWN OR A LEASE? IF IT GOES TO REFERENDUM IN YEAR, LET'S SAY, 2020, AND IT IT'S VOTED DOWN, COULD IT NEVER BE SOLD OR LEASED OR BROUGHT BACK UP TO REFERENDUM? IT JUST STATES TODAY THAT THE DECISION OF VOTERS IS BINDING, PERIOD. THAT'S IT.

SO IF THEY SAY NO, IS THERE A CHANCE THEY COULD SAY YES? THAT'S MY QUESTION.

SHOULD THERE BE A SUNSET OF THAT NO VEET. VOTE.

>> MEMBER MORRISON. >> I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING HE SAID.

I FEEL LIKE ONE OF THE THINGS WE TRY TO CONSOLIDATE IS WE TRY TO DEFINE WHAT IS RECREATION -- WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF RECREATIONAL LAND AND CONSERVATION.

IN DIFFERENT PLACES IT RESEARCHES THE FLUMES AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN NOW. SO WHAT WOULD YOUR RECOMMENDATION BE AS FAR AS CREATING A CONCISE DEFINITION FOR WHAT QUALIFIES THOSE LANDS TO GIVE US THE ABILITY TO AVOID SITUATIONS LIKE YOU TALK ABOUT WHERE NEW PROPERTIES ARE BROUGHT IN THAT MIGHT NOT, YOU KNOW,

MEET THAT CRITERIA RIGHT AWAY. >> I THINK THE OVERRIDING DOCUMENT THAT GUIDES THE USE IN THE CITY IS THE COMP PLAN. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S THE RIGHT PLACE TO DO IT.

IT'S NOT EASY TO CHANGE. YOU HAVE TO STAY FOR A LONG TIME.

SO THEY PROBABLY SHOULD LOOK TO DEFINE IT. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE NOW, OR THAT'S WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE. AGAIN, I'D BE OKAY WITH THAT, TRYING TO IDENTIFY EVERY TYPE OF

[01:00:06]

THE COMP PLAN IS. >> MEMBER CLARK. >> I AGREE WITH JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT MR. LASSERE SAID. SO I THINK CONFINE COMBINING THESE INTO ONE STRAIGHTFORWARD PARAGRAPH THAT DEALS WITH RECREATION AND CONSERVATION LAND WITH THE STIPULATINGS HERE, I THINK THOSE NEED TO BE VERY CLEARLY DEFINED.

BUT IT'S JUST AS WE TALKED ABOUT. THE CONVERSATION IS FROM THE COMP PLAN AND FLUME AND ZONING. IJ WE SHOULD REWRITE THIS AND MAKE IT AS CLEAR AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AS WE CAN. I'M NOT AS CONVINCED THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE OR NECESSARY FOR US TO PUT A STIPULATION THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T BRING IT BACK IN FIVE YEARS OR WHATEVER.

I THINK THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IS BINDING, BUT I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO PREDICT EVERYTHING THAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. SO IT'S THE TIME AND SAYING I CAN'T DO IT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT SITUATION WOULD ARISE IN THAT REGARD. I DON'T SEE THE NEED TO ADD THAT ADDITIONAL STIPULATION. TAMMI, I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY YOU'LL BE WILLING TO TAKE A CRACK AT THE LANGUAGE. YOU CAN BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING.

MADAM CHAIR, IF YOU'RE READY OR WHENEVER WE'RE READY, I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE THAT MOTION.

>> MEMBER LASSERE. >> THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS FROM EVERYBODY.

MY ONLY, I GUESS, CLARIFICATION WOULD BE THAT MY POINT OF HAVING A TIME FRAME ON THIS SUNSET IS NOT SO MUCH THEY'RE STUCK WITH THAT DECISION FOR A TIME PERIOD LIKE -- I WOULD LIKE -- I WOULD NOT LIKE THE ALTERNATE OPINION BE MADE WHERE, WELL, VOTED ON THAT IN 1945 AND ARE NEVER SELLING IT. IT CAN NEVER BE SOLD. THAT'S NOT A GOOD OUTCOME.

THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT, WELL, LET'S BE CLEAR AND SAY, THAT DECISION OF THAT ELECTION WILL

BE GOOD FOR TWO YEARS, WHATEVER IT IS. >> I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> I DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO THINK WE VOTED ON THAT 15 YEARS AGO. WHY ARE WE BACK HERE AGAIN? IF SOMEONE WANTS TO BUY THE ENTIRE GOLF COURSE. ALL RIGHT, I WANT TEN ACRES NOW.

NO WE VOTED ON THAT TEN YEARS AND SAID NO. WE CAN'T DO IT.

WE CAN'T EVEN BRING IT TO A VOTE. CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE AND IDEAS CHANGE AND USES CHANGE. I FEEL LIKE MAYBE SAY THAT THAT DECISION WILL BE BINDING FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, WHICH WOULD GET YOU TO THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE.

THAT'S MY THOUGHTS. >> IT'S BINDING UNTIL -- UNTIL I'M BACK UP AGAIN.

>> THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE A DEED UNTIL THE VOTERS VOTE, YES.

SOMETHING LIKE THAT. MAYBE THAT'S PART OF YOUR DRAFT. MAYBE DON'T PUT A TIME PERIOD ON IT NECESSARILY. JUST SAYS CITY COMMISSION IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO SIGN A DEED OR A LEASE IN EXCESS OF 40 YEARS UNTIL A VOTE OF REFERENDUM AND THEY'RE SAFE.

>> SO WE'VE DETERMINED THAT THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE GIVING THE CITY ATTORNEY.

IS THERE ANY CHANGE TO THAT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

WE'RE ON TO SECTION 11. ANY COMMENTS? MEMBER DAVIS.

>> OF COURSE. I SUSPECT SOME OF MY -- I HAD A LOT OF PROPOSALS REGARDING SECTION 11 AT OUR LAST MEETING. I THOUGHT MOST OF WERE AGREED TO AND SOME BUT NOT ALL MADE IT INTO THE DRAFT. THAT MIGHT BE MY FOUGHT BECAUSE I WENT BACK AND I LISTENED TO THE -- WHEN I WATCHED THE VIDEO AGAIN, IT DID INDICATE THAT MAYBE TAMMI AND I WERE GOING TO WORK. I'VE BEEN OUT RECOVERING FROM SURGERY THE LAST TWO WEEKS.

I'M GOING THROUGH THE ONE PROVISION WHICH I SAID WE WERE GOING TO ADD.

THAT'S WHAT I CALL THE NO RESOLVING DOOR PROVISION THAT A FORMER CITY COMMISSIONER COULDN'T HOLD ANY EMPLOYMENT UNTIL AT LEAST ONE YEAR EXPIRED SINCE THEIR LAST TERM.

>> I BELIEVE WE DID AGREE TO THAT. >> WE AGREED TO THAT ONE?

>> YES. >> THEN I TALKED ABOUT A FEW OTHERS, AND WE TALKED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IF A COMMISSIONER WAS IN A -- HAD AN INTEREST IN THE PROFITS CONTRACT OR

[01:05:10]

WE SPENT TIME TALKING ABOUT THAT. >> I THOUGHT THAT WAS IN ONE OF

THE SECTIONS. >> THE LANGUAGE IS INTERESTING HERE.

WE TALKED ABOUT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY CAN'T HOLD ONE OFFICE, AND THEY CAN'T BE

INTERESTED IN THE PROFITS. >> WE JUST NEED TO ADD COMMISSIONERS.

>> WE NEED COMMISSIONERS IN THERE. WE TALKED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY, ESPECIALLY MR. CLASH WAS CO-- CLARK WAS WORRIED ABOUT A PUBLIC HEARING OR NOT.

SOME OF THE PEER CITIES INCLUDED THAT OPTION FOR THE QUALIFICATION.

ALSO, I THINK THE IDEA OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD FOR FORFEIT, THAT'S WHEN MR. CLARK SAID HE'D LIKE TO SEE THEM OUTLINED.

SO MAYBE YOU AND I SHOULD WORK TOGETHER AND DO THAT FOR THE NEXT ONE.

DEFINITELY EVERYBODY AGREED ON THIS THE NO REVOLVERING DOOR AS I CALL THEM.

>> I DO WATCH THE VIDEOS SOMETIMES A COUPLE OF TIMES. SO NO COMMISSIONER BASICALLY CAN GET A COMPENSATED POSITION WITH THE CITY FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR AFTER THEY LEAVE OFFICE?

>> RIGHT. THAT'S FIVE OF THE CITY CONTRACTS.

>> COMMISSIONERS CANNOT HAVE ANY INTEREST IN ANY CONTRACTS, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT. AND THAT THEY -- THAT BECOMES A POSITION FOR FORFEITURE.

>> IF THEY DO? >> RIGHT. IS.

>> IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT COMES UP, NORMALLY THAT PERSON IS -- KNOWS RIGHT AWAY THEY WON'T HAVE TO RUN FOR OFFICE BECAUSE THEIR COMPANY HAS A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY, RIGHT? OR IF THEY'RE IN OFFICE AND THEIR COMPANY GETS THE TUPT TO BID THEY CAN RESIGN.

>> THAT MAY BE WHY THE CITY HAS NOT HAD THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE FOUND IN OUR PEER CITIES CONTRACTS. IT COULD BE. THOSE CITIES THEMSELVES ARE, YOU KNOW, THE SAME SIZE APPROXIMATELY, BUT MAYBE THEY HAVE MORE EMPLOYERS.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHY. >> I THINK IT'S MORE COMMON IN SOME CITIES TO HAVE BUSINES

PEOPLE ON THEIR COMMISSION THAN WE'VE HAD IN RECENT YEARS. >> OKAY.

>> SO WE WILL JUST -- >> ON THAT ONE MAYBE THAT'S THE TYPE OF LANGUAGE THAT WE CAN

COME UP WITH SOME STUFF AND SEE IF THE REST WANT TO GO THAT WAY. >> OKAY.

>> THE NUMBERS, WHICH IS WHAT MR. CLARK HAD ASKED. >> I HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT WANTING

TO SEE A FEW OF THOSE THINGS IN MIND. >> ARE YOU SET?

>> 11. >> TAMMI PROBABLY FOR YOU. ON 11B WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT MISSING THREE MEETINGS AND YOU HAVE TO RESIGN OR FORFEIT YOUR SEAT, THE WORD "REGULAR" MEETING IS USED. IS REGULAR A DEFINED TERM SOME PLACE?

>> IT IS IN OUR CHARTER ELSEWHERE. NOT SPECIFICALLY.

IT SAYS THERE'S HELD ON THE FIRST AND THIRD TUESDAY OF EVERY MONTH.

>> I WAS TRYING TO AVOID SOME DEBATE IN THE FUTURE THAT SOMEBODY MISSED A MEETING BUT IT

WASN'T A REGULAR MEETING I MISSED. >> RIGHT.

>> SO I THOUGHT MAYBE ADDING A WORD OR TWO THERE TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR ABOUT WHAT A "REGULAR

MEETING" WAS AND WASN'T. >> I WONDER WHAT WOULD BE A BETTER WAY TO DEFINE THAT.

>> I DON'T KNOW. IT SEEMS TO ME THE COMMISSION HAS ADDITIONAL MEETINGS FROM

TIME TO TIME THAT WE CONSIDER REGULAR MEETINGS. >> THEY HAVE WORKSHOPS, TOO.

DOES THAT COUNT? >> RIGHT. WE SHOULD JUST BE CLEAR.

I UNDERSTOOD THIS TO MEAN A REGULAR MEETING WAS THE MEETING YOU REFERRED TO, THOSE ARE THE

REGULAR MEETINGS THAT ARE PLANNED A YEAR IN ADVANCE. >> NINE MONTHLY MEETINGS OR

SOMETHING L LIKE THAT. >> I THINK TAMMI CAN FIGURE IT OUT.

WE NEED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT IT. >> IS THERE NO RECOURSE OR SOME SORT OF TEMPORARY DISABILITY OR

ANYTHING LIKE THAT? >> MEMBER DAVIS. >> AS I RECALL WHETHER WE

[01:10:06]

DISCUSSION WAS. >> THE STAFF DOES AND THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.

IS AN ABSENCE EXCUSED, IS THE FLU OR BROKEN PELVIS A GREAT EXCUSE? IS A COLD? THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT.

THEY SAID THREE MEETINGS. >> THAT WAS WHAT THEY SAID FOR THE ADVISORY.

>> BUT FORM ER SECOND 20 DID ALLOW FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES. >> I BELIEVE -- I GUESS IT'S JUST MY TWO CENTS, BUT I WOULD SAY THAN AN ELECTED OFFICIAL HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE NOT RIGHT BUT APPROVED REASON TO BE SITTING ON THIS THAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE PERSON DOES.

SINCE I HAVE BEEN ONE OF THOSE, I FEEL LIKE I CAN SAY THAT. I UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BEHIND THAT DECISION FOR THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES, BUT IF WE WERE TO HAVE, HEAVEN FORBID, A CITY COMMISSIONER WHO BECAUSE OF HEALTH REASONS HAD TO MISS -- I MEAN THREE REGULAR MEETINGS IS

ONE AND A HALF MONTHS. >> IT DOESN'T SAY CONSECUTIVE, EITHER.

SO THREE ANYTIME DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR. >> WHICH IS EVEN --

>> WHAT IF SOMEONE'S PARENT DIES AFTER THEY WERE SICK FOR ONE MONTH, AND THEY MISSED --

>> THERE'S ALL KINDS OF REASONS. >> THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF REASONS FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.

I'M JUST -- I KNOW THAT -- WHO WOULD THEY GET APPROVED BY? WHO WOULD EXCUSE THAT ABSENCE? IF WE CAN FIND ANY LANGUAGE ANYWHERE ELSE IN ANYBODY ELSE'S CHARTER THAT KIND OF ADDRESSES THIS SITUATION, I GUESS, I WOULD LIKE US TO LOOK FOR IT. FLOO WHEN I -- WHEN I LOOKED BECAUSE I DID LOOK AT THIS BEFORE THE LAST MEETING AND SINCE WE DELETED SECTION 20 AT A RESULT AND I DIDN'T GO BACK. MOST OF THEM DEALT WITH THIS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME WAY THAT OUR FORMER 20 DID. THAT THEY WOULD ALLOW FOR COMMISSIONERS THEMSELVES TO SAY, THIS IS AN EXCUSE. YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN EXCUSED. SO THEY TOOK THE APPROACH WE HAD IN OUR SECTION 20. SO SAID TAKE IT A STEP FROM WHAT ONE DID.

IN ADDITION TO SAYING MISSING FOUR CONSECUTIVE MEETING IN A 12-MONTH PERIOD.

THEY DID ALLOW FOR A -- FOR IT TO BE EXCUSED ABSENCES. >> LET'S GO BACK AND LOOK AT 20

AND SEE WHAT WE WILL SALVAGE. MEMBER BEAN. >> THE MORE I LISTEN I AGREE WITH MEMBER FILKOFF, THAT SEEMS VERY STRICT FOR SOMETHING. BY NATURE OF BEING ELECTED, PEOPLE WE ELECT PROBABLY WILL BE THERE AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS.

I GUESS WHEN YOU PUT IT IN THE CASE THAT WE DO HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT.

>> I THINK IT'S OKAY TO SAY AS WE DO IN SECTION 20 JUST LEAVING IT UNEXCUSED ABSENCES, WHETHER

YOU -- >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEFINE IT? >> NO.

THE COMMISSION COMMUNITY IS GOING TO USE SOME OF THIS HAS TO BE INTERPRETED.

IT HAS TO BE INTERPRETED BY THE COMMUNITY AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME WHAT IT IS THAT THEY WANT TO DO.

I HAVE FAITH THAT THE CITY COMMISSION OR A MAJORITY WOULD KNOW WHAT TO DO.

THEY'RE THE ONLY ONE THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO JUDGE THEMSELVES. I MEAN, WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP THEIR SEAT AND NOT ALONG WITH WHAT THEY HEAR FROM CONSTITUENTS.

>> OKAY. THE ONLY THING I HAD LIKE TO ADD IS I KIND OF LIKE THE IDEA OF MOVING THIS REQUIREMENT FROM SECTION 20 INTO 11 BECAUSE THAT WAY WE PUT ALL THE FORFEITURE

SECTIONS TOGETHER. IF THAT'S -- >> SO STILL KEEP SECTION 20

DELETED AND BRING THAT LANGUAGE INTO -- >> I GUESS WHEN WE GET TO THE

NEWS BUSINESS SECTION 20 PEOPLE CAN DECIDE ON THAT. >> OKAY.

[01:15:04]

>> THERE'S SO MANY CROSS-REFERENCES, WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING THAT I THINK.

>> SOMETIMES IT TAKES LOOKING AT IT A SECOND TIME AND THINKING IT THROUGH.

WE'VE DONE IT MORE THAN ONCE. >> RIGHT, OKAY: . >> MEMBER LASSERE.

>> I WOULD ECHO WHAT ATTORNEY BOX SAID. THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MISSING THREE MEETINGS BECAUSE YOU'RE FISHING OR AT A LOCAL DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT VERSUS YOU HAVE A FLU OR BROKEN LEG. I THINK THAT THEY CAN HAVE SOME DISCRETION OF WHAT AN EXCUSED

ABSENCE IS. >> SO HAVE ARE WE ALREADY WITH THAT DIRECTION TO THE ATTORNEY? VERY GOOD. NOW WE'RE ONTO SECTION 14, WHICH HAS APPARENTLY BEEN STRUCK ALTOGETHER. JUDGE ELECTION AND QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS.

>> THEY BROUGHT THAT INTO SECTION 11, SO IT'S ALL STILL THERE.

>> GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. ANY ISSUE THERE? SECTION 16. THE MAYOR. MADAM DAVIS.

>> OKAY. WHEN I READ THROUGH THIS, IT SEEMS LIKE PARAGRAPH D AND OR SUBSECTION D AND SUB SECTION F ARE BASICALLY ADDRESSING THE SAME ISSUE.

I THINK THAT THOSE SEEM TO ME TO BE PROBABLY THE SAME THING. I THINK WE CAN DELETE F.

YET, IN THE DELETED SECTION, FORMER SECTION C, THE IDEA ABOUT THE PERSON REMOVED FROM OFFICE OF MAYOR WILL CONTINUE TO SERVE AS COMMISSIONER, THAT DOESN'T BELONG THERE -- I'M SORRY.

BEFORE THAT. THE INCUMBENT VICE MAYOR SERVES AS MAYOR FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM. WE NEED THAT LANGUAGE THAT THE VICE MAYOR STEPS IN IF THE MAYOR, FOR EXAMPLE, IS NO LONGER CITY COMMISSIONER BECAUSE HE FORFEITED UNDER SECTION 11.

>> OKAY. >> I MEAN, I THINK WE JUST -- NOW THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, IT SEEMS TO BE CLEAR THAT THE VICE MAYOR BECOME THE MAYOR.

>> MEMBER LASSERE. >> I WANT TO AGREE ON PARAGRAPH F TO STRIKE IT AS REPETITIVE.

LIKE TO CLARIFY THE VETO. CANDIDATES FOR THE MAYORAL ELECTION MUST CONSISTENT OF INCUMBENT COMMISSIONERS NOT SUBJECT THE TO RE-ELECTION TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

MAYBE WE COULD SEE WHAT ARE NOT CANDIDATES IN AN UPCOMING ELECTION AND BE MORE CLEAR.

WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE NUMBER OF TERMS THEY HAVE COMING UP IN SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION? DID WE DO THAT ALREADY? THEY ONLY HAVE TWO YEARS FOR TERM LIMITS.

>> TERM LIMITS. WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THAT YET.

>> SO I GUESS WE MAY NEED TO COME BACK TO THAT ONE WHEN WE DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF TERM LIMITS WE HAVE HERE. MAYBE WE SHOULD SAY -- CANDIDATES FOR MAYORAL ELECTION MUST CONSISTENT OF INCUMBENT COMMISSIONERS THAT SERVED ONE TERM NOT SUBJECT TO RE-ELECTION -- WHO ARE NOT CANDIDATES IN AN UPCOMING ELECTION.

THEY MAY -- SAY WE HAVE THREE TERMS, AND THEY SERVE ONE. THEY'RE A CANDIDATE AND ABLE TO

DO IT. DO YOU SEE? >> YEAH.

THAT'S A GOOD POINT. >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU READ IT THAT WAY, BUT IT COULD BE INTERPRETED THAT WAY. JUST TO AVOID THAT. I THINK THE OTHER THINGS WITH D, OKAY, WE SAY I THINK THE LAST PORTION OF THE LAST SENTENCE IS ALSO REPETITIVE.

WE'RE GOING TO STRIKE THE REST, BUT THAT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. >> WHICH ONE WAS THAT AGAIN?

>> SUBPARAGRAPH D AND I'M GOING TO STRIKE THE REMAINDER OF THE SENTENCE BECAUSE IT'S

REPETITIVE. WE'VE ALREADY SAID THAT. >> IN D IT SAYS VICE MAYOR IN

TWO PLACES. >> I'M SORRY, THE SECOND PLACE IN THE FINAL SENTENCE.

>> OKAY. PUT A PERIOD THERE. >> WE ALREADY COVERED THAT.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON SECTION 16? >> NOPE.

>> SORRY. I HAD ONE MORE. >> YES, SIR.

>> SINCE WE'RE CLEANING UP A LOT OF LANGUAGE, IN NEW SUBPARAGRAPH E, I WAS GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE SAY EACH SERVE A TERM OF TWO YEARS TO COINCIDE WITH THE MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTIONS, PERIOD. THAT'S BEGINNING WITH 2018 UNTIL THE PAST.

[01:20:09]

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON SECTION 16? >> EARLIER SOMEBODY SAID WE DIDN'T DEAL WITH TERM LIMITS. WE DID DEAL WITH THAT AND WE'RE SOLID ON THAT.

NO CHANGE. >> WE LEFT IT UNCHANGED. >> OKAY.

>> THAT'S THE POWER ON SECTION 16. ANY COMMENTS?

>> ARE WE GOOD WITH THAT THE WAY IT IS? >> YES.

>> SECTION 25. CITY MANAGER. MEMBER CLARK.

>> I HAVE TWO SUGGESTIONS, AND I WROTE SOME THINGS DOWN BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS EASIER THAN

TRYING TO DO IT VERBALLY. I HAVE EXTRA COPIES HERE. >> IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT I DID AND SAVE IT IN THE PRESENTATION FOLDER, IT'S CHANGING THE LAST SENTENCE, JUST REWORDING IT A

BIT. >> YEAH. IT'S THE LANGUAGE -- WE TALKED ABOUT THIS QUITE A BIT THE ATHE LAST MEETING. THE LANGUAGE AROUND CITY MANAGER PRO TEM AND THE NEED TO APPOINT THAT ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS TO SERVE AS A STANDING APPOINTMENT.

THIS WAS MY ATTEMPT TO SAY IT MORE CLEARLY. >> UNDERSTAND.

>> IT'S NOT HUGELY -- IT'S NOT SUBSTANTIVELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S THERE UT ABOUT IT'S CLEARER. I DON'T THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.

IN SECTION 29 I JUST MADE SURE WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT 29. I GUESS ANYTHING UNDER THIS

SECTION. >> YES, WE CAN. 25 THROUGH 29.

>> 29, SUBPARAGRAPH J CORRECTLY READING HE/SHE IS PURCHASING AGENT FOR THE CITY BY WHOM ALL PURCHASES OF SUPPLIES ARE MADE AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. I REALLY THOUGHT THAT LANGUAGE WAS A LITTLE ARCANE. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY ADDRESS ALL OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT A CITY MANAGER IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO DO IN TERMS OF PROCURING THINGS.

MY LANGUAGE, I GUESS WE CAN'T PUT IT UP. >> NO.

I SAVED IT IN THE WRONG FOLDER. >> I'LL JUST READ IT. I HAVE EXTRA COPIES IF YOU NEED

TO SEE IT. >> I WILL TAKE ONE. SECTION 29, I EXPANDED WHAT THE POWERS ARE DUTIES ARE RELATED TO IN GENERAL SUBJECT. IT SAYS THE CITY MANAGER HE/SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROCUREMENT, MANAGEMENT AND PAYMENT FOR ALL SUPPLIES AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS INCLUDING ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR OTHER GRANT-FUNDED ACTIVITY AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CITY, STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS.

TAMMI, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S STATE LAW THAT SPEAKS TO THESE ISSUES IN TERMS OF HOW THESE

THINGS ARE HAPPENING. >> NO. >> GENERALLY SPEAKING, THESE ARE WHAT THE CITY MANAGER DOES, AND IT'S MORE THAN JUST PURCHASING SUPPLIES.

>> THAT'S ACTUALLY SUBSECTION I? >> IT LOOKS LIKE J. >> IT'S I.

I APOLOGIZE. IT'S I. >> 9.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO MEMBER MORRISON. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY ISN'T THE LAST SENTENCE OF SECTION 25 AND THEN J OF SECTION 29 KIND OF REDUNDANT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> IS THAT INTENTIONAL? >> IT WAS.

I MEAN, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. WE DON'T NEED TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.

>> I GUESS I'D DELETE THE SECOND ONE. I'D GET RID OF ONE.

>> GET RID OF J. NO PROBLEM. >> JUST A COUNTERPOINT.

I FEEL LIKE IF I INTERVIEW FOR THE JOB, I'M GOING TO READ THE WHOLE THING AND GO TO POWERS AND DUTIES ENUMERATED. I THINK I'D LIKE TO SEE J IN THERE BECAUSE IT'S --

>> MAYBE REMOVE FROM 25? >> YEAH, JUST FOR THAT REASON. IT'S VERY CLEARLY STATED IN OUR CHARTER THAT YOU ARE TO HAVE A MANAGER PRO TEM, WHICH BY THE WAY THE CITY MANAGER HAS JOINED

US AND MADE A COMMENT ON IT. >> IN SECTION 25 YOU COULD STILL SAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING FOR CITY MANAGER, CITY MANAGER PRO TEM WOULD STEP IN OR WHATEVER, YOU JUST WOULDN'T

[01:25:02]

>> I LIKE MY COLLEAGUE'S RECOMMENDED STATEMENT HERE, THAT HE MUST DESIGNATE IT -- I LIKE 25 AND 29. I KNOW THEY'RE REDUNDANT. MAYBE WE COULD REFERENCE 29J, AND THEN WE HAVE IT IN THERE SO I THINK IT'S A GREAT, GREAT IDEA TO HAVE SOMEBODY ON STAND-BY.

>> THE OAT OATH OF OFFICE IS ENOUGH TIME TO BECOME A RESIDENT.

IT SEEMS LIKE A SHORT TIME TO FIND, SELECT, PURCHASE OR RENT A PLACE SOMETIMES.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE CHARTER NEEDS TO REQUIRE THAT. >> THE CHARTER THAT IS I WOULD SAY MEMBER DAVIS, I THINK CAN TAKE CREDIT FOR REVIEWING OTHER PEER CITIES VERY CLOSELY.

MY READ OF CHARTERS IN FLORIDA, IT'S IN EVERY CITY MANAGER CHARTER.

>> MUST BE IN 30 DAYS? >> NO. SOME ARE 60, AND SOME WITH SIX

MONTHS. >> LET'S JUST LOOK WITH THE SAL ARE YOUS THAT YOU'RE PAYING CHARTER OFFICERS RIGHT NOW, SERIOUSLY, CONCEIVABLY IT WOULD TAKE LONGER THAN 30 DAYS TO FIND PERMANENT HOUSING IN THE CITY. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN YEARS AGO,

NOT SO MUCH. >> IT'S HARD TO FIND A PLACE AROUND HERE, ESPECIALLY A RENTAL ACTUALLY. VERY TOUGH. SO I THINK 30 DAYS IS TOO SHORT, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT A DATE IN THE CHARTER, WHICH I GUESS WE HAVE TO, 180 DAYS IS TOO MUCH

PROBABLY. IT TAKES TIME. >> I CAN SAY IN 2007 IT WAS EASILY TO FIND RENTALS IN OUR PRICE RANGE. I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO RIGHT NOW.

>> OKAY. >> THERE MAY BE SOME BUILT INTO IT.

I THINK SHE RAISES THE BIGGER POINT THAT KEEPING WITH THE RISING PROPERTY VALUES AND THE SALARY COMMENSURATE, SOMETIMES COMMUNITIES RECOGNIZE THAT, OKAY, YOU WANT A CITY MANAGER FOR WEST PALM BEACH AND YOU WANT THEM TO LIVE IN YOUR CITY, YOU MAY BE PAYING.

DO I THINK 30 DAYS? THAT'S FINE FOR ME. I CAME DOWN DURING MY 60-DAY PERIOD. THE CHALLENGE IS THE WEIRD BOUNDARIES.

MY WIFE LIKED A SO THE. THAT'S NOT ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE JAGGED LINE.

THAT'S MORE OF A PROBLEM THAN ANYTHING ELSE. INDIANA IT'S A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS AND I SUPPORT THAT. COMBINED WITH MY 60 DAYS, IF I ACCEPT THE JOB, YEAH, I'M GOING TO GET TOWN HERE AND LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY AND FIND A SHORT-TERM PLACE.

YEAH, I THINK 180 DAYS, I THINK YOU MIGHT BE PUSHING TOO MUCH. I THINK AS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROFESSIONAL I WANT TO BE IN THE -- YOU TAKE THE JOB RECOGNIZING THAT THERE'S A

RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT. >> EACH INDIVIDUAL WE HIRE WILL HAVE DIFFERENT DATES OF THEIR SEVERANCE, SO WE DON'T REALLY KNOW THAT. I DON'T WANT TO BE UNREASONABLE AND GIVE THEM SIX MONTHS. THE CITY GIVEN THE DUTIES THEY HAVE AND THEY'RE NEEDED ON CALL AND THEY NEED TO BE AVAILABLE. I SAY 30 DAYS IS NOT ENOUGH I THINK IN MOST CASES OR SEEMS VERY SHORT IF SOMEONE DOESN'T HAVE IT. SAY SOMEONE GAVE NOTICE AND THEY'RE LIKE WE'RE OUT OF HERE IN TWO WEEKS, THEN YOU HAVE 45 DAYS TO FIND A PLACE.

THEY'RE ALSO IN VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER OFF THE BAT OF THE I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO ENFORCE IT. JUST A THOUGHT. 29C, THERE WAS AN ADD-ON AT SOME POINT PREVIOUSLY INCLUDING PUBLIC UTILITIES OWNED BY THE CITY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARY IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY INCLUDING PUBLIC UTILITIES IN THE CITY SHOULD WE SAY POLICE, FIRE AND OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT?

[01:30:04]

PARAGRAPH 29D TO SEE ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS IMPOSED IN FAVOR OF CITY OR INHABITS IN ANY CONTRACT RATHER THAN A UTILITY FRANCHISE. THAT'S INCUMBENT ON THE CITY MANAGER'S POSITION. WHILE YOU HAVE TO ENFORCE THE CONTRACT, THE POSITION WOULD BE TO KEEP UP WITH THE BUSINESS ASPECTS OF ALL CONTRACTS, NOT JUST UTILITY FRANCHISE

AAGREEMENTS BUT ALL CONTRACTS. THAT WAS MY -- >> OKAY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR POINTS? >> ON THE MATTER OF HOW LONG TO GRANT OR TO ALLOW FOR RESIDENCY TO OCCUR, 180 IS TOO LONG, I THINK. SO I'M PROBABLY SOMEWHERE AROUND

90 DAYS MAYBE. >> I THINK 90 IS A GOOD NUMBER. >> OKAY.

90 IT IS. >> WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON 90 DAYS FOR THAT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION? SO THAT WAS 25 THROUGH 29.

EVERYBODY GOOD? >> ALL OF THOSE CHANGES, NONE OF THEM CONFLICTED.

I'M GOING TO MAKE ALL OF THOSE SUGGESTED CHANGES. OKAY?

>> ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE ONTO SECTION 31 THROUGH 33, CITY ATTORNEY.

ANY COMMENTS? MEMBER LASSERE. >> SO BACK TO THE TOPIC WE JUST COVERED AND HOPEFULLY THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN HELP US TALK THROUGH, WHETHER TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRO TEM IS A GOOD IDEA OR NOT. THINK ABOUT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. YOU MAY NAME SOMEONE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE A CITY EMPLOYEE, I ASSUME, TO BE ON STAND-BY IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S ABSENCE. WHAT IF THEY DEVELOP A CONFLICT, AND WHEN THEY NEED TO STEP UP AND IT'S OVERLOOKED. THAT'S NOT A CRAZY IDEA THAT COULD DEFINITELY HAPPEN AND MAYBE NOT EVEN REALIZE IT. IF THEY'RE NOT KEEPING UP REAL QUICKLY WITH ALL CITY BUSINESS. AGAIN, THIS IS -- THIS SEEMS LIKE IT FORCES THE CITY TO HIRE

AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY GENERAL. >> CAN WE HAVE IT BE THAT IT CAN

BE A LAW FIRM? >> THAT'S THEIR OWN SET OF PROBLEMS, BECAUSE YOU HIRE THE WHOLE FRFIRM IF A CONFLICT ARIS. I DON'T WANT US TO PUT THE CITY INTO A POSITION WHERE IT CREATES CONFLICTS WITH FOLKS THAT MAY BE FRIENDLY OR PRECLUDING HAVING SOMEBODY ON STAFF OR ON STAND BY THAT MAY DEVELOP A CONFLICT AND THEN YOU'RE NOT IN A GOOD POSITION.

JUST A THOUGHT WITH THAT. >> WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST BE CHANGED THERE?

>> WELL, WE DIDN'T REQUIRE IT BEFORE. I THINK WE ADDED IT AND MAYBE THIS OCCURRED AFTER WE ADDED IT ON. WE ADDED ON SAYING IT MAKES SENSE ON HERE, BUT FOR THE THOUGHT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

UNLESS THE CITY DECIDES THEY WANT TO HIRE AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.

IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN YOU HAVE YOUR PERSON. OTHERWISE, THIS ESSENTIALLY FORCES YOU TO IDENTIFY SOMEONE TO STEP UP WITH THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN YOUR ABSENCE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REALLY DO. THESE ARE RULES THAT REGULATE

THE FLORIDA BAR. >> I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE REALITY OF THIS OFFICE HERE IN FERNANDINA BEACH, IT WOULD NOT BE ANYBODY LOCAL OR ANYBODY IN JACKSONVILLE FOR THAT REASON, THAT MOST WOULD HAVE A CONFLICT SOMEWHERE. IT WOULD BE A LAW FIRM OUT OF THE AREA. ORLANDO, TALLAHASSEE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> WHICH HAPPENS FAIRLY OFTEN -- NOT OFTEN, BUT OFTEN ENOUGH YOU HAVE --

>> WE'VE NOT -- ONLY WHEN I WAS OUT OF THE OFFICE FOR 30 DAYS IN THE HOSPITAL.

I WAS ABLE TO FUNCTION WITH CONTRACTS THEY NEEDED SOMEBODY TO COVER THE MEETINGS, SO WE APPOINTED SOMEBODY AS THE PRO TEM TO ATTEND MEETINGS ONLY. I TOOK CARE OF THE PAPERWORK.

>> THAT'S WHAT I HOPED TO GET TO. IS THIS A CHARTER REQUIREMENT AT

THIS TIME? >> NO. YOU ARE -- I WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT. YOU'VE BEEN IN PRIVATE PRACTICE LONG ENOUGH.

I HAD TWO SHORT LITTLE STINTS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. SO I THINK THAT THAT'S A VERY

GOOD POINT THAT I WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT OF. >> AS FAR AS CONFLICTS?

>> YES. >> MY THOUGHT ABOUT THE CITY MANAGER POSITION IS THAT IT'S SOMEONE WHO IS FAMILIAR WITH THE OPERATIONS AND SOMEONE THAT CAN STEP IN.

WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY IT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT. >> YOU CAN GO ANYWHERE IN THE

[01:35:01]

TO REQUIRE IT. >> MEMBER CLARK. >> I AGREE WITH THAT ANALYSIS.

I DON'T THINK YOU NEED CITY MANAGER -- OR A PRO TEM ATTORNEY.

I THINK IT'S DIFFERENT IF IT'S CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK. THEY HAVE SORT OF, YOU KNOW, DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITIES THAT ARE INTEGRAL TO THE OPERATION OF THE CITY.

THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE. NOT THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY ISN'T --

>> I UNDERSTAND. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY IN-HOUSE.

YOU HAVE CONTRACT ATTORNEYS ALL THE TIME THAT JUST DO IT. >> I THINK YOU COULD -- AS FAR

AS I'M CONCERNED, WE CAN ELIMINATE THAT. >> GOT IT.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOOD WITH 31 THROUGH 33. WE'RE ONTO 46 AND 47. RIGHT?

46 AND 47. MEMBER DAVIS. >> I'LL JUST REITERATE A COMMENT I MADE LAST TIME. I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD ALL AGREED BACK IN OUR JANUARY 13TH MEETING THAT THE CITY CLERK IN THE QUALIFICATIONS NEEDED TO BE A MEMBER OF --

>> YES. CMC. >> CMC.

IT JUST KEEPS GETTING FORGOTTEN, AND SINCE WE REQUIRE IT OF THE OTHER CHARTER OFFICERS.

>> THAT'S REALLY THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF CITY CLERKS. >> OKAY.

FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF CITY CLERKS. A MEMBER OF THAT?

>> YES. >> A MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THESE TWO SECTIONS? WE'RE GOOD WITH THOSE? ALL RIGHTMENT .

WE'RE ONTO 136, ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS. MEMBER CLARK.

>> SO, YOU KNOW, THIS SECTION, I'VE READ THIS A DOZEN TIMES. MAYBE SOME OF SMARTER CAN HELP ME FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING HERE. IF YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT AN INVESTIGATION -- THIS DOES SAY ADMINISTRATIVE. BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN INVESTIGATION WHERE THERE WAS A CRIMINAL ACT OR ILLEGAL ACT, THERE'S ALREADY A PRESCRIBED WAY TO DEAL WITH THAT. YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE COURT SYSTEM AND A POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT INVESTIGATES CRIMES. SO I PRESUME THAT'S NOT WHAT'S INTENDED HERE, BUT THE LANGUAGE SOUNDS LIKE IT'S REALLY INTENDED TO SORT OF MIRROR THAT WITH SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS.

SO I AM NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THE NEED FOR THIS SECTION IS. SINCE THE CITY MANAGER IS HERE, I DON'T KNOW IF HE WANTS TO ADDRESS WHETHER THIS SECTION HAS BEEN USED.

>> IT'S NOT. >> THEY'RE CLEARLY AUTHORITY THAT ISN'T -- THAT ALREADY EXISTS WITHOUT THIS SECTION. IF THERE'S A PERSONNEL ISSUE OR AN OPERATING ISSUE, THOSE INVESTIGATIONS CAN BE CONDUCTED RIGHT NOW WITHOUT ANY OF THIS PARTICULAR AUTHORITY THAT'S IN THE CHARTER. I'M NOT SO MUCH OPPOSED TO IT. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT SITUATION IT'S TRYING TO ADDRESS. OR DO OR WHETHER IT'S BEEN USED.

>> MEMBER MORRISON. >> I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING MEMBER CLARK JUST SAID.

THE ONLY THING THAT I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT, AND I CAN'T REALLY REMEMBER, BUT I THOUGHT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT NOT ALLOWING THE ADVISORY BOARDS TO INITIATE THE INVESTIGATIONS. I THOUGHT WE STIEDED THAT WAS TOO FAR.

MAYBE I MAKE THAT UP IN MY HEAD. I THOUGHT I REMEMBER TALKING ABOUT THAT SPECIFICALLY.

>> MEMBER BEAN. >> WE TALKED ABOUT THE ADVISE BOARDS DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO START ONE BUT HAVE TO POWER TO AD ADVISE.

THEY CAN GO TO A CITY COMMISSION MEETING AND BRING THAT TO THEM. WE AGREED THAT THE ADVISORY

BOARDS DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION. >> IS THAT HOW IT'S WRITTEN NOW?

I DON'T THINK SO. >> SINCE THIS SECTION IS ENTITLED ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS, I'M ASSUMING THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS WOULD BE ANYTHING THAT GOES ON WITHIN THE CITY GOVERNING DEPARTMENTS. AN INVESTIGATION ABOUT ANYTHING, IS THAT CORRECT, MEMBER DAVIS?

>> I'M JUST LOOKING AT A PUBLIC COMMENT WE GOT FROM MISS THAN, AND THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT

[01:40:01]

THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE, SO THEY NEEDED THE WHOLE COMMISSION TO KIND OF SANCTION. THAT WAS HER EXPLANATION FOR THIS.

>> THERE NEEDED TO BE A VOTE BY THE COMMISSION AS A GROUP FOR THE --

>> FOR THE COMMISSION TO GO -- ONE XCOMMISSIONER GOING OFF. I THINK WE THOUGHT MAYBE THIS WOULD TIE SOME TO OUR CONCERNS OF EITHER BULLYING BY STAFF OF COMMISSIONERS OR VICE VERSA BY COMMISSIONER Z OF STAFF. I THINK THERE WAS SOME FIELD THAT MAYBE YOU COULD USE THIS

PROVISION IF YOU WANTED TO DO SOME INVESTIGATION INTO THAT. >> SO IF I MIGHT --

>> MISS BACH. >> THE CHARTER OFFICERS HAVE CONTRACTS THAT CAN BE TERMINATED FOR ANY REASON AT ANY TIME WITH A LITTLE BIT OF NOTICE. THE CITY STAFF IS UNDER THE CITY MANAGER. WE HAVE UN CONTRACTS FOR UNION EMPLOYEES AND PERSONNEL POLICIES. OUR PERSONNEL POLICIES DID NOT INSTRUCTURE THE SUPERVISOR OR CITY MANAGER HOW TO DO INVESTIGATIONS. SOME OF THAT COMES FROM GOOD PRACTICE AND THEN IN SOME CASES LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL GIVES US ADVICE HOW TO INVESTIGATE ADD MI THINGS. WHEN YOU BRING THAT COMMENT UP, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I THOUGHT ABOUT IT THIS WAY. THE FIRST TIME IT LOOKS LIKE IT APPEARED IN THE CHARTER IT IN 1921. IN 1991, WHICH WAS BASICALLY RESTATEMENT OF THE CHARTER, SO MOST THINGS '21 AND '91 IN THERE. IN 2010 I CHANGED A FEW WORDS BASED ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. THIS PROBABLY COMES FROM THE OLD PRACTICE OF TAKING PEOPLE TO THE PUBLIC SQUARE, THAT'S THE MODERN DAY VERSION, IF YOU WILL, OF DOING THAT. DO THAT IN THE SURVEY FROM CITY EMPLOYEES, THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO THINK OF. WHAT WOULD WE ACCOMPLISH AND A BAY CITY COMMISSIONER ACCOMPLISH? IF THEY WANTED TO INVESTIGATE A CITY EMPLOYEE, I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD. LET'S SAY THE CITY MANAGER WASN'T TRAESING SOME TYPE OF WRONGDOING THAT A COMMISSIONER OR MORE THAN ONE COMMISSIONER THOUGHT WAS HAPPENING.

THIS INVESTIGATION WOULD PLAY OUT RIGHT HERE, AND IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?

IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE? >> I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.

>> JUST ALSO JUST FOR -- SINCE I SEEM TO BE THE ONE THAT LIKES TO ALWAYS LOOK AT WHAT OUR PEER CITIES ARE DOING, ONLY TWO OF OUR PEER CITIES HAVE A SIMILAR PROVISION.

SO IT IS NOT COMMON. NOW THEY'LL SAY ANOTHER ONE, PANAMA CITY HAS A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE WITH A BOAR OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS AND A DIFFERENT WAY TO HANDLE THINGS.

SO WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF GUIDANCE, YOU KNOW, TO LOOK INTO OTHER CITIES AS WELL.

THAT'S FOR WHAT THAT IS WORTH. >> OKAY. MEMBER BEAN.

>> DO I HEAR WE JUST DON'T NEED THE SECTION? >> POTENTIALLY.

>> I'M IN FAVOR OF LESS -- >> I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE CAN WE COME UP WITH A CIRCUMSTANCE WHEN THIS WHOLE PROCESS WOULD BE KICKED INTO ACTION? THIS IS -- THE WAY I'M READING THIS IS THAT FUNDAMENTALLY ANYBODY IN THAT GROUP, CHARTER OFFICERS, CITY-COMMISSION APPOINTED BOARDS AND CITY COMMISSION, CAN ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF SOMETHING, AN EMPLOYEE, A PROCESS, OR SOMETHING.

IT MUST BE APPROVED BEFORE AN INVESTIGATION CAN START. MOST PEOPLE APPROVE IT BY THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE AND NOT AN INDIVIDUAL COMMISSION. SO I GUESS WHAT THIS GETS TO IN MY MIND IS A LITTLE BIT OF THE CITY COMMISSION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT TAKES THREE PEOPLE MOST OF THE TIME TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.

THAT IT CAN'T BE INITIATED BY A SINGLE COMMISSIONER. AND CARRIED FORWAR BY THAT

[01:45:03]

SINGLE COMMISSIONER. >> WITHOUT THIS SECTION, THOUGH, TO YOUR POINT, WITHOUT US SPECIFICALLY SAYING THAT INVESTIGATIONS HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY RESOLUTION, IS THAT POTENTIAL -- IS THAT STILL GOING TO BE THE CASE IF WE DON'T OUTLINE THAT AS BEING THE

PROCEDURE? >> WELL, AGAIN, THAT'S WHY I'M WONDERING IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A SITUATION THAT MIGHT EXIST THAT REQUIRES THAT TO BE ADDED TO THE CHARTER.

MEMBER CLARK. >> I THINK THE CHARTER OFFICERS CAN EACH DECIDE ON THEIR OWN AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION. OR YOU COULD HAVE A COMMISSION BY VOTE SAY, HEY, WE HAVE THIS CONCERN. WE WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE IT AND DIRECT ONE OF THOSE CHARTER OFFICERS TO DO THAT. I THINK THAT'S TRUE TODAY WITH

OR WITHOUT THIS LANG LANGUAGE. >> THAT IS, YES. WHAT IF THE INVESTIGATION IS

ABOUT ONE OF THE CHARTER OFFICERS? >> COULD THE COMMISSION DO IT

UNDER EXISTING LAW WITHOUT THIS PROVISION? >> YES.

>> COULD THE COMMISSION ON THEIR OWN? >> YES.

>> DO AN INVESTIGATION? >> YES. >> AS A WHOLE, NOT A SINGLE ONE.

>> NOT A SINGLE COMMISSIONER. >> A SINGLE COMMISSIONER REALLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING, OTHER THAN

ASK FOR INFORMATION? >> CORRECT. THIS EXISTING OR NO. >> RIGHT.

>> MEMBER LASSERE. >> I'M JUST WONDERING AND I'M NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH THE STATUTE BUT UNDER 112 WITH THE CODE OF ET THICKS THERE, WOULD THAT COVER THIS -- WOULD CHAPTER

112 COVER IT SOMEWHERE WITHIN THERE? >> THERE'S NOT A -- YOU KNOW, THE MORE THAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS, THE MORE I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED.

OUR CITY CLERK JUST REMINDED ME OF WHEN WE DID SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

IT WAS AN ABOMINATION. WE HAD TO LOOK TO THE THIS FOR HOW WE CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION. IT DOESN'T GIVE ENOUGH. WE HAD TO MAKE UP A LOT OF THINGS. PEOPLE WERE HURT IN THE PROCESS. IT WAS NOT PRETTY.

THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DEAL WITH IT. >> OKAY.

WAS THERE A COMMISSION RESOLUTION INVOLVED WITH IT? >> NO, NOT REALLY.

I MEAN -- >> THERE WAS COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

I DON'T REMEMBER A RESOLUTION FORMALLY ADOPTED. >> I THINK THE RESOLUTION WAS BEHIND THE SCENES TO TAKE PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR POSITIONS AND MOVE THEM AROUND.

>> OKAY. WELL, THAT'S NOT GOOD. >> IT WASN'T THE COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DO THAT, BUT THE CITY MANAGER SAW THE WRITING ON THE WALL.

THE CITY MANAGER SAW THE WRITING ON THE WALL AND MOVED PEOPLE AROUND.

>> TO BE CLEAR, IT WAS A FORMER CITY MANAGER? >> YES.

YEAH. SORRY. >> SO IT SOUNDS TO ME THAT IS

VIOLATION OF SUNSHINE AND ALL THAT. >> EXACTLY.

THOSE KINDS OF THINGS GET IN THERE. WHEN DO THEY DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS TO A CITY EMPLOYEE NOT A CHARTER OFFICER? THAT'S A DANGER.

>> I FEEL WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME LANGUAGE HERE. MR. LASSERE.

>> MY THOUGHT IS THIS IS ADDITION SOMEONE HAS TO BE WORTHY OF A LOT -- NOT A LOT, BUT MORE TIME IF NOT A LOT OF TIME ON THE DISCUSSION. PERHAPS ON A FOLLOW-UP AND A SECOND. THIS IS IMPORTANT. I THINK THIS IS MAYBE IS GOING TO TAKE MORE TIME THAN WE PLANNED ON DOING TODAY. MAYBE IF WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SCHEDULE MORE MEETINGS AND ADDRESS THAT NOT AT ONE WHOLE MEETING BUT AT PART OF A ANOTHER MEETING, IT MIGHT BE -- IT MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE. I THINK ALL THE POINTS MADE HERE ARE VERY VALID, AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE IN A POSITION TO DETERMINE HOW TO DO IT RIGHT

NOW. I'M NOT. >> IS THAT A CONSENSUS?

ALL RIGHT. >> IT'S TOUGH. >> SO THAT DOESN'T --

>> I THINK ABOUT IT EVERY TIME. >> WE DO SOMEHOW BRING IT UP. HOW ARE YOU DIRECTING ME, THEN,

TO -- >> HOLD ON. I HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT.

MEMBER CLARK. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, FOR MY MONEY I WOULD PROBABLY TAKE IT OUT ALTOGETHER. IF THERE'S A FEELING WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING HERE, I THINK THE -- I THINK THE ONE CRITICAL THING IS YOU WANT TO AVOID A SITUATION WHERE A COMMISSION MEMBER OR SOMETHING LESS THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION DECIDES TO INVESTIGATE SOMETHING INTERNAL IN THE ORGANIZATION AND LAUNCHES OFF TO DO THAT. THAT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY.

THOSE THINGS SHOULD BE DONE BY RESOLUTION OF THE COMMISSION WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY MANAGER OR APPROPRIATE CHARTER OFFICER. I COULD SEE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD STATE THAT. I'M NOT SURE THAT'S NECESSARY, BUT I THINK THAT LANGUAGE IS APPROPRIATE. I MEAN, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING.

[01:50:03]

SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD TRAES THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE. >> IT SEEMS THAT BASED ON HEARING THAT AN EVENT THAT THIS MIGHT HAVE HELPED IF IT WERE CLE CLEARER COULD HAVE BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY, DONE BETTER, ET CETERA.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT ANYBODY COULD GO TO WHERE WE SAY THAT THEY CAN

HAVE THE POWER AT ANY TIME TO CONDUCT THE EMPLOYEES OR OFFICE>> GOING FORWARD WITH

>> RIGHT. ON WITHIN THE CITY COULD BE INVESTIGATING UNDER THIS PROCESS.

IF SOMEONE CALLS ATTENTION TO IT IF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION SAY DO IT.

YES? SO IF -- >> YOU CAN DO THAT WITHOUT

THE LANGUAGES. >> WELL, I'M FOCUSED ON YOU HAVE ONE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY MUST INVESTIGATION, THE CITY COMMISSION CHARTER OFFICERS HAVE THE POWER AT THAT TIME FOR ANY OFFICER TO BE INVESTIGATED AND ADVICE HAS THE POWER.

>> THAT LANGUAGE IS VERY CONFUSING. >> IT IS.

THE CITY COMMISSION MUST APPROVE THEM BUT ALL OF THE FOLKS MUST APPROVE IT.

>> I WOULD RATHER IT SAY THIS WAY, ANYBODY CAN REQUEST, OR REPORT, HOW I'M

READING IT, TO ANY COMMISSIONER. >> I THINK THEY CAN DO THAT

-- >> -- YOU HAVE A PROBLEM OVER HERE, OVER THERE.

AND THERE WILL NOT BE AN INVESTIGATION LAUNCHED ABOUT THAT UNTIL THERE'S A

COMMISSION VOTE. >> I DON'T THINK WHAT IT SAYS RIGHT NOW.

BUT I AGREE WITH YOU. >> TWEAK IT TO MAKE IT CLEAR.

>> IT REQUIRES THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION, THAT TYPE OF THING?

>> ANY EMPLOYEES OR CHARTER OFFICERS, HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME TO THE COMMISSION AND REQUEST THAT TO BE DONE. RIGHT? OR -- YOU DON'T WANT TO STOP THE ABILITY OF THE CHARTER OFFICER TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION.

THAT'S PART OF THEIR JOB. IF SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT, THEY SHOULD FEEL

FREE TO DO THAT. >> WHAT IF THE CHARTER OFFICER HAS AN ISSUE IN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND IT IS THE CITY MANAGER? THEY HAVE THAT AUTHORITY ON THEIR OWN. IT SAYS IT IN THE LAST SENTENCE.

MAYBE THEY WANT TO RAISE AN ISSUE WITH THE COMMISSION ON SOMETHING THEY HAVE SEEN IN A DIFFERENT CHARTER OFFICE. IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY. YOU KNOW, THINGS HAPPEN.

>> MEMBER BEAN. >> I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE MORE CLEAR AND IT TAKES A MAJORITY VOTE TO START AN INVESTIGATION. AND OTHER PEOPLE COULD ADVICE, IN FACT, ANYONE COULD IN A COMMISSION MEETING.

WE THINK WE AGREE ON THAT AND WRITE THAT. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE THE

MAJORITY OF COMMISSION. -- >> YES.

>> AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY ASK THEM THE RIGHT WHO WILL DO IT.

>> WE DON'T INCLUDE ANYTHING ELSE, THE INVESTIGATION, THAT IS -- IS THAT THE

CONSENSUS HERE? >> YES. >> YEAH.

>> CAN THAT LANGUAGE BE DONE THAT WAY? >> IT CAN.

>> AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE THE CHARTER OFFICER.

>> UNDERSTAND. AND I COULD PUT A QUALIFIER IN THERE.

>> IF I COULD. >> YES. >> THE CITY COMMISSION MAY NOT WANT TO SUBPOENA PEOPLE AND HAVE A MEMBER COURT, A MEMBER OF THE BOARD.

THEY NEED TO SAY WHO HAS THAT AUTHORITY TO SUBPOENA TESTIMONY UNDER OATH.

THEY MAY -- I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THE DEPARTMENT HEAD. I'M NOT CONCERN.

I DOUBT IT WILL GO TO THAT LEVEL. MY POINT, THE CHARTER OFFICERS, I THINK WITH HE NEED TO HAVE THE ABILITY FOR THE COMMISSION TO DELEGATE

[01:55:01]

THAT AUTHORITY. >> IT HAS TO BE THE CHARTER OFFICERS.

>> THAT'S THE ONLY THING. >> I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT.

THANK YOU. >>> WE ARE ON TO NEW BUSINESS.

5.1, CITIZEN INITIATIVES, CITIZENS INITIATIVES LANGUAGE.

>> MADAM CHAIR, BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE NEXT SECTION, I MOVE TO RECESS FOR FIVE THINKING HE WOULD BE ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEY. AND SUGGESTING THAT WE ASK

HIM QUESTIONS NOW. MEMBER DAVIS. >> THANK YOU, MR. MARTIN, FOR BEING HERE THIS EVENING. WE HAD AN DISCUSSION EARLIER AND IT WAS PROPOSED THAT WE MAKE IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY MANAGER BE INFORMED EVERY TIME A COMMISSIONER INTERACTED WITH THEM. I WAS CONCERNED THAT THAT WAS MORE E-MAILS THAN YOU WANTED. DO YOU -- COULD YOU TELL US LITTLE BIT ABOUT COMMUNICATION IN YOUR AWARENESS OF THOSE

COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN YOUR REPORTS AND COMMISSIONERS? >> SURE.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT. AT THIS TIME, THE COMMISSIONERS DO VERBALLY -- DO E-MAIL OR THROUGH THE PHONE ASK TO SPEAK TO DIRE DIRECTORS. I HAVE REITERATED WHEN THEY WRITE BACK TO WRITE TO ALL COMMISSIONERS FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS AND I BELIEVE THAT COMMISSION ENHANCES MY AWARENESS OF ALL ACTION, OR INTERACTION BETWEEN

DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS AND CITY COMMISSIONERS. >> SO, WE STARTED OUT OUR DISCUSSION TODAY MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT WE DIDN'T NEED TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THE SURVEY DUE TO THE FEEDBACK THAT MS. -- RECEIVED SAYING THAT WE SHOULD GO FORWARD ASSUMING THAT THERE IS COMMUNICATION HAPPENING THAT CHARTER OFFICERS MIGHT NOT BE AWARE OF. SO, WHETHER THAT COMMUNICATION IS VIOLATING THE CHARTER OR NOT, WHAT WE AGREED UPON IS TO LOOK AT THAT SECTION OF THE CHARTER AGAIN AT OUR NEXT MEETING TO ENSURE THAT THE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER. SO, WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS EVERY WHICH WAY ABOUT ALL OF THIS, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN PERCEIVED BY MANY TO BE AN ISSUE.

SO, OUR TASK IS TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE, WHAT CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION AND WHAT DOESN'T. AND THEN WHETHER THERE WOULD BE ANY CONSEQUENCES TO BE PAID. DOES THAT SOUND A GOOD WAY TO GO?

>> THAT SOUNDS FINE. MR. CLARK PROVIDED -- TO SERVE AS A CHARTER OFFICER.

IN A CITY MANAGER PERSPECTIVE. I THINK HE WILL PROVIDE YOU

WITH GOOD GUIDANCE FROM HIS EXPERIENCE. >> RIGHT.

OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR MR. MARTIN?

>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU CAN GO HOME.

>> OR YOU CAN STAY. >> YOU ARE WELCOME TO STAY. >> THANK YOU, DALE.

[Item 5.1]

>>> NEW BUSINESS. >> I WILL REITATE IT WAS CITIZEN INITIATIVE.

>> MS. DAVIS. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE PROPOSED THIS NEW ARTICLES, SUBSECTION, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, TO BE ADDED TO OUR CHARTER WHEN AT OUR VERY FIRST MEETING WHEN WE WERE PROVIDED WITH THE SUMMARY OF WHAT SHOULD BE IN MUNICIPAL CHARTERS. ONE OF THE -- I WENT AND COMPARED THAT BROAD OUTLINE TO OURS AND NOTICED THAT ONE SECTION THAT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT OURS DID NOT HAVE IS AN INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. AND I LOOK AT THE PIERCETIES AND FOUND THAT THIS IS NEARLY ALL OF THEM HAVE IS AN INITIATIVE AND RECALL

[02:00:05]

THEY ARE ALL VERY SIMILAR. BECAUSE THEY USE THE CITY CLERK INSTEAD OF THE CITY MANAGER TO GO THROUGH AND BASICALLY WERE PULLED OUT MOST OF THE RECALL LANGUAGE, I HAD PROPOSED STARTING WITH THE PROVISION USED IN THE OLD SPMATTERS.

THAT IS WHY IT WAS PROVIDED IN THE PACKET AND I SUGGESTED TWEAKS TO IT TO MORE REFLECT KIND OF A CONSENSUS OF THE PIERCE CITIES AS WELL AS OUR OWN STRUCTURE. THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN DONE HERE AND IT ALLOWS FOR THE THE VOTERS OF THE CITY TO HAVE THE POWER TO PROPOSE ORDINANCES.

AND THE ONE CHANGE I HAVE SUGGESTED FROM THE -- ONE THAT THEY COULD AMEND EXISTING ORDINANCE. IT COULD BE WRITTEN AS A WHOLE NEW ORDINANCE.

BUT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO PROPOSE ORDINANCES IN THE SAME WAY OR TO APPEAL EXISTING ONES THAT BASICALLY RELATE TO MONETARY ISSUES.

THE REASON THIS IS CARVED OUT -- I BELIEVE WITHOUT DOING A LOT OF RESEARCH -- YOU NEED CONTINUITIES IN BUDGETING, OUTLAYS, SALARIES.

YOU CAN'T HAVE PEOPLE TO SAY BUT THAT ON HOLD. DON'T GO THAT WAY.

NOTING THAT, OF COURSE, THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS RELATED TO BUDGET THAT THE LAW MANDATES TO HAVE A VOTER, SUCH AS BONDS, INCREASES IN TAXES ABOVE A CERTAIN LEVEL. SO, WE HAD THAT FAMILIARITY. SO, THAT IS WHAT IS THIS LANGUAGE IN THIS PROVISION HAS DONE WITH START-OUT, IT WOULD TAKE A COMMITTEE OF 5 PETITIONERS, FORM A COMMITTEE AND THEY HAVE TO GET AN APPROPRIATE SIGNATURES. AND WHILE OLDS MAR, THOSE REQUIRED 20 PERCENT IN ORDER TO GO FORWARD. THE CONSENSUS OF THE PIERCE CITIES IS 10 PERCENT WHICH IS THE SAME PERCENTAGE THAT IS START TO A RECALL. 10 PERCENT IS THE RIGHT NUMBER. THAT'S STILL A SIZEABLE NUMBER FOR THE ELECT.

THAT SPELLS OUT THE NATURE OF THE THAT IT CONTAINS THE SIGNATURES AND THEN SUBMIT THAT TO THE CITY CLERK AND THEN WITHIN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS, 20 DAYS, ACTUALLY, THE CLERK MUST LET THEM KNOW IF IT IS SUFFICIENT OR INSUFFICIENT AND GIVE THE CITY COMMISSIONER A CHANCE TO FIX THAT. IT IS A LIMITED NUMBER OF DAYS TO DO THAT. AND THEN ONCE -- IF THEY DON'T WANT -- THE COMMITTEE CAN EITHER DECIDE THAT I DON'T WANT TO FIX IT. OKAY.

OR THEY CAN FIX IT OR THEY CAN EVEN, IF THEY DISAGREE THEY CAN ASK THE CITY COMMISSION -- CLERK'S DETERMINATION THE CITY COMMISSION GETS A CHANCE IF THEY, IF THE PETITIONER'S ASK FOR IT AND REVIEW AND THINK IT IS SUFFICIENT.

[02:05:07]

>> IF THE PETITION IS TO BASICALLY HAVE A REFERENCED THEN THAT ORDINANCE IS SUSPENDED IN THAT TIME PERIOD UNTIL IT IS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT, SO THEY CAN'T MOVE FORWARD OR THE CITY COMMISSIONER APPEALS OR THEY HAVE A VOTE ON IT.

AND THAT WOULD BE A VOTE REQUIRED BY FOR AN ACTION, THE COMMISSION AS TO ACT BY REPEALING, VOTING, TAKE A VOTE TO REPEAL OR NOT OR TO BASICALLY TAKE A VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE PETITION. IF THEY TAKE A VOTE IN OPPOSITION THEN THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT IT TO THE VOTERS. I HAVE CHOSEN, FOR EXAMPLE, I TRIED TO FIND THE BALANCE AND THE PIERCE CITIES, FIND A BALANCE BETWEEN WHAT IS REASONABLE IN THE NUMBER OF DAYS. FOR EXAMPLE, I BELIEVE IT IS DESTIN ALLOWS A REFERENDUM THAT THEY COULD ASK FOR A REFERENDUM AFTER THAT ORDINANCE WAS PASSED. AGAIN, I FEEL THAT IS A LITTLE BIT TOO GENEROUS.

WE NEED TO KNOW IFSUSPENDED. YOU HAVE TO HAVE TIME. I LIKED THE OLDS MARS YOU HAVE TO DO IT WITHIN 60 DAYS AND THE SAME WITH BISCAYNE'S.

I TRIED TO PUT TOGETHER A REASONABLE, NOT, IN OTHER WORDS, I DIDN'T CHOSE THE MOST FAVORABLE, BUT WHAT WAS A CONSENSUS AND WHAT WOULD MAKE SENSE.

THIS ALLOWS THE VOTERS IF THERE'S A BIG VOTER, TO TAKE A LOOK AND IF THEY NEED TO DISAGREE WITH THE 10 PERCENT, IT WOULD GO TO A VOTE.

AND WE'LL HAVE TO FIND OUT WHO WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY. THAT'S WHAT IS THE PROVISION. I WAS SURPRISED THAT THERE WASN'T LANGUAGE LIKE THAT

THIS CHARTER. >> MEMBER BEAN. >>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THIS IS VERY DETAILED. I LIKE IT. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DID TO

PUT IT TOGETHER. I LIKE IT. >> I WOULD CERTAINLY MORE TIME TO REVIEW THIS AND OTHER -- I'M NOT TRYING TO KICK THE CAN.

THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR UNHAPPY PEOPLE TO BRING OUT, YOU KNOW, A QUESTION AN ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE ELECTED IN A DEMOCRATIC, REPUBLICAN TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR US. AND I CAN SEE ALMOST EVERY THING BEING APPEALED.

AND HAVE A HIGH LEVEL TO BRING THIS UP AND DECIDED BY THE CITY AND 10 PERCENT I DON'T THINK THAT IS IT. IF THE CITY SPENT MONEY ON HOLDING AN ELECTION, I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE TO PAY. AND GO TO A GENERAL ELECTION AND NOT JUST AN ELECTION.

THAT COULD BE A SPECIAL ELECTION OR VOTE BY MAIL. I DON'T KNOW -- I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. I CAN'T ANSWER. I NEED TO LOOK AND SEE HOW OTHERS ARE DONE. I UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER PLACES HAVE IT AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS USED AND WHAT IT DOES TO THEM. WE ELECT THESE FOLKS TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR US AND TO HAVE THEM SECOND GUESSED. I KNOW THAT IS NOT THE INTENTION. BUT THE ABILITY OUT THERE AND SOME OF THE PASSION THAT IS THERE, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE REPERCUSSIONS RECALL, RECALLED.

[02:10:06]

I GET THAT. IF THE REQUESTS ARE BEING DENIED.

THEY NEED TO BRING THAT FORWARD. >> TO OPEN UP SOME PERIOD AND NO FINALITY, AND THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES. I DON'T KNOW. I JUST WOULD NEED MORE TIME

TO THINK ABOUT IT. >> MEMBER MORRISON. >>> ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT I HAVE, THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WOULD SAY THAT THEY FEEL LIKE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A VOICE IN WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OUR GOVERNMENT. FROM A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH. THEY HAVE THE SAY IN ALMOST EVERY DECISION IN THE COMMUNITY IF THEY CHOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN IT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT, BUT YOU ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS.

SORT OF LIKE THE MEMBER SAID, I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS BEFORE WE MAKE FINAL DECISIONS. I ECHO SOME OF HIS COMMENTS. THE CONCERN WITH IT, IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY TO BE SORT OF BE AN IMPEIMPEDEMENT. I FEEL LIKE 10 PERCENT IS TOO LOW OF A NUMBER FOR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD NEED TO BE THERE TO QUALIFY. I WOULD THINK 20 PERCENT LIKE IN THE OTHER REFERENCE THAT WE HAD FROM THE OTHER NEIGHBOR -- OR COMMUNITY.

SEEMS LITTLE BIT MORE APPROPRIATE TO ME. TO TRY -- AT THE END OF THE DAY, HERE, THE NUMBERS WORK OUT, THAT IS ABOUT 1000 PEOPLE, 10 PERCENT, TO BE ABLE TO HOLD UP THE ENTIRE PROCESS. AND ULTIMATELY, HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION THAT COSTS, YOU KNOW, THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO THE COMMUNITY. I THINK IT SHOULD TAKE MORE THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE

PEOPLE TO DO THAT. >> MEMBER DAVIS. >> ON THE NUMBERS, I WILL MENTION AGAIN THAT OLDS MAR HAS 26 PERCENT, AND ATLANTIC CITY, WE KNOW THEM VERY

WELL. >> ATLANTIC BEACH. >> WE KNOW.

I SPEND YEARS IN D.C. ATLANTIC BEACH IS 16 PERCENT.

FOR THEIR PROVISION. AND THEN AS I MENTIONED, COCOA BEACH, KEY BISCAYNE,

MARCO ISLAND, 10 PERCENT. >>> DO YOU WANT ME TO QUANTIFY THE NUMBERS.

I HAVE THEM IN MY HEAD. YOU MAY HAVE LOOKED. WE HAVE APPROXIMATE 10 THOUSAND REGISTERED VOTERS. WHEN IT SAYS QUALIFIED VOTERS REGISTERED VOTERS THAT WOULD QUALIFY. IT WOULD TAKE OVER -- LET'S SAY FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE, 1000 SIGNATURES THAT A COMMISSION OF 5 WOULD GET. THAT WOULD PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE. THIS ACTUALLY SURPRISED ME, HONESTLY.

AT THE 2018 ELECTION. BETWEEN I WANT TO SAY WHEN I -- IT WASN'T 2016, WE HAD 8000 REGISTERED VOTERS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE GAINED 2000 VOTERS.

SOME HAVE DECIDED TO LIVE OVER THE 6 MONTHS AND SOME CONVERTED THEIR HOMES AND SO

WE HAVE HAD MORE IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. >> ON THE COST ISSUES, ONE PROVISION THAT HELPS ADDRESS THAT IS THAT THE CITY CLERK HAS TO GET PAID BY THE PETITIONER'S COMMITTEE THE AMOUNT OF THE COUNTY CHARGES FOR VERIFYING ALL OF THE VOTES. IT IS A TRYING, YOU KNOW, OLDS MAR HAS BEEN DOWN THAT PATH. IT DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE COST OF THE ELECTION.

BUT YOU GET -- IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE CITY COMMISSION REPEALS THE

[02:15:04]

AND I WORKED WITH OLDS MAR THAT TRIED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES AND LIKE PUTTING A TIME RESTRAINT ON WHEN YOU CAN USE THIS... YOU KNOW, THERE'S A TIME PERIOD FOR

THE VOTE BUT IT DOES HAVE TO GO TO THE FULL ELECTION. >> MEMBER BEAN.

>> TO THROW OUT WHERE I'M AT. NUMBER ONE, I'M WITH MY FELLOW MEMBERS I THINK WE NEED MORE. THIS SEEMS LIKE THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE WILL DO AS A CRC. WE SHOULD HAVE THE OTHER TWO MISSING MEMBERS BEFORE WEIGHING IN ON A DECISION AS A COMMITTEE.

>> SECONDLY, IF I WAS -- I CAN SEE HOW THIS COULD BE USEFUL, BUT THE NUMBER WOULD BE MUCH HIGHER. SOME SAID MINIMUM 20 PERCENT.

AND MAYBE 25 PERCENT. WHICH COULD BE, YOU MAY CALL ME CRAZY FOR GOING THAT HIGH. IT SHOULD BE A HIGH BAR TO QUESTION A DECISION THERE.

NUMBER ONE, WE NEED -- I THINK EVERYONE NEEDS TO WEIGH IN ON THIS.

NUMBER TWO, IF WE GO FORWARD WITH THIS, THE HIGH BAR IF WE GO FORWARD.

>> MEMBER. >> I WAS GOING TO ECHO MR. BEAN.

AS AN IDEA, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO PROPOSE INITIATIVE IS DIFFERENT THAN THE VOTERS THAT ARE REQUIRED

TO TRY TO REPEAL AN INITIATIVE, YOU KNOW. >> NONE OF YOUR PEER IS

CITIES DO IT THAT WAY. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A GOOD IDEA OR NOT.

I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE. >> WHAT I'M HEARING FROM EVERYONE I BELIEVE, AT THIS POINT. THAT WE WANT TO DISCUSS WITH MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT FIRST. AND COME BACK WITH A

THOUGHTS ABOUT HOW WE WOULD EXCHANGE IT IF AT ALL. >> DOES THAT MEAN AT THE

NEXT MEETING IN MARCH? >> YES, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE

WORK. >> THIS IS A LOT OF GOOD WORK.

[Item 5.2]

THANK YOU FOR THAT. >>> OKAY. NOW WE ARE ON TO SECTION 12.

-- MEMBERS. >> ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY ORDINANCE, WHICH IS A HUGE

AMOUNT OF MONEY. >> I THOUGHT WE TALKED ABOUT THAT ONE TOO.

>> HOW LITTLE IT WAS. >> YEAH. >> ANY ISSUE WITH THAT? SAYING THE SALARY IS DETERMINED BY CITY ORDINANCE.

I REMEMBER ONE SITUATION WHERE THE COMMISSION WHO HAD TO CUT LOTS OF JOBS AND LOTS OF BUDGET DOLLARS. THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION GAVE UP THEIR SALARY. THEY DID THAT AS INDIVIDUALS, NOT AS AN

ORDINANCE. >> 2008-08. >> DO WE NEED THE AMOUNT AS AND APPROPRIATE. COULD IT SAY THE COMMISSIONERS RECEIVE A SALARY? DO WE NEED THE EXTRA 6 WORDS?

>> IT SAYS THE SAME THING. IF WE ARE STRIKING WORDS, LET'S MAKE IT --

>> OH YEAH. >> LET'S GO. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR. IT WILL READ, THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS RECEIVE A

SALARY ESTABLISHED BY A CITY ORDINANCE. >> YES.

>> NICE. >> HAS ESTABLISHED. >> HAS C-- AS CAN STAY.

>> AS CAN STAY. >>> TWO LETTERS. >> WE ARE DONE WITH THAT

ONE. >>> SECTION 13, SUCCESS OF TERMS IN OFFICE.

>> WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND WE DIDN'T DECIDE, RIGHT? >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> YOU HAD. WE TALKED ABOUT IT MORE THAN 10 MINUTES.

I REMEMBER THAT AT THE VERY LAST MEETING. IT WAS DECIDED THAT AFTER

SOME DEBATE THAT TERM LIMITS SHOULD STAY IN PLACE. >> WE DECIDED TO KEEP THE

[02:20:05]

>> YOU CAN'T RUN AND IN OTHER WORDS, AT THE VERY NEXT ELECTION.

>>> WE HAVE SECTION 20 IS NEXT. IT HAS BEEN MOVED TO 11B.

AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? >> WE DO HAVE SECTION 15 FILLED.

>> I HAVE A COMMENT ON 15. >> OKAY. >> CAN WE DO THAT?

>> ON THIS, WE TALK ABOUT THE VACANCY THE VICE MAYOR SERVES AS MAYOR.

RIGHT. IT IS FUNNY HERE. WE TALKED ABOUT IT.

>> WOULD YOU PREFER ME TO PUT IT BACK IN SECTION -- WE TALKED ABOUT SECTION 11.

BETTER PLACE. TION 11 IS A - >> TAKE OUT INCLUDING ONE MAYOR.

>> THIS IS DEALING WITH THE COMMISSIONER. >> YEP.

>> OKAY. WE ARE GOOD. >> SECTION 15.

>>> SECTION 20 IS PART OF 11 B, CORRECT? >> YES.

AND WE HAD NO CHANGES TO THAT. DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT?

THAT'S RATE. . >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>>> WE ARE MOVING ON. >> SECTION 11 B AND -- WILL GET A WORK-OVER BY MEMBER

DAVIS AND I. >> SECTION 21, ADOPTION -- AND RESOLUTIONS FORUM.

THIS DEFINES THE FORUM NECESSARY. >> OH.

>> MEMBER BEAN, IS YOUR LIGHT ON AGAIN? >> NO.

>> I WILL TELL YOU THAT SECTION 166.041 OF THE FLORIDA STATISTICS ADDRESSES OF ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES BY MUNICIPALITIES IN THE STATISTICS AND IT IS CITED

HERE AND IT IS PRETTY MUCH LANGUAGE FROM THERE. >> ALL RIGHT.

MEMBER DAVIS. >> I WANTED US TO CONSIDER LANGUAGE THAT 2007 HAD RECOMMENDED. AND WAS NOT ADOPTED. BUT WE MAY WANT TO HAVE A LITTLE TWEAK OF IT. AND THIS WAS ALSO WE GOT IN ONE OF OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS E-MAILS. ABOUT THIS, INCLUDING LANGUAGE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS MUST BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT TO CONDUCT ANY OFFICIAL BUSINESS. I THINK THE 2007'S VIEW, THEY DIDN'T WANT IN TODAY'S WORLD THAT YOU START MOVING TO VIRTUAL MEETINGS. THEY FELT IT WAS GOOD TO HAVE MEETINGS IN THE CITY HALL, WHERE CITIZENS CAN PARTICIPATE.

AND THE TWEAK I WOULD SAY WITH THAT LANGUAGE IS, KEEPING IN MIND, FOR EXAMPLE, THE COMMISSIONER'S SITUATION, LANGUAGE THAT MAKES CLEAR THAT THEY DON'T

HAVE TO BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT. >> THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO

BE? >> IN A MEDICAL -- UNLESS THEY ARE MEDICALLY, THEY CAN PARTICIPATE -- IF THEY HAVE A MEDICAL SITUATION THAT WOULD PREVENT THEM.

THEY CAN PARTICIPATE. I THINK WHAT 2007 AND I THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA, THEY DON'T WANT IN TODAY'S WORLD VIRTUAL MEETINGS AND PEOPLE TO STAY AT HOME.

>> THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE SAYING IT IS MEDICAL. NOT LIKE I'M ON VACATION AND

I'M GOING TO SKYPE IN FOR THIS MEETING. >> YES.

IF THEY ARE ON VACATION, THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN EXCUSED ABSENCE.

>> IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST. >> NOT FOR THEM TO VOTE VIA SKYPE.

OR BY PHONE. NOT SINCE I HAVE BEEN THE ATTORNEY HERE.

>> I THOUGHT WE HAD A BUDGET VOTE BY PHONE ONE YEAR. >> I MUST HAVE BEEN ABSENT.

>> IF IT IS AN EMERGENCY BECAUSE OF -- >> THAT IS COVERED.

I DON'T THINK IT IS A BAD THING TO PUT IT IN HERE AT ALL.

THIS IS COVERED UNDER THE FLORIDA SUNSHINE LAW. THERE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION BEING ABSENT AT THE MEETING. AND BEING PHYSICALLY PRESENT

[02:25:04]

LET'S SAY WE WANTED TO HAVE VIRTUAL MEETINGS THE ATTORNEY GENERALS IN FLORIDA, THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TO GO BY, IT IS NOT BINDING ON US, BUT WE USE IT AS A GUIDE, IF A GROUP HAS BEEN PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN ORDER TO ACCEPT A TELEPHONE OR VIDEO CONFERENCE VOTE AND THE ONLY PURPOSE TO ALLOW SOMEONE TO ATTEND THAT WAY

IS FOR A SERIOUS MEDICAL CONDITION IS HOW IT IS -- >> IF THE FLORIDA STATUTES REQUIRES THEM TO BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT. I GUESS I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT. I DIDN'T GO TO THE STATISTIC AND MAYBE IT IS NOT NECESSARY. MAYBE THAT'S THE ANSWER TO BE THE PUBLIC.

>> AND THE OTHER IS -- >>> IT IS A REQUIREMENT. >> IT IS ABSOLUTELY A REQUIREMENT. AND IT IS WELL SETTLED IN FLORIDA LAW.

NOT SOMETHING WE ARE GUESSING AT. >> SINCE WE ARE REFERRING TO 166 FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, DO WE NEED THIS SECTION? IT IS ALREADY REQUIRED, YOU KNOW, IN FLORIDA LAW. IT IS HOW WE ADOPT LOCAL LAWS.

>> WELL, WE GET TO THE -- I'M SORRY. WE GET TO THE ISSUE WE

TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE RECALL LANGUAGE NOT BEING IN>> AND THE MEMBER SAYS WE SHOULD PUT IT IN THERE ANY WAY. PEOPLE LOOK HERE.

>> CITIZENS LOOK HERE. >>> PEOPLE LOOK HERE. AND IF THEY DON'T SEE IT

HERE -- >> I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE GOING OUT WITH A CHARTER IN WHICH WE STRIKE TO LANGUAGE THAT TELLS THEM HOW YOU ADOPT THE ORDINANCES.

I THINK THE PUBLIC KNOWS. >> WELL -- >> I HAVE LIGHTS ON.

>> MEMBER. >> LEGISLATURE CHANGES THEIR STATUTES.

IF WE ARE COUNTING ON THEM. CAN'T DO WHAT WE WANT. >> WE ARE AT SECTION 21,

CORRECT? >> YES. >> YES.

>> PARAGRAPH TWO. -- AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF 3 TO ENACT A RESOLUTION, EXCEPT IN AN EMERGENCY. AND AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THE MAJORITY OF THE GROUP

PRESENT TO ADOPT ANY RESOLUTION. >> THREE PEOPLE MEET, TWO OUT OF ONE VOTE, THAT'S IT. THAT'S NOT THREE. THE SECOND SENTENCE THAT IT PASSES. I THINK WE NEED TO STRIKE THAT SENTENCE.

>> AT LEAST THREE -- >> NO. >> THE MAJORITY OF A QUORUM

PRESENT. >> MUST PASS THE ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION.

THREE. >> I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WANT.

>> MY GUESS IS YOU DON'T WANT TWO -- >> RIGHT.

>> MAJORITY OF QUORUM. >> STRIKE THAT. >> OKAY.

>> SO -- >> AND THE OTHER POINT -- UNLESS WE HAVE SOMETHING

ABOUT THAT. >> NO, GO AHEAD. >> THE SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 10 DAYS AFTER PASSAGE. IT IS OFTENTIMES UPON PASSAGE.

OKAY. SORRY. >> FOR CLARIFICATION BECAUSE MY MEMORY IS DIFFERENT. I MAKE THINGS UP. IT SAYS TWO THIRDS QUORUM MUST BE PRESENT PHYSICALLY IN THE ROOM. AS LONG AS THERE'S A PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF A QUORUM THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDED SOMEONE FROM

CALLING IN. >> IT DOES PRECLUDED THEM FROM CALLING --

>> AND VOTING. >> -- AND VOTING. UNLESS THEY CAN CALL IN IF THEY ARE REALLY SICK. I'M NOT SAYING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

I DON'T RECALL IT. >> I KNOW. >> WHEN I HAD TO RESEARCH THERE FOR -- AND ONLY EXPECTATION FOR THE SUNSHINE LAW IS IF THEY HAD A SERIOUS

MEDICAL CONDITION. >> RIGHT. >> THE COMMISSION COULD JUDGE, OKAY, HE DIDN'T HAVE TO REVEAL WHAT IT WAS. THEY SAID OKAY, WE'LL ACCEPT

[02:30:01]

HIM AS A MEMBER AND LET HIM VOTE THAT WAY. >> I CAN SEE THIS HAPPENING ESPECIALLY WITH THE VOTES AROUND BUDGETS. BECAUSE, THE CITY IS PUT ON A SCHEDULE TO MEET CERTAIN TIMEFRAMES DICTATED BY THE STATE.

>> RIGHT. >> RIGHT. SOMETIMES THINGS DON'T GO

EXACT ORDER THAT -- >> I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

>> -- TO MEET THOSE DEADLINES. WHAT HAPPENS IS SOMEONE GOES AHEAD WITH THE DEADLINES AND ASSUME EVERYTHING WILL GO AS PLANNED AND SCHEDULES A VACATION. AND NOW THAT PERSON IS GONE AND IT DIDN'T GO AS PLANNED

AND WE NEED ANOTHER BUDGET VOTE. >> AND THINK --

>> MY MEMORY SAYS SOMEONE CALLED IN. >> WE SHOULD ASK HIM.

>> MY MEMORY -- >> WE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. >> I REMEMBER STANDING HERE

AND HE HAD TO FLY BACK EARLY FROM BOSTON. >> I REMEMBER THAT ONE.

>> AND REMEMBER PETE BEING WILLED IN ON A STRETCHER. >> REALLY?

>> LET'S SAY, GOING FORWARD -- WOW. >> --

>> DO WE WANT TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE ABOUT A MEDICAL CONDITION ENABLING SOMEONE TO CALL IN? DO WE WANT TO SAY THAT AT ALL?

OR IS THAT THE REFERENCE TO STATE LAW? >> I GOT NO REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T INCLUDE IT. I THINK THAT'S VALID. IF YOU ARE IN THE HOSPITAL,

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD WHEEL THEM IN. >> THAT'S THE ONLY

CIRCUMSTANCE. >> YES, THERE'S NO VACATION. >> RIGHT.

>> NO TIME OFF. >> IF WE CAN CHANGE THAT, PLEASE.

>> UH-HUH. >> WE ARE 39-45. >> OKAY.

41 IS THE NEXT ONE. I JUMPED AHEAD. >> MEMBER DAVIS.

>> THANK YOU. >> I WENT TO LOOK AND SEE IF 2007 COMMITTEE DID ANYTHING IN THESE SECTIONS. THEY REALLY TRIED TO SIMPLIFY IT.

BECAUSE WHEN YOU READ THIS I GUESS IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME WHETHER IT IS THE CITY COMMISSION OR THE POLICE CHIEF WHO DETERMINES WHO ARE THE SUBORDIENT OFFICERS THAT ARE NEEDED. THE 2007 LANGUAGE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEIR LANGUAGE THE CITY WILL HAVE THE POWER TO MAINTAIN THE POLICE FORCE AND HEAD BY THE POLICE CHIEF AND/OR OFFICERS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED. AND NOTING THAT THE POLICE CHIEF SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER. IT IS JUST A SIMPLER.

IT REMOVED ALL OF THE REFERENCES TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

I WONDERED, HOW INVOLVED IS THE CITY COMMISSION IN THE ROLE OF THE POLICE AND THE

MANAGER? >> I WILL NOT GO ON. THE POLICE AND THE FIRE SERVICE IN THE CITY. THEY EAT UP APPROXIMATELY 50 PERCENT OF CITY'S TOTAL BUDGET. SO, THE CITY COMMISSION HAS A HUGE ROLE.

THAT'S WHY I PUT DETERMINED BY ORDINANCES. THE CITY COMMISSION DETERMINES THE ORDINANCE, THE PAY, PLAN, SECTION 162 OF OUR CITY CODE.

IT TALKS ABOUT, SO EACH DEPARTMENT IN THEIR BUDGET, THEY GET APPROVED HOW MANY FULL TIME EMPLOYEES -- BUDGET RESOLUTION -- PART TIME EMPLOYEES, SEASONAL EMPLOYEES, VEHICLES. I WOULD SAY -- I CAN'T THINK IN ANYBODY IN OUR POLICE FORCE. WHEN YOU SAID THAT I THOUGHT, IF THE POLICE CHIEF HAD THE ABILITY TO SAY IT IS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, THEY COULD DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO DO. THE CITY HAS VERY HEALTHY RESERVES.

WE ARE VERY FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. IF WE HAD THE POLICECHIEF OR FIRE CHIEF SAY, NO, NO, NO. WE NEED WHATEVER, 5 MORE OFFICERS. THAT HAS HAPPENED. ESPECIALLY IN THE MIDDLE PART OF 2000'S, THEY NEEDED 5 MORE, 10 MORE POLICE OFFICERS AND INSTEAD THE MANAGER SAYS YOU ARE GOING TO CUT 5. THAT'S WHAT WE COULD APPROVE

[02:35:02]

BY THE ORDINANCE. MAYBE BY THE BUDGET. BUT NOT TAKE OUT COMMISSION

CONTROL. >> WE DELETED INTO RECENT YEARS, THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, THERE WERE OTHER DEPARTMENT, HUMAN SOURCES, WE TOOK IT ALL OUT.

IT IS ALL THE CITY MANAGER AND COMMISSION FUNCTION. I WOULD THINK THE PEOPLE HAVE CONTROL OF THE CHARTER WHICH CONTROLS THE COMMISSION, AND POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES GET CONTRACTED OUT ALL OF THE TIME. AND THIS WOULD MAKE IT ONLY HAPPEN THROUGH A REFERENDUM. IN MY OPINION, YOU COULD ONLY DISPOSE THE POLICE AND FIRE BY A REFERENDUM OF THE PEOPLE. THEY COULDN'T CONTRACT OUT

ON THEIR OWN. >> KEEP THE LANGUAGE. >> SHOULD I MAKE IT MORE

TIED TO FINANCIAL OR FISCAL STUFF? >> MEMBER BEAN.

>> IT IS LISLIGHTLY RELATED. >> THE POLICE MEN AND WOMEN. IT IS GENDER CLUNKY AS FAR AS GENDER NEUTRAL. POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD BE FINE?

ISN'T POLICE OFFICERS BOTH POLICE MEN AND POLICEWOMEN? >> YES.

>> THAT'S SAY COMMENT AND EMPLOYEES. OKAY.

I'M DONE. >> SO THE QUESTION YOU HAVE FOR US, WHETHER THAT STATEMENT -- BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THAT SECTION 41 AND SECTION 44 AND 45, FOR THAT MATTER, THESE ARE THE THREE DEPARTMENTS THAT GET SPIKED OUT.

MORE THAN LIKELY BECAUSE THE CITY HAS A HISTORY OF NOT HAVING OWNED ITS UTILITIES.

AND MORE THAN LIKELY BECAUSE THERE'S ONGOING ARGUMENT ON A MONTHLY BASIS ON WHETHER THE POLICE AND FIRE SHOULD BE COMBINED WITH THE COUNTY SERVICES.

>> NOT BY THE CITY COMMISSION. >> NO.

NO. >> I UNDERSTAND. PEOPLE SAY THAT.

>> SO, IF THE MOST CRITICAL POINT THAT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE IN 41 AND 44 IS THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE REFERENDUM OF THE PEOPLE TO DISSOLVE OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT AND POLICE FORCE, IF IT IS THE MOST CRITICAL POINT, IT NEEDS TO SAY THAT AND IT DOESN'T SAY

IT. >> OKAY. >> DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> MEMBER DAVIS, DO YOU THINK -- >> I THINK THAT'S WHY THEY USED THAT IN 2007 MIRRORING THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADOPTED WHAT THEY PROPPED IN

POWER TO MAINTAIN ITS OWN. >> SHOULD I LOOK AT THE 2007 PROPOSAL?

>> THE CHAIRMAN IS PROPOSING, LITTLE BIT STRONGER THAN SAYING WE HAVE THE POWER TO MAINTAIN. WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY SAYING WE SHALL MAINTAIN.

>> WE SHALL. >> WE SHALL MAINTAIN. >> IT WOULD REQUIRE --

>> POLICE FORCE -- >> -- TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THEM.

>> IF YOU SAY SHALL MAINTAIN YOUR OWN POLICE FORCE. IT WOULD TAKE A REFERENDUM.

>> YES, I WILL USE THE TERM MUST. >> I AM LOOKING AT 2007

LANGUAGE. >> I'M STILL RIGHTING SHALL IN THINGS.

IT IS A HARD HABIT TO BREAK. >> I THINK WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND SUPPORT IT. HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE AT THE SECTION 41 TO HAD A SIMILAR LIKE, AND SECTION 44, IN CASE OF A RIOT, THE CITY MANAGER MAY APPOINT POLICE

SERVICE. >> FOR SURE. >> YES.

>> OKAY. >> IN CASE OF A -- YEAH, OR LIKE EMERGENCY.

I'M ASSUMING THAT A STORM, A HURRICANE OR -- >> SURE.

>> IS SOME OF LANGUAGE FOR POLICE AND FIRE IN TERMS OF THE TYPES OF THINGS THEY DO

LITTLE BIT EXTRA? >> I THINK SO. >> I CAN REWRITE BOTH OF THOSE TO STATE WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO STATE. AS PEOPLE, WE WANT OUR OWN POLICE AND FIRE. WE WILL DECIDE IF THEY ARE -- GOT IT.

[02:40:01]

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> -- >> EVEN HOW MANY POLICE OR

FIREARM WE NEED IS KIND OF UNNECESSARY HERE. >> OKAY.

>> IT IS MORE A BUDGET ISSUE. >> YES, IT IS.

GOT IT. >> THEY ANSWER TO THE CITY MANAGER.

THEY ARE FUNDED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. >> WE'LL TAKE OUT THE STUFF THAT DEFINES WHAT THE POLICE CHIEF DOES OR WHAT THE FIRE CHIEF DOES, IS THAT WHAT YOU

ARE SAYING? >> I THINK SO. >> WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THE CHIEF. WE CAN THEORETICALLY JUST HAVE A CHIEF.

>> AND THE CHIEF -- >> OR SHE. >> OR SHE.

>> THE CHIEF WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE BUDGETS. >> WHAT HE OR SHE WILL DO.

>> AND NOW A DAYS, THE POLICES MAY HAVE THE SAME TYPES OF THINGS, STANDARD OF OPERATING PROCEDURES, AND BEST PRACTICES, THERE'S A LEGAL MINIMUM YOU HAVE TO HAVE WORKING ON THE SHIFT. WE HAVE TO STAFF IT THAT WAY.

>> PARAMEDICS, ETC. >> YEP. >> ALL OF THAT STUFF.

>> SO WE HAVE GONE THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT WAS ON THE AGENDA TO TALK ABOUT TODAY.

>> DID WE TALK ABOUT SECTION 45? >> NO.

>> I MEAN, SORT OF. >> I JUST -- >> OH --

>> THIS HAS BEEN MODIFIED AS RECENT AT 2016. >> IT IS FOR THE 7.

>> SECTION 45, PUBLIC UTILITIES. SHOULD IT BE IN SECTION 7 IS MY COMMENT AS A DUTY OR POWER OF THE CITY COMMISSION RATHER THAN HAVING ITS OWN SECTION? WE ARE MANDATING THAT WE WANT TO OWN FIRE AND POLICE.

ARE WE MANDATING THAT WE HAVE THE ONLY UTILITIES? WE HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH A GOOD BIT. I THINK IT SHOULD BE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE.

>> RIGHT. >> CAN I RESPOND TO THAT, JOHN, BECAUSE IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN THE CITY PURCHASED THE UTILITY, THE CITY COMMISSION MADE A DECISION TO GO INTO DEBT TO THE TUNE 32 MILLION DOLLARS WITHOUT REFERENDUM TO DO

THAT. >> IT MAY NOT BE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE BY

CERTAIN UTILITY OPERATORS. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. >> RIGHT.

IT HAS NEVER COME UP AS BORROWING MONEY. WHICH IS WHAT IT WAS WITHOUT A REFERENDUM. SO, I DON'T KNOW. WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR

QUESTION? >> ONE OF MY STATEMENTS THE SECOND SENTENCE SHOULD SAY THE CITY WILL HAVE THE POWER TO DO ALL REASONABLE ACTS WITH THE UTILITIES IN RESPECT TO PUBLIC WELFARE. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, SAFETY, WELFARE.

IT NEEDS TO BE FUNDED. YOU NEED MONEY TO DO THAT. SOMETIMES YOU DON'T.

SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO BORROW IT BECAUSE THOSE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT.

>> DO WE NEED TO HAVE ITS OWN SECTION? DOES IT NEED TO HAVE ITS OWN

SECTION? >> DOES THIS NEED TO BE IN THERE AT ALL? THE ONLY THING THAT THIS SAYS, THE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS IS THAT THE CITY HAS HOME RULE TO HAVE ITS OWN PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEM.

WE HAVE THAT UNDER STATE LAW. WE HAVE THAT RIGHT.

>> THIS WILL BE PERCEIVED, THAT WE ARE STRIKING IT, IT WILL LOOK LIKE WE ARE TRYING

TO GET RID OF IT. >> I WATCH THE NEWS. OKAY.

>> IT WON'T GO OVER WELL. >> I WON'T PUSH IT ANY FURTHER.

>> I DO THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE IN IT WHICH DESCRIBES WHAT THEY DO, WE STRUCK THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE FROM THE FIRE AND POLICE DESCRIPTION.

WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AND OUTSIDE OF ITS BOUNDARIES. THAT IS TO ADDRESS THE FOLKS THAT DO NOT LIVE IN THE CITY, BUT GET CITY POWER AND SEWER AND PAY A PREMIER FOR

THAT, RIGHT? >> I'M GOOD WITH THAT. THAT'S FINE.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT

ANY OF THE ITEMS ON THE CHARTER DISCUSSION? >> ALL RIGHT.

[Item 6]

PUBLIC COMMENT. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? >> THANK YOU.

I THINK YOU GUYS DID A GREAT JOB. >> THANK YOU.

[02:45:03]

>> YOU TICKED EVERYBODY OFF. >>> OUR NEXT MEETING DATE IS --

[Items 7 & 8]

>> DID I HEAR THE 31 AT 3 O'CLOCK? >> YES.

>> I HAVE TO LEAVE AT 5 ON THE 31. >> I HAVE AN IMPORTANT 5:30.

>> DO WE FEEL AT THIS POINT JUST HAVING A MONTHLY MEETING THAT WE WILL GET TO

WHERE WE NEED TO GET TO BY JUNE? >> HOW MANY SECTIONS DO WE

HAVE LEFT? >> LET'S OPEN IT UP. >> I DON'T HAVE --

>> THE THINGS THAT WE ADD IN. >> -- LIKE AT THE NEXT

MEETING. >> WE WILL HAVE THE INITIATIVE SECTION, CITIZEN INITIATIVE, WE'LL BRING BACK SECTION 11. SECTION 10.

THOSE ARE SOME BIG ONES. . >> ELECTIONS.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE ELECTIONS READY? >> YEAH.

AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IT IS READY. WE INCORPORATED 34-9.

>> I THOUGHT YOU DID. >> WE DON'T HAVE TO MESS WITH THE OTHER ORDINANCE, THE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CODE. WE CAN DO THAT. I WILL GO IN HERE AND SEE.

>>> WHEN YOU MENTIONED ELECTIONS, THAT IS ABOUT, THAT'S WHERE WE WILL DISCUSS

GROUPS, THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES? >> I BELIEVE THAT IS SECTION

9. >> WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED 9, HAVE WE?

>> NO, IT IS A BIGGY. >> SECTION 9 IS WHERE WE HAVE THE GROUPS.

OR YOU CAN COULD HAVE DISTRICTS. WE DID AWAY WITH THAT A WHILE AGO. WE HAVE GROUPS AND INPUT HERE AND I'M SURE EACH OF YOU HAD YOUR OWN THOUGHTS ABOUT THE BEST WAY TO GO. I WOULDN'T SAY THIS WOULD TAKE AN ENTIRE MEETING. IT IS GOING TO TAKE A GOOD PORTION OF THE MEETING.

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? WE STILL NEED TO ADDRESS BENJAMIN'S QUESTION.

MARCH 31 OUR NEXT MEETING AND WE'LL DOUBLE UP IN APRIL AND MAY IF WE HAVE TO?

>> LET'S TALK THAT THROUGH. WE HAVE -- CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE HAD TODAY.

8, 9, AND 11, AND WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE? >> DID YOU SAY 8?

>> YES. THAT WAS -- >> 9.

>> THAT WAS DAVIS' INITIATIVE STUFF. >> OKAY.

>> I THINK -- >> INITIATIVE, 11 B, SECTION 10.

WHAT ELSE? >> 9. >> NINE.

YOU WANT TO TACKLE THAT? NINE. >> SECTION 11.

>> TUESDAY, APRIL 14 IS ANOTHER GOOD TUESDAY THAT WE CAN PUT SOMETHING.

>> DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT WHILE WE ARE HERE. >> WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO

THE FINANCE PART. >> IF IT IS GOOD FOR THE GROUP, LET'S SET A MEETING

IN APRIL. >> A DAY BEFORE TAX DAY. FOR THOSE WHO RUN AROUND AT

THE LAST MINUTE. >> RIGHT. >> AND THEN FILING AN

EXTENSION. JUST KIDDING. >> IS EVERYONE ABLE TO MAKE

APRIL 14 AT 3? >> YEP. >> I'M AVAILABLE AND READY.

>> I WILL SEND THAT OUT IN AN E-MAIL TO LET MR. CLARK KNOW AND TAMMY.

>> AND ALSO JUST VERIFY THAT THE ROOM IS AVAILABLE. >> YOU GOT IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> WE ARE ADDING A MEETING. >>> AT THE SAME TIME, I'M

S SORRY. >> IF 3 O'CLOCK IS GOOD FOR

YOU. >> MARCH 1, APRIL 14, THE LAST TUESDAY IN APRIL.

APRIL 28. >> YEP. >> WE HAVE DONE THAT.

CITY CLERK, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. >> AFTER SECTION 9, THE VERY NEXT IS GOING TO BE SECTION 58. AND THAT'S WHERE ALL OF THE FINANCE PROVISIONS ARE. FINANCES AND TAXATIONS STARTED, CHAPTER 70.

I WILL SAY MUCH OF THIS IS COVERED ALREADY IN THE STATE LAW.

THESE ARE RESTATEMENTS OR REFERENCES TO STATE LAW. THEY DID A LOT OF WORK ON

THIS IN 2007. >> SHOULD WE INCLUDE THIS IN THE NEXT MEETING TO KIND OF

GET THROUGH THEM? >> IT DEPENDS. IF YOU WANT TO -- LET'S SEE,

[02:50:03]

NOT A BIG DEAL. >> I THINK WE'LL GET A FEEL. >> I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE ALL OVER THE PLACE. ARE WE KEEPING OUR GROUPS OR NOT.

AND RUN-OFFS TO THINK ABOUT. >> -- TWO OF THE BIGGEST HOT BUTTONS IN THE COMMUNITY AS

FAR AS THE ELECTIONS. >> I WILL INCLUDE 58-67. OKAY?

>> I'M SURE WE WILL TALK ABOUT 136 AGAIN. >> DO YOU WANT THAT ON -- WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN. WAS I SUPPOSE TO LOOK AT WHAT OTHER CITIES DO?

>> NO. WE DID THAT BEFORE. >> WE KEEP THAT.

>> LEAVE IT ALONE? >> MODIFY IT LITTLE BIT. >> I GOT IT.

>> OKAY. >> IT GETS TO BE -- >> IT IS TAKING FOREVER.

>> I THINK WE WI

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.