[Call to Order]
          [00:00:08]
            BENJAMIN. IT IS 5 AFTER 3 AND WE 
          HAVE A QUORUM. >>  WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. CALLING TO ORDER. 
          >>  MEMBER BEAN. >>  HERE. 
          >>  MEMBER DAVIS. >>  HERE. 
          >>  MEMBER LASSERE. >>  HERE. 
          >>  MEMBER KOZAK. >>  HERE. 
          >>  MEMBER MORRISON IS NOT ON, OR IS HE ON 
          NOW? >>  YOU COULD CALL HIM, IF THERE'S NOTHING, HE'S ABSENT 
          FOR NOW. >>  MEMBER MORRISON. 
          VICE-CHAIR CLARK. >>  HERE. 
          >>  AND FILKOFF. >>  HERE. 
          >>  WE'RE GOING TO PLEDGE TO ALLEGIANCE. 
          [Item 4]
          >>  ALL RIGHT, MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES 
          FROM THE LAST MEETING? >>  MOVE. 
          >>  SECOND. >>  ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NO HANDS. I DO. 
          MARGARET DAVIS, YES, PLEASE. 
          >>  I HAVE TWO MINOR REQUESTS. 
          THE DISCUSSION ON 4.3 CHARTER SECTION 10A ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE LINES FROM THE BOTTOM, THE SENTENCE READS HE DOES NOT THINK CONVERSATION LAND. IT SOHOULD BE CONSERVATION. THE SECOND SENTENCE, IT READS 75 PERCENT OF OUR PEER AND MODELED CITIES. THAT SHOULD READ OUR PEER CITIES AND THE MODEL CHARTER. 
          SO I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE WITH 
          THOSE CHANGES. >>  I BELIEVE WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. MISS KOZAK DID YOU 
          MAKE THAT MOTION? >>  I DID. 
          >>  THEN MY MOTION TO AMEND THE MINUTES. 
          >>  SECOND. >>  KOZAK, THANK YOU. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? >>  YEA. 
          >>  ANY OPPOSITION. OKAY. 
          VERY GOOD. MOVING ON. 
          I AM ON A MISSION TODAY JUST TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW TO KEEP US ON TIME BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO FINISH OUR TASK IN TIME TO GET THESE THINGS ON THE BALLOT FOR THIS YEAR. 
          [Item 5.1]
SO HELP ME DO THAT PLEASE. 
          NEW BUSINESS, SECTION 9, DISCUSSION ON THIS SECTION OF THE CHARTER. 
          ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO START OFF THAT 
          CONVERSATION? >>  MADAM CHAIR, MAY I JUST GO AHEAD AND FRAME THE ISSUE, HOW WE GOT TO THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE AND WHERE I 
          GOT IT FROM. >>  OKAY. 
          >>  SO AS YOU KNOW WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE ARE GROUPS AND A RUNOFF. 
          IF I OVERSIMPLIFY ANYTHING, PLEASE ASK ME TO EXPOUND ON IT AND I WILL. 
          THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE ELIMINATES GROUPS OR SEATS FOR CITY COMMISSIONERS AND ELIMINATES RUNOFFS. IT ELIMINATES THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE WINNER IN AN ELECTION FOR A GROUP OR SEAT GETS A MAJORITY OF THE VOTE. A MAJORITY IN FLORIDA INCLUDES 50 PERCENT PLUS ONE. 
          SO THE WAY THAT IT IS WRITTEN NOW AS PROPOSED IS WHAT I THINK YOU ALL PROVIDED 
          [00:05:01]
CONSENSUS TO ME ON WAS THAT YOU WERE INTERESTED IN SEEING LANGUAGE THAT ELIMINATES RUNOFFS AND THAT LOOKS LIKE A PLURALITY. THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN, IF YOU'RE WONDERING WHY IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT INDIVIDUAL SEATS OR WHEN COMMISSIONERS MAY GET ELECTED AND NOT GET ELECTED IS THE LANGUAGE I TOOK IT FROM THE CITY OF SEMINOLE, FLORIDA. THERE'S MANY OTHER CITIES. I DID NOT DO A SURVEY BUT THIS TYPE WINNER TAKES ALL OR PLURALITY TYPE OF ELECTION IS DONE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA. 
          THE LANGUAGE IS SIMPLE BECAUSE IT IS INTENDED TO WORK FROM NOW INTO THE FUTURE. 
          YOU DON'T GO BACK AND WORRY ABOUT STAGGERED TERMS. WE ALREADY HAVE TERMS THAT ARE GOING TO END IN A STAGGERED MANNER. 
          YOU JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS SIMPLE LANGUAGE. THAT'S HOW I THOUGHT IT WOULD WORK BEST, BUT IT IS FOR YOUR DEBATE. THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER, WE HAVE THIS INFORMATION BECAUSE WE THOUGHT YOU SHOULD HAVE IT, IT IS NOT THE ONLY OTHER WAY TO VOTE FOR OFFICIALS, THE VOTE CHOICE METHOD IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN DEBATED IN FLORIDA, PARTICULARLY SARASOTA. 
          WE PROVIDED INFORMATION HERE. 
          THE CITY OF SARASOTA IN 2007 HAD A REFERENDUM AND THE VOTERS CHOSE TO DO RANK CHOICE VOTING ELECTIONS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA BECAUSE HOW WE VOTE WITH OUR VOTING SOFTWARE AND MACHINES, THE STATE OF FLORIDA HAS NOT APPROVED IT TO GO ON TO ELECTION MACHINES IN ANY COUNTY IN FLORIDA. SO I THINK WE'RE SORT OF STILL WAITING FOR THEM OR THEY'RE WAITING FOR MORE TO BE INTERESTED AND PUSH THE STATE. IT IS ONE TYPE. 
          WE THOUGHT YOU SHOULD HAVE THE INFORMATION. 
          IF YOU CHOSE THAT AS THE WAY TO GO IN THE FUTURE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO HAVE THAT AS YOUR PROPOSED LANGUAGE AS THEY DID IN SARASOTA AND SEND TO REFERENDUM. 
          IT CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED AT THIS TIME. WE WOULD CARRY ON ELECTIONS AS WE DO NOW. 
          ONE OTHER THING I DIDN'T PUT IN HERE BECAUSE I THOUGHT OF IT AFTER WE HAD A QUICK TURNAROUND WITH THE NEW LANGUAGE, THERE'S ANOTHER OPTION HERE, IF YOU WANTED TO CONSIDER, YOU COULD ELIMINATE RUNOFFS COMPLETELY, EXCEPT IF THERE WAS AN EXACT TIE BASED ON A MANUAL RECOUNT, YOU COULD ELIMINATE RUNOFFS AND KEEP THE GROUPS OR SEATS AND NOT RECOMMEND A MAJORITY VOTE TO GET ELECTED TO THE SEAT. 
          SO YOU COULD STILL HAVE A RUNOFF IF PEOPLE WERE CLOSE, BUT YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO HAVE A MAJORITY. 
          >>  BEFORE I START, IF ALL OF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS, CHAIRMAN, COULD YOU CLARIFY FOR MY SAKE THE TYPE OF RANK VOTING THAT WE DON'T HAVE SOFTWARE TO -- TO SUPPORT AND THAT THE STATE HAS NOT APPROVED. IS THAT WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT OR A VARIATION? 
          >>  IT IS A VARIATION. IT IS ACTUALLY WHEN YOU HAVE -- IT EXPLAINS IT HERE, I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH IT, BUT YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF CANDIDATES AND -- AND CANDIDATES WITH THE LOWEST NUMBER OF VOTES DROP OFF AND THEIR VOTES END UP GOING TO THE LEADING VOTE-GETTER UNTIL YOU GET A MAJORITY. 
          >>  OKAY. ALL RIGHT. 
          I'M GOING TO CALL [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          >>  THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, I'M CURIOUS, TRYING TO LOOK BEFORE THE MEETING, I COULDN'T FIND THE INFORMATION, SHOULD PROBABLY NOTE IT, THIS IS THE FIRST ELECTION THAT WE'LL HAVE WHERE THE MEMBER IS WITH [INDISCERNIBLE], THIS ONE TO COME OUT IN 2020. IS THERE GOING TO BE, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE STOCK. 
          ARE WE IN THE PRIMARY FOR THE CANDIDATE AND THEN [INDISCERNIBLE] BE HELD IN NOVEMBER? 
          >>  THAT'S NOT HOW IT IS WRITTEN NOW. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING MR. BEAN MENTIONED AT THE LAST MEETING AS SOMETHING HE WAS INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT. 
          >>  I SAW THAT. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE TOO BIG OF A CHANGE. A CHANGE RECOMMENDED BY THE LAST CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, TO THINK ABOUT IT MORE, REALLY HAVEN'T GIVEN 
          [00:10:03]
US A CHANCE TO WORK IN, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING I FEEL PRETTY STRONGLY ABOUT BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE COMMITTED ONE CHANGE AND THAT SLIGHT MODIFICATION TO IT WOULD AVOID THE RUNOFF AND EXPENSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I MAY BE ABLE TO LET THIS ONE GO AND GOING TO PUT IT IN FOR THE NEXT COMMITTEE AND WOULD TAKE IT UP AND SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS AND EVALUATE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE TO IMPLEMENT THE COST SAVINGS THAT HAPPENED BY HAVING A FIRST SELECTION AND THEN THE TWO HIGHEST VOTE-GETTERS IN THE GROUP GO ON TO THE GENERAL ELECTION AND THEN YOU HAVE A FRIENDLY VOTE AND GENERAL ELECTION VOTE. I THINK THAT WOULD BE MORE FAIR IMMEDIATELY AND GIVE THIS PLAN A CHANCE TO REEVALUATE. THANK YOU. 
          >>  JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, WITH THIS LAST ELECTION, THE FIRST TO COINCIDE, THE FIRST TO COINCIDE WITH NATIONAL ELECTIONS BUT THAT'S IN THE TRUE. 
          THE LAST ONE WAS THE LAST THREE OR TERM 
          ELECTIONS. >>  THAT'S RIGHT. 
          RIGHT. >>  OKAY. 
          SO I WAS MORE FROM MEMORY. 
          SEEMED LIKE I REMEMBER THIS BEING THE FIRST TIME. THIS WILL BE THE 
          SECOND TIME. >>  2018 WAS THE FIRST YEAR THAT WE STARTED DOING ELECTIONS EVERY TWO YEARS AND THEN IN 2017 FOR EXAMPLE WE HAD THE LAST COMMISSIONERS, 2016, WE VOTED IN OUR CURRENT MAYOR. 
          HE WENT FOR A FOUR-YEAR TERM. 
          THAT'S RIGHT, 2016 WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF EVERY OTHER YEAR AND THEN IN 17 WE HAD ANOTHER ONE BECAUSE IT HADN'T KICKED IN YET. 
          THAT'S WHEN WE ELECTED THE TWO COMMISSIONERS AND THEIR TERMS ARE UP IN 2020. 
          THIS IS THE FIRST ELECTION WHERE EVERYBODY ELECTED GETS A FOUR-YEAR TERM. 
          >>  THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING. 
          I'M WILLING TO -- TO JUST MAKE THAT ONE INCREMENTAL CHANGE WHERE WE HAVE AN ELECTION, A PRIMARY AND THEN IN THE GENERAL AND LET THIS METHOD THAT WAS PUT INTO PLACE PLAY OUT AND SEE HOW IT IS AND 
          REEVALUATE LATER. >>  TEN YEARS FROM 
          NOW. >>  YEAH, THAT'S WHAT -- [INDISCERNIBLE]. I'M OKAY WITH THAT. 
          I DON'T HAVE A BETTER DRAMATIC CHANGE. 
          I THINK SOME OF THESE ARE BABY STEPS AND THAT WOULD BE -- AND WE SOLVE ONE PROBLEM CURRENTLY AND THEN WE CAN ALSO LOOK AT -- I MEAN, INTRODUCING THE BOARD WITH DIFFERENT GROUPS, I'LL PROBABLY GO ALONG WITH IT. 
          I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE -- IF WE MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION AND THEY PASS IT TO THE VOTERS TO APPROVE OR NOT WE THINK THEY WOULD APPROVE IT. 
          IF THIS IS TOO DRAMATIC A CHANGE, WE COULD GET BY MAKING A SLIGHT CHANGE TO WHAT WE HAVE AND LOOK AT IT IN TEN YEARS. 
          I RATHER GET THE SMALL WINN THE BIG WIN. 
          >>  MEMBER DAVIS? >>  ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. I'M -- I MAY HAVE A LITTLE DIFFERENT VIEW. FIRST WHEN I TALKED LAST MEETING ABOUT NOT LIKING THE LANGUAGE ABOUT GROUPS AND ALL IN OUR EXISTING CHARTER, MY REAL PROBLEM WAS WITH THE LANGUAGE BEING CONFUSING, TALKING ABOUT GROUPS WHEN EACH IS ONE SEAT WAS VERY CONFUSING. I THIS THE THIS COMPLICITY, I -- IT IS GOOD BECAUSE THEY USE THE MAJORITY. I THINK IT GIVES THE MINORITY MORE SAY THAN GOING WITH PLURALITY VOTE. THEY'RE ALLOWED MORE VOTER PARTICIPATION AND MORE ABOUT THE LANGUAGE AND THE COMPLICITY THEY TOOK THE BEACH CHARTER AND USED IT FOR THE SAME METHOD AS US AND TALKED IN TERMS OF PLURALITY INSTEAD OF MAJORITY. 
          I PREFER TO KEEP OUR MAJORITY. 
          AND THINKING ABOUT THIS FURTHER, WHEN IT COMES TO REPRESENTING AND GETTING PEOPLE VOICES, FOR A VOICE TO BE HEARD IN VOTING, I DON'T THINK COSTS AND I'M A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE BY ALL MEANS. 
          I DON'T THINK THIS SHOULD BE A PRIMARY DRIVER IF WE THINK WE MIGHT BE HAMPERING VOTES FOR PEOPLE. MY CONCERN HERE IS IF YOU MOVE TO GOING TO A PRIMARY IN AUGUST, MAYBE YOU COULD -- YOU COULD -- A RESIDENT 
          [00:15:02]
HERE FOR ONE FULL ELECTION CYCLE BUT ISN'T AUGUST ACTUALLY THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY AND SO THEREFORE PEOPLE WHO ARE REPUBLICANS ARE NOT NORMALLY VOTING AT THAT TIME AND THEREFORE YOU KIND OF ARE DISENFRANCHISING PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH THAT PARTY. 
          THEY MAKE A STATEMENT ON THAT AND THAT'S WHAT I GOT. I DON'T THINK THEY EVEN NEED A RUNOFF, WHY FORCE THE VOTES TO BE DONE IN AUGUST RATHER THAN THE FULL CAMPAIGN PERIOD WHICH IS WHEN A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T START THINKING ABOUT ELECTIONS AND STUFF UNTIL THEY GET CLOSER TO THE NOVEMBER PERIOD. 
          I DO AGREE THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT SHE EXTRACTED IS WIDELY USED EVEN IN OUR PEER CITY. I'M IN THE GRAVITATING TO THAT. I AGREE WITH OTHERS THAT -- THAT THIS IS -- THIS IS WHERE IT IS IMPLEMENTED HERE. I FEEL WE SHOULD MAKE A CHANGE WITHOUT HAVING INPUT AND OUR TIME FRAME WON'T ALLOW. 
          I'LL YIELD THE FLOOR. >>  MEMBER KOZAK. 
          >>  I JUST WROTE IT DOWN TO THREE MAIN POINTS. THE FIRST WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING IS THE JUMP, WHAT IS CALLED THE JUMBO ELECTIONS VERSUS THE GROUP AND NOW ANOTHER OPTION, I THINK WE GOT IT OFF THE TABLE BECAUSE IT IS TOO CONFUSING AND WE DON'T HAVE THE SOFTWARE FOR IT AT THIS POINT IN TIME. I AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THUS FAR THAT I THINK THE GROUP GIVES BETTER REPRESENTATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR VIGOROUS DEBATE, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE SUCH A BROAD ELECTORATE, I THINK THIS ALLOWS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CANDIDATES WHEN IT IS A FEW PEOPLE DEBATING AGAINST EACH OTHER, EVERYBODY AGAINST THEM. 
          I'M ALSO IN FAVOR OF THE GROUP. 
          THAT'S MY FIRST CRITERIA. 
          THE SECOND WOULD BE THE ELECTION CYCLE. 
          IF WE RUN IT CONCURRENTLY OR IF WE HAVE AN EARLIER PRIMARY, WE SEPARATE THAT DATA AND THAT PRIMARY IS LIKE AUGUST LAKE DAVIS MENTIONED. YEARS AGO WE GET IT IN THE SPRING. THERE'S COSTS TO ALL THREE OF THOSE. THE COUNTY ELECTIONS, AUGUST 7TH THROUGH 15TH OF THE EARLY VOTING TIMES. IT IS NOT A PART OF AN ELECTION, IT IS A BROAD BASE. 
          ELECTION DAY IS AUGUST 18TH AND SCHOOL STARTS ON AUGUST 10TH. THAT WAS A CONCERN, WOULD A LOT OF PEOPLE BE OUT OF TOWN. 
          THE OTHER THING WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT IF WE ARE CONSIDERING DOING AN OFF CYCLE OR DOING A PRIMARY EARLIER IS SCHOOL STARTS AND THE FAMILIES ARE HERE, BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE DEMOGRAPHICS, WE'RE LARGELY TWO PERSON HOUSEHOLDS FOR THE MOST PART OLDER. A LOT OF US TRAVEL IN AUGUST, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT TURNOUT WE WILL HAVE. THE LAST THING I WOULD BRING UP -- IS IT HAS BEEN OUT THERE AND BACK, IT IS THE STAGGERING AND THE INTENT WAS TO STAGGER AND WE HAD NO MORE THAN TWO FEET UP. THE WAY I SEE IT WAS WHEN GROUP ONE SWITCHED TO A FOUR-YEAR TERM. IF THERE'S A WAY TO WRITE IN SO WE DON'T -- SO IF WE STAGGER IT MORE WE DON'T HAVE THREE UP AT ONCE, I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY THAT COULD BE LOST AND WE MAY LOSE CONTINUITY BECAUSE WE HAVE OTHER PEOPLE THERE AT ONE TIME. THAT'S THE POINT FOR DISCUSSION AND I'LL JUMP IN AS I HEAR 
          [00:20:04]
OTHER MEMBER'S THOUGHTS. 
          >>  I LIKE HEARING FROM SUPPORT FROM ALL THREE MEMBERS THAT SPOKE AHEAD OF ME. 
          I ESPECIALLY LIKE WHAT LASSERE SAID ABOUT CHANGING TOO MUCH TOO QUICK IS THE BAD THING. I WANTED TO MAKE A POINT OF INFORMATION FOR MEMBER DAVIS IN AUGUST, IT IS NOT JUST THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY, IT IS ALSO THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, THE SAME DAY. ALSO WHAT WE WANT TO SEE, IN AUGUST, WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS BE CONCURRENT. Y'ALL VOTED IN NASSAU COUNTY FOR OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 
          IT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD AVOID RUNOFFS. 
          WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN IS -- IS WE SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT DISENFRANCHISEMENT. 
          IT IS NOT JUST THE COST OF A SPECIAL ELECTION IN DECEMBER WHICH IS WHAT WE HAD IN YEARS PAST AND OTHER THINGS. 
          IT IS A LACK OF VOTER TURNOUT. 
          IT IS NOT JUST NOVEMBER ELECTION DAY BUT OUR COUNTY-WIDE PRIMARY DAY, ON THOSE ELECTION DAYS WE HAVE HIGH TURNOUTS. 
          ALTHOUGH THE PRIMARY DAY IS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN ELECTION DAY, THERE'S MAGNITUDES GREATER THAN THE TURNOUT THAN JUST A CITY RUNOFF ELECTION. WE HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE CITY WITH ONE THING ON THE BALLOT, IT IS LESS LIKELY WE HAVE A HIGHER TURNOUT. I'M INTERESTED IN BIG VOTER TURNOUT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE FACILITATE THAT. I READ MANY COMMENTS THAT WERE E-MAILED TO US AND ALL SEEMED TO BE LET'S KEEP THE GROUPS. 
          I READ MANY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY AND SPOKEN TO MANY OF THEM. 
          THE GROUPS DO ENABLE MORE -- MORE DISCUSSION BETWEEN CANDIDATES AS MEMBERS SAID. I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          LET'S GET THROUGH AS WE ARE, I VOTE WITH THAT, I'M STILL IN FAVOR OF MY ONE CHANGE. THIS IS THE LAST THING I WANT TO KEEP -- MAKE SURE TO KEEP US ON TIME. THE REASON WE MOVE FROM THE SPRING, FROM THE SPRING TILL NOW IS TO AVOID THESE COSTLY SPECIAL ELECTIONS. 
          IT WAS THE CITY VOTING AND LESS TURNOUT BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY THE CITY COMING TO VOTE. THERE WASN'T A NATIONAL ELECTION GOING CONCURRENTLY, WHICH WE HAVE NOW WHICH INCREASES OUR TURNOUT FOR CITY ISSUES AS WELL. 
          AND THEY -- THEY DID IT BUT THE ONE THING THAT DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR AND I SEE IT MORE AS FINISHING WHAT THE LAST CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE STARTED. WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THE RUNOFF. THAT CREATES ANOTHER SITUATION LIKE BEFORE WHEN WE HAD THE ELECTIONS IN MARCH THERE WAS LESS TURNOUT AND SPECIAL COSTS. I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP OUR SAME SYSTEM, LIKE IF WE COULD MOVE IT, MOVE OUR PRIMARY TO AUGUST, TO BE CONCURRENT WITH THE COUNTY AS THEY DO IT AND THEN IF NEEDED HAVE THE RUNOFF IN -- IN NOVEMBER WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION. 
          THAT WAY BOTH ELECTIONS WILL ALREADY HAVE A MARCH TURNOUT. WE SAVE THE COST OF A SPECIAL ELECTION. IT IS JUST A GOOD ALL AROUND. I YIELD MY TIME. 
          >>  I WANT TO ECHO MR. BEAN'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE E-MAILS. I'M PLEASED AT THE RESPONSES THAT WE GOT ON THIS ISSUE AND ON THE CONSERVATION LAND ISSUE WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN A BIT. I DO APPRECIATE THE FOLKS THAT TOOK TIME TO E-MAIL US. 
          I'M OKAY WITH MAKING RADICAL CHANGES MAY BE TOO MUCH FOR THE PUBLIC TO CONSUME AND MAYBE BABY STEPS ARE BETTER. 
          I'M OKAY WITH THE GROUPS. 
          AND THEN THE TIMING ISSUE. 
          WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH -- WITH THIS, WITH PRIMARY ELECTIONS IN AUGUST A THEN A GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. 
          THOSE ARE BOTH HIGHLY PARTISAN ELECTIONS. 
          MY FEAR IS THAT -- IF -- IF WE SUBJECT THE ELECTION OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO TWO FAIRLY PARTISAN VOTES THAT ISSUES OF SIGNIFICANCE TO THE CITY ARE GOING TO BE DROWNED OUT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK MAYBE ONE OF THEM, IF THE RUNOFF ELECTION IN NOVEMBER WAS ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT, I THINK THAT'S OKAY. BUT I -- I -- I THINK 
          [00:25:05]
HAVING THE -- THE INITIAL ELECTION, THE PRIMARY IF YOU WILL, IN AUGUST, WE WANT, I THINK IT IS TOO FAR AWAY FROM THE GENERAL IN NOVEMBER FOR A LOCAL ELECTION. 
          NUMBER TWO, I DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT IT WOULD BE DOVETAILED WITH THE PRIMARY WHICH I THINK IS TOO  UNDERSTAND HAVING A SEPARATE, FREE STANDING PRIMARY ELECTION IN SEPTEMBER WOULD MAKE SENSE TO ME. 
          I'M SURE THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, BUT I THINK IT IS -- I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE CITIZENS HERE REALLY GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT AND VOTE ON ISSUES THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT TO THE COMMUNITY WITHOUT ALL OF THE BACKGROUND NOISE TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH A PARTISAN ELECTION. I'M HALFWAY THERE AND OKAY WITH THE GROUPS AND WITH DOVE TAILING THIS WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION IN THE FALL. 
          I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH -- WITH AN AUGUST PRIMARY THAT IS DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PRIMARY. THE LAST THING TO SAY, IF WE STICK WITH THE GROUPS AND I HAVEN'T FOCUSED MUCH ON THE GROUPS UNTIL THIS CONVERSATION BUT I'M JUST NOT SURE I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, HOW CANDIDATES GET ASSIGNED TO GROUPS AND TO WHAT EXTENT CAN A CANDIDATE PICK AND CHOOSE AMONG DIFFERENT GROUPS. I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE HOKEY. I DON'T WANT TO RUN AGAINST A SO I'LL RUN AGAINST B. 
          I GUESS CANDIDATES CAN MAKE THAT CHOICE. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WORKS OR IF IT IS 
          FAIR. >>  THAT'S HOW IT 
          WORKS. >>  YOU SAY IT IS PERFECTLY AND INTENDED TO DO JUST THAT. 
          IT IS INTENDED TO DO WHAT YOU THINK IS HOCKEY WHICH IS OKAY AND YOU'RE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION. IT SOUND TO ME. 
          I'M TRYING TO HELP FOSTER THE DISCUSSION, IT SOUND TO ME AND I DON'T MEAN TO MAKE IT TOO SIMPLE THAT WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM MR. MORRISON, BUT SO FAR ALL OF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THE DIFFERENTIATION. 
          I THINK YOU'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF CHANGING GROUP TO SEAT. IT IS JUST CHANGING THE WORD GROUP TO SEAT. 
          THAT COVERS MISS DAVIS'S CONCERNS ABOUT REFERRING TO ONE PERSON PERHAPS. 
          I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. 
          I WON'T BELABOR IT. >>  IF I'M -- THERE'S THREE SEATS OPEN OR TWO SEATS OPEN AND I WANT TO RUN FOR THE COMMISSION, DO I PICK WHICH ONE IN THIS INSTANCE I WANT TO RUN ON AND THAT'S WHAT -- THAT'S WHAT I DO? 
          >>  THAT'S RIGHT. THERE WAS AT ONE TIME THE -- THE THOUGHT AROUND THIS, BESIDE THERE BEING STAGGERED TERMS AND BEING ABLE TO ASSIGN SEATS, I DON'T THINK IT HAD ANYTHING TO DO REALLY WITH GROUP AS A WORD BUT THERE WAS -- THERE WAS THOUGHT AND I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW IF WE ACTUALLY HAD DISTRICTS OR AREAS OF TOWNS SET UP WHERE YOU HAD TO LIVE IN THAT AREA. 
          I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT IT SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT MORE OF THE NEGATIVE, IF YOU ASSIGN A SPECIFIC SEAT OR GROUP TO AN AREA OF TOWN AND YOU DRAW DISTRICTS SO TO SPEAK, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PLACES IN TOWN WHERE YOU'LL HAVE APATHETIC CITIZENS THAT AREN'T INTERESTED OR DON'T CARE TO RUN FOR CITY COMMISSION. 
          WE THOUGHT IN THE PAST THE DEBATE WAS AND -- YOU SHOULD ALL DISCUSS THIS. 
          IT COMES UP EVERY CHARTER REVIEW. 
          DO YOU THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD WORK HERE OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC. RIGHT NOW IT IS AT 
          LARGE AS YOU KNOW. >>  ALL RIGHT. 
          MY HAND IS STILL UP, I'LL SAY ON THAT POINT, I DON'T NEED TO HAVE DISTRICT VOTING. 
          I'M OKAY WITH WHAT WE HAVE NOW IN TERMS OF THE GROUPS. JUST TO BE CLEAR, IF I'M A CANDIDATE I GET -- I GET TO SELECT WHICH SEAT OR GROUP THAT I'M GOING TO RUN AGAINST AND THEN -- CAN I CHANGE THAT 
          DECISION AT ANY TIME? >>  YOU CAN CHANGE THAT DECISION UP TO THE DATE, THE END OF QUALIFYING. THE END OF QUALIFYING WHICH IS MIDDLE OF JULY, JULY 14TH THIS YEAR AND AT THE END OF QUALIFYING, YOU CANNOT CHANGE AT ALL. UP TO THAT POINT, WE 
          [00:30:02]
HAVE THIS -- THIS TIME AROUND WE HAD ONE CANDIDATE ALREADY CHANGE WHICH GROUP THEY'RE GOING TO RUN FOR AND QUALIFYING AGAIN DOES NOT END UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF 
          JULY, SO YES AND YES. >>  I'M OKAY IF THERE'S SOME CUT-OFF ON THE QUALIFYING DATE OR WHATEVER. THAT'S FINE. 
          IN ELECTION YOU CAN'T CHANGE YOUR GROUP A WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION. 
          SO APPARENTLY THAT'S NOT THE CASE. 
          >>  RIGHT. >>  SO I'M OKAY WITH THE GROUPS. I'M GOING TO STOP TALKING, MY ISSUE IS WITH THE -- WITH THE -- WITH THE DATE OF THE PRIMARY. 
          >>  MAY I SAY? >>  THE OTHER TO CONSIDER TOO, MR. CLARK, IS -- I SHARE SOME OF YOUR CONCERN, IF THERE WAS JUST -- YOU COULD SWITCH AROUND WHENEVER YOU FELT LIKE IT AND THERE WAS HAVING AN END DATE BEING THE END OF QUAL I FORKING IS GOOD. ALSO REMEMBER THERE'S A BUNCH THAT CANDIDATES HAVE TO DO TO SET UP THEIR CAMPAIGN ACCOUNTS AND TO MAKE SIGNS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND IN FLORIDA WE REQUIRE FOR EXAMPLE ON THE POLITICAL ADVERTISING THAT YOU HAVE TO STATE WHICH GROUP YOU'RE RUNNING FOR. 
          SO IN OUR CASE THIS YEAR, BECAUSE IT IS NOT A SECRET, JENISE ONE OF THE CANDIDATES SWITCHED TO A DIFFERENT GROUP. 
          THE ADVERTISING SIGNS SHE HAD OUT, SHE'S GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE THOSE TO THE NEW GROUP SHE'S RUNNING FOR. 
          I DON'T THINK IT IS AS EASY. 
          IT IS DEFINITELY STRATEGIC, I IMAGINE. 
          IT IS NOT EASY OR CHEAP TO DO IT. 
          >>  MR. LASSERE. >>  I JUST -- IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT REGARDING AUGUST, I THINK WE LIVE IN A PERIOD OF TIME THAT IT IS LIMITED TO THOSE TWO MONTHS OF THE YEAR AND ONLY ON EVEN NUMBERED YEARS, I THINK THAT IS REALLY. 
          I WANT TO HAVE A HIGHER TURNOUT ELECTION WHICH WE WOULD HAVE IN AUGUST OR NOVEMBER. I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE FAIR AND MORE APPROPRIATE AND MORE DEMOCRATIC TO HAVE IT THAT WAY RATHER THAN A SPECIAL ELECTION WHICH MAY HAVE PARTISANSHIP IN ANOTHER WAY. WE GOT EVERYBODY [INDISCERNIBLE] FOR A NONPARTISAN SEAT AND IN PASS ELECTIONS, YOU COULD SEE CITY ELECTIONS ARE DECIDED ON REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT BASIS. SO AS FAR AS DISTRICTS AND SEATS, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE TIME LAST WEEK AND GET IT THROUGH BEFORE WE -- WE HAVE TO GET THIS ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER AND SEE -- I -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD HAVE DISTRICTS WITHOUT GEOGRAPHICAL LINES. THE ONLY THING I'VE HEARD TO SUPPORT THAT IS UNCONVINCING FOR ME AT LEAST. I -- AGAIN I VOTE IN FAVOR OF KEEPING IT LIKE IT IS FOR NOW. 
          SWITCHING TO THE AUDIENCE IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION PERIOD AND LEAVE IT AT 
          THAT. >>  MISS KOZAK. 
          >>  I'M -- I AGREE WITH A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT CLARK IS RAISING. 
          I'M JUST THINKING IF IT IS A PRIMARY WAS MOVED EARLIER, WE'LL HAVE A SMALLER SUBSET OF THE VOTERS. I FEEL LIKE WE WON'T HAVE AS BROAD OF REPRESENTATION OF VOTERS AND I WILL BE HONEST, I NEVER VOTED IN A COUNTY ELECTION. [INDISCERNIBLE] BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. I THINK I'M PRETTY INVOLVED WITH THINGS. I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOWER TURNOUT BUT MAYBE THAT'S NOT A CHANGE WE WANT TO MAKE IF WE [INDISCERNIBLE]. AND WHAT BUGS ME A BIT IS THE RESEARCH I'VE DONE READING MUNICIPALITIES, NOT JUST OUR PEER CITIES BUT IN SUMMERSIDE, AND LARGER SIDE AND ALL DIFFERENT RESULTS, IT WAS PRETTY CONCLUSIVE THAT ALL CYCLE PRIMARIES -- I'M SAYING ALL CYCLE, EVEN IF WE'RE CONCURRENT WITH NASSAU COUNTY, IT IS ALL NATIONAL ELECTIONS. IT SHOWS THAT THE SMALLER SUBSET OF VOTERS IS GENERALLY A WEALTHIER AND OLDER VOTER AND THAT BOTHERS ME A BIT BECAUSE MAYBE THAT'S AN ELECTION WHERE PEOPLE ARE NOT AS INVOLVED OR INTERESTED IN WHERE THEY WILL COME OUT WITH THE LARGER SELECTION. 
          THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT ON THAT. 
          [00:35:05]
          >>  MEMBER MORRISON. >>  [INDISCERNIBLE] LIKE 20 MINUTES IN THE GROUP TODAY. 
          SO I MISSED SOME CONVERSATION YOU HAD EARLY ON. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, REAL QUICK, I FEEL I PARTICIPATED IN THIS PART OF THE DISCUSSION, I AGREE WITH WHAT SOUNDS LIKE IT IS CONSENSUS ON THE BOARD THAT AS FAR AS THE GROUPS OR SEATS OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO WORD IT, I THINK -- WHEN WE FIRST HAD OUR MEETING WITH THE CITY COMMISSIONERS EARLIER ON THIS PROCESS SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, SEVERAL OF THEM SAID THAT -- FOR THE MOST PART, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WORKING PRETTY WELL THE WAY IT IS. 
          SO WE SHOULD BE A LITTLE CAUTIOUS ABOUT CHANGING THINGS THAT AREN'T BROKEN. 
          THERE'S THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE. 
          I AGREE THE WAY IT IS AND AS FAR AS THE ELECTION CYCLE IS CONCERNED, I CAN SEE -- I CAN SEE EVERYBODY'S POINT OF VIEW AS FAR AS THAT IS CONCERNED. 
          PERSONALLY FROM WHAT I HEARD AND THINK IN MY MIND, I TEND IT LINE UP WITH THE METHODOLOGY OF THINKING ABOUT THE AUGUST AND NOVEMBER OPTION BUT YOU KNOW, I DON'T FEEL SUPER STRONGLY ABOUT THAT EITHER. THAT'S WHERE MY HEAD 
          IS ON IT. >>  MEMBER DAVIS. 
          >>  ALL RIGHT. I DID WANT TO LEND MY VOICE OF SUPPORT TO MEMBER CLARK AND KOZAK'S CONCERNS, IN PARTICULAR, OUR COMMISSION IS NONPARTISAN AND THAT'S ANOTHER CONCERN OF MINE IS BY -- BY HAVING ELECTION ON -- ON AUGUST WITH PRIMARY GATES IT LOOKS PARTISAN AND IT IS NOT A PRIMARY. AS I SAID, IT MAY BE THERE'S A MAJORITY AND A RUNOFF WOULDN'T BE NEEDED. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING IT EARLY AND MAKING PEOPLE IN THEIR MIND THINK IT IS SOME TYPE OF PRIMARY WHICH IS PARTISAN POLITICS. NO MATTER WHAT WE LIVE IN A PARTISAN WORLD, BUT OUR COMMISSIONERS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE NONPARTISAN. 
          I DON'T WANT TO REINFORCE THE IDEA 
          THAT THEY ARE. >>  ANY OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS POINT? MEMBER KOZAK. 
          >>  DID WE GIVE CONSIDERATION TO NOT HAVING THREE SEATS OPEN AT ONE TIME? 
          >>  I CAN ANSWER THAT. WE -- WE DID. 
          THERE -- I COULD NOT WITHOUT A STATISTICIAN I COULD NOT FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT WORK WITH ELECTIONS EVERY TWO YEARS. 
          THAT'S THE HONEST TRUTH. 
          AND AT THE TIME WE WERE DOING IT SEVERAL YEARS AGO I -- I ASKED AROUND AND NOBODY ELSE COULD DO THE MATH EITHER AND MAKE IT WORK WITHOUT THREE. THE COUNTY DOES IT THAT WAY TOO AND I IMAGINE THAT'S THE SAME. NOBODY I DON'T THINK IN A FAIR SYSTEM LOVES HAVING THREE OUT OF FIVE TURNED OVER -- OR POSSIBLY TURN OVER AT THE SAME TIME. BUT IT IS THE WAY IT WORKS WHEN YOU HAVE -- WHEN YOU HAVE ELECTIONS EVERY TWO YEARS. 
          IF YOU CAN FIND A WAY, I KNOW THAT EVERYBODY WOULD LOVE TO CONSIDER THAT, BUT I HAVEN'T 
          BEEN ABLE TO. >>  SO IF THERE'S NOT THE TERM LIMITS, IT HAS TO BE AN EVEN NUMBER OF YEARS FOR EACH TERM AND THAT'S WHERE THE CONFLICT CAME IN. 
          WHEN WE WERE [INDISCERNIBLE] WE 
          WOULD STAGGER A BIT. >>  YES, WHEN THE CITY WAS ODD NUMBERED, WE HAD TIMES WHEN ONE MEMBER WAS UP FOR ELECTION AND OTHERS TWO. EVERY OTHER YEAR YOU HAD TWO AND THEN ONE AND TWO AND ONE AND 
          TWO AND ONE. >>  MEMBER LASSERE. 
          >>  THANK YOU. I JUST WAS TAKING A LOOK AT THE EXISTING SECTION 9. 
          I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THERE THAT SAYS -- THAT -- IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE VOTES IN NOVEMBER. I THINK IT LEAVES IT TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHEN AND HOW ELECTIONS WILL BE HELD. SO MAYBE IT DOESN'T NEED A CHARTER AT ALL, JUST A VOTE OF THE COMMISSION TO LEAVE IT IN AUGUST INSTEAD OF 
          [00:40:01]
NOVEMBER. HAVE WE LOOKED AT THAT? DID YOU LOOK AT SECTION 9D? TWO YEARS AND NUMBERED YEARS IN CONJUNCTION WITH COUNTY STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTIONS. SO THAT SEEMS TO BE MORE THE DIRECTION AS FAR AS THE FRAMING IS DONE EVERY TWO YEARS AND ANY CONJUNCTION WITH CITY COUNTY AND FEDERAL ELECTIONS, THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION. 
          SPECIAL ELECTION THEY CAN DO AT ANY TIME. 
          THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT AS WELL. AND THE PRODUCTION OF THE SECTION IS WHEN THE -- WHEN THE CITY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE TRIED TO THE CONTACT METHOD AND THEY HELD ELECTIONS. 
          MAYBE WE'RE SPENDING MORE TIME ON THIS. 
          WE RECOMMEND THAT -- WHETHER -- MAYBE THEY ACT ON THEIR OWN. THIS MAY NOT NEED A CHARTER AMENDMENT. MAYBE WE MAKE IT MORE LIKE MEMBER DAVIS SUGGESTED WE CHANGE GROUPS TO SEATS. I GUESS THAT HAS CITY 
          ATTORNEY BACK. >>  THANK YOU FOR ASKING. I WAS DOING CALCULATIONS ABOUT THAT. 
          SO THE GENERAL ELECTION DATE THAT IS CURRENTLY IN NOVEMBER, THAT'S THE CITY GENERAL ELECTION AS IT IS CALLED. 
          THAT IS SET BY CITY COMMISSION ORDINANCE WHICH IS AUTHORIZED BY -- BY -- BY CHAPTER 166, THE HOME RULE POWERS OF THE CITY AND IT SAYS GENERAL ELECTION DATES ARE SET BY ORDINANCE. IT ALSO SAYS IN THE CHARTER HERE THAT THE CITY COMMISSION SETS ELECTION DATES MANNER AND METHOD BY ORDINANCE. SO THE GENERAL ELECTION DATE IN NOVEMBER CAN BE CHANGED JUST BY CITY COMMISSION ORDINANCE. 
          WHAT I'M WONDERING HERE AND MAYBE IT IS JUST SEMANTICS, IT MOSTLY SEEMS TO BE IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIMARY, GENERAL ELECTION, AND RUNOFF. BECAUSE THE WAY -- THE WAY WE WOULD BE DOING OUR -- IF WE CALLED AND I'VE BEEN DOING A LITTLE RESEARCH HERE. 
          WE CAN EVEN CALL IT A PRIMARY ELECTION. 
          AND THEN THE GENERAL -- WHICH GIVES YOU THE TWO VOTE-GETTERS AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD LIKE THAT TO WORK AND THEN NOVEMBER DAYS THE GENERAL ELECTION BUT IT IS REALLY A RUNOFF, RIGHT? BUT IT STAYS THE GENERAL ELECTION. 
          WE CALL IT A PRIMARY AND WE GET RID OF THE DECEMBER RUNOFF ALL TOGETHER. 
          MAKE SENSE. THE CITY COMMISSION WOULDN'T HAVE TO TAKE ANY ACTION IF YOU WANTED THE GENERAL IN NOVEMBER AND THEN WE CALL THE ELECTION A PRIMARY ELECTION IN 
          AUGUST. >>  MAYBE IF THE GENERAL ELECTION IN AUGUST AND THEN A SPECIAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER BECAUSE -- IF EVERYBODY -- IF THERE'S ONLY TWO CANDIDATES THAT ARE RUNNING IN AUGUST AND THERE'S NO REASON TO HAVE -- IT SEEMS LIKE YOU COULD HAVE GENERAL IN AUGUST IN CONJUNCTION WITH A STATEWIDE AND FEDERAL PRIMARIES AND COUNTY PRIMARIES AND SPECIAL 
          ELECTION IF NECESSARY. >>  OKAY. 
          I HAVE NOT WEIGHED IN YET. 
          I'M GOING TO ASK THE TWO WITH THEIR HAND UP TO DO SO AND THEN I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. MEMBER CLARK. 
          >>  I THOUGHT I KNEW WHAT MR. LASSERE WAS GETTING AT. YOU'RE BASICALLY SUGGESTING LEAVING THE LANGUAGE THE WAY IT IS AND THEN GIVING THE COMMISSION THE CHANCE TO REFINE IT BY ORDINANCE. 
          OR ARE YOU -- ARE YOU STIPULATING -- I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF YOU'RE STIPULATING IN YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS THE AUGUST, CALL IT WHAT YOU WILL, PRIMARY. 
          >>  THAT'S MY FAVOR. MAYBE WE PUT IN A CHARTER AND THEY TAKE IT BY ORDINANCE AND MAYBE WE MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION AND ADVANCE IT FORWARD AND SEE IF THE VOTERS DECIDE THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT. 
          HERE WE TALK ABOUT IT AND LET THE VOTERS TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO GO ABOUT IT. 
          WE COULD PUT THE AUGUST LANGUAGE IN HERE AND I THINK THEY COULD GO AHEAD AND [INDISCERNIBLE] WHETHER OR NOT THE VOTERS APPROVE IT. SAY IT COMES VERY CLOSE, AND LATER THE COMMISSION DECIDES WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT AND THEY VOTE FOR IT AND THAT KIND OF THING. 
          SO WHETHER TO PUT IT IN OR NOT, THEY CAN CHANGE IT, IF IT FAILED IN NOVEMBER, THEY COULD STILL INSTITUTE THAT KIND OF 
          ELECTION. >>  I THINK I CAN SUPPORT EVERYTHING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHICH IS A SUGGESTION OF WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY EXCEPT FOR THE AUGUST PRIMARY VOTE. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA TO DOVETAIL THAT BUT THE OTHER ASPECTS OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING I THINK ARE FINE. 
          [00:45:05]
          >>  MEMBER KOZAK. TAMMI, YOU'RE MUTED. 
          >>  I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING FOR AUGUST IS THE ELECTION PERIOD. 
          THAT WOULD BE OUR -- OUR MAY ELECTION, IF THE OFFICE NEEDED AND THEN WE WOULD DO THAT AS -- IN THE NOVEMBER, IS THAT CORRECT OR DO 
          I HAVE THAT WRONG? >>  THAT'S WHAT COULD BE PROVIDED NOW. IF THERE'S SIX CANDIDATES NOW FOR THE THREE SEATS AND THERE'S TWO FOR EACH SEAT THEN -- THEN THEY WERE -- THEY WERE -- THEY WERE IN AUGUST WHICH DOES HAVE GREAT TURNOUT. 
          THEY WOULD BE ELECTED AND NOT BE A RUNOFF AND NO NEED FOR ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. 
          HOWEVER, IF THERE'S A ROUND NECESSARY THERE WOULD BE A SPECIAL ELECTION OF THAT. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING. 
          >>  SO IF WE HAD CONCERNS OF DOING IT IN AUGUST, WHAT -- WHERE -- WHAT WE'RE DOING IS PUTTING IT TO THE VOTERS AND SEEING 
          WHAT THEY -- >>  YEAH. 
          AT LEAST THEY'RE DOING IT IN A -- IN -- IN THE SPRING. PEOPLE GO ON VACATION IN SPRING TOO. THERE'S A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES AT BOTH DATES. 
          WE ASK TO SEE BALLOTS THROUGH THEIR ELECTION DAY. I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH AROUND IT IN AUGUST THAT I THINK YOU HAVE BETTER TURNOUT THEN THAN ANY OTHER TIME OF 
          YEAR EXCEPT NOVEMBER. >>  OKAY. 
          IS THAT EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS FOR NOW SO I CAN JUMP IN AND SAY MY PIECE? THIS CONVERSATION IS WHAT THE GROUPS MEAN. 
          THIS WAS CALLED ON LONG BEFORE I MOVED HERE. AND NOBODY COULD EVER REALLY EXPLAIN IT WELL. 
          NOW I SEE IN THE E-MAILS THAT WE GOT TODAY TALKING ABOUT -- ABOUT PEOPLE VOTING IN SMALLER GROUPS WE STAND A BETTER SHOT. 
          I'M NOT CONVINCED ON THAT RIGHT NOW. 
          BUT WHAT I AM HEARING I THAT A SOLUTION THAT WOULD ONLY -- I HEARD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS WE SHOULDN'T JUST -- WHEN IT COMES TO VOTING AND PEOPLE HAVING THEIR SAY, WE SHOULDN'T LOOK AT MONEY. 
          ON THE OTHER SIDE THE SOLUTION THAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS ONLY TO SAVE MONEY. 
          AND WHILE I WOULD AGREE WITH ALL OF YOU THAT YOU STATED THAT THE WORLD IS VERY PARTISAN THESE DAYS, I THINK THAT'S -- I THINK THAT'S THE THING THAT IS PLAYING OUT OUR WEAKEST LINK IN THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW. ANYTHING WE INTRODUCE THROUGH A NONPARTISAN ELECTION THAT MAKES IT LOOK, FEEL OR SOUND PARTISAN, LIKE VOTING IN A PRIMARY, I THINK PUTS US AT RISK WITH THAT. I AL THINK IT IS A BIGGER CHANGE FOR CITY ELECTIONS TO HAVE PEOPLE GO VOTE IN THE PRIMARY THAN IT WOULD BE TO CHANGE THE GROUPS. 
          I WANT US TO CAUTION OURSELVES ABOUT WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE HERE. 
          IF THE GROUPS ARE CONFUSING TO SOME PEOPLE WHICH THEY SEEM TO BE. 
          AND IF THERE ARE CANDIDATES WHO CAN JOCKEY AROUND TO SEE WHAT POSITION MAYBE THEY GET A BETTER CHANCE AT WINNING IN, I AM NOT SURE THAT THE PROBLEM IS REALLY SAVING MONEY. BUT THAT'S -- THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING WE WOULD ACCOMPLISH BY MOVING TO A VOTE IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION. IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT EVERYBODY'S POINTS ARE. 
          SO -- THAT'S JUST MY TWO CENTS. 
          I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IF WE BELIEVE FIRMLY THAT -- THAT -- THAT MONEY SHOULD NOT WEIGH IN TO THE DECISION ON -- ON THE ELECTIONS, THEN WHY CHANGE ANYTHING? IF WE DON'T THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM, WHY CHANGE ANYTHING? MEMBER BEAN. 
          >>  THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          MY -- MY ONLY RESPONSE TO THAT AND -- AND AGAIN, I'M IN FAVOR -- I'M ALWAYS -- I'M IN FAVOR OF LESS IS MORE. I DON'T WANT TO MESS UP SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BROKEN. 
          TO ME THE MONEY SAVING IS GOOD AND ONLY A SECONDARY EFFECT TO THE MUCH LARGER ISSUE WHICH IS -- WHICH IS AN EXTREME LACK OF VOTER TURNOUT THAT WE EXPERIENCED IN OUR CITY ELECTIONS AND WE HAVE RUNOFFS THE LAST COUPLE OF CITY ELECTIONS. 
          [00:50:03]
THOSE HAVE LESS -- I LOOKED -- I LOOK AT THE NUMBERS RIGHT NOW. IT IS LESS THAN A THIRD OF THE VOTER TURNOUT IN NOVEMBER, COMES BACK FOR A RUNOFF ELECTION A MONTH LATER. IT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. MY PRIORITY IS I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE -- I LIKE VOTER TURNOUT, THE MOST DEMOCRATIC WAY. 
          THE BEST WAY TO ENCOURAGE THAT IS TO DO LARGER ELECTIONS BUT OTHERWISE I'M READING THE ROOM AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THE NUMBERS FOR THOSE SO I YIELD MY TIME. 
          >>  IN RESPONSE TO THAT, I WAS ON THE COMMISSION WHEN THE DECISION WAS MADE TO GO TO -- TO THE ELECTION CYCLE THAT COINCIDES WITH NATIONAL ELECTIONS FOR THE SAME REASON THAT YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT, TRYING TO GET MORE PEOPLE OUT. 
          GO BACK AND DO ANALYSIS ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT SHOW UP IN THE CITY LIMITS TO VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT BUT THEY LEAVE THEIR CITY COMMISSIONS BLANK. 
          THE ISSUE IS TRULY MORE ONE OF PEOPLE DO NOT RECOGNIZE HOW MUCH MORE THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EFFECTS THEM THAN NATIONAL. 
          THAT'S AN EDUCATION ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TO TRY TO GET ACROSS TO PEOPLE AT SOME POINT. 
          BUT I HEAR WHAT YOUR SAYING. 
          MEMBER KOZAK. >>  THAT RAISES A POINT. RIGHT NOW, I WAS WONDERING IF IN FACT VOTER TURNOUT DID INCREASE FOR A CITY ELECTION AND -- AND -- I'M GOING BACK TO SOMETHING THAT MEMBER LASSERE SAID EARLIER, IF -- IF THIS -- IF THIS CURRENT SYSTEM HAS ONLY BEEN IN PLACE FOR -- IS THIS THE SECOND ELECTION CYCLE NOW? MAYBE IT IS NOT THE TIME TO MAKE ANOTHER CHANGE PUT FORTH. 
          >>  TEN YEARS FROM NOW WOULD BE LIGHTNING SPEED, RIGHT? [LAUGHTER]. 
          >>  IF WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT TEN MORE YEARS AND WE THINK THIS IS A PROBLEM, WE SHOULD ADDRESS IT. IF WE THINK IT IS NOT A PROBLEM TO LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS THEN PERHAPS WE SHOULD JUST LEAVE IT EXACTLY THE WAY IT IS. IT IS AN OPTION. 
          >>  MEMBER BEAN. YOUR HAND IS UP, SIR? NO. OKAY. 
          ANYONE ELSE? MEMBER LASSERE. 
          >>  I'M FINE HAVING A RUNOFF ELECTION WHERE ONE-THIRD OF THE VOTERS TURN OUT AND THEN TWO OR THREE WEEKS LATER OR A MONTH LATER, THOSE THAT WERE THERE A MONTH AGO IS NOT WORKING RIGHT. I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE FIXED. IF -- IF IT GETS TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE READY TO MAKE A MOTION, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE -- WE RECOMMEND THAT THE ELECTIONS BE COINCIDED WITH AT STATE GOVERNORS AND BEGINNING IN THE PRIMARY IN AUGUST AND [INDISCERNIBLE] AND ALSO THE GENERAL IN NOVEMBER. I'M PREPARED TO MAKE 
          THAT MOTION. >>  WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SEE A HAND UP. 
          MR. CLARK? >>  I JUST WANTED TO INFORM YOU, I SOMEHOW -- I CAN HEAR YOU BUT I LOST THE VIDEO PORTION OF THE ZOOM. 
          AND IN ORDER TO GET IT BACK I MAY HAVE TO LOG OUT AND LOG BACK IN. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. 
          >>  YOU'RE ONLY MISSING US MAKING 
          FACES AT YOU RICHARD. >>  THAT'S OKAY. 
          I CAN ACCEPT THAT. I'M KIND OF USED TO 
          IT. >>  MR. MORRISON. 
          >>  SECOND MEMBER OF THE MOTION. 
          >>  WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. 
          FURTHER DISCUSSION? >>  MAY I JUST -- 
          >>  YOU REPEAT THE MOTION? 
          >>  JOHN, IF YOU WOULD AND THEN MISS BEAN HAS 
          A COMMENT. >>  I GUESS I LIKE TO CLARIFY MY MOTION. I THINK WE ALL HAD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT CHANGING THE NUMBER OF GROUPS TO SEATS, IT IS ONLY NOMENCLATURE BUT THAT'S OKAY. I THINK THAT CLARIFIES A LITTLE BIT IT IS A SEAT. 
          I LIKE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THAT LANGUAGE AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING SHE LIKE TO ADD I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HEAR THAT. 
          >>  MEMBER MORRISON? >>  I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          >>  MEMBER DAVIS. >>  YEA. 
          [00:55:01]
          >>  I APPRECIATE MEMBER LASSERE WANTING TO AGREE WITH ME ON CALLING IT A SEAT INSTEAD OF A GROUP AND I THINK THAT ALSO JUST AS WE DESCRIBED THE GROUP IT COULD BE JUST A LITTLE SIMPLER LANGUAGE ABOUT EACH SEAT BEING AT LARGE. IT IS A LITTLE CLEARER ENGLISH. MY PROBLEM WITH THE MOTION I LIKE TO DIVORCE THAT FROM THE AUGUST ISSUE SINCE I HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS 
          ON THAT. >>  MY COMMENT, MADAM CHAIR IS -- IS BECAUSE WE'LL VOTE ON THIS MOTION IN A MINUTE AND JUST -- THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, SHOULD THIS MANAGES PASS, AND THERE ARE NOT THE OTHER MOTIONS AMENDING THAT PARTICULAR LANGUAGE, WE'RE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE TERM PRIMARY SHOULD NOT BE USED. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A PRIMARY ELECTION. THE WAY I SEE THIS AND I THINK IT WILL WORK TO MEET THE GOALS OF THOSE OF YOU WHO I SPOKE TO, THE GENERAL ELECTION FOR THE CITY WOULD BE IN AUGUST. 
          ANY RUNOFF WOULD BE THE SECOND TUESDAY IN 
          NOVEMBER. >>  EVERYBODY IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT LANGUAGE? 
          >>  I KNOW THE STATE OF FLORIDA IT IS NOT ALWAYS AUGUST. I THINK THEY MOVE AROUND ALL OVER THE COUNTRY FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. SO THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN ABOUT SAYING AUGUST. 
          I DON'T LIKE SAYING IT [INDISCERNIBLE] EITHER. I THINK STATE, FEDERAL, COUNTY ELECTIONS WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE IS THERE ALREADY. 
          BUT I -- THE LANGUAGE TO SAY SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF THE FIRST ELECTION HELD AND THEN WE USE THE WORD PRIMARY BECAUSE WE ALWAYS HAVE PRIMARIES. SEEMS TO BE THE PERFECT PLACE FOR THIS TO BE HELD. 
          >>  MEMBER DAVIS. YOU'RE MUTED. 
          >>  I DON'T LIKE THE CONCEPT OF -- IF WE MOVE EVERYTHING AND WE'RE SAYING THE GENERAL ELECTION FOR THE CITY IS EARLIER TIME PERIOD, ARE WE THEN INCLUDING FOR EXAMPLE REFERENDUM ON THE CHARTER OR BOND OR THAT SORT OF THING, ALL CITY VOTES WOULD THEN TAKE PLACE AT THIS EARLIER TIME PERIOD AND NOT IN NOVEMBER AND -- SO THAT I HAVE CONCERN WITH. 
          I THINK THERE'S PEOPLE THAT TURN OUT IN NOVEMBER WHO DON'T TURN OUT IN EARLIER PERIOD. I THINK THAT -- THAT -- THAT -- THAT -- THAT -- THAT -- THAT IS ACTUALLY LOWER TURNOUT ON THE OVERALL 
          CITY ISSUES. >>  NO. 
          >>  IF WE CALL OUT A GENERAL ELECTION TO BE -- WELL, NUMBER ONE, YOU'RE IN THE SETTLING ON FINAL LANGUAGE TODAY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MEETING ON JUNE 8TH AND YOU'LL SEE THIS AND I'LL ASK YOU ALL TO VOTE AGAIN ON THIS SECTION ON JUNE 8TH. 
          THAT'S NUMBER ONE. THIS IS NOT YOUR LAST SHOT AT IT. I DON'T KNOW, I HAVE TO DO A LITTLE RESEARCH ABOUT AUGUST PRIMARIES. YOU'RE RIGHT, TOM, THAT NEXT YEAR OR IN TWO YEARS FROM NOW DURING THE MID TERM ELECTIONS THERE MAY NOT BE PRIMARIES IN AUGUST. 
          I KNOW THEY MOVE AROUND IN THE COUNTRY BUT I DON'T THINK THEY MOVE AROUND IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. YOU KNOW, IN MARCH AND AUGUST AND THEN APRIL OR SEPTEMBER. 
          THERE'S A SET TIME FOR PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY AND THEN PRIMARY ELECTIONS THAT HAPPEN FOR -- FOR OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICES SO I NEED TO DO RESEARCH AND MAY GET SOME OF THAT TODAY. THE MAIN THING THAT YOU ALL ARE WANTING TO CHANGE AND DON'T FORGET SOME OF THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE A CITY COMMISSION ORDINANCE IF YOU ALL AGREE TO CHANGE THE GENERAL ELECTION DATE. 
          SPECIAL ELECTIONS CAN BE HELD ANYTIME. 
          THE DATE THAT WE NAME FOR OUR GENERAL ELECTION IS -- IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AND NOVEMBER PRESIDENTIAL YEAR SECOND TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER, OR FIRST TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER, COULD BE CONSIDERED A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR A REFERENDUM FOR EXAMPLE. 
          SO ANY REFERENDUM THAT THE CITY PUTS ON THE BALLOT IS FIRST ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE BY THE COMMISSION WITH THE BALLOT LANGUAGE EXACTLY AS IT APPEARS AND THEY SET THE DATE FOR THE ELECTION. SO IN -- LET'S SAY WE MOVED OUR GENERAL ELECTIONS FROM NOVEMBER TO SOMETHING ELSE, TO AUGUST OR WHENEVER, THEN IF THE COMMISSION WANTED TO DO A CHARTER CHANGE, A REFERENDUM, WHATEVER, 
          [01:00:03]
THEY WOULD SAY IN THAT ORDINANCE AT THE END, THAT WE'RE SETTING THIS FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY NOVEMBER 3RD. 
          IT STILL HAPPENS AT THE SAME TIME AND EXACT SAME BALLOT AS A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FOR EXAMPLE. I THINK YOU HAVE TO DECIDE ABOUT GENERAL ELECTION TOO. 
          DO YOU WANT TO -- I'LL DO RESEARCH HERE TO SEE ABOUT PRIMARY DATES. 
          ONE THING I HEARD AND I DON'T THINK IT IS INCORRECT, IF YOU USE THE TERM PRIMARY HERE THAT DOES -- THAT DOES MEAN SOMETHING TO PEOPLE POLITICALLY IN TERMS OF PARTIES. 
          YOU MAY WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM THAT AND USE GENERAL AND SPECIAL INSTEAD. 
          AND EARLIER I WAS SAYING THERE ARE CITIES IN FLORIDA THAT USE PRIMARY. 
          I DIDN'T MEAN THEY USED THE TERM PRIMARY, THEY JUST DO ELECTIONS DURING THAT TIME. 
          >>  IN NOVEMBER, WE'RE CONSIDERING MOVING FORWARD LET'S SAY AUGUST OR SOMETIME NOT CALLING IT A PRIMARY SO THAT IF WE NEED A RUNOFF, WE WOULD HAVE MORE VOTERS THAT WOULD VOTE IN THE RUNOFF IN NOVEMBER. 
          WHEN I GO THROUGH THE STATISTICS OF THAT, IT IS A WHAT IF. IF WE NEED A RUNOFF WE WOULD HAVE MORE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER. 
          WE MAY NOT NEED A RUNOFF. 
          THERE MAY BE A CLEAR WINNER IN THE -- IN THE GENERAL THAT IS HELD EARLY. 
          SO THAT -- THAT PRECLUDES IN MY MIND A LOT OF VOTERS THAT WOULD BE THERE IN NOVEMBER. WITH THAT SCENARIO, WE HAVE THE GENERAL IN NOVEMBER, WE KNOW THAT'S THE MOST TURNOUT REGARDLESS. 
          AGAIN, WE MAY NOT NEED A RUNOFF AND THEN WE'RE DONE. IF WE DO NEED A RUNOFF, THEN, YES, IT GOES INTO A LOWER TURNOUT. I THINK WE'RE PLAYING WITH WHAT IFS, RATHER THAN NOS AND WE KNOW WE HAVE MORE TURNOUT IN NOVEMBER. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE REASON TO MOVE IT TO AUGUST, BUT I'M NOT SURE, LIKE WE SAY, WE HAVE A PROBLEM RIGHT NOW. 
          I'M NOT COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THE AUGUST 
          MOVE. >>  MEMBER CLARK. 
          >>  JUST PROCEDURALLY I THINK WHEN YOU GET AROUND TO CALLING FOR A VOTE MADAM CHAIR, YOU SHOULD DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. 
          >>  I WILL. >>  AND I DO -- I DO THINK THAT -- THAT KOZAK'S POINT JUST NOW IS COMPELLING. I JUST WANT TO CAUTION YOU ABOUT TRYING TO HAVE -- HAVE LOCAL ELECTIONS WHEN THERE'S OTHER MAJOR POLITICAL ISSUES, THEY'RE DRIVING THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION WHICH IS SURELY GOING TO BE THE CASE. THERE'S A VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW PEOPLE VIEW LOCAL ISSUES AND THEY VIEW STATE OR FEDERAL ISSUES. IT IS A DIFFERENT BALL GAME. I THINK THE LOCAL ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT AND DESERVE THE ATTENTION OF VOTERS. I THINK IF YOU TRY TO HAVE -- IF YOU TRY TO HAVE THE GENERAL ELECTION, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A LARGER VOTE, YOU REALLY DIVERT ATTENTION AWAY FROM WHAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUES. YOU DON'T REALLY GET A REFLECTION OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE THINKING ABOUT. I THINK THAT'S -- I THINK THAT'S THE MISTAKE. 
          >>  ALL RIGHT. >>  SO I'M IN FAVOR OF LEAVING IT LIKE IT IS OR MAKING SOME OTHER CHANGE BUT I THINK THE AUGUST IDEA IS -- I'M STRUGGLING WITH THAT ONE A LOT. 
          I LIKE WHAT JOHN SAID. THAT'S A STRUGGLE FOR 
          ME. >>  OKAY. 
          MEMBER LASSERE. >>  I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S POINT OF VIEW AND YOUR OPINIONS. I STILL THINK WE HAVE MORE CLARITY IN NOVEMBER THAN WE DO IN AUGUST AS IT WAS A LOCAL ELECTION. 
          IT PERSONALLY EFFECTS ME NATIONALLY, LIKE BECAUSE THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WE SEE AND TALK TO DAILY AND ON DAILY BASIS SOMETIMES. 
          WHEN I PROJECT THAT, THAT -- ANY FEDERAL OR STATE ELECTION MAY EMPLOYEE SOME. 
          THEY ONLY VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT AND DON'T VOTE FOR CITY COMMISSIONERS IF THEY LEAVE THE BALLOT BLANK. 
          THEN YOU KNOW, WE'LL PUT IT OUT THERE. 
          [01:05:01]
I PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO CONSIDER TO LET THE VOTERS ELECT, DECIDE RATHER THAN JUST ON THEIR BEHALF. 
          DON'T FORGET THE CITY COMMISSION HAD THE VOTERS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION STARTED THE LAST TIME AROUND A MAYBE THEY HAVE THIS IN MIND. I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO ANY OF THEM. PERHAPS THEY HAVE THIS IDEA IN MIND. IT WASN'T ARTICULATED AS PART OF THE AMENDMENT. 
          THEN THEY HAD BIG STRIDES WHERE THEY DID WHAT THEY DID. THEY MAKE THE ELECTION MORE FAIR. I THINK THIS WOULD GO THE NEXT STEP TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE FAIR. 
          THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU. 
          >>  MEMBER KOZAK. >>  I JUST WANTED TO SAY, I THINK THE VOTERS WILL GET CONFUSED [INDISCERNIBLE] EVEN IF THIS IS NONPARTISAN, I LOOK TO THE STATISTICS AND THE NUMBER OF VOTERS. 
          IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE BROADEST REPRESENTATION, IT IS NOVEMBER. 
          THAT'S WHEN WE GET THE MOST PEOPLE OUT THERE. 
          YEAH, THAT'S -- IN AUGUST I'M NOT VOTING FOR YOU GUYS. A LOT OF PEOPLE TRAVEL. WE'RE LOSING QUALIFIED CONSTITUENTS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE ENGAGED WHEREAS NOVEMBER, I MAKE IT A -- A YOU KNOW, A -- A -- A DAY TO BE THERE FOR VOTING. IT IS THAT IMPORTANT. 
          I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THAT. 
          >>  OKAY, WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE CHAMBER. 
          >>  MADAM CHAIR, MAY I MAKE A CLARIFICATION. 
          I THINK THIS WILL HELP AND IT IS IN THE TO INFLUENCE THE DEBATE AT ALL. 
          JUST TO CLARIFY, JUST LOOKED UP, IN FLORIDA THE PRIMARY ELECTIONS ARE PARTISAN ELECTIONS, ALWAYS PARTISAN ELECTIONS IN FLORIDA. IT IS A TIME I KNOW THAT WE COULD HAVE NONPARTISAN CITY COMMISSION ELECTIONS ALSO. 
          BUT THE PRIMARIES IN FLORIDA ARE ALWAYS HELD ON THE TUESDAY 11 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE GENERAL ELECTION. UP IN FLORIDA IF THERE IS A PRIMARY, THERE'S NOT ONE CANDIDATE, THERE'S MORE THAN ONE IF THE PARTY OR -- PARTY OR PARTIES THEN WE WOULD HAVE AN ELECTION TIME ALWAYS ON THAT AUGUST, THE TUESDAY 11 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE GENERAL ELECTION AND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW AND A RUNOFF POTENTIALLY IN -- IN NOVEMBER. IT IS ALWAYS THE SAME 
          TIME. >>  COMMISSIONER? 
          >>  I THOUGHT THERE WAS A BUNCH OF 
          E-MAILS. >>  ON THIS TOPIC, 
          YES. >>  I HAVE NOTHING TO 
          SAY. >>  ANYBODY IN CHAMBERS THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? 
          >>  OKAY. >>  WE HAVE A WHOLE 
          BUNCH. >>  WE'RE GOING TO READ THROUGH THE E-MAILS WE'VE GOTTEN. 
          >>  BEAR WITH ME, THEY'RE NOT ALL ON 
          THIS TOPIC. >>  DO YOU WANT ME TO 
          SEPARATE THEM? >>  THAT WOULD BE 
          HELPFUL. >>  OKAY. 
          YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK WHILE WE'RE 
          DOING THAT. >>  WE COULD TAKE A MINI BREAK WHILE WE GET THE E-MAILS SORTED. LET'S COME BAC 
          >>  COMMENTS TO READ ON THIS TOPIC. 
          SHE'LL TAKE IT AWAY. >>  I'M GOING TO READ THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, ALL OF THEM. 
          SOME OF THEM ARE OVER 400 WORDS, I'M GOING TO READ THEM ANYWAY. FIRST COMMENT FROM JULIE FERREIRA. DEAR CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEMBERS, I BELIEVE IF YOU WANT TO RIG A LOCAL CITY ELECTION MAKING IT HARDER FOR CANDIDATES WITHOUT NAME RECOGNITION TO RUN IN FERNANDINA THEN CHANGING THE WAY THE ELECTION IS RUN IS A GOOD IDEA. I THINK FOR THE CHARTER TO DO AWAY WITH THE GROUP SYSTEM TO MAKE ALL CANDIDATES RUN AGAINST EACH OTHER IN ONE POOL, USING THIS YEAR AS EXAMPLE, THAT WOULD MEAN MARION PHILLIPS BRADLEY BEAN AND MINCHEW, CHIP ROSS AND ROBINS WOULD RUN 
          [01:10:07]
AGAINST EACH OTHER AND WHICHEVER GOT THE MOST VOTES WOULD BE THE COMMISSIONER. 
          SOUNDS SIMPLE BUT I THINK THIS METHOD WILL IN THE FUTURE ALLOW PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING BANK ROLLED BY OUTSIDE INTERESTS, LOCAL PARTIES, THE PORTS OR MILLS, OR CANDIDATES REPRESENTING THE GOOD OLD BOY NETWORK TO MORE EASILY FLOAT TO THE TOP. 
          IF THREE PEOPLE ARE RUNNING AGAINST EACH OTHER IN A GROUP AND NO ONE CANDIDATE GETS A CLEAR MANDATE, DEFINED AS 50 PERCENT PLUS ONE VOTE THERE WILL BE A RUNOFF BETWEEN THE REMAINING TOP TWO CANDIDATES. 
          THIS MEANS THAT DURING THE RUNOFF CAMPAIGNS THE CITIZENS AGAIN GET A SECOND CHANCE TO LISTEN TO THE DISCUSSION OF THE REVIEWS OF THE TWO REMAINING CANDIDATES. 
          THE OP-ED CANDIDATE FORUMS, ET CETERA. 
          CITIZENS WILL THEN VOTE FOR WHO THEY BELIEVE BETWEEN THE REMAINING TWO WILL BEST REPRESENT THEM FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS AS THEIR CITY COMMISSIONER. 
          GETTING A SECOND LISTEN IS WHY I BELIEVE RUNOFFS TO BE BENEFICIAL. 
          TRADITIONAL WISDOM SAYS THAT HE OR SHE WHO RAISES THE MOST MONEY WINS, SO I FEEL OUR OVERARCHING GOAL AS A CITY SHOULD BE TO KEEP BIG MONEY AND INFLUENCE OUT OF LOCAL POLITICS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND TO GIVE ALL CANDIDATES A FAIR SHOT. 
          I SUSPECT IF OUR CITY ADOPTS A WINNER TAKE ALL ELECTION METHOD OF VOTING OUR FORM OF REPRESENTATION WILL BE THREATENED AND SOMEONE WHO HAS LITTLE NAME RECOGNITION OR WITHOUT A HUGE CAMPAIGN CHEST WILL HAVE AN UPHILL BATTLE TO NOW COMPETE AGAINST SEVEN OR EIGHT OTHER CANDIDATES AND DIFFERENTIATE THEMSELVES AND THEIR VIEWS ON CITY ISSUES. 
          I ALSO BELIEVE THAT CHANGING THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION NINE WILL EVENTUALLY ALLOW THE MORE MONEYED CAMPAIGNS TO BECOME MORE PROFESSIONAL WITH EVER MORE SHRIEK CAMPAIGN MEASURES AND TAKING THE ABILITY TO COMPETE AWAY FROM THE LITTLE GUY. 
          LET'S LET FERNANDINA BE DIFFERENT BY KEEPING THE GROUP METHOD AND REDUCE THE COST LOW SO A DEEP POCKETED SPECIAL INTEREST SPENDER HAS LESS OF A POTENTIAL TO OVERWHELM OUR CYCLE AND DISADVANTAGE FIRST-TIME CANDIDATES, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT DON'T HAVE PERSONAL FINANCES TO FALL BACK UPON. WE DON'T WANT MONEY TO BE THE BARRIER KEEPING GOOD PEOPLE WITH GOOD YOODZ OUT OF THE RACE. UP ELECTIONS ARE THE PRIMARY MEANS BY WHICH THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE EFFECTS THE BEHAVIOR OF OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ARGUMENT FOR DOING AWAY WITH GROUPS IS THAT IT WILL BE MORE EFFICIENT AND SAVE MONEY. I DO NOT FEEL THAT THIS IS WORTH THE PRICE OF SMALL TOWN DEMOCRACY. PLEASE DO NOT CONSIDER THIS CHANGE. PLEASE KEEP THE PLAYING FIELD AS LEVEL AS WE CAN. 
          GOODNESS. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND THE NEXT ONE, FOLKS, I'M SORRY. 
          I KNOW WHERE IT IS, BUT. 
          THERE WE GO. THIS -- THIS NEXT ONE IS FROM JANE GRIFFITHS, SHE SENT THIS ON MAY 30TH. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, ONE, KEEP CITY COMMISSION ELECTIONS FOR FOUR-YEAR TERMS STAGGERED WITH FIVE GROUPS. 
          IT IS A FAIR SYSTEM THAT HELPS KEEP PRIVATE AGENDAS OUT OF CITY GOVERNMENT. 
          TWO, CHARTER LANGUAGE SHOULD COMPLETELY REMOVE THE -- THED THIS AGAIN, THE RIGHT TO LEASE CONSERVATION LAND. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONVERSATION, JANE GRIFFITHS 1521 DADE STREET. 
          I'LL READ THE CONSERVATION COMMENT WHEN WE GET THERE. THE NEXT COMMENT COMES FROM LAURIE HIMKI. MY HUSBAND AND I WANT TO EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS PROJECT. WE ARE -- ONE, WE ARE OPPOSED TO CHANGING THE WAY OUR COMMISSIONERS ARE ELECTED IN SECTION NINE BY USING THE CURRENT METHOD OF ASSIGNING GROUPS WE AS VOTERS HAVE A GREATER OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN THE VIEWS OF THOSE RUNNING FOR OFFICE. HAVING US SELECT FROM ONE LARGE GROUP ALLOWS FOR THE VOTERS TO VOTE BASED ON NAME RECOGNITION. 
          WHO HAD THE MONEY TO BUY MORE SIGNS OR ADS. 
          WHERE IS THAT MONEY COMING FROM? WHO IS BACKING THESE NAME RECOGNITION 
          [01:15:01]
CANDIDATES? WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP THE CURRENT SYSTEM. 
          >>  THE NEXT COMMENT COMES FROM BETSY CUBAN ON JUNE 4TH. DEAR MEMBERS OF THE FERNANDINA BEACH REVIEW COMMITTEE. 
          I WANT IT STATE I UNEQUIVOCALLY SUPPORT ALL OF THE IDEA IN THIS LETTER TO YOU BY THE LEADERSHIP TEAM OF THE TREE CONSERVANCY. 
          I ALSO WANT TO STATE UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED BY ROBERT WEINTRAUB ON JUNE 3RD, 2020 CONCERNING HOW VOTING IS DONE IN THE CITY. 
          WHEN CANDIDATES RUN IN SMALL GROUPS, IT IS MUCH EASIER FOR ME AS A VOTER TO LISTEN TO AND STUDY AND ASK QUESTIONS THAT ARE GROUP SPECIFIC AND THEN TEASE OUT WHAT ARE OFTEN VERY DISCREET DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CANDIDATES RUNNING IN THE SMALL GROUP. MY VOTE CAN THEN BE VERY INTENTIONALLY CAST FOR A CANDIDATE IN EACH GROUP. WHILE SAVING MONEY IS A GOOD GOAL, THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR IT. 
          TO TAKE A LUMP SUM APPROACH DILUTES MY INDIVIDUAL VOTE AND IT CHANGES THE PROCESS FOR SOME BUT NOT THOSE WHO ARE NOT ELECTED FOR THE NEXT TERM. NOT SURE WHAT THAT EFFECT MIGHT HAVE ON BALANCE. 
          TO BE TRANSPARENT, I DO RESIDE IN THE COUNTY AT 4615 PHILLIPS MANNER PLACE. 
          AND I OWN AND PAY TAXES ON SIX PROPERTIES IN THE CITY LIMITS. 
          THE CHARTER DOCUMENT DOESN'T SEEM TO AGREE, I HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THE DECISIONS THAT YOU MAKE. 
          MAYBE YOU CAN ADDRESS THAT AND ALLOW ME TOO TO VOTE ON MATTERS THAT EFFECT ME. 
          I'M GUESSING THAT MEANS A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR VOTING IN CITY ELECTIONS. 
          RIGHT NOW WE REQUIRE ONLY CITY RESIDENTS VOTE ON CITY ELECTIONS. 
          NEXT COMMENT. ALEXANDRA LA ZHAO. 
          DEAR COMMITTEE, I'M WRITING TO OPPOSE CHANGES TO SECTION 9 AND 10 OF THE CHARTER. 
          THE CHANGES IN SECTION 9 WOULD DO AWAY WITH GROUPS AND MAKE ELECTIONS CITYWIDE. 
          THIS WOULD MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR A PERSON OF MODEST MEANS TO GET ELECTED AS THE COMPETITION WOULDN'T BE AGAINST ONE OR TWO PEOPLE BUT AGAINST SEVERAL. 
          IN THE INTEREST OF A DIVERSITY I OPPOSE 
          THIS CHANGE. >>  THE NEXT COMMENT COMES FROM MARION PHILLIPS AT -- ON JUNE 4TH. GREETINGS, EVERYONE, DUE TO A RECENT SURGERY I'M IN THE ABLE TO ATTEND TODAY'S MEETING. 
          WITH THAT SAID I WANTED TO WEIGH IN ON AN IMPORTANT TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED TODAY. 
          THERE'S A MEETING WHERE THE TOPIC OF REWRITING SECTION NINE OF THE CITY CHARTER THAT WILL CHANGE HOW L ELECTIONS ARE HELD IN THE CITY. 
          I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF CHANGING THE CHARTER IN THIS ASPECT. THOSE THAT WANT TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION AND COULD NOT COMPETE WITH THE CANDIDATES THAT HAVE MONEY. CITIZENS WHO TRULY CARE ABOUT OUR CITY, WHO CANNOT OUTSPEND SOMEONE WITH A LARGE MONEY ROLL WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING ELECTED TO SERVE ON THEITY COMMISSION. MONEY SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE FOR THOSE THAT WANT TO SERVE THE CITIZENS OF THIS GREAT CITY. 
          GROUPS SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE. 
          IF THERE SHOULD BE A CHANGE IT WOULD BE THOSE THAT LIVE IN THE AREA THEY'RE RUNNING IN. IF GROUP ONE IS THE DOWNTOWN AREA, THOSE THAT RUN WOULD HAVE TO LIVE IN THAT AREA. IF GROUP TWO IS THE AREA OF THE BEACH, THE PERSON WHO RUNS MUST LIVE IN THAT AREA. THIS SHOULDBE PUT TO THE VOTERS. IN MY OPINION, IT IS THE FOX GUARDING THE HEN HOUSE. 
          THAT WAS THE LAST COMMENT UNLESS THERE'S 
          COMMENTS IN THE ROOM. >>  BEFORE WE CALL THE VOTE, ANYONE HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? 
          >>  I NEED -- I NEED THE MOTION CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION, PLEASE. 
          >>  JOHN CAN YOU RESTATE YOUR MOTION. 
          >>  WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE'VE DONE, I THINK THIS IS CONSISTENT AND COMING BACK TO US. AND IF WE GO AFTER THIS, IT IS [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          REALLY NEED THE FORMALITY OF THE MOTION ON THAT. I SAID THAT EARLIER. 
          EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE'VE DONE IS DO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS OR DID WE NOT? NOT TO SPEAK FOR EVERYONE, I WOULD SAY 
          [01:20:01]
WE LIKELY HAVE CONSENSUS ON WHETHER OR NOT EVERYONE CHANGES THE NAME FROM GROUPS TO SEATS. I'M HAPPY TO SEPARATE THAT OUT AS MEMBER DAVIS REQUESTED EARLIER. I'VE GOT THAT PART DOWN. IF WE COULD JUST SAY THAT AND ALSO THE -- THE -- MOVING THE -- MOVING, THAT'S BETTER ON THE 8TH, AND MOVING THE ELECTIONS UP SO WE THE RUNOFFS. 
          >>  THAT'S THE MOTION. >>  THAT'S THE -- THAT'S THE PART THERE, THE MOTION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK FOR A CONSENSUS OF CHANGING THE TERM GROUP TO SEAT. DID WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT? YES. 
          ALL RIGHT. WE DO. 
          NOW THE -- THE MOTION IS AROUND MAKING THE CHANGE TO HAVE OUR FIRST ROUND OF ELECTION TO COINCIDE WITH THE COUNTY'S PRIMARY TIMING AND THE SECOND ROUND OF ELECTION WHICH WOULD BE RUNOFFS TO COINCIDE WITH THE NATIONAL ELECTION. 
          YES, DID I GET IT RIGHT? THAT'S OUR MOTION. WE GOT A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, GOING ONCE, TWICE. 
          CALL FOR A VOTE PLEASE. 
          HOTSPOT. >>  MOTION FAILS. 
          >>  NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. 
          BECAUSE THE MOTION FAILS, I JUST WANT -- WE'RE LEAVING IT THE WAY IT IS. 
          NO CHANGES OTHER THAN SEATS WHICH WOULD BE A HOUSEKEEPING CHANGE DONE IN 2022. 
          >>  THAT'S THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          IS EVERYBODY ON THE SAME MAKES I AM ON THAT. CHANGING SEATS. 
          TEN YEARS FROM NOW WE'LL SEE IF THE NEXT CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WHICH I WILL NOT BE PART OF DOES THIS AGAIN. 
          OKAY. >>  IF NOTHING ELSE, THAT WILL BE PART OF THE MINUTES AND THEY GO BACK AND SEE THAT WE HAD THE DISCUSSION DEBATE AT THAT TIME AND THE CITY COMMISSION CAN MAKE THE CHANGE ON THEIR OWN BASED ON WHAT THE CHARTER SAYS NOW. 
          >>  I WANTED TO COMPLIMENT ALL OF YOU. 
          THIS WAS PROBABLY -- I WAS GETTING A LITTLE NERVOUS IN MARCH THAT WE HADN'T ADDRESSED THIS. YOU'VE DONE GREAT WORK. HOPEFULLY YOU HAVEN'T FELT RUSHED. THANK YOU, GOOD WORK. 
          [Item 5.2]
THANK YOU FOR THE WORK, TAMMI KATIE. 
          WE GO TO 58637 OF THE CHARTER. 
          ANYBODY WANT TO START? >>  THIS IS HAD YOU KEEPING ISSUES ON SECTION 58 IN AN EXISTING CHARTER, THE HEADER THAT IS IN THE IN OUR BACKUP. THE CONTROLLER VERSUS THE STATE COMPTROLLER. WE NEED IT CHANGE THAT TO BE IN AGREEMENT AND REALLY FROM 58 THROUGH WHATEVER WE'RE LOOKING AT, WE JUST NEED TO -- NEED TO GO WITH CAPITALIZATION OF WHAT IS BEING CAPITALIZED AND NOT CITY COMMISSION AND CITY COMPTROLLER, THERE'S STILL SOME SHOWN ON LOWER CASE WHEN THEY SHOULD BE CAPITALIZED. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY 
          COMMENTS? >>  YES, I HAD A COUPLE. I WAS WONDERING WHY 
          [01:25:03]
THE LAST LINE OF 58 SEEMED TO BE THE SAME AS THE SECTION 51. WHY WE NEEDED BOTH. 
          WE DON'T SPECIFY ANY QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE COMPTROLLER LIKE WE HAVE NOW IF THE OTHERS. I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF WE NEEDED ASSOCIATION NUMBERS SET UP. 
          IF THEY WERE A DEGREE OR -- WE TALKED ABOUT THAT THEY NEED, WHAT THEY NEED TO DO AS FAR AS KEEPING A RECORD IN COMPLIANCE AND NOT WHAT TYPE OF QUALIFICATION WE NEED TO HAVE. IT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE WE PUT IN QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE CHARTER OFFICER. ONE OTHER THING, THOSE WERE MY THOUGHTS ON THOSE PARTICULAR 
          SECTIONS. >>  MEMBER CLARK. 
          >>  THANK YOU. >>  I'M THE MAYOR FOR THE COMPTROLLER. IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A CPA AS A COMPTROLLER AND THAT WILL INCREASE THE COST TO GET SOMEBODY WITH THAT PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIAL. 
          I THINK TYPICALLY WHAT YOU SEE FOR THIS FUNCTION IN A LOT OF SMALLER COMMUNITIES IS SOMEBODY THAT HAS GOOD BACKGROUND. 
          IF YOU REQUIRE THE CPA IT IS EXPENSIVE. 
          I DO THINK TO YOUR OTHER POINT ABOUT THE CERTIFIED AUDIT, IT REALLY IS NECESSARY FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO HAVE CERTIFIED AUDITS PERFORMED EVERY YEAR. 
          AMY BACH HAS ASSURED ME THERE'S A REQUIREMENT IN MUNICIPAL CODE OR STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES THAT. 
          MAYBE IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR IT TO BE IN THE CHARTER. BUT IN MY VIEW IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT ABOUT -- ABOUT GOOD -- GOOD GOVERNMENT. 
          I FEEL A LITTLE BETTER IF THERE WERE A REQUIREMENT IN THE CHARTER, SO IT SHOULD BE AN ANNUAL CERTIFIED STATEMENT BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR. I JUST THROW THAT OUT FOR PEOPLE'S CONSIDERATION. 
          THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SECTION AND THIS IS SECTION 58. 
          IT LOOKED TO DIFFERENT DUTIES OF THE COMPTROLLER UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE CITY MANAGER. ONE FUNCTION IS TO INVEST CITY DOLLARS. THE PRINCIPAL HERE IS -- YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S INVESTMENT POLICY THAT THE COMMISSION IS SIGNED OFF ON. IT HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE IN FIVE TO TEN YEARS. 
          BEFORE THAT TIME IT WAS ISSUES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. THE CITIES GOT INTO INVESTMENT STRATEGY THAT WAS REALLY NOT VERY SOUND. IT CREATED SOME REAL PROBLEMS. THE FIX ON ALL OF THAT WAS TO SAY THAT CITIES SHOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED INVESTMENT POLICIES THAT ARE REVIEWED PUBLICLY AND APPROVED BY THE ELECTED OFFICIAL AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMPTROLLER. THAT'S NOT A BAD PROVISION TO HAVE. AGAIN BACH ADVISED ME THE CITY DOES HAVE AN INVESTMENT POLICY. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S FORMS REQUIRING THAT BUT APPARENTLY THERE IS ONE. MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT THE CHARTER WOULD MENTION THE -- THE NEED FOR AN INVESTMENT POLICY THAT WAS -- WAS 
          [01:30:01]
PROPOSED BY THE COMPTROLLER AND APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION AND JUST SO THERE WAS CLARITY ABOUT HOW THE CITY WOULD INVEST THIS. YOU COULD IMAGINE, IT IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT PORTFOLIO OF WHAT YOUR CHECKING ACCOUNT IS IF YOU WILL. IT JUST MAKES SENSE THERE'S A REAL CLEAR IDEA ON HOW THOSE FUNDS ARE INVESTED AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH -- WITH THE FINANCIAL GOALS WHICH WE WANT THE CITY TO DO. THOSE ARE TWO SUGGESTIONS. I WANTED TO SEE WHAT EVERYBODY THOUGHT AND AGREEMENT WITH ME ABOUT THOSE TWO THINGS AND THE INVESTMENT POLICY AND THE CERTIFIED ANNUAL AUDIT IN THE CHARTER AND BE FINE WITH ME. 
          I CAN PROBABLY LIVE WITH STATEMENT FROM TAMMI BACH THAT THERE'S ALREADY IMPORTANCE THAT COVERS THESE THINGS AND NOT NECESSARILY TO BE IN THE CHARTER. 
          I WANTED TO TURN IT TO THE GROUP AND SEE IF ANYBODY ELSE FELT STRONGLY ABOUT THESE 
          THINGS. >>  MEMBER KOZAK. 
          >>  WE SHOULD HAVE A NOTE THAT THE INVESTMENT POLICY LIKE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONER. IT SHOWS WE'RE RESPONSIBLE. I LIKE THE REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL INDEPENDENT AUDIT. 
          >>  MEMBER DAVIS. >>  IF THERE IS -- IF IT IS -- IT IS STATUTORY REQUIREMENT UNDER THE FLORIDA LAW THAT -- THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT PERHAPS THAT WAS A PROVISION THAT WAS -- THAT WAS IN THE CHARTER AND THERE IS WHEN I KNOW THEY TOOK OUT A LOT OF EXTRANEOUS. 
          ONE OTHER THING THAT I -- I WAS WANTING TO COMMENT ON AFTER THAT EARLIER, SECTION 29, IN OUR WORD SHALL, WE ADDED THE COMPTROLLER MAY GIVE A BOND. THAT SOUNDS PERM PERMISSIVE. DON'T WE WANT THEM TO 
          PROVIDE A BOND? >>  WE DON'T. 
          NEITHER OFFICERS OR COMPTROLLER PROVIDE A BOND OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER. 
          IN FACT, THIS -- THIS MAY BE THE ONLY TIME. 
          I RECOMMEND DELETING IT ALTOGETHER. 
          NO, SIR REQUIRED BY STATE LAW OR ANY ORDINANCES AND NONE OF US DO IT. 
          >>  THE COMPTROLLER IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION WHICH IT SHALL GIVE A BOND. 
          >>  YEP. YEP. 
          >>  I NEVER WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW PEOPLE ARE VIOLATING. 
          >>  WHAT WE HAVE NOW -- 
          >>  LET ME CORRECT THAT FOR JUST A MINUTE. WAIT A SECOND. 
          THERE IS, A BOND IS BASICALLY INSURANCE. 
          WHAT THAT IS, IT IS LIKE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR THE CITY IF WE SCREW SOMETHING UP. THERE IS IN OUR INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND I'LL GET THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU ON JUNE 8TH, WE SHOULD CHANGE THIS PLAN, IT SHOULDN'T BE MAY, IT SHOULD BE WILL. I THINK KATIE AND I GOING THROUGH AND DOING AN AUTOMATIC CHANGE. WE HAVE UNDER THE CITY'S CURRENT INSURANCE POLICY, WE HAVE COVERAGE FOR CHARTER OFFICERS AND THE COMPTROLLER. SO THAT IS THE BOND. 
          THE CITY PAYS FOR IT. IT IS NOT PROVIDED BY THE OFFICERS OR COMPTROLLER WHERE WE PAY FOR IT. THE CITY PAYS FOR IT BUT THE CITY IS INSURED. 
          >>  MEMBER LASSERE. >>  I'M JUST -- I WAS GOING -- I DON'T THINK HAVING A BOND IS APPROPRIATE. IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE. 
          [INDISCERNIBLE] OR PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY. WHO IS PAYING FOR IT. 
          THE CITY IS PAYING FOR IT AS PART OF A JOB BENEFIT, THAT'S FINE. BUT I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE PL INSURANCE AND SHOULD. 
          THAT'S PROBABLY MORE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE 
          THAN A BOND. >>  RIGHT. 
          >>  WE SHOULDN'T HAVE A PROVISION I KNOW WE'RE VIOLATING. WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          I DON'T THINK THIS STRIKE IS AN OPTION. 
          >>  NO IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE VOTERS. 
          I MEAN I CAN PROPOSE CHANGING IT TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN A BOND, BECAUSE CERTAINLY THAT LANGUAGE IS NOT ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED TO -- TO -- TO PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE 
          WHICH IS WHAT IT IS. >>  I WOULD SUPPORT 
          [01:35:01]
THAT AS FAR AS LET'S CHANGE IT, THAT THEY'LL PROVIDE WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY -- WHAT IS BEING DONE. 
          >>  OKAY. >>  AS APPROPRIATE. 
          >>  AND THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT THAT I HAVE IS ORDINANCE THAT , NOT - REQUIRES AN ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDIT DONE BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR. THE AUDIT REPORTS ARE ACTUALLY FILED WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES. 
          IT IS A VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS. 
          IT IS IN SECTION 218.39 FLORIDA STATUTES. LAST YEAR, WELL THIS YEAR, 2020 THERE WAS NEW PROVISIONS ADDED TO THE STATUTE THAT REQUIRE FOR -- FOR MORE -- EVEN MORE REPORTING IN THE FINANCIAL AUDIT. IT IS GETTING EVEN STRICTER. IT IS A VERY ROBUST REQUIREMENT. AND IT STARTS OFF -- IT READ A LITTLE STRANGE IF YOU DO DECIDE TO GO AND -- AND READ THE STATUTE. 
          IT STARTS OFF BY IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY IS NOT CONTACTED BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL WHICH I HOPE NEVER HAPPENS, THEN WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THESE FINANCIAL, I GUESS IT IS SAYING, IF YOU'RE NOT ALREADY IN DEEP TROUBLE, YOU NEED TO BE DOING THESE WITHIN NINE MONTHS OF THE START OF YOUR FISCAL YEAR. 
          AND THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR DOES PROVIDE A REPORT TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHEN THEY'RE COMPLETE, USUALLY IN FEBRUARY OR MARCH. THE ONCE A MONTH, WE DO HAVE THE -- HAVE THE -- THE COMPTROLLER COMES TO EVERY CITY COMMISSION MEETING WITH THE -- WITH THE STATUS OF EACH OF THE FUND. SO HAVING A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY DO IT ONCE A MONTH, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO -- IF YOU LIKE THE WAY THINGS HAVE BEEN GOING, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE A CHANGE, DOING IT MORE THAN WHAT THE CHARTER REQUIRES IS -- IS OKAY. BUT THE CHARTER REQUIRES AT LEAST ONE MEETING A MONTH. 
          >>  MEMBER DAVIS. >>  I CAN SAY THE CHARTER JUST SAYS AT A REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE IT. 
          IT DOESN'T REQUIRE IT TO BE AT HE'S ONCE A 
          MONTH CURRENTLY. >>  OKAY. 
          >>  BECAUSE THAT -- SO THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING, MAYBE WE SHOULD SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT, THAT IT BE DONE ONCE A MONTH. 
          AND AT LEAST MONTHLY. ONE OR QUESTION, ARE THE FINANCIAL RECORD PUBLIC INFORMATION PER 
          THE SUNSHINE ACT? >>  I'M SORRY, ONE 
          MORE TIME? >>  ARE THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE CITY, THE AUDIT AND, ET CETERA, ARE THEY -- ARE THEY PUBLIC INFORMATION PER THE SUNSHINE ACT? 
          >>  YES. THAT'S THE SHORT ANSWER. THE LITTLE BIT LONGER ANSWER IS THE AUDIT REPORT IS NOT A PUBLIC ACCEPTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          THE REPORT CANNOT BE RELEASED BEFORE THE DATE THAT THE CITY COMMISSION ACTUALLY HEARS FROM THE AUDITOR AND HAS THE OPPORTUNITY IT ASK QUESTIONS. 
          THE SAME DAY WE SCHEDULED THE MEETING WE -- WE RELEASED THE AUDIT REPORT. 
          >>  THANK YOU. >>  MEMBER CLARK. 
          >>  I LIKE TO SEE THE CHARTER APPROVED LANGUAGE THAT ARTICULATES A DUTY OF THE COMPTROLLER IS TO PROCURE INDEPENDENT ANNUAL AUDIT FOR THE CITY'S FINANCES AND THE EQUIVALENT FLORIDA LAW AS YOU OUTLINED IT. YOU'RE CLEARLY ARTICULATING THAT'S THE DUTY OF THE COMPTROLLER, MAKES SENSE. 
          SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF OTHERS ARE WILLING TO SEE THAT LANGUAGE. 
          I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THERE'S STATE LAW ON IT. WHAT I'M REQUESTING IS IT ASSIGNS THE RESPONSIBILITY CLEARLY. THEY'RE NOT ALREADY DOING IT. IN TERMS OF MONTHLY REPORTS, THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS THE COMPTROLLER CAN'T PROVIDE MONTHLY REPORTS TO THE COMMISSION. 
          THEY PROBABLY ALREADY DO. 
          IT JUST SHOWS EXPENSES. 
          THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN AUDIT PROCESS. 
          >>  MEMBER LASSERE. >>  REAL QUICK ON TWO POINTS, SECTION 64 WHICH IS ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REGARDING REPORTS GIVEN TO THE CITY COMMISSION, IN THE TITLE IT SAYS COMMISSIONS MONTHLY THERE'S NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS IT IS TO BE DONE MONTHLY. THAT'S KIND OF CONTRADICTORY. I THINK THAT COULD BE AN EASY FIX, JUST PUT MONTHLY IN THERE RATHER THAN WHATEVER. JUST TO CLEAR THIS OUT, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOXES AND HEN HOUSES, THE COMPTROLLER, WOULD THEY BE THE BEST PERSON TO HAVE A DATE 
          [01:40:01]
OF AUDIT FOR THEMSELVES OR SHOULD IT BE THE COMMISSION OR THE MAYOR? JUST A THOUGHT THERE. AND FOR NO OTHER REASON OTHER THAN OUR DISCUSSION. 
          >>  ANY RESPONSES. >>  I THINK THAT'S A VALID POINT. IF YOU COULD WRITE IT THIS WAY AND MAKE THE COMPTROLLER UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING ON AGENDA OR -- OR -- OR OPPOSING IT -- A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES THAT ARE REVIEWED AND CERTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION. SOMEONE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PAPERWORK IS DONE. I TAKE YOUR POINT ABOUT COMMISSION APPROVAL IS VALID AND 
          GOOD. >>  DURING OUR DISCUSSION THERE WAS TWO OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP THAT WE HAVEN'T GONE ON, ONE COMPTROLLER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTMENT POLICY AND THE OTHER IS THAT SHOULD -- OR THE QUESTION IS SHOULD THE COMPTROLLER HAVE THE REQUIREMENTS LISTED SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE CHARTER OFFICER? 
          >>  THE LAST 20 YEARS COMPTROLLER, COMPTROLLER BEFORE THAT HAS BEEN A CPA. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WILL MEAN IN TO OUR FUTURE, BUT THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT IN THE -- IN THE -- IN THE POSTED APP THAT WENT OUT. WE WERE ABSOLUTELY IN THE GOING TO ACCEPT ANYBODY WITHOUT A CPA. 
          >>  THE ONE QUESTION I HAD ASKED AND AS WE STRIKE THAT DISCUSSION IS THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT WE SO FAR HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR IS CHARTER OFFICERS. THERE'S PROBABLY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE HEAD OF THE FACILITIES, FOR THE HEAD OF STORM WATER TO BE ENGINEERS, ET CETERA. 
          IF WE -- IF WE START VARYING FROM THE CHARTER OFFICERS, WHERE DO WE STOP? 
          >>  MEMBER DAVIS. >>  ON THAT, IT SEEMS LIKE THE -- THAT THE COMPTROLLER IS CONTROLLED -- THE CHARTER GOES INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE COMPTROLLER'S DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND OF COURSE FINDING OUT THIS IS PRETTY IMPORTANT TO A CITY. 
          THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THIS MUCH DETAIL ABOUT THE COMPTROLLER'S DUTIES AND -- AND YOU KNOW PROVIDING BONDS AND ALL THAT MAYBE -- MAYBE THE MEMBER'S QUALIFICATIONS MAKES SENSE. TO HAVE -- THAT'S NOT A HARD THING, BUT MAYBE SIMILAR EXPERIENCE FROM THE FINANCE PROVIDING EQUIVALENT. YEAH, AGAIN, A SUGGESTION, AND -- A -- AND -- AND I LEAVE IT TO THE OTHER MEMBERS HOW THEY FEEL. 
          >>  I WOULD LIKE TO BRING CLOSURE TO THIS ITEM AS SOON AS WE CAN BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME REAL BIGGIES AHEAD OF US FOR TODAY. 
          ANYBODY HAVE AN IDEA ON HOW WE SETTLE THIS? 
          >>  I DO. >>  TAMMI DOES. 
          >>  IF I GO THROUGH WHAT I THINK YOUR COMMENTS WERE AND -- AND I -- AND -- I -- IF YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS OR I GOT IT WRONG, IF YOU WOULD MAKE A NOTE AND WE CAN TALK TO -- I'LL GO THROUGH 58 THROUGH WHATEVER I SAID WE WERE DOING, 64 OR 67. 
          THERE'S JUST A COUPLE OF SECTIONS WITH CHANGES AND I'LL LET YOU KNOW AND OF COURSE THE LANGUAGE WILL BE -- I LIKE A VOTE ON THOSE CHANGES, IF THAT'S OKAY. 
          >>  WHEN YOU COME BACK WITH US. 
          >>  WELL, I'M GOING TO READ THEM RIGHT NOW. 
          >>  OKAY. >>  I'M GOING TO READ NOT ■THE LANGUAGEBUT WHAT CHANGES, SO START WITH SECTION 58. THE FIRST COMMENT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT FOR THE TERM COMPTROLLER, VERSUS CONTROLLER, TO MAKE SURE COMPTROLLER IS THE TERM. AND THAT THERE BE QUALIFICATIONS THAT A CPA OR SIMILAR EXPERIENCED, DO YOU ALL AGREE THAT SHOULD BE ARTICULATED HERE OR DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE SOME OF THAT FOR THIS CITY MANAGER AND COMMISSION TO DECIDE? IT IS REALLY A CITY 
          MANAGER. >>  COMMENTS. 
          >>  I'M FINE WITH THE CITY MANAGER. 
          I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION ABOUT INCLUDING IT EITHER. I I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WE HAD A CPA. THAT'S GREAT. 
          >>  I CAN SAY, IF I MIGHT SAY THIS, UNLESS THERE'S SOME OTHER CERTIFICATION THAT IS 
          [01:45:03]
COMPARABLE, THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO GO BACKWARDS AND -- AND -- AND AT THIS POINT AFTER HAVING A CPA FOR 20 YEARS OR MORE, AND MAYBE DIDN'T GO BEYOND THAT. 
          YOU COULD BE SAFE WITH SAYING A CPA AND WE LEAVE A LITTLE WIGGLE ROOM OR SOME COMPARABLE EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE IF 
          THERE IS ANYTHING. >>  ANYBODY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH WHAT TAMMI HAS PRESENTED? 
          >>  I AGREE WITH IT. I THINK IT IS OKAY TO BE MORE STRINGENT HERE. 
          >>  VERY GOOD, THAT'S WHAT I'LL DO. 
          >>  ON SECTION 59, INSTEAD OF BOND, IT WILL SAY INSURANCE, PROFESSIONAL -- IT WILL SAY PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE AND I'M GOING TO BE SPECIFIC HERE TOO, NAMING THE CITY AS THE INSURED PARTY. 
          THEY'LL GET THE BENEFIT OF THE INSURANCE PROCEEDS IF ONE OF US MESSES UP. 
          SECTION 60, THIS IS WHERE WE WOULD HAVE -- WOULD HAVE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE CITY -- THE COMPTROLLER BEING REQUIRED TO HAVE AN INVESTMENT POLICY THAT IS UPDATED BY -- BY -- FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          OKAY. SECTION 61, I DIDN'T HEAR COLLECTION OF TAXES, LICENSE FEES AND ALL MONIES BELONGING TO THE CITY. 
          WHAT I DID HEAR WAS MEMBER DAVIS SAID THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS THE SAME AS THE SECOND SENTENCE BE IN SECTION 58. 
          I AGREE WITH YOU. SO THAT MEANS WE DON'T NEED THIS SECTION. WE COULD RESERVE IT IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE 58 ANYWAY. 
          >>  ALL RIGHT. ANY OR ISSUES? SO WE'RE DONE WITH THAT. 
          >>  SECTION, NOT YET, SECTION 62. 
          >>  WE'RE DONE. >>  58 TO 67. 
          SECTION 62, PAYMENT OF MONIES AND PROCEDURE, I THINK THERE WAS IN CHANGES ON THAT. 
          THE COMPTROLLER AND FINANCE PAYS THE BILLS. 63 IS RESERVED, 64 IS THE FINANCIAL REPORTING, SUBMISSION TO COMMISSION MONTHLY. I'LL ADD MONTHLY TO MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT. 
          I'LL ALSO ADD THE REFERENCE. 
          I WON'T CALL OUT THE SPECIFIC SECTION 218.39 BECAUSE THOSE CAN CHANGE. 
          I'LL SAY FLORIDA STATE LAW'S REQUIREMENT FOR AN ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDIT. 
          I WON'T LIMIT IT TO THE STATE REQUIREMENT. 
          IT WILL BE REQUIRED IN CASE THE STATE CHANGES THEIR MIND SOMEDAY BUT I COULD REFERENCE THAT IT MAY BE REQUESTED BY STATE LAW AND THAT THE CITY COMPTROLLER IS PROVIDING THESE REPORTS TO THE STATE COMMISSION AND THE INFORMATION TO THE AUDITOR UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE CITY MANAGER. 
          OKAY. THAT'S IT. 
          >>  OKAY. SO WE'RE DONE WITH THAT SECTION. THIS IS GOOD. 
          ITEM 5.3. THE SECTION UNDER GENERAL PROVISION, CHARTER REVIEW. 
          AT LEAST ONCE EVERY TEN YEARS THE CITY COMMISSION SHALL APPOINT A CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE OF SEVEN MEMBERS TO REVIEW THE CITY CHARTER AND PROPOSE ANY AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS WHICH MAY BE ADVISABLE FOR PLACEMENT ON THE ELECTION BALLOT. ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT STATEMENT THAT WAY? 
          MEMBER DAVIS? >>  OKAY, I'M THE ONE THAT PROPOSED THIS LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN WHAT 13 YEARS SINCE THE CITY AND ALL OF OUR PEER CITIES HAVE A REQUIREMENT ON THIS, TO DO IT EVERY FIVE YEARS, OTHERS EIGHT. I THOUGHT WE OUGHT TO AT LEAST MANDATE A REVIEW LIKE THIS EVERY TEN YEARS. I JUST PULLED THIS LANGUAGE OUT OF ONE OF OUR PEER CITIES. 
          I THINK IT WAS COCO BEACH. 
          I CHANGED IT TEN YEARS. 
          AND I'M WILLING TO GO MORE OFTEN BUT GIVEN THE -- WITH THE ATTACHMENTS AND HOW SLOW THINGS MOVE, I THINK TEN YEARS MAY BE 
          GOOD. >>  I DO THINK WE DON'T WANT TO -- TO WAIT ANOTHER 13 OR LONG YEARS BEFORE, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE WERE IN AGREEMENT THERE MAY BE MORE THAT PEOPLE MAY WANT TO DO WITH VOTING, ESPECIALLY IF VOTING BECOMES MORE POPULAR. 
          >>  MEMBER BEAN. >>  THANK YOU. 
          I WANT TO SECOND MEMBER DAVIS IN ALL 
          [01:50:03]
ASPECTS. IT IS A GREAT ADDITION. I VOTE YES. 
          >>  MEMBER LASSERE. >>  I'M AGREEING. 
          THE ONLY THING I'M [INDISCERNIBLE] THE REVIEW. I THINK TEN OR NINE YEARS AGO THEY DO THIS AND THREE YEARS GO BY OR FIVE YEARS GO BY AND NOW WE'RE HERE. 
          IT MAY NOT BE A BAD IDEA TO SHORTEN THAT UP AND GO BACK TEN YEARS. 
          I DON'T WANT TO -- I DON'T WANT TO BURDEN CITY STAFF AND THE BOX OFFICE. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE IT MAY BE MORE EFFECTIVE TO LOOK AT THIS MORE FREQUENTLY THAN SUCH A 
          LONG TIME PERIOD. >>  HOW ABOUT SEVEN YEARS? SEVEN YEARS IS ANOTHER POPULAR NUMBER IN FLORIDA FOR CHARTER 
          REVIEW. >>  MEMBER KOZAK. 
          >>  I SUPPORT THIS PROVISION. 
          I THINK IT WILL BE GOOD. 
          THERE'S ALSO THAT WE DISCUSSED IN THERE AND DISCUSSED THIS AND THE CHARTER. 
          IT JUST IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR IT. IT IS -- IT IS -- IT WORKS. WE TALKED ABOUT WRITING INTO THE CHARTER THAT ITEMS GET CARRIED OVER TO ANY N N NEW COMMISSION. 
          WE TALKED ABOUT USE OF PUBLIC NAVIGATION AND THEN LASTLY THERE'S SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS THAT -- THAT COMMITTED TO PUT FORWARD OUR -- OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR REFERENDUM AND DOES THAT MEAN WILL WE HAVE DISCUSSION OR INPUT OR THEY PUT IT FORTH AND IS THERE A TIME REQUIREMENT FOR THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW THEM AND PUT THEM FORWARD? THESE ARE ALL SEPARATE ISSUES BUT THEY CAME OUT OF THE SAME MEETING. 
          I SUPPORT THIS FOR SEVEN YEARS. 
          >>  THESE OTHER ITEMS, DOES ANYBODY WANT TO PURSUE THESE OTHER ITEMS THAT MEMBER KOZAK BROUGHT UP? MEMBER DAVIS. 
          I HAVE TO LOOK AT ONE STATUTE, STATUTE 156, 031 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE THAT DEALS WITH AMENDING CHARTERS. 
          THERE MAY, AT LEAST ON THE LATTER POINT THERE MAY BE A PROCEDURE, IN ADDITION I DO KNOW THAT -- THAT BEYOND THE WORST CASE, RIGHT, GIVE THE PETITION ES - RIGHT TO THE CITIZENS THAT TAKES 10 PERCENT OF THE ELECTORATE AND ANYTHING BEFORE THE ELECTORATE TO AMEND THE CHARTER. I KNOW THAT. 
          SO I KNOW THAT TAMMI IS 15623 TALK ABOUT THE COMMISSION PROCESS? 
          >>  NO, IT DOESN'T. IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT HOW OFTEN YOU REVIEW YOUR CHARTER. 
          ALL IT SAYS ARE THE TYPES OF CHARTER AMENDMENTS THAT YOU CAN APPROVE THAT -- THAT A CITY COUNCIL OR COMMISSION CAN APPROVE BY ORDINANCE AND WHICH ONES HAVE TO GO TO REFERENDUM. IT DOES NOT GIVE A TIME PERIOD FOR AMENDING IT. 
          IT IS JUST THE BEST PRACTICES IN FLORIDA IS SEVEN TO TEN YEARS, YOU'LL FIND. 
          >>  OKAY. WHERE ARE WE? DOES ANYONE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CHANGING THIS LANGUAGE TO SEVEN YEARS? 
          >>  GET A MOTION. >>  TAMMI WOULD LIKE A MOTION AND VOTE ON THIS, PLEASE. 
          >>  I'M RAISING MY HAND. 
          I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE MEMBER DAVIS'S AMENDMENT WITH SEVEN YEARS. 
          I THINK THAT'S ON HEARING, SEVEN, IS WHAT I'M HEARING AROUND THE ROOM. 
          I MOVE WE APPROVE MEMBER DAVIS'S WITH 
          SEVEN INSTEAD OF TEN. >>  I SECOND THAT. 
          >>  MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE? 
          ALL IN FAVOR? >>  YEA. 
          >>  NO OPPOSITION. >>  YEA. 
          [Item 5.3]
          >>  THANK YOU. NOW THE OTHER ITEMS THAT -- THAT -- THAT MISS KOZAK BROUGHT UP WERE THE BUSINESS ABOUT THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW BEFORE IT GOES TO REFERENDUM. 
          [01:55:02]
DO YOU NEED TO ADDRESS THAT IN THE CHARTER? 
          >>  I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE DOING WAS ASKING ME ABOUT THAT. 
          I'M SORRY. I WAS THINKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. THE LAW IS THAT -- THAT THE CITY COMMISSION HAS TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO -- IN ORDER FOR THE WORDING OF BALLOT QUESTIONS AND ALSO TO SCHEDULE THE ELECTION. 
          SO ONE THING, MY PLAN ANYWAY, IN THE HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS, THE THINGS THAT DON'T NEED TO BE SET APART WHICH IS MOST OF THE OTHER THINGS BESIDES THE QUESTIONS WE'LL DO THIS YEAR IN 2020 IS THAT THE ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY COMMISSION IS GOING TO ADOPT IS GOING TO SET OUT A GENERAL BALLOT QUESTION THAT WILL COVER THE SPECIFIC SECTIONS FOR HOUSEKEEPING AND CALL THE ELECTION IN 2022. IN NOVEMBER 2022. 
          IT WILL BE SET THIS YEAR WHEN -- WHEN THE COMMISSION DOES THAT, IF THEY APPROVE THAT ORDINANCE. THEN IT WILL ALSO SEE APPROXIMATELY TEN OTHER BALLOT QUESTIONS THAT WILL SET FORTH THE VERY SUBSTANTIVE THINGS AND THE DECISIONS THAT THIS GROUP MADE TO BE PUT ON THE BALLOT FOR 2020 AND CALL THAT ELECTION FOR 2020. 
          SO IT IS -- IN OTHER WORDS, IN 2022, LET'S JUST SAY WE HAVE -- WE HAVE -- WE HAVE -- WE HAVE THREE SEATS UP FOR ELECTION AND WE GET SOME NEW COMMISSIONERS IN THERE, THEY COULD BE ORDINANCE GO IN AND UNDO THAT CHARTER AMENDMENT BUT THE ONLY THING THAT I PLAN TO LEAVE AND BELIEVE ME I'VE DONE WORK BEHIND THE SCENES AND YOU'LL HAVE TO TRUST ME AND WAIT FOR MONDAY TO FIND OUT IS THAT ALL OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU ALL HAVE MADE AND ALL OF THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN THE CHARTER UP TO THIS POINT ARE COVERED IN TEN BALLOT QUESTIONS. THEY'RE GOING TO APPEAR IF THE COMMISSION DOES AGREE ON THIS NOVEMBER BALLOT. 
          ALL THE VERY IMPORTANT WORK YOU'VE DONE IS GOING TO BE HANDLED THIS YEAR. 
          DOES THAT HELP? >>  YEAH. 
          THIS IS A DOUBLE EDGED SWORD. 
          THE INTENT WAS IF OUR WORK TO BE RECOGNIZED AND WE'RE ELIMINATING THIS NEXT LAYER BY THE COMMISSIONERS, THEY PUSH OUT THE REFERENDUM AND THEN THERE'S -- THERE'S -- I GUESS WE HAD TIME FOR PUBLIC INPUT, RIGHT? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? 
          >>  IT DOES. YOUR CONCERN MAKES SENSE. I LEFT SOMETHING IMPORTANT OUT. ON MONDAY IF YOU ALL ARE WILLING THE COMMISSION IS -- IS -- IS -- HAS SAID THAT YOUR WORK SHOULD BE DONE I THINK IT SAID BY JUNE 30TH, MAYBE JUNE 15TH. ANYWAY, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOME MORE MEETINGS BEYOND MONDAY. 
          AND I DON'T NECESSARILY MEAN THE NEXT WEEK BECAUSE THE BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR THIS ELECTION IS DUE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE RUSHING TO GET TO BUT FOR THE REST OF THE CHARTER WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DISCUSS EVERYTHING. SECTION 136 WHICH IS IN THE ON YOUR AGENDA TODAY, I INSURE YOU ON MONDAY YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE FINAL LANGUAGE. I MAY NOT HAVE ALL OF THE BALLOT QUESTIONS PUT INTO THAT FORMAT FOR YOU BY MONDAY, BUT IT WILL ON AN ORDINANCE FOR THE COM MISS. 
          YOU'LL SEE THE FINAL LANGUAGE FOR THE SECTIONS CHANGED BIT TEN DOLLAR QUESTIONS. 
          IF YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE HOUSEKEEPING CHANGES THAT YOU RECOMMENDED END UP IN 2022 IT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE JULY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          BUT YOU ALL WILL -- WOULD STILL BE MEETING BECAUSE WE WOULD INTEND TO IF YOU ARE WILLING TO ASK THE COMMISSION TO EXTEND THE SUN SET DATE FOR THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION SO WE COULD GET ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CHARTER, EVEN IF THEY'RE JUST BASICALLY HOUSEKEEPING ISSUES. THEN THAT'S TO PROTECT YOU ALL AND THE WORK YOU DID ON THE OTHER SECTIONS THAT AREN'T CALLED OUT. 
          THE CITY COMMISSION CAN ALWAYS AMEND THAT ORDINANCE IN LET'S SAY JANUARY. 
          RIGHT AFTER THE ELECTION, AFTER BALLOT QUESTIONS GO THROUGH AND SAY WE HAVE SUBSTANTIVE WORK THAT WE WANT TO DO BUT WE WANT TO INCLUDE IT ON THE BALLOT FOR 2022 IN THIS SECTION 69 THROUGH 135. 
          THEN YOU CALL THOSE OUT AS BALLOT QUESTIONS SO YOUR WORK IS NOT FOR NAUGHT. 
          [02:00:01]
NERDS, THAT'S SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT, MAYBE NOT TODAY, MAYBE ON MONDAY. I SAY FOR A FEW MONTHS AT MOST. THAT WAS MY THOUGHT IN PROTECTING WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE IN HAVING THIS CURRENT COMMISSION BEFORE THE ELECTION COMING UP WITH NEW COMMISSIONERS START HAVING A SAY IN THE 
          WORK YOU HAVE DONE. >>  MEMBER LASSERE. 
          >>  WE ARE TO -- WE ARE -- YOU KNOW, 
          [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>  THANK YOU. 
          >>  MEMBER KOZAK. >>  I THINK MY -- MY QUESTION REALLY GOES BACK TO WHAT YOU SAID THE -- THE TEN OTHER BALLOT QUESTIONS -- THIS WAS A TEDIOUS PROCESS AND IN MY MIND, I CAN'T I THINK OF TEN MAJOR THINGS THAT WE PUT FORTH. AND NOW -- AND NOW -- THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT I WAS JUST 
          QUESTIONING. >>  SURE. 
          >>  THOSE ARE BASED ON MORE INPUT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. SO IT IS NOT US SETTING UP LEGISLATION THAT GOES FORWARD OR QUESTIONS THAT GO FORWARD. 
          SO THERE'S MORE ROBUST DIALOGUE. 
          THAT'S MY CONCERN. MAYBE IT IS BUYER'S 
          REMORSE. >>  WHEN DOES IT GO 
          FORWARD? >>  JUNE 1ST, JULY 21ST IS SECOND READING. 
          >>  WOULD THERE BE AN ISSUE WITH -- WITH THIS COMMITTEE SHOWING UP FOR THE DISCUSSION? 
          >>  NOT AT ALL, WE HOPE YOU WILL. 
          >>  WILL YOU BE WILLING TO SHOW UP FOR THE JUNE 16 MEETING, YOU CAN'T BECAUSE OF 
          THE SOCIAL DISTANCING. >>  OUT OF TOWN, BUT I MAY POSSIBLY PARTICIPATE. 
          I HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF MY ILL FATHER THAT 
          WEEK. >>  WE HAVE TO FIND OUT THE TECHNICAL ARRANGEMENTS WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE. I STILL BELIEVE THAT SINCE THERE'S APPARENTLY A CHANCE THAT -- THAT -- THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE MAKE ARE IN THE GOING TO BE JUST SENT TO THE BALLOT -- WE HAVE A WORKSHOP. 
          LIKE A WORKSHOP. WOULD THAT WORK? A WORKSHOP TO BEGIN WITH THE COMMISSION. 
          >>  THE CITY MANAGER WOULD PROBABLY SHOOT ME BUT I'M WONDERING IF JUNE 16 BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING WE COULD HAVE A WORKSHOP TO HAVE A CHAT. 
          THE AGENDA COULD BE BROAD ABOUT JUST TALKING ABOUT BY THEN THE AGENDA WILL BE PUBLISHED. I HAVE TO WRITE THESE BALLOT QUESTIONS BY THE WAY BY TOMORROW MORNING. I'VE ALREADY THOUGHT ABOUT THEM. THERE ARE TEN THINGS, YOU'LL BE SURPRISED, TAMMI, BUT YES, THERE ARE. LET'S SEE. 
          WHY DON'T I PROPOSE? >>  SORRY. 
          >>  OKAY . IT CAN BE DONE 
          PERSONALLY. >>  OKAY. 
          MEMBER FLORES. >>  ARE YOU PROPOSING A ZOOM MEETING ON THE 16TH WITH THE 
          COMMISSION? >>  NO, I DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. I'M JUST TRYING TO BE HELPFUL. THE CITY COMMISSIONERS MEETING IS 100 PERCENT IN PERSON AND THERE'S NO VIRTUAL ASPECT TO IT WHATSOEVER. 
          >>  I THINK IF THERE'S A WAY TO WORK OUT SAFELY AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THAT INFORMAL CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMISSION. I JUST THINK THE DIALOGUE WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO SAY ACTUALLY, WE TALKED ABOUT DOING -- DOING SOME ADDITIONAL MORE MINOR ITEMS OVER THE NEXT TWO OR THREE MINN MONTHS. I THINK WE OUGHT TO MUSCLE THROUGH ALL OF THIS IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS RATHER THAN DRAG IT OUT OVER THREE MONTHS. ONE THING, I THINK WE'RE ALL CURRENT. AND WHEN YOU DECIDE AND TAKE IT UP A MONTH FROM NOW OR TWO MONTHS FROM NOW, I THINK YOU LOSE A BIT. 
          I DON'T KNOW. I RESPECT WHATEVER YOU 
          [02:05:02]
WANT TO DO. FOR MY PART, I'M HAPPY TO SPEND THE TIME OVER THE NEXT MONTH OR SO TO ADDRESS ALL -- WHATEVER THE DETAILS ARE. BE DONE WITH IT. 
          >>  MEMBER BEAN. >>  I SECOND. 
          VICE-CHAIR CLARK, ASTUTE WAY OF PUTTING WHAT I WAS THINKING. I AGREE. 
          THE FOLLOW-UP TO THAT IS THAT -- THAT I GOT -- I GOT -- FOR WORK THERE'S SOMETHING CALLED AN ANNUAL SHUTDOWN, A REALLY BIG THING. I'M LOOKING AT STARTING -- STARTING NEXT WEEK WHICH WOULD -- WHICH WOULD CONFLICT WITH THIS DATE BE AT JUNE 16 MEETING. 
          SO IF IT WAS FIRST, THERE'S A 60 PERCENT CHANCE I'LL BE THERE BUT IF IT IS LIVE, I SADLY AND THIS IS REAL PAINFUL TO SAY BECAUSE I LOVE GOING AND TAKING THE INITIATIVE. 
          BUT LAST WEEK OF JUNE, WE COULD MEET SEVEN DAYS IN A ROW IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT. 
          >>  MORRISON. >>  I JUST WANTED TO SAY I WOULD BE HAPPY TO PARTICIPATE IN A VIRTUAL WORKSHOP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEFORE THE NEXT CITY COMMISSION MEETING. 
          THAT MAY BE A NICE WAY TO SORT OF CLOSE OUT THIS RENOWNED OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH THE COMMISSIONERS. 
          AND AS FAR AS THE IDEA OF CONTINUING ON IN -- IN QUOTE, UNQUOTE MUSCLING THROUGH SOME OF THESE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CHARTER, WE'RE INTO IT THIS FAR. 
          I THINK I CERTAINLY WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE WITH THAT. I ALSO AGREE WITH MEMBER CLARK THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IT AND KEEP THE MOMENTUM GOING AND GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT NOT LETTING IT DRAG THROUGH THE 
          SUMMER. >>  I THINK WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT VOTE. 
          >>  SO I'M THINKING MORE, THROUGH JUNE 16 MEETING, THE CITY MANAGER IS GOING TO SHOOT ME, I'M NOT FOR REAL FIGURATIVELY, I THINK WHY DON'T WE DO THIS? GOVERNOR DOS SANTOS SAID VIRTUAL ARE PERMISSIBLE THROUGH JUNE 30TH. 
          WHY DON'T YOU PROVIDE US, THAT'S ONE ISSUE, FOR US TO CONTINUE MEETING AND GETTING OUR WORK DONE WITHOUT -- WITHOUT THE DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSION. 
          THAT'S IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU, IF YOU WOULD SEND KATIE SOME DATES ALL VIRTUAL. 
          SOME UNTIL THE END OF JUNE. 
          WOULD YOU PREFER DATES THAT ARE AVAILABLE OR DATES THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE? 
          DOESN'T MATTER. >>  DOESN'T MATTER. 
          >>  JUST SEND US THOSE AND THEN WE HAVE TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE CHAMBERS ARE AVAILABLE AND IN THIS SAME TIME FRAME AND -- THAT'S THAT. SO -- WE COULD SCHEDULE SOME MORE MEETINGS UNTIL JUNE AND DO THE WORK THAT WE CAN. 
          >>  AND ONE MEETING COULD BE A WORKSHOP WITH THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          >>  RIGHT. I'M THINKING JUNE 16TH MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY TOO SOON BUT IT KIND OF FREAKS PEOPLE OUT WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE A COMMISSION AGENDA. NOBODY TOLD US ABOUT THIS WORKSHOP. I'M THINKING NOW THE NEXT MEETING IS JULY 21ST AND ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNOR RECOMMENDS THAT A BOARD HAVE THE QUORUM PHYSICALLY PRESENT, I'M JUST THROWING THIS OUT THERE, WE HAVE TWO COMMISSIONERS IN THE ROOM HERE NOW. 
          BUT I -- I -- I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE MOST OF YOU ARE MORE COMFORTABLE DOING THIS BECAUSE OF THE RISK VIA ZOOM. 
          THERE'S NO REASON YOU CAN'T DO A WORKSHOP WHERE NOBODY IS VOTING WITH THE CITY COMMISSION SITTING RIGHT HERE PRESENT AND YOU ALL UP ON THE SCREEN JUST LIKE YOU ARE RIGHT NOW AND HAVE A CONVERSATION. 
          LET'S GET IT DONE. SO THAT YOU ALL CAN TALK TO THEM BEFORE THEIR SECOND AND FINAL VOTE ON THE BALLOT QUESTIONS. 
          IT WILL GIVE YOU ALL A CHANCE TO SEE AND DECIDE THE BALLOT QUESTIONS AND THINK ABOUT IT AND TALK WITH THE COMMISSION COLLECTIVELY AND WE CAN SCHEDULE THAT ANYTIME, IT COULD BE EVEN BE IN JULY. 
          >>  OKAY. >>  OKAY. 
          >>  SO WE'RE SENDING KATIE ALL OF OUR AVAILABILITY THROUGH JULY 12TH. 
          >>  THROUGH JULY 12TH. WHAT WE WOULD DO FOR A WORKSHOP WITH THE COMMISSION, IT WOULD MOST LIKELY BE, WE WOULD LOVE IT TO BE ON A TUESDAY ANYTIME, PROBABLY STARTING AT 4:00. 4 P.M. 
          >>  AND THOSE MEETINGS ARE TO FINISH UP WHAT WE STARTED FOR THE REST OF THE CHARTER AND SOMEWHERE IN THERE POTENTIAL WORKSHOP 
          [02:10:02]
WITH THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS -- 
          >>  RIGHT ON A TUESDAY OR WEDNESDAY. 
          YEP. >>  MEMBER MORRISON, 
          YOUR HAND IS UP. >>  OKAY. 
          MEMBER CLARK, NO? EVERYBODY ELSE UP. 
          MEMBER KOZAK. THERE YOU ARE. 
          >>  JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE FIRST READING, WHAT THEY'RE SAYING ON THE 16TH AND BASED ON WHAT YOU SENT US AND THE COMMENTS AT LAST MEETING BEFORE WE ADDRESSED THE COMMISSIONS, THEY HAD IT ON THE 16TH. 
          THEN WE HAD A WORKSHOP IF ANYTHING NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED OR AMENDED, IS THAT 
          RIGHT? >>  WELL YOU CAN SUGGEST AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THAT'S FINE. THERE WILL BE NO VOTES AT THE WORKSHOP AND THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD TAKE THOSE COMMENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND WHEN THEY COME TO VOTE AT THE JULY 21ST MEETING THEY'LL HAVE THOSE 
          THOUGHTS IN MIND. >>  I CHOOSE TO BE OPTIMISTIC THAT THE SUGGESTIONS WE'RE GOING TO BE MAKING WILL ALL SIT WELL WITH THE COMMISSION. I CHOOSE THAT TODAY. 
          MAYBE NOT TOMORROW BUT TODAY I CHOOSE IT. 
          IF IT DOESN'T SIT WELL, IF ANYTHING DOESN'T AT THAT FIRST VOTE THEN WE'LL KNOW WHAT THAT IS IN TIME FOR THE COMMISSION, THE WORKSHOP MEETING TO INSURE WE COULD DISCUSS THEIR CONCERNS AND PERHAPS RESPOND TO THEM. OKAY? HOW ARE WE DOING? EVERYBODY HANGING IN THERE? OKAY. 
          [Item 7.1]
PUBLIC COMMENT. WE STILL WANT TO DO 
          THAT. >>  THAT MIGHT GO AHEAD BECAUSE OF THE REST OF THE COMMENTS ARE ON SECTION 10A AND THE REST OF THE AGENDA 
          IS ON THAT. >>  OKAY. 
          GO FOR IT. >>  DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING? MR. LAURIE IS HERE. 
          >>  WHY DON'T YOU COME FORWARD AND IDENTIFY 
          YOURSELF. >>  GOOD EVENING, 18794 VIRGINIA BEACH, FLORIDA. 
          GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. 32 SECONDS. 
          I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN AS A CITIZEN AND WHAT I THINK IS -- IS WHAT IF I'M READING AND UNDERSTANDING RIGHT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT CONSERVATION LAND CAN BE LEASED TO A -- A PRIVATE BUSINESS. 
          AND I JUST -- I JUST WANTED TO -- TO REALLY JUST NOTE FROM MY CONCERN AS AN INDIVIDUAL ON -- ON -- ON -- ON MAKING SURE THERE'S CLEAR LANGUAGE SO AS A TAXPAYER I KNOW WHAT WE'RE THINKING OF LEASING AND WHO ACTUALLY WE'RE THINKING OF LEASING LAND TO. SO. 
          IT IS JUST A VERY -- VERY SHORT CONCERN BUT I THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT CONCERN. 
          >>  THE NEXT TIME IS DISCUSSION. 
          >>  I'M SORRY. >>  THAT'S OKAY. 
          >>  CAME UP EARLY. SORRY. 
          >>  GOOD DEAL. THANK YOU. 
          >>  OKAY . OKAY 
          >>>THE FIRST COMMENT. THAT WAS PUT INTO ADOBE. JUST SO YOU KNOW WE HAVE ABOUT 13, 12 OR 13 SO BEAR WITH ME. FROM THE AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY ON JUNE 1, 2020. 
          DEAR MEMBERS. THE BOARD AND MEMBER OF AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY HAVE SEVERAL AREAS OF CONCERN RELATED TO HANDLING OF CONSERVATION LAND IN THE CHARTER. 
          THE CONSERVATION LAND AND RECREATION LANLD IS A MATTER OF CONCERN. 
          WHILE A-T-C IS IN SUPPORT OF RECREATION LANLD WE'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THE TENDENCY OF SOME CITIZEN AND COMMISSIONERS TO CON FLAT THE CONSERVATION AND REREEKUATION LAND THERE BIGIVING THE IMPRESSION THE BEACH HAS A HIGH LEVEL OF LAND AND CONSERVATION WHEN THE PERCENTAGES ARE ONLY 17% FOR CONSERVATION AND 25% FOR RECREATION. 
          A BALLPARK IS A GOOD THING. BUT IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GRASS WITH POSSIBLY TWO INCH ROOTS DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO MAKING THE ISLAND RESILIENT OR SUSTAINABLE AS 
          [02:15:02]
NATIVE TREE, SHRUBS AND PLANTS WITH SMALLER ROOTS DO. IN WORSENING STORMS AND SEA LEVEL RISE WE WOULD LIKE THE CHARTER TO MAINTAIN DISSTINKS BETWEEN TWO CATEGORIES TO PROMOTE RESILIENCY AND SUSTAINABLE. ATC SUPPORS THE EFFORT TO ENSURE A SALE OF RECREATION AND CONSERVATION LAND, IF UNDERTAKEN AT ALL, BE A RIGOROUS PROCESS WITH A MAJORITY AND A REFERENDUM REQUIRING 70% APPROVAL. CONSERVATION LAND SHOULD NOT BE LEASED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. BECAUSE OF THE VAST POTENTIAL FOR SERIOUS HARM THE WEAK STANDARDS HIS STORICALLY DEMONSTRATED BY THE CITY AND THE FACT IT'S UNNECESSARY. 
          A, WE LIVE ON A BARRIER ISLAND. HIGHLY SENSITIVE AND VULNERABLE ENVIRONMENT. 
          ESSENTIALLY WE DEPEND ON DUNES AND VEGETATION TO PROTECT US. ACCORDING TO THE LAND CONSERVATION ORDNANCE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR CONSERVATION LANDS AND THE MANAGEMENT OF THOSE LANLDS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY. 
          THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE CONTRACTED OUT BUT THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE LEASE. 
          WHETHER THESE RESPONSIBILITIES ARE CONTRACTED OUT OR HANDLED BY THE CITY, WE ALL NEED TO BE EXTREMELY CONCERNED AS A RESULT OF PAST EXPERIENCE. FOR EXAMPLE, BOSCABELLA TREE AND TOMBSTONES SEVERELY DAMAGED BY CITY STAFF AND CONTRACTORS. THE SAME SCENARIO OCCURRED AT OTHER LOCATIONS AS WELL BUT THOSE SITES ARE OF LESS HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE AND LESS CRITICAL TO THE CITY. AT THIS POINT WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN LAND IS LEASED BASED ON THE RECENT REMOOIFL OF TREES AND UNDERSTORY ON THE AMELIA RIVER GULF COURSE. 
          WHERE ONE OF THE OWNERS TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF TO REMOVE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF TREES WITHOUT CONSULTING THE CITY. WE SUSPECT THIS EFFORT WAS TO ENHANCE THE RIVER VIEW FROM THE GOLF CLUB AND COURSE AND DO NOT BELIEVE THE INDIVIDUAL WAS AWARE HE WAS DOING ANY HARM. 
          NONETHELESS, HE REMOVED ROUGHLY HALF OF THE TREES THAT MANAGE STORM WATER AND SURGE IN AN AREA ON THE RIVER SIDE OF THE GOLF CLUB AND IN REMOVING UNDERSTORY REMOVED CONSIDERABLE HABITAT AND WILDLIFE CORRIDOR. THIS IS NOT CONSERVATION LAND BUT THE CITY DOES HAVE REGULATIONS FOR TREE REMOVAL. BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE ENVIRONMENT WORKS AND SOME DON'T EVEN CARE AS LONG AS THEY CAN MAKE MONEY. THIS CAN HAPPEN ON ANY LEASED PARCEL. FOR THIS REASON IT IS CRITICAL THAT CONSERVATION LAND NOT BE LEASED AT ALL. EITHER ON A LONG OR SHORT-TERM BASIS. 
          THERE IS ALSO PLENTY OF NEGATIVE POTENTIAL IN LEASING RECREATION LAND. 
          SO WE ARGUE THAT THE STANDARDS NEED TO BE HIGH AND RIGOROUSLY ENFORCED. 
          LASTLY, WE REQUEST THAT THE TERM BURDENED BY CONSERVATION EASEMENT IN LINE TWO OF THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR JUNE 4TH BE CHANGED TO A TERM THAT DOES NOT CARRY NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS. 
          THIS MAY SIMPLY BE LEGAL LANGUAGE WAS CONNOTATIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES AND THIS TERMINOLOGY COULD DO SIGNIFICANT HARM EVEN WITH WOULD BE PREFERABLE. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY DURING THESE DIFFICULT TIMES. 
          RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. BOARD OF DIRECTORS AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY. 
          >>>THE NEXT COMMENT IS FROM CHRIS BOTKA JUNE 2ND, GOOD MORNING. 
          SINCE MOVING TO THE CITY NEARLY THREE YEARS AGO I HAVE BEEN VERY IMPRESSED BY THE LEVEL OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. IT'S A COMPLEX PLACE IN TERMS OF BALANCING LIVING, WORKING VACATIONING USES. I'M GLAD THAT SO MANY GROUPS PUT THEIR HEART AND SOULS INTO MAKING SURE THE BEST BALANCE POSSIBLE OCCURS. THANKS TO ALL FOR TAKING YOUR PERSONAL TIME TO PARTICIPATE IN THE REVIEW OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH CHARTER. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR OPINIONS AROUND LEASING CONSERVATION LAND AS OUTLINED IN THE LETTER ATTACHED. OUR HEALTH AND SAFETY, AS WELL AS OUR ENJOYMENT OF THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF OUR ISLAND DEPENDS ON THE FIERCE PROTECTION OF OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. 
          I URGE YOU TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS ISSUE AND DECIDE NOT TO ALLOW FOR THE LEASE OF 
          CONSERVATION LAND IN OUR CHARTER. >>>THE NEXT COMMENT IS FROM JANUARY MORROW1658 FIELD STREET. ONE OF THE PROVISIONS THE FERNANDINA REVIEW BOARD HAS BEEN CONSIDERING IS A PROVISION PROHIBITING THE SALE OR LONG TERM LEASING OF CITY OWNED CONSERVATION LANDS WITHOUT FIRST A PUBLIC REFERENDUM. I WOULD LIKE TO STAY I AM OPPOSED TO HAVING CONSERVATION LAND LEASED. EVEN THE PARTY WOULD BE A NONPROFIT. LEASING CAN OPEN THE WAY FOR IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO TREED 
          [02:20:04]
PROPERTIES EVEN FOR A SHORT TERM LEASE. THE CITIZENS HAVE GIVEN THE COMMISSION A MANDATE TO CONSERVE AS MUCH LAND AS POSSIBLE. GIVING UP CONTROL OF SUCH LAND OPENS US UP TO MISTAKES WE CAN ILL AFFORD SINCE THE AMOUNT OF TREE PARCELS IS DIMINISHING BY THE DAY. LEASE PROPERTY COULD BE IMPACTED BY THE NEEDS TO CREATE PARKING PLACE, FACILITIES OR OTHER IMPROVEMENT. S. 
          >>>THE NEXT COMMENT IS FROM JANE GRIFFIT MAY 30TH. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. 
          CHARTER LANGUAGE SHOULD COMPLETELY REMOVE THE RIGHT TO LEASE CONSERVATION LAND FOR ANY TIME PERIOD WITHOUT A PUBLIC VOTE. FERNANDINA BEACH HAS SO LITTLE REMAINING CONSERVATION LAND DUE TO POOR DECISIONS BY THE CITY. JANE GRIFFITH 1521 DADE STREET. 
          FERNANDINA BEACH. >>>THE NEXT COMMENT IS FROM TIA GOUD. 
          WE SUPPORT THE VIEWS OF THE TREE CONSERVANCY CONTAINED IN THEIR LETTER. 
          THANK YOU. THIA AND BOB. 15 BEACHWOOD, JUNE 3RD. 
          >>>THE NEXT COMMENT IS FROM LORI HEMPKIE. LORI AND DEAL 1751 BARINGTON DRIVE. MY HUSBAND AND I WANT TO EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS INTENSE PROJECT. ON OUR BEHALF BELOW IS FEEDBACK. CONSERVATION LAND IS NOT TO BE LEASED OR PURCHASED. STANDARDS FOR OUR CONSERVATION LAND SHOULD BE SET HIGH TO PROTECT LANDS ON OUR BARRIER ISLAND. EVEN IF CITY STAFF WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE LANDS NEED TO SET UP A CONTRACT TO CARE FOR THE PROPERTIES THE STANDARDS OF CARE SHOULD BE HIGH AND SHOULD BE CLEAR. PART OF THAT CLARITY IS ESTABLISHING WHO IS RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR ENSURING THAT SUCH LANDS ARE PROTECTED. 
          I HOPE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING VIA ZOOM BUT WANT YOU TO HAVE OUR THOUGHTS IN ADVANCE OF 
          THE MEETING. >>>SPEAKING OF THAT. DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WAITING? OKAY. GOOD TO KNOW. 
          >>  NOT AT THIS TIME. I'M LEAVING IT OPEN IN CASE SOMEBODY JOINSES IN. 
          >>>THE NEXT COMMENT FROM MARRY HOWIT ON JUNE 3RD. I DON'T WANT ANY SPECIAL LAND LEASED. THIS IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. I HAVE LIVED HERE IN NASSAU COUNTY FOR 26 YEARS AND RECENTLY A LOT OF LAND USE IS MODIFIED OR WANTED TO BE MODIFIED THAT IS 
          UNACCEPTABLE. MARY ANN HOWIT JUNE 3RD. >>> THE NEXT COMMENT FROM BETSY HUBEN JUNE 4TH. DEAR MEMBERS OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE. I ALSO WANT TO, THIS IS WHAT I READ EARLIER IN TO THE RECORD WAS ALSO WANT TO STATE UNEQUIVOCALLY I AGREE WITH SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED BY ROBERT AND THE NEWS LEADER ON JUNE 3RD CONSIDERING -- SORRY. I UNEQUIVOCALLY SUPPORT ALL OF THE IDEAS AS EXPRESSED IN THE LETTER TO YOU BY THE LEADERSHIP TEAM AT AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY ON JUNE 1, 2020. SHE IS, HER ADDRESS IS 4615 PHILLIPS MANOR PLACE. 
          >>>THE NEXT IS MARGARET KIRKLAND. DEAR CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON JUNE 1ST. THE BOARD AND MEMBERSHIP OF AMELIA TREE COB SER VAN SI ARE SUBMITTING ATTACHED COMMENTS REGARDING HANDLE OF THE LAND CONSERVATION. 
          WE APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY IN THESE DIFFICULT TIMES. 
          >>>NEXT COMMENT IS FROM ALEXANDER LAJU ON JUNE 2ND. DEAR CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. 
          I'M WRITING TO OPPOSE CHANGES TO SECTION TEN OF THE CHARTER. THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO SECTION TEN IN THE DAVIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW LEASING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL LAND UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. I OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE CITY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HONOR, I DON'T KNOW. IT SAYS NO NOR, MAYBE HONOR AND ENFORCE IT'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE UNDER SUCH SITUATIONS. IN FACT RS CHARTER LANGUAGE SHOULD REMOVE THE RIGHT TO LEASE OR SALE CONSERVATION LAND FOR ANY TIME PERIOD WITHOUT A PUBLIC 
          VOTE. >>>THE NEXT COMMENT IS FROM SHERRY ROAN ON JUNE 3RD. 
          COMMITTEE MEMBER, I'M WRITING TO URGE YOU TO TAKE EVERY PRECAUTION TO PROTECT CONSERVATION LAND IN FERNANDINA BEACH AS YOU WRESTLE WITH THE CITY CHARTER REVIEW. 
          [02:25:02]
IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO LEASE CONSERVATION LAND AND RISK ANY UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCES OF TURNING THE LAND OVER TO A LEASE SEE. THE SALE OVER SHOULD BE PROTECTED BY REQUIRING A VOTE OF ALL FIVE CITY COMMISSIONERS AND A VOTER REFERENDUM REQUIRING A SUPERMAJORITY. THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF OUR CITY IS A BIG PART OF WHAT MAKES US UNIQUE. OUR TREE CANOPIES, SAND DUNES AND MARSH WETLANDS. 
          WE SHOULD STRIVE TO PROTECT AS MUCH AS THAT AS CONSERVATION LAND AS POSSIBLE. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK. SINCERELY SHARON ROAN. 1586 CANOPY DRIVE, FERNANDINA 
          BEACH. >>>THE NEXT IS FROM PEGGY ROSEEL JUNE 1ST. 
          IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THE LDC REVISION LANGUAGE FOUR SECTION TEN A INVOLVES LEASING LAND PURCHASED FOR CONSERVATION. THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION OF TIME FRAMES OF 20 AND 40 YEARS AND OF NO LEASE AT AIL FOR CONSERVATION LAND. I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH LEASING CONSERVATION LAND FOR ANY TIME FRAME. I HAVE CONTRIBUTED MONEY TO THE CONSERVATION FUND AND DID SO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE DOLLARS WOULD BE USED TO PURCHASE LAND TO BE USED FOR CONSERVATION ONLY. ANY LEGITIMATE SERVICES NEEDED TO BE PROVIDED THAT LAND CAN BE DONE BY CONTRACT. PLEASE CONTINUE TO CONSIDER THE MOST APPROPIATE LANGUAGE FOR KEEPING CONSERVATION LAND JUST THAT. 
          PEGGY ROSEEL, 524, TARPIN AVENUE. >>>THE NEXT COMMENT IS FROM JULIE FERRERA. DEAR MEMBERS OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. 
          THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE NASSAU COUNTY SIERRA CLUB UNDERSTANDS THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE AGREED ANY SALE OR LEASE LONGER THAN 40 YEARS OF CITY OWNED RECREATIONAL OR CONSERVATION LAND MUST RECEIVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION AND 70% APPROVAL BY THE VOTING PUBLIC. WE REQUEST ANY LANGUAGE REGARDING THE LEASING OF CITY OWNED CONSERVATION LAND NOT BE ADDED TO THE CITY CHARTER. AS A BOARD WE DO NOT AGREE WITH STATEMENTS MADE AT THE FEBRUARY 25TH MEETING BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR KELLY GIBSON THAT WITHOUT THE CAVEAT AFTER LEASING CONSERVATION LAND MIGHT FALL INTO AN ABANDONED STATE. 
          SINCE WHEN IS KEEPING LAND IN ITS NATURAL STATE CONSIDERED A BAD THING? HUMANS FALL HAS SHRUNK THE WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND NATURAL LANDS. 
          AS A RESULT, LOCAL WILDLIFE STRUGGLES TO FIND PLACES TO REAR THEIR YOUNG, FEED, FIND SHELTER AND HAVE A SAFE CORRIDOR IN ORDER TO SATISFY THEIR MIGRATION NEEDS. 
          THE EXPANSION OF POPULATION ON THE ISLAND IS BRINGING PEOPLE AND DEVELOPMENT IN TO CONFLICT WITH LOCAL WILDLIFE AND THEIR HISTORIC HABITATS. NOT TOO MANY YEARS AGO WE HAD A BOB CAT POPULATION IN THE CITY. WE ALSO OCCASIONALLY HAVE BLACK BEARS THAT SWIM ACROSS THE RIVER OR VISIT THE ISLAND FROM THE SOUTH. THE HABITAT THAT ANIMALS RELY ON CONTINUES TO BE FRAGMENTED BY HOUSING, ROADS, FENCES AND OTHER MANMADE BARRIERS. 
          AS A RESULT, OUR ANIMALS ARE STRUGGLING MORE AND MORE TO REACH FOOD, WATER, SHELTER AND BREEDING SITES. WE ASK THAT YOU HELP PROTECT OUR CITY ECOSYSTEM OF WHICH WILD ANIMALS ARE A PART. NASSAU COUNTY SIERRA CLUB ADVOCATES THAT LEAVING NATURE WILD PROMOTES ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ON OUR ISLAND. WE BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT THE LEASING OF CONSERVATION LAND COULD OPEN THE WAY FOR IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THIS ECOSYSTEM. EVEN FOR A SHORT TERM LEASE. WE BELIEVE THAT LEASED PROPERTY COULD BE IMPACTED ADVERSELY BY POSSIBLE PARKING PLACES, KIOSKS, FACILITIES OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. THE 40-YEAR LEASE IS EXTREME. THAT'S ABOUT HALF OF A HUMAN LIFE SPAN. PRESERVING HABITAT AND WILDLIFE CORRIDORS BUILDS RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE BY ALLOWING SPECIES TO MOVE THROUGH A NETWORK OF ECOLOGICALLY RICH AREAS UNINTERRUPTED BY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. IT IS OUR FIRM BELIEF THAT CONSERVATION LAND SHOULD BE UINTERRUPTED BY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. 
          NO ROADS. NO PARKING PLACES. NO DEVELOPMENT. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. SINCERELY NASSAU COUNTY SIERRA 
          GRUB EXECUTIVE BOARD. >>>NEXT COMMENT IS FROM ROBERT WINETROB JUNE 1ST. 
          I AM OPPOSED TO ANY EXCEPTION TO THIS SECTION THAT WOULD ALLOW ANY LEASING OF CITY OWNED CONSERVATION LAND. AN EXCEPTION WOULD CREATE A LOOPHOLE THAT WOULD INVITE THAT FAIRS PEOPLE TO BRING A TROJAN HORSE THROUGH IT. KEEP THE GATES CLOSED. 
          [02:30:04]
          >>>THE FINAL COMMENT IS FROM SHAMIRA W. ON JUNE 2ND. SHE SIGNS IT SO SHAMIRA AND BURKE WEEST. WE ARE WRITING TO EXPRESS OUR GRAVE CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE OF AMELIA ISLAND IN THE FACE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES, AS WELL AS, LAND DEVELOPMENT AND THE DELL TEAR YOUS AND DISASTROUS EFFECT OF THE LATTER WHEN MISMANAGED. 
          MY HUSBAND AND I SERVED AS U.S. DIPLOMATS IN CHINA AND MALAYSIA AND TRAVELED WIDELY THROUGH ASIA FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS UNTIL JUNE 2019. IN ASIA THE IMPACT OF UNCONTROLLED PROFIT DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT LED TO SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES WITH TIBET, KASHMIR, MYANMAR AND SO ON. LOSS OF WATER FROM THE HIMALAYAS FOR PERSONAL USE OF THAT OVER LOCAL COMMUNITIES. LOSS OF COMPLEX BIO DIVERSE LAND PRESERVED FOR MY LEN YA TO BE REPLACED BY FACTORIES AND LANDSLIDES FLOODING, EXCESSIVE LOSS OF LIFE, POVERTY, REF JEW AND HUMANITARIAN CRISIS AND MORE. THESE FACTORS HAVE GREATLY AWAKENED A BELIEF IN US THAT AMELIA ISLAND NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED WITH NO MORE IMPACT TO THE LOCAL FORESTS, TREES AND DUNES. CONSERVING THE NATURAL DEFENSES OF AMELIA ISLAND INCLUDING KEY STRETCHES OF FOREST AND DUNE. LAND SYSTEM OF ANCIENT TREES THAT MANAGE STORM WATER IS ESSENTIAL. NOT ONLY TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL PLEASURE OF THE CONSERVATION NISS BUT THE FINANCIAL AND DEVELOPMENT INTEREST OF ALL WHO LIVE, WORK OR INVEST ON THIS ISLAND. GRAVE AND LASTINGER RORS SUCH AS THE REMOVAL OF A SWATH OF PROTECTIVE TREES AT A RIVER SIDE GOLF COURSE WILL PUT THE FINANCIAL STATUS AND VALUE OF THE ISLAND AT A REPARABLE RISK AS STORM OR FLOOD DAMAGE IS INCREASINGLY INCURRED CAUSING A RISE IN INSURANCE COSTS AND DEPRECIATION OF THE VALUE OF LAND ON THE ISLAND DUE TO PERCEIVED RISK AND LACK OF LOCAL COLOR OR NATURAL BEAUTY. 
          WHILE YOU WILL NO DOUBT ARGUE TO YOURSELVES THAT AMELIA ISLAND IS A FAR CRY FROM BECOMING AS BAD AS THE CHINESE SURGE IN INDUSTRIAL HORROR, IT IS THE FIRST STEPS TO UNCONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT THAT LEAD TO FUTURE URGES FOR PROFIT ORIENTED STRUCTURES AND A PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT RUN AMUCK. WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THE INCEPTION OF THIS TREND TO EASY COST FREE PROFITABLE UNMAN JED, UNCONSCIOUSABLE DEVELOPMENT WHICH BENEFITS ONLY IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL INTERESTS WILL IN THE SPACE OF A DECADE LEAD TO SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPORTANCE, INSURANCE RATE, PROPERTY VALUE, AS WELL AS, BEAUTY AND REPUTATION OF AMELIA ISLAND. A SPECIAL AND ESSENTIAL PLACE ON THE ATLANTIC COAST. 
          AMELIA ISLAND IS A BARRIER ISLAND ABUNDANT WITH SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES. 
          THE CURRENT LANGUAGE USED TO DESCRIBE THESE FEATURES IS LINE TWO OF THE CHARTER AS BURDENED RATHER THAN ITS TRUE VALUE, WHICH IS ABUNDANT, PRINCIPAL AND IRREPLACEABLE NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. THESE FEATURES EVOLVED OVER NUMEROUS MY LEN YA TO SURVIVE THE STORM, WINDS, FLOODS AND CATASTROPHIC IMPACT OF HURRICANES THAT OCCUR HERE ON A REGULAR BASIS. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF WEATHER PATTERNS REVEALS THE NATURE OF SUCH ACTIVITY AND THE REGION APPEARS TO CURRENTLY BE IN A STAGE OF INCREASING STORM ACTIVITY. IT IS THE ISLANDS NATURAL STRUCTURES THAT HAVE SURVIVED THIS KIND OF CYCLIC SURGES WHERE AS HUMAN BUILD OR HUMAN DESIGN STRUCTURES INCLUDING HOMES, BUILDINGS, LANDSCAPING AND RECREATIONAL LAND ARE KNOWN TO DETRACT FROM THE ABILITY OF ALL LIFE ON THE ISLAND TO SURVIVE UNLESS PROPERLY MANAGED. BY DEPRIVING THE ISLAND OF ITS NATURAL RESOURCES WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DEFENSIVE CHARACTER OF THESE RESOURCES, RISE IN INSURANCE COSTS AND A DEPRECIATION IN THE UNIQUENESS AND BEAUTY OF THIS ISLAND AND WILL INEVITABLY LEAD TO SIGNIFICANT LOSSES ON MULTIPLE FRONTS. 
          THAT IS, LET ME DOUBLE CHECK. THOSE ARE ALL OF THE COMMENTS. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WAITING ON 
          ZOOM? >>  WE DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY WAITING ON ZOOM AND THE LAST, I'M JUST CHECKING THE E-MAILS ONE LAST TIME. WE HAVEN'T HAD ANYTHING COME IN 
          SINCE 2:30. >>  ANYBODY ELSE? >>  ANYBODY HERE? 
          COMMISSIONER ROSS? >>  I SWORE I WASN'T GOING TO DO THIS. 
          >>  IDENTIFY YOURSELF. >>  SURE. CHIP ROSS. 
          [02:35:01]
210 NORTH THIRD STREET. I BELIEVE I WAS THE ONE WHO PROPOSED THAT ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. 
          AM I CORRECT? I THINK I DID. THE LEASE PORTION WAS PUT IN BECAUSE IT WAS TO PARALLEL WHAT WENT WITH THE RECREATION. SINCE THAT TIME REFLECTING UPON IT AND MORE INFORMATION AND SO ON, I WOULD URGE THAT THAT BE DELETED FROM THE PART ABOUT LEASING CONSERVATION LAND. IT MAKES SENSE TO BE ABLE TO LEASE RECREATION LAND LIKE THE PUTT PUTT GOLF BUT IT MAKES NO SENSE, WELL IT MAKES NO SENSE. I THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TO LEASE CONSERVATION LAND. I ORIGINALLY, I THINK, PROPOSED TO HAVE FIVE CITY COMMISSIONERS, FOUR OR FIVE, AND 70%. I WOULD HOPE THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED. 
          THANK YOU. >>>CAN I JUST ASK ONE QUESTION? 
          >>  SURE. >>  DO WE CURRENTLY OR HAVE WE EVER HAD ANY SITUATIONS WHERE 
          WE'VE LEASED CONSERVATION LAND? >>  NOT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. 
          >>  NO. >>  I DON'T THINK IT'S, PERSONALLY, WE CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONSERVATION FUND. OUR THOUGHT IS THAT THERE IN PERPETUITY. 
          IT SHOULD BE THERE IN PERPETUITY. I WOULD LIKE, ONCE IT'S PUT IN THE CONSERVATION AND EVEN WITH THIS THAT CONSERVATION'SMENTS BE PUT ON IT SO THIS LAND CAN GO FORWARD IN PERPETUITY AND BE PRESERVED. THAT WAS THE OBJECT OF WHAT I WAS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WHEN I ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THIS A LONG TIME AGO. 
          THANK YOU. >>>THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? 
          >>  MADAME CHIR. I HAVE SOMETHING TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS. 
          >>  MS. BOCK HAS COMMENTS. >>  THE FIRST THING AND THIS IS NOT TO CORRECT ANYBODY, JUST TO EXPLAIN AND CLARIFY WHERE WE BEGAN. CURRENTLY, AND I'LL DESCRIBE IT FOR PEOPLE LISTENING, TOO. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CURRENT SECTION TEN A OF THE CHARTER, IT IS BROKEN DOWN INTO TWO DIFFERENT SUBSECTIONS. THE FIRST ONE TALKS ABOUT GOLF COURSE AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES CANNOT BE LEASED, SOLD, OR LEASED FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS. THE TERM LEASE IS ALREADY IN THE CHARTER WITH REGARD TO RECREATION LAND. A FEW MONTHS AGO, PROBABLY MORE LIKE SIX MONTHS AGO, THE CITY COMMISSION ADOPTED AN ORDNANCE RECOMMENDING A CHARTER CHANGE AND A BALLOT QUESTION THAT WAS PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER ROSS, SPECIFICALLY, TO ADD THE VERY SAME RESTRICTION TO THE CHARTER TO PUT CONSERVATION LAND AT THE SAME LEVEL AS RECREATION LAND. IN EVERY ONE, ALL OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIAL, COMMISSIONERS DEFENSE, THAT WAS WAY BEFORE ANYBODY THOUGHT THROUGH WHAT THE AFFECTS OF LEASING WOULD BE OR ANYTHING, OR THE 40 YEARS AND BY THE WAY, 40 YEARS IS NOT A MAGIC NUMBER. 
          IT TENDS TO RUN 30 COULD BE THE SAME THING. 30 OR 40 IS USUALLY WHAT THE LENGTH OF A COMMERCIAL TYPE OF LOAN OR MORTGAGE IS GOING TO BE. JOHN COULD ADD TO THAT A LITTLE BIT. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE THE 40 YEARS CAME FROM. 
          THE CITY LOOKS AT PROPERTY AND SOMEBODY WANTS A LONG TERM LICE. 40 IS EVEN TOO SHORT NOWADAYS. 
          THAT'S WHERE THE 40 CAME FROM. IT WASN'T SOMEBODY'S BRIGHT IDEA. 
          IT'S RELATED TO FNTSING ISSUES AND WHAT BANKS ARE LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF SECURITY. 
          THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. SEVERAL MEETINGS AGO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE LOOKED AT THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION TEN A AND CONSIDERED A PROPOSAL FROM COMMISSIONER ROSS THAT WOULD CHANGE BOTH RECREATION AND CONSERVATION LAND TO SELL IT OR LEASE IT FOR 40 OR MORE YEARS. JUST TAKING THE LANGUAGE WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AND SAYING YOU KNOW WHAT? WE NEED NOT JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE FROM THE CITY COMMISSION TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. IT NEEDS TO BE A UNANIMOUS VOTE. 
          ALL FIVE CITY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO VOTE TO APPROVE PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT, EVEN. 
          THEN THE VOTERS WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE IT BY 70% OF THE VOTERS THAT VOTED ON THAT REFERENDUM QUESTION. SO THAT'S WHERE WE STAND TODAY. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO ANYBODY LISTENING OR WHO WROTE IN THE TERM LEASE WAS NOT ADDED BY ANYBODY. 
          THERE'S NOT A PERSON INCLUDING CITY STAFF THAT WOULD EVER THINK TO DO THAT TYPE OF THING. 
          WE'VE NOT RUN AMUCK HERE OR ANYTHING. THESE ARE JUST PROPOSALS. 
          AS LONG AS, AT THIS POINT, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE IS CLEAR ABOUT WHERE WE ARE. 
          [02:40:05]
ONE MORE THING, AND WHERE WE'RE GOING. BURDENED IS AN ABSOLUTE LEGAL TERM. 'SMENT BURDEN PROPERTY BECAUSE THERE'S AN UNDERLYING PROPERTY. 
          I UNDERSTAND HOW, AND THAT WOULD NEVER GET INTO THE BALLOT QUESTION. 
          BUT I AM HAPPY TO USE ANOTHER TERM. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. 
          >>>OKAY. I HAVE ALL HANDS UP. MEMBER KOZAK. 
          [INAUDIBLE] >>>WHAT? >>  THANK YOU TAMMY FOR GOING THROUGH ALL OF THAT. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO SYNOPSIS. 
          I THINK THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS GOOD AND THROUGH FURTHER SCRUTINY AND LOOKING AT IT AND BY COMBINING THE TWO THE CONSERVATION LAND AND THE RECREATION AIRS THAT'S WHERE WE COME INTO SOME -- POSSIBLY FIRST OFF SEPARATE THOSE BACK OUT AND WE CAN TREAT THEM SEPARATELY AND INDIVIDUALLY, IF RECREATION LAND OR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES HAVE NEVER POSED A PROBLEM AS THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IS WE CAN KEEP TAT. THEN WE CAN GO BACKWARDS AND HAVE A SEPARATE AREA DEALING WITH CONSERVATION LANDS BASED ON WHATEVER WE DECIDE TO DO WITH 
          THAT. >>>OKAY. MEMBER CLARK. 
          >>>RARELY HAVE I SEEN AN ISSUE WHERE THERE'S SUCH AN OUTPOURING OF COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS. WE HEARD TAMMY JUST READ THEM ALL. 
          I THINK IN THE PAST WE'VE HEARD SIMILAR COMMENTARY. I THINK THERE'S VERY LITTLE OPPORTUNITY TO LEASE CONSERVATION LAND FOR AN APPROPRIATE PURPOSE. 
          GIVEN THE PRECONSISTING COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC MY SUGGESTION IS WE JUST DELETE ALL REFERENCE TO LEASING CONSERVATION LAND. ALL TOGETHER. JUST TAKE IT OUT. 
          AND JUST AS A SIDE NOTE ON THE TWO PROVISIONS IN HERE ABOUT THE UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE COMMISSION AND 70% VOTE. IT STRIKES ME THOSE ARE, I UNDERSTAND THE SENTIMENT IS TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO SELL CONSERVATION LAND BUT WHEN YOU SAY UNANIMOUS, TO ME IT JUST SETS UP THE STAGE FOR GAME PLAYING. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. I WOULD PERSONALLY PREFER LANGUAGE THAT SAYS SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF THE COMMISSION AND 70% SEEMS ARBITRARY. 60% SEEMS MORE COMMON OR EVEN TWO THIRDS. MY BASIC PROPOSAL IS JUST DELETE ALL REFERENCE TO LEASING CONSERVATION LAND SO IT'S NOT ADDRESSED IN HERE. THEN THOSE OTHER TWO THINGS ARE LESS IMPORTANT IN MY MIND BUT I JUST MENTION BECAUSE I PERSONALLY THINK SUPERMAJORITY IS ADEQUATE AND ALSO THINK 60% VOTE OPPOSED TO 70% IS GOOD, TOO. 
          THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. >>>MEMBER DAVIS. >>>THANK YOU. 
          FROM THE LANGUAGE SUBMITTED IN THE PACKET. I'M VERY, EVER SINCE THIS PACKET WENT OUT I'VE BEEN WANTING TO GET THE LEASING CONSERVATION LAND OUT OF 10A. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT THE OTHER MEMBERS ARE FEEL THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE. 
          WITH RESPECT TO THE LANGUAGE FOR 10A AND THE JUNE 4TH PACKAGE WHERE WE WENT FROM INITIALLY FOUR SUBSECTIONS DOWN TO JUST TWO. THAT'S WHEN THEY STARTED COMBINING RECREATIONAL AND CONSERVATION LANDS. I APPROPRIATE VERY MUCH THE EFFORT TO SIMILARLY FI AND REDUCE SOME REDUNDANCY BUT I THINK THIS WAS A CASE OF GOING A LITTLE TOO FAR. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE GO BACK TO THE PRIOR DRAFT BUT INSTEAD OF MAKING FOUR CLAUSES WE COULD MAYBE DO THREE SO CLAUSE ONE WAS PRETTY MUCH DEALING WITH ALL OF JUST THE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND THE DEFINITION AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS. 
          CLAUSE TWO COULD BE ALL ABOUT THE CONSERVATION LAND. CLAUSE THREE COULD BE THE ONE THAT WOULD RELATE TO BOTH OF THEM SAYING THAT WHAT THE PROCESS IS FOR THE ACTUAL REFERENDUM, THE AMOUNT OF THE VOTE AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PUBLIC. 
          THAT WOULD APPLY TO BOTH PARAGRAPH ONE AND TWO. SEPARATE OUT THE TWO BECAUSE 
          [02:45:04]
THEY ARE QUITE DIFFERENT. RECREATIONAL FACILITY AND CONSERVATION LAND. 
          BUT BECAUSE THERE IS THE ONE ITEM THAT'S SIMILAR BETWEEN THEM, WHICH IS WE WANT THAT DIFFICULT, WE WANT THAT HIGH VOTE BY BOTH THE COMMISSION AND THE ELECT RAT I WOULD PUT THAT IN A SEPARATE CLAUSE THREE. I MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE FIRST ONE THAT SUGGESTED THE PHRASE BURDENED BY CONSERVATION 'EASEMENT IN A TIP TO MY PROFIT PROFESSOR IN LAW SCHOOL. 
          IF WE COULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE CITY OWNED, CONSERVATION EASEMENTS HELD BY THE CITY, 
          SOMETHING LIKE THAT. TURN IT AROUND. >>  MEMBER LASEAR. 
          >>>JUST ON THAT POINT QUICKLY. I THINK THE CHARTER WOULD BE ANOTHER LEGAL CHARTER TAKING THE PLACE OF BURDEN. TO SAY INCUM BERED BY CONSERVATION EASEMENT DOESN'T GIVE THE NEGATIVE CONNOTATION BUT THE BURDEN IS BENEFIT. 
          BENEFIT FROM THE EASEMENT OR BURDENED BY IT. BOTH WAY IT'S AN INCUM BRANCH. 
          THERE ARE ONLY TWO USES PERPTED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THAT'S IT. 
          BUT IT'S THERE LIKE TRANSMISSION LINES AND STORM WATER STORAGE. THAT'S IT. 
          THE CENTRAL PUBLIC SERVICES SUCH AS TRANCE MISSION LINES AND LIFT STATIONS AND THEN STORM WATER TREATMENT FACILITY OR STORM WATER TREATMENT PLANT. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO PERMITTED USES. THERE'S ONE OTHER THAT'S USED, THAT'S ALLOWABLE PICNIC AREAS, TRAILS AND NATURE FACILITY. YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY CHANCE WE'LL HAVE ANYBODY THAT REALLY WANTS TO COME IN AND PAY BIG BUCKS FOR A NATURE TRAIL PICNIC FACILITY. 
          I DO THINK IF WE JUST DELETE CONSERVATION ALL TOGETHER THEN THAT BASICALLY LEAVES THE OPPORTUNITY OPEN FOR THE CITY COMMISSION TO DO IT, DOES IT NOT? 
          >>  YES. >>  IF WE SAY THEY CAN'T SELL IT WITHOUT FIVE VOTES AND 70% OR 60% THAT LEAVES IT OPEN THEY CAN LEASE IT. I THINK THAT'S SURPRISING TO ME IS THAT I FEEL LIKE WE RESTRICTED IT AND NOW THAT'S THE WAY IT'S PERCEIVED. 
          I JUST DON'T REALLY SEE THE LIKELIHOOD OF ANYONE COMING THROUGH AND LEASING THAT. 
          MAYBE A UTILITY WOULD. AS FAR AS THE SALE OF CONTINUES CONSERVATION LAND IT COULD BE THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DDP WILL COME BY AND MANAGE IT AND THE CITY WOULD NEGOTIATE TO PROTECT IT AND THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO USE IT IN A WAY THEY WOULD WANT TO. 
          THEY DO, THEY ARE DOING THAT. MORE UP IN NORTH FLORIDA THAN THEY USED TO. 
          I'M CONCERNED ABOUT TIEING THE HANDS. IT'S NOT ABOUT DEVELOPERS OR DEVELOPMENT. IT'S ABOUT A CITY COMMISSION IN THE FUTURE BEING ABLE TO TAKE A PHYSICAL MOVE THAT MAY BE OPEN TO THEM. THANK YOU. 
          >>>MARGARET I HAVE TWO BEFORE YOU. I SAW YOU RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          MEMBER MORRISSON. >>>I SPENT A LOT OF TIME OVER THE LAST WEEK LOOKING INTO THIS ISSUE AND TALKING TO PEOPLE FROM THE CONSERVATION COMMUNITY, PEOPLE AT CITY HALL, SOME OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND WHAT I FOUND WHEN IT COMES TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO LEAVE THE IDEA OF LEASING ON THE TABLE OR COMPLETELY TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE IS THAT THERE WASN'T A STRONG CONSENSUS. I HEARD DIFFERENCE OF OPINIONS. 
          SOME PEOPLE SAID IT WOULD BE [INAUDIBLE] TO CHANGE THE CITY CHARTER TO COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THAT POSSIBILITY. OTHER PEOPLE SAID THAT IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO EVER LEAVE THAT AS AN OPTION. YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY, WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO, I THINK, IS WHAT I FEEL LIKE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE FELT AND I THINK THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE FEEL LIKE IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT CONSERVATION LAND IS HELD UNDAMAGED IN PERPETUITY AND THEY ARE REACHING INTO THEIR POCKETS TO DONATE THEIR OWN MONEY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS FUND. I THINK THAT THE RIGHT THING FOR US TO DO IS TO LISTEN TO THOSE PEOPLE AND I SUPPORT TAKING THE OPTION OF LEASING OUT OF THIS 
          CHANGED AMENDMENT. >>>MEMBER DEAN. >>>THANK YOU. 
          [02:50:05]
I WANT TO SAY I'M EXTREMELY EXCITED ABOUT THE EXTREME CIVIC PARTICIPATION WE RECEIVED ON THIS ISSUE. A LOT OF GREAT OUTPOURING OF SUPPORT FROM OUR COMMUNITY IN SUPPORT OF OUR LANDS. I LIKE TO SAY THAT THE AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY IS EXACTLY RIGHT HERE. WE SHOULD NOT BE LEASING CONSERVATION LAND. 
          I WILL ALWAYS BACK UP OUR CONSERVATION LANDS. I'M EXCITED TO PLACE MY SUPPORT BEHIND PROTECTING OUR CONSERVATION LANDS HERE. IT'S A GREAT TIME TO DO IT AND IT'S SUCH A GREAT ORGANIZATION. THE AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY HELPED US OUT. 
          I WANT TO THANK THE VOICES THAT POURED OUT. I WOULD LIKE TO NOT JUST TAKE IT OUT I WANT TO PUT EXTRA PROTECTION TO CONSERVATION LAND IN THE CHARTER, IF WE CAN. 
          LET'S SAY YOU CAN'T LEASE IT AT ALL. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUPPORT. 
          TAKE IT OUT OR PROTECT IT MORE. >>  MEMBER DAVIS. >>>OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. NOW IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE THAT I SUBMITTED AS AN AMENDMENT, I SAID, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE IT WAS THE OTHER ONE. I SAY DELETE THE LANGUAGE FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 40 YEARS. SO THAT, THEREFORE, DELETE IS A REFERENDUM ELECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE SALE OR LEASE. SO I WANTED TO GET OUT THE ABILITY SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS REFERENDUM TO SELL OR LEASE THE CONSERVATION LAND. SO THAT IS WHAT WE ALL WANT TO DO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PUBLIC, AT LEAST THE COMMENTS WE GOT, ARE LOOKING TO DO. 
          NOT TO COMPLETELY BE SILENT ON LEASING BUT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT VOTE PRIOR TO A SALE OR A LEASE. AS FAR AS THE ONLY TWO USES ARE AVAILABLE UNDER THE LDC, THAT'S CURRENT BUT IT ONLY TAKES A MAJORITY VOTE TO AMEND THE LDC. SO IF WE'RE TRYING TO DO THESE THINGS WITH A SUPERMAJORITY TYPE OF WAY THEY COULD, YOU KNOW, DO VARIANCES, EXCEPTIONS OR AMEND THE LDC TO PUT IN POSSIBILITIES. THEY ARE SO LIMITED AND THIS JOHN IS, I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE VERY MANY PEOPLE IN LEASING THEN WE ARE NOT HURTING THOSE INDIVIDUALS BY PROHIBITING AY LEASING OF CONSERVATION LAND. LASTLY, IF THE CITY DOES GET A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO SELL IT AND GET A CONSERVATION EASEMENT BACK, FOR EXAMPLE, AS YOU SAID. 
          THEY ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION TO GO TO THE PUBLIC IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT. 
          THAT WOULD BE PART OF WEIGHING THE BENEFITS OF THE SALE WOULD BE THE COST OF THE ELECTION. 
          >>>OKAY. >>  THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. >>>THANK YOU. 
          I AM GOING TO TALK. >>>FIRST OF ALL FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, THE SENTIMENT IS TO PROTECT THE CONSERVATION LAND FROM LEASING OR SALE. AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT THAT IT NEEDS TO GO TO REFERENDUM. BUT MEMBER BEAN IS EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          YOU CANNOT REMOVE LEASE AT ALL FROM THIS SECTION BECAUSE THEN YOU LEAVE IT NOT OPEN FOR THE CITY COMMISSION YOU LEAVE IT OPEN FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO LEASE OR SELL CONSERVATION LAND. 
          IF YOU'RE JUST SILENT ON IT THEN THE CITY MANAGER HAS THOSE POWERS AND RIGHT NOW IT WOULD COME TO THE COMMISSION AS A RESOLUTION. BUT SIMPLE MAJORITY I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT ANYBODY WANTS. WE NEED TO PUT THE EXTRA PROTECTION. 
          WHAT I WOULD LIKE YOU ALL TO DECIDE IS, AND CHAIR PHILKOFF HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK YET. BUT WHAT YOU NEED TO DECIDE IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE FOR JUST SAYING ABSOLUTELY NO LEASING OR SELLING. FORGET THE REFERENDUM. 
          OR YOU WANT THERE TO BE A REFERENDUM AT THE VERY LEAST FOR SALE OR LEASE FOR 40 OR MORE YEARS. EITHER IT'S NOT EVER ALLOWED OR YOU LEAVE SOME OPEN WITH THE STRICT REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE EITHER A SUPERMAJORITY OR UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE COMMISSION AND WHAT KIND OF VOTE YOU WANT TO SEE FROM THE PEOPLE. WE NEED TO KNOW WHETHER YOU WANT 
          A REFERENDUM AFTER. >>  THOSE TYPES OF LAND. >>  I HEAR ON RECREATION LAND YOU ARE ALL PRETTY CLEAR THAT YOU WANTED TO, WELL I THINK. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE PERCENTAGES BUT YOU ALL AGREED THAT REC REEUATION LAND SHOULD BE PROTECTED IN THE WAY COMMISSIONER ROSS HAD SUGGESTED. BUT WANTED TO SEPARATE OUT CONSERVATION AND DO SOMETHING A 
          [02:55:03]
          LITTLE DIFFERENT. DID I MISREAD THAT? >>  I THINK WOULD APPEAR TO BE THE CASE. I'M GOING TO DO JUST A QUICK PROCESS AND TIME CHECK HERE. 
          IT'S TEN AFTER SIX. WE WERE TRYING TO SHOOT FOR BEING DONE BY 7:00. 
          CAN WE STILL DO THAT? OR DO WE NEED A BREAK NOW AND GO BEYOND 7:00? 
          >>  LET'S KEEP AT IT. >>  GET DONE. >>  OKAY. 
          WE HAVE TO GET IT DONE. PLEASE TRY NOT TO REPEAT YOURSELVES AS I CALL ON YOU AGAIN. MR. MEMBER KOZAK. I WANT TO SUPPORT WHAT MEMBER BEAN SAID WE NEED MORE PROTECTION. I WOULD PUT FORTH THAT WE HAVE A SEPARATE PROVISION IN THERE JUST FOR CONSERVATION LAND THAT CANNOT BE LEASED OR SOLD AND 
          THERE IS NO REFERENDUM. >>>OKAY. MEMBER LUCIA. 
          >>>NOW THAT YOU ARE POINTING OUT EARLIER AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          I DO LIKE THE 10A, ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENT THAT YOU HAVE THERE. SO PRIOR TO LEASING FOR A PERIOD OF MORE REPLACE THAT WITH PART OF SALE OR LEASING OTHER THAN LEASING NO MORE THAN 20 YEARS TO A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TAX PURPOSE. I WOULD SUPPORT INSERTING THAT LANGUAGE IN BUT I WOULD ALSO WANT US TO INCLUDE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES SUCH AS THE D-E-P FOR A PROGRAM OR SOME OTHER FEDERAL CONSERVATION GROUP. I DON'T WANT US TO PRECLUDE THAT OPPORTUNITY IN THE CHARTER. I'M SUPPORTING NOT ALLOWING THE CONSERVATION LAND TO BE SOLD WITHOUT STRICT AND HIGH STANDARDS MET SUCH AS THE SOOURP MAJORITY AND 60%-70% VOTE. 
          THAT'S FINE. >>>MEMBER BEAN. >>>THANK YOU. 
          I THINK I HAVE A MOTION THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON. I'M READING THE ROOM. 
          I THINK I GOT SOMETHING. THIS IS AN EFFORT TO SPEED IT UP. 
          HERE'S WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY. I MOVE THAT WE SEPARATE RECREATION AND CONSERVATION LANDS. FOR CONSERVATION LANDS WE WILL AGREE TO NOT SELL OR LEASE IN ANY CAPACITY. LET'S AGREE THAT'S NOT ON OPTION FOR CONSERVATION LAND. 
          FOR RECREATION LAND WE PROTECT CONSERVATION LAND. THAT'S MY MOTION. 
          SEE HOW IT GOES. >>  SECOND. >>  A MOTION AND SECOND AND I 
          STILL HAVE COMMENTS FROM MR. CLARK. >>  MR. BEAN I WAS WITH YOU EXCEPT FOR ONE LITTLE THING. IF THERE IS A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF THE COMMISSION AND IF THERE'S AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF A SUPERMAJORITY OF VOTERS TO SELL SOMETHING, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD. I'M IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING THAT MAKES IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO SELL CONSERVATION LAND BUT MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE IS FOR ME A BRIDGE TOO FAR. 
          I JUST, AND THE REASON I SAY, I'M AS BIG AN ADVOCATE FOR CONSERVATION LAND AS YOU CAN FIND. BUT I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TWENTY YEARS FROM NOW. I'M WITH YOU ON TREATING THEM DIFFERENTLY BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S WISE TO MAKE, TO WRITE THE CHARTER SO THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN SELL IT. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD WRITE THE CHARTER SO IT'S RESTRICTED AND DIFFICULT TO SELL BUT THERE'S A 
          PATH FORWARD IF THERE'S UNANIMOUS SUPPORT. >>>MEMBER MORRISON. 
          >>>I 100% AGREE WITH MEMBER CLARK. I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO FUNDAMENTALLY MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT IN THE PROCESS AND STRINGENT AS POSSIBLE TO OPEN UP THE POSSIBILITY OF THESE PROPERTIES BEING SOLD IN THE FUTURE. 
          I THINK TAKING THEM OFF THE TABLE COMPLETELY IS A MISTAKE AND THIS CITY CHARTER CAN ONLY BE AMENDED EVER SO OFTEN. I THINK WE NEED TO, IT WOULD BE WISE TO LEAVE THAT OPTION THERE SO THAT IF SOMETHING PRESENTS ITSELF IN THE FUTURE IT EXISTS AS A POSSIBILITY. 
          >>>MEMBER DAVIS? >>>I ALSO DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE TO 
          [03:00:26]
SELL. I FI THIS YOU GET EWE MONONOWS VOTE OF THE COMMISSION AND HAVE A VERY HIGH BAR OF 75% OR WHATEVER THE CITY WANTS TO DO THAT THAT YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO. I DO AGREE. I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO BE 
          COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE. >>  MEMBER KOZAK. >>>I QUESTION IT. 
          WE HAVE THE CONSERVATION FUND AND THERE ARE DONORS DONATING THROUGH THE CONSERVATION FUND AND WE DO HAVE GRANTED A HIGH BAR FOR SELLING AND SOMETHING HAPPENS AND WE DECIDE IN TWO YEARS TO SELL. THE CITY DECIDES TO SELL SOMETHING. 
          IT SEEMS TO ME A LITTLE BIT OF A BAIT AND SWITCH. IF SOMEBODY DONATED MONEY FOR WHAT THEY THOUGHT WOULD BE CONSERVATION LAND WHICH WAS PURCHASED AND THEN TURNED AROUND AND SOLD. I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE WITH THAT. 
          I UNDERSTAND WHAT EVERYBODY IS SAYING AND IT MAKES PERFECT BUSINESS SENSE. 
          BUT I THINK WE HAVE SUCH UNUSUAL CONDITIONS ON OUR ISLANDS. ONE BECAUSE IT'S SO SMALL AND IN THE CITY ACTUALLY. JUST THE CITY EVEN, WE HAVE LIMITED THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THOUSANDS OF ACRES WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO LEASE IT OUT FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO MAINTAIN. WE HAVE VERY LIMITED PARCELS AND I THINK THE FRAGILITY OF THE PARCELS ARE REALLY IMPORTANT AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE GETTING SO MUCH FEEDBACK FROM OUR RESIDENTS AND ON TOP OF THAT IF WE'RE WRITING IN THE CHARTER HAS TO BE REVIEWED EVERY SEVEN YEARS THAT, A FAIL SAFE. THAT GIVES SEVEN YEARS. 
          IF SOMETHING HAS GONE CRAZY AND EVERYBODY DECIDE THEY WANT TO SELL SOME PARCELS THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS THAT'S IN THE CHARTER. I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A BIG OBLIGATION FOR US TO PUT THIS FORTH THAT IT CAN'T BE SOLD AND LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. 
          >>>MEMBER MORRISON. YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR HAND UP. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND SEVERAL SUGGESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO POSSIBLY CHANGE THAT. MOTION, I BELIEVE IT WAS MEMBER BEAN'S MOTION. ARE THERE CHANGES YOU WANT TO MAKE OR ARE YOU FINE WITH THE 
          WAY YOU STATED IT? >>  I'M GOING TO RETAIN MY MOTION THE WAY IT IS. 
          I HAVE A FEELING IT MIGHT FAIL BUT I STANDBY MY BELIEF THAT WE SHOULD NOT SELL CONSERVATION LAND UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES AND MEMBER KOZAK'S POINT IS CORRECT. THERE IS A FAIL SAFE IF THEY REALLY WANT TO SELL IT FOR SOME REASON THERE'S MANY, THERE IS STILL EXTREMELY HARD TO DO IT BUT YOU HAVE TO COME BACK HERE, UNDO WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW AND THEN SELL THE LAND. 
          CONSERVATION LAND IS SO DIFFERENT FROM RECREATION LAND. WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT, I THINK WE ALL AGREE HAVE NO OTHER USE BUT TO BE FOR CONSERVATION. 
          THE GREENWAY, THINGS LIKE THAT. THERE'S NO REASON THAT I CAN SEE AND IN MY DISCUSSIONS. 
          THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD BE EVEN CONSIDERING LEASING THESE. 
          I AM, I WILL RETAIN MY MOTION AS IS. IF IT FAILS SOMEONE ELSE CAN DO ANOTHER ONE. I MOVE AND I THINK IT'S STILL SECONDED. 
          >>  I HAVE MEMBER CLARK. >>>TO TAMMY TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE DONOR WHO DONATES LAND WHICH HE INTENDS TO BE FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES IN PERPETUITY. 
          ISN'T THERE A LEGAL SOLUTION TO THAT WHERE THE DONOR WOULD PUT A DEED RESTRICTION ON LAND. 
          IF YOU DONATE IT TO THE CITY FOR THIS PURPOSE AND THE CITY CAN'T SELL IT WITHOUT VIOLATING THE DEED RESTRICTION OR YOU ESTABLISH PENALTIES THROUGH THAT MECHANISM THAT WOULD BE MORE COMPELLING THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE? IT'S JUST A QUESTION. 
          >>>MEMBER LUSEAR DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION OR SOME OTHER COMMENT? 
          >>  NO. GOOD QUESTION. I'LL RETAIN ANY RESPONSE. 
          >>  OKAY. TAMMY. >>>ME? 
          WHAT'S THE QUESTION? >>  THE QUESTION IS -- >>  NO. 
          I THOUGHT MEMBER CLARK HAD A QUESTION FOR TAMMY? >>  NO. 
          WELL, HE DID BUT TAMMY K. DO YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THAT? >>  WERE YOU THINKING THAT LAND WAS BEING DONATED BY CONSTITUENTS AND YOU WANT A DEED RESTRICTION ON THAT. 
          [03:05:03]
          >>  I THOUGHT ONE OF YOUR CONCERNS TAMMY KOZAK WAS THE DONOR WHO DONATES LAND TO THE CITY FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSE AND IT'S SOLD DOWN THE LINE. THE DONOR SAYS THAT'S NOT PURPOSEFUL FOR WHAT I GAVE YOU THE LAND AND THEY ARE UPSET. I'M ASKING IF THERE'S A REMEDY FOR THIS. TAMMY BOCK COULD PERHAPS RESPOND. 
          YOU PUT A DEED RESTRICTION ON THAT SAYING THE CITY HAS TO USE IT FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES. 
          IN MY EXPERIENCE THAT TRUMPS ALL THE OTHER CARDS. THE CITY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO VIOLATE THAT DEED RESTRICTION WITHOUT GIVING UP THE LAND OR HAVING SOMETHING. 
          >>  REFERRING TO LAND DONATED INTO THE CONSERVATION? >>  THE DOLLARS ARE NOT PROTECTED OR RESTRICTED AND THERE ISN'T A WAY TO DO THAT, A DEED RESTRICTION GETS RECORDED WITH PROPERTY. WE COULD TRY TO DO SOMETHING TO, YOU KNOW, ASSURE PEOPLE BUT 
          REALLY THERE'S NOT A FAIL SAFE WAY TO PROTECT THOSE DOLLARS. >>  ALL RIGHT. 
          >>>MEMBER LUCIA. >>>MY QUESTION REGARDING THE MOTION IS WAS IT THERE BE NO SALE OR LEASE OF ANY RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OR JUST CONSERVATION? 
          >>  RECREATION WILL BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY BUT CONSERVATION, GREENWAY AND STUFF 
          LIKE THAT. NO LEASING, NO SALE. >>  OKAY. 
          >>  I HAVE ONE QUESTION BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE. JOHN, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ALLOWS FOR A COUPLE OF USES. UNDER WHAT SORT OF MECHANISM ARE THOSE USES ALLOWED? IS THAT A LEASE OR IS IT AN EASEMENT OR WHAT IS IT? 
          >>  I BELIEVE THERE IS ANY GOVERNORS OVER HOW IT'S USED IT'S JUST WHAT'S ALLOWED. 
          FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES I WANT A POWER TRANSMISSION LINE ACROSS THE CONSERVATION. 
          I GO TO CITY AND ATTAIN AN EASEMENT. IF I'M THE UTILITY COMPANY THEN THE CITY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. IF I WANT TO LEASE LAND FROM THE CITY TO GO ACROSS CONSERVATION LAND WITH SOME OTHER TYPE OF TRANCE MISSION PIPE THEN THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO REFERENDUM. I DON'T KNOW THE CITY COULD GIVE AN EASEMENT, I ASSUME THEY COULD PROBABLY CHARGE FOR. OR THEY CAN DO THAT OR TRANCE MISSION LINE BUT THEY COULDN'T LEASE THE LAND FOR A TRANSMISSION LINE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? 
          >>  YES. >>  BUT A BENEFIT TO COMMUNITY RESIDENT COULD BE DONE WITHOUT THE CITY LEASING OR SELLING THAT LAND IS MY QUESTION. 
          >>  THE THE TRANSMISSION LINE FOR THOSE USES? >>  YEAH. 
          >>  THE CITY COULD DO IT THEMSELVES, FOR SURE. >>>ALL RIGHT. 
          >>  THEY JUST CAN'T SELL IT OR LEASE IT. >>  MR. KOZAK. 
          >>>I THINK IN THAT SECTION IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN ISN'T THE REASON IT'S IN THERE JOHN OR TAMMY, YOU COULD PROBABLY SPEAK TO THIS. IS BECAUSE OF THE CONSERVATION 
          LAND WHERE WE HAVE THE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY ON IT? >>  PROBABLY. 
          >>  WASN'T THAT AN AD HOC SITUATION? >>  I WASN'T HERE WHEN THAT WAS PUT IN THERE. HONESTLY, THIS HAS BEEN IN THERE FOR MORE THAN 15 YEARS. 
          >>  YEAH. JUST TO SPEAK BRIEFLY TO THE USES WHILE THEY ARE PROHIBITED, I WOULD SAY, THERE'S SUPPLEMENTAL USE. USES GRANTED WITH SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDELINES THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED. THERE'S A MATRIX IN THERE UNDER CHAPTER TWO AND UNDER CONSERVATION THERE'S ONE SECTION OF SUPPLEMENTAL USES OF STANDARDS THAT MUST BE SET. PICNIC AREA, TRAIL, NATURE AREAS AND IF THEY MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS. THEN YOU GO BACK TO THE STANDARDS SECTION AND REALLY THE ONLY STANDARDS THAT'S REFERRED TO IS A BUFFER. I THINK THE OTHER PROBLEM THAT CAN ARISE, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY MIGHT LEASE CONSERVATION LAND WITH MALL INTENT. 
          IF THE NATURE TRAIL OR PHOTOGRAPHER TOUR OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. 
          I DON'T THINK THERE'S MALL INTENT. I THINK IT'S IGNORANCE AND I DON'T THINK IN A CONDESCENDING MANNER IT'S JUST THE HUMAN FOOTPRINT ON OUR SMALL BITS OF LAND. THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH HAVING ANY SORT OF LEASE IN THERE. 
          [03:10:01]
          >>>OKAY. I'M GOING TO CALL THE VOTE. PLEASE TAMMY. 
          >>>THAT'S FINE. >>>ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >>>I WANT TO HEAR THE VOTE. 
          >>>OKAY. MEMBER BEAN? >>>YES. 
          >>>MEMBER KOZAK? >>  YES. >>>MEMBER DAVIS? 
          >>>YES. >>>MEMBER LASEAR? >>  YES. 
          >>>MEMBER MORRISON? >>>YES. > 
          >>>VICE CHAIR CLARK? >>>NO. >>>CHAIR PHILKOFF? 
          >>  YES. >>>SO IT PASSED. SO THAT PASSES. 
          YOU WILL SEE THAT LANGUAGE AND WE'LL CALL IT OUT ON THE MEETING ON MONDAY. 
          >>>OKAY. SO THAT ADDRESSES EVERYTHING UNDER 10A. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ANYBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THERE BRIEFLY BEFORE WE GO TO ELEVEN? ALL RIGHT. SECTION ELEVEN. REVIEW OF DRAFT CHANGES. 
          [Item 7.2]
          >>>THE REASON WE PUT THIS ON HERE AS A SEPARATE LINE ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND A LOT OF CHANGES. I'M SPEAKING FOR SHERIFF PHILKOFF WHEN I SAY IT IS 5:27 P.M. AND WE DO NOT HAVE 30 MINUTES TO DISCUSS SECTION ELEVEN. UNDER SECTION ELEVEN AS YOU KNOW MEMBER DAVIS HAS PROPOSED DRAFT LANGUAGE AND I'M READY TO HEAR WHATEVER WE NEED TO CHANGE. OH, EARLIER I DID NOT SAY EITHER WHEN YOU ALL LOOKED, WHEN WE HAD THE LAST MEETING AND WE CAME IN. I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY, DROP THE BALL AND DIDN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES. THAT'S WHY YOU LOOKED AT IT AND SAID WHERE ARE ALL THE THINGS WE DISCUSSED. JANUARY 13TH I DIDN'T HAVE. 
          IT'S NOT AN EXEXCUSE. IT'S A FACT. I DON'T HAVE THE JANUARY 13TH MINUTES. I WATCHED THE MEETING AND DID THE BEST I COULD AND I DID A POOR, POOR JOB. I'M SORRY. EVERYTHING WE TALKED ABOUT FROM THE BEGINNING IS NOW INCLUDED. MOSTLY WHAT YOU VOTED ON, SO IF YOU'RE DISAPPOINTED YOU DON'T SEE IT. IT'S BECAUSE THERE WAS NO VOTE AND IF YOU SEE THINGS CHANGED THERE WERE SOME WORDS THAT MR. LASEAR GAVE ME FOR GRAMMAR TYPE OF THINGS I PUT IN WITHOUT 
          A VOTE. >>>OKAY. WE HAVE AS TAMMY MENTIONED WE HAVE 32 MINUTES. SO WHAT'S PRESSING IN THIS SECTION BECAUSE WE DEFINITELY WANT TO GET TO THE CITIZEN INITIATIVE SECTION TODAY. WHAT'S PRESSING IN THIS ONE? 
          MEMBER DAVIS? >>>ON THESE ITEMS THAT I HAD WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT I MADE SOME NOTES AND NOW WITH EVERYTHING ELSE I'VE MISPLACED THEM. 
          OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE ON HERE THAT I PRESENTED AT THE LAST MEETING, LIKE THE LANGUAGE FOR ELEVEN B ABOUT THE VIOLATING STANDARD OF CONDUCT, CODE OF ETHICS. 
          TAMMY HAS INCLUDED THAT LANGUAGE IN ELEVEN A. 
          INDICATING, MAKING THE REFERENCE TO CHAPTER 112. THAT LANGUAGE WAS FINE WITH ME. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER MEMBERS HAVE A THOUGHT ON THE LANGUAGE ABOUT IN ITEM THREE I PROPOSED LAST TIME REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING. IF THERE WAS A FORFEITURE. 
          I NOTICED SHE HAS INCLUDED THAT LANGUAGE NOT HERE BUT IN, IS IT SECTION EIGHT WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THE STEPPED UP PENALTIES. I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT WANT TO ALSO INCLUDE IT SOMEWHERE HERE SO IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN TOLD THEY MISSED THREE MEETINGS, WELL MAYBE THEY WANT TO HAVE A HEARING TO SAY, WELL, MAYBE ONE OF THEM WAS EXCUSED OR SOMETHING. 
          THEN I THOUGHT IN 11, WEREN'T WE GOING TO ADD SOMETHING. I'M FINE WITH NOT ADDRESSING MY ITEM NUMBER 2 ABOUT A WILLFUL VIOLATION BEING SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE SINCE WE DO HAVE 
          OTHER LANGUAGE DEALING WITH PROFITS OF CONTRACT. >>>OKAY. 
          [03:15:02]
CAN YOU SUMMARIZE. ARE THERE CHANGES YOU MADE, CHANGES YOU WANT MADE THERE? 
          >>  I THINK IN THE POWERPOINT, WHEN I LOOKED THROUGH THAT AND I LOOKED AT, THAT SOME OF TAMMY'S REVISIONS HAVE CAPTURED THESE CONCEPTS. MY ONLY THOUGHT WAS THAT WITH RESPECT TO BEING ENTITLED TO A PUBLIC HEARING THAT IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO ADD THAT TO SECTION ELEVEN, AS WELL, BECAUSE SECTION ELEVEN IS CAUSING THEM TO HAVE TO FORFEIT THEIR SEAT AND THEY MIGHT WANT TO HAVE A HEARING BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY, THEY MIGHT BE ENTITLED TO A 
          HEARING FOR THAT FORFEITURE. >>  OKAY. MR. KOZAK. 
          >>  A FORM OF DUE PROCESS. >>>SPEAKING TO THAT THERE IS, THE NATIONAL CIVIC LEAGUE IN THEIR MODEL CHARTER. THEY HAVE A SECTION THAT MIGHT HELP WITH THIS. 
          IT'S FOR BOTH CITY COMMISSIONERS AND ALSO UNDER THE CITY MANAGERS SECTION. 
          IT'S A SECTION ON REMOVAL. SO IF A CASE LIKE THIS DOES COME UP IT'S FOR THE PEACEFUL REMOVAL OF ONE OF THESE PEOPLE. IT DOES GO THROUGH THE DUE PROCESS, THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IT PROVIDES FOR AN ORDERLY REMOVAL PROCEDURE IF ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE DECLINE TO STEP DOWN. THAT MIGHT COVER THE DUE PROCESS MARGARET IS LOOKING FOR. 
          >>  OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH ASKING TAMMY TO REVIEW THAT AND 
          POSSIBLY MAKING CHANGES BASED ON THAT? >>  I'M SORRY. 
          I HAD TO STEP OUT TO USE THE LADIES ROOM. IF WE COULD I'M ASSUMING YOU 
          STARTED WITH MEMBER DAVIS' CHANGES HERE. >>  WE'RE GOOD THERE. 
          WHAT MARGARET SUGGESTED IS THERE'S SOMETHING IN SECTION EIGHT THAT COULD BE REPEATED HERE FOR DUE PROCESS. TAMMY HAS BROUGHT UP WHAT'S YOUR SOURCE, TAMMY? 
          >>  CIVIC LEAGUE. >>  OKAY. >>  I CAN SEND IT. 
          >>  AS HAVING LANGUAGE THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT FOR THAT. 
          >>  OKAY. SHE DID GIVE THAT TO US. IF SHE CAN THAT'S GOOD. 
          WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT YOU ALL, AND I WOULD LOVE A VOTE AT SOME POINT. 
          WE'RE GOING TO INCORPORATE ALL OF MARGARET'S SUGGESTED CHANGES? YES? 
          NO. >>  NO. >>  I DON'T THINK THAT'S IT. 
          TAMMY, AND I SAID SECTION EIGHT. IT'S SECTION TEN WHERE THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU ADDED ABOUT 
          THE DUE PROCESS FOR INTERFERENCE. >>  RIGHT. 
          >>  YES THE SANCTIONS. YOU CAN EITHER ADD THERE SAYING, VIOLATING THIS SECTION YOU CAN ADD THERE OR SECTION ELEVEN OR YOU CAN JUST REPEAT THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS HEARING IN SECTION 
          ELEVEN. >>  OKAY. >>  I JUST FEEL IF MEMBERS ARE ASKED TO FORFEIT THEIR SEAT THEY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS. 
          >>  THIS IS WITH REGARDS TO THREE ABSENCES. THEY GET A HEARING IF THERE'S 
          THREE ABSENCES. >>  THERE MAY BE A QUESTION AS TO WHY. 
          >>  I UNDERSTAND. >>  THEY CAN ASK FOR IT. >>  MY PREFERENCE IS TO REPEAT THE LANGUAGE FROM SECTION TEN. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO. 
          >>  OKAY. IS THAT GOOD? >>  IT'S NOT JUST FOR THE THREE ABSENCES IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THEY VIOLATED THE NO RIGHTS TO ANY CONTRACT OR THEY NO LONGER QUALIFIED, IT'S EVERYTHING, VIOLATING THE CODE F ETHICS. 
          FOLLOW THAT IN ELEVEN. OKAY. >>  MEMBER BEAN. 
          IN PROPOSED LANGUAGE THE ONE THING I'M LOOKING AT IS IN PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS, CONSIDERATION AND NUMBER TWO. IT SEEMS TO BE VERY BROAD. WHAT ABOUT SOMEBODY WHO HAS A JOB IN THE CITY. IT LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE IT SAYS, I'M READING THE LANGUAGE. 
          I'M NOT A LAWYER, TELL ME IF I'M READING IT CORRECTLY. IT SAYS THEY MAY HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST DIRECT OR INDIRECT OR THROUGH OWNERSHIP AND ANY CORPORATION IN ANY CONTACT WITH THE CITY. OH IN ANY CONTRACT WITH THE CITY. 
          I MISSED THE R. ANY CONTRACT WITH THE CITY. YAER. 
          [03:20:07]
I CAN SEE IN A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY. I THOUGHT IT SAID ANY CONTACT 
          WITH THE CITY. >>  NO. >>  NEVER MIND. 
          I WAS LIKE, WELL, ANYBODY WHO HAS A JOB IN THE CITY. OKAY. 
          >>  WE'RE GOOD. >>  I WAS LIKE YOU CAN'T EVEN WORK HERE. 
          >>  I PULLED THIS LANGUAGE FROM ANOTHER CHARTER. >>  OKAY. 
          I WAS WORRIED. >>  GOOD NOW? >>  WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS A 
          LONG TIME. >>  WE'RE KEEPING THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE WITH THE 
          ADDITION OF MEMBER DAVIS' DESIRE TO HAVE THE DUE PROCESS, YES? >>  YES. 
          >>  OKAY. CAN SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT. 
          >>  SO MOVED. >>  WHO IS THAT? >>  THAT WAS MEMBER BEAN. 
          >>  OKAY. BEAN AND DAVIS SECOND. >>  CLARK AND DAVIS. 
          >>  YOU CAN DO VOICE VOTE SINCE IT LOOKS LIKE MEANING YOU CAN ALL IN FAVOR. 
          >>  ALL IN FAVOR? THANK YOU. ANY OPPOSITIONS? 
          OKAY. WE'LL DO IT. >>  GOOD JOB. 
          [Item 7.3 (Part 1 of 2)]
          >>>ALL RIGHT. SECTION 21. >>  AGAIN I PUT THIS ON HERE AS A SEPARATE LINE ITEM BECAUSE THERE WERE A LOT OF CHANGES AND DISCUSSION ON THIS SECTION. 
          BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE MORE IF YOU LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING. >>  ANYBODY HAVE A REACTION TO SECTION 21? GOOD, BAD OR INDIFFERENT? SEEING NONE ARE WE IN FAVOR OF THIS? ALL IN FAVOR? ALL THUMBS WENT UP. 
          >>  FOR THE RECORD ALL IN FAVOR. ALL I'S. 
          NO OPPOSED. >>>ALL RIGHT. BEFORE WE GET TO 7.4. 
          [Item 7.5]
          HAVE WE ALREADY DONE 7.5? >>  OKAY. THIS IS WHAT I PROPOSE FOR 7.5. 
          7.5 IS BASICALLY TAKE THE POWERPOINT AND REVIEW EVERYTHING UP TO SECTION 69 AND INCLUDE SECTION 136 THAT WE HAD CHANGES TO. TELL US WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE GOING TO DISCUSS THAT A LITTLE BIT. I THINK WE HAVE TO HOLD OFF AND THAT WILL BE THE BULK OF OUR DISCUSSION ON JUNE 8TH ALONG WITH FINANCIAL VOTES FOR LANGUAGE. SO WE HAVE CITIZEN INITIATIVE AND THAT'S IT. 
          LEFT. >>>WE HAVE 21 MINUTES. OR WE BRING IT BACK ON MONDAY IF 
          WE'RE NOT FINISHED? >>  WE CAN BRING SOME BACK ON MONDAY WE JUST HAVE TO BE 
          REALISTIC ABOUT OUR TIME. >>  I JUST DON'T WANT TO CUT IT SHORT BUT I WANT TO HAVE THIS 
          [Item 7.3 (Part 2 of 2)]
          CONVERSATION TODAY. MEMBER DAVIS. >>>I REALLY APOLOGIZE. 
          DID WE JUST VOTE ON SECTION 21 AND I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT. 
          I DO, ACTUALLY, THINK I HAVE, IF IT'S TOO LATE IT'S TOO LATE. I'LL RESEND. 
          BUT AS I READ THIS ON BE WAY THE LANGUAGE ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF MAJORITY IS PRESENT IS NECESSARY TO ADOPT ANY. RIGHT? IT'S JUST AFFIRMATIVE VOTE IS MAJORITY OF THE FORUM PRESENT AND YOU ONLY NEED A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS TO BE A FORUM. 
          DOES THAT MEAN THAT IF YOU ONLY HAVE THREE MEMBERS PRESENT YOU CAN PASS SOMETHING WITH ONLY TWO PEOPLE VOTING AFFIRMATIVELY? BECAUSE THAT I DO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT? 
          >>  NO. >>  I DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO PASS WITH ONLY TWO VOTES. 
          >>  TAMMY IS THAT WHAT IT SAYS? >>  THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. THAT'S, YES. I THINK IT CAN BE INTERPRETED THAT'S WHAT IS SAID. THE FIRST THING, WE TOOK OUT AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT LEAST THREE COMMISSIONERS. THAT'S REALLY WHAT SHOULD BE THERE INSTEAD OF THE NEXT 
          SENTENCE. >>  EXACTLY. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT LANGUAGE WAS, I UNDERSTAND WANTING TO TAKE -- I THINK YOU WERE TRYING TO SIMPLIFY. 
          WHAT HAPPENED IS YOU ENDED UP GETTING THIS BAD RESULT. >>  ALL I DID WAS ADD THE WORD ORRED NANSZ. THIS LANGUAGE WAS ALREADY IN THERE LIKE THIS. 
          >>  I'M TALKING ABOUT THE STRIKING OF THE SENTENCE AFFIRMATIVE OF AT LEAST THREE. 
          >>  LET ME MAKE THAT RIGHT. WE WOULD APPRECIATE A VOTE TO THAT AFFECT, IF YOU WOULD. 
          >>  MY APOLOGIES FORGETTING WHAT SECTION WE WERE LOOKING AT. >>  WILL YOU MAKE THE MOTION 
          MEMBER DAVIS? >>  YES, I MOVE WITH REGARD TO SECTION 21 TO REPLACE 
          [03:25:08]
LANGUAGE REQUIRING AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT LEAST THREE CITY COMMISSIONERS TO ENACT AN 
          ORDNANCE. >>  SECOND. >>>DISCUSSION? 
          MEMBER CLARK? >>>I JUST SECOND. >>  GOOD CATCH. 
          >>  THANK YOU MARGARET. >>>ALL IN FAVOR? AYES. 
          >>>ANY OPPOSITION? NO. NOW, WE HAVE 18 MINUTES TO TALK 
          [Item 7.4]
ABOUT CITIZEN INITIATIVES. WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT IT LAST TIME. 
          WHO WANTS TO START? MEMBER DAVIS. >>>YOU'RE ON MUTE. 
          >>  FORGOT IT PUT IT ON MUTE AFTER MY DISCUSSION ON 21. SINCE THIS HAS BEEN MY ORIGINAL PROPOSAL I THOUGHT I WOULD START THIS DISCUSSION. I JUST WANTED TO, I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THE COMMENTS GIVEN TO US AND I CONTINUE TO LOOK AT A LOT OF THE LITERATURE. 
          I'VE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND ANY LITERATURE, ANY EMPIRICAL STUDY THAT INDICATED THIS PROVISION, THIS TYPE OF PROVISION WHICH IS VERY PREDOMINANT IN FLORIDA CITY CHARTERS. 
          BUT WHETHER IT'S HERE OR ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY, LEADS TO ANY TYPE OF GRINDING TO A HALT OR PARALYSIS OF GOVERNING BODIES TO DO THEIR WORK. AS WE KNOW, FLORIDA'S INSTITUTION ALLOWS SINCE 1968 THE FLORIDA STATUTES ALLOW FOR CITIZENS TO PETITION WITH ONLY TEN PERCENT OF THE SIGNATURES TO AMEND THE CHARTER. SO THERE'S ALREADY DIRECT DEMOCRACY THE CITIZENS OF FERNANDINA BEACH HAVE. I DID GO BACK AND LOOK TO SEE, AS FAR AS, I BELIEVE, SEVERAL MEMBERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT ZONING. 
          WHILE OF THE 20 CITIES CLOSEST IN SIZE TO US NONE OF THEM CARVED THAT OUT. 
          I DID FIND TWO EXAMPLES WHERE THEY MAY HAVE BEEN CARVED OUT PLUS PALM BAY, A LITTLE LARGER CITY. IF THAT IS A PARTICULAR ISSUE I'M CERTAINLY WOULD NOT BE, A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. WE COULD ADD ZONING TO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COULD NOT BE UKTD NOT HAVE A REFERENDUM OR INITIATIVE ON ZONING MATTERS. BUT LANGUAGE AS I PROPOSED ALREADY IS DESIGNED THAT ALL THE SIGNATURES HAVE TO BE DONE IN PERSON. 
          THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE PERSON GIVING THE SIGNATURE SAYING IT WAS SIGNED IN FRONT OF THEM. AS FAR AS THINKING THAT SOCIAL MEDIA IS SOMEHOW MAKING THIS EASIER THAT IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT I PROPOSED. THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT I HAD IN THINKING THROUGH THIS IS EXACTLY THE TIMING OF THE VOTES. AFTER, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION BUT ONE THOUGHT I HAD IS WEEK CAN FORCE ALL VOTES TO BE ON THE REGULAR GENERAL ELECTION DATE. WHETHER THAT'S IN AUGUST OR NOVEMBER. 
          BUT THE CITY COULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SET A SPECIAL ELECTION SO IF IT WERE A REFERENDUM ON ALREADY ORDNANCE THAT'S BEEN IN SUSPENDED THEN YOU COULD, THEY COULD SET A SPECIAL ELECTION THEY WANT TO DO THAT. I DID FIND AND EMPIRICAL STUDY DONE IN 2003, WHICH FOUND THESE PROVISIONS DO NOT SEEM TO FAVOR SPECIAL INTEREST AND THE CHANGES THAT PEOPLE TEND TO ADOPT THROUGH THESE PROVISIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE WISHES OF THE MAJORITY AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN THIS EMPIRICAL STUDY TO SUPPORT WELL ORGANIZED AND FINANCED SPECIAL INTERESTS ARE ABLE TO SUBVERT THE POLICY OF THE MAJORITY. I THOUGHT THAT WAS INTERESTING. 
          IN 2016, U.S. WORLD NEWS REPORT ACTUALLY FOUND THAT PEOPLE WHO THESE PROVISIONS BY HAVING THE RIGHT TO DIRECT DEMOCRACY THEY WERE ACTUALLY HAPPY WITH THEIR GOVERNMENT THAN THOSE THAT DIDN'T. THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE YFS BEHIND ME DRAFTING THIS PROVISION IS LOOKING AT WHERE FERNANDINA BEACH GOT THE LOWEST POINT IN THE CITIZEN SURVEY. 
          [03:30:05]
WHICH WAS CITIZENS ENTRUSTING THEIR GOVERNMENT. I THOUGHT THIS IS ONE WAY TO HELP ADD A PROVISION THAT MIGHT HELP ADDRESS THAT CONCERN. WITH THAT I KNOW THERE ARE OTHERS WHO WANT TO SPEAK ON THE ISSUE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS 
          ABOUT THE LOGISTICS AND ALL OF THE PROPOSAL. >>>MEMBER MORRISON. 
          >>>I JUST WANT TO THANK MEMBER DAVIS FOR ALL THE RESEARCH SHE PUT INTO THIS. 
          I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, FROM PERSONALLY MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH THIS WHEN WE DISCUSSED IT LAST WEEK WERE REVOLVING AROUND CASES THAT MIGHT COME UP INVOLVING ZONING. 
          I THINK THAT PROBABLY MOST OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAD COMMENTS THAT WERE CONCERNED REVOLVED AROUND ZONING CASES, TOO. I THINK PERSONALLY I WOULD BE FULLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS INITIATIVE IF WE WERE ABLE TO EXCLUDE ZONING AND AT THAT 20% 
          THRESHOLD. >>  MEMBER CLARK? >>  I THINK I EXPRESSED MISGIVINGS ABOUT THIS IN THE LAST MEETING. I THOUGHT A LOT ABOUT IT. 
          I'VE DONE SOME RESEARCH. I'VE READ THE MATERIALS BOTH TAMMY AND MARGARET PUT OUT, WHICH WERE HELPFUL. WHAT MR. MORRISON JUST SAID ABOUT EXEMPTING THE ZONING. 
          I THINK YOU HAVE TO EXEMPT THE COMP PLAN WITH THAT. THOSE WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM IT. 
          BUT IF WE WERE TO EXEMPT THE ZONING AND COMP PLAN AND HAVE A 20% TLOESH HOLD REQUIREMENT AND MAKE THE APPLICABILITY AND TAMMY BOCK I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO COMMENT ON THIS. 
          MAKE THE APPLICABILITY FOR NEWLY ENACTED ORDNANCES BY THE COMMISSION SO THE IDEA YOU COULDN'T JUST OPEN UP THE BOOK AND CHALLENGE ANYTHING. YOU WOULD FOCUS ON ORDNANCES THAT WERE NEWLY ENACTED. IN A CONVERSATION EARLIER TODAY, TAMMY BOCK I THOUGHT YOU SUGGESTED SOMETHING LIKE THAT. MAYBE YOU COULD EXPAND ON THAT NOTION. 
          THEN IF THERE WERE SOME EXPECTATION. I THINK MAYBE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE THAT SAID PETITIONS FOR THIS CITIZEN INITIATIVES WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED WITHIN SOME TIME FRAME AFTER ORDNANCE WAS ENACTED BY THE COMMISSION. 
          SO THAT YOU COULDN'T WAIT A YEAR. MAYBE 30 DAYS OR WHATEVER. 
          PEOPLE THINK IT'S REASONABLE BUT JUST SO THERE'S A CLEAR EXPECTATION. 
          IF THAT WERE THE CASE THEN I THINK AT LEAST SOME OF MY FEAR WOULD BE ADDRESSED AND THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT AN ACTION COULD GO FORWARD. 
          WE MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE A REFERENDUM ON IT OR A VOTE BUT AT LEAST THERE'S A PATH AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING DRAGGING OUT FOR YEARS. I CAN SUPPORT THIS. 
          I APPRECIATE WHAT MR. MORRISON SAID. BUT WITH THOSE PROVISOS I 
          SUGGEST THOSE BE INCLUDED. >>>MEMBER LUSEAR. >>  I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S PERSPECTIVES. I CAN'T SUPPORT IT AT THIS TIME. PARTICULAR CASES IS JUST A SLIPPERY SLOPE. NEXT TIME IT'S TAKEN OUT WHEN THEN WE HAVE THE WHOLE DIRECT DEMOCRACY OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. THIS IS NOT PART OF OUR, WHAT WE HAVE. I THINK WE CAN COMPROMISE IT ANOTHER WAY SUCH AS DOING THE STRAW BALLOT. THAT'S A STEP IN THIS DIRECTION. IT'S NOT GOING ALL THE WAY AND HAVING REFERENDUM AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I DON'T THINK THAT I STILL THINK IT'S NO WE SHOULD BE DOING AND CARVING OUT LITTLE THINGS ENDS UP CAUSING IT, IT'LL BE BROUGHT BACK UP AND AT THAT TIME IT'LL BE TAKEN OUT AND WHAT WE TRY TO DO FAILED. 
          SO. THANK YOU. >>  MEMBER KOZAK. 
          YOU'RE MUTED. >>>SORRY. I AGREE WITH MEMBER LASEAR ABOUT THE CARVING OUT. FROM THE RESEARCH THAT I'VE DONE, MAYBE WHAT WE NEED TO DO RATHER THAN CARVE OUT SPECIFIC AREAS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ADDRESSED. 
          IF WE CHANGE THE STRINGENCY DISCUSSED AT THE FIRST, I THINK WE, I CAN ACCEPT THE 20% WE TALKED ABOUT EVEN THOUGH MOST STATES ARE LOWER. THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS ONLY 8%. 
          THEN SOME OF THE RESEARCH I DID THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES, THEY LOOKED AT THIS ISSUE FOR ALL 50 STATES AND ALMOST HALF OF THE STATES HAVE THIS AT A STATE LEVEL. 
          MOST OF THEM ARE MID WESTERN STATES. INTERESTINGLY TO ADDRESS MEMBER 
          [03:35:05]
CLARK'S CONCERN, THERE'S A SHORT TIME FRAME WHERE YOU HAVE TO PUT FORTH YOUR SIGNATURES, YOUR COMMITTEE THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ADDRESSING AN ORDNANCE OR PUT SOMETHING FORWARD. 
          THEN THERE'S THE LEAD TIME TO GET ALL THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED. WHAT I FOUND REALLY INTERESTING WAS IT WAS ALMOST AN INVERSE RELATIONSHIP. THE STATES THAT HAD THE LONGER LEAD TIME HAD LESS INITIATIVES THAT EVER MOVED FORWARD TO BALLOT VERSUS THOSE WITH SHORTER LEAD TIMES. AS AN EXAMPLE, COLORADO AND WASHINGTON THEY HAD SIX MONTHS FROM THE TIME THEY FILE FOR THE PETITION TO GATHER THEIR SIGNATURES. 
          THEY HAVE SOME OF THE HIGHEST BALLOT INITIATIVES PUT FORTH ONTO THE BALLOT. 
          FLORIDA AND ILLINOIS. FLORIDA HAS FOUR YEARS THAT YOU CAN GATHER YOUR SIGNATURES. 
          ILLINOIS TWO YEARS. WE HAVE SOME OF THE LOWER ONES THAT ACTUALLY LEAD TO INITIATIVES ON THE BALLOT. WE TALKED ABOUT THE 20% TLOESH HOLD. 
          I THINK THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO BUILD IN SAFEGUARDS SO WE DON'T FEEL LIKE THE FIRST GO AROUND WE ARE BOGGING DOWN CITY GOVERNMENT. MAYBE IF WE BUILD THIS IN AND THEN PUT IT OUT THERE. SEE HOW IT GOES. GIVE THE PEOPLE A CHANCE TO HAVE THIS THERE BUT THEY HAVE TO BE VERY ORGANIZED. THEY HAVE TO REALLY WANT THIS AND HAVE TO BE A REFERENDUM AND THEN SEE WHERE IT GOES. THE OTHER THING WE COULD DO IS THE ELECTORAL VOTES. MAKE THAT A DIFFERENT THRESHOLD. THAT COULD BE 75% OF THE VOTERS THAT REQUIRED SO IT TRULY IS A MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS. THERE ARE WAYS TO GET AROUND 
          JUST HAVING EVERYBODY CONTEST EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING. >>>MEMBER CLARK. 
          >>>I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T MEAN TO HAVE MINE UP. >>>OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE GROUP TO CONSIDER WOULD IT BE FI DIFFERENT IF WE CONSIDERED IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH AN INITIATIVE IN PHASES? I DON'T THINK IT'S HARD FOR ME TO IMAGINE THAT ANYBODY WOULD DISAGREE WITH THE ABILITY TO SIGN A PETITION TO HAVE SOMETHING PUT ON THE TABLE. RIGHT? SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN IN FERNANDINA TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO GET PETI PETITIONS, ET CETERA. IT'S HARDER FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE DON'T SLOW EVERYTHING DOWN WHEN WE'RE USING IT TO TAKE SOMETHING OFF THE TABLE. 
          THAT'S BEEN VOTED ON BY THE COMMISSION. ONCE THAT PROCESS STARTS, IRL REITERATE THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT IS EVERYTHING IS ON HOLD. SO, IF THE COMMISSION HAS AN ORDNANCE IN PLACE THAT SAYS THAT IT'S NO LONGER LEGAL TO USE CHOP STICKS IN THE CITY AND THERE'S A PETITION STARTED THEN THOSE CHOP STICKS ARE ALLOWED UNTIL THAT WHOLE PROCESS IS COMPLETED. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? I HAVE A HARDER TIME UNDERSTANDING THE ABILITY TO DO THAT RIGHT OUT OF THE SHOOT. I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT THE IDEA OF PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE THE TABLE FOR THE CITY COMMISSION. WOULD IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO US, AND I THINK MISS BOCK IS GOING TO SHUT ME UP FAST BECAUSE HER LIGHT WENT ON. 
          YES, MA'AM. >>>NO. NO. 
          I WAS GOING TO ADD YOU CAN ALREADY TAKE OFF THE TABLE BECAUSE OF STATE LAW AND CASE LAW ANY ABILITY TO, YOU DON'T NEED TO ADDRESS REZONINGS OR OTHER TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT ORDERS THAT ARE ISSUED WHEN THERE IS REQUIRED A QUASI EWE ADDITIONAL HEARING YOU CAN'T CHANGE THAT CITIZEN INITIATIVE. COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS INCLUDING FUTURE LAND AMENDMENTS ARE LEGISLATIVE AND CAN BE CHANGED BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          YOU MAY WANT TO ADDRESS COMP PLAN. I CAN'T THINK OF THE LIST OF THINGS. TO KEEP IT IN PERSPECTIVE AND MY EXPERIENCE HERE AND IN OTHER PLACES, IF YOU REQUIRE 20% OF REGISTERED VOTERS TO SIGN A PETITION THAT'S, WE HAVE NOW MORE THAN TEN THOUSAND REGISTERED VOTERS. THAT'S TWO THOUSAND PLUS A FEW 
          [03:40:05]
PEOPLE. THAT IS BELIEVE ME, I HAVE HEARD AND I LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY, TOO. THE ISSUES IN THIS TOWN THAT HAVE GOTTEN THE MOST FACEBOOK AND SOCIAL MEDIA ATTENTION THERE WERE NOT TWO THOUSAND SIGNATURES. 
          THOSE WERE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT EMOTIONAL ISSUES. IT'S A LOT OF SIGNATURES. 
          THAT'S YOUR STOPGAP. THAT IS YOUR WAY, AS I'VE SEEN IT. 
          OOIP NOT PROPOSING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TO HAVE CITIZEN INITIATIVES. 
          I'M JUST SAYING FROM EXPERIENCE THAT THEY ARE VERY COMMON IN CHARTERS. 
          THEY COULD SLOW SOMETHING DOWN IF YOU HAVE THE ABILITY OF CITIZENS TO BE ABLE TO -- I THINK THE CLOGGING UP THE RIVER, SO TO SPEAK, DOES HAPPEN IF YOU START DOING STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS OR TIME PERIODS WITHIN WHICH YOU HAVE TO FILE A PETITION AFTER AN ORDNANCE IS PASSED. THAT ALMOST ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO HURRY UP AND TRY TO STOP YOU FROM IMPLEMENTING IT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IF YOU TAKE LAND USE ISSUES OFF THE TABLE AND YOU IS SPECIFICALLY RESTRICT COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS TRY TO THINK OF AN ISSUE, I HAVE BEEN, THAT CITIZENS COULD BRING UP THAT WOULD BE, IF IT'S NOT DEVELOPMENT RELATED WHAT WOULD IT BE THAT YOU COULD GET TWO THOUSAND PEOPLE. 
          WE CAN'T READ THE FUTURE BUT THAT'S A LOT OF SIGNATURES. >>>I AGREE. 
          AGAIN THOUGH, MY ISSUE IS AFTER AN ORDNANCE IS PASSED, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AS SOON AS THIS FILING TAKES PLACE, SAY WE HAVE A PROBLEM WE'RE GOING TO START THIS PROCESS. 
          IMMEDIATELY, THAT ORDNANCE -- >>  THAT'S NOT TRUE. >>  TELL ME. 
          THAT'S THE WAY I'M UNDERSTANDING IT. >>  I HAVE TO BE VERY HONEST. 
          I HAVE NOT READ EVERY SINGLE WORD OF THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT MS. DAVIS. 
          I HAVEN'T FOUND THAT PROVISION. IS EVERYTHING STAYED IN TERMS OF LET ME TAKE SOMETHING EASY. 
          LET'S SAY THAT RIGHT NOW YOU CAN HAVE WITH PERMISSION OF THE CITY MANAGER A COUPLE OF CHICKENS IN YOUR BACKYARD. LET'S SAY THE CITY COMMISSION SAYS NO LIVESTOCK, NO CHICKENS, NOTHING. SO IS THERE SOMETHING IN YOUR PROPOSAL, MS. DAVIS, THAT SAYS THAT IF A CITIZEN INITIATIVE IS PROPOSED AND THE REQUIRED SIGNATURES THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN THE CITY CAN NO LONGER ENFORCE THAT ORDNANCE THAT SAYS NO CHICKENS UNTIL THIS THING GOES 
          THROUGH? >>  IF IT IS A BRAND NEW ORDNANCE THAT HAS JUST BEEN 
          PASSED SAYING NO CHICKENS, YES. >>  OKAY. THAT'S HOW I READ IT, TOO. 
          >>  IF IT'S NEW AND IT HASN'T GONE INTO EFFECT IT WOULD BE SUSPENDED FROM ENFORCEMENT. 
          >>  THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. THAT'S THE TYPE OF THING THAT I THINK IS A DECISION POINT. 
          AS A BODY, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT, THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A PETITION GO INTO PLACE THAT QUICKLY TO STOP SOMETHING THAT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT HAS APPROVED IS WHAT I THINK CHAIR FILLKOFF HAS AN ISSUE WITH. ARE ANY OF THE REST OF YOU THINKING LIKE THAT. I READ INITIATIVE PROVISIONS THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. YOU CAN PROPOSE AN INITIATIVE AT ANY TIME BUT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO STOP THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM MOVING FORWARD WITH AN ORDNANCE. 
          YOU CAN GO THROUGH YOUR PROCESS AT ANY POINT AND TRY TO UNDO THAT ORDNANCE BY INITIATIVE BUT YOU CAN'T STOP THE GOVERNMENT, YOUR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT FROM PUTTING EVERYTHING IN TO PLACE. YOU CAN THEN TAKE IT OUT IF IT PASSES. 
          I DO THINK THAT'S A DECISION POINT. >>  THAT IS WHAT THIS IS SAYING. YOU CAN TAKE IT OUT IF IT PASSES BUT IT'S SUSPENDED. 
          THIS LANGUAGE IS, YOU KNOW, THE EXACT, THE SUSPENSION LANGUAGE, THIS REFERENDUM AS IT'S CALLED IS THE STANDARD LANGUAGE FROM THE MODEL CHARTER AND WHAT IS IN ALL THE TEN LARGEST CITIES IN FLORIDA, AS WELL AS, 75% OF THE 22 CITIES CLOSEST IN SIZE TO US. THEY ALL HAVE THIS TYPE OF SUSPENSION ON NEW ORDNANCES IF THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO GET THE, WHATEVER THE THRESHOLD IS FOR 
          THE SIGNATURES. >>  SURE. >>  YOU HAVE TO BE VERY ORGANIZED. THAT'S WHY THIS PROVISION ONLY GIVES THEM THAT I HAD PUT FORTH ONLY GIVES THEM 30 DAYS TO DO THAT. YOU HAVE TO BE EXTREMELY 
          [03:45:02]
ORGANIZED AS SOON AS A NEW ORDNANCE GOES IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO GET SATISFY ALL THE 
          REQUIREMENTS WITHIN 30 DAYS. >>  MEMBER CLARK. >>>I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOU WERE HEADING WITH YOUR COMMENTS BUT I GENERALLY AGREE WITH WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS. 
          I THOUGHT YOU WERE MAYBE SUGGESTING THAT WE CONSIDER SOME MIDDLE GROUND. 
          >>  YES, SIR. >>  THERE ARE MIDDLE GROUND IDEAS. 
          MAYBE IT'S NOT APPEALING TO ANYBODY BUT ONE EXAMPLE RATHER THAN A REFERENDUM TO OVERTURN SOMETHING. YOU COULD HAVE A PETITION PROCESS THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO HOLD ANOTHER HEARING AND THE ADDITIONAL READING OF THE ORDNANCE. 
          YOU CAN DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT WOULD GIVE ANOTHER CHANCE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION IN A PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE FINAL ACTION. MAYBE THAT'S NOT WHAT PEOPLE HAVE IN MIND BUT THERE ARE MIDDLE GROUND SUGGESTIONS SHORT OF FULL BLOWN REFERENDUM THAT 
          WOULD OVERTURN AN ACTION. >>>MEMBER KOZAK. >>>I HAVE A QUESTION FOR KS I GUESS MARGARET SINCE YOU'VE DONE THE MOST RESEARCH ON THIS. TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND AND I THINK TO ADDRESS CHAIRPERSON FILLKOFF'S QUESTION. IF IT'S A NEW ORDNANCE BEING PETITIONS I UNDERSTAND THE SUSPENSION. ONCE THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THERE SUSPENSION OF THAT. AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING ORDNANCE WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT 
          EXISTING ORDNANCE? >>  AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING ORDNANCE IS TREATED LIKE A BRAND NEW PROPOSAL ORDNANCE. IN THAT CASE THE ORDNANCE STAYS IN PLACE MOVES FORWARD, THE COMMISSION IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A HEARING WITHIN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS, I BELIEVE IT'S 60. AND ADOPT THAT AMENDMENT. IF THEY DON'T THEN IT GOES TO A 
          PUBLIC VOTE. >>  ANYTHING THAT'S OUT THERE UNTIL IT MOVES FORWARD TO THE 
          REFERENDUM PROCESS IF IT GETS THAT FAR >>  THAT'S CORRECT. 
          >>  OKAY. AS FAR AS ONE THING I'M THINKING ABOUT, SINCE OUR CITIZENS ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PETITION WITH JUST 10% OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS TO AMEND THE CHARTER AND WE DO HAVE THINGS IN OUR CHARTER THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC THAN JUST GENERAL BIG PICTURE. IF WE HAVE THIS THRESHOLD BE TWENTY THEY MAY START WANTING TO PETITION THE AMENDMENT CHARTER INSTEAD WITH ONLY A 10% THRESHOLD TO AMEND THE CHARTER BY PETITION. THAT'S UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE 166.031. 
          >>  MEMBER BEAN? >>>OFF OF WHAT YOU SAID AND SPIT BALLING. 
          ONE FINAL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE I'M SEEING WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN FOR THIS TO WORK IS NO PIECE OF LEGISLATION WOULD BE ENACTED UNTIL 30 DAYS AFTER WE VOTE ON IT. 
          THERE'S ALREADY A LOT OF STOPPING IN CITY GOVERNMENT AND JUST YOUR CHICKEN EXAMPLE. 
          EVEN IF THEY HAVE UP TO 30 DAYS FOR A PETITION WINDOW. WHAT IF ON DAY 20 SOMEONE DECIDED TO PETITION THE CHICKENS AND GOT THAT VOTE. AS SOON AS THEY PETITION THE CHICKEN VOTE ON DAY TWENTY IT'S GOING THE SHUT THIS WHOLE THING DOWN. 
          IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE ANY ORDNANCE. IF YOU DID IT THE FIRST WEEK, SAY THE DAY AFTER THAT ORDNANCE GOES. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY NO MORE CHICKENS. I'M VERY PROCHICKEN. BACK TO THIS. 
          IF YOU ENFORCE IT THE NEXT DAY THE PERSON SAYS I'M ABOUT TO APPEAL THIS WITH THE PETITION PROCESS. IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY ORDNANCE. 
          YOU HAVE TO WAIT 30 DAYS INTO IT AFTER YOU VOTE ON IT. IT TURNS IT INTO A FIVE MONTH 
          PROCESS FROM LIKE FOUR. >>  ISN'T THERE ALREADY A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD BETWEEN WHEN 
          AN ORDNANCE IS PASSED AND WHEN IT BECOMES EFFECTIVE? >>  DEPENDS WHAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE IS. SOME HAVE AN EFFECTIVE DATE IN THE FUTURE BUT IT WOULD BE 
          POSSIBLE TO HAVE IMMEDIATE FOR THE ORDNANCE. >>  IT CAN BE EFFECTIVE 
          IMMEDIATELY, YES. >>  IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE THOSE. 
          >>  OKAY. >>>I'M GOING TO ASK IT'S FIVE OF SEVEN. 
          DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER 20 MINUTES OR DO YOU WANT TO 
          [03:50:04]
CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION ON MONDAY? OR IS ANYBODY READY TO MAKE ANY KIND OF A MOTION TODAY?  
          DID I TURN MY VOLUME DOWN? >>  I CAN'T MOTION FOR THIS RIGHT NOW. 
          >>  YOU CANNOT RIGHT NOW. >>  I THINK CONTINUE ON MONDAY. 
          >>  I FEEL LIKE WE COULD GO FOR 45 MINUTES ON THIS. I DON'T KNOW. 
          >>>OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT THEN ON MONDAY? 
          HOW ABOUT THIS. >>  PUT A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND SEE WHERE PEOPLE ARE. 
          >>  SOMEBODY PUT A MOTION, PLEASE. >>>GO AHEAD RICK. 
          >>>I'M NOT IN FAVOR SO I'M PROBABLY NOT THE ONE TO MAKE THE MOTION. 
          >>  I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT A PROVISION FOR THE CITY TO GIVE CITIZENS A PETITION AND A REFERENDUM ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT I HAVE HAD PROPOSED IN THE LAST THREE MEETINGS. 
          DO I NEED A THRESHOLD. A 20% TLOESH HELD. >>  IS THERE A SECOND? 
          >>  FOR SIGNATURES. >>  SECOND. >>>I HAVE A SECOND. 
          OR DO I? >>>YES. TAMMY SECONDED. 
          >>>A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SHALL I CALL A VOTE? 
          OKAY. KATIE, PLEASE. >>>MEMBER DAVIS? 
          >>>AYE. >>>MEMBER KOZAK? >>>YES. 
          >>>MEMBER BEAN? >>>NAY. >>>MEMBER LASEAR? 
          >>>NO. >>>MEMBER MORRISON? >>>NO. 
          >>>VICE CHAIR CLARK? >>>NO. >>>CHAIR FILLKOFF? 
          >>  NO. >>>NOW DO WE WANT TO BRING IT BACK FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON MONDAY WITH SOME EITHER OUR OWN LANGUAGE TO PROPOSE OR A MIDDLE GROUND TO PROPOSE OR SOMETHING 
          ELSE? WHAT DO WE DO WITH THIS? >>  I FEEL LIKE IT'S POSSIBLE LIKE YOU SAID CHAIR, THAT THE FIRST PART OF THIS WE MIGHT HAVE SOME SUPPORT FOR. 
          OF ALLOWING PEOPLE TO BRING NEW THINGS TO THE COMMISSION. >>>ANYONE ELSE? 
          >>>I SECOND WHAT BEN SAID ABOUT THAT. FOR ME IT'S THE DELAY OF GOVERNMENT THAT'S THE REAL HOLD UP HERE. IF YOU WANT A CITIZEN INITIATIVE 
          AT ANY TIME TO ENACT CHANGE I CAN DO THAT. >>>OKAY. 
          PERHAPS IT WOULD BE DOABLE TO HAVE A CITIZEN INITIATIVE TO OVERTURN THE CITY ORDNANCE 
          WITHOUT STOPPING EVERYTHING. UNTIL THAT PROCESS? >>  YEAH. 
          YOU WOULD NOT, IT'S POSSIBLE IF YOU CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO NOT HAVE A STAY AS WE CALL IT ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDNANCE AS ADOPTED. BUT THAT IT WOULD STILL GET ON A REFERENDUM IF YOU HAVE THE REQUIRED SIGNATURES AND THE PROCESS FULFILLED AND THEN LET THE PEOPLE VOTE AND IF THE PEOPLE VOTE TO OVERTURN IT THEN IT'S OVERTURNED. 
          >>  SO IF WE HAD THAT AND WE ALSO HAVE SOME LIMITATIONS THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF NO ZONING ACTIVITIES. ET CETERA ET CETERA. PERHAPS WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT THE GROUP CAN FIND MORE PALETTABLE TO PUT OUT THERE. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT IF YOU FEEL LIKE THERE'S SOMETHING SALVAGEABLE BRING A DESCRIPTION OF THAT TO MONDAY'S MEETING TO TRY TO SPEED UP THE CONVERSATION A LITTLE BIT. MEMBER LASEAR. 
          >>  WELL, I THINK AISLE RESERVE MY COMMENT AND PRESENT IT ON MONDAY. 
          I WAS JUST REACHING OVER TO LOWER MY HAND. >>>OKAY. 
          MEMBER DAVIS? MEMBER CLARK, I'M SORRY. >>>I UNDERSTAND THE CON CEMENT, I THINK, OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING HOW YOU WOULD CRAFT A PROPOSAL THAT WOULDN'T IN EFFECT CAUSE THE THINGS WE DON'T WANT IT TO DO, WHICH IS A DELAY AND PROTRACT SOMETHING UNNECESSARILY. 
          [03:55:04]
I DON'T SEE HOW YOU DO THAT. IF IT'S AN ORDNANCE THE COMMISSION ENACTED AND SOMEBODY WANTS TO CONTEST IT I DON'T SEE HOW YOU WOULD IMPLEMENT THAT ORDNANCE AND SAY, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD ANYWAY EVEN THOUGH THERE'S THE PETITION COMING. 
          I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT. 
          IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT UP AGAIN I SURE HOPE WE COULD HAVE SOME KIND OF A DEFINITIVE IDEA 
          IN FRONT OF US RATHER THAN A JUMP BALL. >>>THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING EVERYBODY WHO HAS AN OPINION TO BRING TO THE TABLE ON MONDAY. IS THAT A REASONABLE REQUEST? 
          OKAY. >>  I JUST FEEL LIKE I'VE ALREADY PUT FORTH MY PROPOSAL. 
          NOW I WANT TO SEE WHAT OTHERS HAVE TO DO. PLEASE BRING THEIRS FORWARD. 
          I LOOK FORWARD TO READING THEM. >>  ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU MARGARET. 
          YOU'VE DONE YOUR DUTY ON THIS. I DO THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE OUGHT TO PURSUE. 
          JUST NOT SURE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW. >>>OKAY. 
          >>>ANYTHING ELSE? >>>I'VE LOOKED AT SO MANY AND BUILT MINE BASED OFF AT LOOKING OTHER 40 CITY CHARTERS IN FLORIDA, PROVISIONS LIKE THIS. 
          I JUST DON'T KNOW SOMETHING ELSE. >>>YOU KNOW WE ALL LIKE TO THINK WE'RE UNIQUE, RIGHT. ARE WE ENDING? DID YOU END ME? 
          >>>WE JUST CUT YOU OFF. NO. OF COURSE NOT. 
          SOMEBODY HUNG UP. >>>THEY ARE CUTTING ME OFF. >>>NO WE'RE NOT. 
          [Items 8 & 9]
          >>>3:00 ON MONDAY? >>>3:00 ON MONDAY. >>>THAT'S WHEN WE PLAN TO 
          STAY EVEN LATER. YES? >>>NO. 
          LOOK AT HIM. HE SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOT. >>>OKAY. 
          >>  WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH. WE'RE GOING TO SHOOT FOR FIVE, 6 O'CLOCK NO LATER THAN 6 O'CLOCK, OKAY. ON MONDAY. 
          >>>MEMBER DAVIS? >>>Z I JUST WANT TO A PROCEDURAL MATTER. 
          I HAVE COMMENTS GOING THROUGH THE POWERPOINT. I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD GIVE THEM TO KATIE. COME DOWNTOWN AND MEET WITH YOU LIKE ON THE DESCRIPTION KIND OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE POWERPOINT. SOME OF THE RATIONAL. 
          >>  YEAH. >>  I WANT TO KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY I CAN EFFICIENTLY WORK 
          WITH KATIE OR SOMETHING THAT MIGHT HELP? >>  I THINK THE BEST WAY MARGARET, AND KATIE WILL SAY, TOO. COME TO THE OFFICE IN PERSON. 
          IT'S A LITTLE BIT EASIER THAT WAY WE HAVE A CONFERENCE ROOM, TOO. 
          WE CAN SOCIALLY DISTANCE AND WE ARE NOT LOCATED AT CITY HALL. WE ARE AT THE PECK CENTER ON THE 
          SECOND FLOOR SUITE 213. >>>OKAY. I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH HER AND FIND 
          A TIME MAYBE TOMORROW. >>>SURE. WELL TOMORROW AFTERNOON WORKS 
          FOR KATIE. >>>ALL RIGHT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.