Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Call to Order]

[00:00:04]

CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA.

DO WE FIRST DO THE PLEDGE? >> DO THE PLEDGE OR YOU CAN --

YEAH. >> LET'S RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PLEASE.

>> SOUNDS LIKE HE'S RECITING IT LIKE IN SCHOOL.

>> I KNOW JON SUCH A GOOD PATRIOT.

OKAY. MS. NEWTON CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL

PLEASE. >> MEMBER BEAN.

HERE. CHAIR FILKOFF, HERE.

MEMBER DAVIS? HERE.

MEMBER MORRISON, HERE. MEMBER LASSERE, HERE.

MEMBER KOSACK, HERE. AND THEN VICE CHAIR CLARK RESIGNED. AND THE PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE IS MS. AMY BRIAN, SO SHE IS HERE ON THE CALL AS WELL.

BUT SHE'S NOT OFFICIALLY A MEMBER YET.

SO. >> OKAY CAN, SO WELCOME MS. BRIAN. THANK YOU FOR AGREEING TO BE HERE WITH US. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO VOTE ON HER, THE NEXT MEETING?

>> ON TUESDAY. >> OKAY.

SO THAT DOES NOT STOP YOU IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM FROM HAVING YOUR SAY TODAY, PLEASE. OKAY SO DID EVERYBODY -- DID ANYBODY HAVE A REACTION TO IF COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING THAT WE HAD? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT ANYBODY WANTS TO ADDRESS THAT CAME OUT OF THAT MEETING? ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE ALL GOOD WITH THAT.

AND WE WILL GO ON TO TODAY'S BUSINESS.

WHICH KATY TELL ME WHAT'S FIRST PLEASE.

[Item 4]

>> MEETING MINUTES. >> DID EVERYBODY HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING? ANY ISSUES, QUESTIONS, CHANGES? SEEING NOTHING --

>> I HAVE NO COMMENTS FOR ONCE ON THE MINUTES.

>> OKAY. THIS IS A LANDMARK THE DAY! DAY! I WANT EVERYBODY TO REMEMBER THIS DAY GOING FORWARD. ALL RIGHT, SO NO COMMENTS, WE'RE GOOD. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE?

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> ALL IN FAVOR? GOOD ALL RIGHT MARGARET YOU GO, YOU'RE ON A ROLL NOW.

>>> OKAY ANY OTHER OLD BUSINESS. >> I WON'T GO THAT FAR.

>> OH I KNOW, I KNOW, I'M JUST ENJOYING THE MOMENT.

[Item 5]

ALL RIGHT ANY OLD BUSINESS TO DISCUSS? I GUESS DID I THAT FIRST. BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING ANYBODY WANTS TO BRING UP, NOW'S THE TIME.

BEFORE WE GET INTO THE THINGS WE HAVEN'T REVIEWED.

MARGARET, YES, MA'AM. >> TOLD YOU, IT WOULDN'T LAST LONG. JUST I GUESS THESE ARE SOMEWHAT TIED TO THE WORKSHOP. BUT JUST SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT I MADE THERE ON SECTION 11B.

I KNOW THAT NEITHER KATY NOR MS. B OTT HAD A CHANCE TO PACKAGE WAS DISTRIBUTED FOR THIS MEETING.

BUT JUST AGAIN WANTED TO REITERATE THAT IN SECTION 11B, I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WITH RESPECT TO MISS MISSING THREE MEETINGS, THE PUNISHMENT WOULD BE AFTER FELONY.

SECONDLY, I THINK COMMISSIONER LEDNOVICH ADDRESSED THIS, SECTION 142, FUTURE AMENDMENT OF THE CHARTER, THERE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE EVERY SEVEN YEARS, ODD NUMBER OF YEARS, SHOULD WE CONSIDER TO MOVING THAT TO SIX TO EIGHT SO THE MATH

[00:05:01]

WORKS? >> ANYBODY HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT THAT? SIX OR EIGHT IS BETTER.

IS ONE BETTER THAN THE OTHER? I THINK IT SHOULD BE REVIEWED MORE FREQUENTLY THAN LESS BUT THAT'S JUST ME.

ANY OTHER OPINIONS? >> I'M SAYING EIGHT IS WHAT'S BEING DONE NOW AND IT COINCIDES WITH A MAJOR ELECTION.

SO 2028 WOULD BE THE NEXT REVIEW.

AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE BETTER THAN AN INTERIM, YOU KNOW, ELECTION, 8 IS BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE.

AND EIGHT COINCIDES WITH THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

>> OKAY. >> THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO THE BALLOT NOW UNTIL 2021 ON THIS. BUT I THINK WE --

>> RIGHT, OKAY, JUST MAYBE -- >> IT'S TRICKY.

>> AT LEAST ONE EVERY EIGHT YEARS, I GUESS THEY COULD DO IT

IN SEVEN YEARS. >> AND THEN ISN'T IT ODD SO THAT BY THE TIME THEY GOT THROUGH THERE WASN'T A CRUNCH LIKE WE

WERE FACING? >> YES, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.

INITIATED AT YEAR 7 IT WOULD BE DONE AT YEAR --

>> RIGHTS. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> SO WHAT'S THE OUTCOME OF THAT DISCUSSION?

7 YEARS? >> YES, LEAVE IT SEVEN.

THAT WAY IT WILL BE 2026. YEAH, I GUESS IT WOULD BE 2026 WHEN IT'S UP AGAIN. THIS STARTED IN 2019.

IT SHOULD BE A. THERE SHOULD BE EIGHT AND THAT'S ON THIS BALLOT, 2020. THAT WILL TAKE IT TO 2027.

AND THEN FOR 2028'S BALLOT. SIX OR EIGHT.

I WOULD RECOMMEND. >> SO EIGHT YEARS BEFORE THE BALLOT IS SHOWING A REVIEW, IS THAT -- AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT RIGHT? ARE THE ACTUAL ACTIVITY IN THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WOULD START IN SEVEN YEARS BIT IT WOULD BE ON THE BALLOT IN EIGHT YEARS.

>> THAT WOULD BE MY POINT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THERE.

>> THAT'SING WHAT WOULD IT BEEN ON THERE.

>> WE WERE FORMED IN 2019. SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GETTING HUNG UP. EIGHT YEARS BRINGS US TO 2027.

>> 2007. >> IT COULD BE EVEN SPECIFIC ABOUT THE VERY NEXT ONE WHERE WT SHOULD BE DONE EVERY EIGHT YEARS THEREAFTER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT IF LAST CHARTER COMMITTEE DID, SPECIFIC YEARS, WE MADE IT NOW WHERE IT WILL BE EVERY FOUR YEARS.

THE FIRST YEAR, THE NEXT REVIEW WILL BE IN 2027 AND THE NEXT ONE

WILL BE EIGHT YEARS AFTER THAT. >> DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TAMMI?

>> WE SAY WHEN WE CONVENED IT THIS YEAR IN 19 AND WE DO IT EVERY SEVEN YEARS? NO, I MEAN 2028.

EVERY EIGHT YEARS. OKAY.

EVERY EIGHT YEARS. >> ALL RIGHT.

DID WE EVER IDENTIFY WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS? BECAUSE THE 2007 COMMITTEE HAD A RECOMMENDATION IN THE CHARTER AS WELL AND THAT DID NOT OCCUR.

I THINK ABSENT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT DEFINED AS SOMEBODY'S JOB IT ENDS UP BEING NOBODY'S JOB.

SO SHOULD WE DEFINE A RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR MAKING SURE THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW HAPPENS? WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON IT? IS THAT THE CITY MANAGER? IS IT THE COMMISSION, WHO, YOU KNOW, THEY WON'T DO IT WITHOUT AN OFFICER TELLING THEM TO. SO WHO'S GOING TO --

>> THIS IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE CHARTER PROVISION, IT SEEMS TO ME MAYBE THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD BE THE RIGHT ONE TO REMIND THE

COMMISSION THEY NEED TO DO IT. >> OKAY, IS ANYBODY OF A

DIFFERENT MINDSET ON THAT? >> I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> TAMMI? >> THAT'S FINE WITH ME.

>> ALL RIGHT WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT THEN.

ANYTHING ELSE MARGARET? >> AND CITY ATTORNEY'S DUTIES.

>> YES, I WILL REFERENCE BACK, FOR SURE.

>> MARGARET, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?

>> WELL, WHEN WE GO THROUGH SECTIONS 58 THROUGH 67, WHICH IS LISTED AS NEW BUSINESS, WE ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THOSE BEFORE, AND SO I'LL JUST STATE MY COMMENTS WHEN WE GET TO

[00:10:04]

THEM THROUGH NEW BUSINESS. >> OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT SO WE'RE DONE WITH OLD

[Item 6.1]

BUSINESS. WE'RE GOING TO THE FIRST ITEM UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND THAT'S THE SELECTION OF A NEW VICE CHAIR. ANY VOLUNTEERS? DON'T RUSH. PLEASE.

YOU'RE GOING TO STAMPEDE EACH OTHER.

>> I MOVE TO NOMINATE MEMBER DAVIS.

>> I WAS GOING TO MOVE TO NOMINATE MEMBER BEAN SO HE CANNING CANDEMONSTRATE HIS LEADP CAPABILITIES.

WE'VE LOST HIM. >> TWO NOMINEES.

DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR EITHER OF THOSE HELLO? MR. BEAN, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY?

>> HE'S SPEECHLESS. >> IF HE'S NOT HERE I THINK WE CAN NOMINATE HIM SINCE HE CAN'T SPEAK UP FOR HIMSELF.

>> OKAY, HE HAS BEEN NOMINATED. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SECOND HIM

BENJAMIN? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND HIM.

>> OKAY. DO WE ALSO HAVE A SECOND FOR MEMBER DAVIS? SINCE IT WAS HER IDEA TO NOMINATE HIM, I THINK WE'LL GO WITH THAT, RIGHT? ALL IN FAVOR OF MEMBER BEAN?

>> AYE. I'M SO SORRY I'M ON MY WIFI.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU VOTED FOR?

>> I DO MANY I CAN HEAR EVERYONE SAYING I JUST CAN'T --

>> ALL RIGHT CONGRATULATIONS BRADLEY.

>> THANK YOU. >> VICE CHAIR.

I WILL BE MISSING ALL THE FUTURE MEETINGS, BY THE WAY.

[Item 6.2]

START AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT, PLEASE.

ANY COMMENTS? >> I HAVE A COMMENT ON 59 UNLESS

ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING ON 58. >> ALL RIGHT, GO FOR 59.

>> I'M WONDERING WHERE IT SAYS, AMOUNT ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION FROM TIME TO TIME.

DO WE NEED TO DEFINE TIME TO TIME?

>> THAT'S A LEGAL TERM OF ART. I MEAN -- WHO?

>> I THOUGHT WE HAD ALREADY CHANGED THAT PROVISION SO IT REFERENCES INSURANCE FOR PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY

INSURANCE. >> OKAY, WE'RE CHECKING ON THAT.

>> I THOUGHT WE HAD -- WE WANTED SOME SORT OF CONDITIONS OF PERFORMANCE. LISTED THERE.

>> AM I RIGHT THAT WE'RE ON 59? >> YES, WE ARE.

>> I DON'T REMEMBER THE -- THAT WE TALKED ABOUT PERFORMANCE.

WE DID TALK ABOUT THE BOND. AND I DO HAVE, AS A REPLACEMENT, THE CITY COMPTROLLER MUST HAVE INSURANCE FOR PROFESSIONAL

LIABILITY TO PROTECT THE CITY. >> THAT'S THE PART OF THE CONVERSATION I REMEMBER. IS THERE SOMETHING ANYBODY ELSE

HAS TO ADD? >> (INAUDIBLE) PACKET.

>> 58, 59. ALL RIGHT? SO IF YOU LOOK AT 58, AT THE BEGINNING, THERE'S A DISCUSSION OF RESPONSIBILITIES. AND THEN 59, REFERS TO JUST THE

BOND. >> RIGHT, 58 TALKS ABOUT FGFOA,

AND THEY MUST BE A CITY. >> TELL ME, I WAS LOOKING AT A SIDE BY SIDE EXAIRNL THE MOST RECENT ONE WE HAVE POWERPOINTED, YOU KNOW THIS ONE'S CHANGED IN THE 60S.

I THOUGHT WE KIND OF COVERED A LOT OF THESE ALREADY.

AND THEN CHANGE IS EXACTLY WHAT CHAIR JUST READ.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, A BOND IS REALLY VERY HARD TO PROCURE, I THINK PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE, YOU KNOW, WHICH THE CITY PURCHASES, WE'VE GOT IT COVERED THERE.

SO I THINK THE ONLY THING WE'D DO IS CHANGE THE SECTION HEADING FROM BONDS TO PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE.

[00:15:10]

>> DOES THAT SATISFY THE QUALIFICATIONS? MARLGT? MARGARET?

>> THERE WAS SOMETHING ELLIS I WANT TOWED DISCUSS.

WE REMOVED SECTION 22 ON BONDS, BECAUSE WE HAVE IN LANGUAGE HERE ABOUT INSURANCE. BUT IN SECTION 122 MADE CLEAR THAT THE -- SO I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THAT'S WHY WE REMOVED SECTION 122. I JUST DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN TALK ABOUT SECTION 59 WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT 122.

>> OKLAHOMA, TAMMI'S CHECKED, STAIM TAMMI BACH HAS CHECKED ON.

LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATION THAT SHE'S NOT VOTING S, IS THAT TRU?

>> SHE MAY PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION BUT SHE MAY NOT VOTE BECAUSE SHE HASN'T BEEN OFFICIALLY ARE APPROVED BY VOTE.

>> I CAN ANSWER MARGARET'S QUESTION.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT, 122 HAS BEEN DELETED OR PROPOSED TO BE DELETED BECAUSE WE TALK ABOUT PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE INSTEAD OF A BOND. WHERE.

>> AND THE INSURANCE IS ACTUALLY WHAT IS BEING DONE AS I REMEMBER, WE WANTED THE CHARTER CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS BEING

DONE. >> YES, CORRECT.

>> ALL RIGHT SO IS EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT? 59 IS GOOD NOW OR NO? LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOOD.

GOING ON TO 60. ANY COMMENTS?

MARGARET? >> I THINK THAT IN THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADD ADDED AT THE LAST SENTENCE, I THINK THE WORD AND AFTER THE WORD SOUND SHOULD BE ANNUALLY OR SOMETHING.

BECAUSE IT CURRENTLY READS THE COMPTROLLER MUST PROPOSE AND SOUND, SO I GUESS IT SHOULD BE PROPOSED ANNUALLY, MAYBE.

I DIDN'T GO BACK TO THE TAPE, TO LOOK AT WHAT WE -- WHEN WE

TALKED ABOUT THAT SECTION. >> I THINK IT'S JUST --

>> IF I REMEMBER -- >> I THINK IT'S JUST DELETE THE AND. BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER US PUPUTTING THE ANNUAL REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THAT MIGHT BE TOO RESTRICTIVE. WE DO A RESOLUTION EVERY FEW YEARS AND APPROVE THAT WITH THE COMMISSION PROPOSED BY THE COMPTROLLER FOR OUR INVESTMENT POLICIES.

WHICH I'M PRETTY SURE WE SENT THAT OUT TO ALL OF YOU TOO.

>> YOU DID SEND IT OUT, YES. I KNOW THIS WAS A FORMER MEMBER CLARK'S SUGGESTION TO ADD THIS AND SINCE HE'S NOT HERE HE PROBABLY WOULD REMEMBER THE HISTORY.

I JUST DIDN'T GO BACK. BUT THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T KNOW ALSO WHAT WAS PROPOSE AND PRESENT SOUND WRITTEN INVESTMENT POLICIES, MAYBE? I'M NOT SURE WHY THE WORD AND IS

THERE. >> IT SHOULDN'T BE THERE.

I'M SAYING IT'S AN EXTRA WORD. IT SHOULD COME OUT.

IT SHOULD SAY, MUST PROPOSE SOUND WRITTEN INVESTMENT POLICIES WHICH ARE APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT.

SO ON TO THE NEXT WUNG. 61, IS THAT WHERE W WE ARE? ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGES? OKAY.

GOOD. >> SORRY, I HAVE A MINOR CAN A .

MONEYS IS ARCHAIC. MONIES, MONEYS WITH A Y SHOULD

BE MONIES. >> 63 HAS NO CHANGES, CAN 64? ANYTHING? ALL RIGHT WE'RE GOOD WITH 64.

>> CHAIRMAN FILKOFF, DIDN'T WE SAY WE WANTED TO DEFINE WHICH COMMISSION MEETING, DID WE SAY THE FIRST COMMISSION MEETING OF THE MONTH OR A MONTHLY COMMISSION MEETING? I THOUGHT WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ON WHEN THE FINANCIAL REPORT WAS

[00:20:01]

SUBMITTED. >> YES, I AGREE.

>> WE DID BUT I THINK -- >> YOU COULD HAVE ADDED THAT IT'S MONTHLY. WE DID ADD MONTHLY.

>> WE ADDED THE WORD MONTHLY? OKAY.

SO DO WE NEED TO SPECIFY WHEN IN THE MONTH OR IS MONTHLY ENOUGH?

>> I THINK ONCE A MONTH IS ENOUGH.

>> OKAY SO IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THERE?

AND SO TAMMI YOU HAD -- >> GOT IT.

>> 62 WE DID. RIGHT?

>> THAT WAS JUST SECTION 64. >> 64 SO NOW WE'RE AT -- WE'RE DONE WITH THOSE, CORRECT? WE'RE DONE WITH SECTIONS 58 THROUGH 67. AND NOW WE GO TO 68 THROUGH 144.

[Item 6.3]

68. >> THERE IS ANYTHING --

>> RIGHT. MARGARET, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? I'M SORRY.

>> NOT UNTIL 69. >> OKAY.

SO LET'S GO TO 69. >> ARE YOU READY?

>> ANYBODY FOR 68? YES.

>> NOW, I KNOW THERE ARE SEVERAL MEMBERS HERE THAT ACTUALLY SERVE ON ADVISORY BOARDS SO THEY MAY HAVE MORE INFORMATION, MORE IDEAS ON THIS. BUT MY THOUGHT WAS, IT SAYS IT'S COMPOSED OF RESIDENTS OF THE CITY.

SHOULDN'T THOSE BE VOTERS? OR AT LEAST PEOPLE WHO ARE

QUALIFIED TO VOTE? >> I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT HAVING A HIGH SCHOOL STUBTH ON THE PARKS AND REC ADVISORY COUNCIL.

I DON'T KNOW THAT EVER DID HAPPEN.

>> YES, WE FORMED A ARE RESERVE COUNSEL FOR A WHILE.

>> AND WE MIGHT WANT TO BE ABLE TO BRING THAT BACK AT SOME POINT WHICH WE COULDN'T DO IF WE SAID VOTERS.

THAT MIGHT BE RESTRICTIVE. WHAT'S YOUR THINKING ON THAT?

>> I WAS THINKING MORE ABOUT PART TIME RESIDENTS, IF THEY'RE PERMITTED, SOME FULL TIME RESIDENTS MAY HAVE ISSUE OF PART TIME RESIDENTS BEING ON ADVISORY BOARDS.

>> THEY MIGHT HAVE AN ISSUE, UNLESS THAT PART TIME RESIDENT

IS A TAXPAYER. >> AND IF THE PART TIME RESIDENT IS FULFILLING ALL OF THEIR DUTIES AND ALSO ATTENDING MEETINGS, THEN I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT CAN BE A DISQUALIFICATION.

>> I MEAN THAT WOULD DISQUALIFY YOU, RIGHT TAMMI?

>> YES. >> I DON'T THINK THERE HAS BEEN ANY ISSUE IN YOUR SITUATION. SO.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT? SO WHAT YOU --

>> I DO HAVE THE LAST LINE OF THIS, I'M SEEING THAT THE LAST LINE SAYS, THE EDITS MAKE IT SAY INSTEAD OF WHICH SHALL BECOME PART OF THE RECORDS OF THE CITY, NOW IT SAYS WHICH BECOME PART OF THE RECORDS OF THE CITY. DOES THAT GRAMMATICALLY STILL MAKE SENSE? SEEMS LIKE IF I'M READING IT, IT SHOULD BE A WORD THERE, WHICH WILL BECOME PART OF THE RECORDS OF THE CITY OR DOES IT FLOW WITHOUT SHALL?

>> GOT TO REMOVE THE SHALL. IF THERE'S A SHALL I MESSED UP.

>> TALKING ABOUT SENTENCE NUMBER 2?

>> BRADLEY. >> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FINAL LINE OF THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE. INSTEAD OF SAYING --

>> OH I GOT YOU WHICH SHALL BECOME, WHICH BECOME PART OF THE

RECORDS OF THE CITY. >> BECOMES.

>> RIGHT, I MEAN I GUESS THAT MAKES SENSE IF YOU SAY IT LIKE THAT, WHICH MORE INTEREST IS ON WHICH BECOME.

WHEN I READ IT A FEW TIMES, IT JUST I GUESS LOST MY GRAMMATICAL TRAIN OF THOUGHT WHEN I WAS READING THAT.

SEEMS LIKE ITS NEEDS A WILL. IF IT DOESN'T NEED WILL THERE, IF YOU GUYS ALL THINK IT FLOWS WITHOUT THAT WORD, I LIKE

[00:25:01]

SIMPLE. >> OKAY SO --

>> I THINK YOU COULD ADD THEN, WHICH THEN BECOME RECORDS OF THE CITY WHICH YOU COULD COULD ACCOMPLISH --

>> I LIKE THAT BETTER THAN WILL. >> TAMMI, WHICH DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMITTEES, THIS ONE HERE REFERS TO ADVISORY AWARDS. BIT THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE AD HOC I THINK IS THE TERMINOLOGY FOR IT.

WHERE. >> THERE ARE FACT-FINDING WHICH INDICATE THAT THEY PROBABLY ARE JUST CITY MANAGER-APPOINTED BOARDS, THAT'S HOW I'VE ALWAYS INTERPRETED THE SITUATION.

THERE ARE ADVISORY BOARDS AND THEN WE HAVE STANDING

COMMITTEES. >> SO DO YOU WANT ME TO INCLUDE THAT IN A SERIES SO WE INCLUDE EVERYBODY?

>> HERE IS THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT KINDS OF COMMITTEES.

AND IF THE CITIZENS ARE NOT AWARE OF IT, THEY ARE SOMETIMES MISLED INTO THINKING THAT EVERY TYPE OF COMMITTEE THAT'S FORMED IS A PUBLIC MEETING. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO OR NOT. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT IS A FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER, IT SOMETIMES, IN OUR PAST HAS NOT BEEN MADE A PUBLIC MEETING.

BECAUSE IT'S A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING RESEARCH TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF SOME KIND TO THE CITY MANAGER.

AND FROM THEN ON THE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT BECOMES PUBLIC.

BUT WHILE THE FACT-FINDING IS GOING ON IT ISN'T.

CONSIDERED PUBLIC.

THERE ARE OTHER COMMITTEES THAT THE CITY MANAGER CAN FORM.

>> YEAH, I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT MUDDIES IT.

>> YES. >> I THINK THAT IF WE TAKE OUT AND WE ADDRESS THIS ONLY AS CITY COMMISSION APPOINTED BOARDS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE SUNSHINE LAW BUT FACT FINDING IN OTHER WORDS, BECAUSE WE ALSO HAVE UTILIZED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES, CITY MANAGER APPOINTED OR EVEN OTHER DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS HAVE APPOINTED BOARDS THAT MIGHT INCLUDE NONRESIDENTS OR MIGHT BE A REGIONAL REASON WHY, OR SOME EXPERTISE BY SOMEBODY THAT'S NOT A RESIDENT. THAT IS THERE TO PROVIDE FACTS TO ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS.

AND I THINK THIS IS INTENDED TO BE ADVISORY BOARDS, WHICH ARE INCLUDED AD HOC. AD HOC AND ADVISORY CAN BE USED SYNONYMOUSLY AND THEN STANDING COMMITTEES.

STANDING COMMITTEES ARE AUTHORIZED BY LAW, GENERALLY YOU CAN LOOK IT UP ON GOOGLE, THAT'S WHERE I LEARNED IT, IS THEY'RE AUTHORIZED BY SOME OTHER LAW, FOR EXAMPLE, A GREAT EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, VARIANCES AND HARDSHIPS, THOSE THROUGH FLORIDA CASE LAW ARE PROVIDE ID.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS THE LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD, THEY ARE CONSIDERED THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY, UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES.

SO STANDING COMMITTEES ARE DIFFERENT THAN AD HOC BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RULES. WE GENERALLY APPLY THE SAME.

IT'S EASIER TO DO IT THAT WAY. SO IT SOUNDED TO ME LIKE YOU ALL SAID RESIDENTS NOT NECESSARILY ELIGIBLE VOTERS.

>> I THINK WE DID BUT I'LL GO BACK.

>> TAMMI I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

DO WE HAVE SOME DISTINCTION FOR JUDICIAL BOARD?

>> NOT HERE. HERE IT'S JUST SAYING THAT AS A TOWN, WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS ARE RESIDENTS. THAT'S ALL THIS IS, THIS SECTION

IS INTENDED TO DO. >> OKAY.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT WE JUST SAID THEN WAS TWO THINGS. ONE IS THAT WE WOULD LEAVE IT AS RESIDENTS, SHOULD WE SAY FULL TIME RESIDENTS?

OR NO? >> I'LL SEE YOU LATER.

>> OKAY, ALL RIGHT, WE WOULD NOT SAY THAT, WE WOULD NOT SAY VOTERS, WE WOULD LEAVE IT AS RESIDENTS.

AND WE'RE OKAY WITH ONLY ADDRESSING THIS ONE TYPE IN THE CHARTER. OKAY.

>> I WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THEM. I'M GOING TO TAKE OUT FACT FINDING AND I WILL PUT ADVISORY OR AD HOC AND STANDING

COMMITTEES. >> OKAY.

>> I HAVE ONE MORE MINOR COMMENT, THIS IS REALLY JUST AN EDITING COMMENT IN THE LAST SENTENCE.

I WOULD TAKE OUT THE WORD SUCH BEFORE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS BECAUSE AGAIN THAT IS JUST ARCHAIC LEGAL, I DON'T THINK IT

ADDS ANYTHING. >> IS THAT EVERYTHING THEN FOR

[00:30:04]

SECTION 69? >> IT'S IF SAME, MARGARET, IS THE SAME THING TRUE IN THE SENTENCE BEFORE THAT WHERE IT

SAYS SUCH BOARD? >> THERE I THOUGHT OIT REALLY WAS SUCH WAS TRYING TO REVERENCE THE BOARD, BUT IN ANOTHER ONE THEY WEREN'T MAKING SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO ANY MUNICIPAL OFFICER. SO I DIDN'T THINK SUCH MEANT -- ADDED ANYTHING IN THE LAST USE OF IT.

>> OKAY. >> BUT I WAS OKLAHOMA WITH THE EARLIER ONE. OKAY WITH THE EARLIER ONE.

I NEVER LIKED THAT TERM IF YOU COULD AVOID IT.

IT JUST SEEMS TO BE EXTRA WORD. >> SO THAT'S IT FOR SECTION 69? THEN WE'RE ON TO 71. ANY COMMENTS?

MARGARET? >> MADAM CHAIR.

>> MARGARET. >> I LOOKED AT THIS PROVISION, AND WAS WONDERING, BETWEEN SECTION 71 AND 72, IS ONE TRYING TO SAY THE CITY MANAGER HAS TO PREPARE THE BUDGET AND THE OTHER IS TRYING TO SAY THAT THE CITY COMMISSION HAS TO DO SOMETHING, APPROVE IT? IS THAT WHY WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PROVISIONS DEALING WITH AN ANNUAL BUDGET HERE? I JUST REALLY -- AND THEN I COULDN'T REALLY TELL WHAT SECTION -- HOW SECTION 72 ADDED THE SECTION 71, SINCE SECTION 71 DOES TALK ABOUT IT BEING PREPARED IN -- YOU KNOW, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. LAWS OF FLORIDA. I MIGHT BE MISSION SOMETHING HERE, AND WELCOME BEING, THE CLARIFICATION.

BUT IT WAS CONFUSING TO ME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY WE NEEDED THESE TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS, WHY THEY DIDN'T SEEM TO BE DEALING WITH THE SAME THING.

>> THEY ARE DEALING WITH THE SAME THING MARGARET.

THEY ARE DEALING WITH AN ANNUAL BUDGET.

I WOULD PROPOSE THAT YOU ALL RECOMMEND REPEALING AND RESERVING SECTION 92. BECAUSE IT LITERALLY IS SAYING WHAT STATE LAW CHAPTER 200 AND 199 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE SAYS AND THAT IS IT'S BASICALLY OUR NUMBER 1 DUTY IS TO PREPARE A BALANCED BUDGET EVERY YEAR AND THAT THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVES THAT BY RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE, AT A THEY APPROVE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. AND SO I THINK 72 IS REALLY JUST RESTATING WHAT FLORIDA LAW IS. AND I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH IT HELPS OUR POPULATION HERE IN UNDERSTANDING HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. I DO THINK THAT 71 IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE IN YOUR CHARTER.

IT IS A LITTLE MORE EXPLANATORY. BUT DO YOU WANT TO KEEP THIS IN SECTION 71 INSTEAD OF PUTTING IT NEAR THE CITY MANAGER'S DUTIES? THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

>> ANY REACTION TO THAT QUESTION?

>> WELL, MY ONLY THOUGHT ON THAT IS, IF SOMEBODY IS GOING THROUGH THE TABLE OF CONTENTS, WE HAVE ALL OF THESE JUDICIARY THINGS TOGETHER, THE BUDGET, APPROPRIATIONS, TAX BASE AND FINANCES, SO IT MAKES A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THAT REGARD.

>> YES, THAT'S TRUE. >> YES THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> I THINK YOU COULD REFERENCE BACK TO THE OCITY MANAGER'S ROLES, I MEAN KEEP IT HERE SINCE IT'S UNDER FINANCES AND TAXATION. AND MAYBE BREAK THIS PARAGRAPH INTO SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS, A B C AND HAVE SOME BOLD POINTS AND JUST MAYBE MAKE THE REFERENCE TOWARDS COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA LAW, AS WELL AS BOLD POINT, CAPITAL PLAN, ADD THAT IN, I THINK THAT'S GOOD AND THEN JUST KIND OF MAKE IT MORE READABLE.

AND ONE OTHER THING IS DROP THE E ON THEREFORE, IF YOU ARE GOING

TO KEEP THAT WORD. >> ANY NEGATIVE REACTION TO ANYTHING YOU HAVE HEARD SO FAR? LET ME TRY TO SUMMARIZE WHAT WE HAVE SAID. WHAT WE SAID IS WE WOULD DROP SECTION 72. WE WOULD CHANGE THE WAY 71 IS WORDED. OR FORMATTED.

AND REFERENCE BACK TO THE CITY MANAGER'S ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN HERE AS WELL.

IS THAT IN GENERAL WHAT WE'VE SAID?

TAMMI DO YOU HAVE THE -- >> GOT IT, YES, THANK YOU FOR THAT SUMMARY. THAT WAS HELPFUL.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO WE ARE ON TO --

[00:35:01]

>> THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION, THOUGHT OI HAD AND THIS IS FROM LOOKING AT SOME OF OUR PEER CITY CHARTERS, WAS AND MAYBE THERE WAS A PARTICULAR REASON WHY IT WAS DECIDED NOT TO DO THIS.

WOULD WE WANT TO HAVE A TIMING ON THIS LIKE WHEN THE BUDGET SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION, AND WHEN THE COMMISSION'S SUPPOSED TO ADOPT IT? A LOT OF OUR PEER CITIES REQUIRE IT TO BE SUBMIT BID THE CITY MANAGER SAY BY SEPTEMBER 30TH. I ASSUME THAT Y'ALL WANTED TO BIND THE HANDS AND SAY WHAT IF FISCAL YEAR IS FOR THE CITY OR NOT BUT I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT A LOT OF OUR PEER CITIES THEIR CHARTERS DO DO THAT. AND MAYBE WE COULD SAY IT

ANNUALLY RIGHT? >> DOESN'T THAT DATE REQUIREMENT

CHANGE YEARLY? >> NO.

>> IT DOES NOT? JUDGE NO.

>> NO. >> IS IT ALWAYS THE SAME DATE

WITH WHICH -- >> THE CITY'S FISCAL YEAR, YES.

>> SO YOU BACK UP. >> THAT EVERY YEAR?

>> I WOULDN'T PUT A DATE IN THERE.

I WOULD JUST SAY THAT YOU WOULD SAY PURSUANT TO FLORIDA LAW OR YOU WOULD SAY THE CITY'S FISCAL YEAR IS, WHICH MEANS OUR BUDGETS HAS TO BE ADOPT ED AND READY TO GO BY SEPTEMBER 30TH.

>> SO DID IF WE PUT THAT REFERE THEN, THAT DOES SAY THEN THAT OUR FISCAL YEAR DOESN'T CHANGE. BUT WOULD IT?

>> OUR FISCAL YEAR COULD ONLY CHANGE I MEAN IF OUR CITY COMMISSION CHANGED IT. IF WE SET IT BY CHARTER IT DOESN'T CHANGE UNLESS IT CHANGES BY REFERENDUM.

>> WHAT ABOUT SAYING IT HAS TO BE SUBMITTED 30 DAYS OR 90 DAYS OR WHATEVER, I KNOW 30 DAYS IS TOO SHORT.

BUT SO MANY DAYS BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE FISCAL YEAR?

L. >> OH, YOU'RE SAYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC'S ON NOTICE OF WHAT THE BUDGET IS? I MEAN WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF SAYING --

>> THE TIMING OF WHEN IT HAS TO BE SUBMITTED, THE COMMISSION DOES HAVE THE PUBLIC AND THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE APPROPRIATE

TIME TO REVIEW AND ADOPT. >> BUT AREN'T THOSE DATES

GOVERNED BY THE STATE PROCESS? >> NO.

LET ME LOOK REAL QUICK TO SEE. I THINK OUR FISCAL YEAR MAY BE

IN OUR CODE. >> NOPE.

>> THE MILLAGE RATE -- >> DON'T THEY HAVE IT DOWNTOWN FOR THE TRIP NOTICES TO BE DELIVERED?

>> YES, YES. >> I MEAN THERE'S ARE THEY HAVE TO HAVE IT READY, THAT'S STATE MANDATED, THEY HAVE TO HAVE IT BUDGET APPROVED, I THINK IN 30 DAYS FROM NOW.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO -- IT GETS COMPLICATED. THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES THAT GO ON IN MUNICIPAL BUDGETING.

FIRST YOU HAVE A MILLAGE RATE, YOUR PROPERTY TAX RATE.

BEFORE JULY 1ST, THE CITY COMMISSION, THAT'S WHEN THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND THE TAX COLLECTOR CERTIFY THE TAX ROLL SO THAT AS A CITY OR COUNTY YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR REVENUES ARE.

THEY'RE SET, AND YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR REVENUES ARE GOING TO BE.

AT LEAST YOU CAN PLAN AROUND THAT.

AND THEN YOU HAVE TO SET A TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE AND IT'S ALL BASED ON CHAPTER 200 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES.

THE DATES ARE VERY SPECIFIC AND THE BUDGET AS WELL IS -- HAS TO BE DONE. AND IT DISCUSSES HOW AND WHEN TO ADOPTED THE BUDGET. I MEAN IT'S MANDATED IN STATE LAW. IF YOU WANT ME TO COPY OVER FROM CHAPTER 200 WHAT WE DO, BUT IT'S ALREADY THERE.

>> NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT, IF WE'RE MANDATED BY STATE LAW LET'S LEAVE IT THERE. OUR PEER CITIES GO INTO MORE

DETAIL THAN THEY NEED. >> OKAY, ALL SET THERE, AND ON

TO 74, TRANSFER OF FUNDS. >> MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE ONE

INSERTION IS IF I MAY. >> OKAY.

>> WHEN WE STARTED SECTION 58, THE HEAD SUCCESS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND THE CITY CONTROLLER AND WE GO THROUGH THOSE SECTION AND WE GET INTO THE FINANCES AND TAXATION.

AND THEN 69 ADVISORY BOARDS SEEMS LIKE A WIDOW OR ORPHAN TUCKED IN THERE. DOES THAT NEED TO BE UNDER THE CITY COMMISSION DUTIES? WHY IS THAT IN THIS WHOLE

FINANCE SECTION? >> I'M LOOKING DOWN THE TABLE

BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A CLUE. >> I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T, EITHER. >> DO WE RECOMMEND THAT THAT BE

[00:40:05]

CHANGED? >> IS THAT BASICALLY STATE THE -- NEEDING TO BE A RESIDENT AND THAT THE CITY COMMISSION MAY APPOINT A FACT FINDING OR ADVISORY BOARD.

SEEMS LIKE THAT SHOULD BE UNDER THE CITY COMMISSION SECTION.

>> IS THERE AN AGREEMENT ON MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION?

THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE VOTED ON? >> IT WOULD HELP.

IT HELPS WHEN YOU GOT -- >> NO, NO, NO, I MEAN BY THE

PUBLIC. >> YES.

>> OKAY. SO THAT BECOMES ANOTHER --

>> COULD WE REMOVE IT TO SECTION 15 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE WE'RE DELETING EXISTING LANGUAGE SO IT'S UP IN THAT SECTION?

>> IS EVERYBODY IN AGREEMENT ON THAT?

>> THAT MAKES SENSE. >> YES.

>> ALL RIGHT CAN WE MOVE IT TO A RESERVE SECTION? NEAR COMMISSION RESPONSIBILITIES.

>> QUESTIONWHICH ONE ARE WE -- I TOTALLY CONFUSED?

>> IS IT 69, IS THAT THE NUMBER? >> 69.

>> YES 69. >> ADVISORY GROUPS.

BECAUSE IT'S IN WITH A LOT OF FINANCIAL STIFF.

>> SO TAKE THIS AND MOVE IT BACK TO CITY COMMISSION, YES.

>> OKAY. GOOD, SO NOW WE'RE AT 74 AGAIN.

ANY COMMENTS? >> MADAM CHAIR.

>> YES. MARGARET.

>> I HAVE A COMMENT. THIS WOULD APPLY TO EITHER 74 OR POSSIBLY 75. GIVAGAIN I WOULD -- MY CONCERN S THE MONEYS THAT ARE BEING CONTRIBUTED TO THE CONSERVATION FUND WHETHER IT BE FROM TAXES OR PRIVATE DONATIONS LIKE MINE OR OTHERS, I THINK, ONE OTHER THING THAT PEOPLE ARE KIND OF CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT THOSE FUNDS COULD BE USED OR -- BY SOME OTHER PART, I THINK AT ONE POINTS MAYBE IT WAS TALKED ABOUT USING IT FOR THE MARINA OR SOMETHING.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, LANGUAGE THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE -- THOSE CONSERVATION TRUST FUNDS, CAN LIKE TO SEE IT IN THE CHARTER FOR THEM TO BE USED FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN TO ACQUIRE OR MAINTAIN CONSERVATION LAND. I'M PRETTY SURE THAT LANGUAGE MIGHT BE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT CREATED THE FUND.

BUT AS WE KNOW IT'S A LOT EASIER TO AMEND AN ORDINANCE THAN THE CHARTER. AND SO I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD LANGUAGE CHANGE SIMILAR TO HOW WE'RE ADDRESSING

CONSERVATION LAND IN 10A. >> ANY COMMENTS ON THAT?

>> I THINK THOSE ARE SOME GOOD POINTS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE BACKGROUND THAT WE GOT ON 10A AND THE FEEDBACK FROM THE

CITIZENS. >> WOULD I AGREE BUT IT'S KIND OF A BASIC QUESTION, HOW MUCH CAN CAN THE CITY MANAGER BY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION TRANSFER WITHIN A BUDGET OR RESOLUTION NOW WITHOUT GOING TO THE CITY COMMISSION?

>> 7500. >> 1500?

>> 7500. >> 75, OKAY.

>> IT IS ALSO WHY I SAID THIS MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR SECTION 75. WHICH, AS WELL, LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS. EITHER WAY, I MEAN I DON'T -- WE WANT IT THE COMMISSION NOR THE CITY MANAGER CAN USE THOSE CONSERVATION A TRUST FUNDS, RATR THAN ACQUIRING OR MAINTAINING

CONSERVATION LANDS. >> AND WHETHER WE SAY THAT DO WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF CONSERVATION FUNDS?

>> WELL, THERE WAS AN ORDINANCE PASSED CREATING IT.

SO IF WE COULD REFERENCE THAT ORDINANCE OR I MEAN IT'S GOT A LEGAL NAME. I KNOW FROM WHEN I VOTE --

>> AND THAT CREATION, TAMMI, CAN YOU REFRESH ALL OF US SO WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME PLACE ON WHAT THAT DOES? MY SPECIFIC QUESTION IS, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO CONTRIBUTE TO A FUND, WHICH IS A CONSERVATION FUND.

AND THERE WAS ALSO A HALF MIL TAX THIS YEAR, ARE THOSE DOLLARS GOING INTO THE SAME FUND AND ARE THEY UNDER THE SAME

RESTRICTIONS? >> YES, AND YES.

>> OKAY. BECAUSE I THINK THOSE WERE THE DOLLARS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AS POSSIBLY BEING USED IN A

DIFFERENT WAY. >> TRUE.

[00:45:04]

CRERKTCORRECT AND I'D WANT TO AS THOSE FUNDS RIGHT FROM BOTH THE TAX AND DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS.

>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN -- I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN, WITH THE CHARTER, GO BACK AND CHANGE WHAT THAT HALF MIL WAS.

>> YOU CANNOT DO THAT WITH THE CHARTER.

>> RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN CURRENT-DAY

OPERATIONS I BELIEVE. >> WELL, WASN'T THAT HALF MIL USED TO GO INTO THE CONSERVATION FUDGED?

>> YES. >> IT WAS INTENDED FOR THAT.

BUT IT IS NOT -- >> THAT'S RIGHT?

>> I'M SORRY? >> THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED RIGHT IS THE FUNDS GOT -- YOU AND TAMMI SAID IT, FUNDS WENT INTO THAT, THE TAX MONEY WENT INTO THE CONSERVATION FUND?

>> YES. >> THAT WAS THE INTENTION OF IT.

BUT THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS ALWAYS, WHEN MONEY IS NECESSARY, ABOUT WHERE THERE MIGHT BE MONEY.

AND BECAUSE THAT HALF MIL NEVER MADE IT TO A BALLOT, I WOULD SAY THAT IT MIGHT BE THE ONE CHUNK OF MONEY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE THAT WOULD BE THE MOST OPEN TO INTERPRETATION IF YOU WILL. IN E-IF WE SAID IN THE CHARTER THAT THE CONSERVATION FUND AS DEFINED BY THAT ONE THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW AND REFERENCE THE ORDINANCE THAT CREATED IT, THEN I'M GOOD WITH THAT. BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT THE ORDINANCE CAN ADDRESS DID HALF MIL MONEY RIGHTS NOW, OR THE CHARTER CAN. JUST THROWING THAT OUT FOR

CONVERSATION. >> BASICALLY SAYING ONCE ANY MONEY IS IN THAT FUNDS, IT CAN'T BE TRANSFERRED OUT?

>> RIGHT. >> RIGHT.

THAT'S WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED. >> IF THE HALF MIL TAX DOES EVENTUALLY PASS AND THAT MONEY GOES INTO THE CONSERVATION FUNNELED, JUST DEFINING THE CONSERVATION FUND AS RESTRICTED

DOESN'T THAT SOLVE THAT PROBLEM? >> YES BUT THAT CONSERVATION TAX HAS NOT BEEN PUT ON THE BALLOT THIS YEAR.

>> NO, I REALIZE THAT. BUT IN THE FUTURE WHEN IT DOES GO ON AND IT DOES GO INTO THE CONSERVATION FUND AND WE --

>> IN THE FUTURE IT SHOULD BE FINE, RIGHT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR WHAT WE'RE

TALKING ABOUT. >> I THINK ARE ARE SOLDIERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT THAT TAX IF THEIR CHARTER SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT COULD BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

THAT IS SOME OF THE FEEDBACK I'VE GOTTEN ON THAT IS WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. HOW ARE WE GOING TO USE IT FOR CONSERVATION LAND? THEY'RE GOING TO TAX ME USE MY MONEY FOR SOMETHING ELSE. SO --

>> I'M IN FAVOR IF WE ARE GOING TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO GO DO SOMETHING, LET'S MAKE SURE WE FOLLOW THROUGH AND DO THAT EXACT THING. SO I AM IN FAVOR OF, WHATEVER MEMBER DAVIS IS SAYING, LET'S DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO LOCK IT IN, THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAX FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT SPECIFIC PURPOSE IS UPHELD.

>> OKAY, ARE WE ALL IN AGREEMENT ON THAT?

>> YES, GOT IT. >> YOU KNOW WHAT'S BEING ASKED

FOR? >> UNDER SECTION 74 TRANSFER OF FUNDS WE'RE GOODS TO ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY THE CONSERVATION

TRUST FUND. >> RIGHT.

>> GOT IT. >> DO YOU ALSO WANT SOMETHING IN 75 OR JUST 74? DOES THAT SUFFICE?

>> I THINK YOU MAY NEED IT IN 75 TOO.

BECAUSE THIS IS THE COMMISSION. VERSUS JUST THE CITY MANAGER.

SO CAN WE TAKE AN EXCEPTION TO THAT FUND? BALANCE OF EACH APPROPRIATION, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE LEGAL THING IS, ACCEPTING THE CONSERVATION FUND.

>> DID YOU GET THAT? >> GOT IT.

>> OKAY, ARE WE GOOD THEN? ALL RIGHT.

NOW WE'RE GOING ON TO 78, AD VALOREM TAXES.

ANY CONCERNS, CHANGES? >> THIS IS ONE WHERE I REALLY WONDER, DO WE REALLY NEED THIS? DON'T WE HAVE THIS RIGHT THROUGH HOME RULE AND BASICALLY ALL OF THIS WE'RE ABLE TO TAX UNDER AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA LAW RIGHT?

[00:50:02]

>> THEATER. THATHAT'S RIGHT.THAT'S THE ONLYE

THAT AUTHORITY YES. >> SO I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND

WHY THIS IS ALL NEEDED. >> IT IS NOT.

IT IS NOT NEEDED. >> WHAT IF HOME RULE CHANGED? I MEAN THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO EAT AWAY AT THAT ALL YEAR.

>> IF HOME RULE CHANGED, THIS IS WHAT I WOULD SAY.

WE GOT HOME RULE IN 1968 IS THE LAST TIME THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION WAS CHANGED THAT DRASTICALLY AND GAVE US CITIES HOME RULE POWERS. PRIOR TO HOME RULE POWERS, THERE STILL ALL OF THE TAXING TAXING AUTHORITIES FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES CAME FROM A DIRECT OR EXPRESS STATE LAW.

THERE WAS NO TAXING POWER AND THAT'S HOW ALL FLORIDA LAW WORKS AND I WOULD THINK UNLESS WE COMPLETELY CHANGE THE WAY THE -- AND I'M NOT BEING FACETIOUS AT ALL, WE WOULD HAVE TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE WAY THE STATES, CITIES AND COUNTIES, I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING. FROM THE STATE'S INCEPTION UNTIL 1968, WE STILL HAD SOME CAN EAAUTONOMY, BEFORE THAT THE TAXG POWERS STILL CAME FROM THE STATE.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA FROM SOME STATUTE TELLS EACH CITY AND COUNTY EXACTLY THE KIND OF TAXES THEY CAN IMPOSE.

AND IN THEY TALK ABOUT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TOO. WHEN WE'VE HEARD ABOUT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS THAT ALL COMES FROM STATE LAW.

WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY OTHER THAN REGULAR FEES.

AND THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF LITIGATION RIGHT JOHN OVER WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FEE AND A TAMP WHEN IT COMES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT. SO I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE ANY WORRY UNLESS OUR WHOLE STATE WAS TURNED UPSIDE DOWN AND WE CHANGE

THE WAY THAT WE -- >> OKAY, IS THERE JUST ONE MORE QUESTION FOR THE COMMITTEE. IS THERE ANY CONCERN IF WE RECOMMEND REMOVING THIS, THAT WE CONFUSE THE POPULACE, AND FIGURING IT'S NOT LEGAL FOR THE CITY TO CHARGE TAXES?

>> EACH ONE OF THOSE PARAGRAPHS TALK ABOUT PURSUANT TO LAW, AS PERMITTED BY LAW, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT IT REALLY ADDS

ANYTHING. >> THE BALLOT QUESTION --

>> THAT WAS MY FEELING, EXTRA WORDS.

>> WHEN I RECOMMEND AND I HAVE IN THE PAST BALLOTS LANGUAGE THAT REPEALS THE SECTION BECAUSE IT'S REDUNDANT AND COVERED BY STATE LAW I REFERENCE THE STATE LAW.

I ACTUALLY WILL REFERENCE THE SECTION OF THE STATE LAW THAT

COVERS IT. >> OKAY, JUST DOUBLE-CHECKING.

>> I WOULD GUESS IF YOU GET A 100% VOTING APPROVAL TO REMOVE A SECTION THAT SAYS AD VALOREM DASMS ON IT BUT I DON'T THINK EVERYBODY'S GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE NOT GETTING RID

(INAUDIBLE). >> THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED

ABOUT. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD MAKE IT MORE CONFUSING OR NOT BUT I THINK YOU WOULD GET FULL SUPPORT OF ALL THE AMENDMENTS YOU ARE ASKING.

NOT JUST THAT ONE. >> JON.

>> BUT I DO THINK THAT 3 SHOULD BE IN 79, IF WE KEEP 78, I THINK

79 TO GET TO TAMMI'S POINT -- >> JON I DID THINK THAT 3 AND 79 AREN'T THEY BASICALLY COVERING THE SAME THING? SO IF YOU KEEP -- I MEAN I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE OF WHAT'S IN 3, YOU NEED TO ADD TO 79, BUT MAYBE MS. BACH AND MEMBER LASSERE HAVE A BETTER KNOWLEDGE THAN I ON THAT.

>> I CAN PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER THAT FITS IT ALL, FITS IT ALL TOGETHER. THEY ARE NOT ALL REGULATORY FEES EITHER. I DON'T REALLY LIKE THAT TITLE,

THAT'S NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE. >> ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE ALL GOOD WITH THAT. 79 ASK FINISHED, TOO.

IS FINISHED, TOO. SO NOW WE'RE AT 81.

MARGARET. >> MADAM CHAIR I HAVE TO CONFESS. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT SECTION 81 IS REALLY TRYING TO ADDRESS. I'M SORRY.

>> I THINK WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS BEFORE THEY ENTER INTO A CONTRACT THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN PAY FOR IT.

>> YOU NIGHT AN AWFUL LOT OF WORDS TO SAY THAT.

>> SO BASICALLY, THE CONTROLLER HAS TO BE CHECKED WITH, BEFORE THEY COMMIT TO A CONTRACT TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S MONEY FOR IT. RIGHT?

[00:55:03]

>> THAT'S A GREAT CONCEPT. I WILL SAY I LIKE THAT CONCEPT.

HARD TO FIGURE THAT OUT FROM THAT WORDING.

I'M SORRY. >> I WOULD AGREE.

AND ALSO SAYS THAT ONCE IT'S CERTIFIED, THE MONEY IS THERE, THAT IT CAN'T BE USED FOR ANYTHING ELSE.

>> RIGHT. >> SO THEY KNOW THEY CAN PAY THE

BILLS IF THEY COME IN. >> TAMMI ARE YOU OKAY WITH

TRYING TO REWORD THAT? >> IT COULD BE MADE MORE READABLE BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO ASK OUR VOTERS TO CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE, JUST SO PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING

DONE. >> TAMMI SAYS TAKE A SHOT AT IT.

>> I WILL. AND WHEN THE VOTERS SEE IT THEY WILL SEE SOMETHING LIKE CLARIFYING THAT THE CITY DOES THIS. I WILL.

>> WE ARE ON TO 107A. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREAS.

>> MAY I ASK WHAT THE HISTORY OF THAT PROVISION IS? I MEAN IS IT LIMITED TO JUST TWO?

>> I HAVE AN OPINION. DO YOU WANT THAT, OR DO YOU WANT

A FACTUAL ACCOUNT? >> WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO

SHARE WITH US, CHAIR. >> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE I WAS NOLTS HERE WHEN IT HAPPENED, THERE WAS A FEAR IN THE COMMUNITY OF A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS WHEN THE COMMUNITIES REDEVELOPMENT AREA WAS DEFINED.

DWEEDGED FOR THE CITY. THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA IS A TIF, OR TAX INCREMENTAL AREA, A TAXING TOOL USED BY DIFFERENT AREAS. WHAT IT SAYS IS FUNDAMENTALLY YOU ESTABLISH A BASE YEAR FOR A PARTICULAR AREA, IN OUR CASE THAT'S A STRIP RIGHT NOW THAT'S ALONG DID WATERFRONT.

AND YOU TAKE THE TAXABLE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY AS OF THAT BASE YEAR. AND THEN, THE FOLLOWING YEARS, ANY INCREMENT OVER THAT BASE YEAR'S TAXABLE VALUE, JUST THE INCREMENT, MUST BE SPENT BACK IN THAT AREA.

SO THE CRA WAS DEFINED WITH THE STATE.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE STATE, IN OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZING AN AREA AS THE CRA, USES WHAT THEY CALL FLIGHT, AS A DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA. THAT IS THE STATE PRETTY MUCH LEGAL TERM. THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT IT WAS A COVER-UP CONSPIRACY TO EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN MORE FREQUENTLY AND TAKE PROPERTY AWAY FROM PEOPLE.

SO AS THE CRA FIRST STARTED OUT ITS LIFE, IT WAS A MUCH LARGER AREA THAN IT IS NOW. AND AS PEOPLE BELIEVED THAT IT WAS SOMETHING NEFARIOUS, BEING DONE BY THE CITY, SO SEE THAT LACK OF TRUST HAS ALWAYS BEEN HERE.

IT'S NOT NEW. THEY SKINNIED IT DOWN AND SKINNIED IT DOWN, TO WHERE NOW MOST OF THE PROPERTY IN THE CRA IS OWNED BY THE CITY. SO ANY TAXABLE INCREMENT MONEY BECOMES LESS. THE ONE GOOD THING THAT WE HAVE GOING ON AS MUCH AS MANY PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT, IS THE DEVELOPMENT BEHIND CITY HALL HAS INCREASED THE VALUE THERE, TAX WISE, AND HAS CREATED SOME REVENUE, WHICH MUST BE SPENT IN THE CRA. SO THAT'S GOOD NEWS.

BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALWAYS MISUNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS ONLY THE INCREMENT THAT HAD TO BE SPENT IN THAT AREA, AND THEY BELIEVED THAT IT WAS GOING TO ROB FROM OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS AS FAR AS MONEY AVAILABLE TO OTHER DISTRICTS IN TOWN.

THAT WAS NEVER GOING TO GO AWAY. BUT THERE WAS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING THERE. AND THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME WANTED TO TRY TO REASSURE PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO CREATE CRA'S EVERYWHERE. AND THAT LED TO THIS LANGUAGE.

>> SO IT'S A KIND OF AN ARBITRARY.

>> IT IS. AND TAKING OFF MY CHARTER REVIEW HAT FOR A MINUTE AND PUTTING ON MY MAIN STREET HAT, WE HAVE A TON OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE DOWNTOWN, AS FAR AS SIDEWALKS. , LIGHTING, ET CETERA.

IF THE ORIGINAL CRRA HAD INCLUDD THE DOWNTOWN AREA, WE COULD BE USING THAT KIND OF MONEY THERE. BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT NOW BECAUSE

[01:00:07]

THERE IS A LIMIT ON THIS. I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE IS STILL SO MUCH CONFUSION OUT THERE, AND WITHOUT A MASSIVE EDUCATION EFFORT, TO ASSURE PEOPLE THAT THIS IS NOT NEFARIOUS AND IT COULD ACTUALLY BE USED FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY, I'M NOT SURE WHAT CHANCE IT WOULD HAVE OF PASSING IF WE TRIED TO MAKE A CHANGE TO IDENTITY.

THAT WAS BOTH FACT AND OPINION. >> THAT WAS A VERY GOOD OPINION.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU CHAIR.

I KNEW THERE HAD TO BE SOME GOOD HISTORY BEHIND THAT PARTICULAR

PROVISION. >> THERE IS.

YOU KNOW AND IT'S BASED, UNFORTUNATELY IT'S BASED IN KNEE JERK FEAR KIND OF A REACTION. TO SOMETHING THAT WASN'T WELL

UNDERSTOOD. >> WHY DO YOU THINK IT USES THE TERM NONCONTIGUOUS AS PART OF THAT?

>> I'M NOT SURE IF IT SAYS -- ANY MORE THAN TWO NONCONTIGUOUS?

>> DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU CAN -- DOES THAT MEAN YOU CAN DO MORE THAN IF THEY ARE NOT NEAR -- I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT -- IF YOU MADE THEM CONNECT -- I GUESS.

>> YOU'RE STILL LIMITED AT THE MAX OF 2% OF THE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE OF ALL OF THE PROPERTY IN THE CITY.

SO COMING UP CENTER STREET LET'S PRETEND FOR A MINUTE THAT THOSE BUILDINGS WERE NOT AS BEAUTIFUL AS THEY ARE NOW, AND WE WANTED TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP FIX THEM UP.

IF WE CAME UP CENTER DISCREET, E WOULD IMMEDIATELY OR VERY QUICKLY MEET THAT 2% LIMIT. BECAUSE IT IS 2% OF ALL THE CITY. SO HAVING THOSE TWO RESTRICTIONS ON IT, PRETTY MUCH LIMITS THE USE OF THE CRA.

AND OUR CURRENT ONE IS FAR FROM BEING VERY EFFECTIVE RIGHT NOW,

OR EFFECTIVELY USED RIGHT NOW. >> THAT'S AN OMISSION.

>> PART OF THE SITUATION IS, HAD THIS -- HAD WE NOT HAD SUCH RESTRICTIONS ON THIS, WE MIGHT HAVE HAD WATERFRONT PARK OR WHATEVER KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THE CITY DETERMINES THEY WANT THERE,

LONG AGO. >> AREN'T THERE RESTRICTIONS DUE TO FLORIDA LAW FOR REDEVELOPMENT AREAS?

>> THE RESTRICTIONS? THESE?

>> YES. >> NO.

>> ARE YOU SAYING AS FAR AS -- YOU'RE SAYING THE NONCONTIGUOUS

AND THE TWO. >> RIGHT, THEY'RE BOTH OUR RESTRICTIONS. AFERNANDINA'S.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THE RIGHT THING TO DO HERE IS TO LEAVE IT

ALONE. >> MAY I SAY, HAVING LIVED THROUGH THIS AND COMING FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS, IF YOU WANT TO DO WHAT OUR FOREFATHERS IN THE EARLY 2000S WANTED TO DO WHEN THIS CAME ABOUT, I THINK TO SOME EXTENT, TOO, THAT THIS WAG WASA PRETTY NEW CONCEPT IN THE R 1990.

AS WE CAME UP TO THE YEAR 2000, THEY DEFINITELY REACTED TO THE CITIZENS THAT WERE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS.

BECAUSE IT'S CALLED A FINDING OF NECESSITY.

FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE TO QUALIFY THE AREA THAT IT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA. UNFORTUNATELY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATORS THAT WROTE THE LAW USED THE TERM BLIGHTED INSTEAD OF SOME OTHER TERM THAT MEANT THE SAME THING.

IT MEANS ALL OF THE TAX MONEY, THE ADDITIONAL TAX MONEY THAT YOU RECEIVE AND THE INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES THAT THEN LEAD TO SOME MORE TAXES, THAT'S THE TIF.

THAT'S THE TAX INCREMENT. THAT MONEY HAS TO BE REINVESTED INTO PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE RIGHT THERE, IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHERE YOU'RE PAYING IT. AND I THINK WHAT ARLENE IS SAYING WITHOUT SAYING IT, MAY I MADAM CHAIR?

>> UH-HUH. >> IS THAT WE NEED TO AT LEAST THINK ABOUT ARE ANY OF YOU INTERESTED IN EITHER CHANGING THIS AND MAKE AGO MORE FLEXIBLE FOR MORE, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHAT GOES INTO CREATING A CRA, TOO. IT'S NOT JUST A SNAP A OF THE FINGERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DO.

[01:05:01]

ARE THERE OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY THAT COULD BENEFIT FROM THIS? MEANING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE WHAT YOU THINK IS BLIGHTED, GROSS RUSTING PILES OF JUNK.

I'LL GIVE YOU A GREAT EXAMPLE SERIOUSLY.

NOT PROBABLY A GOOD FOCUS FOR CRA BECAUSE IT'S RESIDENTIAL, BUT WE KNOW THAT THERE IS A WHOLE BUNCH, ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD ON S CITRONA, THE REASON TY ARE IN THE COUNTY IS WE DON'T HAVE SEWER SERVICE TO OFFER THEM, WE DON'T HAVE A SEWER LINE THAT GOES DOWN CITRONA DRIVE. THAT WOULD BE A RIPE PROJECT FOR CRA. IT'S TO PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURES.

AND THE PEOPLE THAT WERE PAYING TAXES THERE, WERE THEY ALREADY IN THE CITY AND LET'S SAY THEY WERE IN THE CITY YOU GET MONEY FROM THE INCREASE IN VALUATE AS VALUE AS ACITY AND THEY CAN COMF SEPTIC. THAT IS ONE EXAMPLE.

OTHER EXAMPLES DO HAPPEN IN PLACES LIKE IT'S OBVIOUS OUR WORKING WATERFRONT OR REALLY FORMER WORKING WATERFRONT IN ITS GLORY DAYS THAT WAS SOMETHING EASY BECAUSE YOU COULD SEE PROPERTIES DOWN THERE THAT NEEDED ATTENTION.

BUT JUST THINK TO YOURSELF BEFORE YOU MOVE ON TO THIS AND DON'T MAKE ANY CHANGES. ARE THERE ANY OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY WHERE EVEN THOSE THAT ARE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY LATER ON DHAT COMMISSION MAY WANT TO SAY, WE NEED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THERE. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS IMPROVEMENTS. IT COULD BE SIDEWALKS, SEWER, ANYTHING YOU CAN THINK OF THAT'S PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO THAT'S IT. MY LECTURE IS OVER.

BEFORE WE CLOSE THIS OFF AND LEAVE IT, I THINK MANY OF US THAT HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE, I KNOW IN OTHER TOWNS I WAS SURPRISE ISED IT'S REALLY LIMITING.

TO CREATE A COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA TAKES A GOOD AMOUNT OF MONEY TO GET A STUDY DONE TO MAKE THAT AREA QUALIFY.

YOU, IN ADDITION TO THIS STUDY AND GETTING YOUR RESIDENTS TO BUY IN, YOU HAVE TO CONVINCE NASSAU COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT IT'S A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE WE ARE DIRECT REPLY AS A CITY TAKING THEIR PORTION OF THEIR TAX MONEY IN THAT TIMPLETF, THAT TAX INCREMENT, THAT ADDITION, WE'RE TAKING IT FROM THE COUNTY AND IT'S GOING INTO THE CITY COVERS.

CITY COFFERS. SO THE COUNTY ISN'T USUALLY VERY

EXCITED ABOUT THIS EITHER. >> THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT I WOULD MAKE HERE IS THAT WHEN IT SAYS THE CITY IS PROHIBITED FROM CREATING ANY MORE THAN TWO CRA'S SHOULDN'T IT SAY LIKE AT THE SAME TIME, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? THE WAY IT READS NOW YOU COULD INTERPRET IT TO SAY THE CITY IS ONLY ALLOWED TO CREATE TWO CRA'S EVER.

>> THAT'S IT, THAT'S WHAT THE INTENTION IS.

>> THAT'S WHAT THEY MEANT? >> YES.

>> OH, I THOUGHT IT WAS AT THE SAME TIME.

>> AND AGAIN THEY MEANT THAT BECAUSE AS TAMMI SAID, WHEN THIS WAS BEING DONE IN THE CITY, IT WAS RE RELATIVELY NEW.

NOW HAVING BEEN PART OF THE CRA ADVISORY BOARD, WE SPOKE TO SOMEBODY AT JACK'S BEACH WHO HAS MADE TREMENDOUS USE OF THEIR CRA AND EVEN THAT INFORMATION WAS NOT ENOUGH TO OVERCOME THE LACK OF TRUST. SO NOBODY HAS EVER, I MEAN THE CITY COMMISSION AS WE WELL KNOW CAN EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN AT ANY TIME ANYWHERE THEY WANT TO IF THEY VOTE TO DO IT.

THEY'VE RECENTLY VOTED TO DO THAT.

>> THEY DID. AND MIGHT I JUST ADD THIS LED TO TWO PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT LIVED THROUGH CREATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

THEY CALLED ME UP AND SAID, BECAUSE THE AREA THAT THE CITY COMMISSION, THE PROPERTY, MR. SIMMONS PROPERTY ON THE WATERFRONT IS IN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA.

SO THEY SAID WAIT A SECOND WE WERE THERE WHEN THE DOCUMENT WAS CREATED AN THE CITY CANNOT DO EMINENT DOMAIN OR CONDEMNATION ON THAT PROPERTY IN THE CRA, I REMEMBER IT I SWEAR.

SO I WENT TO THE CRA PLAN THEY CALL IT AND TO ALL OF OUR ORDINANCES AND THERE WAS ONLY ONE STATEMENT.

AND IT SAID THAT THE CRA IN ITS OWN RIGHT BECAUSE IT IS A LEGAL ENTITY, THE CRA MAY EXERCISE THE SAME EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS AS THE CITY. SO IT DIDN'T RESTRICT IT REALLY

AT ALL. >> RIGHT.

SO THAT THE CHOICE OF THE MATTER IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL THE INS AND OUTS AND WHAT THE CONCERNS BR IT, ABOUT IT,THEN JUST IGNORING IT D LETTING IT GO IS PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO EITHER. BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IS STOPPING SOME THINGS FROM HAPPENING THAT COULD HAPPEN TODAY. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE CRA

[01:10:01]

NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED FOR COMMERCIAL USE AT ALL.

THAT'S NOT WHERE I'M GOING. I'M SAYING, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. SO FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS A SEAWALL TO BE BUILT ON THE WATERFRONT.

IF WE WERE AN UP AND MONEY-MAKING CRA WE COULD USE THOSE DOLLARS TO HELP TAKE FOR PAY FORTHE SEAWALL.

SO JUST TO THINK ABOUT AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST IS THAT -- I MEAN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK FOR ANOTHER MEETING ANYWAY. I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE PUT THIS ON THE TABLE AGAIN FOR THE NEXT MEETING, AND ASK THAT YOU DO SOME READING AND RESEARCH ON THE CRA.

WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, I THINK IT'S STILL OUT TON D ON THE DOCUMENT CENTER, THE WHOLE CRA PLAN ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.

>> IF IT ISN'T -- >> KATY WILL GET IT FOR US SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE PLAN LOOKS LIKE.

THERE WERE ACTUALLY DESIGN GLUE INS DEVELOPED FOR THE WATERFRONT. THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT VIEW CORRIDORS. SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE TRIED TO BUILD ON THEIR PROPERTY DOWN THERE HAVE BEEN STYMIED BECAUSE OF THOSE GUIDELINES. BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ODON'T OWN PROPERTY DOWN THERE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT THEIR VIEW. SO THERE IS A LOT THAT GOES ON IN THISCA AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US ALL TO AT LEAST COME TO THE TABLE WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT IS AND WHY IT IS THE WAY IT IS. SO ASKING KATY TO PUT IT ON THE NEXT AGENDA. AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT

SECTION. >> MEMBER BRIAN IF SHE RECALLS TO THE 2007 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE LOOK AT THIS, THINK ABOUT THIS. DOES SHE RECALL?

>> OH, THAT'S A -- I KNOW THEY LOOKED AT IT.

I JUST DON'T RECALL WHAT THEIR COMMENTS WERE.

I DIDN'T GO BACK AND LOOK AT TH- >> AMY, YOU'RE MUTED I THINK.

AMY? AMY? YOU'RE MUTED. AMY?

YOU'RE MUTED. >> AMY, YOU'RE MUTED.

>> TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ON. >> SHE'S NOT HEARING IT.

>> OH, THERE SHE IS. OKAY.

>> I'M UNMUTED -- >> YOU'RE UNMUTED AND WE STILL

CAN'T HEAR YOU. >> SHE MIGHT HAVE TO GIVE HER

MICROPHONE ACCESS TO ZOOM. >> WHAT THE TECHIE GUYS ARE SAYING IS YOU HAVE TO GIVE ZOOM YOUR MICROPHONE ACCESS.

>> WOW! >> CAN YOU HEAR?

>> I CAN HEAR YOU. >> YOU CAN HEAR US.

NOW WE HEAR YOU, TOO. YAY!

WELL, WE DID HEAR YOU. >> MAYBE IT'S A DIRECTIONAL --

>> LOOK THE DOG'S GOING TO HELP. MAYBE TURN THE VOLUME UP ON YOUR

MIC. >> I HAVE BEEN DOING ZOOM MEETINGS ALL DAY TODAY, SO I'M NOT SURE WHY IT'S NOT WORKING.

>> IT IS NOW. >> WE JUST HAD YOU FOR A SECOND

THERE. >> NOW YOU'RE MUTED.

>> UNMUTE. >> LIKE THIS.

>> YES. >> I'LL HAVE TO LOOK THROUGH MY FOLDER. I WAS NOT PREPARED FOR THIS TODAY. I JUST GOT THE E-MAIL ABOUT JOINING THIS LAST WEEK. SO I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH EVERYTHING BUT I WILL LOOK BACK TO MY NOTES FOR WHEN

WE DID IT IN 2007. >> MAYBE DO A PRESENTATION

BEFORE OUR MEETING NEXT WEEK. >> I WILL SEE WHAT I CAN DO.

OR AT THE MEETING. >> OKAY.

>> THANK YOU. >> SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 120. LET ME DO A TIME CHECK HERE.

DO ALL OF US WANT TO FINISH THIS TODAY? CAN WE FINISH THIS TODAY AND IF THAT IS THE CASE DO YOU WANT TO

TAKE A BREAK? >> I THINK WE SHOULD JUST KEEP

GOING. >> ME TOO.

LET'S GO. LET'S ROLL.

>> 120. >> LET ME LOOK.

>> 120, ANYBODY? NOBODY.

OKAY. >> OF COURSE I HAD SOMETHING

MADAM CHAIR. >> I FIGURED, MARGARET.

I WAS GOING TO SCOOT PAST YOU. GO AHEAD.

[01:15:02]

>> I WAS JUST -- THIS PROVISION HERE, AGAIN, WE HAVE SECTION 12, WHICH TALKS ABOUT SALARY AND MEMBERS.

AND THEN WE HAVE THIS TALKING ABOUT SALARIES HERE, IS IT BECAUSE -- DO WE HAVE THE TWO DIFFERENT BECAUSE THIS IS TRYING TO DEAL ONLY WITH EMPLOYEES? AND IF SO, WHY THEN MAYBE THE TERM, THE REFERENCE TO THE CITY COMMISSION AT THE END OF THE FIRST SENTENCE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OUT SINCE THAT'S ALREADY ADDRESSED IN SECTION 12. SO THAT'S REALLY TRYING TO DEAL WITH ALL THE OTHER SALARIES BESIDES THE COMMISSION.

IT'S ALWAYS CONFUSING WHEN WE HAVE TWO PROVISIONS DEALING WITH

THE SAME KIND OF ISSUE. >> SO IN GENERAL IT IS BASICALLY SAYING THE CITY COMMISSION DECIDES WHO GETS PAID ACROSS THE BOARD. WHO GETS PAID WHAT.

ACROSS THE BOARD. TRUE?

>> BUT THE FACT IS, IS THE CITY COMMISSION REALLY -- THEY SET -- THEY DON'T SET THE EXACT -- THEY SET SALARY RANGES FOR THE OTHER EMPLOYEES BESIDES THEMSELVES AND CHARTER OFFICERS.

>> AND THEY APPROVE TOTAL EXPENDITURES.

>> RIGHT. AND WHEN THEY ARE APPROVE THE AT WHETHER OR NOT AN INDIVIDUAL RESIDENT UNDERSTANDS, EVERY SINGLE BUDGET INCLUDES DOWN TO THE DOLLAR DID EXACT AMOUNT OF SALARY AND COMPENSATION INCLUDING BENEFITS FOR EACH EMPLOYEE. PLUS TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION A MAXIMUM FOR ANY TYPE OF MERIT PAY INCREASES.

I MEAN, THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVES EVERYTHING IS WHAT IT

COMES DOWN TO. >> I THINK YOU SHOULD STRIKE THE FIRST SENTENCE AND LEAVE THE REST THERE.

BECAUSE JUST LIKE MS. DAVIS SAID, IT'S ALREADY COVERED ELSEWHERE. BUT THE CITY MANAGER MAYBE EITHER MOVE THAT OVER TO THE CITY MANAGER'S -- YOU KNOW, THEIR SECTION. SO I WROTE AGREE, IT DOES THE

SAME THING IN THERE TWICE. >> OKAY.

BEEN THWELL THEY MEANT THIS. >> IF WE ARE GOING TO KEEP IT AS CITY MANAGER IT'S PROBABLY WISE TO PUT IT IN SECTION 25, 25 OR

26, WHICHEVER THAT IS. >> OKAY, IS THAT GOOD? SECTION 121. NOW THIS ONE, WHEN WE ENDED OUR LAST DISCUSSION, WE TALKED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A CODE OF ETHICS PUT 52 THE OATH OF INF OFFICE SINCE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY TO ADD ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CHARTER.

BUT WE FOUND OUT THAT THE STATE MANDATES THAT OATH AND WE CAN'T

CHANGE IT. >> WELL, WE CAN.

WE HAVE A MINIMUM. I'VE DONE SOME MORE THINKING.

>> OKAY GOOD. >> SO WE HAVE IN FLORIDA FROM WHAT I CAN FIND THAT AFFECTS CITIES, WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT OATHS OF OFFICE THAT THIS -- IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE WHAT WE DO THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERS THE OATH, FIRST FOR THE RECORD MANY SECTION 876.05 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES TALKS ABOUT THE OATH OF OFFICE THAT EVERY PUBLIC OFFICER THAT RECEIVES COMPENSATION FROM THE STATE OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE, AND IT GOES ON TO OSAY, SO THAT'S NOT GOING TO INCLUDE SPECIAL DISTRICTS BUT IT WOULD INCLUDE MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND SO IT SAYS EXACTLY WHAT THE WORDING HAS TO BE.

THE CITY HAS PART OF THAT OATH, INCORPORATED IN THE OATH WE ADMINISTER. THE OTHER IS, ARTICLE 2 SECTION 5B OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, HAS AN OATH OF OFFICE, BUT IT REALLY ONLY APPLIES TO STATE OFFICERS.

AND THE CITY USES PART OF THAT AS WELL.

SO OTHE - THE -- AND DID I SOME RESEARCH -- THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO USE IN WHAT IS 876.05, BUT WHAT I RECOMMEND WE ACTUALLY DO IS WE ACTUALLY PUT THE OATH OF OFFICE HERE IN THE CHARTER, IT'S NOT THAT LONG, THAT WE SAY WHAT IT IS THAT WE -- AND THAT IT COMES FROM STATE LAW. I MEAN THAT'S JUST MY RECOMMENDATION BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO.

WE DO HAVE TO FOLT STATE LAW AND WOULD I GET WITH THE CLERK ANYWAY TO TELL HER WHAT WE HAVE TO HAVE.

>> JUST FOR CLARITY, YOU SAID AT A MINIMUM WE HAVE TO HAVE

CERTAIN THINGS IN IT. >> RIGHT.

>> CAN WE ADD ANYTHING? >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, I THINK WE CAN ADD WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW.

WHAT WE DO NOW IS WE TALK TO THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH

[01:20:01]

CHARTER, THE ORDINANCES, THE THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, I THINK THOSE ARE ALL GOOD.

BUT IT ALSO RECOGNIZES, I LIKE THIS ALSO, FROM 876, GOES BACK TO ETHICS, WE HAVE TO TAKE AN OATH THAT RECOGNIZES WE'RE GETTING PAID PUBLIC FUNDS AND THAT WE ARE -- AND I WOULD GO ON IF YOU WANT SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT ETHICS TO GO ON TO SAY THAT WE KNOW WE ARE BOUND BY -- WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON IT? DO WE STILL WANT TO ADD SOMETHING THERE FOR ETHICS?

>> REQUESTAMMI WHAT CHAPTER WAST AGAIN?

>> THE SECTION IS 876.05. STATE COMPENSATED OFFICERS.

>> THE SECTION? >> YES.

>> AND THEN IF YOU'RE IN THE STATE WEBSITE, JON, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 5, SUB B IS THE OATH FOR STATE OFFICERS.

ARTICLE 2 SECTION 5, SUB B AS IN BOY.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> DO WE WANT TO BRING SOMETHING BACK NEXT TIME ON A POSSIBLE ADDITION TO THE OATH? OR DO WE WANT TO AT LEAST BRING BACK A DISCUSSION ON A POSSIBLE ADDITION? AFTER YOU HAVE TIME TO THINK

ABOUT IT OR ARE WE DONE WITH IT? >> WE CAN'T BE DORN DONE WITH I.

>> QUESTION ON THE CODE OF ETHICS THAT IT WAS MORE FLOWERY

THAN ENFORCEABLE? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS THE EXACT DISCUSSION. I THINK WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE COMMISSIONERS WAS BE CAN CACAREFULWHAT WE ASK FOR.

AND IF WE WERE GOING TO PUT SOMETHING IN THE CHARTER THEN THAT OPENED UP TO ANYBODY COMPLAINING ABOUT THINGS, BELIEVING IT TO BE AN ETHICS VIOLATION, WHEN IT MIGHT NOT OBE, WHOSE JOB IS IT TO SIFT THROUGH THAT?

SO ALONG THOSE LINES TAMMI, YES. >> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TRY TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A VALID OATH OF OFFICE.

AND THAT WE REFERENCE THE STATE CODE OOF ETHICS.

IN A FLOWERY WAY. >> DOES THAT WORK?

>> THAT WORKS FOR ME. >> NO COMPLAINING, WE'LL MOVE ON THEN. SECTION 122 HAS BEEN OMITTED.

SO SECTION 125 IS OMITTED. >> MADAM CHAIR, COULD I HAVE --

>> YES. >> I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED, WHEN I COULDN'T FIND CHAPTER 876. AND I JUST WANTED TO FIND OUT THAT THAT'S UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE AND UNDER CRIMINAL ANARCHY, TRTREASON AND OTHER -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING, I WAS LOSING IT THERE. THAT'S WHY THE OATH --

>> NOW OI KNOW WHERE IS IT IN FLORIDA STATUTES, AND I SAID

876. >> AT ONE POINT I WAS GOING TO LOOK AT SALE OF ANATOMICAL PARTS, NO THAT'S NO IT, IT'S

UNDER, ANARCHY TREASON. >> THAT'S IT, 176, ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS, THIS PRODUCT CONCERNS AND ONE OF THEM THAT I HEARD WAS FROM AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS CONCERNED THAT THIS OPENED THE DOOR FOR COMMISSIONERS TO INVESTIGATE EVERY EMPLOYEE IN THE CITY. IS THAT THE INTEND, AND IF IT IS, OKAY, BUT IF IT'S NOT, DO WE NEED TO FIX THE LANGUAGE?

>> WELL, DOESN'T IT SAY THAT YOU CAN ONLY START THE INVESTIGATION IF IT'S VOTED ON BY THE ENTIRE COMMISSION?

>> A MAJOR MAJORITY, YES. >> SO YOU CAN'T REALITY HAVE LIKE A ROGUE COMMISSIONER CAN'T REALLY START HIS OWN

[01:25:01]

INVESTIGATION. >> CORRECT.

>> IN ESSENCE, AS FAR AS THE COMMISSION STARTING THE INVESTIGATION, THAT IS THE EXISTING LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER. WE WERE JUST CLARIFYING THAT IT'S A MAJORITIES. MAJORITY.I'M NOT SURE THAT THATN

IS NEW. >> IT'S OUT THERE NOW BECAUSE IT'S BEEN HIGHLIGHTED AS A CHANGE.

SO THE QUESTION I WHICH POSE, W, THEN, THERE'S ANNAL ASSUMPTION, THERE IS AN ASSUMPTION BEFORE ONE OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS WOULD BE KICKED OFF, THAT THERE'S ALREADY BEEN SOMETHING INTERNAL TO THE DEPARTMENT, INVESTIGATION.

LET ME USE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS AN EXAMPLE.

IF SOMEBODY IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS REPORTED FOR HAVING DONE SOMETHING THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE, THERE IS AN IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION AND VERY CLEAR PROCEDURE THAT HAPPENS. HAPPENS IN RESPONSE TO THAT.

SO ARE WE ASSUMING WITH THIS LANGUAGE THAT THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, OR ARE WE SAYING THAT THIS TAKES THE PLACE OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HAPPEN INTERNALLY?

>> WELL, ISN'T THAT T WHAT THE POINT OF THE LAST SENTENCE OF

THIS IS? >> OKAY.

MAYBE, MAYBE. >> REALLY, YES.

>> WHICH IMPLIES, THEN, AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL AN INVESTIGATION LIKE THIS IS PRETTY HIGH IN THE REPORTING

HIERARCHY. >> YOU MEAN FOR IT TO BE BROUGHT TO THE POINT WHERE THE COMMISSION WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE

THIS ACTION? >> RIGHT.

>> YES. >> OKAY.

>> BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.

AND I MEAN THERE'S YOU KNOW PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE'S BEEN SITUATIONS THAT WE ALL KNOW ABOUT WHERE THERE'S BEEN INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS AND DEPARTMENTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT,

YOU KNOW. >> OKAY, SO ARE WE HAPPY WITH

THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN? >> I AM.

>> I'M OKAY WITH IT. >> ALL RIGHT.

SO -- >> WE TALKED ABOUT IT SO MANY

TIMES, AT TO ROOC REACH THIS P. >> THAT'S RIGHT, BUT I HAD AN ACTUAL EMPLOYEE WHO SHARED A CONCERN SO I WANTED TO BE SURE YOU WERE OKAY WITH THAT. INTERWHAT WOULD WE BE ABLE TO DO TO ALLEVIATE THAT CONCERN THAT THAT EMPLOYEE APPROACHED YOU? WHAT IS IT IN THE LANGUAGE OF THIS THAT WE COULD CHANGE, WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE POWER AWAY FROM THE CITY COMMISSION TO

BE ABLE TO DID INVESTIGATIONS. >> I DON'T THINK THERE'S

ANYTHING YOU CAN DO. >> THAT'S THE SAFETY VALVE RIGHT

THERE. >> RIGHTS.

>> IF ANYTHING, MAYBE MAKING THAT LAST SENTENCE A LITTLE

BOLDER. >> THAT JUST SAYS THAT THE ARE CITY MANAGER, THE ATTORNEY, THE CLERK, WAS THEIR EMPLOYEE SINCE -- THIS IS ALL TRYING TO -- THIS SECTION, YOU KNOW LATER IN THE CHARTER, IS TAKING THE CONSIDERATION OF THOSE EARLIER SECTIONS THAT TALKS ABOUT THE COMMISSION HAS TO STAY OUT OF THE CHARTER OFFICER'S BUSINESS AND EMPLOYEES, RIGHT? AND THE CHARTER OFFICERS MANAGE AND DIRECT THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES.

SO THIS SAYS NOTHING HERE STOPS ANY OF THE CHARTER OFFICERS FROM TAKING CARE OF THEIR OWN INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS, AND IT ALSO GIVES THE CITY -- AND I'M JUST GOING TO SAY AS A CHARTER OFFICER WITH MY OWN EMPLOYEE, BUT OTHER CHARTER OFFICERS HAVE MORE, THAT I DO SEE THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN THERE. I MIGHT VIEW THIS IN A MORE PURE SENSE THAN SOME OTHER EMPLOYEES. BUT AS SOMEBODY THAT WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT, I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE, IF YOU PICK UP OUR TRASH, OR IF YOU'RE THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THE CITY MANAGER, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.

AND YOU SHOULD HAVE AND SEE YOURSELF ON AN ETHICAL, YOU KNOW, TO BEING AS ETHICAL AND OPEN AS YOU CAN, AND SO IF -- LET'S SAY THERE'S A CITY MANAGER, I'M NOT NAMING ANY NAMES AND CERTAINLY NOT NOW. BUT IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT AN EMPLOYEE THAT HAD APPEARED IN THE NEWSPAPER, FOR SUPPOSEDLY DOING SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, LET'S TAKE THE EASY THING, SOMETHING ABOUT THEY WERE TAKING BRIBES, JUST AN EXAMPLE.

IF THE CITY MANAGER DOESN'T DO ANYTHING, THE CITY COMMISSION UNDER SECTION 10 CAN'T GO TO THE CITY MANAGER AND SAY YOU BETTER DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS EMPLOYEE.

THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT THE CITY COMMISSION AND RESIDENTS

HAVE. >> AND VICE VERSA.

[01:30:07]

HAVING THAT LAST SENTENCE DOESN'T PRECLUDE THE ACTUARY OFFICER'S ABILITY TO DO IT. WHICH I RECALL WAS RICK AS A FORMER CITY MANAGER THAT'S HIS CONCERN, HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT OPPORTUNITY WAS STILL IN THERE.

WHAT IF WE JUST BULLET POINTED THAT LAST SENTENCE.

>> AND SET IT AS A NEW PARAGRAPH?

>> YES. MAYBE MAKE A CLAUSE A AND CLAUSE B AND MAKE THAT LAST SENTENCE A CLAUSE B AND MAKE IT SO IT'S --

>> OR EVEN AS ITS OWN PARAGRAPH. I THINK IT JUST NEEDS TO BE NOTICEABLE. OKAY.

>> GOT IT. >> 137.

DEDICATION OF STREETS. ANY COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. 1 ARE 41.

41. 141.

ANYBODY? OKAY.

142. THIS, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED WHENT TODAY. 143.

DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND IT? OKAY.

AND 144.WHAT'S THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE? 44, WHAT'S THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE HERE OR IS IT THE SAME

AS WHAT IT IS NOW? >> WELL, AT ONE POINT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT CHANGING IT TO GENERAL ELECTION.

BUT NOW THAT THE COMMISSION'S DECIDED THEY WILL WANT, IT WILL BE A SPECIAL ELECTION, I THINK THAT LANGUAGE IS CORRECT.

>> I'M SORRY, WHAT DID THEY DECIDE IT WAS GOING TO BE A

SPECIAL ELECTION? >> THE VOTE ON THE CHARTER, RIGHT? THEY'RE NOW DOING IT IN 2021

BY -- >> BY MAIL.

>> ISN'T THAT WHAT THEY SAID AT THE WORKSHOP BY MAIL BALLOT?

>> YES. >> I THINK THAT'S REGARDING THE FUNDS WE'VE ALREADY RECOMMENDED, THAT'S 2020.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW.

THIS IS -- WE'RE EXTENDING OUR TERM TO DISCUSS THINGS THAT WILL GO TO THEM THE NEXT TIME I BELIEVE.

NOT THE NEXT AVAILABLE ELECTION. I THINK WHAT THEY'RE DOING BY MAIL BALLOT IS GOING TO BE DONE IN THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS,

RIGHT, 2020? >> JON I THINK THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SO IT ALL AT ONE TIME.

IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A MAIL BALLOT AND SEND OUT THE LANGUAGE AND THE WORDING THEY WANTED TO JUST DO IT ALL.

>> IN 2021? >> YES.

>> OKAY, THAT ISN'T WHAT I UNDERSTOOD BUT I THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO DO -- B BECAUSE WE WERE IN A ROUGH TO GET THAT OTHER THING DONE, TWO REEGHTSDZ, WE'RE GOING TO DO BACK TO IT AND

DO IT ALL NOW? >> YES, THE REASON WHY THAT WAS JON LAST WEEK, 23RD, JUST A FEW DAYS BEFORE, LIKE ON THURSDAY THE 17TH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, CAROLINE BSSMENTSESCH GOT A MESSAGE FROM VICKY CANNON SAYING, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE PLANNING TO HAVE ON YOUR BALLOT, DO YOU HAVE REFERENDA QUESTIONS? YES, WE HAVE CHARTER, ONCE VICKY FOUND OUT HOW MANY CHARTER QUESTIONS SHE SAID THIS IS GOING TO BE YOUR COST BECAUSE NOW THE LAW IS THAT IT HAS TO BE INT PPRINTEDIN SPANISH AS WELL AS E. AND WHEN WE FOUND OUT HOW MUCH WAS THE COST, WE VOTED TO MOVE IT TO WITH DECEMBER IN 2020 OR

2021. >> I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO DO

THE MAIL BALLOT. >> 2020 AND WE WERE GOING TO DO MORE WORK THE NEXT TIME AROUND. THAT'S FINE.

I GUESS IF WE'RE GOING ON AND THIS IS GOING TO BE 2021, WE CAN DO OTHER PARTS OF THE CHARTER AGAIN, JUST PUTTING THAT OUT.

BECAUSE THEY SEEMED KIND OF DISAPPOINTED THAT WE DIDN'T ADDRESS THE ELECTIONS TIME. I DID TAKE THAT FROM THEM, I DIDN'T MENTION IT EARLIER IN THE MEETING BUT CLEARLY --

>> THAT'S AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT. >> WELL AT LEAST ONE

COMMISSIONER FELT THAT WAY. >> OKAY.

SO WE ARE DONE WITH TODAY'S AGENDA.

AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TALK ABOUT WHAT THE NEXT AGENDA WILL BE, AND WE'VE AGREED TO COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT THE CRA,

[01:35:04]

SOME MORE. AND WE AGREED ON SOMETHING ELSE.

>> 107A YOU'VE AGREED ON THE OATH OF OFFICE.

121. >> OATH OF OFFICE.

AND WHETHER THAT WOULD INCLUDE ANY LANGUAGE FURTHER THAN REFERENCING THE STATE ETHICS CODE.

>> AND I HAVE ONE OTHER THING TO ADD.

>> OKAY. >> WE DISCOVERED THROUGH THIS PANDEMIC AND TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY IS GOING TO, OR THE CITY MANAGER OR THE MAYOR ARE GOING TO HAVE CERTAIN EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT WE SEE THE COUNTY AND OTHERS DOING, AND PARTICULARLY, LAST WEEK WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT A NARND MANDATORY MASK ORDER FOR THE CITY.

JUST AS CITIZENS, TO BRIEF YOU, WE THINK THAT THE BEST THING TO DO, IT WOULD BE REALLY DIFFICULT IF JUST THE CITY DID IT, AND THE COUNTY DIDN'T, WE HAVE ACROSS THE STREET WE HAVE CITY AND COUNTY, WE ARE WORKING WITH NASSAU COUNTY, WE'RE HOPING THEY WILL PUT A MANDATORY MASK ORDINANCE INTO PLACE, I PUT A DIRECTION TO THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT WHAT THAT MASK ORDER SHOULD SAY. AND I NOTICED IN THE CHARTER AND IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES NEITHER THE MAYOR NOR THE CITY MANAGER HAVE ANY EMERGENCY POWERS WHATSOEVER.

SO. WE NEED TO WRITE INTO OUR CHARTER, I THINK THAT'S THE PLACE FOR IT, SOMETHING FOR YOU ALL TO THINK ABOUT, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST, JUST IN MY EXPERIENCE. IS BUT WHETHER IT'S THE MAYOR OR THE CITY MANAGER OR IN YOUR OPINION SHOULD IT BE THE ENTIRE CITY COMMISSION THAT WOULD HAVE EMERGENCY POWERS SUCH AS EXECUTIVE ORDERS OR EMERGENCY ORDERS LIKE IN OUR PANDEMIC NOW THE MASKS. WE HAVE EMERGENCY ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE A PROCESS FOR PUTTING IN PLACE.

SO A CURFEW FOR EXAMPLE. AND THE DIFFERENCE IS ARE WITH AN EXECUTIVE ORDER YOU HAVE LIMITED YOU HAVE LIMITED ABILITY TO ISSUE FINES OR ARREST PEOPLE. THAT IS THE DIFFERENT BETWEEN EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND ORDINANCES. IF THE ORDINANCE SAYS YOU HAVE A FINE AND IT GOES THROUGH TWO READINGS, THEN YOU HAVE A VALID ORDINANCE. IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, A STATEMENT THAT'S MADE AND ISSUED WITHIN A MATTER OF HOURS, SO I'D LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT WHO, REALLY, SHOULD HAVE THOSE POWERS IN THE CITY. MY RECOMMENDATION TO YOU IS THAT IT BE THE CITY MANAGER AND THE MAYOR.

TOGETHER. IT'S REALITY DIFFICULT TO HAVE, WE DO LATER HAVE THE COMMISSION RATIFY EMERGENCY RESOLUTIONS OR ORDINANCES, BUT TO GET THEM TOGETHER TO DO SOMETHING YOU NEED TO PUT IN PLACE WITHIN A FEW HOURS IS VERY DIFFICULT SOMETIMES SO, JUST FOR YOU ALL TO THINK ABOUT.

IN SOME OTHER PEER CITIES YOU'RE GOING TO FIND JUST THE CITY MANAGER GETS THAT DELEGATED AUTHORITY OR JUST THE MAYOR.

I DON'T THINK THAT REALLY WORKS FOR US HERE.

TO HAVE JUST ONE OF THEM HAVE THAT POWER.

>> ARE WE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS NOW OR DOES THAT NEED TO BE

REFERENCED ON ANOTHER -- >> I THINK WE'LL PUT IT ON THE

NEXT AGENDA. >> YES.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT ANYONE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE

HAVE ON THE NEXT AGENDA? >> I DON'T HAVE SOMETHING FOR THE AGENDA BUT TAMMI, I HAVE ONE THING, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE RIGHT FORUM BUT ON THE CITY WEBSITE UNDER ELECTIONS, IT'S STILL LISTING THE 2020 BALLOT QUESTION AND LISTING QUESTION 1 AS OUR WAY-BACK REFERENDUM WITH CONSERVATION LANDS AND IT'S THE OLD LANGUAGE BEFORE WE CHANGED IT.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. I'LL SEND THE CLERK AN E-MAIL

RIGHT NOW. >> JON, YOU AND BENJAMIN BROUGHT UP SOMETHING YOU THOUGHT YOU HEARD FROM THE COMMISSION DURING THE WORKSHOP THAT THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED US TO SPEND MORE TIME

ON. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY NECESSARILY WANTED MORE TIME BUT I THINK THEY WANTED SOME TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION. AND YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A NEW BOARD MEMBER. AND I MEAN MAYBE I THINK THE LAST TIME WE VOTED ON IT ONE OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND. MAYBE WE NEED TO HAVE ONE MORE CONVERSATION TO SEE IF WE CAN -- AND NOW WE'VE HAD SOME MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT, HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, HEAR FROM THE COMMISSION AND MAYBE HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY TAKE ANOTHER SHOT AT TRYING TO AVOID THESE RUNOFF ELECTIONS THAT CONTINUE TO OCCUR AFTER GENERAL ELECTIONS. WHICH I MINE IS THE EPITOME OF

[01:40:04]

DISENFRANCHISING VOTERS. BECAUSE WHEN YOU GO FROM AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE VOTERS SHOWING UP IN NOVEMBER TO A VERY SMALL AMOUNT, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED A FAIR ELECTION. SO I DON'T HAVE THE SOLUTION TODAY. I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT PUT BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING, JUST SO WE COULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF TWO MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT THERE OR A PRESUMPTIVE MEMBER WHO WASN'T THERE BUT LIKELY MEMBER.

AND THEN CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE CONVERSATION AS WELL.

>> DOES THAT OPEN THE DOOR THOUGH FOR US TO GO BACK TO ANYTHING THAT WE WANT TO GO BACK TO? BECAUSE YOU KNOW I'M GOING TO WANT ALL OF US TO REHASH INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM NOW THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER MEMBER AND THAT'S GOING TO BE A WHOLE 'NOTHER MEETING.

>> SURE, I'M NOT SURE IT SHOULDN'T BE, LET THAT BE THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THIS FOR SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS. EXPERIENCE WITH THE CHARTER, YOU KNOW, I WOULD VALUE HEARING HER OPINION.

>> I THINK THAT THAT DISCREDITS RICHARD CLARK'S OPINION THOUGH.

I JUST FEEL IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE AND AS A COMMISSION WE HAVE SOME THROUGH PUT THAT WOULD PUT OR COMMITTEE THAT WE HAVE THROUGH PUT THAT WAS AGREED UPON AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND REVISIT MAYBE SELECTIVELY, MAYBE WE DON'T DO THAT, MAYBE WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND START FROM SQUARE 1.

>> I DON'T THINK MUCH OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT, I MEAN THE ONLY TWO THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WE HAVEN'T BASICALLY APPROVED NEARLY UNANIMOUSLY IS THAT AND AN ISSUE.

IN ADDITION I'D ADD LAST TIME WE HAD AN ELECTION DISCUSSION, MEMBER BEAN WASN'T THERE, IT WAS A THREE-THREE VOTE, FAILED FOR THAT REASON. I THINK IT IS WORTH ANOTHER ROUND AND IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE, I'M HAPPY TO HAVE IF DEBATE AGAIN AS WELL. THE REST OF THE STUFF IS PRETTY DARN NONCONTROVERSIAL, IF BRIAN WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT ALL OUR MINUTES AND MAYBE SOMETHING SHOULD BE TAKEN A LOOK AT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE TIME WE GOT A GOOD OPPORTUNITY. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE WERE GOING TO PUT EVERYTHING TON 21 BALLOT LIKE THAT.

I THOUGHT WHAT WE HAD RECOMMENDED WAS GOING TO GO ON THE 20 BALLOT AS A MAIL-OUT AND WE WERE GETTING BACK TOGETHER TO MAKE ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION MAYBE FOR 2020.

SO I JUST DIDN'T TAKE IT FROM THE CONVERSATION THAT -- AND MAYBE ITS WAS DECIDED AT A SUBSEQUENT CITY COMMISSION MEETING AND I JUST MISSED THAT. BUT IF WE ARE PUTTING IT ALL OUT THERE AND IT'S NOT BEING DISCUSSED AGAIN FOR EIGHT YEARS OR SEVEN YEARS OR WHATEVER IT IS, I'D SAY BRING UP THE PUBLIC INITIATIVE, BRING UP THE ELECTIONS.

BUT I'LL LEAVE IT TO THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION.

IT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO HER. >> I WOULD ALSO SAY THE KIND OF SOCIAL JUSTICE PREAMBLE CODE OOF ETHICS LANGUAGE THAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE VERY END OF THE LAST MEETING, AMONG OURSELVES, ALSO THAT WE SAID WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO REALLY DISCUSS

SOMETHING. >> I WOULD AGREE.

>> I THINK THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS.

WE ONLY HAVE TWO MORE MEETINGS. >> WELL, WE CAN DETERMINE, I THINK, WHAT OUR MEETING SCHEDULE WOULD NEED TO BE IF WE HAVE ALL THESE THINGS ON IT. SO JON WHAT YOU MISSED AT THE WORKSHOP WAS ME JUMPING UP AND DOWN SAYING SO THIS MEANS WE CAN TALK ABOUT ANYTHING AGAIN? AND THAT'S WHEN MEMBER KOSACK HAD AN APRI APOPLECTIC SEIZURE D FELL OFF THE SCREEN.

THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD DO IN THE 2021 MAILED-OUT BALLOT.

WE HAVE THE NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA THAT HAS TWO PRETTY BIG DISCUSSION ITEMS ON THEM. ONE IS THE OATH OF OFFICE AND DID WE DECIDE THAT WE WANT TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION OF A PREAMBLE FOR ETHICS, THAT KIND OF IS THE SAME DISCUSSION.

RIGHT? IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE AN OATH OR, WE JUST HAVE THE DISCUSSION. SO THAT'S ONE.

AND THE OTHER IS THE CRA FUTURE. SO WHAT I'VE HEARD TODAY ON TOP OF THAT IS, ELECTIONS, AND MY OPINION FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH IS THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE ELECTIONS AGAIN, WE SHOULD BRING THE GROUPS BACK FOR DISCUSSION.

BECAUSE JUST ELIMINATING, WHAT IS IT, THE SECOND VOTE CALLED?

>> RUNOFF. >> I KEEP THINKING REFERENDUM.

JUST ELIMINATING THE RUNOFF VOTE DOESN'T GET AT THE ROOT CAUSE OF

[01:45:04]

THE PROBLEM. BECAUSE WHAT CAUSES THAT IS GROUPS. NOW, WE GOT SOME FEEDBACK ON THAT. WE DIDN'T GET 12,000 PEOPLE GIVING US FEEDBACK ON THAT. WE GOT MAYBE 12 INDIVIDUALS.

SO I REALLY WANT US TO BE ABLE TO EXPAND THAT CONVERSATION IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT. BECAUSE I WANT TO ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSE. AND THEN THE INITIATIVE.

CAN WE DO THAT, IN THREE MEETINGS? ALL THOSE THINGS I JUST TALKED ABOUT? SO WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA, A JULY 28TH AN AUGUST 25TH AND A

SEPTEMBER 22ND MEETING. >> THAT'S THREE MORE.

>> SO THOSE THREE MEETINGS, CAN WE DO THAT AND MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU ALL HAVE? YES KATY.

OKAY. CAN WE COMMIT TO THOSE THREE MEETINGS, TO HAVE THOSE THREE, THAT DISCUSSION OF THOSE TOPICS? RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU SAY YES. OKAY.

MARKEMARGARET AND TAMMI ARE YOUY WITH THAT?

OR NOT? >> I THINK YOU HEARD MY OPINION.

I THINK I DON'T LIKE GOING BACKWARDS.

WE'VE ALREADY PUT IT OUT THERE. WE HAD A FIRST READING FOR THE PUBLIC AND I'M PART OF THE COMMITTEE.

SO I'LL GO FORWARD WITH THE COMMITTEE.

>> MARGARET. YOU'RE MUTED.

>> I'M OF THE SAME AGREEMENT WITH MS. KOSACK ON THIS.

I'M HESITANT TO REVISIT THINGS THAT WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED AND YOU KNOW LIKE SHE SAID WE'VE ALREADY HAD FIRST AND SECOND READING AND A LOT OF MEMBER INPUT ON.

I MEAN PUBLIC INPUT ON. >> WE'VE HAD FIRST READING AND IT WAS DETERMINED WHEN WE DECIDED THAT -- OR WHEN THE COMMISSION DIETED THAT WE WERE GOING TO PUT EVERYTHING ON IT, VIA MAIL, THAT WE WOULD NEED TWO MORE READINGS.

SO OI DON'T THINK THAT -- I DON'T THINK WE'D BE ELIMINATING ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT BY TAKING THIS APPROACH. I UNDERSTAND IN THE WANTING TO RETHINK IT BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND WE WERE CRUNCHED FOR TIME BEFORE AND NOW WE HAVE SOME MORE TIME AND I'D MUCH RATHER PRODUCE A PRODUCT THAT WE ALL SAY WE ARE PROUD OF THAN ONE WE HAD TO RUSH

INTO. >> AND I WOULD ALSO SAY ONE OF THE REASON IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT IDEA IS EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE TIME TO RECEIVE THE BALLOT, THINK ABOUT IT, HAVE SOME TIME TO EVALUATE IT, THINK ABOUT IT, AND NOT MIX IT TOGETHER WITH ALL THE NOISE GOING ON IN NOVEMBER.

SO MAYBE IT WILL BE A QUIETER TIME AND OH BY THE WAY, LIKE A

QUARTER OF THE PRICE. >> TELL ME, YOU HAVE SOME INSIDE INFORMATION THAT THERE MIGHT BE NOISE IN NOVEMBER?

REALLY? >> I'M PRESUMING THERE MAY BE.

>> OKAY. >> MADAM CHAIR, SO I'M JUST CLEAR, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 121, THE OATH OF OFFICE, THE CRA, SOME ROBUST DISCUSSION ON THAT, THAT NEW THING THAT TAMMI BACH JUST TALKED ABOUT, WHO HAS THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, THAT'S A SMALL THING THEN WE'RE GOING TO ADD ELECTION, CYCLE, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AND SOCIAL JUSTICE AS A FREE AMBLE, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE ETHICS OATH I THINK ARE PROBABLY THE

SAME DISCUSSION. >> OKAY.

>> YES, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AS

POTENTIALS. >> OKAY.

[Items 8 & 9 ]

SO MY QUESTION THEN IS ARE THOSE DATES, JULY 28TH, AUGUST 25TH, AND SEPTEMBER 22ND, GOOD FOR ALL OF US?

>> MADAM CHAIR, WILL WE STILL BE MEETING BY ZOOM? BECAUSE I AM -- THE AUGUST 25TH MEETING OCCURS DURING THE RNC CONVENTION. AND I WILL NOT BE IN TOWN.

BUT I COULD DO IT BY ZOOM. >> SO TO ABSENCE THAT QUESTION,, WE WILL HAVE TO SEE. SO FAR GOVERNOR DE SANTIS HAS EXTENDED THE EXECUTIVE ORDER FOR OUR ABILITY TO MEET BY ZOOM THROUGH AUGUST 31ST. SO UNLESS SOMETHING ELSE HE CHANGES WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM HERE BUT I WILL

[01:50:04]

TELL YOU THAT I'M HAPPY IF THERE'S A PHYSICAL QUORUM, IF THE REST OF YOU CAN'T OR WHATEVER? TO GO AHEAD AND ZOOM IN. THAT'S ONLY FOR RIGHT NOW.

WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THIS, FOR EXAMPLE, FIVE YEARS FROM NOW WHEN THERE'S NO VIRUS. BECAUSE THEY ONLY LET YOU APPEAR THROUGH COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY MEANS IF THERE'S A SERIOUS MEDICAL CONDITION. BUT I'M WILLING TO SAY IF WE HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM THAT'S PRESENT THAT'S FINE AND YOU CAN APPEAR BY ZOOM. BUT WE'LL SEE, GOVERNOR DE SANTIS IS CHANGING THIS MONTH BY MONTH.

>> DAY BY DAY. >> DAY BY DAY, TOO.

SO MARGARET -- >> IF THAT IS THE CASE THEN WHY DON'T WE BE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE CITIZENS INITIATIVE THING ON THE JULY MEETING BECAUSE MEMBER DAVIS WILL BE THERE, THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO HER AND PROBABLY THE ELECTION EAS WELL.

WHY DON'T WE GET IT ALL DONE IN JULY, IS WHAT WE'LL TRY TO DO.

THIS MEETING HAS BEEN ON FOR TWO HOURS, WE'VE MET FOR OVER THREE BEFORE. I HOPE -- SOUNDS LIKE FIVE THINGS TO DISCUSS, AND MIGHT AS WELL SPEND 45 MINUTES ON ALL OF THEM, TRY TO GET IT DONE. I'D SAY LET'S TRY TO GET ALL OF IT DONE IN JULY SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM.

>> EITHER JULY OR EARLY AUGUST. , PERHAPS.

>> THE DATES THAT ARE IN THERE ARE THE DATES --

>> LET'S GET IT DONE IN JULY. >> THE DATES THAT I PUT ON THERE

FOR FUTURE MEETINGS -- >> LET'S SEE WHERE WE GET.

>> AND WE MAYBE, THERE WILL BE A LOT OFN THIS WEEK SO MAYBE THE 25TH, THE 18TH, IS THAT AVAILABLE OR IS

THAT -- >> WELL, KATY'S GOING TO -- KATY'S GOING TO TELL US RIGHT NOW.

>> SO THOSE DATES ARE CONTINUING ON WITH THE FOURTH THURSDAY, OR FOURTH TUESDAY OF THE MONTH. WHICH IS OUR REGULAR SCHEDULE.

>> RIGHT. >> BECAUSE AUGUST MIGHT -- I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON AROUND TOWN.

MAYBE WE CAN TRY AND SEE IF WE CAN MOVE THAT EARLIER, MOVE THAT UP TO AN EARLIER DATE IN AUGUST. LET ME JUST CHECK THE CALENDAR.

AND I'LL GET BACK, I'LL E-MAIL YOU ALL.

>> ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GET INFORMATION FROM ARE KATY ON THE SCHEDULE AND SHE'LL MAKE SURE WE'RE AVAILABLE.

GOOD? >> GOOD.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY

FURTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE ONE THING MADAM CHAIR.

I HAD SOME COMMENTS, MINOR, TO THE PROPOSED BALLOT QUESTIONS THAT WERE PRESENT ARED AT THE WORKSHOP, I GUESS IT WAS AT THE WORKSHOP. SHOULD I JUST PRESENT THOSE OR WAIT UNTIL WE ARE DON'T WITH OUR WORK BECAUSE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE CHANGING AND THERE WILL BE NEW AND MAYBE REVISED BALLOT

QUESTIONS? >> I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR COMPETE BACK. EVEN WITH THE NEW INFORMATION DOESN'T MEAN I WOULD SEE IT THE WAY YOU DO.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE YOUR FEEDBACK AND SINCE WE ARE NOT DRAFTING BALLOT QUESTIONS AS ONE OF OUR CHARGES NECESSARILY, I'D REALLY VALUE THE INPUT. SO I WOULD JUST CONTACT ME.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, IF THERE IS NO FURTHER BUSINESS,

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.