Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

A TABLE CALLED THE ORDER, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH,

[00:00:06]

TWO THOUSAND TWENTY, WE ALL RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

MEMBER BRYAN. HERE.

MEMBER KOSACK. HERE. MEMBER LASSERE. HERE. MEMBER MORRISON. HERE. MEMBER DAVIS. HERE.

VICE CHAIR BEAN. HERE. AND CHAIR FILKOFF. HERE.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING, WHICH HAS BEEN A WHILE.

HOPEFULLY, WE ALL HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT.

WE'LL HAVE AN OPINION.

ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS? DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR I ANY OPPOSITION.

SO ONCE THOSE ARE APPROVED, OUR NEW DISCUSSION ITEM IS ALL OF YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE AT THIS

[5.1 DISCUSSION: CRA]

POINT THE THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES THAT WE'VE MADE TODAY ARE BEING WE'LL TALK ABOUT THOSE BY THE END OF THIS MEETING, I BELIEVE.

BUT THOSE ARE PLANNED TO GO ON TO A MAIL BALLOT IN THE SPRING, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE NO MORE TIME TO ADDRESS SOME MORE ISSUES.

NOW, IF WE CHOOSE TO DO THAT, THAT PERHAPS WE DIDN'T GET BEFORE OR DIDN'T FEEL THAT WE GOT ENOUGH ATTENTION PAID TO IT WHEN WE WERE IN A TIME CRUNCH.

THE OTHER ITEM TO NOTE IS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY VOTED ON AND MOVING THE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT TO THE BALLOT THIS FALL.

SO THAT WILL BE ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, CORRECT? YES. AND THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.

SO WHILE SOME WOULD BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS THE ONLY MEANINGFUL THING THAT WE DID ON THIS COMMITTEE, I BEG TO DIFFER.

AND I WILL ASK TO START THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE.

ARE THERE ANY FEELINGS ABOUT IT AMONG THIS GROUP? MS. KOSACK AND I ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, PROBABLY FOR TAMMI FOR CLARIFICATION, AND I GUESS THE EASIEST WAY IS JUST TO RUN THROUGH THESE AND THEN GET THE ANSWER TO THAT.

I'M CURIOUS AS TO THE CURRENT NATIONAL AND STATE SITUATION ON CRA REFORM.

I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION OF ABOLISHMENT OR REFORMS TO THEM, AND I COULDN'T FIND ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT STATE OR NATIONALLY ON THAT. THAT'S NUMBER ONE.

AND NUMBER TWO, CAN THE BOUNDARIES OF AN EXISTING CRA BE INCREASED OR DECREASED? AND THEN NUMBER THREE, WHAT IS THE LIFE SPAN OF OUR EXISTENCE HERE? CAN THAT CHANGE? AND AND ALONG WITH THAT, IS THAT A FACT? I KEPT FINDING THIRTY NINE OR FORTY YEARS WHEN YOU CREATE AT THE END OF IT LAST FOR THIRTY NINE OR FORTY YEARS.

OK, YOU'RE RIGHT.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

SO REGARDING YOUR QUESTION, NUMBER ONE, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY FEDERAL OR NATIONAL LAW CHANGES THAT WOULD AFFECT OUR CRA IN TWENTY NINE.

EIGHTEEN IN TWENTY NINETEEN.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA LEGISLATURE DID PASS SOME WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER SWEEPING REFORM CHANGES TO THE CRA STATUTE, WHICH IS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER ONE.

SIXTY THREE OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, BASICALLY WHAT THEY DID THERE AT OUR LAST CRA

[00:05:04]

MEETING WITH THE CITY COMMISSION, WHO DOES SERVE AS THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, I REVIEWED WITH THEM SOME OF THE CHANGES.

THE MOST NOTABLE CHANGE IS THAT FOR RIGHT NOW, ALL AT LEAST OURS, THERE MAY BE SOME EXCEPTIONS ACROSS THE STATE, BUT THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S NATURAL LIFE WILL EXPIRE IN TWENTY, THIRTY EIGHT.

THAT'S BASED ON STATE LAW.

NO MATTER WHEN WE SAID WE AS THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH SAID THAT WE WOULD MAKE THOSE CHANGES OR WITH THE LIFE SPAN WOULD BE INITIALLY.

THIS CRA WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2004 AND THE LIFE WAS 40 YEARS TO EXPIRE IN TWO THOUSAND AND FORTY FOUR IN 2013.

THE CITY COMMISSION ON ITS OWN WITHOUT THE COUNTY.

A LOT OF THIS STUFF HAS TO BE DONE WITH THE COUNTY'S PERMISSION.

BUT THE CHANGING OF THE BASE YEAR, MEANING THE YEAR WE START WHERE WE TAKE THE PROPERTY VALUES AND THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING OR THE TAX INCREMENT COLLECTION OF TAXES STARTS GETTING CALCULATED FROM THAT BASE YEAR OR BASELINE OF THE PROPERTY VALUES WAS REESTABLISHED IN 2013.

AGAIN, WE AMENDED THE CRA TO EXPIRE IN TWENTY FIFTY THREE AND MADE IT A FORTY YEAR TERM AGAIN. THE STATE HAS SAID IT WILL EXPIRE IN TWENTY THIRTY EIGHT.

OK, THE OTHER CHANGES IN THE STATE LAW HAVE TO DO WITH THE TYPE OF INFORMATION THAT THE CITY PROVIDES ON ITS WEBSITE, WHICH IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE PROVIDING ALL OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE STATE.

SOME OF THAT INCLUDES THE FINDING OF NECESSITY, WHICH WAS DONE BACK IN 2003 AND FOR THE CRA PLAN, AN AUDIT REPORT WHICH THE CITY HAS FOR THE WHOLE CITY.

AND IT REQUIRES THAT A CRA BE AUDITED SEPARATELY, WHICH WE ALREADY DO, BECAUSE IT'S IN A SEPARATE CRA TRUST FUND.

SO WE HAVE BEEN FOR MANY, MANY YEARS COMPLYING WITH THOSE CHANGES.

SO THAT'S HOPEFULLY THE ANSWER TO NO ONE.

YEAH, THAT WAS ACTUALLY PART OF NUMBER THREE.

OK, ALL RIGHT, GOOD FOR YOUR QUESTION WAS NUMBER TWO, WHETHER THE BOUNDARIES CAN BE BE INCREASED OR DECREASED, THE ANSWER IS YES, BUT NOT WITHOUT BASICALLY GOING BACK AND AT LEAST AMENDING THE CITIES, FINDING OF NECESSITY AND ALSO AMENDING THE CITY'S CRA PLAN.

THE FINDING OF NECESSITY IS ESSENTIALLY A STUDY THAT'S DONE BY A PROFESSIONAL FIRM THAT WOULD, BASED UPON THE DEFINITIONS IN THE STATUTES LIKE BLIGHTED PROPERTY AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THEY WOULD FIND IN ANY PROPOSED INCREASE IN BOUNDARIES WHETHER OR NOT THE FINDING OF NECESSITY COULD BE VALID TO INCREASE THOSE BOUNDARIES AND TO DECREASE THE BOUNDARIES.

YES, AND IT IS LESS INTENSIVE WORK TO DECREASE THE BOUNDARIES.

BUT YES, THE CITY CAN DO THAT, BUT NOT WITHOUT A STUDY FINDING OF NECESSITY, NOT WITHOUT AN AMENDMENT TO THE CRF PLAN AND NOT WITHOUT APPROVAL FOR INCREASING FROM NASSAU COUNTY.

WOULD THAT ALSO REQUIRE A REFERENDUM? NO. WHEN IT COMES TO OUR PARTICULAR SCENARIO THAT WE HAVE TODAY, THERE IS A STATEMENT IN OUR CHARTER LANGUAGE THAT LIMITS SOMETHING, SOMETHING SOMETHING LIKE TWO PERCENT RIGHT HERE. COULD YOU JUST ADDRESS WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHAT THAT.

YES, THAT'S I WANTED TO, IF I MIGHT, OPEN ON MY SCREEN ANYWAY, 107A AND 107A OF THE CITY CHARTER, IT SAYS THAT THE PROPERTIES CONTAINED WITHIN SUCH CRA WOULD COULD NOT.

AND THEY'RE PROHIBITED FROM EXCEEDING TWO PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE OF ALL REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY, IN THE CITY AT THE TIME OF THE CREATION OF SUCH.

SO THE CITY CREATED THE CRA BACK IN 2004.

SO WE HAVE TO TAKE THE TOTAL ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUES FROM TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR WITH ALL THE MAKEUP WE HAD TO DO FROM THE RECESSION IN TWO THOUSAND EIGHT NINE.

WE'RE PRETTY MUCH THERE.

I WOULD SAY APPROXIMATELY.

WE'RE PROBABLY A LITTLE TEENY BIT HIGHER, BUT NOT THAT MUCH.

AND SO WE WOULD TAKE THAT AND THEN TO CALCULATE WHAT TWO PERCENT OF THAT IS.

AND WHEREVER OUR SCRA IS, HOWEVER BIG OR SMALL IT IS, THE PROPERTY VALUES CANNOT EXCEED THAT TWO PERCENT.

WOULD THAT BE RECALCULATED ANY TIME, I MEAN, I WAS PROPOSED.

YES, IF THIS CHARTER LANGUAGE REMAINS, YES.

[00:10:05]

AND THEN ONE FOLLOW UP ON YOUR REALLY ANSWERING MY QUESTION.

SO IF THEY SAID IT FOR THE STATE, THAT ALL SERIES WILL EXPIRE IN TWENTY, THIRTY EIGHT.

AND LET'S PRETEND THAT RIGHT NOW SOMEBODY WE CREATED A NEW ONE TOMORROW.

SO THAT ALSO WOULD EXPIRE IN TWENTY, THIRTY EIGHT.

AND IF ONE IS CREATED IN 10 YEARS, DOES THAT EXPIRE IN 2013.

YES. YEAH.

THE STATUTE, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

I'LL PULL IT UP SOMETIME DURING OUR CONVERSATION.

BUT YES, IT BASICALLY SAYS ANY CRA THAT IS CREATED AFTER AND IT WAS YEARS AGO I THINK IT MAY BE 20 10 IS IS THE DATE THAT IT EXPIRES IN TWENTY, THIRTY EIGHT.

SO SO IS THE IT'S A THOUGHT PROCESS TO JUST DO AWAY WITH THIS DEVELOPMENTAL.

I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WHAT THE STRATEGY IS THERE.

HONESTLY I DON'T I HAVE TO LEARN A LITTLE BIT MORE.

YEAH. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

MARGARET. MS. DAVIS, YOU NEED TO TURN OFF THE AND I'M OFF ME A BIT, I'M I CAN'T FIND MY RIGHT HAND ICON TODAY FOR THE THREE OF THEM, SO I'LL HAVE TO PHYSICALLY RAISE IT.

I JUST WANT TO SAY, WHEN I WHEN I READ THE STATUTE PRETTY CLOSELY, I ALSO WENT AND READ SOME OF THE LEGISLATIVE DEBATE FROM TWENTY NINETEEN.

AND IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE REALLY THERE WAS A BIG MOVE TO TRY TO GET RID OF THE CRA SO THEY DON'T PARTICULARLY LIKE THEM.

AND AND IT WAS ACTUALLY THE LANGUAGE USED AND SAID NO, NO.

AT ONE POINT SAID NO ONE TO BE CREATED.

BUT TAMMI, WE CAN LOOK AGAIN WHILE YOU'RE THERE.

BUT I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE SUNSET LANGUAGE WITH RESPECT TO TERMINATING ON SEPTEMBER 30TH, ACTUALLY HAD AN UNLESS CLAUSE THAT IF A GOVERNING BODY THAT CREATED IT APPROVED ITS CONTINUED EXISTENCE, THAT IT COULD CONTINUE.

BUT MAYBE I MISREAD MISREAD THE LANGUAGE.

THEY HAD TO ACTUALLY JUST VOTE AGAIN OR TO CONTINUE ON.

BUT IT'S QUITE CLEAR THAT YES, THE CURRENT FLORIDA LEGISLATURE, AT LEAST THE TWENTY NINETEEN ONE IN THE TWENTY SEVENTEEN ONE, ALSO APPARENTLY MADE A RUN AT TRYING TO DO AWAY, BUT INSTEAD DECIDED TO GO WITH JUST MORE REFORMS FOR MORE REPORTING, INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURE. I MY MY READING OF THE BILL I GOT IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW, IT WAS IN TWENTY NINETEEN AND ITS HOUSE BILL NINE IS THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT.

SO IN THERE WHEN I READ THE LANGUAGE ABOUT ALL THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND ABOUT INACTIVE REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES, NO MATTER IF THE MONEY SPENT THE MONTH THAT EXTRA INCREMENT FINANCE, THAT TAX IS GOING RIGHT INTO THE CRA TRUST FUND AND THE COUNTIES ARE NOT REALIZING THAT TAX.

AND I THINK IN SOME PLACES IN THE STATE, ESPECIALLY LARGER COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE SEVERAL OR MANY CRAS, THERE WERE SOME INACTIVE ONES WHERE THE COUNTY WAS MISSING OUT ON THAT EXTRA TAX MONEY.

AND I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED AT THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES LOBBIED FOR SOME OF THIS, ESPECIALLY THE INACTIVE STUFF.

SO IF YOU'RE NOT SPENDING THE MONEY, YOU'RE NOT DOING PROJECTS.

THE COUNTY NEEDS TO BE COLLECTING THOSE TAXES.

BUT YES, THIS IS FAR FROM SERIOUS IN TERMS OF THE TERMINATION DATE.

I'M TRYING TO FIND THAT SECTION OF THE BILL RIGHT NOW THAT SO CAN I COULD I COMMENT THAT I'M HERE? YES, I AM WONDERING AND AT THAT POINT THOUGHT, GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THE STATE LEVEL AND GIVEN THE YEAR THAT IT WOULD TAKE, IF WE DEBATE THIS AND WE PUT SOMETHING FORTH AND THEN I GUESS THAT'S AN EMAIL BALLOT AND THEN IT GOES BACK AND IT CHANGES OUR CHARTER AND THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF TIME AND MONEY INVOLVED IN CREATING THE CRA. IF WE DO IF WE DO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE SECTION TO MAKE IT EASIER OR MORE FLEXIBLE TO CREATE IT, BY THE TIME THE FINDING OF NECESSITY IS DONE AND ALL THE PARAMETERS ARE MET,

[00:15:02]

YOU KNOW, WHAT'S LEFT IS THERE MAY BE 10 YEARS TO HAVE A CRA.

AND IS THAT IS IT WORTH OUR TIME AT THIS POINT TO PUT ANOTHER CHANGE OR TO THE COMMUNITY, WHICH, AS YOU SAID, THEY ALREADY DO, IS IN THIS AREA? AND THAT'S I MEAN, I THINK I THINK THAT COULD BE A POSITIVE TOOL.

BUT I DON'T KNOW, GIVEN THE CLIMATE OUT THERE, IF THIS IS THE RIGHT TIME FOR US TO SPEND THIS TIME ON THIS PROJECT.

AND THAT'S JUST A QUESTION.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MS. DAVIS? I DID GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT THE TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN MINUTES WHEN THEY DISCUSSED THIS.

AND OF COURSE, MEMBER BRYAN MAY HAVE MORE MEMORIES, BUT IT DOES APPEAR THAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS TO DELETE THE SECTION BECAUSE OF AND ALSO GIVEN THAT IT'S SO DETAILED, I JUST WANT TO PUT OUT THERE AND THAT'S WHAT 2007 DID.

AND ALSO THAT SINCE THERE WAS SO MUCH RESTRICTIONS THROUGH THE STATUTE ON WHAT IT TAKES TO GET ONE OF THESE PUT IN PLACE, AS WE'VE ALL JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT, IT'S FINDING.

THE SECOND OBSERVER OBSERVATION I JUST WANTED TO MAKE, WHICH I DO AS USUAL, I LOOKED AT ALL OF OUR PEER ABOVE THE CHARTERS, OUR PEER CITIES, AND WHILE ALL OF THEM HAVE CRAS, ONLY ONE OF THEM ADDRESS THE IN THEIR CHARTER.

AND THEY JUST SIMPLY SAY THAT I THINK IT WAS COCOA BEACH THAT YOU JUST HAD TO HAVE.

IT HAS TO GO TO A PUBLIC REFERENDUM.

IF YOU GO TO IN ORDER TO FORM THIS, IT HAS TO BE A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE CITIZENS IN ORDER TO GET ONE AND APPROVE.

THE COMMISSION CAN'T DO IT ON THEIR OWN.

WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH ALL THE STATUTORY HOOPS, WHICH ARE SIGNIFICANT.

AND I WILL ADMIT THAT I ALSO WHEN I READ THE STATUTE, I DID LOOK AT THE I THINK LAST OUR LAST MEETING, YOU INDICATED IT COULD BE USED TO CRA, IT COULD BE USED TO PUT SEWER INTO CITRONELLA WITHOUT A BINDING BLIGHTED.

AND AS I READ THE STATUTE, YOU DO HAVE TO MAKE A FINDING THAT IT'S EITHER A SLUM AREA AS DEFINED IN THE STATUTE OR A BLIGHTED AREA.

NOW, MAYBE IT THE DEFINITION OF THAT COULD BE BROADER THAN WHAT COULD ENCAPSULATE MORE THAN WHAT PEOPLE THINK.

BUT IT DID SEEM TO ME THAT YOU DO ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CALL THE AREAS THEY GET TO MAKE A FINDING THAT THEY'RE BLIGHTED OR SLUM AREA.

AND THAT MIGHT BE PART OF THE REASON THIS IS VIEWED AS NEFARIOUS BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S RIGHT.

SO THEY CONSIDER THAT THAT'S THAT'S AN AREA UNDER ONE SIXTY THREE POINT THREE BY FIVE PERCENT. TO CREATE THAT, YOU'VE GOT TO FIND IT'S ONE OF THOSE CITIES AS DEFINED UNDER ONE SIXTY THREE POINT THREE FORTY SEVEN OR IT A BLIGHT.

THEY'VE GOT 15 CRITERIA THAT I THINK YOU ONLY HAVE TO MAKE 10 OF THE 15.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT DIFFICULT, BUT I THINK IT'S THE NAME THAT'S ON IT.

AND AND IF THIS IS A STATE THAT'S ALREADY THAT, MAYBE IT DOES MAKE IT A BETTER IDEA TO JUST ELIMINATE THIS FROM THE CHARTER COMPLETELY.

ONE OF THE NEGATIVES OF DOING THAT IS FAR, IN MY ESTIMATION, OF WHAT A GREAT TOOL A CRA CAN BE. THERE'S NO NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF REALITY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW.

IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT IF YOU FEEL AS A CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, AS THE TWO THOUSAND SEVEN CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FELT, ELIMINATING IT FROM IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE IN THE CHARTER. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS IS NOT WHERE YOU PUT PROHIBITIONS FOR THINGS LIKE THIS. IT'S A TOOL FOR REDEVELOPMENT, AS ITS NAME IMPLIES.

BUT IF I COULD ADDRESS I HAVE THE BILL HOUSE BILL NINE HERE.

I DID FIND THE SECTION AND MARGARET IS EXACTLY CORRECT THAT IT DOES ALLOW IT SAYS THAT THE PHRASE EXPIRE IN TWENTY THIRTY NINE, THOSE IN EXISTENCE AS OF OCTOBER 1ST.

TWENTY NINETEEN WILL EXPIRE IN TWENTY, THIRTY NINE UNLESS A MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNING BODY EXTENDS THEM.

SO I THINK THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS LEAVING IT OPEN AND AND RECOGNIZES THAT IT IS A GOOD

[00:20:07]

TOOL. BUT NOT ALLOWING SOME OF THE INACTIVE SCHOLARS TO CONTINUE AND DEPRIVING THE COUNTY OF THOSE TAX MONIES OF PROJECTS AREN'T GOING TO BE DONE.

SO AND SECONDLY, ON THE FINDING OF NECESSITY, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT A FINDING OF NECESSITY IS MEMBER DAVIS AND FELLOW MEMBERS IS.

IT'S ALL BASED UPON A FINDING OF BLIGHT AND SLUM, AND THOSE ARE UNFORTUNATE TERMS. BUT WHEN YOU READ THE DEFINITIONS, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT REALLY IS NOT THAT HARD TO DO.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF FACTORS IN THE LIST OF CRITERIA THAT HAVE TO BE MET IN ORDER TO COMPLY, COMPLY WITH THE FINDING OF SLUM OR BLIGHT.

AND SOME OF THOSE CAN BE SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS NOT HAVING INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE.

SO NOT HAVING SANITARY SEWER IS A LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT WOULD MEAN AT LEAST ONE OF THE CRITERIA. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE WHAT WE THINK IN OUR HEADS OF SLUM AND BLIGHT.

I, I DON'T KNOW IF I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE A READ ON THE COMMUNITY ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD REACT THIS TIME AROUND.

BUT IT'S BEEN SOME YEARS AND I THINK OUR POPULATION HAS CHANGED SOME SO.

YES OR NO? MY QUESTION IS, HOW DID IT GET TO THE CHARTER IN THE FIRST PLACE? WHAT WHAT WAS THE SENTIMENT? WHAT WAS THE MESSAGING THAT WAS GOING ON INTO THE COMMUNITY TO CAUSE THIS TO HIT THE CHARTER? I DON'T KNOW.

JUST MS..

BRYAN, DO YOU POSSIBLY KNOW WERE YOU PART OF ANY DISCUSSIONS THAT MIGHT HAVE ON EARTH THAT I JUST REMEMBER ABOUT DISCUSSING IT AND NOT REALLY THINKING THAT IT NEEDED TO BE IN THERE? I THINK WE KEPT THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN THERE.

TO BE HONEST. I DON'T REMEMBER CREATING THAT LANGUAGE.

OK, JON, DO YOU REMEMBER BY ANY CHANCE? AND THIS IS REALLY IN MY TIME IN DEALING WITH THE CITY.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE CRA IS MAKING SOME MONEY.

AND PART OF THAT DOES HAVE TO DO WITH THE TIMING OF ALL OF IT.

SO WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A RECESSION AND NOW A PANDEMIC SINCE WE CREATED THE CRA AND WE'VE HAD SOME EXTREMELY REASON I ASK ABOUT THE HISTORY IS BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SOME EXTREMELY NEGATIVE IDEAS ABOUT WHAT THE CRA IS.

AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS THERE WAS A CONCERTED EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T SUPPORT THE IDEA OF THE CRA WHEN IT WAS CREATED.

AND IT WAS BASED, THOUGH, THAT EFFORT ON SO MISINFORMATION, I BELIEVE.

SO THERE WAS A THOUGHT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE MONEY THAT WENT INTO THIS THAT GOES BACK INTO THE CRA WAS THE WHOLE NOT IT WASN'T JUST THAT DIFFERENTIAL, IT WAS THE WHOLE NOT.

AND THAT MEANT THAT OTHER AREAS SUFFERED COVERAGE BECAUSE ALL OF THAT TAX MONEY WAS GOING THERE. THERE WAS ALSO A BELIEF THAT THE CITY COULD EXERCISE EMINENT DOMAIN ON THAT PROPERTY IF YOU WERE THERE WHILE IT CAN ANYWAY.

SO THERE WAS A LOT OF NEGATIVE PRESS BEING GIVEN FOR THE CONCEPT OF REDEVELOPING THE WATERFRONT. AND THEN I HEARD THAT PEOPLE DID NOT CONSIDER IT BLIGHTED THAT CONSIDERED

[00:25:05]

THAT IT HAD A LOT OF CHARACTER AND IT SHOULD BE LEFT THAT WAY.

SO SO THESE OPINIONS, THOUGH, THE FRIGHTENING PART TO ME IS THAT THIS GOT ENOUGH VOTES IN A REFERENDUM TO PUT THIS IN THE CHARTER.

SO TO TAKE IT OUT OF THE CHARTER IS GOING TO REQUIRE A PRETTY MASSIVE EDUCATION MARKETING, WHATEVER KIND OF EFFORT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT, TO GET PEOPLE TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.

AND I THINK THAT BASED ON SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO LED THE EFFORT TO PUT IT, THEY'RE STILL BEING VERY MUCH ALIVE AND WELL AND VERY VERBOSE IN THE COMMUNITY.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO GO UNNOTICED THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS.

SO I THINK THAT THERE'S PROS AND CONS TO US DOING THIS.

I HAVE ALWAYS PERSONALLY HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT IT SHOULD BE OUT OF THE CHARTER ALTOGETHER. AND THIS THE CRA IS A TOOL THAT COULD BE USED TO THE CITY'S BEST BENEFIT.

IF WE HADN'T TALKED AROUND FOR AS LONG AS WE HAVE, THEN MAYBE SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT THE CITY IS LOOKING AT NOW WITH VERY HIGH PRICE TAGS COULD HAVE BEEN COVERED.

BY SOME OF THAT MONEY IN THE SAHARA, BUT IT CAN'T BE NOW, SO I, I THINK THAT THE HERE'S WHERE I'M STUCK.

I BELIEVE THAT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS TO TAKE THE LANGUAGE OUT OF THE CHARTER.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT WILL BE AN EASY THING TO SELL TO THE COMMUNITY UNLESS WE MAKE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO DO IT.

SO IT'S KIND OF UP TO US WHETHER WE THINK WE CAN DO THAT OR NOT.

NEVER GAVE US ONE THOUGHT I HAD.

I'M A I'M FROM A I'M A VERY MUCH A FREE MARKET ECONOMIST.

AND SO I CAN SEE THE COMING OPPOSITION TO CRA AS BEING BASED ON, YOU KNOW, IT TO HAVE PUBLIC RESOURCES, HELP CHANNEL PRIVATE FUNDS INTO SOMETHING THAT THE MARKET ITSELF WOULD NOT DEVELOP. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE MARKET DEVELOPING THOSE IN THOSE AREAS MIGHT BE DESIRABLE. SO I SEE THAT SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE COULD SELL IT AS IF YOU DID A SERIES.

IF YOU COULD ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODED AREAS, YOUR REDEVELOPMENT MIGHT BE BETTER THAN CHOPPING DOWN TREES ON VACANT LOTS AND DEVELOPING THOSE.

MAYBE WE CAN KIND OF REACH TO THAT, YOU KNOW, TRY TO SIMPLIFY.

SO INTERESTED IN CONSERVATION MIGHT NOT HELP ENCOURAGE REDEVELOPMENT OF THESE EXISTING SOME OF THESE EXISTING AREAS.

SO THAT WAS MAYBE A ONE POSSIBLE WAY TO TRY TO LOBBY FOR IT.

WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO REMOVE THIS? I MEAN, DOES JUST SEEM TO BE MORE POLICY WITHIN THE CHARTER NOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT.

BUT BUT THOSE ARE.

SO THAT WAS ONE OF MY THOUGHTS.

AND I CERTAINLY WOULD SUPPORT REMOVING A MEMBER, KOSACK, AS WE DID BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME COIN, AND WE WANT TO REMOVE IT.

WE'VE GOT THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IF WE WANT TO REVISE IT.

IT'S STILL THE SAME THING.

IF FOUND, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO MAKE IT MORE FLEXIBLE, YOU KNOW, IF IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE NONCONTIGUOUS, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO LIMIT IT TO TWO.

THERE'S TWO RESTRICTIONS ON THE TWO PERCENT CENT RESTRICTION WHICH CAN BE SEEN AND, YOU KNOW, PRETTY RESTRICTIVE.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE NONCONTIGUOUS.

SO WHOLESALE REMOVAL REQUIRES EDUCATION AND A CHANGE REQUIRES EDUCATION.

SO I ALMOST THINK AT THAT POINT, WHO'S GOING TO DO THIS EDUCATION? I MEAN, I'VE GOT ALL THESE IDEAS OF GREAT THINGS THAT WE CAN DO IN OUR CITY, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE AN EFFORT, A CONCERTED EFFORT OF PEOPLE TO JUST SHOW WHAT CAN BE DONE.

AND THEN I MEAN, THEN IF WE JUST GO BACK TO THE BRASS TACKS OF IT, I LOOKED AT A CITY MAP AND I TRIED TO FIND AREAS WHERE THIS WOULD EVEN BE APPROPRIATE.

AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE NERVOUS ABOUT EMINENT DOMAIN OR TAXATION BEING MISAPPROPRIATED OR THE TAX DOLLARS BEING MISAPPROPRIATED, THE ONLY AREA THAT I COULD SEE BACK IS MAYBE IF PEOPLE THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE MET IN CERTAIN AREAS.

AND I THINK THAT COULD HAVE A LOT OF COMMUNITY PUSHBACK.

SO, YOU KNOW, I STRUGGLE WITH THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT IS A GOOD TOOL IF IT HAS THE RIGHT RESTRICTIONS OR NON RESTRICTIONS.

BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT OUR COMMUNITY IS READY FOR.

I THINK THE QUESTION THAT WE NEED TO ASK OURSELVES TO AT THIS POINT IS TAKING IT OUT OF THE CHARTER, PUTS IT IN THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSION IF THEY NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE TO IT.

[00:30:08]

LEAVING IT IN THE CHARTER REQUIRES THE LONG, DRAWN OUT PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THE REVIEW AND GOING TO A REFERENDUM, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY SAID THAT THE MANDATED REVIEW TIME IS OVER SEVEN YEARS.

BUT IF IT'S NOT LANGUISHING, IT'S IN THE CHARTER.

THEN THE COMMISSION HAS MORE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON IT.

IF IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE COMMISSION TO DO THAT AT ANY GIVEN TIME TO EITHER CHANGE THE PERCENTAGE, TRY TO ESTABLISH A AND CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES.

AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A REAL LIFE EXAMPLE OF WHAT KIND OF THING HAPPENS WITH OUR CURRENT WORLD THE WAY IT IS.

MR FIFTEEN YEARS.

I'M LOOK AT IT, MR GOLDMAN, WHO'S HERE BECAUSE LEO AND I HAVE BOTH SERVED ON THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN THE PAST.

HE HAD PLANS AT ONE TIME TO DO SOME DEVELOPMENT THERE AND TO RESTORE THAT BUILDING.

THE STANDARD MARINE BUILDING, AT THE SAME TIME, HIS EXPECTATION WAS THAT THE CITY WOULD PROVIDE HIM WITH SOME INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE SIDEWALKS AND STREET SCAPE ENHANCEMENTS, ETC.

THE CITY HAD NO MONEY TO DO THAT.

THE MONEY COULD HAVE BEEN IN DISARRAY HAD WE DEDICATED ANY FOCUS TO THE.

WE COULD HAVE PUT MONEY INTO THAT.

THAT WOULD THEN HAVE SAID TO HIM, YOU'RE SERIOUS ABOUT THIS AREA.

I'M GOING TO MOVE AHEAD WITH IT.

THIS BUILDING IS IN SUCH DANGER RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHAT ICRA IS.

IN LARGE PART, THAT'S WHY THE BUILDING IS IN TROUBLE.

IT'S AND NOW I'VE JUST TALKED TO HIM AGAIN.

HE'S NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING UNLESS THE CITY DOES SOMETHING TO HELP.

THAT AREA IS IN HIS MIND.

IF YOU DRIVE DOWN NORTH SECOND STREET AND LOOK AT STANDARD GREEN, TELL ME IT'S NOT BLIGHTED. IT IS.

AND IT'S IN OUR AREA.

SO SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST TO TRY TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE WE DON'T SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF ANY KIND, HAVE ACTUALLY DONE HARM TO REDEVELOPMENT AND WE'VE DONE IT TO OURSELVES.

SO I, I AGAIN WILL SAY TO YOU THAT I THINK THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS TO TAKE THE LANGUAGE OUT OF THE CHARTER. I WILL JOIN FORCES WITH ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO HOLD HANDS WITH ME AND GO TRY TO DO SOME EDUCATION ON IT IF WE GET THIS.

WHAT'S THE STOMACH OF THE GROUP TO CHANGE THIS IN ANY WAY? I FEEL I FEEL LIKE I WOULD TEND TO BE AS SUPPORTIVE OF TAKING IT OUT, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING I THINK I MEAN, WE MIGHT BE GIVING IT MIGHT BE AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A PRETTY GOOD, EASY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY WE THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER NOT TO BE IN THERE, WHETHER PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTAND THAT OR READ BETWEEN THE LINES AND COME UP WITH OTHER OTHER THINGS THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY TRUE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN CONTROL THAT, THOUGH.

YOU KNOW, I DO THINK I DO WORRY A LITTLE BIT THAT IT SENDS A MESSAGE THAT THE CITY ISN'T AS SUPPORTIVE OF CRA AS WE PROBABLY WANT THE CITY TO APPEAR TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

WELL, I'M NOT SURE WHEN WE SAY THE CITY, I'M NOT SURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COMMUNITY OR WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COMMISSION.

THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE, RIGHT? JON AND BRADLEY HAVEN'T HEARD YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS YET, EITHER OF YOU WANT TO GIVE BRADLEY? YES, HE'S GOING TO.

I HAVEN'T TALKED TO THAT. BUT MY MY OPINION IS THAT I LIKE THE CITY HAVING MORE ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP THE CITIZENS AND THAT SEEMS TO BE RESTRICTIVE ON THEIR ABILITY TO DO SO. SO I AM I'M I'M FINE TAKING THIS OUT.

LET'S LET'S LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE OR THE CITIZENS THE COMMISSIONERS MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS ON. YOU'RE RIGHT.

I TEND TO AGREE.

[00:35:01]

YOU KNOW, IF WELL ABOUT IT. AND THEY OUGHT TO FEEL SPECIAL ORDER AT THAT TIME AND THE REASSURANCE, THE NEED TO BE GIVEN TO BE DONE, THEN IT'S GOING TO SUNSET FOREVER AND 18, 19 YEARS IT WILL TAKE THEM IF THE LAST TIME AROUND IS ANY INDICATION, TWO OR THREE YEARS TO GET IT THROUGH, TO GET STARTED. SO THEN YOU GOT 15 YEARS OF COLLECTION AND I'M GOING TO FIND OUT IF IT'S ANYTHING LIKE THE TRACK RECORD WHEN WE HAVE IT'S NOT FEASIBLE.

SO MORE THAN LIKELY WON'T SEE IT.

BUT IF SOMEONE CAN REALLY, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT HAPPEN, THEN I GUESS I'D BE WOULD BE VERY NAIVE TO LIMIT THE ABILITY FOR THE CITY COMMISSION.

AND THEN THROUGH THEM, THE TAXPAYERS CAN MAKE HER OR THE CITY RESIDENTS CAN MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD AS TO WHETHER THEY WOULD SUPPORT IT OR NOT.

I'M NOT A SUPPORTER OF THE MAYOR.

IT'S OK, MS..

BRYAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS? I AGREE. OK, SO IS IT DO I HAVE A MOTION TO REMOVE THIS LANGUAGE FROM THE CHARTER? SO THEN I'LL GO, I'LL MAKE A.

THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE DECISION TO REMOVE SECTION 187 FROM THE CHARTER, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSITION? MR. I THINK IT SHOULD BE OUT OF THE.

THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED WE WOULD BE OK.

THANK YOU. GREAT.

ALL RIGHT. YOU DON'T YOU THINK IT'LL BE EASIER THAN 15 YEARS AGO NOW? I THINK IT MIGHT BE TOO.

I KNOW MY LIFE WAS BACK THEN AND I LIKE IT NOW.

OH, THERE YOU GO.

SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE.

ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM FIVE POINT TO DISCUSSION OF THE OATH, PREAMBLE AND LANGUAGE

[5.2 DISCUSSION: OATH/PREAMBLE, ETHICS LANGUAGE]

WE HAVE IN OUR PACKAGE.

WE I HAVE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE.

WE DISCUSSED AT ONE OF OUR LAST MEETINGS ABOUT THE OATH OF OFFICE.

HERE'S AN OATH OF OFFICE FOR FOUR ALL PUBLIC OFFICERS IN FLORIDA, WHICH IS ACTUALLY CONTAINED IN ONE OF THE CRIMINAL STATUTES.

IT'S STRANGE. YEAH, BUT THEN IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR FLORIDA IS AN OATH OF OFFICE FOR STATE AND JUDICIAL, I BELIEVE, OFFICERS.

AND IT'S MORE LIKE THE OATH THAT WE WERE USED TO HERE.

BUT OURS HAS A FEW MORE WORDS IN IT.

BUT THE CITY'S BEEN USING ANYWAY.

OK, JUST TO REFRESH OUR MEMORIES ON THIS, THE REASON THAT THIS IS BACK IN FRONT OF US, THERE WERE SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WE HAD EARLY ON ABOUT HAVING AN ETHICS CODE AND BECAUSE FOR VARIOUS REASONS, THAT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE A FEASIBLE THING TO APPROACH.

WE DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING THE OATH OF OFFICE THAT COMMISSIONERS TAKE WHEN THEY'RE SWORN IN TO INCLUDE STATEMENTS ABOUT ADHERING TO AN ETHICS CODE OF SOME KIND AND MORALS CODE, ETHICS CODE, WHATEVER WORDS WE THOUGHT WOULD DO RIGHT.

SO THAT'S THE DISCUSSION AND WHY IT'S HERE.

NOW, I HAVE BEEN APPROACHED SINCE OUR LAST MEETING BY AT LEAST TWO CITIZENS WHO WERE EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED THAT WE DID NOT PUT AN ETHICS CODE INTO THE CHARTER.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU HAVE HEARD ANY KIND OF FEEDBACK OR NOT, BUT THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO FEEL THAT THAT WE HAVE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS FROM TIME TO TIME. THIS IS NOT JUST A STATEMENT ABOUT THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT IN THE CITY FROM TIME TO TIME. WE HAVE HAD GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO ABIDE BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW, BUT NOT THE SPIRIT WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR DEALINGS IN THEIR ROLE AS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL.

AND THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT SOMEHOW THE CHARTER INDICATE THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS COMMUNITY WANTS.

SO ANY COMMENTS?

[00:40:01]

I GUESS I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED OF WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

OK. I THINK THAT THE THE LANGUAGE THAT THAT MS. AND EVEN IF IT WERE A STATEMENT THAT JUST SAID, I, YOU KNOW, I I COMMIT TO ADHERING TO THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW AS WELL AS THE LETTER OF THE LAW.

I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR A BOOK OF THE BIBLE HERE.

I THINK THAT WHAT THEY'RE THEY'RE LOOKING FOR IS THAT THAT PEOPLE SAY THEY'RE GOING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND THEY CAN HOLD THEIR FEET TO IT.

MS. DAVIS, IT'S ALL THE LIGHTS JUST WENT ON IN MY MIND, MS. DAVIS, I AM I IN MY THOUGHT WE HAD RECEIVED AN EMAIL BACK IN JUNE FROM PUBLIC COMMENT AND THAT HAD THAT A STATEMENT KIND OF ADDRESSING THAT IN PUBLIC AND ABOUT PUBLIC INTEGRITY AND HONESTY AND TRUST. AND I THINK AT THAT TIME WE THOUGHT, WELL, MAYBE WE COULD INCORPORATE IT INTO THE I GUESS I WOULD I DIDN'T REALLY DO THAT TYPE OF ITEM.

I THOUGHT MAYBE IT COULD BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT TRYING TO ADDRESS SOCIAL JUSTICE, A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN ALSO WANTING TO HAVE A CODE OF ETHICS.

I KIND OF LIKE WHAT TWENTY SEVEN DID AND TRY AND AND SOME OF OUR PEER CHARTER CITY CHARTERS HAVE BEEN SAYING THE BILL WILL BE A CODE OF ETHICS ORDINANCE PUT IN PLACE.

BUT ANYWAY, MY THOUGHT WAS THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT THAT THAT PUBLIC THAT PARAGRAPH I DID TALK ABOUT KNOW PERFORMING DUTIES OF THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF PERSONAL INTEGRITY, FAIRNESS, HONESTY, AND NOT USING CITY POSITION FOR IMPROPER PERSONAL GAIN.

AND SO I THINK MAYBE THE IDEA WAS TO INCORPORATE SOME LANGUAGE LIKE THAT INTO THE OFFICE.

AND I WILL NOTE THAT AT LEAST ONE OF OUR CITIES DOES HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE FOR AN OATH IN THEIR CHARTER.

HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THIS IS BASICALLY VERY SIMILAR TO THE STATE ONE.

JUST TO GO BACK AND ADDRESS YOUR COMMENT, MARGARET, ABOUT THE THE IDEA OF HAVING A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ETHICS CODE, WHICH IS WHAT THE TWO THOUSAND SEVEN GROUP DID, AND BECAUSE AT THAT TIME, THE CITY COMMISSION, CITY COMMISSION AT THAT TIME DID NOT WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG WITH TRYING TO SEND THAT TO THE PEOPLE FOR A VOTE.

AND I TRIED AS A CITY CITY COMMISSIONER TO GET THE COMMISSION ITSELF A LATER COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH AN ETHICS CODE AND ADOPT IT FROM THE CITY.

I WAS TOLD THEN THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME HAD ENOUGH ASPECTS AND THEY DIDN'T NEED A CODE.

AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT WHEN WE MET WITH THE COMMISSION, THERE WAS SOME PUSHBACK FROM THE COMMISSION AND ACTUALLY FROM THE CITY MANAGER TO SAY, IF YOU PUT IN AN ORDINANCE THAT OR A PART OF THE CHARTER THAT HAS AN ETHICS CODE IN IT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PROCESS TO ADDRESS SOMEBODY WHO IS BELIEVED TO HAVE VIOLATED THAT.

AND THE WORDS I BELIEVE WE WERE TOLD WERE BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR.

SO I I MEAN, THIS IS JUST A RECAP OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THAT GOT US TO THIS POINT TODAY. I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT WE SHOULDN'T DO IT OR WE SHOULD DO IT.

I'M JUST REMINDING MYSELF THAT THIS IS HOW WE GOT.

JON, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

* I LOVE THE WAY THE CONVERSATION WENT BECAUSE I ACTUALLY OFFERED TO ASSIST IN WRITING.

IT WAS THAT WHEN WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE STATUTE AND LOOKING AT THE CONSTITUTION, IT HAS STATE AND COUNTY OFFICERS AS AN OFFICE FOR THEM.

BUT I MEAN, KIND OF GOT TO THIS POINT IS THE LETTER OF THE LAW AS THEY ARE TO TAKE THE RECORD AND TAKE IT OATH IN THE FOLLOWING FORM, IN THE FORM IS IN THE STATUTE.

SO I KIND OF TOOK THAT AS WELL.

I CAN'T REWRITE IT.

YOU KNOW, THEY TELL US WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO SAY.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT INCLUDES MUNICIPALITIES SO OR SUBDIVISIONS, WHICH WOULD BE A

[00:45:06]

MUNICIPALITY. SO I'M JUST HALEP, MAYBE WE MAY BE UNDER HOME RULE.

WE CAN, BECAUSE OUR CHARTER OFFICE WE CAN BUT AND MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD.

AND I DIDN'T WORK ON MY PROJECT FOR THAT REASON.

BUT I GUESS, JAMIE, WOULD THAT BE A REASON WHY WE CAN DO THIS? BECAUSE WE ARE A CHARTER CITY, RIGHT? EXACTLY RIGHT. YES.

WELL, NOT A CHARTER CITY.

WE ARE HOME. RULE YOUR CITY.

ALL CITIES IN FLORIDA HAVE CHARTERS.

YES. I THINK THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD FOR ME TO HEAR RIGHT NOW, GIVEN THE REST OF THE WORLD TODAY, WOULD BE THAT THE WAY THE LAW IS SET UP PREVENTS US FROM TELLING SOMEBODY THEY HAVE TO BE ETHICAL.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE.

IT REALLY WOULD BE.

SO OK, SO SO WE CAN DO SOMETHING APPARENTLY MS. KOSACK. IF WE DO SOMETHING, THEN DO WE HAVE TO CONSTRUCT PROCEDURAL NOW AND ENFORCEMENT PROCESSES? IF THEY DON'T ABIDE BY THAT, THEN WHAT HAPPENS OTHERWISE? IS IT MORE OF A PREAMBLE, AN ASPIRATIONAL.

MR. BEAN, DID YOU HAVE YOUR COMMENTS? YES, SIR, I DID.

I DID. I HAD A I DO.

WE NOT CURRENTLY SWEAR IN OUR OUR CURRENTLY.

I THOUGHT THAT WE DID AND WE DON'T.

WE DEFINITELY NEED TO SWEAR THAT I COMPLETELY IN FAVOR OF AN OATH OF OFFICE HERE.

AND I JUST I JUST READ THROUGH THE FOUR TO ONE AS WELL AS THE COUNTIES.

I LIKE THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THAT WE CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION TO THE FIRST AND WHATNOT.

BUT BUT I'M IN FAVOR WITH REALLY ANYTHING THAT WAS RIGHT HERE BUT NEEDS TO BE KNOW THERE IS AN OPENING.

WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDING THE ETHICS STATEMENT TO THAT OATH.

EXACTLY RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? WELL, IF WE SAY THAT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ADDING IN A CLAUSE THAT HAS TO DO WITH THAT BIG STORY, THEN IT IS THE IMPLICATION THAT THE CITY COMMISSION AFTER THEN RIGHT THROUGH ORDINANCE AND ETHICS CODE, I DON'T BELIEVE.

SO I THINK THAT IF WE LOOK AT THE OATH, THE WAY IT IS NOW, THE OATH THAT I THAT I PROVIDED TO YOU AS BACKUP, WHICH IS COVERED UNDER THE STATE STATUTES, EIGHT SEVENTY SIX POINT ZERO FIVE, THAT'S THE OATH THAT THIS ALL CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES THAT ARE APPOINTED AND AND TAKE AN OATH, SOME EMPLOYEES TAKE AN OATH TO AN APPOINTED BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD BE TAKING.

WE HAVE A HYBRID OF THAT RIGHT NOW IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.

WOULD YOU MIND, PLEASE, JUST READING THIS FAIRLY BRIEF AND IT'S VERY BRIEF.

IT SAYS THE THE OATH FOR PUBLIC, ALL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IS I A CITIZEN OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND BEING EMPLOYED BY OR AN OFFICER OF AND A RECIPIENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS AS SUCH, EMPLOYEE OR OFFICER DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT I WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

OK, SO THAT'S ALL WE'VE ASKED OUR CITY COMMISSIONERS TO PLEDGE TO THAT'S NOT WE ADD ON TO THAT. WE ADD ON THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY.

YEAH, THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY.

BUT WOULD NOT I MEAN, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THE OATH SAYS, I WILL FOLLOW THE LAW.

AND ALL I'M ASKING IS TO CONSIDER IS WHETHER THAT ADDRESSES OR NOT MS. KOSACK.

SO SO WE HAD WHEN YOU SIT ON A BOARD, ALSO LET US PROVIDE A 16 PAGE OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, CODE OF ETHICS AND PUBLIC OFFICES AND OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES THAT I HAVE TO SIGN AND ACKNOWLEDGE READING.

SO AND THAT GOES INTO MANY, MANY MORE SPECIFICS OF BEHAVIOR AND MORE ETHICAL.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ALSO PART OF WHAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO DO.

[00:50:02]

SO I MEAN, THAT'S OUT THERE.

I FEEL THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WANTING SOMETHING JUST, YOU KNOW, WANT A MORE BROADLY CONSTRUCTED PARAGRAPH LIKE THAT ONE THAT A RESIDENT SENT IN.

AND I HAD TOLD THAT SAME LETTER THAT MARGARET DAVIS WAS SPEAKING ABOUT BECAUSE IT WAS A PRETTY WELL CONSTRUCTED PARAGRAPH.

YOU KNOW, WE COULD PROBABLY WEREN'T MISSED IT A LITTLE BIT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S MORE AGAIN AND I THINK I THINK THE FLORIDA STATUTE TYPE OF STUFF ADDRESSES SPECIFICS.

AND THEN THIS IS MAYBE MORE OF A I USE THE WORD FLOWERY, BUT, YOU KNOW, CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC TRUST.

AND THAT WOULD YOU'RE YOU'RE THINKING IS THAT THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO OUR OWN.

THAT'S MY QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE PUT THAT.

AND THERE WAS ONE THOUGHT AT ONE TIME, DO WE PUT THAT UNDER SECTION 136 SO MUCH AS THE PREAMBLE TO THAT THAT TALKS ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OR WHATEVER? YOU KNOW, HERE'S WHAT WE EXPECT.

AND THEN WE GO INTO THE ADMINISTRATIVE WHATEVER, ONE THIRTY SIX DEALT WITH.

OK, SO WHAT WAS THE GROUP TAKE ON THIS? IS THIS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO SPEND SOME MORE TIME DISCUSSING? MR. THE ARTICLE TWO, SECTION EIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTION IS SEVERAL SECTIONS RELATING TO ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT BY MS. THAT IS ALSO COVERED THERE.

SO NOT ONLY THE STATE STATUTES ALSO IN THE CONSTITUTION.

BUT WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT RELATE TO STATE EMPLOYEES, SO I GUESS YOU COULD GET INTO AN ARGUMENT OF IS THAT APPLICABLE TO THOSE AT THE CITY LEVEL? IS GROWING UP ALL THE WAY TO CONSTITUTIONAL AND CANDIDATES, ALL LIKE THE PUBLIC OFFICERS, RESEARCH OFFICES, ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE WHO BREACHES THE PUBLIC TRUST PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO IS CONVICTED OF A FELONY? YES, I THINK IT COULD BE BROUGHT ENOUGH.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO THE STATE EMPLOYEES.

THIS IS OUR PUBLIC OFFICERS AT ALL.

SO I THINK IT WOULD APPLY LOCALLY AS WELL.

AMY, SORRY.

YES, SORRY.

I DID NOT GET TO SEE THE EMAIL FROM JANE OR ANY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT, SO I'M NOT SURE A LITTLE BIT OUT OF THE LOOP ON THAT ONE.

BUT AS FAR AS WHAT MS. DAVIS, IN THIS CASE, I SAY, I THINK WHEN WE DID IT AND 2007, THERE WAS SOME PUBLIC INPUT OF WARNING AND FLOURY PART JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF SOMETHING IN THE CHARTER.

THAT WAS KIND OF THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT.

AND I REMEMBER IT BEING IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT.

NOT IN DEPTH, OF COURSE.

WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN ON THE STREET IN FERNANDINA BEACH DOES NOT PICK UP THE CHARTER AND READ IT WITH A REGULAR SORT OF BASIS.

I MEAN, THAT THE AVERAGE PERSON SITTING ON THE BEACH DOESN'T KNOW THAT SECTION ONE THIRTY NINE AND A HALF, ZERO POINT ONE IS ANYTHING.

RIGHT, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH IT WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB.

WE'RE A LITTLE BIT MORE FAMILIAR WITH IT, BUT THE AVERAGE PERSON WANTS TO KNOW IN THEIR FACE WHAT IS IT THAT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IS PROMISING TO DO.

NOT A PARTICULAR PLATFORM, BUT WHAT IS IT AS A PERSON THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL IS PROMISING TO DO ON THEIR BEHALF? SO IN MY MIND, HAVING WHAT WE'RE CALLING FLOWERY OR ASPIRATIONAL LANGUAGE IN THE OATH PUTS IT OUT THERE, IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE THAT WE STARTED THE MEETING WITH. IT PUTS IT OUT THERE.

THIS IS WHAT WE BELIEVE.

THIS IS WHAT I'M DOING AS A PUBLIC SERVANT.

YOU KNOW, THAT SEEMS TO BE FORGOTTEN A LOT.

MR. MORRISON, I AGREE WITH I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, AT LEAST SINCE I'VE EVER LIVED HERE, THAT WE'VE EVER HAD AN ETHICS ISSUE WITH ANY OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

AND I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE THE CASE.

AND EVEN THOUGH I DO THINK THAT THERE'S SOME SENTIMENT FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT, YOU KNOW, CONFUSES, YOU KNOW, ETHICS AND AND LAW AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT MIGHT LEAD THEM TO SOME

[00:55:06]

OF THE EMAILS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN.

BUT EITHER WAY, I THINK, LIKE YOU SAID, I THINK HAVING SOME SORT OF FLOWERY STATEMENT LIKE THAT WOULD PROBABLY MAKE THESE PEOPLE FEEL A LITTLE BIT BETTER ABOUT IT.

SO CAN WE PUT THIS IN THE PREAMBLE, PART OF THE SECTION BY THIS? ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE PARAGRAPH THAT WE GOT IN THE EMAIL? WELL, I MEAN, CAN WE START WITH THAT AND AND HONE IT INTO WHAT WE THINK REPRESENTS WHAT SHOULD BE FAIR, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO? YEAH. SO IN SECTION ONE TWENTY ONE HERE, LIKE A SEPARATE PAIR, I HAVE TO BY THE WAY, OBVIOUSLY AMEND THIS LANGUAGE TO TAKE OUT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE PROPER RIGHT.

BUT TO HAVE A SEPARATE PREAMBLE TYPE PARAGRAPH THAT DO WANT CHAPTER ONE.

TWELVE OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES REFERENCED SPECIFICALLY NOTE WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT WE GOT AN EMAIL IN JUNE, MAY OR JUNE, OK, TALKING ABOUT AN ETHICS CODE AND THERE'S A SAMPLE PARAGRAPH IN THAT.

CAN YOU REFERENCE, WHICH PARAGRAPH YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? THIS IS THE ONE FROM THIS IS FROM BRYAN.

THIS IS FROM MARGARET.

AND I CAN I CAN READ THE PARAGRAPH ONLY ABOUT THREE THREE LINES IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.

AND IT SAYS, PUBLIC TRUST IN THIS CITY IS BUILT ON THE CONDUCT OF ELECTED OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, BOARD MEMBERS AND VOLUNTEERS ONLY WHEN RESIDENTS HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, BOARD MEMBERS AND VOLUNTEERS WILL ACT FAIRLY.

AND HONESTLY, DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT FUNCTION PROPERLY.

THEREFORE, IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT ALL IN PUBLIC SERVANTS PERFORM THEIR DUTIES AT THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF PERSONAL INTEGRITY, FAIRNESS AND HONESTY, AND NEVER USE POSITION FOR IMPROPER PERSONAL GAIN, ACCEPTANCE OF UNEMPLOYMENT OR WHAT.

THE CITY IS IN AGREEMENT TO MEET THE STANDARD AND IMPLEMENTING AND ENFORCING THE CHARTER AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.

IT'S ALSO AN AGREEMENT TO SUPPORT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITIZENS OF FRANCE AND PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE, EQUAL RIGHTS, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND EQUAL TREATMENT FOR ALL.

AND OK, IF WE START WITH THAT AND THEN WHITTLE AWAY AT IT, BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY WAY TOO LONG TO GO INTO THE OATH.

BUT THERE ARE CERTAINLY KEY PHRASES IN THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE CAN ASK PEOPLE TO SWEAR THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE THERE TO DO.

I'M SORRY I THE FIRST THING YOU SAY MARGARET, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IS THIS IS VERY ASPIRATIONAL, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

AND GIVEN THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT, SOCIAL JUSTICE IS SUCH A FOCUS IN THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT. SO I THINK THERE'LL BE A LOT OF SUPPORT AND WE CAN'T FORGET ABOUT THE PERCEPTION OF THE HONESTY IN OUR COMMISSIONERS.

I AGREE WITH MEMBER MORE THAN THAT.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROBLEM.

BUT CERTAINLY THE COMMUNITY THINKS THE SENSORS WE SAW THAT IN THE CITIZENS SURVEY AND INCLUDING THIS WOULD KIND OF ADDRESS KIND OF WHERE THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT IN THE WORLD IS ON SOCIAL JUSTICE, AS WELL AS THE ATTITUDE TOWARD OUR CURRENT CITY GOVERNMENT.

AND WHEN THEY GET DOWN TO A BALLOT QUESTION, THAT'LL PROBABLY READ IN A WAY THAT MAKES PEOPLE FEEL PRETTY GOOD ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW? RIGHT. I THINK THAT WHAT WE AS AS SORT OF BRAND AMBASSADORS FOR THE CHARTER NEED TO CONSIDER DOING, THOUGH, IS TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COMMISSIONER AGREEING WITH THEM AND BEING ETHICAL.

RIGHT. BECAUSE THERE'S OFTEN YOU DON'T AGREE WITH MY STAND ON IT.

SO YOU'RE BEING UNETHICAL.

THERE'S OFTEN THAT STONE THAT GETS THROWN.

AND SO WE AS BRAND AMBASSADORS, I THINK NEED TO HELP FOLKS GET THAT DIFFERENCE.

AND IT'S EASIER TO GET WOUND UP IN IT OR SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS WEARING A MASK.

SO IT'S IT'S OUT THERE.

WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT.

YOU KNOW, I HATE TO TELL US ALL, BUT AS MS. BRYAN CAN ATTEST, ONCE YOU'VE SAID YES TO BEING ON THIS COMMITTEE, YOUR JOB NEVER ENDS.

[01:00:08]

SO THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR THAT.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO ASK TAMI TO PUT THAT ON AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON IT THE NEXT TIME WHEN SHE BRINGS IT BACK.

THAT MAKES SENSE. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT EMERGENCY POWERS.

[5.3 DISCUSSION: EMERGENCY POWERS]

THIS IS A SLIGHT CHANGE THROUGH.

YES, IT'S IT'S A SLIGHT CHANGE IF WE WISH TO TO TACKLE THIS.

I DID SOME RESEARCH SINCE COVID HAS BEEN AMONG US AND THE CITY COMMISSION HAS HAD TO ADOPT EMERGENCY ORDINANCES.

SO I STARTED LOOKING FOR THE CHARTER AND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR WHO HAS THE POWER TO DECLARE A STATE OF EMERGENCY, ETC.

AND I NOTICE THAT WE HAD IT NOWHERE IN OUR CITY CODE OR OUR CHARTER.

SO IT DIDN'T SAY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY MANAGER OR EVEN THE CITY COMMISSION.

WHAT I FOUND IN MY RESEARCH IS THAT IF THEY'RE IF IT'S SILENT OR NOBODY SPECIFIC IS AUTHORIZED, THEN IT'S THE CITY COMMISSION BY MAJORITY VOTE, HOW THEY NORMALLY CONDUCT BUSINESS. SO I THOUGHT THAT WE SHOULD FIRST AND WE'VE ALREADY BEEN TO FIRST READING WITH THE CITY COMMISSION, HAVING AN ORDINANCE THAT DISCUSSES WHO HAS EMERGENCY POWERS.

SO I PUT IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT THE CITY MANAGER AND MAYOR WILL JOINTLY EXERCISE THAT POWER, BUT THAT IF THERE ARE ANYTHING LIKE CURFEW ORDINANCES PUT INTO PLACE WITHIN TWO WORKING DAYS, THE CITY COMMISSION, IF THEY CAN, IS GOING TO CONVENE AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S A GOOD IDEA AND AND TAKE THEIR VOTE.

SO. I SAW IN SOME CITIES, THE MORE RESEARCH I'VE DONE, THE MORE I SEE THAT IT'S IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, NOT NECESSARILY IN A CHARTER, BUT SOME DO HAVE AT LEAST A STATEMENT OR A SECTION IN THE CHARTER ABOUT WHO EXERCISES THE EMERGENCY POWERS.

SO I WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION AND SEE WHAT YOU ALL THINK.

AND IF MR. DAVIS OR ANYBODY ELSE HAS DONE ANY RESEARCH IN THIS AREA TO SEE WHAT YOU FOUND.

NO, OF COURSE NOT.

YOU KNOW, I DID LOOK IN AS WELL.

AND, YOU KNOW, IN GENERAL, YOU GET THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AND AN EMERGENCY, AN EXECUTIVE ORDER AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ARE USUALLY HANDED DOWN THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION AND ORDINANCES OR THE LEGISLATIVE.

AND SO MOST OF THE CITIES, IF THEY ADDRESS THIS, THEY DO.

THEY JUST ARE ADDRESSING EMERGENCY ORDINANCES.

AND BECAUSE IF THE COMMISSION OR COUNCIL IS TO PROVIDE THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION.

AND AND SO WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A STRONG MAYOR, YOU USUALLY DON'T GO TO THE EXECUTIVE ORDER. THAT BEING SAID, I DID FIND THE PROVISIONS OF AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCES THAT I DID FIND. AT LEAST ONE OF OUR CITIES DID HAVE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ABOUT EMERGENCY, ABOUT GIVING A MAYOR EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY TO CALL UP A STATE OF EMERGENCY, ALTHOUGH THE CONDITIONS THAT HE COULD DO THAT ARE PRETTY LIMITED.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE I'M ABLE TO GET AT LEAST FOUR MEMBERS PUT TO GET TOGETHER OUT OF THE COMMISSION, IN OTHER WORDS, AND THE NATURE OF THE DISASTER BEING EMINENT.

AND SO THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY CONCERN WITH THE LANGUAGE HERE DOES SEEM TO BE A LITTLE BROAD. SO I KIND OF WANT TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE MAYOR STEP IN AND BE ABLE TO DO THIS BECAUSE THE COMMISSION CAN'T GET TOGETHER AND MAYBE ONLY FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, ONE PERIOD OR A CITY THAT I FELT THAT HAD IN THEIR CHARTER.

IT'S ONLY GOOD FOR, I THINK, 10 DAYS AND MAKES CLEAR THE COMMISSION CAN REVOKE THE ANY ORDER THAT THE MAYOR PUTS INTO PLACE, BECAUSE, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THE MAYOR I HAVE A LOT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION HERE, AT LEAST WHERE HE WILL BE DIRECTLY ELECTED NOW.

NOW, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER MORE.

I'M TRYING NOT TO GO INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL.

ANSWER QUESTION, ISN'T IT WASN'T IT YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS TO HAVE THE MAYOR AND

[01:05:08]

THE CITY MANAGER JOINTLY SET ONE OR THE OTHER AND HAVE A TURF WAR WITH THAT, SOME SORT OF FAILSAFE PROTECTION THAT YOU PUT IN THERE? YEAH, WELL, I DID IT BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT.

AND HONESTLY, I HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT WE'RE GOING TO DIRECTLY ELECT OUR MAYOR, WHICH MAKES IT A LITTLE DIFFERENT. BUT I, I SUGGESTED THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER JOINTLY EXERCISED POWER BECAUSE IN MY EXPERIENCE, THE TWO OF THEM ARE WALKING HAND IN HAND ANYWAY. AND I THOUGHT OUR COMMUNITY WOULD FEEL A LITTLE BIT BETTER IF THE CITY MANAGER OR THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD OF THE CITY WHO WAS NOT ELECTED AND ONE ELECTED OFFICIAL, THE MAYOR, MADE THE DECISION TOGETHER VERSUS JUST HAVING ONE OR THE OTHER.

ADMITTEDLY, I DIDN'T FIND THAT IN ANY OTHER CITIES, BUT THAT'S WHAT IS GOING TO BE AND THAT'S WHAT WAS APPROVED AT FIRST READING FOR THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE WITH THE EMERGENCY POWERS ORDINANCE. AND MARGARET IS QUITE RIGHT THAT FIRST YOU IF YOU WOULD SAY AND THAT'S WHAT I SAID AS THE CITY MANAGER AND THE MAYOR CAN DECLARE A STATE OF EMERGENCY TOGETHER AND GET US GOING DOWN THAT PATH.

EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO, THOUGH, THE INTENTION IS THAT THE CITY COMMISSION IS GOING TO AFFIRM IT IN A MEETING WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS OF THEM MAKING THE DECLARATION OR IF THEY HAVE TO PUT A CURFEW IN PLACE, THEY CAN PUT A CURFEW IN PLACE.

BUT AGAIN, THE CITY COMMISSION HAS TO COME WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS AND AFFIRM THEIR DECISION OR OVERTURN IT AND DO SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S ALREADY IN THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE FOR IT. IN THE CHARTER ITSELF.

I MEAN, THAT'S THIS THIS IS GIVING YOU ALL AN OPPORTUNITY.

AND THAT'S WHY I PUT IT ON HERE TO WEIGH IN IN TERMS OF THESE ARE PRETTY THEY'RE NOT JUST ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS.

I DON'T THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TO ADDRESS SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN THE CHARTER, IF YOU WISH. BUT I WANTED TO GIVE YOU ALL THE ABILITY TO WEIGH IN.

AND IF YOU FELT, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE THE MAYOR SHOULD BE THE ONE OR CAN BE THE ONE WITH AFFIRMATION FROM THE CITY COMMISSION, THAT I WOULD SEND THAT MESSAGE.

ON SECOND READING, WHEN THEY'RE DISCUSSING THEIR ORDINANCE SO THAT WE COULD HAVE IT EITHER BE THE SAME IN THE CHARTER AND THE ORDINANCES, OR THAT YOU ALL COULD KIND OF LET THEM KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING. SO THE ORDINANCE SINCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION NOW IS SAYING THAT IT WOULD BE A JOINT EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY MANAGER TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.

AND THE REALITY OF THAT IS, BASED ON MY RECOLLECTION AS MAYOR, WAS THAT THE PEOPLE THAT REALLY SAID IT WAS AN EMERGENCY WAS WHERE THE FIRE CHIEF AND THE POLICE CHIEF.

YES, SIR.

WELL, I THINK IT'S REALLY AN EFFORT WITH THEIR EXPERTIZE AND WE HAVE TO HAVE.

YES, BUT I MEAN, THE FIRST THING IS BASICALLY WHAT THE COUNTY DOES.

I MEAN, CITIES DON'T GENERALLY DECLARE A STATE.

THEY COULD HAPPEN, BUT THEY DON'T GENERALLY DECLARE A STATE OF EMERGENCY WITHOUT THE LARGER COUNTY OR REGION ALSO DOING IT.

SO USUALLY THE COUNTY DID SOMETHING FOR HURRICANES.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HAD A PANDEMIC IN RECENT HISTORY.

SO WE WAITED FOR THE COUNTY AND THEN WE FOLLOWED SUIT WITH A DECLARATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY. BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY.

THE CITY COULD DECLARE A STATE OF EMERGENCY WITHOUT THE COUNTY OR THE STATE TO ANY LIST WAS THERE. I WAS THINKING THAT ONE THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD THINK WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE IN THAT, WHERE YOU'RE STANDING ON AN ISLAND ON OUR OWN, WHICH WE ARE. I REALIZE YOU DECLARE A STATE OF EMERGENCY WHEN STATE AND LOCAL AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT ARE SAYING THAT IT'S JUST SOME RUN AWAY.

I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID AND WE'RE TRYING TO NARROW IT DOWN FOR SITUATIONS WHERE THE CITY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO CERTAIN THINGS.

THE MAYOR, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COMMANDER, CAN DO THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE.

AND I THINK WE WANT TO SUPPORT THEM.

I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO I WANT THE IDEA OF, YOU KNOW, I DECLARE AND IF IT'S NOT NECESSARY. AND SO THE STATE AND THE COUNTY, THE COUNTY, YOU STAY VERY CLOSELY IN THE CITY TYPICALLY, WHILE THE COUNTY PRETTY CLOSELY AS WELL.

AND SO I THINK HAVING THE LINES IS IMPORTANT AND NOT HAVING THEM ALONE.

I REALLY CAN'T SEE A GOOD REASON FOR THAT.

SO THAT WAS MY. MISS KOSACK, I REALLY DIDN'T CARE BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN THERE, AND WE JUST NEED TO SAY THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.

WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING IN THE CHARTER.

[01:10:02]

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT MARGARET WAS SAYING, IS THAT IT'S WHAT I LOOK.

AND SHE LOOKED IT'S NOT IN EVERY CHARTER.

IT'S NOT LIKE WE ARE BEHIND THE TIMES.

SOME SOME HABIT AND SOME DON'T.

AND THERE WERE MANY THAT DON'T.

WHEN I TRIED TO REMIND MYSELF OF CITIES THAT HAD SOMETHING IN THE CHARTER.

AND IF THEY HAVE IT IN THE CHARTER, THEY ALSO WILL HAVE ORDINANCES, I HAVE FOUND.

SO IN THE CHARTER WHEN THEY HAVE BOTH, IT WAS JUST A VERY GENERAL STATEMENT AND WE WOULD HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER WILL JOINTLY EXERCISE EMERGENCY POWERS OR DECLARE DECLARATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY.

SORRY, THAT'S IN ARTFUL LANGUAGE.

BUT IT WOULD JUST SAY A SIMPLE SENTENCE LIKE THAT OR TWO, AND THEN WE WOULD GET INTO THE NITTY GRITTY WITH THE ORDINANCES OR YOU CAN SAY NOTHING AND PEOPLE JUST GO TO THE ORDINANCES. IT WORKS EITHER WAY.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE A SIMILAR FEELING ABOUT WHETHER TO GO IN THE CHARTER OR NOT? I FEEL LIKE THE LESS WE BRING TO THE TABLE AND CHANGES THAT THIS DOESN'T CREATE A DIFFERENCE IN WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.

LET'S NOT PUT ANOTHER CHANGE OUT THERE.

YEAH, I FEEL LIKE THE COMPLEXITIES OF TRYING TO GET THE LANGUAGE RIGHT WITHOUT SHOOTING OURSELVES IN IT, BUT IT'S KIND OF A GOOD ARGUMENT FOR WHY IT MIGHT BE WHY THESE OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO PUT THEM IN THEIR CHARTER.

AND I THINK IT WAS ORDINANCE, WHICH WAS REALLY WHAT I WAS CALLING MORE ABOUT.

AND THEN PASSING THE CHARTER IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE WAY AFTER THE ORDINANCE.

I'VE GOT TO LEAVE IT OUT OF THE DIALOG.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT IN THERE. SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE A STRONG FEELING ABOUT WANTING IT IN THE CHARTER? ALL RIGHT, THEN WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ORDER.

OK, AND NOW WE GO TO OLD BUSINESS, THE PROPOSED CHANGES.

[6.1 REFERENCE: PROPOSED CHANGES]

YOU JUST WANT US TO REVIEW THOSE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE RULE.

WELL, THAT WHEN WE SAY ALL, I MEAN, UNLESS HAS SOMETHING TO INTERJECT, MY THOUGHT IS THAT SOME OF THE PROVISIONS THAT WE ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO MAKE SURE AND THIS WOULD REALLY BE THROUGH YOUR OWN PERSONAL REVIEW, SOME OF YOU HAD SECTIONS THAT YOU HAVE CHANGES TO. AND I KNOW SECTION ELEVEN, WE HAD SEVERAL ITERATIONS OF CHANGES.

AND THERE WERE TIMES WHERE I KNOW MARGARET SAID THAT I HADN'T GOTTEN IN.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LANGUAGE IS JUST AS YOU WOULD LIKE IT FOR THE SECTIONS THAT YOU WORKED REALLY HARD ON AND THAT I DIDN'T MISS ANYTHING.

AND THEN THE REST OF IT, I THINK UNLESS WE'RE GOING BACK AND REHASHING ANY MAJOR ISSUES, ARE THE REMAINDER OF THE SECTIONS WHICH WE PUT IN THERE FOR YOU UNCHANGED OTHER THAN TAKING OUTSHOUT.

AND FOR THEY ARE NOT MAJOR THINGS, THOUGH I WILL SAY WE'VE GOTTEN THROUGH THE FINANCE SECTIONS. WE'VE GOTTEN THROUGH CERTAINLY ELECTIONS AND OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

SO THESE ARE OTHER SECTIONS I, I DON'T HAVE A FEELING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SOME OF THEM ARE TOTALLY UNNECESSARY, BECAUSE I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IF THEY WERE COVERED SOLELY BY STATE LAW, WE DIDN'T NEED THAT.

I DIDN'T FIND THAT. I THINK THAT THEY'RE PROBABLY FINE.

RIGHT. SO THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO DO ON THE CEILING AND BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH EVERYTHING IN THERE AS IT'S NOW WRITTEN.

YES. AND THEN IS IT THE EXPECTATION THAT AT THAT NEXT MEETING WE WOULD VOTE EARLY, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO AGAIN, UNLESS IF THEY'RE SO THERE WERE SOME SECTIONS WE DIDN'T GET TO.

AND I I THINK ALL OF YOU HAVE PROBABLY GONE ALL THE WAY THROUGH SECTION 144 OF THE CHARTER BY NOT READ IT. SO I THINK WE JUST NEED TO JUST TAKE EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE DONE AND MAKE SURE IT IS THE WAY THAT YOU WANT IT.

AND IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, YOU DON'T RECALL, DIDN'T GET IN THERE, WE NEED TO KNOW. AND AND THEN WE FIGURE OUT IF WE'RE MAKING CHANGES TO ANY OF THE OTHER SECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED.

MS. KOSOFF, CAN WE BE THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR YOU, BUT IS THERE A WAY THAT SHE CAN GET BACK TO US LIKE A REAL LAYOUT FORMAT? SO WE ARE FLIPPING THROUGH THE PAGES OF THE CHARTER.

SOMETIMES I FIND IT YOU KNOW, WE CAN WE CAN LOOK AT EACH ONE OF THESE SECTIONS AND ISOLATED. BUT THEN WHEN WE SEE THEM, THE REAL FORMAT, IT KIND OF COMES OUT DIFFERENTLY, IS THAT THAT POSSIBLE? ANYTHING LIKE THAT IS POSSIBLE.

IT IS POSSIBLE. SO YES.

AND SHE HEAD YES.

[01:15:02]

AS WELL. SO LET ME CLARIFY, THOUGH, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT'S FINE.

I STILL LIKE THE SIDE BY SIDE FORMAT.

I LIKE THAT FOR CITIZENS.

I LIKE THAT HAS A WORKING DOCUMENT.

BUT WHAT WE KEEP. LET ME JUST CLARIFY WHAT YOU WANT.

DO YOU WANT TO SEE? BECAUSE IF I DO, AN AUDIENCE THAT'S GOT TO LAY OUT IS WHERE YOU'RE FLIPPING THE PAGE.

IF I'M DOING STRIKETHROUGH, FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF THE SECTIONS LIKE SECTION NINE, I THINK WE STRUCK THROUGH THE WHOLE THING AND THEN LAID IT OUT AGAIN SIDE BY SIDE.

DO YOU JUST WANT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE WITH STRIKEOUTS AND UNDERLINES? IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE AN ENTIRE SECTION NINE STRIKE IN AND THEN SECTION NINE REPEATED WITH STRIKE THREES AND UNDERLINES THE TOTAL.

DO YOU WANT TO COMPLETELY.

I THINK THIS ONE JUST ONE TIME I HAD SHOT THE STRIKERS AND THE CHANGES AND YEAH, I LIKE THE FIVE AND FOR SURE.

BUT IT'S ALSO HELPFUL, I THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE WHOLE DOCUMENT LAID OUT AND HOW IT WILL READ. YES, YES.

WE CAN DO THAT. OK, SO SO MY QUESTION IS, ARE WE ALL OK WITH THAT? AND THAT'S WHAT'S COMING BACK TO US THE NEXT MS. DAVIS. I ACTUALLY THOUGHT LAST AND OUR LAST ARE JUNE 30TH MEETING.

WE ACTUALLY DID GET THROUGH THE WHOLE HARDER AND SOME OF THE SECTIONS THAT WE JUST GOT TOWARDS THE END AND WE THOUGHT I THOUGHT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT WERE REDUNDANT AND OR COULD BE MOVED. I DIDN'T SEE THOSE CHANGES MADE.

I DID NOT GO BACK AND PLAY THE TAPE TO CONFIRM I HAD HAPPY TO DO BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING TO DO THAT.

AND I'M ALSO HAPPY TO SAY, YES, I DO STILL HAVE A COMMENT TO SECTION ELEVEN TODAY.

I MEAN, I THINK I MADE IT TWICE.

I'M USING THAT WORD I'M LOOKING FOR.

OK, OK, LET ME TELL YOU.

LET ME TELL YOU, IF I IF I CAN, MADAM CHAIR, WHAT I DID, I WHAT I DID IN TERMS OF THE I DIDN'T HAVE NOTES ON ALL THE WAY THROUGH SECTION ONE FORTY FOUR AS TO CHANGES.

WHAT I DID WAS I TOOK THE MINUTES OF ALL OF THE MEETINGS THROUGH THE 30TH OF JUNE AND I LOOK I, I'VE FOLLOWED THOSE MINUTES AND WHAT SECTIONS AND I DIDN'T GET FROM THE MINUTES ANY CHANGES. BUT THEY SHOULDN'T BE MAJOR CHANGES.

RIGHT. OR THESE DAYS I THOUGHT FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ON THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS THAT WE HAD AGREED, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WE WOULD EXCLUDE TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM THE ACCOUNT THAT WE WOULD CARVE OUT, HAVE A PROVISO SAYING THAT THAT PROVISION DOESN'T APPLY TO THE CONSERVATION TRUST FUND MONEY.

YEAH, AND I CAN SEE THAT IN THE MINUTES, YOU KNOW, AS WE WENT ALONG HERE.

SO CAN YOU TELL ME NOW THIS WAY? I CAN I THAT MAY BE THE ONLY ONE.

I DO SEE THAT IN SECTION SEVENTY FOUR CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS.

JUST I MEAN I DON'T THINK I WAS AS SPECIFIC BUT YOU COULD JUST AT THE END OF THAT AFTER THE BEFORE THE PERIOD AFTER TEST FROM TIME TO TIME, IS THAT A SEMICOLON AND SAY WELL OF COURSE YOU HAVE A CONTRACT LAWYER.

SO I ALWAYS PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT NO FUNDS MAY BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE CONSERVATION LAND TRUST FUND TO ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT OR DIVISION.

I THINK THAT'S THE ACTUAL NAME OF THAT FUND.

YOU THINK I'D KNOW AFTER WRITING MY LITTLE MEMO LINE, MY NAME, MY DONATION.

BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S CALLED A CONSERVATION LAND TRUST FUND.

BUT WHATEVER THAT THE FOUR MEN FOR THAT IS, I KNOW WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT.

THE ORDINANCE SAYS THE FUNDS CAN BE USED JUST FOR THAT.

BUT AS WE KNOW, ORDINANCES CAN BE AMENDED BY THE COMMISSIONERS MAJORITY.

SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO PUT THIS IN THE CHARTER, WHICH BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE AND I THINK EVERYBODY AGREED TO THAT LAST TIME.

OK, ALL RIGHT.

I JUST DIDN'T PICK THAT UP.

AND THEN I KNOW JON AND I TALKED ABOUT A COUPLE OF PROVISIONS LIKE THE AD BILL OR THE SECTION OF RIGHT, THAT WE HAVE UNDER STATE LAW.

RIGHT. AND TO DELETE IT DID NOT COME OUT OF THE.

OK, I'M NOT I WAS NOT IN THE PACKAGE.

ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL LEAVE THAT ON.

JUST UNDER GENERAL POWERS EARLIER IN THE DAY, I CAN SAY THERE ARE SOME SECTIONS LIKE THAT THAT JUST SOMEHOW MAYBE DIDN'T I DIDN'T SEE IN THE AUGUST 10 DRAFT, OK, I'M HAPPY TO COME

[01:20:03]

BACK LIKE I DID BEFORE AND SIT WITH KATIE AND GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE.

OK, THAT'S GREAT.

THAT'LL WORK. RIGHT.

SO WHAT I'M HOPING THAT WE WILL HAVE WAS HERE AND I'M SORRY, GIVE ME THE WAY TO THE END OF THIS, BUT WE ALL GOT OUR LAST MEETINGS WEEK WHEN I'M A MEMBER.

AND THIS IS WHERE I REMEMBER ONE TIME WHEN WE TOOK THE LAST EPISODE.

I THINK BRIEFLY ABOUT THAT.

WE WANT TO READ SECTION NINE AS IT RELATED TO RUNOFF ELECTIONS.

WE TALKED ABOUT HAVING THAT DISCUSSION AGAIN TODAY.

AND BEFORE WE GO BACK AND BE BILINGUAL, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DO THAT NOW RATHER THAN AT ANOTHER MEETING. AND I GUESS YOU WOULD BE EASILY ADDRESSED QUICKLY WITH A HANDFUL OF THEM DOING ALL RIGHT. WE ARE RIGHT NOW, WE'RE BETWEEN AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, 50 PERCENT OR MORE IN LINE WITH ONLY ONE OFFICER FOR THIS ELECTION CYCLE WHERE THERE COULD BE A RUNOFF.

SO, I MEAN, THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW.

WE'VE PREVIOUSLY HAD THREE I'M SORRY, TWO OF THE THREE, WHICH COULD BE QUITE A PROBLEM FOR THE CITY. SO, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE PLURALITY OR AFFIRMATIVE VOTE.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE RIGHT CHOICE IS GOING TO BE EXPLORED WHEN IT'S AVAILABLE.

SO HOPEFULLY MAYBE THAT'LL BE AVAILABLE THE NEXT TRANCHE OF THE COMMITTEE TO ACCEPT A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

BUT IT'S NOT THERE TODAY.

SO WE'LL LOOK AT IT.

THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS WE HAVE TO AVOID A RUNOFF ELECTION.

THERE BE NO I THINK TEN DAYS AFTER THE GENERAL ELECTION IS TO CHANGE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE TO FOUR A.M.. SO BASICALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN MY UNDERSTANDING, IF I'M SAYING THIS INCORRECTLY, I'M ON ELECTION SPECIALS NOW ANYWAY.

ANYWAY, THE THREE PERSON ELECTION THAT'S OCCURRING TOMORROW WITH EITHER OF THEM GOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT. THEN THERE WOULD BE THAT GUY SHOULD BE IN THE GENERAL.

THE OTHER TWO SEATS WOULD BE DECIDED TOMORROW.

* THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

ALL OF THEM COULD BE SEATED IN NOVEMBER.

EITHER ONE, I DON'T REALLY CARE.

BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING TO AVOID THE REAL ISSUE.

THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T BEEN HERE FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS OR 15 YEARS ARE MY ENTIRE LIFE.

THIS HAPPENS ALMOST EVERY ELECTION SEASON AND IT DOESN'T ALWAYS WIND OUT THE WAY IT SHOULD. AND SO I DON'T KNOW.

THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT SHOW UP ARE THE ONES WHO REALLY CARE ABOUT VOTING.

BUT IF YOU PEOPLE VOTER FATIGUE BY NOVEMBER 3RD, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SHOW UP FOR THE SECOND ONE. I CAN'T GET MY WAY TO GO.

SOMETIMES IT'S JUST RIDICULOUS.

SO, I MEAN, IT'S HARD TO BEAT THAT.

BUT BUT I WILL THIS IF THERE'S THERE'S A LOT TO IT, YOU GET VERY LOW TURNOUT.

AND I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT.

I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THE ELECTIONS DONE IN ANOTHER WAY.

WE HAVE TWO MEMBERS HERE WHO WEREN'T THERE AT THE LAST MEETING WE TALKED ABOUT.

IT WAS A TIE VOTE. I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST FIND IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT TO DISCUSS. AND IF NOT, I'LL SHUT UP ABOUT IT UNTIL WE'RE DONE.

OK, SO THE QUESTION ON THE TABLE, I WANT TO DISCUSS WAYS TO REVISE OUR ELECTION STATEMENTS THAT WILL PREVENT A RUNOFF.

IS THAT CORRECT? I GET THAT RIGHT.

BUT THE RUNOFF AFTER THE GENERAL ELECTION, WHICH WOULD BE THE FIRST TO THE END OF NOVEMBER. SO THE RUNOFF POST IS DONE AT THAT ELECTION.

SO IF THERE'S THAT, IT COULD BE YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S TWO, THEN THERE ARE LIKE ALL THE ELECTIONS ARE HELD IN THE PRIMARY AND THEY DIDN'T SEEM TO BE VERY POPULAR OR WE MOVED TO NOVEMBER, FIRST TUESDAY, NOVEMBER, THE ELECTION YEAR.

AND IT'S A PLURALITY, NOT AN OPINION ABOUT.

SO THIS IS JUST THE DUMBEST QUESTION EVER FIND.

AGAIN, PLURALITY ANSWERS AFFIRMATIVE IN THE MAJORITY ARE MAJORITY VOTE, I GUESS IS WHY I THINK THE MAJORITY VOTE WOULD WIN THE ELECTION.

AND THAT'S PROBABLY THAT'S 40 PERCENT PLUS ONE VOTE.

NOW THAT I BELIEVE IS THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE, IN FACT.

SO IT'S PLURALITY IS WHERE THE CANDIDATE WITH THE MOST VOTES JUST WINS, REGARDLESS IF IT'S TWENTY PERCENT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I MEAN, THEY WOULD ONLY RECEIVE FIVE OR MORE CANDIDATES, I GUESS.

YEAH. I AM I ALLOWED TO SHARE MY SCREEN.

IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN DO.

I DON'T KNOW. IT'S PROBABLY WHY WE SHOULD SAY YES, YOU ARE ALLOWED BUT WE'RE SETTING IT UP SO YOU CAN, IT HAS TO BE ADJUSTED OVER HERE ON THE TECHNOLOGY SIDE.

GOTCHA. WELL, I'M. SHARE IT OUT WITH EVERYONE ON THE COMPUTER, BUT SEE IT OR THAT I MEAN, I'M SORRY THAT I PUT TOGETHER REAL QUICK FOR THIS DISCUSSION SO THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS ON AS WE CONTINUE ON THAT TALKS ABOUT VOTER TURNOUT TO MAXIMIZE VOTER

[01:25:05]

TURNOUT. I HAVE A SOLUTION FOR US HERE.

GO AHEAD AND TRY IT. THERE YOU GO.

MY HOST, HOST PARTIES, DISABLED PARTICIPANTS, SCREEN SHARING.

RIGHT. WE'RE GETTING. I LOOK LIKE THE HOST, BUT, YEAH, I'M JUST HERE TRYING.

THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN, THAT YOU'RE GREAT.

YOU'RE DOING A VERY GOOD THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OK, TRY AGAIN.

HERE IT IS. OK, IT'S JUST A REAL QUICK.

IS IT. DID YOU GUYS SEE IT? WELL, HERE WE GO AND CLICK.

HERE YOU GO. OH, ALL RIGHT.

SO THIS IS WHY THIS IS THE LAST ELECTION WE HAD IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN.

IF SAID OUR CITY TURNED OUT THE VOTE AND WHAT THE TURNOUT FOR THE PRIMARY FOR THE GENERAL AND FOR THE RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE SERVICES THAT THE GENERAL IS WHEN MOST PEOPLE TURN OUT THAT IS THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF ELECTION IS 70 PERCENT.

BUT WITHOUT ALLOWING A PLURALITY, WHICH IS SOMETHING I THINK WE SHOULD DO, I THINK YOU DO NEED TO HAVE A ABOUT 50 PERCENT PLUS ONE VOTE FOR YOU AND WITH MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE IN THE ELECTION, THAT IT'S NOT ENTIRELY LIKELY TO HAPPEN.

THEREFORE, WE DO NEED TWO ELECTIONS UNLESS WE CAN GO TO A PLACE WHERE WE CAN GET RANKED CHOICE OR SOME OTHER OPTION LIKE THAT.

BUT WITH THAT ON THE TABLE, WE DO NEED TWO ELECTION.

SO WHAT I REMEMBER A LITTLE FEAR WAS PROPOSING.

AND WHAT I WOULD FIND AGREEABLE IS IT IS ACTUALLY THE REASON.

SO LET ME JUST PREFACE THIS BY SAYING THE REASON AN EARLIER, THE REASON WE MOVED OUR ELECTIONS FROM THE SPRING, WHICH WAS JUST THE CITY BY ITSELF FROM THE SPRING TO THE BALL, WAS TO INCREASE VOTER TURNOUT.

BUT WE DID IT HALFWAY.

WE SAID WE'VE GOT OUR OUR FIRST PASS WILL BE AT THE GENERAL OPEN THAT 70 PERCENT TURNOUT.

AND THEN IF THERE'S THREE OR MORE, WE'LL HAVE TO GO TO A RUNOFF, MOST LIKELY.

AND THAT WILL BE A SIX WEEKS LATER IN DECEMBER.

SO THAT WAS TWENTY FOUR PERCENT.

A THIRD OF THE OF THE GENERAL TURNED BACK OUT FOR THE RUN.

BUT AS YOU LOOK AT THE PRIMARY, IT'S IT'S AT LEAST MORE THAN HALF.

SO MY ARGUMENT WOULD BE IF THERE IS THREE OR MORE A WAR, LET'S HAVE THAT FIRST HALF.

AND RIGHT NOW EN ROUTE TO THE THREE CANDIDATES RUNNING, WE COULD GET THAT PRIMARY AND GET A, NARROW THAT DOWN TO TWO OR DECIDED RIGHT THERE.

AND THEN IN THE GENERAL, WE COULD MAKE A FINAL CALL WHEN WE HAVE 20 PERCENT TURNOUT AND AND HOPEFULLY AND HAVE THAT HAPPEN ON THEN PUT NUMBERS TO IT RATHER THAN BACKING UP THAT.

OK, THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR WELCOME.

TO. WE HAVE LET ME STOP HERE.

WE HAVE TO BE OUT OF HERE AT FIVE FIVE FIFTEEN AT THE LATEST.

WE HAVE TO BE OUT OF THE CHAMBERS AT FIVE FIFTEEN IS THE LATEST.

THAT GIVES US FORTY FIVE MINUTES TO CLEAN UP THIS MEETING, INCLUDING THIS DISCUSSION IN IDENTIFYING ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE WANT TO DISCUSS BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING.

SO MY QUESTION IS, ARE WE WILLING TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS APPROACH TO PRIMARIES? IT IS TIME FOR THIS APPROACH TO ELECTIONS AND MS. DAVIS. I PERSONALLY, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ON THE AS I DO, I HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THIS, AS WE KNOW.

AND BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

AND WHEN I READ THE MINUTES, IT SAID THAT WAY.

SO WE WEREN'T GOING TO REVISIT THINGS THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY DECIDED.

SO I DID NOT REALLY PREPARE TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION.

I WILL NOTE THAT WHILE TURNOUT WAS HIGHER IN YOUR CHARGE FOR THE PRIMARY VERSUS THE RUNOFF, IT WASN'T THAT MUCH HIGHER.

AND THAT WAS ONLY THE FIRST TIME THAT WE, AS I RECALL, THE VOTES CONSISTENT WITH THE FALL. AND SO I THINK THAT MAYBE WE'LL SEE SOME MORE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE DATA ON THAT.

BUT I DO FEEL A LITTLE BLINDSIDED WITH THIS ISSUE COMING UP.

AND IF WE'RE GOING TO REVISIT THE VOTING, I THINK AS A MEMBER, KOSACK SAID, AND SO THEREFORE WE'RE GOING TO REVISIT THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, THAT WE SHOULD THEN REVISIT THE PETITION, A REFERENDUM AND INITIATIVE ISSUES AS WELL.

[01:30:03]

I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO REALLOCATE MEMBER BEING WASN'T HERE THEN.

AND I ALSO DON'T LIKE THE IDEA.

WE'RE JUST COUNTING MEMBER.

INPUT FROM BEFORE.

SO WE DECIDED THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ON HERE AS WELL.

SO WE WERE GOING TO BOTH OF THOSE ONE.

AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, IF THEY WEREN'T IN THE.

THERE IS ONE THING THAT WE CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT, BECAUSE I ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD YOU SPEAK, THAT'S FOR SURE.

WE SHOULD NOT REPORT ON THIS ONE WAS PRETTY SURE HE WAS DEAD SET ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER ON THIS ISSUE.

BUT WE HAVE WE DID HAVE IT.

BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT I LOOKED AT THE MINUTES AND ALSO THE AGENDA WASN'T ON HERE AND THERE OR OTHERWISE MAYBE I MIGHT HAVE RESPONDED A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

AND SO I'M NOT I'M IT TO OUR CHAIRMAN.

DOES SHE WANT TO REOPEN ISSUES THAT WE PUT TO BED? I'M GOING TO ASK THAT IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED, THAT ANYBODY FEELS THAT WE SHOULD DISCUSS, THAT WE PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT EVERYBODY IS PREPARED FOR THE DISCUSSION AND SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT TYING UP WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

SO WE HAVE ONE ITEM RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS THE ITEM OF ELECTIONS AND RUNOFFS.

DO WE HAVE ANOTHER ITEM THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING? WELL, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A REFERENDUM LIKE WE DID TALK ABOUT, OK, INITIATIVE, CITIZENS' INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM COMING BACK.

ANYTHING ELSE, ANY OTHER TOPICS SO FAR? WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS AGAIN, ELECTIONS AND CITIZEN INITIATIVES.

YES. ELECTIONS AS THEY RELATE SPECIFICALLY TO TRYING TO PREVENT A RUNOFF.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT THE WHOLE ELECTION.

RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

IF THAT'S IT, THEN THAT'S GOING TO BE THAT'S ALL WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS AND BRING BACK FORWARD. RIGHT.

OK, SO AT OUR NEXT MEETING, WE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO BRING UP ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE FOUND IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE SOME TAMMI INDICATING WHAT WE'VE DECIDED SO FAR.

ANYTHING THAT WE FIND IN THERE THAT WE'RE NOT CLEAR ON ARE NOT HAPPY WITH OR WHATEVER.

WE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

WE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT ELECTIONS AND AVOIDING RUNOFF, AND WE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT CITIZENS' INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM.

IS EVERYBODY HAPPY WITH THAT APPROACH? PLEASE SAY YOU ARE, BECAUSE I'M HAVING A VERY BAD DAY.

THANK YOU. OK, AND OUR NEXT STOP, WE ARE NOW AT PUBLIC COMMENT.

[7. PUBLIC COMMENT]

MR. COLEMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION.

COME ON. WE HAVE MR. GOLDMAN HERE. SOME OF YOU KNOW MR. GOLDMAN.

I WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THE HEART OF THE CITY MANAGER.

I BELIEVE YOU REFERENCED THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THE CITY OF THIRTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PEOPLE.

IS THAT THE ONLY REQUIREMENT? NO, SIR. WE HAVE A LIST OF REQUIREMENTS THAT WE PUT IN.

WE'RE RECOMMENDING GO INTO THE CHARTER BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY THINGS GOING ON HERE.

I DON'T KNOW OF ANY CITY THE SIZE OF THE COUNTRY.

I KNOW WE'RE WE TALK ABOUT HERE CITIES.

BUT BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THEM, WE'RE PRIMARILY TALKING IN LANGUAGE THAT REFERS TO THE SIZE OF THE CITY.

PRIMARILY, WE'RE NOT YOU KNOW, WE ARE PROBABLY THE ONLY CITY THAT I'M AWARE OF OF OUR SIZE. IT HAS A MARINA GOLF COURSE, AN AIRPORT TO THE RAILROAD.

RIGHT. YEAH. SO SO WE DO HAVE ISSUES BIGGER THAN OUR SIZE WOULD INDICATE.

YOU'RE RIGHT. I JUST THOUGHT THE REFERENCE TO THIRTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED WAS KIND OF LOW. BUT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THERE.

SO LET'S AS WE GO BACK AND REVIEW THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE SUGGESTING, WE SHOULD TAKE THAT INPUT INTO CONSIDERATION, THAT THERE ARE UNIQUE THINGS ABOUT THIS CITY.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THE CITY MANAGER HAVE MAYBE EXPERIENCE WITH FOUR OR FIVE OF THE SIX OR SEVEN OR EIGHT ITEMS THAT WE HAVE HERE.

[01:35:01]

OK, WE'LL REVIEW THAT AND TALK ABOUT NEXT WEEK.

OK, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. SAME HERE WE GO WITH THAT.

WHAT'S OUR NEXT MEETING DE.

[Items 8 & 9]

SEPTEMBER THE 25TH, SEPTEMBER 24TH, SEPTEMBER 14, AUGUST 22, THOSE WERE 14, SEPTEMBER 14.

ALL RIGHT, WE'RE ALL GOOD WITH THAT.

VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER ISSUES TO BRING UP OR DISCUSS IS EVERYBODY JON? JON'S NOT.

OK. I KNOW.

WELL, THANK YOU FOR ASKING.

ALL RIGHT.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

OK, VERY GOOD.

DOING A LITTLE YET OR THAT WE HAVE TO WAIT TO THE END OF THE MONTH.

WE DON'T KNOW YET.

I GUESS THERE'S BEEN NO DECISION ON THAT, SO RIGHT NOW WE SHOULD PLAN ON BEING AT ANOTHER MEETING. OH, YES, THAT THE THE LAST UPDATE I DIDN'T HAVE THIS BOARD TOGETHER IS THAT WE ARE COVERED FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST.

AND RIGHT NOW THE GOVERNOR HAS NOT AGAIN, HAS NOT EXTENDED INTO THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER.

SO JUST HOLD ON.

I WON'T BE ABLE TO TELL YOU UNTIL THE END OF AUGUST.

USUALLY IT'S A DAY OR TWO BEFORE THE EXPIRATION.

OK, SO SO FOR NOW, WE PLAN ON IT.

SO AND IF WE HAVE TO ADJUST BECAUSE WE'RE LEAN, MEAN AND FLEXIBLE, WHAT WE CAN DO THAT.

OK, GUYS, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

GREAT WORK.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.