Charter Review Board - Regular Meeting

Call in to order 03/19/2025 charter review board meeting. With board clerk, clerk, please follow-up.

Chair Valvo. Here. Vice chair of Scorioski. Here. Board member Albo. Here. Board member Menzus. Here. I will note for the record that board member Riziv is currently not present. Deputy city attorney Mahaffy. Here. City attorney Pyram.

Here. Thank you.

We'd like to remind everyone to please silence your mobile devices. To help with sound quality, make sure to speak clearly so that the microphones can pick up your voice. This meeting is being conducted live with physically present. The material for today's meeting is available online at coconutcreek.net. Anyone wishing to appeal any decision made will need a record of the proceedings and or such purpose may need to assure the verbatim recording of the proceedings is made, including the testimony and evidence on which the appeal is to be based. The audio of this meeting may be requested from the city clerk or may be heard online at coconutcreek.net.

Alrighty. Thank you. First item on our agenda is the approval of the February. Anybody needs another moment to look at them, please let us know. If not, are there any corrections or revisions to the minutes from the February 19 meeting? I don't know. Okay. None for me. So if none, is there a motion and a second to approve the minutes as presented? Motion. Moved. Alright. All in favor? I am. I'm good with them.

Alright.

Jump back into the review of the city charter. Were there any updates

to Yes. They were sent around on Thursday of last week. You should have that there. On page two are the new updates and the dashed line lines. The first one pertains to section eight zero one, and that added language basically providing that the public through essentially a private petition could not change the land development code or comprehensive plan or any ordinance related thereto for the reasons we discussed at the last meeting.

I believe that's consistent with the language that was suggested at the last meeting, but we are open to any changes or edits if you have any. Otherwise, if you could generally give consensus.

The only part that was added was the underlying part?

Correct. And just for future purposes, any added language will always be underlined, and anything taken out will be stricken. I'm just.

No. That's what we're Yeah.

Sorry. Eventually, we'll put a footer on the bottom to help make sure that's clear when we drafted in a final ordinance format.

In the meantime, put a header at the top. Okay. Perfect. We're good.

Any questions, or is that language acceptable?

It's good by me. And then calendar days.

And and these two things or any ordinance relate to any sort of zoning or development code? Does this encompass all of that?

It encompasses the land development code or comprehensive plan. So yes. Any objections to eight zero one? Okay. So All good by me.

I think we have consensus on that. And then the next section, there was a note where and we could have put it I guess there was a reference under eight zero four specifically, but I guess well, it's also under eight zero three. There's a reference to different time frames, and it was discussed that we should specify calendar days throughout unless the specified time is under fifteen days, and then it would be business days. So we can either add that to eight zero three and eight zero four, or we could do something more general under section one zero six. Well, and I said eight zero three and eight zero four.

Really, there's several sections where we could specifically add it if

you wish or we could just

do a general addition to section one zero six rules of construction just to specify the reference to days within the charter shall mean calendar days unless the specified time is fifteen days or less than it shall mean business days. Does that mean word means?

That that makes sense to me. Do the other do the other points in one zero six, like or do the sections later on in the charter reference back to section one zero six?

One zero six is rules of construction, which applies globally to how you interpret everything within the charter. So it applies to everything. So by putting it in there, we then impact and take care of the issue in all of Article eight, but we also address it in Article three, four, and nine. And we went back and looked at those references, and and it is an appropriate definition for all of those sections.

And then but then in article three four nine, does it have to say, like, as stated in

It does not have to cross reference.

It does not.

And the beautiful thing about putting it in under rules of construction I'm sorry. Didn't Let me show you up. Is that if there are later amendments to charter that provide for days, this will help to explain what is intended by that as well and will apply to those later added provisions also. Versus if we just specifically reference it in different sections, we could forego the opportunity to clarify in some future edition that may not come come before this board?

I think it tends my experience, least, it tends to put better under rules of construction. It's right. It refers to everything. And no matter what you do in the future, that's still there. Mean, I mean, they were putting it under one zero

And

it flows with a, b, and c there. It seems to I would expect to find it there where we're defining written or in writing or past tense words. That seems to make sense.

Okay. So do we have consensus to move forward with that addition to section one zero six?

Yes. Yes. Perfect.

Thank you. We do not have any additional changes at this time. We do have, as you will note, the shaded areas we've already covered and decided not to move forward with. And then at the back, there's unshaded areas that we can touch. I didn't know if you wanted to proceed as we did last week and just go back to going through the charter and then come back to the issues that you've raised, which in some ways would take us back to other sections before. I I believe at this point, you would be up to section eight zero six if you're just going chronologically through the charter. Yeah. And then you could cover the issues or you could cover the issues and then come back and do eight zero six to the end. It's up to you.

We're getting pretty close to the end of the charter.

Ones that will come up with a few issues that relate to the article nine, I guess. Mhmm. So as we go through nine, maybe we'll not

go about as well. Yeah.

But, otherwise, it would look like most the rest of the issues would be going back. So Yeah. I'm good with proceeding to eight. Yeah. Nine is the last article?

Nine is the last article. Yeah.

I'm not even gonna Alright.

So section eight zero six. Action by petitions. Actually, can I ask you guys, do you have any opinions on any if you have an opinion from a staff perspective or your role, I mean, please feel free to jump in? Because a lot of this I'm reading and I don't nothing's jumping out to me, but I don't really have a frame of reference to it. So

action by commission, it it basically spells out their process and that they have to take action without change in substance within sixty days. Or if they don't do it within sixty days or they fail to repeal it within thirty days, and then what happens? And then it gets submitted to the voters. Now, there is there can be a process. Did we talk about that last time in terms of the process about in terms of working with city staff on a petition to clarify the language, and we did talk about that a little bit.

Yeah. It's very, very high level.

Yeah, was gonna say not really specifically. Because I know you and I had a sidebar discussion, and that's why I thought you may wanna

okay. Yes, sir. So

In general, though, I'm sorry. The petition issue isn't a very felt issue. It's very seems to be kinda pretty rare that it comes up.

It is very rare. It can just be very, very cumbersome when it does come up. This section was rewritten to a large extent five years ago, and we kind of ran into it to, as started reading through the language, we identified some clarifications. And especially as I was doing some additional research, identified some procedures which can help in terms of setting out time periods and responsibilities and the in terms of the responsibility of the petitioner to provide a legitimate petition and proposal that actually is functional, that actually can work within the framework of this charter and how that is handled. And if it is not compliant, the you city attorney would have a certain number of days to review it and make sure that it is consistent with the city other provisions of the city charter and the city comp plan and state law.

And if it's not, then it's the responsibility of the petitioner to fix that solution. It's not the responsibility of city staff. Not that city staff and the city attorney's wouldn't always help the petitioner in that circumstance. That's kind of our mode of operandas. You know, as Sheila has indicated at the last push meet or here, we offer concierge services.

We are very hands on and very focused on serving our residents. But providing designated responsibilities might be clarification would help that whole process. So we would if that's something clarifying that procedure is something that you would find interesting or appealing, I'd like your direction. Or just tell us if that's something you'd find interesting, and we can draft up language, which sets that out a little bit. It would be an article eight.

And that would be kind of the preliminary to it going to petition to the Commission so that it has everything that it needs. Subsequent to that, then there is a second concept, and that is that the in the event that there are dueling petitions, right? Because there's three entities that can there's three ways a petition the charter could be amended, by the Charter Review Board, by citizen initiative, or by an ordinance of the city commission. And so in the event that there is a proposal by two of those people, one maybe a citizen initiative and a charter review board or the city commission at the same time, the city attorney's office would recommend that maybe you consider proposed some proposed language to

Attempt to merge them?

To merge them or explain what happens. And so based on the we we did as we and that issue, we added to the running list as item 15, and it would go into nine zero seven. And I bring it up here only because it would play out in this. It's kind of relevant to the action by petitions. So it's really kind of just informational, and and we'll talk about it more when we get there.

But does the concept of fleshing out those responsibilities in the citizen initiative drafting process sound appealing to you? Do you want us to put something like that into play?

Patty, do you mind if I tell provide Please. Some insight? So I've seen this play out in two ways. So in a best case scenario, when the registered voters create their committee so in the case of the city of Coconut Creek, it'd be the original fifties, and they create their committee. In the best run situations, they would work with their own attorney to look at the proper language for the what they're trying to propose at the city of Coconut Creek, And their attorney, who would be knowledgeable in government law, would write the ordinance and do most of the heavy lifting, submit it to the city of Coconut Creek, minimal conversation back and forth, then it has to be made the attorney would know what to do.

And then it's more of a seamless transition and process. The other end of that situation is when the committee forms, nobody's an attorney, they try to look at the ordinance and piecemeal it together, and they bring, for lack of a better term, a mishmash of language. They present it to the city attorney's office and go, oh, this is kind of what we wanna do with the expectation of, well, because we know you're such amazing attorneys, you work in the city of Coconut Creek and we heard great things about you, now the work is on you and it creates this interesting dynamic where the city attorney's office is doing most of the work on behalf of the committee. And I'm not saying which way is right or wrong, but from administrative efficiency and the burden of the work put on the city attorney's office, I've seen it play out both ways. And that's kind of how

it works.

And just as a follow-up comment, when the latter happens, it's quite awkward.

Right. Because the fact of the matter is, you know, the people that start the community, usually they're involved in the community. They may be political activists. They may have relationships with elected officials. And then it's like, you're not helping somebody that has a relationship with an existing elected official. And how does that play out? And it does create an awkward dynamic. So I just wanna provide some perspective. It's something that has been through both sides of it.

And they're executing the hoarder.

Yeah. That makes sense. That well, that's kinda why I kinda was asking you guys. I read this section, and I thought, don't know, it makes sense to me, but I've never lived in that space, so I don't don't really have context, is it? I remember in our previous meeting saying this has only kind of come up once in the last several years, a petition, But but your point of of this petition coming to city staff where it's already very well prepared, vetted, of almost the shape that it needs to be to fit in versus this mishmash thing with a couple of ideas and that's being brought to you to kind of shape it.

Is there is there a tangible middle ground where let's say it meets a basic because I because I think it should have to meet something, some kind of criteria criteria or else somebody just puts together a collection of thoughts. And I mean, the charter says things like has to be in the same font or something like that. Like, I'd rather get something really, really detailed written in crayon than something that is not very well detailed, but it meets this criteria of being in the right color and font or something. But

I do have drawn language there.

This might have to spend 10,000 with an attorney to create something. That seems like that would be a barrier and an impediment, but I I don't know that it would be $10,000, but

And they don't necessarily need to be written by an attorney. Okay. I did have something that I had initially put together, which you can look at it if it is something you find interesting or want to consider.

Oh, it's going backwards a little bit to say It is. $8.00 2, but

This would be kind of a sample of the underlying. And would you say that I guess since you produced this, the answer would be yes. But I guess the underlying language in in letter b, that process would be not an, you know, unreasonable burden on the city attorney's office to look at it, kind of vet it, and say

I think we have to do it anyway. And it it it's something we would do, we have done, and would have to do. And this just says it goes back to the the petitioner. And, you know, Tuesday, I might spell it out a little bit more. We have we'll have to talk about it a little bit more, but maybe it's it's spelled out a little bit more that either the time that they have to resubmit or and and that's all really a function. Their choice to resubmit is there's there's nothing that prohibits that. So that's

What would make the reading this language, what would make the proposed amendment facially invalid?

It conflicts with the Charter with it conflicts with another provision of the Charter, and and that may be a simple matter of it conflicts with this provision of the Charter. How do you want to how you know, they need to propose a way to remedy that conflict. It could create a conflict with state law. There's all kinds of things that people try to do, or, you know, they they want to change something, you know, elections are highly regulated by state law, and they want to change something with elections. There's all kinds of things that that could do that.

And it makes me simply that the language is not coherent. You know, it's not functional. You get that a lot where language doesn't actually can't really be implemented.

So this would all kind of back into the definition of sufficient?

Yes. And

then as it relates to other sections, so eight zero six, we're an initiative or appeal petition that's finally been determined sufficient.

Right. Which is

why I went back there. Sorry.

Right. So okay.

We're not saying you have to adopt this language now. We're just putting it for you as a possible Concept. Concept to think about, and you can direct us either to flesh it out more or not.

Sorry,

So so this would kind of put the correct your wording or correct your congruency for it if it's the commission for for a petition. With with this not in place at 08/2006, a commission has to be worded correctly and applicable to state law, not conflicting with any charter provision to then be reviewed by the commission if if you put this in.

Correct.

And I guess it also defines the word promptly. Like, it pops up right after the word sufficient. It it puts fifteen days in this just in this sample proposed language. And it's currently written. It just says the commission shall promptly consider the proposed an issue. Or no, that wouldn't even be the commission at that point.

The fifteen days is city attorney's office. Pre commission, Promptly in operational which would be the next available commission that we can meet our printing and advertising all of those deadlines on, which generally puts it probably three to four weeks out minimum.

And just to add another comment as well, the way it currently reads, you know, there's language in here about petition is finally determined sufficient. That's an

eight zero six A. So,

you know, how it plays out is the committee is going to the city attorney's office being like, hey, make this legally sufficient. And then the attorneys were responding, well, 50% of this is not legal. And there's like this awkward interaction of, help me make it legal. Where I think with this wording that's proposed, adds in an expectation that if something is provided to the city attorney's office and it doesn't meet the standards and it's not legal for these reasons, there's a process that petitioner knows ahead of time that you're gonna get a response from the city attorney's office with a summary, and these are the actions you need to take to fix it. Instead of this awkward pressure of, hey.

Like, help me make it legal. Do your job here to the attorneys. And I think this just provides a fair, reasonable set of expectations. And it it moves that weird dynamic that everyone gets caught up in because we all wanna help everybody, but we also need some lines to make it administratively efficient. So just measure your thought.

It also puts the city attorney's office in an awkward position of having basically doing work for a particular interest group when in fact we can't even draft an ordinance based on one commissioner's direction. We have to take commissioner direction from the commission as a whole. You know, a single staff member come and says and says, do this. We have a broader obligation. So generally, we don't work for the public. We work for the city directly, the city commission. So it it creates a very interesting sometimes uncomfortable dynamic that way too.

Yeah. Then would you have a mechanism in place to just kill something? Like, you know, if somebody keeps coming back and saying, well, how about this? No. That's not good. How about that? No. It's still not sufficient.

Only really if it's inconsistent with, as she said, you know, another area of state or federal law or another charter provision.

So eventually, if somebody just really remains persistent, you just you just have to dig in and remain persistent also. And, like, if you just keep projecting it because it's not sufficient. I think somewhere along the way, your goal would be to if there's any way to make it sufficient, let me make it sufficient so

I can it off

of my desk and get it down the hall. Which is exactly the situation that I believe miss Mahaffy is talking about is that, you know, we would find ourselves where we would feel compelled to essentially write it for them. Yeah. And that gets rather awkward.

Or a situation may come up that maybe we don't know if it violates state law or not, and maybe you have to give them your opinion. Right. And that takes time and energy and effort to do that as well. So it's also that kind of

thing as well. Yeah. Well, if you're gonna be undergoing this as a citizen, you should be prepared to roll up your sleeves and get some put some time into it. All the while, you still have the process of contacting your local commissioner, and it doesn't have to come up a proposed change doesn't have to come up through this. Right? It's still it can come up through the commission. So

second part of a, says that the commission doesn't make a decision on its petition, that it just goes to a vote. Is that the correct interpretation? I

think there are a citizen could initiate a petition to do an a code change. And a code change could be implemented just by the commission. Right? Just an ordinance to change the land development code could be is something that the city commission could do without a voter referendum. So they could do a petition and find it to get it to the point of sufficiency.

And if that's the petition was just to, say, amend the city code of ordinances, the city commission, and you can correct me if I'm misstating this, but the city commission could evaluate that ordinance and decide to move forward on that ordinance on their own because changing the code of ordinances was within their purview, and they could do that just by adopting the ordinance. And so this says if they decided if it were something like that and they decided not to move forward with it, then it gets moved on to a voter voter a referendum to kind of overturn the city commission's refusal to move it forward. And then that correlates also with if the it it is to the the petition is to cancel an ordinance or withdraw an ordinance. And the commission refuses to do it, then they could put that before a referendum.

Yeah. So the commission has a right of first refusal sort of?

If it is something that is within their purview. It's within their purview. Like a an actual amendment to the code. You know, if it's a charter amendment

That has to go to the voters.

I think that has to go to the voters. Now have I misstated any of that?

No. But just to clarify, if a member of the public, you know, a committee of 50 people decides that they wanna change a provision of our code of ordinances, maybe they don't like the noise ordinance, for example. They could approach the commission. I mean, it's only going to be a petition. I mean, the petition would only be submitted presumably because the commission has decided not to act on it and we don't want to change it.

So then you end up with the petition kind of committee that comes forward and says, okay, well then we're basically going to fight you on it in the way that they're doing it. In this case, because the noise code was adopted over a year ago, so it's not something necessarily that could be challenged in another way without getting into specific facts. They would then petition the commission through this process to put it before voters to let the voters decide, do we want to repeal the noise code or keep it based on following this process? Does that make sense? Yep.

Should a petitioning of the commission be a prerequisite?

Well, so it wouldn't be necessarily a petitioning of the commission as much as it is just an ask of the commission. I don't know that it necessarily has to be a prerequisite. Hopefully, people would do that. I

doubt many of these happen without talking to a commissioner or two. Or city staff or, you know, trying to go through that process.

I think to the extent that, let's say, hypothetically, somebody approaches the commission, the commission decides they don't want to make a change, and in the interim there's an election and more than a majority of the seats turn over, hypothetically, and they go ahead and put forward a petition and the new commission says, oh, you don't have to do that. We'll just go ahead and change the code. You know what I mean? So even if they don't approach the commission first or some circumstances on the commission change, they would still be able to say, you know what? You don't have to put it before the voters. We're just gonna change it if they want to.

Yeah. That makes

sense. If it's within

their purview group. Yeah. Okay.

And the days are different here. So if it's a new ordinance, you get the commission gets sixty days. If it's a repeal of an ordinance, they get thirty days. Is there any reasoning for different time lines there if I'm reading that correctly?

So it really just

Actually, that is interesting because repeal should be sixty days. I think the concept would be that the only thing I can think of for why it would be thirty days is that conceptually somebody there might have been the conception that you can repeal an ordinance faster than you can approve it, but that's not true. Both of them take two readings to repeal it. So that's two meetings. It would be very difficult to do that within thirty days depending on where that thirty days started ticking, especially where we don't have, you know, two meetings back to back.

So if anything, that thirty days should probably be sixty days.

Foul one. Foul two scores. Alright.

So sixty days for that. Am I FA? And then

the b is just whenever there's a convenient election, otherwise special election. Sorry to trim it down to that, but Yeah. That's kinda what I read.

Special eds are not within the area.

And I think it's required under law that it either be a general or municipal election. It can't be, like, the primary.

And not less than thirty days.

And based on our study, the thing the obligations we have and timing with the SOE, the state the supervisor of elections, thirty days would never happen. Before thirty days would never happen. Yeah.

I concur.

Okay. Steven said it.

Yes. I'm good with we can I

guess

we'll continue the conversation? We can look to make some changes in the maybe the next time we review our list. So

that makes sense. You know, what you just said has me thinking. It says the vote of the city on an ordinance shall be held not less than thirty days and not later than one year from the date of the final commission. So vote of the city, do they mean if the electors? And then if it's Yes. Not later than one year, it then says if no regular city election is to be held within the period prescribed in the subsection commission shall provide for a special election. So does that mean that because there's not a general election till November 2026, we have to have a special election on the Charter Review Board's changes?

No, this is related only to the petitions.

Correct. I just I mean, I

agree with you, but I wanna make

sure that everybody understands that.

But we change this if we're gonna change this the a to be to to have thirty days sixty days, then we could clarify that that is So but even if it was just

a petition, like like you said, a noise ordinance or something, we'd have to have a special election for one

Should it fall outside of this upcoming election?

Can we make it so that it falls within an election cycle? Like, a window to make some mills? That would seem crazy that

we So to take out the one year, the special election requirement?

Or that or that it has to be submitted within one year of a of a pending election or something like that?

So on the one hand, that's a good idea. On the other hand, I'm gonna play devil's advocate and just say that that could have a chilling effect if there really was some profession that the public felt very strongly about and you're perhaps chilling their ability to change it quickly.

Right. That makes sense.

I'm not trying to sway you one way or another. Just I want you to think about both sides of it. It's entirely up to you. You can do whatever you want.

Right. But also knowing that it's a it would be so urgent of a change that the commission chose to not address it True. If it was in their within their purview. So if somebody wrote language about a noise ordinance and they got enough people to support it, we would have to spend a $100,000 to have a election to vote.

Hopefully, not a 100,000.

On a noise ordinance. Joe said his work is his work his work is it's not getting cheaper.

Right. Joe Scott. Are getting bigger. Joe Scott. Correct. The supervisor of elections. Not this Joe.

He said the signs are getting bigger. They're not getting smaller. But wow. That's kinda

Well, there's there's time baked into this. Right? So there's elections are already two years? Two of them change. So you have one year, then ninety days potentially before this for unless unless they're moving very quickly. Like, there's there's probably already months built into this. So the gap really that we're considering is like five months, a five month time period of either can you wait five months for something that needs to be completed if you've already spent three months on it? Like Yeah. I don't wanna do that. Or I guess it wouldn't be five months.

It'd be five more months. So it'd be, hey. It's not gonna be twelve months from now. It's gonna be seventeen months from now.

Yeah. Historically, if we had issues like this

We've only had one citizen petition in the last ten years.

And even if even if you were in the range, right, if you're at the max one year, you would still have to wait one year on something that

was pressing.

Sure. I know.

See a need for change.

Well, was kind of the devil's advocate point. If there, you if an election is coming up in two years and the max year is supposed to wait as one year, right, like, a special election for a pressing issue is probably a good thing, but here, you can't really have it unless it's actually you're already gonna wait one year. Mhmm.

Yeah. Well, I guess it would have to be brought before the voters within a year. Actually, to further, I guess, complicate that conversation, we're about ready to go into a period of four years?

Yes. Or or

not about two or in it?

And and to that point, I just Four and a half years. Thought about the fact that our municipal elections are usually on in odd years, and the general elections are in even years, so that usually resolves this issue. I think we're in a little bit of an anomaly at the moment. So the next election will be? The next general election is in November 2026. The next municipal election will be in March 2029.

Okay. Gotcha. So there will be one in November 2026, so there won't be any commission seats on the ballot. Correct. Right? Okay.

But there will be there'll be election ballot, and there could be a couple of creek issue. Okay.

That's right. Presumably, your changes will be on that ballot.

November 2026.

So if you bring out a petition December 2026 and you got it to this point, you would get

a special election Yeah. If you needed it.

If you started it now and got it if you started it now and got it before the city commissioned it by September, though

Thirty minute. Right?

The city would then have to have a special election for that petition sometime between sometime before September 2026.

Oh, yes. You're talking about the other side of this. Yes.

Yeah. The non demo advocate side. So

Again, I think the risk is low.

Yeah. I see I see, like, a gap there that doesn't make sense, but it's never been an issue before, so I don't know that it's worth messing with. But

It might be a solution looking for a problem, is this thing?

Yeah. That's what I think. Yeah. That's what I think. There's a gap there, but it's yeah.

As far as said. The language or the idea of specifying that the initiatives have to meet certain criteria before being moved forward, as Ms. Mahaffy had pointed out earlier and shared with you some proposed language for 08/2002. Would you like for us to flush that out a little bit more and then you could decide at the next meeting on that?

Yes, please.

So eight zero seven just talks about how they are sort of go into effect after they're certified. There is the last sentence of a that addresses kind of what I'd mentioned earlier that we had added to the list for nine zero seven. It says if conflicting ordinances are approved at the same election, the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such conflict. And our proposal for nine zero seven is to address the broader issue of not just conflicting citizen initiatives, but all the different types of charter amendment proposals. If you decide to move forward with that additional language in nine zero seven, which we we can talk about later when we get there, I would probably delete this sentence.

Or it to to change revise this to say something that the fact that if conflicting ordinances are approved at the same election, Any conflict shall be resolved as provided in section nine zero seven. If we if you move forward with that language or the change when you get there.

Okay. Repeat.

B, they're considered repeal as soon as those repealed as soon as those election results are certified if it's approved. C well, do you have any questions on a or b? That's just about the timing of moving forward. So C is provides that once there is something done by citizen initiative, normally when something is approved or changed in a city code or city charter one way or another, it can only be changed by that same mechanism. So if something is approved by Citizen Initiative, it can't be changed except by Citizen Initiative.

And that can create some significant issues because it can take a lot to

Actually get winter.

Actually get winter. And you've got to have a citizen that to drive that process process when something in, you know, the operational government or in the way the whole world operates may drive a change, the commission wouldn't have the ability that, to change that. So c was amended in 2020 to provide that after five years, a citizen initiative ordinance or amendment could be modified or repealed by this city commission to kind of help address that. It preserves that in for five years and then puts it in with the general realm of the rest of the city code.

Thank you for explaining that. When I read it earlier, I wasn't fully there's a question mark next to it. So

It wasn't that clear because it doesn't the way it's phrased.

It's hard when you when most people aren't aware of that lock in. You know, if if something's adopted by ordinance, you can't amend it by resolution. If something is adopted by citizen initiative, you can't adopt it by city commission without this provision, so that's background of that.

So if it survives for five years, the commission can

then Yes. Repeal?

Amend it. Or amend it. You know, to make it more you know, if something's changed in how society operates whatever.

No. It makes sense. You want the voters vote to appeal something or to pass something, and the commission just says, we're not happy with that. And they go ahead and

change You wanna honor what was done Yeah. In the first place.

It's given a chance to to run for a while. Mhmm. But it's also crazy to think that forty years from now, commission wants to change something, and they say they can't. So then they have to go home and, like, propose it as a citizen willing. Mhmm. And that doesn't make sense either. I've used these. That's used me.

You forgive me. I have to step out for just a minute here.

So any other questions about 807?

Is the mechanism is that defined in the charter, is that just a, like, global mechanism?

The What do you mean the mechanism?

That only a a petition can be changed by a petition.

It's kind of a rule of

law. Okay.

It's it's not really the I don't think it's in the code of ordinances anyway anywhere. It's it's more of a functional rule of law. You can adopt an ordinance which says, you know, we hereby adopt the the schedule of Fees the schedule of fees may be adopted by resolution, but you have to adopt that Provision by ordinance. And then you can you can amend the rest of the fees by resolution only because it's been explicitly stated in the ordinance. That's the only situation where you can kinda do that otherwise.

Eight zero eight recall. It's just that any member of the city commission may be removed by from office by the electors.

And there's a state law that outlines that process? Mhmm. Yep.

State law gets closely control tightly controls elections. And

I guess we can leave it alone then. Yep.

Any other questions about 8? Okay. No. So 901 personal financial interest where all the public officials, officers, and employees are subject to one twelve, Florida statutes, and we're subject to those penalties as well. Forfeit of position or violations in addition to all of the penalties that are set out in state law. In addition to the Florida statute code of ethics that that we're required to follow, we also have the Broward County code of ethics.

Part three, chapter one twelve.

That is the what is it?

That's for the in Florida statutes. Got it. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. That is sorry. That is the all of the Florida ethics code.

And this will apply so I was preposition from commas. So that's referring to where the code of ethics is coming from, and it also shall apply to the city of Coconut Creek. So commission, city employees, advisory board members.

Which it does by function of state law. Okay. This kinda just states the obvious, but because it all does apply to us.

Regardless. Regardless.

But it states it. Yeah. Just 09/2002 allows us to change allows the city commission to change the form of government only upon approval of the voters at a general or special election. That would be going from where where a commission manager form of government going to a strong mayor type of situation, something like that would require a referendum vote.

So we can't commit dictatorship unless the

vote is approved.

Right? Right.

Is what we just did with changing the commission makeup fall under a change in form of government?

Not really because the the the responsibilities of the mayor did not change. Okay. It it we are still a commission manager form of government. The commission acts as a whole. Really, all we changed was how the mayor was elected as opposed to the functions of that position.

That was it was approved anyway, so I thought it was

This is true. With the way it went.

Was that one that had an opposing or a second

petition? There was a second petition, citizen there was a citizen initiative petition that was being circulated that did not make it through the process. There was never sufficient signatures submitted. And that one went a little bit different. It included the mayor concept, but it also included the election time period. Okay.

I thought something. Alright.

Nine zero three doesn't really Nine zero three is is your your typical severance language. Nine zero four, city attorney. The city commission shall appoint a city attorney. The city attorney shall appoint such assistant city attorneys as he she deems necessary, subject to final approval by the city commission. Terrell has talked to you a little bit about how this operates. We don't have any issues with the language or and are not requesting any changes. But do you have any changes or questions?

That's the only question we'll ever have would be with or without cause.

Sounds like the part labor attorney would draw his attention to. Yes.

You noticed that.

But where free will Aren't stayed, it it's role the position of city attorney is a political position Not in terms of We I I stay where it's a political position position because this position, the city attorney position works directly for the city commission. Our job our job is to be apolitical. We don't get involved in policy. We don't get involved in politics. Our job is to give a legal analysis and guidance on the strict legal evaluation.

That being said, we are hired and fired at, you know At will. All of us are at her will, but the city attorney position is hired and fired at the will of the commission. And and it is with or without causes, unfortunately, appropriate. If you wanna take it out, you can. Just make it with cause.

Oh, so big.

But state law would still support without cause.

Yeah. Don't maybe I don't think Terrell has any issue with that. I don't.

I've always been taught that the at will definition means that it can be for no reason, just not a bad reason. So you can it's not for any reason, but it can be without stating the cause.

Discriminatory.

Right. So it can't be yeah.

Because you're

too old or too whatever.

But that's controlled by the laws, by discrimination laws.

Yeah. Employers make a mistake Employment law. Because they they feel like they have to justify their decision, so they state the reason or a reason, and that's where they

That's where they

that's where they get themselves in trouble. Yeah. Mhmm. The laws are written in a way where you can just shake hands with somebody or not and say, we no longer wanna work with you. And Okay. Of course, that helps.

That's a tough one. Make sure I ask her about it after it later and bring it back up if she feels differently, but I don't think she does.

Well, I

said thirty five years of practicing employment law that jumped off the page. Without cause. Right.

There's no union either. Plus, was I was on

the employer side, so that would

have been nice language. The at will thing would be Yes.

It saves us a lot of time

to money. Although Okay. State laws of as amended, I don't think that's anything Yeah. We can touch. Right? Amendments to charter.

So nine zero six

I'm not just understanding that.

This is just, you know, it's kind of rhetorical. It provides for your review, and it provides for amendment according to state law. State law sets out basically citizen initiative rights and exactly how it can be done. So I wouldn't I don't think there's anything here you need to address. But

What's the first one so Florida if a Florida statue changes?

Oh 09/2005 basically so This Florida statutes are amended constantly and they supersede us. So this just says that anytime we say Florida statute section nine zero three forty eight, it doesn't we don't have to say as amended because a lot of times, if you don't say as amended, an argument can be made that it is '90 438 as it existed in 1987 at the time you adopted that. And generally, those are meant to be the then current statutes. Maybe if you were trying to freeze parameters in an agreement or something, but in a charter or something like that, you want it to be as amended so that you stay consistent with state law. So that's what it does is it applies that as amended to every statutory reference in the code.

So, Carol, are you okay if you can be fired with or without cause?

I already can be fired. Well, actually, my contract specifies the terms under which I can be fired, but essentially, it provides that I can be fired with or without cause. They just have to pay me severance. Okay. If I'm fired without cause.

So does that answer? Are are you are we all

That's We

just had a little bit of a discussion.

I was

just trying to And I I was was a just trying matter to of time. Okay.

Oh, okay. So are you just referencing me, or are you referencing assistant city attorneys

as well? I gave my opinion on assistant city attorneys. I said I was okay with it. You can iron me with

that process.

I was gonna say, technically, I mean, your Apple employees We had

that discussion. We did have that discussion.

Fair enough.

So the part about updating so state law changes. Say state law changes

Elections is a perfect thing. They change the way elections are run.

Does that automatically update the charter, or does it automatically give permission to the city staff to update the charter, or does it

There are certain there are provisions in state law that specifically allow for changes to local charters that are mandatory to comply with state law for certain types of them. It's very specific language that can be done either administratively or through ordinance of the commission without going to voter referendum if they're necessary to comply with state law. And there's specific details in on that. But generally, a lot of times, it's not that we would need to amend the code as much as the code, the charter might say, notice shall be provided, and this is the perfect example, notice shall be provided as provided in state law. And in 2020, we amended there were a lot of notice specific notice requirements.

You had to do this ten days notice, this kind of ad, whatever. Well, state law changes, and those are no longer current. So all of those references were changed to be as provided in state law so that because state law directs very explicitly how most advertisements have to be provided and notices. So that is then we refer to state law. And this provision says that as state law changes and regulates us, we keep current with that.

So no big actions have to be taken? Just No. Kind of internal housekeeping? A lot a lot of them.

Yes. The majority of them.

Makes sense. Protecting you.

Okay. It was protected.

The labor lawyer here doesn't like the without cause. So

nine zero seven Charter VP Board. Right now you meet every five years and go through the, you know, your five electors appointed one from each district No other office Except on advisory boards except on advisory bodies of the city. Now this is one that kind of ties into one of your list items from commissioner Wasserman, I believe, that said he wasn't had recommended recommended not being allowed to serve on more than one board at a time. And the city charter the city code already says that they can't you can't provide step aside on serve on two boards at one time. So you can't be on Parks and Rec and Bunny and Zoning Board at the same time.

The charter though specifically provides that you can be on either one of those boards civil service board and or any well on any board and on either the charter review board or the redistricting board. Both of those these next two sections do provide that explicit exception to allow for that dual because they're short term in a four month course. So that is one point of discussion in there.

Right. That's number six on your discussion list on page eight. And it provided for both the limitations on the number of consecutive terms as well as private service on more than one board at a time, length of appointment of board members.

Yes. Or If you you can look at both of those. Comes up in sections nine zero seven and nine zero eight. Hundred and twenty days. So your primary key key ish key targets in here are are whether or not you're comfortable with the once every five years.

Last, in 2020, they proposed changing it to every ten years. That did not pass. And then whether you're comfortable with the hundred and twenty days and then the multiple boards at one time.

It it did not pass?

By the voters.

Oh, okay. So

the Charter Review Board proposed it. Proposed

ten years.

Yes. They proposed ten years.

It's like each other the way we That's right.

The way we Things change. And ten years is a long time. It's a long time. I mean, would be, like, five years from now, they may come up with nothing. It's because I've done such a wonderful job to find these two. But it should at least be reviewed. I have no problem with that. Alright.

Are you comfortable with membership on this board and another city board? Mhmm. Okay. We'll leave that one zero one.

I think the hundred and twenty days makes sense because, otherwise, there's a tendency just to drag it out. Mhmm. It takes forever. Forever. Right. That's where you have a drop deadbeat, so to speak.

I I had only thought of trying to

There's another issue. Yeah.

Yeah. Make sure that the whatever comes out of the charter review board gets put in front of the voters in, a timely fashion. And that The timing of Both. The review board and the timing of elections a little out of sync.

And and you did identify that it's on it's on 12 to index the Charter Review Board appointment in the term to the election. So you could do that in every Off cycle. Four four years or every six years or every eight years. Because after 2029, we'll have elections an election every two years. So you could do it in I would advise you don't do two years or four years. I would advise you do six or eight. If you're it. To

And just to clarify, clerk Kavanaugh just pointed out to me is that the election in 2020, it was a very narrow margin by which it failed. It essentially was roughly 51 to 49%.

The ten year, five year?

So 49% was in favor of ten years, and the 51% was in favor of keeping high.

Not to be critical of the voters, but I seriously doubt that most of the people who voted either way understood what they were voting for. Yeah.

Well, it was not very different than your expected fifty fifty. So

I'm not in favor of five or ten years thinking about it in terms of relate in in relation to the election cycle. Right? Because at some point, we brought this up early on in five years. So five years from now would put put us in what would that be? March 2030. 2030. That's hard to say. And our election

I

guess we'll still we'll be in the same position right now. Yeah.

The election would be '31. It's two or two years.

'25, '27, '29, '31. Yeah. So it'd be

It'd be,

like It'd be longer than now.

It'd be almost two years later. Yeah. Because we started January, and

I guess we finish up in May.

Which is our situation right now.

But that's municipal election. It would still be on the ballot in the twenty eight election.

It could possibly oh. Right? Sorry. I thought you were thinking about the

Well, 2030, the next. There's only we can do now. Would be 2030. But if we were gonna meet if if Charter Review Board was in 2030, would be in a similar situation. Because there'd

be a twenty thirty national election.

Right. In November, so long as it met the deadline of at least as of now, the deadline is essentially early June. I don't see why it couldn't if you started in January similar to this board.

Theoretically, is there really an election of some sort or another in the county every year? It may not be anything to speak of, but there I seem to recall that every year there is an election.

There may be, but it would probably still be a special election for us if it wasn't our municipal

there a to index the charter review to the to an election? Because it seems like

It's the longest we have to wait now, but when it falls on even years, you're good. Basically, when it falls on even years, you're you're okay. But when you fall on odd years, you're waiting for the next even year.

Yeah. Unless there's a municipal election.

Well, but the municipals happen during the charter review board. So you can't you can't actually get anything on the municipal election.

Yeah. So

So it could just be Well Although

have to be an even number.

If the charter review board were to meet again in 2030, then the next municipal election after that would be in March 2031.

Okay. So not quite a year. So the 2035, you know, until September.

Unless the charter yeah. As long as the is there there's nothing that states when the charter review this is getting, you know, the minutiae. Right? But when it goes so January. Oh, let's say January.

And a hundred and twenty days to take action.

So then that would always make it in time for that Mhmm. Coming November election. If there is one. Yes. If there was one.

So right now, what we're doing now is gonna come up in Okay.

The next would be 2030. Cooperatorial. And

So we have one in November 2024. There'll be one in November 2026. Mhmm. So

I don't know if you're contemplating changing it, but if you are, it may make sense to have the next one fall within the normal cycle in 2030. Yes. And then from then that point forward, half them every eight years, and that, I believe, would fall in an election year a general election each time as pointed out by clerk Kadhnoff.

Thank you.

What if because 2030 is gubernatorial, so 08/06,

you would be

on gubernatorial and presidential alternating. So

I just don't know if you wanna set it up for five years and then six years.

Or I think the the 2031 needs to stay.

Yeah. I

think But if you were gonna change it, I think either '6 or '8 or not.

I would think leave it for now, let the 2030 charter view board.

Handle it. Handle that one.

Gotta give us something.

If they decide it's an issue.

Yeah. Yeah. We can we can limit a valid item and just put it as, a recommendation. Say Think about twenty thirty. This is the secure here's a hint.

Yeah. Can we toss? Yeah. So maybe one the times we could toss to the commission with a recommendation. Let them sweat on it a little bit. Leave it the way it is through twenty third, and maybe a recommendation to change the period of time. Six one more year. Five to six, I think I'd be okay with because if it if it adds

It helps. Cycles.

Yeah. It rewards the cycle.

Anything else the the nine zero seven?

Just just the serving on multiple wards. Like, I mean, obviously, I I mean, I'm proof of that right now, but I I don't really have an opinion either way. It's really just someone saying, I will commit more time to more boards.

Yeah. I don't have a problem with them. I don't know. The particularly if the commissioner looks into his his book of constituents and thinks of who do I know who's going to serve on a board? And they keep coming up with one name or two names.

Just relationally, they don't know everybody else. If they if they come up with somebody, they think they trust it would be a quality candidate to serve. I don't have I can't think of a reason to not have them, especially on these two boards that are major boards.

And just to reiterate, there are dual office holding prohibitions in the law as it relates to serving on hypothetically, like planning and zoning board and parks and rec board. This is just a separate carve out in our charter as it relates only to charter review board and redistricting board because of the limited time frame for which a person would be serving in those roles. Every district

is also one twenty a one hundred and twenty day term. Right? Yes. Yes. Mhmm.

So I don't foresee it really being a typical issue. It would only be for those serving on the charter review board redistricting. Alright.

Last last paragraph. The only change

I see redistricting is obviously based upon once it goes to four districts. Mhmm.

Redistricting will meet again in

'26. Middle of next year.

And so so there they did last year change it to I guess in 2020. Yeah. They they changed it to ten years. They had an interim break in there. I think they went to 2032 to accommodate hopeful plan, full build out of Main Street and all of those changes that that and then they would be able to address it then. And then we were pretty much in a built out environment, and

ten years should be sufficient. And I think they last met in 2019. So they were also on a five year cycle, and at that point or I guess as part of the Charter Review Board, they changed the five years so they would normally have met in right. Twenty Twenty twenty four, and instead that was changed to 2026. Again, with the thought as miss McAfee said of Main Street kind of coming online and then additionally, 2032 with the idea that by that point, Main Street would be built out and then, yes, every ten years are. Mhmm.

Will the redistricting board in 2026 define the districts for the mayor plus four election? Yes.

So the mayor with the recent charter changes is to be voted at large and would not be within a district?

But the other But the other will be changed from

five to

four in next year.

Correct. Mhmm.

And that would go into effect next year or just or really for like, when when would those changes take place?

It takes place with the March because we can't for lack of a better way to say it, we can't kind of

You can't redistrict and have people sitting in seats that

No longer exist. Yeah. Yes. And they have a vested right to their term. So we can't really do that. And that's part of why we have a full lineup of the entire commission up for election in March 2029. So that way, they would go into it knowing that the districts are going to change over from five to four and what the confines of those, you know, the boundaries of those districts will be with the mayor to be voted in at large. And then after that, it goes back to a stagger where they're not all elected at the same time.

Yeah, it'll create an interesting dynamic because there will be a three year period where two commissioners are not representing one district, but reside in a future district. Like, somewhere, the way the districts will be realigned and cannibalized, like commissioner a and b will both be living in the new future a district. And for three years, they'll coexist One like, they they might be competing against each other in 2029 or maybe one of them retires or maybe one of them is moving into the mayor position, but it'll be it'll be interesting to watch. Somebody will be it'll be that'll

be fun. It's that's actually you see that in state legislatures, congress, when they do a redistricting. There's that period where you're representing where two people are in effect, like, representing the same district even though they're or portions of the district, it gets very

uncomfortable. Yeah. Yeah.

But it's be fun. The realities of redistricting.

Just for edification purposes, so the body that the charter review works on is obviously the charter. I mean, is safe to say that the redistricting board just works on, like, whatever document defines districts?

Correct.

My recollection of it was I I got to serve on it twice. And they said we got the district map. We got, like, census data, and we got some guidelines and recommendations of things to consider, like

Don't gerrymander.

Don't yeah. Use use natural boundaries when possible. Try not to split up some small neighborhoods. Take into consideration where existing commissioners currently reside. I think that was one of them.

There was was several kind of guidelines to consider. It's madness sometimes. Trying to keep the numbers somewhat similar, and I think having the districts be contiguous was another one. Because you know you have four fifteen thousand member districts, that's perfect, But if you have three eighteen thousands and one six thousand, that's not so great. But then how do you reconfigure it?

And so I think the last time they changed a little bit. But the next redistricting, I think we'll have to probably anticipate a little bit of what the downtown or the the new development district will look like because it won't look like anything when that's convenient, but during that next four or six year period, it'll probably look a lot different. So then there'll be some projections going on in that one. And

they'll have the roadway network to help with your natural boundaries. They'll have the maximum development and site plans all in place which will give you know anticipated densities in there

which will help. Get out of here. It's a very challenging job. That'll be a fun redistricting one.

Mean, I lived in a town about the same size as Windmoor, frankly, in terms of population And up we had two congressmen. My district, was represented by Nita Lowy who just died. And yet across the street from me was another congressional district.

Really?

Yeah. So, I mean, I can walk across to my neighbor on the other side of the street, and he was in a different district. It was absurd. Wow. In the same town.

So nothing jumped off No. The page. Do we have these two sections?

They did it.

So we still

have about half an hour left. We can either start tackling some more of your issues on the issue list, or I know there was some discussion at the last meeting about considering single member districts.

Have a little bit extra time.

No. It's getting early. I

would say lean to, more like long to.

Fair enough. They mentioned that the I think somebody mentioned Mohammed mentioned maybe that since the time change occurred during our bi week

Oh, Oh, okay.

That we would No.

It didn't matter. Right? Alright.

But that you did show us.

Okay. It's not. So I'm in the So much for that.

I mean, I can talk about the last issue if you want. I'll start. I think the last one.

Of district voting types at large versus single member. We currently have at large as you're well aware. Additionally, Valpo had asked for some data with regards to the last few elections, which we're in the process of trying to get that together, and we'll have that ready for you

until the next meeting. Yeah. That was gonna be my main takeaway from thinking about it between last time and this time. Just seeing considering we just had an election that large, how do how do people vote? Will people get votes from their district anyway? Obviously, can vote for people outside of your district or not even in your district. So

Yeah, maybe we should just wait until we get that data Just seeing the share conceptually. Yeah, just conceptually, was thinking too, in the future with the elected mayor, so one of the I've asked a bunch of people for kinda pros and cons. The con the only con that I really come up with consistently in talking to people is that you could run the risk of the commissioners limiting themselves to caring about, like, their district more than somebody district. But I kinda see that as kind of a pro too, sort of. But there's gonna be the elected mayor who's kinda overarching all of them.

So even if everybody was strictly focused on their own district, you'd still have at least two representatives on the city commission, and I don't think that would happen where somebody's just strictly focused on their district, but you'd still have at least two people representing your interests at a city commission meeting. Straight up

to Main Street, has its cronies. And

then the other thing, not to throw something else on the list, but as I was kinda just chewing on that, I thought about the compensation for the elected mayor. Not so much the because the compensation is kind of lumped together with, like, an expense account. Like, it's part of the compensation for the commissioners, I think. Right? So I was thinking the expense apart account part of the elected mayor's compensation maybe should be a little different than the individual commissioner's expense account portion of their compensation.

If they have to cover more ground or something, maybe there should be some kind of accommodation where their expense account is 50% larger than the individual commissioner's expense account something like that. But it's kinda related to that. But I think the the voting data will help.

The idea of all the commissioners being elected at large, not representing a particular district. Just the entire commission is at large. Forget it. It's the way we did it up north. I didn't I didn't represent

Sunrise does that.

I I talked to a yeah. Somebody I know is a long time commissioner in the city of Sunrise. I was surprised to hear when he told me they did that. And he said, yeah. It's a great thing because everybody all the commissioners represent all of the city.

But then I thought the downside of that is if I mean, that that sounds right, if but they all live in the same Neighborhood. Yeah. Same neighborhood, same community, are they really you know, do they really represent the whole you know, sort of, like, maybe it's good to have them all spread out. So I I I don't know. I I came up with my own kind of pros and cons on that.

I know. From what I've seen, at least in New York, I would say virtually all the tenants that I was with had at large boards. I didn't represent any particular part. I was, was, you you know, know, a a village village trustee trustee for for the the entire entire village. Village along with five others. I'm elected mayor. The whole thing is that large. We're doing that in a way now. We're voting that large, but for a district commissioner. So why not make it at large? Yes.

So right now, it it just ensures that

Different parts of the city get

representation. Yeah. But but Sort of. But those but those individual parts of the city don't necessarily send that representative.

The representative isn't necessarily represented. Know many people are interested.

Well, how's it broken my own? Like,

on the on the state level,

it's

districting. Right? Like, you know, we vote for Right. The it's spread out throughout the state. And then if you only vote for who's in your district, like, have no say in who represents Tampa Bay Mhmm. In the state.

Well, I think that makes sense. The state I mean, you're dealing with with different issues, and we have different populations, different socioeconomic groups as opposed to Orlando versus somewhere out in the boonies near Okeechobee. And, yeah, here, we're a smaller city. Not a nice sized city, but but I'm torn. I'm I'm not in favor of the way we do it now in terms of at large votes for district commissioners.

I that just doesn't make sense. I could see the system that we had of North working. Now I don't know if the fear is that you get too many people from one neighborhood, but I think we're we're spread out enough. We're diverse enough that I don't think we'd have that.

I was just guarding against homogeneity. Right? Like, you have five. And I was picking one more, five people wanna run-in one more, they have a little bit more activity, they all get elected for one more. Or same thing. Winston Park has, you know, some mega parties, and all of a sudden Winston Park takes over the commission. So there's different ways to think about the like, right now, our commission, I'd say, is not homogenous. It's a little like, you we saw them all kind of come and they all have a little bit different flavor, tone, personality, which I hope reflects not just their person, but, like, where they where they're from. So

Yeah. They're they live in five different parts of the city. I think if I remember correctly, and if I did my math correctly, like, in two years from now, we will have a commissioner in their thirties, a commissioner in their forties, a commissioner in their seventies, and a commissioner in their eighties, or maybe two in their eighties. So kinda spread out age wise. Not that that matters a ton, but it speaks to the non

Guards against homogeneity. Yeah. Non

homogenous. I believe right now we have a commissioner in their thirties, one in their forties, one in their fifties, one in their seventies, one in their eighties.

Oh, I left out. We had a 51. That's what it was. Fifties. No sixties, and then two eighties. I think it'll be in two years from now. But currently, it would be fifties, seventies, eighties, or sixties. I think a two year Sandy will be. Oh, okay. You have more But to be clear, they both look great.

She's your dad's friend, Dundas.

They both look great. I'll tell you who said that. And I cut you off by a year. No. But I thought which I forgot. I thought it

was fifties. Ironically, without getting into any politics, I mean, that's reflected at the national level too, is it not?

The same age as far as Yes. Yeah. Yeah.

So there's I mean, I kind of agree with you. I think there's a there's I think there's I think it's horrible the way it is now, but there might be a way to make it a notch better one way or the other. Like you said, you kind of proposed two different

I mean, I just wanna see, like, the data. Like, if for some reason, one district, like, isn't turning out at all. I mean, if you can win a, you know, a commission seat with less than you need for

Yeah. My my district, I think of as unique because I believe it has the most expensive homes and the least expensive homes in the city in that one district. It's got three it's got a few, like, mobile home communities. Mhmm. A couple of which are pretty socioeconomically on the lower end the scale.

But then it's got big Big mansions. Big yeah. Big many properties that are well over $1,000,000 in in value.

I realized that they had So votes on my phone, but I deleted it. I had a final vote totals, so you would have seen what the precinct votes were.

Oh, that would have been a joke.

So and what the what we'll be able to do is next week, be able to provide you a map of the districts, a map of the precincts, and the twenty twenty five precinct totals. We don't have them broken down in in by district. We don't expect that we'll hear from the SOE with the district numbers because it's a whole different calculation, and we don't whatever. We've asked for it. We don't know if we get it.

So we'll have at least that information next week. And Cooper City is one city that last, I think, in 2024, voted to in 2022, I'm sorry, voted to change from at large no, from from single member districts to at large. So I was gonna backtrack to whoever had worked with that amendment to get a better understanding of their reasoning behind that. And we'll hopefully have some answers and background information there for you as well. So we can do that then.

Unless you wanted to close-up now, I can ask you we can talk about five c on page six, and then we're done with at least that part of that one if you want to. Five c was in section four zero three related to the Atkins city manager. It's the part that provides that the city manager if their city manager's temporary absence or disability exceeds a period of two months, the city commission may revoke such designation at any time and designate another officer of the city to serve until the manager shall return, or his or her disability no longer prevent him or her from performing his or her duties. And that was put in, I believe, last time at the request after discussion. The city manager had raised it.

City manager Brooks had raised it as it didn't have any time frame established with it. So it gave the commission the ability to immediately make changes and kind of undermine the independent nature of the city manager. You know, the city manager could go away for the weekend, leave somebody else in charge, and the city commission could could undo that. So at her request, I I don't remember exactly what time frame she had asked for. I do know that the board did not recommend the full time frame that she had asked for.

And their recommendation was two months, that that could accommodate it went a little bit more than your average vacation, obviously. But it did accommodate a car accident or some other major illness to respect those that administrative role that the city manager provides. So that was their thinking on that. And then the issue was raised by commissioner Riedel, I believe, to evaluate whether that two months was appropriate.

Yeah. Think no. Yeah. I don't think you would make wanna make it longer. You can make it shorter, but I don't know what shorter is. One month, six weeks. Does that materially really change much? So

Yeah. There's somebody somebody's gonna be serving in that role right away, whether they're designated by commission. Right? Some of them needs to be a boss at city hall somewhere.

And, generally, anytime, you know, the city manager leaves, she'll assign somebody. Generally, she has her her deputy city manager there. If they're both out, then she'll assign somebody else.

The deputy doesn't automatically act as the city manager or the acting city manager if city manager goes away vacation for

two weeks. They more or less do unless for some reason there's a vacancy in

that position.

Now is do they have to does the city manager again, she's going on vacation for two weeks. Does she have to designate the deputy as the acting city manager, or is that automatic? That's the question.

I believe that the desire of the commission is to have her specify when she's going to be out for more than like a day or so just so that way they know who to call with any questions or issues. Because there is the possibility as miss Mahaffy pointed out, perhaps maybe they're at a conference, the city manager and deputy city manager, Maybe it takes a week. And so the deputy city manager may not be in charge, and she may designate some other person. And this way, they know who to call, who's around in case there's an emergency or some type of issue.

Well, that's what's saying in the manager. I'm going on vacation. I'm feeling for two weeks. On vacation. She's allowed. Right. And does the deputy automatically become the acting city manager? Because that's the question. Or does she have to specifically give notice to the commission saying, I am appointing my deputy city manager as the acting city manager. That wasn't exactly clear from this. That's how I'm sure.

And that really is more of a preference of the city commission. I mean, as you pointed out, yes, technically, the deputy would be the next in line. So they would foreseeably serve on the role of acting city manager while the city manager is out. If for some reason the deputy is also out, then that's when this I would kick don't know that we necessarily want to specify that or clarify that because my concern would be that it then omits the ability to be a little bit more flexible if need be. And it makes it where the commission could not state their preference.

Maybe they want to assume the deputy is in charge unless otherwise told or maybe they want to be told every time. It really is up to them. I would just simply say as it relates to the two months, I think Ms. McAfee made a good point. There could be some unforeseen emergency, whether it be a car accident or a death in the family or perhaps, you know, or more of a long term illness of a family, you know, maybe a spouse or a child or of the actual person serving in that role.

Perhaps they, you know, have been diagnosed with cancer or some type of serious illness and have to undergo treatment. The point is to allow them that amount of time where you're accommodating whatever's necessary for them to get better and not immediately terminating them or putting somebody else in charge entirely where they could make long term decisions that are difficult to undo when the person is better, but also not go so long that it's unclear as to who's in charge.

The only gap yeah. The only gap I really see in it is the the if the acting if the city manager has a disability, that would preclude them from appointing somebody to take their place for the first two months of that disability? Like, so somebody gets in a car accident, is that a culm or something like that? Who's who's the city manager? Like, almost like if there was somebody automatically designated, like, in the absence of the city attorney, the assistant city attorney, in the absence of the city manager.

I think to me, it's the deputy city attorney. I mean, deputy city manager, not me. Not me.

Someone's got a brushed shoulders.

Deputy city man city manager.

I brought you with a title. Do you think that would be the next one? Theoretically I would think it would be, but it gives them the ability to

And and it may be that, you know, okay, I'm gonna be out for six weeks or two months. My deputy city manager has x that they are dealing with, so I'm gonna put y in charge for those two months. They could choose to do something alternatively. But without, in that emergency, I believe it would automatically be the deputy city manager because that's the chain of command that she has established.

Yeah, that makes sense. Is that Texas if that's understood that way? And then after two months, god forbid, the city manager is incapacitated and the city commission says, we're hoping that this person comes back to work in a few more months. Their job is preserved. But we realized the assistant city manager is a really good assistant city manager, but isn't so great leading. So maybe we wanna make the assistant city attorney the acting assistant city manager in their place. Don't know. So the city commission wouldn't be hamstrung with something because sometimes the number two doesn't do such a great job at number one. If it's gonna be a three or four or five month ordeal

And crazier things have happened. I understand understand that that in other neighboring cities, similar circumstances have occurred.

And then the city commission would have the ability to say, hey. Let us switch the seats around a little bit and get somebody we're more comfortable working with. Mhmm. But it's clear that the job is preserved.

And that's the intent to preserve it, not to the point of, okay, you know, are on a sabbatical forever, and you're appointing somebody else just you know? And you have no ability to essentially remove them. But just in the case that they are, you know, there's an unforeseen type of emergency or illness or, and also they're on vacation, although generally I have not seen any city manager take a two month vacation. No.

I don't recall, and

my notes

don't indicate what commissioner Reidell was specifically kinda

I think he was talking about the time. He

was concerned that it was too long for the commission to be out of

Yeah. Control.

Yeah. I think as long as it's understood who's going to be.

So you wanted less than two months?

Does the city manager request have to request like a time off? I think you're gonna take a a month long cruise or something like that, would they get

they would get approval from somebody or they just do it at the top of the So that's an interesting

question. Essentially, they would notify the commission. If commission the had an objection, they would make a note. And then they would have to alter their plans.

Because I would say just who's gonna be in your who's gonna Correct. Be doing your

job. And it works the same with my position as well as city attorney

because we're the only two employees that report directly to the commission. Okay. Mhmm.

And I think that's pretty good the way it's currently written. Okay.

So we'll leave that one as is. That finishes up article four. We'll start with Forbes next time unless you're super ambitious. I'm assuming based on what you said, you're done. Yes. So we need to go over April's

So the next meeting will be next Wednesday next Wednesday, 03:26, 5PM. Then April, I have Wednesday the second Yep. Tuesday the eighth Wednesday the sixteenth. Not to say these have to be. It's just for I think So we have right now. Yeah. Wednesday the twenty third and Wednesday the thirtieth. And

I think that took us essentially to the end of the one hundred and twenty days. There might have been an extra week.

I think if we run into a crunch, which I don't anticipate, you really kind of closed up the I think you're a great play a great place, so we shouldn't have any issues. I am.

I think we're gonna

be we might not able to Might not. To Alright.

It really depends on if you like

it. Yeah.

We've got I think we have plenty of time and Alright.

Any further comments? If not, I'll take a motion and a second to adjourn. I move we adjourn. Alright. Second. All in favor. Thank you so much.