Charter Review Board - Regular Meeting

Alright. We'll call the order of the 03/26/2025 charter review board meeting. Will the board clerk please call the roll?

Chair Dabo? Present. Vice chair Scoriusa? Present. Board member Album? Here. Board member Menzas? Present. Board member Riziv? Here. Deputy city attorney Mahaffy? Here. City attorney Piper?

Here. Thank you.

We'd like to remind everyone to please silence your mobile devices. To help with sound quality, please make sure to speak clearly so that the microphones can pick up your voice. This meeting is being conducted live with a quorum 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 for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim recording of the proceedings is made, including the testimony and evidence from 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.

Excellent. Thank you. First item on our agenda is our meeting minutes the February 26, the March 6 meeting meetings. Does anybody have any corrections that they'd like to offer up for the 02/26/2025 meeting, the 03/06/2025 board meetings? I personally do not.

I do not.

I vote. Alright. So, if none, can we get a motion and a second to approve the minutes as presented? Motion. Alright. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Yes. Aye. Thank you. Yes. Alright. We jump into tonight's business.

We completed reviewing the charter at the last at the last meeting. I think there's some things that we wanna crack through and review in our potential changes list. And but I'm kinda anxious to one of things we had as an open item was the review of the districts and some of the data related to districts and voting turnout and registered voters and looks like the city put together a bunch of information. I I take in a few minutes. Looking through this. I don't know if anybody from staff is well versed in this already. If you are, feel free to jump in. Otherwise, I'm just gonna take a minute and just try to digest a little bit of it and understand it and then we can have it together.

So this is related to item 14 in your running charter list, which just says looking at the topic of single member districts. What you have is a map that shows the commissioner districts, a, b, c, d, and e. And underlying that in color are the voting precincts. Something to keep in mind about those voting precincts. They are established by us. They are established by the supervisor of elections. We have no say when they changed them. They changed between the '21 and the '20 between '21 and '23, they changed. So in 2021, we had 14 precincts. In '23, we had nine.

10. Nine. Nine. And so those are something beyond our control. We have zero ability to predict or evaluate.

They as you can see, they do not line up very, very closely. A being the one that is most aligned with district boundaries with just a little bit of a carve out in sub in Precinct 7. The bit of Precinct 5 that is in District B is actually Foconut Creek High School, so no I don't believe there's any voters in that in that little carve out. So A is the most the only one that's really aligned to precincts. Because of that precinct change, you have three you have well, you have three other pages of data.

Because of the precinct change, those that data is only includes 'twenty three election and the 'twenty five election. So you've got a summary sheet which shows you total of voters, total percentage turnout, all of that. Then you have two breakdowns of the actual elections for those two elections. And and on your sheet three and four, the first one just shows the actual numbers. The second one adds percentage comparison.

So they're basically the same thing. It's just one has a little bit the last page has a little bit more detail. So you can take a look at those numbers to see kind of how they break down. Again, District A is the only one that really aligns clearly to precinct.

It's like three precincts pretty much comprise District A.

Right. But that's the only one that that lines up clearly.

Yeah. So does everybody see the black lines identify the district and then Right. Colored spaces. Right. Precinct 6.

Mhmm. And

Precinct 6 for the most part a lot of it is preserved and part type stuff Somewhere in there. There's five voters apparently not sure where I think there's an apartment complex in there

maybe somewhere 46 registered voters Yeah. Unvoted, a single vote.

Five voted.

Five voted in in one in the '20 I think '23. '25.

They had the biggest drop three. From '23 to '25, they went from five votes to zero votes. Wow.

I do think I if I recall, I do think it's an apartment complex which tends to have lower voter turnout for especially for a city election.

Oh, what?

And I think it actually fronts maybe Atlantic Boulevard.

I think so.

Just to the west there. Yeah. Because further south is just Fern Forest and Seems strange. Perseverance.

Not a single person boater. Wow. That's interesting.

Beyond that, to to get anything out of the districts, it's really a land use analysis that in-depth type thing that is really more kind of a a district redistricting board and now type of analysis.

So that's kind of where you're at.

We're happy to answer any questions. This really is largely a product that the city clerk did a phenomenal job assembling and getting this map put together and pulled together

for us. He has a great plan.

So he's got as much insight as we do. And, you know, other than telling you what the mind of the voters is, there's not much. Give a shot at any questions you have. Sure. And I didn't get any real clear insights from Cooper City.

No. I did not. You wanna?

So I wanted to mention there's a bill in Forgive Me. I can't recall the number. 1417. Thank you. 1417, which is pending for the legislature, which is proposing to change election dates in basically municipal election dates to November. So we're watching that to see whether or not it passes. I haven't had a chance to look at it in last couple days. I found it late last week, but I'll follow with it, and I'll probably take a look tomorrow. But we're watching it, and we'll keep you apprised because that may or may not impact, you know, some of

what you're doing here.

And that could happen kind of in any in the very near term or the recession?

Yeah. Could ultimately if it passes. The language was providing last time I looked, it was providing that it would become effective essentially upon passage, but it would allow basically sitting elected officials to complete their terms. And then so it would essentially coincide with the next election after that, which as you recall, because of the referendum that was passed in November, our next election wouldn't be until March 2029 since we just had one. So presumably, it would possibly extend.

I need to look into this a little more their terms to November 2030 if that passes by the state making that change. I'm not entirely sure that would be the impact, but that's the way it reads on its face is that it's essentially extending the term of any sitting elected official until the next general election date after the next scheduled municipal election. So so we're watching that.

What would that do to our twenty twenty nine mayor election?

Well It would push

it to '20

It it would. Exactly. So yeah. It's it's quite even under.

It's all hypothetical, I guess, right now. Not remembering what it says, but is it could there be a scenario since the city's already extended that to, like, a six year term to back it up a year to 2028?

No. Because you can't really take away from somebody's kind of vested term, if you will. And so I think that's why their proposed language is suggesting that it would coincide with the next municipal election and basically just push it over until the next available general election after that. But again, I don't know, you know, its chances of passing at this point in time, and we're keeping an eye on it. I'll keep you apprised of it because it does create a unique situation for us given that we waived the next election. So

Wow. Okay.

Stay tuned.

Like Is that a casino? Yeah. It's like a

And the land adjacent to the casino, all is trust land.

That's that's not Right. Part of

any history. It's like the Vatican.

It's bigger than There you go. That's a good way to describe it. It's there,

but it's not there. Think of the Vatican?

It's its own governmental entity.

Now the one that jumps off from this is the sheer size of F 4. Yeah. At least turnout wise.

Mhmm. Communication is a lot easier.

Having said that, the the ratio of splits is pretty consistent across all the precincts. Not egregiously, like, different.

Yeah. The registered voters and

Well, I but across these countries. So it's not like someone in F four Oh, gotcha. Those voters are trumping, like,

all the other voters. Yeah.

It's pretty much the same decision across the three states.

Right. Yeah. My unqualified presupposition would be that that's largely because of District

4, though.

Well,

that's already shown here.

Right? Right.

So So, going across, F 1 still has about the same split even though it's much smaller.

Well, you're talking about the percentage. Right.

But because district right. Because District 4 Well, voted that as you're saying, the f 1 voter turnout. Yeah. It's just a it's just yeah. It's just

a much smaller number. Yeah.

It's much smaller, but it's still 75 ish percent. Right? It's not it's not different from the whole.

Even the margin?

Yeah. The margin's the same premium as

the product.

Right. It's almost the upper 70s. Right?

Yeah. If it was, you know, flipped for some reason, like f f four was the other way, then not quite a total flip, but it certainly changes the.

When I looked at eight in 23, those three districts, precincts, five, six, and seven, their total had these almost the exact same outcome as the citywide total with the difference of about 10 votes. In '23, five, six, and seven, which is those precincts is all of District A. And in that, commissioner Wasserman won that election in those three precincts by a total of about 40 some odd votes. Citywide, commissioner Wasser won the election by about 50 votes. So the citywide reflected that.

It was it was that close back in

'20 It doesn't seem like at large is really affecting where a candidate's coming from.

We're looking to see, for example, if a high turnout at four impacts the rest of the city. I mean, that was part of what you're saying, that that can control. Yeah.

Yeah. It doesn't But the it doesn't seem like it's very different

from the other results. You know, we had a higher percentage turnout of 29.3% as opposed to generally below 10.

So Wasserman won his district and won the election, basically.

It's increasing. I'm trying to do my the math in my head, but Precinct 4 had well over half, maybe 60 or 65% of the voter turnout. I don't wanna say numbers you're responsible.

Fourteen fifty out of 3,500 out of 30

almost 36. I know that I'm doing the math wrong. Precincts are split up. But, yeah, Precinct 4 yeah. It's out of 35.

40%. Their precinct force votes were approximately 40% of the So

that's what I guess I'm I'm kinda chewing on is that one out of nine precincts had 40% of the voter turnout. And not necessarily not inherently bad. It's just, I guess, interesting. And if that re represents anything to to protect against?

Doesn't I mean, yes, but the results don't don't show that there's an egregious, like, flip.

Right?

So it's not like somebody is only winning f four and then winning the election.

No. But it's I don't think it's hard to conclude that it could be that. Like, everything's pretty evenly distributed this election and and seemingly last election too. But, yeah, my thought and I don't have

a super strong conviction

on it yet, but my thought is that it doesn't have to be that way. That if everybody, not everybody, a large portion of people in one district wanted to put a group of five people in office, one district has a good chance of doing that, the other eight districts have zero chance of doing that just because of the nature of the turnout. So, again, not inherently inherently bad, but I don't know. I feel

like it's just a little bit vulnerable.

I'm just seeing how this past election was so volatile Mhmm. And there were so many people up in arms and that level of activism was was just a little learning to me.

Well, I could see the sort of convenience at large, you know, an at large commission for that reason. I agree. I mean, as someone living in that district, yeah, if if when we're decided, let's run this city and you have 75 turnout, you could run,

okay, five candidates. Yeah. It is it is comforting to know. Well, and there's already going to be a disproportionate kind of influence with the elected mayor. Interestingly

enough, F4 ranks number four in terms of registered voters. Yeah,

it's just this turnout.

Just Yeah.

But in Four times

in turnout.

Galvanizing, the turnout is there. But in any place or situation where there is an active interest, the voters are there for an equal fight.

I'll be honest. It's communication. Precinct.

I mean, as a community of of that many people with a with an email list of six or seven, actually close to 8,000 people on the list, anyone who wants to campaign, who can get access to that list, obviously, it's more cohesive unit. I mean, as a person who lives there, I can see where it might not be fit.

Yeah. Potentially. Yeah. That that doesn't have and and it's also just not limited to candidacy. It could be any like, I used an example, and it might be a foolish example, but, like, if if Whitmore wants their community bus service to become part of the city bus service and paid for by the city's budget, And they said we're gonna pick candidates in the next election that are on board with that idea. And then we can offload $500,000 a year in operational expenses to the city because we

get those yeah. I understand a little. 900,000 in insurance alone.

Wow. On on the vehicles. You know, so That's a good idea. Spoken to. Is that a bad idea?

The candidates I've spoken to over the last few years have all pretty much told me, and this isn't scientific, it is more anecdotal I guess, but they've all said you gotta get gotta get some support from WinMore if you wanna win the election. And I always thought that's the nature of my even just bringing this up. I've always thought that's kinda tough. But I never had the data to quantify that or try to understand it or see if it was actually an accurate statement or not. And, of course, the city staff put together some fantastic data. Yeah. I don't know if it supports what

I've always been told. I guess, I I think to some The capabilities there, it

just hasn't changed.

It does. Well, like, this particular election, like, all three the last one, all three incumbents won and which I think is kinda normal. I think if you're a challenging incumbent, you know, the odds are kinda stacked against you. Right? And they all kinda won by

About the same 75 over Yeah. In each district, each precinct. Yeah.

Sandy got 66%, Jackie got 76%, and Josh got 88%. But they all carried f four. I guess similarly, within five percentage points. So, yeah, everybody in the city pretty much voted the same way. Mhmm.

But I would conclude that district or Precinct 4 didn't see the election differently than districts than the other eight districts. They saw the they saw the election the same way.

So so My con

my concern would be if they don't see the election the same way. Okay. So

That would

wanna put up four commissioners all from Windmore. Yeah.

Well, that would be the argument against a, you know, at large commission. And I see what's coming from that. It's not it's not it's not an incorrect argument. And, again, it's because of the ability of a cohesive community to communicate that the other the other the other precincts, we've made even larger. Right. You don't have that ability. You don't have that single email list, that that ability where you've got all those people in one small area.

Yeah. The cost of communicating that, and then it's not codified. Right? There's not a single association all handing out voter guides for, you know, district d might have eight different homeowners associations all with varying interest and varying demographics or any of those districts for that matter. But,

I mean, I still think that I'd like to see us explore the idea of each district electing its commissioner, just the district itself, rather than an at large vote for district commissioners. That seems to be

the Yeah. I agree. That's kind of what I'm proposing to at least just to discuss

Yeah.

That I I I don't there's I suppose there's some potential downfalls to it. As I've asked around and gotten people's opinions, though, the only one that I've really heard consistently was that if District a elects commissioner a, I'll call it, and commissioner a is less incentivized to serve the whole city and more incentivized to serve District A exclusively. And when there's a grand opening at a barbershop in District D, the person from District A is gonna be less inclined to go out of his way to or her way to go to the ribbon cutting or help that person with any permitting questions they have or whatever. But in as much as I could see that as a potential downside, it's kind of not a downside to me either because each district is well represented by an individual commissioner and one mayor that's overarching all the districts. And I feel like everybody is pretty well represented, and they're represented by the person that they want to represent them.

If I may Sure. One thing for your thoughts. Again, in light of the referendum in November wherein we will have an elected mayor at the next election. The redistricting board is essentially going to be charged next year with reducing from five to four districts. So that may also play into this as well. I just wanted you to think about that.

Yes. I've thought about that redistricting board and one of the guidelines that they're going to have well, I shouldn't say that they're gonna have. The couple of times I've served on that one of the criteria that you're told to look out for is where existing commissioners live and

you don't want to redistrict in a

way that puts two commissioners, two sitting commissioners in the same district.

Right. Because that causes problems.

And I suppose there's a caveat to that, like if it's at all avoidable, but I think for the most part you make it avoidable. But that's gonna be a complicated that's gonna be a complicated job.

It is and And ultimately, that alone may have some impact on the voting numbers for each precinct because the precincts will change slightly in the districts. Again, there will be four instead of five. So Yeah. Some of the items will I mean, some of the districts will combine in some way.

Yeah. I've thought about that when there's four districts. Because I feel like Southern Coconut Creek and Northern Coconut Creek are pretty different in terms of how they're composed. So I've already kind of thought, like, the horizontal district, horizontal lines might not be the best route. Maybe it's more kind of h shaped where there's two districts left left and right going half the city and two more going the other half city.

So they're kind of less different from a through d and more homogenized district with similar interest. But like only one district if only one district has the Sawgrass Expressway running through it, I feel like things related to the Sawgrass Expressway privacy walls are built by the state or the federal member, whoever the field is, it's gonna matter to one person, but if if the district goes north and south across the Sawgrass Expressway, it affects two districts. And there's and and then there's and then the elected mayor, so now there's three people who are maybe more concerned to pay attention. You know, same thing with the landfill. Right.

Right? Like, if if there's two districts side by side that are in parallel to the landfill, there's two commissioners that should be building. And I think in this past issue of the landfill, everybody is rightfully on the same page and equally invested in opposing it.

But And unless you look at the county commission.

And then the county they they yeah. They were pretty much on the same page too. They don't they did not represent their their constituency in Coconut Creek and Pompano Deerfield very well, but the rest of the county outweighs our our area. Right? So because it's gonna end up somewhere.

And they have single member districts, so arguably commissioner Bogan looked up for his the interest in his district and

Yeah. And he did it well and he had he had the numbers in his favor. And the landfill was already here. I think we had a good chance. If there was no landfill and everybody's just deciding where to put the landfill, it was already here. So it's kinda like the odds are stacked against us significant. I think we punched above our weight in terms of just even getting it considered to the degree that it was considered because everything was kinda going against us in that I was there. And then the other county did us no favors. But yeah, David. So that's kinda what I was thinking about in in just bringing this whole thing up.

I don't wanna make it too complicated, but it is kind of complicated. It's probably one of the more significant things that we're chewing on. But in the future, there's gonna be four districts, there's gonna be one overarching mayor. So I think the great people in Precinct 4 are already gonna have the inside track to have two commissioners, their own and the mayor. They're gonna probably they're gonna have a a strong head start in determining who the mayor for the city is, will be the overarching commissioner.

So That's just kind of how I digested my thought process on these things so far. Another potential downside is that a district with low turnout let me see. Pre 6 had real low turnout.

And this is gonna be the selection.

So so the the precincts don't affect district lines. It's just we're getting the votes aggregated by precinct.

Correct? That's correct. Okay. Just Yeah. That's we just don't have the ability to give you votes by district. Unfortunately, we're only have them accessible by recent.

So you could split split for trying to be, like, cheeky.

Oh, yeah. That would be something the redistricting committee would have to Deal with. Deal with. But it would go against the some of the guidelines that they receive in setting up the districts. It's like whenever possible, don't split communities. Whenever possible, use natural boundaries. That's some of the I don't remember. It's been several years since I've been a part of that process. So there are a couple of things I remember. And I think it's

You had a hell of a time splitting that up, trying

to figure out I think

it's it's more likely that that district a is what it currently is plus Precinct 4. It's more likely that something like that were to happen. Obviously, I don't know, but it's more likely it would, you know, stay in there.

And I guess that's one of the biggest concerns that we have, and that is that there's so many unknowns with the redistricting, the reorganization, and how all of those things will play out creates a lot of unknowns that you're trying to manipulate. Yeah, and I just,

I think like how big are the downsides though if each district puts their own person in office? Like we do it statewide.

We do it nationally.

We do it nationally. Like, how big like, what I don't know. What the worst thing that can happen is, like, one district has 300 voters, and those 300 voters made a bad choice, and one commissioner is less than qualified or less than stellar. But, I mean, I Well, can imagine that happening? But even if it is, that's who they get they wanted to represent their their district.

Yeah. So we can

use Josh. Right? You got a 192 in F 1, two seventy in F 9. So it would be F 1 F 9. Let's see. Let's say you got half of the ones in F 9 because that's d as well.

Right. F 1 F 9.

So it's maybe maybe at, like, 300 to 400 votes? Yeah. So he would be his he would be a commissioner at three or 400

votes Yeah. Compared to He actually was. Like, he just got a lot well, he got more than that, but, yeah, you're right.

Yeah. But but if we were just if we were limiting the 400. The vote to just your district, right, you'd have a district voter set, like, 500 people maybe, 400 people. So Versus other districts, you know,

thousands. Yeah. Because there's low verge on voter turnout. But his the registered voters in his district, They're all pretty similar. Eight eight thousand in F 1 and F 9, roughly.

Seems like we had five more percent or 10 more percent turnout. All of this concern will be somewhat taken care of.

Yeah. Right? Yeah. That maybe. Yeah. So The bigger Well, depending on where it comes from.

But yeah. Like, f seven, eight, nine, those are the beefier outside of the four. And I guess two is big too, two. I mean, if you just get 10% more turnout, then it normalizes at four. Because I don't think even if they have ten ten more percent, it wouldn't impact as much just because volume wise

You're saying in that particular district 10% more? Let's say you had 10% more across the board certainly. Right? That would make this guy really happy.

And if, you know, if the city elections looks like it's getting pushed to the general election, that might just take care of that.

Yeah. The numbers are higher in the November elections. Right?

But Yes. Oh, yeah.

I'm gonna be about 80%. I think something very high. How do we manage to lose in a city that is adding population, how do we manage to lose 2,000 plus voters, 2,500 voters, registered voters, from 23 to 25?

We have lot of immigrants, like residents, right? If you have a green card, you can't vote. You need to be a

Didn't they wasn't there a voter they cleaned out their didn't they do a voter clean out?

They purged the rules? The For

the for the vote by no request, you mean?

No. Just in general.

I thought they did a general voter clean out or voter

You're talking about the supervisor of elections

Yes. The For some reason, thought between '23 and twenty five election, there was a purging of basically stale registrations.

I think that was only with regards to the mail and ballots.

That was my understanding, but that may be something else

that we're talking about. Yeah. Yeah.

I think there's also just, you know, whether you like it or not, I think there's also been some voter disenfranchisement to some extent because of things happening at levels beyond local government. So I don't think that people are as engaged in in voting anymore.

Yeah. You're saying the actual registered voters.

Yeah. It was down at that point.

Yeah. But yeah. I mean, the whole I mean, is that because population decreased or, like you said, some sort of people just aren't registering?

Could be a combination of everything.

Everything. Yeah.

Do you have a question for me, chair?

I was gonna ask you. What off the top of your head roughly was the voter turnout in the last election November election?

So based on the districts, it was in excess of 70% across the board. And for f four, which is way more obviously, that had a tornado of 85%. Gotcha. But the the standard range was between

Only responsible.

About 70% up to 85% across the precincts. A total overall average of approximately 77% depending on what data set you use for Brad SOE because our numbers are kinda all over the place. It's based on the best estimates of the data I have in front of you.

And these are in our city? So Correct. Was that 25,000 people came out and voted?

More than that, but about 36,000 registered voters, had exposure to 28, 29. Okay. It

does look like, based on that they did throughout Broward and Palm Beach Counties, they did some significant list maintenance to remove people who hadn't voted in the last two elections. And That was based on standard practices plus additional state laws. That's just a couple of news articles that I found Which would have reduced those numbers

Interesting. Alright. Yeah. And I also got feedback on the cost that it the cost involved in running for a city commission seat in the city. Everybody I think I've asked six people who have been candidates in either and and went on to be elected or lost the election. It's five or six. And they all said between 50 and $100,000 is what it cost to do their campaign to have a have a good chance of winning.

Well, they didn't raise that much this year, though. No. There was checking the finance, I think I think Patricia

And then the November election, more. Mhmm. March election, less. November election, more. And,

yeah, those are because I think Patricia raised the most money and

That is correct.

Then maybe Josh and then Jackie, but it was 17,018 thousand something like that. I mean, and she Patricia raised more than that, but, You can look it up in the finance reports. That's interesting. It shows what they raised and what they spent.

Yeah. I have the data here. I could read from 2025 or 2023 if that

That'd be awesome.

Just So sure. I'll start with 2025. So Jacqueline Raley raised a total of $29,935. Their opponent, Lisa Sklar, raised $3,755. Going at the district C, Patricia Guebbe's raised $68,940, and her opponent, Sandy Welch, raised 30,006 and $25.

And for District E, Felicia Schumannukirk, raised $1,983. And Joshua Riedel raised $62,466. It's something to keep in mind with these numbers as well is that if you loan money to yourself, it's also counted as a monetary contribution. So, for example, know, Patricia Guebe's the number shows $68,009.40, but she may have loaned herself 10,000 to that, so she she only actually raised from outside sources 58,000. So that doesn't represent, but that's also happens

as well. Naive question. Does raised equal spent?

No. Okay. So, is how much they're allowed to spend, and then there's a deadline for them to spend the money three days sorry, five days before the election.

But it's the max they can't.

It's the max they can, but frequently most candidates don't spend the max. And then money that's left over, are in the campaign handbook for how they're allowed to spend that money. They can send out thank you cards. Obviously, there's some bills they pay off later, but the money that's left over either gets donated to charity. If they loan themselves money, they can refund themselves. They can refund that money to the people that contributed on a prorated basis. Or if they win the election and they get in to be a commissioner, they can set aside some money to to open what's called a office account. So that money will be set aside for them for you to for newsletters, thank you letters, printer paper, things that they want in their office that they would pay for out of that money instead of having the city pay

for it. So, there's a couple

of different mechanics but you are correct. Most candidates do not spend exactly what they raise.

So, that is true.

So then they go to 2023 just to close out the rest of the data. So for District A, Rebecca Tooley raised $28,185 and Jeffrey Wasserman raised $27,112. And then for District D, John Brody raised $28,140. Alfred Delgado raised $23,709 and Nancy Fry raised $25,116 So you can see for this election the variance for how much was raised. It's pretty narrow gap.

Yeah. It was really close.

Within 10%, 12% between all five candidates. Yeah. Wow. So

And So definitely sounds like you were spending off the books of telling Craig about it.

Yeah.

Well yeah.

No. That's

true. But, yeah, that was their opinion of what it would take. And I guess the way I phrased it was to run a campaign that would give you the highest chance of the best chance of winning, like a winning campaign. And I guess two of them did spend in the sixties 62 and '69 one spent 69 lost. Yeah they raised. They raised. They Yeah yeah I don't know that's true I don't know what

this If you can if you go on the finance reports

I need to find out what they actually spend. No.

They have to specify everything they spend.

And they didn't spend. And yeah. In the well, in the case of Patricia and Sandy, I I probably would have pulled back on my spending if I I mean, not that there's formal formal polling going on, but, I mean, it wasn't you test the wind. It wasn't hard to determine that. Okay. We probably didn't make enough headway in this thing to win. Mhmm. So why blow why blow a bunch of extra money? Alright. That's done.

So I guess I would just pose the question, the is there a significant downside to each district represent voting for their own representative? Representative? And or is there a significant upside to the dish all the commissioners being voted for at large? And yeah. I don't know. I I can think of some downsides, I guess, but or potential downsides. But

I mean, I see as we've discussed, I see a potential downside for all the commissioners being at large commissioners. Yeah. It does, in fact, allow one particular precinct to possibly have control if they decide to. And that's why that's not right. I'm gonna say that as a resident of that precinct. But

No. I appreciate that.

I mean, I

thank you

for that. It's Yeah. But I do think that that I would like to see a system where each district votes for its commission as opposed to Citywide. Where we have citywide. Yeah. Because that just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

So, yeah, in each election, you would vote for your commissioner and your pick for mayor.

You may. Yeah. Mhmm. Well, it'd be like voting for your state legislator and governor.

Yeah.

Yeah. I'm of the same opinion. And I can't say it's like a super duper strong conviction where I see like an injustice and right the right to right an injustice, but

it just seems like again. Right? We're thinking of what could happen.

What could happen? Yeah. Well Yeah.

Well Well, I think there's more of a risk to first first option where you have where everyone's at the launch. There's more of a risk of one community having too much too much influence.

Yeah. One in this case, one district represented about 30% of vote, one out of eight districts. Mhmm. And, yes, it's turnout. It's so on one hand, I guess I can make the argument, hey. If you want your voice to be heard, show

up. Mhmm.

But But

in fairness, we do have communication and ability to communicate within that precinct that most precincts don't have. I mean, I'm probably shooting myself in the foot of here.

Yeah. No. Know.

My residents heard this. I'll never get elected again.

And it codified with special interest. Like, we're all everybody in in that district is or that precinct is a similar demographic, similar stage of life. Right? It's not a lot it's not it's probably not a lot of time spent talking about parks and schools. Not that people in the district don't want great parks and schools.

We do but they're generally up north. Right. But

I don't it just seems that when things got so yuck in there this time, it just caused me to think like, wow. It's like a hornet's nest that could be an issue. And I'm sure there's another elections where it'd be interesting to know when the last how often in the last twenty what do we call the terms of the commission? Like, in the last twenty years or thirty years, how many times there was a non Windmore resident? There there wasn't a Windmore resident on the city commission.

And I'm not saying there shouldn't be, but I don't I I I wouldn't know. That isn't

Is there anything outside of Whitmore in the as far as

some Yes. Central Family Park and, I think, part of township.

K. There's still some township.

In the early days of Coconut Third Creek, I think the township was a real codified district thirty five years ago or so. Is Becky is Becky a Windmore resident? No. No.

She's an a?

Before her before Jackie Something. You had Mickey Belvedere, who was in commission for

a while. I don't know who received I'm not sure

who received in Woodward. A resident of my building at one point years and years ago

Yes. Was

a commissioner and a mayor. So that was years back before it was

Former commissioner Mickey Belvedere did does live in Minor and did at the time that she served.

And she probably did she definitely did two terms. Oh, yeah. She might have done three or four terms.

I think she may have done it's possible she did three or four. I know she did two because I was here

for part of her reelection.

But Mickey was never I mean, she was on board. I don't think Mickey was the president

of Winmore. Yeah. No. I'm just saying as a resident of Windmoor. Yep.

Like And I don't know preceding her. It may have been. I don't know.

It's

Yeah. Predates me. Again, not bad. I'm bad. Just I think that would be I don't know. I think it'd be telling. It'd be indicative. I think we can probably go back four or five four or five terms just in the last two county. Check Jackie twice, Mickey or, yeah, Jackie twice now. Mickey probably three times, possibly four times. And I don't know who it would have been. That would take us back, I think, pre February. But

yeah. Oftentimes, though, I don't know that they have an opponent in that district. District. I think it's a function of who's available time wise to run because as was mentioned, part of that district is Centura Park and a little bit of township. So Centura Park is single family homes. Township, I think it includes the estate. I'm not sure what other part of the township. I think there's a little bit of multifamily, but

Yeah. If you were a candidate for that district and you lived in the township and your opponent was a candidate who was in good standing and lived in Winmore, the candidate Winmore can determine who gets to come in and speak to their various groups,

I think, right? Like, so if Oh, no. That's

It's kinda governed by the clubs

and Yeah. That's open. Yeah. We don't we don't have Kennedy can't come in unless they're sponsored by a club, and the club sponsored everyone.

But if the yeah. If the Democrat Club would win more send though that David's our guy and John was in the township and he said, hey. Wanna challenge David. John doesn't necessarily have to be Invited by the Democrat club. Invited by the Democrat club or the Republican club of Winmore.

Yeah. So

I don't know. It's interesting. Dave, thank you for your kind of summarizing your thoughts even though not to your detriment but just

honest analysis. Trying I figured I'm here representing the city. I'm not here representing Winslow. And I think it's only right to recognize that one community, even though it might be my might have too much control if you had if you could run four candidates, and if you could convince 85% of the people to turn out Mhmm. And someone gets up there and says, we can run this city. Yeah. Where would, you know,

where would the new downtown be?

Because that's what

Is that a main street?

Is

that Main Street. Like, next example Next to that casino carve out. Right. Although,

again, the redistricting board will determine that Yeah. Next year. So it's possible that it could be part of c and d or d and e or c d and e depending on how they divide it.

What's that could swing things too? Just stay down the

the formula. Floor. Yeah. Yeah. What's the projected population? What do we have

in these units? I don't

know what the projected population is. I wanna say about 6,000.

I think it's like five and change. The people

who are against it say 48,000 people are gonna live there. No. The people who are against it, the people who look forward say,

The estimated population right. Sorry. For residences okay. So not population. It would be 2,360.

Yeah. But if it's

It's, like, half residences, half

That's doors too? No. That's actually doors.

Oh, that's actually doors.

So it's two thousand three and sixty.

So it had two p two.

Two to two and a half people.

So That would get you ready around five.

But in terms of people of age to vote, 2,300 figure you have

There are some three or four bedroom units, but but they're not expecting this isn't a high young children's

They don't think it's gonna have a lot in school district.

They don't based on the studies they've

done and what types of units. Yeah.

We could be talking, you know, maybe 4,000 registered voters out

of that. Right. So

a couple you've been talking about we've got Identified districts with at large voting that's what we have system in place you've talked about Single member voting districts, and then you've also talked about at large residency and voting. Just for to help kind of Focus. Focus. It sounds to me like there's not a whole lot of support for the at large candidate and voting, right?

Yeah, not at all. So

so we'll take that one off the table. So so we at least narrowed it to the two.

And I think the last thing I'll throw out to chew on, which is really a lie because it's never the last thing when I say it's the last thing I always have stuff talk about. But I saw a apologize in advance. But it's also, I guess it's worth noting that we're actually not making the decision on what to do. We're making a decision on allowing the city to make a decision on what to do. My non empirical data formed opinion would tell me that something would have to be significantly better than fifty fifty to get people to read it, understand it, and vote for it.

Like, it's it would have to be very favorably viewed upon for the voters to turn out, understand what's going on, take an interest enough to understand it, and vote for it. I think the natural disposition is to if I don't understand something, I don't change it because nothing seemed horrible to begin with.

I think it could be communicated to to the voters and you get enough return out because you communicate to them that you're electing someone to represent your district, you know, your portion of the city. And I think you get enough interest.

I mean, with Craig's context, I'm I'm somewhat ambivalent, but I'm fine with also letting letting people choose, I guess. I I don't really have a preference for either option. Mhmm.

Yeah. I I think given what I've digested so far, I'm in favor of Single member. Single member, but by by some, not by a ton, but by some margin. But a large margin in favor of letting people understand and decide if they want to do that.

The And that that's the mechanism we're using here, right, for this kind of stuff.

It It would go to an electoral vote.

For some reason, makes me think your electoral college right now. Mean, we're sorry.

So it's then contact them by us. John,

any opinions on it? Any opinions? Kind of mixed like yours. Yeah. Yeah. I think, yeah, overall in favor because I don't I don't think the downsides are significant compared to the potential. I mean Right. Yeah. I don't I I feel like there's not significant downside to it, to doing it. I think there's some significant potential for significant downsides to the way it's currently structured. And then, so yeah. Yeah. Kinda like that. So I'm in favor of it. I think on the ballot, I'll vote for it. But

You wouldn't see it on the ballot.

But I won't yeah. I'd like everybody to have the chance to just vote for it. But I'm not like, you know, don't wanna be standing outside with signs, you know, promoting it. But because, again, like you said, we're we're kinda trying to think about the potential of

Yeah. No. No. It's just my co lawyers.

Yeah. Was gonna say we we can do that

for We

started out we started out this journey two months ago bashing the people who served on two different boards at the same time. Yeah. Come full circle.

Alright. I just wanna

be clear. We did not bash the people who served on

two different boards. We did not.

He being the lawyers did not do that.

One of our commissioners and he prefaced it by saying, present company excluded or something to that. What was your what's your feeling? So so gentlemen of this board, we can keep chewing on it a little bit and discuss it more next week or throw it out on the table to kind of vote and try to and and put it behind us. I'm okay with either of those thoughts.

Throw it on the vote.

If

I I I'm in favor of putting it on the ballot.

So proposing the change? Proposing the change. Proposing the As you're saying.

Okay. Second character. Alright. So we'll come back with language Awesome. Soon. Hopefully, next meeting. I think

if you guys wanna get out of here at six

Well, just a single person. Unless unless you guys are good to also close out at 06:30.

Yeah. For you, of course.

I don't think it'll us too long to get through the draft changes. Yeah.

Yeah. We're doing pretty well on So

if you look at page two of your Page two. Which

is the back of the front page.

So we see where it goes to it.

Yes. You'll see section eight zero two when Kathy will be going.

It goes to the next page. So this was an expansion of kind of how the process would work for actually vetting out and running through that petition, that basically they would submit their draft petition. They said the attorney would have fifteen days to review it for consistency with everything, and then they would give a determination in terms of whether or not it was what word did I use? Whether it was deficient or whether it was I wanted to use sufficient, but sufficient is used later. So compliant.

And and it might

be that consistent is a a better word. So if starting in b, the proposed initiative ordinance or ordinance sought to be repealed shall be reviewed by the city attorney or designee within fifteen days of submittal for consistency with the city charter, comprehensive plan, city code of ordinances, and applicable city, county, state, and federal laws and requirements. If the city attorney determines the proposed amendment is spatially invalid, inconsistent, or creates conflicts with any other applicable legal authority, the petition shall be returned to the petitioner together with a notice of deficiency specifying the deficiencies or conflicts. That makes sure that they have, you know, some idea what they need to do so that Right. They're not

Right. That's a The different

petitioner will thereafter have a period of thirty days from the date of the notice of deficiency within which to submit a revised petition addressing such deficiencies. The city attorney shall review any subsequent resubmissions pursuant to this paragraph and provide a finding of compliance. Do you guys like compliance or consistency better?

Does he turn?

Are we at c? Or is

it We're in we're in b e. Do

have The

very last

part

of the c? Yeah. The last part word of on

be consistent to use consistency.

So is there yeah. For Consistency. Not? And providing a finding of con consistency.

Why isn't it sufficiency?

That's right. Because

That's what I'm wrestling with. It's different.

And it did say sufficiency. And then when I was going back in through the later section in eight zero four and there's a whole sufficiency discussion, I thought, did I totally miss this? And I didn't. This there's a subsequent discussion on sufficiency regarding the sufficiency of the ballot signature of the petition signatures that the clerk has to go through. And I wanted to make a distinction between those two procedures. Okay. So we

can't use sufficiency.

So so we're we're looking for

a single word that describes I'm going back to the top of b. A single word that describes consistency with the city charter comprehensive plan, city code of ordinances, and applicable applicable city, county, state, federal laws and requirements. So, like, right, so because at the end, it still might not be in compliance. So you can't say the city attorney shall review any sub subsequent resubmissions and provide a finding of compliance because it might not be compliant. It's still

So so or deficiency.

Flip over to the next page.

Oh, like, consistency.

It could be consistency. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

I didn't put the pay

term here. You've used consistency. Yep.

Or deficiency. Consistent before. That that's why

I would wear a sufficient I'll use consistency and deficiency.

Yeah.

And so then then petitioner may submit a revised petition addressing identified deficiencies no more than five times after the initial submittal. We want to give them every benefit of the doubt. Five times. That is a lot of staff time. We 'd love to say one or two, but we are giving them bad This bit of the is very gracious. Don't Would you like to do something different?

Considering this is born out of this is born out of I'm not gonna say anybody here, but when we solicited feedback from city staff like what's this process like and my summary of that feedback was it has the potential to be a disaster like we're completely shaping what they're trying to do because they hand us a pile of poo and they're asking us to turn it into something.

What would you guys recommend? Would you recommend

Five is really generous.

Would you recommend three, four,

I'm good with Three strikes with your And then maybe some kind of time line where you can strike out on the third try, you get, you know, after some kind of

We do

have that. So no more than three times after the initial submittal. If the petition is determined deficient after the third resubmittal, the petition shall be deemed withdrawn. Petitioner may initiate a new petition pursuant to this section eight zero two with new affidavits pursuant to section eight zero two a no sooner than thirty days after petition a prior petition is deemed withdrawn.

So they get to restart the process?

So they have to restart, get those fifty six fifty signatures or affidavits again and restart. Okay. But they get

three more pitches, and you get a reprieve or somebody

And and maybe maybe thirty days is too short. Maybe you want a little bit longer.

I wouldn't make it too long. I wouldn't mind it being Alright. It's fine.

Okay. Thirty days. Then we go on if the city attorney determines the petitioner is the petition is consistent, the city clerk shall promptly issue the appropriate blank petition forms to the petitioner's committee. Right.

So that that tells me today reasonable effort. You should be able to get this thing landed within three tries because you're getting the help of professionals, like thousands of dollars of legal advice or guidance. Right? The downside is if you don't, step back, take a breather and you get to restart and you've already moved the ball far down the field. So but the downside is is you gotta now go get some signatures or whatever. Seems like a small price to pay to get a four, fifth, and six lacquer pinata.

Okay. Before I get your your consensus on that, that change will trigger in 803C a change just to match

up

the language. So in 803C, after that petition is filed, it did say that, you know, basically the city clerk has to provide the blank petition forms, and then they have to get them back to the city clerk within ninety days. It said, after they filed those the petition with the city clerk. Because we've now imposed this process and this review, which helps them, it should be timed from the time that they receive those blank petition forms. So that does does that make sense?

The the triggering that you're saying is are is already consistent or aligned to the change in

Yes.

802. Okay.

So C was changed to align with 802.

Gotcha.

That's what we put in 80

What do you change this to now?

The blank petition forms being the start time.

When they get they're they're ninety days to collect their signatures. Instead of starting when they file with the clerk, it start doesn't start until they get the blank forms from the city clerk, which won't be until we've gone through the review with the city commission with city attorney.

And those forms are marked in a way that would keep somebody from just resubmitting the same signatures again? I'm saying, like, are they dated or do they need to go get all new sick I would think if you're resetting the process.

We're saying they need to get all new signatures, but that's a good point. I guess we need to find some way on the forms to make sure they don't just resubmit the same signatures. Well,

the signatures are all web copies, and they're all dated. Dated. Okay. And they're all verified by the clerk. So we would obviously scan those in so we would have records of that.

And you wouldn't accept it if it wasn't dated originally? Like, right at work?

Well, we would we would accept it. We wouldn't necessarily consider it as part of the count of 50 if it didn't meet the standard of Okay. Meaning, you know, that it was a registered order and it was a signature and it was dated.

So

that being said, with the change to from five to three and the use of the word consistent instead of compliant, are you can I get a consensus on the changes to eight zero two and eight zero three?

I'm good. Yep. I'm good.

Okay. Just changing the compliance mentions to consistency. To consistent or consistency. Yes. Five times. Five times. In in 802 a and c. 802 a and c. And B and c. Sorry.

Alright. And then eight zero six, action by petitions in a. This is where when as we're reading through it, I realized that thirty days to repeal an ordinance was not effective. It really needed to be sixty days. So on pay the bottom of page three, we've changed that to sixty days to match and that's the same for as adopting an ordinance the same time period as for for repeat repealing an ordinance.

Okay. And then based stuff, as I was looking at that subdivision at that that section in b, and you don't have to do this, It was talking about the timing of when those elections happened and the the need to call a special election versus when an election might happen. In the first line of b, I clarified the vote of the qualified voters of the city. It's not necessary, but in listening to the tape, you all had a question about whether that was a vote of the commission or the electors. So I put in there the vote of the qualified electors Mhmm.

Of the qualified voters of the city. And then you could consider adding, if no general election or regular city election is to be held within the prescribed period, then the city commission shall provide for a special election. That just gives you an extra because right now, it's only a regular city election. That would give you the opportunity to avoid a special election. Although, if we are the only if we call an election on a general election that we don't have anything on it, is it still technically a special election? No. Okay. So it would be a little bit cheaper than calling a special election?

It should be. Yes.

So adding that language is might give you some options or a little bit more Options. A broader target. Yeah. Makes sense. So if you're interested in that, you can leave that in.

Yep. I'm good with those changes.

Okay? Yes. Alright. I see consensus there for that, all those. Eight zero seven.

This is kind of what happens as a result, and this is where we have talked about the how to deal with conflicts between different types of if if the Charter Review Board made a change and that same topic was addressed by a citizen initiative and both of them were approved, how would that be resolved? This had a a summary answer to that, but it only applied to the charter review to the chart initiative process. So this says it takes out that thing and says that if conflicting ordinances are approved at the same election, they shall be implemented as provided in section nine zero seven charter review charter review board. Nine zero seven then at the top of page five, provides a mechanism for dealing with conflicting charter amendments, and it addresses all of the different scenarios in which there could be conflicting charter amendments, whether it is competing initiatives, citizen initiative, charter review board, or city commission.

I'm laughing because this will be on the ballot. And I can just see people standing there in the living room reading this last thing.

Well, the good news is they won't read that actual language. Oh, okay. In the event that a charter amendment But I am open, and we are more than open, if you have wording

Oh, my language is correct.

I'm just thinking But if about the there's importance ways the to make it simpler Yeah. But we also We tend to spell out every possible scenario in more detail than the average person appreciates.

You really have to do to make it correct.

Yes. So in the event that the Charter Amendment proposed pursuant to Article eight initiative referendum and recall or by the Charter Review Board or City Commission is on the ballot at the same election in which another charter amendment is proposed pursuant to to Article three initiative referendum and recall or by the Charter Review Board or City Commission, and the results of the elections on those charter amendments creates a conflict between the two, then in that event, they shall go into effect in respect to their provisions that are not in conflict, and the one receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail as to the provisions in conflict. We if you if you have better ideas or you want us to take another crack at simplifying it.

I do wanna say, so this is the proposed language for the ordinance. The ballot question would actually have a title of, what is it, 15 words and then 75. 75. For the actual question. So it would be simplified, and you will get to see that before ultimately this goes to the commission.

I'm hoping you see that in two to three weeks.

But this is just the proposed language for the ordinance, which is going to be more detailed because this is the language that goes in the charter, which has to contemplate all the possibilities versus the question to the public will be, are you okay with in the case of a conflict, are you okay with going with the one that has the highest number of affirmative votes? You know, something like that.

We'll go, sure.

Right. Right.

Makes sense.

Yep.

Yep. Done. You're right. Because this well, the eyes will

move Yeah. Out of This is very delicate. They'll never

see that. I don't think we had anybody request a copy of the eye

before this last

time. I'm sure we did, but Maybe, like, most of the bloggers were hit. And the newspapers requested them, but

The repetition of the mechanisms are way Charter Review Board, City Commission three times makes it a mouthful. Mhmm.

It does. And and you're right.

If it needs to be there, I

mean Well,

we'll we'll see if we can come up with with

In terms of drafting, it does kinda have to be there. I And

on the ballot, is all of section nine zero seven

do how do you assume any it's

just The language itself is not on the ballot.

Yeah. Okay.

So and nine zero seven is here in in a

For context.

Just for context because a it will, in the actual charter, get a new little a underlined with it because it's right now just a paragraph. And that paragraph will become a new subsection a, and we'll add a new subsection b. That being said, we'll get to another thing about that section anyway. So that addresses eight zero seven and nine zero seven on pages four and five. Eight zero seven is removal of the summary or just the initiative and a referral to this nine zero seven. Are you okay with that change?

Okay.

And what about the language for nine zero seven?

I mean, I'm I'm I'm proud of us.

Unless we can simplify it. Yeah.

Unless there's a simplified version. I

think we're all, I think, in favor of the Yeah.

Concept of it. If

there's any way to make it simpler? There isn't from believing that your expertise in drafting this kind

of stuff, I think.

Well, we we have other eyes that we can run it through that we might be able to get something simpler.

Is there a way just to summarize, like, if there's a conflict between any two, like, without specifying charter review or city commission or referendum or recall? Kind of like the was that severability in contracts?

Perhaps maybe the language would be something like this. You know, basically it says in the second line or or rather in the first line on b h five, starting with in the event that a charter amendment proposed pursuit instead of pursuant to in the event that a charter amendment proposed is on the ballot at the same election at which another charter amendment is proposed, the results of the elections on those charter amendment and the results of the elections on those charter amendments creates a conflict between the two, then in that event, shall they go into effect? And maybe it's really just proposed by law instead of the Article A initiative referendum. You know what I mean? Proposed by law?

And we probably could do that, especially if we change this title of nine zero seven. Yeah. We might be able to do that.

We'll look at that. Yeah. Just think yesterday,

thought it was better.

So I'll revise nine zero seven.

But I think you all seemed to give consensus for the concept.

We'll just look at tweaking. Concept's good. Then it's just a matter of, like, us caring about it enough to make it understandable enough to be approved. Okay. That's fine. Thank you. That's hard.

So you can either move on to page 11 and start talking about some of these other items that you have not yet discussed in detail, or you can hold off on that until the

next meeting. We do have a chance to get our a senior member out of here by 06:30.

Yeah. I mean, we gotta get one

more time. And I don't know if anybody would arm wrestle that too much. Feel like we're pretty good on schedule wise.

Right? Yes.

It's not that many things. There's just a one issue that's three pages. Single member districts was actually on here.

So Yes. Single member takes care of that last one. There's really just a couple of boards questions and then the designating the police chief as a charter officer. And then we have kind of soft issues regarding your charter review timing just for because it was easy. It was something we could look at at the minute when you're typing, and then the expense expenses for elective. Yep. And I'm leaving I'm

leaving room for I don't have anything in mind. I'm leaving room for the likelihood that one or two more things will pop up. Somebody will have an idea they wanna throw out on the table or something. Wow. Next meeting is

Next Wednesday, April 2 at 5PM. Alright.

I show you that as well. Pretty good.

And then Tuesday, April 8 at 5PM?

Yeah. And then we're scheduled to shift over on Tuesday. Alright. Thank you. Anybody else? Alright. If there's no further comments, we'll take a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. I move the adjournments. Second. Alright. All in favor?

In favor.