Charter Review Board - Regular Meeting

We're get we're gonna get started. We'll call the board of the 04/08/2025 Charter Review Board meeting.

Will the board clerk please on the roll?

Chair Valvo? Here. Vice chair Scoriusa? Present. Board member Album? Here. Board member Minsis? Here. Member of 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, 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 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.

Excellent. Thank you. So I wanna discuss the minutes from the 03/19/2025 meeting. Everybody have a chance to review those? I read them last night. They were pretty long and detailed, and I didn't have any problems with them. Anybody saw anything that we need to look at revising, please? Bring it up.

I'll just mention that these this conversation was continued last time, which now will be continued this time regarding districts. Mhmm. So just for anybody that might need to review this, it's it's here as a reference, but it looks to cover everything covered.

Right. Okay. Yeah. You're saying so. If somebody wanted to dig into that bullet point, it's gonna span a few Okay.

Meetings. Alright. Well, there's no corrections or revisions to the 03/19/2025 board meeting. Accept. Seek a motion and a second to approve the minutes.

Move acceptance to the minutes. Alright.

I'll make a motion. Excellent. Second. Alright. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

We're gonna move this.

And now we're on to potential city charter amendments. We all have in front of us an updated document and just reminding everybody of the draft changes. As it says at the top of the first page, draft changes highlighted in the heavy bordered draft changes are highlighted in the heavy bordered boxes, and then the open issues are the open issues are boxed and shaded in gray.

Actually, not so much the open issues. The issues discussed without consensus to change are boxed and shaded in gray. The open issues are dashed. Yeah.

The the issues are the marching box there.

And they're page six of page six And then this additional document, the board's commissions and committees? That's for your discussion related to your discussion on board, so it's just an issue that's addressed on page 13.

Six

is the first half change, and there's some language added to underline some of that language deleted that's struck through. So

is single member districts. Right?

Right. That's the topic of single member districts, and this reflects your general direction two meetings ago to consider language for single member districts. As I mentioned at the last meeting, clarify, what had previously not been addressed was Section eight zero eight, which is addresses recall. And what that provides pursuant to state law is that if you have single member districts, then people then the commissioner for that district is elected only by the members of that district. Similarly, as required by state law, it would be just the members of that district that would vote on a recall.

So the petition would be a petition for recall would be initiated by 50 signatures and then 5% of the voters in that district as opposed to voters in the city. I just want to clarify that since it wasn't addressed in the original text I provided.

And so, Mohamed, for your benefit, you weren't able to be here last week. Two weeks ago, we had discussed this issue and we kind of landed on, put it on the ballot. Like, there wasn't real strong real strong feelings towards it. In the week after that, I got some feedback, and I think some other board members got some feedback with some additional things maybe that made the idea something to reopen and discuss. So we kinda reopened and discussed it last week, but we stopped short of kinda finalizing the discussion. I think I think it was Alex brought up and just said, hey. Maybe

it's a

good idea to wait for Mohammed to be here to kinda finalize the thought, I thought was a great a great idea. So we kinda resume those that conversation, and it'll be will be better for having a full complement of our board members here. So that's kind of why we're revisiting. Last year, maybe this was Yeah. Last year. Settled.

We were going over the zones and potentially going down to four. Yeah.

So there's gonna be four there's gonna be four districts in the future. And the question that was posed is should we consider allowing each district vote for its own representative? And we discussed it a bit and said, yeah, maybe it's not such a bad idea. Let's let people decide to vote on whether or not they like that idea or not. And then, yeah, then I know I got I I know other I think others got feedback as well from some people that, hey, maybe you can consider this or consider that.

One of the ones that made the most sense to me is what Kathy brought up with the the way the language is written for the to have the ability to recall a commission when you the number of signatures that are required when you break it in break it into districts is really a low number, and I think we kinda did a hypothetical math problem last week and determined that maybe as few as a couple of 100 or 300 people could It's like two fifty. Something like that could recall a commissioner if it was in a district that didn't have very significant turnout. So that was kind of, that was interesting. And just a few other items were discussed, so

Basically, would be, each district's like 5,000, 6,000 people. Yeah. So it goes from like, you need 3,000 to two fifty, which is a huge drop. Yeah. So I

mean, I did have

I kinda looked over at it. I'm going to

exact, like, everything I've been skimmed over there. Right? I think it comes down for me, if we stick to the March election versus if we go to the November election on making that call because well, the amount we have this year, we all looked at that number. Right? It's and one of the concern, I think all of us shared, was, you know, not having the party affiliation.

Right? Going to the general election, moving it. I think it's kind of a mute point. People that are voted that that voted this last city election, they did their homework. Mhmm. Majority of it based on the turnout that I would assume. They know what candidates fully did with all parties. So one point I have was, like, what are your thoughts on just, you know, instead of dancing around hypothetical scenarios and what

could be, what could not be, and just moving

the election altogether to the to the November, getting the turnout 30,000 people, giving people actual option to vote because what we had was nothing. People that voted, they're still gonna vote. Right? They're still gonna be that educated voted the the turnout that we had this March. And I think that kinda would tackle some of those district the zoning, right, of the different zone or board more zone

or the the sections that we have. Right? Mhmm. The district. Districts. Thank you.

And at that point, having it at large would make more sense because then you're you're gonna have a huge turnout of voters that are gonna be participating. And to to the point you guys just brought up

200 signatures, anybody could pretty much a little bit of effort could muster that out. Yeah. It would definitely make the ability to recall. The bar would be very the bar would be very low. Yeah.

We also got some feedback, think it's fair to say feedback last week from a commissioner that was up in Tallahassee about the eventuality, it looks like, of the state mandating that the election be in November. Like, it it seemed likely to begin with, and maybe after the feedback last week, it seemed even more likely. I guess just an eventuality that it's gonna happen from the state. So we discussed a little bit about whether we should just let nature take its course. It ends up in November, I think we talked about, or we're trying to steer it there.

Right. So I think what our chair is referencing is that I think it's Senate Bill fourteen seventeen references election dates, and it did pass. However, it doesn't have a companion bill. But Commissioner Riedel was just in Tallahassee last week, and he spoke with the sponsor who said they fully expect it's going to pass next year with the companion bill. And he simply pointed out to him some discrepancies within the bill.

So that way, they redraft it and put it before the legislature next year, hopefully, it resolves that. That said, I would just simply say that doesn't necessarily prohibit you from moving the elections from March to November if that's the board's desire, but the next election is scheduled to be March 2029 in light of the recent referendum from last November. And so we couldn't do it before then because we can't take away from somebody's vested term. And the next general election after March 2029 is not until November 2030. So rather than push the election back even further when two districts are not going to have their normal election on the normal cycle in 2027 because referendum from last November, I would simply urge you if that is your desire to have the commission hold their normal election in March 2029 and then perhaps consider moving to the November election in November 2030.

So whoever is elected in March 2029 would have an abbreviated term, so to speak. But that would only be for, I believe, two seats the way that the charter is currently written up. And then the rest of them would catch up with the election cycle in November 2032 and go from there. I don't know if that was clear. But if you have any questions, let

me know. Catch up of cycles, it seems like, right? Yeah. I'll never be crystal crystal clear, but that's not for a lack of a great explanation. It means

the the straw drawers who get the two year term now get an eighteen month term. They get an even shorter straw. Right. The

And that first those the other three with the four year term would get a three year and

Three and a half.

Yeah. Yeah.

November, '3 and '7, November.

So take them to November 2032. And then we would be reset on every four years alternating with the November cycle.

That's if we go to November.

Right.

So last time we're like, the state's gonna do it anyway and force this. So

Yeah.

We don't need to Mhmm. Our legal department or commission or voters. Yeah. It's just gonna

So let let's see if the state does it to us or for us. Both cases, to us and for us.

Yeah. Yeah.

So so having said that, how does it sounded like you were more for at large?

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Because I think if it was in March, I would still want that one. But if it's November, then I would potentially be okay with not being that large because just because of border turnout would be more. But not to tackle that point of, you know,

how many votes does it take to

kinda do a recall or anything like that.

I think from what I'm hearing, the the commissioners, the current commissioners at least, seem to be pretty much in favor of keeping it the way it is now at large voting, which is surprising in the way you would think they'd be more in favor of the district. And I told you that the conversation I had with with the mayor, she was arguing in favor of that as well. Sort of even recognizing how much power a community would have with the single member district. I'm thinking we just leave it alone. Just just

two down, and we're just going down the line. Are we going down the line? How the one first? You want second?

Yeah. Why not? Sure.

Why not?

Let's just

Keeping that keeping it the same? I'm keeping it the same. I keep it the same. That's three. Yeah. Good. Keep it rolling. Keep it at the same.

We got to do

that. Strike.

Strike. I strike the strikes. That's it.

So consensus is to unstrike. Let's try to leave it how it is. Yes. Not move forward with the language there.

So your next set of changes that for consideration or your next issue is on page 13. You've got several issues addressing boards. Does anybody need a copy of the code sections on boards?

This is the second time we've had this as a

Yes. Did

you keep the last copies or we have to make new ones? Damn. Sustainability would be sad.

We have the fit.

So right now, there are no limitations on the number of times that somebody can serve on a board. It's been presented as an option to possibly consider limiting the number of consecutive terms. Right now, everybody is on a one year term, and kind of that discussion evolved into an idea that maybe two year terms would be appropriate. And maybe it's appropriate to develop to talk about both of those issues at the same time because it's all a matter of how much time. You know, if you have two two terms and they're two two year terms, then you'll be looking at four years. If you have two one year terms, it's two years. So those are your issues a and b on that.

And what would this be any board or committee within the city or the ones that are in the charter? It

applies to the Planning and Zoning Board and the Parks and Rec Board. The Civil Service Board, I believe, two years. Two year terms. I believe it is. Already. The Planning and Zoning Board and the Parks and Rec are both one year terms. And and those are set out not in the charter, but in the city code. So this would be a recommendation to the if it's something you wanted to do or address, that would be a recommendation. Unless you chose to put it in the charter, that would be something you're gonna do.

What are the plaintiffs redistricting and and charter review also?

So the the no. Not likely. You those board members only serve for a hundred and twenty days, and they only happen every five years

or be considered, like, terms. Right. Right? It doesn't need to be delineated that, or does No. It need to say the

The code language really addresses the planning and zoning board and parks and rec. Charter review board and the Redistricting Board are really functions of the Charter alone, totally separate from these other boards.

And I guess I'm thinking of it, like, if it if it needs to call those out specific like, if there was another board formed next year, a public safety board or somebody brought up at one point, like a school I don't know

what we call it. I guess school

advisory committee. School advisory committee or something. So, you know, does it need to say, like, all boards other than

redistricting and No. City charter this this basically refers to in in section two one ninety one a. You see it it refers to board membership in accordance with city charter article five section five zero one. And that section of the charter says it's not the redistricting It's various city boards. It's not the redistricting board. It's not the charter review board. Okay.

So it catches everything, but the without naming them, it's including everything but those two.

Well, those are set, as we said, a hundred and twenty days.

That makes sense to me. I guess, I just wanted to guard against, like, if a new board was formed next year or the year after that, that something would have to be done to the charter to make sure that that is included. So it's it's catching all those.

But right now, they're one year terms.

Right now, they're one year terms.

Alex, you're on planning

on something. What what do

you what's been your experience? You the announced that story on this one?

Yeah. So planning and zoning is monthly. So it takes a little while to kind of get up to speed. Would say, like, three or four meetings, was like, okay. I get it. You know, getting a giant package delivered to you for the first meeting, you're like, what is all this stuff? But a few meetings, you you can kinda get there. Having said that, though, like, that's kind of if you're invested, right? I was kind of trying to think of people missing court meetings or not attending. And if you're on a two year term and you start missing, like, you know, three meetings in the first year, then another one or two get canceled.

You've only really been to half the meetings. So I I'm a little cautious on on a two year term now, but it did take a little while for me to get up to speed. Three or four meetings, I'd say.

Yeah. That was my concern. Does it take a while to get up to speed? Then when you finally do get up to speed, you're comfortable. Oops. You turn the switch off.

You're gone. Yeah. You're gone. Pretty pretty much. But, yeah, I think parchment rec meets once a quarter, which is even less frequent.

So Yeah. There's also nothing keeping the commissioner from reappointing you.

Yeah. I have to apply, but yes.

Yeah. Or and ultimately apply and then The

person wants to actually go. It's not just like you get out there.

But then the yeah. Then commission votes. Votes numbers in the I think even with the recommendation, maybe of specific. As it were, does a commissioner for each district pick

the candidate for those two

applies and then all of them. Yes. Yeah. So

And usually, at least for the planning and zoning board and the parks and recreation board, the mayor gets to choose the alternate. So, technically, the mayor gets two representatives on the board.

I'm not I mean, I won't go with it longer term. I just think you have to make the meetings, or there has to be some sort of, like, attendance, like, catch. Yeah. I mean, you can also put that in the purview of the commissioners. Right? If they see, like, hey. The person I appointed have a meeting in four months. Yeah. And they can obviously pull them. So I just don't know how if we just spell it out or if that's something that a commission would do automatically.

Yeah. So it's they kinda have that ability now. Right?

Like Yeah.

The commissioner in your district.

I think it's I think it's a

good idea for you to do a second term.

Yeah. Authority of city commission term move appointing board members. So We have only two terms. Right?

No. We don't need term limits now. What was discussed is adding term limits, but I do wanna point out under section two dash one nine two, which is the first page of the board.

No. It's just 25. Yeah.

Right.

Okay. So there is some requirement that you must be present.

Alright. I'm good with that. Yeah. I gotta read, actually. So

No worries. Yeah. I don't think I see a need to change it to make it two years because the ability to make it two years already exists. Right. Right? Like, hey. Good job. You wanna apply again? Yeah. Cool. Alright. Then, you know, if all five of us apply for the planning and zoning seat in your district and your commissioner thought you did a good job and you wanna do it again, you go before commission to get voted on. So it's it's already kinda there. Then the the I guess, for me, the question would be the flip side would be, is there any reason to put term them? Is there any reason to guard against, you know, somebody sitting in that seat for five years or six years or seven years, you know, infinity?

Yeah. I I don't know. I don't know if it was, like, just theoretical, but a commissioner put it there, pickleball partner, I think, or something. I'm paraphrasing from what I remember on a board, their buddy, and I just kinda sit on that board. I mean, that seemed like the theoretical negative. I I don't know enough of the history to say whether that's a reality or not. Right. And I

guess currently the system would fix itself, but would would address that by three of the commissioners saying, hey. Yeah. Your pickleball buddy didn't do such a great job last year. Let's go in a different direction. Yeah.

Supposedly. But, I mean, the commissioner did voice that, so as if it was an issue.

So Well, I think you'll find in some places it probably happens. I mean, they voice these things because they either seen them, experienced them, heard heard about them, seen those things play a friend on the board over and over and over again because he likes the way he's doing things for him.

Yeah. One benefit in my mind, I don't know how how heavy it weighs, is just the idea of kinda somebody scooting over and making room for somebody else to serve on a seat. There's not a whole lot of seats Yeah. In the city. There's only a few boards and a few seats on each board. But I don't know if that's a strong enough No. Approach, so to speak, to outweigh the cons. I'd like to think that, you know, if Alex says I'm planning and zoning just as an example, you always use the example you just hear. And you understand it. You got a good reasoned approach to it. Mhmm.

But

commissioners, you know, if you if you did something egregious in this term where you approved a, you you know, whatever, a dispensary in a next to a school or something like that, it would require a couple of other

I don't think so, unfortunately. Yeah.

I don't think it does. But then the commission would still have to approve it.

Correct.

You know, so it's it's kinda

like you you can't

a bad planning and zoning board member can't do that much damage. They can maybe not be value added, maybe they don't point out some things, but in my in my in my opinion, it doesn't. So I don't have a strong conviction. I don't think I'm

Yeah. As far as the light barrier limit, I'm fine leaving it. Just I made the point last week that, oh, I'm gonna know you brought up a couple other boards that you were positing about. So I figured we kinda have a have a discussion as a group more so. I'm sure there's some boards here, but are there also any other boards to consider?

Think the well, what I was thinking as a board that I think is handled by the city is The schools? Yeah. Like, mentorship, mentorship. They kinda provide that service. So not necessarily from a I guess, learning to have a board if it's already covered. Right?

Okay. But

my whole point was that how do we ensure that they don't just snip it so the younger generation don't, you know, get involved? And, you know, generation that are growing up in the city, they they they get exposure. So down the line, they could be, you know, mayors and board members. It's not the older young. It's just fresh ideas.

Right? I'll give you example. This iPad, for example, when when I was a kid, we didn't have an iPad. And now we're running a meeting and doing everything we do. So if if we're not bringing that innovative ideas and thought process that's just not the same. Right? How do we even have that dialogue?

I was kidding. The capitalists. That's size of what we

We also didn't have that when I was

a kid. Hey. We're the

same we're in the same age as

we were

doing that. My father had the

did have the razor.

You should've kept that. The

the my whole concern is that, you know, are we being proactive with it and not you know, my background, I wasn't born here, but I I moved here when I was 10, but I also seen how it gets in other countries when it's kept in the family or kept in the loop. Right? And nothing the power to I I don't wanna use overpower, but the decision making, how the city runs is kept to the leads or or the circle that that always been. Right? How do we make sure that everybody kinda gets to experience it and bring new ideas? So as long as the city has initiatives, I'm fine. We don't necessarily need

to have a board for it.

So that would sort of be arguing in favor of some degree of trouble. It's

Yeah. I mean but at the same time, you know, don't change it because we wanna Right? If we have somebody that's really good and we're limiting it because of a term limit and we're losing that asset, that also doesn't make sense to me. So, yeah, I don't really have a solution, but those are my concerns.

So there were some there there were Separately, there were some comments about the qualifications for planning and zoning. I noted so this is in on the last page. Section thirteen sixteen b b composition. So that I fell into number two, basically. So I'm strong and sincere commitment to the intent set forth in the section or possession in the book.

So I was interested. I'm from, like, an applied math background, consulting company. I have looked into some businesses around economic developments, but that isn't necessarily what's appearing. So I was wondering if if we could just put in our recommendation rather than change anything in the charter for the commission of economic development. Having been somebody that fell outside of these ones, if I'd seen economic development in one, I would've even though I made it, I felt more confident in my application.

I know most economic developers probably have a degree in urban planning already, but just, you know, you said keeping up with innovation and terminology and everything, that might be something to just add in there. I'm trying to think of any other ancillary industries or specialties that might help PNC based on my experience, but this seems to cover a lot of it. I mean, sustainability is a wide thing, environmental science, law Real estate. Real estate is pretty broad, so Yeah. It covers a lot of things.

I I think maybe just economic development might broaden it as well. And I know other you know, I know our city's economic development unit is the Department of Sustainability, but other cities have community redevelopment agencies, community economic development agencies, things like that. So maybe just as a part of our recommendation letter, adding that.

So, yeah, I'm good. I'm good with that just to broaden that. You're you're right. Just keeping it, adding things.

And it's a recommendation. Feel like, no. It's already covered. We're good. We're the ones assessing that anyway, and then they can completely ignore it, but just just for future reference.

Alright. So no new boards, no changes

Yeah. One of for charter changes. One of the commissioners I'm not positive which one, but one of them raised the question, should other boards be codified in the charter? I think I mean, sufficiently addressed that in what we're talking about.

From from our point of view, think so. I mean, you you kind of decided it sounds like you're comfortable with the regulations that are in the code. I mean, based on the discussions that I've heard, that's kind of where you're comfortable with what's there. You adding the additional qualification. I think I've heard a consensus in terms of putting them in or out of the charter itself, that was where we had the discussion on the county and zoning board is the one that's in there, of course.

And it is a little bit different because it does have some statutory requirements. It's we're required to have a local planning agency, and the planning and zoning board does establish that. Well, it establishes the planning and zoning board, which is what normally access the local planning agency. So that time does make it a little bit different as far as the distinction about why it's in the charter and anything else isn't.

I mean, again, I'm continuing to make my way through a second time of parks and rec. So just for that, you know, we could vote in the charter, but I think that's a little, you know, unnecessary.

You say unnecessary?

And and we already have it. It's functioning. I mean, if they want it to be codified, then, you know, we give our legal staff a little bit more work. So

Yeah. I don't think it's worth doing just to do.

Yeah. Think you you were saying about because it looks like from these notes, there was commissioner Wrightdale had brought up additional.

The commission gets the boards at their whim. Right. So, you know, keeping it open lets them do that rather than necessarily having I don't know what over unless you wanted to create, like, a general board, there's already balances in place and committees that have to get spun up anyway. So

I don't see a need. I don't see a need. I mean, there was that suggestion, excuse me, about prohibiting service in more than one board at a time. I don't see a need for that. Top of Two two zero eight.

Yeah.

Then the top of top of the next page. Alright. It's the bottom in in two two eight c, and appointed members of the board filed a shall to the extent practical to consider full time residency. And then it goes on to list a few other things. Does the planning and zoning board section have

It's kind of like composition. It's

it's listed there, but just

Doesn't have residency.

Kinda different. Doesn't have residency. Is there any

I think because the chart or

Yeah.

That was kinda surprising to me.

That was a change in twenty twenty twenty. No. 2019. I'm sorry.

On charter review?

No. That was a commission change that they did in 2019.

Oh, they removed the residency?

They they changed it to allow for business owners.

You can kinda be a business citizen,

I guess. Business tax receipts.

Do we have it? Do we have nonresidence?

No. Application would let you lets you submit your business tax receipt. So

I'm just saying, do you now?

I'm a resident Yeah. And the business tax payer, so I qualify for both.

No. I'm saying are there any I

don't I don't think so. Think everyone's a resident.

All residents.

I haven't done my diligence in that respect, but I'm pretty sure everyone respects.

I do want to clarify that, you know, 191 also applies to both of these, and that is that they do have to be a city resident or a a business located within the city. Oh, okay. So if they're not related to a business within the city, then they do have to be a full time resident for both boards.

But for parks and rec, you do have to be a city resident specifically.

Both. It's

Actually, no. Parks and rec. Parks and rec.

It calls it out specific. Yeah.

A park parks and rec would be more specific.

Yeah. They specifically said Not

just resident, but full time.

Yeah. So they don't know if it's

Actually, you know what, though? In in right before it says full time residency, in the point before that, it says to the extent practical. It doesn't make it from appointing members to the board the following shall to the extent practicable be considered. So

my take on on that based on the way it's it's set out would be that in their evaluation, they could weigh more heavily towards a full time resident as opposed to a part time resident. And which maybe it makes sense for parks and recreation facilities that are based on usage and things like that. And that may apply to the businesses too. But it's more of, like you said, a consideration. So that's part of the evaluation criteria that they get to these are minimum criteria. So minimum criteria is that they have to be a resident or a business owner.

You have

be a resident business owner.

But but this gives them the ability to give more weight to full time residency.

Read that that way as well. So alright. I anybody anything you wanna No. Chew on here?

Was there the idea of adding the qualification planning and zoning board something you wanted to include in your memo?

In the memo. Yeah. Just a memo.

Just a memo to Okay.

What happens? Yeah. Just economic development.

Ec economic development.

Yeah. And and one adding it to the qualifications.

In 1316? Yeah.

Necessarily have to change the charter over.

In b and b one, we could just add economic development to it.

Any other changes to the board section?

Your next issue on page 14 in regarding city elections. We're talking about that earlier. Is that something you wanted to leave up to see what the wait and see what the legislature did, legislature did, or something you wanted to put about?

Yeah. We get Q to really put our stamp on this whole process

ourselves as proper. My my yeah. My concern would be that we move them to November cause Uproar. Uproar. Yeah. And then staff's gonna have to start to draft language and things. And then it looks like it's very likely the date is gonna come down. Unpreempt it anyway. Preempt it. Maybe the language then has to change again. Or

So when does the state assembly meet and this bill potentially?

So they're meeting right now, but as I was mentioning, I believe that it only passed through I thought it was senate bill. I'm sorry. Don't have it written down. It's fourteen sixteen. But it only passed through that one part of the house I mean, of the of the legislature. The other side does not have a companion bill. And so for that reason, it It's kinda stuck. Is stuck. But, again, the bill sponsor said that it is a priority and that it is going to come back next year and that he fully believes that it will pass next year. And this is probably second or third year that this has been put forward.

However, I know there is a big push in Tallahassee to move all of the elections to November. We do have a concern that depending on how the language is drafted, it may or may not cause a little bit of a problem with our charter change that came about as a result of the referenda last year. However, we're hopeful that we'll be able to work that out in such a way that the state will draft the language so we can accommodate kind of our next municipal election and then kick it off to the very next general election so we don't have to extend terms any longer. But we'll have to wait and see how that plays out. But I fully imagine that it likely will move forward and pass between now and 2030, which is the next time, even if you put it on.

About. But Yeah. Like

they're grab it and then

Yeah. I have

to take it out. Question is a little I'm not even I'm gonna preface this by saying that I I haven't thought it out really well, but can the commission vote to reduce their terms or refer to the term as the vested terms?

So at this point, no. So they can't take away anybody's vested term currently. What did come up prior to the November referenda or the ordinance that effectuated the change to an elected mayor. There was discussion about prior to this March election that we just had having the term shortened to two years instead of extending it and basically doing away with the March, but that failed. That did not move forward.

So they voted to extend it, and the item on the ballot was to extend it and basically cancel the March. They cannot shorten anything that's in existence now. Now they could have done it with the idea that anybody who was running at that time would know in advance that their term was only gonna be two years, but that didn't go anywhere.

But can can they do it themselves? No. No. Like, even if they I'm thinking, is there would there any is there any scenario where depending on what the language that would come down hypothetically from the state, is there any scenario where having that election instead of March, the prior November, four months earlier

That would force us to Four

or five months earlier. Would that

a way, that would essentially force us to have, like, a special election, which is not No. It's not right. Consistent with the charter and not, you know, in in the state does not have the power to shorten somebody's best in terms.

Yeah. I didn't There's also an issue

created by the fact that we're moving from five to four districts. And so the other issue is that, you know, technically speaking, the redistricting board is likely well, not likely. They are going to be appointed, and they will convene next year in 2026. And their charge is going to be to reduce from five to four do that. We're that.

Creates a bit of a conundrum in that you can't going kind of have an election sooner for five districts when it's gonna be moving to four districts. It creates so many moving parts. It gets really convoluted.

I guess I was trying to think, albeit abstractly, is there a way if the state I would I would be personally, just me as a citizen, really disappointed if the state language comes down and extends terms that have already been extended and, like, if there's any way to keep that from happening because it's possible. And I just think the way that the terms have been handled so far have been.

So what I'm hopeful of is that the legislature will say, you know, that the elections will be essentially moved to rather that they'll leave it up to each municipality and or any counties that are affected to kind of reset their election cycle as needed to the next available general election kind of after, you know, their next election. We could do it, and I would suggest this, you know, where if that directive comes down, we have the election in March 2029, and then we have another election in November 2030. And as Alex pointed out earlier, it would just be whoever draws the short straws as dictated per our charters for the two seats that would get that much shorter term, but they would know it going into it versus extended further. I think that probably is not likely to be palatable in the eyes of either the commission or the voters, just based on what I heard going into the twenty twenty four November referendum.

They can make this change legislature can make this change also. This doesn't have to be a constitutional amendment.

Correct. It's almost like a preemption, and they do it all the time. They've done it with vacation rentals. They're considering doing it now with affordable housing and with several other items. Yeah. So in that regard, it would be treated kind of the same way. And

I thought it was constitutional, the the setting of the election day.

So in their mind, most municipalities and counties are on a November election cycle, so they're just kind of, you know, riding the off the outliers with the rest of them. It's the way they're viewing it. Feel free to jump in if I missed anything.

No.

Okay. So we have before us the ability to recommend or or move make a motion to move the elections to November or to do do nothing and let nature take its course.

I vote for nature. Yes. I think we would create more trouble than it's worth. It remains on its own now as opposed the state decides not to, I suppose they can always we go into something for the next board. For whatever

it's worth, my kind of combination of the notes provided to us, I say staff in my notes said, mayor Welsh requested that they be moved, vice mayor Rayleigh requested that they not be moved. Mhmm. Commissioner Riedel requested that they be moved, but not before

November 20. So they can't get

consensus on it. And and in my notes, have that commissioner Brody, I believe asked that they be moved or asked that they not be moved, because this was probably the one issue that I think most commissioners that came before us it might I think it's the one that most the one issue that the majority that most of the commissioners commented on.

It's a major major issue.

I mean, it was the first issue in our first meeting even as we first convened careful about the election day. Yeah. That was fair. So Taking the natural tendency to a dollar do the thing that people tell you don't do I'm just gonna listen and say I'm gonna

listen I'm

I would do a favor of just leaving it where it is.

I am I am as well.

Put in the memo. Like, You guys wanna revisit it. Should the state or or should other things not preempt it? Like, let it be part of commission agenda 2027.

Well, commission can change your calendar.

The commission can, similar to what they did with the elected mayor, where they basically took it up upon themselves to change the charter in kind of an off cycle, if you will. Additionally, members of the public could petition the election. Question. That's good component that moved the elections or proposed to move them to November. So they don't have to wait for the next charter review board. So we'll see what the state does.

Getting on me.

So that gets you through your identified identified issues. Did you have other issues that you have come to your mind or that you've come across as you've worked through this?

No. No. Don't. Okay.

I Think then we end up with in addition to our little our memo which will address recommendations which are primarily the the qualification for funding the zoning board and the moving of the charter review board date and and review, which is on page four. So pages one through five show the language that you have proposed so far. So Tara can correct me if I'm wrong here. I think what we can do then

is we will bring back next week.

We will provide you a copy of the full charter with all of these changes in their proper place in strike through and underline. And you you actually will probably get that tomorrow So look through, and you'll you'll see these then in context, the changes that are in five and six. The only one because the on page four, section nine zero seven, the charter review board, because that one is one that you're going you want to do as a recommendation recommendation rather than as an actual change. I won't include it in the body of the of the charter itself right now. It'll be in that separate

memo. Okay.

Everything else will be in that charter. You'll be able to see a look get a look at. What I hope to bring to you is that we'll bring to you a first draft of the ballot language and the ballot questions. I looks to me like you've got five, maybe six ballot questions here. So, hopefully, we'll we'll see if we can get a draft together by then by the next meeting.

I can tell you,

you it will not be immediate. It will probably be brought to the meeting, and we'll review it there. Don't know. They're they're very, very technical, and and they're very challenging. So we'll get them to you as soon as we can. I just do you think it's next week?

Yeah. I mean, I I think it's possible that we will have a draft for you to look at at the next meeting. I think that miss Mahaffy is is correct and not you know, we'd rather under promise and over deliver than over promise and under deliver. And just because the valid questions themselves do get rather technical and are limited to 15 words for the title, 75 for the actual question, and we'll look to see where we can combine so you don't end up with an inordinate amount of questions. And that just takes a little time and massaging the language.

So that might be kind of a game day, here's your packet with that. But as she pointed out, you will get to see in context the changes that she'll probably get to you before tomorrow because she's very expeditious and efficient that way. So at least you'll have something to kind of chew on between now and the next meeting. And then at the next meeting, we'll walk you through the proposed valid questions and whatnot. And then I think we had decided at the last meeting to skip a week. Is that correct?

Yeah. Was gonna ask, so what is next meeting? So Because that maybe you have two weeks. Two weeks. Mhmm. And then really the pressure is done on.

To over deliver.

Well, I thought that we were having a meeting next week, and then we were gonna skip the following week, but I could be wrong.

No. I think that's what we decided. Yeah.

So

Yeah. It's on the sixteenth.

So we'll have the sixteenth. Let's do the twenty third. Yeah.

The good thing is you can go through it, and then you'll have time to further digest it and suggest any changes before the next meeting, which would then be that week of the twenty eighth. Mhmm. And we still are on target to finish early. Actually, I think

we have scheduled for the sixteenth and the twenty third, but then took the the week of the twenty eighth off. No. So it was it probably Well, some somebody

Sorry about that.

You're saving my marriage. So the

twenty third, we're not can you just cancel?

That's right. It's your anniversary or something.

No. That's

my grandchildren. Oh, sorry.

The day they're arriving, I think

it was a

lot. Like five doctors. Is it at all?

Where's grandpa? He's at a meeting. I don't know. That's the.

So our goal. The our board ends before

Once we confirm all of the wording for the ordinance in question, that's it? The close-up shop? And then,

ultimately, it will go before the city commission for first and second reading, and you will certainly be made aware and invited to attend. Okay. And that's it.

Alright. Mhmm. Yeah. And I guess the the term is still open, so if anything were to come up that anybody wanted to add something last minute or discuss something, we have that ability to. Emergency charter. Emergency charter. Like, if somebody brushes something, knocks on your door in the middle of the night or something.

No. I don't talk about that. Why is the door knocking is generally what I hear in

the middle of the night.

Close this