Charter Review Board - Regular Meeting

Alright. I'll call to order the was it 04/16/2025 charter review board meeting? Will the board clerk please call the roll.

Chair Valvo? Present. Vice chair Toriazo? Present. Board member Alvin? Present. Board member Menzis? Present. Board member Rizib? Here. Deputy city attorney Mahaffy? Here. City attorney Pyram?

Here.

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 the corps and physically present. 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.

Alright. Thank you. First item is our approval of the March 26 minutes. Are there any corrections or revisions to the minutes from the 03/26/2025? I reviewed them. I saw none none that I thought were necessary. So if none, there's a is there a motion? So moved. And a second? Second. Approved. Alright. All in favor of approving these notes? I am. I am. Okay. It gives us five five days to approve.

Thank you. Thank you.

Alright. We'll now move to agenda item number four, review of the proposed amendments to the city charter.

So attached to this agenda item, which initially we have we have a edit complete charter, and it has all of the proposed amendments that you all looked at and and gave your consensus to move forward with. And we'll run through them. They are shown on pages six, thirteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen. I'm going to walk through them right now individually and when we get to each one I'm going to ask for your consensus. Alright.

I'm going to we're gonna let's see. Are you comfortable where you're at? Do you want to do walk through them all as a whole and give you we'll we'll need at some point a formal motion to approve and a second and a vote on the language of the proposed amendments. Do you want to do that individually or do you want to do it on the packet as a whole?

So if we're gonna we're gonna run through them, maybe we should just stop at each one. Okay. And then Okay. So You're gonna use the the charter document?

I'm gonna use the charter document that was provided. If anybody doesn't have it, it looks like the okay. So we're gonna start on page two, and this is in section one zero six, rules of construction. That includes new draft language under subsection b. All the references and it says references to days shall mean calendar days unless the specified time is fifteen days or less, then it shall mean business days.

Consensus. Yeah. Okay.

This time, we actually need formal motion and second

and vote. Alright. So we have a motion to approve. Should we

call this out specifically? Sure.

You can call into section one zero

six. Section

I have a do we have a motion to approve the change to section one zero six d to as stated in the document before us.

Motion to approve. Move.

Do I

have a second? Second that. Alright. Second it. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Alright.

We have a So you actually need to go down the road. Okay. Got it.

I'm ready. Should we defer? You ask Can we defer

the board clerk? Yeah.

Okay. Clerk will be happy

to call We're gonna get this down.

Sorry. I didn't give

chair of Alba? Yes. Vice chair of Oriazza? Yes. Board member Alba? Yes. Board member Menzus? Yes. Board member Rudi? Yes.

Alright. So next we're gonna go to thank you. We're we're going to go to page six. This is section three zero three d one where we you've clarified that all other officers and employees means the city manager and city attorney. Are there any questions about the language? And if not, is there a

motion? Okay. I'd like to make a motion that we approve section three zero three one as revised.

Clarification is three zero three d one.

D one. Thank you. Seconded. Seconded. Mister Clerk?

Chair of Alamo? Yes. Vice chair of Cory Ozick? Yes. Board member Alamo? Yes. Board member Menzies? Yes. Board member Riziv? Yes.

Right below that, we have section three zero four a, which relates to the holding of a position as an officer and a homeowner or condominium association board simultaneously with a position as a commissioner or mayor, and it prohibits that. Do you have any questions about the wording or is there

a motion?

Or changes or discussion

I'm good. Yeah. So I would like to I make a motion that we approve section three zero four a as stated in our revised document

here. Seconded.

Alrighty. I have one question.

Go for

I think we had discussed that if they get elected. Right? Is that still kind of

And and it's written that way. It is written that this is a prohibition only on commission members. Understood. So it's it's that's specifically why it's not addressed in the qualifications or the prerequisites. It's only upon

the patient. So if we had to interpret this in if somebody had to interpret this in the future, we would say you're good to run for office and you're good right up until the moment you take office.

That's correct.

So you could resign from your HOA rule, let's say, on your way That's correct. On your way up the aisle. Okay. Perfect. Okay. So we have a motion. Highway the second.

Trail Alba? Yes. Vice Chair Esporiaza? Yes. Board member Alba? Yes. Board member Menzis? Nay. Board member Riziv? Yes.

Motion passes. Four to one. Certainly We're currently specific because it wasn't unanimous just to make sure you understood.

Got it. 13 h 13. This is an amendment to section six zero four, lapse of creations, to change the delete the requirement that it'd completed, that they things automatically lapse in every five years, but lapse if if they're so determined by the city commission, so determined by the city commission through the annual budget process. That's on page 13.

Give everybody a moment to read through that. This one. I think this one ended the day, the budget processing kinda overrides anything so I think that's why we decided it still was fine. Yeah. It all kinda washes out Yeah.

In the budget process. Move acceptance on this.

Approval. Alright. Motion? Yes. Motion approved. I'll second that motion. So

we have a motion and a motion seconded. Correct. Alright.

Defer to you now. And Ask me to call the roll.

Oh, please. Mister clerk, will you call the roll on this? Thank you, sir.

Chair of Alba? You're so full. Yes. Vice chair of Scorio Alba? Yes. Board member Alba? Yes. Board member Vince's? Yes. Board member Rupine? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Our next set of changes goes to starts on page 15, and it includes the changes on fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen. And 18, actually, you don't need to worry about for right now. Just look at let's look at eight zero two b, and c, eight zero two c, eight zero three c. And eight zero six I

was at eight zero six I thought it was there. So the we were we were trying to address the time frame so that maybe the obligation of the commission to bring a something that's been submitted to the to vote. I'm trying to think I'm setting my notes to her. Let me see. Check the math on the time lunch. Is there a situation is there does the math work out in a

way that we have to call special elections We've done everything we can to minimize that.

For a single issue. Right?

We've done everything we can to minimize that. Flipping through my notes. We added the the general election to in b, that's why that's there, is to increase the likelihood that they don't have to call a special election because a general election, of course, is different than a regular city election. So we added that to, like I said, decrease the likelihood of having to call a special election.

Okay. Yeah. It can be up to one year before it goes

by the time that's right. Yeah. And if you want, we can we can vote on these individually. Section. If that would help. I think it would help. Okay. Do you take a few minutes just to look at everything we've talked about right now? Or

No. Just

Give you another minute or two? Yeah.

I'm just trying to recall the the conversation on it and why I'm trying to remember how what caused it to not be possible to kind of, like, completely avoid the possibility of having to do a special election on a single issue.

Just the timing. It it could be that there's not an an an election within a year. You know, if somebody's if we're on a two year cycle or say we move especially if we move to March, then there's only elections every two years. Yeah. I mean, November. Yes. You.

But we said it it's a minimum of thirty days, but not more than a year. Are those numb do those numbers have to be thirty days or a year? Opening this thing up as though we didn't think of

the number before. You went to two years? Yeah. Or A year and a half.

You know, the preliminary process takes a certain amount of time. Like, it could all be timed out to where or is there, like, a window in which it could be it could be submitted, like, eighteen to twenty four months prior to the next election, these things would have to be submitted.

So some of this may be covered under state statute. I just don't know.

I think there was I think there was something. I just

I couldn't find it in my memory. The the one year is set out in state statute, but well, I don't care.

And then you also have to think of the public policy argument that if somebody is trying to get something passed by petition through, you know, two or three years from now, it's kind of so far attenuated. It doesn't really have the impact they're hoping it would have Yeah. Over the relevance. But It could be. I think there's something maybe in the statute.

I feel like we discussed it, and there was a reason, and I just I didn't I didn't I didn't wanna discuss that it was gonna be a significant effort, but I was just thinking, don't kinda I just think if something made its way through the process. And we had to do a special election before

I I just think to get to that point, you're just probably gotten through, like, there between three and six months of work. So you're either, like, in a weird That's what you don't get started eighteen months. And the sentences after that, so the city commission can call a special election. Okay. So let's say something was so urgent. Right. They can do it whenever.

Yeah. But if it was like a three to six month process and the next election was Eighteen months from now. Seven yes. Seventeen or eighteen months away, we'd have to have an election as in another election.

Should it be so or should

it be? Yeah.

Well, even if it was I guess it was anything. Like, the it would have to go to a special election.

Mhmm.

Like, there wouldn't be the option of it saying, like, hey. This is a

you know? That's my reading

on it.

There's another election. There's an election somewhere in three or four. It's hard

to just need to do this.

If tightened it so much, it's ridiculous. If it was allowed to be up to eighteen months, then it would probably eliminate the need for a special election to ever be done. But like Terrell said, at some point

So is the problem so what the statute says is one sixty six point o three one sub one talks about the governing body of municipality made by ordinance or the electors of the municipality made by petition signed by 10% of the registered electors as of the last proceeding municipal general election. Submit to the electors of said municipality a proposed amendment to its charter. Blah blah blah. And then it goes on to say, for a vote of the electors at the next general election then held within this municipality or at a special election called for such purpose. So the language that we have here is basically saying if no general election or regular city election is to be held within the period, the commission shall provide for a special election.

It doesn't necessarily say the time restrictions of one year. It will have more to do, I think, with the fact that if somebody submits a petition, you could have a general election in six months, but if the supervisor of elections office, they have to verify the signatures and verify that it's done appropriately and correctly and accurately in compliance with the law. And they may not be able to get it ready for that general election. So then that could get kicked over beyond that. And I think that may be part of why there's not the restrictions, but I don't know why I mean, the one year is already in there.

But if that was the case and it wasn't ready, like, came in six months, it doesn't quite get ready, we'd have to have another election a few months after. Then we have to have a special election a few months after the regular election that we just had. Right? Because it has to be within a year.

Let's look

into that a little bit more. I was like, if you're into it, we can just use the state language unless

The there's a reason for those state gives you well, I was initially going to say the state gives you fewer it takes out the municipal election, which is a possibility. I mean, we could say the next general election and arguably take out a year, but it is a huge policy argument against that because the argument is that you are preventing, you know, a member of the public from attempting to change things.

But, yeah, if every two years and and and it like, not when I'm gonna, like, I'm gonna, you know, fight to the fight to the death on. But it seems like if if the if the ordinance said, like, what the state says, that it would be put to vote at the next scheduled election, and those are, like, every

two years. It means somebody could wait two years or two plus years. Because if it comes in three months before an election, they're not getting on that election. They're gonna wait two years and three months.

Well, it but it might but it might take nine months to get or six months to get the the process done. Right? It's what? Three three to

six months to get it to get the a ballot question on the deadline?

Yes. So

it could be radiant. Yeah. But, also, if if I'm the one organizing the petition, I think I'm gonna the guidance they would get would be to try to get this thing in for the next in time for the next election cycle or I don't know. My thought

would That'll always be the guidance from us. It would be it would

be a shame to have to spend a $100,000 to do an election for a single issue if it's if it's avoidable. But, again, not a huge deal to me. I just I thought we discussed it earlier. I thought there was a reason it couldn't be. I just couldn't find it in my notes, but I might have just recalled incorrectly.

I think it was just a sentiment that it's something, you could be pushing us like that should feel urgent, probably bit more urgency. So we made it a little bit sooner Yeah. If I recall correctly.

Yeah. Well, I think we just left the language the way it was.

Well, we added general election, which increases the frequency with because right now, there's an election every year. Right now, we have elections in odd years. They have a there's general elections in even years. So right now, it's at every year. Every year. The special election right now as things currently stand, Might be saying it wrong. Oh As there there wouldn't be a need to call in a special election, which is why we added general election so that they weren't just limited to city elections It's not an issue unless we move to November. And then you have a two year wait.

Yeah, which, I mean, we've been operating kind of under the assumption of that likelihood Well, I guess in a couple of other areas. Right?

Correct. Unless because we don't have our next municipal election till 2029. If somebody came in with a petition tomorrow, we might have to have a special election because the next general election is until November 2026. So that would be kind of a unique situation. Otherwise, it's generally an anomaly.

In this section you're referencing.

Well, just to the conversation at hand

Right.

Trying to extend it out. We're trying to make a shorter option to make it longer to avoid the special election.

No, that's a good point. So Clerk Kavanaugh had pointed out that we could also possibly just consider some additional language regarding how petition signatures are verified in order to help bridge the gap, so to speak, if that's really a concern. How they're verified by the Supervisor of Elections. Also,

just to provide some context, right, so there's some verbiage, and I'm not prepared to talk on this at length or at the expo level because they just sent us information and I'd like our attorneys to look over. But there are some provisions in the initiative petition handbook that's provided by the state for how long petitions are actually valid for. And I think that's something that may be considered too that kinda plays into deputy city attorney. Mavi's point is that, you know, you get these signatures. Do you wanna go the how long they're active for if it happens to go beyond what's recommended by the state?

Like, does that does that cause any additional issues to consider or to bring it into the conversation? And then maybe that had provide us with the double the clinical research and provide some context, but I just wanted to put that out there is that there is some verbiage that discusses that in my handbook.

And then just thank you. Just as a follow-up, certainly, we can research that. We can add in some additional language. In the alternative, I do want you to keep in mind that at least in the last ten years, we've only had one citizen petition. So the likelihood of this happening situation where we don't have an election that year is somewhat slim. That said, if the elections do move to November, I guess it's possible that it could happen again. But it's also likely that the next charter review board could address that if that really does prove to be a problem.

I think another thing to consider as well, not to cut you off, is administratively, if somebody were to approach us. We would obviously lay out a whole timeline and explain to the petitioner, if you would like to submit it at this time and go down this road, this is these are the event triggers that'll happen, and maybe they would take that into consideration and understand that too. Because, you know, part of the support of the petition, if they're gonna have to lay out the dispute, they have to pay $180,000 for the special election, some people may just be against the petition just because of that from a fiscal responsibility point of view. So they would be made aware of all this information upfront. If they wouldn't have just submitted blind to the city attorney's office, then the process starts in a vacuum.

That's fine. I don't wanna

make a big deal out of something. It's not that the person submitting the petition would be the only person that's aware of that. Right? The people standing in the parking lot in public signing the documents aren't gonna be aware of the cost of an additional election. And if the petition did meet the standards and it was submitted, the the the signatures would be good. It would just be a matter of when they and when it would go on the ballot. But I don't wanna I don't wanna waste any more time talking about it, though it seems like the fact that it's kind of an anomaly doesn't happen often. It's probably not worth

Yeah. Who my comments in there come across as being No. No. No. Persuading or persuasive either way? Not at all. Just providing I was thinking about it. Factual information.

And I was thinking just as this group comes up with suggested changes, and it could be a year before they go before the voters.

And kind of just to follow-up on your comment, the checks and balance there, even though there may not be somebody telling people in the parking lot of publics that, know, Ultimately, costs once everything is essentially submitted and at least preliminarily verified, then the commission considers the ordinance. The commission would be very well aware of that. So, the public, through the public hearing process, would be aware of that arguably of the additional expense. And so I'd like to think it's unlikely that it would occur or that somebody would feel so strongly about an amendment to our charter or our code that they would want to put something through, you know, no holds barred no matter what the expense. I guess stranger things have happened.

That's good enough

for me.

And we're happy to do whatever you wish.

No. That's good enough for me. And for me, anyway. I just thought, boy, it'd be a shame if we had to have this expensive election where the language could otherwise guide the process to where we didn't have to have a special election. That's all was thinking of. Okay. Alright. So I guess section by section.

Sure. So we'll start at eight zero one b on page 15. This is the limitations to the power to initiate and adding that initiation charter amendments amendments or code amendments cannot be initiated related to the Land Development Code, comprehensive plan, or any ordinances related there too.

Yeah. So do we need to do a motion for each one of these?

Yep. Yeah.

Alright.

Chair of Alba? Yes. Vice chair Esquireza? Yes. Board member Alba? Yes. Board member Mitzis? Yes. Board member Mitzis? Yes.

Eight zero two b.

Is is is a just a structural change that was underlined there? They're not to, like, approve that.

Is a just oh, it's it's a semantics that would be done automatically, but, yeah, we'll we'll we'll address all of 802

Okay.

Since they're all related. Eight zero two adds a new section b, setting out the review process for an initiative petition. And c is just kind of cleaning up the timing based on those changes in that review process.

Yeah. I was good with that. I thought we landed on very generous language with three additional tries after the initial one, not three total tries. That was kind of the highlight of that to me.

So you said you were good with the submission submission plus plus three? Three?

Yeah. I thought that was just very general. I remember we we discussed that for at length. Yeah. And I think that what we landed on was very accommodating.

It just would you could just term

it as eight zero two.

Right. Well, section eight

zero two.

Thank you.

I'll second that.

Chair Vahoe? Yes. Vice Chair Scoriusa? Yes. Board member Albin? Yes. Board member Aminces? Yes. Board member Riziv? Yes.

Okay. Eight zero three on that same page is really just a final change to implement that that review process.

Motion to approve eight zero three c.

Alright. Going to the next page 17 in eight zero six. This is what we're just talking about. It's clarifying that this qualified voters that participate in this election and then be added that these could be considered as a general election in addition The next page, page 18, section eight zero seven, results of election. This actually corresponds to the next page on on nine zero six, but we can look at them independently.

Just may wanna looking at nine zero six. This is where we provided clarified language for how to deal with conflicting amendments. Amendments. And so rather than summarily kind of briefly addressing it, we refer to nine zero six so that it's addressed in more detail. Is there a motion on eight zero seven?

So moved. Second.

Alright. Court clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair of Alvin? Yes. By sheriff Scoriusa? Yes. Board member Alvin? Yes. Board member Mitzis? Yes.

And on the next page, nine zero six, amendments to the charter. This is in a and b. A, just this all of a is really just kind of organization since we're adding a new b, and that is our detailed language on how to resolve conflicts if there are conflicting amendments approved at an an election.

Alright. We're done. Two seconds. Board clerk.

Chair Abalo? Yes. Vice chair Esporiaza? Yes. Board member Alvin? Yes. Board member Mises? Yes. Board member Razid?

Now, 907 is the charter. It is not written in here. When we were looking at it in your discussion on letting the commission kind of evaluate the timing and stuff on that, We realized that if the commission decides to include it, it has that information has to be in the first reading of the ordinance. So what we did was we put it in the first reading of the ordinance with options. So if you would take a look at your next document, the one that looks like an ordinance, and go to page five.

No, page six Page six This is your draft language for section nine zero seven In January 2030 or 2032 that gives the option and every six or eight years thereafter. And it goes through the existing term review process. So from your discussions, it wasn't crystal clear if you really wanted to recommend, yes, they changed this provision, but you all decide the timing or if you wanted them to even make the final decision. But in your recommendation, you may want to go ahead and say whether or not you're comfortable with this language. Because right now, we've drafted it and included it.

The question is if you want to go ahead and include that base that, yeah, you really should change this to time with the elections. We recommend that, and then you go ahead and make the decision on the timing.

So choosing now between the six or eight years? No.

No. You you were very clear at every single discussion that you want them to choose between six and eight years. What I wasn't crystal clear on is if you want to make a firm recommendation that they do change it to coincide with an election.

Okay. I

understand. And if that's your your recommendation, I would recommend that you go ahead and take action on it tonight and that you include it in the ordinance. Because if it's not included in the First Amendment in the ordinance on first reading, they can't add it. They can do a separate ordinance, but if you include it then it's there and Then they choose the six or eight years Your discussions were pretty solid that you were very concerned about moving it. If you feel differently, we are happy to take it out and put it just as a recommendation for something for them to do in the future.

Yeah. Well, yeah, I feel it's I feel it's valuable for it to be in sync with our election cycle.

Yeah. I'm I'm for including it in the first reading of the words.

Mhmm. Okay.

This was to avoid, like, the overlap trade of the

Yeah. Just Yeah. Getting, like, a little disjoint where you could have a charter review board, but then what they decide doesn't go to election for a weird gap. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Like

like this time. Like Yeah. This So there is your draft language on page six. Take a look at that if you have any questions or suggestions. Or if not, is there a motion?

Motion to approve. I'll switch it up. I have

I've I've written it already.

Board member Albo? Yes. Board member Ginzis? Yes. Board member Rizi? Yes. So

that is all of the charter changes that you all came to a consensus on and directed us to move forward with. We discussed a lot of other options, but these were the ones that you gave us consensus to complete and move forward with. Are there any other issues that you have?

With with the charter done now, we're do we review the ordinance or what's

Well, as soon as as soon as we're done and once you're comfortable with that, then we can move on to the ballot questions and the ordinance.

So now we're looking at the ballot questions and the draft of the charter amendment. So it's the same document that she had just directed you to.

So this is item five on the agenda. Discussion of ballot questions and review of the draft charter and the ordinance. So this ordinance has it all. It is the formal ordinance that will go to the city commission. It includes kind of the legislative history of how this board was created, why it exists, what it does, and what its conclusions were.

It goes through and lays out starting on page two all of the specific text language that sections that we just talked about. So all of the things that you as a board directed be changed, those those are all in here starting on page two. We have section 106, then we have three zero three d, then we have three zero four, on page three we still have six zero four, we start off with eight zero one through on page four we have the rest of eight zero two, eight zero three, and eight zero six. On page eight five we have eight zero seven, and nine zero six. And then the final charter review board question or language on such page six.

The the ordinance then goes on to call the election itself, which will be 11/03/2026, and it provides how the election notice will occur, which is consistent with state statute. And then it provides the form of the ballot, and these are the actual questions that will be on the ballot. So we're going to we've got the title and then the question itself. It may have a little bit of explanation in the title or in a sentence right after it. They're very limited. The title can be no more than 15 words. Does that have to include a number?

I don't believe

so. No. Okay.

And I didn't think it did, then I was like, oh no. And the question itself can be

no more than 75 words. You want me to read them out loud? You will see that they incorporate multiple things in them. So question one, clarifying calculation of days and confirming commission sets city manager and city attorney salaries. These are both items that are generally housekeeping, so we felt comfortable putting to get them together because they are housekeeping items.

Know, days and versus business days is really pretty clear in the context of where it is each time, but this clarifies it and takes away any any possibilities in Ambiguities. Confusion. Ambiguities. The same with your the change you made to the city manager and city attorney salaries. So this adjust dresses the changes in sections one zero six and three zero three, I think.

Yes. Any questions, concerns, thoughts regarding question number one? And as I'm happy to state it, we did try to combine where we could so we didn't have an inguinal amount of ballot questions. This will be on a general election, the ballot?

Are are the questions in respective order from front of the charter to the end? So that

Pretty much. But

Yeah. Because I see the first one is the first two changes.

That's typical.

Generally, they they follow that order. And and where things were combined, they were generally right next to each other or we're close there too. So, yes, they are pretty much in order.

And part of the reason for that is because even though the whole ordinance will not be attached to the ballot Mhmm. If somebody had a question about the ballot question, because as you know, the supervisor of elections publishes ballot questions in advance, and I'm sure that we would do the same. Somebody could come to the city clerk's office and ask for a copy of the ordinance. And this way, it correlates. It makes sense. It tracks the ordinance

as far as the order of things, generally speaking. And so what do we end up do we end up saying fifteen days? Is this question one is relating clarify fifteen days or more? Fifteen. Or fourteen to fifteen days or less? Does it does it does it matter if the number of days? Like, just

says it's clarifying specified. Days, business days. Okay. You'll you'll see the titles are very generic, and and the questions are generic.

Well, that was the question itself.

The question themselves are very The

same. It didn't.

But the more specific language, again, is in one zero six d saying references today shall be calendar days unless the specified time is fifteen days or less than it shall mean business days. If it's sixty days, it's gonna be calendar days. If it's thirty days, it's calendar days. If it's fifteen or less, it's business days.

Just the valid language doesn't need to be

Correct. No. That specific one.

My first first time experiencing this. So yeah. Okay.

And part that of is because, again, we're limited with the number of words. So

Your your 15 your 75 word questions for the constitution usually come with seven seven or or eight eight pages pages of of

text.

Text.

If Questions not more.

And the same rules apply there as well as far as, you know, 15 word titles, 75 word questions. Which is why sometimes people look at these things and they go, Gosh, I have no idea what that means. But we tried to make this as clear as possible, that at least it's clear that all we're doing is clarifying the calculation of days and confirming that commission the sets the salary. And there will be an education piece that will accompany this in advance of the election that I'm sure will further explain it as well. You know, we usually do mailers of things when we're doing a menu to our charter.

The YouTube video as well explaining it is usually a normal business.

Yeah. I'm good with these. It's kinda Yeah. The only one that's probably the widest changes are four because it touches so many sections or so many parts of section eight. We individually approve the changes, but it's all bundled into one for the voters. Right? That's probably the biggest

Yes. I mean, we could break it into more questions, but they are all related to your initiative and referendum and recall process. And and there is significant benefit to having fewer questions than more more questions.

Yeah. Because

you Particularly, as long as

they're all related. You can end up with ballot fatigue if you have too many questions. Also, I know the city commission has expressed an explicit desire to have no more than just a few questions to the extent possible because back around twenty fifteen ish, when the Charter Review Board met then, they had, like, 17 questions on the ballot. Last year, we

had 18. Per 2020, we had 18. So

All right. I'm good with five.

Yeah. You're doing wonderful with five. And you really tackled some substance. Yeah.

I have a question with two because I wonder if that might not be confusing. I read this. This is an outside person, and now we're gonna be electing a mayor separately from the commissioners. So I might say, oh, so you can be mayor.

We can we can add mayor.

Yeah. Guess Well, yeah. Because It makes sense because, like, we understand because we've gone through it. Right. But we all ask that question, I think, one or two times saying, hey. So is the mayor the commissioner? The commissioner is the mayor? Like, it's all the same.

Especially because we elected a mayor separately Mhmm. In 2029. So, oh, you can be mayor and still be an officer, but not commission.

So there's room there's room.

We have enough room add the add, like

So we could amend it to read the shall shall the general powers and duties of these mayor and city commission commission be be amended amended to prohibit city the mayor and city commissioners from simultaneously serving as an officer the mayor it would be the mayor or city commissioners From simultaneously serving as an officer on a homeowner or condominium association board located within the city while they are serving as a as The mayor or city a city commissioner.

This is we that's what was voted on But

Now we don't have as much flexibility in the title. We only have one word to spare in the title. We could do prohibiting mayor or commissioners from serving on homeowner, or we could just leave it at mayor prohibiting city commissioners.

Well, prohibiting mayor and commissioner. You don't need you only have one word.

Get rid of the city commissioners?

We've got city What if we

okay. Yeah. What if we got rid of the word commission at the end, just said their term?

Do that too. Yeah.

And add mayor.

Because I question is is are we talking about the city their commission term

or their No. No. No. No.

We can say prohibiting mayor or commissioners from serving on homeowner or condominium board during their commission term. And then the question would read, shall the general powers and duties of this mayor and city commission be mayor or city commissioners from simultaneously serving as an officer on a homeowner or condominium association board located within the city while they are serving as the mayor or city or a city commissioner. And I'm pretty sure we have enough boards to do that. We do.

Yeah. I just it's like 44, 45 boards. Yeah.

Alright. Don't think sec number four before I I don't think it's I don't think most people are gonna understand it, but I don't think there's any way to make that

In the

the referendum, ordinance, all that stuff's kinda wonky, and I don't think the average I'm reading through it, and I think it would have been a stretch for me to understand that five months ago.

I think there's something that'll have to be

I don't think there's any way to

Don't need to be educated.

Make it more digestible.

So But I think the title actually kinda summarizes it. Revising initiative, referendum, and recall procedures.

Yeah. I think, yeah, like, recall would get my attention. I'd read through it, and I'd say, okay. I think I get it.

I mean, historically, when you have a question that people really would have a hard time understanding, does it generally pass or fail?

That's interesting. Any idea? My You know, we we amended this section last time.

When I'm in the when I'm in the ballot booth

Right.

I don't answer something unless I think I understand it.

Yeah. That's what I'm thinking.

I don't don't even know if we're on.

I'll read it over and say see if it's Yeah. I don't wanna vote for this if I don't know what it

means. Mhmm.

And I won't vote against him necessarily, but I may just leave a blank.

Yeah. Do you think I think we'd be okay.

Curious as to what happens.

Get rid of that. I know Yeah.

We could. I I'm worried. I added that afterwards. I added that, like, on the second or third reiteration. I was worried about

leaving it out. So I I just pointed out that maybe we could get rid of the language about the third line from the bottom that says provide correction of ordinance, repeal deadlines because it's not really a substantive sentence. And we could still make the change because it's clear that we're revising the procedures. And then it just reads that shall the charter be amended to revise the initiative and repeal procedures to provide that the land development code comprehensive plan and ordinances are not subject to referendum. And then provide a defined procedure for validation of the form of a petitioner ordinance.

And to provide a methodology for addressing conflicting charter amendments approved by the voters. Is that a little more clear?

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the the land development one is is is really long even though probably the most zigged one.

We could take out and we could say and related ordinances instead of ordinances related thereto. Mhmm.

Yeah.

Their true language tends to frighten the public, I think. Sorry. That's too legalistic.

Why don't we say to provide that ordinances related to the land development code and comprehensive plan?

Well, do we wanna say that or maybe we say to exclude the land development code comprehensive plan and related ordinances?

Not in not I in

think putting the word excluded True. Puts the flag up.

Okay.

For voters, just like the sentence or the phrase provide correction of women's repeal deadlines, I think that's more of a positively phrased term. So if you're stacking this all together as people are reading through it is where it hits emotionally and in their logic, I think that is a more positive for any sentence amongst the group. If we you know, something to think about.

So I like your suggestion to provide that the

land development code, comprehensive plan, and related ordinances are not subject to the referendum process. Provide a defined we could take out provide. Provide a defined procedure for validation of the form of a petition or ordinance.

You could just say define a procedure or validation. I know. But the form of a petition or ordinance and a methodology instead of and to provide for addressing conflicting charter amendments approved by the voters. So then it's more plain English. Shall the charter be amended to revise the initiative or appeal procedures to provide that the Land Development Code comprehensive plan and related ordinances are not subject to the referendum process, define a procedure for validation of the form of a petition ordinance and a methodology for addressing conflicting charter amendments approved by the voters. Does that flow better? Yeah. A

little? Well,

this will never flow that easily. True.

Yeah. It just But

is it at least a little more understandable? Yeah.

Well, you So if you're gonna have everybody glaze over

on this. Are you available that day?

In this the truth.

Is that We'll

put that in minutes first.

Does anyone have any other amendments to it?

There's no other way to do it. I mean, it's not a simple way to write this.

I guess,

a little cleaner.

Yeah. It's cleaner than it was, but it is no simple way to write this.

See, what we really just wanna say, shall the charter be amended to streamline the process? Yes or no?

Just That's really it.

On '5, I'm going to say I'd like to delete the four possibly incurring additional costs for special elect. No. Wait. No. That should in terms of just explaining why you why it's a advisable change. No. I think we should leave that in because

Yeah. I think that

Yeah. No. I was I was originally thinking that these don't generally actually, the reason we would take it out is because the charter review board recommendations don't go to special election. They only go to the next general or or municipal election.

Well, except that we say in the charter that if it's not within a year, that it

would go to special election. But that's related to the initiative process.

Not the charter. Fair

enough. Good point.

So we just take it out?

So I would take out the last clause or possibly incur an additional cost for special elections, so that helps that a little bit.

Number three, determine abandonment of appropriations during they're determining what are they are they determining if something is abandoned or determining what? I mean, I I I mean, I know what we're trying to provide them to have the ability to do, but does that read clear, like, that they're to to determine the abandonment of appropriations? Like, are they determining if the appropriation is abandoned? It should be. Or they're they're determining that it's not abandoned and it's still a viable project.

I'm thinking both. No?

That that's the intention. Both. But this is reading like that, I guess.

Like, I didn't realize it the first time. The second time I read, I'm thinking like, I'm reading it, like, are they determining that something's been abandoned?

We could say determine if appropriations Mhmm. Should be abandoned during the budget process?

No. That doesn't really

It's often a situation to determine status Yeah. Of appropriations during budget process?

Yeah. Because we're changing it from five years. We're not

saying abandoned. Causing about or causing the appropriations to not automatically be abandoned. Right. It's not so much that the commission's I don't I don't think it is right that the commission's determining something. We're just saying that the charter doesn't automatically determine that it's abandoned.

Well, look, we did give them that the ability. They do make that determination during the budget process.

But maybe that's too technical. Maybe the title should be something like authorizing city commission to continue appropriations new language, the way

we added the new language, it is that they are they don't they extending

appropriations? It's not a Don't

they just continue to have the same authority that they always have during budget process? We're just not we're not eliminating those projects from it?

We're not setting a five year limit.

It really is about abandonment. Shall be deemed abandoned, if so determined, by the city commission through the annual budget process.

Prior to this, it was required. It was automatic. It's automatic. So we are giving the commission more authority.

Like, what about the first, whatever that is, 10 or 12 words of the description? Like, shall the charter be amended or remove the current five year automatic lapse of unspend appropriations?

That's really what they're pulling on.

Just at work? Say that again.

Just the first line and a half there of the description.

One too many words.

Oh, okay. But Shall the charter be amended to remove the current five year automatic lapse of unspent appropriations?

He's taking this first sentence and trying to make it

the type. Just make it the question.

So it's authorizing the city commission to remove the current five year automatic lapse of appropriations. Could you put it that way?

I don't know if that fits, but to me, that's just clearer.

Is that too long?

Authorizing what about authorizing city commission to determine whether appropriations should be abandoned to determine during the budget process whether appropriations should be abandoned.

Mean, you have to understand what are these things. What are what is appropriation? What is abandonment? What is the budget process? But I think that at least is a little concise.

And and I guess part of it is the right now we're discussing the title. The question itself, does that make it help with the clarification given that whether or not they understand what an appropriation is is a whole other question, and we can't we can't solve that in our language.

Yeah. Think the question is clear. Okay. I don't mind confusing.

That's the only thing. I think can you read it back one more time?

Authorizing city commission to determine whether appropriations should be abandoned during the budget process or authorizing city commission to determine during the budget process whether appropriations should be abandoned.

I like the second one.

I like the second one.

Authorizing city commission to determine during budget

process. Other appropriations. One, two, three. It's 14.

I have 13. Yeah. I have 13. Yes. So authorizing city commission to determine during the budget process whether appropriations should be abandoned.

Okay. I might have missed an of or the Yeah. I know.

That's it's brutal when those add up.

Give it one more buffer, so we're good.

Yeah. Okay. Does that does that work for everybody?

That works for me. Mhmm. That might give you 20% extra signatures. Mhmm. There you go.

Okay. So now we've changed the language, and four out of the five get valid questions. Any question?

Concerns? We'll review that then, another version at this time.

It's kind

of up

to you.

Right. The thought initially was that we could be done today if you're comfortable with it. If you're not, we can have another meeting just for you.

If you wanna see on the amendment. The final, we after we've amended it. That's a good idea. Supposed to be talking about. I

mean, that was I'm

sorry? We should get get this an email, and then if we need additional one, I guess we can communicate that.

You just can't communicate to each other.

Right. We would communicate to you. Right. We

the entire board comfortable with that? Yeah.

Does anything need to be, like would anything need to be voted on or anything?

Well, you're voting on the concept. You've discussed the language. We wouldn't do anything different than what you've discussed. Right.

Right. It'll be exactly what we've just read. That's why a part of why we've read them in full each time we've come up to so that we have and you've Okay, and the exact language that that we're proposing and you can vote on the ordinance as a whole We'll send out that draft If any of you have concerns about it, you don't email each other. You just email me. And I guess we'll go with, if anyone has concerns, Yeah. We'll But call a

we know the meeting next week is canceled because conflicts, so it wouldn't be until April, April 30.

Do you want me to read all of them again where we ended up?

Yeah. Let's let's give it a shot

to read them and Okay. Test our listening skills. Well,

and that's probably good because you can hear whether or not it makes sense. Okay. So question one, clarifying calculation of days and confirming commission sets city manager and city attorney salaries. Shall the charter be amended to provide general clarification by specifying when references to days means calendar days and when it means business days and clarifying that the officers the city commission sets salaries for are the city manager and city attorney. Good.

Mhmm. Two. Prohibiting mayor or commissioners from serving on homeowner or condominium board during their commission term. Shall the general powers and duties of the mayor and city commission be amended to prohibit the mayor or city commissioners from simultaneously serving as an officer on a homeowner or condominium association board located within the city while they are serving as the mayor or a city commissioner. Alright.

Number three. Authorizing city commission to determine during the budget process whether appropriations should be abandoned. Shall the charter be amended to remove the current five year automatic lapse of unspent appropriations and instead authorize the City Commission to determine during the annual budget process which appropriations shall be deemed abandoned. Currently, the charter requires abandonment of appropriations within five years if not dispersed or encumbered, which reduces the effectiveness of long range financial planning. Question four.

Revising initiative, referendum, and recall procedures. Shall the charter be amended to revise the initiative and refuel procedures to provide that the land development code, comprehensive plan, and related ordinances are not subject to the referendum process, define a procedure for a validation of the form of a petition or ordinance and a methodology for addressing conflicting charter amendments approved by the voters. And question five, charter review board. Shall the charter be amended to require review of the city charter every, let's say, six to eight years beginning in April 2032 in order to align with the general election schedule? Currently, the charter is reviewed every five years, which often does not align with the scheduled election, thereby creating a delay in voter consideration of the board's recommendations.

Is everybody comfortable with the language that was read?

Yes.

Thank you all very, very much.

Yes. I think it's much more clear. Yep. Made sense.

Mhmm. Thank you. So that's your ordinance. We have a motion. So that brings us to your final item on your agenda unless you have more on that.

Are we ready to work there? This is a two page document. It probably came to you. It's on your on it as a one page. Mhmm.

But it's back to back. This is a draft transmittal letter, summary of your work, the number of meetings when you started, how many meetings you had, the changes that you came up with, and the questions. It has a discussion of your concerns regarding the Charter Review Board and asks them to make a choice on the six to eight years. I did put in there the that if they chose the six years, then the five then the 2030 is recommended. And if they chose the seven eight years, then two thousand and thirty two is recommended for the simple reason that if it's six years, then a five year first shot aligns most closely with that.

And if it's eight years, a seven year window aligns most closely with that. So as opposed to saying, this should be done every eight years, but first we're gonna do it in five years. So I just aligned those with whichever they selected. And then on the second page of that, it also provides your recommendations for non charter issues, including the specific language change to criteria for planning and zoning board members and the consideration upon implementation of an elected mayor position for increasing the expenses allocated for the mayor.

Okay. We'll be happy to.

Oh, thank you, Jess.

We will

all sign it.

In the alternative, we could take, like, a five minute break and go print something out that is on a more formal paper for you to sign. Is that okay? Sure. And you don't have to be bothered again unless you want to.

I think our we take our second recess of our term. Think we did one some other time before.

Is that okay? That's fine. And for the commission meeting, once this is scheduled, certainly, you're you're all all welcome welcome to to attend. Attend. You don't have to. Usually, at least the chair will attend. However, again, you're all welcome to. We don't know exactly when it will be scheduled yet. Probably the first meeting that it would be able to be scheduled would be May 8. That's the earliest I would think. That would be the earliest.

Did you guys could let us know when it

Actually, I'm going to tell you we probably won't do it May 8. The deadline for May 8 is Monday. And to give you guys a chance to for us to get these chance changes to you and you to read them and get back to us, I think I'd rather go to the following.

Which is May 22.

Are we still gonna review changes if we did the whole reading now?

Only if you guys want to.

I'm good with how you know, we we everybody heard all the changes that Yep. Mhmm. So I don't know if we need to see changes after this as well. I'm seeing a lot of nodding now. So no.

We'll still email them to you so that way if you show up to the commission meeting, you can say yes when we're on

this. Yes.

So

the last item was the letter which you all seem to be comfortable with if you want to do a motion you to accept the motion second and vote to accept that letter. And and you can complete execution. And

Alright. I'll make a motion to accept the letter presented to us with our signatures. Second.

Thanks for preparing that. I apologize for having a

had a Beautiful. Any further comments? Thank you so much. Anybody? Alright. With no further comments, I'll take a motion and

a second to adjourn the meeting. Before you do that, I'm just gonna tell you Comments. Thank you all very, very much. You all put so much time into it and thought. Really, you've been one of the most thorough boards that I've worked with, and I really, really appreciate your time and thoughtfulness and your insights. It meant a whole lot to us as we were working through it with you and to the final product.

I would like to echo those sentiments. You all spent a lot of time, and we've spent several weeks working on this. And you all came very well prepared and had some really interesting and substantive questions and comments for every meeting. And we really appreciate that you put the time in. I know that this took time away from your personal lives and professional lives, and we just appreciate your service to the city.

Additionally, I would like to thank Kathy because she did do a phenomenal job of helping to shepherd us through this process and preparing all of the backup documents, and Joseph and his staff for all of the hard work that they did to helping to get the agendas ready every week and to make sure everybody had everything they needed and taking the minutes down and recording everything.

Thank you. Well, thank you for all you did as well. Accommodated so well. My expectations were exceeded.

For all your expertise and your guidance.

Yeah. Thank you. And thank you to the rest of the board. You guys are great to serve Thanks, everyone. Appreciate it. Yes. Move. Oh, we still do have a motion on the table.

Second. Alright. Did we get

a second? Everybody was seconded. So all in favor, aye.