Charter Review Board - Regular Meeting

Alrighty. It's 503, and I'd like to call the board of the April review board meeting. Will the board clerk please call the roll?

Chair Vavvo? Here. Vice chair Esborioza?

Present.

Board member Album? Here. Board member Menzus? Here. Board member Rizi sent an email. He apologizes. He had a previous commitment, and he sends his regrets for not being able to attend this evening. Fantastic. Deputy city attorney Mahaffy? Here. City attorney Piper? 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 court 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 upon 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. Alright. So we're going to kind of pick up. We finished going through the the charter this week. We're kinda slated to kind of go through and review the charter sections and the kind of some of the proposed changes. I do see we have our first yet member of the public here which is awesome and exciting. I'm Craig by the way. Don't know Nancy. If we've ever

Hey Nancy.

Good to meet you. So before we just start charging through everything try to kinda schlepping through everything. I'm trying to ask thanks for being here, by the way. That's awesome. Is there anything specific that you wanted to talk about or anything?

Oh, yes. I did.

Just out of consideration, I'd be happy to kinda Yeah.

We wanted address some of the discussion you had last meeting about the moving to district commissioners instead of at large elections. So I have some remarks. Okay. Is this like official or

Yeah. So it's casually official, I'm comfortable saying. I had some remarks on that as well. So if it's okay with our board, I was there any other parts that you wanted to

talk about?

Nope. That was it.

Cool. Well, I'm comfortable out of consideration of your time and you're obviously welcome to hang for the whole Thank you. The whole meeting the whole evening with us. But if you wanna kinda discuss that aspect and and and carry on with your day too, that's cool. Well, it's gonna be something we discuss. So I'll be happy to we can discuss it we can discuss it now first. Do you wanna roll with your thoughts? So

for the record, Nancy Fry at 5341 Flamingo Place, Coconut Creek 33073. Apologies for talking fast. There's a lot I wanna get through, and I don't know what kind of time limits you're given on this. But wanted to talk about the moving to district elected commissioners instead of at large commissioners. Given our current turnout, once we go through redistricting and move to the four commission districts, that means less than 1,000 people will be selecting each of our each of the district commissioners, given current turnout trends, don't seem to be changing very rapidly.

So I would love just to keep that in mind before moving forward with that decision. And additionally, the districts that are on cycle with the mayoral election would have a much greater influence as those are the people that are more likely to turn out for that election. And the people that are on the off cycle from their districts, If they're they can obviously still participate in that election, but they're gonna have less incentive to do so with having only one thing on the ballot for them in a March election, which is already difficult to get turnout for. So I would just like the board to be cognizant of that impact of the mayor only being elected with certain districts. And then just speaking to the general issue of turnout, I think the real question is, is the March turnout a referendum on what residents value in city elections or is it a referendum on March voting?

And given the response we get to our ballot questions when they're on November ballots, I really think it's more of an indication that the public does not want March. There's

a

lot of difficulties in March voting. You have less than two months to request a vote by mail ballot. There's no early voting, so your only option for in person is on election day. And I think when we talk about the turnout in f F4, that's evidence of when someone when people have access to resources, they can get to a polling site and they're more likely to turn out to vote. The folks in Winmore, they have dedicated transportation to get to their polling site.

They are most likely retired and are able to get out on a Tuesday to vote, and that just shows the difference in having access to resources and access to the polls. I think also if you look at there was talk about the outsized impact of f four on elections, and I've run the numbers before. I I they're a little dense, and they're outdated now that we've had the twenty twenty four elections, but I had run numbers previously. And if you look at Winmore's percentage of turnout compared to or f percentage of turnout compared to their percentage of the voting populace, it's closest to the same number in November elections. So their turnout is on par with the what the percentage of voters they represent.

Also, November or sorry, March elections are a strain on our schools. We're impacting operations three times in a single school year every election cycle because we have primaries, general elections, and March municipal elections all within the same school year. And I know we had people having issues accessing their polling site at Monarch because there was an event happening at the school on the same day, and people can get to their poll. Additionally, regarding partisan nature of March elections as was discussed, as someone that works in a lot of elections and and manages candidates, I will tell you that the partisan influence is much higher in March than in November. In November, the political parties are busy with their partisan races and their statewide races or state level races, their federal races.

They don't have time to pay attention to the municipalities. Whereas in March, they have all the time in the world. They have all the money to donate, and they will pour in volunteers from all ends of the county into the couple of cities left that have the March municipal elections. I also want to flag that if the state requires a move to November elections, not only do we have two commissioners sorry, three commissioners that were just elected that will have their terms extended two years, but the two commissioners that already had their terms extended two years from the previous year's ballot question will gain an additional two years unelected in office giving them essentially a full term in office unelected in addition to their elected term. So those were just some things to consider.

And one last thing just for data because I'm a data geek. It is possible to request I didn't have time because I just listened to your meeting today to get my final notes together, but you can do a public records request to SOE to get the breakout of voter turnout by district. So if anyone's interested in that, you can do a public records request to SOE.

So that

was all

I had. That was awesome. Okay. Thank you. So, yeah, What I heard was some comments about the idea of like district voting and a lot about Yeah. March not being optimal. Yes.

And that factors in because a lot of the issues with district voting could be resolved with November voting, but these are issues because of the March turnout in particular. Awesome. So it's intertwined.

That was nice that we got our first public input. It was actually like solid, really good, thank you for that. Thank you. And I wanted to myself, have my intention is to bring up both of those subjects. Again, we've touched on them in the past to varying degrees, but I wanna bring both of those up. And the one thing I haven't we haven't I don't think really discussed yet. I had it in some notes to discuss though was if the state election law changes in it, who knows who will? I'd say it looks like probable. It's probable. I saw a little bit of stuff in the news in just this past election cycle.

Well, yesterday. It's fair to call that past election cycle. But I saw I think everybody has different reasons for wanting it. Not everybody. The people who want it in November, there's a few different camps on why. But I saw governor DeSantis kind of angling for why he thought November all that all the elections should be in November. And I think from his perspective, he was saying there are certain districts that are more vulnerable different times of years, but yeah. So it's probably a lot of partisan stuff I hope it's never partisan in the city it makes sense what you said though that in March all the

I've seen it

all the bigger political people are freed up to kind of aim in a few directions and yeah. So that's interesting. But I was interested in knowing I guess my understanding was kinda like what you said about some terms getting extended. And is there anything that can be done to open that up for discussion? Like, what the impact would be if the state says, hey. All the elections have to be in November. Is it automatic that terms have to get extended or things elect cycles have does it always have to be a term has to be made longer?

Well, they can't take away somebody's vested right to their term, to their existing term. There is a bill that's pending right now, Senate Bill fourteen sixteen. I do understand from Commissioner Riedel who is up in Tallahassee that it did essentially pass, I guess, through, I forget which committee it was on the other day, but the problem with that is it doesn't have a companion bill, so it's unlikely to pass officially officially this year. However, he did have a discussion with the bill sponsor about some language in the bill that I did point out was ambiguous. And the moral to the story is that the sponsor fully plans to bring the bill back next year.

They fully expect for there to be a companion bill next year and they expect it to pass next year. And he was grateful for the comments because part of our comments were that the bill language just provided for kind of an automatic extension that it would take place after the next municipal election. So it automatically so our next municipal election is scheduled to be, as you know, March 2029. So that would take us to November 2030. So that we had already extended the terms in order to effectuate the, for lack of a better term, redistricting from five to four with an elected mayor.

And so for that reason, two of the seats got extended from the '27. That election was canceled to March 2029, and then this would have added on taking us to November 2030. And it was shared that essentially some of the language in the bill was kind of ambiguous as to how that was going to happen. It just said that it would be an extension from the next municipal election to general election. And so I believe the bill sponsor understands that there will need to be kind of a massage of that language going forward.

It's going to need to be a little more clear and that it is kind of difficult to do it as kind of a one size fits all. But I don't know that there's really any way to do it without extending it. I've spoken with colleagues in other cities and counties throughout the state where they themselves have over time, you know, participated participated in moving their elections from March to November. And they had to do it that way as well because there's really just no way to you can't take away somebody's vested term. Now, I guess the only other way around it is you could so if it didn't automatically extend, which in senate bill fourteen sixteen, again, was unclear, the alternative would be we would have our election in if that passed, if there was a companion bill in March 2029, and then we would have to have another election right afterwards in November 2030.

And so it just kind of was unclear as to how we were supposed to effectuate that. But I guess that may be an option depending on how the bill is worded as far as at the state level. As it relates to this board, as you know, I mean, you could do the very same thing. Technically speaking, you could make a recommendation that the elections move from March to November. And, essentially, we could have an election in November I'm sorry, in March 2029, and then the next election could be in November 2030.

And and so those I believe it's two seats that would be up in the way that the charter is currently worded for the next municipal election that comes after 2029 would then be take place in November 2030 instead of in March 2031 is currently scheduled. Some would get

They'd have

a So shorter those letters

would be eighteen months instead of two years and two and a half three and a half years instead of four years.

Right. But they would be aware of that

going So into you're not cutting you're taking the way that they've earned, but you're Well, I know that there's less to earn.

Right now, the next election

is scheduled for March 2029.

March 2029, and that would be the three seats that were just

That would be everybody. Everybody. Every single seat.

Mayor. I'm mayor.

Yeah. Mayor in four districts.

And then and then those would all be

Elected at large the way

it currently reads. Four four year terms.

So after the twenty twenty nine election, it provides for a stagger.

That's right. Looks like the that's Strong strong.

It is draw too. Yeah.

Thank you. So they draw yeah. They draw lots, basically. And the two short lots would be up in March 2031, as I just mentioned, and the remaining with the mayor, the remaining two in the mayor would be up in March 2033. And then it would resume the four year, you know, on a staggered rotation.

So the two year terms would get cut to one point five years or whatever?

Yeah. I think we had determined that was about eighteen months or so. Yeah. So it would be, you know, roughly from two years down to about eighteen, nineteen months. Thank you.

If if Mhmm. If the election were moved from March '29 to November '29.

So that would not coincide with the general election. It would just be in November election because the general election haven't been setting in years.

So that would be so the the language in the state bill is for the next it indexes into the next general election, though, not Right. Into the next November

election. Right. Not just to the next November, but rather to the next general election. But again, it wasn't clear whether or not they were saying it automatically extends or you have your next municipal election and then or maybe we're the only ones who are in this weird situation because of the recent referendum. Don't know. Either way, we were told it's not likely to pass this year because it doesn't have a companion, but they really do think it will pass next year. And it probably will. I mean, there's been a push for the last several years.

Yeah. Well, I just know the way the the length the lengths of some of the seats and some of the with the term limits, and then it but then it reset all of the calendars, then the elected mayor changed, reset the calendar, reset the time clock again. And so I don't know. I'd be interested in if there's any mathematical way to make I don't know how to make the process more I don't know. Did anybody ever discuss at that time shortening any of the terms when this was all being discussed?

That was discussed by the commission and ultimately that was not the direction that they voted on. So the item that went before the voters was an extension. And by shortening, again, you can't take away a vested term, but it was a matter of perhaps shorter terms. Right. So that way I guess there was some concern that for the three seats that were just elected in March that people had already put in to run and how that would impact them. Although arguably, they did not yet have a vested right to the term. But, anyways, that it was just decided not to proceed that way. I know that miss Fry has raised her hand. It's up to the board whether or not they want to engage at this point and have allow her to speak further.

Oh, did you happen to reach out to Oh, yeah.

No. I'm I'm trying not to because I know this is not the board I'm on, but I did as as the staff knows, I I've actually come very deeply into this charter language previously and had briefly put forth a citizen led initiative that I was not able to get enough signatures in time, which I know is another thing you all have discussed, but I believe you did make those decisions. But I just had a question about legality of if the election were to, say, take place in November 2028, but the new commission was not seated until March so that they still fulfill their entire term. Is there something prohibiting having an election and then waiting a few months to seat the commissioners to kind of get

around with that? That's an interesting question. I, you know, as you're aware, miss Fry, the interesting dynamic or kind of unique dynamic here is that because we are going from five to four districts and an elected mayor, with the charter saying that that doesn't take effect next election being March 2029. The I mean, technically speaking, the redistricting board is gonna have to look at how to align those districts. And that language will ultimately come before the voters in November '26 as well as any amendments that this board creates.

So is it possible? I haven't seen case law specifically on it. Would have to double check. I guess it's possible that the vote could happen in November 2028 with it not being effective until November 2029. I would suggest that if that's No.

No. When it's but make it them like, they actually have them sworn in in March so that everyone completes the duration of their term. Because they in theory, everyone would be taken out in March '29. Right? Like, their terms all end currently currently March '29. Correct. So if you have the redistricting election November 28, but you don't swear in that commission until March '29, and you have like a lag of, what's that, four months. So that you get the elections on the right schedule, but the government still finishes their terms.

So I understand your question, and I understand it doesn't necessarily impact somebody's vested rights to their term. I don't know off the top of my head. My first instinct is that it would require a charter change. Beyond that, I would need to look into it and Yeah. There's some kind

of legal The charter specifies right after the election against one of those, and you need to change that. Plus, you basically also have five commissioners serving until March. And when one of them moves, they're out. So it's like the ultimate lame duck. Mhmm. I don't know how comfortable that would be as a a governing body.

That's a good point. I think with board member Mensis was just saying, you know, makes sense in that you may have some of our current elected officials that may not run again for the seat or perhaps with this redistricting situation, if you kind of districted out of the seat and you could then end up with a situation where you have somebody else elected to the seat, but they don't take office until March. And, yes, you do create kind of that lame duck commissioner, which, you know, depending on whatever current events are happening at that time, could have a larger or smaller impact that I can't foresee. Very valid point. So, you know, from a policy perspective, you just may not want to do that.

I don't know. But, otherwise, I'd have to look into it and get back to you.

I had a process question partly because of this, partly because of just confirming, but all the changes get voted on. They go they all get submitted to city commission, and who basically just says thumbs up, thumbs down based on construction and feasibility. Then we go to a ballot item for each change, or are these bundled? And

one of the things I was hoping to do that I didn't have a chance to do was give you an idea how many ballot questions you have

And

they will, to some extent, get bundled where possible. So, like, in our draft changes ready for review today, there are there's changes in 301A, 301C, three zero five, and eight zero eight. But all of those would be bundled into Okay. One And so where they can be the subject matter is all related. It will be bundled into one question. So

for instance, this single member district voting could pass or fail whereas Some calendar days passes. Correct.

Yeah. There will be multiple questions. But based on the information you have here, there will be more than one question.

Okay.

But they and they will be related by topic.

Okay.

And if it's just like a kind of a cleanup, like a housekeeping type throughout the charter, you can usually group that together.

Okay. It's not like there's a clause like a hostage, that's gonna be held hostage here put out as, like, okay, the charter's changing, 75% of them are great changes, but there's one really bad one. Like, that can't necessarily happen with the, I guess, separation or of of these issues.

I do

it really poorly, it could.

Okay. But I won't let that happen. So yeah. And she won't do that anyway.

Okay. So So where it

makes sense, they'll be packaged together? Yes.

Goal is that if if an issue fails, there's nothing in there that's a problem. And if an issue passes, there's nothing in there that ends up solo or problem there.

And

that the issue, whatever is embedded within one question, is all tied together so that there's not a bad or a good. It's what's this issue as opposed to different components of it.

The changes are just the consequence of saying yes or no to that issue. Right? Okay. Shorter relates us to one of the changes. Nine zero six.

I'm I'm not I'm not so much, like, personally for the single member, but, again, putting it through a vote, I think the process might be

So last week we were discussing I wanna I guess I wanna I want to open that particular subject up. We spoke at some length last week on the single member district voting. Mhmm. And I was interested in it and kind of leaning towards it, but not super strongly, but took the thought of putting it out to vote. Seemed like a good idea. I've gotten some feedback. I have several people over the last couple of months about feedback on it. I kinda made my list. I mentioned it last week, pros and cons and pros and cons. This past week, I got some more feedback on it.

And it highlighted some potential cons from some people. Talked about maybe the potential of potential of commissioners being becoming more territorial and and kind of maybe some issues with budget allocation and

know. I think the part versus the whole.

Yeah. I'd like to think that that wouldn't be a potential potentially an issue any more than it could potentially be an issue now. But I talked to several people in the last week and

they thought that it could be.

So I wanted to and I don't know if anybody else on our board got feedback from anybody. But in the event that anybody did, I didn't wanna put anybody else on the board in the position of having to maybe uncomfortably bring up something that I brought up last week and, you know, kind of address it. So I thought, let me open it up and address it myself to save anybody else from having to be in that position. So I'm completely comfortable just kind of reopening that particular issue and just discussing it if anybody else has any kind of additional feedback that maybe we didn't have last week or any cons that maybe would fall on that side of the ledger to add to it, please feel free to And

if I could add Sure. Just because it's part of this issue and it's something I didn't identify for you last week and I wanted you to be aware of it, On page five of your running list, section eight zero eight, recall, this was a section that I had not pulled out and added to that issue. But what it requires and it's pursuant, it's required by state law, and is in a situation where you have single member districts. So a person is elected only by a single by people who reside in that district. Then a recall is processed the same way.

So if there's, you know, a thousand people that might come out and vote for an election to seat a commissioner within a single member district, that recall operates the same way. So it's the 50 people to sign the petition. It is 5% of the registered voters in that district, not citywide.

That's way less now.

So your recall number of people required for a petition might be three or 400, probably less than that in a lot of circumstances. And then it's a vote of whoever happens to come out in that district. And it's so if 400 people vote, two zero one would do a recall or two zero one would say, no, they stay in office. So they just wanted to add that because it wasn't part of the discussion last week, and and if you're discussing it now, you should be aware of that.

I read that. That seemed like a very low

very low floor. Yeah. And that's set out. That's required by Or Florida statute 100, I think, point two nine. I

also got some feedback from one of

the Joe Press, and I think he

spoke to her. The mayor. The new mayor.

I always just have spoke to almost everybody like this.

Well, that's true.

In this case, yeah, our new mayor, who actually surprised me because she was not in favor of the same amount of dollars. So I thought she had it, it would be. I think she had the same fear. You might have a a commissioner who would be, I don't know what you say, loyal or more district centered than city centered. That's her opinion.

So she's she she and I had a short conversation about it, and she was saying it couldn't be a further conversation. I'm not sure I agree with her, to be honest with you, which is something that happens quite often, of course. But, no, I see the fear. I think we talked about it last week. I like to think, if maybe I'm being naive, that people would still serve the city, but feel that, just like we do it for the state legislature, the state assembly, for the Congress, people are elected by their district.

I mean, Moskowitz, as I said before, is not elected statewide. So I think that I'd like to see the people in the district doing it. I can see on the other side, however, and I can see where there would be a fear, especially, I guess you could say, as the political climate country, maybe in the state, maybe even in the city, is getting more divided, there's probably there could be a greater chance of people voting for their districts based upon the demographics of their district. So that that was was the the feedback feedback I I had. Had.

Yeah. That makes sense. Yeah. It's actually the political climate in a specific community this time that concerned me that it

could

potentially it's there's a lot of power there and aimed in the wrong direction. It could wreak wreak some havoc. I don't personally, I don't feel it is, but it could at some point. That that was kind of the impetus behind my that was probably the the strongest impetus behind my interest. But if there's, you know, there's some some things that outweigh that on the other side of the ledger, I I don't think it makes sense to I don't think it makes sense to propose.

What what is redistricting again? '28, '28?

It's next year. January

Will it take effect in 2026?

It would go to the voters in November 2026. Is And then

it would be, like, established, but not utilized. Yeah. Right.

Right. Because you can't unseat people who have a vested term to office. So it would be established but effective.

So we still need vote on the district even though we have to go to four districts? I'm confused.

So the redistricting board is going to take the five districts and make it four.

What the four are is what's voted on?

Right. What the four are as far as the boundaries, And that's what's voted on in November '26. And then in March '29 well, and I mean, again, they're gonna be meeting, like, January kinda like you guys, January to, like, April or whatever of next year, which will be '26. So it won't be that far off at the time. Yeah.

The voters vote on the actual boundaries of the district or the fact that we're going to full districts? The boundaries. Is there a map that they'd be voting yay or nay on?

So there is a map, and they do, I believe, vote in the boundaries of the districts because in the past, they have had five districts and the redistricting has met, and they have regularly voted on the realignment of the districts as they existed. The voters The short answer is yes. They voted

in the map and It's actually

in the boundaries. Right. The voters approved the map?

I don't know if they approved the map.

I think the

or I think that

well, if it does go to the voters to vote, I'm suddenly running a blank. We'll verify. Yeah.

Or it

just was a while ago. Map too.

I don't

know where

you would have that. We would have to have a ballot.

Well, they last convened in 2019, and it went to the voters presumably in, what, 2020? Or did they not did they decide not to touch them? I don't remember. I thought you were on board.

I thought that I've done it twice, and it's been a while. It's got me second.

I know. This conversation got

me second guessing. My memory was that the redistricting committee established any changes to the to the to the districts with the guidance of professional, like, city attorney and the rooms. Then I think it just got ratified by I thought it I don't recall it going to because there's there's all this care taken to carefully draw the boundaries and take all these things into consideration. I can't imagine. Like, what would happen if the if the residents said, no. We don't like that. Like, in this particular case, I don't we don't like these four districts, but we gotta have four districts because we're only gonna have four commissioners.

I'd rather be on the west side of the line, not the east side. I Right. That's when

you I Sorry. Sorry.

Don't know. We're stuck. So Joe has actually pulled it up. There you go. Yep. So So this was the last I'm sorry. Well, I was there again. Forgive me. It was a while ago. Only one bubble. Yes. Alright. City attorney Piber noted that and this was in what?

August. September 2018. So sorry. This is

that long ago. I noted that at the previous redistricting committee, she mentioned that the board's recommendation of alternate four would go before the city commission in the form of an ordinance on 09/27/2018. However, due to the time needed to prepare the legal description, the first hearing of the ordinance will instead be placed on October 2018. Commission date. Discussion ensued. Blah blah blah blah blah. Ultimately, so so maybe it is only commission. I'm sorry. I

I work for the city of Fort Lauderdale when we went through redistricting back in 2022 and there wasn't a vote to the voters. It just went to the commission.

Thank you. Sorry. It's just been a little while. Apparently, 2018. I thought it was 2019. So sorry. I don't remember seven years ago. I'm

so sorry. There's a chance Fort Lauderdale did it wrong, which was why I just wanted to say that was my experience.

I just can't imagine the voters voting on the actual boundaries of the district.

Knew there was a vote. I know there's maps because we usually hire somebody from FAU who specializes in this kind of political districting stuff, and they help draw the maps. I just apparently had a memory lapse on whether it goes just to the commission and then to the voters.

You've been watching this. I think it happened right after the right before the charter review. So it was

all kind of Yeah. Yeah. It was kind of weird. And then we extended it because it used to be every five years. Yeah. I say we being the charter review board extended the next time that the redistricting board would move to 2026. Yeah. Because the thought was that Main Street would be coming online.

Yeah. To my knowledge too, it's been probably been probably quite a while that there was ever a significant change. I think these lines are moved very subtly, very judiciously just to account for population shift and new neighborhoods or whatever. And, yeah, this next one will be significant, though. Right? The Main Street and the district. Right. And the rejection. And it's kind of out to four. Projecting some, like, the main main street. Yeah. I don't

know that it's so much project. I mean, it's, you know, it's not as speculative as you think because it's based on the number of units approved, which by then, it should be totally done as they're approved. Right.

But but the actual map that's being adopted won't be being used for

be done. Being used. Yeah.

It people will be voting on it, but it will be being used in a sense of city forecasting, candidates forecasting. Right. Candidates will know what district they or potential candidates or what district they may or may not be in. So it'll be used, I guess, in some sense. True.

It's going on. It's good.

Where I was going with this is it'd be nice to have the information where the districts are before making a decision on the voting for those districts. It'd be nice. Not necessarily, you know, gonna happen, but just a consideration as well.

You're talking about what the new districts would be.

Right? Yeah. Yeah. So if if we were looking at this issue, right, of single member what's the term what a single member district. Is that what they're saying?

Single member districts. Single member districts

Yeah. And then yeah. You know, you get yeah. We really don't have any idea what the composition of those districts will be.

And and some of the fears, right, like, okay. You can be representing the city with a few 100 votes rather than thousands. Maybe if the districts are redone to the point that the turnout does project that thousands are harvest, then that's also an issue. But you only know that if the redistricting has a little bit of intentionality to it. So

So interestingly, the voters will have that benefit presumably because any amendments are going forward in November 26, and the redistricting board will have already met and made their determination, and this will have already gone to the city commission.

Okay. So this the voters would have that, but the but we do not.

Yeah. Okay. It's an interesting

But they won't probably have the comprehension

Of what?

Of all of those numbers and how they play into those different districts?

High probability none. Definitely.

But the

fact that they could.

But They could. They could. Just like

One one voter might

And to clarify, my number that I gave before, the less than 1,000, that was given equitably sized districts, the number of current voters, and then dividing by four. Because the part of redistricting is you're required to have even evenly distributed districts.

Oh, you've been projected a little bit?

Yeah. So we'll assume yeah. So assuming the whatever current turnout, about 10% turnout, then you're looking at whatever is the 3,400 whatever somewhere Somewhere in the 3,000 range divided by four is less than

a thousand. In in yeah. In March.

For a March election. Yes. We got November elections fixed the last.

Right. And there's, like, two different November elections. Right? Like, the the two different like the ones that fall in the presidential year Mhmm. Or even greater than the ones that don't fall in the however that cycle works. I find thinking about the those cycles at the end of the day is a little more challenging. We were just going through with the the years of '29 and '30 and '32 or '33. Yeah. It's stretching me a little bit. Okay.

So do we wanna keep talking about the single member district item at the moment, or do you wanna go into some of these other

Sorry, Kathy, for

No. That's it.

This one was

We're all here.

Yeah. This one was longer and involved. So

That's what we're here for.

12 amendments to charter section nine zero six, I guess. This is the charter amendments conflicts potential. Yeah.

And we had discussed coming back with shorter language. So this is shorter language and in a better section. In the charter? We had initially drafted it in 09/2007, and and we moved it to nine zero six amendments to charter and and applicable made it a little bit more consistent. You. Hey. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. I'm I'm good with this. I can read this once, and I think I understand.

Twice, and I I I think I definitely understand. Yeah. Yeah.

You Sorry about the pen. Like, drafting last time.

And sometimes reading it twice makes you understand less. This one doesn't. You understand at least the same amount or even more.

My sister was back from the hospital, so I just wanna make sure that it's okay. Sure thing.

Do you

Yeah. We're alive.

So just closing in on the closing the conversation. I think what I heard from you was their consensus to move forward with the nine section nine zero six amendments to charter language.

Alright. I'm ready for that. Yes. Yes, Scott. Any concerns with that language?

Do remember album and you remember? You okay with it? Mhmm. Okay.

Parts.

13, your question regarding designated police chief and as a charter officer, the relevant charter sections, of course, there's not one yet. It would be its own new charter section. What's provided are kind of samples on how a city manager's language is set out, how the with in significant detail, then, the and the comparison with her other option kind of a city attorney. They're just kind of there as examples of how things could be set out if you wanted to go that route? In

specifically the instance of the police chief. So the police chief designated police chief as a charter officer It's synonymous with police chief reporting to city commission? Correct. Yes. Right. Because the charter officers report to city commission. So Yeah.

But you're not Got it. But you're not appointed by the you're not hired directly by the city commissioner?

Yeah. This includes down to how you define a charter position, like, some I've seen some interpretations as long as the charter provides for your provides for the position that you're considered a charter officer. It's whether you're a charter officer that is hired, fired by the commission, I think, is a way maybe to look at it as a designation.

You're right. This is said designated as charter officer, and I think the distinction that you're making is whether whether the police chief is hired and fired by the city commission.

Yeah. So for me, I guess, I'm I'll comment less about the designation of the charter as a charter officer Yeah. And more as I am in favor of the police chief reporting to the city manager.

So then leaving it alone? I believe that would be

leaving it alone. Yeah. To me, it's just confusing if the city manager if there's dotted lines and

and that's I mean, I think maybe some of the concerns we can wrap around and call it conventions. Maybe we can address reports, which is still a pending topic. And then although we don't have any changes, we talk at length about the relationship between the commission, the city manager, and city attorney. But I don't I don't think we've made actually changes.

So

You're correct. When we discussed those sections in generally in the as we were working through them, you did make any changes.

I briefly brought up I think it was the last meeting, might have been two meetings ago, about the expense account for the elected mayor. It's in there.

I just I wasn't clear. Are you leaving this issue, or is there consensus not to do anything with that? No. I'm not.

I think the consensus with 13 if you guys are consenting

is to leave it alone. Yeah. Have

no change.

So we're just not touching. Yeah. Me neither.

But then back to

I think that is up in

on page What is that?

The narrow expenses. The second page of

this seven. You would it's kind of a light gray because you had already talked about the section that you had raised the issue so I kind of put it in a light gray because it sounds like you wanted

to come That's why I brought I wasn't sure. I saw green, but, it's a light

It's a light gray. Know. I should've made more that had made a little more distinction there.

It's yeah. It's it's compensation.

So I was just thinking that I guess I'm not even really I mean, it's not unfair, I guess, to talk about the compensation part, but I was really just discussing the expenses. Where does it I'm bringing it up, but I'm not well versed on it at the moment. The expenses, it spells out the expenses. Right? That's about right.

Three zero three c two. Two expenses. Six one. Periodically established policy. That's his written right now. It's expense one. So section three zero three c two. So a few pages forward.

So is there there's a dollar amount now, right, or a percentage, and I think we

just said I think it's, like is it 7,500? It's just kind of

all bundled into compensation so that we don't have to

It's a separate line item. Reports. It was separate. It's a separate

It was a salary plus thing.

But I felt like it was, like, it was included in comp as compensation so we don't have to worry about receipts and expense reports. No? Am I making that up?

I don't know that part.

I had asked, is it something that you have to actually expense to get reimbursed, but it's not reimbursed. It's paid out. It's paid out through payroll.

Right. I thought it was $500 a month. Or is it 5 or 6?

Which one was on your credit? Give me a second. The way I remember it.

And Yeah. It's not It's not my thought. It's not.

It's taxable, so you don't get the full amount.

It's it they receive it. The mechanism is, like, salary, but there's a a line item. It's not like, hey.

They're paying this much. But it's just expected that they will use Yeah. That But they don't have to show as expenses.

They don't have to show expenses for that. Let's say $500 a month.

Right. Right. I just thought there's one one seat that's going to be more probably more or possibly more intensely engaging the community, engaging a larger portion of the community, and maybe involved in some bigger issues, which I think are all the reasons that that office was established. It would probably be fair to allocate a few more bucks for them to deal with.

So the commission sets their own expense. Right? According to this? Yes. Somebody come back up into the commission of that mechanism. It can just kinda go through rather than like a charter Yeah.

So does that yeah. Does that mean that they that they set their own expenses and that they come up they propose a dollar amount and adopt it? Or does that mean they set their own expenses like, they're giving they're given a lump sum of money in their in their compensation package, and then they set their own expenses, and they determine how much of that they spend on expenses?

It's a resolution, but So you can

tell us. Correct. It's a resolution which is also provided for in the annual budget every year. So for this year's FY '25 budget, the entire commission as a whole received $36,000 budgeted for expenses, breaks which down to $7,200 each. Which And 12. It's five by twelve months. $6 a month.

Yeah. So $600 a month before taxes for them to spend on various expenses. Could be paper, could be cell phone, could be, you know, car insurance.

You know, also includes mileage reimbursement as well built into that.

I think a recommendation would be the most frictionless

Yeah. I I would yeah. A recommendation is probably the best way to do it, make a recommendation. But for me, in my mind, the mayor's the mayor's allotment should be like maybe 1.5 times the commissioner's allotment. We're not talking about big money, in this case that would be $900 a month instead of $600 a month.

I just felt like they're gonna maybe handwrite more cards, send more boxes of chocolates or cut more ribbons and drive to more businesses and probably attend more county meetings and regional meetings. So but, yeah, it doesn't that probably doesn't need to be a charter.

Are you talking about that being something current or being something, I heard you say elected mayor, so is this something you're projecting for the future?

That's what I understand.

Yeah. Yeah. The just because the it mentions the in the in the charter, it mentions expenses. I guess the way that plays out is it's it's established every year through budget. So

they actually they adopt the amount by resolution, and then they set the amount by resolution. And then what they do is annually through the budget, they kind of readopt it for lack of a better way to say it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Well, thank you. So if they change it, they would have to have a separate resolution. Resolution. And then with the budget cycle, they would reattach that.

So just the I guess, is the charter sufficient the way it's currently written? Just as the commission has power to periodically establish policies and procedures relevant to expenses incurred by its members on city business. I guess that's all kind of constricted by the budget. Right? So there's a checking balance there. So Right. Which is very public.

And the language as now written does permit them to increase the expense allowances. So if there's a specific commission vote, so they can Yeah.

There was one other I think one other item maybe that we made a recommendation.

Right now, you have the issue of changing the timing of the charter review board. Now we have draft language in here too if you wanted to look at that. But right now, that's that is an issue for that you were going to send in terms of a written recommendation. So this would go with that.

What page is it?

Is the 1.5 something you know, the recommendation you want, or how do you where do you want that recommendation to go? Sorry. Or do you wanna just say that it's in

Off the expenses, I mean,

if you wanna put a number 1.5, but I'd rather almost just leave it up to the direction. I don't know. Some $100 is a lot. Maybe it's a thousand dollars, I think. Sorry. Mhmm. Maybe it's a lot. I don't know. But I think the commission will know what is a good level for that. They started and executed the process of getting an elected mayor. So Yeah.

They could talk through it. I think I think yeah. It's not not a real novel action from this board other than maybe somebody else who's proposing it and shedding light on it. Maybe it's something that they would otherwise be not thinking about or if they're thinking about it, not comfortable thinking about it. So maybe it's just a hat tip to them to

Consider calling out. Consider talking about it. Yeah.

Okay. So we'll we'll include that in your final letter to them? Yeah. Just to that they consider increasing as they see increasing the expenses for the elective Mayor.

Yes. Which there's a long way to wait, right, before they even ever pass that. It doesn't necessarily even be codified, but the first resolution would be in 2029. Just Should should should the election not switch that out? So

There's four more budgets to go.

Yeah. But So just keep that one of the files, I guess, for what that commission comes back or not. A dollar 1,000,000. But,

yeah, it should be more for that person, I think, that that seat holder.

Yeah. I had seen the changes, and I was curious. I was like, changes? But they're not they're not dashed. So for charter review board, I think that's that's definitely what we discussed. I'm just kind of leaving it for the commission to look at it or know a hypothesis what the setup could be to align to elections going forward. Six six four eight? Yeah. I think the frequency, it looks like it doesn't matter. But Thank you.

I don't try that. Especially, you know, it's gonna happen. Otherwise, it just matters if you want to consistently happen on, like, general or gubernatorial or get the rotation that's is bad. I feel like the duration is in the rotation. Yeah.

It's just clear to me probably ten is too long and five is It's not too short, but it's, like, a little awkward. It's the it's just the wrong it's the wrong number. Like, it doesn't match anything. Right? The odd number.

So do you want your recommendation to go to them with this particular language or just without it in the recommendation? Can

these options go to them rather than saying, hey, here's what we're picking. So here's the recommendation and these are the options. You guys can figure it out or

Well, either you guys can make a recommend either you guys can say you guys can pick your numbers. Yes. You know, they correlate. And and basically, it's a choice of whether you go with six years or eight years. And

you could

But you could do twenty thirty and six years or twenty thirty two and six years. Right. Right? Okay. So, yeah, I think I'm for that option.

Yeah. They're just the whole yeah. The whole thing's an option to begin with, so these are just kinda some recommendations. And I think if they look at it, they'll look at it and say, oh, I get it. The five year thing didn't seem to make sense. It never falls. Alright.

It just gives a little bit more gives it gives us less latency to any charter review changes so that it coincides with an election that's happening all the sooner.

And it's not an an actual change that you wanna propose to the voters? No.

Then then we'd have to drill down to the specific, I think Option. Yeah. The specific option.

And So just to be clear, so anything that we're actually changing language on is gonna go before them in the form of a draft ordinance. Anything that you're making a recommendation on is just gonna go in a letter. So you're saying this would go in the letter, or are you wanting just to let them choose, in which case it would go in the form of language for a draft ordinance, which they could still narrow it down between first and second reading? This is true. Mhmm.

So Well, I think we're seeing

You could propose an issues of that. You're right.

Favorable change. I just think we're not sure whether it should be six or eight.

We just know it shouldn't be five or 10. Yeah. Yeah.

That that actually Yeah. Threads the needle a little bit.

I think that yeah. That's a good That's right. The needle very

So so it'll be a draft ordinance. So so it'll be a draft whereby reviews of the draft will settle this option.

Right. Okay.

I like that.

At least on first reading because we have to have final language for second.

But it'll be highlighted in the in the memo Yeah. With from you saying, you know, that we ask commission to choose each of the the year that it implements and then the 06/03.

Yeah. I think that's a good point. Yeah. Yeah.

I think that's and that's their whole purpose is to align that's your whole purpose is to align with the elections in order to that your review more relevant. So that makes sense.

Yeah. And the point I was just bringing up to city attorney, deputy attorney, happy is that when the charter review question came up in 2020 to move it to ten years and it barely failed, It just was presented on its face to change it from five to 10. There was no additional context about kind of the why. So maybe if you were able to fit it in, I'm assuming, with the 75 work I made, like, to align better with elections Yes. That might provide better education to the voters Of why is the fact. Exactly. So that was just my comment. Mhmm. And For

the record. Very good comment.

Yep. Good point.

If we can include those words in that, that's absolutely true. Alright. Okay. So with that being said, do I have your consensus on issue 12 to move to provide those two options and that language?

Yes. Okay.

Any opposed?

I'm gonna wait for some other things from

I was saying, maybe we have all five of us. I think there seems to be a little not a little bit less momentum. I know Craig says when I say flip flop, but still Perfect. Fair. I haven't said a flip flop, but I, you know, I was four putting it as a vote. But the rest of us say, hey. Let's not even let's not even change it. I I'd like to get all five of us to at least hear the others out.

Too much for it. Well, let's

say your position last week was forward. Right? That's how we got here. If two of us are forward, two of us are guessing,

we're we're I'll

put it some I'm still in favor of it, and yet I do see the the risks. I do see the downsides. So that's why I'm I'm open to get more thoughts about it.

Another week to let it percolate as well. Maybe maybe we

get more public up front.

And I and I'd

hate to Outcry. Outcry or outcry.

Vote vote on something with five and then vote on

it a second time with four. Right.

Mhmm. So I'm just gonna

it do a little bit. Yes.

So I understand you're waiting on boards and single member districts. Number seven on each 12, the movement of the elections to November.

So it seems like that's happened. We don't know that yet.

It's possible based on the state.

Is there is it a benefit or not a benefit for us to like, because if the state passes the law Doesn't really matter. Yeah. It undoes whatever we do even if it aligns with what we do. It would there'd be additional language or maybe different language or addition. Right? There'd be so

Probably, yes. I just say in that all of the drafts that I've seen have kind of preemptive language saying you know, mandating the cities to do that.

But then it on the flip side, is there anything that we can is there any chance and and this is rhetorical. I know

you you there's no

probably way to affirm it, but is there any chance that the state language could have any flexibility given for for local laws? Could it defer at all? It'd be written in a way where I got I mean, I guess, hypothetically, it could be anyway. But

Yeah. I I mean, I presume that it could. I just don't know whether or not it will be ultimately. I was

thinking I can't imagine them

giving a choice. At the next municipal election, and then instead of period, a comma or something something something more. Unless something something something where we have some flexibility on. Alright.

They don't tend to be very flexible. Yeah.

They they really don't. I mean, generally speaking, it's kind of like, With your next municipal election, you will just move it to the November election and not have your municipal election, stuff like that. Again, we're good point. I a change. Point.

So, again, presumably that takes us to November 2030. But the the most recent bill's language wasn't clear if it's an automatic extension or if it means, okay, we have election and then we have an election again. And maybe that was designed that way on purpose to provide latitudes to the cities to figure it out. Ultimately, as I mentioned, it didn't have a companion bill and so it's my understanding it's not gonna pass. Although I've seen stranger things happen, so there still is probably a tiny possibility.

But they fully believe, because governor DeSantis is in favor of it, that it will most likely advance next year. I don't know if that helps you in any way. No. I'm just telling you what I know. Yeah. Know.

Good. Yeah. No. I mean, it was just trying to

I can't seem to really give you a choice. If they're gonna do it, they're gonna do it. Because right now, you technically have a choice of when do you wanna have your your city election, your local elections? Right. You can do it in November. You can do it in March. So if they come out with a law that says, we think it should be in November, but, really, you can do it in March if you want them. They really haven't done anything. I think it would probably be required that you do it in November and I can see them doing it. I mean it's

And if that law comes down next year, Charter Review hasn't done anything this year, it would just simply go before commission to

It just would pass by the legislature and be effective whenever it's effective, but we're whichever general election presumably is after our next municipal election. And if this board did something and created an amendment that essentially was either inconsistent with it or, you know, was no longer needed because the state has already preempted the issue, then I believe that amendment would just fall away and wouldn't go to the voters because what would be the point if the state's already ruled on that?

I'm good for leaving them on that. It sounds like the wave is already going that way.

Like, it's gonna be subcorrect.

I think more of the, okay. It's going to change. How do we accommodate the change? It's just kind of the city staff question, whether it's extending shorter term, but noticed shorter term. Yeah. Coming a little bit here.

I can see that language being in the statute because they they recognize that it would affect terms against small elections Yeah. At a schedule in various time. Statutory language, although Florida is not leaking out salient things in the laws, It would probably say those municipal elections scheduled for, you know, before this kicks in, blah blah blah blah blah. And, it should provide for that.

I mean, if there's some insecurity as to whether or not the state's gonna move forward with it and you all feel very strongly about it, I'm not saying you can't do something now. We're just providing you with the information we have.

Yeah. We can recommend to change to November on our own without waiting for the state. True. Yeah.

And you could also again, if you aren't prepared to suggest text amendment, you could make a recommendation in writing.

If we made a recommendation for the elections moved to November, would we then have to spell it out for the the 2030, 2032, like, with the election, we'd have to accommodate the current election. There's already election cycles already in place. Yes. Election dates, so we'd have to say

I mean, while we can research the question that was posed by miss Fry, I think that Board Member Mensis makes a very excellent point that you create the ultimate linked up situation where if somebody's not running again, you know, usually the way our elections fall, at most, they're kind of seated up there with somebody out you know, just keeping the seat warm with somebody else in the wings that's already been voted in for one meeting. This could be for three months. Right.

Especially, like, if you have any kind of political division and you're somebody saying, okay. I've got three months left. Right. And I'll just It's true. Yeah.

So the short version is, yes, you have to wait until twenty twenty nine municipal election. So it would have to be general election after that. And the alternative because you all do seem to want to wait to discuss until you have a compliment of the full board, the single member districts. This may or may not dovetail with that. You may wanna, you know, piggyback this discussion onto that for reasons also stated by miss Pride that this may or may not, you know, correct it. I don't know.

I don't wanna put words in anyone's mouth and just

saying you can either deal with it now or deal with it later or decide you don't want to either Deal with it. Option is fine.

I mean, I'm I'm for leaving it, but kinda like, if if if there's enough back and forth, I'm looking for the five. Like, say yes or no.

We'll go from there. Should we leave it on in March?

I said leave the the charter language and leave the election in March, knowing that the state's high probably gonna change it, but I think we just need the discussion item until we have the five to kill it or thumbs up it, whatever.

Because the next election is slated to be March '29. So it's not simple enough for us to say move we wanna move the elections to November. We have to say we wanna move the elections to November After all this a lot. Comma, this is what state chiefs. How we do this for the year 2029 and the year '31 and the year '33?

And what happens to our really aligned curriculum

towards the Without changing out. I don't know. Another reason to leave it in March.

Which at some point so if the but if the state comes down and says, hey. It's going in November. Somebody's gonna have to have those conversations.

Yeah. They've they've taken that out of our hands.

Yeah. Yeah.

I mean And it's ours.

It's their yours. It won't go unaddressed. So they'll be accommodated for in the writing of of the law. But, like, hope the state could write in the court process or it'll be

Or the interpretations that follow thereafter. No. That's why lawyers are around.

Or it could be through ordinance with the commission to align everything? It depends on how much latitude the state gives us. Yeah. Right. So, yeah, I'm inclined to

I mean, I would be inclined to leave a lawyer. Yeah. That's,

I guess, at most in the letter consideration. Consider Let's help. Mean, I think that pretty much does it for what we can discuss today. Right? So if we have a couple items Just two more big ones. Yeah. Then after that, we would start reviewing more language of what these would look

like. So we and and we'll come back following meeting with after after you decide those final two issues Mhmm. With a charter, which includes all of the changes that you've given us consensus on so far. Mhmm. And then was charted language, charted ballot language, because there's

The ballot.

There is a title, which is set out as no more than 15 words, etcetera, and then the ballot question, which is no more than 75 words and framed a certain way and that language, which will be incorporated into a whole big reso, which sets it all

out. Okay.

Chart of ordinance. Yeah. Ordinance. Did I say resolution? Yeah. Ordinance. And I may be able to have the ordinance itself without the two issues that you are still that are still ahead of you. And and then we conclude those.

So it'll be one ordinance, but then there'll be multiple ballot questions? Correct. Gotcha. Okay. So that's the sort of bundling.

It's it's one ordinance that goes to commission, and it includes the entire charter change all of the charter changes, and then it includes all of the ballot questions. The ballot questions may address several different sections of the charter.

Could the commission, if they don't like the fact that there's some ballot questions in there, say no to the ordinance. Not really?

Not really. No. Okay.

They can basically make minor changes, you know, stylistic type changes, or if there's a typo or, you know, little corrections here or there, but not really substantive.

Okay. So there's no politicizing of the ordinance to say all or nothing?

Except to the extent that you give them an option like with the review title. Right.

That's helpful.

Is the just out of curiosity, not at that commission meeting, is the charter review I guess, no, the charter review doesn't need isn't there, like

You're invited and welcome to attend. We'll take this anymore. We'll We'll extended. Oftentimes, the chair will be there in case of, you know, in case the commission has a specific question about, well, how did you all get to this particular change or decide to make this edit.

And it will include your letter and kind of summary of anything and any And

it's two readings because it's an ordinance, so there will be first reading and second reading. Second, you know, it's not effective until adoption and second reading. And then even still, it won't be in effect until it gets to the voters. But first reading, again, is where they might be able to whittle down whether it's six years or eight years, you know, that kind of thing. But the public is invited to both

Hey. Just to read out the next few meetings for the good of the group, Tuesday, April 8 at 5PM, and then it's Wednesday, April 16 at 5PM, Wednesday, April 23 at 5PM, and Wednesday, April 30 at

I

have anything different. Unless you want to see

There's a town hall meeting that night. Third and meet again on the thirtieth. Yeah. And, yeah, but we'll no one

will miss it. Not thirty, but I would just

you know? Okay. Good. Sounds like we have a goal. K.

Alright. If there's no further comments, we'll take a take a motion and a second to adjourn.

I guess one thing I did just so minutes haven't been sent out for the last meeting. Yeah.

Unfortunately, the so we we work with a minutes company to assist us. Oh. And the person that was assigned to do those minutes quite out of the blue the company. So we had to be reassigned someone else,

so there's a little bit of

a lag time. But the next meeting, you'll see the minutes. So I apologize for that.

But they were so good.

What I'm sorry.

I think we'll be able to distribute them in advance if if possible, and everybody can try to redo it. We will. Absolutely. That was

a good one. So we'll get that done. Okay. I apologize for that.

So we'll be on the lookout for a minute to see if we can get them in advance.

Yeah. Just because that has a lot of the same stuff we want to discuss Correct. Time.

So move to join

us. Second. The motion. Alright.