Charter Review Committee - Regular Meeting

the first meeting of the accountable charter committee to park. Okay. Kevin Cox here. Sal Marillo present. Yumiko Mley. Andrea Honeyut here. And Kurt G here. Thank you for a motion. I'll make a motion. Second. All in favor? I I present. Motion carried. Just so you know, I'm having a hard time hearing uh the chair's microphone. Okay. Can you hear me now? Much better. Awesome. Thank you. And now we will look to a presentation from the Orange County Supervisor of Elections Office um with regard to the items um previously recommended for discussion at the prior meeting. So hello, my name is Dan Helm. I'm director of special projects with the Orange County Supervisor Elections Office. In front of you, you have a handout. It's a fairly basic handout. Um, and I thought this meeting would be for a fairly informal discussion of questions that you have, things that I can help answer. Um, I'm happy to talk. Uh, you have been provided previously about outlarge district versus single member districts. I know you have

concerns about voting districts, um, and what the sort of requirements or the understanding of the supervisor elections office is. I'll tell you generally, we can accommodate anything that you do in your charter, right? you have good guidance from your attorneys on the charters uh that you'll implement. The supervisor's elections office uh role is really to facilitate your elections, right? So, whatever you decide in terms of elections and how you want to run, as long as they're um with regard to state law, we can implement them and we have a wide variety of the way our municipalities in Orange County do that. That being said, I'm certainly happy to give you advice. You know, certainly when we look at different uh municipalities on this second page, we we split up districts particularly with the city of Orlando, but this is their design. They they decide to split up districts around, you know, 5,000 to 6,000 uh voting um active voters. Now, that's different from population. Uh but it is uh that that's sort of the split that we see typically, but there they can always make distinctions. But you have a town like Apopka where has 15,000 20,000 um and really it determines the space and the location for the polling place. One thing I did this afternoon um we're we're planning to do a SD15 um in House District 40 race in June 24th. One of the polling places will be this um 132 polling place, the Presbyterian Church, Oakland Presbyterian Church, where you guys vote uh for the town of Oakland as well. That's a fairly big facility and uh given your turnout historically, I think it can accommodate um up to uh a reasonable amount of voters. You know, the question is when you split precincts and you decide that you're going to have a new polling location, there's an added cost to your election, right? So, there's a um substantial cost added for

the tabulators, the pole workers, the uh ballot styles, those types of things. And so many municipalities choose to elect to have as few polling locations as they can as long as they can accommodate the number of voters. And so finding that determination is a fairly big facility. Uh and given your historic turnout, I think it can it can accommodate the number of voters that you anticipate up to 10,000. But I'd be happy to discuss sort of what your concerns are about voting districts or I mean if you split up voting districts, not a problem for us. If you have uh single member districts, you know, that just means different ballot styles depending on um but in terms of whether whatever you guys ultimately decide the supervisor elections is here to facilitate your election. You are the boss. You tell us the election that you want. We will help run it. Um but ultimately the town is in control of that. And I'm happy to answer any just general questions if about this. Thank you for your presentation. Um I think um my review of the information that was provided, my inquiry would be um the cost associated with a potential district dist districting aspect, not your advice about whether we should district, but what does that look like from a um cost standpoint for the town and what does it look like for additional resources that would be necessary if that were something that would be chosen? Yes. So, I think that two-part question with the cost of uh choosing a redistricting plan, we certainly could give general advice, but I think that you would have to have your own sort of committee and uh mappers to draw your map yourself. Um we certainly could help with that process uh in some aspects. The second part of the question is the sort of generic cost of running the election. And so, um, for the election board, the number of poll workers at the site, it's typically

around a,00 to,200 depending on how many, um, actual poll worker staff on election day. This is not early voting. This is one day 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Uh then the tabulator, the machine, you need uh $300 for the tabulator, $250 for the express vote, the ADA accessible machine, as well as then um the cost of printing those materials. The machine cost of maintenance of those machines, it's another about $1,000. Just generic cost for each polling location is starting at 2,000. And then there's added costs of ballot styles, printing and sample ballots and those types of things for each sort of location. Then there's also a fee that we pay the location about 300 um to $500 depending on location. So ballpark 2500 to $3,000 for polling site um is sort of an added cost. Then there's also printing cost and ballot styles um that that go through that. So it can it can get added quickly. Um I think your last election I saw in the data was about $8,000 all in but that's including the vote by mail uh which is a different added cost of a machine but um and there's cost associated to multi-page ballots and you know that depending on how much uh pages you're printing it's more right u but just ballpark for adding a polling site is you know 2500 to $3,000 for each new polling that I I was round about. Did I help answer quite fast pace but understandably um as it relates to cost um as it relates to the actual districting of Oakland? Who would be the responsible party for creating those districts? and how would the demographics and the tabulation of

the population be calculated to create those districts? Yeah. So, I think that you have control over that. Now, if you wanted to request that we do that, I could come back to you and tell you sort of what that looks like. But I think that in terms of um I would let you rely on your advice of council to make sure you're compliant with the requirements under districtricting law um compactness and otherwise, but that is something that you guys have full control of picking who you want to. Sometimes uh municipalities choose independent sort of committees or even individual members that then have advice of council as they're going through the process. Right now the county is going through this process with a county commission district. We're adding two new county commission districts and they the board of county commissioners appointed a committee that is going through the work with advice of staff and council uh to draw out those maps in those districts. And so there's they're actually using publicly available software and so you can you could minimize the cost if you're clever about it. But I think that having a legal oversight from your town attorney would be helpful in that process to make sure you're compliant with the law um and the requirements of redistric if I ask a question real quick. Go ahead. To that end, thank you so much. You mentioned um you mentioned that software. I've not had a chance to play with it yet on the the county redistricting effort. How hard is that to set up to throw at a given GIS map and so on? I I just asked because part of the discussion that that's happened among this committee is um whereas Orange County we have well over 1.4 million in population right now. Um Oakland of

course is not there. And so the question becomes when you start dividing up Oakland X many ways, four different ways ways or what have you, how many different ways that can reasonably end up and what you yield in differences between number of uh individuals versus number of voters in different geographic areas and so on. Just as as one constraint to keep in mind, uh regardless of any other requirements whatsoever, when you divide up into districts, you're going to uh one would need to uh try to make those districts as uh reasonably equal as possible in population, not voters, but actual human beings residing in each of those districts. So that's that's going to be a general guiding requirement among others. Yeah. So as you mentioned there are multiple uh guiding requirements most important is the population right and you the question is how any different ways you could draw this map and whether the software can accommodate that I mean the it's publicly available software it's Dave's redistricting is what the county committee is using to draw the maps now they have paid consultants though to come in and help uh to some I'm not certain of the sum but the consultants are directing as often consultants will have their own software that they're guiding um to make sure that they're meeting the legal requirements. The way maps are generally drawn is with using census designated blocks. Um and those blocks already have a built-in population. Problem about as you consider this is you are in the middle of a census. So it if you really wanted to undertake this, you're using data that would be um sort of five years out of date and might not reflect the population. Now there's other ways that you can use other data, but the problem

is it doesn't have the demographics data you need to also maintain. And so it becomes somewhat of a logistical problem um that you know the current for example the current redistricting that's happening is using the census data from 2020. So it is somewhat out of date in comparison, but from a legal standpoint, it's what they can defend if they were to sue over these maps. Uh variation they had they're using the best data available that has um as a basic framework. And so you know that's that's a question for your esteem legal council. But in terms of the workability of the maps, I'm surprised at the many different ways you could actually draw. It might seem, you know, how many how you could cut this, you know, pizza in so many different ways, but you might be surprised that uh many different people can view a different lens um and cut it many different ways. Uh but that being said, you know, it is a smaller um type of map. I I think that if you were to consider doing this, it it wouldn't be an untold sum amount of work and many disagreements on the right way to draw it. you know, whether you're drawing north south for two or four, you're drawing four corners. Um, but you know, people can be creative and I don't undermine undermine anybody's creativity in terms of way they can draw a map. I would be very surprised if you knew this off the top of your This is not something you should know off the top of his head. So, you know, do you happen to know how many census tracks we have here in Oakland? I don't. I could um I could get it fairly quickly, but uh I don't I don't know. Yeah, I hadn't played around with it either. Uh what he indicates and just to share with you all in addition to my charter work that I've discussed with you all before, I was um among many other places, I was general counsel for the Panelis County Redistricting Board when they did their redistricting uh

back in 2020. And as has been indicated to you, it's exactly correct. The appropriate way to do it is uh to divide it up along census tracks because that is the most granular piece of data that you have appropriate information to make sure you're complying with Civil Rights Act uh concerns among other things um in a legally defensible way as he indicated as well along the lines of having a consultant. Although of course it is a large county penelis larger county here in Orange County. It is uh generally because of the risk of litigation. It is usually very advisable that in addition to having legal counsel that you have a consultant experienced in doing it in a lot of jurisdictions u to be able to assist you through that process to make sure that uh it's something that would be defensible both from a pure legal standpoint and expert witness testifying standpoint get into litigation. So it th those are pieces when you're transitioning to single member districts in in that respect very common thing we would re Okay. So, in response to um the information provided in your legal opinion, um we are obviously tasked with this charter review and we want to make sure that we're exploring all options available and so I would want to know what the census tracks are if that information is available. Um while it is my personal opinion that it may be premature for us to um move in any direction, I don't in any capacity want to um take that opinion not explore the data that's available to us to provide

to the public um as a consideration for our ultimate decision-making process. And so I don't know if that's something I would lean to our town manager or would I lean to supervisor of election. I'd be happy to. Yeah. For providing us with the census tracks and the available information for the 2020 census. Um just acknowledging that it's five years dated and we're looking for forward towards like a 10year like growth process. But just having an opportunity to analyze that data um to make a more informed decision about where we decide on the district matter. Sure. I I'd be happy to provide um sort of a breakdown of Oakland by census track. So you can see and census track data tracks a lot of the demographics that you then use to build out um to make sure you're compliant for you know whether you're drawing majority minority districts or otherwise. Um so that equal population compactness continuity all those all those factors that um legal counsel will guide you through but then yeah I'd be happy to provide that data for for the town of Oakland sure one other thing I would mention kind of following along on that as was indicated we're in 2025 right now anything the CRC would be looking to do would be putting it on a ballot and then if uh they were to implement that, you'd be looking at even further along in the decade. Um, in looking at that data, it's doable. Orange County is doing it right now. Um, but it militates even more in favor. I would uh suggest if the town were to go in that direction that you would definitely want to have a consultant. uh because translating data directly from raw census data in the first or second year of a decade is a lot more straightforward than trying to integrate in five years of Bieber

projections from the University of Florida and so on which would be the appropriate thing and one of the things the consultant for Orange County I presume is going to be doing to work some of that data and I apologize Bieber is is uh the University of Florida Bureau of Economic something or other. I can't remember. Yeah, it it it's it's a bureau at the University of Florida that for the state of Florida is responsible for coming up for coming up with population projections that the state and local governments can rely on decade to decade. My understanding is that we would be we would our purpose would be basically what we would do would be to recommend I mean a district review committee that actually does the work right as far as the consultant districtricting map. So, and that's not something that we would be involved that and so honestly I where you were heading a minute ago was that it's not going to be far off from the next census or the map actually the next census won't be out until assuming no delays uh 2031. Yeah. So, but I mean when you start adding the time up once our charter then year long I mean it could be something for future think my other uh word Um question was how we have one

department and how does that district have that? Yeah. So that that map will then skew it's really drawn by based on population, right? You're allowed a deviation up to about 10% typically um from each district to one another. Right? So one has $5,000 people, you know, you want the other one to have 5,000, but you can have a deviation of, you know, then 500 uh if that's that's sort of the um the size. And so that that being said, you know, I if you have a a large population focused in one place, the map is going to skew to that direction to draw that gist. So you'll have to just ac accommodate otherwise um the population. You are allowed deviation though, right? So um typically legally defensibly um I'll leave it to the lawyers although I am a lawyer uh what is what is defensible but 10% is sort of the threshold when you're doing this. I think you're wise to have a committee or other experts come in and delegate this work, but you there's nothing prohibiting you as commissioners from ultimately you will be then approving the map uh that comes through and you could undertake the work yourself, but there's certainly advice to having it both ways and again the supervisor elections office would be happy to help um have staff or otherwise give some some guidance to that process, but we would probably feel more comfortable if you had your own consult consultants and legal um doing that. And I think to your point um member is that we would be maybe recommending a review of that process, but the results of our committee would be whatever those decisions are and leave it to the commission for

further review moving forward. That make sense? Is that my understanding? So obviously let's say that at the commence of this um process we decide that we don't want to move forward with the districtricting plan. However, it could be recommended for the next review. Then we would leave it to the commission to commence the investigatory, you know, implementations to bring back those recommendations. That that is certainly a recommendation the CRC could make to the town commission. Yes. Okay. And and just to to clarify, this is the charter review committee that is Thank you. I mean, I think that the commissioner itself could also you could recommend that they look at census data in 2031 and maybe have another review or discussion regarding this. I mean, I think they are in full control of bringing it at that time. you know, that's plan or again, we're happy to help facilitate the best we are able. Um, I'm certainly happy to provide the census tracks just so you have some idea of what it would look like if if you were to start drawing. um just to see the Democrat and chair actually the what you brought up is is actually a fair point that I I don't think we've had the opportunity to bring up yet as kind of an additional tool if you will available to most any charter review committee in whatever form is uh if you have something that that is of significant interest but maybe just now isn't necessarily the right time, but you think at some point in the future it ought to be reviewed. In a final report coming from the charter review committee, it could include within it a recommendation that after the census uh

you know, after the 2031 2030 census comes back that the uh that the town commission revisit and study whether to implement something along those lines. So that that just keep that in mind that that's a that's a tool available to the committee as a whole as thank you. So so I did have a question for the uh the supervisor election representative. You mentioned that you have the opportunity or would be willing to offer an opinion on this. Um I'm interested in your opinion because you guys do this on a daily basis. You see other municipalities are similar size or even bigger. you know, what do you guys think about the fact that Oakland is considering districtricting and and whether that's a good idea or not? I I mean, I I'll stay neutral, right? I think that we can accommodate any type of election you guys want to handle, right? I think that there are many different ways a town can be run that, you know, at large or single member districts is really a determination to be made up by the voters of the town or the when they're enacting their charity or the town um when they're doing this process. It it for from our standpoint, it it really doesn't matter in terms of you guys are the boss when it comes to the election and you tell us we want to have single member districts. Great. uh we will facilitate your ballot to accommodate that and get the information to the voters so so they can make the informed decision that we don't we don't have a preference really on we do it all different ways in Orange County and so we are happy to help facilitate your elections but you are the ultimate decider on you know whether or not it's a good or bad idea you know we we don't

take a stance on on that issue and just a matter of clarification to the member who presented the issue. I think that the supervisor of elections is here to provide us with a more logistical um aspect of if we chose to go that way, what it would look like as far as, you know, polling and cost effectiveness, but not in any regard giving us a legal opinion as it relates to our decision to go either way. They're here as a resource to provide what their office would support us in a transition to that if that's what we decided and what that would look like as far as polling locations and staffing and cost but not directing us in a legal capacity. And yeah, I'll just just to be clear, I didn't I Yeah, I did not ask for a legal opinion. What I asked for was what other municipal maybe I'll ask the question this way. Are there any other municipalities of our size that have districts within Orange County or are they all at large? So um in terms of so Bell Ale has uh two and they are at large though uh Akoi has single member districts. they are a little larger than you are um significantly at this point but given your goal of 10,000 right so I'm I'm using that framework you know 10,000 in relation to other municipalities uh Maitland has uh two districts they're closer in size they do have their so you know it is I I can run through the list and decide

um give you a breakdown of each uh within Orange County if it'd be helpful. Um just in terms of raw comparison, but I I provided to the committee today a number of precincts based on active voters, inactive voters, and total voters. Um which has Oakland here. You know, right now you guys are about 3,800 total voters with one precinct. Um, and it it really is a determination for us in terms of a logistical framework how many precincts you want within those single member because you could still have multiple single member districts. But from our standpoint, that is only changing the ballot on a piece of paper. Uh, then we provide different ballot styles to the voters as they come in. Uh it it is a logistical puzzle but one that we are apt to do. Uh it's only when you want to have new polling locations at each of these single member districts then it becomes a sort of cost associated with doing that type of work. Um but just having different single member districts in it of itself is not problematic. Um, it just needs to be information to the voters so that they are aware about where they live, which district they're in, so they are uh getting the right ballot style when they come to the poll. It's something that we we can handle. Um, but again, we're here to accommodate and uh but many different municipalities do it different ways. AOE does it one way, you know, Winter Park does it a different way. you know, there's lots of um good ways to do an election and we're here to help facilitate those the best way. So, just to flesh this out a little bit because I I think the one example you might find in Orange County is Bell Ale. We talked about Bell Ale previously. Bell Ale's small city and

they have I just pulled up Oh, you got a He's got a copy. Got a copy of the districts here. um seems to encompass different peninsulas around the lakes down there basically. Dan, if if you recall or or know when you've got these districts down in Bell Isle there for voting purposes logistically, how does that work at their two precincts? Do they have to know you got to show up at this precinct versus this precinct? And then do they have sub precincts within it or Good good question. Right. So, um, as you can see in the map, there are seven different, uh, districts that Bella has. They have one polling place. They have two precincts. Um, but they both precincts vote at the same location. And so, the people that show up will come to the check-in desk. They'll present their identification based on their address. We know what precinct they're in. We will hand them the right ballot to that precinct. So, it's not a problem from us to facilitate that election. It's just for the voter. It's not very confusing at all. They're showing up to vote. They're presenting their identification, photo and signature, their ID. We give them the right ballot based on where they live. Um, but that in terms of the cost, it's the same for they have one polling location, but they have multiple precincts, they have multiple voting districts. Um, I think that all of them are at large though, right? So it they um are able to vote for anybody depending on but if you even if they were single member again like we could based on their address we could give them right ballot style to the to the candidate of their choice. I had an additional comment as well while we are on the topic of Bell Ale and and their voting districts. Um Bell Ale currently has two vacancies.

um and they were unable to to fill those seats. Um, now I don't want to say that it is because of the districtricting or any other reason because frankly I don't know, but I'm looking on their website and it is there is a a call for interested individuals to apply to become appointed and they list the terms of those um you know those appointees as being from April 1st, 2025 to April 2028. And so given that they listed the term of April 1st, it appears that they are having trouble filling those vacancies. It just uh we helped facilitate that election this past March. They did have just open seats. No one decided to run. And so um from a practical standpoint, you know, they had trouble sort of recruiting candidates uh for their um body. And I don't every town and municipality is different, but that certainly is a consideration uh to make sure that you are not limiting it so that you have no one that can fulfill the desire to be in that. And so sometimes I think BIO requires that residency that they live in the actual district. And so they have seven different uh districts. And so having a resident from each district volunteer to run is sometimes difficult particularly given the law changed with form six and form one. And so many municipalities this past cycle have seen push back or lack of interest of people deciding to do this volunteer position uh when they are so exposed or otherwise. So I I it's not you know me advising one way or another. I'm just, you know, giving that those are practical considerations for B Iowa and other municipalities when they're making these decisions.

So I we have more questions about districting or Drea, did you have anything? I think my overarching question with this um given the information that was presented today is um maybe more of a philosophical question of what is the benefit of districtricting for a town of our size? Is this for me? Yes. So I won't give sort of my own personal opinion on um the benefits of single member or at large. I think that in terms of the role of two elections it makes no difference to us whether it's single member district or at large. you know, there are philosophical questions about, you know, whether or not a voter is more connected to a single member district or whether they feel closer to their neighbors and when they're voting in a single member district. But those are questions that you guys can explore and look at data and otherwise. There's that's polyside thesis oriented question. But in terms of you know from the two resol elections you know there's not a um guidance that we would give on what is better or worse you know there are many different ways to run municipality and I think that you guys will come to a well educated decision. I want to respect your time, but yet I think some of the data on this pretty interesting is that from I think Elise provided this from the municipality cities, league of cities. The Oh, yeah. That's from

Florida League of Cities. Well, just I'm just giving it a quick glance. I mean, these are municipalities that have a population that are similar to ours. Maybe there's what 20 or 25 of them and there there's a wide variety. It looks like different forms of government. Yes, I know we were going to talk some about money also mayors and commissioners on there. the elected body breakout. Isn't that what Yes. So what I asked FLC for was to pull between 8 to 10 well they pulled about seven 7 to 10,000 population estimates and to tell us what was if they had term limits um the elected body breakout and the the commission um salary because we had asked those three questions. That's what's in front of you. Do you all have that information? Yeah, I reviewed it. Yes. Um, it's interesting that there is a big mix of what municipalities do. Yeah. So there's no right answer and I think that's my followup is um obviously the data was provided to us um and thank you Elise for making that happen. It's digesting that data amongst us individually and kind

of, you know, with the lack of public comment here today, we're being tasked with um digesting that data. um deciding what we feel about it and then leaning towards our legal counsel to give us some instruction as to you know if we're leaning towards one one way or another what that looks like for us in the future. I will say as a pro a point of personal um commentary um even with the projection projection that we may foresee our population being in 10 years we have to lean back to um what Stephanie just stated. You know we've had vacancies and we don't have people to even apply to fill them and then we're leaning towards alternative measures. And when we talk about districtricting in a town of our size, we have to lend weight to the resources that we're going to need to do that and the residents and constituents that are going to be supportive of that drive. And so I I think from a personal point of like perception, that's a big deal. We've experienced it in the last year or two and we potentially could experience it again. And so, while it may be a consideration, I'm leaning towards um making that a recommendation to the commission at some point in the future for consideration to bring back maybe to the next committee. But obviously we have the ability and the wherewithal to um vet the data that is available to us right now. And I mean really take some time to vet that data and talk about why they're similar to us

and why not and um what we see and foresee So I did have a question about logistics. So you kind of mentioned the cost of a polling location starts at two. I think LA our last one going to the records was about 8 8,000. And so one of the questions we had and maybe you could uh offer some information. What if we were to on the heels of voter turnout, what if we were to kind of align Oakland's voting with kind of a general election or some some other one in hopes of getting better turnout for elections or or participation? Uh and so I'm interested in logistically what would that mean? Uh and then yeah, let's start there. Great question. So like looking at like November um general election. So, we are hesitant to advise municipalities to choose that in part because of the multi-page ballot problem. And so, if you have a number of charter amendments on it and a number of candidates, suddenly a voter going to the polls in November is not seeing a two-page ballot with statewide amendments, Orange County amendments. They're also seeing city amendments, right? And so suddenly that you can have a six- page, seven-page ballot, which causes voter confusion, how many pieces of paper they're putting into the machine, pieces of paper get lost, as well as then the costs associated with running that election. Um, I will say just as a caveat, the Florida legislature currently has a bill that's moving through the process of moving all municipal elections to the general election in November. So this

might be forced us on to us from a state level anyway. Um, so I I would track that bill. I it certainly I would say it it does increase turnout. You're going to see a higher turnout for people that are showing up in a general election, whether it's a a presidential year or governor's guratorial year. Um, that is just typically how people turn out. Um, sadly, they don't always show up for these important municipal elections. And so you're going to see uh in terms of the logistics, the logistic problem is really about the multi-page ballot in terms of the cost associated with printing that mailing it out. Um the cost associated with sample ballots, mailing it out. So there's additional costs when you do that process. And from our logistical standpoint of those who as a practical matter, we are advising against municipalities choosing that because of um the added cost and the voter confusion uh that would take place um on election day that it, you know, nobody and voter fatigue, right? You know, you slogging through, you're going to see a lot of uh undervotes, meaning that people don't get to the uh municipal elections. They just get tired on election day of, you know, another page, another page. So, um, yeah, it's it's it's a fine balance of, uh, wanting to increase turnout, but also, uh, from a logistical standpoint whether or not voters can, uh, get through a multi-page ballot depending on, you know, whether or not there's amendments or not. From our point of view, it's it's like it Did you see the KO recent election? Yes. I mean, it was horrific. Yes. They had 1,351 voters out of 29,000. So for 4.5% of voting and

56% of those voters were from one district because they had Yeah. And so the other districts were even more. Um, now that that is that's true of this past March municipal election, although you have other municipalities like Winter Park that has much more engaged uh vote by mail population. And so we've what we one thing that we found and this is a good public service announcement is everybody's voter uh vote by mail expired in December of this past year with the change of the legislature. Everybody has to renew. Um and so some uh municipalities are more active about having their members do vote by mail because it is accessible and we see you know 90% turnout from people that if you request a vote by mail ballot 90% turnout for the March municipal elections and so that's one way to increase turnout is to encourage your population uh to vote by mail um because when people get mailed a ballot they're more apt to put in the mailbox and mail it back in. Now, there's an added cost typically for municipalities for vote by mail. Sometimes the cost is more expensive than actually going to vote in person or early voting, but um in terms of increasing turnout, vote by mail's a great way to encourage. I think I just want to piggy back on the obvious comparison with other local that are close to us. Um, and just a public service. You know, Oakland is different. We are different. We have a unique community and it's smaller. Um, and I want to make sure that we're not comparing ourselves so much to other local around us that we're getting caught in the weeds of what they're doing versus the issues that we

may hear. And so I understand it's good to compare demographics and you know turnout to different things, but as a community I want to make sure that we're honing in on what our issues really are and how the changes could affect our demographic. I don't want to get so popularized in what other people are doing that we end up losing our town home field that we all recognize and agree with. And so I think we're here to obviously receive the data, analyze it in in consultation with legal, but just just kind of remain a little unique in the capacity of they're getting bigger than their riches maybe. Um and we want to be a little more concise and clear and um considerate of our residents in our moving forward. Yeah, I'll say in the PPP I think you guys had the highest sort of turnout of 35%. And I think that what the data showed and so um and I would encourage municipalities to all along that that election cycle because it is a way to reduce the cost um uh during a PPP. Um and so that's a good goal for municipalities to reduce the cost but also have people come out and increase turnout. So you know that that's one thing that works. I think that's in your charter um to have when when it's available. That was we have any additional commentary or inquiry for the representative from the supervisor of elections from committee members or staff Kurt. Do you have anything?

Think we lost him. Madam Chair, I was just going down. No, no, you did not lose me. I just couldn't hit the mute button. No, I'm I'm good. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Kurt. Um, they're just going down the list of items that we had here. I don't know if you want to go look through those. Um, there's some financial implications, potential changes and recommendations in election timing. I don't know. Still have questions about these or if they were covered in the discussion. Actually, Madam Chair, to that point, This might actually be a good time u to ask a question. May not prepared for it. Sorry about that. But um as you'll be doing your run through of the remaining chapters of the charter a little bit little bit here probably be discussing a little bit one of the general recommendations our office had to look at and that had to do with the process of runoff elections. Um so in the charter right now it contemplates runoff elections and it contemplates runoff elections wildly quickly. Contemplates I mean is it within two weeks? I believe it was 21 days. Yeah. Yeah. And so um I think that the point of that is that um there are requirements under federal law for overseas voters that are serving or overseas citizens as well a mailing of 45 days. You have to mail out vote by mail ballots 45 days. that might come in conflict with your current charter. I think that's a point well taken that many municipalities do 60 days for a runoff. Um but it you guys are in control of that but uh giving enough time to be in compliance with sending out it's important and our we very rarely have any sort of hard

recommendation or anything like this and what we do but in light of uh recent history the last many decades in Oakland runoff hasn't actually occurred. So the thought was perhaps that might just be one bit of elaboration more than town necessarily needs waiting around for another 60 days for a runoff election to you know fill spots on the town commission. So at bare minimum I think the feedback from the supervisor's office would be if there were you're going to retain runoff elections you need to push them out substantially further. I think in our prior meeting we discussed um a recommendation for filling of vacancies to be 90 days as opposed to 30 in the charter. And so I think that it's possible that we could um maybe reconsider a 90 to 120 day period in light of the information that was presented to us. Um but obviously I think our decision prior was 90 days as opposed to the third. Well, specifically to not just vacancy but runoff. So when there's that Yeah. and and what's in the charter right now, and I may be misremembering, but uh with respect to that 30 days that's that's currently in there, uh that's 30 days for the town commission to make a decision to fill that vacancy. And then, um so that doesn't involve the supervisor's office. Okay. Um and then under the current provisions, if the town commission doesn't do it within 30 days, it actually doesn't go to the supervisor's office, it goes to the governor, which I would offer to you. probably would sit there for a while regardless of who the governor is.

So I think that um we will acknowledge and appreciate the clarification given by the supervisor of elections office as a recommendation and when we get to that point of the agenda we can address and I'm I'm happy I I don't mean to be anywhere. I took off the afternoon so I'm happy to sit and if you guys want to don't feel like you have to ask all the questions now. I'm also available to come back. Um hearing no additional inquiry or a question for the representative from the supervisor of elections, we move forward to um agenda item number five um relate to the proof of residency for qualification um specifically under the city of Orlando's charter which was provided in the memorandum from legal counsel. Stephanie, do you want to handle it or you want me to? Very briefly. You can take the floor. Wait. All right. Very good. Um and and actually uh committee members, I I didn't get a chance to mention at the beginning, but I must apologize. I'm going to have to run out of here uh a little later in the meeting. Um I've got to get to a meeting the complete other side of town, and you all know how the turnpike and 408 are. So, um, but in the time we have, I'm going to do my best to hit a couple things. You have before you a memo, uh, addressing a provision that that I had actually brought up previously in the city of Orlando charter that related to precisely to subject matter y'all were looking at. uh and that is uh criteria set forth in the city of Orlando charter concerning uh evidence

or uh proof to be presented of residency for qualification to run for uh mayor or district commissioner in the city of Orlando. You see a quote of that provision there and a little bit of discussion. Um, as you'll see the language there, uh, references, uh, that satisfactory, uh, proof of meeting the residency requirements shall include submission of all the following applicable items for a one-year period prior to qualifying, homestead exemp exemption documentation, residential property lease, utility bills, which reflect usage of utilities at a level indicating actual residence, and Florida driver's license registration. So you have some uh just kind of uh framework around uh the two pieces of it, but that's kind of where it gets down into the weeds as the memo indicates and it's never our place to to uh strongly criticize what any other charter says or anything like that. This is just uh offering this thought from from experience around the state. Some of the detail that this provision in the city of Orlando uh charter gets into is probably a fair bit more than than in my experience my office would generally recommend. Not suggesting to you it's an uh offlimit topic by any stretch. I'm not saying that this provision is, you know, inherently illegal or anything like this, but um what I think our office would recommend to you if there is an appetite for the committee to uh look at that particular question of proof of residency under the residency standards under Florida and federal law, but evidence to be aduced or or provided to do that, it may make more sense to put for the voters uh

charter uh amendment that says uh specifically that the town commission is authorized by ordinance to uh set forth evidence that uh can or must be reduced to demonstrate residency under that. Um, and just as an example to that point, we put together some potential draft language that might go in that direction if the the committee's so inclined. The primary reason it kind of goes to a lot of things we've discussed before when you get into very fact dependent analyses, which I would suggest to you, uh, residency is one of the most interesting ones. Reason why there's so much case law about it. There's a lot of case law debate about it because have individual life circumstances and it gets really interesting sometimes to prove that up in various ways. Um I would suggest to you that an ordinance would be a more useful tool to be able to address a lot of the different circumstances that may go into that. Anything you put into a charter is going to be there until you have a referendum to change it. And one of the most troublesome circumstances you run into in local government law is a situation where may have something in stone in a charter. There's nothing can be done about it. Everybody looking at a given situation on any side says, "Oh, that's not right. It's not fair. We didn't think of that." And then everybody's hands are tied. You know, obviously there'll be situations where people might think this or might think that in some situations. The worst are where everybody's on the same page, but they say, "My hands are tied. You can't do it. They can't go on." and then you're in uh more what have you. Again, not my place to to necessarily, you know, strongly critique the city of Orlando's charter provision on this. I do know from just general

recollection that uh how it's been applied has been the subject of a lot of push and pull over the years. I think by virtue of the the complicated subject matter it's uh it's dealing with. So, if the CRC has a uh thought to go in that direction, I think our our recommendation for something that would be more of a a charter appropriate um matter relating to that subject matter would be along the lines of what we provided. And I'm glad to answer any questions. So, my initial review of the qualifications for the city of Orlando charter were um pretty indepth and I did revert back to um the current town of Oakland's application or submission for qualification. And what it does, it does, you know, require you to certify that you're a registered voter, you're a citizen, and you've lived continuously for one year. And upon signing that application, you attest that that information is true. And so, for all intents and purposes with the clerk, once that is submitted, you're attesting that these are your qualifications absent someone contesting those qualifications. And I think in a situation where that will be contested, then it may be more available for an ordinance to challenge the actual documentation that approved if that's my understanding. But I don't want to get into the weeds of you're submitting a qualifications application with a copy of your homestead, your driver's license, your voter registration card. Um and and that could just be me for the

size of our local that I think that the attestation is sufficient absent a challenge to it. So just to give you a little little bit of context to to scale it out from from just municipal elections in one municipality. When you scale out to other elections that um actually supervisor elections office uh serves as the qualifying officer for a bunch of other officers, not you know not under what we have in Oakland but for county officers for example. So they they'd be the ones taking in uh those applications. Basically from the county level on up there is uh nothing at all other than a certification similar to what uh you just indicated chair that's uh required in the um Florida election code and the forms that are promulgated by the division of elections where a candidate is certifying under oath that they have hold all the qualifications for the office they are running for. So there's a requirement that you have a blanket affidavit, if you will, blanket uh sworn statement that you are meeting those qualifications without attaching a bunch of paper behind it, but you have a a sworn statement to that effect. That is uh what is both necessary and sufficient, you know, initially for running for county commission in all 67 counties to run for state rep, to run for state senator, run for Congress, um and to run for uh any of the constitutional offices statewide. So, um that's kind of your say your starting default position as as is implicit in this memo here. I think it is within the ambit of a municipality if they wanted to. Like I said, I I don't think the the city of Orlando provision is per se illegal or, you know, barred by uh the Florida

election code or anything like this, but um uh so it is something a municipality, although all those other elections do not get into it, municipality could recommendation along these lines is is really more to the effect. If you want to do anything more than what is required for all those other offices, that' be something that that you put a charter provision in, expressly call it out, but that you give uh opportunity to be able to tailor it a little bit more to a specific situation. It sounded like too um and and I apologize if I misunderstood your your comment or your question. um that you were sort of getting at what what would the difference be between if these requirements were adopted via ordinance versus via the charter. Um and I will say as a general matter, one of the um the tools that municipalities can and and often do use when something that has been adopted via ordinance is later challenged in litigation. uh the municipality can can take a second look at what was put in that ordinance and potentially amend the ordinance to just moot the issue. Um in in the context of a charter amendment, that isn't possible without a referendum. And so that's where kind of the the hand tying comes in where you know even if everybody is in agreement that hey you know this is a scenario that really wasn't contemplated and and it is um not allowed under the a technical application of the language. Um your hands are tied. That's I don't know if you were if you were asking um for more elaboration on that, but

I think the point that I was making was I was not inclined to revise the charter with respect to that, but I'm not versed on what the ordinance um behind it may require in the event of a challenge. Um well, to to adopt the ordinance, I suppose I'll start from the the beginning. It would that would be something that would be brought before the town commission and it would have to go through a first reading and a second reading. So there would be two opportunities to discuss that and hear public comment as to the proposed ordinance. Um and then a a legal challenge to that ordinance usually is just somebody filing a complaint and and you know moving forward with the litigation. But even in that that circumstance, going back and amending that ordinance would take the first reading, then the second reading. I guess maybe my next is I don't know what ordinance we currently have that speaks to it. I I don't believe we have anything on the books right now that specifies um anything other than uh effectively what you referenced there on on the municipal form which is effectively restating what is required by the Florida Election Code certifying that they uh meet the qualifications for the office for which they're running. Okay. That that's where that language that's on the Oakland form is derived is from the Florida election. Okay. Great. That's very clear for me now as to where I would. So I I did have a question just think about multiple things. So the form is the standard universally accepted. If we want to add language to the charter, it could make reference to an ordinance which then the committee would need to have per second reading determine what

goes in there if they want to get more granular or not. So, if I understood all that correctly, my question is at the time I submit my application, I say yes, I live in Oakland and everything's great and I get go through the process, I get elected. A year later, I decide that I'm going to take residence elsewhere, maybe part-time, maybe full-time, doesn't matter. I've submitted and attested to at the time I submitted my application that it was correct, but at a future state, I'm not. Is there anything in the charter andor or ordinance that would speak to that? Is that a valid concern? There is a requirement and I can track it down here. There is a requirement that uh that all the elected officials uh that the members of the town commission maintain at all times all the qualifications uh that were necessary for elect. Yes, that is set forth in section 2.5B1 of the charter. And um the title of that subsection is forfeite by disqualification. And uh one of the the factual circumstances that would result in forfeite by disqualification is if a commissioner ceases to maintain his or her permanent residence in the town during his or her term. And that would apply whether it was in the ordinance or in the charter. Yes, this this requirement um would would remain uh in place regardless of any sort of proof that had to be submitted um when a person is trying to qualify. Perfect. Thank you. I think that now that those things have

been explained, are there any um questions or inquiries as it relates to revising the charter as it stands with regard to residency? Or would we move to some type of agreement that we're okay with that provision as it stands right now? Since I'm sitting here, I'm I'm the qualifying officer for the Orange County Supervisor Election. So, I um deal with questions like this all the time. One thing I'll say is that the qualifying officer under the Florida election code acts um in a ministerial duty. And so, they are not uh your clerk is not going to be the one checking residency no matter what the requirement is. Their job is to accept paper. um they they can't verify the accuracy of that. So it's really independent of that a legal challenge that is brought on residency typically is what happened. So that's just something I wanted to add and I think that's how I kind of understood it absent a challenge that would be legally you know we've seen and heard the surrounding counties have those residency challenges recently. um our clerk is just going to certify and accept the attestation absent a challenge then we would accept that and move forward and in line with Stephanie's um calling out the provision of maintaining the requirements for qualification or candidacy that's an ongoing right that an individual would have as their personal obligation in a candidacy so I personally don't believe that we should alter the state of residency and the charter as it exists right now.

I would agree with that. Don't despite everything that you talked about with the land up it still doesn't address my concern and I'm just going to have to snow because they're still going to say this is their main residence. They're still going to vote here. They're still going to have bills here. And I I I I'll I'll give you a little more with it because obviously it's intent, but then there's a factual basis that is left it's going to be left for legal challenge and I understand your concerns and how that can be manifested heavily um on our hearts about our feelings. Um, that's that's a legal challenge that I don't know that I want to invest our charter into delving into further. And one thing I would offer, just remember when we're talking about things that are going in the charter, we're talking about bare legal minimums to be allowed to run. If it it is a perfectly reasonable position to hold to say, I'm going to vote against anybody who only lives here x months out of the year and they're a snowbird. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to put that on a mailpiece and mail it out to everybody. So, I mean, it's it's a perfectly legitimate political issue. I'd offer you on that point. I would imagine somewhere in that circumstance and and an opponent were so inclined, that's precisely what they put on the mail piece. And we have a very vocal um local demographic that I'm absolutely certain that um if someone appeared on a ballot that you had an overreaching moment of they're a snowboard and we don't see them or they're not here then that challenge is obviously open to any individual that will want to carry that.

I'm Yeah, I just want to say that I I I I just I listened to everything that was presented and it has not changed my position. I am in favor of keeping everything the way it is now. Thank you so much. Andrea, any additional comment? No, I agree. Let's keep it as it is. Okay, then I think that's a resounding. we will move towards agenda item six, which is a discussion of chapters 4 through seven of the charter. And I'm going to allow um our legal counsel to give us an overview of those chapters um for discussion. Madam Chair, thank you very much. And and um if I'm go too fascinated, please stop me. I'm just minding the clock as I've got to run out of here in a little bit. But um you have on your agenda taking a peek at uh articles 4 through 7. Article four is the legislative chapter and it uh deals with a number of matters relating to your governing body, the town commission. Um section 7 or section 4.1 uh addresses uh commission meeting procedures. um specifies uh twice a twice a month meetings, which I would suggest you is probably say the norm uh for municipalities, not just of of Oakland size, but various sizes throughout the state. Uh there are some that have just once per month, but um it is uh within the uh authority of the commission to change it to be something other than uh twice a month if they were to so move. um have pretty standard pro provisions on being able to call meetings uh by the mayor uh or the call of three commission members. Specifies

here 24 hours notice or or shorter time. One thing to keep in mind whenever you see anything in a charter or ordinance relating to meetings, you have to evaluate that in the context of Florida sunshine law. There are a number of instances where it's perfectly reasonable to call a meeting on four hours notice. you have a hurricane bearing down on you and you've got to pass an emergency declaration. So, you get your FEMA reimbursement, it's not appropriate to call it on four hours notice if you're going to just try to fire up and reszone half the city or anything like this. So, um those are just just because you see that you can call on 24 hours notice doesn't mean that state law is going to say it's cool to have anything heard on 24 hours notice. And so, just a thing to keep in mind. Um, a lot of this is is relatively standard stock stuff you find uh in a municipal charter just specifying that they own rules of procedure, keep minutes uh which of course is uh required by the sunshine law and Florida law. Um trying to integrate as well in what we had discussed um previously in the memo. We provided you with some suggestions. I believe um 4.1C had uh some language. We had some suggestions on um this this provision has some interesting language uh where it calls out um that uh if two of the uh two members of the commission are unable to vote because of abstension, then it requires a uh unanimous vote. And in that instance, unanimous vote would be remembers. It's effectively um just uh we found it strange that it was

calling out abstension for a voting conflict effectively, but um uh but not absence because the effect it actually leads to a slightly different effect. So you all know this is really in the weed stuff, but the default under Florida law when you have anybody voting on anything, all right, is what we call simple majority. All right, simple majority literally means you got five members. All right, two of them are absent. You have three there. Simple majority would be two, which means you could have a minority of the entire body making a decision for the entire body. That can be totally fine. All right. But what this provision seem to be getting at is, hey, for any, you know, for any decisions, we want three members. That is a very typical provision you find in municipal charters, you have five person uh voting body. They say you need at least three affirmative votes. So that changes the default rule. It makes it slightly more difficult here. uh if the uh uh council or pardon me, if the uh committee were so inclined, we were recommending just standardizing that to say basically if they're unable to vote basically for any reason, either they're not there or they have to abstain, uh then it requires uh that what we call an absolute majority. Uh not required by any means. It's just we didn't see a rational reason why you would uh do the one and not the other. If the idea is you want to make sure at least three of the five are in favor of something, probably want to have that across the board. That was uh one thing we addressed there. Moving down to to Oh, and actually got a couple different pieces here. So, I'll just ask very briefly. Is there any comments or

questions about 4.1? So looking at the March 24th memorandum from your firm with regard to the recommended revisions to 4.1C. Just for a point of clarification, you're removing the language that says required abstension pursuant to state law and adding uh due to absence or abstension. Absence or abstension, not just abstension. Yeah. And then we we didn't we didn't and there might be, but it just didn't jump out at us what the meaningful difference would be whether or not they had a voting conflict or they stayed home that day. It really just boils down to if you only have three people in the room and you want to approve something, don't take all three as opposed to taking two. Again, that's that's not the default under Florida law, but it is a very common provision you find in municipal charters to say they want to maintain that minimum threshold. They want to make sure you have what's called an absolute majority. You have at least three in any other initial question about 41. I I like the recommended change. Moving on down to uh 4.2. to didn't have any thing in our memo concerning it, but this is uh relating to uh prohibitions. So, this is uh prohibitions on the town commission. Uh first off, and a lot of this is uh different species of what we call in in charter parliament non-inference uh uh provisions. The first one is neither the commission nor any of its members shall dictate the appointment or removal of any town employees. This of course integrates

with the idea that town employees as a general matter are hired and uh fired by and work for the town manager. Um and uh it it does provide the outlet the commission may express its views and fully and freely discuss with the town manager anything uh pertaining to the appointment or removal of such officers and employees. So they can discuss it with the town manager but ultimately that power lies with town manager. Uh more broadly getting down to the interference with uh administration provision. Uh we have very standard uh exception to it here except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations made in good faith in accordance with a resolution adopted by the commission. Commission and its individual members shall deal with town employees who are subject direction and supervision of the town manager solely through the town manager and uh neither commission nor its member shall give orders to any such employee neither publicly or privately. Um and it goes on to uh express some intent concerning this. Um, and a charter provision you typically see when you want to say you really mean it, uh, is right after that any willful violation of the section by the mayor or commission member may be grounds for removal from home. So, it's calling out that, you know, that matter in particular is one that could be, you know, of grave consequence. And, um, I I can just tell you, you find that provision a fair bit in municipal charters. It's it's meant to be a um an important marker for for indicating the importance of the of the manager commission form of government. Moving on, another prohibition. You're holding other office. No elected town official shall be appointed town uh hold shall hold any appointed town office or town

employment while in office. Um some places that's a very surprising sentence to even have to write. In other places I can tell you you would be shocked at how often the thought comes up. So it's thing that comes up from time to time but we have what is a typical standard provision in a lot of charters that no doing both. Any questions uh on any of those provisions? Moving on. Uh 4.3 is uh very straightforward. It's just saying uh adopt ordinance ordinances in the manner set forth in Florida statutes. That's primarily in section 16041 Florida statutes. Uh section 4.4 emergency ordinances. Uh this just puts a little bit of meat on the bones. That same section of Florida statutes 166.041 does call out some matters relating to emergency ordinances. But what this effectively does is graft on. Frankly, this is all very standard. You don't find this in every municipal charter, but it's in a lot of them. Uh where they address uh emergency ordinances at all. They will uh exclude certain types of uh of uh subject matters from being able to be the subject of emergency ordinances. Levying taxes for example, it's understandable. Um and then providing some form and procedure for it. I would suggest you the most uh the most common but interesting part of this is the um the provision here that says emergency ordinances uh are automatically repealed as of the 61st day following the effective date that I have never seen a number other than that in my recollection in um municipal charters. It's actually not in the state statute. Uh there's there's nothing in the state

statute that says how long an emergency ordinance actually lasts, but uniformly it seems to be 60 days is is where it goes. I just want to go back to the removal of the language in the preparatory paragraph of 4.4. It's a redundancy. Oh yeah, I'm so sorry. Yeah, I got right. Uh thank you so much. There uh that was at the Where was that at? Was that at the Yeah, it was that was uh at the the very end of the very first paragraph there. Yet we've we sat and read it like a million times. That was a copy and paste error. It it's not saying it a second time is not saying anything legally interesting or different. I understood that. I just wanted to make sure for the record. Thank you very much. Clarifying that that language um has been stricken in the recommendations for revisions. Yes. Thank you very and just want to bring it to the body of the chair members that they have no issue with that language being stricken. Fantastic. Thank you. Um let me uh move on back here. So that's emergency ordinances uh 4.5 authentication recording disposition of ordinance resolution and charter amendments. Uh this uh a lot of this stuff is going to get into frankly kind of restating Florida law uh which uh when it's when it's accurate it's perfectly fine. No reason to fool around with it. Basically just or either Florida law or you know standard municipal practice. Uh you've got authentication of of ordinances resolution by the mayor and the town clerk um on all of this. uh the requirement for the town clerk to maintain uh the books of ordinances and

resolution uh and that they uh be made available uh for public inspection to the public. Really nothing remarkable uh in 4.5 I would offer to you unless anyone has any questions. Similarly with regard to section uh 4.6 six and then uh 4.7 annual budget adoption in fiscal year. Both of these are a restatement of Florida law. Uh just Yes, ma'am. So, as it relates to the fiscal year, I do want you to provide a little commentary and analysis as it relates to because we're going to get into elections in section five. Yes. And I want to make sure that there's a understanding of our fiscal year as it relates to the type of elections that we're choosing to participate in. So how that can be impact impacted along with the supervisor elections from a you know cost standpoint and sureity of elections. So from a fiscal from a fiscal year standpoint um there is no choice for the for the town as opposed to like a corporation or private business. You can fool around with that a little bit. Uh the state of Florida has made that decision for every municipality in the state. It starts October 1st. So uh you are on a uniform uh fiscal year budget cycle on that starting October 1st. When it comes to elections, whether they're being held in March or they're being held in November and so on, just kind of got to plan around it. So I it when it if if for example there were a decision to move elections to November or what have you, you just plan around it a little bit in in the budget and to the extent that any expenditure gets broken up in the middle because it's, you know, September 30th, October 1st, that's just how the cookie crumbles because that's that's how it it works for uh stuff for all counties. All counties are also on an October 1st uh fiscal year and they have to deal with

uh primary elections in August and general elections in November every evenumbered year. So that's just how the cookie rolls on that. Okay. I just wanted that clarification. Obviously um we don't have a lot of the public present but I just wanted a record. Yeah. No, it's it's a worthwhile it's a worthwhile question because I I've actually been asked a lot. Can we change the fiscal year for some reason or another? And that's that's one. Um, moving on down to uh 4.8. Very similarly, this is uh this is effectively a restatement of of the requirements of uh 166 uh in the 200s uh relating to municipal budgeting and 200.065. there. The legislature over the last many decades has very much locked down how uh uh taxation millage and budget adoption amendment and so on all works. So there's nothing uh particularly interesting added by uh section 4.8 uh with respect to that. This is just about amendments throughout the fiscal year. Clerk, will we acknowledge the physical presence of one of our committee members? Thank you. Kurt G has now entered the room. Moving moving on down and and we are going to have one piece in in four that is interesting and not just a restatement of law, but I'm just kind of zipping through the other parts here. Section 4.9 and uh 4.10. These again are restatements of existing requirements uh in Florida law with regard to 4.9. Um it this is just a restatement of uh the authority of any municipality in Florida to be able to uh assess uh taxes authorized by law and assessments and fees that are authorized. Um moving on

to independent audit. Every municipal in the state of Florida is um required to have independent audit. The legislature has uh actually in recent years uh significantly legislated how the auditor is to be selected uh for good reason in this instance. Um requirements for setting up a committee that um that uh advises on selecting the auditor and so on. The auditor provides an audit report every year to the uh governing body as well as to the state of Florida. But uh nothing unique or interesting uh that I can recall is is provided in 4.11 borrowing and debt limitations is a little more interesting. Slow down for a moment. Yes, ma'am. You did speak about section 4.9 assessment and an audit. Um, just for the record, I want to um acknowledge that these are things that council is saying are in line with state law and no recommendations are being made for those section. That's exactly right. Thank you. Moving down to 4.11. Um, you do have uh little interesting stuff going on in this one. Um so in the uh first subsection a borrowing um it this just specifies that the uh town commission is allowed to borrow money as municipalities uh do. The interesting piece uh I would offer to you is um down in subsection B debt limitations. Without elector approval, the aggregate amount of bonds or other inde evidences of indebtedness of the town shall not exceed 2% of the assessed valuation of the taxable property within the town as shown on the pertinent tax records at the time of the authoriz

authorization. Then it provides for uh certain things that are exceptions to this revenue bonds related to utility funds uh that can be supported by utility enterprise revenues uh or that are based on user fees established by the town commission uh and accepted at reasonable rates by the bonding companies. Quite frankly, one does encompass and I I not thinking contemplation of the particular debt structure what we have in the town. I'll just share with you generally these are in fact the most common types of borrowing that municipalities engage in called revenue bonds for water and wastewater. That's where you pledge the revenues of the uh of the water and wastewater system to the repayment of bonds or when you have some sort of bond that is where you pledge user fees that are be charged for uh particular um for monies that have been gotten say for the improvement to some facility or Um there are other exemptions uh here for uh certain short-term notes that are for u that mature before the next fiscal year. Then it expressly uh exempts out a particularly uh a particular piece of existing debt related to the charter school. Uh then it exempts out emergency appropriations um that were discussed above if you went through the emergency appropriation process. So I guess what I would offer to you is unique is not every municipality has in its charter a um a debt limitation. In fact, it's it's kind of an interesting distinction. Uh debt limitations and and things like it. Uh the courts in Florida, Florida Supreme Court and others come down to an interesting thing. They have found it is illegal and unconstitutional for counties to do that to themselves, but it's okay for municipalities to do that to themselves. And quite frankly, courts have offered no great reason explanation

why other than that's what they think is cool. Uh in any event, it is uh permissible for a municipal charter to have debt limitations in it. Oakland has one in. So I think I would inquire as to subsection 411 B3 when it talks it speaks to existing debt moved by a prior ordinance. Obviously that ordinance was prior to the commencement of this charter review and would that encompass any debt that has been incurred subsequent to the initiation of that ordinance? Great question. So yeah, no, I think that exemption there is just directed to exempting out saying that debt that was approved by that ordinance 2013 is not counted toward that towards that 2%. Any other debt that's not exempted by one of these other things would count towards that 2%. And just to to jump to potential next question, I have no idea where we are with respect to, you know, exempt versus non-exempt debt and and how far along we are to it. That might be a question that's uh discussed. I will um just share with you that uh there are some other provisions uh down uh further down in the section here. One is for refinancing uh from savings. This is a provision you find and actually let me back up and and tell you this. So we have a uh requirement prohibition two sides of the same coin in the Florida constitution that whenever a any government pledges its full faith in credit all right so it's the pledges the taxing power of that government is really what it's getting at uh to the repayment of debt then and

that that debt is going to be in existence for a period of longer than techically Constitution says two years, but it's otherwise implemented as within a single budget year. Um, if you're going to be pledging the full faith and credit of that government, um, then that debt has to be approved by voter referendum. All right? But remember, I mentioned the most common debt you see a municipality take on is what's called revenue debt. Revenue notes pledging the uh, revenues from the water and wastewater system, not pledging taxing authority. when you actually read those those bond resolutions, it goes into exquisite details saying, you know, they can't uh you know, you're uh they can't use the taxing power to pay this or that or whatever and and all sorts of things like this. So, similarly, we have very similar uh things that apply to that requirement for for full faith and credit debt put into this provision here for this. any debt that would exceed that 2% debt limitation. Got to have a referendum. And if you had the opportunity to refinance for savings, you don't have to have a referendum. The idea is if you already have existing debt, you get to refinance it down to less interest rate. Not going to put it to the voters to ask, hey, can we pay less money? It's built in that you're allowed to do that. Um so you have these additional provisions here saying that it's put to uh referendum if you're going to exceed that 2% debt limitation. So that is uh in that in that whole section there the unique part is that 2% debt limitation with some of those uh exemptions. So, while I understand your explanation for 411 um B3 and I don't offer a revision to that statement, but I may offer a check and

balance by the town manager that we're within that 2% capacity for that item. We are. And if you guys want to discuss this one further, we can bring the finance director in at a future meeting to talk through this and maybe the commission salary portions that have really to do with the budget. Yeah, I'd like to request that if we can if we may. And then um one thing I find interesting just kind of reading through everything's been at relatively high levels. That was the guidance we got at the beginning, right? keep this not very specific, keep it high level, allow for interpretation, then we get to this section which is like excruciatingly detailed. Um, I'm just wondering if we we are revisiting it, right? And and there's a lot of recommendations about language cleanup, what might this section look like if it was cleaned up? It's a great question. Um a as I mentioned um this is a unique provision in that you do not have um in in every every municipality in the state of Florida is allowed to incur debt. Not every municip not every municipal charter says you're allowed to incur debt. Why? Because we talked about municipal home rule powers act. They're allowed to they have that authority. When it comes to this specific thing here, I'm speculating because I don't know the history of this particular provision here. This looks like a very particular uh matter where they said we don't want the debt to grow beyond some certain threshold and we'll we'll agree to carve out certain types of things that we don't think are bad debt, if you will, versus, you know, good debt versus bad debt, what have you. Um, but I think this actually fleshes it out pretty well when you're going to be putting in a

provision like that because again, while there is a lot while there are a lot of words here, I think uh, as I mentioned, the things about requiring voter uh, approval for it and then refinancing for savings. While they put down all those words, those are very stock and standard things you do for for other pledge of full faith and credit type things. So that is um uh that's helpful in this singular instance here. I guess what I'm saying is if if there were not a debt limitation in the charter, then this whole thing would come out and all the rest of it would be complete surplusage. you did have a debt uh limit in the charter. It doesn't hurt to have this level of detail to give a little bit of clarity as to how all that's going to work. So I I I would suggest to you the primary question if there were a question to to look at would be um there's a 2% debt limit subject to certain exceptions. Is there any uh interest or reason to make any changes? There is absolutely no requirement. And I think for me, I I don't necessarily question the history of that revision and why it's placed there. I just want to be able to check and balance to make sure that, you know, from a financing budget standpoint, we've maintained that in the 10 years since the last review, not exceeded or, you know, understanding any exceptions that have occurred during that time

frame so that we're planning in a capacity moving forward for that specific nature and and why it's there. Yeah. And Madam Chair, I agree. I thank you for clarifying that. I'm not looking for the whole the whole history, but if there's something that we're going to mess up by changing it, then we should probably know that, right? And and I can tell you we have not exceeded it um at least in the six years I've been here. Um however, like I said, I think it would be good to have the finance director in here to tell you her perception. What does that look like, you know, on a repayment level and and what can the town actually afford? So, you know, that might have been some of the previous discussion. Um, we might want to have some of those guardrails in there, but let's have a more thorough discussion on that. Very good. Chair, if it's all right with you, I'll just uh move on to article five then. Uh, article five is on elections. Um, as you'll recall, uh, in our memo that we provided with, uh, some recommendations to consider, the primary comment our, uh, our office had was, uh, to consider uh, whether runoff elections were were something you wanted to maintain in the uh, in the charter. It it does uh specify your non-person elections which is the uniform case. I will preface you um council that while the recommendations were made in the March 24th um memorandum from your office, we've not fully vetted or considered them. Of course. Oh yeah. And so I would like to go through them individually because there are some proposed revisions to different

subsections before we get to the runoff section. So specifically 5.1 C and D, you offered recommendations and I just want to make sure that while you're present with us, we're able to review those in completeness. And my my rec my recollection, I'm just taking a look uh back at the memo here. I think all of the the uh language changes you find in that memo related to section 5.1 all have to do with runoff elections because runoff elections are the references are pervasive throughout that that section there. So in uh subsection D and or C and D um the the only things changed are um removing references to the runoff elections and then to the extent that removing the sentence that references the runoff elections leaves anything hanging because the sentence also referenced you know then the person will be elected. It adds a sentence that just says the person getting the most votes will be duly elected mayor or uh or elected to that seat and what have understandably so. I just want to make sure that we're going through in a chronological capacity um to preserve the record um as it relates to election dates. I know that we're removing the 28 days for the runoff and we get to the next section, but while we have you here, I would like a more invasive um explanation to the memorandum for the record. Sure. So with regard to runoff elections, generally what you what you find in the memo and what you see implemented and all the changes that are provided here, basically moving from uh from a runoff model where if no one gets a majority of the votes cast in a given election under the runoff model, if nobody gets uh 50% plus one, then the top two vote getters would then have

another election held. I think under the current language uh 28 days later um and then whoever gets the most votes out of those two would be the winner. What is suggested as a as a way to move away from the uh runoff model particularly again in light of the recent history of things not going to runoffs in any event. about that complication sitting out there. Um is simply moving to uh what we call just traditional first pass the post uh elections or whoever gets the most votes wins. Uh so um and that you find that most clearly stated in subsection D there. Uh candidate for mayor receiving the most votes shall be duly elected mayor. So in in those instances uh where uh you might have three people running it is of those three whoever gets the most votes gets it in that instance. That would be the effect of that. And again um keep in mind any any of the recommendations from our office are are not saying on this one in particular not saying to you this is illegal or anything like this. just uh something for the the CRC to consider. If the CRC uh did want to go in the direction of maintaining having runoff elections, it would be our recommendation to at bare minimum uh have those elections held probably 60 days out. Is that Yeah, at least 60 days out in order to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act. So there there would be a recommended change either way, whether it be eliminate uh runoff elections or move that to be 60 days out. I've got a Thank you for your presence.

I think there was a comment made about the simple majority last time in the highly improbable or unlikely event of a tie. Ah, that's an easy one. Uh, under Florida law, you draw lots and uh that's usually left to the supervisor of elections or at least try to push it to the supervisor elections office. So, it's nobody else's responsibility. I've seen it implemented a lot of ways. You flip a coin, you literally draw straws that all sorts of different ways. Uh there's actually litigation about it up in Klay County recently. Yeah. uh as to what that means and I think the judge thought it was a little silly because what's the difference between flipping a coin and doing some other thing where it's a 50-50 chance but it's you draw lots that's what that's what the Florida election code says. So um and since I have a representative from the supervisor of elections um are you aware of any like extreme circumstances where that's occurred on multiple occasions? Hoping hoping that it will happen. We we it came close uh about 10 years ago that it was close that but statistical tie is very rare given particularly with recount um procedures uh when those are implemented. Uh but yeah I we don't have any um guidance. We we're ready though and prepared to draw lots as necessary. But is it your experience that maybe that's not occurred because of the mechanism of runoff chosen by a particular municipality or just it hasn't occurred? Just hasn't occurred I think because of the rarity of a actual statistical tie given amount of votes that typically occur. Thank you. You know Oakland's pretty special. So good. I'm I'm there with you to draw lots when it happens. I remember many years ago uh Bill Cows first told me about the uh the

supervisor elections prayer. I don't care who wins, just make it not close. But um so yet the um and by the way I'm not suggesting you need to have the the uh your full discussion right now uh concerning the question of of March elections versus say November elections. I would suggest you that from your prior discussions that's probably the other piece of discussion that you would pull out of article is is the matter of you want to stick with Marshall elections? Do you want to move that coincide with some other cyclical? So at least as a matter of future um revisiting I do want to make sure that we put this on a future agenda to have an opportunity to vet and have a more eloquent discussion about um our thoughts with a full body present. We can do that. Madam Chair, in in light of the time because I'm going to have to run shortly as well. I'll keep trucking very quickly here. Uh section uh 5.2 uh recall initiatives and referendum. This is uh just uh another one saying uh do it the way the Florida statutes say, which perfectly innocuous and uh stand as it is. Moving on to article six, uh charter amendments. Again, uh subsection A, same thing. charter amendment uh may be or charter may be amended in accordance with the provisions of Florida statutes. Um B is interesting uh if conflicting amendments are adopted at the same election, the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall prevail to the extent of such conflict. Interestingly, that is a wildly uncommon

provision. Um, I can tell you from a an incredibly ridiculous amount of research on a on that question on a similar thing um in a different jurisdiction. That is actually the conclusion one Supreme Court of a different state came to. There is no law in Florida on that exact question or pardon me, there is no case directly on point. Um, I will share with you I'm of two minds as to whether or not that provision is um perfectly consistent with uh with chapter 166 and other parts of of Florida law. I will tell you the proper and right thing to do in in just about every circumstance is to ensure that in a given election you don't have conflicting amendments on the ballot. You understand what I'm saying? that that that's just a problem that shouldn't get within seven steps. In any event, um moving on down to article 7, general provisions, a lot of this is uh very standard here. I'll point out anything that is not. Section 7.1 is just for the lawyers. Uh that is our severability clause. That's just kind of a marker to any judges who would ever be reviewing uh either this charter or any amendments. If you got a problem with one piece of it, don't throw the baby out with a bath is really what that boils down. Uh, moving down to 7.2, conflicts of interest, ethical standards. First paragraph is um uh first car paragraph is kind of standard um in that it just specifies that it's uh that the officials employees and appointees of the town are subject to the um standards of contact for public officers employees set by law. That's primarily in chapter 112 of the Florida statutes. In addition though, section 7.2 do does set up an additional ethical

standard. And it would be difficult for me to get into the weeds of it all here, but it's effectively getting at uh some of the uh the subject matters you see that are prohibited in certain parts of chapter 112 relating to doing business with one's own agency and uh and things like this. So this is very similar to couldn't tell you that it's analytically exactly the same as some of the very detailed ordinances that this is actually a fair example of of where you try to put together something in a sentence or two. In chapter 112 they go on for about a page and a half because it can get very complicated. But uh you do have a general prohibition here uh against um commission members having financial interests in contracts or sales to the town uh or contractor supplying the town. Um without full disclosure and it being authorized by the commission uh before the event. Keep in mind that while there is a prohibition going on in here and the primary thing you're doing here is curing it by making it, you know, making it out in the open and it being authorized, the fact that that this is in here does not would not get those commissioners out of the requirements of state law. So, in evaluating a a voting conflict or even if they recuse themselves, any other sort of conflict, you'd look not just to this but also to chapter 112. It's kind of a high level overview of it, but any questions on on that. Moving on down uh section uh 7.3. It's actually a fairly standard provision. All appointments and promotions of town officers employees should be made solely on the basis of merit and abilities demonstrated by a valid and reliable examination or other

evidence of competence. Um again pretty standard provision you you see uh in in a charter how that's implemented from place to place is it's implemented differently from place to place I'll just share um moving on uh further down section 7.4 for charter revisions. This is the provision that gave rise to uh your charter review committee. As you know, every 10 years uh we have the uh appointment of a charter uh revision committee. Um gives you a timeline uh for uh your uh work to be done and um then you proceed forward. Answer any question. Good question. Question on the charter review. Is it allowable for that language to be changed in such a way that it says that they shall appoint that they shall review whether an appointment is necessary? Absolutely. So that we could go back to the commission to say okay we our charter is in good shape right now. We don't need to spend the money on this evolution just because it's in the charter. You could you could if it is then they could always say by majority vote of the of the commission appointment. you that that could absolutely be a charter amendment to amend this provision. And so, if I'm hearing it correctly, it effectively be changing the requirement of this provision to say every 10 years the uh town commission shall engage in into an evaluation and then make an affirmative determination one way or the other whether a uh a charter uh revision committee should be. Correct. And then if they decide it is then we can have the rest of the language in there as to what the committee's responsibilities would be. My next question would be in your experience um what is the um minimum threshold or time frame for a

charter commission this side all over the place. Uh, I I told you that um told you I I helped a little town through their first revision of their charter since the 1920s. That's too long. Um 10 years I would I would say is probably the most typical for municipalities. Um some places, Orange County famously uh for county charter does it every four years. Whether that's a good or bad thing, a lot of people will debate, but um I would say 10 is is very common in municipalities. Well, and based on the history, it was clearly needed. Um there's the work that the two prior to us did and then what we're doing here, I think, has been tremendous, but we are really kind of starting to fine-tune this thing to the point where the little things are not mattering as much anymore and the grammatical error being fixed and and again, I'm always the one that wants to save the taxpayer money. So, if we don't have to do this, then let's not. But if it's needed, then that's what we vote on these individuals to determine for us. And I think um just as a personal um commentary, I think a 10-year review is necessary and it is necessary to involve the electors of the community to commence a board. And they could have one meeting and say, "We looked at all the articles and we see no revisions." But that's just that check and balance that the commission does not have the entire control over you know potential revisions or things of that nature. So I think that it would be prudent to allow that article 7.4 to remain to allow that second voice that the com the perception of the community is not that the commission has that absolute control. Madam Chair, I'm so very

sorry. So very sorry. Just second quick procedial question. If if we decided to recommend to push the our elections to the November presidential and governor elections, that gets voted on in March of 26, would that take a place in November of 26, our first election, or would it push November 28? The typical the typical thing you do when you change elections, okay, is you uh the terms of the sitting commissioners, all right, who will be up for that election will be extended. It's it's uniformly the case that that they extend the term to that to that new election as opposed to cutting that term short. Okay? So, you'd extend the term to when the election would be and then uh that's when that's how we would implement. So sometimes it takes a little time to implement, you know, win new election. So So if we have three seats up in March 2026, right, they'd still be up, but then what you're saying is that the new people would go from March to November basically, right? What what it would be is four year terms, right? Yes. Yeah. It would it would be let's say they're up in 20 March of 26. Yes. Right. So they would be naturally be to March of 30, right? What I would tell you is those people their probably that charter amendment would say uh if it was approved their their terms would be extended to uh November of 30. Okay. And similarly for the people whose elections would be up in March of 28, their terms would be extended to November of 28 and then they and then they the elections would be in November of that. So moving on just to hit these last little bits here very quickly. Uh section 7.5 variations in pronouns just

states the obvious. It's not intended. It says he or she or whatever. There's a stray one in there. It's not meant to say what have you. Um section uh 7.6 very standard uh non-discrimination clause. Uh the uh town shall not adopt any ordinance, policy or practice discriminates against any person due to race, national origin, religion, gender, age or disability. These of course are required by state and federal law. Um and finally uh 7.7. This section uh addresses uh precedents over related laws. This section I don't have any recommendations for changing it because it's it's not strictly necessary. Um it's not strictly true. What I mean by that is most of it's true except it it says at the very end that if there's any part of the charter or your code of ordinances that conflicts with state law then the charter or code of ordinances prevails. It's not how it works. Um except if you have a charter provision that actually dates from a special act passed by the legislature, it could. So it gets it gets really nuanced. Um, there is some cleanup to be done in there. If there is any interest, I, you know, I could noodle on a little bit more how to clean that up a little bit more. It doesn't, regardless of what it says in that provision, does not change how a judge would apply any of it. They'd look at that and say, "That's very nice and interesting, but we got to apply state law." In my perception, I I'm hearing you and I'm thinking that maybe that's a article and provision that we address after we have completely reviewed the charter and made recommendations and then council can allow us to know whether there any whether there are any conflicts of law in the proposed changes

that we're making to our charter that could potentially be impacted. Sure. and we'll we would tell you at the outset if there's any proposed charter amendment that would not comply with state law. If if you don't mind, I I am going to noodle a little bit more to see if there's any language tweaks to that I could squeeze into a cleanup amendment um and let you know just for the purposes of clarity. So, the only thing I would wonder about that is as the voter is reading this, the more we present to them, the more they're going to go, what is this about? And if it's strictly because there's some potential conflict that it when I hear you got a noodle to figure something how to say it better, it sounds like it says it good enough because the law is going to prevail anyways. So the less we can overburden our voters with of what are we doing here? I think you know if it's a change that's recommended by this, they need to know what it is and and we can explain it. But when it gets into something nuanced like that, just be careful that Madam Chair, I I do have to head out, but uh thank you all very much for your time today. Well, Wayey, we definitely want to thank you for all the time that you've provided us and the clarification and explanations given to the agenda today and I think you got a good second over here that can navigate us through the rest. Um if there is no further discussion um with regard to chapter 7 4 through 7, I do want to ask each committee member present of any additional um commentary, inquiries or discrepancies that they'd like to have heard before we move to public comment.

None here. I have not no public comment. Um Alise, is there anyone other than the other members of the committee on the view? No, there's only Andrea. Okay. And she had no comment. Okay. So, as it relates to um agenda item eight, discussion items for the next meeting, I think that now that we've had an overview of each article of the charter um provided to us by council that we could some type of way recapulate the recommended revisions um to have discussion, second discussion on those proposed revisions. Um however I do think that it would be very necessary for us to have a deep dive into article uh five which relates to elections. Um I know we've given a cursory view and we've gotten some explanation but it seems that that may be an article that would require a deeper dive of um discussion from the committee. So my recommendation for um items for the next meeting would be to uh recapture the articles that have been reviewed the proposed revisions so that we may um review them once again have committee discussion and come to some type of resolution as it relates to what direction we may want to go or any additional information we may need to make a decision on those issues. Yeah. Just to um clarify, I will bring a memo to the next meeting. Um and and

that memo will go over uh sort of the changes that I understand based on the discussions that we've had at this meeting in the past few that you all are in favor of. Um, and the items that um, you know, if I'm not sure which direction you all want to go, then I will I will leave that off the memo because those are still being discussed. Is that is that what you all are looking for? Yes. Thank you. Okay. And I think the other thing that we would need from Elise would be as it related to the 4.11 B3 just you know having the finance director of the town to come and talk to about talk to us about you know our debt and where we are with that just to have a basis for understanding the current and what may be projected so that we're making sure that that very strict um percentage can be adhered to and accommodated in the 10 years 10 years moving forward. Yes, we can do that the next meeting. So we may want to I don't want to prolong our meeting process but actually the next meeting with the recap and that finance director could be sufficient and maybe address the elections at a subsequent meeting because it seems to be a larger item or discussion and hopefully we'd have an inperson quorum for that item. We don't have them yet. I was going to propose um since Wade has already had to leave us, but I would prefer to try and set those meetings at a time when he could be here um maybe Elise could could send out some sort of communication that we all privately respond to with our availability and set a meeting moving forward. Would that work for everyone?

It will. I just want to let everybody know I'm leaving the country on the 27th of May through the 19th of June. So I will not be able to even zoom in. So if we wanted to do two in May to get it over with, I could do this. Okay. And we will await further communications from Elise with regard to availability for the next two meetings. And without further discussion, does anyone have any additional comments, discussions, or inquiries for this meeting? Hearing none, I would move for adjournment of the meeting at 5:11 p.m. Thank you all and thank you, Dan.