Charter Review Committee - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. We're going to call to order the July 9th, 2025 meeting of the Town of Oakland Charter Review Committee. Madame Clerk, roll call. Chair Mley is Member Cox here. Member G here. Member Honeyut here. Um member Marulo is absent. We have a quorum.

Thank you, Madame Clerk. If we could um entertain a motion for the approval of the minutes from the 42125 meeting. Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve. Second.

All in favor? Any oppose? Motion carries. And we will move into item number four, discussion of article 5 election. Elise, are you going to be handling it?

Kathy will speak to that like what we were looking at. It's actually the the qualification part of it.

Yeah. Article five, oop, sorry. Article five, the elections. Um, we're looking at the runoffs in that. Oh, let me go something prior here. Yep. The runoff elections under E. I handed out go I received from the Orange County Supervisor of Elections Office the handout that you have on municipalities in our division. Um, and you can see which ones have runoffs. Um, they are really trying to do away with runoffs because they are very costly to each city in town. Um, so we're looking at that provision there for your consideration. And I I think I'm probably um a little can't remember what our discussion was prior. So, I'm going to lean on council to give us um some information as it relates to the runoffs and the pros and cons um from the standpoint of the data that's been provided to us.

Sure. Um and the data you're referencing from the supervisor's office, was it in the agenda packet or No, it was I'm sorry. Oh, can I grab a copy of it real quick?

That' be great. Generally what you're what you're looking at uh under the charter currently if thank you so much if um more than two candidates run for a particular office then as a result of that no one gets an absolute majority over 50%. Then you end up in a situation where a runoff election is held. If you recall from uh prior discussions, the uh timing of the runoff election set out in the charter right now is incredibly compressed uh in relation to the requirements of federal law for what's called the Help America Vote Act, requirements to mail out uh ballots uh overseas and having extensive periods of time prior to an election. So the the deadlines that are already in the charter right now would be unachievable under federal and state law. It would end up being more than the 28 days that are set. But what ends up happening is if you end up in a situation where you have more than two candidates running and you have the requirement as it is uh currently in the charter that uh someone has to get an absolute majority over 50% plus one. Then you end up the two top vote getters go and have a second round election. having a second round election ends up delaying the results of the election. There's costs incurred in in having another election and so on. As um uh indicated uh it is a direction uh from a lot of different direction including the supervisor's office looking to try to encourage folks to eliminate that. I recall um and please correct me if I'm recalling incorrectly, we have not in the last many many many years in Oakland actually had a runoff election. Uh because we have not had a circumstance where uh at bare minimum, we've not had a circumstance where three

or more people were running and someone didn't come out with 50% plus one. Um, so it's it's not like it's a very common occurrence here in any event, but the problem is it does end up being a situation that uh you always have to plan for if it is in our chart. So that introduces a level of uncertainty there and increased cost and delay. So uh to this point uh relating to the elimination of runoffs is actually listed as one of the charter topics for discussion in the memo because we've discussed it previously and we put together language if it was the um direction of the CRC to recommend eliminating runoffs. Uh you have language uh in uh section subsection three of part two of the memo that would implement uh the elimination of I would like to add under um amendment please under section 2.4 qualifications. When someone wants to uh qualify to run, they can either pay a qualifying fee or they can get petitions to not have to pay a fee. And the Orange County Supervisor of Elections Office is really asking cities and towns to um not do the petitions anymore. It's it I asked them for how many cities surrounding our town actually have a petition process but I

never heard back from them in time but um this process is not widely done. So we are looking to um uh be if the petition process can be voted out and to be discussed for your consideration.

Any discussion on that matter? election concern is is what that it cost them money to process that.

So I think there's a few things. So we haven't had anybody qualify through the use of petitions for a very very long time here. It's not commonly used. Um it takes up 10 days of the schedule just to hold it open for that for the petition process. and the person it it's a little misnomer because they still have to pay for every single um petition to get um certified by supervisor of elections and it's like 10 cents a petition. Um so so I think what we're asking is are petitions really necessary because there is also a fee waiver if somebody really cannot afford the fees. Um our fees are fairly low. It's only $100 to the to the town and $599 to the state. So, it's $105.99 that somebody has to pay to qualify. Um, if that is a hardship for somebody, there's there's a waiver that they can request. So, I get I think what we're asking is it really necessary to have the petition process in um the charter at all or if we could just go to a fee process.

I believe you mean $599 state of Florida $5.99 to the state of Florida. So, the total is 105.99. Lis, you mentioned a waiver of the fee process. Is that something that the town has always had or is it an alternative in to be added to the

All jurisdictions have that in place? I'm in favor of waving the petitions and just going with a straight fee and if there's an option for them if they need a waiver just to do that

be agreement as well. I'm pro democracy and people shouldn't have to pay to run for office, but if there's an opportunity for them to wave that fee, then I'd be okay with it. And the the waiver on that is is kind of tracks the state's undue burden. Uh yeah, it it would be it would be a waiver for someone who's who's it would be a financial imposition on them. be interested, not someone you have a lot of money and they just don't want to pay it. So,

and and one reason I bring that up is it actually just did happen in Orange County uh for the commissioner seat. The individual did submit petitions as a I think they paid the fee, but they also p submitted the petitions to show that they had the public support.

Yeah. So, so some jurisdictions require both. They require like Windemir for example requires a fee and petitions but a lot of jurisdictions just require a fee. They don't have a petition process. So that's kind of something that's been in our in our charter and our code for a long time that may just be a little antiquated. Um and and it's like I said since I've been here I've done three elections and nobody has ever used the petition process. And the last time I saw that it was used was like 2006, I believe. No further discussion. Does this require a motion for us to move forward

this? But I know that it's a part of your discussion in your memo. So yeah. Uh and this is actually it's a good lead into that. This is uh a meeting where we do want to ask you all to make a number of decisions, take some votes to give us clear direction. What are we working up uh in a uh final report, if you will. So, if there if uh you all have a fully formed thought on it, I recommend a motion to say that that's one of the ones you'd want to advance forward

or should we proceed with your memorandum and maybe motion through the way you out the We could the um with respect to the uh the matter of the unless you added it. The matter of yeah the petition uh removing the the petition option uh is not in our memo. Okay. So uh if you wanted to take a vote on that uh now I think it'd be appropriate. And if you wanted to wait and take it in line as we go through on uh the matter of runoffs we could just do that then. I'd prefer to wait until we get to that portion of the memo and then we can add the petition.

Sounds good. So it can flow in succinction.

So I guess that means we move to agenda item five, the memorandum from the town attorney. That's the recommended language if it's the direction of the committee to to go in that direction to eliminate runoffs. Yes. Um, chair, for what you mentioned about procedures and and so on, it it may make sense. Um,

okay. Just work on through the pieces and and, uh, you take votes as we go along and and give us some direction. So,

so, uh, we're going to divide this up a little bit. Um Stephanie's going to go over uh briefly the items that um we believe we've already heard kind of direction or consensus from uh from the committee but want to get confirmation on that. And then I'm going to be taking the uh section that addresses kind of outstanding issues where we haven't uh gotten final direction on yet and uh ask you all to make some further decisions there. Oh, all right. So, moving through uh section one of this memo. First, we have set forth the proposed cleanup amendment. Um, this covers the changes that are are more to deal with errors and omissions. Um, things that we believe were simply left out during the last charter amendment process. There are a number of provisions in there and when these provisions were previously discussed by the CRC, uh there seemed to be somewhat unanimous um consensus that the CRC wished to move forward, but we would just like to bring these items back for a final vote to ensure that that is the direction. We can if anyone wants to pull one of these out for specific discussion, we can do that. Otherwise, um we would request a motion and a vote.

And just to break it up, uh break it down a little bit. You're addressing first the cleanup amendment. Yes.

We it it's uh in this first part, if you will, it's broken up uh into a number of subsections. The first one is what can be grouped into a single cleanup amendment in multiple parts because it's kind of cleaning up things all throughout the charter. The other ones are are ones uh that are more their own discrete subjects and so it would be our general recommendation that those be their own question so the voters know what they're voting on. So uh the inquiries first to uh what's referenced as the proposed cleanup amendment that's on pages one two one and two of uh the memo. So um there's a section I and a section numerical one. So that the section I Roman numeral section one is is longer than the two pages but the numeral um one is the first two pages of the memo. Yes. So, my mic was off. So, um clarify subsection I section I subsection one um proposed cleanup amendment. Make a motion we accept those as recommended. Second.

All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. And we will move to subsection two under letter I.

Yes, thank you. Uh section I suppose it would be one two. Uh this is the proposed amendment to section 2.5C that addresses filling of vacancies. Um the revised language that we have presented here today provides for a longer period to fill an existing vacancy. Uh that changes going from 30 days to 90 days. We have found in our experience that it is difficult to fill a vacancy within 30 days. Um and so that is just to give the commission some additional time. Uh and it also removes the provision requiring that should the commission fail to fill the vacancy within the set time frame that the vacancy will be filled by an appointment made by the governor. Instead, uh the town commission would call a special election.

I move that we accept the proposed amendment subsection two. Second. moved in and second. All in favor? I have a question. Is this how it's going to be presented to the voters on the ballot?

Great question. So, uh, when we get, uh, our direction from you all, we're going to be going back and putting together the actual ballot summaries. I think we've talked about that a little bit before. The way that works is, uh, they don't have the exact charter language on the ballot. That sometimes could go on for pages and pages. You have a ballot uh title and a ballot summary. Ballot title is 15 words or less. The summary is 75 words or less summarizing the chief legal effect of that charter amendment. So, we're going to be coming back to you all with uh with language to that effect for you all to take a look at and uh ripping it apart if it doesn't seem clear enough and doing some tweaks to it and so on. So would these be individual votes that some p partions could pass and some could not?

That's exactly right. Yeah. And so that's why it's it's important when uh whenever anyone thinks through different charter amendments, you make sure that they are they don't uh depend on each other and they're not contingent on each other that they each would uh make sense on their own. Do we have the option of adding a head heading ballot or heading vote that says I accept everything? That would be nice. Yeah, it doesn't. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way under the Florida election code. That would be fun though.

Just to be clear, these first four pages can't be done under one change cleanup. So, uh I will share um the the general advice and policy that that our office in this work advance. When you group too many disperate ideas together in a in a any sort of ballot initiative, it becomes very difficult for the voters to understand precisely what they're voting for. It's very difficult to summarize distinct legal matters. Um when what we tend to do sometimes if things are uh highly related uh and you have otherwise distinct amendments whenever we're putting together that language we do do a final review to see hey could we reasonably put together uh two or more of these items together in a single question in a way that would still be clear to voters. So that is when when we have final direction from you all as to where we're going. Uh that is part of our drafting process in coming up with ballot summaries is looking is there a reasonable way to put some of them together because less questions is better as well. There there are a lot of competing interests here. One you want clarity for the voters to understand what they're doing. The other you don't want 37 questions. So I I I recognize the concern there. When we have that all nailed down, we're going to look and see which pieces would make sense to uh recommend to you all that could be put together.

And and I'll ask I'll ask a question again. There's not an opportunity where you can say yes, I agree to all of it. Yes or no? No. And that's that's not governed by our rules here. That's governed by the Florida Election Code. 101.161 of the Florida statutes governs how uh referenda are presented to the public. And that would be a really cool idea. I I mean it genuinely, but uh it's not an option. I mean, my concern is you're going to get people that are not going to vote on this at all and then the few that are against it are going to vote and you're going to losing the the vote because everybody I'm fine with it, but I'm not going to read through all that.

Sure. And and that's why I'm, as I indicated, I I we recognize the value in having a discrete set of questions, having it be shorter rather than longer. So these are kind of two competing uh interests in that that that militate in different directions. So we'll be keeping a keen eye on that to see what we can shorten up. I will add as to the the se subsection 11 one the cleanup amendment that has been presented all in one subsection together. That is one that we do feel at this point we can make the call that it would be able to go on the ballot as one question because um the the entire intent of that amendment would be to clean up typographical errors and omissions rather than make policy changes exactly. All right. Uh moving on to subsection 13. This is a pro proposed amendment to section 3.4. 4 acting town manager. Um the basis for this provision is that it it appears that during the last charter review process, some of the language simply got cut out and didn't make it into the charter. But the language that did make it into the charter, we noticed is very consistent with uh what we would call sort of standard charter terms that you see in municipalities all around the state. And so the proposed amendment simply makes the town's charter provision conform to that standard provision. I make a motion to accept uh subsection 3 presented.

Second. All All in favor? I I.

Any oppose? Motion carries. All right. Moving on. In subsection 4, we have a proposed amendment to section 4.1C uh governing quorum and voting. The basis for this proposed amendment is that the language currently in the charter does not provide for voting procedures in cases where a commission member is absent from voting for reasons other than a required abstension pursuant to state law. Um, and so there are sort of some gaps that are left by this language. For example, if a commission member simply were absent. And so the intent of this amendment would be to have a uniform voting procedure that would apply um, regardless of the reason why a commissioner is not voting. By the way, to discussion we've been having previously, this might be an example of one I might be able to squeeze in with appropriate language, for example, with the cleanup amendment. But it's very difficult to come up with what you can squeeze in together uh when until you have all the pieces to to work with. I make a motion we accept section subsection 4.

Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries.

All right. Moving on to subsection five. We have a proposed amendment to section 6.1 setting forth the procedure to amend the charter. This proposed amendment removes the language in subsection B of section 6.1. Uh and that language provides that 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. Um there really shouldn't be an instance in which conflicting amendments are placed on the ballot. And so we thought that it would be um beneficial to remove that language.

And just to reiterate what I had mentioned at the last meeting when we discussed this, this is kind of unheard of uh across election law generally. And it's I'll put it this way. It's not the type of idea that that should be normalized because it's uh at bare minimum lead to wild voter confusion. They would have no idea what the effect of their votes on various things would be. Um and so this is one of those instances where office our office has a recommendation that

we'd hopefully not present conflicting amendments for review. I make a motion we accept subsection five. Second. Moved and second. Any all in favor? I oppose. Motion will carry. And I believe we move into subsection two Roman numeral 2 charter topics for discussion.

Thank you very much chair. Uh, as I mentioned, I'm going to be uh taking us through uh this piece. Uh, here we've other than the uh charter topic that staff just brought up about removing uh the petition option. This is a summary of the uh charter topics that have come up uh from the uh from the CRC uh that have been discussed uh looked at either at length or you know to some degree. uh but we didn't have uh clear and final direction from the CRC uh on it. So wanted to move through each of these topics and uh request uh that they'll take some votes to give us some direction as to uh where we'll be going. The first topic uh that we have uh is the topic of imposing term limits. Uh at your last meeting back in April, uh the CRC considered a potential charter amendment to adopt term limits and um uh data and information relating to municipal term limits within uh Orange County uh were uh provided uh from information that was gathered uh from the Orange County Supervisor of Elections Office. So the direction or vote we would be looking for is whether or not the CRC would be proceeding forward with recommending the imposition of term limits. Is that a topic in general or is it specific to particular term limit and a number of the details of that if there is uh an inclination to uh to proceed with term limits? Yes, I would recommend that that discussion would uh ensue in in getting

into the particulars of what those would be. I I would suggest a threshold question would be uh whether there is uh an inclination to do so in any event but if there uh is a direction to do so uh getting into the particulars would be something we would uh we would ask for.

The minutes aren't real clear to me but I thought we had a conversation about this and I thought we were leaning against it. So I I think it was probably the meeting prior to the last um that we had the major discussion with regard to term limit and I think based on the way that the charter was written and my recollection we were leaning against that due to the staggering and the lack of participation in the votership here. Could be wrong but

that's what I remember too. And and by the way the um our we didn't want to make any assumptions uh you know we made some assumptions as to what we heard you know positively with regard to things. Thus that list we just went through um with regard to anything else in the absence of of you know some firm direction. We just wanted to make sure we were bringing in front of you so we could get clear direction uh from you. So if if that is the inclination of uh of the CRC I suggest you vote would be in order and then we know what's left on the list and what's not left on the list. I want to be on record though as saying I think these are opinions and not a lot of objective data going on as far you know when there is a need. I think it was clear in the last election that there are people that will step up when there is an opportunity itself or when something going on. So I would be in favor two terms of four years and to continue with the staggered voting year. So it be commissioners time

as you discuss this. I would like to add some information simply for you to think about during your discussion. Um, if term limits were to be adopted in the town of Oakland charter, I want to clarify that the term limits would affect all commissioners equally, regardless of how long they have served on the commission. So, the newer commissioners wouldn't have a longer term than the ones who have been there for many years. They would all start with a fresh clock. And so, that means that they would all, I presume, term out at the same time, unless there was some sort of staggering built into the language. staggering would be built in uh along the same lines as the staggering we have currently within the charter. Um but the 8-year limit would still apply regardless of whether a commissioner has been on the commission, you know, currently today for one year or for 10 years.

Well, I let me let me offer this thought. Um there are uh because I've looked extensively uh on this this very topic. Uh there are exceedingly few examples throughout the state of Florida of what we would call retroactive term limits. Okay, term limits that would look into the past as opposed to being prospective. Starting with the next election term limits, you know, your terms start counting and so on. There has been uh substantial uh speculation in uh the field of election law that there are some constitutional problems with retroactive term limits. Not saying they don't exist in like one or two cities out of the 411 because I have come across one or two. But the uh the uniform uh way they tend to be implemented throughout the state is prospectively to avoid any uh potential constitutional challenges. Just throwing that out. And based on my review of the the minutes where we did have a discussion with regard to term limits and and districtricling more importantly um there was some data that we were receiving from other municipalities and I don't recall where we stood with what that data was and I don't remember who was whether it was supervisor or was your office that was going to provide us some guidance as to what other seminal municipalities are doing with regard to that issue.

I can go look. I thought we handed something out, but let me go look and see if I can find that. Okay.

Our our firm did provide a memo that was I believe part of the April 21st agenda and it listed number of municipalities. I apologize. I'm looking for that agenda. I believe actually was on the April 7th agenda. Yes. Um it's a memo from our office dated April 1st, 2025. And okay, it lists uh voting districts and term limits for a number of municipalities that we had identified that are around the same size as Oakland.

Wasn't there a situation in Bell Ale where they weren't able to fill a position? There was. There were two vacancies in Bell Ale. I've I've seen that those have both been filled because I've just been kind of since we discussed that keeping an eye on that. But they did have two open seats. And just to clarify, the last election where we had several people put their name in, it was after the election when nobody put their name in to begin with and they were basically looking to be appointed into the position, not actually run for the office.

Yes, that is what happened. I do have some additional information I did get from the Florida League of Cities um that I can hand out as well that talks about it was really for the compensation part, but it has term limits on there. It doesn't say though if they do have term limits what those term limits are, but I can provide that as well. And we've seen this before, too. Correct. Yes. Because there was only four out of the whole list that had term limits listed. Well, if there's no motion on the floor, I'd like to make a motion that we uh not consider term limits as part of the town charter. I second.

All in favor? I any oppose? Yes. One oppose.

Thank you so much. Moving on to the uh next item and that is you all uh briefly mentioned it and had some information before you concerning some of that. Uh that was the question of adopting or establishing voting districts uh within the uh town of Oakland. Uh as indicated uh some information provided to the committee and you all had previously discussed the matter and so uh we were looking for an action to give us some direction as to whether or not voting the establishment of voting districts would be subject to the consideration. Again, if I my my memory is correct, we we discussed this and after uh lengthy discussion about it, we felt that it wouldn't be a situation we wanted to apply to Oakland's. So, um any other thoughts? Otherwise, I'll put a motion on the floor.

I second the motion. And just to clarify, the motion would be to not have voting districts. I'm sorry, repeat the motion. The motion would be to not uh introduce voting districts into the town of Oakland. Any discussion? Having none, um all in favor? I I opposed. Yes. Motion carries.

Moving on to the next item. This is uh one of the items uh we were discussing earlier in the meeting. Uh this relates to runoff elections. As I discussed previously, it uh uh has not been something that's actually come up in the last many elections in Oakland. Uh but it is something that always has to be planned for and um as I believe we recommended um the recommended that if it was the inclination to just eliminate runoff elections, this would be appropriate language to accomplish that. If uh um there was a desire to retain runoff elections, we did have a recommendation from the supervisor of elections office to make modifications to this to move out the timeline substantially on the runoff elections uh so that they could uh be accommodated under current federal and state law. So we would uh look for some action from the CRC as the first matter to indicate whether or not uh you all would recommend the removal of runoff budgets.

And I think I would request just some additional clarification from you as it relates to the way the charter stands now and the the recommendation received so that we can have an understanding of where we are and what the recommendation would be should that be something we adopt.

Sure. So um so from a pure policy standpoint, our office doesn't have a recommendation on this one. Um it is a a generally considered thought that runoff elections uh particularly when you're in a situation where you have uh a supervisor of elections administering those elections as they uh should be an interaction with federal law and having to stretch out for a very long period of time that there can be um it can be considered time consuming. That's that's generally a concern that is raised concerning, but our office, you know, as a legal matter doesn't have a hard recommendation on it. Um, but if it is the inclination of the CRC to recommend uh removal of runoff elections, the effect of it would be this. When you have an election, okay, nothing changes if you have two candidates, right? You have two candidates, both run, somebody's going to get over 50% plus one. All right? you have uh three or more candidates, there is a non-zero chance that you'll end up with someone's going to get 49 and then someone is going to get 27 and someone's going to get 22. I think that adds up, right? Something somewhere around there. Uh you're you're going to end up with um uh you can end up with situations where no one gets over 50%. Okay? But um what the language before you would do is change it to simply be the way uh that other general elections work in Florida. And that is whoever gets the most votes wins. That's a when you have a uh when you have for example your election in November for state representative, it's whoever gets the most votes wins. Um and that's what uh this would be in this instance.

It becomes a plurality versus majority precisely. try to stay away from the technical terms but that is the precise correct uh technical term and to throw another kind of question in here that not even sure if I support it or not but what is there any dis uh position on rank choice voting rank choice voting is illegal that would answer the question

I actually get that question a fair bit but it is uh it's prohibited under Florida election Um, I would like to add to this conversation that the cost savings and and Gabby can our finance director can correct me on this, but I believe each election costs $10,000. So, a runoff is no different. we have to start the process all over again and it's another $10,000 and this is why we're asking you to consider this and more importantly the people have to come back to the ballot

and turnout at runoff elections in my observation tends to be substantially lower than uh at the initial election regardless of of how those that timing works out. I'll I'll give you all just a little historical contrast. By the way, uh it's been a trend over the decades to remove runoffs. And it had been a trend if you go into the past that they had more runoffs. For good or bad, elections used to be a lot easier. Elections used to be just a single day and folks would just troop on down somewhere and then just check a piece of paper and it was all nice and easier and whatever. for primarily good reasons. Um elections are much more complicated. Compliance with all these things is much more robust and as a result um putting on election after election after election uh becomes much more difficult than it was say 40 years ago. if you wanted to cover the commencement of terms and I think we could do a motion to cover the whole section three runoff elections.

So, um what might be easiest just for the record is just to have clear direction on this one. It this things related to elections may very well be something I'm I will try aggressively to try to combine together. You know what I'm saying? to uh for for the purposes of combining things into questions that would make sense for the public, we don't need those in single motion.

And to clarify as well, the language that we've presented here, the strike through and underline language, um we would not recommend that you, for example, choose to uh recommend that the the subsection E gets redlined, but then that subsection G gets left alone as it is. these subsection E and subsection G red lines really work together. And so if this is not the direction that the CRC wishes to go, then we would alternatively recommend changing the language to provide for a 120day. And so that's sort of the choice here is is should we does the CRC recommend eliminating runoffs or does the CRC recommend extending the time period for runoffs?

Yeah. And and by the way, I'm sorry I I misunderstood your your question here. The change down here in in that subsection that begins commencement of terms, that's part of the language change that would implement uh the elimination of runoff elections. It's just there are scattered references to runoff elections stuck in different parts of that whole thing. And so we got to rip out all those little pieces. So that's what that change is implementing there. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the language outlined in section three of runoff elections uh for the uh red line sections down through basically to section four.

Second. All in favor? I I I Any oppose? That motion carries and this would lead us now into the petition issue. I believe we could uh discuss it now. We are uh in still in the election period or in kind of an election topics here. We've got two other or pardon me one other election related topic on the sheet here. Can I address that one quickly first and then we'll just so we can

we get to the end of kind of the election concept go back to that. So this one uh was uh this charter amendment topic related to the timing of elections. Uh at your uh April 21st meeting uh there was uh consideration discussion of a potential charter amendment to um to have town elections when possible take place concurrently with the general election. Currently, and I apologize, I didn't know this but it's gone out of my head. We have our elections right now. March. Yeah. Um, and this uh trying to remember if the representative for the supervisor indicated uh they had a recommendation or preference.

He recommended not to move them. Okay. They're that's right. They're trying to uh keep municipal elections centered in March. Is that correct? Is that correct?

Yeah. Um there there's this is a common uh matter of discussion and debate in municipal CRC's because the two things you have balanced are um got your own election date where folks are focused on this is the city election, this is the town election, this is the municipal election. That's the time for it. Uh and then the counter is well if we put it on the November election in even numbered years we're going to have more voters which is a fair argument but it's also going to be one of 50 things on the ballot. So I think that was that was a little bit of what you all discussed before on this one in particular. Uh town attorney's office has no recommendation one way or the other on it. just a topic that had come up and as you heard the supervisor's office and I believe it was Bill Cow's uh uh recommendation as well previously it's the recommendation of the supervisor's office trying to concentrate all the municipalities on that March date most of them are in March and March

and and based on my recollection um with the alignment of the timing we were in agreement to leave it in the March time frame versus moving to the general election that we were focusing more on the municipality aspect versus the greater gamut.

Yeah, I I do understand that. I just feel like it was something that um I kind of brought up and I I still feel strongly that it should all be done at the same time just from a voter standpoint, but I'm willing to do whatever I need to do. I would make the motion to um allow the timing of elections to remain in the March cycle for the town of Oakland. I second. Any further discussion? Is there any monetary

there? There is. Um, so I believe the supervisor of elections office said if you we were to move them and combine them because the ballot gets longer, it goes double-sided, you're in, you know, larger paper that it would be um more costly to do it in November than to leave it in March. I apologize for little procedural bit here, but um I'm I've been reminded that uh the norm here in Oakland is that the chairs don't uh motions. I say I say norm by the way because folks uh folks sometimes think that's compelled by Robert Tules of order. It's actually not. Uh Robert Trolls order for small meetings doesn't compel that, but it is the norm in Oakland and I'm it's all flashing back to me now. So, I was going to

recommend Yeah, I was going to recommend that uh if the seconder wanted to make the motion then uh

it's the first time I've done it. I've been I've been holding my peace. You ready? Looks like a mayor in training. Uh I I make the motion to uh strike any discussion of moving the elections. Second that. moved in and second. All in favor? I. Any oppose? I. Okay. Motion carries.

And now before we move on out of elections, uh probably be an appropriate time to get some direction. Moving back to the item that staff brought up concerning section 2.4, and that was relating to uh eliminating eliminating the um petition alternative for qualification. As staff has indicated to you, it's not been uh used in uh many years in Oakland and um it does have uh implications for the timing of uh noticing elections and so on. It consumes a whole part of the of the calendar, if you will, for that period of time. If that uh that provision were eliminated, that would shorten that up on the election calendar for uh for implementation.

Make a motion to eliminate petition. Second. As long as the provision is there for waving the fee. I think that's in the the code. It would I believe it's I believe it's in the code. It the the the concept is also compelled by a lot of federal case law. So got to do it one way or the other if someone is indigent. But I I think we have it codified somewhere. Okay. Moved and second. All in favor? I

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. We will bring back some language um on that amendment at the next meeting. And moving on to the last uh two items in this memo. The next one's uh number five uh compensation of elected officials. Uh this is an item that uh was or matter that was discussed at your April 21st meeting. Uh it was um discussed whether to uh make adjustments to raise uh the uh compensation for town elected officials.

That's about as much as I can recall. I think that this information

Yes. And I also have a memo. Um it's actually not in the only reference to it in the charter is that it says that the annual salary is determined by ordinance. So, it's actually in the code um with a reference to it in the charter, but I I have some background information for everyone. Just to clarify, it currently says it's be decided by ordinance. As you're considering this, I will note again because we've had discussions previously about what are the differences between having a provision in the town's code of ordinances and having a provision in the charter. If the under the current language uh where the charter authorizes the commission to set the rate of compensation by ordinance, what would be required to change the amount of compensation would be for the town commission to adopt another ordinance and that requires a first reading and a second reading. Uh if this is moved into the charter, um in other words, if the charter were to specify a specific salary or compensation amount, then we would be required to go through another referendum and have the voters approve that change as for your consideration as you think about this.

I'll second it. Oh, sure. Sure. I'll make a motion. And it would be to leave it for ordinance. I'll second. Moved and second. All in favor? I I

Any oppose? That motion will carry. Thank you. And the last topic uh I think was more directed at this point just to uh receiving clarification or or some information concerning the debt limitations uh that are set forth in section 4.11 of the charter. Um and uh does charter currently specifies uh without elector approval elector approval the aggregate amount of bonds or other evidence of indebtedness shall not exceed 2% assess valuation of taxable property within the town. However, uh there are some exclusions. Revenue bonds uh related to utility enterprise funds supported by utility enterprise revenues. short-term notes that mature uh before the close of the next fiscal year. Uh so very short-term uh borrowing there, existing debt related to the refunding of the uh charter school and then emergency appropriations. Uh so I believe that um we just brought this item up because this item uh had been uh discussed previously and I believe finance director is here to provide a little information about where we sit uh right now in

Hello. Um I have a town debt schedule here. it. Um the top of it kind of just gives a little bit of an overview, gives totals based on the 2% and then the bottom part and then all of the other pages actually outline all of the town debt. So currently the only thing that doesn't count towards the town 2% is the USDA bond that we received in 1991 which is only about 200,000. um it has reduced to about 80,000. Anything else that was prior to the ordinance in 2013 um has either been paid off or has been refinanced into the town center bond that was issued I believe in 2016. So everything is kind of outlined for you. So we currently have about $9 million in debt. Um it comes out to be about $1 million one and $1.1 million with interest every single fiscal year. Almost a million comes out of general fund. 165 comes out of water fund. Um I've laid out there that it's about 8% currently of the fiscal year that we're about to enter and then 5.2 for the water fund. Um water fund is 7 million but only 3% is operating. the rest of it is grants. That's not counted towards the debt payments cuz it's grant money. Um, so if you have any questions, just let me know. But it's all laid out there for you. And from a from a data historical perspective, um, the town debt has not exceeded 2% at any point. It's gotten a little close. Um, which is

why we had to refinance at one point. Um, but the 2% not really. So, if you look at it currently, um, 2% of our current budget is 16 million. Um, that's a lot of money. Granted, 9 million according to our previous auditor is a lot of debt for a tiny little town. So um no we haven't exceeded the 2% but we have gotten close at some points. So according historically,

I'm not a numbers guru, so I'm going to defer to um any additional discussion from the other members of the DRC. I will say the 2% um currently being, you know, 16 million going to 18 million, it is high. Our budget was fairly low in the past. um it just started booming within the last five to six years with all of the growth. So I could get you those numbers. I would just have to go back and grab those for you.

So there's a feeling that the 2% number in the charter is too high.

I don't think it's too high um to me, but I don't know what the attorneys told you. One the one thing I would offer is um what just speaking from past experience uh in local government through 2008 2009 through 2010 numbers that go up can in fact come down uh on uh assess valuations because this is tied I I know I I heard you mention budgets and they have some correlation but these numbers are uh It's 2% of actual taxable value, right? Yeah. Okay. All right. Very good. Um I just mentioned this to someone else today just as an example. You saw it in cities and counties throughout the state back in like what was it 2010 or 11 or what have you. Orange County had to lay off I think 40% of their staff uh when valuation started crashing through the floor. Um and so these valuations if we have a market downturn um could come down substantially. Just a a thought to keep in mind. Um the uh so our total debt right now regardless of whether it's exempt or not is about 9 million.

Yes. Mhm. Now that's total loans whether it's been reduced or not currently is as totals 9 million total outstanding principal correct all. So just to clarify this 2% is of the actual value or the assessed value with um homestead accounted. I read it as taxable property value. So what our ad valorum is based on. So yes, homestead assessed value number we have multiply our adorum against is the same number we're going to multiply the 2%.

Correct. So I think Kurt the previous discussion was does the 2% need to be in there or not? It was added in 2015. I think that was this discussion not if it needed to be changed but that can also be a discussion if you wish.

Yeah that was my only thought was that if we're going to change a number would be that change anything it would be to change the number. And I understand your point about values potentially coming down and people being laid off, but that may not have been a bad thing either. Um, when you don't have the income um to incur more debt because you're talking about twice, you know, you made the comment that we've been told that for n having $9 million in debt for such a small town is a pretty big number and we're talking about a 50% increase in that before we actually get to the debt limit. I will say some of it is dropping off. Um the school bond will be dropping off in 2027 which that was a huge amount. I mean there's 2 million left. That's a huge chunk that comes out. It's about a 600 almost $600,000 annual payment that we make that's dropping off. um the refinancing of the um HVAC uh for collateral and the dehumidifiers and like additional work that will be dropping off next fiscal year. Um some of it will be coming off in 2032, which is in just a few years. So, a lot of this debt will be dropping off. Um hopefully we don't accumulate any more debt, right? That's the goal. Um but in order to fund certain things in the town that we can't fund through operating debt is where it's at and unfortunately we are you know hitting our 2% right now. So we do need to pay this off. So if you're looking to reduce it I will say the town cannot sustain cannot pay for certain items out of its operating income currently. We can look for grants but those do take some time.

So please take that into consideration. But if we dropped it to 1 and a.5% then that number becomes 14 a.5 million. That's still above the 9 million which you just said several things on that is going to drop off. That buffer is going to become even bigger.

Yes. Um to give some perspective the the water plant treatment um will be costing about $6 million. If we the additional if we cannot get grants for that, we'll have to fund that. We're already at nine and that's looking prior to 2032 before any of this drops. So, you know, we may not have enough debt available within the 2% or the 1 and a.5% to be able to fund that unless the electors vote to go above that, whatever you you all decide. So, just playing devil's advocate here. I don't know that I'm inclined to um support changing the 2%, but I think the discussion is whether the 2% should be in the ordinance or not. And I think it's a good measure to have in the ordinance so that we're being accountable for what our debt and our acquisitions are. So that's that's just going to be my inclination is not to alter the percentage or or remove it.

And don't get my questions as I'm supporting it either. I'm just trying to clarify it and understand it. Um what I would like to do is there's a lot of information here that we've been kind of waiting on and hadn't seen. Is there a chance we could maybe table this one and have some discussion with some folks because the folks that did the last charter review clearly had put a lot of thought into this? I looked at some of their minutes from their meetings. There was a lot of discussion about this whereas we've really haven't talked about it. So to mess with it concerns me, but it also here 9 million and we have it, you know, we're looking at an $18 million limit. That is a pretty big check to be uh potentially rating against the residents of Oakland if it's not necessary. So I just would personally like to maybe when we convene next time to talk about this.

I'm agreeable to that. I support that. And thank you for putting this together because this was this has got a lot of information in here and definitely generate. So, of course, is there any rules about us getting with her about specifics of it offline or how's that work from the sunshine rules? You can talk to her individually, just not two or more of you

at the same time. Uh, committee members, thank you very much. That was uh everything we wanted to cover here. I think uh uh with that one item uh with a little bit uh more review with regard to everything else, we've gotten uh clear direction on everything. We are going to be going ahead and uh for your next meeting putting together uh what will be a draft of um both charter or pardon me uh charter and ballot language and a draft final report from the committee pending of course uh any addressing of of that last matter there for uh any potential addition in there. But we want to move you all in the direction so you can uh start having a uh final product to have worked up. So we will make that happen and get it to you.

And just for your comfort when you're writing this up for next meeting, I'm leaning towards not changing it. And I don't think I sense anybody else was willing to change it. So unless there's a compelling argument, change it then probably. And two things to to keep in mind on that actually. One is remember that debt is subject to market forces at some point if uh if the town or any municipality wanted to borrow way more than it could sustain. Nobody's going to want to give them money. Uh so I I have seen cities be told, "Nah, we're not going to finance that." because they they look and I'm not saying town of Oakland is not in that situation right now. I'm just saying there are there are market feedback loops on uh municipalities getting themselves into too much debt. Uh another thing to keep in mind uh remember is ultimately uh even within these thresholds here it's uh it's not automatic that staff can just run out and borrow many more millions of dollars comes before the town commission for them to make a decision about that. That was my my question is what is the process for incurring new debt within the town? Is it an ordinance that goes red twice and similar like they do for

Yeah, incur incurring debt is typically done by bond resolution. Um and there is a lot uh there's a lot of work and process going into that beforehand. It's not the type of thing that would just pop up on a random agenda without a whole lot of work beforehand because um there is work in either securing a a financing source whether that is for water and wastewater uh state revolving fund loans or USDA loans or for anything else. uh either going through the process of uh doing a borrowing from a bank, which is technically uh still a bond, or going out on the open market for uh bonds. It's not a we just think it up one night and borrow money. There's a lot of uh paperwork for governments to do that and there'll be a lot of lead time for people to know that there's going to be more debt

and it involves a commission vote and public comment.

That's exactly right. And actually one additional thing to to keep in mind. Um whenever you have a municipality uh incurring debt that pledges what's called the full faith and credit of the municipality and that debt is going to be longer than a two-year period under the Florida Constitution, it has to go on the ballot. So big uh big borrowings that a municipality would be doing that the taxpayers are going to be directly on the hook for. Florida law already requires that those go on the ballot. We had one a couple years ago in uh actually we just had one in Mland just last year for their new library. We had one famously or infamously in Winter Park uh a number of years ago for their new library. uh the Winter Park one was controversial. So, but both of those involved debt that had to actually go on the ballot pursuant to that state constitutional provision. So, the ability of a municipality to borrow against uh the general fund to borrow against the full faith and credit against uh advorum taxes is very constrained such that it generally has to go on a ballot anyways. much more often the debt you end up having is debt that is secured by for example water and wastewater fund revenues

and I will add to that just to elaborate upon some additional safeguards uh that apply to borrowing there is uh a saying among local government attorneys that you can't mortgage town hall um and so there are municipalities are not allowed to go out and incur debt by placing mortgage on their critical infrastructure and um property or uh items that the town really cannot survive without. So there is there should never be any scenario where you know the town is saying we can't pay back our mortgage on town hall and we're going to be kicked out of our own property.

Okay. If there's no additional comment from the committee then we will look to public comment. We actually have someone other than a committee member here today. Okay. And right. Okay. So, moving forward with our discussion items for the next meeting. Um, I think attorney Vel has has indicated that we will receive the draft ballot summaries with the title and summaries based on the votes that were taken today and the recommendations voted on. And then we will have some additional discussion as it relates to the debt limitation. And so if there's any information that we may need the town to provide us to have that discussion, we can reach out to them directly. Um, having no other business or any other comments, believe we can move to adjourn at 5:18.