Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

WE'RE READY. GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY, AND WELCOME TO OUR FIRST WORKSHOP THAT WE HAVE.

[Call to Order]

[00:00:06]

IT'S AT 10 A.M.

AUGUST 23RD, MONDAY.

AND I'M GOING TO ASK OUR CITY CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU. AND IF WE CAN ALL STAND AND RECITE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND I AM GOING TO ASK OUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER TO START US OFF, PLEASE.

ALLEGIANCE] THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND WE HAVE A HYBRID TODAY, SO THE COMMISSION, WE WILL DO THE SAME THING AS WHEN WE SPEAK.

WE WILL, WELL WE DON'T HAVE OUR THINGS HERE AS WE USUALLY DO IN THE WORKSHOPS.

SO JUST. PUT YOUR LIGHT ON, LET ME KNOW THAT YOU WANT TO SPEAK, I'LL WRITE IT DOWN AND THEN ASK YOU TO TURN YOUR MICS OFF, BECAUSE THIS WAY THE MICROPHONES ARE MORE POWERFUL TO BE ABLE TO HEAR WHOEVER'S SPEAKING.

COMMISSIONER GELIN IS JOINING US REMOTELY THROUGH TEAMS. SO COMMISSIONER GELIN, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO RAISE YOUR HANDS IN THE CHAT ON TEAMS, AND I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU FROM THERE, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ADO.

WE ARE GOING TO OUR CITY MANAGER, OUR CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE FOR CONSTRUCTION SIGNAGE.

[1. Construction Fence Signage]

THANK YOU AND GOOD MORNING, MADAM MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS, WELCOME TO MONDAY MORNING WORKSHOP. THE FIRST ITEM THAT WE HAVE IS A DISCUSSION FOR THE COMMISSION THIS MORNING IS ABOUT CONSTRUCTION FENCE.

I'M SORRY. IT'S REALLY ABOUT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SIGNAGE.

WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR YOU THIS MORNING THAT KATHLEEN GUNN IS GOING TO SHARE IN A MINUTE. THE PURPOSE OF THE DISCUSSION REGARDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SIGNAGE IS, IS REALLY THIS.

WE ARE GETTING READY TO INVEST TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO THE COMMUNITY ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS. AND WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE ARE, YOU KNOW, MAKING THEM AWARE OF THE INVESTMENTS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS APPROVED AS WE GO FORWARD.

AND WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE REPRESENTING THAT IN REALLY IN THE PROPER WAY.

AND THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION IN THE PAST ABOUT HOW THE SIGNS SHOULD LOOK.

AND AS WE COME FORWARD WITH SOME NEW CONCEPTS, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE SHOW THOSE TO YOU AND THAT THERE'S BUY IN FROM THE COMMISSION IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, JUST THE LOOK OF THE SIGNAGE MOVING FORWARD.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALWAYS PUT UP SIGNS.

THE BIGGEST ISSUES IN THE PAST WITH THE SIGNS HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, WHOSE NAME IS ON THEM AND MAKING SURE THAT THE NAMES ARE RIGHT AFTER ELECTIONS AND THINGS.

BUT THE SIGNAGE HAS NOT BEEN REALLY ANYTHING TO WRITE HOME ABOUT.

THEY'VE BEEN PRETTY BASIC SIGNS AND THEY DON'T REALLY COMMUNICATE THE MESSAGE OF, YOU KNOW, THE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT INTO THE COMMUNITY THAT THE COMMISSION IS MAKING THROUGH ITS APPROVALS OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

AND WE JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE RESIDENTS UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH MONEY THE CITY THROUGH THE COMMISSION IS REALLY INVESTING IN THE COMMUNITY ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS.

AND THE SIGNAGE IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO PUT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S NAME AND THE COMMISSION OUT THERE AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S BEING INVESTED.

AND AND JUST MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LETTING PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE WORK THAT GETS DONE HERE IS ARTICULATED INTO IMPROVEMENT IN THE COMMUNITY AND AND BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE, BETTER PARKS, BETTER FACILITIES, ALL OF THE BETTER THINGS THAT THE CITY IS IS DOING AT THIS POINT. AND SO WITH THAT, I'D ASK MS. GUNN IF SHE WOULD START UP THE PRESENTATION.

AND WE'LL JUST GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM YOU SO THAT WE CAN GET A BETTER SIGN PROGRAM IN PLACE GOING FORWARD.

OK, THANK YOU, MIKE.

GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COMMISSION, WELCOME BACK.

AS MIKE DISCUSSED, WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS AND RENDERINGS OF WHAT THESE MIGHT LOOK LIKE SO THAT WE CAN GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM YOU ALL ON WHAT YOU MIGHT PREFER.

AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, WHEN WE HAVE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, WE REALLY ONLY PUT UP SIGNAGE WHEN IT'S REQUIRED BY A GRAND TOUR.

SO THIS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, MORE OF AN EFFORT TO GET THE WORD OUT TO THE CITY RESIDENTS LIKE MIKE WAS SAYING ABOUT ALL THE THINGS THAT WE'RE INVESTING HERE.

AND WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS A FREESTANDING ALUMINUM SIGN AND THERE'S TWO OPTIONS.

WELL, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONE THAT SHOWS A PICTURE OF WHAT THE COMPLETED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

THE NAME OF THE PROJECT, THE CITY'S LOGO, WHEN IT WAS EXPECTED TO BE DONE, ANY GRANT

[00:05:01]

FUNDING OR SPONSORSHIPS.

AND THEN THERE'S PHOTOS OF EACH OF YOU AS THE TAMARAC CITY COMMISSION.

THE THE OTHER SIGN IS THE SAME, BUT JUST NARRATIVELY DEPICTS WHAT THE PROJECT WOULD BE.

THESE SIGNS WOULD BE PREDOMINANTLY IN UTILITY PROJECTS WHERE THERE WAS SPACE FOR THEM OR SMALLER PROJECTS WHERE WE WOULD JUST WANT THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW THAT THE CITY'S INVESTING. THE RENDERINGS.

YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON HOW MANY AMENITIES ARE IN THE PARK OR WHATEVER THE CAPITOL PROJECT IS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE COMPLETELY DEPICTED IN THE PHOTO, BUT IT WOULD BE A PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THE COMPLETED PROJECT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

AND THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF SCOPE AND HOW IT WOULD APPEAR.

ON A PROJECT SITE, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A MESH VINYL BANNER WHICH WOULD BE AFFIXED TO A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AND THEY COULD BE BUILT IN DIFFERENT SIZES.

BUT WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF A 40 BY, 40 FOOT BY 12 FOOT.

AND AGAIN, YOU SEE THE SAME RENDITION PICTORIAL AND THE COMMISSION PICTURES, THE LOGO, ALL OF THAT, AND THEN THE NARRATIVE.

SO WE WOULD EXPECT THAT WE WOULD HAVE BOTH OPTIONS DEPENDING ON THE PROJECT AND SCOPE.

YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD BE A GOOD ONE FOR CAPORELLA PROJECT.

YOU KNOW, WHERE WE HAVE THE.

THE PARKING LOT FENCED OFF.

AND THAT'S JUST WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IN REAL LIFE.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE PRICING.

SO OBVIOUSLY THE THE FREE STANDING SIGNS ARE CHEAPER AND THE MORE YOU BUY, THE CHEAPER THEY ARE, AND THE VINYL BANNER ONES ARE A LITTLE MORE COSTLY.

AND AGAIN, BUT YOU DO GET SOME BENEFIT FROM BUYING MORE THAN ONE.

SO THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE HAD TO TO SHARE WITH YOU.

AND WE WERE JUST LOOKING FOR YOUR SUGGESTIONS AND INPUT, MOSTLY ON WHETHER YOU LIKE YOUR PICTURES OR YOUR NAMES ON THE SIGNS, WHETHER YOU LIKE THE PICTURE OF THE PROJECT, ON THE SIGNS OR THE DESCRIPTION, THAT KIND OF THING.

SO WE CAN GO FROM THERE.

THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. AND COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

THANK YOU. HI, KATHLEEN.

HELLO. I LIKE THE IDEA OF A PICTURE TO GIVE THE COMMUNITY SOME SENSE OF WHAT THERE'S GOING TO BE THERE. MY ONLY CONCERN WOULD BE THAT THE PROJECT DOESN'T CHANGE FROM WHAT THE PICTURE LOOKS LIKE, AND I DON'T KNOW AT THE TIME THE SIGN WOULD GO UP.

IS THAT ETCHED IN STONE OR IS THERE A POSSIBILITY IT WOULD CHANGE? YOU KNOW, JACK STRAIN IS ON TEAMS AS WELL, AND I THINK HE'S PROBABLY BETTER ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

SOMETIMES WE HAVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PICTURES THAT DO CHANGE IF IT'S A DESIGN BUILD PROJECT. BUT I'LL TURN THAT OVER TO JACK SO THAT HE CAN ANSWER IT.

YEAH, I GUESS THAT WOULD BE IN DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO HOW EARLY YOU WANTED THE SIGN UP.

IF YOU WANTED UP AT THE VERY BEGINNING, WHEN WE AWARD THE PROJECTS, THEN WE WOULD ONLY HAVE A CONCEPT. AND MY MY CONCERN ABOUT THE PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION IS THAT IF IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED PROJECT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ALL THE FEATURES IN THERE.

AND I THINK THE NARRATIVE REALLY DOES A MUCH BETTER JOB OF DETAILING ALL OF THE ASPECTS THAT WOULD BE IN A IN A COMPLICATED AND A LOT OF OUR PROJECTS AND VERY FEW OF OUR PROJECTS ARE SIMPLE AS THAT.

SO THEY USUALLY HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT CONTENT.

AND TO GET THEM ALL PICTORIALLY REPRESENTATIVE, REPRESENTED AND THEN A LARGE ENOUGH MANNER THAT ANYONE CAN SEE IT UNLESS THEY'RE RIGHT UP ON IT.

I THINK WOULD WOULD BE DIFFICULT.

AND SO I THINK THAT THE NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT IS IS PROBABLY THE BEST, BECAUSE IT'LL SAY ALL THE FEATURES.

AND LIKE YOU SAID, WE CAN GET THAT UP EARLY AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WHATEVER RENDITION WE PUT UP OF AN AMPHITHEATER.

AND WHAT ACTUALLY GETS BUILT IS REALLY MUCH DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE ORIGINALLY HAD, YOU KNOW, PICTURED AND STUFF.

AND SO LIKE YOU SAID, WE WOULDN'T BE MISREPRESENTING TO THE TO THE PUBLIC.

SO I THINK I THINK THE NARRATIVE IS THE EASIEST WAY AND THE MOST PRACTICAL WAY, AND IT GIVES YOU ALL OF THE ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT.

YEAH, THAT WAS MY CONCERN.

SO JACK IS KIND OF VERIFIED, I THINK WE WOULD BE MUCH BETTER OFF BECAUSE WE KNOW OUR PROJECTS CHANGE AS THEY MOVE FORWARD AND WHATEVER HAPPENS.

SO I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA.

[00:10:02]

I THINK IT'S A NICE IDEA TO HAVE THE COMMISSION'S PICTURES ON THERE AND MAYBE WITH DISTRICT, WHATEVER DISTRICT, DEPENDING ON HOW LONG THESE SIGNS ARE GOING TO BE THERE.

AS WE KNOW, THE VICE MAYOR POSITION CHANGES.

SO MAYBE JUST DISTRICT WITH OUR PICTURES, BUT I THINK THAT'S A NICE IDEA.

THANK YOU, JACK. THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU.

AND I AM NOT HEARING FROM THE GENTLEMAN ON THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME.

SO I GUESS THEY HAVE NO COMMENTS AND I'LL JUST SHARE MINE.

I THINK A HYBRID KIND OF.

I THINK IT MAY BE THE PICTURE OF THE CONCEPT AND THEN THE NARRATIVE THAT SAYS SHOULD WILL INCLUDE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, KIND OF LIKE THE WAY YOU HAVE, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT WILL.

DEPENDING ON THE TIMING OF PUTTING IT UP AND PERSONALLY, NAMES ARE FINE.

I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A NEED FOR OUR PICTURES ALL OVER THIS.

THE ONE THING THAT I THINK THE MESH BANNERS LOOK REALLY NICE ON BIG PROJECTS.

BUT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE FINANCIAL.

IF THERE'S A BIG FINANCIAL IMPACT WITH THEM, SO WE MIGHT BE BETTER OFF WITH THE THE ALUMINUM ONES AND THE ALUMINUM ONES.

YOU CAN ALSO PUT MORE TOWARDS THE RIGHT OF WAY WHERE PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE IT BETTER, WHERE SOMETIMES THE FENCING IS MORE ON A PROPERTY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S. IT'S A HARD CALL FOR IT DEPENDS ON THE PROJECT.

SO FOR ME, THAT WOULD BE WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE DO A COMBINATION.

I THINK WE CAN. YOU KNOW, AS THE PROJECTS COME UP AND WE SEE WHAT THE COSTS INVOLVED ARE AND THE VISIBILITY, WE WOULD DETERMINE WHAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE, BECAUSE WE REALLY WANT PEOPLE TO SEE WHAT WE'RE TRYING.

I THINK IS A GREAT IDEA. SO PEOPLE SHOULD SEE WHAT'S GOING ON, BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME GREAT PROJECTS THAT ARE IN PLAY ALREADY AND THAT ARE GOING TO COME OUT OF THE GROUND OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS AT LEAST.

SO. YES.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. THANKS, MAYOR.

WELL, CITY STAFF, I DON'T THINK WE'VE GIVEN YOU THAT MUCH OF DIRECTION, BUT BECAUSE OF THAT, SINCE NO ONE ELSE IS SPEAKING.

DO WHAT YOU FIND IS BEST BASED ON THE COMMENTARY YOU'VE HEARD.

OK, THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'RE NOW MOVING TO THE SECOND ITEM, WHICH IS POLITICAL SIGNAGE, WHICH WILL BE PRESENTED

[2. Political Signage]

BY MAXINE CALLOWAY, I THOUGHT I SAW HER, IS SHE? YOU DID? YOU DID.

GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COMMISSION.

AND I DECIDED TO RUN BACK TO MY OFFICE SO I COULD REMOVE MY MASK AND JUST HAVE A GOOD DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC.

LET ME GO AHEAD AND SHARE MY SCREEN.

OK, SO EVERYONE IS SEEING THE PRESENTATION.

YES. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, MAXINE CALLOWAY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. THIS MORNING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AND THEN HOPEFULLY GET SOME DIRECTION ON POLITICAL SIGNAGE, REGULATIONS AND HOW OUR CODE I TREAT THOSE SIGNS AND ULTIMATELY WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION LIKE TO DO GOING FORWARD WITH POLITICAL SIGNS AND ALL TEMPORARY SIGNS. ALL RIGHT, JUST SOME BACKGROUND IN TERMS OF WHAT WE ARE EXPECTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS MORNING.

OUR POLITICAL SIGNAGE IS REGULATED BY THE CITY CODE SECTION 10-4.10 OF OUR NEW SIGN CODE REGULATES IT AND IT'S REGULATED UNDER TEMPORARY SIGNS.

THAT WAY IS SUBJECT TO AN UNIFORM REGULATION WITHOUT CONSIDERATION AS TO THE CONTENT, AND THIS IS FOR A FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAW.

SO FOR THIS MORNING'S DISCUSSION, WE WILL HIGHLIGHT A FEW THINGS.

WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT EXISTING PRECEDENTS FOR SIGNS AS IT RELATES TO LOCAL AND FEDERAL CASE LAW AND AS WELL AS OUR ORDINANCE.

WANT TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE CITY'S EXISTING REGULATIONS AS IT RELATES TO TEMPORARY SIGNS AND POLITICAL SIGNS AND PROVIDE SOME EXAMPLES OF THE EXISTING MUNICIPALITIES, WHAT IT IS THAT THEY'RE DOING.

WE WANT TO OBTAIN CONSENSUS FROM YOU THIS MORNING, AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, AND PUT TOGETHER A STRATEGIC APPROACH IN TERMS OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD, WHETHER THERE'LL BE ANY ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS AND JUST ESTABLISHED DIRECTION MOVING FORWARD.

SO JUST SOME BACKGROUND OR SOME CONTEXT FOR THE DISCUSSION ON STRICT SCRUTINY AND WHAT THAT MEANS AS IT RELATES TO POLITICAL SIGN.

SO WE KNOW THAT SIGNAGE IS CONSIDERED A FORM OF EXPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH, AND IT'S PROTECTED UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION.

AND SO STRICT SCRUTINY IS A FORM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW THAT IS UTILIZED BY MUNICIPALITIES TO

[00:15:04]

DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CERTAIN LAWS.

IN ORDER FOR A CITY TO PASS A STRICT SCRUTINY ANALYSIS, THE LAW MUST HAVE BEEN PASSED TO FURTHER A COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST AND TO BE NARROWLY TAILORED TO ACHIEVE THAT INTEREST. AND SO SIGN CODES MUST BE WRITTEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH STRICT SCRUTINY GUIDELINES, AND IT MUST ALLOW FOR THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

THERE HAS TO BE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

THERE HAS TO BE UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT, WHICH MEANS IF A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS TO READ THE SIGN IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER A REGULATION APPLIES, THEN THE ORDINANCE PROVISION IS LIKELY SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE.

SO YOU CAN'T ENFORCE BASED NECESSARILY ON THE CONTENT.

SO, AGAIN, IF AN ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS TO READ THE SIGN TO ENFORCE, THEN THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THAT. AND THEN IT HAS TO BE CONTENT NEUTRAL, WHICH MEANS THE REGULATION.

OR THE ENFORCEMENT HAS TO BE BASED ON EXAMPLES SUCH AS THE SIZE OR THE SHAPE OR THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN.

THOSE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF CONTENT NEUTRALITY.

SO JUST WANT TO SHARE THIS MORNING SOME CASE LAW THAT HAS ESTABLISHED A TONE OF HOW MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD REGULATE SIGNS, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE CITY OF TAMARAC SIGNAGE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE LAWS.

THE MOST RECENT AND THE MOST IMPACTFUL IS THE 2015 US COURT DECISION.

THAT'S REED VERSUS TOWN OF GILBERT.

THIS IS IN ARIZONA, WHERE THE US SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY STRUCK DOWN THE TOWN SIGN CODE, THE TOWN WAS REGULATING SIGNS BASED ON THE CONTENT.

THEY HAD DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, SUCH AS IDEOLOGICAL, POLITICAL SIGNS.

AND SO THE COURT THE COURT FOUND THAT THAT WAS DID NOT MEET THE STRICT SCRUTINY TEST.

AND THEN YOU HAVE THE CITY OF CLEARWATER AND GRANITE STATE OUTDOOR ADVER..

IN THAT COURT CASE, THE COURT FOUND OR DETERMINED THAT THE TIME LIMITATION IMPOSED IN THE SIGN IN THIS CASE, 60 DAYS, THAT THAT WAS NOT REASONABLE TO CONTROL ESTHETICS.

SOME OTHER CASE LAW IN 1994, THIS IS CITY OF LADUE VS.

GILLEO, WHERE THE CITY'S CODE PROHIBITED HOMEOWNERS FROM DISPLAYING ANY SIGNS EXCEPT RESIDENTIAL IDENTIFICATION, SFETY HAZARD AND FOR SALE SIGNS NO LARGER THAN ONE SQUARE FOOT. AND THE COURT HELD THAT RESIDENTIAL SIGNS WERE A PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT MEDIUM OF COMMUNICATION, THAT THE CITY'S DEFENSE, THAT THE ORDINANCE PREVENTED THE UNCONTROLLED PROLIFERATION OF SIGNS.

THAT WAS NOT PERSUASIVE ENOUGH.

IN CITY OF NEPTUNE BEACH.

IN THAT CASE, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CITY SIGN ORDINANCE LIMITED THE DISPLAY OF ELECTION AND POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGNS FOR 14 DAYS.

AND THAT LIMITATION AS WELL WAS FOUND NOT TO BE CONTENT NEUTRAL.

AND IN 2014, THE COURT FOUND THAT THE CITY OF CLAREMONT IMPERMISSIBLY REGULATED POLITICAL SIGNS DIFFERENTLY THAN COMMERCIAL SIGNS.

AND THEREFORE, THE SIGN CODE WAS AN IMPERMISSIBLE CONTENT BASED REGULATION ON FREE SPEECH. SO AS IT RELATES TO THE CITY OF TAMARAC SIGN CODE, I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT TAMARAC'S NEWLY ADOPTED SIGN CODE, WHICH WE ADOPTED IN 2018, THAT THAT DOES MEET THE STRICT SCRUTINY TEST AND ITS CONTENT NEUTRAL ON ITS FACE.

THE CITY OF TAMARAC REREGULATE OUR POLITICAL SIGNS UNDER THE TEMPORARY SIGN CATEGORY, SPECIFICALLY FOR POLITICAL SIGNS.

WE USE THE YARD SIGN PROVISION BECAUSE MOST OF THOSE SIGNS, OF COURSE, ARE ERECTED IN A YARD BASED ON A ZONING DISTRICT, WHETHER IT BE RESIDENTIAL OR NONRESIDENTIAL.

AND SO I HAVE LISTED ON THE SLIDE THE REGULATION THAT WE USE FOR THE POLITICAL SIGN SHALL NOT EXCEED MORE THAN FOUR SIGNS PER PROPERTY AT ANY ONE TIME, SHALL NOT EXCEED FOUR SQUARE FEET PER SIGN.

AND IN THE AGGREGATE, AND IT'S THE 24 SQUARE FEET TOTAL SHALL NOT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF FORTY TWO INCHES AND SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

AND IT CAN BE DISPLAYED ON THE PROPERTY FOR A PERIOD NO GREATER THAN 90 CALENDAR DAYS.

AND IT ALSO INCLUDES A SETBACK.

AND THIS IS FOR ANY YARD SIGN, ANY TEMPORARY YARD SIGN, NOT NECESSARILY POLITICAL SIGN.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THIS SLIDE, BECAUSE THIS IS A PROVISION THAT WE USE FOR ENFORCEMENT. THESE ARE THE REGULATIONS FOR THE NONRESIDENTIAL.

SO THIS IS IN ALL MIXED USE, OUR COMMERCIAL, ALL OUR OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS AND SOME OF THE SAME TYPE OF REGULATION SHALL NOT EXCEED MORE THAN FOUR SIGNS PER PROPERTY AT ANY ONE TIME, SHALL NOT EXCEED 24 SQUARE FEET TOTAL YARD SIGN AREA ON ANY PROPERTY.

WE HAVE A GREATER HEIGHT FOR NONRESIDENTIAL.

SO IT'S SIX FEET. AND IF YOU'RE IN THE SIGHT TRIANGLE, THEN IT'S 42, NOT TO EXCEED 42

[00:20:02]

INCHES. SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

AND ONCE AGAIN, YOU HAVE A LIMITATION OF 90 DAYS PER CALENDAR YEAR FOR A SIGN TO BE DISPLAYED. SO AS IT RELATES TO DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY CAN INSTITUTE A BOND AND A LOT OF CITIES WHO HAVE NOT UPDATED THEIR SIGN CODE, THEY WOULD HAVE A BOND FOR POLITICAL OR TEMPORARY SIGNS IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE REMOVAL AND THE REGISTRATION OF THOSE SIGNS. AND I THINK THAT DISCUSSION CAME UP IN THE PAST AS TO WHETHER THE CITY OF TAMARAC WOULD INSTITUTE THAT AND IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE'D LIKE TO DO.

THESE ARE ALL THE SIGNS THAT THAT WOULD IMPACT.

WE WOULD HAVE TO SECURE A BOND FOR ALL TEMPORARY SIGNS, AND WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO COMPREHENSIVELY CHANGE OUR SIGN CODE FOR ALL TEMPORARY SIGNS.

SO YOUR REAL ESTATE, YOUR OPEN HOUSE, YOUR GARAGE YARD SALE, YOUR CONSTRUCTION SIGNS, ALL OF THESE SIGNS THAT ARE LISTED ON THIS SLIDE WOULD BE IMPACTED IN THE EVENT THE CITY WANTED TO TAKE A DIFFERENT DIRECTION AND REQUIRE A BOND EVENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY SIGNS. AND JUST WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU JUST SOME COMPARISON WHAT WE HAVE NOTICED IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND WE OFTEN USE CORAL SPRINGS BECAUSE THEY'RE IMMEDIATELY TO OUR NORTH AND OFTEN TIMES WE SHARE THE SAME REGULATIONS.

AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE CITY OF TAMARAC HAS IN 2018, WHERE WE DO NOT REQUIRE BOND WITH THE CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS, THEIR [INAUDIBLE] ADOPTED IN 2019.

SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH REED VERSUS THE TOWN OF GILBERT AND THEN THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, WHO IS REQUIRING A BOND.

HOWEVER, THEIR SIGN CODE IS OUTDATED.

IT WAS LAST ADOPTED IN 2009, AND SO IT'S NOT UPDATED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW US SUPREME COURT RULING.

AND THEN FINALLY, WE DID RECEIVE SOME COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY OF SUNRISE.

THEY INSTITUTED CERTAIN REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO POLITICAL SIGNS AS IT RELATES TO PULL IN LOCATIONS, PRIMARILY PROPERTIES THAT THEY OWN AND PROPERTIES THAT THEY DO NOT OWN AS WELL. AND TO BE FRANK, WE'RE NOT SURE HOW THEY'RE ABLE TO DO THIS SINCE WHILE THEY ARE ABLE TO HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF FREEDOM TO REGULATE THEIR OWN PROPERTY.

WE'RE NOT CERTAIN HOW THEY'RE ABLE TO REGULATE PROPERTY THAT'S NOT OWNED BY THEM.

BUT IN THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY, THEY REQUIRE POLITICAL SIGNS TO BE ON HOLD SITES A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, REMOVE WITHIN TWO DAYS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SIGNS IN AND OUT OF RIGHT OF WAY. AND THIS IS INSTITUTED BY THEM THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY THAT COMES OUT OF THEIR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

BUT WE'RE NOT CERTAIN OTHER ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT VIOLATING THE MOST RECENT US SUPREME COURT RULING. SO JUST SOME KEY TAKEAWAYS AS WE END THE DISCUSSION.

WE JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE CITY SIGN CODE MUST STILL REMAIN CONTENT NEUTRAL REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO GOING FORWARD THIS MORNING, AND THAT IS TO SIGN CODE CANNOT BE DISCRIMINATORY BASED ON SIGN TYPE.

SO IF WE ARE GOING TO MAKE ANY CHANGES, IT WOULD HAVE TO IMPACT ALL TEMPORARY SIGNS THAT IS IN THE CODE AND ALL TEMPORARY SIGN SHOULD BE GOVERNED IN UNIFORMITY, INCLUDING ENFORCEMENT. SO AT THIS TIME, I WILL ENTERTAIN ANY DISCUSSION WE HAVE OR ANY DIRECTION THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE AS IT RELATES TO TEMPORARY SIGNS.

VICE MAYOR.

I JUST HAVE A QUESTION, MS. MAXINE, WHAT PROMPTED THIS REGULATION? OR THEREOF? YEAH. THE MAYOR WANTED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AS IT RELATES TO POLITICAL SIGNS AND TEMPORARY SIGNS, SO WE WANTED TO BRING IT TO YOU THIS MORNING AS SOON AS WE GOT BACK FROM RECESS. CITY MANAGER.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO ADD, VICE MAYOR, THAT DURING ANY GIVEN ELECTION SEASON, WE RECEIVE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT POLITICAL SIGNAGE.

IT IS PROBABLY THE SINGLE MOST COMPLAINED ABOUT SIGNAGE SUBJECT THAT WE DEAL WITH AND.

YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE COMPLAINTS ARE VALID BECAUSE THERE ARE SIGNS IN THE CITY RIGHTS OF WAY, THE MEDIANS THERE ON PROPERTY WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE THE PERMISSION AND THEN SOME OF THEM ARE NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE AND THEY'RE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THEY HAVE THE OWNER'S PERMISSION.

BUT WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME RUNNING DOWN THESE COMPLAINTS ABOUT POLITICAL SIGNAGE.

[00:25:05]

AND I MEAN, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS OUR CODE OFFICERS HAVE OTHER AND SOMETIMES MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO BE DOING IN THE COMMUNITY THAN TO DETERMINE WHETHER A VOTE FOR, YOU KNOW, SO-AND-SO SUCH CANDIDATE IS IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT.

AND SO AS FAR AS REGULATING IT IS CONCERNED, IF THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO DO IT, THEN WE'RE DOING IT. THAT MAKES IT MORE VISIBLE FOR PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT THE SIGNS ARE APPROPRIATE AND THAT THEY'RE WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE.

THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND TO THE CODE STAFF FOR CERTAIN, AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT VIOLATING ANYBODY'S FREEDOMS OF SPEECH.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU.

CITY ATTORNEY. YES, MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COMMISSION TO THE POINT THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IN AND MS. CALLOWAY'S VERY WELL PUT TOGETHER PRESENTATION AND EXPLANATION.

I THINK THE KEY HERE IS TO UNDERSTAND THAT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVE TO TREAT ALL SIGNAGE EQUALLY, WHETHER IT'S COMMERCIAL, NONCOMMERCIAL, POLITICAL, NONPOLITICAL.

AND AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE.

AND BY AND IN DOING SO, RATHER THAN WHILE THE FOCUS HERE IS ON, YOU KNOW, FOR LACK OF A BETTER DESCRIPTION, POLITICAL SIGNS UNDER OUR CODE, THEY'RE ACTUALLY CONSIDERED TO BE TEMPORARY SIGNS.

SO THE POINT IS THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO REGULATE OR RESTRICT OR SEEK TO RESTRICT WHAT WE ARE COMMONLY DESCRIBING AS POLITICAL SIGNS, WE HAVE TO APPLY THOSE REGULATIONS EQUALLY AND ACROSS THE BOARD TO ALL TEMPORARY SIGNS.

AND SO THAT INCLUDES A LARGER CATEGORY THAN JUST WHAT WE WOULD POTENTIALLY THINK OR CONSIDER POLITICAL SIGNS.

WE DO HAVE A LOT OF REGULATIONS AND GOOD REGULATIONS IN PLACE.

BUT AS THE MANAGER INDICATED, SOMETIMES IT'S AN ISSUE OF ENFORCEMENT TRACKING DOWN THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THE WHO PLACE THE SIGN.

YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE EXPERIENCED OVER THE YEARS A LOT OF TIMES IS THE CANDIDATE SAYING, WELL, I DIDN'T PLACE THE SIGN THERE.

ONE OF MY SUPPORTERS DID.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO THE CANDIDATE OR THE CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN THAT THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT BECAUSE IT'S FOR THEIR BENEFIT.

AND AND SO WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS EVERY ELECTION CYCLE.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE REGULATIONS THAT DO RESTRICT HOW FAR IN ADVANCE THEY CAN PLACE THE SIGNS AND THE OVERALL SIZE OF THEM AS THEY RELATE TO BOTH PRIVATE PROPERTY AND IN PARTICULAR, WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL.

OUR CODE DOES ALLOW FOR LARGER SIGNS ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

THE BIG ISSUE THAT I THINK THAT WE EXPERIENCE AS ALL MUNICIPALITIES DO IS THE PROLIFERATION OF SIGNS ON EMPTY LOTS.

AND IN TRACKING DOWN WHO WHO THE OWNER OF THOSE LOTS ARE.

AND DID THE CANDIDATE GET THE PERMISSION OF THE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO PLACE THE SIGN IN THAT LOCATION? BECAUSE IT'S IT'S IRONIC THAT ALL FIVE CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR A PARTICULAR OFFICE ALL HAVE SIGNS ON A PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.

YOU WOULD THINK THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE EITHER SUPPORTING ONE CANDIDATE OR ANOTHER, BUT NOT NECESSARILY ALL.

SO THAT OBVIOUSLY RAISES AN ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S AUTHORIZATION TO PLACE THOSE SIGNS ON THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION.

AND IT'S TIME CONSUMING.

IT TAKES TIME TO TRACK DOWN WHO THAT OWNER IS.

A LOT OF TIMES IT'S THE PROPERTIES, PARTICULAR VACANT ONES ARE OWNED UNDER THE NAME OF A CORPORATION. WE HAVE TRACK DOWN WHOSE REGISTRATION IS AND THEN WHO POTENTIALLY IS THE ACTUAL PROPERTY OWNER OR THE REAL PROPERTY OR THE REAL INDIVIDUAL WHO OR ENTITY THAT HAS THE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND AND REACH OUT TO THEM.

AND FINALLY, AS THE MANAGER INDICATED, THEN THAT TAKES AWAY FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT DOING OTHER THINGS THAT THEY COULD OTHERWISE BE DOING.

BOTTOM LINE, IT'S NOT AN EASY ANSWER AND IT'S FRAUGHT WITH.

I'LL CALL LANDMINES AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE TREATING ALL SIDES EQUALLY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MESSAGE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO CONVEY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO COMMISSIONER GELIN AND THEN COMMISSIONER PLACKO'S ON DECK. COMMISSIONER, YOU'RE ON MUTE.

GOOD MORNING. CITY MANAGER, YOU SAID THAT WE GOT A LOT OF COMPLAINTS FROM RESIDENTS AND A LOT OF HOURS. CAN YOU QUANTIFY THAT? HOW MANY RESIDENT COMPLAINTS HAVE WE GOTTEN? WHAT ARE THE HOURS THAT HAVE BEEN COMMITTED? SINCE YOU'VE SAID THERE'S ALL THESE HOURS AND AND RESIDENTS ARE COMPLAINING.

CAN YOU QUANTIFY THAT? I REALLY I CAN'T QUANTIFY IT.

WE DON'T WE DON'T MEASURE IT THAT WAY.

[00:30:02]

I CAN JUST TELL YOU THAT WE GET A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS.

CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, DURING THE ELECTION SEASON.

AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO IDENTIFY A SIGN AS PROPERLY PLACED, IT WOULD HELP CODE COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANTLY.

[INAUDIBLE] SO HOW DO YOU DEFINE SIGNIFICANT? HOW SIGNIFICANT? I'M SORRY, 10, 20.

YOU SAID A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS.

HOW YOU DEFINE THAT? WHAT'S SIGNIFICANT? I CAN I CAN TELL YOU, COMMISSIONER, THAT WE GET A LOT OF CALLS AND A LOT OF COMPLAINTS.

IS IT IS IT 25? IS IT 50? IS IT A HUNDRED? IS IT 200? DURING THE COURSE OF AN ELECTION SEASON, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN EMAILS, BETWEEN PHONE CALLS, BETWEEN CALLS TO CODE COMPLIANCE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPLAINTS, EVEN FROM THE COMMISSION, I MEAN, IT'S IT'S A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER AND IT'S EVERY DAY DURING AN ELECTION SEASON. OK, AND WHAT IS THE PUBLIC INTEREST WITH THIS LIMITATION WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY? I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER. FOR MS. CALLOWAY. YEAH, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

SAY IT AGAIN. SO SO THERE'S A LIMITATION TO THE NUMBER OF SIGNS.

WHAT IS THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO THIS LIMITATION WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY? WELL. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 90 DAYS COMMISSIONER? THE NUMBER OF LIMITING THE NUMBER OF SIGNS.

ALL THAT IS TO LIMIT THE PROLIFERATION OF SIGNS ON ANY PARTICULAR PROPERTY.

OK. YES SEE.

SO FIRST OF ALL, THE ELECTION SEASON, IN MY VIEW, AS WE ALL KNOW, IS A TEMPORARY SEASON.

AND, YOU KNOW, OUR GOAL IS TO GET CITIZENS ENGAGED IN THE ELECTION PROCESS, TO LET THEM KNOW WHO THE CANDIDATES ARE FOR OFFICE.

IN FACT, AS WE ALL KNOW, THERE'S AN OPEN RACE RIGHT NOW FOR THE CONGRESSIONAL SEAT TO REPLACE [INAUDIBLE] HASTINGS.

THERE'S ABOUT 10 CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR THAT SEAT, MAYBE MORE THAN THAT, 11 I THINK.

AND IN TAMARAC, I'VE ONLY SEEN THE SIGNS OF FOUR PEOPLE.

COMMISSIONER HOLNESS, SHEILA MCCORMICK.

PERRY THURSTON, OUR STATE SENATOR AND THEN [INAUDIBLE].

SO THERE'S NOT A PROLIFERATION OF SIGNS IN TAMARAC NOW.

AND, YOU KNOW, VOTING IS IMPORTANT AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO LET THE COMMUNITY KNOW.

AND GENERALLY, ONCE ELECTION SEASON IS OVER, WE SEE SIGNS GOING DOWN QUITE, QUITE QUICKLY. IF THERE'S NO PROPERTY OWNER OR IF THERE'S A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OWNER THAT OWNS A PROPERTY AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO CONTACT THAT PERSON, YOU JUST SIMPLY REMOVE THE SIGN.

I THINK THIS IS A NON-ISSUE.

I THINK OUR GOAL IS TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT THE ELECTORATE IS ENGAGED.

VOTER TURNOUT IS ALREADY LOW AS IT IS AND SHOULD BE MUCH HIGHER.

AND ALTHOUGH THERE ARE VARIOUS METHODS OF REACHING THE VOTING POPULATION, WHETHER THROUGH EMAIL, TEXTING, MAILERS, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE REACH THE VOTING POPULATION.

USING ALL METHODS AND POLITICAL SIDES IS A GREAT METHOD, WHICH OUR VERY OWN COMMISSIONER MARLON BOLTON, AS YOU QUITE WELL AND HAS HAD A LOT OF SUCCESS IN.

AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS AN ISSUE AT ALL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR OPINIONS, COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

YOU ARE NEXT. THANK YOU.

MAXINE, CAN YOU TELL ME WITH THIS NEW REGULATION? WOULD WOULD WE INCUR ADDITIONAL STAFF AT WHAT COST? NO, THIS REGULATION IS EXISTING, I THINK THE DISCUSSION TODAY WAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE CHANGES TO THE SIGN CODE, AND SO WE WANTED TO SHARE ALL WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN THE IMPACTS IF WE WERE TO CHANGE IT.

THE FACT THAT POLITICAL SIGNS ARE REGULATED AS TEMPORARY SIGNS AND ALSO TO SHOW YOU ALL THE TEMPORARY SIGNS THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BUT THIS REGULATION HAS BEEN ON OUR BOOKS SINCE 2018.

I GUESS WHAT I MEAN IS IF WE CHANGE IT, WHAT ADDITIONAL STAFF WOULD BE REQUIRED? AT WHAT COST? WELL, IF IF WE CHANGE IT, FOR EXAMPLE, TO ACQUIRE A BOND, IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT MANPOWER I THINK FOR STAFF WITH THE REGISTRATION OF SIGNS, BECAUSE IF WE'RE REQUIRING A BOND, IT WOULD BE FOR EVERY TEMPORARY SIGN IN THE SIGN CODE.

AND AS SUCH. REAL ESTATE AGENT OR A CONSTRUCTION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SIGN OR ALL THE OTHER SIGNS THAT I LISTED FOR A GRAND OPENING FOR A BUSINESS.

IF THEY'RE DOING BANNERS OR BALLOONS OR ANY SANDWICH BOARD OR ANY INFLATABLE SIGNS, THEY WOULD ALL WOULD HAVE TO COME INTO OUR OFFICE, REGISTER THAT SIGN, AND PROVIDE A BOND TO

[00:35:03]

ENSURE THAT THE SIGN WOULD BE REMOVED BY A TIME WITHIN THAT 90 DAY PERIOD OR AFTER THAT 90 DAY PERIOD. SO OR IN SOME INSTANCES SHORTER UNDER SOME OTHER TEMPORARY SIGN REGULATION IN THE CODE. SO IT WOULD POTENTIALLY REQUIRE MORE STAFF TIME.

BUT I KNOW FOR CERTAIN IT REQUIRE MORE ADMINISTRATIVE TIME RELATIVE TO REGISTERING THESE PROPERTIES AND POTENTIALLY A BURDEN ON OUR BUSINESSES AS WELL.

WOULD IT REQUIRE MORE CODE OFFICERS IN ORDER TO ENFORCE THIS? THAT'S THAT'S POTENTIAL COMMISSIONER YES, IT PROBABLY WOULD.

OK. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. CITY MANAGER.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO ADD FOR CLARIFICATION TO THE COMMISSION THAT THERE'S NOT A PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY TO TO CHANGE ANYTHING.

I THINK THAT MS. CALLOWAY WOULD WOULD AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE PUT THIS WE PUT THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE TODAY IN PLACE IN 2018 AS A PART OF THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW SIGN CODE.

AND, YOU KNOW, OUR BRINGING THIS TO YOU FOR DISCUSSION IS SOLELY BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE DO RECEIVE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS.

SOME OF THOSE COMPLAINTS ARE VALID, SOME OF THEM ARE NOT.

THERE SEEMS TO BE CONFUSION IN THE COMMUNITY REGARDING WHERE SIGNS ARE ALLOWED AND WHERE THEY'RE NOT. AND TO TO COMMISSIONER GELIN'S POINT REGARDING THE CANDIDATES IN THE ELECTION NOW AND THE PLACEMENT OF SIGNS, THERE ARE THERE ARE SIGNS AT THE CORNER OF ROCK ISLAND ROAD AND COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLAINED ABOUT AND WE'VE EXPLAINED TO BECAUSE THERE'S A PERCEPTION THAT THEY ARE SOMEHOW ON CITY PROPERTY.

AND WE HAVE EXPLAINED TO THE COMPLAINERS THAT THOSE THOSE SIGNS ARE NOT ON CITY PROPERTY.

AND AS SUCH, THE SIGNS ARE WITHIN THE CITY'S SIGN CODE AND THEY ARE WITHIN REGULATION.

AND THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

YOU KNOW, THE AS I SAID, THERE'S NO PROPOSAL AND THERE'S CERTAINLY NO DESIRE TO LIMIT THE, YOU KNOW, THE CANDIDATE'S ABILITY TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES WITH WITH SIGNAGE.

IT'S JUST, AGAIN, A MATTER OF MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE DOING SO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGN CODE, AND THAT IF THEY'RE IF THEY'RE NOT, THAT THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE A PROLIFERATION OF SIGNS IN THE WRONG PLACES AND WE DON'T GET THE COMPLAINTS, BECAUSE THE LAST THING THAT THE CODE OFFICERS WANT TO DO IS HAVE TO GO OUT AND REMOVE SOMEONE'S SIGNS.

AND I THINK THE COMMISSION IS AWARE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE, IN FACT, DO REMOVE CANDIDATE SIGNS BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR THEY'RE IN THE WRONG PLACE, THE CODE OFFICERS THEN CALL THOSE CANDIDATES TO ALLOW THEM TO COME BACK AND PICK UP THOSE SIGNS, BECAUSE TO A CANDIDATE, THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EXPENSE IN THOSE SIGNS.

AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO BE THROWING THOSE SIGNS AWAY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMISSION UNDERSTOOD THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SIMPLY HERE FOR DISCUSSION TODAY TO GET YOUR INPUT AND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR DIRECTION IF THE COMMISSION THINKS THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT YOU NEED TO TAKE UP.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

JUST WANT TO GET SOME THOUGHTS ON THIS.

MS. CALLOWAY, THE COST THAT YOU'RE SAYING MAY BE INCURRED IF WE HAVE TO ENFORCE IT.

IS THAT TEMPORARY AS WELL? AND TO THE PEOPLE, WHETHER IT'S REAL ESTATE OR POLITICAL OR OTHERWISE, OR IS A CONTINUAL THING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO EVEN BUDGET IT? VICE MAYOR, I'M HAPPY THE MANAGER WAS ABLE JUST TO CLARIFY WHY WE'RE HERE THIS MORNING, SO AS IT IS, THERE IS NOT A COST, THERE'S NO REGISTRATION, THERE'S NO BOND THAT'S REQUIRED. I THINK I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT, IN THE EVENT THE CITY COMMISSION WANTED TO SEE SOME CHANGES, THEN THAT'S WHERE THE IMPACT WOULD COME IN.

BUT AS IT IS NOW WITH THE 2018 SIGN CODE THAT WAS ADOPTED, THESE TEMPORARY SIGNS, YOU'RE ABLE TO INSTALL A VAST MAJORITY OF THEM WITHOUT A PERMIT.

THERE'S NO BOND THAT'S REQUIRED.

THEY'RE SUBJECT, OF COURSE, TO THE NUMBER THAT CAN BE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AND THEN THE REMOVAL OF TIME PERIOD.

SO IT'S REALLY THE PROVISIONS THAT I SHARED WITH YOU EARLIER THAT IS REALLY IN PLACE CURRENTLY, STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING THAT WE MAKE ANY CHANGES.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE CODE, AS WRITTEN, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MOST RECENT U.S.

SUPREME COURT RULING.

WE JUST WANTED TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK AND TO SEE IF THERE WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE. BUT AT THIS POINT, STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING THAT WE MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE SIGN CODE. THANK YOU.

I KNOW, BEING ON TWO PREVIOUS HOA BOARDS.

WE HAD A LOT OF COMPLAINTS WITH THE SIGNAGE IS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THE CITY ALLOWED THE STATE ALLOWED IT, WHETHER IT WAS INFRINGING ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

I KNOW WE GOT A LOT OF CALLS, EMAILS FROM THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY SAYING, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A BUNCH OF SIGNS ON PEOPLE'S YARDS AND, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORS FIGHTING WHETHER, YOU KNOW, ONE CANDIDATE'S BETTER THAN THE OTHER.

AS FAR AS REAL ESTATE SIGN GOES, I KNOW THERE ARE TEMPORARY, BUT SOME OF THEM REMAIN ON

[00:40:05]

THE PROPERTY AFTER THE PROPERTY SOLD DURING A PROCESS.

THEY DON'T UPDATE THEM.

THEY GET FADED OUT, THEY DON'T REPLACE THEM.

THEY DON'T MAINTAIN THEM.

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS ALSO WOULD APPLY TO THOSE SIGNS.

CORRECT? YES, SO THE REAL ESTATE SIGNS ARE TEMPORARY SIGNS AS WELL, SO IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SIZE, THE LIMITATION AND THE NUMBER OF DAYS THAT IT CAN BE ERECTED ON THE PROPERTY.

YES. THANK YOU.

SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF JUST ENFORCEMENT.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU, AND I THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN ASKING TO DISCUSS FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS SINCE WE CHANGED IT. SO IT'S NOT A NEW REQUEST.

IT'S JUST TAKING SOME TIME TO GET HERE, WHICH IS ALL GOOD.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO THERE'S A DISCUSSION ABOUT TIMING IF WE PUT ANYTHING NEW IN PLACE. IT WILL TAKE POSSIBLY MORE ENERGY FROM OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

BUT POSSIBLY IF WE MAKE SOME CHANGES, IT'LL RELIEVE SOME TIME OF OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. SO MY PROBLEM FROM A LOT OF OUR SIGN THING RIGHT NOW IS THAT THEIR THE ENFORCEMENT IS NOT THERE.

WE DON'T GIVE ANY POWER TO OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO REMOVE THEM.

THERE HAS BEEN A SIGN THAT ONLY JUST CAME DOWN DUE ON MACNAB AND PINE ISLAND RECENTLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING CAME DOWN.

OTHER THAN THAT, THAT PERSON'S POLITICAL SIGN HAS BEEN UP SINCE 2020'S ELECTION.

AND THAT'S A PROBLEM.

I READ OUR CODE AND IT SAYS THAT SIGNS IT'S IN.

LET'S SEE. H1J.

THIS IS FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY.

SIGNS MAY BE PLACED ON PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WITH THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.

THAT'S ALREADY IN OUR RULES.

WE DON'T ENFORCE IT. WE DON'T LOOK AT IT.

WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A DEPOSITORY FOR THESE WRITTEN PERMISSION.

MY ISSUE IS THAT.

WE DON'T HAVE A COLLECTION OF WHERE THE WRITTEN PERMISSION IS, AND I THINK THAT IF OUR RESIDENTIAL SIGNS HAVE WRITTEN PERMISSION, THEN OUR PROPERTY THAT OR SIGNS THAT GO ON BUSINESSES SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN PERMISSION.

WE HAVE LANDLORDS THAT ARE AFRAID OF CANDIDATES SOMETIMES BECAUSE THEY FEAR IF THEY REMOVE THEM OR CALL THEM AND TELL THEM TO TAKE THEIR SIGNS OFF, THERE'S GOING TO BE REPERCUSSIONS. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANYBODY AFRAID OF HAVING THINGS REMOVED FROM THEIR OWN PROPERTY. WE ALSO HAVE THOSE EMPTY LOTS.

AND VICE MAYOR, YOU ARE VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE EMPTY LOT NEXT TO YOUR BUSINESS BETWEEN ANOTHER BUSINESS OF OURS THAT SIGNS PROLIFERATE LIKE THEY'RE BUNNY RABBITS AND THERE'S NOBODY TO CALL THERE TO ASK THEM, DID YOU APPROVE THIS? AND IT STAYS ON THERE AND OUR CITY EMPLOYEES CAN'T REMOVE IT.

AND IT LOOKS LIKE LITTER.

AND IT'S DEFINITELY OVER THE SIGN ALLOWANCE OF HOW MUCH WE ARE ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE SIGNS OUT. BUT WHO SIGN GETS TAKEN DOWN? SO THE CITY STAFF CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THEY DON'T KNOW WHO HAD PERMISSION OR DIDN'T HAVE PERMISSION OR WE CAN'T GET TO THE BUSINESS OWNER.

THEN WE HAVE OUR BUSINESS OWNERS WHO ARE NOT HAPPY THAT POLITICAL SIGNS GET TO PROLIFERATE EVERYWHERE, BUT THEY CAN'T PUT UP A TEMPORARY SIGN SAYING NOW HIRING.

AND THIS WAS SAID AT OUR ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION WITH OUR BUSINESSES.

SO. PEOPLE CAN KNOW ABOUT THEIR CANDIDATES THROUGH MANY MECHANISMS. I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS SUCH AN ONUS ON CANDIDATES TO MAKE US HAVE PERMISSION, WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE OWNERS OF WHOSE PROPERTY WE ARE ASKING TO PLACE OUR SIGNS ON.

AND THIS WAY, IF WE ALSO REQUIRE A BOND TO HAVE THEM REMOVED, WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD THAT SIGN UP THERE ON THAT PROPERTY.

AFTER MUCH AFTER THE 90 DAYS OR EXCUSE ME, THE 30 DAYS WITHIN OUR CODE.

AND IT SAYS CANDIDATE SHALL MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO REMOVE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

AFTER 30 DAYS, MUNICIPALITY MAY REMOVE, SIGN AND CHARGE THE CANDIDATE.

OBVIOUSLY, WE DIDN'T DO THAT.

WE DON'T DO THAT. AND THEN IT PUTS THE CITY IN A BAD LIGHT THAT WE NOW HAVE TO CHARGE.

I THINK IT WOULD BE.

GOOD FOR US TO LOOK INTO A COST BOND FOR THE SIGNAGE PROGRAM.

AND THERE COULD BE A PARTIAL FEE, THAT IS.

NOT REFUNDABLE, IF THE CITY HAS TO DO ANY ENFORCEMENT ON IT OR CALLS ON IT OR.

NOTICE ABOUT THEM BEING ON THE PROPERTY IMPROPERLY, AND WE CAN MAKE IT FOR ALL SIGN AS FAR AS THE REAL ESTATE SIGNS GO.

SOME OF THEM ARE UP THERE FOR A WEEK AND SOME OF THEM ARE UP THERE AS AS THE VICE MAYOR SAID, FOR THE YEAR, AS LONG AS THE LISTING IS THERE.

[00:45:05]

THEN MAYBE WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING DONE WITH THAT TOO, THIS WRITTEN PERMISSION.

WHERE IS IT BEING FILED, I THINK.

THAT SOME OF THE COSTS THAT MIGHT BE CONCERNED, WE MIGHT BE CONCERNED WITH IS IF WE PUT MORE ENFORCEMENT INTO OUR RULES, MIGHT HELP REMOVE SOME OF THE EXTRA WORK THAT OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE CURRENTLY DOING TODAY.

AS FOR HIRING ANOTHER CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, I THINK EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD HERE HAS HEARD ME SAY OVER THE YEARS, WE NEED MORE.

SO I DON'T THINK THIS ISSUE IS GOING TO BE THE ONE THAT DEFINITELY GETS US THAT OTHER ONE. BUT ANYTHING WE NEED TO DO TO GET US ANOTHER CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, YOU KNOW, I'M OK WITH THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO MAKE SURE IS THAT PEOPLE ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES.

OUR CITY IS CLEAN, ESTHETICALLY PLEASING.

AND I THINK THAT IT ALSO IS INCUMBENT UPON US TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LAND OWNERS, WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL OR BUSINESS, I THINK MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, RESIDENTIAL, NO.

BUT THEY KNOW THAT IF IT'S ON THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMISSION, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE IT AND GIVE AND EMPOWER THEM TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE IT.

SO THAT'S WHERE MY ISSUES ARE.

WE I DON'T THINK WE'RE CONSISTENT.

I THINK WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT.

AND I THINK IT ALSO BY MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE A DEFINITE, MORE STRONGER LANGUAGE ON WHEN IT HAS TO BE REMOVED WILL HELP US WITH OUR ABILITY TO ENFORCE.

AND THEN BY ALSO MAKING SURE THAT WE GET WRITTEN PERMISSION, WE HAVE LESS.

PROLIFERATION OF SIGNS ON PEOPLE'S PROPERTY AND THEN HAVING TO GO THROUGH A FIGHT OF SAYING, WHO WAS HERE FIRST? SO THOSE ARE MY OPINIONS.

AT THIS POINT, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS FOR OUR CITY TO DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE IT.

BUT. I DO THINK THAT IT IS A PROBLEM, AND OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE RESIDENTS OUT THERE AND BUSINESS OWNERS OUT THERE THAT HAVE MADE COMPLAINTS AND VICE MAYOR I SEE YOUR LIGHT IS ON. YOU'RE SAYING THAT NOBODY HAS CONSENSUS.

I WOULD AGREE. WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM.

IT JUST NEEDS TO BE UNIFORMED FOR ALL SIGNS.

SO BY SAYING THAT FOR CLARITY FOR THE CITY STAFF, THEN YOU WOULD SAY IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED, THAT THERE'S WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL? CORRECT. YOU THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE? A BETTER. ENFORCEMENT OF OR RESTRICTION OR RULES WRITTEN IN ABOUT HOW LONG IT NEEDS TO TAKE THE SIGNS OFF TO GIVE THE POWER TO THE CITY STAFF TO REMOVE IT IF IT'S AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME? ABSOLUTELY.

YOU THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A CASH BONDS OR A POST A BOND FOR IT? I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A BOND, DEFINITELY.

BUT I WILL WANT TO ADD WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, CONSIDERING THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A CITY EMPLOYEE PERHAPS WORKING THIS CITY MANAGER OR CITY ATTORNEY OR MS. CALLOWAY. CAN WE CHARGE OR KEEP A PORTION OF THAT BOND OR ADDITIONAL FEE? CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY MANAGER, EVERYONE'S JUMPING.

JUST JUST FROM A YOU KNOW, FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE ANYTHING THAT WE DO THAT CAUSES US TO INCUR A COST, THE COST CAN BE RECOUPED THROUGH A FEE.

AND SO WE CAN CERTAINLY CHARGE A FEE FOR THAT.

AND I WOULD EXPECT THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND IT IF WE WERE PROVIDING, YOU KNOW, THINGS TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE SIGNS WERE, YOU KNOW, IDENTIFIABLE.

AND THAT'S ALL TEMPORARY SIGNS THAT THEY ARE IDENTIFIABLE AS HAVING BEEN, YOU KNOW, PERMITTED PER SE.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE COMMISSION WHO AGREES OR DISAGREES WITH THIS? I HAVE COMMISSIONER PLACKO AFTER SHE TAKES A DRINK.

SORRY. I BELIEVE TO TO HAVE OUR SMALL BUSINESSES INCUR MORE COSTS FOR PUTTING UP A BANNER WOULD NOT BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT.

REAL ESTATE SIGNS, YOU KNOW, YARD SIGNS, GARAGE [INAUDIBLE] TO START CHARGING THESE PEOPLE JUST SEEMS. A LITTLE SILLY TO ME TO TAKE UP CITY STAFF'S TIME TO DO THAT.

IF WE ARE GOING TO ADD STAFF AND ADD CODE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR CODE OFFICERS OUT IN THE COMMUNITIES MONITORING THAT AND DOING WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

POLITICAL SIGNS.

I KNOW THEY GET OUT OF HAND.

WE ALL KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN THERE, THAT EVERY FOUR YEARS, BASICALLY.

SO I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THIS.

THANK YOU. MS.

[00:50:03]

CALLOWAY WITH THE SIGN CODE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ACTUALLY FOR YOU OR AM I SUPPOSED TO BE ASKING THIS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

FOR THE OTHER BUSINESSES.

THERE ARE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS THEY CAN ONLY DO FOR SEVEN DAYS.

THEY CAN ONLY DO FOR 30 DAYS.

ISN'T THAT A WAY TO BE ABLE TO SAY WHERE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE WITH REGISTRATION AND PAYING A BOND FEE? ISN'T THERE SOME LEGALLY STRICT METHODOLOGY WHERE IT'S NOT ON AN ONUS ON THE SMALLER BUSINESSES AND THAT IT CAN STILL BE USED TO? COMPLETE THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WHICH WOULD BE TO SAVE SOME OF OUR CITY'S CODE OFFICERS TIME ON HAVING TO MAKE CALLS OR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, WHOEVER DEPARTMENT IT IS, WHO HAS TO MAKE CALLS TO THESE PROPERTY OWNERS SAYING YOU'VE GOT 15 SIGNS OVER OUR CODE LIMIT AND WE'RE GOING TO FINE YOU BECAUSE IT'S THE BUSINESS OWNERS PROBLEM. [INAUDIBLE] I WASN'T SURE IF CITY ATTORNEY, BUT JUST TO REITERATE, MAYOR, AS IT RELATES TO ANY TEMPORARY SIGN, WE WOULD HAVE TO REGULATE ALL OF THEM THE SAME WAY. SO WE'RE REQUIRING A BOND FOR REAL ESTATE IF WE'RE REQUIRED TO BOND FOR POLITICAL. IT WOULD NEED TO BE FOR ALL TEMPORARY SIGNS.

SO FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S A WAY TO SEGREGATE AND APPLY CERTAIN REGULATIONS TO SOME TYPES OF THINGS AND NOT OTHERS.

WELL, I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF I UNDERSTAND THAT, BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE OTHER SIGNS THAT HAVE CERTAIN DIFFERENCES IN TIME PERIODS, YOU REGULATE IT DIFFERENTLY.

SO WHY ISN'T THIS SOMETHING THAT'S REGULATED DIFFERENTLY? AND ALSO, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT STRICT SCRUTINY, YOU NEED TO MAKE IT AS NARROW, AS FOCUSED AS POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE NOT INFRINGING ON OTHER THINGS.

SO THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT A ROUND WHOLE SQUARE PEG.

THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES.

AND YOU NEED TO. WE NEED TO.

BE MINDFUL OF THAT, SO WONDERING IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE TAKEN BACK AND LOOKED AT FOR THAT ONE. GO AHEAD, CITY ATTORNEY.

CERTAINLY WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

AND IF YOU CAN PROVIDE US THE SPECIFIC CODE SECTIONS THAT THAT YOU BELIEVE TREAT DIFFERENTLY THAN THAN CERTAINLY WE CAN LOOK AT THAT.

BUT I THINK THAT THE TO THE ISSUE THAT THAT THE VICE MAYOR AND YOU MAYOR ARE TALKING ABOUT IS REALLY AN ISSUE OF HOW DO WE ENFORCE.

THE EXISTING REGULATIONS AND ARE THERE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE AT THE STAFF LEVEL, EITHER THROUGH CODE CHANGES AND OR OPERATIONAL ASPECTS? AND TO MS. CALLOWAY'S POINT IS THAT IF WE WANT TO HAVE A BOND AND SOME OTHER TYPE OF REGISTRATION OR A MORE ROBUST REGISTRATION PROCESS FOR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL, THEN I THINK THAT THE MS. CALLOWAY'S POINT IS THAT WE HAVE TO APPLY THAT EVENLY ACROSS THE BOARD, AND THAT WILL CREATE OPERATIONAL AND COST ISSUES FOR THE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER END.

AND THAT CERTAINLY IS IS IS FINE.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE THERE'S AN ISSUE, AND WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN BEST ADDRESS THAT ISSUE IF IT'S THE CONSENSUS OF THIS BODY THAN WE ALL MAKE SOME OF THOSE CHANGES, WE'LL LOOK AT THEM AND AND APPLY THEM.

BUT TO AGAIN, TO REPEAT MYSELF, WE HAVE TO ENDEAVOR AND DO AS BEST AS POSSIBLE THAT WE TREAT EVERYONE EQUALLY AS BEST AS POSSIBLE AND CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ANY OBSERVATIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE CODE WHERE WE ARE TREATING CERTAIN OR THE BELIEF THAT THAT WE'RE TREATING CERTAIN TYPES OF SIGNS DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHERS.

FROM A TIMING PERSPECTIVE, WE DEFINITELY NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

BUT AGAIN, WE ALL WHAT WE CAN DO AT THE STAFF LEVEL IS TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH YOUR DIRECTION, BRING YOU BACK SOME SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, AND THEN QUANTIFY AS BEST AS POSSIBLE HOW THAT IS GOING TO AFFECT NOT ONLY STAFF, BUT POTENTIALLY THE END USERS ON THE OTHER SIDE. WELL, I KNOW I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT, BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE A CONFLICT WITH IN WRITING FOR RESIDENTIAL, BUT NOT IN WRITING FOR COMMERCIAL.

AND WE DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO PUT IT.

SO WE DO HAVE SOME THINGS THAT I THINK NEED TO BE LOOKED AT AND TO DETERMINE AT A LATER DATE THROUGH ANOTHER DISCUSSION IF WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE THINGS.

SO, VICE MAYOR, YOU'RE OK WITH IT? COMMISSIONER PLACKO, WILL YOU BE OK WITH IT IF THEY LOOK THROUGH THIS? TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO MAKE CERTAIN THINGS CONSISTENT? NOT SAYING IT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH OR NOT, BUT GIVING THEM THE ABILITY TO LOOK THROUGH IT, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE SOME INCONSISTENCIES.

I'M JUST REALLY NOT IN FAVOR OF IT, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE OR

[00:55:02]

CHANGE MY MIND. I JUST THINK IT'S IT'S A BURDEN ON SMALL BUSINESSES, IT'S A BURDEN ON THE POOR PERSON HAVING A GARAGE SALE, AND IF THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS POLITICAL SIGNS, YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S STILL GOING TO HAPPEN.

I MEAN, THAT'S JUST THE REALITY.

IT HAPPENS FOR A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME.

AND LET'S YOU KNOW, LET'S NOT MAKE A BIG DEAL ABOUT ABOUT SOMETHING THAT GOES AWAY QUICKLY. AND IT'S ONLY HERE EVERY FOUR YEARS.

SO I'M JUST NOT IN FAVOR OF IT UNLESS SOMETHING DRASTICALLY CHANGES.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE ADDITIONAL CODE STAFF HIRED, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

I WOULD LIKE THEM OUT IN THE COMMUNITY DOING WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.

SO JUST SORRY.

THAT'S OK. I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THE CONVERSATION IS ADDING STAFF AND IT'S EVERY TWO YEARS AND THAT'S FINE. YOU'RE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION.

BUT AS COMMISSIONER BOLTON DOESN'T WISH TO WEIGH IN.

OR I'LL TAKE YOUR SILENCE AS WE DO NOT WISH TO.

I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

OK. COMMISSIONER GELIN HAS ALREADY MADE HIS.

I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S.

I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PLACKO AS WELL.

OK, SO CITY STAFF, YOU ARE NOW IN A LITTLE BIT OF A PICKLE BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN ERROR IN OUR CODE THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT, BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE CONSENSUS TO MOVE FORWARD TO MAKE ANY BRING BACK ANY CHANGES.

SO WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO.

[3. Commission Procedures]

NUMBER THREE. COMMISSION PROCEDURES, PRESENTATION BY THE CITY MANAGER STAFF.

GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU AGAIN, MADAM MAYOR.

AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE THIS MORNING WITH A NUMBER OF ITEMS FOR COMMISSION FEEDBACK.

ONE OF THE ITEMS IS THE CITY'S CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES AS FAR AS IT COMES TO COMMISSION MEETINGS AND PROCEDURES AND AS STAFF, WE HAVE.

RECEIVED DIRECTION RECENTLY FOR A NUMBER OF CHANGES TO PROCEDURE.

AND WE JUST WANTED TO COME BACK AND CLARIFY A FEW THINGS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE GETTING THIS RIGHT FOR YOU AS AS WE AS WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY THE LAST 18 MONTHS HAS BEEN STRANGE WITH COVID IN THE VIRTUAL MEETINGS AND THE CANCELED MEETINGS AND THE HYBRID MEETINGS.

BUT AS AS WE AS WE BEGIN TO SEE, I HOPE A LITTLE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL, ALTHOUGH THE POSITIVITY RATES ARE NOT MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, WE JUST WANTED TO TRY TO GET SOME CLARITY FROM YOU REGARDING SOME OF THE JUST SOME OF THE CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES THAT WE'VE BEEN ADHERING TO.

AND I SENT YOU A MEMO.

THE FIRST THE FIRST THING IN THAT MEMO WAS ESTABLISHING A START TIME FOR THE SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH. AS YOU KNOW, THAT'S COMING TO AN END HERE AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO HAVE THE SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH AT SEVEN P.M.

IN THE EVENING AS OPPOSED TO THE MORNING WHEN IT HAD BEEN TRADITIONALLY HELD ON A ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS.

AND SO WE WANTED TO GET TRY TO GET SOME CONSENSUS FROM YOU ABOUT WHETHER YOU WISH TO CONTINUE WITH THAT.

AND IF YOU DO WISH TO CONTINUE WITH IT, DO WE WISH TO RETAIN THE 7:00 P.M.

START TIMES OR DO WE WISH TO CONTINUE TO DABBLE WITH THE START TIME OF THE MEETING, EITHER STARTING THEM AT 5 O'CLOCK OR 6 OR 7 O'CLOCK, DEPENDING ON THE LENGTH OF THE AGENDA, UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE CITIZENS BUSINESS DONE DURING A REASONABLE TIME AND BEFORE A UNREASONABLE TIME, YOU KNOW, ROLLS, ROLLS AROUND.

YOU HAVE AN 11:30 HARD STOP ON YOUR MEETINGS.

WE HAVE BEEN GOING TO 11:30 AND BEYOND FOR MOST OF THE MEETINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING RECENTLY. AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE JUST WANT TO TRY TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE CITY'S BUSINESS DONE DURING A TIME WHEN THE RESIDENTS ARE ARE ABLE TO TO BE WITH US AND TO TO VIEW THIS.

ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU DID WAS YOU REMOVED PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS FROM THE AGENDA. HOWEVER, WE ARE STILL RECEIVING REQUESTS SOMETIMES FOR PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS, AND WE PUT THOSE TO SINCE WE'VE BEEN RECEIVING THOSE REQUESTS, WE HAVE BEEN PUTTING THOSE UNDER THE CITY MANAGER'S REPORT.

CERTAINLY THERE ARE SOME PRESENTATIONS THAT WE GET REQUESTS FOR THAT REALLY DO NEED TO HAPPEN IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION.

THE PROCLAMATIONS, HOWEVER, HAVE BEEN DEFERRED TO THE INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS, HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY STAFF AND OUR [INAUDIBLE] BY YOU PRIVATELY.

AND WE'VE RECEIVED SOME WE'VE RECEIVED SOME REQUESTS TO PUT THOSE PROCLAMATIONS ON THE AGENDA IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT YOU MOVE THEM OFF.

[01:00:03]

WE'VE ACCOMMODATED THOSE REQUESTS, BUT WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING YOUR PROCEDURES AND THAT WE'RE DOING THIS THE WAY THAT YOU WANT.

SO WE'D LIKE SOME FEEDBACK ON THAT.

AS FAR AS THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT ITEMS TO THE CITY MANAGER THAT IS IN THE CODE.

IT'S SIX BUSINESS DAYS.

WE HAD BEEN CALCULATING THAT IMPROPERLY.

WE DISCUSSED THAT WITH YOU.

WE WERE ALLOWING YOU TO WEDNESDAY.

BUT THE TRUE DATE, BASED ON THE CALCULATION, WAS ACTUALLY TUESDAY.

IT WAS TUESDAY AT NOON.

WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT THAT THAT IS IS IS WORKING FOR YOU.

ALSO, THE RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES THAT ARE DRAFTED FOR INCLUSION ON FUTURE AGENDA, THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IN SUPPORT OF A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION.

NOW, WE HAD DONE THAT FOR A LONG TIME.

THAT CHANGED, IT SINCE CHANGED BACK.

I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE WERE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AS FAR AS HAVING DISCUSSION AND GETTING CONSENSUS TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT LEGISLATION, RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TO BRING BACK TO YOU.

THERE'S ALSO BEEN SOME DISCUSSION REGARDING TIME LIMITS FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS AND WHAT THOSE TIME LIMITS ARE.

AND THE MAYOR HAS TRIED, I THINK, TO MANAGE THAT IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS EVERYONE TO SPEAK, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE HERE IS ELECTED OFFICIALS TO DO.

BUT WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT THERE IS CONSENSUS AND EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THE EXISTING TIME LIMITS THAT EXIST IN THE CODE.

AND THEN ONE OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT'S COME UP RECENTLY ARE THE MOTIONS THAT GET MADE DURING THE MEETING. AND THERE IS A LIST OF MOTIONS INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS CAN MAKE DURING A MEETING. THEY ARE SET IN SECTION 24-34 J OF THE CODE.

AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S A QUESTION, I THINK, OF WHETHER THE COMMISSION WISHES TO EXPAND OR CONTRACT THAT LIST.

AND SO THIS LIST, IT'S NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES.

BUT IT IS PROVIDED TO YOU TO BEGIN AN ONGOING DIALOG IN TERMS OF HOW WE WORK BEST WITH YOU TO GET THE CITY'S BUSINESS DONE IN AN ORDERLY MANNER AND IN A WAY THAT YOU WANT IT DONE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK.

WE SHOULD PROBABLY JUST, CITY ATTORNEY DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? I JUST WANTED TO ECHO WHAT THE THE MANAGER STATED AND AND, YOU KNOW, I HAVE SINCE I'VE BEEN YOUR CITY ATTORNEY, I REGULARLY POINT YOU ALL DURING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND DURING THESE WORKSHOPS TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.

AND, YOU KNOW, YOUR CHARTER DOES ALLOW YOU TO ADOPT YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, THEY ARE SET FORTH IN IN THE CODE.

THEY'RE YOUR RULES. IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THEM.

DIRECTS US TO DO SO, AND WE WILL.

BUT UNTIL THAT TIME, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO ALL BE FOLLOWING.

AND I THINK THAT I TRY AND REMIND YOU ALL THAT SOMETIMES WHEN WE WHEN SOMETIMES THE TOPIC OF THE CONVERSATION GOES OFF ON A TANGENT, SOMETIMES THERE IS A RULE THAT DOES SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO KEEP THE DISCUSSION THE TO THE MATTER BEFORE YOU.

THE OTHER ISSUE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THAT I WOULD ASK THIS COMMISSION TO POTENTIALLY CONSIDER IS I HAVE SEEN MANY JURISDICTIONS DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE, AND I DON'T WANT TO STRUGGLE BUT ADDRESS IT IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

YOU ALL HAVE IT IN YOUR CODE AND IT'S BY ORDINANCE, AND THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.

I DO KNOW OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT DO IT BY RESOLUTION.

THEY THEY HAVE AN ENABLING ORDINANCE.

IN YOUR CASE, YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT IN YOUR CHARTER.

AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION.

THE REASON WHY IT'S DONE THAT WAY, AND I ACTUALLY TEND TO.

THINK IT'S A MORE EFFICIENT WAY OF DOING IT IS IT ALLOWS YOU TO REVISE THEM WITH JUST ONE READING AS MAY BE NEEDED, AS OPPOSED TO THE PROCESS OF AMENDING AN ORDINANCE.

THE COUNTERARGUMENT TO THAT IS THAT BY ORDINANCE, IT MAKES YOU MORE DELIBERATE IN YOUR DECISIONS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AMENDING IT.

BUT THAT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER THAT YOU ALL MAY WANT TO THINK ABOUT IS DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IN THE CODE AS AN ORDINANCE OR CONVERT IT INTO ESSENTIALLY FORM OF RESOLUTION?

[01:05:03]

THANK YOU. SO.

WE DON'T HAVE A VERY CHATTY COMMISSION TODAY.

I GUESS EVERYBODY IS.

IT'S ALL GOOD. NOT COMPLAINING, JUST SAYING.

ONE THING THAT NEEDS A DIRECTIVE, I THINK SOONER THAN LATER.

OK. VICE MAYOR, GO AHEAD.

YOU CAN FINISH. I WAS JUST GOING TO TRY TO PUSH IT TO AT LEAST TALK ABOUT NUMBER ONE, BULLET NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS ESTABLISH A START TIME FOR THE SECOND MEETING.

YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, IF WE CAN JUST GO ITEM BY ITEM AND SEE IF WE CAN GET CONSENSUS. WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHT ON ITEM NUMBER ONE? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE? ESTABLISHING A START TIME FOR THE SECOND MEETING.

WE HAVE IT RIGHT NOW. THAT IS GOING.

THE SECOND MEETING WAS CHANGED FROM NINE, WHICH WENT TO THE 9:30 A.M., THEN WAS THEN CHANGED TO SEVEN P.M.

THROUGH DECEMBER. AND SO WE NEED TO SET IT.

FOR DECEMBER, FOR JANUARY ON.

I MEAN, I LIKE SEVEN, BUT I'M OK FOR MORNINGS AS WELL, SO WE JUST NEED CONSENSUS.

VICE MAYORS A TOSS UP ON THAT ONE.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO. THANK YOU.

I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO A MORNING MEETING AND A NIGHT MEETING.

IF WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE NIGHT MEETING, I WOULD SUGGEST WE MAKE IT EARLIER SO THAT OUR RESIDENTS ACTUALLY CAN ATTEND A MEETING RATHER THAN BY THE TIME WE GET TO THEIR ISSUES.

IT'S 11 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, WHICH I THINK IS NOT FAIR TO OUR RESIDENTS.

SO I SAY PREFER A MORNING MEETING.

BUT IF WE HAVE TO KEEP THE NIGHT MEETING, LET'S START AT FIVE OR SIX INSTEAD OF SEVEN.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I'M FOR NIGHT MEETINGS.

SOME OF US HAS KIDS, AND SO WE HAVE TO DROP THEM OFF AT SCHOOL.

AND SO WE HAVE TO BALANCE OUR LIVES WITH THE RESIDENTS NEEDS.

I THINK THAT TAMARAC IS GROWING YOUNGER AND RESIDENTS ARE NOT THEY DON'T CARE WHETHER THEY HAVE TO COME MORNING OR EVENING, BUT EVENINGS ARE BETTER FOR RESIDENTS, IN MY OPINION. AND IT ALSO WORKS WITH MY SCHEDULE WITH MY FAMILY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER GELIN.

EVENING'S MY PREFERENCE.

THANK YOU. I THINK WE NEED TO GO BACK TO A DAY MEETING, I THINK A NIGHT MEETING IN A DAY MEETING IS FINE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S DROP OFF AND PICK UP AND THERE ARE THINGS IN PEOPLE'S LIVES, JUST LIKE OUR WORKSHOP USED TO BE AT 9:30.

WE HAVE MOVED IT TO 10 O'CLOCK.

SO MAYBE WE NEED TO MOVE OUR SECOND MEETING TO A 10 O'CLOCK MEETING OR 10:30 MEETING AND START TIME ON THAT ONE. BUT WE HAVE CONSENSUS FOR A MOVING.

I'M KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE, SO.

GO EITHER WAY.

SO YOU HAD SAID THAT I WAS TOSS UP, SO IT'LL COMMISSIONER GELIN AND BOLTON COMMISSIONER BOLTON SAID EVENING.

ARE THEY OK WITH DOING A 10 O'CLOCK, 10:30 IN THE MORNING? COMMISSIONER BOLTON, YOU'RE THE ONE WHO MADE THE COMMENT REGARDING NEED TO DROP OFF YOUR SON OR PICK UP AT SCHOOL.

NO, SO I WOULD PREFER THAT BOTH MEETINGS REMAIN IN THE EVENING, AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. SO CONSIDERING THAT, I WOULD ALSO STAY WITH THE EVENING MEETING.

OK, SO IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SECOND EVENING MEETING, THERE WAS A REQUEST TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT EVENING MEETING WOULD START EARLIER DUE TO THE FACT THAT OUR MEETINGS ARE GOING EXTREMELY LONG. AND IT IS.

IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME OUT OF OUR CITY EMPLOYEES, WE HAVE TO CARE ABOUT THEM AS WELL, AND WE ARE MAKING THEM DO FULL DAYS INTO FULL NIGHTS, WHICH SOMETIMES GO INTO THE NEXT MORNING. SO.

CITY MANAGER. WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CITY STAFF AT THAT POINT? MADAM MAYOR, I MEAN, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITY STAFF WOULD BE IF WE WOULD CONCLUDE THE BUSINESS AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE STAFF'S BEEN HERE ALL DAY AND THEY NEED TO BE BACK HERE THE NEXT MORNING.

YOU KNOW, THE THE HARD STOP THAT YOU'VE ESTABLISHED AT 11:30.

THAT THAT'S A LONG DAY.

IT'S A LATE NIGHT, BUT IT'S DOABLE IF WE CAN BE DONE BY THEN.

I THINK WHEN IT BECOMES A CHALLENGE IS WHEN IT PROGRESSES PAST MUCH PAST 11:30, AND WE GET INTO, YOU KNOW, LATER HOURS THAN THAN THAT.

I MEAN, LOOK, EVERYBODY WANTS TO GO HOME AT A REASONABLE TIME, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'VE BEEN HERE ALL DAY. I WOULD SUSPECT THAT THE FIVE OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE HOME AT A REASONABLE TIME, GIVEN THAT YOU'VE HAD FULL DAYS DOING WHAT YOU DO AS WELL.

AND YOU'VE GOT TO START AGAIN IN THE MORNING, JUST JUST LIKE THE CITY STAFF DOES.

[01:10:02]

SO I JUST THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, CONCLUDING IN A REASONABLE TIME IS IS A GOOD IDEA.

AND IF IF WE ARE CONCLUDED BY THE THE TIME THAT IS NOW, YOU KNOW, IN THE CODE, THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR EVERYONE.

THANK YOU.

VICE MAYOR YOU'RE LIGHT WAS LIT AND THEN COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

SO FOR MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE WERE WE WEREN'T HAVING WORKSHOPS, AND THAT'S SO IN ESSENCE, THIS MEETING WOULD BE KIND OF IN THE MAIN MEETING AND THEN THEY'LL PROLONG THE PROCESS.

SO BY NOT HAVING THE WORKSHOP.

NO.

NO. OK. I THOUGHT WE WEREN'T.

WE WEREN'T. NOT NECESSARILY.

OK. THE WORKSHOP THAT WE HAVE TODAY, IN THE PAST, MANY TIMES IN THE PAST, THE WORKSHOP HAD ITEMS THAT WERE ON THE CONSENT AND CERTAIN THINGS, SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE THROUGH THE COMMISSION MEETINGS FASTER.

HOWEVER, WHAT HAD HAPPENED IS MANY THINGS WERE TAKEN OFF CONSENT.

AND SO THEN THEY WERE REDONE AND REPRESENTED AT THE COMMISSION MEETINGS, WHICH MADE THEM GO EVEN LONGER.

THEN THROUGH COVID PROCESS IN THIS.

WORKSHOP STOPPED, BUT AS WE WERE HAVING MORE AND MORE MEETINGS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO A FIVE O'CLOCK WORKSHOP BEFORE 7:00 MEETING, AND WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THROUGH CERTAIN THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED SO THE CITY CAN MOVE THE BUSINESS ALONG.

WE'VE REESTABLISHED HAVING OUR WORKSHOPS INSTEAD OF HAVING THEM TWICE A MONTH.

WE'VE REESTABLISHED TO HAVING THEM ONCE A MONTH.

THE CITY HAS MOVED AND FUNCTIONED VERY WELL WITH TWO WORKSHOPS A MONTH AND TWO MEETINGS A MONTH. WE HAVE NOW READJUSTED TO HAVING ONE WORKSHOP.

WE'LL SEE HOW THAT GOES. BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME MATERIAL.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO. THANK YOU.

COULD WE COULD WE GET SOME SORT OF CONSENSUS ABOUT STARTING THE MEETING AT FIVE O'CLOCK? LET'S START THERE. AND WE'LL WORK OUR WAY THROUGH.

THIS IS FOR THE SECOND MEETING, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, FOR YES.

OR IS IT FOR ALL MEETINGS? NO, FOR THIS. KEEP ONE AT SEVEN AND ONE AT FIVE OR BOTH AT FIVE, WHATEVER.

CAN WE GET ANY CONSENSUS, THOUGH? OTHERWISE, WE'RE JUST KIND OF SPINNING OUR WHEELS HERE.

HOW DO Y'ALL FEEL? COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I'D BE FOR A FIVE O'CLOCK MEETING.

SEVEN O'CLOCK WOULD BE BETTER.

BUT I MEAN, TO KEEP MEETINGS IN THE EVENINGS, FIVE O'CLOCK WOULD BE OK.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GELIN, I SEE YOUR HANDS UP FOR A COMMENT, BUT WILL YOU PLEASE? WE'RE DOING A POLL ON THIS ONE.

PLEASE LET US KNOW ABOUT THE TIMING, IF YOU COULD START THE MEETING AT 5:00.

VIRTUALLY, YEAH. I MEAN, I WORK NINE TO FIVE, EIGHT TO FIVE, SEVEN TO FIVE.

REALLY, YOU KNOW, I WORK BEYOND FIVE O'CLOCK, WHICH I'M SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE DO.

FIVE O'CLOCK WOULD BE DIFFICULT IF WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE PUBLIC INVOLVED, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC, A GOOD PORTION OF THEM WORK UNTIL FIVE O'CLOCK AND THEY'RE ON THE ROAD OR PICKING UP THEIR KIDS OR. SO I THINK SEVEN O'CLOCK IS A GOOD TIME.

YOU KNOW, WE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE MEETING BEING TOO LONG.

WE CONTROL HOW LONG THE MEETINGS ARE.

SOME PEOPLE TALK TOO MUCH.

I MEAN, WE DIDN'T ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING THIS MORNING, WITH ALL THESE TOPICS, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE BROUGHT UP AND NOTHING'S BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.

SO WE JUST WASTE A LOT OF TIME.

AND WE NEED TO BE MORE EFFICIENT WITH OUR TIME.

WE REMOVE HAVING COMMISSION REPORTS BECAUSE WE SAID THAT TOOK UP TOO MUCH TIME IN OUR MEETINGS ARE LONG, WE REMOVED IT AND THE MEETINGS ARE STILL LONG.

SO WE JUST HAVE TO GOVERN OURSELVES ACCORDINGLY, YOU KNOW, VOTE ON DIFFERENT ITEMS WITHOUT BIG SPEECHES AND THEN MOVE, MOVE THE MEETING FORWARD.

BUT IT'S NOT ABOUT THE START TIME OR, YOU KNOW, ANY OF THAT OR WORKSHOPS.

IT'S ABOUT BEING EFFICIENT, READING YOUR MATERIALS AND THEN MAKING SWIFT DECISIONS.

BUT I'M IN FAVOR OF SEVEN O'CLOCK AT THE EARLIEST.

SIX O'CLOCK. THANK YOU.

VICE MAYOR. I'M OK WITH SIX O'CLOCK.

SO SIX O'CLOCK, IT'S A COMPROMISE FOR EVERYBODY, SO HOW'S THAT? SO CITY STAFF, OUR SECOND MEETING STARTING IN JANUARY OR RUFFLING FEATHERS NOW, ARE WE STARTING IT SOONER? WE'RE GOING TO.

VICE MAYOR STARTING.

IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN JUST DO NOW? SEPTEMBER, OR ARE WE STARTING THIS IN? CITY STAFF HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY BEFORE I START DOING A POLL? YEAH, LET ME BRIEFLY MENTION THAT AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ORDINANCE VERSUS RESOLUTION.

YOUR ORDINANCE AS CODIFIED IN YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE NOW STATES THAT YOUR FIRST MEETING DOES START AT AT 7:00 P.M..

[01:15:02]

SO IF YOU WISH TO CHANGE THAT, TO GO TO 6 FOR BOTH, I HEARD I'VE HEARD YOU ALL SAY BOTH IN ONE OR ANOTHER.

SO WE JUST NEED SOME CLARIFICATION THERE.

OK. FAR AS I UNDERSTOOD THE POLE TO BE, IT WAS THE SECOND MEETING AT 6PM.

WE WERE NOT LOOKING TO CHANGE THE FIRST MEETING.

GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

SHOULD WE BE CONSISTENT, THOUGH, SO AS NOT TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE AND MAKE BOTH MEETINGS AT SIX O'CLOCK RATHER THAN ONES AT SIX, ONES AT SEVEN? AND PEOPLE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHICH IS AT WHAT TIME.

PERSONALLY, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, I WOULD RATHER JUST KEEP IT ALL AT SEVEN AND ACTUALLY SEE IF WE CAN STICK WITH LIKE COMMISSIONER GELIN ACTUALLY SAID.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WORKS TO JUST GET US TO GET WORK DONE.

CITY MANAGER, YOU HAVE YOUR LIGHT ON.

JUST JUST AS TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID, JUST GIVEN THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED TO YOU FROM YOU TODAY, WE'LL BE BRINGING SOME LEGISLATION BACK TO YOU FOR YOUR APPROVAL. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT FOR YOU.

SO AT THIS POINT, CONVERSATION'S DONE.

YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED OR WE NEED TO OR WE TO? NO, NOT NOT AT ALL.

OK, MORE DISCUSSION TO BE HAD, PLEASE.

BY ALL MEANS, HAVE IT. WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR YOUR INPUT.

I JUST WANT IT TO BE CLEAR WITH THE COMMISSION, THOUGH, THAT, YOU KNOW, AS THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID, WE WILL BE FOLLOWING UP WITH WITH YOUR INPUT AND BRINGING IT BACK TO YOU FOR THAT FOR ACTUAL ACTION.

APPRECIATE SO, WE KNOW THAT OUR RULES REQUIRE, AT LEAST FOR THE FIRST MEETING AND EVEN ON OUR SECOND ONE, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE TWO READINGS OF AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE BROUGHT BACK. SO IT WOULD BE THROUGH THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER.

IF IT IS TO BE PUT ON THE AGENDA AS SUCH, FOR EITHER ONE OF THEM WOULD BE THE EARLIEST IT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT WOULD BE OCTOBER.

AND ACTUALLY, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ON SOME OF THE IT WOULD PROBABLY MAYBE NOT START IN THE MIDDLE OF OCTOBER, BECAUSE THE RULES FOR THE CITY CLERK REQUIRE THAT YOU HAVE TO POST YOUR NOTICES A CERTAIN TIME BEFORE IN A LOCAL PAPER.

AND ALL OTHER KINDS OF STUFF WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.

SO IN ORDER TO NOT HAVE OUR CITY CLERK HAVE ISSUES, WE WOULD HAVE TO.

MAYBE NOT HAVE IT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL NOVEMBER, SO THEN AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE JUST KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AND MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST NOT GO INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY.

BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

WE NEED TO NOW FIGURE OUT ARE WE DOING BOTH MEETINGS OR JUST THE SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH? COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I THINK THAT BOTH MEETINGS SHOULD BE AT 6 OR BOTH MEETINGS SHOULD BE AT SEVEN AND STARTING IN JANUARY SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE TIME TO KNOW ABOUT THE NEW START OF THE MEETING.

SO EITHER BOTH AT SIX, BOTH AT SEVEN, AND STARTED IN JANUARY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

I'M GOOD WITH THAT. VICE MAYOR.

I WOULD SAY 6:00 P.M.

STARTING JANUARY BOTH MEETINGS.

OK. COMMISSIONER, GELIN.

SEVEN O'CLOCK IS MY PREFERENCE, THAT'S HOW IT'S BEEN.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW.

CITY MANAGER HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN THE CITY MANAGER AND HOW LONG HAS THE MEETINGS? WELL, WE'VE ALWAYS HAD TWO, ONE IN THE MORNING.

SO, I MEAN, THE SEVEN O'CLOCK MEETINGS, THEY WORK, I MEAN.

PEOPLE ARE STILL DEALING WITH TRAFFIC AND COMING HOME.

AND I'M I DON'T KNOW, SIX IS FINE, BUT I'LL BE VIRTUAL FROM SIX OR SEVEN MOST LIKELY.

THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR, ARE YOU STILL? OK.B AND CITY MANAGER, I WAS ON, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? NO, MADAM MAYOR, I THOUGHT THAT COMMISSIONER GELIN WAS GOING TO HAVE A QUESTION.

SO I JUST TURNED THE MICROPHONE ON, BUT HE ULTIMATELY DIDN'T, AND SO I TURNED IT OFF.

GOTCHA. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

SO. I'VE GOT.

TWO PEOPLE FOR SIX OR SEVEN.

I'VE GOT ONE PERSON FOR SEVEN WHO MIGHT GO TO SIX BUT BE VIRTUAL FOR HALF A HOUR AND YOU WANT SIX. YOU DON'T CARE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU FOR THE CONVERSATION.

PERSONALLY, I THINK WE JUST KEEP IT AT SEVEN FOR BOTH AT THIS TIME.

AND WE'LL. WHAT DO YOU WANT? I THOUGHT WE HAD A CONSENSUS FOR SIX O'CLOCK FOR BOTH MEETINGS.

WE DID, BUT THEN, OK, SO THEN WE'RE GOING TO.

BUT WE WANTED TO KEEP IT CONSISTENT.

SO WE'RE ALL CLEAR THAT THE THE DIRECTION THE CONSENSUS IS THREE, AT LEAST THREE COMMISSIONER. RIGHT.

TO HAVE BOTH MEETINGS GO TO SIX O'CLOCK STARTING IN JANUARY.

WELL, WHEN I HAD THE PUSH TO WHERE WE PUT IT, WHERE THE UNCERTAIN WHO ISN'T CLEAR, WHICH WOULD BE SORRY, BUT IT WOULD BE YOURSELF VICE MAYOR, AND BE FOR COMMISSIONER GELIN.

IT WAS NOT. IT'S AN EITHER OR.

[01:20:01]

IT'S BUT IT'S NOT THEIR PREFERENCE.

SO GOING WITH WHAT THEY CLAIM THEIR PREFERENCE TO BE WAS WHY I SAID IT WASN'T.

SO WE'RE GOING BACK AROUND.

WE'RE KEEPING WE'LL DO SIX O'CLOCK FOR BOTH MEETINGS STARTING IN JANUARY.

CAN WE JUST GET A FINAL. YES, NO PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON. YES, THANK YOU.

MR. PLACKO. YES, VICE MAYO'S, YES, YES.

COMMISSIONER GELIN. CAN YOU CONFIRM? NO. OK, SO BOTH MEETINGS STARTING IN JANUARY WILL BE COMING BACK TO US AND IN ORDINANCE TO PUT THEM AT SIX P.M..

MOVING RIGHT ALONG, PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS WAS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA.

I HAVE NO THERE'S NO COMMENT ON THAT THEN.

SEEING THAT THAT'LL STAY. I HAVE A COMMENT.

OK, YOU HAVE A COMMENT. I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO THE COMMENT THAT CITY MANAGER MADE THAT WE REMOVED IT, BUT IT KEEPS POPPING UP IN OUR AGENDA TO THE POINT THAT WE ACTUALLY DO THE PROCLAMATION WITH THE PRESENTATION.

SO ARE WE DOING THAT OR NOT DOING THAT? MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT HAPPENED IN THE.

JUST AS WE WERE FINISHING UP OUR ORDINANCE ON THAT.

AND SINCE THEN, IT HAS BEEN ASKED FOR AGAIN, AND IT HAS NOT COME UP.

I KNOW THAT OUR CITY STAFF HAS PRESENTATIONS AND SOMETIMES.

THIS IS FOR US DOING OUR PRESENTATIONS OR US DOING PROCLAMATIONS AND US DOING REPORTS.

THAT WAS WHAT WE REMOVED FOR OUR DOING IT.

PROCLAMATIONS CAN STILL BE DONE, BUT THEY'RE NOT BEING PRESENTED AT THE COMMISSION.

I KNOW THAT WE WERE ASKED TO DO A PROCLAMATION AND I'D ADVISE THE ENTITY THAT ASKED FOR IT, THAT WE DON'T DO THEM IN PERSON ANYMORE.

WE CAN PRESENT IT TO THEM THERE.

THEY CAN COME HERE WITH WITHOUT IT BEING A COMMISSION MEETING OR WE CAN MAIL IT TO THEM.

AND THEY'RE LIKE, OH, MAIL IT, THEY MUCH PREFERRED IT.

SOME OF THE THINGS I THINK THAT IS FOR THE CITY STAFF, LIKE OUR BEAUTIFICATION AWARDS AND OUR AWARDS FOR OUR EMPLOYEES, I THINK THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE JUST NEED TO CLARIFY FOR OUR CITY STAFF TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THAT'S THEIR PRESENTATIONS AND THEY STILL WILL BE DOING WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.

ON THE AGENDA. GOOD? OK. COMMISSIONER GELIN, IS THIS STILL FROM BEFORE OR IS THIS NEW? YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK PROCLAMATION SHOULD BE BROUGHT BACK, IT'S ONE OF THE RARE TIMES THAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME VISIT THE COMMISSION MEETING, COME TO CITY HALL, MEET THE COMMISSIONERS.

SO I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO BRING IT BACK.

AND WE CAN JUST DO WHAT WE HAD DONE BEFORE.

NO NEED TO READ A PROCLAMATION IF THE ENTITY OR THE PERSON IS NOT THERE.

WE INVITE PEOPLE IF THEY WANT TO COME AND THEY COME AND THEN WE DO THE READING AND TAKE THE PICTURES AND LET THE COMMUNITY KNOW THAT WE'RE HONORING PEOPLE THAT WE DEEM SPECIAL OR MADE SOME KIND OF SPECIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS OR RECOGNITION.

SAME THING WITH EMPLOYEES. IT'S GOOD TO CELEBRATE EMPLOYEE THAT I HAD MANY YEARS OF SERVICE OR MADE SOME KIND OF ACCOMPLISHMENT.

YOU KNOW, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SOMETHING SPECIAL ABOUT BEING A COMMISSIONER AND HONORING PEOPLE WHEN THEY WHEN THEY HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT.

AND FOR US TO REMOVE THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

I VOTED AGAINST THAT, OF COURSE.

AND I THINK GIVEN THAT WE'VE HAD SO MANY REQUESTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO RECOGNIZING AND HONORING STUDENTS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BRING BACK.

THANK YOU. THERE IS NO OTHER COMMENT FROM THE COMMISSION, AND THEREFORE WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE AND IT SHALL STAY THE WAY IT IS WITH THE CITY STAFF KNOWING THAT THEY ARE DOING THEIR PRESENTATIONS AS NORMAL.

THIS WAS JUST OURS. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE REALLY ANY MORE.

THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT ITEMS TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR INCLUSION ON THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING IS NOON. SIX BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

I HAVE NO COMMENTS ON THAT, SO WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THAT THE SAME.

RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ARE DRAFTED FOR INCLUSION ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOLLOWING DISCUSSION AND SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION.

THAT IS THE WAY BUSINESS OF THE CITY HAS BEEN RUN.

THERE'S NO COMMENTS. WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THAT THE WAY IT IS THEN.

TIME LIMITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS. THAT'S WRITTEN IN OUR CODE.

IT IS FIVE MINUTES, NO FILIBUSTERING.

AND THEN THE CODE SAYS THAT THERE IS ONE ITEM FOR DISCUSSION THAT CAN BE BROUGHT BACK FOR A SECOND ROUND. WE'VE BEEN DOING, I THINK, FINE FOR THAT FOR RIGHT NOW, BASED ON A TWO MINUTE ITEM, NOT SEEING ANY COMMENTS ON THAT.

SO WE'LL MOVE ON. A LIST OF MOTIONS INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS CAN MAKE DURING THE MEETING ARE SET IN THE CODE SECTIONS 2-34 J OF THE CODE.

AND I AM NOT SEEING ANYBODY WISH TO EXPAND AT THIS TIME, BUT I DO SEE OUR CITY ATTORNEY.

[01:25:05]

DO YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? YEAH, AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, IN READING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, IT DOES VERY SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT SUBSECTION SIX, THAT THE ONE IN QUESTION IS BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION OR UNDER DEBATE.

OUR MOTION HAS BEEN MADE.

NO OTHER MOTION SHALL BE PROPER EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING.

AND THESE TAKE PRECEDENCE ACCORDING TO THE ORDER LISTED.

AND AND THEN YOU CAN LIST ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, TO ADJOURN, TO TABLE, CALL THE QUESTION OR CEASE DEBATE, REFER TO A STANDING OR AD HOC COMMITTEE, AMEND THE MATTER UNDER DISCUSSION, WHICH REQUIRES THE MOVER TO SECOND THAT THAT MOTION AND THEN TO POSTPONE ACTION. THERE ARE ALSO QUESTIONS WITHOUT DEBATE TO ADJOURN, TO LAY ON THE TABLE AND TAKE FROM THE TABLE AND ALL QUESTIONS RELATING TO PRIORITY.

THOSE ARE THE MOTIONS THAT YOU ALL HAVE AVAILABLE TO YOU UNDER YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.

THE THERE IS ANOTHER SECTION AND WITHIN THESE RULES THAT TALKS ABOUT KIND OF ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER SUPPLEMENTING.

BUT AS I READ THEM, THAT THESE ARE THE ONES THAT YOU ALL HAVE AVAILABLE TO YOU TO GOVERN YOUR DEBATE ON ANY PARTICULAR ITEM THAT'S BEFORE YOU.

AGAIN, IF YOU WISH TO EXPAND THEM OR TO REDUCE THEM, THEN CERTAINLY THAT'S WHY THE DISCUSSION IS IS OUT THERE.

YOU KNOW, I. I WOULD BE REMISS, I THINK I MAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS, BUT.

YOUR RULES ARE, IN MY OPINION EFFICIENT.

AS LONG AS THEY'RE FOLLOWED.

I HAVE USED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS A KIND OF WHAT I WOULD CALL AN ABBREVIATED FORM OF ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER THAT I CAME ACROSS A NUMBER OF YEARS BACK THAT'S ACTUALLY PROMULGATED BY, OF ALL PLACES, THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, WHICH WE'VE THROUGH STAFF WE'VE OBTAINED OF A COPY.

IT'S SUGGESTED RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CITY COUNCIL.

IT TAKES THAT LARGE, VERY LARGE BULK OF ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND CONDENSES IT DOWN TO A LITTLE PAMPHLET. MANY OF THE RULES AND THE PROCESSES THAT THAT THAT ARE IN THIS BOOK ARE ALREADY IN YOUR CODE.

AND THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU WISH FOR US TO HAVE STAFF TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, MODIFY IT OR LEAVE IT AS IS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VICE MAYOR.

WHAT? THIS IS A QUESTION FOR CITY ATTORNEY.

WHAT QUESTIONS OR MOTIONS ARE WE DOING THAT ARE NOT UNDER THOSE SIX? AND ALSO, WHAT PROMPTED THIS TO BE ON OUR DISCUSSION NOW? I THINK THAT IS THE PRIMARY REASON WHY THE THE ITEM IS ON THE AGENDA, AS THE MANAGER INDICATED AT THE BEGINNING, IS TO GET DIRECTION ON HOW WE MOVE FORWARD, BECAUSE THE EXISTING RULES SPECIFY THAT THE TIME FRAME FOR THE SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH IS ABOUT TO LAPSE. AND SO WE NEED DIRECTION.

STAFF FELT OR BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE MEMO THAT WE PROVIDED TO YOU, OR WE WANTED TO CONFIRM WITH THE COMMISSION THAT WHERE WHERE WE CURRENTLY ARE AT AND THE WAY THAT WE CONDUCT BUSINESS AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL IS HOW YOU WISH FOR IT TO STAY OR CHANGE.

AND SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA ARE THERE.

I WOULD SAY THAT.

PROBABLY OTHER THAN THE ONES THAT ARE LISTED HERE, THE.

TWO MOST REGULAR RULES OR OF ORDER THAT ARE INVOKED, ARE POINT OF PRIVILEGE AND.

I THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT I'M TRYING TO.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION. I'M SORRY. SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION IS ONE.

YOU KNOW, WHILE SUBSTITUTE MOTION IS PROVIDED FOR IN ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, IT'S NOT WITHIN YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE IF YOU WISH TO, TO EXPAND IT.

IN FACT, I THINK I MENTIONED THIS BEFORE.

IS THAT YOUR YOUR RULES SAY THAT WHEN A MOTION IS PENDING, NO OTHER MOTION IS ALLOWED

[01:30:01]

EXCEPT FOR TO ADJOURN, TO TABLE, CEASE DEBATE, BE REFERRED TO A STANDING COMMITTEE, TO AMEND THE MATTER. AND AGAIN, I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT I READ THESE RULES AND TRYING TO TO RECONCILE THEM WITH ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, THE MOTION TO AMEND THE MATTER UNDER DISCUSSION IS AS CLOSE TO WHAT HAS BEEN INQUIRED ABOUT OR ASKED ABOUT IN THE FORM OF A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. YOU CAN AMEND THE CURRENT MOTION THAT IS ON THE TABLE, BUT IT REQUIRES THE CONSENT OF THE OF THE OF THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, AND THEN TO POSTPONE ACTION, BEYOND THOSE SIX. NO OTHER MOTION IS APPROPRIATE UNDER YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.

AGAIN, IF YOU WISH TO CHANGE THAT, PLEASE GIVE US THAT DIRECTION.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. SO BASED ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID, ARE WE CONTINUING PERSONAL TIME PRIVILEGE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE DOING.

NO. A POINT OF PRIVILEGE IS A [INAUDIBLE] MOTION.

IT GOES TO THE ISSUE DEBATE AND IT GOES TO THE ISSUE OF.

SO WE'RE ALL AT LEAST IT'S MY EXPLANATION AS YOUR CITY ATTORNEY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, AND I'VE SAID SO AND THERE'S OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE OF THESE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT TALK TO THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU ALL HAVE AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL SHOULD BE FREE OF PERSONAL ATTACKS.

THE ISSUE SHOULD OR THE DISCUSSION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU ALL.

AND THAT'S CODIFIED IN YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.

AND THAT GETS BROUGHT UP IN THE FORM OF A POINT OF PRIVILEGE.

THANK YOU. AND THEN ON THE SECOND POINT OF THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, WE SHOULD BE MAKING A MOTION TO AMEND AND NOT USE THE WORDS SUBSTITUTE.

YES. THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.

AND THEN IF THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILS, THEN YOU GO UNDER THE PRINCIPLE ONE.

AND IF THAT PRINCIPLE MOTION FAILS TO GAIN SUPPORT THAN AT ANY POINT IN TIME, AFTER THAT, ANOTHER MOTION CAN BE MADE IN LIEU OF THAT FIRST ONE, IF IT DIES, FOR LACK OF AN EITHER A SECOND OR AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE.

SO, YEAH. THANK YOU.

I'M NOT SEEING ANY OTHER HANDS RAISED.

ALL RIGHT. SO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM.

ONE QUESTION, ARE WE TAKING CONSENSUS ON THOSE TWO THINGS OR NOT? THESE ARE ALREADY THESE ARE IN OUR CODE.

OK. SO I GUESS [INAUDIBLE].

YEAH, I THINK IF WE WANTED TO CHANGE IT, THERE WOULD BE.

THANK YOU. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION RELATED TO SCHEDULING A SPECIAL MEETING FOR THE WOODLAND'S PROJECT. CITY MANAGER.

DID I MISS ONE? OH, GOD, YES, I DID, I'M SORRY SO MUCH FOR THE NEW CONTACTS THAT I GOT.

DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO MOVE THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING FROM SEPTEMBER 8, 2021 TO

[4. Discussion and direction to move the City Commission Meeting from Sept. 8, 2021 to Sept. 9, 2021]

SEPTEMBER 9, 2021.

I MADE THIS REQUEST AS ROSH HASHANAH DOES NOT END UNTIL SUNDOWN ON SEPTEMBER 8TH.

AND SO I AM ASKING FOR THIS COMMISSION TO MOVE THE MEETING TO THE NEXT NIGHT.

AND I AM ALSO ASKING THAT THIS COMMISSION ALLOW THE CITY, A NEW ORDINANCE BE WRITTEN OR ORDINANCE BE REVISED THAT ALLOWS THE CITY MANAGER TO MOVE ANY COMMISSION MEETINGS HAVE FALLEN A RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY, SO THEREBY THERE IS NO NEED TO ASK FOR PERMISSION BY ANYBODY FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS, TO MOVE OUR COMMISSION MEETINGS, SO.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO. THANK YOU.

I THINK THIS IS KIND OF A NON-ISSUE.

WE HAVE TO BE RESPECTFUL OF EVERYONE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

AND IF THIS SECOND DAY IS A RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY, THEN WE NEED TO MOVE THE MEETING.

I HAVE TO THINK A MINUTE ABOUT ALLOWING THE CITY MANAGER TO CHANGE ANY MEETING, BECAUSE AREN'T THESE HOLIDAYS THE SAME EVERY YEAR? WHEN IT COMES TO CERTAIN RELIGIONS.

THEY'RE BASED ON A LUNAR CALENDAR.

SO IS 13 MONTHS.

SO IT'S NOT THE SAME EVERY YEAR.

OK, SO IT MAKES PLANNING SOMETIMES A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT, WHERE CERTAIN HOLIDAYS FOR CERTAIN OTHER RELIGIONS ARE.

YOU KNOW, EVERY YEAR ONE IS GOING TO BE OK.

ALL RIGHT. LET ME JUST THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE.

BUT ABSOLUTELY MOVE THE MEETING.

WE HAVE TO BE RESPECTFUL.

THANK YOU. AND JUST FOR THE THOUGHT OF MINE IS THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE HAVING TO MAKE ONE

[01:35:03]

RELIGION, IN MY OPINION, MAKE ONE RELIGION, HAVE TO FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE TO ASK FOR PERMISSION. THAT WAS A REASON FOR HAVING THE CITY MANAGER HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE IT.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON. SO WE WOULD BE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO MOVE A COMMISSION MEETINGS BASED ON RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS PER THE RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE OF THE CITY COMMISSIONERS OR CITY STAFF, OR LOOKING AT RESPECTING RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC ON A WHOLE? BECAUSE THOSE ARE THREE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK ON, LOOK AT.

DO WE CELEBRATE RAMADAN? ISLAMIC HOLIDAYS? I REMEMBER SEVERAL TIMES COMING HERE AND MUSLIMS ALL OVER TAMARAC WERE FASTING.

SO ARE WE SHOULD WE HAVE MOVED MEETINGS FOR THEM? I REMEMBER COMING TO COMMISSION MEETINGS DURING EASTER HOLIDAYS.

SO. JUST BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR.

ARE WE MOVING THESE MEETINGS BASED ON COMMISSION MEMBERS, THEIR HOLIDAYS, OUR HOLIDAYS, ARE WE MOVING IT BASED ON STAFF OR ARE WE MOVING IT BASED ON THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE OF THE RESIDENTS? BECAUSE THEY THEY NEED TO BE RESPECTED, TOO.

IT'S BASICALLY FROM MAJOR RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS.

I'M ASKING THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THE CITY MANAGER.

UNDERSTOOD BUT I'M THE ONE WHO MADE THE REQUEST.

SO I WILL CLARIFY WHAT MY MIND FRAME WAS FOR WHAT I ASKED FOR.

IT'S THE MEETINGS ARE SCHEDULED ON MONDAYS OR WEDNESDAYS.

AND SO THOSE WERE THE.

THAT WAS A REQUEST FOR THOSE.

WELL, THE CITY MANAGER HAS CONTROL OVER THE WORKSHOP.

OUR CODE DOES NOT ALLOW CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS TO BE MOVED WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE COMMISSION. SO INSTEAD OF HAVING TO HAVE THE COMMISSION.

SUBJECT TO THE CALENDAR, THE CITY MANAGER WOULD KNOW WHEN ANY MAJOR RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS WOULD BE. AND HE WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE THAT WEDNESDAY COMMISSION MEETING ACCORDINGLY FOR THIS FIRST, THE SECOND OR THE FIRST OR THE FOURTH MEETING OF THE MONTH.

THAT WAS THE REQUEST BEHIND IT.

BUT BEFORE WE GO FURTHER INTO THAT COMMISSIONER, CAN YOU AT LEAST ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION OF THIS, PLEASE? MAYOR. WHICH IS THE MOVING THE SEPTEMBER 8TH MEETING TO THE SEPTEMBER 9TH.

MAYOR, I HAVE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION IN CONTEXT.

ARE WE MOVING THE MEETING BASED ON THE RELIGIOUS PREFERENCES OF THESE THE CITY COMMISSIONERS, OR ARE WE MOVING THE MEETINGS BASED ON STAFF OR ARE WE MOVING THE MEETINGS BASED ON THE RESIDENTS WHO WE SERVE? IT'S ALL OF THE ABOVE.

IT WILL BE ALL OF THE ABOVE.

CORRECT. SO SO IN THE FUTURE, WE WOULD LOOK AT ISLAMIC HOLIDAYS TO MOVE MEETINGS, EASTER, JEWISH HOLIDAYS AND SO FORTH, BECAUSE WE'D BE LOOKING AT IT IN THE EYES OF RESIDENTS AS WELL. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THAT IS CORRECT.

AND EASTER USUALLY FALLS ON A SUNDAY.

NO, MADAM MAYOR EASTER DOESN'T NORMALLY FALL ON A SUNDAY, BUT THANK YOU FOR TRYING.

SO I'LL PAUSE TO THINK ABOUT IT AND WE'LL.

I'LL ANSWER MORE APPROPRIATELY IN A MINUTE.

I'M OK WITH MOVING THE DATE, AND IF THE HOLIDAY FALLS ON A MONDAY, WEDNESDAY.

TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

IS FOR US TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, ARE WE GOING TO GIVE THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE THE AUTHORITY TO SCHEDULE ACCORDINGLY IN THE FUTURE? I THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT AND NOT THE CITY MANAGER.

OK. COMMISSIONER GELIN.

YEAH, THE CITY COMMISSION SHOULD MAKE THE DECISION.

WE ARE DECISION MAKERS REGARDING THE HOLIDAY OR THIS DATE CHANGE, I DON'T MIND MAKING A DATE CHANGE THE DATE CHANGE FOR YOU OR IS THE DATE CHANGE FOR RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY WHO CELEBRATE THAT THAT HOLIDAY? COMMISSIONER THAT QUESTION WAS ASKED AND ANSWERED.

AND IF YOU THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS AUDIENCE.

IT WAS NOT ANSWERED. I DIDN'T HEAR AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

I DIDN'T HEAR THAT QUESTION ASKED.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON ASKED TWICE.

DID NOT ASK THE QUESTION IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO MOVE THE DATE FOR YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE, BECAUSE YOU CAN PASS THE GAVEL OR IF YOU WANT TO MOVE THE DATE, BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO WILL BE OBSERVING THAT HOLIDAY.

AND I MADE THE COMMENT THAT IT WAS FOR MYSELF AND IT WAS FOR CITY STAFF, AND IT IS FOR THE

[01:40:05]

RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS OWNERS IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT OBSERVE.

OK, SO THEY ARE, AS COMMISSIONER BOLTON STATED, THEY ARE RESIDENTS OF THIS COMMUNITY WHO WHO OBSERVE THE MUSLIM FAITH, THE BUDDHIST FAITH.

ARE WE GOING TO HONOR AND RECOGNIZE ALL THOSE DATES? AND ARE YOU GOING TO PROPOSE TO HAVE STAFF PROPOSE THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THOSE DATES AND MOVE COMMISSIONER MEETINGS BASED ON THOSE HOLIDAYS? I HAVE ALREADY MADE THAT REQUEST TO THE CITY MANAGER, WHICH IS WHY HE SAID THAT I NEEDED TO BRING IT UP AT THE CITY MEETING, BECAUSE THAT IS HOW WE DO THINGS HERE.

WE DISCUSS THEM, GET CONSENSUS, AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE HIM BE ABLE TO REVISE THE ORDINANCE IF THE COMMISSION AGREES TO IT, WHICH IS WHAT I'VE ASKED FOR.

SO HAS THE CITY MANAGER AND HIS STAFF ALREADY IDENTIFIED THOSE HOLIDAYS SINCE YOU MADE THAT REQUEST ALREADY? I MADE THE REQUEST IN MY REQUEST WAS ADVISED THAT I HAVE TO MAKE THE REQUEST HERE, AND THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO GIVE CONSENSUS FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO DO SO BASED ON MAJOR RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS.

ALL MAJOR I MEAN, WE VOTE ON, YOU KNOW, THE VACATION EVERY MONTH.

WE VOTE ON TAKING TIME OFF FOR THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY AND THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY.

WE DO THAT EVERY YEAR. AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE, THOUGH, THEY'LL BE NO DIFFERENT IF WE CHOSE TO CHANGE SOME OF THE DATES ON THESE COMMISSION MEETINGS.

SO IT SHOULD REMAIN OUR DECISION AND JUST STAFF BRING UP THOSE DATES AND WE CAN MAKE THE CHANGE AHEAD OF TIME. AND YOU SAID EARLIER IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER PLACKO THAT THE DATE IS ON A 13 MONTH CALENDAR SO THE HOLIDAY CHANGES EVERY MONTH.

SO WE SHOULD KNOW IN THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR WHEN THAT DAY IS GOING TO BE OBSERVED AND CAN MAKE THAT THAT CHANGE, THAT DECISION EARLY ON IN THE YEAR AND NOT, YOU KNOW, A WEEK BEFORE, A COUPLE OF WEEKS BEFORE THE THE COMMISSION DATE.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH YOU.

THE CALENDAR SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AHEAD OF TIME FOR THAT.

BUT THE OTHER PART OF IT WAS TO REMOVE THE ONUS ON HAVING SOMEBODY OR ANYBODY FROM ANY RELIGIOUS FAITH HAVE TO COME TO THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING AND ASK FOR APPROVAL FOR IT, WHICH IS THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST.

BUT SEEING THAT CONSENSUS IS TO LEAVE IT WITHIN THE CITY COMMISSION'S HANDS FOR MAKING CHANGES IN THE FUTURE.

THERE WILL BE THE DIRECTION IS TO HAVE STAFF IDENTIFY THE MAJOR RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS, AND THEN WE VOTE UPON IT AHEAD OF TIME IF IT HAPPENS TO FALL ON A WEDNESDAY.

RIGHT, WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT I SAID, LEAVING IT IN THE COMMISSION'S HANDS TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT A MEETING SHOULD BE MOVED.

SEPTEMBER 8TH MEETING TO SEPTEMBER 9TH.

IT'LL BE AT 7:00 P.M.

THERE HAS BEEN CONSENSUS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WE WILL GO TO THE DISCUSSION IN DIRECTION RELATED TO SCHEDULING A SPECIAL MEETING FOR THE WOODLAND'S PROJECT.

I HAVE A QUESTION PRIOR TO THE NEXT ITEM.

CITY ATTORNEY ASKED THE QUESTION IF WE WANT STUFF DONE THROUGH THE RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCES. WE NEVER TOUCHED ON THAT SUBJECT.

MY QUESTION WAS, DOES THE CITY COMMISSION WANT TO DIRECT STAFF TO TAKE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE? AND TAKE THEM OUT OF THE CODE AND CONVERT THEM INTO A RESOLUTION BASED UPON THE REQUIREMENT THAT IF IT'S DONE BY ORDINANCE, IT WILL REQUIRE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

AND AS A GENERAL RULE, TAKE PROBABLY MAYBE A MONTH, MONTH AND A HALF TO PROCESS THAT PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO BY RESOLUTION, WHICH CAN BE DONE AT ONE AT ONE MEETING. SO MY QUESTION WAS, CAN WE GET A CONSENSUS ON THAT? WELL, DO WE HAVE COMMENT ON IT FIRST? YEAH, SO I'M JUST.

SO THAT WOULD BE LIKE ANY ITEM? IS THAT ONE OF MY UNDERSTANDING? WE WOULD ADOPT AN ORDINANCE, WE PROCESS AN ORDINANCE STATING THAT THE CITY COMMISSION CAN ADOPT ITS RULES OF PROCEDURE BY RESOLUTION, AND IT WOULD THEN WE WOULD STRIKE OUT EVERYTHING ELSE WITHIN THE CODE.

AND AT THE SAME AT THE SAME MEETING WHERE THAT WAS SCHEDULED TO BE, THAT ORDINANCE WAS SCHEDULED TO BE ADOPTED ON SECOND READING.

WE WOULD AT THE SAME TIME, THE SAME MEETING PUT INTO RESOLUTION FOR THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL, RESTATING THOSE RULES, BUT IN THE FORM OF A RESOLUTION AS OPPOSED BY BY ORDINANCE. SO THAT'S JUST EXPEDITES A FEW ITEMS. IT DOES SIMPLIFY THE AMENDMENT PROCESS MOVING FORWARD, IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO AMEND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE GOING FORWARD AT ANY POINT IN TIME, WHETHER IT'S THIS COMMISSION OR FUTURE COMMISSIONS. THERE IS NOT AN OVERWHELMING DESIRE TO MAKE A CHANGE SEEN BY THE

[01:45:03]

SILENCE ON THIS COMMISSION, SO WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THINGS AS IS SO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND WE'RE NOW GOING TO GO TO DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION RELATED TO

[5. Discussion and direction related to scheduling a Special Meeting for the Woodlands project]

SCHEDULING A SPECIAL MEETING FOR THE WOODLAND'S PROJECT.

CITY MANAGERS IS THIS YOURS? THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. WE HAVE RECEIVED A REQUEST TO SCHEDULE TO YOU KNOW, WE HAD RECEIVED A REQUEST TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING ON ON THE WOODLAND'S LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT AND TO HAVE THAT AS THE ONLY ITEM ON THE AGENDA, GIVEN THE EXPECTATION THAT THERE WILL BE A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AT THAT MEETING.

AND SO WE ARE SIMPLY BRINGING THAT TO YOU TO GET CONSENSUS, TO PROCEED WITH SCHEDULING A SPECIAL MEETING AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT SPECIAL MEETING WOULD BE AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER OR VERY EARLY OCTOBER.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO. I THINK WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO DO THIS.

WE KNOW THIS IS A LARGE PROJECT, HAVING BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE WITH WOODMONT PROJECTS, WE ALL KNOW HOW LONG THE MEETINGS GO.

IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE RESIDENTS TO MAKE THEM SIT THROUGH AN ENTIRE MEETING IN ORDER TO GET TO THE PROJECT THAT THEY'RE THERE FOR.

SO IF THE ONLY THING ON THE AGENDA IS THE WOODLANDS PROJECT, IT GIVES EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME OUT AND VOICE THEIR CONCERNS, THEIR OPINIONS WITH US.

SO AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, ABSOLUTELY.

THANK YOU. I AGREE.

AND CAN WE SET A DATE FOR INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING LATE SEPTEMBER, EARLY OCTOBER? CAN WE HAVE A DATE? CITY MANAGER.

I THINK THAT THROUGH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, WE COULD POLL ALL OF YOU ,CHECK YOUR SCHEDULES FOR THE TWO WEEKS BETWEEN, SAY, SEPTEMBER TWENTY THIRD AND OCTOBER 7TH AND GET AN ANNOUNCE A DATE FOR YOU AT YOUR COMMISSION MEETING ON WEDNESDAY.

THANK YOU. CAN I ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION, PLEASE? SO THIS IS SAYING THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE ONE OF OUR COMMISSION MEETINGS.

WE ARE TAKING IT FOR A SEPARATE MEETING ON THIS.

IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S GOING TO BE A SPECIAL MEETING, YES.

OK, ONE SPECIAL MEETING.

JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT AS WELL AS TOO.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON. I, I REQUESTED THIS ITEM TO HAVE THE WOODLANDS DEVELOPMENT BE A SPECIAL MEETING, SO OBVIOUSLY I'M FOR THAT AND POLLING US NOW FOR A DATE, AS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA OF GIVING THE AMOUNT OF THINGS TO THAT THAT I HAVE ON MY CALENDAR.

TAKE ME A WHILE.

SO. LET US SPECIAL SET IT, AND THEN OUR ASSISTANT CAN SPIT OUT A COUPLE OF DATES AND WE CAN MOVE FROM THERE. COMMISSIONER GELIN.

YEAH, I THINK WE SHOULD SCHEDULE A SPECIAL MEETING, BUT THAT SPECIAL MEETING SHOULD BE ON A DATE OF A REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING.

MOST OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE WOODLANDS UNDERSTAND THAT THE MEETING IS GOING TO BE ON A WEDNESDAY. THAT'S THEIR EXPECTATION.

I THINK IF WE IF WE CHANGE THAT, SOME RESIDENTS MAY NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE IT SO.

IT SHOULD BE ON THE DATE OF A REGULAR WEDNESDAY COMMISSIONER MEETING AND CERTAINLY SHOULD BE AT AN EARLIER TIME, MAYBE SIX O'CLOCK.

OF COURSE, THIS SHOULD BE THE ONLY ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

BUT I'M CONCERNED THAT IF WE SWITCH THE DATE, THAT MIGHT THROW SOME PEOPLE OFF.

AND SO IF WE NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER COMMISSION MEETING ON ANOTHER DATE, YOU KNOW WHAT ITEMS THAT THE PUBLIC MAY NOT BE CONCERNED ABOUT, THAT'S FINE.

BUT I WOULD THINK THAT RESIDENTS WOULD HAVE THE EXPECTATION THAT IT'S GOING TO BE ON A WEDNESDAY. AND SO WE JUST MAKE SURE WE HAVE A MEETING WHERE NOTHING ELSE ON THE TOPIC EXCEPT THAT. VICE MAYOR.

I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER GELIN.

I, TOO, WAS ONE WHO'S BEEN ASKING FOR A STANDALONE MEETING FOR THIS.

I STILL REMEMBER 10 HOURS, JULY 12, 2019, AND IT WAS A FUN DAY AFTER A 13TH ROUND OF CHEMO. SO, YES, MOST DEFINITELY.

I WOULD SAY.

I WOULD LIKE IT TO HAVE A BACKUP DATE AS WELL.

MY CONCERN IS IF WE HAVE A TIME CERTAIN.

HOPEFULLY WILL NOT BE AS LONG AS THE LAST MEETING, BUT THE CONCERN IS THAT IF IT HAS TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER DATE, IF IT'S NOT PUBLICLY NOTICED AND THERE'S NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT, THEN THERE WOULD BE SOME KIND OF DIFFICULTY IN THE, I MEAN.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAD FOR JULY TWO YEARS AGO WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NOT ANOTHER TIMEFRAME SET FOR THE CONVERSATION.

AND IT WAS OUR LAST MEETING BEFORE A BREAK.

SO AS LONG AS THERE'S ENOUGH TIME THAT'S BEING ALLOCATED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY WHO NEEDS

[01:50:01]

TO BE HEARD, WHO WANTS TO BE HEARD, CAN BE HEARD.

I'M GOOD WITH IT. HOWEVER, WE NEED TO DO IT.

I DO. WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER ON WEDNESDAY, BECAUSE THAT IS WHEN MOST PEOPLE ARE USED TO US DOING OUR MEETINGS, SO WE HAVE CONSENSUS FOR A SPECIAL MEETING.

SINGULAR, SINGULAR TOPIC WILL ONLY BE THE WOODLANDS.

AND WE DO NEED TO MAKE SURE WE SET A DATE WITH ENOUGH NOTICE TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO ATTEND CAN ATTEND AND RESCHEDULE THEIR LIVES ACCORDINGLY, IF NEED BE.

VICE MAYOR. SO CONSIDERING THAT WE HAVE CONSENSUS THAT WE THAT'S WHAT WE WANT ON A WEDNESDAY, ONLY TOPIC.

IT'S GOING TO BE JOIN A REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY.

CAN WE JUST SET A DATE NOW CONSIDERING THAT THAT'S WHAT.

INSTEAD OF GETTING POLLED? CITY MANAGER. SURE.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. BASED ON WHAT I HEARD FROM COMMISSIONER BOLTON, IF THIS IS TO BE AT A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AND THE ONLY ITEM, THEN THE MEETING DATES ARE ALREADY SET. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHETHER IT'S THE SECOND MEETING IN SEPTEMBER, THE FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER. SO ALSO, IF WE GO AHEAD.

IF YOU SET IT FOR THE FIRST MEETING, THEN IT CAN'T START EARLIER THAN 7PM.

OF THE MONTH, YOUR YOUR CODE, YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE SAY THAT THE FIRST MEETING, THE FIRST MEETING STARTS AT 7:00 P.M..

SO BUT HERE'S ALSO THE QUESTION.

IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT, THIS CAKE ISN'T FULLY BAKED YET.

I KNOW THAT WE'RE OUT THERE TRYING TO GET READY TO COME HERE.

MY CONCERN IS IF SEPTEMBER IS TOO EARLY AND THEN WE'RE SAYING THAT THE SECOND MEETING IN OCTOBER, WE COULDN'T START EARLIER THAN SEVEN, THEN MAYBE IT HAS TO BE THE THIRD WEEK, SECOND MEETING IN OCTOBER, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE WE CAN BE ABLE TO MOVE AND WOULD ALLOW MORE TIME FOR WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER PRESENTATION IS COMING BEFORE US IS FINAL.

MY CONCERN IS IF WE SET IT IN SEPTEMBER AND IT'S NOT READY YET, WE'RE GOING TO BE PUSHING BACK THE DATE ANYWAY. I HAVE.

THAT'S MY CONCERNS. COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

WE ALSO NEED TO KEEP IN MIND OUR SEPTEMBER MEETINGS, WE HAVE BUDGET MEETINGS, SO IT DEFINITELY CAN'T INTERFERE WITH THAT THAT WE NEED TO GET THROUGH.

SO LET'S KEEP THAT IN MIND.

OTHER THAN THAT, WHATEVER DATE IS FINE WITH ME.

IT WAS SIMILAR TO HER QUESTION.

QUESTION FOR CITY ATTORNEY.

YEAH, A QUESTION FOR CITY ATTORNEY.

CAN'T CAN WE JUST VOTE TO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE WANT TO HAVE THIS MEETING, THE FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER, IF THE APPLICANT IS READY? CAN WE JUST VOTE TO MAKE THE MEETING, THAT PARTICULAR MEETING EARLIER, DESPITE WHAT THE CODE SAYS? NO, YOUR YOUR CODE SAYS VERY SPECIFICALLY, THE FIRST MEETING OF EACH MONTH SHALL BEGIN AT 7:00 P.M..

THAT'S AN ORDINANCE YOU CAN'T VOTE BY AND YOU CAN'T MODIFY AN ORDINANCE PROVISION BY ANYTHING OTHER THAN BY ANOTHER ORDINANCE.

OK. ALL RIGHT, SO THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SECOND MEETING OF OCTOBER THEN.

THAT IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE.

OK. YEAH, I THINK THAT WORKS, THAT'S ENOUGH TIME TO LET THE RESIDENTS KNOW THE FIRM DATE AND MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S PREPARED.

I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICANT IS PREPARED TO BRING A FORTH AT THAT TIME AND THEN KNOWING THAT THE CITY COMMISSION IS READY TO GO.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER.

EVERYBODY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, IT IS 11:54.

BE SAFE. HAVE A GREAT COUPLE OF DAYS.

WE'LL SEE YOU BACK HERE.

JUST SO SO I'M CLEAR.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HOLD THE WOODLAND'S LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT ITEM ON THE SECOND MEETING IN OCTOBER. THAT IS OCTOBER 27TH.

WITH WITH NOTHING ELSE ON.

THE AGENDA. CORRECT, ARE WE CHANGING THE START TIME? YES, I THINK WE.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSION, ARE WE CHANGING THE START TIME? YES, I WOULD SAY YES.

OK. 6 P.M.

IS ONE HOUR SUFFICIENT ENOUGH OR DO WE NEED IT AT FIVE? SOME PEOPLE ARE STILL, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO WORK SO FIVE MAY NOT WORK..

I'M FINE WITH 6.

VICE MAYOR YOU FINE WITH 6? 6 IS GOOD. COMMISSIONER GELIN YOU FINE AT SIX? COMMISSIONER PLACKO, YOU'RE FINE AT SIX? YES. COMMISSIONER BOLTON YOUR FINE AT SIX?

[01:55:03]

ALL RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PROVIDED THAT ALL THE STARS ALIGN UP, THAT EVERYTHING IS SET. IT'LL BE FOR SIX PM ON THE OCTOBER TWENTY SEVENTH FOR THE SINGLE ITEM ON THE LAND USE. THERE IS A GENTLEMAN IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAS A QUESTION.

WE DON'T DO QUESTIONS BACK AND FORTH, BUT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TALK WITH YOU OR HAVE YOU SPEAK WITH WHOMEVER YOU NEED TO SPEAK WITH AS SOON AS WE'RE DONE.

OK, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

I APPRECIATE YOU WERE HERE TODAY.

AT THIS POINT, NO OTHER ITEMS ARE COMING UP.

WE WILL SEE EVERYBODY WEDNESDAY, SEVEN P.M., AUGUST 25TH, RIGHT BACK HERE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BE SAFE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.