Mar 21, 2022 Workshop

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL TRY THIS AGAIN. OOH.

[00:00:01]

[Call to Order]

COMMISSIONER PLACKO. GOOD MORNING.

VICE MAYOR GELIN. GOOD MORNING.

THANK YOU. AND COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

AND MAYOR GOMEZ.

GOOD MORNING. IF EVERYONE WILL PLEASE STAND AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A MOMENT OF SILENCE.

ALLEGIANCE] THANK YOU.

PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A VERY BUSY DAY TODAY.

[1.a FDOT PD&E Study impacting Sable Palm Park]

WELCOME. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING. ACTUALLY, ANDREW IS ON VACATION, SO WE HAVE KIM SAMSON WHO'S LEADING THE TRAFFIC EFFORTS. BUT THANKS FOR HAVING US.

SO JUST TO BACK UP, I KNOW SOME OF YOU HAVE HEARD THIS.

I KNOW COMMISSIONER PLACKO, YOU'RE ON THE MPO.

SO YOU'VE HEARD THIS.

WE ARE DOING A PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT STUDY ON THE TURNPIKE AND THE LIMITS ARE FROM 595 TO WILES ROAD.

SO AS FAR AS WHAT PHASE WE'RE IN, IN THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, WE'RE ACTUALLY IN PHASE TWO, WHICH AS I MENTIONED, IS THE PD&E STUDY.

WE LOOK AT VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES, ALSO GET AGENCY INPUT AS WE ARE GETTING NOW, AND THEN WE COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO THE 17 MILE PROJECT STARTS JUST SOUTH OF 595, GOING UP TO WILES ROAD.

THE POMPANO BEACH SERVICE PLAZA IS WITHIN THE LIMITS, AND WE HAVE SIX EXISTING INTERCHANGES ALSO.

FOR ALL PD&E'S, WE LOOK AT A PURPOSE AND NEED.

SO THE PURPOSE AND NEED OF THIS PROJECT WILL HELP US DETERMINE WHAT ALTERNATIVES WE NEED AND WHAT IMPROVEMENTS WE MAY NEED.

SO WE'VE GOT FIVE MAJOR ITEMS HERE THAT I'LL GO OVER REAL QUICK.

SO WE WANT TO ENHANCE SAFETY.

WE WANT TO ACCOMMODATE TRAVEL DEMANDS FOR THIS PROJECT.

WE'RE LOOKING TO FORECAST OUT TO THE YEAR 2045.

WE'RE GOING TO IMPROVE TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY, EVALUATING THAT, IMPROVE REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY, AND ALSO ENHANCING EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND EVACUATION.

SO FOR THE ENHANCING SAFETY ITEM, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS CRASHES OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

WE EVALUATED 2012 THROUGH 2016.

YOU CAN SEE THE HEAT MAP ON THE RIGHT, WHICH SHOWS THE CONCENTRATION OF AREAS.

SO THERE'S ACTUALLY AN ECONOMIC COST WITH THAT.

THAT IS $339 MILLION DOLLARS OVER THIS FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

SO IF WE DO NOTHING, THE CONGESTION IS GOING TO INCREASE AND THERE WILL LIKELY BE MORE CRASHES. WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE ACCOMMODATING TRAVEL DEMANDS UP TO THE YEAR 2045.

IN 1960, THE POPULATION HERE, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WAS 1.5 MILLION.

THIS IS IN THE AREA OF MIAMI-DADE, BROWARD AND PALM BEACH.

SO 2019, IT WAS OVER 6 MILLION.

AND LOOKING TO 2045, WE'VE GOT OVER SEVEN AND A HALF MILLION FOLKS FORECASTED TO LIVE HERE. SO THE TRAVEL DEMANDS ARE GOING TO INCREASE AS THE POPULATION CONTINUES TO GROW.

FOR THE MAINLINE WIDENING ALTERNATIVES.

WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS.

WE'RE GOING TO CONCENTRATE ON THE ONE FROM 595 TO ATLANTIC, WHICH IS THE MAJORITY OF THE PROJECT, AND THAT'S WITHIN THE CITY OF TAMARAC LIMITS.

SO HERE'S A TYPICAL SECTION SHOWING OUR IMPROVEMENTS.

RIGHT NOW, THE TURNPIKE IS EIGHT LANES.

WE'RE LOOKING AT WIDENING IT TO TEN LANES AND ALSO ADDING AUXILIARY LANES BETWEEN INTERCHANGES. WE WILL ALSO HAVE A CONSIDERATION FOR MANAGE LANES.

THIS IS AN AREA WHERE WE CAN WIDEN TO THE CENTER A LITTLE BIT ON EACH SIDE WITH SOME OF THE OTHER AREAS NORTH OF THIS, WE HAVE TO TAKE THE GAS LINE THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THERE IS AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM THAT WE CANNOT ENCROACH WITH THEM

[00:05:02]

THIS SECTION WE DON'T HAVE THAT CHALLENGE BECAUSE IT IS SO FAR OFF TO THE RIGHT, RIGHT OF WAY LINE. SO WE ARE PROPOSING TWO NEW INTERCHANGES AND ALSO LOOKING AT IMPROVING SIX INTERCHANGES. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MEETING, I'M GOING TO CONCENTRATE ON THE ONES ADJACENT, NORTH AND SOUTH AND RIGHT HERE IN TAMARAC.

SO WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT A NEW INTERCHANGE AT OAKLAND PARK BOULEVARD, IMPROVING THE COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE AND ALSO A NEW INTERCHANGE AT CYPRESS CREEK ROAD.

SO HERE IS AN EXISTING DRONE VIEW OF THE OAKLAND PARK BOULEVARD.

IT'S KIND OF LOOKING NORTH TO NORTHWEST.

SO IF I SHOW YOU THE RENDERING OF WHAT THE NEW ALTERNATIVE WOULD LOOK LIKE FOR AN INTERCHANGE HERE, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE RECONFIGURING ROCK ISLAND ROAD AND THE OAKLAND PARK BOULEVARD INTERSECTION.

THE ACCESS ON AND OFF THE TURNPIKE IS THROUGH THAT RAMP CONNECTOR.

SO WE'VE GOT ALL DIRECTIONS USING THAT AREA.

FOR COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD.

WE DID MEET WITH STAFF AND PRESENTED THIS TO THEM PRIOR TO OUR ALTERNATIVES MEETINGS THAT WE HELD IN JANUARY.

SO THE ALTERNATIVE ONE IS SIMILAR TO WHAT EXISTS TODAY.

HOWEVER, WE ARE HAVING TO REPLACE THE BRIDGES DUE TO THE MAIN LINE WIDENING.

ALTERNATIVE TWO SEPARATES THE NORTHBOUND AND THE SOUTHBOUND MOVEMENTS.

IN DISCUSSIONS WITH YOUR STAFF, WE LEARNED OF A PLANNED PARK, SO THAT ALTERNATIVE HAS SINCE BEEN ELIMINATED.

I'LL GO INTO THAT A LITTLE MORE.

SO JUST SOUTH OF COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD IN THE SOUTH ON RAMP, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE IS RIGHT OF WAY NEEDED IN ORDER TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE RAMP SO IT WOULD NOT BE TAKEN FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, BUT IT'S FROM THAT WATER CONTROL DISTRICT.

SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM.

LET'S SEE. YEAH.

AND HERE'S THE ACTUAL RIGHT OF WAY IMPACT.

AS YOU CAN SEE. I'M GOING TO SHOW A RENDERING OF IT SO YOU CAN SOMEWHAT SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. I KNOW IT'S KIND OF CHALLENGING TO SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE.

SO HERE IS A DRONE PHOTO OF THE EXISTING INTERCHANGE.

IT'S KIND OF LOOKING NORTHEAST.

AND ALTERNATIVE ONE, WHICH, AS I MENTIONED, IS SIMILAR TO WHAT EXISTS TODAY WITH IMPROVEMENTS YOU CAN SEE HERE TODAY.

THE NEXT IMPROVEMENT OR NEXT INTERCHANGE THAT WE'VE GOT IS AT CYPRESS CREEK ROAD.

SO THIS IS LOOKING NORTH TO NORTHEAST, AN EXISTING PHOTO AND HERE IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS.

SO THIS WOULD COVER A SOUTHBOUND OFF RAMP AND THEN A NORTHBOUND ON RAMP.

SO WHAT ARE THE NEW INTERCHANGE BENEFITS? WE'LL HAVE ADDITIONAL ACCESS FOR CUSTOMERS TO TRAVEL NORTH OR SOUTH ON THE TURNPIKE.

IT ACTUALLY DIVERTS TRAFFIC AWAY FROM COMMERCIAL, AND WE GET A 31% REDUCTION ON THE RAMPS. IT ALSO REDUCES TRAFFIC ON COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD ITSELF AND ALONG STATE ROAD 7, WHICH AS YOU CAN SEE, IS JUST EAST OF THERE.

SO FOR THE COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE, AS WE COORDINATED WITH STAFF AND GOT THE PLANS FOR THE NEW PARK, WE DID NOTE THAT THE EXISTING PARCEL RIGHT THERE IS ALMOST EIGHT ACRES. SO THE ALTERNATIVE ONE RIGHT OF WAY DOES NEED APPROXIMATELY 0.36 ACRES, WHICH IS LESS THAN 5% OF THE EXISTING PARCEL.

SO THAT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR THE COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD OVERPASS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND ALSO FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC ON THE COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD BRIDGE.

SO HERE'S SOME VIEWS JUST TO GET A BETTER IDEA IF YOU'RE OUT THERE.

THE TOP PICTURE IS LOOKING NORTHWEST AT THAT PARCEL AS IF YOU'RE STANDING AT COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD. AND THEN THE BOTTOM ONE IS IF YOU ARE AT 47TH AVENUE IN THAT NORTHWEST CORNER LOOKING SOUTHEAST.

SO THESE ARE THE PLANS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED.

I KNOW THAT THE CONCEPT PLANS ARE STILL IN PROCESS.

YOU ALL HAD THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

SO WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IS SUPERIMPOSE THAT ON THE PARCEL IN OUR PLANS TO SHOW IMPACTS.

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THESE ARE THE THREE OPTIONS.

AND IF YOU SEE THE LITTLE SLIVERS OF THE ORANGISH YELLOW COLOR THAT SHOWS THE IMPACTS FROM THE ALTERNATIVE ONE THAT WE WOULD BE NEEDING FOR RIGHT OF WAY.

SO AGAIN, IT'S ONLY 4.5% OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.

[00:10:02]

WE ALSO DID THIS ONE.

WE TRIED TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE TRANSPARENT, TRIED TO FIT IT THE BEST WE COULD SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHAT'S GOING ON UNDERNEATH THERE.

SO AS FAR AS THE ENTIRE PROJECT, THIS PD&E IS LOOKING AT 17 MILES.

WE'RE WIDENING 17 OF THOSE MILES THE ENTIRE LENGTH WITH ALL THE INTERCHANGES.

WHEN WE GO TO THE NEXT AND THEN WE WILL BE SELECTING AN ALTERNATIVE TO GO FORWARD.

SO WE'LL BE FINISHING UP THIS PD&E STUDY EITHER TOWARDS THE END OF THIS YEAR OR BEGINNING OF NEXT YEAR.

AND EACH SMALLER PROJECT, IT'LL BE SEGMENTED INTO VARIOUS DESIGN COMPONENTS, SO THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED A LATER TIME.

IT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED YET.

THERE'S NO FUNDING RIGHT NOW FOR RIGHT OF WAY, NO FUNDING FOR DESIGN.

SO AS THE WORK PROGRAM IS DETERMINED THROUGHOUT THE TURNPIKE, THEN THAT WILL BE FIGURED OUT. SO THE GOAL AND MEETING WITH STAFF AND COMING TODAY IS WE REALLY WANT TO MEET THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND KEEP THE RECREATIONAL SPACE THAT ALL OF YOU HAVE PLANNED.

SO WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING HERE OR HAVING US HERE TODAY AND IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MAYOR. THANK YOU FOR LIGHTING YOUR LIGHT COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

SO IT'S NOT A QUESTION, JUST A REQUEST TO MEET WITH ME OFFLINE.

I CAN COME TO YOUR OFFICE OR YOU CAN COME TO MINE.

I JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.

THIS IS MY DISTRICT. I KNOW IT'S YOUR DISTRICT.

ABSOLUTELY. I'M JUST A LITTLE BIT CAUTIOUS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS.

OK COMMISSIONER WE WILL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. ABSOLUTELY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER PLACKO. GOOD MORNING.

I CAN REMEMBER ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO TALKING ABOUT THIS AND WE TALKED ABOUT A FLYOVER AT COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD. AND I REMEMBER EVERYONE LOOKING AT US LIKE WE HAD FOUR HEADS.

THIS WAS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

SO I KNOW EVERYTHING TAKES TIME.

WHAT LOGICALLY, REALISTICALLY, WHAT TIME FRAME ARE WE LOOKING AT THIS? THERE'S NO FUNDING YET.

THERE'S NO PROJECT, SO TO SPEAK, YET.

HOW MANY YEARS ARE WE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT? I KNOW IT SEEMS TO CHANGE A LITTLE BIT.

I'M NOT SURE OF YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE FIVE YEAR WORK PROGRAM IS REALLY WHAT IS CONCENTRATED ON.

RIGHT. AS THE PRIORITY IS FROM FOR THIS PROJECT IS FROM THE NORTH DOWN TO THE SOUTH BECAUSE OF THE SAWGRASS AND TYING IN THERE.

SO I THINK WE'LL JUST HAVE TO SEE LATER ON THIS YEAR HOW EVERYTHING FLESHES OUT.

BUT IT'S GOING TO BE LATER IN THE 2020S, EARLY 2030S.

RIGHT.

NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I GUESS THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT IS FIVE YEARS OUT EVEN THINGS CHANGE DRASTICALLY IN AREAS THEY GET REBUILT.

THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE THAN MAYBE WE EXPECTED.

SO I KNOW IT'S A LONG TERM, BUT IF WE DON'T GET IT GOING NOW, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO OUR ATTENTION.

I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'VE COME TO THE CITY AND YOU SPOKE WITH THEM.

I KNOW I HAD A MEETING WITH GREG STEWART AND ANOTHER STAFF MEMBER IN JANUARY WHERE THEY PRESENTED THIS AND BROUGHT THIS FORTH.

AND I TOO REMEMBER WHEN COMMISSIONER PLACKO HAD TALKED TO US ABOUT THE FLYOVER AND MY OTHER INVOLVEMENT IN CERTAIN TRANSPORTATION ITEMS IN THE CITY.

AND YES, THINGS ARE CHANGING.

AND I KNOW WE ARE CONSTANT IN CONVERSATIONS WITH HOW WE ARE BUILDING OUT OUR CITY OR OUR PLANS HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

AND WE'LL JUST SAY, I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY 5 TO 7 YEARS BEFORE MAYBE SHOVEL TO THE GROUND THE REALITY OF IT.

BUT WE'RE 5 TO 7 YEARS CLOSER THAN WE WERE WHEN IT WAS LIKE 10 TO 15 A FEW YEARS AGO.

AND I KNOW THAT THESE ITEMS ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED, ESPECIALLY I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE OAKLAND PARK AND THE CYPRESS CREEK.

I REMEMBER THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAD ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO.

IT WAS ONE OR THE OTHER.

AND I GUESS WITH TECHNOLOGY AND LAND NOW WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT IN A SMALLER CAPACITY. YOU DIDN'T NEED ALL THE LAND THAT YOU NEEDED ONCE, SO WE CAN HAVE IT AT BOTH.

SO I THINK THAT IS A GREAT IMPROVEMENT.

AND I REMEMBER A LINE THAT STUCK WITH ME FROM THOSE CONVERSATIONS.

IT WAS SOMETIMES THINGS HAVE TO GET A LITTLE BIT WORSE BEFORE IT CAN GET BETTER WHEN DEALING WITH CERTAIN THINGS WITH FDOT AND THE COUNTY AND MONEY AND PLANNING.

SO SORRY THAT THINGS ARE GETTING A LITTLE BIT WORSE, BUT IN SOME RESPECTS I'M GRATEFUL BECAUSE NOW WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING CLOSER TO GETTING SOME STUFF ACCOMPLISHED.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

COMMISSIONER GELIN HIS FACE HAS APPEARED.

I DON'T SEE A HAND UP, BUT COMMISSIONER, ARE YOU WISHING TO SPEAK OR NO?

[00:15:01]

WE APPRECIATE YOU CONTINUED WORKING WITH US.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. BYE MS. HEYWOOD.

WE ARE NOW GOING TO.

1 B OF THIS ITEM.

I DON'T KNOW. SORRY.

IT'S NOT OF THIS. OH, I TAKE THAT BACK.

I THOUGHT WE WERE HAVING ANOTHER PART OF THE CONVERSATION.

I WANT TO ASK YOU ONE MORE QUESTION.

I'M SORRY. OH.

BECAUSE I KNOW IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH GREG AND PETER.

SOUND WALLS.

SOUND WALLS ARE, I'D LIKE TO JUST CONFIRM THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SOUND WALLS, BOTH SIDES, AND NOT ONLY LOOKING AT THE SOUND WALLS FROM THE LEVEL OF HEIGHT BEING ON THE TURNPIKE, BUT FROM THE RESIDENTS POINT OF VIEW, BECAUSE SOMETIMES YOUR ELEVATIONS ARE A LITTLE HIGHER THAN OUR PROPERTIES, FOR EXAMPLE, ON SAWGRASS AND NORTHWEST 108TH STREET.

THE SOUND WALL IS HIGHER ON THE SAWGRASS LOOK, BUT IT'S LOWER FOR THE RESIDENTS.

SO THEY'RE HEARING A LOT OF SOUNDS COMING FROM THERE.

AND I KNOW THAT'S A DIFFERENT PROJECT AND I KNOW YOU'RE WORKING ON IT AND ALL THAT KIND OF GOOD STUFF. BUT WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE SOUND WALLS AND YOU'RE WORKING ON YOUR PROJECT HERE, PLEASE MAKE SURE THE SOUND WALLS ARE THICK ENOUGH AND TALLER FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE RESIDENTS VERSUS THE TURNPIKE.

YEAH, WE ARE DOING A FULL NOISE STUDY FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT LIMITS AND WE HAVE RECEIVED THAT COMMENT SO. THANK YOU.

NOW YOU'RE FREE TO GO. [LAUGHTER] SORRY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND I ALSO PUT IT ON THE RECORD.

I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO BE TALKING WITH MANNER PARK, THE RESIDENTS DIRECTLY BEING AFFECTED THERE AND CHELSEA PARK.

SO NOW MOVING ON 1 B THE 2021 2022 CHARTER BOARD REPORT.

[1.b 2021/2022 Charter Board Report]

THE SHOW IS YOURS.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, I'D LIKE TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CHARTER BOARD THAT YOU ALL APPOINTED.

THEY WORKED DILIGENTLY TO BRING FORTH THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU HAVE.

I'M SORRY THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH.

WHAT WE DID OR HOW WE DID THIS AND IS THAT STAFF WOULD SCHEDULE THE MEETINGS ONCE A MONTH AND PROVIDE AN AGENDA WITH SECTIONS OF THE CHARTER IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.

SO WE STARTED AT SECTION 1.01 AND WORKED OUR WAY THROUGH TO THE END OF THE DOCUMENT.

THEN, LAST BUT NOT LEAST, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER, THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING THAT TOOK PLACE AT THE LAST WEEK WHERE THE FINALIZED DOCUMENT WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED, SUBJECT TO SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS THAT WERE FINALIZING.

BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT GENDER NEUTRAL.

AND SO THERE WAS A COUPLE OF SECTIONS WHERE UNFORTUNATELY, WE DID NOT CATCH REFERENCES TO HIS. AND SO WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING OF MAKING THOSE FINAL CHANGES.

BUT SUBSTANTIVELY, THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH. I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS WORKS SINCE IT'S THE FIRST TIME.

THERE WE GO. SO THERE ARE FIVE MEMBERS WHO WERE APPOINTED BY RESOLUTION 2021-044 THE INITIAL MEETING TOOK PLACE ON JUNE 26, 2021, AND WE HAD A TOTAL OF TEN MEETINGS AND ONE PUBLIC HEARING. WE DID HAVE SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SHOW UP.

NOT AS MANY AS I THINK THAT WE WOULD HAVE ALL REQUIRED TO GET INPUT FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC, BUT ULTIMATELY SUBJECT TO THE CITY COMMISSION MAKING A DECISION WHAT TO PUT FORTH BEFORE THE ELECTORATE, THEY OBVIOUSLY WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY AND WHAT, IF ANY, AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER GET ADOPTED AND THEN REFLECTED IN THE NEW CHARTER OR THE AMENDED CHARTER AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

AS I SAID, WE WENT THROUGH SECTION BY SECTION.

THERE WAS A LOT OF CLEANUP THAT WAS DONE IN THE SENSE OF OBSOLETE LANGUAGE AND CONSOLIDATION THAT AND AS WELL AS GENDER NEUTRAL.

AND THERE WERE OBVIOUSLY SOME VERY SOME SPECIFIC SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES THAT THE BOARD IS RECOMMENDING AS WELL.

FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHANGES, NOT ONLY IN HOW MANY PAGES IT OCCUPIES IN THE CHARTER, BUT FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, IS CONSOLIDATION IN ARTICLE TWO OF THE CITY MAP AND CORPORATE BOUNDARIES? THERE IS A SEPARATE ARTICLE 13 WHERE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY IS SET FORTH IN

[00:20:01]

THAT OCCUPIES ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE PAGES OF THE CHARTER BECAUSE WE'VE INCORPORATED IT INTO ARTICLE TWO.

FURTHERMORE, WE DISCOVERED THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT IS IN THE CHARTER CURRENTLY IS OUTDATED. AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS IN ARTICLE TWO, JUST SIMPLY PROVIDED THAT THE OFFICIAL CITY MAP AND THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY, AND THAT WOULD BE THE FUNCTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER TO ULTIMATELY CREATE THAT MAP TOGETHER WITH THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL DESCRIPTION.

AND THEN COPIES OF THAT DOCUMENT WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR THE COST OF DUPLICATION. FRANKLY, WHAT WE DID WITH THE CHARTER BOARD IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH YOU ALL, WHICH IS JUST REALLY START AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DOCUMENT AND KIND OF GO THROUGH THOSE CHANGES.

SO YOU CAN SEE AND IDENTIFY THEM TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN DISCUSS THEM PUBLICLY AND THEN ULTIMATELY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

AND THEN YOU ALL DISCUSS AMONGST YOURSELF WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE FORWARDED TO YOU BY THE CHARTER BOARD.

UNDER YOUR CHARTER AND UNDER STATE LAW, YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY, DELETE, ADD ANY PROVISIONS THAT YOU WANT AND PUT BEFORE THE ELECTORATE THROUGH THE FORM OF BALLOT CHANGES THAT WE WILL THEN GO THROUGH THE REQUIRED ORDINANCE ADOPTION PROCESS TO THEN PUT THOSE CHANGES BEFORE THE ELECTORATE IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

YES. MADAM MAYOR.

EXCUSE ME. AND JUST A QUESTION.

ONE THING I DIDN'T SEE HERE, BUT I THOUGHT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR US TO KNOW AS WE'RE DOING THIS IS WHAT IS THE EXPENSE, IF MY UNDERSTANDING, INSTEAD OF SAYING WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS. CAN WE BE TOLD HOW MUCH EACH CHARTER AMENDMENT COSTS? AND THE EFFECT IT HAS ON OUR CITY.

I THINK FROM THE STANDPOINT OF FISCAL IMPACT OF THE CHANGES OR JUST THE TOTAL COST. NO. BECAUSE I MEAN, AS A QUICK COMMENT, I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE HE SHE'S GENDER NEUTRALS THE PUTTING CITY MANAGER AND CERTAIN THINGS THOSE COMMENTS BUT IF IT'S GOING TO COST MY UNDERSTANDING WAS $1,000 PER CHARTER ITEM THEN I DON'T KNOW IF, THAT'S WHAT.

OUR COMMISSION NEEDS TO KNOW THIS AS WE'RE MAKING OUR DECISIONS ABOUT THAT.

I WOULD DEFER TO THE CLERK ON WHAT THE COST IS.

SHE IS THE PERSON AT STAFF LEVEL THAT HAS THE INTERACTION WITH THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS THAT WOULD ACTUALLY PUT TOGETHER THE BALLOT.

ONCE THE DOCUMENT IS, YOU ALL DECIDE WHAT AMENDMENTS YOU WANT TO PUT FORTH.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT COST IS.

THAT'S WHY THE QUESTION WAS FOR EITHER ONE, BECAUSE I THINK WHEN WE'RE SITTING HERE MAKING THIS DECISION OR THE DECISIONS ON THESE ITEMS, WE SHOULD HAVE A FULL PICTURE OF OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NO IMPACT TO CHANGE SOMETHING ON A COMPUTER, BUT THE IMPACT COULD BE GREATER. PLEASE TELL US.

SURE. SO IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR, THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS SENT OUT AN ESTIMATE WHICH WE PROVIDED TO YOU. IT'S THEY ARE THINKING THAT OUR ELECTION COST IN NOVEMBER WILL BE AROUND $50,000 DOLLARS.

SO THAT'S FOR ANY RACES AND FOR TWO BALLOT PAGES.

AND THEN IF WE WERE TO HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL BALLOT PAGES, THOSE WILL BE AT A COST OF.

$0.15 PER ELECTED VOTER PER PAGE.

SO I THINK THE COST CALCULATION ON THAT'S RIGHT AROUND $7,500 DOLLARS PER EXTRA PAGE.

BUT IF YOU'RE ADDING BALLOT LANGUAGE, I CAN'T REALLY ESTIMATE HOW MANY PAGES THAT WILL BE. SO IT COULD GET LENGTHY OR IT COULD BE VERY SHORT.

IT DEPENDS I'M NOT THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY DRAWS THE BALLOT.

SO. OKAY.

THANK YOU. AND TO THAT WE ARE RESTRICTED UNDER STATE LAW AND THE SIZE OF OR THE WORDS THAT EACH BALLOT INITIATIVE CAN BE.

SO WE'RE OBVIOUSLY SENSITIVE TO THAT.

THAT'S ALSO AFFECTS THE COST AND WE WOULD TRY AS BEST AS POSSIBLE AND SUBJECT TO THIS COMMISSION'S APPROVAL THROUGH THE ORDINANCE ADOPTION PROCESS TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED WORDING AND AS BRIEFLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT WITH ENOUGH SPECIFICITY TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON, TO COMPRESS THAT AS BEST AS POSSIBLE FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE.

IF THAT. UNDERSTOOD.

AND THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE DEFINITELY VALUE OF MONEY.

[00:25:03]

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE OF THE UNDERSTANDING AND YOU CLARIFIED IT FOR ME AND I APPRECIATE THAT. SO IN THE ON THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE PRESENTATION REALLY IS A REFLECTION OF WE ASKED AT THE LAST MEETING THAT THE BOARD IDENTIFY THREE OR FOUR PROVISIONS THAT THEY FELT WERE IMPORTANT, THAT THEY WANTED, IMPORTANT ENOUGH, TO EMPHASIZE.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.

BUT AS I SAID, I THINK THAT THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO GO THROUGH THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT THE CHARTER BOARD HAS RECOMMENDED, JUST GO PAGE BY PAGE THROUGH THE CHARTER.

SO IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE IN THE PREAMBLE, THE BOARD IS RECOMMENDING CHANGES TO THE WORD, CITIZENS, TO REGISTERED VOTERS, BECAUSE TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, THAT IS, IN FACT, WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY UNDER STATE LAW IN YOUR CHARTER TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE DOCUMENT, NOT THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC, BUT RATHER THE REGISTERED VOTERS.

THAT'S A TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION, BUT IT IS AN APPROPRIATE CLARIFICATION.

AGAIN, THAT'S UP TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS IS AT THE PLEASURE OF TH IS COMMISSION AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

AS I INDICATED TO YOU BEFORE, THE NEXT PROPOSED CHANGE TO THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER BOARD IS FOUND IN ARTICLE TWO CITY MAP AND CORPORATE BOUNDARIES.

WE'VE AGAIN DELETED ARTICLE 13 CORPORATE LIMITS AND INCORPORATED HERE INTO ARTICLE TWO.

ARTICLE THREE CITY SEAL STAYED THE SAME.

SECTION. MOVING ON TO ARTICLE FOUR, LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDED SPECIFYING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT THE CITY FOLLOWS, WHICH IS MAYOR, CITY COMMISSION, CITY MANAGER, FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

WE DELETED THE WORD, OF THE, AS BEING SUPERFLUOUS, NOT NECESSARY.

AND THAT WAS THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO SECTION 4.01.

SECTION 4.02 THE TITLE WILL READ CITY COMMISSION ELECTION TERMS AND QUALIFICATIONS.

THE SWEARING IN LANGUAGE THAT MAY BE IN THE VERSION THAT YOU HAVE IS DELETED.

IT'S BEEN MOVED TO ANOTHER SECTION OF THE CHARTER.

WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A MOMENT.

AND THEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SECTION 4.02 THERE'S A VERY LONG SENTENCE OR A COUPLE OF SENTENCES THAT HAVE BEEN STRICKEN THROUGH BECAUSE IT'S FRANKLY, IT'S OBSOLETE.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS AN OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE OF THE CHARTER BOARD WAS TO DELETE PROVISIONS THAT NO LONGER APPLY.

SO THAT'S WHY THAT SECTION IS STRICKEN THROUGH.

THE SAME WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT MODIFICATION, WHICH IS IN SECTION 4.03, MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR. THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THAT FIRST SENTENCE REGARDING THAT STARTS IN MARCH 2007.

THAT'S AGAIN, OBSOLETE.

SO IT WAS DELETED OR PROPOSED TO BE DELETED.

THE NEXT SECTION OF THE CHARTER THAT THERE ARE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO IS IN SECTION 4.05 VACANCIES, FORFEITURES OF OFFICE FILLING OF VACANCIES.

IN REVIEWING THIS SECTION OF THE CHARTER THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD THOUGHT THAT THE LANGUAGE AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS WAS A BIT, FOR LACK OF A BETTER DESCRIPTION, OBTUSE.

SO THEY'VE DELETED IT.

AND WE, AS PART OF THE PROCESS OF WHEN WE FIRST HAD THE COUPLE OF MEETINGS WITH THE CHARTER BOARD, WE GAVE THEM EXAMPLES OF OTHERS, JUST RANDOM EXAMPLES OF OTHER CHARTERS.

AND ONE OF THEM, I BELIEVE, WAS LAUDERDALE LAKES.

ANOTHER ONE WAS MARGATE, I THINK CORAL SPRINGS.

WE GAVE THEM THREE OR FOUR, AND THEN FROM TIME TO TIME WE SUPPLEMENTED THAT WITH OTHERS AS WE WENT ALONG.

AS IT RELATES TO SECTION 4.05 THE CHARTER BOARD ACTUALLY LIKED THE LANGUAGE REGARDING VACANCIES AND FORFEITURE OFFICE AND THE LAUDERDALE LAKES CHARTER.

AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE IN THE DOCUMENT AS OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT LANGUAGE THAT'S SHOWN IN STRIKE OUT AND UNDERLINED.

IN SUBSECTION E OF THAT SAME SECTION, AGAIN, TRYING TO MAKE THAT NOT ONLY GENDER NEUTRAL,

[00:30:02]

THE REASON WHY IS THAT THERE, WE HOPE IT NEVER HAPPENS.

BUT THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT AT SOME POINT THAT THIS BODY COULD FUNCTION WITH THREE COMMISSIONERS AND ACTUALLY THE CHARTER PROVIDES FOR THAT.

AND SO WE'VE IDENTIFIED THROUGHOUT THE CHARTER THAT WHERE APPROPRIATE.

AND SO THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PLACES WHERE WE SAID THREE OF THE COMMISSIONERS IN OFFICE AT THE TIME OR IS PRESENT BECAUSE THAT IS THE MINIMUM THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER YOUR CHARTER TO HAVE TO MEET A QUORUM.

SO WE CARRIED THAT THROUGH INTO SECTION 4.06.

WE ALSO CLEANED UP IN SECTION 4.7 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTION, THE JUST BASICALLY REFERENCE TO THE HOME RULE POWERS ACT OF THE STATE, WHICH IS CHAPTER 166, IT'S THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE. THE.

SO WE ALSO DELETED AS SUPERFLUOUS NOTICES WHICH CONTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS, SHALL CONTAIN A STREET ADDRESS WHAT GOES IN AT AN APPROPRIATE NOTICE, DEPENDING UPON THE NATURE OF THE ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED BY THIS COMMISSION, IS ALREADY DICTATED EITHER BY CHAPTER 163 OR CHAPTER 166 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES.

THE NEXT CHANGES ARE IN ARTICLE FIVE OF THE CHARTER.

AGAIN, WE TRIED TO.

WE DID MAKE THAT AS A GENDER NEUTRAL.

THE AND IT'S HERE IN ONE OF THE, THIS IS ANOTHER AREA THAT THE BOARD WANTED TO EMPHASIZE IS PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN 5.02 SUSPENSION OR REMOVAL.

THAT REMOVAL OF THE MANAGER WOULD BE BY A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF THE COMMISSIONERS IN OFFICE AT THE TIME.

THEN WE JUST DID SOME CLEANUP LANGUAGE AS WELL IN SUBSECTION TWO REGARDING THE MANAGERS COMPENSATION. WE CARRIED CHANGES THROUGHOUT SECTION 5.04 TO MAKE IT GENDER NEUTRAL.

DID SOME CLEAN UP LANGUAGE IN 5.05 OATH OF OFFICE, CAPITALIZATION THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

AND AS I WAS TRYING TO STANDARDIZE THE TERMINOLOGY THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT.

THEN THE NEXT CHANGE IN THE CHARTER IS IN ARTICLE SIX QUALIFICATION ELECTIONS DOWN TO SECTION 6.04 TO SPECIFY THAT THE ELECTIONS ARE NONPARTISAN.

WE ALSO MODIFIED THE LANGUAGE AGAIN THAT THE CHARTER BOARD THOUGHT THAT THE LANGUAGE REGARDING WHEN NEW OR REELECTED COMMISSIONERS OR MAYOR WERE TO BE SEATED NEEDED TO BE CLARIFIED OR EASIER TO READ.

I REALLY BELIEVE IS A BETTER WAY TO CHARACTERIZE IT.

AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THE CITY OF MARGATE OR THE LAUDERDALE LAKES CHARTER THAT THEY TOOK THIS LANGUAGE AND ARE PROPOSING TO INSERT IT INTO SECTION 6.04 AS TO WHEN THE CITY COMMISSIONERS AND MAYOR ARE TO BE SEATED OR SWORN IN.

THERE IS A DEFINITION IN THE CHARTER FOR WHAT IS AN ELECTOR.

SO IN SECTION 6.06, AGAIN, IT'S A REGISTERED VOTER FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES.

SO WE CLARIFIED THAT OR THE BOARD CLARIFIED THAT.

AND IN SECTION 6.09 IN ISSUE FROM REFERENDUM IN SUBSECTION E THAT HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.

THERE'S ALREADY LANGUAGE IN YOUR CHARTER, SO WE DELETED THAT AS SUPERFLUOUS AND OBSOLETE.

[00:35:03]

AND SO THAT WAS MADE AND CHANGED AS WELL.

IN SECTION 7.05, WE REFERENCED THAT IT'S ACTUALLY FLORIDA LAW OR FLORIDA STATUTES AS OPPOSED TO JUST SIMPLY LEAVING IT CHAPTER 200 OR CHAPTER 218, AGAIN, FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES. SOME OTHER CLEAN UP LANGUAGE AND TRYING TO STANDARDIZE THE TERMINOLOGY IN SECTION 706 AND 702.

WITH REGARD TO SECTION 7.07, AND THIS WAS FOUND IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE CHARTER. THE CHARTER REFERENCES THE COST OF PROVIDING OR RESPONDING TO A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST THAT THE CITY CAN CHARGE A REASONABLE PRICE.

THOSE ARE ACTUALLY WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T CHARGE IS SET BY STATE LAW.

SO WE'VE CLEANED THAT UP THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT.

THE PROCESS BY WHICH IN SECTION 7.09, THE SELECTION OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR OF THE CITY ACCOUNTS THAT IS ACTUALLY SET BY STATE LAW.

SO WE REFERENCED THAT PARTICULAR STATUTORY PROVISIONS.

THERE WAS ALSO A LANGUAGE IN THAT LAST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 7.09 THAT SAYS THAT THE COMMISSION MAY PROVIDE FOR A SURPRISE AUDIT.

FRANKLY, YOU ALL CAN ORDER AN AUDIT AT ANY POINT IN TIME.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A SURPRISE.

SO WE CLARIFIED THAT LANGUAGE TO JUST SIMPLY SAY THAT YOU ALL CAN REQUEST AN AUDIT AT ANY POINT IN TIME. SECTION 7.11 REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC BIDDING.

AGAIN, SOME CLARITY, SOME CLEAN UP LANGUAGE THERE.

THERE'S ALREADY BY ORDINANCE, THE CITY HAS ALREADY ADOPTED A PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURE AND CERTAINLY HAS THE RIGHT UNDER STATE LAW TO MODIFY THOSE AS YOU ALL DEEM FIT BY ORDINANCE.

WE DID ADD IN, AND THIS WAS FRANKLY AT MY SUGGESTION IN SECTION 7.11, THE LAST SENTENCE IS NEW.

THE PROCUREMENT OF CONTRACTS OR SERVICES OF ANY TYPE ARE SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS. AGAIN, THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW THAT AND YOU ALL ANY CONTRACTING IS SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROPRIATION.

SO 7.12 JUST CLEAN UP ABOUT REFERENCE TO THE CITY MANAGER.

SECTION 7.14 THAT ACTUALLY REFERS TO THE CCNA, THE CONSULTANTS COMPETITION.

EXCUSE ME. THE CONSULTANTS COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION ACT AND THE SERVICES THAT ACTUALLY ARE SUBJECT TO THE CCNA ARE ARCHITECT, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.

ATTORNEYS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THAT.

SO WE DELETED ATTORNEYS AND JUST REFERENCED STATE LAW.

CERTAINLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ISSUE OF HIRING OF THE ATTORNEY, THERE'S A COMPLETELY SEPARATE PROVISION IN THE CHARTER FOR THE HIRING OF THE ATTORNEY.

SO WE CLARIFIED THAT.

7.15.

716. SECTION 7.17 TO SECTION 7.18.

AND SECTION 7.19 WERE LEFT INTACT WITH THE NEXT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN ARTICLE 8 REGARDING THE CHARTER BOARD.

THE LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER CURRENTLY REFERENCES DIFFERENT DISTRICTS.

WE FELT THAT IT WAS MORE APPROPRIATE TO DESIGNATE THEM AS THE ELECTORAL DISTRICTS BECAUSE THAT'S THE LANGUAGE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CHARTER.

THERE WAS ALSO ADDED LANGUAGE TO BE CONSISTENT ABOUT THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR COMMISSIONERS IS THE SAME FOR THE MAYOR AND THAT THE TERM OF OFFICE OF A MAYORAL APPOINTMENT IS ALSO ONE YEAR.

[00:40:02]

SO WHAT THE CHARTER LANGUAGE IS PROPOSED TO READ GOING FORWARD IS ESSENTIALLY THAT THE CHARTER BOARD WILL MEET EVERY SIX YEARS.

SUBSECTION B WAS DELETED AS BEING SUPERFLUOUS, OR SINCE IT ALREADY SAYS THAT THE TERM OF OFFICE IS ONLY FOR ONE YEAR.

SO AT THE END OF THAT ONE YEAR, THE PREVIOUS CHARTER BOARD WOULD EXPIRE BY CHARTER PROVISION. IN SECTION 8.0.

THERE WAS ALSO CLARIFICATION THAT THE BOARD WANTED FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO SPECIFY IN SUBSECTION F THAT NOT ONLY MUST YOU BE OBVIOUSLY THE ELECTOR, BUT YOU ALSO MUST BE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC TO BE A MEMBER OF THE CHARTER BOARD.

WITH REGARD TO THE DUTIES AND POWERS IN SECTION 8.02, THE CHARTER BOARD IS RECOMMENDING THE DELETION OF A SENTENCE.

IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED, THE BOARD SHALL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS.

AND THE REASON WHY THEY ARE RECOMMENDING THAT CHANGE IS THAT, AS REFLECTED IN ONE OF THE SLIDES THAT WE PREVIOUSLY SHOWED, THE CHARTER BOARD MET FOR TEN DIFFERENT TIMES OVER THE COURSE OF EIGHT, NINE MONTHS.

EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

AND THE PUBLIC WAS, TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WERE PRESENT AND WANTED TO SPEAK, THEY WERE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

AND SO THE CHARTER BOARD FELT THAT THE NEED FOR ONE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE END WAS SUPERFLUOUS BECAUSE THEY HAD ALREADY HAD, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, NINE OR TEN PUBLIC MEETINGS AT WHICH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC COULD ATTEND, WHICH IS ALSO REQUIRED BY LAW THAT ALL THESE MEETINGS BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

AND SO AND IN FACT, WHEN WE DID HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING, NO ONE SHOWED UP.

SO THEY FELT, WHY HAVE THAT THERE WHEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC LEADING UP TO THAT POINT? AND THEN AGAIN, THAT WAS SUPERFLUOUS AND OR REDUNDANT NOT BETTER WORD IS REDUNDANT AS OPPOSED TO SUPERFLUOUS.

IN SECTION 8.03, THEY MOVED A TO THE END IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO FOR THE WAY THAT THE SECTION WAS LAID OUT, WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH ITS TITLE ASSISTANCE, BUDGET AND REPORT.

SO THE REPORT IS NOW AT THE END.

DID SOME CLEANUP ON.

[LAUGHTER] AT THIS POINT IN TIME. WE FOUND OUT THAT THE CHARTER WENT FROM ARTICLE 8 TO 10 WITH NO, WE DIDN'T KNOW WHY.

SO WE'VE MODIFIED THAT AND THE CHANGES IN THE SECTION NUMBERS AS WELL.

SO WE NOW GO FROM ARTICLE 8 TO ARTICLE NEW ARTICLE 9 AND SEQUENTIALLY NUMBERED.

DELETED THE REFERENCE IN THE TITLE OF SECTION 9.01 COMPENSATION THAT FRANKLY, THERE'S NO REFERENCE ACTUALLY IN THE CHARTER ABOUT THE CLERK'S COMPENSATION.

IT'S ACTUALLY DETERMINED BY THE MANAGER.

AND ARTICLE, NEW ARTICLE 10 CITY ATTORNEY THE CHARTER BOARD AND THIS IS ALSO, ADDED THE SIMILAR LANGUAGE.

THAT'S FOR THE CITY MANAGER THAT THE COMMISSION MAY SUSPEND OR REMOVE THE CITY ATTORNEY BY SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF ALL THE COMMISSIONERS IN OFFICE AT THE TIME, UPON DEMAND THE CITY ATTORNEY, A PUBLIC HEARING SHALL BE HELD PRIOR TO THE SUSPENSION REMOVAL, AND THAT MIRRORS THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE CHARTER FOR THE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER, THE CITY MANAGER. SECTION NEXT ARTICLE 11.

11.01 THERE WAS A REQUEST TO ADD IN THE WORD FOR DUTY AT THE END OF SUBSECTION A.

THE NEXT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE.

THERE ARE SOME CLEANUP IN THE OTHER SECTIONS ALL THE WAY THROUGH 11.05.

[00:45:07]

CHAPTER 163 FLORIDA STATUTES IS WHAT CONTROLS GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES OBVIOUSLY INCLUDING THE CITY OF TAMARAC AND WE MODIFIED THE LANGUAGE.

THE SECOND SENTENCE READS [INAUDIBLE] THAT THIS COMMISSION MAY, BY ORDINANCE, DELEGATE TO ANY ZONING COMMISSION, FINAL APPROVAL ON ZONING AND PLANNING MATTERS.

OTHERWISE, THE COMMISSION SHALL BE THE FINAL AUTHORITY.

AND THE REASON WHY THAT CHANGE IS THERE IS BECAUSE IN YOUR CODE YOU HAVE ALL THE POWERS OVER ZONING, EXCEPT FOR ONE SUBSTANTIVE AREA.

YOU HAVE DELEGATED TO THE PLANNING BOARD THE AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET.

I'M SORRY TO HEAR CHALLENGES TO A STAFF INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT'S ALREADY THERE.

SO THIS CODE LANGUAGE, THIS CODE CHANGE REFLECTS THAT.

IN SECTION 11.09, WE ADDED IN THE SIGNATURE TO BOND CHECKS THE CITY CLERK AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, WHICH IS GENERALLY ALREADY WE DO THAT.

SO IT'S JUST AGAIN UPDATING THAT SECTION OF THE CHARTER TO REFLECT THAT ON BONDS, CHECKS AND CONTRACTS, THE CLERK AND MYSELF SIGNED THOSE ALREADY AS WELL.

IN SECTION 11.10.

WE DELETED THE LAST SENTENCE REGARDING THE COMMISSION MAY NOT AMEND THIS CHARTER BY ORDINANCE. AND THE REASON WHY WE DID THAT IS THERE ARE TWO DISCRETE SECTION PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW THAT ALLOW THE COMMISSION, IF IT SO CHOOSES, TO CHANGE A CHARTER PROVISIONS TO BY ORDINANCE. THAT IS, WHEN YOU SCHEDULE ELECTIONS AND WHAT YOUR QUALIFYING PERIODS ARE.

UNDER STATE LAW, YOU CAN DO THAT BY ORDINANCE AND I'VE SEEN IT IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES WHERE THEY DO THAT. SO AGAIN, WE MADE SECTION 11.10 OR WHAT'S NOW GOING TO BE 11.10 CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.

WE DELETED OR THE BOARD RECOMMENDS DELETION OF SECTION 12.12, WHICH NOW WOULD BE 11.12, WHICH IS THE CHANGE THE NAME FROM COUNCIL TO COMMISSION THAT'S BEEN IN EFFECT NOW FOR DECADES. AND SO THERE WAS A DETERMINATION THAT DID NOT NEED TO BE IN THERE ANY LONGER.

AND THEN, AS I INDICATED BEFORE, ARTICLE 13 HAS BEEN DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY AS IT'S BEEN MOVED TO ARTICLE TWO.

WE LEFT INTACT THE SECTION ON ANNEXATION, BECAUSE, AGAIN, YOU DO HAVE THAT AUTHORITY UNDER STATE LAW TO ANNEX AREAS INTO THE CITY.

WE THEN TOOK A LOOK AT THE LAST ARTICLE IN THE CHARTER, WHICH IS THE [INAUDIBLE] OR MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WE MADE WERE IN ARTICLE 14.

NOW IT'LL BE 13 TRANSITION SCHEDULE.

WE LEFT IN 13.01 THAT ALL ORDINANCES ARE PRESERVED BUT DELETED 14.02 OR WHAT USED TO BE 14.02, 14.03 14.04 14.06 AGAIN FOR NO REASON IT JUMPED 14.07 AND LEFT IN WHAT WILL BE NOW PRESUMING THERE MOVES FORWARD 13.02 THE SAVINGS CLAUSE AND THE REASON WHY THOSE SECTIONS OF THE CHARTER WERE DELETED IS BECAUSE AGAIN, THERE ARE OUTDATED AND OBSOLETE.

THAT'S IT. QUESTIONS? AND THERE ARE TWO OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE TO THEM, TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU MAY, ABOUT WHAT THE PROCESS WAS AND.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST, ANY RECOMMENDATIONS MUST BE IN ORDINANCE FORMAT.

[00:50:02]

IT DOES REQUIRE TWO READINGS, THEN WE'LL FORWARD THAT TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS.

THEN THEY'LL PUT THE MEASURES ON THE NOVEMBER 8TH BALLOT AND IF APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, THEY WILL BE IMMEDIATELY CODIFIED INTO THE CHARTER AND BECOME, ONCE THE ELECTION IS CERTIFIED, THEY WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

THANK YOU. AND YES, WE THANK WE HAVE THE CHAIR SALLIE JAMES HERE AND WE HAVE PATRICIA PARKINS HERE IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL.

AND LADIES, AND TO YOUR COLLEAGUES, JIM GRIFFIN, ANTHONY ROZO, I BELIEVE, AND APRIL CUNNINGHAM, WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THE BOARD.

I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG TEN MONTHS, SO WE APPRECIATE IT.

ALSO, THE STAFF. SO.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS YOU WANT TO START US OFF? OKAY. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU TO THE BOARD.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOU ALL WERE EXTREMELY DEDICATED, DID A GREAT JOB.

ALL RIGHT. LET ME GET MY NOTES HERE.

OKAY. I'M LOOKING FOR A BIT OF CONSISTENCY.

AND WE HAVE IN SEVERAL PLACES MAJORITY AND WE HAVE IN SEVERAL PLACES SUPERMAJORITY.

I'M LOOKING FOR CONSISTENCY.

IN PARTICULAR, THE CITY MANAGER MAY APPOINT A FULLY QUALIFIED ONE BY MAJORITY, MAY BE SUSPENDED OR REMOVED BY A SUPERMAJORITY.

THE CITY ATTORNEY MAY BE SUSPENDED OR REMOVED BY SUPERMAJORITY.

WE NEED SOME CONSISTENCY HERE.

I WANT TO MAKE [INAUDIBLE] THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CHARTER BOARD, THAT WITH REGARD TO THE SUSPENSION AND OR REMOVAL OF EITHER THE CITY MANAGER OR THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT IT BE BY SUPERMAJORITY, THE APPOINTMENT OF BOTH CHARTER OFFICES WOULD BE BY MAJORITY. IT'S UP TO YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU WISH TO MAKE THEM INTERNALLY CONSISTENT.

LEAVE IT AS IS OR THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CHARTER BOARD.

OKAY. AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF CONSISTENCY.

ONE OF THE ONE OF THE OVERRIDING THINGS THAT THIS CHARTER BOARD WAS FOCUSED ON WAS TRYING TO MAKE THE DOCUMENT AS INTERNALLY CONSISTENT AS POSSIBLE AND THE USE OF TERMINOLOGY AND CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT.

BUT THIS IS ONE AREA WHERE THE CHARTER BOARD DID FEEL IT WAS, IN THEIR OPINION, IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY FOR THE SUSPENSION OR REMOVAL OF EITHER THE MANAGER OR THE ATTORNEY. AND IT'S A [INAUDIBLE] I WANT TO MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, THIS IS A POLICY DIRECTIVE. ALL THESE ITEMS ARE ULTIMATELY POLICY ISSUES FOR THIS COMMISSION TO DECIDE TO ACCEPT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CHARTER BOARD OR NOT.

NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT I'M BRINGING UP MY CONCERN THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT CONSISTENT.

SO I WILL HOPE FOR A CONVERSATION WITH MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT THAT.

LET'S SEE THE OTHER THING.

I HAVE A QUESTION HERE ON 7.10 D IT SAYS THE CITY MANAGER MAY TRANSFER FUNDS WITHIN A DEPARTMENT AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION, MAY TRANSFER FUNDS BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS. I NEED A LITTLE CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

THE CITY MANAGER CAN TRANSFER FUNDS WITHIN A DEPARTMENT, BUT THEN SHE NEEDS OUR PERMISSION TO TRANSFER FUNDS BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS.

BECAUSE THAT'S A FUNCTION OF THE BUDGET PROCESS.

SO WHEN THE BUDGET IS ADOPTED, YOU ALL ALLOCATE INCOME OR REVENUE TO THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.

AND WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT THE MANAGER UNDER THE CHARTER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE THINGS AROUND WITHIN THAT DEPARTMENT ACCOUNT.

BUT IF YOU'RE GOING FROM TAKING, LET'S SAY, $400,000 DOLLARS AWAY FROM PARKS AND REC AND ASSIGNING IT TO OR WANTS TO TRANSFER IT TO THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, THEN THAT WOULD REQUIRE A BUDGET AMENDMENT.

AND WE HAVE THAT BUDGET AMENDMENT PROCESS THAT STAFF BRINGS TO THE COMMISSION ON AT LEAST TWO TIMES A YEAR AND IF NECESSARY, MORE FREQUENTLY TO ACCOUNT FOR THOSE TYPES OF BUDGETARY TRANSFERS.

OKAY. IT SAYS, AS IS PERMITTED BY LAW.

CORRECT. SO IT WOULD BE AN ORDINANCE.

[00:55:02]

THANK YOU. AND MS. CAJUSTE COULD DEFINE IT. I HOPE I DESCRIBED THAT CORRECTLY.

SHE'S SHAKING HER HEAD, YES.

OK 7.16.

THE CITY SHALL HAVE FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO ISSUE MUNICIPAL BONDS OR TO BORROW FUNDS FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES TO THE EXTENT AUTHORIZED AND SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS DIVIDED BY CONSTITUTION.

WHOSE THE CITY IS THE CITY THE COMMISSION IS THE CITY THE CITY MANAGER? NO, THE CITY IS THE CITY COMMISSION OR THE CORPORATE ENTITY OF THE CITY.

SO UNDER FLORIDA LAW, THE CITY IS A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND UNDER THE HOME RULE POWERS, IT HAS THE CITY HAS ALL THE POWERS GIVEN TO IT BY THE HOME RULE POWERS ACT, BY THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, AND BY ULTIMATELY THE ELECTORS IN THE FORM OF THE CHARTER.

AND ONE OF THOSE PROVISIONS IS THAT THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO BORROW MONEY SUBJECT TO FOLLOWING CERTAIN PROCEDURES.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS CHARTER PROVISION SAYS.

AND THE CHARTER BOARD FELT THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO MODIFY IT.

BUT YOU ALL, IF YOU WISH, WE CAN SAY THE CITY OF TAMARAC, BUT THE CITY IS A DEFINED TERM WITHIN THE CHARTER. OKAY.

BUT WOULDN'T THIS HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION? IT WOULD, DEPENDING UPON THE NATURE OF THE BORROWING THAT THE CITY IS UNDERTAKING, IT MAY ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A REFERENDUM.

SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO PLEDGE THE TAXING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY, IT HAS TO BE A MUNICIPAL BOND REFERENDUM WHICH WOULD GO TO THE ELECTORATE.

AND SO THAT'S WHY THAT LANGUAGE IS FAIRLY BROAD IN THAT RESPECT.

SEEMS A LITTLE VAGUE TO ME.

AGAIN. IT'S IF YOU WISH, WE CAN.

I MEAN, TO ME, THE CITY.

WELL, WHO IS THE CITY? IS IT THE CITY MANAGER? IS IT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS IT THE COMMISSION? ULTIMATELY, IT'S THE CITY COMMISSION.

OK. IF YOU WISH FOR US WE CAN CHANGE THE CITY TO THE COMMISSION.

OKAY. THEN I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THERE.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON YOUR QUESTION.

FROM WHAT I JUST. EXCUSE ME, CITY ATTORNEY, BUT I THOUGHT YOU SAID PART OF THAT HAS TO GO TO A BOND, GO TO REFERENDUM.

BUT IF IT'S GOING TO GO TO REFERENDUM, IT WOULD BE VOTED ON BY THIS COMMISSION FIRST.

BE COMMISSION FIRST. TO GO TO REFERENDUM.

CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. JUST WANTED TO CONNECT THE DOTS.

THANK YOU. YES MA'AM. GO AHEAD. ARE YOU? OK.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO, BACK TO YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

I'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE CONSISTENCY OF THE COMMISSION SUSPENDING OR REMOVING THE CITY ATTORNEY BY SUPERMAJORITY.

WE NEED CONSISTENCY THERE AND I THINK AT THE MOMENT THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

VICE MAYOR. WELL, GOOD MORNING.

SO SECTION 4.01, CITY COMMISSION POWERS AND COMPOSITION.

I THINK THAT WE SHOULD GIVE THE VOTERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO HAVE A CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT OR A STRONG MAYOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT WITH A CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.

SO FOLLOW THE MODEL OF THE CITY OF PLANTATION AND THERE ARE OTHER CITIES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE VOTERS THAT OPTION.

I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE POSITION OF THE CITY CLERK AND THE FIRE CHIEF SHOULD BE CHARTER OFFICER POSITIONS THAT ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION RATHER THAN THE CITY MANAGER.

AND THIS WAS RECENTLY ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SUNRISE.

HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO.

I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE SOME KIND OF COMPROMISE.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS BELIEVES THAT ALL THE SEATS SHOULD BE AT-LARGE.

SOME COMMISSIONERS DON'T BELIEVE THE SEAT SHOULD BE AT LARGE.

SO I THINK AS A COMPROMISE, WE SHOULD HAVE FOUR COMMISSION DISTRICT SEATS AND THEN A AT-LARGE MAYOR, AT-LARGE VICE MAYOR, AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL AT-LARGE COMMISSIONER.

SO THERE WILL BE A TOTAL OF SEVEN SEATS, FOUR COMMISSION SEATS, THREE AT-LARGE SEATS, BEING THE MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND THEN ONE AT-LARGE COMMISSIONER.

THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN DISTRICT TWO, THERE'S A

[01:00:03]

THERE WAS ONE IN COMMISSIONER PLACKO'S DISTRICT WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE RESIDENTS FEEL THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY SAY ON A COMMISSIONER, THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A CHANCE TO VOTE ON.

SO IF WE HAVE SOME AT-LARGE SEATS, THEN THE PUBLIC IN THAT PARTICULAR DISTRICT CAN TRY TO WIN OVER THEIR PARTICULAR COMMISSIONER AND THEN WIN OVER THE MEMBERS WHO ARE AT LARGE TO GET A WIN IN THEIR FAVOR, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY DESIRE.

I ALSO THINK 4.05 SECTION C FILLING VACANCIES.

IT SAYS ONLY THE MAYOR'S SEAT SHOULD BE SELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.

I THINK ALL THE SEATS SHOULD BE SELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AND THEN THE LANGUAGE DOES NOT SPECIFY A TIME, IT JUST SAYS A REASONABLE TIME FRAME.

I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A SPECIFIC TIME THAT SAYS WITHIN 90 DAYS OR 120 DAYS OR SOME FIXED PERIOD OF TIME.

SO THERE IS REPRESENTATION ON THE DAIS BY A CERTAIN TIME.

I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PLACKO AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME CONSISTENCY WITH THE REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION OF THE CITY MANAGER OR CITY ATTORNEY.

MOST OF THE ITEMS WE VOTE ON IS MAJORITY, SO IT SHOULD REMAIN A MAJORITY, NOT A SUPERMAJORITY. WE HAD A CROOKED CRIMINAL CITY MANAGER THAT SOME COMMISSIONER GELIN LET'S KEEP THE COMMENTS TO SPECIFICALLY AND NOT PUT ANY SLANDER OR ANY KIND OF LIBELOUS COMMENTS OUT THERE.

PLEASE. IT'S NOT LIBELOUS.

IT'S A FACT. AND SO THERE WERE SOME COMMISSIONERS THAT WANTED TO HAVE THIS PERSON REMOVED, WHICH MAY HAVE BENEFITED THIS PERSON OR MAY HAVE BENEFITED THE CITY IF THE ARREST TOOK PLACE WHEN HE WAS NO LONGER WITH THE CITY, THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED US OUR REPUTATION A LITTLE BIT.

BUT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

AND SO TO HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY CAN MAKE IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE.

WE ALSO HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY THAT WASN'T DOING HIS JOB CORRECTLY.

WE HAVE A LEGAL LAWS ON THE BOOKS.

AND THIS PERSON WAS PROBABLY SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT THEY WERE ILLEGAL, BUT KEPT IT IN THAT FORM OF FASHION IN TERMS OF HAVING QUASI JUDICIAL MEETINGS FOR MATTERS THAT WERE NOT QUASI JUDICIAL IN ORDER TO BENEFIT THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES, RATHER THAN GIVE THE COMMISSION THE STRENGTH AND POWERS THAT IT NEEDED TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS. WHEN THE RESIDENTS MADE IT CLEAR WHAT THEY WANTED DONE IN CERTAIN SEVERAL COMMUNITIES WHERE WE HAD SOME ISSUES.

SO THERE SHOULD NOT BE A SUPERMAJORITY REQUIRED TO CHANGE THE CITY MANAGER OR THE CITY ATTORNEY. WE SHOULD HAVE A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

AND IF THERE IS SOME JUSTIFICATION BY MEMBERS OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR ANY OF THE ITEMS I BROUGHT UP, I'D CERTAINLY LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM.

ARE YOU DONE? I'M DONE.

THANK YOU. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BOLTON, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS BEFORE I BRING THE CHARTER BOARD UP? BEFORE I GO INTO MY COMMENTS.

PLEASE. COMING TO THE PODIUM IS SALLIE JAMES, WHO IS THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE CHARTER BOARD. AND WILL ADDRESS THE THOUGHTS BEHIND WHY CERTAIN THINGS WERE MENTIONED.

AND ACTUALLY, WHILE YOU'RE DOING SO, THERE ARE SOME TOPICS THAT VICE MAYOR BROUGHT UP REGARDING STRONG MAYOR CHANGING OF HOW MANY COMMISSIONERS ARE ON THE DAIS, CHANGING HOW THEY ARE VOTED IN CHANGE OF FIRE CHIEF AND CLERK TO BE BY THE COMMISSION VACANCIES AND THE LIKE. I WOULD LIKE THAT YOU WOULD ALSO BRING UP, IF THIS WAS MENTIONED BY MS. CUNNINGHAM, HIS APPOINTEE, OR ANY OF THESE ITEMS DISCUSSED AT THE TEN MEETINGS THAT YOU HAD, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING.

I'M SALLIE JAMES.

I'M THE OUTGOING CHAIRPERSON OF THE CHARTER BOARD.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE ME WAY DOWN HERE, BUT IT'S A PLEASURE TO TALK TO ALL OF YOU THIS MORNING. AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MAYOR GOMEZ, NOT ONE OF THOSE TOPICS WAS BROUGHT UP EVER.

I DIDN'T MISS A SINGLE MEETING.

ONE THING THAT I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IN THE CHARTER BOARD, BECAUSE EACH OF US WAS APPOINTED BY A DIFFERENT COMMISSIONER, I WAS YOUR APPOINTMENT.

WE REALLY TRIED WHEN WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE CHARTER TO MAKE OUR WORK VALUABLE BY ELIMINATING OBSOLETE, OUTDATED LANGUAGE, UPDATING THE LANGUAGE TO BE GENDER NEUTRAL, THINGS LIKE THIS, WHICH BRING OUR CHARTER INTO THE MODERN STATE.

BUT WE ALSO WERE VERY AWARE OF THE POLITICS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON IN THIS CITY.

AND WE DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT WE WERE NOT TRYING TO WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE CHANGES IF WE MADE THEM THAT WOULD ELIMINATE POLITICS FROM THE PROCESS.

[01:05:01]

WE TALKED ABOUT HOW CITY GOVERNMENT IS HERE TO GET BUSINESS DONE AND NOT ESCALATE THINGS WITH POLITICS.

IN REGARD TO CHANGING THE ENTIRE FORM OF TAMARAC CITY GOVERNMENT.

THAT'S A BIG DEAL.

AND OUR JOB AS INDIVIDUALS REVIEWING THE CHARTER WAS NOT TO TAKE IT UPON OURSELVES TO TRY TO CHANGE A FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT HAS WORKED EFFECTIVELY IN TAMARAC FOR YEARS.

AND OF COURSE, WE ALL KNOW THE CITY MANAGER COMMISSION FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS A WIDELY, WIDELY USED MODEL BECAUSE CITY MANAGERS ARE KIND OF LIKE THE CEO OF THE CITY AND GENERALLY THOSE KIND OF CHANGES HISTORICALLY HAVE COME BECAUSE THERE'S A GROUNDSWELL OF SUPPORT IN THE COMMUNITY IN TAMARAC, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE PEOPLE ARE EXTREMELY UNHAPPY WITH THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

THEY'RE PACKING THE CITY COMMISSIONS, THEY'RE WANTING TO CHANGE IT.

IT'S NEVER BEEN SEEN HERE.

AND TO ELIMINATE THE REPRESENTATION IN INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS AND CREATE ALL AT-LARGE DISTRICTS. BECAUSE WE DID TALK ABOUT THIS.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE WAY WE SAW IT, IT WAS LIKE THROWING A MOLOTOV COCKTAIL INTO A CALM SITUATION. NO NEED TO CHANGE SOMETHING THAT WAS WORKING AND INTERJECT POLITICS.

THE CHANGING THE WAY THE POLICE CHIEF AND THE FIRE CHIEF ARE CHOSEN NEVER, EVER, EVER CAME UP. THIS IS THE FIRST I'VE EVER HEARD OF ANYTHING LIKE THIS.

SO THE REPRESENTATIVES NEVER SPOKE OF THIS AT ALL.

AND SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT THE CHANGES WE MADE, WELL, WE DIDN'T MAKE THEM WE'RE RECOMMENDING THEM BE MADE IS CLEANING UP THE LANGUAGE, UPDATING IT, ELIMINATING OBSOLETE LANGUAGE, AND WE CHOSE, WE SUGGESTED THE SUPERMAJORITY BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE SMALL CHANGE THAT WE FELT COULD BE PUT INTO THE CHARTER TO ELIMINATE POLITICS.

AND OUR GOAL WAS TO FACILITATE CITY GOVERNMENT AND MAKE IT MOVE FORWARD TO BENEFIT THE TAXPAYERS AND OVERRIDINGLY HELP ELIMINATE POLITICS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE ON THE CHARTER BOARD.

THANK YOU.

DON'T LEAVE JUST YET BECAUSE I'M GOING TO.

JUST IN CASE. OK.

I SEE THE VICE MAYOR'S HAND IS UP.

YOUR QUESTION? YEAH.

SHE SAYS ELIMINATE.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN? HOW DO YOU DEFINE ELIMINATING POLITICS? WELL, THAT'S A BIG QUESTION.

I THINK IT'S DIFFERENT TO EVERYONE WHO YOU MIGHT ASK, BUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH. SO TO CLARIFY, HOW DOES MOVING FROM 3 TO 4 IN TERMS OF A VOTE ELIMINATE POLITICS? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S GOING TO DO.

A SUPERMAJORITY.

I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, YOU COULD HAVE THREE PEOPLE ON THE COMMISSION WHO WANT SOMEONE OUT BECAUSE OF POLITICS.

THEY DON'T LIKE THEM, BUT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT.

THEY MAY BE DOING A GOOD JOB.

SO WE BELIEVE THAT IF YOU HAVE FOUR WHO SOLIDLY BELIEVE THE INDIVIDUAL NEEDS TO BE REMOVED, THERE'S NO QUESTION OF THAT.

AND IF THE PERSON IS TRULY INCOMPETENT, WHAT DOES IT MATTER? YOU'RE GOING TO GET A SUPERMAJORITY ANYWAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO, DID YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP TO YOURS? COMMISSIONER BOLTON, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NO. OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO GO, I GUESS IN SEMI REVERSE ORDER.

AND I HAPPEN TO LIKE THE SUPERMAJORITY, WHICH AUTOMATICALLY MEANS SOME PEOPLE ON THE COMMISSION WON'T. IT'S JUST LIKE OUR CENSURE RULES.

RIGHT. YOU NEED THREE FOR A MOTION TO GET IT ON, BUT YOU NEED FOUR IN ORDER TO REMOVE THEM. AND I FIND THAT IF WE WERE TO MAKE THIS SIMILAR TO THAT, THAT IS TO AGAIN, AS YOU PHRASE IT, REMOVE THE POLITICS, MAKE IT THE WORK SHOW FOR THEMSELVES.

AND I'M SORRY, BUT I THINK THE HISTORY OF OUR CITY FOR THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF, MAYBE TWO YEARS, HAS SHOWN HOW THERE HAS BEEN SOME POLITICS PLAYED WITH CERTAIN THINGS THAT GOT

[01:10:04]

AND RULES CHANGE.

THAT HAS CAUSED SOME CONSTERNATION.

AND I THINK IT CREATES AN ISSUE FOR OUR TWO PEOPLE THAT THE CITY HIRES, THAT THEY'RE ALWAYS WORRYING ABOUT COUNTING TO THREE INSTEAD OF WORRYING ABOUT JUST DOING THE JOB AND BEING EFFECTIVE.

YOU'VE GOT POLITICS ON THE DAIS THAT ARE UNINTENTIONALLY WORKING ON THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY MANAGER. SO PERSONALLY, I DO THINK THAT A SUPERMAJORITY FITS BECAUSE IT IS A STRONGER. IT'S KIND OF LIKE IF YOU'RE GOING TO CENSURE SOMEBODY, IT IS A STRONGER WAY OF SHOWING YOUR DISSATISFIED AND A PENALTY FOR REMOVAL FROM YOUR POSITION, WHETHER IT'S ON THE COMMISSION OR IT'S ON ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WE HIRE.

SO I SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNANIMOUS BODY THAT PUT THIS FORTH.

THE BODY HAD DISCUSSED.

AND I AGREE. I THINK THERE'S NO REASON TO MAKE ANY OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY COMMISSIONER, VICE MAYOR GELIN.

I'M SORRY. I DON'T THINK THAT IF IT WASN'T BROUGHT UP AND ACTUALLY DISCUSSED WHERE THERE COULD BE A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND BUY IN FROM THE COMMUNITY, THAT IT'S SOMETHING I DON'T THINK WE THROW IN, IN THE LAST MINUTE AS SOMETHING TO BE PLACED THERE.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER ITEMS THAT I WENT THROUGH.

I UNDERSTAND THE HARD WORK AND THE CLEANUP, BUT BALANCING ALL THAT IS EQUAL.

I'M NOT REALLY SURE WE NEED ALL OF THAT CLEANUP IF IT'S GOING TO TAKE US PAGES AND PAGES.

I WORRY ABOUT VOTER FATIGUE.

NO MATTER WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, THE VOTERS HAVE TO READ THROUGH THE BALLOT.

AS WE KNOW, SOMETIMES IT'S HARD ENOUGH TO GET PEOPLE TO THE BALLOT AND GET PEOPLE EVEN TO LOOK FOR THE CITY ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND THE JUDICIAL ELECTIONS ON A BALLOT. IF WE HAVE MORE THAN TWO PAGES, I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE READING INTO THE OTHER THING.

SO FOR SOME OF THE HE OR SHE DEFINITION ONES, MAYBE WE CAN MAKE ONE ITEM AND MAYBE WE CAN MAKE IT ITEM 9 EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD BE OUT OF ORDER.

DEFINITIONS. RIGHT, MAYBE WE CAN JUST CLEAN IT UP.

WE CAN ALSO JUST SAY SOMEWHERE ARTICLE 9 LEFT IN A DEFINITIONS.

ONE ARTICLE SAYS ARTICLE 9 WE HEREBY HAVE GENDER NEUTRAL.

ANYTHING THAT'S PLURAL IS MEANT TO BE PLURAL OR SINGULAR THINGS THAT WE DO IN OUR LEGAL DOCUMENTS AT THE BOILERPLATE END.

THROW IT IN THERE AND SAY THAT ALSO ARTICLE 9 WAS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK.

AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PUTTING A WHOLE PAGES OF PAGES OF PAGES OF RE NUMBERING AND JUST A NICE CLEAN SWOOP ON THAT ONE.

I THINK THAT GOING THROUGH I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO APPROVE ALL OF THESE OR GO LINE BY LINE BECAUSE IT IS A LOT.

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 4.05, I HAVE, WHICH IS THE VACANCIES FORFEITURE OF OFFICE FILLING VACANCIES.

I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN ON B2 VIOLATES ANY STANDARD OF CONDUCT CODE OF ETHICS ESTABLISHED BY LAW FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS.

IS THAT AND LOOK, WE'VE HAD THAT PROBLEM HERE ON THE DAIS.

LET'S BE REALISTIC.

BUT ARE WE NOW SAYING RESIDENTS YOU'RE GOING TO OR VOTERS NOT ALL RESIDENTS, VOTERS YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE THE CITY THE POWER TO REMOVE YOUR VOICE OFF THE COMMISSION? IF THAT'S WHAT THIS COMMISSION IS ASKING FOR, FOR THE VOTERS TO DO, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PUTTING IN HERE. CORRECT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS CORRECT.

MR. CITY ATTORNEY.

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT SECTION OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

THE LANGUAGE IS NOT UNCOMMON IN CHARTERS.

YOU KNOW, I CAN YOU KNOW.

SO WITH THAT SAID, IS THERE THE CHARTER LAYS OUT LANGUAGE AND PROVISIONS AND IN CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF YOUR CHARTER ITSELF AND THEN PROVIDES FOR IMPLEMENTATION BY ORDINANCE. SOMETIMES IT'S SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED, SOMETIMES IT'S NOT.

THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE.

SO WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON ANY OF THE PROVISIONS AND B 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 OR 6, THERE HAS TO BE A DETERMINATION BY THIS COMMISSION THAT ONE OF YOUR PEERS HAS VIOLATED ANY OF THOSE PROVISIONS.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S HOW YOU WOULD DO OR THE PROCESS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO ENGAGE IN

[01:15:04]

SO IN SOME RESPECTS, BOTH A AND B OF YOUR CURRENT CHARTER, IF YOU READ THROUGH THEM ARE CONTAINED IN BOTH A AND B OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS JUST SPELLED OUT IN MORE DETAIL IS, I GUESS, THE BEST WAY THAT I WOULD DESCRIBE IT.

YOU'D STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

SO I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT PROCESS IS ACTUALLY.

WELL, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SPELLED OUT IN YOUR CURRENT CHARTER EITHER.

MY POINT IS, IS THAT EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO A DUE PROCESS AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS.

SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO SAY, THEORETICALLY, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER SO-AND-SO HAS FAILED TO ATTEND THREE CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COMMISSION WITHOUT AN EXCUSE SATISFACTORY TO A MAJORITY OF THE REMAINING MEMBERS.

THAT COMMISSIONER WHO ARGUABLY DIDN'T MEET THOSE OR DIDN'T ATTEND THOSE THREE MEETINGS WOULD SAY, NO, I DID PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND A HEARING WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THAT ISSUE WOULD BE DISCUSSED AMONGST YOURSELVES AND ULTIMATELY VOTED ON AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THESE PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED OR SOMEONE HASN'T COMPLIED WITH THEM.

SO WHETHER IT'S YOUR EXISTING CHARTER OR THE PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE.

WELL, EITHER WAY, OUR EXISTING CHARTER AND PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE DOESN'T SAY THAT THERE SHALL BE THAT DUE PROCESS.

WHILE WE MAY UNDERSTAND IT, ALL IT SAYS IS FORFEITURE OF THE OFFICE.

FORFEITURE OF THEIR OFFICE IF THAT PERSON DOES THIS PERIOD, PERIOD, BOOM, YOU'RE GONE.

AND THEN SOME OF THESE ARE SUBJECTIVE, LIKE B LIKE B2 AND SOME OF IT, LIKE IF YOU'RE CONVICTED OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.

IT DOES THAT, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ANY CRIME.

IF YOU'RE ARRESTED FOR ANY CRIME, YOU'RE REMOVED FROM THE OFFICE LIKE THERE'S.

AGAIN, I AM NOT NECESSARILY NOR IS I THINK THE CHARTER BOARD GOT INTO THAT SPECIFICITY. BUT YES, THAT CAN BE CHANGED IF YOU WANT.

AND YES, THERE ARE SOME CHARTERS THAT SAY, AS OPPOSED TO CONVICTED IF YOU'RE ARRESTED.

AND IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, THEN WE CAN DO THAT.

I. BUT RIGHT NOW.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I THINK.

IS THE OFFICE OF A COMMISSIONER AND ARGUABLY THAT OF THE MAYOR SHALL BECOME VACANT UPON DEATH, RESIGNATION, FORFEITURE OR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE IN ANY MANNER AUTHORIZED BY LAW.

WHAT IS FORFEITURE? I CAN'T. I'M THE ONLY POINT IN MY OBSERVATION MAYOR AND COMMISSION IS POINT OUT THAT THIS SECTION OF YOUR CHARTER MAYBE NEEDS MORE WORK.

I WOULD SAY THAT I THINK THIS AMENDMENT, AS IS, ALSO NEEDS MORE WORK.

I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE THAT CATCHALL NEXT PART THAT SAYS BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, A MAYOR OR CITY COMMISSIONER SHALL FORFEIT THEIR OFFICE IF THAT PERSON DOES, BUM, BUM, BUM, BUM. THERE IS NOTHING THAT RELATES IT TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE THAT DUE PROCESS.

I THINK THAT IS MISSING.

AND I THINK THE REMOVAL FROM OFFICE NEEDS TO BE PUT BACK HERE.

IF THERE REMOVAL, REMOVE LEGAL AUTHORITIES.

SO I DON'T THINK AT THIS TIME 4.05 IS RIPE AND I DON'T KNOW HOW OUR PROCESS GOES.

ARE WE COMING BACK AROUND AGAIN AFTER THIS, AFTER OUR COMMENTS? WHAT HAPPENS? WELL, I MEAN, ULTIMATELY, IF A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT AS YOU DESCRIBE, NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS SHOULD BE ADDED TO IT.

IF THAT'S THE CONSENSUS OF THIS BODY, WE'LL PUT THAT LANGUAGE IN, GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES.

AND ULTIMATELY, THIS IS GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU AS DESCRIBED BEFORE, IN THE FORM OF ULTIMATELY AN ORDINANCE FOR FIRST AND SECOND READING.

WE CAN. I'M LOOKING TO THE CLERK BECAUSE SHE HAS ALREADY PUT OUT A TIMELINE AS TO WHEN IS THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING DATE THAT WE CAN HAVE FOR TO MEET THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TIMELINE. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT WE PROVIDED FOR SOME LEEWAY TO PUT THIS TO HAVE MULTIPLE

[01:20:01]

AND WE'LL THEN START DRAFTING THE ORDINANCE FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND PUBLIC HEARING.

OKAY. SO I THINK THIS IS NOT YET RIPE.

I THINK IT ALSO NEEDS SOME MODIFICATION.

I WOULD PUT BACK THE REMOVAL OF OFFICE IN ANY MANNER AUTHORIZED BY LAW IF IT'S HERE AND I'M NOT READING IT PROPERLY, MY APOLOGIES.

AND I THINK 5 HAS SOME CLARIFICATION, HAS BECOME INCAPABLE OF PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF OFFICE FOR A PERIOD OF NO MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE MONTHS, I BELIEVE IS WHERE YOU WERE GOING FOR. OR IS IT THREE TOTAL MONTHS THAT IF THEY TAKE JANUARY OFF, MARCH OFF AND MAY, OR ARE YOU SAYING FROM JANUARY THROUGH MARCH YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO YOUR JOB? IF WE'RE GOING TO BE SPECIFIC, WE'VE GOT TO.

CORRECT. AND SO AS IT CURRENTLY READS IN COMPARISON TO SUBSECTION 4, WHERE IT'S CONSECUTIVE. I THINK THE INTENTION OF 5 WAS IT COULD BE OVER ANY PERIOD OF TIME.

BUT AGAIN, IF YOU WISH TO SPECIFY THREE CONSECUTIVE MONTHS, WE CAN DO THAT.

I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING IT UP FOR AS A CONVERSATION IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DISCUSSED TODAY IF WE'RE GOING TO PULL THIS APART AND COME BACK LATER.

SO. THEN IF WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 406.

I DO NOT FOR 406 A I DO NOT THINK THAT THE DATES FROM JULY 15TH THROUGH AUGUST 15TH, WHICH THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR MY BIRTHDAY OFF.

I DON'T THINK I WANT TO HAVE IT PUT SO CLEARLY.

WE CAN SAY THE SUMMER MONTHS, ANY TIME BETWEEN JULY AND AUGUST OR WHATEVER.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE'S A COMMISSION IN THE FUTURE THAT WISHES TO HAVE ALL OF JULY OFF? AND THEN WORK ALL AUGUST OR VICE VERSA.

I THINK BY AND I ALSO I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE CALENDAR TO KNOW IF EVER JULY 15TH IS THE SECOND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH.

I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE.

BUT WE'RE THEN CREATING SOME CALENDAR ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE, AND I THINK WE ARE RESTRICTING IT A LITTLE TOO MUCH.

I UNDERSTAND THE CLEANUP, BUT I THINK IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT, TO SAY THAT IT'LL BE FOR THE COMMISSION TO DECIDE THE DATES IN JULY AND AUGUST, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S SUMMER VERSUS IT'S POSSIBILITY FOR BEING KEEPING IT AWAY FROM BEING.

WHAT WAS IT, OCTOBER? NOVEMBER ONES? YOU KNOW, THAT'S FINE. BUT I WOULD CLEAN, I WOULD THINK THAT WE SHOULD CLEAN THAT PART UP THAT WAY. MADAM MAYOR IF I MAY, THAT PROVISION WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER BOARD BECAUSE SEVERAL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE OF THE OPINION THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CHARTER HAD PROCEDURES AND PROVIDES FOR THE BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BOARD TO TAKE A HIATUS, LIKE MANY MUNICIPALITIES DO, PARTICULARLY OVER THE SUMMER, THAT SOMEONE WOULD BE ABLE TO GO TO THE CHARTER AND SEE PRECISELY WHEN THE THIS BOARD WOULD BE TAKING THAT HIATUS.

AS OPPOSED TO IT SAYING, WELL, WE CAN TAKE TIME OFF WHENEVER WE WANT.

AND THAT'S THE GENESIS BEHIND THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE BEING PUT IN THE CHARTER SO THAT SOMEONE WOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK TO THE CHARTER AND SAY, WE KNOW THAT OUR CITY COMMISSION IS TAKING THIS TIME OFF IN ANY GIVEN YEAR.

AGAIN, IT'S A POLICY ISSUE FOR YOU ALL.

I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF INHERENT FLEXIBILITY OF THE CURRENT LANGUAGE, BUT AGAIN, THE CHARTER BOARD MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION AND THAT'S WHY IT'S COMING BEFORE YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. WELL, I APPRECIATE AND RESPECT THAT.

I DO. I WOULD JUST I STILL THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO IF THEY WANT A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC, SPECIFY SOMETIME IN JULY OR AUGUST VERSUS SPECIFY THE HARD SET DATES.

I THINK HARD SET DATES CAUSES ISSUE.

407. AND I KNOW SOME OF IT'S CLEAN UP, BUT I REALLY DON'T KNOW SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE CLEAN UP IF IT'S ACTUALLY REALLY NECESSARY FOR US TO BE DOING ALL OF THIS.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, I SUPPORT 502 THE CHANGES AND I SAY IN 504 THE POWERS AND DUTY OF THE CITY MANAGER A.

WE HIRE THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE HAVING TO APPROVE THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. I ALSO GO TO JUMPING OVER TO THE CITY CLERK POSITION, I THINK WE REMOVE THAT LINE

[01:25:02]

CITY MANAGER IS THE HIRING PERSON OF THE CITY.

CITY COMMISSION SHOULD NOT HAVE A SAY.

THIS AGAIN, WOULD TAKE OUT THE POLITICS OF HIRING EMPLOYEES AND HAVING US BEING INVOLVED.

SO I WOULD REMOVE IN 504A JUST IN THE SENSE THAT CITY MANAGER SHALL APPOINT AND SUPERVISE THE HEADS OF ALL DEPARTMENTS AND THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.

AGAIN, I CAN GO THROUGH SOME OF THIS, BUT I THINK MOST OF IT'S UNNECESSARY. 708A, I DON'T KNOW WHY THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD BE DESIGNATING A BANK.

I THINK THE COMMISSION SHALL DESIGNATE BANKS OR TRUST COMPANIES IN ITS DIRECTION CITY DEPOSITORIES. CITY COMMISSION SHOULD NOT BE ANYWHERE NEAR THAT FINANCIAL PROCESS UNLESS, MS. CAJUSTE, YOU CAN SHARE WITH US IF THERE'S A REASON WHY WE SHOULD BE INVOLVED.

IS THERE A FINANCIALLY SOUND PRINCIPLE THAT WE SHOULD BE? INVOLVED WITH. SORRY.

GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING.

THE DESIGNATED BANK WHEN IT'S SELECTED BY THE CITY, IT DOES COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL BEFORE A BANK CAN BE DESIGNATED TO REPRESENT FOR THE CITY'S OPERATING ACCOUNT. IS THAT PART OF GOOD PRACTICES IS WHY WE DO IT IS OR IS THERE A NEED FOR US TO BE DOING THAT? IT IS PART OF OUR CONTRACTING.

WHEN THE CITY CONTRACTS, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION BEFORE WE CAN CONTRACT WITH AN INSTITUTION FOR THOSE SERVICES.

I MEAN, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED, THEN FINE.

IT JUST SEEMED LIKE A LITTLE BIT HARD TO, IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR.

SO, BUT IS IT SO NECESSARY TO BE IN OUR CHARTER? I MEAN, AGAIN, IF IT'S UNNECESSARY TO EVEN CHANGE THE PROVISION, WE'LL LEAVE IT, BECAUSE I REALLY THINK WE HAVE WAY TOO MANY LITTLE THINGS THAT WE'RE CHANGING, BUT I JUST BRING THAT UP AS I DIDN'T WE DO IT ANYWAY GOOD PRACTICE.

IT'S NOT REQUIRED BY--IT IS REQUIRED BY LAW IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTRACT WITH THE INSTITUTION. GOOD ENOUGH, THANK YOU.

802 CHARTER BOARD, AND I KNOW IT'S ONE OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, CITY ATTORNEY, THAT YOU HAD TALKED ABOUT IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED A BOARD TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS.

I GET WHY YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE A HEARING, BECAUSE THIS BOARD, YOU GUYS DID AN OUTSTANDING JOB.

YOU MET PUBLICLY TEN TIMES, AND PEOPLE WHO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE OR SHOW DID OR DID NOT, AND THAT WHY IT MIGHT BE REDUNDANT.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM REMOVING IT IF TODAY'S PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES STAY FOR THE FUTURE.

MY ONLY CONCERN WOULD BE IN THE FUTURE IF IT DOESN'T.

SO IT'S NOT ONE OF THOSE.

I'M JUST THROWING THAT THOUGHT OUT THERE.

AGAIN, SO I'M GOING TO STAY WITH THE OLD NUMBERING, THE NUMBERING WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

ARTICLE TEN CITY CLERK 10.01.

THAT'S WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE WITH CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION THE CITY CLERK SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER PERIOD.

GIVEN MY COMMENTS ON THE CITY ATTORNEY.

SORRY, IT IS GETTING A LITTLE CONFUSING WITH ALL THE NUMBER OF CHANGES.

SO, THE CITY PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW APPLICABLE TO CITY PLANNING AND ZONING.

I SUPPORT THE CHANGES MADE.

I HAVE ONE THOUGHT ABOUT THE SHALL THAT'S IN THERE CURRENTLY.

STATE LAW RELATING TO PLANNING AND ZONING ARE CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO THE CITY AND THE PROCEDURES THEREIN SET FORTH SHALL BE UTILIZED BY THE CITY, EXCEPT THAT THE COMMISSION MAY, BY ORDINANCE DELEGATE.

MY WORRY IS ABOUT THEREIN SET FORTH SHALL BE UTILIZED BY THE CITY.

CERTAIN THINGS CITY HOME RULE PROTECTIONS.

I WORRY THAT IF WE THE STATE LAW SOMETIMES ALLOWS US TO HAVE STRONGER ITEMS IN HERE, AND

[01:30:03]

THE ANSWER IS, YES, DEPENDING.

OBVIOUSLY, IF STATE LAW SAYS THIS SHALL BE THE EXCLUSIVE METHOD, THEN MY ANSWER WOULD BE NO. TO THE QUESTION OF IF STATE LAW SAYS NOTHING HERE IN SHALL PROHIBIT A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY FROM ADOPTING STRICTER PROCEDURES, WHICH SOMETIMES THEY DO, THEN CERTAINLY THAT WOULD GIVE THIS COMMISSION THE AUTHORITY IN THOSE PARTICULAR INSTANCES NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARTER TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, BECAUSE YOU WOULD STILL BE FOLLOWING STATE LAW.

EXACTLY, AND I THINK THAT SHALL IS TOO TIGHT.

THE EXAMPLE IN MY HEAD IS LAND USE, ZONING AND REGULATIONS AND VACATION RENTALS.

SOME OF THE THINGS LIKE THAT HAD ASSOCIATIONS HAD STRONGER RULES IN PLACE THEY NEVER WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTROL IT BECAUSE OUR CITY GOT PREEMPTED, BUT WHAT IF ONE OF THOSE DIDN'T HAVE A PREEMPTION LIKE YOU JUST SAID? SO I THINK THAT SHALL IS TOO TIGHT FOR US.

I THINK OBVIOUSLY IF THE STATE SAYS WE SHALL, THEN WE SHALL, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE A MAY, OR SHOULD UTILIZE VERSUS MAY, SHOULD UTILIZE.

IT'S IN OUR BEST INTEREST, IT'S A GOOD PRACTICE TO UTILIZE, BUT IT LEAVES THE ABILITY FOR OUR HOME RULE TO MAKE THAT DECISION IN THAT PARAGRAPH.

SO THAT WOULD BE THE ADDITIONAL CHANGE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

THERE IS A SHALL TO A SHOULD.

FOR THE 1210 AMENDMENTS.

THE ONE THAT YOU BROUGHT UP. CHARTER MAY BE AMENDED AS SPECIFIED HEREIN BY SPECIAL ACTS, THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OR BY ANY OTHER MATTER PROVIDED BY STATE LAW.

I WOULDN'T TAKE OUT THE COMMISSION MAY NOT AMEND THIS CHARTER BY ORDINANCE.

I WOULD SAY THE COMMISSION MAY NOT AMEND THIS CHARTER BY ORDINANCE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY LAW. IT CLEANS IT UP IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE INTERPRETED, I THINK WOULD BE SUBJECT TO LESS INTERPRETATION TO ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO DO THINGS THAT WE MAY NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO, BECAUSE THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME WHEN THERE WERE CERTAIN INTERPRETATIONS OF OUR DOCUMENTS THAT SAID, WELL, IF IT'S NOT WRITTEN IN THERE, THEN WE CAN OR IT'S LOOSELY WORDED THAN WE CAN, AND I THINK A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO RECENTLY IS TO REGAIN BACK SOME OF THE PRINCIPLES AND DECORUM THAT WENT WITH RULES AND REGULATIONS IN OUR CITY.

THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT ON THAT.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH LEAVING ALL THESE STUFF THAT YOU SCRATCH OUT 1212.

IF YOU WANT TO CLEAN IT UP BECAUSE IT'S EASIER THEN FINE.

IT'S REALLY NOT AN ISSUE FOR ME.

SO THOSE ARE MUCH OF MY NOTES, JUST MAKING SURE I'VE GOT THEM ALL. YEP, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

CITY ATTORNEY, YOU WERE GOING TO SAY.

YEAH, WHAT I THINK IS THE BEST THING TO DO AT THIS POINT IN TIME MOVING FORWARD IS FOR MYSELF AND ADMINISTRATION THE MANAGER AND THE CLERK TO GET TOGETHER, GO THROUGH THE DISCUSSION THAT JUST TOOK PLACE REGARDING THIS AND IDENTIFY EACH OF YOUR AREAS OF CONCERN IN A MEMO FORMAT.

SO WHEN THIS COMES BACK, WE CAN FOCUS ON THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS OF CONCERN VOICED BY THE INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS, THE MAYOR AND THE VICE MAYOR FOR DIRECTION MOVING FORWARD AND SEE WHERE WE GO SO WE CAN THEN START PUTTING IT INTO ORDINANCE FORMAT.

NOW, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT TO THE POINT THAT THE MAYOR HAS BEEN MAKING THROUGHOUT HER COMMENTS ABOUT COST AND HOW MANY PAGES.

ONE OF THE COMMON THINGS THAT WE WOULD DO FOR THIS INSTANCE IS WE WOULD JUST SIMPLY SAY AND DELETE OBSOLETE PROVISIONS.

WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY IN THE FORM OF THE QUESTION AS IT GOES ON THE BALLOT FOR PURPOSES

[01:35:07]

IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, YES, BUT THEN WE'LL ACTUALLY PART OF THE ORDINANCE WILL HAVE HERE'S HOW THE QUESTIONS WILL BE POSED TO THE ELECTORATE.

SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE EVERY SECTION OF THE CHARTER IS GOING TO BE LAID OUT IN THE BALLOT FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO LOOK AT.

IT'S GOING TO SOME DEGREE SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS THAT HISTORICALLY ALL THE MUNICIPALITIES HAVE USED IN SITUATIONS BECAUSE OF THE WORD LIMITATION THAT WE HAVE TO OPERATE UNDER.

ALONG WITH THAT, THE PROCESS THE CITY ITSELF EDUCATES, WE DON'T ADVOCATE.

SO WITH ALL THE PAPERWORK THAT ONCE WE FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE BALLOT, THIS INFORMATION, AS YOU'RE SAYING, CITY ATTORNEY IS GOING TO SHOW WE ARE GOING TO DELETE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT ARE CONSIDERED SUPERFLUOUS.

THIS IS WHAT WE MEAN BY SUPERFLUOUS.

THIS IS THE ITEMS THAT WILL BE DELETED.

SO PEOPLE WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT.

CORRECT. JUST WANTED THAT OUT THERE ON THE RECORD.

THE CHARTER ULTIMATELY, AS YOU ALL DIRECT US TO DO, WILL BE AN ATTACHMENT WITH ALL THE STRIKE OUT AND UNDERLINE SO PEOPLE CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED, MODIFIED, ADDED AND DELETED.

EXACTLY, SO IN MY HEAD, WHEN YOU SAY THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT WE PROPOSE TO DELETE ANYTHING THAT'S UNNECESSARY UNDER IT WILL SHOW EVERYTHING THAT IT IS TO MAKE IT CLEAN AND ORGANIZED FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND VERSUS HAVING THEM TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. UNDERSTOOD.

THAT'S GOOD. VICE MAYOR, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.

PLEASE, LET'S MAKE IT SHORT, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD OUR TWO ROUNDS.

YEAH, I'LL MAKE IT SHORT. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT I MENTIONED SOME THINGS FOR THE FIRST TIME. YOU MENTIONED A WHOLE HOST OF ITEMS THAT YOU SHARE THAT WITH YOUR COMMITTEE CHARTER APPOINTEE AND DID SHE SHARE THAT WITH THE ENTIRE BOARD OR ARE YOU JUST BRINGING THIS UP TODAY? COMMISSIONER GALLEN, I'M NOT ON TRIAL HERE, AND I'M REALLY NOT SURE WHAT YOUR QUESTIONS ARE. THE STUFF THAT I SPOKE ABOUT TODAY WAS IN REFERENCE TO WHAT THE CHARTER BOARD BROUGHT FORTH AND MY COMMENTS BASED ON THEM.

SO THAT IS MY ANSWER TO YOU.

IF THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER ON THAT.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO.

IF I MAY? TO THE POINT MADE BY THE VICE MAYOR, ALL OF YOU.

WITH MAYBE SOME MINOR ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED HERE TODAY.

ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU HAVE RAISED WERE AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER DISCUSSED BY THE CHARTER BOARD, INCLUDING ADDITIONAL DISTRICTS OR AT-LARGE.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS' PROPOSAL OF CITYWIDE ELECTIONS.

THOSE WERE DISCUSSED, AND ULTIMATELY A MAJORITY OF THE CHARTER BOARD FELT THAT SOME OF THE CONCEPTS, SOME OF THE IDEAS SHOULDN'T BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS, BUT CERTAINLY IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR YOU ALL TO DISCUSS, RAISE THOSE ISSUES, AND ULTIMATELY, IF THERE'S A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION THAT FEELS ANY OF THOSE CONCEPTS, ANY OF THOSE IDEAS SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE PUT FORTH.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO GET THAT FEEDBACK AND INPUT FROM THE BODY, THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE, TO SEE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT US TO DO.

THANK YOU.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHAT YOU'VE ASKED FOR US TO DO THIS MORNING IS WE'VE GONE THROUGH IT. WE'VE GIVEN YOU OUR COMMENTS.

FROM THERE, YOU'RE GOING TO NARROW IT DOWN AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FURTHER WORKSHOP. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S YES, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

SO THERE'S NO NEED FOR CONSENSUS.

THERE'S NO NEED FOR ANYTHING FURTHER, YOU'VE GOT THE COMMENT, CORRECT? I'VE RECEIVED THE DIRECTION I NEED FROM YOU ALL TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT STEP.

OKAY.

QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY THROUGH THE CHAIR, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, CITY ATTORNEY, WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

YOU CAN SUBSTITUTE WHATEVER YOU WANT.

IT'S AN EVOLVING AND ONGOING PROCESS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

SO I KNOW OUR CHARTER REVIEW LADIES ARE UP AND READY TO GO.

[01:40:02]

OBVIOUSLY, THIS WILL CONTINUE ON.

WE'LL HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION ON IT, AND THANK YOU.

IT IS CURRENTLY 11:40.

SO THE NEXT ITEM THAT WE HAVE IS A LONG DISCUSSION.

I ALSO KNOW THAT WE WERE GOING TO SEEK AN HOUR BREAK FOR LUNCH.

WELL, OKAY, SO NOT EVERYBODY WANTS AN HOUR BREAK FOR LUNCH.

WELL, THAT'S BECAUSE ONE PERSON DEFINITELY DOESN'T EAT.

I'M GOOD WITH HALF AN HOUR, BUT ANYWAY, DUE TO THE TIME FRAME, WE CAN START ON THIS ONE IF YOU WANT TO DO THE PROPOSAL AND THEN DO 12 TO 1.

IS EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT? OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO 1C ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATION OF PARTY HOUSES.

[1.c Enforcement and regulation of party houses]

I THINK IT'S $250, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SERVE AS AN ADEQUATE DETERRENT TO THESE TYPES OF ISSUES, THEN CERTAINLY YOU CAN DIRECT STAFF TO UPDATE THE CODE TO PROVIDE FOR MORE SEVERE PENALTIES.

THERE IS A SECTION UNDER STATE LAW AND UNDER OUR CODE THAT DOES ALLOW FOR MUNICIPALITIES TO PROVIDE FOR PENALTIES OR ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR WHAT ARE DEEMED TO BE IRREPARABLE OR IRREVERSIBLE CODE VIOLATIONS IN THE CASE OF THE CITY BASED UPON ITS POPULATION.

THAT CAN BE A ONE TIME FINE OF ANYWHERE FROM $1 TO $15000, BUT AS PREVIOUSLY STATED IN MY MEMO, THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IN THE CODE AS IT RELATES TO THE NOISE VIOLATIONS LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF FINE THAT CAN BE ASSESSED TO $250 FOR EACH VIOLATION AND PROVIDES FOR THAT PENALTY PROVISION TO WORK THROUGH THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. WE'RE NOT PROPOSING THAT CHANGE, JUST PROVIDING FLEXIBILITY TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TO IF YOU ALL DIRECT US TO PROVIDE FOR AN ENHANCED PENALTY PROVISION THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE CODE.

THE OTHER SECTION OF THE CODE THAT IF IT IS THE DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF TO MAKE REVISIONS TO IS THE SPECIAL EVENT REGULATIONS TO AGAIN PROVIDE FOR SOME OF THOSE ENHANCED PENALTIES IF THAT IS THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION.

AS STATED IN THE MEMO, PART AND PARCEL OF THE POTENTIAL REMEDIES THAT THE CITY HAS AVAILABLE TO IT IS IMPLEMENTATION OR BETTER IMPLEMENTATION OF OUR EXISTING REGULATIONS, AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, AS MENTIONED IN THE MEMO AT THE TIME IT WAS THIS MAY HAPPEN IS CHANGE TO STATE LAW THAT ALLOWS FOR MUNICIPALITIES TO PROVIDE FOR ENHANCE AGAINST CERTAIN TYPES OF ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR AS THE STATE STATUTE REFERS TO THEM AS LIKE POP UP SPECIAL EVENTS AND WHICH CERTAINLY BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US AT THE NOW AND AT THE TIME, ARGUABLY THE PARTICULAR EVENT THAT'S BEEN THE GENESIS OF THIS CONVERSATION WOULD QUALIFY AS SUCH AND IT DOES AGAIN PROVIDE FOR ENHANCED PENALTIES.

IT DOES PROVIDE FOR INTERDEPARTMENTAL COOPERATION, WHICH, AS I SAID BEFORE, IS ALREADY

[01:45:04]

THAT STATE STATUTE, BY THE WAY, DID PASS.

A COPY OF IT'S BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO YOU ALL.

IT'S PART OF THE AGENDA PACKAGE.

IT DOES GO INTO EFFECT, I THINK, IN TWO MONTHS, AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IF IT IS THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION, WE CAN BEGIN THE PROCESS OF DRAFTING CODE PROVISIONS TO IMPLEMENT THAT STATE STATUTE.

THAT STATE STATUTE DOES ALLOW FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO TAKE THE EXTRAORDINARY STEP OF REMOVING VEHICLES THAT ARE PARKED IN VIOLATION OF YOUR LOCAL REGULATIONS OR IN VIOLATION OF WHAT YOU MAY ADOPT WHEN ONE OF THESE EVENTS TAKES PLACE.

IT ALSO PROVIDES FOR VERY SPECIFICALLY, I BELIEVE IT ALREADY, DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE STATE STATUTE ALREADY GIVES YOUR OUR FIRE MARSHAL THE AUTHORITY TO CLOSE THESE TYPES OF EVENTS OR SHUT THEM DOWN FOR VIOLATION OF THE FIRE SAFETY CODE.

THIS STATUTE SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO THAT STATE STATUTE, WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE MEMO.

SO WE'RE HERE TO GIVE YOU ALL THIS INFORMATION, ALLOW YOU TO DIGEST IT, AND THEN GIVE US ANY DIRECTION THAT YOU FEEL APPROPRIATE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE EXISTING REGULATIONS, AS IS BEING SUGGESTED IN THE MEMO.

PART OF THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IS IMPLEMENTATION OR ADDITIONAL WORK IN ENFORCING THE EXISTING REGULATIONS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, PARTICULARLY ON THE FIRE SAFETY CODE SECTION, TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES ARE REGULATED AND WHEN NECESSARY, SHUT DOWN LEGALLY AND PROPERLY.

THANK YOU, I'M ASKING YOU FOR A TIMEOUT ON PURPOSE BECAUSE IT IS CURRENTLY WE HAVE TWO MEMBERS ON THE DAIS.

WE HAVE ONE PERSON ONLINE BEHIND A CLOSED VIDEO AND SO MY QUESTION IS, ARE WE PROPERLY CONDUCTING THIS MEETING WITH THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WE NEED TO FOR A WORKSHOP? AND IF YOU NEED CONSENSUS, IF WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN FINISH IN THE NEXT 12 MINUTES, DO WE HAVE ANY ISSUES? WORKSHOPS OR INFORMAL MEETINGS.

THEY DO NOT REQUIRE NECESSARILY A QUORUM BECAUSE NO FORMAL ACTION CAN BE TAKEN TO THE EXTENT THAT THOSE THAT ARE PRESENT, INCLUDING THOSE WHO MAY BE ATTENDING ELECTRONICALLY INDICATE OR TELL US TO CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS ISSUE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO, AND WE'LL START DRAFTING THE REQUISITE CHANGES TO THE CODE THAT ARE BEING RECOMMENDED IN THE BODY OF THE MEMO, AS WELL AS OBVIOUSLY WHEN THE STATE STATUTE GOES INTO EFFECT, IF THE CONSENSUS IS TO FOLLOW UP WITH CHANGES TO THE CODE TO IMPLEMENT THAT STATE STATUTE WE'LL DO SO THEN AT THAT TIME AS WELL.

SO WE ARE LEGALLY STILL ABLE TO PROCEED WITH OUR MEETING, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE'S ONLY TWO PEOPLE PHYSICALLY PRESENT.

THAT'S CORRECT, IT'S A WORKSHOP.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO I HAD CUT YOU OFF, CITY ATTORNEY.

IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER THAT YOU WANTED TO SHARE IN YOUR COMMENTS? NO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY, GUESS WHAT, EVERYBODY IT APPEARS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN HOUR AND 11 MINUTE BREAK, BECAUSE THERE IS CONCERN THAT WE'RE GOING TO START QUESTIONS AND WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CONTINUE ON AND WE DON'T WANT TO RUIN THE FLOW.

SO, EVERYBODY, THIS MEETING IS NOW IN RECESS.

WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 1 P.M..

ENJOY LUNCH, DOING WORK, TAKING A NAP, WHATEVER FLOATS YOUR BOAT.

SEE YOU AT 1:00. THANK YOU.

WELCOME BACK TO OUR WORKSHOP.

IT IS 1 P.M.

ON MONDAY, MARCH 21ST.

CITY CLERK PLEASE CONDUCT THE ROLL.

GOOD AFTERNOON, THANK YOU.

SO WHEN WE LEFT, WE HAD JUST HEARD FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING ITEM 1C, AND THAT IS ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATION OF PARTY HOUSES AND CITY ATTORNEY, WAS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER THAT YOU WANTED TO SHARE BEFORE DISCUSSION? NO, JUST TO SUMMARIZE, IN THE MEMO THAT PREVIOUSLY HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO--PLEASE TALK

[01:50:02]

THERE ARE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE MEMO REGARDING POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE CITY'S NOISE REGULATIONS AND TO THE CITY'S SPECIAL TEMPORARY USE REGULATIONS TO ENHANCE OR PROVIDE FOR ENHANCED PENALTIES THAT HOPEFULLY, TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE MENTIONED IN THE IN THE MEMO, THE ENFORCEMENT OF SOME OF THE OTHER EXISTING PROVISIONS THAT WE HAVEN'T MAXIMIZED AS OF YET WILL SERVE AS A DETERRENT TO THESE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES GOING FORWARD, AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE FACT THAT THE LEGISLATURE DID IN FACT, ADOPT, IRONICALLY SOME PRO HOME RULE POWER REGULATIONS THAT ALLOW THE CITY TO PROVIDE FOR SPECIFIC REGULATIONS OF THESE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES MOVING FORWARD, BUT THAT STATUTE WON'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL JULY, BUT AGAIN, IF IT'S THE DIRECTION OR THE CONSENSUS OF THIS COMMISSION WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CHANGES TO THE SPECIAL EVENTS AND NOISE REGULATION, THE EXISTING REGULATIONS, AS WELL AS THEN BRING FORWARD AN IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE WHEN THE STATE LAW GOES INTO EFFECT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER PLACKO, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NO. OKAY. SORRY, I WAS TRYING TO DEFER TO THE CITY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT TWO.

OKAY ,WELL, COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JOHN.

I READ OVER BOTH YOUR MEMO AS WELL AS HOPEFULLY WHAT THE STATE WILL PASS IN THE INTERIM.

IT APPEARS TO ME THAT WE DO HAVE MECHANISMS IN PLACE THAT WE CAN ENHANCE.

YES, MA'AM.

AFTER A THOROUGH DISCUSSION WITH STAFF, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY HAS AVAILABLE TO IT, THAT IT HASN'T NECESSARILY TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF IN THE PAST, BUT CERTAINLY WE CAN MOVING FORWARD IS THE POWERS VESTED UNDER STATE LAW TO THE CITY'S FIRE MARSHAL OR THE FIRE MARSHAL'S DESIGNEE UNDER STATE LAW TO ENFORCE THE FIRE SAFETY CODE? BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, EVERY STRUCTURE UNDER THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND THE FIRE SAFETY CODE HAS A MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY, INCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE BEING USED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY, WHICH IS WHAT'S HAPPENING IN SOME OF THESE INSTANCES AND ESSENTIALLY BEING CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL USE, AND SO WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO TO ONE OF THESE EVENTS AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ENFORCEMENT TOOLS UNDER THE FIRE SAFETY CODE TO SAY, HEY, YOU CAN'T HAVE THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY AT THIS LOCATION WITH THESE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE. IT CONSTITUTES A HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE ISSUE.

THIS STRUCTURE IS NOT DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE 200 OR 300 PEOPLE, WHATEVER MAY BE THE NUMBER, AND YOU NEED TO CONFORM TO THOSE REGULATIONS BECAUSE OTHERWISE PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE AT RISK. SORRY.

I NEED TO TURN MY HEATER DOWN.

IT'S BURNING ME UP HERE.

AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING WE POSSIBLY CAN AT THIS POINT WITH THE TOOLS WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US TO SHUT THIS DOWN AS BEST WE CAN.

HOW WOULD BSO BE INVOLVED IN THIS? I THINK THAT BSO CERTAINLY WOULD BE THERE TO ASSIST STAFF TO, IF NECESSARY, MAKE CONTACT WITH THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS.

LET ME GO BACK ONE STEP.

HISTORICALLY MOST MUNICIPALITIES DON'T--WE WORK 9 TO 5 MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.

THESE ACTIVITIES GENERALLY TAKE PLACE IN IN THE EVENING AND ON THE WEEKENDS, AND SO BEST PRACTICES IMPLEMENTATION MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL AVAILABILITY OF SOMEONE ON CALL FROM, LET'S SAY, CODE ENFORCEMENT.

NOT SAYING THAT NECESSARILY NEEDS TO BE DONE, BUT THAT IS ONE THING THAT WE CAN LOOK INTO FROM AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT TO HAVE THEM AVAILABLE TO GO OUT THERE WITH THE SHERIFF.

[01:55:06]

ONE OF THESE INSTANCES WHERE WE ARE ACTUALLY AWARE OF WHERE THE CARS WERE BEING PARKED OFF SITE, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS BEING DONE APPROPRIATELY, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THEY WERE BEING PARKED OFFSITE, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY'RE BEING PARKED ON CITY STREETS AND THEY OBSTRUCT THE SAFE ACCESS OF EMERGENCY PERSONNEL TO THE SITE IN QUESTION, THEN CERTAINLY THE SHERIFF CAN ASSIST CITY STAFF, INCLUDING THE FIRE MARSHAL IN ENFORCING THOSE REGULATIONS AND MAKING, IF NECESSARY, ISSUING PARKING TICKETS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THE STATE STATUTE THAT WILL GO INTO EFFECT ACTUALLY ALLOWS FOR THE SHERIFF TO HAVE THE VEHICLES TOWED, AND AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING LOOKING FORWARD, WE WOULD WORK WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE UNDER OUR EXISTING RELATIONSHIP AS OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL TO IMPLEMENT THE STATE STATUTE AND ALSO TO COORDINATE ENFORCEMENT OF OUR EXISTING REGULATIONS GOING FORWARD.

IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AT ONE OF THESE EVENTS THAT THEY WERE PARKING ON THE COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY. THAT IS CORRECT.

SO WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO TO STOP THAT? IT IS OBVIOUSLY PERSONAL PROPERTY BELONGS TO THE COUNTRY CLUB.

DO WE NEED TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THEM? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AFTER THE FACT, STAFF DID REACH OUT TO THE COUNTRY CLUB OWNER TO INFORM THEM OF WHAT THEIR PROPERTY WAS BEING USED FOR.

AGAIN, SOMEONE CAN CORRECT ME, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEIR RESPONSE WAS WE DIDN'T KNOW.

WE'LL KEEP THAT IN MIND.

WE WON'T DO IT AGAIN.

AGAIN, SINCE THE PARTICULAR INCIDENT THAT GAVE RISE TO YOUR REQUEST FOR US TO LOOK INTO THIS AND WHAT ADDITIONAL MEANS OR THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE, THERE HAVEN'T BEEN SIMILAR TYPE OF INCIDENTS SINCE THEN.

KNOCK ON WOOD AND HOPEFULLY MOVING FORWARD, BUT CERTAINLY THE ABILITY TO THE STATE STATUTE THAT WILL GO INTO EFFECT IN JULY CLEARLY IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS THESE TYPE OF SITUATIONS, THESE TYPE OF POP UP THINGS THAT ARE ADVERTISED VIA SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER TYPES OF EVENTS SIMILAR TO IT, AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, IS ALSO EDUCATING THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT FOR USES LIKE THIS, THESE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES UNDER OUR CODE DO IN FACT REQUIRE A SPECIAL A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT, AND I THINK I CLARIFY IN THE MEMO OR STATE IN THE MEMO THAT WITH RESPECT TO THESE TYPES OF SPECIAL EVENTS, OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS DO IN FACT STATE THAT CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ASSOCIATED OUTSIDE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION.

SO IF THEY'VE SET UP A BAR OUT IN THE BACKYARD OR SOMEWHERE THAT'S NOT WITHIN BEFORE AS A CONDITION PRECEDED TO BEING BEING ABLE TO DO THAT, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO COME BEFORE YOU TO SEEK THAT APPROVAL.

IF THEY ARE IN FACT DOING IT WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE APPROVAL, THEN WHETHER IT'S THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS OR THE FIRE, ALL THREE ENTITIES THERE CAN INFORM THE PERSON WHO OR THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE PROMOTING AND CONDUCTING THIS EVENT THAT TYPE OF ACTIVITY IS INAPPROPRIATE AND NEEDS TO BE SHUT DOWN.

IT IS CERTAINLY NOT MY INTENTION TO STOP RESIDENTS FROM HAVING PARTIES WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS. THAT'S NOT AT ALL MY INTENTION.

HOWEVER, HAVING SEEN SOME OF THESE PARTY HOUSES, WHAT HAPPENS, HEARD IT.

I MEAN, I HAD SOMEONE ON THE PHONE WITH ME THAT WAS DOWN THE BLOCK AND I COULD HEAR THE MUSIC BLARING.

SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT WE PUT TOGETHER THE STRICTEST POLICY WE CAN AT THIS PARTICULAR

[02:00:04]

UNLESS ANYONE TELLS US NOT TO, THEN THAT'S THE PATH THAT WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH.

WELL, THERE'S MORE COMMENTS TO BE HAD.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

[INAUDIBLE] IT'S JUST WOMEN POWER HERE.

WHILE I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS MADE BY COMMISSIONER PLACKO, I THINK, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REVERSION PART.

I ALSO THINK THAT THESE STATE STATUTES THAT JUST WENT INTO PLAY ONLY PERTAINS TO OVER 100. IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING FOR THE HUNDRED OR LESS OR IT AND REALLY SOME OF OUR PARTIES ARE DEALING WITH 100 OR LESS, AND SO THEREFORE, I DON'T KNOW HOW STRONG ENOUGH IT IS FOR CERTAIN THINGS AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IT BE STRONGER.

I BELIEVE I SENT OVER FOR CITY STAFF TO REVIEW THE CITY OF POMPANO BEACH'S NOISE ORDINANCES AND THEIR NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD, WHICH INCLUDES ISSUES ON HOW TO HANDLE NOISE AND REPEAT OFFENDERS.

IT HAS OPEN HOUSE PARTIES.

IT HAS REGULAR NOISE IN THERE.

ALSO, THE CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH HAS SOME GOOD STUFF THAT MAYBE WE CAN LOOK AT AS WELL TO PLEASE INCORPORATE, BECAUSE THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT HOUSE PARTIES ON THE LARGE GRAND SCALE. I'M SORRY, WE NEED TO BE TAKING CARE OF THE WHOLE PROBLEM.

WE HAVE SOME OTHER IN THE SAME COMMUNITY AND IN OTHER COMMUNITIES.

WE HAVE HOUSE PARTIES AND I DON'T BEGRUDGE PEOPLE HAVING PARTIES.

TELL YOUR NEIGHBORS. INVITE THEM, BUT KEEP IT TO A.

A DELICATE ROAR WHEN YOU'RE HAVING A HOUSE PARTY THAT PEOPLE SEVEN BLOCKS AWAY ARE HEARING FULL WORDS.

THAT'S NOT A DULL ROAR, AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT THERE'S NO REASON WHY SOMEBODY ELSE'S ENVIRONMENT HAS TO BE USED AND ENJOYMENT HAS TO BE SHUT DOWN BECAUSE OF ONE PERSON HAVING A PARTY ON A RARE OCCASION, BUT I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE REPEAT OFFENDERS PART OF THIS THAT I DON'T THINK WE. WE NEED TO BE STRONGER ON.

I THINK THAT.

PART OF THE ISSUE IS WHEN WE DID THIS WITH.

FOR OUR OFFICERS. THEY HAD TO GO, AND THEY WERE TOLD THAT THE COUNTRY CLUB ALLOWED PEOPLE TO PARK THEIR.

IT NEEDS TO BE IN WRITING FROM THE OWNER.

WE NEED TO PUT SOMETHING STRONGER IF THEY'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY HAVE OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY BEING USED.

THEN THEY NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING FOR THE OWNER BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GIVING OUR OFFICERS ANY TOOLS.

THEY'RE TOLD SOMETHING AND THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW WHO THEY'RE TOLD AND THAT THEY CAN'T GET IN TOUCH WITH THE OWNER. THEY HAVE TO BELIEVE WHAT'S BEING TOLD TO THEM ON THE FACE.

AND THEN THEREFORE PEOPLE ARE UPSET WITH THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING WHAT THEY ARE.

ADVISE THAT THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO, WHICH IS ALLOWING THESE PEOPLE TO PARK WHEN IT COMES TO OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

I ALSO THINK THAT IN OUR ORDINANCE, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS EXCESSIVE NOISE IS NOT ONLY IN EFFECT AT 7:11 P.M.

TO 7 A.M.

IF I HAVE A RESIDENT WHO HAS BEEN VERY UPSET IN.

OR A COUPLE OF RESIDENTS IN THIS COMMUNITY.

THERE IS A PERSON BLASTING MUSIC WITH PROFANITY AT 8 A.M.

, AND PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE COMMUNITY CAN HEAR IT, BUT OUR OFFICERS DON'T HAVE ANY REAL TEETH TO BE ABLE TO SAY CLOSE IT DOWN.

THEY DO FOR A MINUTE AND THEN THEY LEAVE.

PERSON PUTS IT RIGHT BACK UP AGAIN.

THEY SEE THE COPS COMING.

EVEN IF THE COPS CAME FROM ANOTHER WAY, THEY SEE HIM COMING.

THEY TURN IT DOWN. WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT THE REPEAT OFFENDER? AND THEN THEY'RE TOLD, THE PERSON SAYS, I KNOW MY RIGHTS, IT'S NOT TOO LOUD, BUT I'VE GOT NEIGHBORS WHO ARE ON, LET'S JUST SAY, 58, AND THE PARTY'S GOING ON AT 46.

I'M JUST THROWING OUT NUMBERS.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS FOR THIS AND WHAT HAPPENS FOR OUR ENFORCEMENT? I THINK WE AND WE DON'T HAVE CODE.

ONE OF THE COMMENTS YOU MADE ABOUT SOME OF THESE THINGS HAPPENING AT NIGHT AND ON WEEKENDS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE CODE TO BE ABLE TO RUSH OUT THERE AND ENFORCE IT, WHICH YES, I MADE THIS COMMENT IN OUR TIME, WE NEED CODE ENFORCEMENT ON NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS.

MAYBE WE NEED A SPECIAL CARVE OUT FOR A RAPID RESPONSE TEAM FOR A CODE ENFORCEMENT SO CODE CAN GO OUT THERE. MAYBE WE SHOULD BE GIVING OUR OFFICERS PERMISSION TO DO A VIOLATION ON THE SPOT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR ANOTHER HEARING, AND WE HAVE TO WAIT AND WAIT AND WAIT AND THEN SAY, OH, IT'S A HE SAID SHE SAID SITUATION WHEN THE OFFICERS CLEARLY CAN RECORD IT FROM THEIR PHONE OR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

IF WE GIVE THEM THE POWER, THEY CAN RECORD IT FROM THEIR PHONE AND TELL YOU WHERE THEY ARE, WRITE THEM OUT.

A VIOLATION.

THEY CAN COME TO A MAGISTRATE AT A LATER TIME FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE MONEY.

JUST SOMETHING TO SHUT IT DOWN AND START GIVING PEOPLE SOME PEACE OF MIND THAT WHERE THEY HAVE LIVED AND WHERE THEY ARE LIVING.

IS NOT BEING TURNED INTO.

PARTY CENTRAL BECAUSE PEOPLE COME TO THE CITY OF TAMARAC BECAUSE IT'S A QUIET COMMUNITY,

[02:05:02]

IF WE WANTED TO BE FORT LAUDERDALE, HAVING RAGING PARTIES ALL HOURS, PEOPLE WOULD MOVE TO THOSE TYPE OF COMMUNITIES.

THEY DON'T MOVE TO TAMARAC FOR THAT.

GO AHEAD. UNDERSTOOD, AND I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE TIME PROVISION AND THERE ARE SOME RELAXED STANDARDS ON THE WEEKENDS, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING. I MADE A POINT OF STATING THIS IN MY MEMO.

THERE IS LANGUAGE IN OUR EXISTING REGULATIONS AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES CONDUCT OR NOISE THAT VIOLATES THE NOISE REGULATIONS, AND IT'S ANY NOISE THAT TO THAT OCCASION IS DISCOMFORT TO ANY PERSON WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO INTERFERE WITH THE PEACE AND COMFORT OF NEIGHBORS. SO THERE'S A REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD IN ADDITION TO NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AND JUST AN ISSUE OF OF EDUCATING EVERYONE AND MAKING SURE THAT EVERYONE'S AWARE OF OF THESE PROVISIONS IN OUR NOISE REGULATION THAT THEY'RE ENFORCED , AND THEN, AS POINTED OUT, POTENTIALLY INCREASING THE PENALTIES, I'VE MENTIONED TO YOU ALL THAT OUTSIDE OF MY FUNCTION AS YOUR CITY ATTORNEY, I'M A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IN SOME OF THE OTHER LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES HERE IN BROWARD COUNTY, AND I DO SEE THESE TYPES OF VIOLATIONS COME BEFORE ME, AND IN ONE PARTICULAR MUNICIPALITY IN QUESTION, THEY HAD THE SAME OR SIMILAR LANGUAGE OR ISSUES THAT YOU ALL ARE EXPERIENCING, AND THE FACT THAT THE CODE HAD A LIMITATION ON HOW MUCH THE FINE COULD BE, AND SO THEY'VE MODIFIED THAT AS I'M SUGGESTING OR RECOMMENDING TO YOU ALL AS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO, AND I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF.

IN THAT PARTICULAR MUNICIPALITY, I'VE HAD A COUPLE OF VIOLATORS, TO YOUR POINT, MAYOR, WHERE THEY'RE COMING BEFORE ME ON THE SECOND OR THIRD TIME AND I SAY LOOK COMPANY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WHOEVER IT MIGHT BE THIS IS NOW GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE YOUR ABILITY TO DO WHATEVER YOU'RE DOING IS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPINGING AND VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF YOUR NEIGHBORS, AND EVERYONE HAS TO GET ALONG, AND AS A RESULT, TO YOUR POINT, MAYOR, IT'S THIS NO LONGER GOING TO BE A $500 FINE; IT'S NOW GOING TO BE 1000 OR IN ONE INSTANCE, THE FINE HAS INCREASED BECAUSE THERE WERE REPEAT VIOLATORS TO 5000. SO IT'S NOW AFFECTING THEM MONETARILY, AND THAT TENDS TO GET THEIR ATTENTION.

IT TENDS TO GET THE ATTENTION OF THE HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE HAVING RAGING PARTIES EVERY FRIDAY NIGHT OR TUESDAY NIGHT OR 8 A.M.

IN THE MORNING, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO A PARTY HOUSE THAT IS SELLING TICKETS FOR $200 A POP. SO MAYBE WE NEED TO HAVE A SLIDING SCALE IN THERE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH ONE WE ARE DEALING WITH, AND REALLY, IT'S MORE FOR I KNOW THAT YOU'VE GOT IT IN THERE FOR A CERTAIN REASONABLE, PRUDENT PERSON WOULD HEAR.

MY COMMENTS ARE WE DON'T USE THE WORD ENFORCEMENT.

THE PROBLEM IS WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TEETH IN THERE FOR ENFORCEMENT.

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH POWER TO GIVE OUR CITY POLICE ENFORCEMENT, AND AS WE ALL KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH POLICE TO BE HANDLING PARTY STUFF.

SO OUR CITY REALLY NEEDS TO START FIGURING OUT IF WE'RE GOING TO EXPAND CODE.

WE NEED SOMEBODY ELSE TO HAVE THE POWER AND ABILITY TO GO OUT THERE AND HELP OUR RESIDENTS WHO ARE HAVING THESE ISSUES, BECAUSE WE CAN PUT ALL THE WONDERFUL LITTLE RULES IN THE BOOK, BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE THE STAFF POWER TO DO IT, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? IT IS AN EDUCATIONAL PROCESS AS WELL.

IT'S ALSO, AS YOU INDICATED, STARTING TO ASSESS THOSE FINES AT A HIGHER AMOUNT.

THE RANGE IS LITERALLY FROM 0 TO $15000.

UNDER STATE LAW, WE CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE TO THE NOISE ORDINANCE WHERE IT SAYS RIGHT NOW IT'S NO MORE THAN $250, AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, BASED UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE PRESENTED TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WHEN THE MATTER GETS BEFORE HIM OR HER, AND AGAIN, I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES SITTING IN THAT CAPACITY WHEN IT'S THE SECOND OR THIRD OR IF IT'S A SIGNIFICANT EVENT, THE FINE STARTS AT A LARGE AMOUNT FROM STEP ONE AND THEN CONTINUES TO

[02:10:02]

OUR NUISANCE ORDINANCE ABATEMENT PROGRAM IS FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS.

IT MOSTLY DEALS WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT HOME SOMETIMES AND WE HAVE TO GO OUT AND TAKE CARE OF THINGS. IN SOME RESPECT, THESE LIENS, I DON'T WANT THEM FORECLOSABLE, PERSONALLY, I DON'T WANT THEM FORECLOSABLE, AND IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PAY THEM, PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO LET THEM ADD UP AND THEN THEY JUST GO AWAY.

WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE WITH WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON HERE FOR SOME OF THESE HOMES, AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT IS MAYBE IF THEY WON'T PAY IT, PUT IT ON THE TAX BILL AND THEY'LL HAVE NO CHOICE.

WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT AS WELL AND WE'LL LOOK AT ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS.

I THINK ALL THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN VERY HEALTHY, VERY PRODUCTIVE, AND WILL WE'LL BEGIN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING THE REGULATIONS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT AS A BODY, YOU'VE TOLD US HERE TODAY THAT YOU WANT US TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE CITY TO ENFORCE THESE REGULATIONS.

MORE DIFFICULT ON THE VIOLATORS, AND THE FULL ARRAY OF POTENTIAL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE CITY.

ALL IN ALL, GIVING SOME QUALITY OF LIFE TO OUR RESIDENTS THAT ARE LIVING HERE.

THE VICE MAYOR HAS APPEARED AND WISHES TO SPEAK.

GO AHEAD. QUALITY OF LIFE INCLUDES HAVING THE ABILITY TO ENTERTAIN FAMILY AND FRIENDS IN A HOUSE PARTY.

SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID, AND THIS WAS SPURRED FROM COMMUNITY OUTRAGE IN YOUR COMMUNITY DISTRICT TWO THE WOODLANDS, A PARTICULAR HOME THAT'S NOT JUST HAVING A PARTY HOUSE, BUT THEY'RE RUNNING ESSENTIALLY A NIGHTCLUB IN BROAD DAYLIGHT FOR PROFIT SERVING ALCOHOL.

SO REALLY, THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN TARGETS THERE.

I DON'T GET A LOT OF CALLS OR ANY CALLS REALLY FROM RESIDENTS ABOUT NOISE FROM HOUSE PARTIES, AND SO REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT AT NIGHT, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA OR SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE FINANCIALLY REGARDING HAVING WE JUST FINISHED A POLICE SURVEY AND SOME OF IT WAS NOT SO POSITIVE.

IT WASN'T SO POSITIVE IN THE REGULAR SURVEY.

THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO IS SEND POLICE OVER TO PEOPLE'S HOMES TO SHUT DOWN PARTIES.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND WE SHOULD NOT BE CHARGING THEM TO DO THAT.

IF THERE'S A ONE OR TWO SPECIFIC HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE CLEARLY VIOLATING CERTAIN LAWS REGARDING HAVING FOR PROFIT PARTIES AND BUSING PEOPLE IN NOT PAYING ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER TO OTHER HOMEOWNERS AND NEIGHBORS THAT'S THE ONE ISSUE WE NEED TO RESOLVE.

WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE ALL THESE CHANGES TO RULES AND LAWS TO MAKE IT HARMFUL FOR OTHER RESIDENTS THAT ARE HAVING NORMAL PARTIES, BECAUSE ONE SPECIFIC HOMEOWNER IS EGREGIOUSLY VIOLATING SOME OF OUR RULES AND REALLY THEY'RE NOT VIOLATING THE LAW WHERE THIS MEMO IS DESIGNED TO GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE TEETH TO GO AFTER THEM, BUT ESPECIALLY BASED ON WHAT THE LEGISLATURE IS PROPOSING, AT SOME POINT THEY ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THESE FOR PROFIT PARTIES AT THEIR HOUSES.

SO WE WANT TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO LIMIT THE DAMAGE AND LIMIT THE HARM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THOSE HOMES, BUT UNDERSTANDING WE DON'T WANT TO HURT THE COMMON FAMILY THAT'S HAVING A REGULAR COME AND GET TOGETHER.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? THANK YOU. YEAH, AS I STATED EARLIER, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO STOP PEOPLE FROM HAVING REGULAR HOUSE PARTIES, BUT I STATED EARLIER THAT PEOPLE WERE PARKING IN THE COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY. IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN REQUEST THEY PUT NO TRESPASSING SIGNS? THAT WOULD ALLOW OUR BSO TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT IF THAT WERE THE CASE AGAIN.

WE CERTAINLY CAN LOOK INTO THAT.

POINT OF ORDER, POINT OF INFORMATION, THEY HAVE NO TRESPASSING SIGNS.

WELL, IF THEY HAVE NO TRESPASSING SIGNS, THEN ARE BSO ALSO ALLOWED TO GO IN AND TICKET, TOW? NO? UNLESS THE PARKING LOT IS MARKED WITH A TOW AWAY ZONE SIGNAGE, THEN NO, THE VEHICLES CAN'T BE TOWED AWAY.

I DO NOT KNOW, AND I WOULD DEFER TO BSO WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE

[02:15:04]

THE FOLLOW UP BETWEEN CITY AND THE OWNER OF THE OF THE CLUBHOUSE WAS THE NEXT DAY OR A COUPLE OF DAYS AFTER OR WHATEVER THE TIME FRAME WAS, YES, WE GAVE THEM PERMISSION, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS FOR THAT.

AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN FACT CORRECT, BUT CERTAINLY THE OWNERS OF THE CLUBHOUSE ARE NOW AWARE OF THE CITY'S CONCERNS, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN CONTINUE THAT PRODUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

I WOULD HOPE SO. WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO.

SO I THINK WE ALL HAVE PRETTY MUCH SAID THE SAME THING LET'S MAKE IT AS TIGHT AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.

WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO FOR OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT OR BSO TO KNOW WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO AND MAKE THAT MAKE ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO SHUT THIS DOWN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, AND JUST TO REITERATE, AS WAS SAID, THIS WAS NOT TO SHUT DOWN FAMILIES HAVING THEIR PARTIES. IT'S NOT TO SHUT DOWN ANY ENJOYMENT OF OUR OWN PROPERTIES AND QUALITY OF LIFE THERE. IT'S TO STOP THOSE PEOPLE WHO TAKE IT TOO FAR AND ABUSE THE ABILITY TO BE LOUD AND NOT CARING, MAYBE NOT INTENTIONAL.

THEY DON'T REALIZE THEY'RE HURTING OTHER PEOPLE'S QUALITY OF LIFE, BUT THEY ARE, AND JUST I KNOW FROM MY ATTENDANCE AT THE WOODLANDS MEETINGS, NOT JUST SECTIONS THREE AND FOUR ARE HAVING THE ISSUES.

THE OTHER SECTIONS IN THE WOODLANDS ARE HAVING ISSUES WITH PARTIES AS WELL.

SECTIONS TWO, SECTION THREE, SECTION ONE, SECTION FOUR.

IN EACH OF THESE DISTRICTS, I HAVE HAD SIGNIFICANT CONVERSATIONS WITH RESIDENTS WHO ARE HAVING ISSUES WITH NOISE, HENCE MY REQUEST TO MAKE WHATEVER WE CAN BETTER TO HELP THOSE PEOPLE IN OUR CITY BE ABLE TO ENJOY THEIR LIFE.

ALSO HAVING THEM UNDERSTAND REASONABLENESS WHEN PEOPLE ARE ENJOYING THEIR HOMES FOR PARTIES. SO I THINK YOU GOT EVERYTHING YOU NEED? YES. WE'RE GOOD.

THIS CONVERSATION IS NOW OVER.

WE ARE MOVING TO OUR LAST ITEM FOR THE DAY WHICH IS 1D

[1.d Sign Code Amendment]

GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, MAXINE CALLOWAY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

THIS PRESENTATION IS REGARDING RECOMMENDED CHANGES THAT ARE BEING MADE TO THE SIGN CODE AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD WITH THE COMMISSION, AS WELL AS DISCUSSION WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY.

SO I'LL START WITH SOME BACKGROUND.

SO OUR CODE WAS CODIFIED IN 2018, SPECIFICALLY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2018-09.

AS YOU RECALL, IT WAS A PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE SIGN CODE IN SPECIFIC LOOKS AT THE TYPE AND THE SIZE, THE LOCATION OF SIGNS, AS WELL AS THE ALLOCATION OF SIGNS AND HOW THOSE SIGNS ARE TO BE DESIGNED. THIS REALLY STARTED IN 2019 WHEN THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO CONDUCT A SWEEP ON WINDOW SIGNS, WHICH WE DID.

DURING THAT PROCESS, WE GOT SIGNIFICANT FEEDBACK FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY.

IN FACT, THAT PROVISION OF THE CODE HAD NOT BEEN REGULARLY ENFORCED, AND SO WE HAD A PROLIFERATION OF WINDOW SIGNS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, AND AT THE TIME IN 2019, WHEN THE SWEEP WAS CONDUCTED, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT WAS BEST FOR US TO GO BACK AND JUST TO LOOK AT THE CODE AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE 15% THAT'S ALLOCATED FOR WINDOW COVERAGE WAS SUFFICIENT, WHETHER IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES ARE DOING.

[02:20:04]

WE HAD A ROUNDTABLE AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER WHERE BUSINESSES CAME OUT.

I KNOW THE MAYOR WAS PRESENT AS WELL, AND STAFF FROM MY OFFICE AND JOHNSON SHAW WAS ALSO PRESENT AND WE DELIVERED A PRESENTATION AND JUST WANTED TO HEAR FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF WHAT AFFECTS THEM, WHAT IT IS THAT THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR BUSINESSES WERE BEING MARKETED WELL AND THAT THEY WERE GETTING GOOD VISIBILITY, AND SO DURING THE ROUNDTABLE, WE APPROACHED THE CHANGES TO THE CODE THAT YOU WILL SEE THIS AFTERNOON WITH A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE DID WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, THAT IT PROMOTED THE CREATION OF AN ATTRACTIVE VISUAL ENVIRONMENT THAT PROMOTES AN ESTHETICALLY PLEASING COMMUNITY, AND THAT IT FOSTER PUBLIC SAFETY ALONG PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY BY ASSURING THAT ALL SIGNS ARE IN SAFE AND APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS THAT DO NOT CREATE A HAZARD.

SO THIS SLIDE JUST SHOWS THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY THAT STAFF UNDERTOOK IN LOOKING AT THE CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY.

OF COURSE WE REACHED OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND THAT'S A PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER INPUT THAT WE RECEIVED, PARTICULARLY FROM THE ROUNDTABLE THAT WAS CONDUCTED.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT EXTERNAL MUNICIPAL CODES.

WE LOOKED AT COMMUNITIES ADJACENT TO US AND AWAY FROM US JUST TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE DOING, SIZE AND LOCATION.

WE CONDUCTED SOME FIELD INSPECTIONS.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT INDUSTRY TRENDS AND COMPARISONS, AND THEN WE PULLED SOME OF OUR FILES AND JUST LOOKED AT CASE STUDY OF PREVIOUS SIGN PERMITS THAT WERE ISSUED AND JUST TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT IF WE WENT WRONG WITH ANY OF THOSE AND HOW CAN WE INCORPORATE SOME CHANGES IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE REWRITE? SO THE RESULT OF THAT RESEARCH, THIS IS A QUICK SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I'LL GO OVER THIS AFTERNOON, AND WE OUR STAFF IS RECOMMENDING CHANGES AS IT RELATES TO WINDOW SIGN. WE FOUND THAT THE 15% WAS NOT SUFFICIENT, AND SO STAFF THIS AFTERNOON AND GOING FORWARD WILL BE RECOMMENDING ABOUT 40% OF WINDOW COVERAGE, AND I'LL SHOW YOU WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, 15 VERSUS 40%.

FOR FACADE SIGNS, AND AS I GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION, I'LL ALSO SHOW YOU WHAT THOSE SIGNS LOOK LIKE, BECAUSE THESE ARE JUST TERMINOLOGIES THAT MIGHT BE FOREIGN TO YOU.

SO THE FACADE SIGN STAFF IS NOT REALLY RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGE WITH THE SIZE.

IT'S A VERY FLEXIBLE PROVISION THAT REALLY ALLOWS YOU TO APPLY, AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT GOING OVER 70% OF THE FRONT OF YOUR FACADE, YOU CAN PUT IN A NICE SIZE SIGN.

IT REGULATES THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN, BUT NOT THE COVERAGE ON YOUR FACADE.

WE THINK IT'S COMPARABLE TO CORAL SPRINGS AND TO PLANTATION OR SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES.

IT'S A BIT SMALLER THAN WHAT YOU FIND IN NORTH LAUDERDALE OR LAUDERDALE LAKES, BUT WE STILL THINK IT MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT, AND OF COURSE, IF WE'RE DIRECTED TO DO OTHERWISE WILL CHANGE, BUT AT THIS POINT WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGE TO FACADE SIGN.

THE SAME WITH MONUMENT SIGN.

WE THINK THE CITY'S PROVISION IS SIMILAR TO CORAL SPRINGS AND PLANTATION IN THAT AND MAYBE A BIT SMALLER THAN NORTH LAUDERDALE AND LAUDERDALE LAKES WITH MONUMENT SIGN.

WHAT WE FOUND IN THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE IS THAT THE REAL ISSUE IS REGARDING THE DIRECTORY SIGNS WHERE TENANTS THAT MIGHT BE OCCUPYING A MULTI-TENANT BUILDING IS HAVING A SMALLER SIGN THAT REPRESENTS THEIR THEIR BUSINESS ON THAT SIGN, AND SO YOU CAN'T SEE IT BECAUSE REALLY THE DIRECTORY SIGN IN OUR CODE IS NO GREATER THAN 12 SQUARE FEET.

SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT IS REALLY SMALL, AND SO A MULTI TENANT SIGN, A DIRECTORY SIGNED IS TANTAMOUNT TO A MULTI TENANT MONUMENT.

SIGN YOUR DIRECTORY SIGN AND I'LL DISCUSS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE.

SO WHILE WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO YOUR MONUMENT SIGN, WE WILL BE MAKING CHANGES TO THE DIRECTORY SIGN, WHICH IS A SIGN THAT LETS THE MULTI TENANT ON THE MONUMENT ITSELF.

WE ARE PROPOSING CHANGES AS WELL TO THE DIRECTORY SIGNS, NAMEPLATE, BUILDING IDENTIFICATION. WE ARE RECOMMENDING SOME CHANGES TO THAT.

WE DO HAVE SOME LANGUAGE IN THE CODE AS IT IS, BUT WE JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.

SO WE WILL BE RECOMMENDING AN ADDITIONAL IDENTIFICATION SIGN TO THE REAR OF BUILDINGS.

SO PEOPLE, IF YOU'RE IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, IF YOU'RE IN AN ALLEYWAY, YOU CAN RECOGNIZE WHAT THAT BUSINESS IS FROM THE REAR OF THE BUILDING.

MENU BOARD SIGNS, THE CODE IS CURRENTLY SILENT ON THAT, SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING SOME PROVISIONS TO GOVERN THAT FOR RESTAURANT AND FOR DRIVE-THRU FACILITIES AS WELL, AND THEN THE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS ARE THE ONES I BRIEFLY DISCUSSED.

THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY A TYPE OF MONUMENT SIGN, BUT THEY'RE REGULATED DIFFERENTLY IN OUR

[02:25:05]

YOU MIGHT HAVE A BUSINESS THAT'S TUCKED AWAY IN THAT CORNER, AND SO THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT BUSINESS TO BE MARKETED, AND SO THAT PROPERTY OWNER APPROACHED US AND WAS ASKING TO DO AN OFF PREMISES SIGN, MEANING TO HAVE SIGNAGE ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY THAT WOULD DIRECT A CONSUMER TO THAT BUSINESS.

THE CODE REALLY DOES NOT COVER THAT.

SO WE'RE PROPOSING SOME PROVISION THAT I'LL DISCUSS IN GREATER DETAIL ON HOW TO ADDRESS THAT TO ALLOW OFF-PREMISES SIGN AND THEN THE AMAZON LOCATION OF COURSE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE WE DO HAVE SOME DIRECTIONAL SIGNS THAT ARE ERECTED TEMPORARILY NOW TO DIRECT THE TRUCKS WHERE TO DRIVE, BUT REALLY IT'S NOT REALLY PERMISSIBLE BY OUR CODE.

THE CODE REALLY DOESN'T ADDRESS IT IN GREAT DETAIL AND DEPTH AND SO WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO THAT. ALL RIGHT, SO STARTING WITH THE WINDOW SIGNS, THIS SLIDE IS JUST SHOWING OUR EXISTING CODE REQUIREMENT WHERE IT PERMITS THEM IN THE CITY, MAXIMUM 15% COVERAGE FOR YOUR WINDOW SIGN, AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE MAXIMUM LETTER, THE LOGO, THE GRAPHIC MAY NOT OVERLAP WINDOW PANE AND MULLIONS.

WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING IS THAT COVERAGE BE INCREASED TO 40%.

WE KNOW THAT THIS MIGHT BE A BIT DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE, AND SO WE ARE PROPOSING AN AMORTIZATION PROVISION WHICH ALLOWS 24 MONTHS OR TWO YEARS FOR EXISTING OUT OF COMPLIANCE BUSINESSES TO GET INTO COMPLIANCE.

SO THAT GIVES STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO OUT AND TO EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY.

WE'RE PROPOSING THAT ONE COMPONENT OF THAT EDUCATION IS INCLUDING INFORMATION IN NEW BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS.

SO NEW BUSINESSES THAT ARE COMING IN UNDERSTAND THAT THEY CANNOT COVER THEIR WINDOW MORE THAN 40%.

SO THIS SLIDE IS JUST SHOWING YOU THE DIFFERENCE.

SO ONE, OF COURSE, IS OUR EXISTING CODE, WHICH IS 15%, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS SHOWING THE 40%, AND THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE SEE IN OTHER COMMUNITIES.

YOU HAVE SEEN THAT SOME BUSINESSES ARE USING REAL ATTRACTIVE FILMS AS MARKETING MATERIALS, AND SO YOU'VE SEEN SOME DENTAL OFFICE OR MEDICAL OFFICES IN THE CITY THAT ARE USING THE FILM TO COVER THE WINDOW.

THAT IS ALSO A MARKETING MATERIAL.

SO RECOGNIZING THAT WE WANT IT TO GO A BIT HIGHER BUT NOT COVER TOO MUCH, AND WE ALSO WANTED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU SEE IN OTHER COMMUNITIES AS WELL.

I WAS TALKING AND DIDN'T BRING THESE UP.

SO THERE YOU GO, 15% AND 40%.

OKAY. SO WE DO HAVE THE LEGISLATION DRAFTED AS WELL.

SO SOME OF THESE SLIDES WILL INCLUDE WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE ONCE YOU SEE THE ORDINANCE AND HOW THE CHANGES WILL BE REPRESENTED IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.

SO WE'RE SHOWING YOU THE SECTION THAT WOULD BE AMENDED AND OF COURSE WE'RE DELETING THE 15 PROPOSING TO REPLACE IT WITH 40, AND THEN ON WE'RE PROPOSING A NEW SUBSECTION V, WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE AMORTIZATION PROVISION I JUST SPOKE OF, WHICH IS THE 24 MONTHS TO ALLOW EXISTING OUT OF COMPLIANCE BUSINESSES TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.

ALL RIGHT. SO THE NEXT SIGN IS THE FACADE SIGNS.

AS I DISCUSSED IN THE VERY BEGINNING, WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGES TO THE FACADE SIGN. WE BELIEVE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORING JURISDICTION, IT AFFORDS FOR A LEVEL OF FLEXIBILITY AS IT IS NOW.

IT'S NO REAL REGULATION ON THE SIZE BECAUSE YOUR SIZE OF THE SIGN IS CANNOT EXCEED 70% OF THE FACADE COVERAGE.

SO ESSENTIALLY THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS THAT FLEXIBILITY.

THE ONLY THING THAT'S REALLY RESTRICTED IS THE HEIGHT OF THE LETTERS ARE DETERMINED BY THE WIDTH OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.

SO THE HEIGHT IS DETERMINED BY THE RIGHT OF WAY, WIDTH, AND THEN THE SIGN ITSELF CANNOT COVER MORE THAN 70% OF THE BUILDING FRONTAGE.

SO YOU CAN SEE IT ALREADY PROVIDES FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY AND DOES NOT RESTRICT TOO MUCH.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU THE FACADE SIGN STANDARDS.

THIS IS A CHART THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, SO YOU SEE THE RIGHT OF WAY.

IF YOU'RE 0 TO 100 FEET, THEN YOUR MAXIMUM CHARACTER AND GRAPHIC HEIGHT AND THIS IS THE LETTER ITSELF IS 18 INCHES, SO ON AND SO FORTH, BUT THE COVERAGE OF THE SIGN ITSELF JUST CANNOT EXCEED 70% OF THE FACADE FRONTAGE.

[02:30:02]

THE ONLY THING WE'RE PUTTING IN HERE IS JUST FOR THE USER OF THE CODE TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE NOT CHANGING FACADE.

THERE'S STILL SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOU TO DO SOMETHING AS IT RELATES TO YOUR DIRECTORY SIGN. SO WE'RE JUST PUTTING IN A REFERENCE.

SO THE RED YOU SEE IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADD SO THE USER CAN SEE THAT IN ADDITION TO YOUR FACADE, DON'T FORGET YOU CAN ALSO DO A DIRECTORY SIGN AND YOUR DIRECTORY SIGN CAN BE AND REFERENCE YOUR REFERS YOU TO WHERE YOU WOULD NEED TO GET THOSE STANDARDS.

OKAY, GOING TOO FAST.

ALL RIGHT, SO, MONUMENT SIGNS, WE'RE ALSO NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES SPECIFICALLY TO MONUMENT SIGNS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TRYING TO BRING DIRECTORY AND DIRECTIONAL SIGN REQUIREMENTS INTO THIS PROVISION.

SO AS IT RELATES TO JUST MONUMENT BY ITSELF, WHETHER YOU'RE A SINGLE TENANT OR YOU'RE MULTITENANT, THIS IS TYPICALLY WHAT A MONUMENT SIGN LOOKS LIKE.

IT'S AT THE ENTRANCE OR THE FRONT OF YOUR PROPERTY, AND THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE REGULATIONS CONNECTED TO MONUMENT SIGNS.

THIS IS OUR EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE GOING TO NOW BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BE APPLICABLE TO YOUR DIRECTORY AND YOUR DIRECTIONAL SIGNS.

SO WE WANT TO INCREASE THAT WHICH ARE BOTH 12 SQUARE FEET AND THREE SQUARE FEET TO NOW BE CONSISTENT WITH MONUMENT SIGNS.

SO THOSE BUSINESS OWNERS CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A LARGER SIGN.

SO THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE ADDING TO MONUMENT SIGN IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR. IN TERMS OF THE LANDSCAPING, WE HAD A BROAD PROVISION THAT THE BASE OF THE MONUMENT SIGN HAD TO BE LANDSCAPED, WANT TO BE A BIT MORE SPECIFIC SO THE USER UNDERSTANDS THAT INCLUDES SMALL GROUND SHRUBBERY AND MULCH AND SOD AND SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION.

WE ADDED SOME CLARIFICATION AS WELL AS IT RELATES TO THE ILLUMINATION OF THE SIGN, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE MAKING SOME CHANGES TO B AND TO C JUST TO SWITCH IT.

AS IT IS NOW, B SAYS THAT THE CITY PREFERS EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGN.

WE THINK WHAT IS CLEANER AND PROBABLY MOST EFFECTIVE AND MOST ATTRACTIVE IS A BACKLIT OR AN INTERNALLY LIT SIGN.

SO WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE THAT AND JUST MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE CITY PREFERS THAT.

THIS IS A NAMEPLATE ID SIGN PROVISION I SPOKE ABOUT RELATIVE TO THIS.

THE ONLY CHANGE WE'RE MAKING IS JUST ALLOWING A BUSINESS OR A BUILDING TO ALSO IDENTIFY THEIR BUSINESS WITH A SIGN ON THE REAR, AND SO THAT'S IF YOU'RE IN THE BACK OR IF YOU'RE IN AN ALLEYWAY OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, YOU CAN IDENTIFY WHAT THAT BUSINESS IS FROM THE REAR OF THE BUSINESS ITSELF.

MENU BOARD SIGNS AND THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE AND I SEE COMMISSIONER PLACKO'S FACE. YES, IT'S KIND OF SHOCKING.

WE DON'T HAVE PROVISIONS IN OUR CODE FOR MENU BOARD SIGNS, AND SO ARE FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS. WE HAVE DONE THAT THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS WHEN A NEW RESTAURANT COMES IN OR A NEW DRIVE THRU COMES IN, BUT NOW WE JUST WANT TO FORMALIZE IT AND HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS SPECIFIC TO MENU BOARD SIGNS THAT SPEAKS TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT, THE MAXIMUM WIDTH, SO ON AND SO FORTH, HOW MANY YOU CAN HAVE AND GOVERN WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE PLACED.

SO YOU SEE A LOT OF RED BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE THE CHANGES ARE MOST COMPREHENSIVE.

THIS SLIDE IS THE PREVIEW BOARD.

SO YOUR DRIVE THROUGH IT CAN HAVE YOUR MENU BOARD, AND IF YOU HAVE GONE TO MOST OF THE DRIVE THRU YOU SEE THEY'LL HAVE A PREVIEW BOARD FIRST THAT PROBABLY HAS A SPECIAL OR A SALE AND THEN YOU GO AROUND FURTHER INTO DRIVE THROUGH AND THEN YOU'LL SEE YOUR MENU BOARD. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE COVERING BOTH THE PREVIEW BOARD AS WELL AS THE MENU BOARD AND PROPOSING SOME REQUIREMENTS THERE AS WELL, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE A DRIVE THRU BUT YOU'RE JUST STANDALONE DINING RESTAURANT, THEN WE WANT TO PROVIDE SOME REGULATIONS AS IT RELATES TO MENU BOARD WALL SIGNS, AND SO THIS HAS TO BE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE BUSINESS.

OF COURSE, THAT SPEAKS TO THE WHAT'S ON THE MENU, AND SO WE WANTED TO PROVIDE THOSE.

SO DIRECTORY VERSUS DIRECTIONAL SIGN, JUST SOME CLARIFICATION.

THE DIRECTORY SIGN IS A SIGN CONSISTENT OF THE INDEX OF THE NAMES AND TENANTS OF AN OFFICE BUILDING, SHOPPING CENTER OR OTHER MULTITENANT BUSINESS COMPLEX, AND THIS IS A SIGN THAT WE GOT MOST FEEDBACK FROM AS IT RELATES TO THE SIZE.

MOST OF THE BUSINESSES ARE SAYING IT'S JUST TOO SMALL AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE A MULTI TENANT SIGN THAT HAS SIX OR SO TENANTS AND YOUR BUSINESS IS JUST SO SMALL, THEN THEY'RE NOT REALLY VISIBLE, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE WENT AHEAD AND FOCUSED ON MAKING SURE WE WERE INCREASING THE SIZE ON THAT, AND THEN THE DIRECTIONAL SIGN IS PERMANENTLY ERECTED, AND THIS YOU'LL FIND NORMALLY IN A HUGE COMPLEX, AND FOR EXAMPLE, THE HOSPITAL ON UNIVERSITY DRIVE, I THINK THEY'RE PROPOSING A FEW IN THEIR PACKAGE.

[02:35:05]

SO FOR A PLAZA OR FOR ANY TYPE OF BUSINESS, IF THEY ARE CHOOSING TO DO A DIRECTORY SIGN AND NOT YOUR REGULAR MONUMENT SIGN THAT HAS MULTIPLE TENANTS, THAT THEY STILL CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SAME SIZE THAT WE WOULD ALLOW A MONUMENT SIGN.

SO THAT ADDRESSES THE SIZE ISSUE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE WITH YOUR DIRECTIONAL SIGN.

YOUR EXISTING CODE PROVIDES FOR NO GREATER THAN THREE SQUARE FEET, AND THE DIRECTORY SIGN IS NO GREATER THAN 12 SQUARE FEET, AND I THINK WE CAN ALL SEE WHY THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IS HAVING AN ISSUE WITH THAT.

SO WE'RE PROPOSING THAT THOSE BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SIZE OF THE MONUMENT.

SO IT WOULD GO UP TO 42 SQUARE FEET, MAXIMUM SIGN AREA IF YOU HAVE A SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL, THAT'S LESS THAN 6 TO 4000 SQUARE FEET.

IF YOU'RE GREATER THAN 6 TO 5000 SQUARE FEET, THEN IT WOULD BE 72 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE AREA. SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE CURRENTLY ALLOW FOR MONUMENT SIGNS, AND THIS IS JUST AN IMAGE OF SHOWING YOU WHAT YOUR DIRECTORY SIGN LOOKS LIKE WITH THE VARIOUS BUSINESSES, AND SO YOU CAN IMAGINE WITH THE ONE ON YOUR LEFT, THAT'S A DIRECTORY SIGN, AND YOUR CODE CURRENTLY SAYS IT NEEDS TO BE NO GREATER THAN 12 SQUARE FEET, AND SO IF YOU HAVE MULTIPLE TENANTS, YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW DIFFICULT THAT WOULD BE TO FIND WHO YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, AND THEN THE ONE ON YOUR RIGHT IS A DIRECTIONAL SIGN.

IT HAS THE ARROWS, IT'S TELLING YOU WHERE TO GO.

THE CURRENT CODE SAYS THAT CAN'T BE GREATER THAN THREE SQUARE FEET.

SO THAT'S A TINY THING, AND SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE'RE FOCUSING ON THESE TWO AREAS.

FOR THE PROPOSED OFF PREMISE DESIGN.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING SOME CHANGES IN THE CODE YOU WILL SEE IN THE LEGISLATION ONCE YOU RECEIVE IT, ESSENTIALLY THAT IS GOING TO ALLOW FOR BUSINESS OWNER TO BE ABLE TO COORDINATE WITH SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE THESE SIGNS ARE GOING ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY, WHETHER IT BE CITY RIGHT OF WAY, THEN THEY WOULD NEED AN EASEMENT FROM THE CITY ITSELF OR A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER.

THEY WOULD NEED AN EASEMENT FROM THEM.

HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT CERTAIN ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT'S IN THE LEGISLATION IF THEY'RE PROPOSING AN OFF PREMISES SIZE.

SO WE'RE PROPOSING NEW REGULATIONS WHERE THAT'S CONCERNED, AND THEN LASTLY, WITH THE TEMPORARY SIGNS WE LEARNED DURING THE PANDEMIC THAT OF COURSE, WE HAD A STATE OF EMERGENCY. WE WERE ABLE TO DO SOME THINGS DIFFERENT AND ALLOW COMMUNITIES TO BE ABLE TO PUT UP TEMPORARY SIGNS AND BANNERS IN AREAS OR IN SIZES WHERE THEY WOULD NORMALLY NOT BE ALLOWED TO. WE LEARNED SOME THINGS FROM THAT PROCESS THAT OUR CODE WAS VOID OF CERTAIN THINGS THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE.

SO WE ARE PROPOSING SOME LANGUAGE AS IT RELATES TO THAT IN CASE OF EMERGENCY AND SO ON.

SO WE JUST HAVE THE PROVISION.

I'LL JUST GO DIRECTLY TO THE CHANGES WE'RE PROPOSING.

SO SIGNS USED TO DIRECT THE PUBLIC TO GOVERNMENT RESOURCES DURING DECLARED EMERGENCIES THAT WE HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW THOSE SIGNS USED TO DIRECT THE PUBLIC TO SAFE HAVENS OR SHELTERS DURING DECLARED EMERGENCIES.

SIGNS USED TO DIRECT THE PUBLIC TO GOVERNMENT SPONSORS, ACTIVITIES SUCH AS ELECTION SITES AND DISTRIBUTION AND HEALTH RELATED RESOURCES, AND LASTLY, I WOULD HAVE SOME DISCRETION RELATIVE TO TEMPORARY OFF PREMISES SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES REQUIRING MY APPROVAL AS DEEMED NECESSARY, PROVIDED THAT IT PROTECTS THE HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND WELL-BEING OF TAMARAC'S RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES AND VISITORS.

SO A SOMEWHAT CATCHALL PROVISION THAT WE HAVE PUT IN JUST TO ALLOW FOR THAT.

SO LASTLY, OF COURSE, THIS IS JUST A SYNOPSIS OF THE THINGS THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED THAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WE ALREADY HAVE THE LEGISLATION DRAFTED THAT WE WILL BE BRINGING TO THE PLANNING BOARD ON APRIL 6TH AND THEN FOLLOWING THE CITY COMMISSION APRIL 13TH FOR FIRST READING AND THEN APRIL 27TH FOR SECOND READING, AND AT THIS TIME, I'LL TAKE YOUR COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAXINE, NICELY DONE.

AS FAR AS THE DIRECTORY AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, THEY DO NEED A PERMIT FOR THOSE, CORRECT? YES, YOU DO. OKAY.

WHAT PARAMETERS ARE WE SETTING AS FAR AS DESIGN COLORS, SHAPE, SIZE, WE'VE ALREADY SET? YEAH, SO FOR THE DESIGN, WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO WITH WHAT'S INCLUDED WITH THE MONUMENT

[02:40:03]

SO NORMALLY IT'S THE PAINTING, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE BUILDING IS PAINTED.

THE SIZE IS 42 OR 72 SQUARE FEET.

IT'S GOING TO BE A PERMIT IS REQUIRED.

SO WE GET TO LOOK AT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, MAKE COMMENTS AS WELL AS LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY LANDSCAPING AND WHAT THAT LANDSCAPING WOULD LOOK LIKE [INAUDIBLE]. IF THE SIGN IS EXISTING AND YOU'RE JUST CHANGING OUT A COPY, YOU'RE CHANGING OUT ONE TENANT FOR SOMEONE ELSE, THEN A PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THAT.

SO THE CODE COVERS THAT.

SO, MAXINE DENTAL MOVED OUT AND I DON'T KNOW AND ANN DENTAL IS MOVING IN, THEN IT'S JUST A MATTER OF CHANGING THAT SLOT, AND SO A PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THAT.

OKAY, GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

VICE MAYOR GELIN. YEAH, DO WE HAVE NOTES FROM THE RESPONSE FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY? HOW MANY BUSINESSES ARE PART OF THIS ROUNDTABLE AND IS THERE A SUMMARY OF SOME OF THEIR COMMENTS? SURE, VICE MAYOR, I CAN FOLLOW UP WITH ANN AS WELL AS WITH LAURIE, WHO WERE BOTH AT THAT MEETING, JUST TO SEE IF WE DID A SIGN IN SHEET, I'M SURE WE DID, AS WELL AS WHETHER THERE WERE ANY NOTES, AND IF SO, I'LL BE HAPPY TO SHARE THOSE.

OKAY, THANK YOU. SURE.

THANK YOU. THERE WAS A NICE CROSS SAMPLING OF PROPERTY MANAGER OF A LARGE SHOPPING PLAZA.

THERE WAS ONE OF OUR SMALLER BUSINESSES ON ONE OF THE 46TH STREET [INAUDIBLE].

THERE WAS A GOOD GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE.

IT WAS GREAT FEEDBACK, AND I THANK YOU FOR INCORPORATING MUCH OF, IF NOT ALL OF THEIR COMMENTS AND CONCERNS.

I HAVE A FEW LITTLE WHATEVERS AND I WILL BE OUT OF ORDER.

SO FORGIVE ME.

I SEE WHERE WE WENT UP UP TO 40%.

I SEE WHERE IT SAYS SIX INCHES FOR THE MULLIONS AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY PLACES THAT MIGHT BE THE SAME BUILDING WHERE IT'S ONE FOOT BETWEEN OR DID YOU FIND THAT SIX INCHES IS THE PROPER DISTANCE FOR US TO BE COMPLETED FOR A TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE.

THAT'S WHAT WE FOUND, AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT WE MIGHT HAVE SOME CHALLENGES.

WE HAVE EXISTING BUILT ENVIRONMENT, WHICH IS WHY WE FELT THAT A 24 MONTH AMORTIZATION PERIOD WOULD ALLOW STAFF TO WORK WITH THESE BUSINESS OWNERS AND SEE HOW WE CAN ADDRESS WHATEVER THEY NEED TO HAVE ADDRESSED BEFORE THE COMPLIANCE PERIOD.

YEAH, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

I FEEL BAD FOR THE NEW BUSINESSES THAT HAVE MOVED IN AND COMPLETELY PAPERED THEIR WINDOWS. I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU WANT TO PUT IT OUT FOR THE BUSINESS TAX, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER IF IT'S SOME TIME SOONER AS WELL.

I KNOW WHEN I MOVED INTO MY OFFICE, GRANTED, I'M NOT GOING TO BE [INAUDIBLE] FOR MY OFFICE AS I WASN'T DOING ANYTHING ON MY WALLS OR MY WINDOWS, BUT BUSINESS OCCUPANCY LICENSE IS THE LAST ON THE CHECKLIST.

IF I'M DOING REPAIRS IN MY PLACE, I'M A NEW OCCUPANT GOING INTO A MULTI-TENANT PLACE, I'M WORKING ON THAT FIRST, AND SO THEN I'M GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY, PUT UP THIS 100% AND THEN GET HIT WITH THIS. THEN WHAT HAPPENS IF IT'S TWO YEARS FROM NOW WHEN THERE'S NO MORE OF THIS 24 MONTHS? SO I WOULD THINK THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT PLEASE GETTING NOTICE OUT SOONER THAN LATER VERSUS OCCUPANCY FOR THEIR LICENSE.

I ALSO DO THINK THAT AND I'M SURE THIS WILL NOT BE MET WITH HAPPINESS.

I THINK THEY NEED A PERMIT, BECAUSE THEIR IDEA OF 40% IN OUR IDEA OF 40% MAY NOT BE THE SAME, AND AGAIN, THEY'RE SPENDING MONEY IN ORDER TO BE TOLD WE DON'T CALCULATE THE SAME WAY, BUT IF WE HAVE THE CONVERSATION THROUGH A PERMIT PROCESS, WE START THAT CONVERSATION ON THE SAME PAGE VERY QUICKLY AND WE AVOID ANY KIND OF MISCOMMUNICATIONS, AND NOT SAYING IT HAS TO BE A MONEY TYPE THING.

CAN WE COVER THE COST OF THE PERSON? IT'S JUST A MATTER OF MAKING SURE WE HAVE THE INFORMATION OUT THERE AND LESS CHANCES OF MISCOMMUNICATION, AND MISCOMMUNICATION USUALLY FALLS INTO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ON A BUSINESS OWNER THAT WANTS TO START UP.

I ALSO THINK ADDING IT TO THE BOSS REQUIREMENTS IN THE STUFF THEY HAVE ONLINE AND THAT YOU GIVE OUT WHEN PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT WHICH PLACES TO RENT AND LEASE THE BOSS PROGRAM, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THERE, SO PEOPLE ARE AWARE.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE LEVELS OF 40%, DOES THAT INCLUDE WINDOW TINTING?

[02:45:03]

MEANWHILE, THAT WINDOW TINT IS BASICALLY YOU CAN'T SEE A THING INSIDE.

SO, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AS WELL, PLEASE.

AS FAR AS PUTTING THE SIGN NUMBERS ON THE BACK OF THE BUSINESSES, I THINK IS A GREAT IDEA, BUT I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE A SHOULD.

I THINK THAT SHOULD BE A MUST.

I'M NOT SAYING IT HAS TO BE LIT, BUT I DO THINK IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE THE BACK OF YOUR PROPERTIES LIT AND YOU MIGHT BE MORE OF AN ALLEYWAY TYPE SITUATION, YOU LESSEN ANY CHANCE OF SAFETY ISSUES.

AS FAR AS OUR MONUMENT SIGNS, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN MANDATE THAT THE NUMBERS ARE ABOVE THE NAME OF THE BUSINESS VERSUS BELOW BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE SOME REALLY NICE LANDSCAPING, BUT IT GROWS.

WE'RE IN FLORIDA WE HAVE, UNLESS THEY'RE [INAUDIBLE] SOMETIMES EVERY WEEK YOU CAN'T SEE THE NUMBERS, AND WHILE ALONG THAT LINES, IF WE CAN TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE REALIZE THAT THEY HAVE TO TRIM THEIR MONUMENT SIGNS SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT'S THERE AS WELL.

THAT WOULD BE GREAT TO.

ALONG THE LINES OF COMMISSION PLACKO TOUCHED, BUT I WANT TO TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER, CONFORMITY. WE AT ONE POINT SAID THAT WE WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT CONFORMITY OF THE FACADE SIGN, THE MONUMENT SIGN AND ANY WRITING AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, I GUESS AT THIS POINT.

I DIDN'T HEAR ANY OF THAT.

SO DID WE FOREGO THAT? NO, ONE THING I DIDN'T TOUCH ON IS THE FACT THAT WE DO HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE PROGRAM REQUIREMENT THAT'S IN THE CODE.

SO IF YOU'RE A BIGGER PLAZA, YOU CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT, WHICH MEANS THERE'S A LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY. YOUR SIGN CAN BE A BIT BIGGER.

IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT WE ENCOURAGE WHEN WE HAVE LARGER PLAZA COMING IN.

TAMARAC VILLAGE, FOR ONE, I KNOW IT'S A NEW CONSTRUCTION, BUT WE REQUIRE THAT THEY DO THAT. SO WHICH MEANS SIGNAGE LOOK ALIKE THEY ARE FROM THE SAME TYPE OF COLOR PALETTE AND THEN THEY GET TO BE A BIT LARGER.

IT'S THE SAME PROCESS THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING FOR THE HOSPITAL ON UNIVERSITY DRIVE.

THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF THE CHANGE OF NAME AND THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF UPGRADING, AND WE'VE REQUIRED THAT THEY GO THROUGH THAT PROGRAM.

WHY? BECAUSE WE WANT SOME COMPATIBILITY AND CERTAIN SIGNS TO LOOK THE SAME IN TERMS OF COLOR AND SO ON.

SO THAT IS IN THE CODE.

I DIDN'T TOUCH ON IT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING CHANGES TO THAT, BUT IT'S ALREADY IN OUR CODE. SO FOR EXAMPLE, AND I'M JUST THROWING OUT CASA LINDA, THEY'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME CHANGES, HOPEFULLY, I BELIEVE THEY ARE, BUT THEY'RE A SMALLER PLAZA THAN, SAY, THE ALDI'S PLAZA THAT HAS THE SCRUBS AND MORE, WHICH IS NOW CHANGED THEIR NAME AND NINA'S JEWELRY AND ALL THIS KIND OF STUFF.

SO ARE WE SAYING THAT CASA LINDA PLAZA HAS TO HAVE THE SAME SIGNAGE LOOK AND SIGN OR, NO, BECAUSE THEY'RE SMALLER? THEY'RE SMALLER SO WE PROBABLY NEED TO CONSIDER IF YOU'RE ASKING ME TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MONUMENT SIGN MATCHES THE FACADE, SIGN THE DIRECTORY SIGN, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW TO ADDRESS THAT FOR SMALLER.

I THINK THE CONVERSATION NEEDS TO BE HAD AND ALSO SOME OF THE BUSINESSES IN THERE, THE BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN IN THERE FOR AGES.

THEY'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED AND THEY ARE VERY EXPENSIVE TO PUT UP.

I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IF WE'D GO INTO A CONFORMING ALL HAS TO BE THE SAME.

IT WOULD HAVE TO BE WHEN THE PERSON MOVES OUT THAT IT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE IN MY HEAD.

THAT IT WOULD BE THAT LOOK.

SO I HAD SOMETHING, I SAID FOUR.

I GUESS IT WAS SOMETHING I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND, BUT I'LL JUST ASK YOU ABOUT IT SEPARATELY THEN. NOTHING IMPORTANT ON THAT ONE, BUT I THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU FOR ALL THE TIME THAT YOUR TEAM AND LAURIE AND STAFF DID TO MEET WITH THE BUSINESSES, AND I KNOW NOT JUST THAT MEETING WASN'T THE ONLY MEETING YOU HAD.

I KNOW YOU'VE HAD REACH OUT.

I KNOW YOU'VE HAD PHONE CALLS.

I KNOW THROUGH CHAMBER MEETINGS AND YOU'VE BEEN TALKING TO PEOPLE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO THE CITY.

YOU'VE TALKED TO THEM AS WELL.

SO I APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GUESS WHAT IT IS 2:00 AND WE ARE DONE.

WORKSHOP ADJOURNED. HAVE A GREAT DAY.

WE WILL SEE YOU 9:30 A.M.

ON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.