[00:00:02]
WELCOME TO OUR TEN O'CLOCK MEETING.[Call to Order]
IT'S MONDAY, APRIL 25TH.CITY CLERK, PLEASE, CALL THE ROLL.
>> COMMISSIONER PLACKO. COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.
>> THANK YOU. MAYOR GOMEZ. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU.
WE HAVE AN EXCUSED ABSENCE FOR COMMISSIONER PLACKO.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK OUR CITY CLERK TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE.
A MOMENT OF SILENCE RIGHT AFTERWARDS.
>> WE'RE NOW GOING TO GO TO THE SELECTION ON THE 2022,
[1.a Selection of the 2022/2023 Broward League of Cities Board of Directors Requested by Jennifer Johnson]
2023 [INAUDIBLE] LEAGUE OF CITIES BOARD OF DIRECTOR, AND THIS IS REQUESTED BY OUR CITY CLERK.>> GOOD MORNING. EVERY YEAR IN APRIL, THE COMMISSION DECIDES ON WHO IT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AS IT'S DIRECTOR, ALTERNATE, AND SECOND ALTERNATE FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
THE DEADLINE TO APPROVE THIS IS APRIL THE 30TH.
>> NOTHING LIKE THE PRESENT. I AM ALSO AT THIS MOMENT WITHOUT MY LAPTOP, IT IS FORTHCOMING.
I HAVE ASKED JAMES TO ASSIST ME IF THERE'S ANYBODY ON THE MEETING ON TEAMS THAT IS LOOKING TO BE RECOGNIZED.
I AM LOOKING TO SEE IF ANYONE, COMMISSIONER BOLTON.
>> YES, MAYOR. I'VE SERVED AS THE DIRECTOR FOR THE PAST YEAR.
>> COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING? YOU'D LIKE TO SERVE?
>> IT'S LIKE IN THERE I MEAN, HOW DO YOU [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO. WE NEED A DIRECTOR ALTERNATE AND SECOND.
>> YOU WANT TO BE THE ALTERNATE. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, I'M JUST GOING TO PUT THIS OUT THERE FOR YOU TO PUT IT OUT THERE.
WE HAD COMMISSIONER BOLTON BEING THE DIRECTOR LAST YEAR.
HE HAD NOT HAD A CHANCE AND OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE.
IF COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS, IF YOU DESIRE TO BE THE DIRECTOR BECAUSE YOU'VE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE, DO YOU WISH TO BE DIRECTOR OR DO YOU WISH TO BE ALTERNATE? TO BE ALTERNATE. THAT'S FINE.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH EITHER ONE AT THAT.
SEEING THAT THERE'S NOBODY ELSE AT THIS TIME FOR A DIRECTOR ALTERNATE, I'LL BE HAPPY TO BE SECOND ALTERNATE.
I'M PRETTY SURE I WON'T BE NEEDED BECAUSE THE TWO OF YOU WILL TAKE CARE OF IT.
THEN CONSENSUS AS THE SLATE WOULD BE COMMISSIONER BOLTON FOR DIRECTOR, COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS FOR ALTERNATE, MYSELF AS SECOND ALTERNATE.
CONSENSUS. COMMISSIONER BOLTON.
>> COMMISSIONER GALLON IS NOW WALKING IN TWO CHAMBERS.
OPINION. CONSENSUS. THERE'S AT LEAST THREE THAT HAVE IT, SO I'LL TAKE IT THAT WE HAVE THREE.
THERE'S NO COMMENT FROM THE VICE MAYOR.
MOVING RIGHT ALONG, ARE YOU GOOD, SIDEKA?
>> WE WILL NOW GO TO 1B DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION AND POTENTIAL CHARTER AMENDMENTS.
[1.b Discussion and consideration of potential Charter amendments]
I WILL HAND THIS OVER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
AS A FOLLOW-UP TO THE DISCUSSION ITEM THAT WAS ON THE LAST REGULAR AGENDA, AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN PRESENTING THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER BOARD, THE CLERK AND MYSELF NEED GUIDANCE AS TO WHAT, IF ANY, CHANGES YOU WISH FOR US TO PUT AN ORDINANCE FORMAT TO SUBMIT TO THE ELECTORATE.
THEREFORE, WE PLACE THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE EASIEST THING TO DO
[00:05:04]
IS EXACTLY WHAT STAFF DID WITH THE CHARTER BOARD, WHICH IS GO THROUGH EACH SECTION OF THE CHARTER AND SEQUENTIAL ORDER, AND GET CONSENSUS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS TO WHETHER TO CHANGE IT, LEAVE IT AS IS OR ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CHARTER BOARD, IF THAT IS OKAY WITH THE COMMISSIONER.>> IF WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS LINE BY LINE.
I MEAN, WE NEED SOME. [OVERLAPPING]
OBVIOUSLY, THE SECTIONS THE THAT ARE SHOWN IN STRIKE OUT AND UNDERLYING, ARE THE ONES THAT CONTAIN THE PROPOSED REVISIONS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER BOARD.
BUT NONETHELESS, WE'D ALSO NEED YOU ALL TO TAKE A LOOK AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER THAT THEY DID NOT MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS AS FAR AS REVISING IF THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU ALSO.
OR IF NOT WHAT ALTERNATE LANGUAGE OR PROPOSED LANGUAGE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
AGAIN, WE CAN PUT THE PROPOSED REVISIONS IN ORDINANCE FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION TO THE ELECTORATE FOR NEXT ELECTION.
>> CITY ATTORNEY, THIS AS A REMINDER OF THIS HAS TO GO TO THE CITY CLERK.
WE GET ONE-PAGE STANDARD WITH OUR BALLOT FOR THIS YEAR OR IS IT BECAUSE OF CHARTER AMENDMENTS, WE HAVE TO PAY THE ADDITIONAL PAGE NO MATTER WHAT IF WE'RE PUTTING ANYTHING ON THERE FOR AT LEAST ONE PAGE.
I'D LIKE, IF YOU WOULD, TO JUST EITHER ONE OF YOU, PLEASE, ADVISE US AS TO WHAT THE PAGE ALSO LOOKS LIKE.
IS IT THE 10 FONT PAGE, 12 FONT PAGE, HOW IT'S SET UP, HOW THE AMENDMENTS ARE GOING TO READ SO WE CAN HAVE AN IDEA.
WE'VE GOT A LOT OF CHANGES PROPOSED HERE.
HOW TO TAKE EFFECT? HOW IT WOULD FINANCIALLY AFFECT US?
>> I KNOW THAT THE CLERK HAS HAD COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS.
I BELIEVE THAT TOWARD THE END OF THIS ARE MATERIALS ON THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM THERE'S A OUTLINE OR A MEMO FROM THE SUPERVISOR LECTURES WHAT THAT COSTS WOULD BE.
I WOULD CERTAINLY DEFER TO THE CLERK OR ADD TO WHATEVER THE CLERK MAY HAVE TO INFORM YOU ON THAT REGARD.
BUT OBVIOUSLY, THE LARGER NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER THAT THIS COMMISSION FEELS IT'S APPROPRIATE TO SUBMIT TO THE ELECTRIC THAN OBVIOUSLY, THE LARGER THE SIZE OF THE BALLOT MINUTES.
YOU SWAY THE STATE JUST THERE MORE THAN MORE CHARTER AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED, THE LARGER THAT SECTION ON THE BALLOT THAT PERTAINS TO CITY OF TAMARAC AND AN INCREASED COST ACCORDINGLY.
>> I'M ASKED FOR CLARIFY MY REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE'RE PROPOSING TO TAKE OFF PART 14, SECTION 14.
THERE'S A WHOLE LOT TO SECTION 14.
GRANTED. IT'S JUST THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, BUT IT'S PAGES.
ON THE BALLOT, WILL ALL OF WHAT THE CURRENT CHARTER LOOKS LIKE HAVING A STRIKE-THROUGH BEYOND THERE TO BE SEEN OR IS IT JUST GOING TO SAY PROPOSAL OF REMOVAL OF SECTION 14?
>> CAN TELL YOU IN LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE-
>> CITY OF TAMARAC. YES. THAT WOULD BE.
IT WOULD NOT BE THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT.
>> IF WE SAY THE PREAMBLE, THE REGISTERED VOTERS IS WHAT'S UNDERLYING THE SLIDESHOW AND OUT OF CITIZENS IS CROSSED OUT.
IT'S JUST A PARAGRAPH. IS THAT WHOLE PARAGRAPH THERE [OVERLAPPING] SO PEOPLE CAN SEE WHAT IS THE ORGANIZED WAY THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE VOTING ON THESE THINGS?
>> IT WOULD BE AMENDING THE PREAMBLE, THE CITY OF TAMARAC CHARTER, TO SUBSTITUTE REGISTERED VOTERS FOR CITIZENS IS PROBABLY HOW THE, ASSUMING YOU ALL SAY YES, LEAVING THAT CHANGE, THAT'S HOW IT WOULD READ.
TO YOUR POINT, THE IDEA IS BECAUSE THERE IS A WORD LIMITATION ON HOW LARGE WE CAN MAKE ANY PARTICULAR CHARTER AMENDMENT PROPOSAL, WE WILL TRY AND BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE.
BUT SUFFICIENTLY EXPLANATORY SO PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON WITHIN THAT I THINK IT'S 70 WORDS.
MADAM CLERK, CAN YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
>> SEVENTY-FIVE. SO CHARTER AMENDMENT CAN BE NO MORE THAN 75 WORDS. AN EXPLANATION.
[00:10:03]
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER YOU LIKE TO ADD, CITY CLERK?
>> IF I MAY, MADAM MAYOR, EXACTLY WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS SAYING, THE BALLOT LANGUAGE IS LIMITED TO 75 WORDS IN WHICH IT'S A QUESTION FOR THE VOTERS AND IT'S A YES OR NO ANSWER.
THE BALLOT, THE CITY OF TAMARAC HAS A CERTAIN STYLE.
EVERY CITY HAS A SEPARATE STYLE. THEY'RE JUST NUMBERS.
THEY'RE ALL IN THE SAME FONT, THEY'RE ALL IN THE SAME SIZE, SO THE BALLOT LOOKS THE SAME FOR EACH ONE OF THE CITIES.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THEY CAN FIT ON ONE PAGE TO THE NEXT.
THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TAKES THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE ORDINANCE AND THEN PUTS IT ONTO THE BALLOT, THEN WE APPROVE THE BALLOT WELL AFTER THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVES THE ORDINANCE THAT WE GET TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHAT YOU WANT TO ADD TO THE BALLOT AND THEN THEY'RE ALSO IN SEPARATE LANGUAGES.
I BELIEVE THE LAST TIME I LOOKED, THEY ARE IN ENGLISH, SPANISH, AND CREOLE.
>> ALL IN ORDER TO DO THIS IN AN ORGANIZED FASHION.
>> MADAM MAYOR, CITY COMMISSION, THE IDEA HERE IS SIMPLY TO GO PAGE BY PAGE.
IT'S THE SIMPLEST, EASIEST WAY TO DO IT.
IT'S WHAT WE DID WITH THE CHARTER BOARD AND IT GIVES EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT EACH SECTION OF THE CHARTER, LOOK AT THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT THE CHARTER BOARD IS RECOMMENDING OR NOT RECOMMENDING AS THE CASE MAY BE AND GIVE US YOUR INPUT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS YOUR ORDINATES THAT WE WILL BE DRAFTING TO PUT WHATEVER AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER THIS COMMISSION DEEMS APPROPRIATE ON THE BALLOT AT THE NEXT ELECTION.
WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH PARAGRAPH OR EACH CHAPTER AND THEN I'M GOING TO ASK FOR THIS COMMISSION FOR CONSENSUS, YES, MAYBE, OR NO [NOISE].
THE MAYBE IS THIS, THE REASON FOR THIS, THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WE HAVE ON HERE THAT WE MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN, BUT IN THE REALITY WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO SEE WHICH ONES WE ACTUALLY HAVE A YES FOR, THEY MAY NOT NEED TO GO FORWARD BECAUSE IT MIGHT JUST BE AS SIMPLE CHANGING THE DEFINITION FROM A HE, SHE, OR A THEY, WHICH IS ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT'S ON THE BOTTOM OF HAVING A CLASSIFICATION FOR DEFINITIONS.
WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND CHANGE ANY OF THE HE, SHE OR THEY.
PLURALS COULD BE SINGULAR, SINGULAR COULD BE PLURAL EXCEPT THAT WE DO IN LEGAL DOCUMENTS ALL THE TIME, AND WE WILL SEE IF IT'S NECESSARY.
WE CAN COME BACK AROUND BECAUSE IT MIGHT WIND UP BEING THAT THERE ARE NO CHANGES.
THERE MIGHT BE THAT THERE ARE SOME.
IF YOU READ THE CHARTER CAREFULLY, IT BECOMES ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY THE CHARTER IS VESTED WITHIN THE POWER OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS OF TAMARAC.
HOWEVER, WITH THAT SAID, I'VE ALREADY RECEIVED SOME COMMENTS FROM SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSIONS OR SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT IT APPEARS THAT USE THAT LANGUAGE, WHILE LEGALLY AND TECHNICALLY CORRECT, MAY GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF POTENTIALLY EXCLUDING INDIVIDUALS.
AN ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTION IS THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC TO PROTECT THE GENERAL HEALTH AND THE PREAMBLE THEN WOULD OTHERWISE STAY THE SAME.
IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION OR YOU CAN LEAVE IT THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE.
>> IF I'M NOT GOING TO GET ANY LIGHT SLIT, I'M JUST MOVING FORWARD AND SAYING THAT WE DON'T HAVE BEEN A CONSENSUS TO DO ANYTHING.
CONSIDERING THERE'S NOTHING THERE, WE'RE LEAVING IT ALONE.
>> I'M SORRY. WE WILL MAKE THE CHANGE TO THE PREAMBLE THAT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD.
>> NO. IF THERE HAS BEEN NO COMMENT NO CONSENSUS, WE'RE LEAVING IT ALONE.
THERE'S BEEN NO CONSENSUS FOR CHANGE.
>> THE CHARTER BOARD DID NOT RECOMMEND ANY CHANGES TO SECTION 1 CITY CREATED.
[00:15:08]
>> ARTICLE 2. WE ADDED AND CORPORATE BOUNDARIES AND THE CHARTER BOARD RECOMMENDED INSERTING INTO SECTION 2.01 AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION WHERE APPROPRIATE IN LIGHT OF THE PROPOSED DELETION OF THE ARTICLE THAT CONTAINS THE FULL LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY.
>> THE OFFICIAL CITY MAP IN GENERAL, DOES IT CONTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION?
>> IT'S BY ON STATE'S DEFINITION ALREADY DEFINED WITHIN THE TERM.
>> CORRECT. THAT WAS THE IDEA OF DELETING ARTICLE 13 AND INSERTING INTO SECTION 2.01 AND THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SO WE WOULD MAINTAIN AT THE CLERK'S OFFICE NOT ONLY A MAP, BUT A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY, AS OPPOSED TO WRITING IT OUT IN FULL.
I WOULD POINT OUT THAT BASED UPON MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY CLERK AND THE CITY MANAGER, THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 13 IS ACTUALLY OUTDATED.
AGAIN, THE IDEA HERE IS TO AVOID THE NEED TO POTENTIALLY [NOISE] EVERY SO OFTEN, WHENEVER THERE IS CHANGE TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A WHOLESALE CHANGE TO THE ENTIRETY OF ARTICLE 13 BY AGAIN, DELETING IT AND CROSS-REFERENCING IT IN SECTION 2.01.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION.
ALSO JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY AGAIN, THE OFFICIAL SETTING MAP ALREADY HAS THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION?
>> THE ADDING OF THE LANGUAGE IS JUST TO FURTHER DEFINE OFFICIAL CITY MAP.
>> THAT'S CORRECT AND GET MORE COMFORTABLE IN DELETING ARTICLE 13.
>> BUT IF WE HAD A DEFINITION SECTION AND WE SAY OFFICIAL CITY MAP ALSO INCLUDES LEGAL DESCRIPTION, THEN DO WE NEED TO ADD IT FURTHER IN PARAGRAPH 2.01 WHEN IT'S ALREADY DEFINED WITHIN IT'S FACE WHEN WE SAY THE OFFICIAL CITY MAP ALREADY HAS AND WE ALREADY KNOW THAT IT HAS LEGAL DESCRIPTION?
>> IF THAT IS THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION TO PUT INTO DEFINITION SECTION, NO, IT WOULD NOT.
>> JUST ASKING IF WE'RE TRYING TO NARROW THIS DOWN AND STREAMLINE IT INSTEAD OF ADDING [NOISE] IT SOMEWHERE IF ON IT'S FACE, THE DEFINITION OF THE OFFICIAL CITY MAP ALREADY MEANS THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION'S INCLUDED THEN PULLING IT OUT TO ADD IT MIGHT NOT BE NEEDED [OVERLAPPING], IT MIGHT BE REDUNDANT.
>> AGAIN, IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE WERE DOING, AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CHARTER BOARD WAS, AS REFLECTED IN THE TITLE OF ARTICLE 2, CITY MAP AND CORPORATE BOUNDARIES.
PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE GOING AND LOOKING THROUGH THE CHARTER FOR ARTICLE 13.
THEY WOULD SEE THAT IN SECTION 2.01, THE CITY MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION ARE MAINTAINED AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. PLEASE KNOW ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ARE NOT AGAINST THE HARD WORK THAT THE CHARTER BOARD HAS DONE.
IT'S JUST NOW TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT A STREAMLINE PROCESS TO EITHER MOVE FORWARD WITH SOMETHING OR NOT KNOWING THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE VOTER FATIGUE AND A BALLOT THAT'S 15 PAGES LONG IN THREE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES FOR PEOPLE JUST TO TELL THEM THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS ALREADY WITHIN THE CITY.
>> WELL, I THINK THAT THE EASIEST WAY AGAIN TO DO THAT WOULD BE WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT OF DRAFTING THE ORDINANCE IF ONE OF THE CHARTER QUESTIONS SHOULD THE CITY OF TAMARAC CHARTER BE AMENDED TO DELETE THE ARTICLE 13 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND CROSS-REFERENCE IT IN ARTICLE 2, CITY MAP AND CORPORATE BOUNDARIES.
THAT'S IT. THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE THE QUESTION [NOISE].
>> WELL, AGAIN, SEEING NOBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER, THIS ITEM IS GOING TO BE LEFT AS IS [NOISE].
[00:20:02]
>> THAT IMPLICITLY MEANS WE WILL LEAVE IT [OVERLAPPING] AND WE WON'T BE DELETING ARTICLE 13?
>> OKAY. WE'LL GET TO THAT THEN.
>> BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO ADDRESS [NOISE] THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE QUESTION.
>> THERE WERE NO CHANGES RECOMMENDED TO SECTION 3.01 SO DO YOU SEAL ARTICLE 3 WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 4? LEGISLATIVE ARTICLE, THERE WAS THE CHARTER BOARD RECOMMENDED ADDING LANGUAGE TO SECTION 4.01, CITY COMMISSION POWERS AND COMPOSITION TO FORMALLY STATE THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT THE CITY OF TAMARAC FOLLOWS, WHICH IS MAYOR CITY COMMISSION TO THE MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
>> CITY ATTORNEY, IF YOU WOULD, CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER AND MOVE YOUR MIC CLOSER. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU.
>> THE CHARTER BOARD RECOMMENDED REVISING SECTION 4.01 OF THE CHARTER TO A STATE WITH SPECIFICITY, THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT THE CITY OF TAMARAC FOLLOWS, WHICH IS MAYOR CITY COMMISSION, CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT, AND DELETING AS BEING SUPERFLUOUS.
>> THAT'S WHERE TO CONFIRM THAT'S JUST WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
>> SORRY, COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS, DOES THAT MEAN YOU ARE FOR MAKING A CHANGE ON THAT ONE?
>> COMMISSIONER BOLTON AND THE VICE MAYOR ARE SILENT ON THE MATTER.
I HAPPEN TO AGREE TO MAKE THE CHANGE FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
SEEING THAT THERE'S TWO WHO ARE IN FAVOR AND TWO WHO ARE NOT, IT WILL FAIL.
>> THE NEXT SECTION IS SECTION 4.02.
IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT SECTION, THE CHARTER BOARD RECOMMENDED DELETING THE SENTENCE STARTING WITH COMMISSIONERS FROM ODD NUMBER DISTRICTS ALL THE WAY THROUGH 2014, SHOWN THROUGH STRIKE OUT AS BEING OUTDATED.
>> ANOTHER ITEM WITH NO COMMENT ON 4.02, THEREFORE, IT WILL FAIL.
OR LET ME REPHRASE IT, IT'S NOT FAILING, REMAINS THE SAME.
>> CORRECT. THE STRIKEOUT WILL BE DELETED.
SECTION 4.03, MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR, THE HOUSEKEEPING CAPITALIZATION ISSUES AND THEN READING THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, SECTION 4.03, THAT NO EARLIER THAN 3RD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER EACH YEAR, THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSIONER SHALL LIKE THE VICE MAYOR, AS OPPOSED TO IN MARCH 2017, NO EARLIER THAN 3RD TUESDAY, MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION SHALL ELECT THE VICE MAYOR WHO SHALL SERVE UNTIL NOVEMBER 28TH.
THEN BEGINNING 2008 IN EACH NOVEMBER THEREAFTER AGAIN, BEING OUTDATED, THE IDEA WAS TO UPDATE IT BY STRIKING THROUGH THAT FIRST SENTENCE AND ADDING IN NOVEMBER OF EACH YEAR.
>> NO COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION, THEREFORE, IT WILL REMAIN THE SAME.
COMMISSIONER BOLTON HAS READ HIS LIGHT. COMMISSIONER BOLTON.
>> NO EARLIER THAN THE 3RD TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER OF EACH YEAR? WHY 3RD?
>> BECAUSE THAT'S THE FIRST FULL MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION AFTER ANY ELECTION, SO IT WOULD OCCUR NO EARLIER THAN THAT FIRST TUESDAY, BASICALLY, MEANING THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE WEDNESDAY, WHICH IS WHEN YOU NORMALLY HAVE YOUR NORMALLY SCHEDULED SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH.
>> IN THE PAST, WE'VE SELECTED A VICE MAYOR IN DECEMBER.
I THINK THE FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER.
[00:25:02]
>> YOU COULD, BUT IT CAN'T BE ANY EARLIER THAN THAT DATE.
>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS IS WHAT IT ALREADY HAS ALWAYS BEEN. [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, THE IDEA OF THE CHARTER BOARD [OVERLAPPING] THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT WAS TO DELETE OBSOLETE, OUTDATED LANGUAGE.
>> THAT'S WHAT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY STATING THE NEW LANGUAGE NO EARLIER THAN THE 3RD TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER OF EACH YEAR. [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT MY COMMENT BEING IS THE NO EARLIER THAN THE 3RDTUESDAY WAS ALREADY IN THERE, THAT PART IS NOT CHANGING.
>> WELL, THE NEXT SECTION IS 4.04.
THERE WERE NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO THAT SECTION OTHER THAN MAKING IT GENDER NEUTRAL.
>> THAT 4.04, ANY COMMENTS? I SEE NONE, IT WILL REMAIN THE SAME.
>> CORRECT. WELL, AGAIN, I GUESS AT SOME POINT WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK AND GET CONSENSUS FROM THE COMMISSION, AND I WANT THIS TO BE A GENDER NEUTRAL DOCUMENT.
>> RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE SAID.
WE WILL PUT A DEFINITION SECTION OR A COMMENT AT THE END OF IT TO GO OVER IF WE WANT TO HAVE A SECTION LIKE THAT.
AGAIN, THE CHARTER BOARD FELT THAT THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION 4.05 WAS IN THEIR VIEW DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW, SO THEY LOOKED AT SOME OTHER DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS EXAMPLES WHICH WERE PROVIDED RANDOMLY BY STAFF TO THE BOARD AND THEY DEVELOPED THIS LANGUAGE, WHICH IS, I BELIEVE HYBRID OF NORTH LAUDERDALE CHARTER LANGUAGE AND I BELIEVE MAYBE MORGATES.
>> AS THERE'S NO COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION, IT REMAINS AS IS.
THAT WAS FOR ALL OF 4.05, WE'RE NOW MOVING TO 4.06.
>> DOES THAT INCLUDE THE CHANGES TO SUBSECTION IN 4.05E, THE LAST ONE ABOUT ELECTING. [OVERLAPPING]
4.05, IT DEALS WITH GENDER NEUTRAL TYPE LANGUAGE.
AGAIN, WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT EDITING.
>> IT ALSO INCLUDES LANGUAGE MAJORITY OF THREE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT.
THE CHARTER BOARD FELT THAT, THAT SHOULD BE CLARIFIED.
BUT AGAIN, I'M MARKING THAT NOW.
>> EXCUSE ME ONE SECOND. COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS WAS AT ON 4.05, AS THIS YOUR NEXT FOR 4.06.
>> 4.05, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGE, SO [INAUDIBLE] CONSENSUS [OVERLAPPING]
[NOISE] I WILL JUST SAY THAT I THINK THE CHANGES IN SOME OF IT FOR B2 AND B3, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE A PROCESS ON HOW THINGS WILL BE DETERMINED.
WHILE I THINK THAT IT VIOLATES ANY STANDARD OF CONDUCT OR CODE, HOW IS IT DETERMINED IS THAT IT'S VERY OPEN-ENDED, IT'S SUBJECTIVE, AND I THINK IT COULD CAUSE SOME ISSUES.
I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE CHARTER BOARD MAY BE TRYING TO GO AND WHY WE SHOULD HAVE SOME STRENGTH.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, I JUST DON'T REALLY KNOW IF IT'S PROVIDED WELL DETAILED ENOUGH FOR IT.
WHEN YOU'RE PULLING OUT CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE ONLY,
[00:30:04]
WHAT DOES THAT SAY TO THE OTHER ITEMS OF WHEN PEOPLE CAN BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.BECAUSE IF YOUR CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE, IT SINGLES OUT ONE AND I DON'T THINK IT INCLUDES THE REST, AND I WORRY WHEN WE SINGLE OUT ONE AND WE DON'T INCLUDE THE REST THEN WE'RE SAYING IF YOU'RE ALL CHARGED WITH A CRIME AND ARRESTED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE THEN THAT WON'T BE ALLOWABLE.
I'M PRETTY SURE I'M NOT BEING CLEAR ON THAT ONE, BUT SEEING THAT THERE'S REALLY NO OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT SO THERE IT WILL REMAIN THE SAME.
>> MOVING ON TO SECTION 4.06, THERE WAS COMMENTS MADE BY ONE PARTICULAR BOARD MEMBER WHO PERSUADED THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS TO MODIFY OR SUGGEST MODIFYING SECTION 4.068A TO STATE WITHIN THE CHARTER OF THE TIME FRAME IN WHICH THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD TAKE THEIR HIATUS.
AS WELL AS CLARIFYING THE VOTING AND QUORUM REQUIREMENTS.
AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF A MAJORITY OF THREE MEMBERS SHALL BEEN NECESSARILY.
>> CITY CLERK, YOU HAVE YOUR LIGHT ON WAS IT A GENERAL?
WE'RE MOVING FORWARD, IT REMAINS THE SAME.
>> THE NEXT SECTION IN THE CHARTER AND THAT ALSO HAS A PROPOSED REVISIONS IS SECTION 4.07, ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTIONS, PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTION.
THE CHARTER BOARD BELIEVE THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF A CORE MAN NUMBER OF AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, RECORDING VOTE, AN EFFECTIVE DATE SHALL BE DETERMINED BY AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE APPLICANT PROVISIONS FOR MUNICIPAL HOME RULE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
THAT COULD BE DELETED IN LIGHT OF THE CHANGE TO 4.06C.
THAT NOW WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION THAT IT NOT BE ADOPTED IN ORDER TO HAVE A REFERENCE TO QUORUM AND VOTING REQUIREMENTS.
>> WE'RE GOING WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION IT APPEARS SINCE IT'S REMAINING THE SAME.
>> THE CHARTER BOARD RECOMMENDED DELETING THE SECTION IN 4.07 RIGHT UNDER A OR PART OF A.
NOTICES WHICH CONTAIN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS SHALL CONTAIN A STREET ADDRESS OR OTHER DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL WHICH WILL ENABLE THE PUBLIC TO IDENTIFY THE LAND INVOLVED.
THE REASON FOR THAT PROPOSED DELETION WAS, THAT'S ALREADY A REQUIREMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW THAT IS REFERENCED IN 4.07A, AND THEY FELT THAT IT WAS REDUNDANT AND COULD BE DELETED.
>> 4.07B, IN SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE CHARTER THERE IS A REFERENCE THAT TO, THE TERM IS REASONABLE COST OR REASONABLE PRICE.
FRANKLY, THE STATE LAW DICTATES WHAT CHARGES WE CAN MAKE FOR PUBLIC RECORDS, INCLUDING MAPS AND ORDINANCES.
AND IT'S NOT A REASONABLE PRICE BUT UPON PAYMENT OF THE ACTUAL COSTS OF DUPLICATION, THIS WAS ESTABLISHED BY STATE LAW.
AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL APPROVE AND ONE HAS TO CARRY THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT OR NOT.
OTHERWISE, IT'LL REVERT BACK TO AT A REASONABLE PRICE.
>> IS THIS THE SECOND PART OF IT OR IS THERE AN ADDITION OF A REASONABLE PRICE?
>> THERE ARE OTHER SECTIONS WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, I'M SORRY TO GO BACK.
[00:35:02]
>> AND CAN WE GROUP THEM TOGETHER? JUST A QUESTION.
>> YEAH. AS IT RELATES TO OBTAINING A COPY OF THE CITY MAP, THAT LANGUAGE SAYS AT A REASONABLE PRICE AS OPPOSED TO THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT IT BE THE COST OF DUPLICATION.
WE CARRIED THAT CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT JUST AS WE DID THE GENDER NEUTRALITY.
THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU WANT US TO CARRY THAT THROUGH?
>> WE CAN DISCUSS AT THE END, AGAIN, THE DEFINITION SECTION THAT WE'LL DEFINE REASONABLE PRICE WHICH WILL ALSO INCLUDE UPON PAYMENT AS DEFINED IN THE DEFINITION SECTIONS FOR GENDER NEUTRAL, SINGLE OR PLURAL, AND THE LIKE, AND THAT LEGAL DESCRIPTION WE CAN CREATE ALL TOGETHER.
>> THE NEXT SECTION IN THE CHARTER, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ANY PROPOSED CHANGES FROM RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROPOSED CHANGES FROM THE CHARTER BOARD IS SECTION 4.08 DEALING WITH BOARDS AND ADVISORY GROUPS.
THERE WAS A REDUNDANT HALF IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT PARAGRAPH THAT ONE OF THE SHARP EYED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD IDENTIFIED.
SO OTHER THAN THAT, THAT WOULD REMAIN THE SAME.
>> IF THERE'S ROOM AND THERE'S DESIRE DO A CLEAN-UP ON LANGUAGE AMENDMENT.
THE CITY, HOWEVER DO YOU WANT IT TO BE DESCRIBED AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT LATER IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO CLEAN UP GRAMMATICALLY CORRECTION.
IN ADDITION TO THE DEFINITIONS, WE CAN ASK FOR THAT DEPENDING ON WHAT WE WANT AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT AT THE END.
>> THE SECTION 5.01, THE TWO PROVISIONS THAT THE CHARTER BOARD RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS TO WERE SUBSECTION B, SUSPENSION OR RENEWAL, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY OF COMMISSIONERS IN OFFICE AT THE TIME, AND THEN A CLARIFICATION OF HOW THE COMPENSATION OF THE CITY MANAGER IS ESTABLISHED.
THE CURRENT LANGUAGE JUST SIMPLY SAYS THE COMPENSATION OF THE MANAGER SHALL BE FIXED BY THE COMMISSION AND THE BOARD RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY MANAGER SHALL RECEIVE SUCH COMPENSATION AS THE COMMISSION SHALL FIX FROM TIME TO TIME BY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION.
>> TAKING 5.02B, COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS?
>> I'M ALSO VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF IT.
I'VE EXPRESSED MY OPINION ON THAT BEFORE.
BUT SEEING THAT THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, THIS ONE FAILS AND WILL REMAINS THE SAME.
>> THE SAME WITH THE LANGUAGE ABOUT COMPENSATION?
>> THIS ONE SIR MEAN THE SAME.
>> IN SECTION 5.04, AGAIN, THE CHANGES TO THE POWERS AND DUTY OF THE CITY MANAGER WERE ALL; THE ONLY CHANGES WERE TO MAKE IT GENDER NEUTRAL AND STANDARDIZE THE LANGUAGE IN EACH ONE OF THE PARAGRAPHS TO STATE THE CITY MANAGER.
FURTHER THREE WE SKIPPED BUT THAT WAS ALSO JUST LANGUAGE NEUTRALITY, PLURALITY WHERE WE'RE LEAVING.
>> THAT'S OKAY. I'M JUST PUTTING IT OFF, GOING THROUGH AND MAKING SURE IT'S ON THE MARKER THAT WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT IT.
>> OVER THE YEARS IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CHARTER THE MANAGER IS REFERRED TO AS THE CITY MANAGER MOST COMMONLY, AND IN SOME INSTANCES JUST THE MANAGER.
[00:40:03]
AGAIN, WE STANDARDIZE THAT LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT, INCLUDING IN SECTION 5.03 AND 5.04 AND MAKING IT GENDER NEUTRAL.>> WE CAN ALWAYS THROW THAT INTO OUR DEFINITION SECTION OF CITY MANAGER EQUALS OR MANAGER EQUALS.
>> THE SAME WITH SECTION 5.05 WAS A STANDARDIZING THE.
>> CITY CLERK ON AND ANY TITLES AND SO WE CAN PUT THAT INTO.
WE CAN PUT IT AS TITLES AS WELL AND IN OUR DEFINITIONS.
WE CAN ALSO PUT IT AS AN TITLES ARE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, WHICH I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF THEY ARE AMENDED, BUT 504 A IN ADDITION TO THE CLARIFICATION OF LANGUAGE FROM HERE TO CITY MANAGER FOR NEUTRALITY AND THEN SAYING IN OFFICE AT THE TIME, I BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST MEETING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION.
I FEEL THAT WE HIRE A CITY MANAGER.
CITY MANAGER'S TO BE THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR RUNNING THE CITY.
WE DO NOT HAVE HIRING AND FIRING, WE'RE NOT ASKED TO ACTUALLY, WHEN YOU READ THROUGH THE REST OF THIS, THERE'S NO FIRING, WE'RE NOT INVOLVED IN THAT SO WHY SHOULD IT BE INVOLVED IN THE HIRING OF IT? I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION FROM 504A.
>> COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS AND MYSELF ARE IN FAVOR, VICE MAYOR GALLON HAS STEPPED OUT OF THE ROOM AND COMMISSIONER BOLTON IS SILENT SO THE CHANGES WILL NOW FAIL.
>> I JUST HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
>> ANY ITEMS THAT HAS A 2-2 AT THE MOMENT IS COMING BACK TO US.
>> NO, 2-2 IS THE INFIELD IS NOT MAJOR.
>> I UNDERSTAND AND I APPRECIATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH WE'RE HERE WITH A 2-2 COMMISSION.
BUT AGAIN, I WOULD DEFER TO THE CLERK NOT TO PUT HER ON THE SPOT, BUT WE ARE WORKING UNDER A TIME-FRAME BY WHICH WE HAVE TO START WORKING ON AN ACTUAL ORDINANCE TO HAVE THE FIRST AND SECOND READING BEFORE YOU.
CERTAINLY WHAT THE ORDINANCE ULTIMATELY READS CAN BE MODIFIED EITHER AT FIRST OR SECOND READING.
>> IF I MAY, MADAM MAYOR, I HAVE A VERY STRICT DEADLINE TO GET THE ORDINANCES AND FINAL FORM AND APPROVED TO THIS SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS.
THE SECOND WEEKEND IN JUNE, THEY'RE USUALLY DUE THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE STARTUP QUALIFYING, BUT I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTION IF THAT DATE HAS CHANGED.
I WOULD SAY IT'S JUNE THE 10TH AT 5 P.M.
>> CONSIDERING THAT SO FAR THERE'S NOT MANY ITEMS THAT HAVE A 2-2.
WE CAN CONSIDER BRINGING THIS UP JUST FOR THE 2-2 ITEMS WHEN COMMISSIONER PLACKO IS AVAILABLE.
>> MADAM MAYOR, IF I CAN CONTINUE?
>> NEXT ARTICLE IS ARTICLE 6, QUALIFICATION ELECTIONS, SECTION 6.01.
AGAIN, ONE OF THE EAGLE-EYED MEMBERS OF THE CHARTER BOARD SAW THAT THE SECTION 6.01 JUST SAID WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS, DID NOT SAY WITHIN THE CITY'S CORPORATE LIMITS, SO THEY ARE SUGGESTING THAT MODIFICATION TO SECTION 6.01.
>> SECTION 6.02 DISTRICTS THAT HAD NO RECOMMENDED CHANGES.
THE SAME WITH SECTION 6.03 REDISTRICTING WOULD STAY THE SAME.
THE CHART BOARD RECOMMENDED THAT WE MODIFY THE TITLE TO SECTION 604 TO STATE NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS AS OPPOSED TO JUST ELECTIONS, AND THEN CARRY THAT THROUGH WITHIN THE ACTUAL BODY OF SECTION 6.04.
AT THE END OF SECTION 6.04 THEY RECOMMENDED DELETING THE SENTENCE
[00:45:11]
DULY ELECTED MUNICIPAL OFFICER SHALL TAKE OFFICE WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER ELECTION WITH A SPECIFIC DAY TO BE DECIDED BY ORDINANCE FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.ONE, TO ACCOUNT FOR POTENTIAL ELECTION CHALLENGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE STATUTE, AND ALSO TO PROVIDE SOME INHERENT FLEXIBILITY THAT IF IT WAS ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE, THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD EVER CHANGE THAT WAS EITHER ONE, POTENTIALLY A CHARTER AMENDMENT, AND THEN MODIFYING THE ORDINANCE IF IT'S ESTABLISHED BY AUGUST.
THEY RECOMMENDED THAT SECTION 6.04 READ ON THE FIRST WEDNESDAY FOLLOWING IRREGULAR CITY ELECTION AND CERTIFICATION BY THE SUPERVISOR ELECTIONS OR AS SOON AS MAYBE PRACTICABLE, IF THERE HAS BEEN A DISPUTED ELECTION, THE COMMISSION AND MAYOR SHALL MEET AT THE CITY HALL, AT WHICH TIME THE NEWLY ELECTED COMMISSIONERS SHALL TAKE THE OATH OF OFFICE AND IN YEARS WHEN A MAYOR IS ELECTED, THE NEWLY ELECTED MAYOR SHALL TAKE OATH OF OFFICE.
THAT LANGUAGE WAS, AS I RECALL, VERY SIMILAR TO ONE OF THE EXAMPLES OF THE VARIOUS CHARTERS FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES IN BROWARD COUNTY THAT WE PROVIDED TO THE CHARTER BOARD.
WHETHER OR NOT YOU ALL AGREE WITH THAT MODIFICATION, JUST LET ME KNOW.
>> I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A NONPARTISAN BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE ARE AND THAT'S WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.
AS FAR AS THE SPECIFYING THE FIRST ONES, FOLLOWING THE REGULAR CITY ELECTION AND CERTIFICATION AND SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THERE.
I THINK WE'VE HAD ISSUES IN THE PAST AND THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTION HAS 10 DAYS BY STATUTE TO CERTIFY AN ELECTION UNLESS THERE'S ISSUES.
IF YOU WIND UP PUTTING IT SPECIFICALLY ON THE FIRST WEDNESDAY FOLLOWING THIS, WE MIGHT HAVE AN ISSUE WHERE IT WILL BE THANKSGIVING THE DAY BEFORE THANKSGIVING AND THAT'S WHY OUR CITY AT MASON CHANGES A FEW YEARS AGO, MAYBE TWO ELECTIONS AGO, AND PUT IT ON A MONDAY OR WHERE THERE WAS DETERMINED TO BE THE BEST FOR THE CITY DETERMINE ALREADY.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS RESOLUTION OR ITS ORDINANCE, HOW WE DID IT, BUT WE'VE ALREADY WORKED ON THIS.
I THINK IF WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THAT, WHICH I'M SURE YOU MIGHT HAVE, BUT WE MAYBE DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THAT RIGHT NOW, THIS LANGUAGE COULD CAUSE US ISSUES AND SMACK IT UP AGAINST USUALLY THAT THE WAY IT WOULD FALL ON A CALENDAR TO BE THE WEDNESDAY BEFORE THANKSGIVING.
I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE OTHER PARTS OF THE CHANGE. COMMISSIONER WALTER.
WE'VE ALWAYS PUT A DISCLAIMER ON OUR ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION THAT SAYS NONPARTISAN.
FOR CHARTER, I HAD NOT SAID NONPARTISAN.
WHAT SHOULD WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST SCOPE WITH NONPARTISAN.
>> THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY THE COMMENT OF THE CHALKBOARD IS THAT THERE IS A SECTION OF THE CODE THAT SAYS THAT THE CITY ELECTIONS ARE NONPARTISAN.
THE CHARTER BOARD FELT THAT WHY NOT PUT IT IN THE CHARTER ITSELF AS WELL? THAT WAS THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.
THAT WAS THE IDEA THERE'S NOTHING WRONG OR RIGHT ABOUT IT.
THEY JUST FELT THAT IF WE HAVE SOMETHING IN OUR CODE THAT SAYS THAT ELECTIONS ARE NONPARTISAN THEN THE CHARTER SHOULD ALSO SPECIFY THAT THAT WAS THEIR REASONING.
>> LET'S SAY WE [NOISE] AGREE TO THE LANGUAGE ADDITION HERE IN NONPARTISAN AND HELD IN NOVEMBER.
NOW, THAT'S SECTION 6.04 WOULD GO ON THE BALLOT?
>> YES, SIR. WHETHER OR NOT IT'S JUST THAT IT'S UP TO YOU ALL.
THAT'S THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE HAVING.
>> RIGHT. THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT THE CHARTER BOARD HAS DONE A WONDERFUL JOB IN IDENTIFYING A COUPLE OF THINGS.
AS YOU'VE SAID, SOME OF THE CHANGES, YOU GO ONE WAY OR YOU GO THE OTHER WAY, IT STILL DOES THE JOB.
IT'S NOT LIKE I DON'T THINK THAT THE CHANGES ARE NEEDED.
I THINK THAT WHETHER WE CHANGE IT OR NOT, IT STILL WORKS.
[00:50:03]
IF WE'RE CHANGING IT, IT COSTS US MONEY AND IF WE'RE NOT CHANGING IT AND IT DOESN'T COST MONEY.DOING THESE LITTLE CHANGES MAY NOT BE COST-EFFECTIVE FOR US.
I'M BEING VERY CAUTIOUS AS TO WHAT I GIVE CONSENSUS TO IT.
>> COMMISSIONER BOLTON, I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH YOU.
I THINK THAT WHAT WAS GUIDING THE CHARTER BOARDS ACTIONS OR THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS REALLY WAS CLEANING IT UP, MAKING IT, AND THIS IS IN THE EYE OF BEHOLDER, BUT A MORE MODERN DOCUMENT REFLECTIVE OF CURRENT DEMOGRAPHICS AND CLEANING SOME THINGS UP AND CLARIFYING.
THEY FELT THAT THE CHANGES THAT THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED WOULD HELP PEOPLE BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW THE CHARTER WORKS AND WHAT IT SAYS.
I THINK THAT'S REFLECTED IN THEIR PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS.
BUT YOUR POINT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
THERE'S NOT, UNLESS YOU ALL DIRECT OTHERWISE, WHICH CERTAINLY IS PART OF THIS PROCESS.
THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS AREN'T BREAKING NEW GROUND, SO TO SPEAK.
>> IT'S GOING TO REMAIN THE SAME.
>> I'M SORRY, 605 REMAINS UNCHANGED, 606 CANDIDATES.
AGAIN TO THE COMMISSIONER BOLTON'S COMMENTS AND MY RESPONSE, THEY FELT THAT CHANGING 606 TO REGISTERED VOTER CLEANED UP THE DOCUMENT, MADE IT READ BETTER.
BUT FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, ONE COULD SAY THAT ELECTOR IS SYNONYMOUS WITH REGISTERED VOTER AND IT JUST TERMINOLOGY THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT.
AGAIN, THAT WAS THEIR INTENT AND SUGGESTING MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 6.06.
>> WELL, I THINK I HAD SHARED THAT AT THE LAST TIME THAT I THINK THAT'S ALL IT IS, IS A DEFINITION CHANGE WHICH IS ONE OF THE SAME.
BUT I DO HAVE SOMETHING THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP FOR A THOUGHT FOR THE CANDIDATES AND RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
WE HAVE THAT YOU HAVE TO LIVE IN THE CITY AND YOU HAVE TO LIVE IN THE LOCATION WHERE YOU ARE RUNNING.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE A TERM OF HOW LONG YOU SHOULD LIVE IN THE CITY BEFORE YOU CAN RUN FOR OFFICE.
[NOISE] WAS THIS MATTER DISCUSSED BY THE CHARTER BOARD?
>> ACTUALLY NO. THAT ITEM DID NOT COME UP.
I THINK THAT THAT IS, IT'S A CHOICE OF THE COMMISSION IF YOU ALL WANT TO, THERE'S CONSENSUS TO PUT THAT IN AND IN ANY SECTION OF ARTICLE 6, QUALIFICATIONS ELECTIONS.
IF THAT IS THE INTENT OR THE DESIRE OF A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION, I WOULD SUGGEST MAYBE THAT BE PUT INTO SECTION 6.02 WHERE IT SAYS, THE CITY IS HEREBY DIVIDED INTO FOUR SEPARATE POLITICAL DISTRICTS TO BE KNOWN AS DISTRICT AS 1, 2, 3, 4.
ONE COMMISSIONER SHALL RESIDE IN EACH DISTRICT.
IF YOU WANT TO PUT IN A TERM OF A MINIMUM TERM, THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.
AGAIN, THAT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION IF THERE'S CONSENSUS TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.
>> THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE IT WHERE I'D LIKE TO BRING IT UP TO BE WHICHEVER IS LEGALLY APPROPRIATE.
I ONLY WAS THINKING ABOUT IT UNDER CANDIDATES, BUT IF IT SHOULD BE UNDER 602, IT'S 602. COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE]?
[00:55:03]
>> COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] AND I ARE IN FAVOR OF RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT. COMMISSIONER BOLTON?
>> THAT IS ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT I WOULD'VE LOVED FOR THE CHARTER BOARD TO BRING UP, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN GROUNDBREAKING, BUT I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT, BUT CAN WE HAVE A LIMITED DISCUSSION ON THAT ON WEDNESDAY SO THAT I CAN [OVERLAPPING] THINK ABOUT IT OVER TWO DAYS.
>> FORGIVE ME, BUT THIS ISN'T ON OUR AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY.
OBVIOUSLY YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FOR A LITTLE BIT, WE CAN MOLD IT OVER AND COME BACK TO IT LATER TODAY IF THAT GIVES YOU A LITTLE MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT, BECAUSE WE REALLY DO NEED TO.
>> THE ALTERNATIVE IS BEING THAT THERE'S THREE OF YOU WHO ARE IN FAVOR AND POTENTIALLY FOR DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE VICE MAYOR BECAUSE HE HASN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
WE CAN WRITE THE LANGUAGE INTO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT WE WILL BRING BACK TO YOU AND LEAVE IT BLANK [OVERLAPPING] FOR YOU-ALL TO PUT IN WHAT IT IS THAT THE SIX MONTHS A YEAR, WHAT IS IT THAT GENERALLY THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT CAN EASILY BE DEVELOPED AND EVEN NOT REINVENTING THE WHEEL TAKEN FROM OTHER CHARTERS THAT HAVE SIMILAR PROVISIONS.
THEN LEAVE BLANK, WHAT IS THE TERM THAT SOMEONE HAS TO RESIDE IN THE DISTRICT BEFORE BEING ELIGIBLE.
THAT'S I THINK THE REAL DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER BOLTON'S POINT WHERE HE PROBABLY WANTS TO GIVE THAT SOME THOUGHT.
AGAIN, I DON'T MEAN TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF THAT SEEMS TO GIVE ENOUGH TIME, THERE'S CONSENSUS ON A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT, AND IT ALSO GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY THAT IF THERE'S A NO LONGER DESIRE AT THE TIME WE VOTE ON IT TO BE DISCUSSED THEN, SUFFICIENT COMMISSIONER BOLTON, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ON WEDNESDAY'S MEETING.
>> BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, AGAIN, VERY COMMON AND YOU ALREADY HAVE THE TEMPLATE OR THE LANGUAGE THAT I WOULD SAY ALREADY THERE, WHICH IS THE LAST SENTENCE OF SECTION 6.02, ELECTORS, THE CITY DESIRING TO QUALIFY AND RUN FOR THE OFFICE COMMISSIONER FROM A DISTRICT MUST RESIDE WITHIN THE INTERNAL BOUNDARIES OF THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT FOR.
>> COMMISSIONER BOLTON, HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR CONSENSUS FOR THE DESIRE FOR RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT? AM I MOVING FORWARD OR NO?
>> I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE A CONSENSUS FOR RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT?
>> AFTER SAYING YOU WANTED TO DISCUSS BY THE BOARD.
OKAY. WE WILL THEN MOVE FORWARD.
>> MAYOR, I WANTED TO DISCUSS IT ON WEDNESDAY IN A LIMITED DISCUSSION, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
>> BUT THE OPTION TO HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION ON IT COMES AT ANOTHER TIME OF DRAFTING.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR YOU RIGHT NOW.
MOVING FORWARD. IT THEN REMAINS AS IS.
>> MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, THE NEXT SECTION IN THE CHARTER, SECTION 6.07, ARRANGEMENTS FOR ELECTIONS, THAT DOES NOT HAVE ANY PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER BOARD.
THE SAME WITH REGARD TO SECTION 6.08, RETURNS AND CERTIFICATES OF ELECTIONS.
THE NEXT SECTION IS SECTION 6.09, INITIATIVE REFERENDUM.
THE ONLY CHANGE IN SECTION 6.09, SECTION E. AGAIN, THAT'S A CLEANUP BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE ALREADY EXIST IN THE CODE.
THE [OVERLAPPING] COMMISSION WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CHARTER, SHALL PROVIDE BY ORDINANCE.
THAT'S SUPERFLUOUS. IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.
>> IT'S GOING TO REMAIN. MOVING TO 7.01.
>> 7.01, ARTICLE 7, FINANCIAL PROCEDURES, FISCAL YEAR.
AGAIN, THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF THE CHARTER BOARD WAS TO CHANGE SECTION 7.01 TO SPECIFY THAT IT WOULD BE FROM OCTOBER TO THE LAST DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE FOLLOWING YEAR, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BUDGET CYCLE THAT IS ESTABLISHED BY STATE LAW.
[01:00:04]
>> IT'S GOING TO REMAIN? 7.02 IS JUST A [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING] CITY.
>> SECTION 7.03 AGAIN, NO CHANGES WERE RECOMMENDED TO THAT SECTION OF THE CHARTER.
SECTION 7.05, THE LANGUAGE THAT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER BOARD IS CLEAN UP.
THE SAME WITH REGARD TO 7.07, THOSE ARE ALL CLEANUP PROVISIONS.
AT LEAST FOR NOW WRITING DOWN, NO.
>> 7.08, POSITIVE INVESTMENTS NOT CHANGED.
7.09, AGAIN, THIS IS CLEAN UP.
THERE'S A VERY SPECIFIC PROVISION NOW ON STATE LAW AS TO HOW ALL [INAUDIBLE] HAVE TO GO ABOUT SELECTING THEIR OUTSIDE AUDITORS.
THAT WAS UPDATED AND CLEANED UP.
I WOULD SAY THAT AS YOU'RE CONSIDERING THIS, THAT THIS IS AS THE EXISTING LANGUAGE AND YOUR CHARTER, IF YOU LEAVE IT AS IS WITHOUT SOME SUBSEQUENT CLEANUP, AT SOME POINT, THAT LANGUAGE IS INCONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.
THEORETICALLY, MY ADVICE IS IT'S ILLEGAL AND YOU WILL HAVE TO CHANGE THE SECTION OF THE CODE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] ISSUE ME WITHOUT REQUIRING COMPETITIVE BIDS.
THE LANGUAGE WITHOUT REQUIRING COMPETITIVE BIDS.
SECTION 218, 391, BOARD STATUTE SPECIFIES A PARTICULAR PROCEDURE AND IT IS COMPETITIVE.
>> IF WE NEED TO CHANGE IT BECAUSE IT'S LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO SO, THEN THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY OTHER THAN JUST SAYING ON A CLEAN UP PROBABLY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEN AS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT, I'M IN SUPPORT OF CLEANING 7.09 AND PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] STATE ATTORNEY?
>> 709 SECOND PARAGRAPH IT SAYS THAT, "WE SHALL DESIGNATE AN ACCOUNTANT FOR THE FIRM OR THE CITY FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED THREE YEARS." WHAT IF WE DO? BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE RIGHT NOW, WHICH I DID POINT OUT.
>> I'LL CHECK, BUT AGAIN, THE STATUTE SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO RENEW.
YOU CAN END UP WITH THE SAME COMPANY, BUT YOU DO HAVE TO GO THROUGH A COMPETITIVE PROCESS EVERY FOURTH YEAR.
AT THE END OF THE THIRD YEAR OF THE CURRENT CONTRACT, IT HAS TO BE PUT OUT TO SOME COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT PROCESS, GENERALLY, IN THIS INSTANCE, AN RFP OR RFQ.
>> THAT DEMAND HAPPENED IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC AND I BROUGHT IT UP AT THE TIME THE RENEWAL WAS PROPOSED.
YOU WEREN'T HERE AT THE TIME, BUT I DID BRING IT UP.
>> I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE PROCESS WAS TO END UP WHERE THAT SAME OUTSIDE AUDITOR, THEIR CONTRACT WAS RENEWED.
>> IS PROCUREMENT ON RIGHT NOW?
>> THAT MIGHT BE OUT OF THE SCOPE OF TODAY THERE.
>> I CAN GET THE INFORMATION TO YOU, VICE MAYOR. [OVERLAPPING]
>> CITY MAYOR JA, CAN YOU FOLLOW UP ON THAT? [OVERLAPPING]
BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE CITY MANAGER, WE HAD MS. COJUS HERE AT THE TIME.
BUT IF YOU'LL COME BACK WITH US CONFIRMING HOW WE'VE HANDLED THIS PROCESS PLEASE.
>> WE DID NOT FOLLOW THIS AS IT'S REQUIRED SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT [OVERLAPPING].
>> SUBJECT TO YOUR OPINION AND WE WILL FIND.
>> COMMISSIONER GALLON, DO YOU SUPPORT A CHANGE TO THIS ITEM OR NOT? VICE MAYOR GALLON, DO YOU SUPPORT A CHANGE THIS ITEM OR NOT?
>> STATE ATTORNEY, YOU'RE SAYING THAT A COMPETITIVE BID IS REQUIRED.
>> WE DO HAVE TO FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 218 391.
THAT'S WHY I SPECIFICALLY PUT IN THAT SECTION OF THE STATUTE TO REFERENCE IN THIS SECTION THAT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY THERE.
[01:05:07]
>> [INAUDIBLE] SAYING THE COMMISSION MAY, AS PROVIDED BY A SECTION 218, DESIGNATE BLAH BLAH.
>> [OVERLAPPING] YEAH. IT SHOULD READ THE COMMISSION MAY AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 218 391, BOARD STATUTES, DOESN'T NEED SUCH ACCOUNTANT OR FIRM ANNUALLY OR FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING THREE YEARS.
FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING THREE YEARS WAS ALREADY IN THE CHARTER.
WHAT WE'RE MOVING IS WITHOUT REQUIRING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND SPECIFICALLY REFERENCING THE STATUTORY PROVISION.
THE REASON WHY I REFERENCED THE STATUTORY PROVISION IS IT IS CONCEIVABLE AND THAT THE VERY BRIGHT INDIVIDUALS UP IN TALLAHASSEE MAY CHANGE 218 391 IN THE FUTURE.
>> BUT I HAVE A CLARIFICATION ITEM FOR YOU.
>> SHOULD IT SAY AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DO A SUBSECTION 391 AND THEY PUT IN A 2.
THE ONE THING THAT STOOD OUT FROM LAW SCHOOL, NOTHING IS SAFE FROM THE LEGISLATURES IN SESSION. WHO TOLD BILLY.
>> YOU SHOULD THINK ABOUT IT AND THINK ON A LEGAL BASIS, IF WE'RE DOING THIS TO PROTECT THE CITY ON A LEGAL BASIS AND MAKING THIS CHANGE, WOULD THERE BE ANY MANDATORY WORDING THAT WOULD BE BEST FOR US TO NOT RUN INTO AN ISSUE IN THE FUTURE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR OUR 10-YEAR CHARTER REVIEW AND ISSUES IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE WE NEED TO REMEMBER THIS ALSO HAS TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE VOTERS.
>> THANK YOU. THEN ANOTHER CLARIFICATION TO THE CITY MANAGER, AND ACTUALLY THE CITY ATTORNEY DISCUSSES THE CITY MANAGER WHEN THIS NEW PROVISION WENT INTO EFFECT SO WE WILL KNOW WHEN THE CITY MANAGER'S GIVING A RESPONSE ON THE REQUEST BY THE VICE MAYOR OF HIS REQUESTS OF WHEN WE WENT OUT TO BID OR NOT BID OUR PROCESS WHEN THE LEGISLATION CHANGED.
>> SECTION 7.10, APPROPRIATION AMENDMENT.
AGAIN, THERE'S SOME SIMPLE CLEANUP LANGUAGE THERE.
THE SAME WIDTH SECTION 7.11, REQUIREMENTS FOR REPUBLIC BIDDING.
THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION THAT WAS ADDED TO THAT SECTION AT MY SUGGESTION IS THE LAST SENTENCE, THE PROCUREMENT OF CONTRACTS OR SERVICES OF ANY TYPE ARE SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS.
THAT IS A SAFEGUARD FOR THE CITY, WE DO PROVIDE THAT.
AS A GENERAL RULE, WE PROVIDE FOR LANGUAGE THAT EFFECT IN ALL THE ACTUAL CONTRACTS THEMSELVES.
BUT IT'S VERY PROACTIVE IN SAYING THAT WE ALL KNOW AND WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT AS A MATTER OF OUR CHARTER AND REALLY DERIVES FROM THE CASE LAW THAT YOUR PROCUREMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS.
NO ONE CAN ARGUE, GOD FORBID THAT, WELL, YOUR CHARTER DOESN'T SAY THAT IT'S SUBJECT TO ANNUAL APPROPRIATION.
>> SEEING NO COMMENT, IT REMAINS AS IS.
>> SECTION 7.12, EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES.
AGAIN, THAT'S JUST CLEANUP LANGUAGE.
SECTION 7.14, AGAIN, IS CLEANUP LANGUAGE.
THAT IS REFERENCING THE CONSULTANTS COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION ACT THAT COVERS ARCHITECT ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.
ATTORNEYS ARE NOT COVERED BY IT.
YOU'RE HIRING OF YOUR CITY ATTORNEY IS SPECIFIED IN ANOTHER [NOISE] SECTION OF THE CHARTER.
SECTION 7.15, COMMISSION ACTION PUBLIC BIDDING.
THERE'S NO CHANGES TO THAT SECTION.
THE SAME WITH REGARD TO SEVEN SECTION 7.16 BONDS AND THEN A SMALL BORROWING AND SECTION 7.17 TAXATION,
[01:10:05]
SECTION 7.18 UTILITIES AND OTHER SPECIAL SERVICES.LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THERE ARE NO RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO SECTION 7.19 FRANCHISES.
THE NEXT SUBSTANTIVE SECTION OF THE CHARTER IS ARTICLE 8, THE CHARTER BOARD.
THE CHARTER BOARD RECOMMENDED THESE CHANGES AGAIN AS CLEANUP.
>> COMMISSIONER BOLTON HAS A QUESTION.
>>THANK YOU. [NOISE] WE'VE HAD SOME TIME TO, WITH OUR BOOKS TO GO THROUGH THE CHARTER CHANGES.
DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO ASK THE COMMISSION IF WE'VE SEEN ANY CHANGES THAT IN THIS SECTION THAT WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE? IF THERE'S NONE.
I THINK WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENT AND SPENDING A LOT OF TIME GOING THROUGH WITHOUT HAVING CONSENSUS TO CHANGE OR ANYTHING.
>> I THINK THAT WE ARE MOSTLY PRETTY MUCH ON THE WAY DONE.
I THINK WE SHOULD JUST FINISH IT BECAUSE I THINK THE PROBLEM IS WE WENT THROUGH IT THAT WAY THE FIRST TIME AND WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GIVE GOOD DIRECTIVE AND TO OUR TEAM AND STAFF TO DO WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO.
SEEING NO CHANGES TO 801, MOVING FORWARD.
CITY ATTORNEY, IF WE HAVEN'T GOT A STRIKE THROUGH, WE'RE MOVING FORWARD.
DON'T EVEN WORRY ABOUT MENTIONING THANK YOU.
>> NO CHANGE. WE'RE LEAVING IT AS IS SECTION 8.01 [NOISE].
AGAIN, THE SUGGESTION WAS MADE TO DO WITHOUT OR WITH STATE SPECIFICALLY, THERE WASN'T A REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE ALL OF THE MEETINGS OF THE CHARTER BOARD, WE'RE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND ESSENTIALLY THE EQUIVALENT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.
>> WE'LL JUST MOVE FORWARD. IN TAKING COMMISSIONER BOLTON'S COMMENTS AND COMBINING THEM WILL JUST READ THE TITLE.
IF NOBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, WE'LL GO FORWARD.
>> SECTION 8.03, ASSISTANTS BUDGET AND REPORTS, PROPOSED MODEL OUR PATIENTS, BUT THE CHARTER BOARD SET FORTH THAT ARE IN STRIKEOUT UNDERLINE.
>> COMMISSIONER BOLTON, VICE PRESIDENT, ELVIN VILLALOBOS HAS A QUESTION.
>> WHAT WAS THE REASON THAT THE REVIEW BOARD WANTED TO STRIKE OUT A?
>> 8.03, WHAT THEY DID IS THEY RESHUFFLED IT.
AGAIN, ONE OF THE CHARTER BOARD MEMBERS SAID THE TITLE OF THIS SECTION 8.03 IS ASSISTANCE BUDGET AND REPORTS, AND THEREFORE THE LAYOUT SHOULD BE ASSISTANCE, BUDGET AND REPORT.
THE SUBSECTION A THAT TALKS ABOUT REPORTS WAS MOVED TO THE END.
>> IT'LL REMAIN UNORGANIZED. SO SORRY.
>> AGAIN, ACROSS THE BOARD, THERE'S CLEANUP BECAUSE AN ARTICLE WAS SKIPPED.
NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE CITY CLERK PROVISION.
ARTICLE 11 BECOMES ARTICLE 11.
THE CHARTER BOARD RECOMMENDED THE LAST SENTENCE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS PUT IN ABOUT THE MANAGER, BUT YOU ALL HAVE SAID NO TO THAT.
I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE SAYING NO TO THIS.
WE ARE SAYING 803, COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.
>> WE'RE ON 803, THE LAST SECTION.
SORRY. AS IT STANDS, IT IS STILL 11.01.
CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE CREATED APPOINTMENT POWERS AND DUTIES, PAGE 19.
THE COMMISSION MAY SUSPEND OR REMOVE THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH A MAJORITY.
>> SEEING THAT NO ONE ELSE IS THIS ITEM.
[01:15:05]
>> MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS, AGAIN, THAT WAS A PRETTY MUCH CLEAN UP ACROSS THE BOARD.
THE ONLY WHAT I WOULD CALL SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION, IF YOU WANT TO, IS IN SECTION 1109 OR WHAT WAS 1209, SIGNATURE TO BONDS, CHECKS, CONTRACTS, ETC.
IS TO ADD IN THAT THE CONTRACTOR AND INSTRUMENTS SHOULD ALSO BE ATTESTED BY THE CITY CLERK IN THE CITY ATTORNEY, WHICH IS OUR STANDARD PRACTICE AS IT IS.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A REQUEST SINCE WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE NUMBERS.
LET'S GO BY THE NUMBERS ON WHICH WE HAVE THEM.
IT'LL BE A LOT EASIER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CLEAR.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACTUALLY 12.09 ON PAGE 20.
I'M FINE WITH SUPPORTING THE CHANGE.
IF IT'S ILLEGAL ITEM THAT WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF.
>> WELL, I MEAN, I THINK THAT IF WE'RE SAYING THAT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO NEED TO SIGN CONTRACTS ARE BEING LISTED HERE THAN THOSE WHO DO IN FACT EXECUTE THEM SHOULD BE LISTED AND IF THAT INCLUDES THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY CLERK, THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO ADD THEM IN.
>> THIS TIME IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SHOWING ME.
>> THE OTHER THIS IS REALLY FOR YOU ALL.
THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IS THE COMMISSION MAY NOT AMEND THIS CHARTER BY ORDINANCE.
ACTUALLY, UNDER STATE LAW, THERE ARE TWO SECTIONS OR TWO OPPORTUNITIES OR ABILITIES FOR CITY COMMISSION TO INDIRECTLY OR DIRECTLY MODIFY A CHARTER, AND THAT'S THE DATES OF ELECTION AND THE DATES OF QUALIFICATION.
IF YOU WERE TO CHANGE THE DATE OF ELECTION, YOU OBVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE TO ALSO CHANGE THE DATE FOR QUALIFICATIONS THAT IS ALLOWED UNDER STATE LAW TO BE DONE BY ORDINANCE.
I FELT THAT IN A BUNCH OF CAUTION TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW AND GIVE THIS COMMISSION THE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY THAT IT HAS UNDER LAW WOULD BE TO REMOVE THE SECTION OF THE CHARTER.
IT SAYS THE COMMISSIONER MAY NOT AMEND THIS CHARTER BY ORDINANCE AND SAY THAT IT CAN BE AMENDED BY ANY MANNER SPECIFIED BY STATE LAW LEGISLATURE, WHICH INCLUDES THE ABILITY TO MAKE THOSE TWO CHANGES BY ORDINATES.
>> THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THOSE TWO ITEMS ONLY.
>> ONLY WHAT [OVERLAPPING] TO DO.
OTHERWISE, IT DOES REQUIRE A CHARTER AMENDMENT AND THE OTHER CHANGES.
BUT THERE ARE TWO EXCEPTIONS TO THAT GENERAL RULE.
THERE ARE ENUMERATED IN STATE LAW.
>> IF THIS CITY SHOULD AT SOME POINT DECIDE THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THIS CITY TO MOVE ITS ELECTIONS BACK TO MARCH.
>> YOU CAN DO THAT BY ORDINANCE UNDER STATE LAW.
>> BUT WE CAN UNDER OUR CHARTER.
THIS WOULD ALLOW YOU TO DO SO AND THAT IS THE ONLY THING IT WOULD DO.
I WOULD SUPPORT THAT, AS LONG AS IT'S ONLY THOSE ITEMS.
>> SEEING THAT ONLY COMMISSIONER BOLTON AND MYSELF SUPPORT THAT, THIS ITEM WILL REMAIN.
>> THE SECTION 12.12, CITY COUNCIL CHANGED THE CITY COMMISSION, AGAIN, THAT THE CHARTER BOARD FELT THAT THAT WAS SUPERFLUOUS, ITS ALREADY BEEN DONE, AND DIDN'T NEED TO BE IN THE CHARTER.
WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE DELETION OF ARTICLE 13 CORPORATE LIMITS AND ADDING IT INTO ARTICLE 2.
>> CAN WE GET CONSENSUS TO REMOVE 12.12 AND 13.01, AND THEN WE'RE ALL IN LEGAL DESCRIPTION INTO 201, I THINK IS WHAT YOU SAID OR TO DEFINITIONS.
WE'RE ALMOST AT THE FINISH LINE, GENTLEMEN.
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE?
>> I AM ASKING FOR CONSENSUS TO REMOVE 12.12,
[01:20:01]
13.01 AND THEN ROLLING IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION INTO THE DEFINITION SECTION TO HELP.>> THE ONLY SECTION THAT WOULD REMAIN IN ARTICLE 13 WOULD BE THE LANGUAGE ABOUT ANNEXATION, WHICH IS ALSO SET FORTH BY STATE LAW.
>> WE'RE MOVING SECTION 13.01, AND WE JUST LEAVE IT TO BE, BUT CHANGING THE NUMBERING TO MAKE SECTION 13.01 NOW 13.01 WOULD BE ANNEXATION VERSUS LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
>> YOU'VE GOT SUPPORT BY COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS, MYSELF.
IT DOES NOT APPEAR WE HAVE SUPPORT BY THE REST OF THE COMMISSION.
THEREFORE, EVERYTHING WILL REMAIN THE SAME.
>> IN THE LAST ARTICLE, ON PAGE 26 AND 27.
THAT WAS THE TRANSITION TO SCHEDULE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED WHEN ACTUALLY THE CHARTER WAS WHAT I WOULD CALL THE MODERN CHARTER, WAS ADOPTED IN 1976.
AGAIN, THE CHARTER BOARD FELT THAT THAT NEEDED TO BE CLEANED UP BY DELETING OUTDATED AND SUPERFLUOUS LANGUAGE.
ALL THAT WOULD REMAIN IS THAT THE TRANSITION SCHEDULE WOULD OBVIOUSLY PROVIDE THAT ORDINANCES ARE PRESERVED.
THERE'S A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND THAT'S IT, AND THE REST WOULD BE DELETED AS OBSOLETE.
IRONICALLY, ONE OF THE SECTIONS THAT IS BEING DELETED AS SECTION 1406, WHICH GIVES THIS COMMISSION ANY PRIOR COMMISSIONS ANY SUBSEQUENT COMMISSIONS THE RIGHT TO DELETE THIS ANYWAY.
>> WELL, I'M IN FAVOR OF MAKING THE CHANGE.
THE REALITY IS WE DON'T NEED TO BRING THIS ONE TO THE VOTERS.
WHY DON'T WE MAYBE IF THERE'S CONSENSUS TO PUT THIS ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA.
WHY DON'T WE DO IT THROUGH THAT SINCE IT SAYS, COMMISSION SHALL HAVE THE POWER BY RESOLUTION TO DELETE THIS ARTICLE AND ANY SECTION INCLUDING THIS ONE, WHEN ALL EVENTS WHICH THESE SECTION IS TO BE DELETED OR COULD HAVE BECOME APPLICABLE IF OCCURRED.
DOES THAT MEAN FOR ALL THE OTHER SUPERFLUOUS STUFF AS WELL? [OVERLAPPING] JUST FOR ITEM 14.
INSTEAD OF WORRYING ABOUT TAKING THIS TO THE VOTERS, WHY DON'T WE PUT IT ON A COMMISSION MEETING? COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS IS SHAKING HIS HEAD [OVERLAPPING] PUT THAT IN THE RECORD.
WELL, COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS AND I ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO SEEM TO AGREE ON THIS ONE.
BUT WE'RE MOVING IT EITHER WHICH WAY.
ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT IT BECAUSE WE HAVE THE DEFINITION SECTION.
IS THIS COMMISSION IN FAVOR OF A DEFINITION SECTION WHICH WOULD THEREBY INCLUDE MAKING IT GENDER NEUTRAL, SINGLE PLURAL.
DEFINING THE RESULT PRICE IS UPON PAYMENTS, CLARIFYING TITLES, AND THEN HAVE THE CLARIFICATION LANGUAGE THAT THE CITY CLERK, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY MANAGER, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CALL BACK IN THE CHARTER BOARD OR NOT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY SHOULD BE DONE WITH THEIR ASSIGNMENT TO CLEAN IT UP BEFORE BRINGING IT BACK TO US. COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS?
>> THANK YOU. I'M IN FAVOR OF IT AS WELL, BUT CONSIDERING THAT IS ONLY COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS AND I, I'VE GOT NOW COMMISSIONER BOLTON.
>> COMMISSIONER BOLTON WANTS ANOTHER TOPIC.
THEREFORE, THERE WILL BE NO DEFINITIONS, CLARIFYING LANGUAGE, OR ANY ABILITY TO CLEAN UP.
IS THE TOPIC YOU WISH TO BRING UP, COMMISSIONER BOLTON DEALING WITH CHARTER? IT'S A SIMPLE YES OR NO.
IS THE ITEM THAT YOU WISH TO BRING ON CHARTER?
>> YES. MADAM MAYOR, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CHARTER.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THEN PLEASE PROCEED.
[01:25:02]
>> OKAY, MA'AM. PAGE 28 TALKS ABOUT THE COST OF ATTORNEY AND IT SAYS THAT THE COST PER PAGE IS $43,000 AND $50,600 WITH TWO EXTRA PAGES.
IF WE WERE TO ACCEPT ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CHARTER BOARD OF 25 PAGES OF THIS DOCUMENT.
HOW MANY PAGES DO YOU ESTIMATE WOULD BE ON THE BALLOT?
>> BASED UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OR THE CONSENSUS OF THIS BODY TODAY, MY EDUCATED GUESS IS-
>> MY QUESTION IS, IF WE WERE TO ACCEPT ALL OF THE CHANGES AS PROPOSED, NOT THE CHANGES THAT WE SELECTED BUT THE CHANGES AS PROPOSED.
WHAT IS YOUR ESTIMATE OF WHAT IT WOULD COST US TO PUT ALL OF THESE CHANGES ON THE BALLOT?
>> COMMISSIONER BOLTON, CAN I ASK YOU TO CLARIFY.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ALL THE CHANGES THAT WERE BROUGHT TO US PRIOR TO OUR DISCUSSION OR ALL THE CHANGES THAT WERE- [OVERLAPPING].
>> -TWO THAT MIGHT GO TO A THREE.
>> ALL THE PROPOSED CHANGES AS WE HAVE IT HERE FROM PAGE 1 THROUGH 2.
>> FROM PRIOR TO OUR DISCUSSION.
>> PRIOR TO DISCUSSION THOUGH, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS ON THEM, ONLY SOME.
THE REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS ASKED FOR SOME OF THESE CHANGES TO COME BACK AT A FUTURE MEETING.
I'M JUST ASKING THAT AS THE CHANGES AS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE COST ESTIMATE? WHAT DO YOU SEE THAT THIS WOULD COST?
>> I THINK THAT BASED UPON THE DIRECTION HERE, INCLUDING THE TWO TWO'S THAT MAY COME BACK.
THE NUMBER OF THINGS HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY NARROWED.
I WOULD SAY THAT I THINK THAT YOU CAN GET BY THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AND DO IT AND WE WOULDN'T NEED MORE THAN TWO PAGES.
THE $43,000 WOULD BE THE COST IS MY GUESTIMATE.
>> THERE IS A COST FOR AN EXTRA PAGE WHICH IS 43,000.
>> NO. I THINK THAT THE 43,000 IS WITH THE ONE EXTRA PAGE.
THE BASE NUMBER IS 354, WHICH IS FOR ONE PAGE AND COSTS FOR THE EXTRA PAGE IS INCLUDED IN THERE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING [OVERLAPPING]
>> BECAUSE THE BASE NUMBER OF 35,000 IS REALLY DICTATED BY, AS I UNDERSTAND, SUPERVISED COLLECTION MATH ON HOW MANY ARE THE REGISTERED VOTERS IN TAMARAC.
>> THE BASE PAGE, WHAT DOES THAT DO? WHAT DOES THE $35,400 COVER?
>> ONE PAGE. YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE COULD GET BY WITH TWO PAGES.
I'M SAYING 35,400 PLUS THE EXTRA PAGE COST OF $43,000, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 78,400.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HOW THE SUPERVISOR, I ACTUALLY READ THAT IT WOULD BE THE $43,000 INCLUDES THE EXTRA PAGE.
>> CLERK, IF YOU WILL CLARIFY.
IF THE EXTRA PAGES $7,600 PER EXTRA PAGE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT, MA'AM. THAT IS WHAT THE ESTIMATE IS BASED ON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS AT THE LAST ELECTION.
THE $34,000 INCLUDES THE TOTAL COST OF THE ELECTION.
THAT INCLUDES THE COST TO RUN A PRECINCT, TO HAVE PRECINCT CLERKS, THE TRANSPORTATION, THE PRINTING OF THE BALLOTS, AND THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS STAFF.
>> IF IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT IT'S $35,400 IS WHAT YOU JUST STATED.
THEY ESTIMATE WE WILL HAVE ONE EXTRA BALLOT PAGE.
>> THAT IS FOR THE TOTAL OF $43,000?
>> CORRECT. AN ESTIMATE. ANY ADDITIONAL PAGES WILL BE AN EXTRA $7,600 PER PAGE.
THAT INCLUDES FRONT AND BACK IS ONE-PAGE.
[01:30:01]
>> EACH SIDE OF A PIECE OF PAPER IS A PAGE THAT'S FRONT AND BACK.
THERE IS THE BELIEF THAT THIS TIME THAT THE AMENDMENTS IT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF TWO PAGES, SO THE TOTAL COST WILL BE $50,600. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT INCLUDES THE RUNNING OF THE ELECTION.
>> MAY GO AND MAY DROP DOWN TO THE 35-4 FOR THE ONE-PAGE FRONT AND BACK DEPENDING UPON WHAT THE ULTIMATE DECISION OF HOW MANY AMENDMENTS GO FORWARD.
>> IF WE ALREADY HAVE ONE ITEM, WE HAVE ONE ITEM THAT WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON, WHICH IS 709, WHICH IS TO MAKE THINGS LEGAL FOR SOME CLARIFICATION, SO WE ALREADY HAVE ONE PAGE.
WE DON'T GET ANY HALF CREDITS.
WE DON'T USE THE PAGE TOO BAD ON US.
WE ALREADY ARE AT 43,000 WHICH INCLUDES ONE FULL PAGE AND THE COST OF RUNNING THE ELECTION.
IT'S A MATTER OF THEIR ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT WE WILL.
>> THAT WILL WORK. IF I DRAFT AN ORDINANCE WITH A SINGULAR AMENDMENT BEING PROPOSED, WE WILL BE ON THE ONE-PAGE [OVERLAPPING] FOR A TOTAL OF $35,400.
WE WON'T NEED AN EXTRA PAGE FOR ONE SINGULAR ITEM.
YOU WILL HAVE THAT ONE PAGE FRONT AND BACK FOR THE ELECTION, AND THE ONE CHARTER QUESTION.
AGAIN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FOR $35,400, WE'RE GETTING THE COST OF THE ELECTION WITH ONE FULL PAGE.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RUNNING AND ANY CHARTER AMENDMENTS.
IF THERE'S A SINGULAR QUESTION THAT WE'RE PUTTING TO THE ELECTORATE ON A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT.
I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO FIT IT ON A PAGE.
>> CORRECT. BUT THE WAY IT SAYS, TAMARAC CURRENTLY HAS 50,593 REGISTERED VOTERS.
THEREFORE, YOUR ESTIMATE IS $35,400 FOR THE COST OF THE ELECTION, PLUS $7,600 TIMES THE NUMBER OF EXTRA BALLOT PAGES.
>> IF YOU NEED EXTRA BALLOT PAGES.
>> YES, I AM JUST MAKING SURE.
RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS, WE ARE AT 35,400 WHERE WE WON'T NEED ANY EXTRA BALLOT PAGES.
IF WE SHOULD NEED ANOTHER PAGE FOR A TOTAL OF TWO PAGES, IT WOULD BE $43,000.
>> TO CLARIFY, ATTORNEY, ONCE SOMEBODY'S RUNNING, ONCE THERE'S AN ELECTION, THERE'S A BASE FEE OF $35,400 FOR THAT PAGE.
THEN FOR EVERY CHANGE THAT WE'RE MAKING ADDING ALL OF THESE CHANGES MAY TRIGGER A PAGE.
>> BUT BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF PROPOSED CHANGES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TO MEET A MAXIMUM OF AWARDING THE INTENT HERE IS TO MINIMIZE AND STILL GIVING THE MASTER TOWARDS BEING PROPOSED AND GETTING THEM ON THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PAGES BASED UPON THE CONSENSUS OF THIS COMMISSION HERE TODAY, I DON'T ANTICIPATE IT'S GOING PAST THAT ONE PAGE, THAT BASE PAGE.
>> RIGHT, SO YOUR COMMENTARY IS THAT, SOME OF THESE CHANGES AREN'T REALLY GROUNDBREAKING, THEY'RE ONLY CLEANUP ITEMS, AND WE CAN LIVE WITHOUT THEM.
>> THAT'S FOR YOU ALL TO DECIDE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] BUT THAT WAS YOUR OPINION.
>> YEAH. THERE ARE SOME CHANGES THAT I'VE STATED THAT I DO BELIEVE NEED TO BE MADE.
THE REST IS THE CONSENSUS OF THIS COMMISSION WHETHER OR NOT THINGS NEED TO BE CLEANED UP.
>> IF YOU WOULD DO ME A FAVOR, I DON'T KNOW IF MY COLLEAGUES WOULD LIKE THIS TOO, BUT THIS DOCUMENT JUST PROVIDE IT WITH A CHECK-MARK BESIDE THE ONES THAT YOU THINK THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE AND YOU CAN JUST PROVIDE IT OPTIMAL.
>> THANK YOU. PROCESS FOR RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S ACTUALLY ONLY ONE ITEM THAT HAD CONSENSUS BY THREE PEOPLE AND THAT WAS 709.
>> THAT'S ONLY ITEM THAT IS SUBJECT FOR THE BALLOT AT THIS TIME.
>> THAT'S IT. WE WILL PROCEED ACCORDINGLY.
[01:35:02]
AGAIN THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, YOU ALL CAN ADD, DELETE, MODIFY AS YOU ALL SEE FIT.>> MY QUESTION IS TO THIS COMMISSION, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE THAT I THINK ACTUALLY THERE'S FIVE THAT ARE SEPARATE.
THEN ONE, TWO, THREE THAT CAN BE ROLLED INTO ONE IS CALLED CLEANUP FOR THE LEGISLATION.
WITHOUT MAKING IT TOO DIFFICULT ON CITY STAFF I DON'T KNOW IF IT'D BE EASIER IF YOU HAVE A WAY OF DETERMINING THE SPACING THAT MAKES THIS WHEN WE BRING IT BACK FOR SOME ADDITIONAL DECISION-MAKING.
IF IT'S BROUGHT UP AGAIN, BECAUSE THESE ITEMS WILL PROBABLY BE BROUGHT BACK UP AGAIN.
IT'LL BE EASIER TO MAKE A DECISION, KNOWING IF THIS WAS CHANGED BASED ON THE DISCUSSION, IT WOULD BE THIS, IT'LL WOULD TAKE
>> I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION AND POTENTIALLY THE DIRECTION IS TO PUT TOGETHER A PROPOSAL ORDINANCE CONTAINING ALL OF THE CHANGES, AND THEN YOU ALL FOR JUST THE ONES THAT HAVE EITHER BEEN APPROVED, THE ONES IN THE SIX OR SEVEN THAT WERE EITHER 2-2 OR THE CLEANUP.
>> WE DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING OVER AGAIN.
IT HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR. WE DON'T CARE.
IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T CARE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO DO EACH AND EVERY ONE.
MAYBE COMING BACK TO US WITH WHAT A DEFINITIONS PAGE WOULD LOOK LIKE WILL HELP FOR THOSE CLEANUP ITEMS. COMING BACK WITH THE ONES THAT YOU HAVE A TWO FOR A FURTHER DISCUSSION.
MAYBE NEXT TO EACH OF THEM, AN IDEA OF HOW MUCH SPACE IT WOULD TAKE ON IF WE'RE RUNNING OVER TO ANOTHER.
>> IF I MAY, MADAM MAYOR, THE CITY HAS NO INPUT ONTO WHAT THE BALLOT LOOKS LIKE, THAT'S COMPLETELY DONE BY THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS AND WE DON'T GET A DRAFT OF THAT UNTIL AFTER THE PRIMARY IN AUGUST.
I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHAT AN ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY PAGES IT WOULD BE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF ORDINANCES.
YOU CAN PROBABLY ESTIMATE BETWEEN ONE TO TWO BALLOT QUESTIONS ON EACH SIDE OF A PAGE THAT'S ABOUT AS GENERAL AS I COULD GET.
>> WE CAN LOOK AT OTHER PAST ELECTIONS FROM EITHER THIS OR OTHER CITIES WITH SIMILAR TYPE OF CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND TRY AND DEVELOP AN ESTIMATE, WHICH IS I THINK WHAT YOU'LL ARE ASKING FOR.
>> I MEAN, BECAUSE WE ALL LOOKED AT OUR BALLOTS AND WE KNOW THAT IF IT'S A BLANK IS THE SAME FONT, IT'S NO MORE THAN 70 WORDS OR 75 WORDS.
THE GENERAL IDEA IS WE CAN ONLY FIT THIS MUCH, JUST AS IF IT WOULD HELP BE ABLE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD FOR THE ITEMS THAT WE ARE POSSIBLY STILL IN FLUX WITH.
THEN AT THE NEXT MEETING MAYBE THEY'RE COMPLETELY GONE. BUT
>> AGAIN, NOT TO BELABOR THE POINT WITH THE EASIEST OR THE ONE I'VE SEEN ON FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES IS VERY SPURT, IS THE LAST ISSUE IS CIAO, THE CHARTER BE AMENDED TO BE GENDER NEUTRAL AND CLEAN UP OF OUTDATED PROVISIONS. THAT'S THE QUESTION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] OTHER LITTLE THINGS ON.
>> THAT THAT'S GOING TO FIT IN A PRETTY SMALL SECTION OF THE BALLOT.
>> BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR THE COMMISSION TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS YOU WERE LIT AND THEN YOU WERE UNLIT; DO YOU WISH TO?
>> NO, I THINK YOU ALREADY ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE AN EXPECTATION ON WHEN THE ITEMS THAT WERE I22 WILL BE COMING UP TO THE COMMISSION AGAIN?
>> IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE NEXT TWO MEETINGS IN MARCH.
I'M SORRY, IN MAY, POSSIBLY THE LAST MEETING OR THE FIRST MEETING IN JUNE, AT THAT POINT, WE HAVE TO GET IT TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, MAYOR I WANT TO ASK THE ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK TO ME OR TO MY COLLEAGUES, THE ITEMS THAT ARE A MUST.
I DON'T NECESSARILY MEAN IN AN ORDINANCE.
I JUST MEAN THIS DOCUMENT, YOU JUST PROVIDE THIS AND IT WILL STRIKE IT.
>> WE CAN EXPECT WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK,
[01:40:01]
WE WILL RECEIVE A MEMO FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH THOSE ITEMS. THANK YOU. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, SEEING NOTHING ELSE IT IS 11:41 MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.