6.a TO2497 - An Ordinance for the Commission's consideration, modification and/oradoption entitled: An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, calling anelection amending the City Charter to be held Tuesday, November 8, 2022; providingfor submission to the electors for approval or disapproval proposed amendments tothe City Charter, such Charter amendment concerning the manner in which the Cityselects an auditor to perform the statutorily mandated independent annual audit;providing for requisite ballot language; providing for procedure for balloting;providing for notice; providing for related matters; providing for conflicts; providingfor severability; providing for inclusion in the Charter; and an effective date.

[6.a TO2497 - An Ordinance for the Commission's consideration, modification and/oradoption entitled: An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, calling anelection amending the City Charter to be held Tuesday, November 8, 2022; providingfor submission to the electors for approval or disapproval proposed amendments tothe City Charter, such Charter amendment concerning the manner in which the Cityselects an auditor to perform the statutorily mandated independent annual audit;providing for requisite ballot language; providing for procedure for balloting;providing for notice; providing for related matters; providing for conflicts; providingfor severability; providing for inclusion in the Charter; and an effective date.]

WE WILL NOW GO TO ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING 6AT02497, ORDINANCE FOR THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION CONSIDERATION.

CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE FULL TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

THIS IS AN ORDINANCE THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC FLORIDA CALLING AN ELECTION AMENDING TO AMEND THE CITY CHARTER BE HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2022.

[00:40:05]

PROVIDING FOR SUBMISSIONS TO THE ELECTORS FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.

PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CHARTER.

SUCH CHARTER AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CITY SELECTS AN AUDITOR TO PERFORM THE STATUTORILY MANDATED INDEPENDENT ANNUAL AUDIT PROVIDING FOR REQUISITE BALLOT LANGUAGE, PROVIDING FOR PROCEDURES FOR BALLOTING, PROVIDING FOR NOTICE, PROVIDING FOR RELATED MATTERS, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CHARTER AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS THIS IS AN ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING, THERE IS NO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

AND SO I WILL ASK FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND.

SO MOVED.

SECOND. THANK YOU.

CITY ATTORNEY WOULD YOU LIKE TO FURTHER INTRODUCE ITEM.

MADAM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AT YOUR DIRECTION AT PURSUANT TO THE LAST WORKSHOP WE BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION AND POTENTIAL APPROVAL PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER THAT PROVIDES FOR AMENDING SECTION 7-09 OF THE CHARTER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LANGUAGE AND THAT PROVISION, THAT PORTION OF THE CHARTER IS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, AND THAT CHARTER SECTION DEALS WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CITY CONDUCTS NOT ONLY THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT ALSO HOW THE CITY GOES ABOUT SELECTING ITS OUTSIDE AUDITOR.

THE CLEARLY, SINCE THE LAST TIME THERE WAS A CHARTER AMENDMENT TO OR AN AMENDMENT TO THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION OF THE CHARTER STATE LAW HAS CHANGED TO PROVIDE FOR A SPECIFIC MANNER IN WHICH THE CITY IS SUPPOSED TO SELECTED OUTSIDE AUDITOR, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LANGUAGE CURRENTLY IN THE CHARTER.

SO WE PROVIDED THAT PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO YOUR DIRECTION.

THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION DURING THE WORKSHOP ABOUT THE COMMISSION CONSIDERING SOME OTHER PROVISIONS THAT IT MAY WANT TO AMEND OR INSTRUCT STAFF TO FURTHER EXPAND THE ORDINANCE.

AS I SAID DURING THE WORKSHOP, ANY PROVISION THE CHARTER AS IT CURRENTLY IS WRITTEN IS SUBJECT TO YOUR REVIEW AND DIRECTION TO US TO MODIFY, DELETE, OR OTHERWISE LEAVE, AS IS THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU ON FIRST READING.

THANK YOU. I'M SORRY.

ONE ADDITIONAL THING.

AT THE DURING THE COURSE OF THE WORKSHOP, COMMISSIONER BOLTON ASKED FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO REVIEW THE CHARTER AND TO RECOMMEND OR BRING TO YOU ALL IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER PROVISIONS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BELIEVED IT WAS ESSENTIAL FOR OR REQUIRED FOR A CHANGE TO BE MADE TO THE CHARTER, AND AFTER REVIEWING THE CHARTERS IN ENTIRETY.

THE ONLY SECTION AND IT WAS DISCUSSED DURING THE WORKSHOP THAT I CAN THINK OF THAT FALLS WITHIN THAT CATEGORY IS SECTION 7.14, EXPENDITURE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

AND AGAIN, THE COMMENT, THE REASON WHY I'VE MADE THAT CONCLUSION IN INFORMING YOU HERE TONIGHT OF THAT IS AGAIN AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE LANGUAGE THAT'S CURRENTLY IN YOUR CHARTER AND APPLICABLE STATE LAW.

AND SO I WOULD RECOMMEND VERY STRONGLY THAT BE INCLUDED AND ANY REFERENDUM THAT OR AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER THAT'S PUT FORWARD IN A REFERENDUM TO MAKE SURE THAT SECTION OF THE CHARTER IS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.

AND IT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION THAT SECTION 7.14, WHICH CURRENTLY READS CONTRACTS FOR THE SERVICE OF PROFESSIONALS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND ATTORNEYS ARE TO BE ENTERED INTO IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA LAW.

I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THAT LANGUAGE BE MODIFIED.

JUST SIMPLY SAY CONTRACTS FOR THE SERVICE OF PROFESSIONALS ARE TO BE ENTERED INTO IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.

AND THE REASON WHY SUBSTITUTING STATE FOR FLORIDA IS BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THAT IT'S SAID THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE CHARTER.

AND AGAIN, THAT WOULD MAKE THAT SECTION OF THE CHARTER CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW STATE LAW WITH REGARD TO THE ENGAGEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, AND THERE'S A SPECIFIC STATUTE THAT'S COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE CCNA THAT IS THE ONE THAT'S MOST APPLICABLE TO THAT SECTION OF THE CHARTER.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

[00:45:01]

THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR HAS QUESTIONS.

WHICH ITEM ON YOUR REFERRING TO? SECTION 7.14 OF THE CHARTER.

THE CCNA, AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN, APPLIES TO ARCHITECT, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.

THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER IS CONTRACTS FOR THE SERVICE OF PROFESSIONALS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ARCHITECT, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND ATTORNEYS ARE TO BE ENTERED INTO IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA, WITH FLORIDA LAW.

I THINK THAT IT'S JUST MUCH CLEANER AND MUCH SIMPLER TO SIMPLY SAY THAT THE ENGAGEMENT OR THE CONTRACTS FOR THE SERVICE, FOR THE SERVICE OF PROFESSIONALS ARE TO BE ENTERED INTO IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.

AND THAT COVERS EVERYTHING.

AND TO ADD THAT WAY, WHEN THE STATUTE POTENTIALLY CHANGES, WE DON'T HAVE TO AMEND IT.

WE'RE JUST WE'RE COVERED AND WE'LL ALWAYS BE COVERED BECAUSE IT'S SPECIFICALLY REFERENCES TO STATE LAW.

COMMISSIONER VICE MAYOR [INAUDIBLE]? I'M NOT SEEING ANYBODY ELSE HAVING ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY? I DO.

SO, ACTUALLY, COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS, I SAW YOUR LIGHT.

SEE WHAT YOU SAY BEFORE.

I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT MYSELF.

ALL RIGHT. SO BASICALLY, I'M FINE WITH DEFINITELY WOULD SUPPORT OF THE 7.09.

I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE 7.14 BEING AMENDED AS PHRASED.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SOME OTHER IMPORTANT ITEMS THAT WE SHOULD BE MODIFYING, AS WE DISCUSSED AND WAS WOULD BE 5.02B, ON THE CITY MANAGER.

CITY MANAGER SHOULD BE SUSPENDED OR REMOVE THE CITY MANAGER BY A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS IN OFFICE AT THE TIME.

ALSO UNDER SECTION 5.04A, THE APPOINTMENT OF DEPARTMENT HEADS AND ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, I WOULD REMOVE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HEADS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME, ADDING IN SECTION 10.01 DEALING WITH THE CITY CLERK, WHICH IS THE CITY MANAGER'S AUTHORITY TO APPOINT AND BEING APPROVED BY US.

WE DON'T THE COMMISSION DOES NOT NEED TO APPROVE.

IT IS MY OPINION THAT AS WE HAVE BEEN KEPT AWAY FROM HIRING AND FIRING AND WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN TOLD THE ONLY POSITIONS THAT WE CAN HIRE AND FIRE ARE THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY. WE SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS OF THE CITY'S CITY MANAGER.

IN HER DESELECTION OR HIS SELECTION, DEPENDING ON THE CASE MAY BE OF DEPARTMENT HEADS AND THE CITY CLERK AND THE CITY CLERK IS A DEPARTMENT HEAD, SO I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHY IT'S SEPARATED OUT. FURTHER, I WOULD GO THROUGH SECTION 6.02 THE DISTRICTS AND REQUIRE A MINIMUM LENGTH OF RESIDENCY BEFORE BECOMING A CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE.

ALSO SECTIONS 1101 WHEN IT DEALS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY.

THE CITY ATTORNEY SHOULD BE ALSO SUSPENDED OR REMOVED BY A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE VOTE OF THOSE ON THE COMMISSION AND OFFICE AT THAT TIME.

AND THEN I WOULD SUPPORT A DEFINITION SECTION THAT WOULD ENCOMPASS PUTTING IN THERE THE EDITS OF MAKING IT GENDER NEUTRAL.

SO CITY MANAGER ANY OTHER TITLES WOULD BE GENDER NEUTRAL, HE OR SHE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE REFERENCE IN A WORRY.

WE COULD ALSO PROVIDE FOR CONSISTENCY OF THE COST OR DUPLICATION OF CERTAIN RECORDS, AS WE HAVE IN VARIOUS PLACES IN OUR CHARTER, THAT THERE IS A COST FOR THE SAME.

THERE WERE A COUPLE OF OTHER ITEMS DURING OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT DEFINITION, SINGLE PLURAL.

AND JUST BASICALLY IN THAT DEFINITION SECTION, BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THE CLEANUP AREA FOR OTHER THINGS THAT WE NEEDED VERSUS GOING THROUGH A WHOLE STRIKEOUT AND CHARTER CHANGE.

AND THEN ALSO BEING PUTTING IN THERE A STOPGAP OF.

AND THIS CHARTER IS SUBJECT TO.

STATE LAW AND ANYTHING THAT SHOULD BE AMENDED IS FROM TIME TO TIME.

AND THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN FURTHER DISCUSS THAT AS A ITEM THAT WE USE IN THE LAW.

IT'S USED IN CONDO DOCS, ASSOCIATION DOCS AS WELL, IF YOU'D LIKE.

CITY ATTORNEY. THAT I MEAN, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION, THAT IS CORRECT.

IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T RUN INTO THE PROBLEM THAT WE ARE, WE HAVE WITH SECTION 7.09

[00:50:07]

AND AS I'VE EXPLAINED, MY VIEW OF 7.14 AS WELL, WHICH IS THAT SINCE THE TIME THAT THOSE CHARTER PROVISIONS WERE LAST AMENDED, THE STATE STATUTE HAS BEEN MODIFIED OR CHANGED.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S NOT REFLECTED IN THE CHARTER AT THIS POINT.

THANK YOU. AND JUST AS A REMINDER OF WHY I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPERMAJORITY FOR OUR CITY MANAGER AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY.

IT AVOIDS POLITICS ON THE DAIS WHERE WE HAVE CONCERNS THAT OUR CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY MIGHT BE WORRYING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN COUNT TO THREE AND IF SOMEBODY MIGHT BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE IF THEY DON'T DO SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY MAY OR MAY NOT LIKE.

AND IT MAKES IT MORE EMPOWERING TO OUR PEOPLE THAT WE WILL BE HIRING, THAT THEY KNOW, THAT WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE HERE TO DO THE JOB OF THE CITY, NOT THE JOB FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON ON THE COMMISSION.

AND THE REALITY IS, IF THERE'S EVER A TIME WHEN THERE'S SOMEONE WHO WILL NOT BE IN THEIR POSITION ANY FURTHER.

THE REALITY IS, IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE SUPER MAJORITY ANYWAY.

SO THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THAT I WANTED TO PULL.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS. JUST TO FOLLOW UP WITH WHAT YOU SAID MAYOR.

ARE WE GOING LINE BY LINE OF YOUR REQUEST, OR IS THIS GOING TO BE BUNDLED UP AND GET CONSENSUS? GOOD POINT. I GUESS IT WAS GOING TO BE BROUGHT UP FOR DISCUSSION.

IF IT'S JUST MYSELF ON THE ISLAND, THEN THERE'S NO NEED FOR ANYTHING FURTHER.

BUT IF THERE'S OTHERS WHO HAVE SIMILAR DESIRE TO CHANGE THOSE ITEMS, THEN WE CAN DO LINE BY LINE FOR CONSENSUS.

I WOULD REQUEST THAT WE GO LINE BY LINE.

OKAY. SO WE WILL GO LINE BY LINE.

I'LL START WITH 709 WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY.

HAD CONSENSUS, BUT I WILL GO THROUGH TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STILL HAVE CONSENSUS.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

YES. VICE MAYOR.

THE CHARTER IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA BOOK.

SO CAN IT PLEASE PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN SO THE AUDIENCE CAN SEE? THAT'S COMING UP. SOME OF US JUST HAD [INAUDIBLE] SO.

I DON'T HAVE IT ON ME SO YOU CAN GO TO SOMEBODY ELSE.

WELL I HAVE NOTES ALL OVER MINE, SO I DON'T KNOW.

IT WOULD BE RIGHT TO GIVE IT TO YOU.

IT'S COMING UP. GIVE IT A SECOND.

AND WE'RE AT 7.09 FOR 0.09 FOR RIGHT NOW PLEASE.

7.09, PLEASE.

THERE YOU GO. OOPS.

THANK YOU.

SO WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO CHANGE HERE? WHAT'S THE ASK? THE SECTION THAT OR THE [INAUDIBLE] IS THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 7.09, WHERE CURRENTLY THE CHARTER LANGUAGE SAYS THE CITY COMMISSION MAY, WITHOUT REQUIRING COMPETITIVE BIDS, DESIGNATE SUCH ACCOUNTS OR FIRMS ANNUALLY OR FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING THREE YEARS.

THERE IS A SPECIFIC STATE STATUTE THAT IS REFERENCED IN THE IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

MAYOR MAY I INTERRUPT YOU FOR A SECOND? CAN WE GET JIM TO PULL UP THE AGENDA FROM THE WEBSITE? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD DO A SPLIT SCREEN.

GO AHEAD. SO INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT LANGUAGE THAT IS UP ON THE ON YOUR SCREEN.

THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 7.209 WOULD READ AS PROPOSED.

THE CITY SHALL ELECT SELECT AN AUDITOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 218 391 FLORIDA STATUTES.

IF YOU'LL EXCUSE ME FOR ONE SECOND, I'M.

YES, I'M SORRY. I THINK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO 7:55, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A SHORT RECESS.

THE CITY CLERK IS GETTING COPIES FOR EVERYBODY SO EVERYBODY CAN HAVE IT AND RECONVENE HERE IN 5 MINUTES.

[00:55:05]

DOES THAT GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME? THAT'S GOOD, MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU. WE'RE PRINTING THE COPIES RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU. I DON'T NEED ONE.

I'VE GOT ONE. SO 8:00 WE'LL BE BACK.

THIS MEETING IS IN RECESS FOR 5 MINUTES.

ALL RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT IS 8:01.

SORRY FOR THE EXTRA MINUTE AND WE ARE READY TO START AGAIN.

SO WE WERE UP TO VICE MAYOR DETERMINING WHETHER HE WAS IN SUPPORT STILL OF 709 THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED.

ALL RIGHT. YEAH.

MADAM MAYOR. YES.

JUST SO TO MAKE IT CLEAR, WE'VE SPOKEN WITH INTERNALLY THE MANAGER, MYSELF AND THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, AND WE'VE CLEANED.

WE'VE FURTHER MODIFIED THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH THAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN TO READ THIS.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE SAME, BUT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, SPECIFICALLY AT THE REQUEST OF THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, WHO'S THE ONE OR HER DEPARTMENT IS THE DEPARTMENT WITHIN THE CITY THAT'S PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH THE SECTION OF THE CHARTER.

AND SO THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IS THE COMMISSION MAY, WITHOUT REQUIRING COMPETITIVE BIDS, DESIGNATE SUCH ACCOUNT AND OR FIRM AND FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEEDING NOT EXCEEDING THREE YEARS.

THE COMMISSION MAY ALSO PROVIDE FOR A SURPRISE AUDIT BY ENACTMENT OF AN EMERGENCY ORDER ORDINANCE, AS PROVIDED BY LAW.

IF THE STATE MAKES AN AUDIT, THE COMMISSION MAY ACCEPT IT.

IF IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECTION, ALL AUDIT SHALL BE MADE PUBLIC WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE AUDIT COMMISSION.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, IF YOU ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN AS IT RELATES TO SECTION 7.09, THAT PARAGRAPH WILL NOW READ OR WILL READ IF APPROVED, THE CITY SHALL SELECT AN AUDITOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 218 391 FLOOR STATUTES, AS THE SAME MAY BE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME TO PREPARE THE INDEPENDENT ANNUAL AUDIT.

THEN WE WENT ON TO SPECIFY THAT WE DELETED THE WORD A SURPRISE.

YOU ALL CAN ORDER AN AUDIT AT ANY POINT IN TIME, WHETHER IT'S A SURPRISE OR NOT.

AND WE DETERMINED THAT THAT WAS SUPERFLUOUS LANGUAGE.

AND THAT'S WHAT BEFORE YOU.

THANK YOU. SO, VICE MAYOR, ARE YOU IN CONSENSUS FOR THE CHANGE OF 7.09? NO. I THINK IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE TO GIVE US THIS INFORMATION AT THIS VERY LAST MINUTE, AT LEAST.

PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT.

AT LEAST. STAFF SHOULD HAVE THE CURRENT PARAGRAPH WE HAVE UP NOW AND THEN HAVE THE NEW LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF US.

WE CAN SEE IT SIDE BY SIDE AND THEN WE CAN FULLY READ IT INSTEAD OF YOU READING IT TO US.

AND WE DON'T HAVE THE LANGUAGE TO SEE SIDE BY SIDE.

SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE BEFORE MAKING A DECISION.

VICE MAYOR I'M GOING TO TURN TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND HAVE HIM CONFIRM THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH AT THE WORKSHOP.

THIS WAS THE ONE ITEM THAT YOURSELF AND EVERYBODY ON THE COMMISSION, OTHER THAN COMMISSIONER PLACKO, WHO HAD AN EXCUSE ABSENCE, HAD ALREADY AGREED UPON, AND WHICH IS IN OUR BACKUP IN THE FORM OF A RESOLUTION FOR WHICH WHY WE ARE.

YOU JUST SAID THEY JUST MADE ANOTHER CHANGE.

THE ONE WORD LANGUAGE PART THAT HE IS CHANGING IS NOT IN CONCEPT.

WE CAN DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE CONSENSUS TO CHANGE 709 AS IT IS WRITTEN IN OUR ITEM AND BRING BACK A SECOND READING THE ITEM IN WHICH HE IS TALKING ABOUT FOR THE MINOR CHANGE IN THE LANGUAGE THAT HE JUST MENTIONED.

THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT IS IF THIS COMMISSION MOVES FORWARD WITH ADOPTING THIS ORDINANCE IS IN THE ORDINANCE THAT IS IN THE PACKAGE BEFORE YOU.

I CERTAINLY CAN PROVIDE A COPY OF THAT LANGUAGE TO STAFF TO SEE IF THEY CAN PUT IT SIDE BY SIDE.

BUT IT IS IN THE NO TERMS OF CONSENSUS PUBLISHED AGENDA.

IT'S IN OUR PUBLISHED AGENDA PAGE NINE.

[01:00:03]

IT IS GO TO.

[INAUDIBLE] IT'S EXACTLY. MOVE TO THE NEXT TAB.

WHAT'S THAT OUT THERE? THAT'S THIS.

THIS IS ON THIS.

THAT'S OUR CURRENT.

THAT'S OUR CURRENT. THIS IS WHAT OUR READING.

THIS IS WHAT'S IN HERE.

WHAT'S THAT RIGHT THERE? THAT'S SO FLIP TO PAGE.

FLIP IT.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION, MAYOR.

CITY MANAGER.

SO THE CHAIR. YES, COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

WHEN WAS THIS AGENDA PUBLISHED? THE AGENDA WAS PUBLISHED FRIDAY.

WE HAD OUR BOOKS FRIDAY. IT WAS PUBLISHED ON FRIDAY.

YES. RIGHT.

INFORMATION THAT WE'RE REVIEWING IS IN THERE.

RIGHT. YES.

THE REPLACEMENT LANGUAGE IS EXHIBIT A THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE ITEM.

AND IT'S IN THE BOOK.

IT'S BEING PUT ON THE STREET.

THANK YOU. I'M NOT SURE.

CAN THE AUDIENCE SEE THIS? DO YOU SEE THIS? YES.

VICE MAYOR, ARE YOU SAYING YOU'RE NOT IN SUPPORT OF IT? WHY ARE WE REMOVING THE NOT EXCEEDING THREE YEARS? SO IT'S GOING TO BE NO LIMIT AS TO HOW LONG THE ORDER IS IN PLACE BECAUSE ACTUALLY SECTION 218391 ALLOWS FOR CONTRACTS TO BE LONGER THAN THAN THREE YEARS.

IT ALLOWS THEM ACTUALLY TO BE UP TO I THINK IT'S FIVE YEARS.

FIVE YEARS. OKAY, THAT'S FINE.

AND SO, AGAIN, WE WANTED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE STATUTE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

VICE MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM YOU'RE STILL NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE CHANGE OF THIS ITEM.

WHAT WAS THE ADDITIONAL WORDING YOU SAID THE FINANCE DIRECTOR.

YES. ADDED, THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE EXHIBIT.

YOU'LL SEE ON THE ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU ON THE LEFT SECTION 7.09 WAS THE EXACTLY AS IT WAS INITIALLY RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD.

THE LANGUAGE ON RIGHT UNDER EXHIBIT A IS HOW THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AND CUMULATIVELY STAFF FELT THAT IT WOULD BEST REPRESENT COMPLIANCE WITH 218 391 IN.

AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY IN DEFENSE BUT IT'S FURTHER EXPLANATION THAT LANGUAGE THAT YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT WAS PROVIDED TO STAFF DURING THE CHARTER REVIEW PROCESS.

I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY IF IT WAS PUT BEFORE THE CHARTER BOARD, BUT THE LANGUAGE THAT IS ON THE RIGHT UNDER EXHIBIT A IS STILL ACCOMPLISHES THE SAME OBJECTIVE THAT THE CHARTER BOARD AND THAT STAFF WANTS, WHICH IS COMPLIANCE WITH 218 391.

OKAY. I'LL SUPPORT IT.

COMMISSION PLACKO. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

YES. THANK YOU.

THERE IS UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR CHANGING 7.09.

WE KNOW THIS WILL COME BACK TO US IN SECOND READING WITH A CLEAN COPY AND A MARKED AND ONLINE COPY.

UNDERLINE UNDERSCORED.

THE NEXT ON THE ITEM.

THERE'S SECTION 2.01 PREPARE BY THE ENGINEER CHANGES SALE TO PUBLIC AND CONCERT REMOVING SECTION 13.01 BOUNDARIES.

THESE WERE THESE ITEMS THAT WERE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW WHERE WE HAD TWO TWOS OR TWO AND POSSIBLY A HALF

[01:05:08]

WITH. BEING BRING YOU BACK FOR A DISCUSSION WHEN WE HAD A FULL COMMISSION, WHICH IS WHY THIS IS BEING THIS IS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS RIGHT NOW.

SO I'M GOING TO ASK QUICKLY.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON FOR SECTION 2.01.

THIS ONE WAS TO MAKE THIS IN 1301 CLEAN.

REMOVING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FROM 1301 AND PUTTING WITHIN 2.01.

THAT WHAT YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREEN NOW? AGAIN, THE IDEA BEING THAT FROM TIME TO TIME, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT IS IN ARTICLE 13 HAS BEEN CHANGED THROUGH ANNEXATIONS AND OTHER MODIFICATIONS, BUT IT'S NOT REFLECTED IN THE ACTUAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION BECAUSE IT'S OUTDATED YOU ONLY YOU GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS ONLY SO MANY YEARS IN BETWEEN.

AND THEREFORE THE IDEA THAT THE CHARTER BOARD IS RECOMMENDING IS TO GET RID OF THE ACTUAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION, THE METES AND BOUNDS, AND REFER TO IT IN SECTION 2.01 AND REQUIRE THE CITY TO OBVIOUSLY HAVE A COPY OF THAT FULL LEGAL DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC UPON DEMAND IN THE MAP, AND THAT WE WOULD REPRODUCE IT AT WHATEVER THE COST OF DUPLICATION WOULD BE.

CITY ATTORNEY WE'D ALSO MAYBE TALKED ABOUT PUTTING THAT LANGUAGE INTO THE DEFINITION SECTION WHERE YOU PUT A STAR TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION.

IN THIS WAY, PEOPLE COULD OBTAIN THE FULL ITEM IN A LEGAL DESCRIPTION VERSUS HAVING TO DO A FULL MODIFICATION CHANGE.

SO FOR SOME OF THIS, WE'LL ALSO SEE IF THERE'S CONSENSUS AND WE'LL COME BACK AROUND BECAUSE WE ALSO KNOW THAT IT DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH THAT WE MAY WANT TO HAVE.

CHANGE BECOMES A FINANCIAL ISSUE ON HOW MANY PAGES WILL BE ON THE ON THE BALLOT.

AND WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO HAVE PEOPLE HAVE BALLOT FATIGUE IF WE HAVE WAY TOO MUCH STUFF ON THERE.

SO RIGHT NOW, WE'LL JUST ASK FOR GENERAL CONSENSUS IF WE HAVE IT, AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK AND THEN IF WE NEED BE, WE CAN TRIM IT DOWN.

JUST. COMMISSIONER BOLTON COMMENTS? YES. OK COMMENTS TO TRIMMING IT DOWN OR TO DEFINITIONS OR BOTH ARE EITHER.

THE ONE YOU SELECT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

THANK YOU. SAME THING.

ANY WHICH WAY THAT'S MOST CONVENIENT OR SUITABLE FOR US TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS DONE.

OKAY. VICE MAYOR GELIN.

I'M SAYING NO, WE SHOULDN'T MAKE THE CHANGE BECAUSE THE POTENTIAL FOR BALLOT FATIGUE, THERE'S GOING TO BE TOO MANY ITEMS ON THE BALLOT AND THIS IS NOT ALL THAT NECESSARY.

OKAY. YES.

UNTIL WE GET MORE CLARIFICATION.

OKAY. SO WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT ONE.

SO SECTION 4.01 CITY COMMISSION POWERS COMPOSITION AND THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN THE CITY SHALL BE A MAJORITY.

THE MAYOR, CITY COMMISSION, CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN RUNNING IT THAT WAY, BUT WE'VE NEVER HAD A STATEMENT, I GUESS, IN THE CHARTER.

VICE MAYOR. YOUR OPINION? I'M IN FAVOR OF A STRONG MAYOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT LIKE THE CITY OF PLANTATION.

SO YOU HAVE THE CEO OF THE ORGANIZATION AS A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC, THE CITY OF PLANTATION HAS A STRONG MAYOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT, AND THEY HAVE A CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER WHO WORKS IN THE WHO WOULD WORK AS THE ACTING CITY MANAGER.

SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF.

SO I WILL TAKE IT THAT THAT'S A NO FOR THE CURRENT CHANGE THAT IS LISTED THERE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES FOR THAT.

AND I BELIEVE THAT STRONG MAYOR GOVERNMENTS THE WORST IDEA IN MY OPINION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO. FORGIVE ME.

I NEED A CLARIFICATION.

CHANGE OR NO CHANGE. NO CHANGE.

OKAY. NO, THAT'S OKAY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GO THROUGH THIS AS ONE TIME.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON. NO CHANGE.

OKAY. OK CONSENSUS IS FOR NO CHANGE WITH THREE.

[01:10:02]

MYSELF IS WE COULD PUT THAT IN THE DEFINITIONS AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

THE NEXT ITEM IS 502 B SUSPENSION AND REMOVAL OF THE CITY MANAGER.

MAKING THAT A SUPERMAJORITY.

COMMISSIONER. PLACKO. COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

SUPERMAJORITY FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

THE THE ISSUE WITH THAT MAYOR.

I HEAR YOUR IDEA ABOUT POLITICKING.

BUT IT CAN ALSO BE DETRIMENTAL TO ONE'S DISTRICT IF THE CITY MANAGER CHOOSES TO TO POLITIC.

LET'S SAY THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE FOUR VOTES TO REMOVE A CITY MANAGER THAN THE CITY MANAGER ONLY NEEDS TO KEEP TWO PEOPLE HAPPY INSTEAD OF THE CITY COMMISSION COUNTING TO THREE.

FOUR PEOPLE REMOVING THE CITY MANAGER.

NOW THE CITY MANAGER JUST NEEDS TO HAVE TWO FRIENDS IN ORDER TO STAY ON.

SO I THINK THAT IS VERY DANGEROUS TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, ESPECIALLY MY DISTRICT THAT HAS BEEN DISENFRANCHISED. IF WE HAVE A CITY MANAGER IN THE FUTURE THAT IS VERY POLITICAL AND DOES NOT WANT TO INCLUDE THE EASTERN PART OF THE CITY IN HIS OR HER PLANS, THEN THAT CITY MANAGER COULD POLITIC AND JUST BE FRIENDS AND BUDDIES WITH TWO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FROM TWO DISTRICTS THAT HE OR SHE LIKES AND NEVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE REST OF THE DISTRICT.

I ONLY BRING THAT POINT BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT UP THE POINT ABOUT COMMISSIONERS POLITICKING, BUT WE'D ALSO HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE CITY MANAGER POLITICKING AS WELL. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

SO YOUR OPINION FOR IT IS YOUR OR NO.

MY THAT BASED ON THE COMMENT MADAM MAYOR THAT WOULD BE.

MY JUST NEEDING CLARIFICATION FOR THE RECORD, I AM NOT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL AND AS A REMINDER TO EVERYBODY WATCHING AND LISTENING THIS THAT WE VOTE ON, WHEN WE VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE, WE'LL THEN GO OUT TO THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC.

YOU WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.

WE'RE GIVING OUR OPINION HERE.

YOU HAVE YOUR OPINION AND YOU'LL USE IT AT THE VOTING BOOTH.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

I BELIEVE IT'S VERY DANGEROUS FOR A MAJORITY TO HIRE AND FIRE THE CITY ATTORNEY AND A CITY MANAGER, CONSIDERING THERE'S MORE POLITICKING ON THE COMMISSION VERSUS THE CITY'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, AND IF THERE IS ANY POLITICKING, IT WILL BE NOTICED AND IT'S AS EASY AS FIRING THEM.

SO I'M IN FAVOR OF A SUPERMAJORITY.

THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

IT'S ABSOLUTELY IRRESPONSIBLE TO HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY TO REMOVE OR SUSPEND A CITY MANAGER OR A CITY ATTORNEY.

WE JUST HAD A CITY MANAGER ARRESTED FOR PARTICIPATING IN A $3.4 MILLION EXTORTION SCHEME ALLEGED VICE MAYOR.

AND YOU SUPPORT IT? HE WAS YOUR PARTNER IN CRIME.

VICE MAYOR OK CITY.

CITY ATTORNEY. REALLY? WE. SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR.

EACH OTHER BY NAME OR SPECIFIC REFERENCE.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WE'RE AS I SAID BEFORE, I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, WE ARE ALL BETTER SERVED IF WE STICK TO THE ISSUE FOR YOU AND JUST LET US KNOW AS STAFF WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT US TO MODIFY ANY OF THESE PROVISIONS OR NOT.

AND AND I THINK THAT WE'RE WE'LL GET THROUGH THE PROCESS.

IT'S EASY THAT WAY IF WE STICK TO THE POINTS AND.

LEAVE THE RHETORIC OUT.

THANK YOU. IT'S OUR JOB AS THE POLITICAL FIGURES FOR THE CITY TO BE THE ONES FIGHTING FOR WHAT WE KNOW IS NEEDED OR ADVOCATING FOR WHAT WE KNOW IS NEEDED.

CITY MANAGERS.

JUST BASICALLY BRING INFORMATION WITH CITY STAFF AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY RESEARCH WHAT WE NEED.

IT'S NOT THE CITY MANAGERS OR THE STAFF'S DECISIONS OF WHAT THINGS SHOULD GO FORWARD.

WE AS THE BODY ARE THE ONES THAT VOTE ON IT AND WE VOTE ON IT THROUGH THE BUDGET AND WE MAKE THE DETERMINATIONS THROUGH STRATEGIC PLANNING WHAT GOES WHERE.

SO I AM OBVIOUSLY, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, I AM IN SUPPORT OF IT.

[01:15:06]

SO THIS ONE WILL MOVE FORWARD.

MAYOR [INAUDIBLE] YES, PLEASE.

SO THIS IS THE THIRD TIME WE DISCUSSED THIS AND CHARTER BOARD HAS DISCUSSED THIS SEVERAL TIMES.

EVERYBODY HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY PRIOR TO SAY WHAT THEY FEEL, HOW THEY FEEL.

I'D LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN GET CONSENSUS TO JUST SAY YES OR NO ON EACH ITEM THAT'S BEING PRESENTED.

I THINK WE'LL FIND THAT OUT AS WE GO THROUGH.

AND I SAID. THANK YOU.

SO WE WILL TRY TO GO THROUGH THIS CONSENSUS OR NOT.

THE NEXT ONE IS THE APPOINTMENT OF DEPARTMENT HEADS AND CITY MANAGER REMOVING DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION OFFICE AT THE TIME. THIS IS SECTION 5.0 4A AND JUST MAKING IT THAT THE CITY MANAGER SHALL APPOINT AND SUPERVISE THE HEADS OF ALL DEPARTMENTS AND ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.

AND I'M GOING TO THROW IN HERE A BOOTSTRAP OF 10.01, WHICH DEALS WITH THE CITY CLERK SO WE CAN MAYBE HAVE TWO AT ONE TIME.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO. VICE MAYOR.

NO. NO.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

YES. COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

REPEAT THE ONE WE'RE ON MADAM MAYOR.

I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.

REPEAT.. THE NUMBER.

WE'RE DEALING WITH 5.04 A AND 10.01.

AND THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD BE WHAT.

WE'RE MOVING THE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION IN OFFICE AT THE TIME, OR IF REQUIRED, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION IN OFFICE AT THE TIME. NO.

OKAY. I AM A YES.

CONSENSUS. SO SUPPORT THE CHANGES.

6.02. THIS IS FOR MINIMUM LENGTH OF RESIDENCY TO BECOME A CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE.

WE WOULD BE ADDING A LINE IN HERE THAT SAYS EACH CANDIDATE, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE CLERK OR CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE LINE THAT WAS GOING IN HERE. FROM OUR PAST DISCUSSION AT THE WORKSHOP.

IT WAS. THERE WAS DISCUSSION IN THE AS I RECALL THE ISSUE THAT IT WAS WHAT IS THE PERIOD OF TIME.

IF YOU DIRECT STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH INSERTING A TIME FRAME WE CAN TAKE LANGUAGE FROM.

THIS IS NOT AN UNCOMMON PROVISION WE CAN TAKE FROM ANOTHER CHARTER AND PUT IT IN THERE.

THE WE JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT THE CANDIDATE HAS TO RESIDE IN THE DISTRICT.

SO FIRST WE WILL FIND IF WE HAVE SUPPORT FOR A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR A LENGTH OF TIME, AND THEN IF SO, WE WILL THEN SEE THE NUMBER, IF THERE'S A MAGIC NUMBER THAT AT LEAST THREE CAN SUPPORT.

VICE MAYOR. BUT I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

IF SOMEONE MOVES INTO THE CITY AND THEY WANT TO RUN FOR OFFICE, IT'S UP TO THEM TO MAKE THEMSELVES KNOWN IN THE COMMUNITY AND THE PEOPLE WILL DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO HELP THEM OR NOT. COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I HAD SOME TIME TO TO THINK ABOUT THIS OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS AND THE LIKE.

YES OR NO, IF POSSIBLE PLEASE? WE WERE ASKED TO TRY TO MOVE THIS ALONG.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU AND I WILL TRY TO MOVE IT ALONG.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION, MAYOR.

CAN I GET CONSENSUS TO GO TO LINE BY LINE WITH A YES OR NO? AND NO DISCUSSION.

WE'RE NOT HAVING THAT ABILITY.

CAN WE CAN YOU CALL THE ROW FOR CONSENSUS? I'LL CALL THE ROLL FOR CONSENSUS.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS? YES. VICE MAYOR.

NO. COMMERCIAL PLACKO.

I THINK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, IT'S, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, IS JUST FOR US TO SAY YES OR NO ON THE ITEMS VERSUS HAVING DISCUSSION ON THEM, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION ON THEM IN THE PAST. SO HE'S JUST ASKING IN GENERAL FOR US TO DO YES OR NO, DID I GET THAT RIGHT?

[01:20:02]

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS IS ASKING FOR US TO JUST AS GENERAL FOR THE REST OF THIS, JUST GO YES OR NO, YES OR NO.

ALL RIGHT. SO IS YES OR NO? WE'RE NOT ON THAT SPECIFIC ONE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.

YES OR NO, FOR US TO BE ABLE TO JUST YES OR NO THIS AND HAVE NO CONVERSATION.

SO THAT'S A NO TO NOT HAVING A CONVERSATION.

SO WE'VE GOT TWO NO'S.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON. YES.

TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.

SO THAT'S THREE PEOPLE.

SO THE ANSWER IS IT FAILS.

SO I'M BACK TO YOU, COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

THANK YOU.

THE GENERAL.

THANK YOU FOR THE FLOOR, MAYOR.

SO THERE ARE EXCELLENT PEOPLE WHO MOVES IN OUR COMMUNITY AND MOVES OUT.

THERE IS CAROL MENDELSOHN THAT DOES NOT OWN A HOME IN TAMARAC.

BUT SHE'S RUNNING FOR OFFICE.

OKAY, LET'S LET'S NOT DO THAT, COMMISSIONER.

LET'S KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO WHY YOU WOULD LIKE OR WOULD NOT LIKE WITHOUT.

YOU'RE JUST VIOLATED.

AND THIS IS MY DISCUSSION.

DISCUSSION. BUT YOU DO NOT CALL OUT PEOPLE FROM THE AUDIENCE.

YOU DON'T CALL OUT ANYBODY SPECIFIC.

PLEASE PROCEED WITHOUT THE COMMENTARY.

THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE, CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR OFFICE AT THIS TIME WHO JUST MOVED INTO THE CITY WHO PROBABLY DO NOT OWN A HOME IN THE CITY AND COULD BE TRANSIENT.

THAT IS NOT A BAD THING.

IT IS ACTUALLY COMMENDABLE THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE LIVING IN OTHER CITIES, WANTING TO BE A PART OF A PART OF OUR COMMUNITY, AND WANTING TO MOVE IN OUR COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO RUN FOR OFFICE.

SO I THINK IT WOULD BE A BAD IDEA.

IT IS IT IS NOT INCUMBENT UPON A PERSON TO RUN FOR OFFICE, DEPENDING ON HOW LONG THEY HAVE LIVED IN THE CITY VERSUS HOW SHORT THEY'VE LIVED IN THE CITY.

SO EVERYBODY'S QUALITY.

AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE EVERYBODY HAVE EQUAL FOOTING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

I THINK WE SHOULD, CONSIDERING THAT ANYBODY CAN JUST MOVE IN AND RUN FOR OFFICE AND EVER LIVED IN THE CITY THAT THEY DON'T EVEN CARE ABOUT.

AND ANYONE DECIDING TO RUN SHOULD HAVE SOME SKIN IN THE GAME, AS THEY SAY.

SO I'M IN FAVOR OF PUTTING IN TIME, WHETHER IT'S ONE YEAR OR TWO YEARS OF RESIDENCY PRIOR TO BEING BEING ABLE TO RUN IN OFFICE IN TAMARAC.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

CAN YOU PUSH YOUR MIC ON PLEASE? THANK YOU. OH, ONE MORE THING.

CAROL MENDELSOHN DOES OWN A PROPERTY AND..

COMMISSIONER, THANK YOU. WELL, I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE COMMENTS.

AND YES, PEOPLE NEED TO HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME, BUT IN ORDER TO EVEN ENTER INTO THAT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME OR YOU'RE NOT GOING TO VENTURE INTO IT.

I WOULD HATE TO PRECLUDE SOMEONE WHO I MEAN, MAYBE MOVED OUT OF THE CITY AND NOW HAS MOVED BACK AND THEY'VE ONLY MOVED BACK FOR SIX MONTHS.

I WOULD HATE TO EXCLUDE THEM FROM THAT.

I THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE A FAIR SHOT.

SO THE ONLY WAY I THINK MAYBE I WOULD MAYBE A SIX MONTHS, A YEAR AT THE MOST, NEVER TWO YEARS.

WE CAN'T FORCE PEOPLE TO HAVE TO LIVE HERE FOR TWO YEARS BEFORE THEY CAN RUN FOR OFFICE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR.

SO IF WE CAN COME TO SOMETHING REASONABLE, I MAY AGREE TO THAT.

IF NOT, PROBABLY NOT.

THANK YOU. I WOULD SAY A YEAR.

AND IF IN USING THE COMMISSIONER PLACKO'S EXAMPLE IF THERE'S SOMEONE WHO IS BACK.

MAYBE WE CAN PUT SOMETHING IN THERE THAT SHOWS THAT IT SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT IF THEY MOVE IN RIGHT AWAY AND THEY WANT TO RUN.

SO I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A YEAR.

SO WE HAVE CONSENSUS FOR A YEAR AT THIS TIME.

MOVING TO 11.01.

AND THIS IS DEALING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND MAKING THE CITY ATTORNEY VIA SUPERMAJORITY.

A POINT OF ORDER MADAM MAYOR.

QUESTION FOR, THANK YOU MADAM MAYOR FOR THE FLOOR.

A POINT OF ORDER. ATTORNEY WHEN WE MAKE THESE CHANGES, IF THE VOTERS DECIDE TO MAKE THE CHANGES.

WHEN DO THEY GO INTO EFFECT?

[01:25:01]

THEY WOULD GO INTO EFFECT AS SOON AS THE ELECTION WAS CERTIFIED BY THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS.

AND THE RESULTS OF THAT ELECTION WERE WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY THIS BODY THAT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT FROM THAT POINT FORWARD.

AND ARE YOU SURE THAT THAT IS NOT CHALLENGEABLE BY LAW? AS I SPOKE TO A DIFFERENT ATTORNEY AND IT IS THE ATTORNEY'S POSITION THAT SOME TIME WOULD HAVE TO BE GIVEN BEFORE CHARTER CHANGES ARE ENACTED.

I. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING IN FLORIDA LAW THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THAT.

AND IN FACT, THE LANGUAGE IN THE BALLOT THAT WAS PUT FORWARD BEFORE THE RESIDENTS OF TAMARAC.

THE LAST TIME AROUND THERE WAS A CHARTER ADOPTION PROVIDED FOR IT TO GO INTO EFFECT AS SOON AS THE ELECTION.

THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS WERE APPROVED, IF YOU WISH TO PUT IN A TIME FRAME THAT IT WILL NOT GO INTO EFFECT FOR TWO YEARS AFTER IT'S APPROVED.

THAT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN YOUR DISCRETION TO DO SO, TO DO THAT AS WELL.

BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING IN FLORIDA LAW THAT WOULD, THAT STATES THAT CHARTER AMENDMENTS DON'T GO INTO EFFECT AS SOON AS THEY'RE APPROVED BY THE ELECTORATE.

IF YOU WOULD JUST LOOK INTO THAT CLOSELY.

I CERTAINLY WILL. AND JUST THE PART B TO THAT QUESTION, LET'S SAY THERE IS A BALLOT QUESTION THAT IS IN.

THAT CONTRADICTS ANOTHER BALLOT QUESTION, FOR INSTANCE.

STRONG MAYOR. THAT QUESTION IS ON THERE.

AND THEN THERE IS ANOTHER QUESTION THAT TALKS ABOUT SUPERMAJORITY OF THE CITY MANAGER.

THEN IF BOTH PASSES, WHAT THEN HAPPENS? THE YOU WOULD END UP HAVING AN INTERNAL INCONSISTENCY WITHIN THE CHARTER AND I'VE HEARD THAT ISSUE POSED. I WOULD HAVE TO AND I WILL RESEARCH WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING THERE. I MY UNDERSTANDING AND I AND I'M NOT 100% SURE ON THIS IS THE CHARTER PROVISION THAT GARNERS THE MOST VOTES TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY'RE INCONSISTENT IS THE ONE THAT GETS GETS PRECEDENCE BECAUSE IT RECEIVED MORE VOTES.

BUT I DON'T WANT YOU OR ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS TO RELY UPON THAT QUITE YET UNTIL I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESEARCH THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

ALONG WITH THE OTHER MATTER THAT YOU JUST ASKED ABOUT TIME FRAME OF WHEN ITEMS GO INTO EFFECT.

OKAY. I COULD GO ON WITH A COMMENTARY, BUT I'LL SAVE IT.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, RATIFYING ELECTIONS IS NOT NECESSARILY CHARTER QUESTIONS, BUT.

BUT CANDIDATES. SO PLEASE LOOK AND LOOK INTO THAT AS WELL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.

SO BACK TO 11.01, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU SUPPORT THE CHANGE OF SUPER MAJORITY COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

OKAY. SO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAME TO THE MICROPHONE TONIGHT AND AND SPOKE NEGATIVELY ABOUT OUR CITY ATTORNEY THAT ONE DAY.

THAT RESIDENT WOULD HOPE THAT THE ATTORNEY BE CHANGED.

WHETHER IN CHARACTER, PRACTICE OR VIEW OF THE LAW OR CHANGED IN GENERAL.

IF IF WE GO TO A SUPERMAJORITY, GETTING RID OF THAT ATTORNEY WOULD BE HARDER AND SO WOULD BE GOING AGAINST WHAT THE PUBLIC IS SAYING.

AND SO BECAUSE THE PUBLIC'S VIEW, AT LEAST FROM TONIGHT'S COMMENTARY, DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT, I WOULD NOT SUPPORT THAT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

I THINK THIS COMMISSION WOULD SHOULD NOT CONSIDER A STRONG MAYORSHIP.

IT WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS.

EXCUSE ME. I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPERMAJORITY.

[01:30:02]

SUPERMAJORITY? YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF SUPERMAJORITY FOR ATTORNEY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

YES, I THINK 5.02 AND 11.01 NEED TO BE CONSISTENT.

SUPERMAJORITY. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

WE DON'T NEED A SUPERMAJORITY TO BE ELECTED ON THIS COMMISSION AND SHOULD NOT TAKE A SUPERMAJORITY TO REMOVE OR SUSPEND A CITY MANAGER OR A CITY ATTORNEY. SO NO.

THANK YOU. I AM IN SUPPORT.

THIS PASSES. WE'RE UP TO 12.10 AMENDMENTS.

DELETE THAT COMMISSION MAY NOT AMEND THIS CHARTER BY ORDINANCE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY LAW.

IS BEING PULLED UP ON THE SCREEN.

AND BEFORE ANYBODY GETS CONCERNED, THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL QUICKLY CONFIRM THE REASON FOR WHY THERE'S A DELETION REQUEST FOR THIS DELETION.

THANK YOU. YEAH, THANK YOU MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, THIS GOES BACK TO THE INITIAL DISCUSSION WITH REGARD TO THE ITEM THAT'S CURRENTLY AGREED TO AT 7.009, IN THAT THERE IS STATE LAW THAT DOES ALLOW THIS CITY COMMISSION TO MAKE CHANGES TO YOUR CHARTER IN TWO VERY NARROW CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND SO THE IDEA WAS TO PROVIDE THE CITY COMMISSION THAT FLEXIBILITY WHICH IS PROVIDED TO YOU BY STATE LAW. IT'S UP TO YOU AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WISH TO LEAVE THE LANGUAGE IN AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.

BUT THE CHARTER BOARD RECOMMENDED MODIFYING THAT PROVISION TO BE, AGAIN, CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ON THAT NOTE, VICE MAYOR.

NO CHANGE. COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

THE TWO SECTIONS ARE WHEN PEOPLE ARE QUALIFIED AND WHEN THE ELECTION CAN TAKE PLACE.

SO IF YOU WISH TO MOVE YOUR ELECTION DATE AND THEREFORE THE TIME FRAME IN WHICH PEOPLE CAN QUALIFY TO BE RUN FOR THAT NEXT ELECTION, THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO AREAS THAT STATE LAW ALLOWS YOU TO CHANGE THE CHARTER.

MY ORDINANCE AS OPPOSED TO MY CHARTER AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, VICE MAYOR, DO YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND OR YOU'RE STILL A NO.

STILL A NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

WE HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.

SO I'LL TAKE THAT AS A YES.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

YES, COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

NO.

CONSISTENCY. I VOTE YES.

SECTION 12.12, REMOVING THE SECTION IN ITS ENTIRETY FOR BEING OUTDATED AND OBSOLETE.

CITY COUNCIL IS CHANGED TO A CITY COMMISSION.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS NO, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO ADD VOTER FATIGUE.

COMMISSIONER PLACKO. CERTAINLY COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

YES. VICE MAYOR.

YES, WE'RE A COMMISSION, SO IT SHOULD BE REFLECTED.

WE'RE NOT A COUNCIL ANYMORE, SIMPLE.

CITY ATTORNEY. WHAT THIS IS GOING TO DO IS JUST GOING TO REMOVE THAT WHOLE PARAGRAPH.

CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

IT'S A CLEAN UP. IT'S YOU ALREADY ALL ARE CALLED CITY COMMISSION.

THAT'S THE CURRENT LANGUAGE AND DESIGNATION THAT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE THE LAST CHARTER AMENDMENT.

AND THE CHARTER BOARD FELT THAT IT WAS SUPERFLUOUS SINCE IN FACT, SINCE 1994, YOU ALL HAVE GONE BY CITY COMMISSION.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER PARKER.

YES. I ACTUALLY LIKE CITY COUNCIL BETTER, BUT.

THAT'S FINE. YES, YES.

TO THE REMOVAL OF IT.

I DON'T CARE IF IT'S REMOVED OR NOT.

PERSONALLY, I THINK THIS IS ONE ITEM THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BRING BACK AROUND.

WELL, IT'S GOING TO BE ON MY LIST FOR BRINGING IT BACK AROUND FOR WHETHER OR NOT IT'S IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO PUT ON THIS BALLOT DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE ALREADY CALLED IT.

AND IF IT'S JUST GOING TO CAUSE VOTER FATIGUE WITH ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE GOT GOING ON, SO THERE ALREADY IS A CONSENSUS FOR IT WAS IT WAS THREE.

AND SO WE'LL COME BACK AROUND FOR THE REST OF THESE ANYWAY.

CITY ATTORNEY. YEAH, I THINK I MENTIONED THIS DURING THE WORKSHOP AND I'LL MENTION IT AGAIN IN CASE I DID NOT, THAT WHEN IT COMES TO

[01:35:07]

FIVE OR SIX OF THESE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS, AS IT GOES BEFORE THE ELECTORATE, WE'RE WE WILL TRY AND AND ESSENTIALLY CONSOLIDATE.

SO WHAT WHAT IT WILL WHAT THE QUESTION IS LIKELY TO READ IS DOES ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF DELETING OBSOLETE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CHARTER AND THAT WOULD YES OR NO, THANK YOU.

AND THEN I KNOW WHEN WE COME BACK AROUND IN TWO WEEKS, YOU WILL HAVE IT IN A MANNER FOR US TO BE ABLE TO READ IT SO WE CAN BE CLEAR ON IT.

IF POSSIBLE AT THAT TIME AS WELL.

IF WE CAN HAVE WHATEVER SAMPLE EDUCATION PIECE BECAUSE US AS THE COMMISSION AFTER WE VOTE FOR THE ORDINANCE TO GO FORWARD, WE HAVE WE DO NOT TELL YOU YES OR NO WHAT YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR.

WE EDUCATE YOU ONLY WE WILL NOT HAVE AN OPINION AFTER WE FINISH OUR VOTE.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU.

SO..CAN I GUESS SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT OPINION THING.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WE DON'T HAVE AN OPINION AFTER IT'S VOTED.

SO ONCE WE VOTE ON THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS THAT WILL BE PUT FORTH TO THE SUPERVISOR ELECTION TO THEN BE SUBMITTED TO OUR RESIDENTS OR OUR VOTERS FOR VOTING UPON, WE CAN GO OUT AND EDUCATE EACH OF OUR RESIDENTS ON OR VOTERS ON WHAT THE ITEMS MEAN.

BUT WE CANNOT SAY OUR OPINION ON IT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT THERE TO PROMOTE IT OR OR BE AGAINST IT.

WE'RE ONLY EDUCATORS TO THE ITEMS ON THE CHARTER.

OUR JOB IS TO JUST EDUCATE OUR RESIDENTS NOT TO BE SUPPORTIVE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

CITY ATTORNEY THROUGH THE CHAIR.

SO IT WOULD BE UNLAWFUL IF COMMISSIONERS OR THE MAYOR BEGIN TO GIVE THEIR OPINIONS TO THE PUBLIC.

THERE'S A STATE STATUTE THAT PREEMPTED THIS AREA, AND THE STATE A NUMBER OF YEARS BACK SAID THAT GOVERNMENT RESOURCES CANNOT BE USED TO ADVOCATE FOR A PARTICULAR POSITION OR AGAINST A PARTICULAR POSITION ON A BALLOT INITIATIVE OR STATE STATUTE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFERENDUM, BUT THAT YOU CAN USE GOVERNMENT RESOURCES TO, AS THE MAYOR SAID, EDUCATE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION, BUT YOU CANNOT USE CITY RESOURCES TO ADVOCATE FOR ONE CHARTER AMENDMENT VERSUS ANOTHER.

YOU CAN USE CITY RESOURCES TO EDUCATE.

AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, IS THAT A PUBLIC RESOURCE OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PERSONAL FINANCES AND PUSHING AN AGENDA? IT'S, I GUESS THE EASIEST EXAMPLE TO GIVE IS IF THE CITY WERE TO PUT ON ITS WEBSITE SOMETHING THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, VOTE FOR THESE CHARTER AMENDMENTS, BUT DON'T VOTE FOR THOSE, THAT WOULD BE AN INAPPROPRIATE USE OF CITY RESOURCES PURSUANT TO THAT STATE STATUTE THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE.

THE VERSUS IF THIS AMENDMENT IS OR.

. MY QUESTION IS, I'M A PUBLIC RESOURCE.

RIGHT. BECAUSE I'M A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.

IS THAT USING PUBLIC RESOURCES? YOU CAN'T USE YOUR YOUR YOUR YOUR THE RESOURCES OF YOUR OFFICE.

YOU CANNOT SEND OUT AN EMAIL TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS SAYING, I'M IN FAVOR OF THESE PROVISIONS OR CHARTER AMENDMENTS, BUT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THOSE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

SO GOING BACK TO 12.12.

NOPE, WE ALREADY DID. 12.12.

SORRY. 14.01 ORDINANCES PRESERVE REMOVE THE SECTION IN ITS ENTIRETY AND HEARING WHAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAS SAID, THAT THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT WE CAN PUT ON THAT SAYS IT'S OBSOLETE AND BEING REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

IS THAT CORRECT CITY ATTORNEY? IRONICALLY, THIS SECTION OF THE CHARTER SAYS THAT BY RESOLUTION YOU CAN DELETE OBSOLETE PROVISIONS IN ARTICLE 14, WHICH THEN KIND OF BEGS THE QUESTION OF THE CHARTER PROVISION THAT SAYS YOU CAN ONLY DO IT BY BY A CHARTER AMENDMENT.

BUT THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER THAT SAYS THAT THESE OBSOLETE PROVISIONS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED BY THE CHARTER BOARD AND REFLECTED AND WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE ON THE SCREEN, THAT THEY CAN BE DELETED BY RESOLUTION OR YOU CAN PUT THEM AGAIN TO THE ELECTORATE AS TO SIMPLY THE QUESTION OF SHALL THE OBSOLETE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER BE DELETED?

[01:40:03]

SO I'M GOING TO PUT THIS FORTH TO OUR COMMISSION, TO THE CONSENSUS I WOULD LIKE OR JUST HAVE TO BE A MOTION TO HAVE A RESOLUTION REMOVING SECTION 14, AS OUR CHARTER HAS ALREADY GIVEN US AUTHORITY TO DO SO.

EITHER WAY. SO DO YOU NEED A MAJORITY? IF THERE'S A MAJORITY CONSENSUS, WILL BRING THAT RESOLUTION BACK TO YOU AT THE NEXT MEETING.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

NO. COMMISSIONER PLACKO? YES. VICE MAYOR.

NO. COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS YES.

AND I AM A YES, SO LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING THE RESOLUTION TO DELETE DELETE NUMBER 14, NOT JUST SO WE'RE AGAIN THE ITEMS WITHIN CHARTER 14. NOT ALL OF THE ARTICLE 14 IS WILL BE DELETED BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME PROVISIONS THAT ARE NOT OBSOLETE. BUT YOU'LL BE BRINGING BACK BY RESOLUTION ANY ITEMS IN ARTICLE 14 THAT WE CAN.

THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU.

I AM GOING TO WAIT.

I WILL GO TO 17.14.

SO I'M HAVING YOU GO BACKWARDS.

SORRY, JIM, BUT THIS IS THE ONE THAT WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER TODAY.

IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST WORKSHOP.

IT WAS NOT ON THIS LIST.

THIS IS THE 1 TO 7.14 PLEASE.

THIS IS THE ONE WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO CLEAN IT UP.

FOR IT TO BE CONTRACTS FOR THE SERVICE OF PROFESSIONALS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENTERED INTO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATE LAW TO JUST BE SIMPLY CONTRACTS FOR THE SERVICE OF PROFESSIONALS OR TO BE ENTERED INTO IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS THE CHANGE THAT IS BEING SOUGHT.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

YES. COMMISSIONER.

PLACKO. YOUR MIC. WHY IS ATTORNEYS BEING REMOVED? WE DO HAVE OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THERE'S NO PARTICULAR PROVISION IN STATE LAW THAT TALKS ABOUT THE WAY THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, CAN SELECT THEIR ATTORNEYS.

AND, IN FACT, IN YOUR CITY CODE AND YOUR PROCUREMENT CODE, WHICH IS DIRECTED IN THE CHARTER THAT YOU HAVE TO DO SO, SAYS THAT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARE EXEMPT. THERE ARE CERTAIN TYPES OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, WHICH IS WHAT THIS SECTION OF THE CHARTER WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO ADDRESS, THAT BY STATE LAW MUST GO THROUGH A SPECIFIC PROCUREMENT PROCESS.

WE CAN'T EVEN CHANGE IT.

THERE'S IT'S CALLED THE CONSULTANTS COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATIONS ACT, AND IT APPLIES TO ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.

BUT AGAIN, AS I SAID BEFORE, AT THE TIME THAT THIS WAS THIS SECTION OF THE CHARTER WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED, THE STATE STATUTE DIDN'T IDENTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AS AN ADDITIONAL GROUP.

AND IT COULD CHANGE IT COULD CHANGE TO INCLUDE ATTORNEYS IN THE FUTURE.

AND SO WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING IS JUST SIMPLY THAT ALL CONTRACTS FOR SERVICE, FOR THE SERVICE OF PROFESSIONALS ARE TO BE ENTERED INTO IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.

IF THERE'S A STATE LAW OUT THERE, THEN WE HAVE TO FOLLOW IT IN THIS LANGUAGE.

THAT LANGUAGE WOULD CAPTURE THAT THAT SITUATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON. NO.

VICE MAYOR. CITY ATTORNEY WHO DEFINES PROFESSIONALS.

WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THAT CATEGORY? WELL, IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT DEPENDING UPON IF THERE'S AN APPLICABLE STATE LAW, AS I EXPLAINED BEFORE AND IN THE INSTANCE OF THE CONSULTANT COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATIONS ACT, PROFESSIONALS ARE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS ARCHITECT ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.

THE IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM IT JUST SAID ARCHITECT ENGINEERS.

AND IT'S BEEN SINCE THEN BEEN MODIFIED TWICE, ONE TO INCLUDE SURVEYORS AND A SECOND TIME TO INCLUDE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.

THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION.

AND SO IT WOULD BE WHATEVER STATE STATUTE WOULD APPLY FOR THAT PARTICULAR GROUP OF PROFESSIONALS IS WHATEVER DEFINITION IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THAT. YOU HAVE THIS COMMISSION HAS THE ABILITY TO ALSO BY JUST CHANGING YOUR CODE.

[01:45:08]

PROVIDE FOR WHAT OTHER WISE MIGHT BE A DEFINITION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

OKAY? NO.

I HAVE A YES, CONSENSUS MOVES FORWARD.

THE LAST ITEMS BEING GROUPING THIS PARDON.

OH, I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT I ASKED YOU FIRST.

MY APOLOGIES. THANK YOU.

SO HAVING A DEFINITION SECTION THAT WILL ENCOMPASS BASICALLY THE GENDER NEUTRAL, SINGULAR, PLURAL, LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME FOR STATE LAW AND TO PROVIDE FOR CONSISTENCY OF THE COST FOR DUPLICATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS AND DO WE HAVE A YES OR NO FOR THAT ONE? I WILL START WITH COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

YES. VICE MAYOR.

NO. COMMISSIONER PLACKO? YES. COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

A POINT OF ORDER MADAM MAYOR.

I KNOW THAT YOU ARE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, BUT JUST REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE TO BE IN THE ROTATION AS WELL BECAUSE YOU KEEP GOING LAST.

BUT MY ANSWER IS NO.

NO IS FOR TWO NO'S AND I'M A YES.

SO THEREFORE THIS WILL PASS AT THIS TIME.

BASICALLY AS A RECAP, WE HAVE 2.01 YESES WITH DEPENDS.

WE HAVE NO TO 4.01.

WE HAVE YES TO 5.02B.

YES TO 5.02B.

YES TO 6.02 YES TO 7.09, WHICH IS ORIGINAL.

AND YES TO DEFINITIONS.

THAT'S ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, 11 YESES.

IS THAT CORRECT CITY CLERK? I'M SORRY, MADAM MAYOR.

I'M COUNTING ON IT RIGHT NOW.

NO WORRIES. THAT IS CORRECT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

SO IF WE CAN AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING, HAVE A SAMPLE OF THE ORDINANCE, HAVING THE INFORMATION FROM THIS EVENING SO THAT THE COMMISSIONERS, THE COMMISSION, CAN LOOK AT THINGS AND HAVE IT ALL AT THEIR FINGERTIPS.

AND THEN AT THAT TIME, WE'LL BE ABLE TO KNOW IF WE NEED TO PARE DOWN ANYTHING FOR THE BALLOT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THIS ITEM IS NOW DONE AND WE WILL BE MOVING ON TO SIX..

MADAM MAYOR, NO WE'RE NOT.

WHY? I MEAN, I THINK THAT I NEED A MOTION ORDINANCE, SO I NEED A MOTION AND A ROLL CALL VOTE TO MOVE THE ITEM TO SECOND HEARING AND OR SECOND READING AND HEARING AS AS AMENDED.

THANK YOU. ACTUALLY, I GUESS I FELT I WAS AT A WORKSHOP.

MY APOLOGIES. SO WE ALREADY HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND DEALING WITH 7.09.

SHOULD WE JUST SIMPLY DO A MOTION, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MODIFY AS STATED? YES, MA'AM. THERE SHOULD BE A MOTION TO AMEND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING CONSISTENT WITH THE VOTE ON THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS. THANK YOU. SO COMMISSIONER PLACKO.

YOU HAD MADE THE MOTION.

DO YOU ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? YES.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS, YOU HAD THE SECOND.

DO YOU ACCEPT? YES.

THANK YOU. SEEING THAT CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. SORRY.

THANK YOU. MOTION PASS 3 TO TWO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NOW WE WILL GO TO 6B T02500 AMENDING CHAPTER NINE HEALTH, SANITATION AND NUISANCES.

[6.b TO2500 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida,amending Chapter Nine "Health, Sanitation and Nuisances", Article III "Noise",Section 9089 "Radios, Other Devices Casting Sounds Upon Public Places" andSection 9-95 "Enforcement" to provide for easier enforcement of, and enhancedpenalties for violations of the City's noise regulations; providing for conflicts;providing for scrivener's errors, severability; an providing for an effective date.]

[01:50:08]

CITY ATTORNEY WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD? YES, MA'AM. MAYOR, THIS IS A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION.

THIS IS AN ORDINANCE. THE CITY COMMISSION.

THE CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER NINE HEALTH SANITATION NUISANCE.

ARTICLE 3, NOISE SECTION 9-89 RADIOS, OTHER DEVICES, CASTING SOUNDS UPON PUBLIC PLACES, AND SECTION 9.95 ENFORCEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR EASIER ENFORCEMENT OF AND ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY'S NOISE REGULATIONS.

PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SCRIBNER'S ERROR, SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

MADAM MAYOR THE AT PRIOR COMMISSION MEETINGS.

THIS BODY HAS DIRECTED STAFF, INCLUDING MY OFFICE, TO AFTER LOTS OF DISCUSSION HOW THE CITY CAN.

ENHANCE AND AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR STAFF TO ENFORCE THE EXISTING REGULATIONS AND JUST AS IMPORTANTLY TO AND PROVIDE FOR ENHANCED PENALTIES SO THAT THE VIOLATION PROCESS THROUGH CONCLUSION STARTS TO BECOME A FINANCIAL DISINCENTIVE FOR THOSE WHO MAY BE CONSIDERING OR WHO MAY BE ENGAGING IN ACTIVITY THAT CONSTITUTES A NOISE VIOLATION UNDER OUR REGULATIONS.

THE ORDINANCE IS FAIRLY SHORT IN THE SENSE THAT WE JUST PUT IN THAT SECTION OF ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 9.95 AND 9.89 THAT PROVIDE FOR THAT ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OR EASIER ENFORCEMENT AND THEN THE PENALTIES TO ENHANCE THEM.

SO YOU ALREADY HAVE LANGUAGE IN YOUR CODE THAT MIRRORS WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED AS FAR AS THE PENALTIES. SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE TAKEN THAT EXISTING LANGUAGE THAT IS FOUND IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT STATUTE AND MADE THEM INTERNALLY CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY, AS POINTED OUT, THE CODE HAD A LIMITATION ON WHAT THE AMOUNT OF FINE THAT COULD BE IMPOSED UPON SOMEONE FOR A NOISE VIOLATION OF $250 FOR THE FIRST OCCURRENCE, AND $500 MAX FOR A SECOND OR REPEAT VIOLATION.

AS SET FORTH IN THE PAGE.