Loading...
11/02/1988 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING November 2, 1988 The Charter Review Committee met at City Hall on Wednesday, November 2, 1988, at 6:31 with the following members present: Trish Muscarella, Chairman John Tsacrios, Vice-Chairman Ron Crawford, arriving at 6:50 p.m. Mary Lou Dobbs Joanne Faruggia Roy May Carol Nielsen Vic Spoto Marian Justice Jackie Tobin Also present: Ron H. Rabun, City Manager M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney Floyd Carter, Central Service Director Dan Deignan, Finance Director Minutes of October 18, 1988. Mrs. Faruggia and Mrs. Nielson asked that the spelling of their names be corrected. Mary Lou Dobbs moved to approve the minutes with those changes. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion - Staff Recommendations. The Charter Review Committee had requested that staff members who had submitted recommendations to the Charter Review Committee attend this meeting in order to discuss those suggestions. Floyd Carter, Central Services Director. Section 2.01(d)(2) - Requires that all purchases in excess of $7,500 be awarded by the City Commission. Mr. Carter's recommends this limitation be raised to $10,000. Mr. Carter indicated that most charters include some sort of limitation regarding how much can be expended prior to Commission approval; however, the amount needs to be changed periodically to adjust for inflation and increase in costs. He stated the new model Charter recommends $10,000. He reviewed an example regarding the purchase of light poles in which the staff had reason to believe that the quotes would come in under $7,500; and therefore, did not go out to bid. When the quotes did come in they were higher than the $7,500 limitation; and therefore, the item was delayed. He stated with the lower amount more issues come before the Commission and routinely are placed on the consent agenda for Commission meetings. In response to a question, he indicated this would apply to those items that were already approved by the City Commission through the budget process. Checking with other cities, he has found that they have increased the maximum amount that can be expended prior to Commission approval. The City Manager indicated, if this change were made, competition would not be minimized as staff is still required to check with various companies to obtain quotes. In response to a question, Mr. Carter indicated that having to go to bid requires 12-15 hours more staff time and that this would affect approximately 75 to 125 items annually. He stated the benefit to the citizens of Clearwater would be the savings in manhours. Mr. Carter indicated that a suggestion was also made that the amount be raised to $25,000 as long as that award is being made to the low bidder. It was stated that the Fort Myers' Charter includes $15,000 as the maximum and Miami $25,000. Dan Deignan, Finance Director. His recommendation is to raise the $1 million limitation on revenue bonds to $2 million. Article IX - Fiscal Management Procedure includes a provision that requires revenue bonds for projects in excess of $1 million to be put to a public referendum, with the exception of revenue bonds for public health safety or industrial development and revenue bonds for refunding. Mr. Deignan suggest that the Charter Review Committee consider raising this limitation. He stated this amount was set in 1978, and with inflation, the amount that could have been purchased with $1 million would now take over $1,900,000. He stated Clearwater is a member of the First Florida Government Financial Commission, which is a municipal loan pool, and due to this $1 million limitation, the City was unable to finance three projects, as the aggregate amount was over the $1 million limitation. One project was eliminated in order to fund through the loan pool. Discussion ensued regarding that during the last Charter review, the Committee had recommended raising the limitation to $3 million; however, it was defeated by the voters. Mr. Deignan was asked to provide information regarding other municipalities requirements. M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney - Various Recommendations. Mr. Galbraith stated that he felt the Committee had a job of "fine tuning" to do to the current Charter. He stated he did feel that the $7,500 limitation should be raised. Section 2.01(4) - Surplus Property requires that, prior to disposal of any municipal property, the real property must be declared surplus and no longer needed for public use by the City at an advertised public hearing. He stated that originally he thought this would not apply to leases; however, further on in this section it does address leases and does place property merely being leased under this provision. He stated the question has been raised many times whether or not this is necessary for short term leases. He further went on to state that the fourth paragraph of this section regarding limitation for leases requires that proposed leases of property for more than 15 years have to go to referendum election. He stated he felt that 15 years was too short for those projects in which significant investments will be made by the lessee. A question was raised regarding why industrial park property requires a four-fifth vote of the Commission to be leased. It was indicated that, as in the current Charter, industrial park property may be leased up to 30 years without going to a referendum; it did require the four-fifth vote. If the time frame for leases is changed, there will not be a need to treat industrial park property differently. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not after a 15-year lease, a lessee, who has made substantial investments in the property, could force the City to a referendum. The City Attorney indicated this would not happen. Section 2.07(e) - Advisory Boards. The City Attorney indicated he is recommending that the Commission be allowed to establish by ordinance the qualifications for each advisory board. He stated there may be some advisory boards that the membership would not have to be all Clearwater residents. In response to a question, he indicated that his position is due to the fact that there may be someone interested and active in the community who could contribute to the board but does not live in the City of Clearwater. Section 4.03(a) - The current Charter provides that, should the Commission wish to remove the City Attorney, it would require an affirmative vote of four members of the Commission at one meeting or a majority vote at two meetings two weeks apart. The City Attorney stated that he did not feel this was necessary and that a simple majority vote at one meeting should be sufficient. In response to a question, he indicated he did not feel requiring two separate votes would provide any substantial protection; as is his feeling that, should a City Attorney's relationship with the Commission be to a point where there are three members in favor of his removal, the relationship is unsalvageable. Section 4.03(b) - Provides that the City Attorney would endorse all contracts, etc. to which the City is a party. He stated this is archaic language, and it is virtually impossible for him to endorse all documents that may be considered contracts with the City. As an example, he indicated the agreements made with the Utilities Department for providing services to customers. Discussion ensued regarding how to amend this language and it was requested that the City Attorney provide a recommendation for specific language. Section 8.04(a) - Nominations. The Charter requires that individuals wishing to qualify for office pay a $25 filing fee and submit the signatures of 250 registered voters of the City of Clearwater. The City Attorney stated, while there is nothing legally wrong with this requirement, he questions its value. He stated it is a time consuming and expensive process and that 250 signatures are not very difficult to obtain, and $25 is not a significant amount. Section 8.05(b) - Regular Elections. In 1985, the Charter was amended to provide for three-year terms for the Commission. This particular section was overlooked and requires for an election to be held each year. Under the current Charter, every third year no election is held and an amendment needs to be made to address this situation. The Chairman reviewed a memo received from the City Attorney regarding definitions. It was indicated that it was felt that the word "civil division" should be "political subdivisions," and that the words "law" and "act" can be used interchangeably. A question was raised regarding whether or not, other than the City Manager and the City Commissioners, if there was any code that required City employees to live in the City of Clearwater. It was indicated that this is not a requirement. Discussion ensued requiring department heads to live within the City limits. The City Manager stated that he felt the City Manager should be required to live within the City; however, he questioned whether or not that requirement could be extended below that level. Concerns were raised that individuals, who do not live within the City of Clearwater, would not be as cost conscious as those that do. Article III - Administration. Discussion ensued regarding the residency requirement for the City Manager, and it was suggested that a time frame be provided. Discussion ensued regarding what would be an appropriate time frame. The City Manager indicated that he has knowledge of various cities requiring six months and some requiring one year. Jackie Tobin left at 8:05 p.m. Mary Lou Dobbs moved to amend Section 3.01, third sentence to read as follows: "The City Manager need not be a resident of the City or State at the time of appointment, but must establish residency within the City within one year of the appointment." The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Suggestion was made that, in order to be consistent throughout the document, the "City" be used prior to "Manager" throughout. It was also requested that the word "experience" be added to the requirements for appointment for the City Manager. Mr. Spoto moved to amend Section 3.01 amending the first two sentences to read: "There shall be a City Manager to serve as the chief administrative officer and chief executive officer of the City. The City Manager shall be appointed on the basis of administrative qualifications, experience, and training." The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Spoto moved to amend Section 3.02(a) to remove the words "of the" in between "four" and "Commission" and in subparagraph (b), to remove the words "of the" between "four" and "Commission," to change the second word of the last sentence from "demand" to "request," and that a comma be placed after the word "Manager". Mr. Spoto stated he felt that the "of the" was unnecessary and preferred the word "request" to "demand." The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion ensued regarding Section 3.02(d) - Acting City Manager, and whether or not provision needs to be made for circumstance in which the Manager did not appoint an Acting City Manager. It was indicated that, in such a situation, the City Commission would appoint the Acting City Manager. In response to a question regarding why one or more Acting City Managers could be appointed, it was stated it was to allow for the division of work load and flexibility. Mr. Spoto moved to amend Section 3.03(a), changing the seventh word in the second line from "all" to "any" and the tenth word from "and" to "or," and eliminating the "s" at the end of the second word on the third line, as he felt this clarified the language. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Spoto moved to amend Section 3.03(b), to eliminate the words "create or" at the beginning of that section. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Spoto indicated he felt that "create or" as unnecessary. Mr. Spoto moved to amend Section 3.03(e), to place a comma after the third word in the second line to change the fourth word from and to a. To place a comma after the seventh word. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. In response to a question regarding whether or not the organizational operational procedures of city government required by 3.03(j) existed, it was indicated it was in draft form in the City Clerk's Department. Mr. Tsacrios left at 8:35 p.m. The Committee recessed from 8:35 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. Article IV - City Clerk, City Attorney, Legal Department. The suggestion had been made by the City Clerk that Section 2.10(c) regarding printing be deleted and be made a part of the duties of the City Clerk. Discussion ensued regarding the setting of the policy and procedures for provision of materials to the public. It was the consensus to leave this language as is. Section 4.03(a) - Discussion ensued regarding the City Attorney's suggestion regarding the vote required to remove the City Attorney. Mr. May moved to not disturb the present wording. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Dobbs and May voted "aye," Members, Crawford, Faruggia, Nielson, Justice, Spoto, and Muscarella, voted "nay." Motion failed. Further discussion ensued regarding the City Attorney's suggestion being well taken. It was indicated it was felt the City Attorney's and City Manager's positions should be treated differently. Mrs. Nielson moved to amend Section 4.03(a) to amend the first sentence to read: "The City Attorney shall be appointed by the affirmative vote of four members of the Commission and may be removed by a majority of the members of the Commission voting for a removal," and to change the second word in the second sentence from "demand" to "request" and eliminating the last word of the last sentence. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Crawford, Faruggia, Nielsen, Justice, Spoto, and Muscarella voted "aye"; Members Dobbs and May voted "nay." Motion carried. Section 4.03(b) - Discussion ensued regarding the City Attorney's recommendation regarding endorsing all contracts, and it was stated he was to provide language to the Committee. Discussion ensued regarding the word "form" and the City Attorney stated it had a broader meaning than a form in which blanks are filled in. Discussion ensued regarding Section 4.03(b) requiring the City Attorney to appoint one or more of the Assistant City Attornies as Acting City Attorney in his absence. He stated this could be left as is. Consensus was to leave as is. The Chairman stated she would not be able to attend the next meeting and that she would provide her input to Mr. Tsacrios, the Vice-Chairman. Dr. Crawford stated he wished to have it a part of the record that the committee thank the City Attorney for the extensive amount of time he spent with the Committee at its meeting and thanked him for his input. Committee agreed and indicated that Mr. Galbraith was welcomed to attend any of the meetings he wished to do so. The Chairman recommended that the Committee go back to the recommended changes in Article II to finalize that Article; to finalize any other changes to Article V to review the changes made thus far and to review Articles VI and VII, also to review the wording provided by the City Attorney regarding the endorsement of contracts. Consensus of the Committee was to set this as the agenda. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.