Loading...
04/26/1994 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING April 26, 1994 The Charter Review Committee met in the City Commission Chambers at City Hall, third floor, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida, on Wednesday, April 26, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Gerald Figurski, Chairman Jerry Lancaster, Vice-Chairman Joe Evich (arrived at 7:04 p.m.) Anne Garris Kenneth Hamilton Al Lijewski Curlee Rivers Tony Salmon Karen Seel Les Smout Also present: Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The Chairman called the meeting of the Charter Review Committee (CRC) to order. Approval of Minutes of April 6, 1994. Member Smout requested in the motion on page 7, paragraph 9, the phrase "unless such absences are excused by the commission" be changed to "whether excused or not." Member Garris questioned the motion on page 6, paragraph 9. The word "remain" had been inadvertently omitted and will be added to the motion. Member Garris moved to approve the minutes of April 6, 1994 as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Chairman Figurski reviewed penalties for violation of the ethics code and reasons for impeachment of a public officer listed in the Florida Statutes. He indicated the ethics code did not address city ordinance violations. Member Garris raised the question if the charter is violated, who disciplines the violator. Chairman Figurski believed forfeiture of office would be declared by the remaining members of the commission. Section 2.07 (c) Filling of vacancies. Discussion ensued in regard to the alternatives regarding filling vacancies in the commission presented by Member Salmon. Questions were raised regarding whether a vacancy in the mayor's seat would be filled by the vice-mayor temporarily until an election is held; whether there should be different criteria used in filling commission seats versus filling the mayor's seat, such as appointing someone to fill a vacant commission seat for the remainder of the unexpired term, whereby the vice-mayor would sit in only until an election is held; whether a special election should be called to fill the vacant seats or wait until the next scheduled election. Member Salmon moved to amend Section 2.07(c) as follows: (c) Filling of commission vacancies, other than mayor/commissioner. 1. A vacancy in the commission, other than mayor/commissioner, shall be filed filled by majority vote of the remaining commission members within 30 days of the vacancy and the person so appointed shall serve as commission member until the next regular or special election. 2. If the commission fails to fill such vacancy within 30 days after it occurs, and if no regular or special city election will be held within 90 days after it occurs, then a special election shall be called, no less than 90 days, nor more than 120 days after the vacancy occurred, to fill the unexpired term. 3. At the next regular or special election a special ballot shall be voted to elect a commission member to service serve for the remainder of the unexpired term of the office filled by the vote of the commission. 4. Any person appointed to fill such vacancy shall possess all the qualifications required of a commission member by this charter and by law. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion ensued in regard to the recommendation that a vacancy in the office of mayor being temporarily filled by the vice-mayor leaving a commission seat vacant. Member Smout questioned if this is the case, would the commission continue to operate as a four-member body and it was indicated this is the intent. Member Garris moved to add to Section 2.07 a new subsection (d) as follows: (d) Vacancy in mayor's office. If a vacancy occurs in the office of mayor, the vice-mayor will maintain his/her commission seat but will act as mayor. If no regular or special election is to be held within 90 days after such vacancy, then a special election shall be called, no less than 90 days nor more than 120 days after the vacancy occurred, to fill the unexpired term and to renumber the remaining subsections. The motion was duly seconded. Member Salmon questioned if the above motion is approved, whether it should be indicated in Section 2.07(d) there would only be four commissioners until such time as the mayor's seat is filled by an election. Member Hamilton questioned if the acting mayor decided he/she wanted to run for the mayor's seat and it was indicated he/she would have to resign to run. Member Garris questioned whether it should be clarified in the charter the commission would not be appointing a mayor and it was felt no clarification was necessary. Discussion ensued in regard to the time frame to elect a new mayor. A question was raised if there was an election scheduled to be held 30 days after the 120 day limit, would it be practical to wait until then. Member Smout expressed concern in leaving the commission with only a four-member body for almost 6 months and felt the commission should have the option to appoint someone to fill the empty commission seat created by the vice-mayor moving into the mayor's seat as acting mayor. Member Garris amended the motion on the floor to insert the words "to fill the unexpired term of the mayor/commissioner" after the words "within 90 days after such vacancy." The seconder concurred. Upon the vote being taken on the motion on the floor to add to Section 2.07 a new subsection (d) to read as follows: (d) Vacancy in mayor's office. If a vacancy occurs in the office of mayor the vice-mayor will maintain his/her commission seat but will act as mayor. If no regular or special election is to be held within 90 days after such vacancy to fill the unexpired term of mayor/commissioner, then a special election shall be called, no less than 90 days nor more than 120 days after the vacancy occurred, to fill the unexpired term and to renumber the remaining subsections. Upon the vote being taken, Members Evich, Garris, Hamilton, Lancaster, Lijewski, Rivers, Salmon, Seel and Figurski voted "aye;" Member Smout voted "nay." Motion carried. (f) Regulatory Boards. A suggested change to this subsection was to add language that these boards should reflect community diversity where possible. Member Smout said his intent was to include "ethnic" diversity in both the regulatory and advisory boards. Member Lancaster felt the use of the word "diversity" covered all levels of the community including "ethnic." Member Garris expressed concern with the language "where possible" as she felt it was merely a suggestion indicating the charter should contain acts that must be done. Member Salmon expressed concern if this language is not added, the city could be open to legal challenge. Member Salmon recommended adding a new subsection (h) addressing the diversity of the community. Member Salmon moved to add to Section 2.07 a new subsection (h) to read as follows: (h) Regulatory and advisory boards. Where possible, boards so appointed will reflect the diversity of the community. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Lancaster, Evich, Hamilton, Lijewski, Rivers, Salmon, Smout and Figurski voted "aye;" Member Garris voted "nay." Motion carried. (e) Advisory boards. Discussion ensued in regard to whether there should be residency requirements for advisory board members. Member Seel indicated comments have been received that business owners in Clearwater financially support candidates running for office and pay city taxes; however, they have no say in what happens in the City. Member Hamilton believed a lot of potential talent could be missed and favored allowing those individuals that have an interest in Clearwater to serve on advisory boards. Member Evich questioned if it is unconstitutional to disallow someone from serving on an advisory board because they are not property owners. Chairman Figurski said the intent is to not exclude the property owner who does not live in the City from serving. Member Hamilton asked where the line would be drawn on corporations owning property. It was felt there could be difficulties if corporations are restricted if the language refers to property owners. Discussion ensued in regard to adding language addressing individuals owning property in the city. A suggestion was made to delete the language "composed of residents of the city." Concern was expressed in deleting this language as this would leave the boards open to people who have no interest in the city. Member Smout moved to delete in Section 2.07(e) the language "composed of residents of the city qualified." The motion was duly seconded. Member Seel believed a person serving on a board should have some tie to Clearwater. Member Evich felt the boards should be limited to residents. Member Garris believed issues of the city should be looked at from both a business and a residential viewpoint. Member Lancaster suggested requiring a certain percentage of board members to be residents so not to exclude other qualified people. Member Smout believed the risk the city would be exposing itself to would be less than the pool of resources that would be excluded by not allowing non-residents. It was noted advisory boards only make recommendations to the commission. The commission selects the members and are ultimately responsible for them. Upon the vote being taken on the motion on the floor to delete from Section 2.07(e) the phrase "composed of residents of the city qualified," Members Lancaster and Salmon voted "aye;" Members Evich, Garris, Hamilton, Lijewski, Rivers, Seel, Smout and Figurski voted "nay." Motion failed. Member Hamilton moved to amend Section 2.07(e) Advisory boards as follows: "The commission may at any time appoint an advisory board(s) composed of residents and/or individual owners of property within the city limits qualified to act..." The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Evich, Hamilton, Lancaster, Lijewski, Salmon, Seel, Smout and Figurski voted "aye;" Members Garris and Rivers voted "nay." Motion carried. There was some discussion regarding term limits for advisory board members and it was felt this issue should be left up to the commission. Single member and/or at large districts. Discussion ensued in regard to single member districts. Member Hamilton said he did not favor candidates from single member districts being voted on only within the district if the city remains with the current number of commissioners. Member Salmon believed if the intent is to guarantee minority representation, there would need to be at least 9 to 10 districts. There was discussion regarding voter turnout in the 1993 general election and it was indicated there were 13,000 voters out of a total of approximately 58,000 registered voters. Member Hamilton believed a district that has an 18-20 percent minority could control what happens if they get out to vote. Member Rivers said he was not looking for a guarantee for minority representation just a better chance. There are other minorities, not only the blacks, that are not represented. He felt an area could be outlined that would include all minorities. He believed the fear of increasing the number of commissioners and districts is unfounded. As far as single member districts encouraging parochialism, Member Rivers thought it already existed with the present commission. In regard to single member districts diluting the power of the minority, he questioned what present powers the minorities have. He felt the issue of single member districts should be decided on by the voters. Member Salmon said he is philosophically opposed to single member districts indicating this would be a step backward for Clearwater and would encourage parochialism. He felt the city is small enough for the candidates to appeal to all its citizens and we should be looking at what is good for the entire city. Member Evich believed there is a need to represent the diversity of the city and could be accomplished with four districts. He presented the option of a candidate for commissioner having to live in a district but being voted on at large. Member Garris noted Clearwater has a history of electing minorities. Responding to there being parochialism on the present commission, she cited accomplishments which affected the entire city. She felt any minority serving on an advisory board could get enough support to be elected to the commission. Member Smout said he would like to see greater minority representation but did not feel going to single member districts would accomplish this in Clearwater. He indicated Clearwater has diverse housing patterns and felt the only way to get minority representation would be to triple the size of the commission. Marilyn Gioquinto requested the citizens be provided the opportunity to vote on single member districts. She believed going to single member districts would encourage voter turnout. Member Salmon commented, in order to get elected, one must be active in the community. Discussion ensued in regard to the lack of attention to the minority areas and the need to make the city more responsive. It was felt the beach was not any more important than any other areas in the city. It was noted the beach adds a great deal to the tax base and a successful downtown is important to the rest of the city. Member Seel questioned whether the issue of single member districts should be addressed through a straw ballot to the electors. Member Evich moved that Section 2.01(a) Composition remain unchanged. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Evich, Garris, Hamilton, Lancaster, Lijewski, Salmon, Seel, Smout and Figurski voted "aye;" Member Rivers voted "nay." Motion carried. The meeting recessed from 8:55 p.m. to 9:09 p.m. Item - Plurality or majority with runoff. A question was raised what was the largest number of candidates running for a specific commission seat and it was indicated in the past there had been 12 candidates running for two seats. Concern was expressed regarding the cost involved in having runoff elections. Member Lancaster moved to continue to elect candidates by plurality vote. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion ensued in regard to addressing plurality vote in the charter. Member Lancaster moved in Section 2.01(a) to add at the end of the paragraph the sentence "The candidate receiving the largest number of votes among the candidates for that seat shall be elected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Section 2.01(b) Powers. Member Hamilton moved that Section 2.01(b) remain unchanged. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. (c) Duties 1. Member Salmon expressed concern regarding job evaluations being performed in public by the commission. A question was raised if there should be job standards and goals for each of the positions required to be evaluated. Member Hamilton felt the way the charter currently reads already provides flexibility in how the evaluations are to be conducted. Member Evich believed job descriptions should not be in the charter. Member Salmon felt reviews should be conducted in private sessions. Member Lancaster moved that Section 2.01(c)1. remain unchanged. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. (d) Limitations - (1) Member Hamilton questioned whether "improvement bonds" should be changed to read "general obligation bonds." Chairman Figurski noted general obligation bonds, paid for by ad valorem taxes, would require referendum approval. Member Hamilton questioned whether the words "revenue bonds" should be deleted. Chairman Figurski believed "revenue, refunding and improvement bonds" could be done without voter approval. Member Evich recommended a 15 percent limitation on total indebtedness. He questioned why the percentage is based on the assessed valuation and it was indicated this was used as a baseline. It was indicated the Budget Advisory Committee recommended a 15 percent limitation. Member Garris moved to amend Section 2.01(d)1 by changing the total indebtedness limitation from 20 percent to 15 percent. Member Salmon questioned whether general obligation bonds should be addressed in this subsection. Member Garris withdrew her motion. Member Hamilton indicated if adding general obligation bonds to this section is of major importance to or would have major impact on the City, he preferred to have a presentation. In response to a question, Member Smout said currently under the 20 percent limitation, the City had a potential total indebtedness of $760 million. Member Salmon moved Section 2.01(d)(1) be amended to read "The total indebtedness of the city, which for the purpose of this limitation shall include revenue, refunding and improvement bonds, but not general obligation bonds, shall not exceed 15 percent of the current assessed valuation of all real property...". A question was raised why reference was made in Member Salmon's motion to excluding general obligation bonds. Chairman Figurski responded he felt this is the original intent of this subsection. He recommended voting on Member Salmon's motion and to ask staff to answer questions regarding general obligation bonds. Discussion ensued in regard to only voting on the percent limitation at this time. Member Salmon amended his motion to read "The total indebtedness of the city, which for the purpose of this limitation shall include revenue, refunding and improvement bonds, shall not exceed 15 percent of the current assessed valuation of all real property...". The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. (d) Limitations - (2) Member Hamilton pointed out staff's white paper supports raising the $10,000 limit on purchases, particularly on construction contracts. There is no provision for "emergency" purchases which could occur after a large storm or disaster. He supported raising the limits. He questioned whether the city manager awarding any capital purchase up to $10,000, specifically delineated in the adopted budget, is currently standard procedure. Discussion ensued in regard to an appropriate limitation and figures of $25,000 and $20,000 were suggested. A question was raised what is a common amount for the majority of bids for awards that come before the commission. It was noted a lot of minor purchases are placed on the consent agenda. Member Hamilton felt raising the limitation could provide a potential for efficiency. Member Lancaster noted it is expensive to put out bid packages. Consensus was to ask staff to provide more information. (d) Limitations - (3) Discussion ensued in regard to eliminating the reference to Dunedin Pass from this subsection. Member Salmon moved to amend Section 2.01(d)(3) by eliminating the reference to Dunedin Pass. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Lancaster, Salmon and Smout voted "aye;" Members Evich, Garris, Hamilton, Lijewski, Rivers, Seel and Figurski voted "nay." Motion failed. Member Hamilton moved that Section 2.01 (d) Limitations (3) remain unchanged. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Evich, Garris, Hamilton, Lijewski, Rivers, Salmon, Seel, Smout and Figurski voted "aye;" Member Lancaster voted "nay." Motion carried. (d) Limitations - (4) Surplus property Member Salmon suggested adding a comma after the words "Prior to the sale...". Member Garris questioned whether transactions with governmental entities should be voted on. She believed the citizens should vote on whether property is turned over to the Community Redevelopment Agency. Member Lancaster felt there should be limitations. Member Hamilton noted this subsection provides an opportunity for the public to speak at a public hearing. Discussion ensued in regard to placing a limitation amount on what real property could be donated or given away without a referendum and amounts of $250,000, $1 million and appraised value were presented. Concern was expressed in all surplus property having to go to referendum. It was felt citizens should have more of a say on disposal of city property. Member Salmon noted the city attorney is recommending changing the term of declaring property surplus prior to leasing from 3 to 5 years. He noted the city attorney estimated more than half of the ground leases of city owned property are for terms of 5 years or longer not to exceed 15 years. Member Garris questioned why property going to a public entity should have special dispensation over property going to a private enterprise. It was indicated for the public good and to benefit Clearwater the city may want to transfer property. Private transactions will profit individuals and it was felt if the sale does not benefit the city, full value should be paid for real property. Discussion ensued in regard to changes to this subsection and a question was raised if a clause should be added to subsection (4) to rectify any problems with transactions within intercity entities. Consensus was to use a limitation of $1 million and to rewrite subsection (4) Surplus property and bring it forth at a future meeting. In response to a question, it was indicated if the purchase of real property is $1 million or more for both governmental agencies and private enterprises, it should go to referendum. Concern was expressed in surplus real property being transferred to another governmental entity for less than the appraised value. A suggestion was made to delete the words "less than" from the subsection. Discussion ensued in regard to clarifying the subsection on surplus property dealing with transferring to other governmental agencies, sale and transfer issues. Chairman Figurski believed leaving the reference to transferring to another governmental entity for less than the appraised value in the surplus property subsection allowed flexibility for the commission. A question was raised as to when the city may want to give away surplus real property to another governmental entity for less than the appraised value and it was indicated for road improvements. Referring to the subsection on leases of real property, a question had been raised after property has been leased for 15 years, is there an option to renew a lease after the 15 year limit. Member Garris questioned if someone invests in developing property, would 15 years be sufficient time to get a satisfactory return or should the lease term be longer. It was felt this would depend on the structure of the lease. Member Salmon noted the city attorney is recommending a cap of 20 years. Member Garris moved to increase the 15-year cap on leases to 20 years. The motion was duly seconded. A question was raised if the issue is surplus property being leased for a maximum term or the lease having to be reconsidered at the end of that term. A suggestion was made to have a review option after a certain term. Concern was expressed in regard to changing the rules on a lease in midstream after money had been invested in the business. There was also concern that the term "maximum" would mean that after a certain term, the present lessee could not renew. A suggestion was made to include the provision there was nothing in the subsection to preclude lease renewal. It was felt staff input was needed. Member Garris withdrew the motion on the floor and the seconder concurred. Discussion ensued in regard to the 28 foot elevation on the bayfront property. A suggestion was made to define the allowable uses within the 28-foot. Discussion ensued in regard to tomorrow's night meeting of the CRC and consensus was to cancel this meeting. Chairman Figurski asked the members to send recommended salaries for the commission to the Assistant City Clerk for distribution. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.