Loading...
05/31/1994 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING May 31, 1994 The Charter Review Committee met at City Hall on Tuesday, May 31, 1994 at 7:05 p.m. with the following members present: Gerald Figurski, Chairman Jerry Lancaster, Vice-Chairman Joe Evich Anne Garris Kenneth Hamilton (arrived 7:09 p.m.) Al Lijewski Tony Salmon Karen Seel Absent: Curlee Rivers Les Smout Also present: Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager Peter Gozza, Executive Director of Community Redevelopment Agency Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The Chairman called the meeting of the Charter Review Committee (CRC) to order. Deputy City Manager Kathy Rice distributed copies of the public works contracts section of the purchasing policies and procedures manual and city leases to the members. In response to a question, Ms. Rice indicated most of the marina leases are for a term of five years. Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Executive CRA Director Peter Gozza gave a brief history regarding the purchases of the Sun Bank building, the Maas Brothers property and the East End property. Discussion ensued in regard to the city's original land purchase and sale of the Sun Bank building. Concerns had been expressed by the CRC members of the city buying property and transferring it to the CRA for less money. Mr. Gozza stated community redevelopment agencies exist because an area has been designated an area of slum and blight. The objective of a CRA is to stop the decline in taxable values. It provides an economic tool to encourage development in the designated area. Redevelopment agencies can exist no longer than 30 years under one plan. In response to a question, Mr. Gozza indicated the redevelopment plan was updated in October 1993. A question was raised if the city commission should sell property at a lower price to the CRA. Mr. Gozza said the goal is to keep the tax base up where everybody pays fairly, to create jobs and to make sure no one area of the city deteriorates. The commission bases their decision on the welfare of the community as a whole. Concern was expressed once property is transferred by the city commission to the CRA certain controls outlined in the charter regarding the buying and the selling property are gone. Discussion ensued in regard to the city commission also serving as the CRA. Mr. Gozza said the county delegates this authority. He said the CRA and commission are separate and distinct entities each having their own funds and these funds are audited. An opinion was expressed when the city transfers property to the CRA, it should be done in accordance with the charter. If the CRA wants to sell the property for less, then they should be able to. Concern was expressed the Maas Brothers property was transferred to the CRA to avoid a referendum and to sell it for less than the appraised value. In response to a question, Mr. Gozza indicated the East End property belongs to the city. A question was raised if it is appropriate for the city to sell the East End property for less than the appraised value. Mr. Gozza said one needs to determine if selling the property for less will serve a public purpose such as creating jobs, increasing the tax base and bringing outside money into the community. A question was raised whether there should be different rules in the charter for the commission than for the CRA. Mr. Gozza noted the charter deals with the necessity to go to referendum for projects over $1 million unless the project deals with safety, economic or industrial development. He said most economic development projects take a long time to put together. A question was raised as to the current long term debt of the CRA. Mr. Gozza said he thought it to be approximately $1 million. Mr. Gozza explained tax increment financing indicating this is an equitable way to encourage investment. An opinion was expressed the city needs to be clear on how the CRA benefits the tax base. A question was raised whether taxes in the downtown have increased in the last 13 years, and it was indicated the values have gone up. Discussion ensued in regard to other benefits derived from the CRA. Mr. Gozza said the CRA is very proactive in marketing downtown. In response to a question, Mr. Gozza said the CRA can lease or sell property for less than the fair market value if it is in the public interest. There was discussion regarding the Stein Mart lease and Mr. Gozza indicated Stein Mart has opened alot of doors for the city. Ms. Rice indicated the city has not been selling property to the CRA for less than the appraised value. Mr. Gozza said the CRA is able to borrow money on its own. He said the Florida Statutes governs the CRA and provides that real property shall be transferred, retained, etc. in accordance with the redevelopment plan and the public purpose has to be clearly shown. Member Garris moved that the city may not sell or give real estate to the CRA for the purpose of circumventing the requirements of the charter, that the city sell for not less than appraised value or in violation of the requirement for referendum. Concern was expressed the city is deliberately turning property over to the CRA for less than they paid. Mr. Gozza, referring to the Florida Statutes, responded if the property being disposed of is for less than the fair value, such disposition shall require the approval of the governing body after duly noticed public hearings. An opinion was expressed the city should not be buying property to declare it surplus to sell to the CRA or to another governmental entity. A recommendation was made if the city buys property, they cannot declare it surplus and sell it for 90 days. Discussion ensued in regard to the word "surplus" and whether it should be deleted from the charter. A question was raised if the CRA should be in the business of selling property for less than the appraised value in order to spur economic development. It was indicated if the CRA wants to sell property for less, it should be reflected in their budget. A question was raised if there would ever be a time when it would be appropriate for the city to transfer property to another governmental entity for less than appraised value. Ms. Rice cited infill housing. An opinion was expressed if the city is to transfer property to any governmental entity for less than appraised value, it should be by an affirmative vote of 80 percent of the commission. Concern was expressed the city could end up subsidizing other cities and counties in exchanging property for less than the appraised value. Discussion ensued in regard to the city swapping property with the school board for each to get property contiguous with theirs. This land swap benefitted both parties. There was no second to the motion on the floor. Member Hamilton moved to amend Section 2.01(4)(d) 2nd paragraph, last sentence as follows: (d) Surplus real property may be transferred to another governmental entity for less than the appraised value after an advertised public hearing has been held and a finding is made by the commission of a valid public purpose for the transfer. Such transfer must be approved by an affirmative vote of 80 percent of the commission members. The motion was duly seconded. Concern was expressed in using general funds to buy property and then sell the property to another governmental entity for less than the appraised value. Upon the vote being taken on the motion on the floor, Members Evich, Lancaster, Hamilton, Lijewski, Salmon, Seel and Figurski voted "aye;" Member Garris voted "nay." Motion carried. Chairman Figurski said he will contact the Florida League of Cities regarding the word "surplus" to see if it can be deleted from the charter. Member Salmon moved that Section 2.01(4)(d), 7th paragraph, be amended by changing "four-fifths" to "80 percent." The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Article VI. Initiative, Referendum; Recall Section 6.02. Referendum Discussion ensued in regard to city commission salaries and it was noted a referendum is not required to change them. Section 6.05. Petitions. (d) Time for filing referendum petitions. Discussion ensued in regard to 60 days not being adequate time to file a petition. A recommendation was made to extend the filing of petitions to 120 days after the effective date of the ordinance sought to be reconsidered. Member Garris moved to amend Section 6.05. Petitions. (d) Time for filing referendum petitions by changing "60 days" to "90 days." The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. (a) Number of signatures. Discussion ensued in regard to the number of signatures required by qualified voters for filing petitions. A question was raised if it would be more practical to require a higher percentage of signatures of those who voted in the last municipal election. It was indicated the Florida Statutes indicates 10 percent. Section 6.04. Commencement of proceedings. There was discussion regarding the petitions' committee being required to pay for blank petition forms. It was noted the model charter does not require this. Article VII. General Provisions Section 7.01. Charter amendment and Section 7.02. Charter review advisory committee. Discussion ensued in regard to the model charter allowing charter amendments to be proposed and framed in the manner provided by law; by ordinance of the council; by report of a charter commission or by the voters of the city. Discussion ensued in regard to whether any commission members should sit on the CRC and whether the CRC's recommendations should go directly to the voters. A statement was made the committee has spent alot of time reviewing the charter and an opinion was expressed their recommendations should go to public vote. Concern was expressed there is nothing in this section that precludes the commission from appointing themselves to the CRC. A statement was made the commission is more knowledgeable of the city's needs and should have the opportunity to decide what proposed charter changes will go to referendum. Member Evich moved that no member of the commission shall appoint themselves to the Charter Review Committee. There was no second. Discussion continued in regard to the CRC's recommendations going directly to the voters. Member Salmon moved that Section 7.01 be amended to provide that charter amendments may be proposed and framed in the manner provided by law; by ordinance of the council; by report of a charter commission or by the voters of the city. The motion was duly seconded. An opinion was expressed the CRC was an advisory committee and the commission should have an opportunity to review the proposed changes. Concern was expressed the CRC has put in a lot of time reviewing the charter and may feel very strongly about a particular issue which may not even go to the voters. Upon the vote being taken on the motion on the floor, Members Garris and Salmon voted "aye;" Members Evich, Hamilton, Lancaster, Lijewski, Seel and Figurski voted "nay." Motion failed. A question was raised as to why the time frame for an election in Section 6.08(b) regarding the voting on initiative or referendum ordinances was different than the time frame reflected in Section 7.01(b)(2) when both sections say essentially the same thing. Member Salmon moved that Section 7.01. Charter amendment, (b) Initiation by petition.(2) be amended by changing 120 days to 150 days. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Hamilton moved to approve Article VII. General Provisions as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Article VIII. Nominations and Elections Discussion ensued in regard to the candidates being listed in alphabetical order on the ballot and the tendency of the voter to vote for the candidate who is listed first. Discussion ensued in regard to a candidate who has no opposition not being listed on the ballot. Concern was expressed if the candidate moves, withdraws, dies, etc., there is no room on the ballot for a write in. It was felt there should be some provision to put names on the ballot in the event a candidate running opposed withdraws, etc. Discussion ensued in regard to some municipalities extending their qualifying period to address this. A request was made for staff to provide a copy of the election code. Article IX. Fiscal Management Procedure. An opinion was expressed that the approval of a $22 million municipal services and police building should require an affirmative vote of 80 percent of the commission. Discussion ensued in regard to Article IX referring only to revenue bonds for projects in excess of $1 million. A question was raised whether this section should be broadened to say "bonds." Concern was expressed regarding necessary road and bridge projects going to referendum. A suggestion was made to limit this section to non-budgeted items. Discussion ensued in regard to where the money for the purchase of the municipal services/police building would come from. There was discussion regarding raising the referendum limit and taking out the exception for public health, safety, etc. as it was felt this was too vague. The meeting recessed from 8:50 p.m. to 8:59 p.m. Discussion ensued in regard to revenue bonds and general obligation bonds. It was noted the only risk regarding revenue bonds is the source of the revenue attached and general obligation bonds cannot be issued without a referendum. Member Salmon moved to amend Article IX. Fiscal Management Procedure to require general obligation bonds to be issued in accordance with Florida Statutes which require ad valorem bonds to be addressed at referendum and revenue bonds in excess of $X million must go to referendum unless federally mandated or for refinancing. Discussion ensued in regard to leaving the first sentence of Article IX as is and moving the second sentence in Article IX to the limitation section in Section 2.01 which would limit the commission's ability to issue revenue bonds and general obligation bonds in excess of $X without a referendum unless federally or state mandated. A question was raised if the taxpayer is ultimately responsible for revenue bonds, and it was indicated this was not the case. Discussion ensued in regard to limitations and bonding being two separate issues. Majority consensus was to work on language addressing these issues. It was noted that staff's "white paper" recommended raising the referendum limitation to $20 million. Concern was expressed regarding emergency rebuilding and it was indicated this could be addressed under the public health exception. The motion on the floor was withdrawn. Discussion ensued in regard to the commission's purchase of property and obtaining appraisals. It was believed, from a business standpoint, the appraisal should be kept confidential. Suggested language was that the commission operate under the Florida Statutes 166.045 when purchasing property and be required to follow the appraisal procedure therein with an exemption from public disclosure. A question was raised whether the commission should be limited to what they can spend for projects and/or whether an 80 percent affirmative vote of the commission should be required. Concern was expressed in requiring a super majority in too many instances. Concern was expressed the $22 million municipal services/police building was not clearly identified on the commission agenda. An opinion was expressed public input should be required for large expenditures. Term limits Discussion ensued in regard to term limits for the commission. A suggestion was made the term limits for the mayor should be different than for the commission. A recommendation was made for two consecutive 3-year terms, and after one year or term off the commission, one could run again for office. An opinion was expressed term limits would exclude good people from serving. Concern was expressed that an incumbent always has an advantage and after serving a long time on the commission, one loses vitality. A recommendation was made to limit terms to 12 years. The agenda for tomorrow's meeting will include terms limits, surplus property, appraisals, revenue bond limitations and majority vote. The meeting adjourned at 9:59 p.m.