06/22/1994 Charter Review Committee
June 22, 1994
The Charter Review Committee met at City Hall on Wednesday, June 22, 1994, at 7:05 p.m. with the following members present:
Gerald Figurski, Chairman
Jerry Lancaster, Vice-Chairman
Anne Garris
Kenneth Hamilton
Al Lijewski
Curlee Rivers
Tony Salmon
Karen Seel (arrived 7:21 p.m.)
Les Smout
Absent:
Joe Evich
Also present:
Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk
The Chairman called the meeting of the Charter Review Committee (CRC) to order.
Approval of Minutes
Member Salmon moved that the minutes of May 19, 1994 be approved as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Salmon moved that the minutes of May 24, 1994 be approved as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Hamilton moved that the minutes of May 31, 1994 be approved as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Regarding the minutes of June 1, 1994, Member Salmon requested that on page 2, paragraph 3, the words "or refunding" be added after the words "or a judicial decision". Member Figurski
noted the words "Pasco" on page 1 and "indepth" on page 5 were misspelled. Member Salmon moved that the minutes of June 1, 1994, be approved as amended. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
Member Salmon moved that the minutes of June 8, 1994 be
approved as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Old Business
Discussion ensued in regard to the resign to run law and it was indicated one only has to resign if the terms would run concurrently with each other. It was felt the election laws
in regard to this issue are somewhat confusing.
It was noted a resignation must be submitted at least 10 days prior to the first day of qualifying for the office sought; however, is not effective until the date the officer would
take office, if elected; or the date the officer's successor is required to take office. It is felt the purpose of this law is to allow the vacancy to be filled at that election.
Concern was expressed state law and the city's ordinance regarding this issue could be interpreted differently.
An opinion was expressed if an elected official is going to run for a different jurisdiction, the filing of a resignation should begin so the official can give full attention to campaigning.
Member Seel arrived at this time.
Concern was expressed there have been problems in the past with the commission finding a replacement.
Member Garris moved that Section 2.06(c) remain unchanged. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Bond Limitation re non-ad valorem revenues.
Reference was made to the proposed $22 million public services/police facility building. Concern was expressed the commission could sidestep the referendum requirement by obtaining
money from non-ad valorem sources. The Chairman read suggested language for Article IX. Fiscal management procedure.
Discussion ensued in regard to the suggested language covering non-ad valorem sources. A question was raised if this issue is already covered under this article, and it was felt it
was not.
Concern was expressed by using up non-ad valorem revenues a possibility of an increase in ad valorem taxes exists.
A statement was made when the Committee decided to go to a
referendum limitation of $20 million, it was with the idea the bonds would be true revenue bonds and self-sustaining.
There was discussion regarding the funding of the proposed municipal services/police facility building and the types of revenue that comprise the general fund. It was indicated the
ad valorem portion of the general fund comprises only about 40% of the fund.
A question was raised if the city has $11 million in surplus funds, should it be able to spend it on a building if they want or should there be some restriction. It was felt the city
should be able to; however, if it is above $20 million, it should go to referendum. Concern was expressed in spending $22 million to build a city hall without going to referendum.
It was noted the $22 million is being spent on a municipal services/police facility building.
Concern was expressed in funding the revenue bond issues out of the non-ad valorem portion of the general fund and it was felt this should have citizen approval.
Member Garris moved that the city shall not enter into any contract for, or otherwise undertake the acquisition and/or construction of, any capital project that cost more than $20 million
the payment, for which is proposed to be made from any revenues derived by the city from any source without prior approval for the qualified electors of the city at a referendum held
in accordance with law.
Discussion ensued in regard to the $20 million referendum limitation. A statement was made if the city has the money available for a $10 million capital project, it should go ahead
with it. It was noted the city's surplus fund is supposed to be maintained at 10%.
A statement was made it is incredible that those who opposed the Sun Bank Building deal are supporting the $22 million project.
There was no second to the motion on the floor.
Member Salmon moved that Article IX be amended as follows: Bonds, notes and other forms of indebtedness secured by ad valorem taxation; or by a mortgage on city owned property; or
by revenue bonds issued against the non-ad valorem portion of the general fund; or by revenue bonds for projects in excess of 20 million dollars (except revenue bonds for projects mandated
by federal or state law or a judicial decision or for refunding), may be issued only after the same have been approved by vote of the electors of the city at referendum in accordance
with the laws of the State of
Florida.
In response to a question, Member Salmon said use of non-ad valorem funds should go to referendum no matter the amount.
It was noted water and sewer revenues are part of the non-ad valorem portion. Concern was expressed regarding the legal effect
of the motion. The Chairman recommended review by the City Attorney.
Discussion ensued regarding funds outside the general fund which are not funded by ad valorem revenues.
The Chairman asked if the intent of the Committee is that any revenue bond that is issued and backed by the non-ad valorem portion of the general fund should automatically go to referendum
no matter the amount. Concern was expressed in going to referendum every time the City wants to do a project. It was believed this would not happen often. A comment was made the $22
million municipal services/police facility building should have gone to referendum.
Member Lancaster said he agreed with the motion on the floor if approved by the City Attorney.
Discussion ensued in regard to changes in the punctuation of the motion.
A question was raised if there is a significant amount in the surplus fund, should the City go to referendum before it is used. The majority consensus was to go to referendum.
Discussion continued in regard to addressing in the motion on the floor the acquisition and/or construction of capital projects up to a certain amount.
The motion on the floor was restated as follows:
Member Salmon moved to amend Article IX, second sentence as follows: "Bonds, notes and other forms of indebtedness secured by ad valorem taxation, or by a mortgage on City owned property,
or by revenue bonds, issued against the non-ad valorem portion of City revenues, or by revenue bonds for projects in excess of $20 million except revenue bonds for projects mandated
by federal or state law, or a judicial decision, or for refunding; or any contract or undertaking for the acquisition and/or construction of any capital project that costs more than
$10 million, the payment for which is proposed to be made from non-ad valorem taxes, and shall be issued only after the same has been approved by vote of the electors of the City at
referendum in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida." The motion was duly seconded.
Concern was expressed the language "city revenues" is too broad and the motion regarding revenue bonds may be redundant.
Discussion ensued regarding reformatting the motion for clarification.
The motion on the floor was withdrawn.
Member Garris moved that Article IX. Fiscal management procedure be amended to read as follows:
Section 9.01
The fiscal management procedure shall include provisions relating to the operating budget,...
Section 9.02
Bonds, notes and other forms of indebtedness may be issued only after the same have been approved by vote of the electors of the City at referendum conducted in accordance with the
laws of the State of Florida, in the following instances:
(a) Secured by ad valorem taxation;
(b) Secured by a mortgage on city owned property;
(c) Secured by revenue bonds for projects in excess of $5 million except any revenue bonds for projects mandated by federal or state law, a judicial decision, or refunding, may be issued
only after the same have been approved by vote of the electors of the city at referendum conducted in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida.
Section 9.03
The City shall not enter into any contract for, or otherwise undertake the acquisition and/or construction of, any capital project that costs more than $10 million, the payment of which
is proposed to be made from any revenues derived by the city from sources other than ad valorem taxation, without prior approval by the qualified electors of the city at a referendum
held in accordance with law.
Such ordinance shall in addition contain a provision requiring that revenue bonds for projects in excess of one million dollars shall be put to public referendum with the exception
of revenue bonds for public health, safety or industrial development and revenue bonds for refunding.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
A question was raised regarding the City selling property to the Community Redevelopment Agency as concern had been expressed
in circumventing the charter. It was indicated considerable discussion had taken place regarding this issue and the majority consensus of the Committee had been not to address it.
At this time the Committee reviewed their proposed changes to the charter.
Member Hamilton moved to amend page 3, subsection 2., as follows: "2.(2) All purchases in excess of $10,000.00 shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, selected
after receiving sealed, competitive bids from no less than three qualified vendors whenever practical; provided, however, that such purchases that are in excess of $25,000 shall be awarded
by the commission. No contract or purchase which is subject to the requirements imposed by this paragraph may be split or otherwise awarded in a cumulative manner. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Salmon moved to amend Section 2.01(d) Limitations as follows (heading added and paragraphs renumbered):
(d) Limitations. The legislative power provided herein shall have the following limitations:
1.(1)The total indebtedness...
2.(2)All purchases in excess of $10,000.00...
3.(3)The commission when purchasing...
4.(4)Non-capitalized and non-emergency expenditures...
5.(5)With the exception of maintenance or emergency...
6.(6)Real property.
(a) Surplus property. Prior to the sale,...
7.(7)Right-of-way easements. No right-of-way...
8.(5)No municipal or other public real property...
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Salmon moved to amend the previous amendment in Section 2.01(d)(6)(c) on page 4 to read as follows:(c) Surplus real property sold to a non-governmental individual or entity is
to be sold at the highest competitive bid above the appraised value.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Salmon moved to approve the above amendments. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Salmon moved to amend Section 2.07(c) by changing the heading "Filling of vacancies" to "Vacancy in commissioner's seat." The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Consensus of the Committee was to change the word "office" to "seat" on page 9, Section 2.07(d).
Member Smout moved to approve the above amendments. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Salmon pointed out the word "annually" was omitted from Section 3.03(h) after the words "of the city,".
Member Garris moved that on page 17, Section 4.06, first and last paragraph, change the words "may" to "shall." The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Member Garris,
Lancaster, Lijewski, Rivers, Salmon, Seel, Smout, and Figurski voted "aye;" Member Hamilton voted "nay." Motion carried.
Member Salmon noted on page 19, Section 6.05(d), the word "completed" was to be added to the first sentence before "referendum petitions" and not in the title.
Member Garris noted a misspelled word on page 25, Section 8.06. The word "then" before the words "end of" should be changed to "the."
Member Salmon moved that on page 26, Section 10.05(a) be amended to read: (a) Effective date. Article VIII of this charter relating to nomination and election of city officials shall
take effect immediately upon passage of this charter at referendum.
Term limits as specified in Section 2.03 shall not be retroactive and shall become effective for each respective seat on the date of the next election for that seat. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Chairman Figurski indicated he would be preparing a report for the Commission of the recommended changes. It was noted a recommendation would be made for commission salaries and for
consideration of the letter from Mr. Dallman regarding daytime Commission meetings.
Member Hamilton moved to approve the charter changes as recommended by the Charter Review Committee. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
Chairman
Attest:
Assistant City Clerk