06/01/1998CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE - PUBLIC INPUT MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
June 1, 1998
Present: Timothy A. Johnson, Jr. Chair
Richard Fitzgerald Committee Member (departed 5:15 p.m.)
William Justice Committee Member
Grant Petersen Committee Member (arrived 4:16 p.m.)
Pat Greer Committee Member
Douglas Hilkert Committee Member
Judy Mitchell Committee Member
Carolyn Warren Committee Member
Jackie Tobin Committee Member
Pamela Akin City Attorney
Sue Diana Assistant City Clerk
Cyndie Goudeau City Clerk
Brenda Moses Board Reporter
Absent: Mayme Hodges Committee Member
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. at City Hall.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
Approval of Minutes - May 11, 1998
Member Mitchell moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM #1 - Public Input
The Chair explained the role of the committee. He noted two public meetings will be held to gather input from the public regarding comments relating to the City Charter.
Sheila Cole asked the committee to keep in mind the City’s Vision and One City. One Future. when making changes to the Charter.
ITEM #2 - Review of Articles I and II
Article I
Section 1.01
Subparagraph (a)
In response to suggested grammatical changes, the City Attorney said the language in the Charter was similar to the Constitution and Florida Statutes. The Charter grants the City Commission
all powers not expressly prohibited by law. A
suggestion was made, in the first sentence, to add “the” before City, and delete “as” before “created”. Consensus was to make the changes.
Subparagraph (b)
It was suggested adding a comma to the end of this section and adding the clause “or with any person as defined by law.” This suggestion will allow the City to enter into contracts
with other government agencies or private entities. Consensus was to make the changes.
Subparagraph (d)
A suggestion was made to completely delete subparagraph (d) and fold it into subparagraph (a). The intent is that the City may exercise any power granted by general or special acts
of legislation, except expressly prohibited by law. Exact language was not provided.
Article II
In response to a question, the City Attorney said the title “Legislative” following “Article II” appears to address the “powers” of the Commission. She will research the matter and
report back to the committee.
Section 2.01
Subparagraph (a)
Discussion ensued regarding appropriate methods of encouraging citizens to become more involved in government. It was questioned if the City Commission should be expanded from 5 to
7 members. It was also questioned if elections should be by district and at large combined. A comment was made that larger is not always better. The larger the board, committee, or
commission, the more difficult it is to obtain a quorum, consensus, or take action, and the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. One member felt a larger commission would prevent
the formation of “cliques” and favoritism to certain areas of the community. Consensus was not to expand the size of the Commission and to continue to conduct “at large” elections.
Subparagraph (b)
In response to a question, the City Attorney said the Commission would have no affirmative duty if the last two lines of this subparagraph referring to rules of procedures and ordinances,
were deleted. It was suggested placing a period after “... except as otherwise provided by law...”. After further discussion, it was decided to leave it as is.
Subparagraph (c)
It was questioned why this Duties section was in the Charter. The City Clerk said 10 years ago the evaluation section was intended to ensure that job performance
evaluations were done. In response to a question, the City Clerk said currently the only executive and administrative appointees to the Commission are the City Manager and the City
Attorney. Suggestions were made to add a new sentence after the first sentence in this subparagraph: “As a part of the discharge of its duty, the Commission shall: “, and deleting
the word “Commission” at the beginning of each item number. Another suggestion was for the sentence to read: ”It shall be the duty of the Commission to discharge: “, then list their
duties. Discussion ensued regarding if this last change would infer that the following list of items were the only duties of the Commission. It was suggested listing both suggestions
in the minutes for further review by the committee.
It was also suggested changes be made as follows to Item 1: “Publicly evaluate the performance of the City Manager and City Attorney, reporting the results of such evaluations in October
of each year. The evaluation process shall be determined by the Commission.” It was noted should additional executive or administrative appointees be hired, this section will require
updating.
Item #2
In response to a question, the City Attorney said there is an ordinance and procedures in place for a fiscal management procedure code. It was suggested changing subparagraph (c),
Item 2 as follows: “... adopt by ordinance a comprehensive system of fiscal management.”
In response to a question, the City Attorney said it is good fiscal policy to conduct an annual independent audit of all city accounts, but was unsure if it is required by law.
Item #3
In response to a question, the City Attorney said she will research if there is any legal requirement as stated in this subparagraph, Item 3 ,that “no firm shall be employed for more
than five consecutive years.” It was suggested if this requirement is State law, it should not be in the Charter. It was requested the City Attorney report to the committee what generally
accepted accounting or auditing principles are with regard to timeframes.
Subparagraph (d)
Item #1
In response to a question, the City Attorney said this item refers to the City’s total indebtedness being limited to 20% of current assessed valuation of all real property in the City.
It is a Charter requirement, not State law. The City has no general obligation bonds secured by ad valorem real property taxes. Such bonds require a referendum. Revenue bonds are
paid from revenues of a particular tax or facility such as CGS (Clearwater Gas System). It was remarked revenue bonds have no relationship to the assessed valuation of property in Clearwater.
It was requested the Finance Director supply information regarding bonds at the next meeting before a decision to change this item is made.
Item #2 - Purchases
In response to comments, the City Clerk indicated increases to the dollar level of purchases that can be made without Commission approval have been approved at previous referendums.
The City Attorney said this limitation does not address exceptions for emergency purchases or services. It also requires the City award bids to the lowest competitive bid, regardless
of preference or quality of service. It was remarked purchasing should be the subject of a detailed ordinance rather than a Charter provision. Another suggestion made was to delete
this section and to add a section under “Duties” to require a purchasing ordinance. The Chair asked for a show of hands which indicated 5 in favor of eliminating Item 2 completely
and placing this procedure under “duties” of the Commission. Others suggested further thought on the matter for future discussion of suggested changes. The City Attorney suggested
if the committee is concerned about the Commission approval process, it may be possible to address Item 2 in the budgeting process. It was requested staff propose new language to address
this item. One member suggested deleting the words “whenever practical” and including an emergency clause.
Item #3 - Dredging
It has been suggested by staff to eliminate this section or increase the allowable cubic yards for dredging or fill from 4,000 to 20,000. In years past, concern regarding frequent
dredging prompted this restriction. It was remarked current requirements for dredging permits are much stricter and more difficult to obtain. Staff will report to the committee the
basis for the 20,000 cubic yard suggestion. It was suggested if a change is made to allow increased dredging without a referendum, that a public hearing be required prior to dredging
in the City.
A citizen remarked the Clearwater Gazette reported there is a conceptual proposal regarding dredging the bayfront from the Memorial Causeway Bridge to Pierce 100 for a boat marina.
According to the Harbormaster’s office, the dredging would be over 7,000 cubic yards, which will be affected by changes to Section 2.01, subparagraph (d), Item 3.
Other Items
The City Attorney offered a standard model city charter from Denver, Colorado for committee members’ review.
ITEM #3 - Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 5:22 p.m.
_______________________________
Chair, Charter Review Committee
Attest:
___________________________
Board Reporter