Loading...
07/20/1998CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF CLEARWATER July 20, 1998 Present: Douglas Hilkert Vice Chair Richard Fitzgerald Committee Member William Justice Committee Member Pat Greer Committee Member (arrived 4:10 p.m.) Judy Mitchell Committee Member Carolyn Warren Committee Member Jackie Tobin Committee Member Mayme Hodges Committee Member Grant Petersen Committee Member (arrived 4:10 p.m.) Rita Garvey Mayor (departed 5:34 p.m.) Ed Hooper City Commissioner Margie Simmons Finance Director (departed 5:03 p.m.) Cyndie Goudeau City Clerk Brenda Moses Board Reporter Absent: Timothy A. Johnson, Jr. Chair Vice Chair Hilkert called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. at City Hall. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Item 2 - Approve Minutes from Meeting of June 29, 1998 Member Fitzgerald requested the first word of the first paragraph in Section 2.01(c) be changed to “Discussion...” Mitchell moved to approve the minutes as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Item 3 - Continuing Discussion re Article II A. 2.01(d)(1) Indebtedness and Bonding (Margie Simmons) In response to a question, Finance Director Margie Simmons said the 20% figure used to calculate the City’s total indebtedness relative to refunding and improvements bonds as indicated in this section of the Charter has been used for many years. She said the City has a healthy legal indebtedness margin. Revenue bonds are guaranteed by the revenue stream. It is an advantage when bonding. The City Clerk said she will research where the 20% figure came from and what is customary in other cities. Member Tobin moved not to change to Section 2.01(d)(1). The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Article IX Fiscal Management Procedure (Margie Simmons) Ms. Simmons said the $1 million limitation on revenue bonds in the Charter is rather unusual. General obligation bonds require a State referendum. Revenue bonds used for public health and safety do not require a referendum. Bonds that have not been determined by the courts to be for public health and safety require a validation hearing. In response to a question, she said revenue bonds for refunding are similar to refinancing mortgages for a lower interest rate. In response to a question, Ms. Simmons said in the last 16 years there has never been an item taken forward for bonding that was not agreed to be public health and safety. She said this section of the Charter would restrict bonding for projects such as a new main library that are not public health and safety items. In response to a question, she said libraries and historical museums are not considered health and public safety projects, bridges are. In response to a question, she said validation hearings involve hiring outside legal council for a fee, add a lot of extra work for staff, and add approximately 6 months to the bond process. Member Greer moved to remove Article IX from the Charter entirely. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued regarding entrusting the elected officials to make appropriate decisions. Ms. Simmons said each time the City issues a bond, an ordinance requiring 2 readings and a sales resolution is required. In response to a question, she said normally the City bonds projects over $1 million. The City went through the validation hearing process for the Sand Key power lines because it was slightly over $1 million. Member Greer amended her motion to remove the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article IX. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Hilkert, Mitchell, Warren, Tobin, Hodges, and Petersen voted “Aye”; Members Fitzgerald and Justice voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Other Business 2.01(d)(6) In response to a question, this section was placed in the Charter due to concern regarding past projects such as the Harborview Center and the MSB. It was commented that this provision requires the Commission to hold two separate sessions and an advertised notice of a public hearing regarding non-budgeted expenditures in excess of $5 million. Member Justice moved to leave this section as is. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Simmons requested clarification of the committee’s motion at the last meeting regarding Article II, 2.01(d)(2). At the last meeting, members had approved a change to the dollar limitation for purchases in excess of $75,000, even for budgeted items. Discussion ensued regarding how to incorporate language that addresses necessary purchases such as waste disposal and fire trucks, and contracts for parts that exceed $75,000. It was noted concern had been expressed at a previous meeting regarding the fear of establishing “buddy” relationships with vendors, prompting the $75,000 limitation. Concern was expressed there is a limited purchase window for police vehicles and other items. Concern was expressed dollar amounts not specified in the Charter allow the Commission free reign. A suggestion was made that budgeted items be addressed in ordinance form, and any non-budgeted items be reviewed for approval by the Commission. It was suggested incorporating this section closer to sections addressing purchasing items. It was suggested removing the $75,000 limitation for purchases, and including language requiring non-budgeted purchases of a certain limit requiring Commission review and approval. The City Clerk will consult with the City Attorney regarding appropriate language for this section. Ms. Simmons said in answer to a question at a previous meeting regarding Section 2.01 (d)(2), an annual independent audit is required by State law. There is no requirement regarding hiring a firm for no more than 5 years, however, the Auditor General of the State recommends the Legislature consider a requirement that cities have multi-year audits in order to save money. She said dispensing with a firm’s services that has done a good job for the City is not a good idea. She noted many audit firms are merging and the City’s negotiating ability is becoming limited. It was remarked a firm can become too comfortable and lax in their performance if there is no competition. In response to a question, the City Clerk said issues regarding surplus property are addressed with an ordinance, not the Charter. She said the issue of selling slivers of property that are maintained by adjacent property owners will be addressed by Housing and Urban Development Director Alan Ferri at the next meeting. 2.02 Qualifications It was commented it is important for a candidate to live in the City for a minimum of one year before elected, and the Commission should be the judge of their own elections. 2.03 Election and terms It was noted this section is not being followed as written. The City Clerk said when the City went to 3 year terms, it affected this section of the Charter. Discussion ensued regarding how to improve voter turnout and if municipal elections can be held in conjunction with fall primaries. The City Clerk said by Statute, the Supervisor of Elections is not required to support a municipal election. Some municipalities have resisted scheduling uniform municipal elections. She suggested the best way to increase voter turnout is to permit mail-in ballots. However, the mail-in ballot process is a State issue. Concern was expressed putting a municipal election during general elections or primaries will cause City elections to be lost. It was noted the City Attorney will provide suggested language to correct the first paragraph of Section 2.03. It was noted this section assumes Commissioners will be sworn in the first Thursday in April of each year. It was suggested to include language that newly elected Commissioners be sworn in at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting, rather than the first Thursday in April. The City Clerk referred to Section 8.05(b), Elections, which states “Regular City elections shall be held on the second Tuesday in March of each year in which a Commission term expires.” The Charter requires the Commission to meet at least once a month. The Commission regulates the frequency of meetings, and has scheduled them for the first and third Thursdays for the last 20 years. Member Mitchell moved the last paragraph of this section be changed to read: “Newly elected Commissioners shall take office and be sworn in at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting after the election.” The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued regarding the Commission-elect being placed in a position of voting at a meeting in which they did not participate. It was remarked Commission-elects are invited, and are encouraged, to be part of Worksession discussions prior to being sworn in at Commission meetings. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Discussed ensued regarding the second paragraph regarding term limits. It was noted according to this provision, since Commissioner Clark took office as a result of a special election, he is permitted to run for re-election the next time his seat comes up for election, but would only be permitted to serve 60 or 90 days, then be removed. It was suggested changing the language in this section to reflect a person cannot serve more than two full consecutive terms, delete the language prohibiting serving no more than 6 consecutive years, and counting partial terms as one complete term. It was remarked the intent of this section was to ensure no person serves more than 6 consecutive years. It was requested the City Attorney suggest appropriate language to this effect, and continuing this discussion to the next meeting. Item 4 - Set Agenda for August 10, 1998, meeting The City Clerk said there is a need to schedule additional meetings in order to complete review of the Charter before early October. She requested members bring their calendars to the next meeting. Item 5 - Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 5:36 p.m.