Loading...
06/10/2003CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER June 10, 2003 Present: Daniel Dennehy Chair Melody W. Figurski Vice Chair Katherine Elliott Cole Committee Member John Doran Committee Member Nicholas C. Fritsch Committee Member William Joe Fisher Committee Member Thomas D. Calhoun Committee Member Timothy A. Johnson, Jr. Committee Member Jay F. Keyes Committee Member Jay Edwin Polglaze Committee Member Lawrence (Duke) Tieman Committee Member Absent: Isay M. Gulley Committee Member Also Present: Pamela Akin City Attorney Cyndie Goudeau City Clerk Rosemarie Alfaro Administrative Analyst Brenda Moses Board Reporter The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. at City Hall. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #2- Approval of May 27 minutes Member Doran moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 27, 2003, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 – Proposed amendment to require Charter Review Committee Recommendations to go directly to the voters (Article VII) The proposed amendment is: Section 7.02. Charter review advisory committee. The council commission shall appoint a charter review advisory committee in January, 1994, and at least every six five years hereafter thereafter provided the appointments are made in January of a year preceding a city election. The charter review advisory committee shall be composed of not less than ten members, . It shall review the existing charter and make recommendations to the commission for revisions thereto two of whom shall be council members. Each council member shall have two appointments, with the exception of the two council members who are on the committee, who shall have one appointment each. The charter review committee shall submit a report to the city council on or before December 1 of the year in which the charter review was held. Included in the report shall be any proposed amendments to the charter together with the wording of the question or questions which shall be voted upon at referendum. The city council shall call a referendum election to be held in connection with the next city election for the purpose of voting on the question or questions submitted by the charter review committee. Neither the amendments or questions may be changed by the city council. In response to a question, City Attorney Pam Akin said the proposal for two Council members mirrored the County’s process existing during the last City Charter review. Since that time the County’s process has been changed and now, only one County Commissioner sits on the County’s Charter Review Committee. Pros and cons were discussed. Some members felt this would make this committee’s work more significant and would provide better opportunities for significant proposals to go to the voters. Opposition was expressed as this would take power away from the Council and also make them less accountable to the voters. Some concerns were expressed regarding the appointment process in that Council members would appoint only those with their same viewpoint. In response to a question, Ms. Akin said if this proposal is approved, the recommendations would be presented to the Council. The Council would pass an ordinance calling for a referendum but could not change any of the questions. Member Johnson moved to approve the proposed changes in Section 7.02. Charter review advisory committee under Article VII. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Figurski, Cole, Doran, Calhoun, Johnson, Keyes, Tieman, Polglaze, Fritsch, and Fisher voted “aye”; Chair Dennehy voted “nay”. Motion carried. ITEM 34 – Section 2.01(d) – Real Property The following sections were discussed together: (5) i – declaring property surplus (5) ii – competitive bid (5) iii – transfer to other governmental agency (5) iv – land swap (5) v – recreation/open space (5) vi - right-of-way terminating at water (5) vii - limitation of lease term (5) viii - reverter for lease (5) ix – appraisal requirement (6) – Bluff below 28’ line and Memorial Causeway (7) - City owned west of Osceola Ave. Ms. Akin reviewed some of the difficulties in declaring property surplus, not being able to donate property to non-profits and disposing of property with little or no economic value. It was suggested that Sections 2.01(d)(5)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vii), (viii) and (ix) be removed from the Charter and the Commission pass ordinances on the disposition of real property. It was felt Sections 2.01 (d) (5) (v) and (vi) and (6) and (7) contain “sacred cows” that the voters want to remain in the Charter. Ms. Akin expressed concern that if these issues do not pass at referendum, that essentially nothing would change, and the City would still have to address the issue of surplus and uneconomic remainders. It was suggested that voters could vote for two different scenarios. Ms. Akin said alternative choices could not be placed on the ballot. She said most of the provisions in this section are a result of a lack of trust. She said she would rather have small victories rather than a big loss. It was requested that Ms. Akin develop suggested language to address these issues. Member Johnson moved that the City Attorney draft language that would require the City Commission to pass an ordinance relating to the disposition of City-owned real property to replace Sections 2.01d5(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) (vii), (viii), and (ix). In response to a question, Ms. Akin said she is not against an ordinance addressing these issues. Her concern was if the Charter provision being proposed did not pass, those Charter sections would remain the same. She felt incremental changes that make sense to people have a better chance of passing than sweeping changes. The motion was duly seconded. It was felt that Ms. Akin should have the opportunity to make suggestions before a final decision is made regarding the motion. Member Johnson withdrew his motion. The seconder agreed. Member Fritsch moved that the City Attorney draft two alternatives; one for a sweeping change such as was proposed for Sections 2.01d 5(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) (vii), (viii), and (ix); and an alternative dealing with incremental change on surplus property and donations. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Akin requested Section (5) v - include language permitting dedicating easements, in addition to rights of way, on recreation/open space property. Member Johnson moved that Section (5) vii include language permitting the dedication of easements. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. In response to a question regarding Section (6) – Bluff below 28’ line and Memorial Causeway, Ms. Akin said that section affects all the property from Drew Street to Pierce Street and the portion the City owns to the water and across the causeway. She said as the City is considering development of an amphitheater rather than a bandshell, the language should be modified to allow more flexibility with respect to the location and the size of the building. Member Johnson moved that the City Attorney suggest broader language for this section that would delete the bandshell language and insert a list of permitted public uses and appurtenances. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Akin said staff is not proposing any changes to Section (7) - City owned west of Osceola Ave. It was suggested the legal description be deleted and a reference be made to the footprint of the Harborview Center as it existed on a specific date. Ms. Akin said due to recordkeeping issues, it would be best to leave in the legal description. She said the deed could include more area than the footprint of the building. In response to a question, Ms. Akin said the City does not own State Road 60. In response to a question, City Clerk Cyndie Goudeau said Cleveland Street is designated as State Road 60, however it will transfer to the City in the near future. It was suggested that the typographical error in the last sentence of Section (7) be changed to “…with the Charter…” It was suggested the legal description in Section (7) be listed as an exhibit at the end of the Charter rather than in this section to avoid any hidden meaning. ITEM # 5 - Set Agenda for June 24 meeting Member Figurski said she would not be able to attend the June 24 meeting. Items for discussion at the next meeting would include: 1) Dr. McManus’ memorandum regarding information on voter turnout which relates to Article VIII; 2) Article VII; 3) Article IV; 4) Article X; 5) any available proposed language by Ms. Akin; and 6) scheduling a public meeting date. ITEM# 6 – Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 5:57 p.m.