Loading...
06/24/2003CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER June 24, 2003 Present: Daniel Dennehy Chair – arrived 4:35 p.m. Katherine Elliott Cole Committee Member John Doran Committee Member Nicholas C. Fritsch Committee Member Thomas D. Calhoun Committee Member Isay M. Gulley Committee Member Jay F. Keyes Committee Member Jay Edwin Polglaze Committee Member Lawrence (Duke) Tieman Committee Member Absent: Melody W. Figurski Vice Chair William Joe Fisher Committee Member Timothy A. Johnson, Jr. Committee Member Also Present: Pamela Akin City Attorney Cyndie Goudeau City Clerk – departed 5:22 p.m. Mary K. (Sue) Diana Assistant City Clerk Rosemarie Alfaro Administrative Analyst Brenda Moses Board Reporter The meeting was called to order at 4:33 p.m. at City Hall. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. 2. Approval of June 10, 2003, minutes Member Doran moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 10, 2003, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Regarding the June 10th minutes, Item #3, Section 7.02. Charter review advisory committee, discussion ensued in regard to modifying the first sentence in this section as the word “provided” implied a requirement had to be met before a committee could be appointed. Member Cole moved the language be amended as follows: “The council shall appoint a charter review committee at least every six years hereafter and the appointments shall be made in January of a year preceding a city election. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Article VIII – Nominations and Elections In regard to previous discussion by the Committee to changing the City’s general election to November to piggyback on the County election, City Clerk Cyndie Goudeau said the Supervisor of Elections (SOE) had no objection. However, the SOE cautioned municipalities their ballots could become lost if the County ballot is long. Ms. Goudeau said this would not become an issue for Clearwater if the length of terms are changed to four years, as the City’s elections would not fall in same year as the County’s. She said the SOE would like to have a uniform date for all municipalities in the County. She noted a large number of cities in Pinellas County have their elections on the same date. Assistant City Clerk Sue Diana said the City of St. Petersburg has recently changed their election schedule. The primary will be held in September and the general election in November. Even though their elections will fall on an off year and they will not be able to piggyback with the County, they feel having it in November will attract more voters. It was questioned whether there is a large number of registered voters who do not live in Clearwater in November but do in March. The City Clerk said most people want to vote in the Presidential Election and they are most likely to be registered wherever they reside in November. In regard to Section 9.01, it was questioned if one year is sufficient time for a potential candidate to have lived within the City limits prior to running for office. Discussion ensued and it was felt extending the one-year requirement would narrow the field of qualified candidates. It was remarked that Section 2.02 Qualifications also states that members of the commission shall have continuously resided in the City for at least one year prior to submitting a petition for election and it was questioned why this language was duplicated. No changes to Section 9.01 were recommended. Discussion ensued in regard to whether or not the qualifying dates for Clearwater candidates will need to be changed due to the new touch screen voting equipment. Ms. Diana said the Charter provides that the deadline for candidates to qualify is 46 days prior to an election. She said the Supervisor of Elections has indicated that ballot language for referendums is required 55 days prior to an election. There was discussion regarding the qualifying dates and election day being changed without the requirement of a referendum. City Attorney Pam Akin said she would confirm if there is a State law that allows the City to change these dates without a referendum. It was believed the State law regarding these provisions changed after the last Charter review. Consensus was to delete the dates for qualifying and the day the election is held from the Charter and to include them in the election ordinance. Referring to Section 8.03. Form of ballots, it was remarked that Dr. Susan McManus’s research indicates that referendums or charter amendments get less attention if they follow the candidates on the ballot. It was questioned if the order should be reversed. Ms. Akin said the process is specified by City ordinance. It was remarked that voter interest at elections varies depending upon the significance of the referendums and charter amendments. Ms. Akin said she will research if State law mandates the order of the ballot. Member Doran moved to delete the language in the second paragraph in Section 8.04 Nominations, except in the last sentence “Where only one candidate qualifies for nomination to a seat on the council then no general election shall be held with respect to the seat and the candidate shall be declared elected to the seat.” The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. It was suggested that Section 8.05 (a) be changed to reflect a 40% threshold be required to elect a candidate rather than a plurality to ensure that citizens have a true candidate of choice. It was noted primaries usually have low turnouts. In response to a question, Ms. Akin said Tampa requires a threshold over 50%. Discussion ensued and it was remarked the Committee had previous discussions about runoff elections and related costs. No changes to Section 8.05(a) were recommended. In response to a question regarding Section 8.05(d), Ms. Akin said the commission meets as the canvassing board and accepts the election results as a group. Ms. Goudeau said the commission generally appoints a representative, who is not running, to certify the tabulation and voting equipment, and to review the questionable absentee ballots. She said there are strict State guidelines regarding acceptance of absentee ballots. Ms. Akin said with the new system it is highly unlikely there will be anything significant to rule on. Ms. Goudeau said the only issue with the new system in our last general election was the design of the absentee ballots. 4. Real Property Language Ms. Akin said she is working on two alternatives one for a sweeping change regarding Section 2.01 and one dealing with incremental change on surplus property and donations as was discussed at the last meeting. She reviewed suggestions made at that meeting. Concern was expressed over the 60-year lease provision as a lot of City leases have maxed out and cannot be renewed. It was suggested the lease period be increased or removed entirely. In response to a question, Ms. Akin said the leases can be assigned only for a continued use and with the City’s consent. She said concern has been expressed sometimes land becomes surplus after a transaction occurs. Discussion ensued in regard to the July meeting and consensus was to cancel it. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be July 22 at 4:30 p.m. In response to a question, Ms. Akin suggested the Charter Review Committee’s recommendations be presented to the Commission in executive summary form. She was unsure how much time the Commission would require to review the information prior to scheduling a public hearing. Two readings of the ordinances will be required. 5. Article IX – Fiscal Management Procedure In response to a question, Ms. Akin said she would review the language that refers to an ordinance and fiscal management procedure. In response to a question, Ms. Goudeau said the requirement that revenue bonds for projects in excess of $1 million with certain exceptions be put to referendum, has been in the Charter for a long time. It was felt this figure was too low a threshold. It was suggested either the threshold be raised or deleted entirely from the Charter. Ms. Goudeau believed the recommendation to increase this figure previously came before the voters and it was defeated. Discussion ensued regarding projects that required or will require a referendum. Ms. Akin said she would ask Finance what threshold they would recommend. Concern was expressed in cluttering the ballot with something that was rejected previously. An opinion was expressed it would be better to be more selective on the controversial items. In response to a question, the City Attorney did not feel the $1 million limitation had any applicability on the deGuardiola redevelopment project. 6. Article X – Transition Schedule Discussion ensued in regard to Section 10.05 and the City Attorney felt it could be deleted. Member Calhoun moved to delete Section 10.05 under Article X. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 7. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 5:46 p.m.