Marne cany >> can we go? Can we call the role? >> Committee member Richard Black >> here. >> Committee member Lori Leland >> present. >> Committee member Craig Bay >> here. Committee member Joe Roth
>> here. >> Committee member Roger Young >> here. >> Vice Chair Susan Raphidello >> here. >> And chair Ty Harris >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> All right. We're to number two on the
list which is public comment. Totally forgot that. >> I'm looking out in the audience. Do we have any public comment? Yay. Sue Miller, please come come to the podium. Sue Miller lower Madakumbi.
I'm here because I'm not sure whether you're going to have public comment on specific items, but um I have a couple general comments that I'd like to make as a result of the last meeting. Um, number one, I think that it would be
beneficial to the members of this committee to look at the charters for other small South Florida communities that have issues in their charter that we don't. And um, and there's lots of
them. The difference between putting something in your regular regulations and having it in your charter means that all charter items and restrictions must be put there and removed there by a
vote of the um constituents in the village. So that it has to go on the ballot in order to change it. And so when something is really important to the community, you want to put it in the charter. Like for instance, the height
restriction was very important to the community a number of years ago, probably 10 years ago. So they worked really hard to get it in the charter instead of just putting it in the LDRs. And so I think that that you can look at other people's charters in South Florida
and see all kinds of things that their community thought were important enough to take ask the voters, how do you feel about this? And um I I've looked at a number of u charters in Munich and found
some really interesting things in the charter. There were a few um issues that instead of calling for a majority vote of the council, it required a supermajority or even sometimes a unanimous vote of the charter in or of
the um the council in order to approve significant changes or significant budget issues. that instead of approving a budget that increases the taxes by x number of dollars or x percentage that
it would require a super majority. So you'd need four votes instead of three to approve certain certain items. And so I thought that was a really important thing to not just address the things that
you know about the election and and terms and etc. I thought that, you know, there can be some really innovative things that your committee could be doing. And then I wanted to mention that Oh, my time is about up. So, I will close with that.
>> I know you can keep just Well, we're not as formal here, so say your piece. Um, last week you um had the Lynn Tipton, I think her name was,
from League of Cities, explain to you what the why some communities go to a three-year term. And and she explained some really positive reasons why a three-year term might be a good idea.
And I'd like to tell you why a three-year term might not be a good idea. And um one of them is that when you have a three-year term, one of those terms is going to be in a non-election year, an oddnumbered year. We have
typically elections on even years every four years, a presidential election, which brings a much higher turnout than a regular election does. And if you do it in an odd year, the turnout, and you can look at the statistics from
Marathon, in the odd years, the turnout is significantly less. And so if you have two people that are elected in a odd year, they're going to have a very small turnout compared to the the ones that are elected in a a regular election
year. And and so that's something to consider. That might be positive, fewer people. It might be negative fewer people. You hope that you get as many people involved in an election as you can possibly have, but um that's sort of
more difficult in an odd year and it costs money. The taxpayers have to pay for the election in an odd year and not in an even year. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Is anybody else in the audience want to uh make a
public comment at this point? Marty, do we have anybody online? >> We do not. >> Thank you. So, moving on to approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve.
>> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> Thank you. All right. So, I asked Jennifer to reach out to everyone um after the last meeting and
we had a a good broad-ranging discussion of a lot of items in five. And what I was what I asked her to do, and I thought staff did a great job of putting this agenda together, was to actually list out what we talked about and what
we thought was important so that we'd have a little bit more structure for tonight now that we've had at least a broader discussion about the issues and and the concerns that everybody has. And so with that, we we left off talking
about probably one of the easiest issues, um, which is to me straightforward, whether we go with the five highest vote getters or we go with seats. And I think if we we start with that discussion, then that will
naturally lead as as Susan said the last time into some of the other other discussions. But I think um based on kind of the totality of the conversation last week that that's a good place to start. Um so I' I'd like to hear
everybody's comments. Um Richard, you want to start? >> Um yeah, I I I like the idea of the seats. I would like us to maybe make a ruling or show something um in there
where there's a deadline for switching. You know, I think that would eliminate, you know, where you can't you if you pick that seat, you're going to run for it and it gets to a certain point. You either say I'm dropping out of the election, but
you can't switch to another seat. >> Okay, >> that that's that's my thought for that. >> I >> Yeah, that that's Go ahead, >> Joe. >> I guess I'm on. Um, so you know, I was the one last week that
kind of said seats don't make any sense, which I still don't really see it. They're not really tied to a district. They're not tied to any any sort of, you know, representation and and obviously, you know, there's reasons for and against that. Um,
I could go along with what Richard's saying. I mean, the thing that that that does concern me about the seats and always has concerned me about the seats is the fact that it's a win by plurality. So, conceivably, you could have somebody that wins 36% of the vote
win the seat and you could have 64% of the vote that people didn't vote for or didn't want and you know, or that 64% of the of the electorate voted for the other two people and they're not in they're not in there. So, I think
there's pros and cons all all the way around. I mean, I don't know. I mean, really, this is an atlarge election. You know, it it it is even with the seats. It's an atlarge number post election versus an atlarge
no seats election. So I I've I mean the thing that's always bothered me about the seats is the fact of the last minute switching and the shenanigans that go along with that and the politicalness that that it that it puts into the process. I mean it's going to be hard to avoid it. I don't know if just at large
highest vote getter is going to going to change that and I really don't know if it would change the outcome of the election period. um you know, you could have the same five people in seat one, two, three, four, five be the same five highest vote getters pretty easily. So,
um I I would prefer to to maybe do something along the lines of what Richard's talking about. Maybe have something where it it just keeps people from flip-flopping back and forth from seat to seat. It just seems improper.
>> Lori Um, I had conversations over the over the last week uh with numerous um residents and they all kind of said mostly the same thing that they were not happy with the seat switching. So then I
started thinking to myself, okay, what happens through the process? All right, you have to you you you pay to run and so forth and somebody else comes along and runs again with you. Then you have to withdraw. So if you withdraw then you change a seat then you have to pay again or or issue signatures again. So maybe
the answer to that question is is that once you withdraw from a race you cannot reapply for another seat during that election term. Maybe that's our answer. Craig, >> um I definitely agree with number of the
things you guys mentioned. Um do we know so when it comes to switching what you suggested once you pull out is that something we're able to put in there? I don't know. Do we have uh anybody legal counsel? Uh like is that something that we can actually
>> Yeah, I think John Quick is on and I think he has the answer to that question because he did do the research today. So >> Okay. Well, let it All right, John, tell us the answer. >> The answer actually is that you cannot. There's a there's a statute
um state statute that it actually relates to campaign funding, but it says that there's nothing in the section that prohibits a candidate at a later date from changing the designation of the office um for which he or she's a
candidate. So, we cannot um uh actually change that. In terms of a deadline, we we do have a deadline. It's the the qualifying period. So, when at the end of the qualifying period, if somebody does withdraw, they could not hop back in and uh and run for another seat. But
in terms of actually uh prohibiting them from moving from say seat one to seat three before the end of the qualifying period, uh we couldn't do that because of the state law. I I will make a note that I think some people don't realize though is that under that same state
law, if you're a candidate and if you switch from seat one to seat three, you need within 15 days, you need to notify your contributors that you're seeking a different office or a different here. It's a different seat and uh those
contributors have the right to uh ask for their uh contributions back in a pratishair. So, I do want to make sure that that people are aware of that there are definite not just expenses, but there are potential implications to your uh campaign funding uh and donations
that might come with uh switching seats as well. And and as you can imagine, the reason might be, you know, you donate to, you know, John Doe because he's running against John Smith, but then he switches seats and is now running against Jane Doe. And you prefer Jane Doe. you might not want your funds being
utilized against Jane Doe. >> Thank you. >> One one quick question. Um >> is there anybody know if there's a rule about how much fees you can charge for for that? Like so I'm saying if you
enter in it costs $500 to I'm just throwing number $500 to enter in on the bid. if you exited and wanted to re-enter if you had like a like a $2,000 charge or, you know, throw some huge number on there for like almost like a
penalize for redrawing to go back. >> Uh, we are bound by state law to um have a election qualifying fee that is 3% of what the um council salary is for the
year. So that's $12,000. So, it's $360 is what we can charge. And then there's an election assessment fee that's 1%. So, that is another $120. Uh, one thing I will say about switching seats, if you get petitions and you petition for seat
one and then you decide to switch to seat three, your petitions are no good. Now, you have to you have to pay because the petition period is over. So, there is that as well. So, that's really the only implication. But if they Yeah. They don't have to pay to change seats other
than the petition. >> Is it against the rule to change to pay again to change seats? Like could you make that rule or is that a state? That's that's what I'm asking. Is >> Yeah. John, do you know? >> I'd have to double check. It would it would seem to me I think you would be able to charge another fee because
you're filing for one office, namely seat one, and then if you're changing, you're filing for another office, which is seat three. I think that you could charge. I'd have to double check and confirm, but I don't. It seems to me like you could. It would be kind of like if somebody was running for, you know,
mayor of their town and then they ran for state representative. Um I don't, you know, it's they're two different offices, so I don't you would expect that they would get two different fees, but I I'll confirm that. And if that's the case, then obviously we'll make sure that uh if the village hasn't been charging an additional fee that
that we will, assuming we can. It's such a nominal fee at $480 that is it is I know it's it's peanuts. So people are gonna >> I was just trying to think of another idea. >> I agree with you. I mean I mean maybe we should just raise the salary of the the
councilman to to a higher point which then would would increase that fee. >> I disagree. >> As soon as I to jump in on this conversation. >> All right. You've kept your powder dry long enough. >> Do you want
>> Oh, I'm sorry, Roger. >> I'm happy to. >> No, go ahead, please. >> Okay. Um, well, I feel pretty strongly about getting um eliminating the seat requirement because they aren't tied to districts. Um, I appreciate the concept.
I just don't think in practice it works. that I think Richard you you said uh last time that you thought an atlarge election would become a popularity contest. I actually think the seats do that. people pick out, you know, who they think the weak gazelle is, um, and
devour it and throw money at that race or put the weakest of the populs in there, for lack of a better phrase, uh, even though they never would have been elected at an election at large. Um, I
think an election at large is easier to manage from just an elections standpoint. I know that not this past cycle because Marne was on it um with
the reminders, but the one before that when we did seat swapping, there was lots of regulations that actually weren't complied with by those who jump seats. Um that unfairness aspect has was not to my knowledge present in the last
election, but it certainly did play a factor in the first one. And if you cannot change that by state statute and you can't other than trying to regulate it um which leads then to questions of okay which seed is now invalid and it raises a host of problems that I don't
think logistically exist for an atlarge election um which would allow you know let's say you have a a group of voters who like these three but not these three I think it's easier on a head-onhead
election to to manipulate who gets in than an atlarge election. And I think it's it's simply easier to to manage from an election standpoint. And it's much more transparent um than trying to go through the brain damage of even if
you don't have seat swapping. Let's say Tai was seat number one, everybody assumes he's going to be seat number two. And at 11:59 a.m. on the last day to qualify, he comes in with his check in le of petition and his filing fee and says, "Nope, I'm jumping to seat number
four." There's no way you And that's not a seat jump, right? Because he hadn't put in before 11:59 a.m. So there it just fraught with manipulation the seats. And if we had seats tied to
districts, they make sense. But seats not tied to districts, let's have Al Marada speak as to who their top five are. Um and and and have it be done that way. >> Roger. Sorry I I skipped over you, but
>> Oh, no. It's all good. Alex, I was intrigued what the two of those guys came up with. I like that. But we got shot down. But the polling I did, the majority of people were keeping as keeping it as is. the seats the way they are. They weren't worried about the jumping up. That's a new thing in the
last >> two election cycles. >> Yeah, two elections. I mean, sometimes >> it's a real trend. >> Sometimes it runs its course. The popular thing there were a few people like that, but the majority was the keep it as is.
So here I mean what is the real what is the what maybe maybe John can tell me but what is the benefit of having seats that have no district tied to them? There's no representation tied to that seat. Is there an advantage? What what's
the reason for it? I mean, the the reason for it is it specifies the number of people on the council and then it creates um five uh I was going to say head-to-head matchups, but they might be headto-head if you've got three people running. But it it
designates what the ballot is going to look like. So, if you have seat one and people three people file for seat one, that's who you're going to see on the ballot. You're going to see person A, B, and C when you choose for that seat. Um, so it's really just specifying the total
number of uh council members we have and then setting up the how the ballot will look in terms of uh head-to-head votes. >> Yeah. And for me, I get all that. I I it would make it would it would make a lot more sense to me if those seats were
tied to districts. So, we were trying not to disenfranchise a certain district because I think that's what that's really meant for is is representation of certain districts. And that's where I kind of get bogged down in the whole thing is that it's really meaningless
other than it appears to just be a tool. So, and and a head-to-head election. But in a community that has expressed desires not to have um you know negative campaigns against individuals, uh the
chamber goes out of its way not to pit people head-to-head or allow, you know, anything that would be even bordering, you know, um my opponent versus me as opposed to issues. Um which is one of
the largest watch debates. Um it's not really a debate. it's a forum and it doesn't s it doesn't even say it is a debate. So you've got head-to-head elections with no form for a debate and that makes no sense to me. If you want to have head-to-head elections, we need to give them a debate and we need
to be ready for what that brings because it's that's just you know what, yes, the last two election cycles with the seat jumping, but that's that's now a thing. People never thought of it before. they're never not going to think about
it now. Um, people will pick who they want to run against. You know, for better or for worse, I think it's for worse. And I think it leads to less civil discourse and a distraction during the campaign. >> All right. So, I'm going to add a little context to
this. Um, our Lynn Tipton did a a little brief analysis. She's She's on. >> Oh, well then instead of me reading this, um >> Lynn, are you can you hear us? Oh,
you're behind me. Um would you go over the Fernadena Beach, Indian Harbor Beach, Marathon, Neptune Beach, and I think you had one more in there, but maybe that was it. I These are all communities of similar size to us. And
so in the in the hope of not trying to reinvent a wheel, um Lynn was kind enough to do a brief analysis on some of these issues. And I would like uh Lynn to tell us her findings on, you know, do we take the atlarge? Do we do these
other communities do the five highest vote getters? What what does your research look like? Um and I'll give you the floor. Thank you, Lynn. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just double-checking on my sound. Is it okay? >> Yep.
>> Yes. Great. I apologize again for the sound at your previous meeting, so that's why I'm double-checking. So, these particular cities were as close to island cities as I could get with Marathon being in the mix. Let me start just alphabetically. Fernandina Beach
does four-year terms. They are all at large. They are numbered one through five and staggered three seats up, two seats up. Uh their charter was most recently updated in 2018. Their mayor uh
is uh designated by the highest vote getter in the year that that seat is up. Uh if that mayor then serves a full four years and chooses to run for reelection, they do have term limits. And so once those twoear two four-year terms are
done, the mayor would be the next highest vote getter when the seats are up whether it is three or two. So that's Fernandina Beach. Indian Harbor Beach in Breard
is uh a barrier island city. Similar population. These are all uh four council manager forms of government or commission manager depending on the terminology. In Indian Harbor Beach, they have three-year terms. They are all
at large. They are staggered two seats then three for their election cycles. Their mayor is chosen annually from amongst the council by nomination at their organizational meeting every year.
So again, mayor is a one-year term. They they have the ability to designate a vice mayor. It is not mandatory, but that is how they do it. And these cities, the two I've mentioned, number their seats 1 2 3 4 5.
The third marathon, your neighbor, three-year terms, staggered 32. Mayor and vice mayor also selected at the organizational meeting each year. There are term limits in Marathon. There
are no term limits in Indian Harbor Beach, I meant to say. All right. Neptune Beach has a 4-year term staggered 32. They are all at large and the mayor is
chosen from within at the organizational meeting each year. The only real difference in the four most comparable cities to Isa Marada based on population and being barrier islands then was selecting the mayor through highest vote
getting in Fernandina Beach. And all of these are at large uh in terms of how they're designated. All of them are staggered. So there's your commonalities. Three out of the four have term limits with one of them
not having term limits. Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to answer any questions, but I thought that was the quickest summary I could give of your most comparable by population and geography. >> Thank you very much for that um input.
So, I have a slightly different take on the on the seats versus the the five highest vote getters. Um, it's similar to what we've already heard, but as much as I don't like some of the manipulations that happened with the
system we have now, I I don't like the idea of going to the five highest vote getters. And I'll explain why. the first I'm I'm still of the opinion that I want to see candidate A and candidate Basically
tell me why one has a better plan for Alamado than the other in a popularity contest you can essentially hide you know and you talk about whether or not you're going to have a block or not have a block I think if you're running with the the five highest vote getters you're
more inclined to have a block um if you don't have people explaining why their their idea is different than your opponent's idea. I would I like to see um more candidate forums where people get to express as the as we get closer
to the election and they kind of start defining their their positions sharper. Would I like to see more of those candidate forums? Absolutely. But given the choice and and based on what other cities of comparable size
that are on barrier islands are doing, I think that the seats, even though they're not perfect, is still the the best route. Um, and I'm glad everybody's had comments. I would I would ask that we
basically, you know, make a decision tonight at least so we get one recommendation done on whether we want to go with the high the five highest vote getters or whether we want to stick with the seats in in some way, shape or form. Um, and I would love to hear a
motion for purposes of of further discussion. >> Well, I I guess I have a question for Lynn. um when because Marathon we know is the five highest seat getters but it still says seats at large. >> So I'm not sure that all of these do
follow what you just indicated which were >> headto head. So >> uh Lynn, can you can you fill us in more on what the seats at large how they're elected a head-to-head runoff or a five
top vote getter? >> Sorry about that. Fernandina Beach the highest vote getter issue is solely for the issue of mayor whether it's in a two seat or a three seat cycle but they are running people per seat not um of the of
the three that for example that ran in a particular cycle the highest vote getter would be the mayor they unless they had a tie I would not assume they'd have a need for runoff and I'm not sure that their charters spoke to runoff It might have been ordinances
and I would have needed to dig a little deeper. For the rest of them, the seats are, let's use uh Indian Harbor Beach. They are putting candidates up against one another with simply majority win and
a runoff if necessary if no person receives a majority. Same for Neptune Beach. Um and so you guys are a little different with the plurality measure. you're the only ones that have that in your charter.
And then again to Fern and Dena's point, it's simply for the selection of mayor. If there were five people running, the top three are getting the three seats. The highest vote getter then has the seat of mayor for the term. So, so to
clarify, so Marathon though is the five highest vote getters where it appears that the other ones it's it's seat versus candidate for each seat except for in Fernadena where the mayor is
selected by the highest number of votes and that person becomes the mayor rather than chosen by the rest of the >> of the council. >> Right. that that that it doesn't make a lot of sense in a head-to-head runoff. They could be just happened to be the
highest vote getter because everybody really didn't like the opponent of that particular person. Um and the other thing then that that raised it got raised I think for the first time which I hadn't thought about until right now is the plurality issue. Um because we've
seen a lot of games with that as well with people putting in to make it look like a four-person race withdrawing at the last minute andor having you know what was it one year we had five candidates for election and you you know
that that uh greatly dilutes one's vote and likelihood that the person that actually gets it would have been voted in by a majority if it was headto-head. Well, I I know it helped Henry out in one election. He won by five votes or nine votes or something. And that was
this that I remember that election where there were multiple candidates. I think there may have been four or five. >> Well, it he he may have he may have won anyway, but what I'm saying is we don't know. >> We don't know. >> And and the other four may have put in to take him down or there would have
been four put in to take somebody else down and it worked. You know, we don't know. I I don't think anything is perfect, but >> agreed. But that's just another issue. >> I think too, we're looking at this um and I was earlier too looking at it as
all five are running at once. You know, if we are able to split this back up as a 32, you know, that that's going to vastly eliminate the number of people seat jumping because you're not going to have five choices to pick from. You're going to have three or two. So I I think
going to the 3-2 split and then doing the seat running, you're not going to see as much candidate flip-flopping from seat to seat. Can can I I just before we jump kind of now we're segueing into another section which we need to discuss
in context with this but I kind of felt that at the end of the last meeting even though we didn't say it I thought there was at least consensus that if we stuck with a 2-year term it made no sense to try to stagger um that you were only
looking at staggering if you went to a threeyear or fouryear term. At least that's how I felt. >> I disagree. I disagree. >> I Yeah, I thought it was a I know that's that never happens. >> I know. >> Um, very rare. Um, the Yeah, I thought
it was reverse. I think staggered terms makes more sense if it's two years. I don't think it makes sense so much if it's three years. And briefly to Richard's point, if we go to staggered terms, then I really think that the highest vote getters now we're not talking about five, we're talking about
two or we're talking about three makes more sense the one than than the headto head. >> Um because agree with you for a while there. >> I knew I'd lose you. I
the poll I took too amongst last week is that there wasn't I didn't have one person be in opposition to a staggered term. They didn't care whether it was 3 years or two years or four years. They all wanted a staggered term. So that
right there was was very telling to me. Um >> we are clearly not talking to the same segments of the population. I I spoke to people at the Chamber of Commerce yesterday and then I spoke to people everywhere else, too. >> As a former staff member,
>> I will I will stick up for staff again and say staggering terms on two-year seats will be utter chaos and make staff's job, which is already difficult, almost impossible to ever move anything
forward. Um because we're going to be in a constant election cycle. I I I just feel that if you're going to do stagger terms, you need to you need to have them in there for at least three years and maybe even four years. Um but if we're not staggering, it doesn't really
matter. I think if you're if you're recycling every two years that it doesn't make sense to do staggered only because staff will never never get the traction that you desire to get things done. I agree with that on two years, but I have a real issue with staggering on three years, which I'll let Lori
talk. >> And you know, honestly, asking around and doing a little bit of research, it sounded like staggered work the best with a four-year term, but then again, will the the voters of Marada um
you know, actually want to want to do a four-year term? I thought they were pretty clear they like the two-year term. >> Very few people I spoke to were in favor of a four-year term. majority wanted a three-year term. >> And that's to me that seems like the bare minimum to e even though I know the
math doesn't work perfectly. Um it it still seems like the if you're going to try to stagger, you got to have at least threeear terms, but that's just my take. Um, I'm happy to hear what everybody else says, but I I'd really like to at
least at least get some consensus on whether we're going to do the five highest vote getters or or we go with um the the setup we have now and stick to seats even though it's not a a perfect solution so that we can get on to to
this issue which is a lot more exciting. Thank you. So again, I'm going to ask if anybody for purposes of discussion would like to make a motion in in any direction they want to go so that we at least have something on on the table
that we can discuss. >> Seats I'll make a motion we vote on the seats or the atlarge. >> Is there a second? >> Wait, are you voting to keep seats or keeps to keep things? So you're basically saying to to to status quo
>> about the staggering no >> basically what I'm I'm trying to clarify are you're trying to indicate that your your motion is to to to keep the process the way we currently have it >> just for the just for as for the seats.
Correct. >> Do I have a >> So that's basically 51 B >> A and B. >> Yes. >> Okay. I I'll say I get the seats. >> Okay, now it's on the floor for discussion so we can beat this dead horse some more
>> as if we're already discussing it, right? >> Okay. Well, I'm I always want to air on the side of caution and make sure that everybody has had a chance to to say what their their piece on it. >> This is just a point of housekeeping. Um I know that typically I think with the
LPA we wanted to go um allow public comment for each agenda item. I think probably the public has already talked on on this particular item, but I don't want to cut off before we vote there their there any comments we may have. >> I in an abundance of caution and always
wanting to take in more input than ever be accused of of shutting anybody out, I I would ask that if anybody that wants to speak strictly on the issue of seats versus highest vote getter, this is the time to to say your piece.
you repeat the motion. >> So the motion on the floor basically is to keep the system we have now where you versus taking the five highest vote getters. It's still seat 1 2 3 4 5 just
like we have it now and not changing that. >> So basically no change. Yes. It's a motion to recommend no change on the uh the seats allocations and election on those seats one through five.
>> Yes. So if there's no other discussion, um Marne, can you call the role? >> Council me or excuse me, committee member Roger Young. >> Yes. >> Committee member Richard Black. >> Yes.
Committee member uh Craig Mcbay. >> Uh yes, >> committee member um excuse me, committee member Joe Roth. >> Do we need to get the Jeopardy? >> I'll say yes. >> Okay. Vice Chair Susan Raphanelo.
>> No. and chair Tia Harris. >> Lori, did we miss Lori? >> Oh, did I? I'm so sorry. It's okay. The answer's yes. Thank you. Sorry about that. >> And yes, for me as well. >> Okay. Thank you. Motion passes six to
one. >> Thank you. So, before we get on to the next one, is everybody good again with a hard stop at seven? >> Yes. >> Okay. So 7 o'clock we're we're out of
here. All right. So B on item four is review and discussion of Island Marada Village Charter section 5-2 term of office which we were starting to segue into. Anyway,
um I'm really excited to hear where everybody has gone since last week on this, if there's been any kind of coalesing around any of these these ideas. Um I'm going to start the opposite way this time. Craig, I'm going to start with you cuz I'm always looking
to the left. Um I have a hard time figuring this one out. Um, you know, like I know we're kind of doing things individually, but I know a lot of times they all kind of have to do with each other. Like I I would like to see staggered terms. Um,
doing it in two years, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, you know. So, you know, you know, that's we're going to be non-stop elections. I think even with going to threeyear, we're still going to have basically almost elections every year except for one. Is that kind of how
it works out? how we're keep on cycling around. So, I was trying to run through what a schedule would be. If we staggered on three, cuz we staggered on four, it would be, you know, every two years, but on three, it would be you'd only get in a four-year block, you get
one year off, I think, or something like that. But anyhow, >> the the public getting tired of elections, you know, is something that has been brought up to me. If it's just
non-stop elections all the time, um, that could be an issue. Doesn't, you know, I think it's still going to the longer terms. I think it would be better. I think fouryear I think would be good. um especially staggered. I think that'd be
kind of ideal, but I think that's going to be a real tough nut to kind of get through. I have been hearing more people say three years seems to be um definitely some interest there and some people definitely against. Um it's uh it's a tough one. I'd be curious to hear
what everybody else here has to say cuz I'm uh I'm struggling with it to say the least. >> Roger. Um, I think we kind of I was seeing you were going the four sounds like it'd be harder to even get people
to run for that for one and um the three makes sense because I didn't think about the staff change and dealing with all that because they do have to bring everybody new on board and you had quite the event a couple years ago dealing
with all that. Um, so I could do the three if that was a consensus, but we still talking about staggering totally. >> Are you thinking three with a stagger or just three? >> I like the three. The stagger thing doesn't really I don't think you're going to have all five seats change in
one election. I just don't I don't see it. So, I could go with three with no stagger because I think, you know, for example, say this next election, this one coming up, I, you know, maybe two or three get retained. So, I don't
think you're going to be stuck with replacing all five. I think that would be a rarity. You know, see where I'm going? So, I mean, if you want to do three and it's better for staff, I understand. But I don't know if we need to do the staggered because then you're doing it once every three years instead of two years out of
the three. Right. >> Right. >> So, I could see the three if that's going to work. Give give everybody time to settle in and find their place in it. But, I don't know if we need to really stagger because I I don't I don't know if we need to spend that money and go
through all that. People are tired elections. So, I could see the three and then just see how it shakes out. >> Vice chair, do you want to go next or do you want me to skip you into the end? >> Um, I'm happy to go next. I'll probably
pipe up at the end, too. >> That's okay. >> Um, I think that we need to stay with the two years and understand your point. I would not stagger the two years. Um I would stick with two years no staggered
um for the following key reasons is I think there's more accountability of the council to the public at large um every two years those who are doing well and want to continue I would assume if we don't have seat jumping etc they will maintain their seat if that's what the
public desires but I think it gives the residents a voice um in a community where they sometimes feel like they don't have one at least they have one every two years. Um I would it also stays with the election schedule for the
House of Representatives. For example, every two years we're going to have an election. And this way the supervisor of election deals with a lot of the um headaches of it and takes off at least some of it, the majority of it from the
staff. So every so in instead of having every other election having to be run completely by Al Marada staff at Al Marada taxpayer expense, we stick with two years. It's worked for the House of Representatives. I know I said that last time for 250 years and I think it works
um best for Al Marada to stay with that um for the reasons of election costs, election schedule with the nation um assistance with the staff um and for the same reasons I don't think we should stagger the two years because then we're
having a constant election cycle with with double it double every other one on staff to cost and staff to do. So that's my two cents of two years and no staggered >> Lori uh conversations that I have had with
with people they have all preferred the three years they've also preferred the staggering I while I do u recognize your concerns and u the cost involved in it um I think that majority of the people that I have conversed with felt that the
first year that a new council member sat on the dis was um not as effective because they weren't brought up they weren't up to speed. They didn't weren't fully aware of all of the issues that were going on and um were less effective
the first year and much more effective the second and then would be even more effective the third year. So, I think that that's where they were feeling that um we needed a little bit more consistency and history to follow along with the process that a three-year term would be better.
>> So, I'm I'm coming for a three-year term. Joe. >> So, for me, I I'm I'm leaning towards longer terms and um you know, I I think you could make a real compelling argument for staggering four-year terms.
Um I would compromise at three. I just I just feel that look, if you're coming in here and you're green, you're going to take a year to learn whatever you got to learn at least, and then you're going to turn around and be campaigning. And you
know, I guess, well, Ron's not here right now, but Ron did it for how long he was in the House. And he him and everybody else I've talked to that was in the House of Representatives, same thing. You're there, you barely get your feet wet, and you're running for election again. So, I mean, to me, it
kind of it kind of it kind of goes towards what is the quality of the individual that we're getting. If we're putting them in a seat, they've got, you know, a tremendous hill to climb with learning what they should learn and knowing what they should know to sit here and make these decisions.
And then we're going to turn around and and put them in a position where they've got to run for that seat again. There's just no there's no time for them to really get get in there and get a quality person. I mean, and what does it cost? You I asked the question, there's
no answer. What's the average cost to put somebody in these seats? And I Googled and I looked everywhere for it. There is no definitive answer on what the cost is to actually put somebody in that seat. Now, you know, you can look
and see if they go and they take these courses and they do things through League of Cities and they do this and that and the other, what that stuff costs, but I mean, what does it cost in time to get them up to speed? What does it cost in materials? What does it cost? What is that number? And if we're just,
you know, getting rid of them in two years, I mean, now we're making that investment again. I just feel that if you give somebody a little bit more time, maybe we'll develop more quality representation instead of just somebody that's coming and going and is a deer in the headlights the first year they're
here anyway for the most part. And as far as staggered goes, I've had a lot of people tell me that that that they're interested in staggered. And me personally, I feel that staggered makes more sense. Richard,
>> um I I hear this many times. You brought it up even tonight, but um you you say like the staff, you talking to the staff, they have such a hard time, you know, getting, you know, working with new council when we have the changeover.
What exactly is the challenge when a new person is elected? It was easier to describe when I was still on staff many years ago because we had um what was called by Seth Wallace who was the village manager at the time. We had a
strategic plan and the strategic plan was divided by department head and it would typically have 10 to 20 items per department and each thing would have a timeline for when it was anticipated to
be complete. The staff was required every quarter to update it. So when you finished something it came off and when you put it something new on it went on. And so every time we had an election there would be almost a reorganization of the
priorities but there was continuity uh for staff because they knew what things were priorities of that particular council. Um, for instance, you won't remember this, uh, as some of
you will, but when I came in, um, there was a on our on our long-term planning horizon, we had the historic arts district and we also had the island of fishing village, which were supposed to be two um, projects where there were
some kind of branding and identification of boundaries to create, you know, a unique experience in in what we call downtown Alan Rada and also where Casmar is connecting to Ultav in that area. Um
after a couple of cycles, the council decided to take those off because there just wasn't enough support in the community, you know, to get into all the things that were required to go after the big dollars because you had to become a special taxing district and
people heard the word taxing and that basically killed it. But but because those items were still on there um and they just got lowered in priority to the point that the last council that I was serving said just go ahead and take them off cuz we're we're probably not going
to ever get to them. There was that continuity. That strategic plan no longer exists. It stopped when Seth left. So, the way that staff now does it, you'd have to ask Jennifer how
they're able to to keep continuity. You know, we know what the priorities are now. Comp plan is is number one. And then you have the applications that they're required by statute to to um to process um as they come in. That's
statutory requirement. So after that, it's basically however they're getting their direction from from the manager as to how they prioritize things, I would assume, but it's not on paper anymore where anybody in the audience could could look at the strategic plan and
see, hey, this is what each department is working on and this is what's considered a priority right now and and what's not. So when you took that type of accountability and recordkeeping away, um it becomes more important to
have more continuity on your your council so that when they put items on you, you you know, you can see them through. The other thing that Lynn mentioned that to me was real important at the last meeting was that you have a
three-year budget cycle, which kind of spoke against going to two years because you've you've heard the experiences when if you come to one of the council meetings that the newly the newly elected council, they weren't on the last time, they're looking at a budget that was created by the previous council
going, "How do we end up here?" you know, and so those are the reasons why um a three-year term or four-year term, which I don't I don't think you could sell a 4-year term in Alam Marada. Um could you sell a three-year staggered
term? I mean, that would be to me a compromise. Um otherwise, just stick with the two years and and poor staff needs to get back to having a strategic plan that looks kind of like what we did when Seth was here. so that there is
continuity between councils and and um accountability by staff as to what they're working on. And that's basically I I kind of a lot of people ask that question, you know, constituents and people you talk to, but you know, that's what I was trying to get at is what can
we do better to streamline this, you know, for for the village council, but instead of just jumping right into a three-year if we decide two-year or whatever, you know, that that's where I'm that's what I'm looking at instead of saying, well, yes, there's a lot of work, but what is the lot of work and
what can we do to get back to not having that work. So when a candidate gets elected, he's right in there. >> Well, if you if we go back three elections, remember the pedestrian bridge? >> Yes. >> Was was a hot topic issue
that wasn't even on the planning list of of to-dos. That became something of its own own making and its own life. And some people were elected primarily on that issue to to kill that pedestrian bridge. >> Yes.
>> Um but that was a surprise to staff. I was still on staff. I I didn't even really spend any time on a pedestrian bridge. Nobody even asked me about a pedestrian bridge until all of a sudden we got into that election cycle and everybody's asking about the pedestrian bridge. And
I go back to my strategic plan. I'm like, I don't see pedestrian bridge anywhere on my plan. What? Why are you asking me? Um, so those are the the reasons, you know, because staff staff takes its direction from the village
manager. Um, elected officials are allowed to come in and ask questions and and get answers, but they cannot direct staff to do anything. That's prohibited not only in our charter by but by Florida statutes. So we've intentionally
created an unwieldy system because we have this checks and balances and because we have sunshine and and other things that protect the in supposed to protect the integrity of the process. So by having longer terms, you get into these working relationships and you're
able to prioritize. But just watch watch a first meeting of any new council when you have a council member that has never been on council and watch how they kind of try to push the issues that they ran on in the election up to the forefront in the first few meetings, which you
understand because that's what they ran on, but that may not be what staff is working on. And now, how do you sync all that together? Oh, and now we're 6 months into a 2-year election cycle, and we're just figuring out what the priorities are. and you're 6 months in.
I mean, Jennifer could probably speak to it better than I can. Um, but that's what I kind of see and that's why I think of a three-year, if you could sell a three-year term, it may not be perfect, but it's kind of the compromise between the 2-year, but also making sure
they're responsible for the budget they produced and um and also hopefully getting back to having a strategic plan that looks kind of like what I had when I started in 2018. I know that was long-winded and I hope that was helpful to everybody. Um, I have one other
question before I give my two cents on what I think, but uh, we know that the election to do a special election cost, you know, roughly 35,000 based on Marathon's numbers. Um, do we have a number on what we spend on training for
candidates, you know, or, you know, when they're they're in office? >> Well, I I can go a little bit to this. All new all new elected officials are offered a suite of of learning material. Everything from in-person classes where
Florida League of Cities puts them on to, you know, materials that you would just download. And every every new elected official has to decide what level of education they need to feel comfortable to do the job and not find
themselves on the wrong end of an ethics complaint or anything more serious than that. Um, and my experience, I think everybody here has had some experience. Some people take that to heart and go to the classes and and and spend the money to go do that. And some people just, for
lack of a better term, wing it and feel that they're they're confident enough in their abilities that they don't really need to have that baseline of education. So, is it a wash? >> There is no set number. >> It could be a wash. >> Okay. >> I think I think Marne can speak to that
a little bit because Joe did ask the question earlier and Marty did some research for him. So, >> yeah, sure. Um there are a number of classes that are available to the council members. Me most of them are through uh the Florida League of Cities. There's Institute for Elected Municipal
Officials 1 and two and then there's a leadership class after you've graduated from two and those are in person. Um, I'd say they probably run depending on where the come, excuse me, where the classes are being held about $12 to
$1,500 per person per conference. And then there is also the Florida League of Cities Conference that's in August and that's the big annual conference. I'd say, you know, it's usually in a nicer place and it's a longer stay. So, it's
closer 1500,500 to 1,800. >> Okay. and and council members just get to decide whether they want to go or not. They the only thing that's mandatory for them is the uh 4hour ethics class every year and that um they
can do at Florida League of Cities conference. Um, we can also sometimes have um Florida League of Cities, they'll do like a free um online training and then if none of that works out for someone and they still need
training, um there's a course from the Florida Institute of Government that's $80 that >> they have to have >> and those expenses are covered by the village. Correct. >> Correct. So I mean I I see as as far as picking
two, three or four years, um you know, two years, yes, we avoid the cost of the election and we probably have a higher voter turnout, but four year I don't think will go. Um, you know, I I think 3 years would benefit the staff and the
village residents more than most anything because it would get, you know, you'd be in office and be able to do something longer. So, that's that's my that's my feel. >> So, as as we're trying to fine-tune this discussion, does it make sense to talk
about the terms right now and then if we can come to some kind of consensus on that, then talk about staggered? Does that because it seems now they're kind of like maybe slightly different issues. >> When you think about it, there's three components to it. So, it's it's um the
terms, the length of the term, it's the um the maximum number of years allowed in the office and then there's the um staggering. So, there's like really three components to this discussion when
you think about it. >> All right. Well, I think the maximum years in office, we just voted on that what, two years ago, four years ago. Um, I don't see the voters really wanting to change that again. >> It's currently an 8year.
>> I think if if we went to three, then it might have to change with that. >> It would have to because you'd have two hanging there like a like a like a hangail. Yeah. >> Yes. And no. Um, for those who have been in two years, you could do three, three,
and two, and you max out a eight. that that would having someone resign from their that would having someone resign from their term. >> If you go with you go with three years I think you would I think you would need to address the term limits and I think
you could you could put it in number of years. What I usually recommend to avoid this type of issue um is just put it in number of terms. Um because then if you say they can spend a maximum of three terms or four terms, it doesn't matter if you change the years. You can always
keep that uh that term limit phrase in there. But but you you couldn't really have somebody running for if they've if they have 6 years under their belt and they're running for another three-year term and their term limited out at 8
years. uh that that it's just an inconsistent charter provision. We'd have to address them uh together. >> That's a good suggestion, John, to just state the number of terms, maximum of terms that someone can serve versus the maximum number of years.
>> Craig, what are your thoughts on this? We started with you. Did any of this discussion can start forming some kind of opinions in your mind? >> Um, it sounds like a lot of residents that
people are talking to are interested in three. That's that's something, you know, that I'm hearing, which obviously if at the end of the day, if we're trying to do this for, you know, for the voters, for the residents, what they want, what they're going to approve, you know, that's kind of a big part of it. Um,
you know, it's, you know, I I was all for a staggered, but I think if we got to three years, I want would wonder if we just don't stagger to have fewer elections, you know. Um, I know I know we just turned over, you
know, what, a couple elections ago, all five. May not happen every time, you know. Um, so I'm I'm kind of going back and forth kind of in my head. You know, I think, you know, I think a little bit longer
term I think will be good. So the other thing actually, Richard, I was thinking about um when you asked how is it harder on staff. Um, you know, and he's talking about direction and a really good example, and I didn't really want to use the F-word, but I will, the Phils. Um,
we've been watching for the last 10 to 15 years. A council >> comes along says, "All right, this is what we're going to do. Here's our plan." >> A new council comes in, they say, "Nope, that's not our plan. Let's start over." >> They come up with a plan. New council comes.
>> So, so when you look at how much time staff spends preparing for whatever that is, and then they throw that in the garbage and then go again. So, that sort of money is hard to say, okay, well, this is how much it costs. But >> well, that's that's kind of what I was getting at was >> we waste so much money in our village on
going back and forth and back and forth and having a little bit longer term would eliminate that. I mean, I was asking the I kind of knew the answers to the questions, but I wanted to get it out there just to talk about it. And >> I I agree with you. >> Yeah. And that's what I haven't liked
seeing with, you know, when a a new council comes in and just mothballs something that a previous council has done. You know what I mean? It's uh it's just a waste of time, you know? So that's hopefully if you have longer terms, then whatever the project is, it
can come closer to fruition, you know, so then it can kind of keep on moving. It would be nice if future councils would respect what previous councils had done, say, you know, say, okay, well, this is what they wanted to do. let's let's go on to that may not happen. Um you know so I think having the longer
terms I think would be uh would help with a lot of that. Um so you know right now you know I think you know kind of leaning towards uh towards three. Um but >> yeah this is sort of where I'm at.
>> Susan, I know you had >> Yeah, I had a question stemming from from Craig's comment and I know last meeting it came up again. Um, and I meant to uh research this myself and and then forgot to do so. I think there's only been one time that you had an all
new fivep person council come in in the history of Al Marada. Am I correct on that? Does anybody know? >> Well, yeah. Yeah, fair point. Fair point. >> I don't know the answer because I haven't had time to research it, but I can I can certainly get that answer for
you. I mean, it's it's not I think collectively the knowledge here would would probably provide the answer, but I think it was only the one time. So, I'm not as concerned about like like Craig is I'm not as concerned about having an all new wave come in because that just is not historically
what occurs. >> You did have several times where you had four turnover. >> Mhm. >> Right. >> So, I mean, >> and I go back to thinking that that's, you know, the residents who have spoken there. Um, yeah. And that's not not
necessarily a bad thing. >> I mean, I still having been on that side think that three-year terms may not be perfect, but I like the idea of the symmetry with the budget. And I definitely like it from purposes of
staff trying to effectuate the policies that change with each new council. And if you were to think about how much money we've spent on Phil's studies and engineering reports,
it pales in in comparison to what it would cost if we decided to go with staggered to have an election on an offyear cycle. I remember seeing some of those bills and my draw dropped and thought maybe I should be an engineer
because those studies were expensive. One thing about the symmetry of budget because it's been running through my head. I just want there's only one year that the current council would be responsible for their own budget. So the
first year they're still working with the prior council's budget. the second year they're responsible for their own, but then the third year they've made the budget, but they're not responsible for it. So that's why I'm not as swayed by the symmetry of the budget argument,
while I understand it, um, as as perhaps others on the disr. Well, and I also go back to the work that Lynn did putting together what do other communities do that are our size
and 3 years seem to be the sweet spot with these other municipalities. So, I mean, if we want to keep talking about it, that would be great. Um, my feeling would be three years and then we discussed
whether staggered makes any sense at all, but um, again, I'm an always champion staff and that three years to me seems to be maybe the sweet spot. I don't know if the voters will go for it, but I know they won't go for four. I heard two and I heard three maybe, but I
never heard anybody jump on board for four. >> Well, Ty, I want to correct you because it's actually a split. It's a four, three, three, and four. So, we had two for four years and two for three years. >> Thank you. >> It's only a sample of four
scientifically. >> Listen, don't ask me to do math. Ask Jennifer. I tell the first >> I tell you, I correct her a lot, too. Well, I >> I told Jennifer when I first met Jennifer, I'm dyslexic and I can't do math, so don't ever listen to any of my
math numbers. So, do you want to talk about years and then depending upon what that is go on to staggered or not staggered? Is that what you're suggesting? >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. >> So, can for discussion purposes, can I get a motion on on whether we're going
to do two, three, or four? >> So, I'll make a motion for a council's members will serve a three-year term with a maximum of three terms. Do I have a second? >> Second
>> discussion. >> Susan, you know, I'm always going to look to my left. >> I I've said my piece. >> I You know, but lawyers get paid by the word. So, >> do you want to see if there's any public comment? This is a volunteer position. It's not like I'm on my hourly rate.
>> That is true. >> Thanks, Jennifer, for reminding me that. Um, absolutely. Let's take public comment on on the terms. So, anybody in the public that wants to speak to to the terms two, three, or four. I think
that's kind of the the realm of where we're at. Um, we'd love to hear from you. Yay, Sue. I love two-year terms. I think three-year terms confuse people. I I
don't think people can conceive of how it would work. You have a problem with the term limits. I as I understoodtood John quick. He said to make it the number of terms instead of the number of years. So you would
have to change the number of years which would be three according to the motion and but if we ended up sticking with two then you're to six years if you go to
four then you're at 12. I think that the public would be totally confused and I think you should stick to two. Thank you >> to two years. Is that what you're saying Sue? to a two-year term. >> Two-year terms unstaggered.
>> Unstaggered. Okay. And what about term limit? Because currently it's at eight, which would be four terms that they could serve, >> right? >> Thank you, Sue. Do we have anybody else in the audience or anybody online?
>> Yes, we do have a speaker on Zoom. Just one moment. Okay. Alina Davis, go ahead. Hi, thank you for taking my call. Um, I agree with Sue. I think the two-year terms have been working out. Yes, every
once in a while, which is not that often, the whole council turns over. But if the council members are doing what the people the of the village of Isa
Marada, the voters who they represent are doing what is in the popular venue, then they keep their council seat. If they are not, then they're out.
I think that's fair. They represent us, the voters. So, I would say please keep the 2-year term and the 8-year limit. Thank you. >> Thank you for those comments, Marne. Got
anybody else? >> No, sir. >> Thank you. Uh, public comment is closed. So, we want to have any more discussion on whether to recommend and remember this is a recommendation. This is going to get to council and they could just
take it and and ball it up and say, "Thank you for your your your Wednesday night." into the circular filing cabinet it goes. So, I'm I mean I could live with with two, I could live with three, but having been on staff and having watched what these turnover meetings
look like for the first five or 6 months, um I I I I like the motion for the three, but if there's not going to be any more discussion, let's let's um let's call for a vote on it. >> Can I just clarify that was for
three-year terms with a maximum of three terms that >> Yes. Otherwise, it doesn't work. Even I can do that math. >> Right. So, that's nine years total, right? >> Right. You would go from >> No, it's three terms. >> Three terms. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> So, it's two, two, and three. They're
done. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, >> cuz quite frankly, the council could go along and say, "Oh, yeah. We don't want to do the we don't want to do threeyear terms. We'll go to two-year terms, but we do like the idea of three terms." >> Okay. >> Right. you follow.
>> Well, I guess that was that was what I was kind of wondering is I know we talked at some of the first meetings about whether or not we group some of these together cuz you know you don't want one thing to fail but other stuff to go with it but for something like this I would think you would want
>> it's got to be separate but it's together in the paragraph that we're talking about together. >> So it's going to go together. >> Yeah. Your motion it all has to go together or else the math doesn't work >> correct. Yeah, >> I I would say based the motion was all put together and and if council goes for
this, I would draft it all as as one single ballot question. So both of these would be voted either up or down to together. >> Thank you. >> So we've got a motion on the table and a
second. Um Marty, can we call the role? >> Committee member Lori Land. >> Why yes. Committee member Roger Young. >> Yes. >> Committee member Richard Black. >> Yes. >> Committee member Craig Mcbay.
>> Yes. >> Committee member Joe Roth. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Susan Raphidello. >> No. >> And chair Ty Harris. >> Yes. >> That motion passes six to one. Okay, I see that we're at 10 till 7. I
don't know that we want to necessarily start the next item um with only 10 minutes before >> staggered or no staggered. >> Yeah, I think we can cover that in 10 minutes. I also um want to know if we can talk about the proposed schedule that I provided in your packet so that
you can have some dates in the future instead of planning the next date at the end of each meeting. >> Let's let's let's see if we can cover staggered and then let we'll get to the dates. >> Um I know we've already had a lot of discussion on staggered and just to kind
of summarize the question was if you're if you're going to do three-year terms, do you really need to have staggered? I that's kind of how I understood everybody speaking. Um does point of privilege I guess sitting right here. My feeling is if you're going to
only do three-year terms, there's no point in staggering them because there's been a lot of discussion that we've would rarely turn over all five seats. Um and so I mean it could happen, but why go through the staggering process?
cuz now we're just bringing other new people up to speed on a short cycle. >> Also, how you would implement it because we have five seats, three years, is it every year there's going to be an election, every year 18 months, which is even more untenable as far as getting the voter turnout. Um I I I don't I I I
agree, but adding those >> Could I get it? Yeah. Could I get a motion that that we're going to recommend it as is not staggering it and a second if if possible? I would move not to stagger. >> I second. I second.
>> Second. >> Thank you. We have a a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion on the on the floor? >> Marne, could you please call the role? >> Well, we would have a discussion on the on the council here or on the board here or the committee. Um,
I think I guess what I'm trying to say is is that people have have have spoken and they're interested in having staggered terms. I understand um your your thoughts with regards to to staggering and how it might not be applicable with the fact of of lengthening the terms to
three years. But then we run into the situation that if um the voters vote down this option for a three-year term and we don't have an option for staggered um then we're in a quandry too.
But I I think that at least my understanding of the consensus is if we did two-year terms, there was there wasn't a lot of appetite for staggering of a two-year term because of staff, logistics, cost, um,
you know, need or necessity. So, when we were talking about stagger terms, my motion, even though I voted against a three-year, was premised on, okay, if we have a three-year or a two-year now, I don't think that staggered terms make sense. Maybe the rationale for other
people have changed that would have gone for staggered. >> Um, but especially with a four-year term from what I've I've heard. Um, but I don't think that, you know, if it's if the three years voted down, then you're left with two years not staggered. the
the stagard made sense with four years. >> I don't it gets cloudier when you go to this odd number and and frankly from a consistency in working with staff um knowing that you've got somebody for
three years um and we can you're going to get more effective work out of your staff without staggering it. Heck, like I said, this is going to go to to the council and they may just trash this whole thing. But um but we
have a a motion in a second and if there's no further discussion, the I believe the motion is for 3 years no staggered terms. Oh, Dave, >> can you ask the League of Cities what the uh practice is, more standard
practices? >> We we have it in our in our materials. You you probably don't. So, um, Lynn, for clarification, um, for everybody that doesn't have our the email that we
received, could you please, um, >> discuss the staggered at in these other municipalities? >> Only you and I received the email, Ty. That's why >> Yeah, like >> Lori's looking, but it was it was it was what Lynn went over verbally at the meeting today. I thought well I just
looked I saw >> once I saw that you had it and I had it I just assumed everybody had it >> I did too back well what she just mentioned to us earlier is is that all four of the similar similar island town cities they all had staggered terms can you >> correct
>> that is correct the majority of the 411 municipalities in Florida do stagger uh I was just looking quickly I know beach does all of its elections up in Valuchia all at once. They're one of the only ones. So again, I I hear your arguments
and please know the league never tells a city yes one way or no another. We just simply share history or trends more that way. But in any event, it is the I would say probably 75 to 80% of the municipal
governments in Florida stagger. They don't have some of the unique characteristics, however, that you have being an island city. And I keep going back to that because you're a little bit different than so many of that. You and Marathon both are and Key West um for
that matter are very different. Um and I know there's no way to get you to an applesto apples comparison. The best we can hope for is apples to oranges. The ones I covered tonight, Fernandina Beach, Marathon, Indian Harbor Beach,
and Neptune Beach do stagger. Whether it is 32 or in the case of Indian Harbor Beach, as they wrote their charter, they did two seats than three, but the others are all 32. >> Well, as you correctly observed, we're
not quite right. >> But um >> you're just different. You're just different. I'm not going to make a judgment as to right or wrong. >> So, so we have the motion. You've you've heard Lynn explain that we'd be going a little bit against the grain if we stick
without staggered. But you know what? Hey, that'll give council something to discuss if we leave it at 3 years unstaggered. Then they'll have something to chew on. Um and we won't have done all the work for them. So, we have a motion on the floor. We have a second.
Um, can we call the role? >> Well, um, I just want to say something else. So, if we did unstaggered, um, obviously every other election then is going to be an odd year or an off year. So, I know, um, when you have elections
off years, your turnout's going to be down a lot. Um, so you only have a good turnout election every six years, I believe, is how that kind of maths out. Um, I know, I know. I'm not trying to beat the dead horse too much more, but um
>> well, you know what? We could we could actually hold off on that and discuss it first thing at the next meeting. We don't have to to make that decision. The only thing we have to decide is the schedule for the next couple of meetings. And I'm perfectly comfortable
with tableabling that if everyone wants to table that and think about it some more. >> I think we should call for a vote. We got a first and a second. >> Yeah, you have a pending motion. You have to address it one way or another. >> Okay. So again, we have we have a first and a second. Um Marne, can you call the
role on on three-year terms unstaggered? >> Thank you. >> Vice Chair Susan Raphael. >> Yes. >> Committee member Roger Young. >> Yes. >> Committee member Richard Black. >> No.
>> Committee member Lori Land. >> No. >> Committee member Craig Mcbay. >> Uh no. Committee member Joe Roth. >> No. >> And Chair Ty Harris. >> No. >> That motion fails. 5 to2.
>> Okay. So, we can discuss it possibly again if we use Robert's rules of order. >> Yeah. We'll pick back up the discussion. >> We can pick it back up. Anybody that was on the prevailing side of that motion can bring it up at the next meeting. So, we can start with that one again. And we
gives us a little more time to to look and do some more research. Could I ask a question? Is would it be possible to get maybe some input from League of Cities as to what it would look like if it transition to a three-year with staggered? How would you transition to
that and what would it look like going forward? >> I'd be glad to pull from some cities that have done that. It'll take me probably longer than a week to hear back from some of the clerks. Please know I'm not an attorney and don't mean to in to
present anything in a legal language. I would of course share that with your attorney and he could address any legal aspects of it. But we have had cities that have changed their terms and the way they stagger. And so that uh material on the transition schedule and
whether you build it into charter charter plus ordinance um type of deal, let me do some digging and I will uh be glad to report back on that. >> And and I think >> I can address it. It's fairly uh fairly simple, straightforward. Honestly, it would it would be so it wouldn't apply
in the 2026 election. Obviously, it would have to pass. So you would say you'd pick three seats. Um for us it doesn't really matter because the seats are you know anybody can run for any of them. So say se you know beginning in the 2028 election seats 1 through three
will be elected for three-year terms beginning uh and then at the 2028 election seats two and u I'm sorry seats 1 3 and five will be uh three-year terms. Seats two and four will be two-year terms. And then you know beginning in the uh 2030 election seats
two and four will be threeear terms. So, we would it would be spelled all out in there. Um, you know, and uh I'm sure Lynn, you know, when she comes back, I um hopefully it'll be pretty similar, but I've given this some thought coming into today um as to how we how that might uh might look.
>> Well, and and I appreciate that. I'm I I'm less concerned with the transition as to then how it would look posttransition if we're saying because may maybe if you charted it out John I'd understand it
and maybe I'm just not firing but the way you're talking it's like okay we're going to have an election every 3 years which would make some of them sixyear terms um once we got into it are we have an election every 18 months are we having it uh you know a year apart part and then it's going to be no election
for another two years and then a year like what's the staggering? So this one would be say we'll start with you know after 2028 um when you've got three and two and then and once once you've got them staggered >> basically what you would have is you
would have you would have one year where you'd have no election another year where you'd have an election of either two or three members and then the following year you would have an election of the remaining members whether it's two or three and then you'd go back on that cycle again of no election election election no election
election election. >> And then the one kind of benefit that I was kind of seeing, you know, if we're doing two and three, you know, say the one the two the two is going to be say a presidential year. So they're going to get a good turnout. Then then the next
one they they'll kind of cycle over every six years. So everybody will get each section of seats will get their turns to have um ony-ear elections whether it's midterm or presidential and then offyear. So it kind of it's not like one seat is, you know, always going
to be off you or something like that. So each seat will have they'll just sort of cycle through getting at least the the good turning. >> All those seats really don't mean anything. So people can jump right the people, you know, whatever. Yeah. So
>> Mr. Chair, if I might for Mr. Quick's benefit, Fernandin Beach just changed. They're staggering and they are one of your comparable cities. Uh and they're in the MUN code library. I will say that the way they spelled theirs out was extremely clear. It might be a good one
for your next meeting for everybody to be able to see the chart. They spelled it going out all the way to 2030 with where all the seats would line up by election cycle. >> Well, Lynn, I like your liked your proposal and and your disclosures are so
noted. um your disclaimers when you were when you're surveying and charting it out. I I'm a visual person. It would help me. Uh and so I'm sure the rest of us probably feel the same way. So
turning the page on that one. We're slightly over 7:00. I'm just looking at the proposed um meeting dates. I could I could tell you right now I will not be here on 3:18 2026. Nora spring break. >> Yeah.
>> Monroe County schools. >> So I would I would ask that that date we just we don't have a meeting that week because that's that's just not possible. >> Um >> and just 8:17 was a typo. Sorry about
that. I don't know how that happens. >> What What should it have been? Cuz I >> No, it should just be nothing. It should just >> be I tried. Okay. >> Sorry about that. >> Cuz I just went back through my calendar and I'm like, how did that happen? So, could could we possibly um tentatively
agree on the next four dates and we can discuss it again? I I wanted I honestly didn't spend a lot of time looking at at this calendar before the meeting. >> What were those were those four dates? I don't have that in front of me. >> So, 225 39 and then 324.
>> Were the two in the middle? >> 225 32 39 and 324. I am I am not here on 39. >> Got LP on the 25th, which is why she's on the 25th. >> Well, if we if we can agree that the
next meeting is on the 25th, then that gives everybody a chance to go back and look at their schedule and see see if we can um can come up with some dates that work for everybody. >> And after we review that, would we be okay to do two meetings in a week? Like, can we
>> I'm not against doing that. if if we need to if we need to catch up on time and we're because we have a hard deadline for when this this committee sunset. So, we still have some work to do. I know that. >> So, if we want to just do next the 225,
which I believe is next Wednesday. Um, and then if you all want to look at the schedule that was in your packet and provide me any of these dates that you're not available, then I can like go back and look at other dates that might work. >> Okay, >> that that works. Is everybody good with that?
If there's no more business, I would um >> move to a journ. >> That's what I was looking for. Thank you.