Can you hear me? Okay, there we go. >> No, Richard's not >> He's He may He may zoom, but he's in the Bahamas. Wish I'd known. >> All right.
Thank you everybody for being here. This should be the last meeting of of this group this year. Um Marty, can we have the uh called to order roll call? >> Okay.
Member Black is not into not attending at this time. Um, C or excuse me, Committee Member Land >> present. >> Committee member Mcbay >> here. >> Committee member Roth >> present.
>> Committee member Young >> here. >> Vice Chair Ravenelloo here. And Chair Harris >> here. >> We do have >> just for everybody in on the internet. Uh we weren't expecting Richard Black to be here. He's uh working in the Bahamas
this month and if he can um internet in, he's going to, but we thank him for his service if we don't see him until after this meeting has been concluded. Thank you. Uh at this point, I'd like to open public comment.
Do I have any public comment? Sue Miller, please approach the podium. Sum Miller Lower Matakumbbe I appreciate what you're doing for our community. I think it is really important and um it's
disappointing that there aren't more people from the community participating with you because I think that what you're doing right now is um could be as important as anything that we will do in
the next year or so. And I um hope that by the end of this meeting uh that the staff will have a list of all the accomplishments, all the things that are that we will be able to see on our
ballot come November if if approved by the village council and all of the recommendations that that you are making to the council that should be addressed some other way other than the charter
because I know you've said well that should be handled some other way. I uh went to a meeting uh last week with a group of private part property owners um from
throughout Monroe County talking about what can we do about traffic. I was the only one in attendance north of the sevenmile bridge. So, I got an earful about what's wrong in Alam Marada and
I've been thinking about is there something that we can do to alleviate some of the traffic issues and I find that it appears to me that anytime traffic is discussed
um when we add new development or do anything approving something that might generate additional trips. We don't take into account what the impact will be on
traffic. We always seem to blame the traffic problems in Alamraad as being something that happens because those people are going south. We're not generating that traffic. And I think that hearing from people south that are
complaining about Alam Marada and our lack of um act action to help with the traffic. I think it's something that we should think about as we see uh more and more permits coming in to build from
property line to property line and and um bigger bigger and better always that it does have an effect on the traffic and we do have some part of the blame and
shouldn't we the residents get a vote. And even if we vote against, I think that it would make us feel better if you proposed a charter amendment to that impacts
how we handle traffic in Alam Marada. And specifically um what they were talking about is that we are the only jurisdiction of all the the local governments that do not
require mitigation if we run out of available trips in any traffic segment in Alam Marada. Every other jurisdiction requires mitigation. Once once the trips on the level of service traffic study
shows that they fall below the level C, then the they have to mitigate in order to build more nonresidential development. And we don't and uh and so why not?
um why are we the only one that excludes that? And I think that while it may seem to be something that the council should decide in our LDRs,
I think that traffic issues are so important to the people of this community. I think they deserve the right to vote on something that might help the Alamraada traffic situation because no matter what we say about the
traffic is just going to Key West or going to Point South, we are the bottleneck. And so I think that a proposal to change that so that when a traffic segment in
Alam Marada has no more available trips that we should require mitigation and we should define what mitigation means and it should be in the charter so that the people of Alam Marada can feel like they
had some say in improving the traffic in Alam Marada whether it works or is another thing. But I think that that it, you know, it's done in every other jurisdiction. Why not here where we have the worst problem of anywhere in Monroe
County? Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Sue, for your comments. I've got another I got another taker. Come on up. I don't want to jump in front of anybody. >> Yes. My name is Joe Wishmire and I must
apologize. I've been this is the first meeting that I've actually made. But I do also have the same concerns about traffic. I live on Plantation Key where the road goes from four lanes to two lanes. Now, this construction certainly didn't
help at all, but there's always a bottleneck right there. And as far as when we do traffic studies or when there's new building going, I went back and referred to my notes because I usually write down my public comments.
And at the county commission meeting on May 20th, uh this was after Bart Smith had done even done a presentation about the Publix that's on county property, but it's going to add over 1,600 trips a day
on Plantation Key. Now, we can ill afford to have that. But here's a project that's not even associated with the village that is taking all the trips that we have. He did say for the extra trips over the
over the allotted that they were going to pay $11,000 per trip in mitigation fees. Now, they said they were going to do that towards freebie, but they are at least doing a mitigation, but they're and see they're
not even building in the village. So, by requiring some sort of mitigation in the village, I don't think it is really going out too far trying to control this traffic situation. if we have new businesses that want to
come in to Plantation Key, how are we going to do that when there's no more available trips? So, I would hope that even in the charter, it should say something about, you know, the county can't just come in and take over all the available trips that we have on certain areas just
because they have a project. So then that kind of puts the burden on our businesses or our residents who want to build something and want to add an extra trip and supposedly there isn't any left. So the traffic is really our big my big big
concern because I'm stuck right in the middle of it. Thank you. >> Thank you Joe for your comments. Barney, do we have anybody online? >> No sir. >> Thank you. So, it wasn't it's not on the agenda, but we kind of left it hanging at the last meeting finishing up the
discussion on whether or not we want to make a recommendation uh related to the military and when there's a trigger for when it should go to a a a referendum. Um saying, um you got to tell me, Susan, so
I don't do that. The legislature apparently has not addressed that at this point because we had put that off several times when we discussed it. So that we had a little more information what was going on at the state legislature.
Anybody want to revisit that or we going to just leave it as it is? >> I'm for living leaving it as it is. I I I agree, but I want to hear everybody before we >> do we have to approve minutes.
>> I think we we had tabled it for tonight. We the two two items I recall that we >> No, he's Craig is just saying, do you want to do a motion to approve last meeting's minutes before we have this discussion? >> Yes. Let's I'm jumping ahead, aren't I? Sorry, guys. Yes. Can I get a a motion for approval
of the minutes? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Can you call the rolling? >> Committee member Land or excuse me, Committee Member McBay. >> Yes. >> Committee member Young. >> Yes. >> Committee member Lant. >> Yes.
>> Committee member Roth. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Rapanelloo. >> Yes. >> And Chair Harris, >> yes. >> That motion passes zero. >> Thank you, Craig, for keeping me on track. Um, okay. Back to the item that we were discussing before I skipped over the
minutes. Is there any appetite for talking about discussing making a recommendation towards the millage rate or leaving the the charter language as it is at FOD? >> I would be open to its removal in its entirety. It seems like an artificial
hurdle to uh the referendum process that otherwise exists. I can't say that I have overly strong feelings about it, but it would either be remove it in its entirety or leave it as is. Um, I've got no problem leaving it. You
know, I don't think I think it's put in there way back when for a reason and uh at least it's, you know, gives something for uh for the public if they if they want to do something. >> Well, it actually restricts what the public can do. So if it wasn't there at
all, the referendum could be had if the public disagrees with whatever millage rate is set by the village council. >> But if only it's above 5%, then they can't have the ref five millage, they can't have the referendum. >> My understanding, correct me if I'm
wrong, I if you remove that five mills, they have absolutely no way of requesting a referendum. >> But there is no then limitation to them requesting a referendum. What what what is the limitation on the referendum power?
>> I don't think you have referendum power. It's specifically removed >> without that language. >> No, what I'm saying is the five mill in that case I would definitely want to leave it. Right. >> Exactly.
>> But if that didn't exist, >> what I saw was a limitation. Let me look. >> It's Yeah, you got to read it. It's >> What's this section again? It's an exception to >> Yeah. >> John Quick is online if you care to hear from him.
>> Sure. >> Sure. >> John, can you weigh in? >> Sorry. I'm trying to find the the language. What is the specific statuto section or the charter section? >> John, we can't hear you. >> Hello.
>> Referend. >> Yeah. Section nine. I printed mine before the Yeah, I >> provided that annual budget program. >> Okay, I see what you're saying.
>> Mr. Chair, it's Lynn Typton from the >> get your right to >> reference back. Fair enough. >> So that's the stock. That's the B and C. Is that enough? Is it too much? Is it too in my opinion? I wouldn't want to remove it. I wouldn't want to go higher.
>> Yeah. >> I don't know that you necessarily want to go lower. And we've also been told that this is unique to our charter, >> which I don't understand why we're unique. It seems to me that this should be more of the norm and not than not the
norm. But nevertheless, >> no, thank you for that, Joe. That was a big point. >> Lynn, do you have are you on? >> Yes, I am. Can you hear me? >> Oh, we we don't have you. >> But do other jurisdictions have a limitation set forth in B?
>> From what I've read, I've seen a lot of >> Can you hear me? >> You're you're Lyn, you're >> still very low volume. >> Then I would just say I concur.
>> I've put it at max volume. me now. >> Are you guys able to hear me too now? >> Yes. >> They're not going to >> Well, really for purposes of discussion,
>> while we're waiting on Lynn, do I have a motion to keep the language as it is? So, we for purpose of discussion only, >> I make a motion to keep the language as it is. with regard to the referendum. >> I'll second. Thank you.
>> So, do we have Lynn? >> Can you hear me? >> I know. >> Showing full microphone. Can you hear me? >> You're still very low, Lynn. >> Frank's working on it back. >> Okay. So, while we're waiting on While we're waiting on Lynn, let's open it up to the public. That way, we're we're not
burning time. is do we have anybody from the public that wants to speak on on this issue? >> There are no hands raised on Zoom. >> Sue, it obviously is confusing or you wouldn't be talking as if you don't know
what the it actually does. And so I think that even if you want to leave it, it should be clear to everybody what it means. >> I think the confusion was simply mine.
>> Yeah. The rest of us were quite clear. >> Listen, every once in a while, Susan Susan has to have some kind of memory lapse. So we'll give her a break because she was pretty dialed in on this the last couple meetings. So, so if she is
confused, could somebody else explain it to me what it means? >> No, I don't think Suz is confused at all, but I'll let her speak for herself. >> So, what it means is that the electors of the village would have no power to require reconsideration of
any budgetary items to include the millage rate unless the village went above 5 mills. In which case, if the village went above 5 mills, the referendum right would exist. >> We we don't want to take out the power
for us to have a referendum if we went over 5 mills. And so if we leave the language as is, that power remains. So I that's the motion that is on the on the floor and that's been seconded. >> Do we have Lynn?
I think John tried to speak too, but he was really quiet. So I think there's some at home. It's just the chambers. Steve was called at home. So chambers. >> I I I remember Lynn's comments on this from a couple meetings ago where she
basically had surveyed the number of jurisdictions that had similar language and there are very few if any other jurisdictions in Florida that reserve to the people the right for a referendum. if there's a a cap in a military where you exceed. So, we're we're unique in
that respect and um it leaves the power with the people and I would fully support leaving that language alone. And we have a motion and a second on the floor. Arie, could you call the role? >> Committee member London, >> yes. >> Committee member, >> yes.
>> Committee member Roth, >> yes. >> Committee member Young, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Rapanelloo, >> yes. >> And Chair Harris, >> yes. That motion passes 6. >> Thank you. Now we're >> Mr. Chair, can you hear me? >> We We got you now, Lynn.
>> And I'm I'm so sorry. I've been trying the last couple of minutes. Um, if you see John's note, he was worried it's in chambers. I could hear John. John could hear me. We couldn't get through to either of you. I do apologize. It's
important that John review your language because what I'd shared with you, not only are you unique, there's an AG opinion and in chapter 205 of state statute, a municipality may not in any
way limit a council or commission's ability to set its millage rate. And that's what I had tried to share is I wanted Mr. Quick as the attorney to review that because I did not want your
language to not conform with state statute in chapter 205. >> I I guess it really wouldn't become an issue unless we went over five mills and then then there could be a discussion on whether or not the that provision is still consistent with Florida law. Um I
I don't think that changes anybody's mind about leaving it the way it is. >> No. And I don't I don't think >> but that's what I was trying to weigh in on and I'm sorry. >> I appreciate it. You had you had mentioned that at the last meeting. So um duly noted. So at this
>> at this point I think we're on to >> the first first item for discussion that's on the agenda which is review and discussion proposed language for recommendations to village council. So for everybody that hasn't been here or
that's on on the internet, this is basically uh Weissera taking the language that we've discussed and turning this into the word, the written word to see what the strikethroughs and and underlying changes would look like. And what we're
doing at this point is reviewing that to see if it faithfully uh reflects what we discussed in the motions that we made. So with that, I'm listening to comments from from well I have one and it's not necessarily
I will ex give me some lee while I explain my process. I looked at on page one the uh how we're going to go about in that initial election staggering the terms and I questioned why is a person running unopposed automatically going to
have 3 years which led me to article 8 and also looking at some state statutes. I answered that question and understand why that needs to be like that considering the language of section 86 of the charter. But then that led me to
the question of section 166.031 subsection 6 which says each mun municipality shall by ordinance or charter provision provide procedures for filling a vacancy in office caused by death resignation or removal from office. We did that. But that provision
goes on and says such ordinance or charter provision shall also provide procedures for filling a vacancy in candidacy caused by death, withdrawal or removal from the ballot of a qualified candidate following the end of the
qualifying period which leads leaves fewer than two candidates for an office. So section 86 pertains to when there is only one person who qualifies to put in for a seat. They're they're not even on the
ballot. They're automatically deemed elected. So that's what answered my question here. But what we don't have and I could not see that our original charter had a provision that's required by law which is what happens if
postqualification in a seat where let's assume two people were running one person dies. What happens? because it seems like there there has to be some sort of filling of a vacancy in the candidacy
that has to be in the state charter pursuant to this statute. >> John, >> can can you hear me now? >> Yes. >> Oh, there we go. >> Were you able to hear hear what Susan was saying as far as where she sees
there's a a missing piece in our charter? >> Yes. So it's not as I recall. Let me pull up the statute. The statute says it has to be by ordinance as well. >> So it doesn't necessarily have to be in the charter. Doesn't mean it can't be in the charter. >> Well, the rest of Sorry, John, to cut
you off. I saw that. And if it's in ordinance, then that's an answer. But it also says that such ordinance or charter provision and because the rest of it's in a charter provision, that's where the second part of my concern is. So I guess the first query is is it an ordinance
anywhere? And if not, then we we need to do something. And even if it isn't an ordinance, do we need to pull that ordinance into the charter so it's all in the same spot under the statute? Twofold. Sorry. Now, go ahead. >> My interpretation of the way that our I'll have to look and see if there's any
I don't think there's anything in the code. I was just that was I just want to make sure that everybody was aware of what it what the language was. My interpretation of how our charter is drafted is that that if somebody passes away and nobody is elected, that would
create a vacancy in that position because the other person's term would have ended and you would now have a vacancy after the election and that the the council would then appoint pursuant to the vacancy provisions. I have absolutely no issues if you guys want to
uh put language in there making that clear or suggest something else. Um I can easily draft that. That's not not an issue. >> Yeah, that that's not the that's not the issue, John. We have that language. That's what you have put in here. Um and that we discussed at some length about
the 6 month 50% not 50% and when it's going to be appointed, etc. This is for before an election. So after qualifying in August, before the November election in a twoperson race, one person dies or otherwise becomes disqualified. How do
you fill the vacancy in the candidacy before the election? What do you do in that circumstance? Not if they die after November election. So, so the question would be could somebody jump in >> if if you have if you're down to one
candidate before the election after qualifying and one person withdraws, passes away and you're down to one candidate, would you be opening it back up to have another candidate to get in? >> Well, and that's I guess that's the
question because that's where I'm trying to figure out where this ends up going. >> This this is the language of the statute. Such ordinance or charter provision shall shall also provide procedures fulfilling a vacancy in candidacy caused by death, withdrawal,
or removal from the ballot of a qualified candidate following the end of the qualifying period, which leaves fewer than two candidates for an office. >> That to me says you've got to address this somewhere in in everywhere else
we're addressing it is in the charter. If we already have it in an ordinance, I'm not saying whatever we have is wrong. I don't think we have it. But do we have to have Didn't we already have a similar situ? In fact, what I think if I recall, this was prior to my time is my
recollection is that um when Henry when council member Rosenthal was originally elected, this is exactly what happened. His there was an opponent who passed away and um I don't know what how the village treated it. My assump my belief is that they uh treated it as being
unopposed. Um but uh we do not have no we do not have anything in the ordinance or charter as far as I'm aware. >> Yeah. I guess my question is was that treatment proper given the statute number one. And number two, is that
written anywhere? And if it is proper but simply not written, if if that's what the people want, then we need to codify it. His name stayed on the ballot. I recall that the name was never removed from the ballot. And and and I think he ended up getting more votes
than Henry did if I recall correctly. >> Yeah. And and the she would not release the the total count, but the word was that he actually had more votes. But I think my my recommendation would be >> I just want to comply with the statute.
That's it. >> And and and my recommendation would be this. As we've done with a a couple of other items, we make a recommendation that this be looked at and that by ordinance, this needs to be fixed if there's a deficiency. >> Okay. I'm just saying that it looks to
me like since the rest of this is done with the charter, >> you like to keep it all in the charter that it may have to be. I that that part's vague, but >> Well, here's the nice thing. We we can make that recommendation. These are all recommendations to council. when council
brings this up, that will give Weissera more time to research it and then they can recommend it go into the charter. Or we could we could just say if if there is a deficiency, we'd like to see it amended in the charter to be consistent. And I I'm comfortable with that. I And
if there's not a deficiency because they've got it somewhere else in another ordinance, then we leave it like it is. >> Fine. >> Okay. Can I get a motion uh that we recommend that the village council review the
ordinances determine whether this issue has been addressed in ordinance and if it has not that appropriate language be added to the charter to address the chapter 166 issue um so that we stay consistent with
keeping everything in the charter. >> Can somebody make a motion like that? >> I know you can. >> So moved. Okay. So, I made the motion and I've got a second. >> Okay. Okay. Do you want me to restate it? >> Yes. Do it. Come on. >> Okay. I move to recommend this to the
council that the charter and applicable ordinances pertaining to candidacy be reviewed to confirm whether the village has an ordinance or charter provision that would comply with statute 166.031
subsection 6. and in particular the last sentence pertaining to candidacies. >> Do I have a second for discussion? >> Second. >> Thank you. At this point, I'd like to open up public hearing. Sorry, public comment. And barring any public comment,
then we can take a vote. Thank you. Do we have anybody that wants to comment on this one? >> There are no hands raised on Zoom. Sue Joe, >> I I think the purpose of this committee is to give the direction to the council
and this wouldn't be giving them direction on what to do to fix this problem. What do you do if there's only one candidate left? I >> I think I think we are giving them direction. were saying that if there's a
a deficit in our ordinance that we address it through a charter change to to be consistent and keep all of this in section 8 of our charter. That's how I understand it. So to correct the problem though,
do you have a new election new you open up for new candidates or you accept that there's only going to be one candidate? What happens if there was only one that filed and he dies?
Just seems like you need to >> Yeah. I I I tend to agree frankly with Sue that the way that this statute is written suggests that you have to have at least two candidates on a ballot if two candidates qualified were qualified and then something
happened before the election. Otherwise, one would have thought that it wouldn't have emphasized that you have a qualifying period which leaves fewer than two candidates for an office. That is if three people had qualified and one died,
not a problem. But if three people qualified and two became disqualified in any fashion, then you've got an issue. Um, which seems to suggest that the statute wanted an actual election. How to fix that, you know, is a different question.
But I think in steps it first has to be determined if we have this stop gap um in an ordinance. It's not in the charter. Um if we don't what would a proposal be is the next question. And yes,
you know, it would have fallen under our purview. But I'm not sure that um you know what do we do? Well, I I think our recommendation >> do we do we allow, you know, opening up the qualifying period? I don't think you can do that by state statute. So,
>> I I think what our recommendation, if I take it another shot of is to be consistent with Florida statute and if it's not addressed by ordinance already to have it addressed by a change to the charter, to be consistent that section 8
addresses the whole >> in a manner obviously that would comply with the requirement, >> right? and I'm I'm comfortable with that. So, we have a motion and a second. Uh Marne, can you call the role, please? >> Vice Chair Raphanelo,
>> yes. >> Committee member Roth, >> yes. >> Committee member London, >> yes. >> Committee member Mcbay, >> yes. >> Committee member Young, >> yes. >> And Chair Harris, >> yes. >> That motion passes 6. Okay, so we're at
the end of the of the agenda and I would just like to take a second and first thank everybody that volunteered for this. Um, appreciate having your Monday and Wednesday's nights and um, I feel I feel good about what we're recommending.
I think they're common sense. I know not everybody in the in the town agrees. Tom, I listen to your show sometimes, so I get it. I listen to him a lot more than that. >> But you do. You can't get away. >> I'm so sorry. Nor would I want to.
>> But but I really appreciate I think I think we put a some solid work in and I think our recommendations are good. I don't know if if what the council will do with them and what the public will do with them, but I I feel that we put a lot of time and effort and thought into them and um I'm proud of the work we
did. I would also like to thank um John from Weissera and Lynn from Florida League of Cities for their input and making this process um a lot better by giving us some some background that we didn't have. And of course, you couldn't
do any of this without our staff. Um Frank in the booth, Marne, Jennifer, you guys are great. really appreciate you donating or volunteering or not volunteering your time to do this. I hope I hope Ron gives you a couple days
off to to make up for it. But um I really do appreciate all the work you put into it and for everybody that participated in the public participation. I really appreciate your participation. Um, we did have some really good uh input throughout the the
couple months that we've been meeting. And uh I thank you again. And with that, I'd like a motion to adjourn. >> So moved. >> Thank you.