morning. Are we there? >> Yes. >> Can you call Can you call the role, please? >> Council member Richard Black >> here. >> Committee member Richard. Sorry about that. Um, Committee Member Lori Land >> here. Committee member Craig Bay
>> here. >> Committee member Joe Roths >> present. >> Committee member Roger Young >> here. >> Vice Chair Susan Rafanello >> here. >> And chair Ty Harris >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Thank you.
All right. Uh public comment. There are no hands raised on Zoom. >> Thank you. Then let's close public comment. Uh approval of the minutes. >> Do I have a a motion and a second? >> Motion to approve. >> Second.
>> Marty, can we call the role? >> Sure. was member. >> Yes. >> Yes. Y >> and then committee member Loland.
>> Yes. >> Committee member Roth. >> Yes. >> Committee member Young. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Raphanelo. >> Yes. >> And Chair Harris, >> yes. The motion passes 70. Okay, let's pick up where we left off at
the last meeting. Barney, can you for people out in uh TV land, internet land, let us know where we're where we're starting off the conversation tonight? Well, I believe that we are starting wishing
>> Hi, I believe we're starting with the um table from the March 4th meeting about village council meetings and uh Jennifer, do you recall exactly where we started? >> Yeah, I was not here because I was sick that evening, but when I watched back the meeting, that was the item that you
guys wanted to table. Um I believe because um you weren't um you were still uh wanted John Quick to put together um the item whether or not people could pull things off the agenda and how that looked and I believe he did send you a
draft of that language and you still wanted to talk about that. So I believe that's what was tabled um from that um agenda. >> Do we have John? >> He uh John is traveling uh out of the country but I believe somebody from his office Jamie Meyer is on Zoom as well. Jamie, are you are you available on
Zoom? >> Yes, I am available on Zoom. Um, thank you, Jennifer. And if you have any questions, please let me know. I'm here um to represent as village attorney. >> Do you do you have the language in front of you that John drafted?
>> I do have the language in front of me. I believe it was circulated as well. Um, is there specific Just because I was not at the other meeting, so I don't want to make any assumptions. Is there specific language that you'd like to discuss? I also attached it to your packet, Ty. So, if you have the packet, it's if you
don't, I have a copy. >> I confess I left my packet on my desk after spending 20 minutes printing it out one page at a time. >> Okay. All right. Um, >> it's D 58.
>> Yes. So, has everybody had a chance to look at this language? Richard, have you looked at it? >> Yeah. Yes, I have. >> Lori, >> I'm right now. >> Okay.
Give everybody a second to refresh themselves. This is what happens when you don't have a meeting for a week. >> Do you want me to just read it? >> Yeah. Um, I'm going to have Susan Raphael, vice chair, read this. So the addition to the village council
meetings that was being discussed or floated the concept of which was floated by Richard um black at last meeting um and what we wanted to see uh how what it would look like in print is to section 5A of the charter and it's added at
section D that states with the exception of quasi judicial hearing agenda items once an item is placed on a published agenda it shall not be postponed except upon a determination of good cause by the village staff or majority vote of the council.
>> I I believe that language reflects from my notes where we where we left off. I know we had a discussion about what constitutes good cause and we spent a little time on that, but this seemed to be about where we could we could go. Um I'd like to hear everybody's thoughts
about it. I I think it encapsulates what we discussed at the last meeting. >> I'm not opposed to it in concept. I do think that it shouldn't just be village staff like does that mean anybody on village staff um I think we should
designate you village manager department you know applicable department head something like that so it's not just any village staff but I I don't have strong feelings to be honest with you one way or the other on this particular edition. Well, right now, can village staff, anybody just
pull something off? I asked this because I don't know, but >> that's not the way it works in reality. Jennifer, you want to take that one? >> I mean, typically the way it works is if the the sponsor of the the item on the agenda, like if it was my land use item,
it would either be myself, Ron, or or John Quick that would probably make a recommendation to pull it. Um, if it was a finance item, the finance director, so on and so forth. So it it wouldn't be like some other random staff member that would just say I mean I'm not saying it would never happen to Susan's point cuz
she's going to turn around and say that it could happen. But I mean but that's not the way in reality that it typically works because they don't other people don't really know like my items or like I would know a finance item whether or not it's ready to go forward or if there's an issue with it. So I wouldn't
make a suggestion that you know had pull a finance item or not. So um you know we sort of leave each other to our own areas. >> Well and and the other problem is that if you say director or manager and the director is indisposed
um then there wouldn't be anybody technically to to pull it if it needed to be pulled. Um and I I understand the the concern with just saying staff. So, I kind of see this as a as a moot
point. I mean, I think that just like Jennifer said, sometimes she's going to have an issue that might need to be pulled for some reason. She probably has a good reason for it. Um, but to have it state that it shall not be postponed except upon a determination of
good cause by the village staff or majority, that's that's already way we're doing things, correct? >> Yes. I I think it I think what what the issue was, Richard, tell me if I'm wrong, was that we we end up with a
bunch of people here for a meeting and then without any kind of explanation u and items pulled and it doesn't seem that there's an issue with the ad or an issue with the staff report or an issue with the notice, but it gets pulled
without a lot of explanation. And the idea was to hold um staff and the council to some standard of ex explanation of why we're pulling it. Really >> we the village does a lot of can kicking
like it it we kick the can down the road constantly. And my whole thought of this was to maybe minimize a little bit of that, you know, polling items because there's crowd here or whatever, you know, just silly reasons, but seems like so often that happens. And I was just
trying to figure out a way that maybe we could help that out for the >> and I think after that, I think we had about a 15 20 minute discussion on it. This is kind of where we ended up. Um, I don't have a problem with the language. I'd like to hear what everybody else has to say. It's it's the best we can
probably do as far as trying to create a standard for for pulling items. >> I I I agree. I think it's the best wordage that you could probably do without getting too uh >> too down the rabbit hole. >> So, I I don't I'm not opposed to what
what the two of you are presenting, right, and understanding. However, what I am what I'm suggesting here is that the determination of good cause that's very vague. Right. >> That's very vague.
>> Right. We we understand that. >> Okay. >> Maybe one size doesn't fit all. >> I'm simply stating to you that regardless, somebody is going to going to Jennifer, for example, I'm not mean to put you under the bus. You just happen to be here in your spot. You know, Jennifer is going to have an item
that she wants to pull and she's going to create her own in essence good cause. Who's who is going to dispute her determination of good cause? Well, I I would think as long as you know, as long as this is forcing an
explanation more than anything and are most of the time are they pulled by council members for we'll say various reasons and staff is that I don't want anybody to disparage any council members, but is that usually what happens? council member for some reason doesn't want something to go forward and
they pull it for various reasons. >> Remember I gave that that three minute dissertation of what used to happen to me in at the villa or um Miami Dade County when the when the plat was in front and the one person was agitated
with the developer so she just kept not showing up and they just kept pulling it without any explanation. So that's why I was feeling sympathetic for for Richard because I've been in that situation before where an item continuously got pulled without explanation.
>> And it might be up to each council to make their own bar as far as what good cause is. Well, they can always ask John in the in the meeting what's good cause and and John can then kind of outline what the legal standard for of good
cause is in relation to either a quasi judicial legislative or whatever the item type is. But then then it would be on the village attorney to explain what good cause is. Is there anybody else want to discuss this before I open it up for public
comment? Marty, public comment. >> No hands raised on Zoom. >> Dave. >> Okay. Uh, public comment is closed. Do I hear a motion to approve this language in a second? Motion. >> Have a motion.
>> A second. >> Thank you. Marty, can you call the role? >> Committee member Roger Young. >> Yes. >> Committee member Richard Black. >> Yes. >> Committee member Lori Loland. >> No. >> Committee member Craig McVey. >> Yes.
>> And um committee member Joe Roth. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Susan Raphanelo. >> Yes. >> And chair Ty Harris. >> Yes. And >> the motion passes six to one. Okay. So, can you read out uh item number two,
Marne, for everybody out in internet world >> before we leave 58? Um, and we do not need to discuss this tonight by any stretch, but I didn't want um, one of the one of the points that I made or in our brainstorming session, for lack of a
better reason, were certain items that uh, may we want we may want to consider requiring a supermajority vote for, which I think would probably fit into section five, but there are other priorities I recognize as we walk through it. I just don't want that to be
left off for forever more. >> Okay. >> Just trying to get it on an agenda recognizing it's not on this one. >> Yeah. I'm I I don't think anybody has a problem putting it on the agenda. >> I know. I just didn't want to if for no other reason than have myself forget about it.
>> I'm sorry. >> The chair was speaking with me when you were speaking. I apologize. So, the supermajority was in what for >> I think it probably fits in section five, but it may fit elsewhere as well. >> Um just so that it makes an agenda prior to us, you know, wrapping up and
submitting our um y >> provisions to the council. I'd appreciate it. Thanks. >> Sure. I'll add it to the next one. Okay. You want to read it out, Marne for? >> Okay. Well, coming up um we have uh section 8 committee members uh would
discuss tential modifications work towards a consensus on which items should be amended. Um the whole section is uh starts with um lector number one. Uh section number one is electors. Any person who is a resident of the village
who is qualified as an elector in the state and who registers in the manner prescribed by law shall be an elector of the village. Two, nonpartisan elections. All elections for the village council member shall be conducted on a nonpartisan basis without any designation of political affiliation.
Section three, qualification for office. Any resident of the village who wishes to become a candidate for a village office, village elective office shall qualify with the village clerk no sooner than the second Tuesday prior to the Monroe County primary election at noon
and ending no later than noon on Tuesday the following Tuesday in the year which the election is to be held. Section four, schedule for general elections. The regular village election shall be held on the first Tuesday after
the first Monday in November of each evennumbered year. Such village elections shall be general village elections. Schedule for other elections number five. Uh subsection A, an election to fill the remainder of an
expired term shall be held as provided in subsection 4. and B, special municipal elections shall be held in the same manner as regular elections, except that the village council by ordinance shall fix the time
for holding of such elections. Section six is determination of election to office. If only one candidate qualifies for a seat, send candidate shall be deemed to be elected to the office for that particular seat.
>> Don't mean I'm not going to torture you. So I I think until we get to 8 n if you just want to read out which each section is like determination of election to office. >> Oh okay. Sure. >> I'm not going to torture you like that. >> All right. Yes. So uh section six is determination of election to office.
Seven is village canvasing board. Eight is recall of village council members. Nine initiative and referendum. >> All right subsections with it. Right. I had I had a hard stop on 8 sub9 because
that's on our agenda as is item C. If did anybody have an issue with the first eight subsections that um Marty just read out? >> I think we just need to fix the scrivener potentially in subsection five
that refers back to subsection 4. So then that it corresponds with >> section five >> subsection 4. I think that it probably has always meant to be that, but that's
not what it states. >> Does anybody have any comments about that? >> I agree with you, but this is going to go before the residents to vote on. And so sometimes the scriveners errors is maybe not something we want to waste time
>> if we're space for for for a voted issue. >> Understood. But I'm pointing out it it does need to be fixed. I'm not sure that it's a scrivener's error because section 4 does pertain to general elections. However, subsection 5A does not
correspond to what our recommendation was with respect to three-year staggered terms and the unexpired term term seats. So it would it would just be sort of a tag along necessary fix, >> right?
>> All right. That's good for and whatever the section that we had something, >> right? Well, because now that we're going to staggered elections, it's not always going to be the general election. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> There could be a special municipal election like it suggests there could
have been even though there couldn't have been, you know, historically in subsection B. So that just it just needs to dovetail up. It's really a John Weissera issue I think rather than our recommendation issue. But I did want to point out that issue.
>> Yeah, we made it less than >> we we created the internal inconsistency. >> There were a lot sort of there was already internal inconsistencies, but this but since we're fixing them, let's fix them. >> Let's fix them. Yep. I agree. I don't
think anybody has a problem with that. Okay. So, somebody wanted to specifically talk about um initiatives, initiatives and referendums under um sub9. >> Marty, who who >> who's whose item was that?
>> Um I have it as um Joe Roth and I think Susan Raphael. >> I don't really have questions about it or anything. I don't recall having a question about that. I mean, the process is pretty much laid out in the statute, which I believe
you have to follow to do that. So, I don't know why I would question it. >> Was it the the digns um trigger on the referendum? Was that what uh I think we were looking at? >> I think that's what we were discussing. >> I think that was the part we were
thinking that was maybe a little bit too high. And that was the that's that was the very specific section that we were talking about whether five bills was seemed appropriate or whether it should be a lower number. Um because five gave
a lot of discretion to to council at that point. So that's where we left off that. So our specific issue was with 8 9 subc. Anybody want to start talking about again? We had a pretty good a pretty good conversation on it two meetings
ago, but we just punted it down so that we were staying in order of of the charter. >> Yeah, we kicked kicked it down. We kicked it two meetings. We're doing better than a lot of other people. Only only two meetings. Um, so I remember the
general discussion being that everybody was concerned about five mills being being the number and that the thought was maybe it should be a lower number uh in order to trigger a referendum if you're going to go beyond whatever that
was. So I I know there were nobody had really come up with a number. We just felt that five in general was was too high. And I don't see that anybody thinks that five is is comfortable with five as it is. >> I'm fine with it.
>> Okay. >> With staying at five, you mean? >> Yeah. I'm I'm fine with it. >> As the max staying with five. I mean, I don't see that they're going to use it, but you we don't know what's
coming around the corner. We don't know how things are going to be if uh we have no longer have property tax for those that are homestead. Exactly. And >> that was the other part of the conversation. Thank you for reminding me was that there there's bills in the
legislature right now that may impact our thoughts on on that. And that's one of the reasons we kicked it. Other than we were trying to stay in order down the road, I don't know. Um, have we gotten a legislative update on on where those
bills are headed? Um, at this point in the session, >> session's over. >> Session's over. >> Okay. I know they have a special session cuz they didn't pass. >> Well, the special session was over, too. No. >> Yes. Thanks. >> Update,
>> Ron. The the 60-day regular session ended. They have to have a special session because they didn't pass a budget. They've also called a special session for redistricting and probably on property taxes. But what happens at the end of the regular session, any bills
that were not passed are dead unless they're specifically added to a special session call. So any particular bills other than the budget uh are dead. >> All right. So we're safe. You're never safe while the legislaturator is in in session. So I would just say anything
can happen. I'm saying that could be added to a special session call depending on what the bills are. if you get the if you get the presiding officers or the governor to add it. But right now, I would think that the regular bills maybe something affiliated with property taxes are dead.
>> Okay. So So if we if we make a recommendation to come come off of the five, we're mostly safe at this point in in the session being over, but the special session still to come.
Does anybody want to talk about what the number should be? >> I I don't know. I did think it was interesting that Lynn said there is no uh village or or anything that where it's I guess we're very unique for specifying
that. um which I thought I mean why not be unique but I thought that was kind of an interesting point and because of that having having that ceiling at five you know I I don't like that but um most other places don't have anything so they
can raise it to whatever they want so that that's just that's just me thinking right you know what what we have is still better than what most have >> yeah Lynn said that that's it's rare to see this in in a charter >> and I I think I'd been told that when
the village was, you know, come being formed, you know, years ago, residents were concerned that a new council was going to jack, you know, in uh >> taxes up on people as compared to what the county was doing. So, they wanted to be able to put some sort of a ceiling in
there just to try to protect them. So, I think that's where it came from um you know, way back when. So, >> that's where it totally came from. And that was actually the first council with Ron Levy and um
>> what's his name from? >> Yeah. But it was and Jim and um Frank Klesky was part of that. They were all because they all own that property everywhere and they're like whoa whoa whoa because we had a lot of meetings with Ron before the council got incor before the village got incorporated and that
was always the big discussion is are you going to jack us up? So that may be that it's probably exactly where it came from. I don't know where the five number, but >> that makes sense. Do we want to take public comment before we have more discussion
>> or does anybody have a burning thought right now? >> Excuse me. What's the current rate, >> Ron? >> What is the current rate? I don't >> I think 265. >> We didn't raise it.
>> Believe it. 265. >> It's way 2 and 3/4. >> Excuse me. I think that's the point. I mean, if you're at one and the statute let you go up to five, that's you know, quintupling your rates if you know
that's kind of what's interest. I mean, can they increase the tax rate by a factor of five >> as a practical matter? Not at a referendum. >> So we're that would seem outrage. >> Does that sound right 265?
>> Yeah, that's what I'd say. >> 2 and 3/4. Yeah. >> So I think for me clarification come in >> is um when it says total village tax rate, does that mean what the village
levies and what the county levies or just what the village levies? because clearly there's a difference between your total millage rate and your village tax rate. Does anybody have more clarity on that than I do? Cuz I don't
when I read this because that's definitely a difference. And and also let's remember this doesn't this this doesn't preclude anyone from suggesting or putting forth
a budget that exceeds 5 mills. This just removes your ability to have a referendum about it until it exceeds 5 mills. So they could come in and put in a budget that's 10 mills. If nobody raises
a point, then this is academic, but this is saying that if if they do that, you can raise a point and bring it to a referendum and have a discussion about it. Now, is that the village tax rate or is that the
total tax rate? Because we know on our tax bill, we've got county and we've got village and then we've got total. It's a good point and it's a good question and I don't have an answer >> just for clarity sake the current
military is 2.65 >> right so we got that one right thank you Craig >> Mr. Joe, to your s to your your comment there, I would think that it would only pertain to what the village would have control of,
>> right? >> Yeah. Well, I could argue exactly the opposite because why then have the word total in there? The village has a millage rate. It doesn't have a cumulative sum of a total. I'm just saying I'm not saying that you're wrong.
I'm just saying I could argue >> You're also an attorney, so you like to argue. >> Yeah. the other side. And getting back to Roger's point before about why it came into being, if people were concerned about the overall cost of their taxes, the legislative history on this one, to
the extent it exists, and it probably doesn't, wouldn't surprise me to have it be total was total because they wanted to know that they're not going to be, you know, footing the county tax bill and another, you know, five millillage or they were
looking at what the total would be. So, I don't think I don't have an answer. I don't think it's clear. >> Lynn, I'm >> Hi. Yes. I just wanted to weigh in. >> I'm so sorry to interrupt, but quickly, would you mind just stating your name
and your address for the record? Thank you. >> Lynn Tipton, a consultant for the Florida League of Cities. I live in Mount Dora and have been attending the meetings uh at the council's request. Uh most cities in their charters when they
reference millillage when they refer to total it's the separation of the annual levy and debt any um pay repayment of debt to say a utility bond or a general
obligation bond. As a result, when total is used, they're strictly speaking of the municipal amount, but that's the reason for the word total, not to include school district, water management district or county because
those things usually are not referenced in the municipal charter because the municipality has no control or political I mean that in the small P sense uh influence in that. So that's the reason for using total millage. They
mean what the municipality would levy in a given year debt plus advalorum. Uh just to help on that. The other is that uh with your attorney being present, there is an AG opinion 86-89
back done back in the 1980s that recommended that municipalities be very careful in trying to limit the ability of a council or commission to set the property tax millage by doing things
such as a poll, a referenda, things of that nature. And I just throw that out. You had asked me how rare it is. The reason it's rare is because of that AG opinion. There was also subsequent legislation in chapter 205.065
of state statute that indicates counties and municipalities are not to tie the hands of the legislative body when setting advorum. So I am not saying that as an attorney just for the attorney to double check on with anything that
relates to referenda and the advalorum tax. So Jamie in particular that's I wanted to make sure that that was in the notes for this because I'm not an attorney and and wouldn't begin to give legal advice. >> I appreciate it, Miss Tipton. Thank you.
Um thank you. I was going to suggest um at the next meeting we'll come and we can h actually flesh out the legal implications of this but I I appreciate that background. Thank you. >> That's a that was very helpful in
understanding. Um we have to be very careful. We don't want to bind the the council's hands. Although I know we're all concerned about um that five mills or most of us are concerned about the
five mills without having a referendum. Well, I think this really binds though um the uh the elector's hands as well because they cannot um have a it takes away the general
referendum power for an ordinance increase of 4.95, but they only get that referendum power back if it goes over five. So, I think that while it doesn't, we need to be
careful of tying the village council's hands, um, we need to be careful about tying the electors hands as well. And if they could otherwise seek to have a referendum for any reason, this really limits the electors more than the
village council. Um, that said, maybe this is the balance that was struck back then and >> we should leave it alone. Yeah. I mean, but I can I can see where it ties the elector's hands more so I would I would think than the village council given how
high that ceiling is compared to where our total um mill is right now at 2.65. It would have to double before the electors could complain through referendum. >> Other thoughts, comments?
>> I say you table it so you get more information at the next meeting. Okay. So, we're going to be on strike three with this one after after the next meeting because this is the second time we've talked about it. But I >> say we leave it alone. >> What >> I said we leave it alone and move on.
>> My my thought is to generally leave it alone unless something comes out of this special session that necessitates us revisiting it. But that that's my opinion. Yeah, I'm I'm fine with that.
>> Everybody fine with it? >> Sorry. Is everybody fine with that for right now? >> I'd agree with Joe to to table it. There's a reason there's three strikes, but if there's a motion, we can deal with the motion. >> Yeah, we can bring it back, right? If we find >> Yeah. Yeah, we can always bring it back. So long as we haven't met our sunset
timeline, we're we can bring anything up. So yeah, let's let's just table this. Do we need a motion to table or is it good enough that you've got a show of of heads bobbing? >> I think that's sufficient direction for us.
>> Thank you. >> Okay, Marne, I'm not going to do this to you. >> Roger. I just have one request as our resident sort of and Craig uh historians here on this particular issue. It sounds like if you can find out what the thought process was with respect to this
particular item, if you know of anybody who might have more, I'd be very interested in in hearing that. >> Yeah, I can ask it. Moody's probably going to be our best cuz Frank's not around and wrong past. >> I think Deb Depp might have been on that first council.
>> No, maybe not. >> If you can, fine. If you can't, totally understand. >> No, I'm with you. Thank you. Yeah, I'll ask. So, we're going to we're backtracking on on the next item on D. We're going back into section six, which
is budget. Um, there are three sections on budget. There's fiscal year, there's budget adoption, section three is appropriation amendments during the fiscal year and the subsections of that are supplemental sections under A,
reduction of appropriations under B and limitations effective date under C. Um, has anybody because we we don't have any specific subs on that. Okay, Jennifer. >> Um, I just can give you some context on the notes that I had taken from your
very first meeting. Um, I believe uh Susan Raphael had some concerns that the village council um and their budget approval process and not getting it early enough. Um, so I think there was some timing issues. Um, and I think that was um, and I think there was some
recommendation that proposing that village staff uh, do a budget 90 days prior to fiscal year end or or something along those lines. So, I think that's why I put that in there. >> Okay. All right, Susan, you're up. Yeah, my the general
sense was is that we have historically seen sort of a rushed approval process for whatever budget is provided. And I have heard more than one council over the years say, well, we we are required
to approve a budget, so we'll just approve this one now, and we can always decrease it later. But once a budget's approved at a certain level, typically inertia takes over, and that's the budget. And we have seen the budget go, you know, up and up and up to keep
because the village has been collecting more because thankfully property values have been going up. So they collect more and it's keeping pace. I think to have the public be able to provide some real legitimate input into the process. Um it
should be proposed sooner than what is it 30 days now prior to when it actually has to be adopted. I I'd like to hear this is one where I'd like to hear from staff a little bit on what the process takes and and
what kind of hardships would making that a longer a longer lad uh lag time create if any at all. Ron, do you have anything on the the budget timeline? Keep in mind that the the budget is
regulated by state statute and so we have certain deadlines. For example, the property appraiser has to certify the tax rules so we know the values. Uh we have to look at other jurisdictions. So so we don't have a lot of flexibility as far as the schedule goes. So it's based on a lot of it's based on state statute
and what other bodies like the property appraiser does. And the property appraiser finalizes its roles when August, right? >> I think so. >> And then you would have but okay so maybe it's just a difference of
philosophy. The property appraiser you know how much money you could potentially have, right? But you don't necessarily need to spend all that money. So what about like doing a budget that says this is what we think we're going to need for expenses? >> Well, the way it works is yeah, the the
property taxes are an equation. And it's millage rate times property values equals tax. So that's just one part of the equation. >> That's the revenue side. >> But yeah, we don't you know we we look at roll back rate for example. Once you get the millillage uh once you get the property value you can roll back the mill to get the same amount of money as
last year. You know that's just a that's requirement for example before you can have your budget hearings you have to know the roll back rate. You don't really know that until you know the value of all the property that you be multiplying at times. So some of these things back into those dates. So we have pretty hard set dates for the budget hearings because of that. You can have
preliminary hearings for example we ask for example planning department you know give us your recommendations for staffing etc. So we already we we don't necessarily have to wait for all that to happen. So we're already doing in fact we've already started in some cases our preliminary budget analysis to see what we're going to need. We already we have
capital uh needs meetings you know every month to talk about upcoming capital needs for example. So it's not that you have to wait for everything, but there are some things you do have to wait for. You can't finalize the budget until a certain point. But preliminary, there's nothing that stops us like today from
having budget hearings, just not the formal ones. We can have budget workshops, etc. As you recall, this past one, I had a citizens budget review task force that we had some members on. >> Yeah. It was very helpful. >> Yeah. So I think that was we may do that again, for example, where you get input from the public without having to make
any official votes. Only the council can pass the budget. Understood. Thank you. >> Um Lynn, is there anything you would like to to add to this part of the discussion?
>> No, I think what Ron indicated between state statute and between for the dates that you have to back into from the county, there really isn't that much that is charter appropriate. By written city policy, the council can be guiding
staff towards things like the workshops Ron just mentioned, getting citizen input, having an advisory board, but all of those would be by policy and not by charter. >> Thank you. >> That makes sense. >> Thank you. That Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Um, anybody want to have
further discussion now that we have a little better understanding of of that issue? Um, public comment. >> No one on Zoom. Thank you. >> Thank you. Public comments closed. Uh, let's move on to the next item.
>> This, I think, was also a Susan Raphanel item. This was whether or not the attorney uh should be a charter officer. >> All right. Now, we for those that are following along at home, we are now going into uh section 11,
>> I'm sorry, section 7 sub4, village attorney as charter officer, which is E on our agenda package. Okay, Susan, this is yours. >> Sure. Um, I don't think it's appropriate
that uh right now we have basically two real charter officers, right? We have the village manager and the village attorney. Both of those individuals are the only two individuals within the village that report directly to council as opposed through the
manager. um to suggest that one of those positions can be fulfilled on a full-time basis, not an interim period for up to a certain amount of time until the charter position can be filled by an actual employee of the city by a law firm such as Weiss Serotaa who's filling
that role now with all of the powers and the obligations that go with being village attorney. I don't think it's appropriate to have a charter office basically be farmed out to a contractor. If we're going to keep the village attorney as a charter officer, there
should be an officer. Again, I understand interim positions and gap filling may be necessary from time to time. Um, but I think as a general rule, we really should have charter officers be employees of Al Marada and focused
solely on Isle Marada with a sort of buck stops here person in charge. Um, who would report to the village council? >> I I have some personal experience on this one. Um, I I I wrote was the
original village attorney. I believe that one I don't know if one of their senior partners was designated as the charter officer, but I know and I I would like to hear something some some of Lynn's input. It is very it's not
uncommon for small municipalities like ours to contract out with a firm like Weisser to be the the village attorney. Um because we don't really have the room for a fullfledged
legal staff where you're have multiple you think of the county the county has multiple attorneys and parallegals and legal secretaries. We we're not set up that way. And frankly, my evaluation of the last time we had an in-house city
attorney was the the legal advice was very subpar and um wasn't very very good for the village at at the end of the day. Um and that we're getting much better service having a firm do it that
has expertise in in different areas. But I'll stop. I'd like to hear from Lynn and see what Lynn has to say about how cities that are our size typically operate. Thank you. >> Uh Mr. Chairman and members, unless a
city's above 30,000 in population based on our survey data, it is usually contractual as opposed to inhouse. and between 30,000 and about a 100,000. It depends on whether the city is growing
and has a lot of development related legal uh work in front of it as to whether that person is with a firm and rotates within the members of that firm or is an actual municipal employee. So for cities your size, the vast majority
are contractual. The history of it being uh a charter officer really goes back to Teddy Roosevelt's work in the 1890s with New York City and the notion of a model city charter. Their hope was to indicate
a need for the legal position to be absolute for any municipality and this was a national uh working group that worked on this. As a result, the National Civic League has promoted this in the model city charter since about
1900. Uh that the attorney whether it is council manager or not the manager. And then in some uh charters the clerk is even separate when the clerk is not under the manager. That is the third
charter officer. That's the tradition. And again it was the importance of showing the role itself. Um but within the form of government today you typically see if it's council manager the manager and in all municipal
charters in my working years the attorney has been a charter officer whether that person was employed or via a law firm or via a letter of agreement with a local attorney. And I would imagine that um other attorneys can
weigh in on this based on their experience, not necessarily just Weiss Serota, but if you wanted to check with other firms. Um it's definitely been my practice the whole time I've been doing municipal charter reviews. >> Thank you for your input, Susan. I know
you have some questions. >> I just No, just a follow-up question really. um for those cities that are comparably sized to Isle Marada, what is the annual taking away litigation? Cuz I understand that lawsuits can have
vagaries to it, but what is the standard budget and amount that is spent on an outside firm for a city of our size on average? I don't have that data handy. I know we have surveyed legal expenses in the past
and I can check with our staff on that survey data. The hard part though is really based on growth versus built out at at roughly your population for areas that are built out unless they're actively being sued. There tends to be
less legal work than those that are actively working through growth related um land use approvals, changes to a comprehensive plan, and the regular approval in uh in the permitting process for attorneys that are reviewing it. So,
I don't know that you're going to find a set uh average or number that would give definite meaning. It might be more helpful to break out those that are in a growth area versus not a growth area. And I would defer to Jamie for her
experience with that as well. >> Well, and I I don't know that we're necessarily in a growth area. Um we've been established for 20 years. Uh I know that we are going through a comp plan now uh for the first time in 20 years, a
comprehensive review of it. Um but I was looking more for historical data for the average year. >> Um understanding there can be vagaries on a year-to-year basis for it. for example, this year I would expect to see more than I would have, you know, five years ago, for example, or four years
ago, uh, for for the average attorney expenditures. But some of that goes to Tai's point of you, you know, quality >> of legal >> quality cost of legal services. Um, and having the right person be in-house counsel is, I think, critical to the
equation. um because it it can be fabulous or it can be subpar as as Tai was expressing his experience was previously with Marada. Um but I do think that you know million dollars a year year after year gets a little
tiresome to the taxpayers when very good competent municipal attorneys can do a lot of the work that's being farmed outside be the charter office and al also have the ability to hire you know counsel and outside counsel to assist in specialized areas. Um you know I just
view it as like a corporation. And that's how most of my clients have general counsel and they still hire us because they can't do it all. But it certainly limits um and puts somebody focused on managing the attorney time and the bills rather than a fivep person
council which you know nobody on a team of five is going to and with sunshine law handcuffs be good at managing that. So yeah, everybody understands that the reason that this is a charter position
is that if it was not, then the attorney would answer to the manager. The idea with the clerk either being a charter, not being a charter, the manager being a charter, and the village attorney being a charter is their boss is the five
folks that are sitting up here. And so Ron does an answer to to John Quick who is our acting interim village attorney and John Quick provides his legal opinion and he is not subject to the
manager's office. It's a checks and balances. That's how it's supposed to operate. I mean I don't have any problem keeping that form of of of charter officer. And the other thing about, by the way, with a charter officer is once
a charter officer uh leaves the employment of the municipality, they have a 2-year ban from being able to do conduct certain types of businesses within that municipality. That's state
statute. Um so it's it's important, I think, to keep that as a charter position. the discussion of whether um you're getting the most bang for your buck with Weiss Roa or any other firm.
My experience has been as we get more mature, we're an area of critical state concern, having somebody sit in house is they cannot have they there's no human way possible they could have the expertise.
The the days of the generalist attorney for for a a local government have kind of gone. They be they're usually experts in sunshine law and and running a meeting and putting ordinances together, but there are so many other areas that
that touch on where they end up having to farm out work, which is what we had in the in the previous with the previous setup. You had an in-house attorney, but he was farming most of the work out to other law firms because he wasn't an
expert in those areas. Um, it was a full-time job just putting together the the agenda packages, reviewing all of the items, making sure the ordinances and resolutions were correct. I mean, that's pretty much what he ended up
spending most of his time doing and not really doing what you would consider legal work. >> Okay. So, what you're really saying is is that we should just leave this as it is. >> I think we should leave it just like it is. the discussion of whether you have the the right firm or the right person
in there. That's not for for us. I I think what we're looking at is the structure. >> All right. >> That's just me. >> Let's move on. >> Is there anybody else that has a comment about this? Anybody in the public? Let's open up public comment.
>> No hands raised and Zoom. >> Okay. Hearing no more discussion, let's move on to the next item, which is item F, review and discussion of Alam Marada Village Charter section 11 sub3, which is height restrictions.
Honestly, do we even have to have a discussion on this? I mean, the the here's the thing. Does it belong in a in a charter versus a comprehensive plan? Normally, I think you would find in most places, not all, that it would be in the
comprehensive plan, but it's in our charter. I I think that is literally touching the live wire and burning herself. If you think taking the 35 ft out of the charter has any chance
of of being removed, I I I don't think it's even something worth discussing that much. Well, I wasn't thinking about removing it. I was thinking about making a little caveat because um I have um been approached by a a number of people
who have purchased older homes that were concrete roofs with a concrete flat roof and then they've added on to add the third story and then they want to put an elevator in and they can't the elevator can't go all the way up to the sun deck because it exceeds the height
restriction. See, I I think >> we deal with that. >> I I think we could deal with that um with with a a comp plan or a land development code provision talking about >> not if it's going to have this that it that it cannot exceed 35 ft. I don't
think that we could explain that well enough to the electorate to get them to understand that we're talking about um you know the the box it takes for the the the elevator or the odd odd
situation where the the air conditioner unit should probably be on the roof and would exceed 35 ft. I just I don't know that we could we could do enough a a good enough job of explaining that. I >> I don't think there's any way you could explain that well enough. There's already so many different
I mean it's 35 feet now base flood so you know base flood has changed right you know so new builds are higher than old build it's all over the place but 35t is a flat number so >> um you know I I think >> unfortunately for the person that has that they're going to have to fight it
out with our staff to figure out a way to get their elevator up to that floor but you know I I don't see a reason to remove or or change that 35. >> And and I I will tell you this, if you were really to get I will always be a champion of affordable housing. If you
were if you were really serious about affordable housing, where where the cost of construction goes down is as you build up. So you're never going to get a fourth fourth or fourth floor or anything with the height limitations
that we have. But that's just the way it's going to be. I don't see that coming out of the charter even even even for a discussion of affordable housing. I don't see that happening. So I don't know that we should spend a lot of time on that and and take the public diversion that we will undoubtedly be
subject to if we have we recommend taking the 35 heat feet out of the out of the charter. Any >> any weren't you were you here when Daryl W got his variance? They gave the Did you ever share him?
>> I was not here for that. >> You know, Daryl Gwin, the drag drag racer got paralyzed quad quadriplegic down in Port Antigua and they gave him a variance to come up. I think it was two or three feet. >> There there's been a number of variances
given over the years for for heights. >> Well, our our code says that there are no variances to height. There are certain things that our code absolutely forbids and a height variance is one of them. a use variance is another. So, um,
you know, I I should there be a asterric asterric to a deal with ADA situations? I think that there was a some interesting legal research that could be done on uh whether uh federal ADA requirements trump u the village
charter. I think there might be some interesting conversations about that. >> Wouldn't it be in the definition of structure? I mean, if you have a house that is 30, let's say 35 feet and you need an additional eight feet, I'm just making up numbers for the elevator
access and it's just going to en enclose the elevator. It's almost like having an air conditioning unit on top of your your home. There's certain utility aspects that are not necessarily considered structure. This is for a structure in the village 35 ft. I mean,
if it got too big, then yes, it becomes part of the structure, but I don't think anybody would argue that, you know, an air conditioning unit on a roof is a structure. >> What do you say about that, Jen? >> Um, we actually would consider the air
conditioning on the roof part of the structure >> um and part of the height. So, >> I I think I think if if a clever attorney was looking at this through the eye lens
of an ADA complaint that there may be um a solution through ADA to address this issue cuz I don't think anybody in their right mind in this town is trying to punish somebody that needs an elevator
because of age or infirmity or accident. Well, these people I was chatting with who have talked with me multiple times have been multiple people that have been through this situation where they were doing renovations and they were denied the ability to extend their elevator to the to the third floor basically to
their to their sky their sun roof deck. >> But there is a solution now. I mean these outside elevators that the boat lift guys are putting in all don't need that above. It works from below. So you could go right to 35. >> That's a car. You mean a cargo lift? It's not supposed to carry >> cargo. They're actually human capacity
now. They are using them. >> That's what >> I have one next door to me. The house I built next door to me, the guy has them. >> That's what Cheryl did. >> Yeah. Well, this is an interior elevator that was already in existence. Elevator. >> When I built my house, I got an elevator house. I couldn't go to um >> I wanted to go Bob.
>> This I might be able to resolve your issue. Um I didn't want to correct the chairman until I knew for sure. But we do allow um variances for height um where it's not contrary to the public interest and we're owing to conditions peculiar to the property um and not
result in actually the little would not result in unnecessary do undue hardship on the property. So, um, we we could probably make a good argument if it was for ADA requirements, they could get a variance on height for that purpose. >> And you would have the ability to do it
administratively um, for a certain amount or that has to go to. >> Oh, for 25%, which is pretty much what somebody would would need more than that for the elevator. >> If it's more than 25% of the the the 35 ft, then it has to go to council.
>> Okay. So, are we good with the 35 ft or we want to have more discussion? >> I was just asked to bring it up through discussion. So, we had a conversation about it. I would say we can't really do anything about it. So, we're good to go. >> Well, you got I we should feel better
now that the village plan director said that with an ADA argument that that would satisfy the >> hardship. I do, but not everybody that that does this is would would follow under the guidelines of ADA. >> So, Jennifer also has another unique
ability. There's a book of She's like, "Great. Put me on the spot." There's a book, it's got about 22 director opinions um to deal with situations like that. So, there's continuity when one director moves on and there's
the next director. There's about 22 um opinions in there dealing with situations like that. So if Jennifer so desired or was directed by council or by Ron or wanted to do it, she could she could issue an administrative opinion
that would go into that book and then essentially kind of form a consistency going forward for other playing directors in the future to rely on. >> Now that would be nice if she would do that. >> Jennifer, >> ask me how many I've done in the three years I've been here. Probably zero.
>> I'm going to say zero. >> Well, there's Well, think about it. There's only, I think, 22 in there um since the beginning of the village. But but that's what it's for is to deal with these types of issues. >> Well, if the issue comes up, I'll look
at it. >> Okay, fair enough. >> So, the concern I I had on this was the flood plane issue, and you hit it. And you know, it's it's not just if the BFE changes, it's also community rating
discounts and whether or not we're able to allow our us to be eligible for those community rating discounts if we're hamstring by this. if there's a discount that is available to the entire village
constituents because we're going to now say, you know, we're we're having everything elevated 2 feet above the base flood elevation, but now we're hamstrung not able to do it. Let me just start let me just flat out say I am 100% against going and having highrises. I've
been here my whole life. I don't want it. But I don't want to put our residents in a situation or the village in a situation where they can't take advantage of discounts that are available to them. So that was the only question I had about it. Does this keep
us from going after those things or obtaining those? That would be the concern. >> So you know Sheila Denort, our chief building official, is also our our flood plate manager. And in 2018, we made some
additions to the to the code on how you calculate height to account for the changes um from FEMA. So because her number one goal as flood plane manager is to reduce our rating so that we get
the best flood insurance rates we can get. She's constantly looking at that and by making a change to the code that allows three different ways of calculating height. We were able to to accommodate the changes that FEMA was forcing. You now see the county, this is
one where we were way ahead of the county. The county is now basically changing their height limitation from 35 ft to 42 ft to do what we did, but our our method actually works better because it's more flexible to to address what
FEMA does. Um, they're going to if there's another change for them, they're going to have to go back and and and change their height, their overall height limitation instead of the way they calculate height. So, right now, I we're pretty advanced on that. Um, and you could thank former planner Craig
Southern who had some experience in that with other coastal communities for for helping put that together. So there you go, Craig. >> So you're saying they use three different ways. >> You have three options in our in our code for how you calculate height.
>> The D because I texted Anna about um she's flood plane. So DFE 35 plus 3T >> that is one way. Yes. That and that's probably one of the most common ways people use to calculate the height in the village. But there are two other
ways because nobody of the road >> crown of the road and then they're >> but nobody uses that anymore, right? >> Very rarely. >> It's still in the code, but it gives you another way of doing it. But everybody's basically doing design flood elevation, right? That's pretty much what you see. That's that's pretty consistent what
everybody uses is design flood. >> That's what I was wondering. I was asking the flood plane manager. >> I I think there was some people that have come and say like, you know, how can these new houses be so big? But I think that's some confusion that some of our residents have is how this is
calculated on because you do see a lot of the new builds like in the colony for instance on the bay. There's a house that was recently built there that's significantly higher than all the rest. But because it's calculated off the flood, it it puts 35 ft at a different level than what people were at before.
>> So basically 35 ft becomes 42 ft. Yes. >> Which is what the why the county settled on 42 ft. >> It doesn't add to your living area. It just gets you higher up. I I was just saying that in case people are listening just so they have an answer.
>> Uh public comment. >> No hands raised. >> Dave, manager. Okay, let's move on to the next item on our agenda. >> U this one was um um on um I think
Roger's item was precincts. I don't know what the specific request was. >> Oh yes. This is when we had a long discussion in our first meeting about whether each the village should be divided into precincts so that we had a
seat that you know a lower mat seat uh you know for instance a winley seat if you went by island. And then we had a pretty long discussion about it and we decided to kind of table it because everybody was brain dead by the time we
finished discussing it. But I I thought at the end of that discussion the general consensus and I'm more than happy to talk about it some more was that we were just going to have open elections and then we started to kind of focus more on what happens if somebody
leaves office in a certain amount of time. So our conversation and our concern about representation kind of switched into that direction of what do we do when people don't stay in office and we had you know very good discussion I think some good ideas about that and
then we kind of left the precinct um alone even though I know Joe was pretty pretty concerned about having that discussion. So, with that being said, since we've had had this tabled
for 3 or 4 weeks now, does anybody else want to do we want to talk about precincts again or are we good where we're at? >> I mean, we had a good discussion, pros and cons. Um, all right. So, if we
finish that up, believe it or not, we've made it through all of our all of our scheduled. Jennifer, you're looking at me. >> Well, yeah, you made it through everything that's on the agenda tonight, but I just wanted to note that under future discussion items, there were three other items that I hadn't put on
the agenda yet just for your which I can add to the next agenda if you so desire. They were advancements in technology and modern communication, citizen bill of rights, and updating publication requirements. So I can add those to the next >> can can we please >> agenda and then the the two items the
one that um Susan wanted the super majority in section five and then the tabled item from tonight for the um referendum on five mills. >> Yeah. So, just a just a comment while we're in session and nobody's breaking
sunshine. Um the when you the items that um the vice chair is bringing up, it's it would be very important before the next meeting to kind of be able to have this discussion and and not be stuck on it the whole time is to is to really
spend a little time looking at those before the next meeting and get a feel for for each one because there's a lot of sub subs in All right, Susan,
>> I can tell you where um sort of my go by guide, if you will, was on u page five of 17 in the winter park charter that Lynn had sent around with the comment that for a different reason, but also
had the comment that was well written um to it. And it's section 2.08 08 of the uh yeah, Winter Park, City of Winter Park charter uh subsection Z C and it says voting and there's certain issues
and I'll just briefly run through them here that would require an affirmative vote of at least four uh members of the five person city commission which is the conveyance of fee simple ownership of real property owned by the city and I would say either owned by or purchased
by Uh, comprehensive plan, future land use map amendment. Reszoning or change in use of park land to a uses that is not recreational park use. Comprehensive plan future land use map amendment. Reszoning or change in use of land currently zoned, public and quasi public
or zoned parks and recreation. Comprehensive plan, future land use map amendment or reszoning of habitat property from a residential use to a commercial use, mixed use, medium density residential use, or high density residential use. Approval of a comp
plan, future land use map amendment or zoning map amendment that changes the use of a property from residential to a non-residential category except for certain public use categories. Um, there's another one that I had crossed out, but it could still be under
consideration. Approval of a comprehensive plan amendment, land development code amendment or resoning that increases the maximum allowed residential units per acre density by more than 25%. I think we're already pretty well covered in the village on that front. And approving a development
order authorizing development within wetlands as as defined by Florida statutes or the Florida administrative code. So, it's really limited to those sort of public park uses um purchases or sales of public or of property owned by
the village. Um but not for discussion tonight, but those are what they are and where you can kind of find the go by. I was reading. This is what I would ask if Susan if you could provide that list to Marne and then she can distribute that so we have a everybody we're not
spitballing it at the next meeting and we can get through that um cuz it's worth it's definitely worth the discussion. I may not agree with all of them but there's a few that I I could see with the how we sell property and buy and sell property maybe that is a
good place to start with that. Um, so if we if we do that, if there's any other business that we need to attend to, I we're pretty much on time tonight. >> We need to schedule your next meeting. >> Oh, we do have. >> And I'm told uh it will be in special
session. >> It's not on the books yet, but it the >> Okay, that the property tax will be in in special session. >> Now we look smart. >> All right. So, when when is our next meeting? I've got the 23rd
>> on our proposed list. It would be 3:30 >> from going back from that proposed list we had before. >> Monday the Monday the 30th. Is that a date still good for everyone? >> Yep.
>> Staff, does that work for everybody? >> It's fine for me. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Thank you. Meetings adjourn.