Marne, are we good on time? >> Could you uh please call the role? >> Hey, Committee Member Richard Black >> here. >> Committee member Lori Loland >> here. Committee member Craig Mcbay >> here. >> Committee member Joseph Ross >> here. >> Committee member Roger Young
>> here. Vice Chair Susan Rapanello >> here >> and Chair Ty Harris >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> All right. Uh public comment open. This is general public comment for items that are not on the agenda. Do we have anybody signed up? Do we have anybody on
internet land? >> No hands raised on Zoom. >> All right, then public comment is closed. Item three, approval of the minutes. Has everybody had an opportunity to review the minutes? >> Motion to approve. >> I have a motion. I have a second.
Morning. Can you call the role? >> Excuse me. Committee member. >> Yes. >> Committee member. >> Yes. >> Committee member Black. >> Yes. >> Committee member Lan. >> Yes. >> Member. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> And motion passes 70. So, um, we've got Vince here from the IT department of the village because we have an item on here to discuss technology. And because I have lots of sympathy for staff and having all the late night meetings that they usually have to attend, I would ask
if everybody's okay that we move the technology item up um, so we can get Vince in and out. >> Everybody okay? >> Yes. >> Okay. Marty, can you read out that item, please? Um talking about
>> it's item C on the >> it's discussion of possible new section advancements in technology and modern communication. >> Yeah, there really wasn't an item because this was a possible new section. I think you guys just wanted to talk about uh potential technology items. I
didn't know what you wanted um added there. There's no language to speak of. >> All right. Who do you do you have on your notes who brought that up as a potential item to discuss? >> I can look and give me one second. >> Is anybody going to fess up that this is
their item? >> I may have, but I don't think it was only me. Um Okay. >> Uh but I would agree with it. It goes toward in in some of the newer city charters or the amendment to city charters, it allows for x number of times per year, you know, with advanced
notice to the other council members for council to appear by um zoom or web. Um we currently to my understanding are allowing that although of course it can't account by state statute to the
quorum um of such meeting. So, you know, this would just be more of a discussion for the group as to whether or not that's an important enough item to add to the charter. Um, you know, because we are currently allowing it, I kind of backed off my initial thinking from that
first meeting. >> Yeah, I I think I I remember that discussion um somewhat and I remember we were talking about the fact that we've got a lot of remote hearings now in courts and so how would that apply to these items? I know we were cautioned
and as somebody who appears in front of this body all the time um on quasi judicial I absolutely would have heartburn over not having the folks that are voting on it actually here at the meeting for a quasi. I don't have that
much of a problem with anything that's not quasi judicial um having remote attendance policy, but for quasi I would be against it >> for just to while we're on quasi judicial um witnesses and the like um I
still think on on a lot of these especially because they're short notice some witness not and I don't mean that in a derogatory term but often you have 14 days notice unless you are the applicant to a quasi judicial hearing and your plans are already except for that particular day, but you may want to
testify either pro or con the applicant. The Florida Supreme Court has said such testimony is admissible in court and I'm still doing trials by Zoom. So, I think that we should, you know, from that standpoint >> either as a whether it's a policy consideration for the council, whether
it's a charter issue, I'm not sure. But I do think that that the council for quasi judicial should allow witnesses who have other, you know, commitments at the time they learned of the hearing date to be able to testify by Zoom. Um,
I don't think that there would be all that many anyway, but I I think that that should be one consideration. Lori, >> I can see where uh having a witness uh testify via Zoom would uh be beneficial
for all parties concerned because you're right, we do live in in a community where a lot of times witnesses might not necessarily um be locally. I I do kind of have a problem with not having a a councilman or woman in attendance at a
council meeting and attending via Zoom. I've done a lot of Zoom meetings myself and um the longer the length of the meetings, the less attentive my attention span becomes. So, I think that
if I have a problem with it, then I think others would as well. When you're not able to actually see what they're doing while they're on Zoom, you're you know, you have obviously you have the ability to do multitask, let's say. >> So, I would kind of be opposed to
>> Yeah. I mean, part of part of the part of the practical part of this that makes it difficult is that under the the villages code, any evidence that you intend to rely on at a quasi judicial hearing has to be submitted 2 days
before the hearing. So, everybody has a chance to see what's coming and nobody's blindsided except for you because staff doesn't have to give them you their rebuttal to whatever you're proposing. But that's okay. John Quick is on Zoom too.
>> So again, I mean, my concern and I think Susan's kind of articulated it is that really something to be seen the charter or it should be more in a policy so that if changes need to be made, it can be
made a little bit easier cuz once you put it in the charter, we know then you're kind of stuck with it. there's a little more flexibility if it's in a if it's in a um an operating, you know, type of agreement as to how they're gonna a policy as to how they want to
run their meetings. Um like I said, my my biggest problem is you have a right to cross-examine anybody that is essentially giving expert testimony. you you you can't cross-examine anybody that
gets up to speak for or against. But if they're speaking as an expert, then as the applicant or even, you know, the council has an opportunity to question them and it's even more formal than that because you actually have a right to cross-examine them. So, I don't know how
that would work in reality. >> Same as in court. >> Yeah. I kind of think it'd be more like a policy than it would be a charter amendment, but you know, that's up to the to the group if you want to make that recommendation for a charter. I kind of like it in a policy. Um, but I'd
like to hear what anybody else has to say about it. >> John Quick had his hand up. >> John? >> Yep. Hi, everybody. Um, I'm I'm happy to wait until everybody's had the discussion, but if everybody's done, I
was going to just chime in on some uh concerns that I have about the quasi judicial aspect being via via Zoom. So, let me know if you want me to chime in now or if you want me to wait until you guys are done discussion. I >> I'd rather hear from you now. >> Okay. So, I I have concerns on the quasa
judicial. I know that courts do it, but there's a in for me there's a big distinction between cities and courts. courts have the power to hold you in contempt if you're in violation of any sort of court order. Uh the city doesn't the village doesn't have that. So if somebody is as as the chair Harris
pointed out, if somebody is um you know reading from something or if they're relying on something that hasn't been submitted, you know, the the village has no way of knowing uh whether they're relying on something. uh you know, it just it opens it up it itself up to
potential uh appeals. Uh and we'd have no way of really enforcing somebody to make sure that they are in compliance with our code, that they have been sworn, that they're not being coached or anything like that, unlike what they have in court. And uh and I for me
that's that's the distinction that that I've so far drawn. If if the the village or any municipality is ever given the ability to hold somebody in contempt of of of quasi judicial hearing, I think I would change my opinion on that. But but short of that, it it's just uh there are
a lot of uh potential uh uh pitfalls that that we could come into contact with uh through quasi judicial uh Zoom hearings. and and I understand the inconvenience that is uh sometimes for for some members who might wish to speak
on the matter. Um but we also have to look at in terms of being able to defend any sort of decision that's made by the council one way or the other. And uh and I just want to make sure we put ourselves in the best situation to uh to defend the village on that. So, John, would it also still be your opinion that
um if we do come up with a remote attendy policy for elected village council members that that should not apply for quasi judicial items? Does that still basically the the opinion of the the village attorney's office?
>> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. Again, I think it's more of, you know, as I said on the outset, um, when I stepped up and said that I think this one's mine. It's probably not for the charter. I think it is for the policy. I could, um, you know, spend the next 20 minutes
rebutting everything that John said about the similarities and dissimilarities of the city. Um um but I I do I don't really think it is for the charter as opposed to a policy decision and it could even be a one-off basis of
a policy decision for a particular witness if they request to appear via Zoom to have the flexibility to um grant that or not grant that. Um because irrespective of contempt powers, you can tell typically if people it's it's no worse to tell if they're reading
something on Zoom as if they have papers on the stand, you don't know what they're reading from either. Um and and there's no requirement for somebody to who's here in person to give their Q cards to the council, right? So, um there are certainly pitfalls with Zoom. There are in the court systems. I don't
like it there necessarily. So I can I can understand why people wouldn't want it here in quasi judicial. Okay. All that said, I don't know that it's for the charter people. >> Mari, can we make a note that we discussed this as part of the charter um
but it was the general consensus of the group. I think that this falls more into the line of a policy. Um but that overall we would not be opposed to some remote attendance uh policy uh for village council members
so long as it wasn't on quasi judicial items. Is that a fair summary of kind of what we talked about a few weeks ago and then without going back through that whole conversation that's what I remember. Is that pretty good? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Okay. Vince, I guess we didn't need you anyway. >> Cool. >> Thank you. Thanks for being here. >> No problem at all. >> Um, oh, before we before we close this item, I'd be remiss if we did not uh ask for public comment. Martin, anybody in Zoom world?
>> No. Okay, then I think this item is is uh finished and we can get back to the agenda and item A. And item A under Roman noodle 4 was review and discussion of Alam Marado Village Charter section 8 sub9 sub A two
little dots and sub C what I can see with my wife's glasses on. So >> this is a table from your last meeting. Um this was um let me remind myself. Hold on. >> Jennifer, can you talk into the microphone? >> Sorry. This was tabled from your last
meeting and this was um uh this was I believe the Oh, this was the uh referendum threshold for the millage rate. >> You're good to go. >> So that's whether or not we wanted to
change. We were we were holding this because we know the legislature, according to Ron, was going into special session and that not only for the budget, but there was going to possibly be a conversation again about uh taxation and homestead properties and
how that could affect all of this. And we still don't have an answer to that, I'm assuming. >> I don't have an answer to that. >> Okay. I I would suggest that we leave this this sleeping dog line for right
now. And if we if we're able to conclude our business tonight, then maybe I hate not finally addressing it. But I would hate to have on meetings if this becomes the only thing left for us to discuss and charter review. Um if we're
able to get through the rest of the items, we're almost at the end of our business. Yeah, I think we probably will have one more at least one more meeting just if for no other reason than um unless we're submitting comments back like you know right
>> there's there's a few cleanup errors and >> question on that from what what um we talked about did I hear it right that we're the only municipality that has something like that in our charter did I remember did I hear that right
>> sound like it was extremely rare >> I think That's what Lynn Tipton said. I don't know if she's on still. >> Yeah, that's what Lynn said. >> Okay. So, then I guess the second question is, do other municipalities have any way of having a referendum if their millage rate if they don't like their millage rate?
>> Any rate? Yeah, they can do it anytime for >> So they So they can do it at any time, but we can only do it when it gets above five. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That's that's why I wasn't quite sure kind of how >> how that worked. >> Yeah. That's >> So if everybody's okay with it, why
don't we table this one more time probably to our last meeting and see if if there's any movement on the legislative end before we take it on. Is that okay with everybody? All right.
Um should we open up public comment on that since we're tableabling it? If anybody wants to give public comment, I would like to open it. Just an abundance of caution. >> There's no one raised hands on Zoom. >> Okay. Thanks, Barney. Let's table that
one. All right. This is item B, discussion of possible new section, supermajority requirement for voting. And I I know Vice Chair Susan Rafanella brought this up based
largely on some of the other communities in the state um particularly Winter Park, Florida. >> Yeah. And I included the Winter Park section in the packet for you all. >> Right. Got that. Um let me go back and find that.
All right, Susan. I know this one was yours and I know that we kind of started talking about it and I asked for the specific language to be included in the packet so everybody could actually read each item individually and kind of consider them. Has everybody had an first has everybody had an opportunity
to look at it? >> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> I'm going to say that's a no for me. >> Wait, you you looked at it but you didn't look at it. opportunity to look at. >> Okay. Be honest. I'm being honest. >> Okay. No. No. Well, well, the good thing
is it doesn't take longer than >> You know what the good thing is? The good thing is is that then I won't really be talking about it. Right. >> Right. Well, cuz I'm going to I'm going to read if I can if these glasses will assist me. Otherwise, I'm going to ask Susan to read it. Um actually, you know, Susan, would you just read it? You have
better glasses. >> Do you want to do one at a time? >> Yeah, let's do one at a time if that works. So the first one that um would be proposed to require an affirmative vote of a supermajority which would be four out of the five members would be the conveyance and I would add in or
acquisition of fe simple ownership of real property um owned by the city or to be owned by the city. Um the language I pulled from this charter but these are are more prevalent. I'm not saying that they're majority in city charters, but
they're more than just the one city that has these sorts of requirements. I know Key West um has a requirement of a supermajority to acquire property. And in fact, if it's going to be for any reason other than I think parks, they actually require um a citizen vote. I I
think a citizen vote every time you're looking to acquire property is is a little unwieldy, but I think a supermajority would be in line to to sell or purchase. >> I I I I don't have a problem with it because we're talking about the city. Um
it's not an individual application. I don't have any heartburn on on that recommendation. I'd like to hear what everybody else has to say because I think there's a difference between an individual application and when the municipality does something. So, what does everybody else want to say?
>> Um, I definitely don't have a huge uh kind of opinion on this. I guess the one question I have um is has there been much concern by the public for something like this? Like, has this something that's been talked about? Has there been any problems? I I just don't know too much about it. So that would be the question I have just in general, not
necessarily um that that one specific one we looked at. >> No, I I think there's been some discussion about the purchase of that the villages made. I mean, we've talked about the Machado property. We've talked about um the church property. We've
talked about Island Spice. Those are the three that seem to kind of come to the four when people were talking about, you know, it is partly of you purchased the property and then you haven't done anything with the property. So, there's a little bit of that frustration. Um,
from what I've I've heard, um, like I said, I don't have a problem with a supermajority on something like that. I think, like I said, it's definitely been an individual application. Um, I'd like to hear what anybody else has to say about it. I don't know the exact um uh
voting record for the all those issues that came before the council, but were not majority of those issues voted on either all in favor or supermajority. >> I I tend to believe they weren't close votes.
I don't remember them being close votes. I remember them either being a four to one or a five to five to zero. >> Right. That's what I'm saying. So in that instance, they were already in essence a supermajority. >> Well, I I think by adding that language
into the charter, you're cautioning the electeds to think more carefully about the decision. Um because you're you're adding additional weight to it by requiring a supermajority. So >> yeah, this wasn't my proposal wasn't
because I thought there was an in instance of an inappropriate item that needed corrective action in the future, but looking to best practices for the future only. And you know, if they're already getting four or five votes or it doesn't, you know, or as a matter of practice it
doesn't go through, then we should solidify that because I don't think that a vote of three should govern that sort of transfer and acquisition. because it's dealing with the people's money. So, I I get that. I mean, I I
don't I'm like Craig. I don't have a lot of heartburn one way or the other on it. Um I Anybody else have a an opinion on this? I'm for the supermajority for purchases
and sales, but having been on both sides of trying to get a project through or stopped, I think I don't think you can do supermajority on that. Sometimes you're going to have people on the council just say no, no, no. >> Well, I I think we're probably as safe on the first two. I think that
discussion is going to start following we get to three, four, five, and six on these items where you know it you could have a village as an applicant or you could actually have an individual as an applicant on three and then on the other ones it's something else. Anybody else
have >> I think it's what it's something that regards the general you know public of Alam Marada. I think the supermajority is needed you know purchasing that changing the park and any of that kind of stuff. Um, but I I'm kind of with
you. I think if it has more individually changing zoning on a certain piece or something like that, I don't know. But we haven't gotten there yet. So, >> right, Joe, you are strangely silent tonight. >> On this one, I'm I'm kind of like either side of the fence. I could go either
way. I mean, I I could I could definitely see if if um you know, you're you're either disposing of or buying land with public money. I mean, it it's probably prudent to have, you know, a super majority, but
you know, I could I could live with it either way, >> right? It's how I feel. Marty, do we have anybody on for public comment on this? Uh, we do not. And by the way, we do have Lynn Typton online if Dave need her. >> Nothing on this one.
>> All right. Um, let's close public comment. Do I have a motion for discussion to continue discussion or a motion so we could vote vote on this one? I would move to in um recommend
including the u purchase of sale, conveyance or acquisition of real property by the village um to require a supermajority vote. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All right, I have a first and second. Uh further discussion
hearing none and seeing nobody raising a finger, Mari, could we call the role, please? >> Vice Chair Rapanelloo. >> Yes. Committee member Young, >> yes. >> Committee member Black, >> yes. >> Committee member Leand,
>> no. >> Committee member Mcbay, >> uh, yes. >> Committee member Roth, >> yes. >> And Chair Harris, >> yes. >> That motion passes six to one. >> All right.
So, we're on to number two of these items. Um Susan, would you please read it out for me? >> Sure. I think two and three may kind of dovetail together. Um >> in some ways, some ways not. So, we'll
do them individually. >> Yeah, let's do them individually. >> Um so, the second one is any amendment to a comprehensive uh plan future land use a um map amendment uh reszoning or change of use of parkland to a use that is not recreational or park use. So in
other words, the way I understand that if it's currently zoned and on the comp plan as park to have it be changed away from a park would need a vote of four. >> And and just to give this item some context and I'll ask Jennifer to to see if I'm
I'm right on this because you know I bet about 50% on these. Um, I don't believe there are any entities other than government or semi-government entities that have land that they own that is
zoned park semi governmental. >> Well, we we don't have any park zoning. We have the public semi-public services, but that includes churches as well as schools and
>> parks and other things. So, >> so >> yeah, I'm I'm just always looking at who's impacted by a super majority >> change. You just want to would want to consider it wouldn't just be parkland. You would be >> right. So, we would be talking about local governments, >> churches, schools,
>> those would be the the universe of people whose applications would be impacted. state government. >> Um I feel a lot more comfortable if I knew it was just the village, but I also
understand, you know, um since it's for park, I guess, would we be would we want to look at this language in terms of park or would we be wanting to use the more formal zoning classification of P- semi-public?
>> We also have we do have conservation zoning. So you could use that as the zoning designation too if it was the conservation land that you were concerned about taking out of that use. >> The problem there is then we get into
individuals who had their property downzone by the village in whatever we think it is January of 2001. Um, and that's where I would have heartburn because now we're we're out of the institutional type uses and we're into people who actually had their
property that had some commercial or residential use that all of a sudden discovered that their land had no >> Oh, not all of a sudden there were 18 workshops. >> I had that. >> Thank you, Susan. Cuz I was going to see the same thing and I wasn't even here. >> It's amazing how many people ignore
those workshops, right? >> That did happen to me. Yeah, >> the they put a conservation tag on a finished >> Yeah, I mean >> old commercial build. I >> I like I said, I I feel more comfortable about this discussion when we're talking about governmental entities.
>> And the way I read this was village or municipalowned land that's either under the con village owned conservation or park like founders, >> right? that see that type of language
adding that into there gives me a lot more comfort is to you know my heartburn over individual applications versus what we do with government peopleowned property. Um I would be comfortable with that change to the language. I
yeah, I'm not comfortable with the church owned properties because, you know, we're we're seeing a lot of decline in attendance in in some of these churches and and we do have a number of smaller churches that are located in residential neighborhoods that at some point in time might want to
be converted to a residential >> I know exactly some of those churches I like but I like >> so I would hate to put that type of a burden on >> No, I think with Susan's Susan's language where we're talking about municipal owned that that doesn't affect
them. That's how I understood it is that we're talking about municipally owned or stateowned or countyowned property only that this this would apply to that I don't have a problem with. >> Yeah. Governmental owned conservation andor what was the the phrase you used
Jennifer that instead of park we use something else but with the tag of ownership. >> It's conservation or >> it's public semi-public services. >> Public semi-public Joe, I I see a look on >> Okay. >> Yeah. Again, when you're dealing with
with government-owned properties, I don't have the same heartburn I would if this was impacting a churchowned property or a school-owned property or your own property. But I understand because we have these these elements in
our comprehensive plan that compel the government to protect existing conservation land and and public and open space and also um require the village as a part of being an area of critical state concern to continue to
try to acquire land for conservation. That's actually one of the things as a area of critical state concern you're required to do. So, it would be consistent with those policies to have this type of language in there.
>> Yeah, I think it makes sense kind of um what you're talking about >> in the same way that we were talking. >> Yeah. With the government own and and I I wouldn't think if there was a a church in a residential neighborhood, we said, "Hey, we're just we can't be a church anymore." I wouldn't think getting a supermajority uh to get something to
pass would be a problem if they're saying, "Hey, we just we need to move on to something else as opposed to, you know, a park, you know." So, I don't I don't think it would affect a a church as much. But, um >> yeah, so yeah, I think it makes sense.
Yeah. I don't want to see a see a park go to a something commercial here. Um, while we're all kind of thinking about this, I'd like to take public comment. See if we have anybody that
wants to comment on this one. >> No hands raised on Zoom. >> Dave, Ron. Okay, public comment is closed. Back to our group for discussion. >> How how would this affect like projects
just looking at, you know, for future things? projects like um you know what do they call it what project 76 now that's where the tennis courts used to be down there >> that's a good question that's the old tennis center >> it would not impact them at all because
that's not owned by any governmental entity it's not owned by the village the county or the state that's owned by a a private >> company >> okay >> so they would not be impacted >> yeah I think as long as we just worded it where it just says village owned
property property. I like government because believe it or not, the county and the state own property within Isa Marada. >> Yes. >> So, and we actually own the village owns property in the county. Um, we've tried
for years trying to swap them so that they don't own any of ours, we don't own any of theirs, but it's a futile futile endeavor. Jennifer, >> um I just also want to um remind everybody that we're still um under SP
180 until October of 27, which uh restricts governments from doing anything that makes things more restrictive, which a supermajority would make things more restrictive. So, I don't know how that would impact how that would be how that how these recommendations would be impacted by
that, but I just want to make sure everybody's aware that that could be a issue, >> right? It's a it's a good point. Um, we're a recommending body and the how SB80 impacts our recommendations is
above our pay grade. I think we were commanded to kind of do what we thought was in the best interest of the village regardless of what SP 180 says. >> Right. I just don't want anybody to be surprised if it came back that we couldn't do some of these things because of SB180. SB80 though would not impact
necessarily a it pro I've thought that that was more geared towards private applicants and not making it more restrictive for the buildback as for others >> you know >> if so I I have my hand raised for this
too for the same reason Jennifer John >> so I if you have this apply to village owned property which uh Richard had mentioned then I don't think SB80 would be implicated, but Jennifer is is absolutely correct that it talks about
it in terms of um says that a municipality shall not propose or adopt more restrictive or burdensome procedures concerning review, approval or issuance and of site plan, development permits or development orders. Um and so this would if it goes
beyond the village um that would definitely um it would it would at a minimum be in the gray area but I think this would would trigger one SB 180. So, if we stick with the language that Susan proposed
where this only applies to governmental agencies, we're most likely not in violation of SB180. But >> I think if it's village owned, >> right? Village, >> not necessarily government owned because you can as an as the property owner, there is an exemption or an exception to
that is if the uh the the property that's the subject of the application is owned by the initiating party and we as the village would be the initiating party of this potential charter change. But if it's say the county, the county is not the initiating party. The village
would be the initiating party. >> Would Susan, would you amend your language to just include the village? >> Well, the sun sets out, so the SB80. It's It expires in the fall of 2027, and I don't want to not recommend something
now that we would want simply because of the SP80. Maybe it's not enforceable until 2027. >> Well, it says it shall be no null and void abonicio. >> What were they thinking with that? That whole thing, that whole bill was
horrible. Horrible. >> That's what we've been asking ourselves for a year. >> Horrible. >> I'm even a private property rights land use attorney and I think it's horrible. So, you're not going to hear any any argument from me either. >> Okay. With that, um, for the current and if presuming that this actually gets on
the ballot in 2026 and not subsequent thereafter, I would amend my language. Um, but can we put a caveat to the council that if it doesn't go to the ballot in 2026 that it would be any government? Does that make sense? >> I like that. >> Yes, I think that's fair as long as SP
180 is has sunseted. Yes. >> Any more discussion on this? Can I have a motion? >> I'll try I'll Yeah, I'll try. And then please feel free to correct my language. Uh, Jennifer or Tai. Um I would make um
I would make a recommendation that any uh comprehensive plan future land use map amendment reszoning or change in use of any conservation or what's that language I keep forgetting >> public semi semi
>> semi-public >> land currently owned by the village of Al Marada to a use that is not recreational conservation or park use require a majority vote. Um, with that
recommendation being if it goes to the voters in the fall, if it goes after the sunset of SB180, I would expand village of Al Marada to any governmental entity. >> But you just said majority. Did you mean super >> super majority? >> Thank you.
>> And we had a second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Can we call the role? >> Okay. Vice Chair Rapanello. Yes. >> Committee member Young. >> Yes. >> Committee member Black. >> Yes. >> Committee member Lant.
>> Yes. >> Committee member Mcbay. >> Yes. >> Committee member Roth. >> Yes. >> And Chair Harris. >> Yes. >> The motion passes. Seven. Nothing. >> Okay. So this is why Susan was saying maybe we should take these together
because three is very similar and we just had the discussion about how SB 180 I I would respectfully request we just cut that one out. >> Agreed. >> Yeah, cuz I think we just covered it under under two >> and also given some of the feedback.
>> Right. All right. So that gets us to the fourth element um to discuss which is I I'll I'll try reading it with these glasses on. If I mess it up, just tell me. Comprehensive future sorry comprehensive plan future land use map
amendment or reszoning of lakefront property from a residential use to a commercial use, mixed use, medium density residential use or high density residential use. I think we >> we would have to change it to habitat or waterfront.
>> Habitat or waterfront rather than lakefront. >> Well, and I think we also run into the potentially SB180 problem again unless we're able to tailor this to government owned, sorry, village owned.
Um I I would say the same kind of playbook that we used on number two would probably need to apply to this one. >> But I think number two would cover those areas already. Probably we might just take this one out. >> Yeah, maybe next year. >> Yeah, let's take everybody. Okay, let's
>> So, what what you're saying, Susan, so I understand it is that you wanted to prevent or or require a supermajority vote for any residential zone currently residential zoned waterfront >> or conservation >> or conservation land that wants to
change. the current owner wants to change its um zoning to commercial >> or those other higher density issues. Basically, an upzoning of that particular type of property, but we can't do it right now anyway. So, it's
regardless of what I think should be done is not going to be done. >> Right. >> So, we're scratching it. Okay. >> Okay. I think if you want to read the next three, you can, but I think the next three are all related to private property. So, I think SB180 would
>> Yeah, I I think >> apply in all the next three. So, >> probably just X that conversation based on the discussion about SB80. Um, Winter Park Winter Park was able to get it in before SP 180, but they wouldn't be able to apply this to
anyway. So, >> well, they may be they're not subject to 180, are they? entire state is I believe >> okay >> yeah obviously I don't think they >> I keep getting it confused with the hurricane >> yeah I know it's >> it's difficult
okay um so I know this was also u Susan one discussion of possible new section citizens bill of rights >> so I read uh again just a a handful of various charters that had the bill of
rights but when I drilled down into room to be quite frank with you, other than I kind of found interesting the issue we already talked about that Richard had brought up with respect to good cause for continuence. They're all already governed by state law. And so I really don't think that it's necessary to have
them in the charter when it's also governed by statute and we've already addressed the one item that I saw that came up frequently that was not. >> Okay. Does anybody else have any comment on that one? >> Uh open to public comment. No hands raised on Zoom.
>> Okay. Um All right. >> So that leaves us the last item on our agenda for tonight. Discussion of possible new section updating publication requirements. >> Susan, I know this.
>> Yeah, that was me, too. >> Um but I want to get some goodwill for scratching things quickly. Um, and this one again I have the same question when I was really drilled down into it and considered it whether it was because it's a policy policy issue as opposed to
an issue for the charter. Um, I know I along with other residents don't um I understand that the statute the the state statute only requires 48 hours advanced notice of meetings, but getting
an agenda for a Tuesday meeting on Friday at 4 um I think is um discounting the public's um desire to know or desire to participate cuz it's super hard when they come out at 4:00 on Friday and you
see something in there to get anybody's attention over the weekend and you're basically left with Monday. Um, so I would like again don't know if it's a policy, but Marathon Key West, they seem to get all of their stuff out of what's going to be on an agenda item, you know,
at least a week in advance, if not two weeks in advance. They post them on the radio. I don't know. I don't know if that's for the charter or just policy. I my take is it's a it's worth the old college try to to make it a little better, but I I see this more as a
policy decision than a charter decision. That's just my take on it. >> I agree with Tai. >> I did read some charters and there like Susan said, there are several charters that have that itemized out in their
whether in their bill of rights or just in the charter in general. Um, I would I mean if Lynn's on I would like to see her thoughts on this before I gave a harder comment on it. Um, I don't know if she she was up for a minute, but >> Lynn, do we have you?
>> Yes. Hang on. I'm getting the video part to come on. Good evening. Shoot, it went off. Hang on. >> We can still hear you. >> Okay. >> Oh, there you are. There you It is um because some councils only meet once a
month, some meet every week. You've got those that meet twice a month. As a result, what is considered timely is there's just no ability to compare it among your other governments that you are looking at very closely, say the
five or six. the question of having an agenda out that probably will get amended, right? But at least it gives people the ability to see what potentially is coming up for the next meeting. Yes, having it out as early as possible is
always desired, usually by policy, rarely by charter. The notion of a a drop dead date for certain things as well because of court interpretations as to what constitutes an emergency and Mr. quick can weigh in if that gets legal.
That's also very tricky. So again, you might want to recommend to the council that per your discussion, you find that this is needed in policy, but it would be difficult to put into charter in a way that a the voters are going to understand, right? And that b makes it
possible to for staff to do what they need to do. There's also requirements for certain types of notice related to land use that are very different than the things that would be on an agenda for a regular what we call legislative meeting of the council. And there's a
different notice requirement for workshops. So to get the public to understand that is complicated and that's why we usually see this in policy and not charter. >> Thank you very much for that.
Um, again, I I still go with it's worth the discussion, but I think it's probably more on the policy side of things and we may want to um make in our recommendations that the council take this up as a policy discussion item. Uh,
I do know and you know that if the concern is land use items, >> land use is different. I I personally think 14 days is a little tight on land use, but that's not a battle that I'm gonna win or fight. Um, but it is really
the the Tuesday meetings where you don't know even what's being contemplated as being on the agenda until, you know, basically after business hours Friday. Um, and number one and number two, it's my understanding that the council has
uh, you know, the packet in advance or at least knowledge of what's going to be discussed for Tuesday before the close of business Friday. So even if it's subject to revision up until the state statute notice time, just letting the public know what is currently being
rolled out for agenda purposes, you know, well in advance, like at least a week in advance, I think would be much appreciated by the residents. >> I I I don't disagree. I just think it should probably be a policy and not a charter. >> And I tend I tend to agree with that the
more I drill down on it. Um, >> it's just a matter of getting them to actually implement it. >> Yes, I know. >> Anybody Craig? >> Yeah. No, I agree with what you guys are saying. It's good good idea. They should be doing it, but more than likely
policy. So whether or not the recommendations get made by us or listen >> we can certainly make the recommendation to consider this as a policy is every and we can actually take a vote to recommend that they take it up as a
policy item. Um if there's no further discussion is there did I open up public comment on this one yet or not? >> Could public comment? >> No one on Zoom. >> Okay. Uh, public comment is closed.
Do I hear a motion to recommend this as a policy item to the village council? >> I'll move. >> Okay. I have a first. Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I have a first and a second.
Marty, can you call the role? >> Okay. Vice Chair Rapanelloo. >> Yes. >> Committee member Young. >> Yes. >> Committee member Black. >> Yes. Committee member Land, >> yes. >> Committee member Mcbay, >> yes. >> Committee member Roth, >> yes.
>> And Chair Harris, >> yes. >> Motion passes seven nothing. >> So, for our next meeting, I know we need to lock down a date for sure. And then I I see the last two things that we need to talk about are again the millage rate
issue and also clean up on the language of that's been we've crafted on our um on our proposed changes and I know Susan's working on that. >> Oh well, right now I've just seen a four that needs to be moved to a three but um
uh four year and was tag along are have we since we received these drafts have we approved additional ones that would we would like to see? I think so. and
before that meeting. So maybe not have it be immediate. I don't know what John's schedule is. >> Listen, we could we could put we could skip a week so that that gives the staff time to put it together in in another draft form and then we'll have that item
and we'll have the the hopefully resolved issue with um the taxing structure coming out of Tallahassee so that we can take that item up. Well, that's a great idea with the exception if you take a look at um the calendar
for April. It's the week that we would skip would be next week, which would be the week of the 6th. And then the week of the 13th, the 13th is Monday, this LPA meeting. So, it would have to be like a Tuesday
or Wednesday meeting. Which week are we in? I'm sorry. >> So, we're trying to give staff an additional week of time, which makes sense. So, that bumps us Are you thinking into the week of the
20th, Lori, or are you thinking >> No, I think that doesn't give us enough time if we have some additional changes. But I think I think they think we well we can't do on the third >> the week of the 13th. So in essence >> Tuesday. >> So you're thinking next Tuesday? I mean
sorry Tuesday the 14th of April. >> Would be any better for any >> Wednesday's fine with me. I don't know probably. >> I could do either one. >> I think >> for some reason I actually have the 15th on my calendar for the charter review committee. I wonder if we had discussed
that already. >> Yeah. see if there was a potential date. >> I would be only on Zoom. >> Okay. >> Everybody's done a pretty good job on attendance and we've already said that we're comfortable with with us
participating by Zoom. >> That the 15th >> 15th >> 15th 5:30. >> Joe, you're good then? >> I think so. Yes. tax. >> Thanks. >> All right. So, if there's no other
business, um, I'd like to hear a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Let's get out of here. Thank you, >> Susan. Just so you know, I caught that typo, so you don't have to worry about it.
>> Well, then I'll look for more. >> Sounds good. If you if you find them, let me know. I I'm happy to correct them. Thanks. Poke holes in things.