I think I do now. Let's see. Let's try. >> Yes. >> Nope. It's on. >> Getting a thumbs up. 8:30 for no
retired. We heard affirmatively heard from anybody that might be running >> only. >> We only heard from Lou Clinker and Nicole that will not be here. Everybody else I haven't heard from. >> We'll go ahead and get started. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I think we'll go ahead. get started. Good afternoon everyone. >> Afternoon. >> Good afternoon. >> I will uh call to order this uh meeting of the church. >> Would you speak to the microphone please? >> Yes ma'am. >> My ear infection is not gone and I don't
read your lips real well. >> Absolutely. Let me reorient this to make it easier. Good afternoon everyone. and I'm called to order this meeting of the city of Ovidito Charter Review Committee uh here on February 25th, 2026. It is uh
5:30 p.m. and uh Madame Clerk, if you could please call the role. >> AJ Range >> here. >> Barbara Barber >> here. >> Arian Bryant >> present. >> Dominic Pampier >> here. >> Karen Harriet >> here. >> Carl Thornbru >> here. >> Katherine Townson
>> here. Keegan Ford, Kevin Hypes, Luke Clinker, Nancy Zolair >> here, >> Nicole Martin, Rebecca O'Brien, Steven Shank >> here, >> Victor Bogatrio >> present.
>> All right, we have a quorum. Members, before you uh are the minutes for the February 11, 2026 meeting. You've had a chance to take a uh peek at them. Uh at your leisure, I will entertain a motion to approve the
minutes. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Any oppos? Nay. Eyes have it. Minutes are adopted. Move on to public comment. Do we have any member of the public here for public
comment? It would appear not. I will uh once again renew the committee's invitation to members of the public. Please come on out and share any thoughts you have about uh the city of Ovito charter.
Moving on, I have no comments other than what we're going to be discussing today. So, we will dive back into our charter discussion. As I indicated at the end of our last meeting, I'm going to doing my best at least to pick up the pace a
little bit as we hustle through because I want to make sure we get through going through all the pieces of the charter and then uh get to some substantive discussions in the number of meetings you have between now and May to uh start
really sharpening the pencil on what charter amendments you might be looking at. uh recommending to the city council giving some direction uh to me to uh put together some charter amendment language uh both charter language and ballot
summaries and so on. So with that we ended uh or paused our review after our discussion of section 3.06 interference with administration and um we were going to go ahead and dive into
section 3.07 07 vacancies, forfeitures of office and filling of vacancies. Um so this is uh the section that addresses how uh vacancies in office uh are uh
vacant, pardon me, uh vacancies in the office of mayor or council members uh are filled. going in general order here of the the different subsections. I just want to note one thing that I have uh
noted in my notes here, something that jumped out at me a little bit. Um uh so if the section A uh provides that uh offices of mayor, council member become vacant upon
death, resignation or removal from office in a manner uh authorized by law or forfeite of office with forfeite to be declared by the remaining members of the council. Uh it then goes on with some language about resignation and I just wanted to ask generally for anyone
with a a feeling for the history of these provisions here. There's a sentence here that provides a resignation shall be effective upon submission although it may have an effective date of no more than 30 days from the date of resignation. Is anybody aware of of
historically why such a provision is in there? And and there's a particular reason I I mention it. The most common reason why an elected official resigns in Florida, not necessarily just they're tired of it or what have you, it is uh
very often to resign to run under the state resign to run statute, which 99.012 in the uh Florida statutes in the election code. Basically, if you currently hold an elected office, all
right, it's primarily elected office that's affected by the resign to run uh law for various reasons. Then if you're going to run for another office and those terms would overlap, then you have to uh do a certain sort of written
resignation in order to run for that other office. And you generally under that statute you tender that resignation. It's sent off actually to the governor and to the um qualifying officer before whom you qualify. Um and
you have to resign as of the earlier of when your replacement would take office in for that office or when the office that you're running for would take office. This often ends up being the case that
it will be many months out way more than 30 days. Okay. So on it the face here on its face here this language here and the state resigned to run statute seem to be a little bit at odds. Ultimately I would tell you I think the resigned to run statute would override it. But
Katherine, do you have any historical thoughts on this? >> Uh help me out here. As I recall, the reason this was placed in this was because former Mayor Andrews resigned thinking she had a family member that was ill and
they were going to be going through a lot of medical situations. As it turned out, that family member was not ill and she rescended her resignation. And there were those who did not like that.
>> Correct, Donna? Um, not entirely, but close. This uh um right, Mayor Andrews submitted her resignation effective 30. She she did make it effective 30 days
uh as per the charter. Then she tried to resend it a week later and Mr. Groot, who did some research, informed her that she wasn't able to because Florida statute somewhere that Lonnie found case
law that once you submit the letter, >> you're resigned. Um, so I don't remember us changing this language. >> I was going to say, did this change? >> I I don't know. This may be a very longstanding. >> It's a long I don't I don't remember us
ever reworking this. Did we on charter? >> We also had what you call the Catherine rule with George. >> The what? I'm sorry. >> I said, "Do you remember when you did the Catherine rule?" >> Nope. >> When I resigned from PCA and then said, "No, I wouldn't." And you said, "Oh, yes, you would."
>> I don't remember. I'm sorry. >> That's why it says, >> right? Well, what submitted you get that? I think that was a lot again. I think that was a lot like going I don't think it has anything to do with this cuz I don't think unless Brian has any
input on this. I don't think we've changed this to my knowledge in the past >> it would be in the past 10 years so to speak. >> There have been a number of amendments to this section. I haven't gone back and looked at at all of them. Certainly the the the next sentence once submitted a
resignation may not be withdrawn or revoked is is a reasonable um requirement or statement to have in there. I was just curious about that that you can't make it effective more than 30 days. It it leads to at least an apparent conflict with the state
statute, but I would read it to >> the state statute to override it. >> I I it sounds as if your recommendation to the board is that we strike that I think the um I think the recommendation would be yeah putting any sort of of
time limit on when the effective date of it be I I I'm not clear as to what >> I'm going to throw out and say well lamed up then you got lamed up sitting there >> for how long you could have people going well I'm going to run for office uh you know in November let's you know some
people January put in their paperwork so I'm going to run that are sitting up on c you know council for some other position they're going for county commission from here or whatever. They'll put in a paper say in January for a November run. You've now got a lame duck theoretically
sitting there for how many months. That's you know that that's the only thing I can think of is you're you you might have a lame you know some people would think you might have a lame duck. That's about the only thing I could sit there and think of that, you know, you have that for and council might then
again point someone else in there versus having uh someone that knows they're leaving in x number of months uh sitting up there. That would be the only thought I could think of. So,
>> and I'm not advocating I'm not advocating for it in any I'm just saying I believe that's about the only thing I can think of is >> you have a lamb duck sitting there. >> Yeah. If if if it's all right with the uh committee, I'm going to put this down just on the list. It would be something generally I would I would suggest.
Again, probably not worth its own ballot question, but uh might be something worth looking at. Uh um potentially not you end up sometimes in in charter provisions with kind of traps for the unwary that it's a provision that's not
solving any problem, but just creates more of an issue, you know, another hoop to jump through. So, um just put that down the list and and perhaps discuss it a little bit later. Subsection B, forfeite of office. Mayor, council member shall forfeit his or her set
office if if he or she lacks at any time during his or her term of office any qualifications for the office described in the charter or by law. The most common uh situation you see in circumstances like this is when a member of a city commission or city council
moves out of the city. And unfortunately there are instances sometimes I'm aware of a couple around the state where uh city council members do in fact do that and they um don't tell anyone and it becomes quite the controversy or what
have you. Um so we uh have that provision there and um ultimately the way this would all work is if that comes to be the case and that individual does not tender their rec resignation because they've moved out
the mechanism exists for the rest of the council to find that that has occurred and thereby find that the office has been forfeited. So, moving on to filling of vacancies subsection 3. Vacancy in the office of mayor, council member shall be filled
the following ways. In the event, and I'm sorry to read this, but these are all very kind of technical uh and convoluted in how it works. I think it might be best. In the event of a vacancy in the office of mayor, the deputy mayor shall serve as mayor for the remainder
of the vacating mayor's term of office. Subsection two. In the event of a vacancy in the office of council member or the deputy mayor with less than six months remaining in their term of office, the council by majority vote of the remaining member shall choose within 30 days a successor to serve until the
newly elected council member is elected. In the event of a vacancy, is there a question >> to serve? >> Can you turn your mic on? >> Newly elected council member is elected. So yeah, this this is an instance where
a vacancy arises when there is less than 6 months until an election. Okay, so less than 6 months until the term of office is done. So it's saying if you've got a vacancy at at in that relatively short window of time before a new
election is going to happen, then it's just filled by appointment of the balance of the council members. >> Those newly appointed >> I'm sorry. Can you turn your mic on? >> Yes. >> Shouldn't it say until the newly
appointed me council member is elected? >> No, it would be um >> elected. >> No elected. >> Yeah. No, it would it would be elected because because >> someone is being >> Yeah. It's the the someone's being
appointed in to fill just that term until the end of that term >> and they may not run >> and and there'll be in the intervening time a new election and then that person at the end of that term the person elected will start the new term in that office >> appointed them with the understanding that they'll not run.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. That we we we have only had this happen I think one time that I can remember. Kathy Kathy with it. Yeah. >> Only one time where we had a a member leave, right, Brian? >> Twice. >> I think we have two. >> Two. We had vacancy filled by
appointment. >> Special election and twice. >> Uh >> oh. She served twice. >> No. No. >> No. Mrs. Mars and Mr. Gothal. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Who? >> Gotwall. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah, that's right. Okay. I stand
corrected twice. And Katherine, you are correct. We did choose uh people to serve who did not want to run because we we were not anointing an incumbent. That was that was the criteria. All right. Um subsection three. In the event of a
vacancy in the office of council member or deputy mayor with more than 6 months remaining, the council shall fill the vacancy on an interim basis as provided in C2. So, uh, filling it for that short period of time shall special schedule a special election to be held not sooner
than 60 days or more than 90 days following the occurrence of the vacancy. With regard to this section, this goes along with the general recommendation I had made before, I'd recommend those dates probably be pushed out to be able to deal with uh, modern Help America
Vote Act uh, requirements for overseas ballots and so on. >> Do you have that on your list for us? Yep, >> I think it's already on the list. We ref the other section. Yeah. >> Yeah. Cuz that same or similar window of time is referenced somewhere else and both would be subject to the same concern.
>> Subsection four. Replacement. Council members who are elected in election shall take office immediately upon election results being canvased. >> Yeah. A replacement council. Yeah, sorry. replace >> uh in the event of a tie in the event of a
tie vote uh during the process of the council selection interim council member the mayor shall be vested with an additional vote uh by which to break the tie. Um not an unheard of provision. I've seen it in other ones but an interesting one. Uh
>> I rather flip the coin like it's in the other one. Notwithstanding any quorum requirements established herein. Uh this is uh standard provision that you have if uh you lose so many members uh that you have less than a quorum then uh the
remaining members can get together and fill vacancies notwithstanding any quorum requirement. Um, so that's a stop gap when you have basically most of the entire council go out, which was actually a circumstance that happened or almost happened with a
number of cities around the state. uh a couple of years ago when you had the very temporary changeover from form one filing to form six filing, there were a number of city council members in different cities around the state who did not want to fully disclose every
single stock they invested in and every single everything. And so you had resigning in mass in particular over on the West Coast. >> Kind of makes you wonder what they were hiding, but that's okay. In a lot of instances, it was they just
happened to be very wealthy individuals, right? Didn't want to put all the detail out there, but >> it's a fair question. >> Understandable. >> Um, any questions about uh 3.07? It's relatively straightforward uh unless
there is a a a great interest in in changing around those time periods of having special elections. I I will tell you the more um more common thing among different cities uh nowadays is to have filling of the vacancy for uh even for a
multi-year period of time. But that this is something that is very unique to each city. You know what the political sensibilities of various cities are. So this has been the way it's been a long time. It's not broke. I wouldn't suggest
there'd be any reason to fix it. Moving on to 3.08. 3.08 uh addresses powers of the uh city council and 3.081
addresses general powers of the city council. Um this is a pretty standard list. Again, as we discussed uh previously, it's usually the the general case that that
you don't list out every power of a city in a municipal home rule charter under uh the home rule structure of government that we have in Florida since the ' 68 constitution. But here we have laying out, you know, specific duties of uh the
city council. And the first one being to legislate for the city by adopting ordinances and resolutions in the best interest of the citizens of the city. Uh this is a primary power of uh municipal governing bodies is the legislative function. Uh subsection B is adoption of
appropriations. So uh adoption of uh budgets. Uh approval of organization of the city government. Create offices within the city government. Uh, inquire into the conduct of any office, department, or agency of the city. Make investigations as to
municipal affairs. Determine all matters of policy of the city government. Act as a board of appeals from any decision of any committee appointed by the council to regulate places of business selling alcoholic beverages. And to remove any appointed member of a city board, commission, or committee, all of whom
shall serve at the pleasure of the city council. And this actually brings up something uh Mr. Ford, you had mentioned I think in the first meeting uh about I think you were referencing that provision there and then the resolution that appointed the charter review committee and I think I may have said
then something to the effect of uh they may both be right that there may be a conflict between the two. I had a chance to take a look at that uh between uh uh from that time to now and just I don't anticipate it happening of course but
the um uh resolution creating this charter review committee was patterned on the same resolution that was used back for the last time around. It provides in it uh that members shall serve uh at the pleasure of the council which is the language that's in the
charter here. And then it goes on though to elaborate that uh that individual members of the CRC can be removed by the council member that appointed them. All right.
I don't think those are in conflict. Okay. It's basically providing for it in two different ways. one the resolution is the formal action or enactment of the decision of the council. All right. So it is their
pleasure that they be appointed and you know removed in the manner set forth in the resolution. All right. So they've it's basically granting that governing authority over it. Um and then repeats that exact language there. But it goes
on to detail that individual members can be removed by the uh council member that appointed them. If we come to it, if we have uh you know council member wanting to uh remove, I would say that that
would be effective. Um, if the council wanted to by majority vote and not the member that uh appointed them wanted to remove someone, I think that would probably be effective too if they jump through the right hoops. So, that may seem a little
confusing. Um, but I I I think both actually interact with each other there. I'll tell you why that provision is here. By the way, th this it's it's not really directly to that. There's a very particular reason why that sentence is
in this charter. There is a state statute, all right, that provides that any appointed board uh created by a municipality, by a city, that the default is that uh members can only be
removed for cause. All right? Unless there's a big carveout in that statute says unless there is a uh provision basically unless there's a provision to the contrary in your charter. That's the provision right there. So that provision
right there is directed directly to that state statute to say we're opting out of this statutory process of for cause. Instead it's removal at pleasure. So >> I hope that helps. I think I understand. >> It's a little complicated.
>> I think I understand that. >> I'm I'm acknowledging the apparent the, you know, the the apparent contradiction, but I I I think they actually blame. >> If I got it right, then there's two methods to remove a council member or not a council member, a committee member. the the the
council member who um brought you onto the committee can remove you alone and then a majority of council could also remove you. >> I think that's accurate. Yeah, >> all hypothetical of course. I do not anticipate it with this the great work
you all are doing. Um but a useful hypothetical. >> So I have a question then just let's just say I appointed Dominic. I'm a council member and I want him to be on this board. >> And then I say, you know what, he's a troublemaker. I got to get him off that board. So, I decide to
>> Wouldn't be the first time. >> I decide that I want to remove him from the board. Yeah. >> But the other council members like having him on the board. >> Yeah. >> Can they overrule me? So uh again because that that kind of additional methodology of the member who appointed
them can remove them bit is in the resolution which is effectively the governing document for this um for this body. Um I would say probably not and I say probably because
I can I can think of ways they could jump through a lot of hoops to maybe do that amend the resolution and change that. and so on. Again, that that would get, you know, tit for tat down the rabbit. Yeah, >> it would it take a minute in the resolution, though, because the
resolution states you get that one pick, you can take them out, and then you get to reappoint at that point to say >> there there's almost always a way to accomplish something. It's just how many hoops you want to jump through and how many hits you want to take. >> Yeah. Just curious. >> Yeah.
So, uh, other than the little discussion we had there, I I would say suggest to you, I don't think there's much very interesting in the general powers there. Um, and I if if there's some additional power that you think the city or the city council should exercise,
unless it is shifting around powers within the government, um, you don't necessarily need to add anything new here. These are very broad powers. the power to legislate, which is the power to basically uh between legislating and
budgeting. Uh huge broad powers. >> Is this where we put in getting badges like Kevin has from Sanford? You know, being badged like >> Longwood has badges. >> Longwood has badges, too. >> Moving on to 3.0802
procedure. Um, so we've got just some uh procedural matters concerning the uh council provides a council shall meet regularly at least once a month. Uh, times and places the council may prescribe by rule. Special meetings held
call the mayor, majority of the council members whenever practical upon no less than 24 hours notice to each council member and the public. I will caution uh to folks because that is a very common provision in charters where it says uh
no less than 24 hours notice and so on. The mere fact that the charter says you can do it on 24 hours notice doesn't mean the sunshine law says you can do it on 24 hours notice. Um sunshine law is going to uh militate in favor of having substantially more reasonable notice on
that depending on what you're having the meeting for. If you're having a meeting for an emergency meeting for a hurricane and it's going to be hitting in the next eight hours, having it on four hours notice is perfectly reasonable so long as you do everything you can to give
appropriate folks notice. Um, but having a meeting on 4 hours notice to reszone half the city or anything like that, not a thing that's going to fly for various reasons. >> Um, >> that's not a power that's used very often. >> What's that? Oh,
>> calling special meetings. I mean, >> if if you're sitting in the middle or you're one of the members and you want to try to call a special meeting, you better make sure you've got three people who are going to come along with you, >> right? >> Because you just got a hair on your butt about something and you call it. >> Yeah, they can advertise it, but nobody
will show up. >> Yeah. >> Don't have a quorum, don't have your meeting. So, not that that's ever happened. So, moving on. Again, kind of uh housekeeping type provisions here. Uh council shall determine its own rules,
keep a journal of its uh meetings. Again, kind of restating, city council have the authority to adopt such rules governing its meetings as it may deem expedient except as provided by the rules adopted by the city council. All matters matters of parliamentary procedure, Robert's rules of order shall
govern and apply. This is a common uh provision uh to have in charters uh to say that Robert's rules is the fallback. 3.0804 um seems to be a general requirement to
uh regulate the conduct of spectators to include uh uh and include attendance of uniform law enforcement officer at regularly scheduled meetings. Um this looks like it was added in 2006. Was it just out of curiosity, was there anything particularly happening back then?
>> Back then, if you remember, all the elected officials were they were being shot in the chambers. People were being threatened. Uh that's when all the windows disappeared in here on the doors. >> Okay. >> This place got locked down and
>> um there was a certain council member who wanted the deis bulletproofed but >> hardened, shall we call it? >> Understood. Uh that's that's why the police officer is in here.
Very good. So uh 3.0805 uh council boards commissions and committees city may create boards commissions committees general special prescribed their duties not in confit with other provisions of charters. The duties of the mayor city council term of service of each board should be determined by the council. Provide
however all appointees shall serve at the pleasure of the council. reiterating that before, city council by majority vote may remove any member of a city board, commission or committee. Um, so again, that gets to the removal versus
uh forcing people on and and so on. Uh, again, I I think all those pieces just further elaboration of working out what we discussed before. >> Excuse me. >> Yes, sir. >> I do have a question. I'm sorry. Can I back up for a second? >> I was thinking about it and now I want
to ask it. How do we define meeting? How is that defined? >> Say that again. >> How do we define meeting? >> Define meeting. >> Mhm. >> Council members. >> What is a meeting? >> What is a meeting? >> Yeah. What is a meeting? Okay. All
right. So, um, a meeting I'm going to give you two definitions. All right. A meeting under the charter. All right. is a meeting called pursuant to the calling provisions in the charter. Either it's a regularly
scheduled meeting, all right, as it says there, or a specially called meeting that is called by the mayor or called by three or more council members. Okay, pursuant to that other provision there. All right, so those are
city council meetings under the city charter. We have another definition of meeting just so you know and that's meetings under the sunshine law under the state sunshine law. All right. And a meeting under the state sunshine law is
a meeting of any two or more members of the same body. All right. Where they will uh discuss or do discuss any matter that would foreseeably come before them for action. And it is subject to the
sunshine law requirements we discussed at that uh at the very first meeting where we've got to satisfy the requirements of the sunshine law of having it uh be noticed that it's uh in a public place available it's uh
location available and open to the public meetings uh minutes are taken and promptly recorded and made available for public inspection. So that's where you get these these kind of two definitions if you will. Does that help? >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. 3.06 uh 3.0806. Um this is um we already have it on the list, do we not? >> Yeah, I think that one's on the list. Yeah,
>> we've got this one on the list. This is where we've got uh our um uh language that suggests that a roll call is necessary for ordinances and resolutions. When a ordinance or resolution is to be voted on at any council meeting, clerk shall call the
role of the council. Each member present at the council table at that time shall cast either an affirmative negative vote on the issue question accept as provided by the general laws of the state of Florida. Clerk shall record the individual vote of each in the minutes. So there are two things going on in this section. One is is the language that uh
seems to indicate that you have a roll call vote as we've discussed previously, right? Um the other is just uh effectively restating the requirements of Florida law. Under Florida law, uh anyone who is on any collegial body that
where you make decisions based on voting and so on has to vote on any matter. All right, that comes before them. There's no voting present, if you will. um unless there is or appears to be a potential conflict of interest under the
conflict of interest statute. All right. In quasi judicial matters, it's actually a little bit broader. Uh a member can technically uh recuse themselves and not vote if uh they believe it's necessary
to uh provide for a fair and unbiased proceeding or something like that. very rarely used as an escape hatch because effectively what that elected official or other member is saying is I'm can't be fair uh on a quasi judicial issue
which is something folks generally don't like to say. So um this is just restating that that general proposition. Sometimes folks don't want to, you know, vote on the hot topics, but they've got to vote unless
they've got a conflict. Any questions on any of that? All right, moving on down. Basically, just a a very uh these two are are kind of um
uh not particularly interesting provisions. 3.0808 08 just uh restates uh the authority of the city council to adopt ordinances and um 3.089
uh seems to actually kind of reiterate a lot of what we see in 3.0806 0806 ordinance enacted resolutions adopted accordance with applicable requirements of state law passive ordinance and
resolution shall be by taken by eyes's and nazs and enter the minutes of the meeting which the vote is taken I would suggest to you that I don't think this section needs to be amended to deal with the roll call matter because there's no reference to roll call in this section it's just in the other um every
ordinance resolution shall on its passage be recorded in a book kept for its purposes authenticated the signature of the mayor, uh deputy mayor and city clerk. These are again just um uh kind of boring paper pushing type uh
provisions, if you will. Uh 3.08.10 an acting clause. This is really just for attorneys. It's just the magic language you put in an ordinance uh or resolution uh for it to be effective. 3.0811 10811 adoption of trade codes just recognizes a very general
proposition that you'll find through our code of ordinances and even in the LD uh LDC you'll have references to other codes uh some of the most common being the plumbing code the uh uh Florida fire prevention code different codes like
this that are not reprinted on Municode in full in our codes but they are adopted by reference this is just referencing that general practice and Then uh 3.0812 uh codification just says the city may codify its ordinances. A uh very
standard practice. And that is all of section 3.08. Again kind of more technical stuff through a fair bit of that. Any questions? All right. 3.09 compensation.
Each city council member shall receive as compensation for his or her services a sum to be fixed by the city council. That's the whole section. Any uh any questions on that one? There are sometimes in some cities elaborate schemes how this is all worked
out and so on. Usually when uh folks think that the council pay is somehow gone arry. Um if it hasn't gone arry then be done. Just so everybody knows, ours was set at
12,000 and 10,000 I think it was, right? Isn't that where we started it? 12 and 10. >> Less. >> No, no, no. I'm saying where it is now, though. It was set at 12 and 10. Then there was a by resolution, I believe it is, uh, the council pay only goes up
every year, the exact percentage that we give to the general employees. So if the general employees get 3%, council gets 3% and so on and so forth. And I Brian, I think it's been like that. >> Yep. Long >> a long time. >> Yeah. >> So it's up to what about 17 18 and 15
now or something like that. >> Something like that. >> Somewhere in that range. Yeah. >> Give or take that that trust me no one is retiring on this money. There are some places around the state where where sometimes city councils start giving
themselves eyepopping sums, but uh it's that's that's not those numbers. Sunrise any stretch of the imagination. >> Is that sunrise Florida? >> I can't remember. It does tend to be in South Florida. >> Something with Sunrise Florida. >> We we wanted to put an end to all that because like what Stephen was alluding to when I was first elected, it was $300
a month and you were a 1099 employee. I mean, that's that's what it was. It was next to nothing. Then it went to like 600 a month and then it went to where we are now. >> Then it went to zero. >> Well, that that was a hissy fit between
uh Councilman O'Hanlin and Councilman Delari. Uh I'll do this job for nothing. And we didn't get paid for >> nine or 10 months, I think. >> And worth every penny of it, I'll bet. >> Yeah, we didn't get anything. It was uh until our uh we all went to go file our
taxes and we couldn't write off any of our expenses because we weren't paid. Uh then uh we fixed that. But it's um also something just again so the committee knows what did happen with council pay. It was also determined >> employees
>> uh that councilmen or women are uh employees. Um now we don't get social security uh but we do have access or the members now do have access to 457 plan same as
the employees um health insurance same as the employees clinic same as the employees so the members do get that >> and if uh if city council wanted to increase their uh salary what's what is the vehicle for that they have to adopt
a resolution >> I think it's yeah I think it's resolution >> this resolution. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. It it has to be done publicly >> anyway just so everyone clarifi clearly knows what goes on in that section.
Very good. So section 3.10 I am not going to dive into this incredibly long and um intricate process but um section 3.10 10 goes on for a couple pages of a process whereby
um uh voters of the city have the power to propose ordinances to the council and uh have the power to require reconsideration by the council of an adopted ordinance. Okay. So, it's got a
very well articulated process that I've uh looked all the way through here. um surprisingly detailed but um has this ever been used in recent years? >> No.
>> Oh gosh, I don't citizen initiative. No, >> it's Yeah, they they are particularly as particularly as as populations grow they become I'll just share with you as a practical matter. They become intractably difficult to to collect enough signatures to do it can happen.
Um but it is um it gets increasingly you know difficult to do some of those things and it um doesn't always you know it ends up causing interesting issues. >> Is this one dying too? >> No.
>> What you got? >> You need to restart the computer stop it. So >> yeah, very good. I hear we have a technical issue. So, um, we're going to just take a 5minute recess while they get that all sorted out.
>> It's Dominic's phone. >> Yes. >> And we're back. >> All right. >> On here. All right. >> Section four. >> Back in order. We're back in session. Um the one thing
I would uh mention in that whole initiative and referendum my my general advice would be uh you usually go through provisions like that after they've had a workout the first time. Did that in Orange County uh when
um they had provisions that had been in there a long time for initiative and referendum type uh things. number of folks uh went through those and um got a little battle scarred in in finding all the gaps after going all through it and then that started a whole
big process of rewriting that but it really only is effective after you've been through it. So um secondguing all this here probably not a a great thought uh without going through the practical realities. The one thing I would recommend and inconsistent with what
we've talked about before, this has uh some uh it does have a provision here is some short timets for holding the um uh referendum vote or having the vote on whatever is put uh there having it with
between 30 and 60 days which is unachievable under current law. So, just like we talked about those other times with that same provision, probably moving out those numbers would be something I'd recommend and can throw on the list. Any questions about anything
in 3.10 at this point? >> All right. 3.11 5-year review of charter. The reason why we are here tonight, at least once every five years after the adoption of this charter, and more often, if the city council deems it necessary or desirable, city council
shall appoint a charter review committee to review the city charter and recommend additions, deletions, or changes to the city council for its consideration. Um, any questions or any uh thoughts or changes on that section?
>> I I think we should entertain a slightly longer time. I mean the as everyone can see the charter is in pretty good shape. I mean other than a few things here and there and it could be reviewed at any time. I mean to it absolutely >> to make it mandatory every 5 years just
>> seems redundant in my opinion. I mean Katherine sat on like 12 of these. No, she had almost every sing you >> almost every time. >> Every time we had one, I remember you you getting appointed by one of us.
>> Not by you. >> Probably not. >> Dominic, if there were going to be a discussion or suggestion on on changing the time period, do you have a suggestion? >> 10. 10 might be a little long, but seven, I mean, eight. Yeah, eight. Give it give it a little time to breathe and
marinate. I mean, like you just said, if if something's tested in it and there's a problem, the city attorney could always bring it to the council. >> Fire charter amendments, right? >> Guys, we got to fix this. >> And then the council can actually do it. They can appoint themselves. >> Yeah. >> Did I hear a question?
>> Yeah, we do have um for that section uh 3.10.02, it says that uh each signature shall be executed in in so on and so on. So we're talking about some paper uh I guess petition. So uh should we consider
electronic submission? Same for 310 03 also. Um it says um send a copy of certificate of petitions committee by register mail. Is it electronic delivery? Should we consider it as well
in 21st century? Yeah, I I I would s I would actually in the instance of petitions and I'll I'll tell you why. I would strongly recommend keeping things in the paper form. Okay. And there there's a very Yeah. And there's a very
particular reason for it. Um, this this uh whole charter provision does do a good job of of keeping things in in somewhat general conformity with the way that the state handles petitions
>> and thus the process by which the supervisor of elections would review those petitions to review the signatures to confirm that they are valid and say they're a good signature and so on. um
introducing a true electronic signature that doesn't even necessarily look like that signature would not work uh with the way verification works. And if it was an electronic scan of it, it would introduce a whole lot more complications
than it would, >> you know, than problems it would solve with verification by the supervisor. >> Okay. So on that on that instance there I until there becomes a uniform if there ever is uh there there becomes a uniform
way where the state implements some something like that I I think that would be a rough way to go. >> Okay. >> I have a question please. >> On on a it says 15% of the total number of qualified voters. How many qualified
voters do we have in the city at the moment? >> It's a great question. Do we happen to know? I don't have the number off the top of my head. I'm sorry. >> 12 or 13,000. >> 12 or 13,000. >> More than that. >> Oh, it's got to be more than that. >> It was used to be like at least
>> Yeah, I said close to 20. >> 20 >> 22 something like that. Yeah. >> I I I think we should drop the 15 down to like five. I mean, even to run for county commission, you only need a couple of thousand. You don't need four
or 5,000. understood. Now, keep in mind this this is >> remind you what what this is for, >> right? >> This this is this isn't, you know, for folks for uh people to run for office, >> right? If you're upset about an
ordinance, you want it to put something on or you want to take something off. >> That That's right. >> Yeah. and and involves somebody sitting and you writing a whole ordinance themselves or um or
bringing an ordinance back up and having them then change stuff and and so on. So, >> yeah, but that's still like 3,000 votes. 3,000 voters. That's a lot of signatures. >> It's it's a fair number. Yeah, >> that's a good point, Karen.
So maybe we should drop it down to 10% or 5%. I mean, it's still a lot of effort, >> but it's prohibitively too many to to require 3,000. I mean, 3,000 is a lot.
>> Is there any reason that this would be harder um than getting enough signatures to run for council? Because to run for council you need 15 to be high. >> Yeah. The when when it comes to the
reason I would suggest to you generally why you would have kind of a structural difference in in numbers on that is um if for the one it is literally just qualifying an individual to be able to run. Okay. And then voters decide and
that and so on. When when you when you change the threshold to propose ordinances to circumvent your governing body and put everything to put legislation directly to voters at a very
low threshold. um >> that that's a that's a fundamental structural shift away from the elected the elected city council being the governing body. >> But but 2,000 is not a very low threshold.
>> I I understand. Yeah. I'm I'm not suggesting a change in in percentage or anything is is per se a bad idea. Putting it to 200 I'd probably >> Oh yeah. >> Put the extreme question on. >> Yeah. No. Yeah. that >> um >> what what's what's norm what's normative
or required by statute? >> Uh there's nothing required by statute for ordinances. There is no procedure in in state statute for ordinances. There is a provision in uh chapter 166 for uh residents for voters to propose charter
amendments and that percentage is 10%. >> Okay. So maybe we should make registered voters >> of registered voters. So maybe we should make it consistent. >> Other cities they're in that same ballpark or >> uh having pardon me having ordinances by
initiative is not um it is not the norm. I don't want to say it's uncommon because I can think of examples, but it is um it is not extremely typical uh to have this
process at all at any percentage. >> I mean that is the council's job. Exactly. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Cuz it's >> be a big deal. >> Yeah. Um so yeah my my suggestion again just for the purposes of our you know documenting
discussions and and for you know issues that that may want to highlight and discuss further later I think we can put it down on the list as a as a topic brought up you know potentially moving that number from 15% to 10% and as we circle back around later you all can see
where you might if you want to do anything about that >> exactly >> and since we are all interested As of >> 2024, we had 25,170 registered voters. >> It's that 10%.
>> Very good. >> Anything uh anything else? Uh back in 3.10 at this point. So, back on 3.11, I think uh we'll add to the the list as well the potential of uh proposing a
change to go from 5 years to a higher number. Uh eight perhaps, but you all can potentially fool around with that number later if there's an interest for it. >> Four and we changed it to five. >> I don't remember. I think it's always been five. >> Changed what?
>> Is there is there is there a note on it? >> I thought it was always five. It doesn't it doesn't indicate a note that >> was always five. >> It doesn't indicate a note for for amendment. That doesn't mean it's >> you've done it more cuz it went back to back one year. >> Yeah. We did it again. >> We've done it more.
>> All right. >> Cuz in the early in the early 2000s, there were more back to the early 2000s. >> There were more of them by Yeah. by by fem Katherine. If you if you think back just a little, u the major changes in here
were made. >> I have that memory problem. >> I know you keep forgetting. I'm a really nice guy. Um uh 2006 was the major change. Remember with Mike? Yeah. Mike Roberto when he did it.
>> Yeah. That that's when a lot of these changes came about. >> But all right. >> Very good. Well, with that, you all have made it through your review of article 3. So, congratulations. That's the big lift in this. >> So, we're moving on to article 4, administration.
>> And Brian, we are at your spot here. So, uh, section 4.01 is the city manager, appointment, qualification, compensation, and responsibilities. And >> hire you by four and keep you by three. >> I like that.
>> Or release me by three. So um uh subsection one, city council shall appoint by affirmative vote of four members of the city council. City manager shall be the administrative head of city government answerable to and under the direction and supervision of
the city council. City manager shall receive such compensation. City Council may fix and determine that city manager shall be chosen solely on the basis of his or her executive administrative qualifications without regard to his or her political belief and shall be over
the age of 21 years. All all of those uh uh all that language there chosen solely on the basis of executive administrative qualifications and language like that very common in municipal charters for city manager form of government for city managers. Um
and uh as indicated uh it does provide for appointment by affirmative vote of at least four members of the city council. Uh I'll skip down just to point out as was noted before and we've had some discussion on it. It does provide for uh removal or discharge. City
manager may be removed or discharged at any time by resolution approved by three members of the city council. Um, and so actually at this point I know this has been dis discussed a little bit before but I know it's a topic of discussion. Does anybody have any thought on those
thoughts there? >> I I'm not a big fan of supermajority so for right off the bat the super majority bothers me but um the four Yeah, it could be hired by three. To me I I have no problem hiring by three. Um we we've
hired many managers so we've offered many managers. It's not. >> Yeah, we've also had problems. >> Not not that many work out hired at three or we we've been through bad choices at three and other things at three. So I don't see what four gets you except there might be an appeasement of
we can't come to an agreement. Uh whatever. Okay, fine. So I just get and and I also feel that again we've had one that was hired on a 3-2 and then turned it down after they were offered and hired. And to me, that's listen, you
know, if you can't work with a 32. If you just want a perfect board, then I there's no such thing. So, I'd like a manager that can at least understand you have five different people up there, you know, you need to work with all of them versus you got four and that's it. But
I'm not a big fan of supermajority. That's the real backbone of it. Oh, >> and then conversely, like I've said before when we had this discussion, the reason that's in there is if the city manager, the person being hired isn't
wanted by four members, they're just getting off on the wrong foot. I mean, if they didn't make a big enough impression that you've got at least four, I mean, a majority, uh, you know, you're starting off with two
people that didn't want you. uh you know really really the best the best best case scenario is all five of you on the same page. I mean that's what we all always tried to do. I and I I think we kind of got ourselves there almost every time.
So >> but I think if you hire by four you should discharge by four >> right then and that's why I said I think it should be the same either way. I'm just not a fan of super but if it's going to be one then it should be four. So, so >> well the problem though if you want to discharge by four, you've got three
members who this manager is not getting along with. >> And Brian, I'm only pointing at you cuz you're the manager right now, but everyone loves that man. Uh, you know, it it it just creates that that creates other issues. So, I can understand
wanting it the same either way, but uh uh I mean, if we were going to pick a poison, I' i'd rather see the group go three. >> I also point out that So, how many mayors have been fired? I mean, how many uh city managers have been fired? >> Right. Yeah. >> Uh
>> I I like four and four, actually. >> Oh, no, no, no, no, no. >> Oh, yeah. >> Oh, no, no, no, no, no. >> Fired. >> Name one. There was one guy trying to fire in the middle of the night. When he has been fired, >> uh the very first city manager the city ever had.
>> He resigned. >> He resigned. >> All right. Uh I mean I'm sure are our left under circumstances, but there's never been an I was in Arizona and they had the meeting and fire basically. >> I was here for a lot of them, you know,
for so I can see. Let's see. Let's think that through. Our experienced members will know that in a lot of cities it is uh much more common that uh when a city manager finds the winds blowing a certain way. >> That's right.
>> They will find it judicious to resign rather than be fired. But you know it all >> somewhere comes in the same way. Uh Katherine I would just I'll say two things about the four and four and so
on. First off, that is a a common scenario that does exist in a number of cities. So, we'll acknowledge that. Um, the only additional thought I would give you though is that the dynamic of hiring by four and the
dynamic of firing by four are converse to each other. You understand what I'm saying? To uh to get hired by four, you got to have a broad base of support. Okay. To get uh fired and by four you
have to have a broad base of disdain. Basically, you have to you have to tick off four of them to get fired and that uh you know keeps you there. I I will tell you as a practical matter in those jurisdictions where uh where there is a
supermajority to fire, it is um it is commonly just only an injudicious city manager who will hang around when they have a majority against them but not four. You know what I'm saying? Cuz
that's that's just not going to end well. Um but again it's uh it's at the committee's uh will if there's any thoughts of making that change or I'm satisfied the way it is.
>> Just my my comment. >> Very good. >> Do we have that down on the list yet? I think it it may have been. Okay. All right. So we've got on the list just because it's a topic that's been raised. Um, I skipped over uh subsection two.
Uh, subsection two addresses uh acting city manager. Um, by letter file of the city clerk, city manager shall designate a qualified administrative officer to exercise the powers and perform the duties of city manager during the city manager's temporary absence of disability. Dur's
absence of disability, city council may revoke the designation at any time and appoint another officer of the city to serve till the city manager shall return or disability shall cease. This pretty much exact language exists in or language almost exactly like it exists
in most municipal charters with a city manager form of government. So you have the manager being able to designate or delegate to someone else to be city manager when he's unavailable. He or she is unavailable and then uh a a failsafe if you will the city council uh just
can't deal with that to deal to make a change during >> Oh wait I have a question on this one. Yes, sir. >> How long is that temporary absence? >> However long or short it is, um I've actually been in instances and attorneys
in my firm have been in instances where uh the absence usually because of illness um will be for a number of months. So, or it could be for a day or three days because they go on vacation or what have you. the the more common is and I leave it to Brian, but I mean the
more common uh generally uh is just a couple days or traveling or they're going to a wedding and they're not going to be able to answer the phone at 2:00 a.m. you know when >> so any specifics in in this section? Uh >> well I think the next part of during
this such absence or just the city council can take action >> to put somebody into place if they feel that >> it's going to be a longer term >> they can counate and say well >> I'm going to say Pat hey you know the natural be Patrick the assistant city
manager for the 3 days Brian's going to be gone >> but if it was something longer >> this gives the ability to council to go you know what >> this is yeah this is too much we got to got to go a different direction and so on. So again, that's that's one of the the um you that's the utility of that
flexibility there for the council in their discretion to say, "Yeah, in this instance, we got to go this direction." >> Generally, if I'm out a day, I send a notice to the city council and appoint someone to serve. If I'm just out for a
couple hours, then no, I don't because that's not really necessary to to appoint someone. But yeah, if it's one day, if it's a one full day, I will I will appoint an acting city manager. >> You take a day off. >> He never gets a day off.
>> Lars is I remember Lars being a couple of times. >> I I do occasionally. All right. So, subsection 4 uh contains a long list of powers and duties for the city manager. I'm not going to read them
all, but uh the general header is city manager shall be responsible to city council for the proper administration of all affairs of the city coming under his or her jurisdiction. To that end, the city manager shall see the laws ordinance of the city are enforced. It goes through uh all these different
powers here. appoint, suspend, demote, remove subordinate officers and employees. So this is a very important concept under the um council city manager form of government that the employees as a general matter the employees of the city work for the city
manager and are hired, fired, demoted, promoted ultimately by the city manager or by the authority of the city manager. the um uh let me see I'm looking for any highlights. Um
here attend all meetings to city council with the right to take part in discussion but without of course having a vote. Uh recommend to the city council for adoption such measures as he or she may uh deem necessary or expedient to the interest of the city. um
keep the city council fully advised as the financial condition and needs of the city and at proper time submit to the city council for its consideration in the annual budget. As I'm sure um uh you all would note or have a general appreciation for the city council
members themselves do not sit and write out every single little bit of the budget that uh that they then take in and work through and so on. that initiates with staff and then comes in and gets, you know, reviewed extensively and worked over and ultimately approved
by the city council. But the budget has its genesis and origin with uh ultimately the city manager. any particular um powers and duties that jump out to anybody they had any questions on or wanted to
discuss? >> Justformational question. >> Yes, sir. >> Subsection H says several departments. How many departments we have in the city? >> How many departments do we have? Uh >> we have count nine.
>> I think nine. All right. I have one one quick question, please. And Brian, help me out with this. Didn't the charter used to require city manager had to live in the city, or is that in your contract? >> It's in my employment contract.
>> Okay. Right. >> Yeah. >> Was it ever in the It wasn't in the charter. >> I I don't think it was ever in the charter, >> but it was there's Yeah. Six people required to live in the city. >> Six people. >> Yes. Five council members in
>> Right. But that's only by contract. So >> yes, >> if in the future they were going to hire a new city manager and that city manager wanted to live in Semino Woods, they technically >> they could do that. >> They could do that. >> There there are um I think at least three of the city managers in Seminal
County that don't live in their jurisdiction. >> Right. Okay. I just want because all of you have lived in the city that we've hired. >> Uh, yes. >> To date. >> Yes. >> All right. Any other questions about
those powers or duties? >> Fantastic. We'll move on to section 4.02. City clerk. City clerk shall give notice of council meetings to its members and the public and shall keep the journal of its proceedings and shall be a public
record. City clerk show work under the direction and supervision of the city manager. It's my understanding this was amended uh previously. Did the city clerk used to be directly appointed? >> Was this >> it was the clerk was appointed by the
city manager and affirmed by the city council. >> Ah okay. All right. >> Used to work in the pleasure of the city council. >> Gotcha. Gotcha. >> That was Mr. Sieber who changed that one. >> No, it was after that.
>> H >> I think it was after that. >> It was I think so. I thought it was Sber. >> It was after. >> Any uh questions about uh the city clerk provision. All right. Section 4.03. D department
directors. City manager shall appoint and remove department directors who shall serve at his or her pleasure. City manager shall organize departments as he or she deems appropriate. of fix the compensation of department directors consistent with the appropriation decisions of the city council. So you
can see that interaction there. Um ultimately he is the uh the city manager is the one who hires and fires uh employees including department directors and sets compensation. But it of course
has to be within the budgetary decisions uh set by the city council. >> This is a pure like I like really clean. This is not clean. But why would that be like is there a reason that needs to be in there? Are they contract because they're contracted or
>> was what what just yeah directors why would you have that in there >> quite honestly? >> I I don't know if there was any changes in 2006. It is a it's a >> I I'll put it this way. It is a typical uh it is a a typical provision you see
in municipal charters because there is some variety and I'll I'll on the topic and I I'll give you one example I can think of the top of the head off of my top my head um a city where we are uh my firm is city attorney uh the department
heads in that instance are um appointed by the city manager but they have to be confirmed by the city council. >> Um, >> I mean, I could see if something like that was I'm just saying this seems kind of >> there's nothing to it except they're employees and they can be appointed like
any other employee, right? >> And it's it's just >> it means nothing to me. I'm just looking at it going it's kind of innocuous and doesn't mean or do anything. Just >> wonder and there are there are a number of other provisions like that's why I said I like clean. That's just one of those that popped out of me is it's innocuous and does nothing. The issue
sometimes in asking voters to take out things that seem to just be restating what's obvious is they get very confused. >> Oh yeah. I'm not taking that. >> I'm not going to push. I just was again curious is is there a reason because they're contractual or you know things like that that may be >> Yeah. And and I would suggest it's it's a common thing you see in charters and
they're just kind of answering the question that you would ask. >> 4.04 city attorney should be a legal officer of the city appointed by the city council. Legal officer shall serve as chief legal adviser of the council, the city manager and all city departments, offices and agencies, shall represent the city in all legal
proceedings, and shall perform any other duties prescribed by this charter or by ordinance. Any questions about that one? Very common provision. >> Chosen, >> what's that? >> How is that firm chosen? That firm is chosen in the manner that the city
council decides because the uh city uh city attorney is appointed by the city council. >> I believe they did it by RFP last. >> Yeah, they did do an RFP. Yeah, they didn't. Yeah, in in fact they did an RFP. Yeah, they did an RFP this last
time around. Um yeah uh from a from a charter standpoint and actually under the purchasing uh the procurement policy as well there was no um requirement to do an RFP but that is very that is by far the most common way that it is in fact done regardless of any requirement
because it's an open process where folks can go through and do that. Any questions on that? All right. 4.05 905 Police/Fire Department. The city council shall provide for the
public safety of the citizens of the city by taking actions which include but are not limited to the creation and maintenance of both police and fire departments unless four members of the city council vote in favor of an alternative means of providing for the
public safety. This is of course an interesting provision in your charter. Uh that's not a negative or a positive thing. It's just it is a a provision you don't find in every charter. Um but um I I know there's been substantial discussion in
the past, you know, concerning this uh provision, but does anybody have any questions or discussion on it? >> So this would be kind of in the case of deciding to disband the police and fire and go with the county. >> Yeah. >> Or something like that, aren't they?
>> That's correct. Yeah. Yeah, if you want if if you want to consolidate, it takes the vote of four members. >> Takes four. Okay. >> That's that's the practical end result is it would take that too. >> All right. >> The other alternative is to create a department of public safety. >> I see. >> As opposed to two different entities.
>> I see. Either way, it takes four to get it to get in with that. >> Why is it four for this but three for the city manager? >> Just sorry. >> It's it's three to remove the city manager, right? And it's for >> to abolish the police department or the fire department.
>> Is there any reason? I'm just >> public safety because people are very serious about public safety and >> that's a big deal to change. >> Big huge deal to make a change. >> And we've we've seen over the years a couple of I mean springs over you know some that have gone over and it
>> whether it's good or not that's their decision to finalize in the end but it causes a lot of controversy uh to give up your own police or fire. >> Yeah. the the city council's made the decision. Was it 2010 this was changed? >> Yeah.
>> You know that you know we're a full service city and >> that's like Stephen said that's where this really came from. >> So didn't we always have our own police and fire here? >> Yeah. So we did. Okay. >> Used to have volunteer fire department. >> Volunteer. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Well, Lars started >> Lars was on the volunteer and then he was the second employee, I think, right? Wasn't Lars like the second employee of our fire department? Paid employee or something or was he the second volunteer
guy? I don't know. I just saw him in Publix the other day. I'm going to ask him. >> Wait, just a cosmetic change. >> Do we handle our own 911? >> No, the county does. So that's that's the county and they relay those calls to us or so cuz sometimes they both show up.
>> We have an inter we have a agreement so that we can cross call it >> so whoever gets the best and you know gets called. >> And that's the same with fire, right? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Actually it's a little different. >> We have that >> it's a little different.
>> It's a little different. not not exactly the same, but yeah, >> the police they have u they have cooperative agreements where they work with each other. Uh they don't ne they still respect their boundaries, >> but uh the sheriff and the police work
together any time that they're they have to when they're actually at the boundaries. Uh we're we had a call recently where Winter Springs was chasing a a drug dealer and they called out his nickname. Our officers recognized the nickname and went to the
guy's house and waited for him when he got there and made the arrest. Um, fire is is different. Fire is called first first response, first available. And so what that means is is that the
closest response that then comes in the first available. And the best example I can give you is that our ambulance delivered someone to uh Florida Hospital. Alultimont. When they came out of the emergency room, they cleared it
in and said, "U rescue 46 online." They immediately got a call and responded in Altimont and and transported that person to the hospital in Altimont.
And when they came back out, they were done. They got to head back to Avido. uh you'll find county will be responding in a veto from time to time, you know, but that's where the first available comes in. So, it's it's a little bit different system, but the county it's all works
through the county 911 system. Well, it's interesting because I remember one time and I I'm going by my recollection is I think my wife threw her back at her or something and I remember there was a we had to call an ambulance uh and the uh county got there first uh and he
didn't know where to take her. This is when they had that before the hospital they had that little emergency room there and he had to follow me there and he didn't have the code to get him in. They had to knock on the door and wait for a nurse to come out and actually open the door. So, some of the county
folks don't really don't really know the city medical systems as well, I think. I don't know. Maybe that was just a weird situation. >> Now they do. I think now they do, you know, >> and and that's one of the things too in Simol County, we're really lucky. We have one medical director. He he covers
the entire county. So, it's very coordinated. our all of our uh all of our public safety systems are all very well coordinated and integrated. You know, like I said with police, they still respect the boundaries, but they have cooperative agreements. >> Cool. >> All right.
>> You want some, Victor? >> Well, I just made exchange um >> please. >> Um every time when we have numbers written in words, >> it followed by the digit in parenthesis. So maybe we should put four then in
parenthesis four members of the city. >> We we could in a cleanup uh amendment. I just frankly I I don't as a drafting preference. I don't like where they say the number twice. That's that's an attorney tick from from some attorneys and I don't I've never understood the
purpose. But um for consistency, that's >> all I think we could throw that into a cleanup uh perhaps as we're doing other cleanup stuff. Thank you for that. Um moving on to section uh 4.06, personnel system. All appointments and promotions,
city officials, employees, except those specifically exempted by this charter ordinance shall be made solely on the basis of merit and fitness demonstrated by examination of their evidence of competence. City manager shall establish personnel procedures and rules in accordance with controlling federal and state employment laws.
This is a very common standard provision you find in municipal charters as well. Moving on to 4.07. This is just restating the law. All public deposits in qualified public
depository shall be secured as provided in general laws of the state of Florida. that public deposit shall be made except in a public depository. This is just restating state law. It says only certain types of banks, the ones that qualify as qualified public deposiitories can hold uh government
money, city money and and so on. So we of course uh bank with the bank that satisfied those requirements. Now we are into very fun stuff taxation 4.08 08 taxation and accounting. Um I
will tell you as a general matter for most of of what we have here in the taxation piece and we'll talk about some specific interesting stuff about um uh about voted debt and other debt and so on. As a general matter most of these
sections 4.0801 uh 02 um 4.081 10801 and 04. Uh they are just what the state law is uh with regard to it. There's nothing particularly unless uh somebody's aware
of something I'm not aware of in looking at it. These are these are just the way things are done under the uh required budgeting processes that we have under chapter 166 and chapter 200 in the Florida statutes. So it just basically
says they can have advorum taxation. That might go away someday. Who knows? But as of right now, we still can. So we have that. Uh sets out use plain and uniform systems of keeping books. State
has a um uh has a set way they like to see their books. Uh like to see municipal books so that uh it's all organized a proper way and we adhere to that. fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30th. That's the case for every city and every county in the
state. Um so that's all those 4.08.03 is um the authority to require an officer employee to give bond. Uh and this is basically you go to assurityity and actually get a
bond issue uh to secure your faithful performance of your duties and so on. This used to be a big thing for hundreds and hundreds of years in government. It's not done very uh often anymore. Um but it's a typical provision you'll find
in there and just not really used. Any questions about 01 through 04? >> What's the purpose of this bond? >> Uh so again, I'll put it more back in the day. All right. when we when we didn't have as many checks and balances and audits and controls and what have
you is uh they would post a bond read the uh language here uh yeah posting a bond conditioned uh for the pay faithful performance of the respective duties of the officer employee or appointee for
the appoint uh proper accounting and prop payment over to the city that all monies received by such person the performance of the his duties. It's kind of an old old style way of making sure that if somebody absconded with all the money that there was somebody to go
knock on the door of and say, "Hey, uh, you gave a shity on this guy and now all the money's gone. Pay up. It's insurance effectively." Shies are technically not insurance and very similar to it, but it's kind of an old school way of making sure the coffers don't get cleared out.
>> Okay. I have a question before you go on. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Could we go back to 4.06 under personnel systems? I have a question. >> Sure. >> Probably. >> Can you bring your mic a little closer? >> Except
could you could you could you get the mic a little closer? >> They just want to get it on the recording. >> The thing is it won't turn up. It's fine. >> Oh, well, here. Let's I'm sure I'm sure you can be lent one. There we go. >> I'll use his. All right. It says all
appointments and promotions except those specifically exempted are by merit and fitness. Could you tell me what ones are not by merit and fitness? >> No. >> No. >> You don't know what ones are? >> I
>> Do we have any that qualify that are under that? >> I I I've never promoted anyone like that. I would think that that verbiage might want to be looked at. >> I said sweetly. >> I That's a good catch, right?
>> That it it didn't have the usual Katherine Twang to it, but >> frankly, that just confuses me. Oh, thank you. They do want to hear my raspy voice. >> Yeah, I'm looking I'm looking through
and and um Oh, I can think of one example. >> Okay. Um yeah, appointment of appointment of city officials uh except those specifically exempted by this charter ordinance to be made basis
of merit and fitness. Um uh filling uh vacancies on the city council. Filling vacancies on the city council would be by who can get correct. It's by who can get >> I got you
>> a majority vote >> and that's just that's just the matter >> by the city manager though. >> Uh this doesn't uh >> it says he'll establish the policy. >> Correct. Yeah. No, late later on. Yeah. Later on it references the city manager.
Um but that first sentence is not it it doesn't specifically mention the city manager. city manager would be doing all of those except for um except for the city council appointing people and actually it would
be appointing to um appointing to boards as well actually. I was going to say appointments to boards would be would be exempt. Uh >> so I mean this is >> actually a fair number of reason that
>> you'd be upset. >> No, I Hey, >> I I I think what it what it means. Okay, it let's let's collapse out the exception I gave you of appointments by the city council. All right, let's let's
if we confine it just to appointments by the city manager. All right, uh then it would be um uh other appointments that are specifically exempted
in the charter by the city manager. None of it's jumping out at me. Um is or by ordinance and I'm not aware that we have an ordinance that says some position X is um can be appointed on
>> you know filled on a basis other than this because I think our personnel policies uh mirror this language basis of merit and fitness and so on. So as as as of right now I I'm not aware that there is any that is subject to
appointment by the city manager. Does that make sense? >> It's on all personnel systems, not just those by the city manager. If you think of it that way, it doesn't relate simply to the city manager. It relates to all the personnel systems,
>> all appointments, >> right? All appointments and everything. Not specifically those that are related directly to the city man because the next one says the city manager shall I think you may she may be like kind of going oh these are the city manager appointments and everything but this
relates to all personnel including board members etc etc. >> I think that's why I find it personally to be confusing is that it says city officials and employees. I I see those as two >> two different >> two different
>> categories >> categories there. >> Yeah. The the issue the the issue is um sometimes they can overlap uh are very well not even arguably department directors um could be some of them in
particular could be considered city officials or officers capital O under the Florida constitution and they're also employees. So it there's >> sorry >> some overlap in in those in >> uh police chief for example is is an
officer under the Florida constitution for the purposes of for example dual office holding >> um finance director is generally held to be a uh uh office subject to dual office holding. I'm not sure that it IT
director would be. I'm not aware of any attorney general's opinion that says this is deep lawyer stuff. Sorry about that. But uh a number of department heads under state law would be considered officers. >> And so do both their offices for that. >> What's that?
>> Do we have personnel procedures for that as indicated here? >> We have personnel procedures that govern uh all employees which they are. >> Okay. >> All right. Switching back to taxes and budgets.
So 4.08.05 submission of budget and budget meth message. This as well, Brian, unless you're aware of anything particular in here that's exquisitly different uh than or greatly in excess
of the requirements of >> statute >> 163 and 200. >> It's statute. >> It's the statute. Yeah. This is the statute. >> Huh? >> This is the statute. >> Yes. >> What? >> Yeah. No, that this this is generally consistent with the requirements. >> I like to read this. There's so much in
here that I'm just going, "Wow." >> Oh, you should sit down and read 200.065 sometime. Your uh eyes would roll back in your head. It's wildly complicated. >> The manner in which it should be displayed going, >> "What is all this stuff sitting in a charter?" Wow.
>> Yeah. And and by the way, this is um having requirements like this is more typical of I would say older charters, >> right? >> Um prior to the kind of consolidation of more state control of of all these
things, but all of this is is consistent with and a general summary of what state law requires. Uh similarly with regard to 4.08.06, 06. Um it basically tracks it's actually
a lot less detail. Um the um 200.065 provides exquisite detail in exactly how budgets and millages have to be noticed and advertised and so on. And of course we comply with all of those uh rules.
Any questions on any of that? Uh 4.0 8.07 07 uh just states uh the obvious until maybe it changes. All property real and personal in the city of a veto not expressly exempt by the laws of the state of Florida shall be subject to taxation by the city. Uh that's actually
a restatement of Florida constitutional law as it is right now. So uh not really much to fool around with in that same thing with regard to 4.08. 08.08.
This is just reiterating the city's power to tax within the authority it has under the constitution and state laws. Moving on to 4.08.09. Um
this lays out procedures for um how the uh how you have transfer of funds uh during a budget year among uh different budgeted amounts that are appropriated. Again, highly technical stuff. Um it'd
be a little bit outside my wheelhouse to get into the nitty-gritty of it. If anybody has any questions, get into it, but it's just the process by which money can be moved around uh ultimately in the middle of a budget
year. Moving on to 4.08.10. This again is just restating uh uh just saying they'll follow state law, which is nice because that's what they'd have to do in any event. If the city council fails to certify a millage rate, the millage rate for the ensuing year will be determined
in accordance with state law. Uh basically how that works, by the way, because I have had that happen in cities before because of a hurricane. Uh where they didn't adopt they didn't finally adopt a budget until like October 3rd and basically you just keep going on
under the the uh amounts of the prior budgeted year until you get that budget in there and then it retroactively fixes it. But um those are edge cases. You call up to do and ask for their blessing and then everything is fine.
Section 4.08 4.08.11 managing finances, borrowing money, and selling bonds. So this is a uh uh charter provision that I know there was an amendment back in 2021.
This uh relates to the uh city's uh borrowing ability and it imposes some uh restrictions and limitations on the ability of the city to borrow in certain instances. City shall be permitted uh only be
permitted to issue revenue bonds, notes, certificates of participation, lease purchase contracts or other instruments of indebtedness. Folks can get very uh creative in ways to create debt. um by the affirmative vote of four city council members at a public hearing held prior to the issuance of such bonds
provided the total amount of indebtance doesn't exceed 10 million for infrastructure in any one year and the city's independent financial advisor certifies that debt limitations as prescribed in the city ordinance are not exceeded. This uh annual debt issuance limit shall not apply to any debt
secured by enterprise funds or debt associated with leases. Uh so what we're dealing with there is the most common reason why municipalities borrow money in Florida in recent decades is for water and
wastewater. And uh in this instance uh here because those are capital inensive big spends that you have to do to either upgrade capacity, expand capacity or um improve quality. Um but in this instance
here because uh what you typically have with water and wastewater um bonds is that the payment of those bonds is secured by the enterprise fund. The separate pot of money that that um
when it's run as a business unit for water and wastewater it is I think and this was an addition I think in 21 right? >> Yes. uh to exempt out >> the uh the exemption out to the uh utility actually I think was done in
2010 when the city was in 2010 when the city purchased the uh sewer system. >> Gotcha. >> Um the 21 was to increase uh non non-utility from 5 million to 10 million. >> Very good. >> And I think we added the leases too. >> We added the lease,
>> right? There was always a question whether that lease is counted towards that >> right >> cap. You made that clarification. >> Tech. Yeah, technically it's appropriate for it to be in there. It's one of the uh one of the species of municipal debt even though it's usually a much lower
number. Any questions about this section? I know it's been of interest in the past, but I, as was indicated, there's been recent work on it in past charter review committees. So,
moving on to 4.08.12, independent annual audit. This just again uh provides what state law requires, which is that uh the uh city's books and accounts be audited on an annual basis. There are extensive rules governing that uh with uh the
state and um this just makes general reference to a requirement to do so. 4.09. >> I have a question on >> Yes, sir. >> who picks that uh accountant? >> The the auditor.
>> Yeah. >> Uh great question. Uh that's actually governed by state law. Uh there is uh there's a state statute that uh expressly lays out how you have to choose your auditor and you have to set up a whole separate committee and the
who is the city manager cannot be on it. >> City manager cannot and the finance director >> finance director cannot. It's all very and this is only in recent years where they really got detailed about this. It's to try to create a separation so that basically the folks being audited the city manager and the finance
director I mean not directly but their books their activities and so on uh wouldn't be involved directly in the in the selection. So it goes through that whole process and then ultimately goes to the city council and it's chosen but there's a whole statutory process. >> Generally the the audit committee is
it's composed of uh two members of the city council and a citizen at large. Okay. question. >> Yes, sir. >> Uh the findings of the audit are those is that public information?
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Oh, yeah. >> All right. >> Big presentation usually at city council. >> Pardon? >> It's usually a big presentation at city council. >> Okay. >> You have the auditor come in and present the findings. >> Yeah. And then the whole audit is available with all their, you know,
>> good >> any negative findings if they have any. But um you know but everything all laid out and >> uh those are all publicly available >> and I forget the name of the organization but our finance department wins an award like every year. >> Absolutely.
>> Uh from >> some organization. Uh I mean they've they must have 20 of them back there in a row for their financial reporting how they do it >> and the audits really never show much nowadays.
I wish I could say that about every city in the state, but here in Ovito, they they don't show anything. >> Oh, 20 some odd years ago, they were fun to read the recommendations. >> Yeah. >> So, uh, members, we're on the very much on the home stretch here. Uh, 4.09.01,
uh, just makes general reference that city of Ovido reserves their authority under chapters 170 and 180, uh, for, uh, doing, uh, special assessments. not really a necessary provision, but uh
there are state statutes that authorized um that provide a method to do special assessments uh in various areas of the city and so on. Again, municipalities can actually do that under their own home rule authority as well as the statute, but it's referenced there
nonetheless. Now, we've got two just very technical uh articles that are just here uh for attorneys. This is just saying that uh whenever the new charter was adopted or even when amendments are uh adopted that
it doesn't change uh people don't lose their jobs. Uh the ordinance that existed prior to the prior charter remain uh in effect and so on and uh things uh persist on even with the transition. And then down in article
six, construction of the charter, liberal construction in favor of the city. Very common that it will uh very common provision in charters. Again, just for attorneys and judges to see. Gives me the opportunity to argue that hey, everything in here should be
construed in a way that is uh beneficial to the city and in the exercise in favor of its exercise of powers and its authority. And then finally, very technical provision. If any little bit of this charter got uh fooled around
with or kicked out by a judge, uh the rest of it survives. So with that, we have made it through your OVTO city charter. >> I have a question. >> Yes, sir. >> Um I know that we do a future land use review. I think it's every 10 years. And
is that required by law? So, um, which I just want to actually ask Brian, um, is is that a practice historically in the city separate from, for example, the ear amendment, Brian, or
>> I think that's what he's talking about. It's the valuation and appraisal. >> Yeah. >> Every seven years. >> Yeah. every every every seven years uh the comprehensive plan has to be reviewed uh to make updates to it to
conform it to state law things have changed in the interim and then also update uh things like their planning horizon and um frankly at the same time look at other changes >> that kind of thing >> what's that >> like a growth projection I know is part of that to
>> that does certain areas and things like that >> yeah that does end up going into uh the um materials that would back up uh any changes in that. So that is required by law. >> That's required by law every seven years. That's state law. >> So that doesn't have to be in here. >> Doesn't have to be in here.
>> Okay. We just actually just went through that process. >> Yeah. Yeah. I remember that was >> all right. Well, two years ago members, um, being that we've, uh, finished our run through of the charter, I think this
would be a good place to stop. But I, uh, did want to suggest for the next meeting, um, I was going to be going down through the list here, probably focusing on in the first instance, things that may get thrown into uh, a
cleanup amendment. All right, so kind of low impact stuff. put something together so you got something to take a peek at uh on that. Um, but are there any topics that uh we think might have be of
such interest that it would be useful for discussion at your next meeting to see some potential language and I'm I'm thinking you know perhaps more big t of big ticket interest items whether you're
for or against it or what have you. Uh I know there have been uh discussions about the matters of uh lengthening terms andor term limits and all all these different things like this. There is just some things based on past discussion. Are there any thoughts from
members? >> I think we probably got to kick it around first before we get to language because it doesn't appear to me like there's a whole lot that needs to be changed. So I think that the handful of things you've got on that list, we should kick them around and if it seems
like we really want to change something, then go to language, I think. >> Well, does anybody have any ideas? He brings up term limits, throw it out now. What do you think? If you want four years, if you want six years, if you think four years is the number and how
he, you know, cuz then he's got to stagger it and what how you get there and come up bring you back ideas. He can bring back ideas on how to do that. So if you're thinking four years is what is out there. >> Yeah. >> Ask ask him to do that. >> That could be its own evening discussion.
>> What's that? >> I said that could be a whole evening discussion. >> And and it's not going to pass. It doesn't matter what. >> Oh no. That's why I feel like it could be a long discussion. But >> plugging in numbers is the easy part. It's kind of more of the apparatus, you know, putting together the apparatus of
it is and then you fill in a number. I mean just from a drafting standpoint because I do find sometimes and this is not the case with every charter amendment but sometimes some charter amendments um the the effect of them or you know how people are going to
perceive them and so on crystallizes when you start seeing some language. Other times when it's purely conceptual and that might be the case with term limits you know you're not going to be no one's going to be caring about the the mechanistic details. It's it's going to be are you going to do it or you're
not or what have you. So, um >> why don't you put down the four year, you know, a fouryear cuz it see that would be the four year would be the number I'm going to guess everybody could kind of get behind and how we get there. So, everybody kind of sees like you said the mechanism what that kind of
means and the stagger of the terms and >> that seems to be the more difficult part. >> You know, when you start seeing that that's where people kind of wait oh he gets too I don't how do you get there? >> So, how about that? And by the way, I'm I'm not going to be if if it is accurate
that that this has been proposed before, I'm not going to be starting from scratch. I'm going to ask staff to pull the past language. >> You got at least two members, >> but I'm going to Yeah, I'm going to see if I like it or not. If I don't like it, I'm going to rip it up and start over. But if it uh if it looks good, I'm going to start from there. >> And I, as you said, keep it for the
first, you know, I think one version had it tied in with term limits. I would keep it separate from time, you know, term limits as a whole separate. And if this we guys want to talk about putting it together in some way, but >> yeah, but you can't do the term limits separate. We we figured that one out
because that that passes and you have two-year terms. >> You can you can set term limits and maximum number of years consecutive years served as opposed to terms served. >> That's a very common way to do it. >> Okay. So >> that's a good point. Yeah. I the only
thing is that if we do try to do it, I mean, don't make it I think one of the errors we've made in the past is whoever's getting elected in 2026 has to stay on a 2-year term, right? >> It can't be that if this passes, they get four years. I think that confuses
people. >> Sure. >> In some of the other times we've done it. So, I mean, logically, just food for thought for you, it would be 2026 would be a 2-year term. Though if it passed, those in 2027 would be a three-year term, right? That gets them
to 2030. And then in 2028 when the three run, that's where they're four years. And then you're >> and then 2030 would be four years for the mayor and the uh seat one blah blah blah. But uh I don't >> very good.
>> I'm not ever signing up for the prison sentence again. So I'm good. So, I'll put together some language along that line as well as uh uh a running a draft of what would be some species of a cleanup amendment and then
uh please come to the next meeting uh ready to discuss uh those and also make some decisions about some of the things we have on our topic list. uh which ones we either want to kind of dispose of say
interesting idea but we're not doing anything on it uh or uh stuff that's sufficiently meritorious you'd like me to put together some language. >> Are you going to send out the topic list? So we >> What's that? >> We'll send out the topic. >> The revised topic list will be uh will
be sent out prior to the meeting for all of that. >> All right. Thank you all very much. >> Any any interest in districts? I'd really like to go districts, but I don't think there's enough interest for that. Forget it. I'm just looking for my own council person for the mall.
>> You got five of them up there. Come talk to them. You know them all. You said talked to them all. >> That's true. >> Show me your manifesto. Get, you know, get buying. >> Well, members, thank you all very much and we'll see you at your next meeting. >> Thank you. >> Wait, when when you have that list
ready, can we actually have a PDF emailed to us with that list? It's all part of the packet. It's all in there. It's in the packet. >> It's in the packet already in the packet. It's >> every meeting. >> Yeah. It's agenda. >> Going to city.
>> I really I really hate the pack. Very nice. >> I think it's the last like two pages of of >> Absolutely. Have a good night. Just send an email. Come out. Come on. You're supposed to know you sir. >> Good night.
12 hours.