Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06122006 CRC - Minutes OJY OF HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2006 - 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 1. Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. 2. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Barbara Beck Charles Cardinale Adrina Davis Linda DeSanctis Dan Dragonetti Harry Enderlein Jim Morrison John Oakes Dennis Powers Richard Smith - Chairman Ruth Sullivan - Vice Chairman Rick Villars Members Absent: Mary McGee (excused) Maureen Cummings (excused) Cory Richter (excused) Staff Present: City Attorney, Rich Stringer City Clerk, Sally Maio Also Present: Councilmember Sal Neglia Councilmember AI Paternoster ~ Charter Review Committee June 12,2006 Page Two 4. OLD BUSINESS: A. Approval of May 15. 2006 Meetinq Minutes On MOTION by Mr. Enderlein and SECOND by Mr. Villars the May 15, 2006 minutes were accepted as presented on a voice vote of 12-0. B. Review Draft Language for All Recommended Amendments Ms. Beck recommended that section 2.12 (a) be amended to remove the previous change to have all Council meetings be conducted after 5 pm. MOTION by Ms. Beck, SECONDED by Mr. Morrison to strike 5 pm and keep the 24-hour notice from 2.12 (a) failed on a voice vote of 0-12. C. Request bv Member Harry Enderlein to Discuss Boundaries and Special Master Mr. Enderlein presented recommendations for three amendments (see his memo and recommendations attached). Recommended Amendment #1 - 1.02(5) Abatement of Nuisances. Discussion followed on Mr. Enderlein's recommendations to put Code Enforcement under Growth Management Department and state that a magistrate will be appointed to hear and adjudge code violation cases that cannot be resolved by a code enforcement officer. The City Attorney advised that he had prepared an ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances for Council consideration to replace the Code Enforcement Board with a Special Magistrate. In response to Councilmember Neglia, he stated the two Council members in attendance tonight could remain and listen to this discussion. He further stated that there is nothing that requires a Growth Management Department, that it is the authority of the City Manager to determine the appropriate location for code enforcement in a Council/Manager form of government, and advised that code enforcement not be in the Charter based on his philosophy that code enforcement not be considered any more important than other divisions or functions of the City. Mrs. Sullivan said she would like to see Growth Management Department continued and in the Charter to protect us from growth. Mr. Oakes cautioned not restricting future populations and asked why it needed to be so specific that code enforcement must be under the helm of the Growth Management Department. 2 Charter Review Committee June 12,2006 Page Three Ms. Beck said the City Manager should be able to move personnel where he sees fit. Mr. Oakes said he did not see the recommendation from Mr. Enderlein because he did not know there was an agenda packet until tonight and needed time for review. MOTION by Mr. Villars, SECONDED by Mr. Dragonetti to amend 1.02(1) as recommended by Mr. Enderlein failed on a roll call of 2-10 (Beck, Cardinale, Davis, DeSanctis, Dragonetti, Morrison, Oakes, Powers, Villars, Smith - nay) Recommended Amendment #2 - 1.04 Boundaries Mr. Enderlein explained his recommendation to state the City's intent to square off the City's boundaries as set out in his attached memo and map. The City Attorney explained that Mr. Enderlein is recommending just a statement of policy in the Charter. Mr. Oakes cautioned that the sitting Council is not pro annexation and asked how this could be achieved without annexation. Mr. Enderlein stated that when someone makes a statement of purpose, things begin to happen. The City Attorney stated that if the Charter read, lilt shall be the policy of the City of Sebastian to establish these boundaries in accordance with law" and then you draw your desired boundaries, a Council when faced with a voluntary annexation request within the boundaries would then would be required under the charter to approve it; or when faced with a voluntary annexation request outside the stated boundary would be required to reject it. The City Attorney explained the various methods of annexation. MOTION by Mr. Enderlein, SECONDED by Mr. Powers to amend 1.04 as recommended by Mr. Enderlein failed on a roll call vote of 5-7 (Beck, Cardinale. Davis, DeSanctis, Dragonetti, Sullivan, Smith - nay) Recommended Amendment #3 - 5.03 Mr. Enderlein explained his recommendation to change the composition and reduce the number of Charter Review Committee members to eleven members, five selected by Council and six at-large. Mr. Villars suggested this item be passed at this time and addressed during the review of Article V under New Business; and Chairman Smith agreed. The City Clerk provided copies of Article V and VI to members who did not have their charters with them. 3 Charter Review Committee June 12,2006 Page Four Mr. Smith called for a motion on Mr. Enderlein's recommendation on Section 5.03. Mr. Powers then asked whether the Charter review should still be conducted every seven years rather than two, three or fours years and Committee discussion followed. TAPE 1- SIDE II (7:25 p.m.) Discussion continued on the appropriate number of years between reviews. On MOTION by Mr. Enderlein and SECOND by Mr. Morrison, the Committee recommended that 5.03 be changed to every five years on a roll call vote of 12-0. 5. NEW BUSINESS: A. Article V. GENERAL PROVISIONS 5.01 - Severability of provisions No changes recommended. Though a motion, second and unanimous voice vote recommended no changes, it was decided that motions were not necessary unless changes were being recommended as the committee has done up to this point. 5.02 - Effective date No changes recommended. 5.03 -Charter review committee The committee had passed a motion previously to change the review time to five years. Mr. Enderlein continued his recommendation to change the composition of the committee to five appointed by Council and six at-large. Discussion followed, however, no motion was made to recommend changes to the composition of the committee as recommended by Mr. Enderlein. B. Article VI. TRANSITION 6.01 - Title to property reserved No changes recommended. 4 Charter Review Committee June 12, 2006 Page Five 6.02 - Reserved No changes recommended. 6.03 - Reserved No changes recommended. 6.04 - Ordinances preserved No changes recommended. 6.05 - Continuation of former charter provisions No changes recommended. C. Schedule Two Public Hearings in Accordance with 5.03 At Least Fourteen Days Apart - Available Dates July 17 (if ready). Auqust 14. August 21. September 11, September 18 The City Attorney said these will be advertised public hearings, that the public will be advised that the recommended changes are available for review, and that following the second hearing, the Committee can adopt its recommended changes and forward them to City Council. Public Hearings were scheduled for July 17 and August 14, 2006. The City Attorney said the Charter Committee could amend its recommendations based on public input at the hearings if it so chooses. Mr. Powers asked the City Attorney about a recommendation from a member of the public (Neil Lagin) at a previous meeting relative to requiring a supermajority for large purchases. At the request of the City Attorney, Chairman Smith called a brief recess to allow the City Attorney to contact the City Manager by phone. The City Attorney said he recalled that the recommendation was if purchases of land in were in excess of a stated percentage of the general fund, Council would need two appraisals. Mr. Powers said he remembered what would be needed was a supermajority vote. The City Attorney said a purchase of ten percent of the general fund would be about a $1.2 M, and five percent would be about $600,000. 5 Charter Review Committee June 12, 2006 Page Six The City Attorney advised that Florida law states that two appraisals are required for purchases of land over a certain amount only if the City wants to keep the negotiations and offers out of the sunshine. Mr. Powers recommended that no matter how many appraisals were obtained a purchase of that amount should have a supermajority vote. Mr. Oakes asked Mr. Powers if he wanted this same scenario to be applicable to boards; and that it sets a bad precedence because it allows the minority to make decisions rather than the majority. Mrs. Sullivan said when you are talking about taxpayers' money she would lean toward the more conservative approach, the supermajority. She said she was in favor of appraisals as well. Mr. Powers clarified that he was talking about only purchases and not contracts. The City Attorney clarified that what Mr. Lagin asked was that when the City was considering purchasing property without the protection of an appraisal, a supermajority vote be required. MOTION by Mr. Powers, SECONDED by (inaudible), the recommendation to add "any land purchase over ten percent of the general fund of the current budget require a supermajority vote" failed on a roll call vote of 3-9 (Beck, Davis, DeSanctis, Dragonetti, Enderlein, Morrison, Oakes, Villars, Smith - nay) On MOTION by Mr. Oakes and SECOND by Mr. Powers, the Committee recommended amending the charter by adding "Any land purchase in excess of ten percent of the general fund of the current budget year shall require two appraisals. If the purchase price is in excess of the average of the two appraisals, it requires a supermajority vote", on a roll call vote of 11-1 (Enderlein - nay) The City Attorney noted that this amendment would go in as a new paragraph in 1.02 (1). Chairman Smith thanked all members for their hard work. 6. Being no further business, Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Approved at the July 17, 2006 Charter Review Committee Meeting. (j:-Z4~ /q~'TnL klCfL SaL&~ , ' Richard Smith, ChaO-man V>u. t~ri2kd ~~ ~ 6