Charter05-11-10Min City of Longwood
2010 Charter Advisory Committee
Longwood City Commission Chambers
175 West Warren Avenue
Longwood, Florida
MINUTES
MAY 11, 2010 .
7:00 P.M.
Present: Chair Bruce Kubec
Member Greg Cetera
Member Mark Weller
Member Doug Damerst
Giffen Chumley, Fishback Dominick
Katrina Powell, City Administrator
Linda F. Goff, Recording Secretary
Absent: Vice Chair JoAnne Rebello
1. Call to Order. Chair Kubec called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes — April 13, 2010. a
Member Cetera moved to approve the Minutes of April 13, 2010 as
presented. Seconded by Member Weller and carried by a three /zero voice
vote with Member Damerst abstaining and Vice Chair Rebello absent.
3. Public Participation. None.
4. Old Business.
A. Review of Recommended Amendments.
Chair Kubec reviewed the recommended amendments from the last
Charter Advisory Committee Meeting.
B. Discussion of Geographical Commission Districts.
Chair Kubec said there was a Memorandum from Mr. Chumley reviewing
various options for redistricting.
Member Damerst said the question raised was the assumption that some
things have changed in the representation of the districts. He stated as he
looked over the district boundaries, there have been some changes, but
nothing radical in terms of developments. He declared implementing a
redistricting plan could place a financial burden on the City that may not
Charter 05 -11 -10/1
be necessary. He suggested this section may want to be revisited by future
Charter Advisory Committees if annexation begins to occur and things of
that matter.
Chair Kubec said they were not necessarily concerned with changes that
may have already occurred, but changes that may occur. He stated with the
future Transit Oriented District and the Artisan District where people
could be living above businesses this could have an effect when SunRail
comes through. He said they were trying to look at the Charter to see if it
readily addresses the possibility of redistricting or at least looking at the
districts to make sure they are as closely even by population as possible.
He explained the Committee had asked Mr. Chumley to provide some
examples from other cities which is the Memorandum the Committee
Members received. He stated from his perspective, trying to create a
Charter to support redistricting should it be necessary, he liked the first
option in general for the concept suggested, so that within ninety (90) days
of the ten year census a committee would be formed to look at whether
redistricting is necessary. He said there could be a large piece of property
annexed that would bring more people into the City, or the development of
high rises or condominiums. He would suggest that within ninety (90)
days of occupancy or the vacancy of buildings that would result in a ten
10 %) percent or greater change in the voting population that the
Commission could decide to convene a special committee to look at
redistricting. He also offered for consideration that if the City was going to
redistrict, the redistricting take affect the third year where there are no
commissioners elected.
Member Cetera said if waiting on the third year, should a major event
happen, and then the City could miss an opportunity.
Member Damerst said he was looking at the Model City Charter as a
reference tool. In the section that deals with redistricting they see a fairly
long process that could take a couple of years to accomplish. He stated it
may not be possible to avoid election cycles.
Member Weller said as far as redistricting, if there is an event, then that is
probably when it should be looked at.
Member Damerst said there were two issues. One is that redistricting
apparently has not been redone since 1982.
Mr. Chumley said that is what it looks like based on the current Code. He
stated the districts may have been updated in the interim.
Member Damerst said they were approaching three decades and the
Commission hasn't seen a reason to redistrict. He stated the question
arises of when is redistricting necessary according to the Charter. He said
Charter 05 -11 -10/2.
one could make the argument that the Charter asks for equal districts, yet
there has not been redistricting for some time. He inquired what could the
Charter say differently about that in terms of setting some sort of a
boundary that has to be quantified. He referenced the Charter and
suggested a change could be made to state "...as necessary to maintain no
more than a ten (10 %) percent variance." He said the second issue being
raised was the process to be used, and it may be that the Commission
could handle figuring out how to do that process. He suggested the Charter
Advisory Committee consider recommending placing a trigger in the
Charter.
Member Cetera said they had discussed using the census as originally the
document was based upon the ten year census. He stated he could not
foresee the City growing in equal parts in thirty (30) years.
Member Weller said it has not been an issue as there has been some
phenomenal growth since 1982.
Member Cetera inquired if the districts were equal as they sit today and
what is the trigger for the change. He said there was not a lot of
developable land in the City.
Member Damerst suggested they could give some definition to the phrase
"as nearly equal population as practicable" and place a trigger within the
Charter.
Mr. Chumley said that Winter Garden used a five (5 %) percent deviation ,
and he went through the redistricting process with them. He advised the
United States Supreme Court has generally used the guideline of ten
(10 %) percent or less. He stated the five (5 %) percent deviation left a very
narrow option for dividing neighborhoods and was a little harsh.
Member Weller said if there are federal guidelines, then do they need to
address this?
Mr. Chumley said they can make it narrower, but not wider. He provided
this information to show what other municipalities have done.
Chair Kubec inquired if the Committee was in agreement providing a
trigger in the Charter for redistricting evaluation was good.
Member Weller said it hasn't been a problem to this point and if he
understands correctly, there are federal guidelines the City has to go by as
far as districting.
•
Mr. Chumley advised therewere,federal guidelines and it is something
that doesn't become a problem unless someone makes it one or it is
Charter 05 -1.1 -10/3
challenged. He said Longwood was unique as the Commissioners are
elected at large so everyone has an equal say. The Commissioner must live
in the district they are elected to serve.
Member Cetera said he was comfortable with leaving this as a talking
point throughout the course of the actions the Committee takes. He stated
one of the things the Committee wanted to focus on was how many
changes they were going to make, and how many clear cut amendments to
present to the Commission that they can get the voters to understand and
pass. He said one of their goals at the onset was to try and limit to a few
meaningful items they feel strongly about to present to the City
Commission.
Chair Kubec said he was hearing from the Members that they should leave
when to redistrict up to the Commission to make that determination.
Member Cetera said at the end of the day they have to be in compliance.
He stated he did not feel allowing the Commission to determine how we
get to that compliance gives the citizens any less power or strips anything
from them.
Member Damerst said he agreed with that.
Member Weller said he felt they should leave it alone. He stated if it
becomes an issue that is what the City Commissioners were elected to
handle. He stated it has not been an issue in the past.
Discussion ensued regarding the process the Committee has decided to
follow.
Member Damerst said the last Charter Advisory Committee he served on
they reviewed a marked up version of the proposed amendments at their
last meeting. The Committee at that point either approved or disapproved
those in terms of making a recommendation to the Commission.
Chair Kubec said he would try to draft some language and provide it to the
Recording Secretary to include in the agenda packet for next month. He
stated at the end they will review all proposed amendments and determine
whether to move forward with those amendments at that time.
Chair Kubec said at the last meeting the recommendation was made that
for one year after a Commissioner stopped serving, he /she should not be
able to do business with the City for a period of time. He stated Mr.
Chumley provided the Committee with some information in the form of a
Memorandum. He opened the floor for discussion. He stated he was on the
fence on whether he agreed until he read paragraph number three (3) of
the Memorandum. He said that would protect the City and since this is a
Charter 05-11-10/4
State Statute, it was his understanding that it would take precedence. He
declared he was okay with leaving the Charter as it is and not adding any
additional restrictions.
Member Cetera said he was for leaving this the way it is.
Member Damerst said what the { Chair was reading refers to employees and
not commissioners. He stated that while they are a commissioner, they
cannot have those conflicts. He inquired if any business with the City prior
to taking office could continue.
Mr. Chunmley said it doesn't apply prior to qualification or beginning
public appointment. He advised that under law, as an officer, it becomes
something different. He pointed out that in the Memorandum he rnade a
notation above that the information in §112.3185, Florida Statutes, was
not applicable to municipal officers.
Chair Kubec inquired if while sitting as a Commissioner they cannot do
business.
Mr. Chumley responded in the affirmative.
It was the consensus of the Committee to leave the Charter the way it is.
5. Review of Charter.
A. Article III. City Commission.
Section 3.05. Prohibitions.
Chair Kubec said he understands the way the City is constructed that the
City Administrator, City Clerk, and City Attorney all report to the
Commission. All other employees work for the City Administrator or City
Clerk. He inquired if in Section 3.05 (b) Interference with administration,
' if it would be worthwhile to add "and City Clerk" at the end of this
paragraph.
Member Cetera inquired if he was saying that the City Clerk does not
report to the City Administrator.
Chair Kubec responded in the affirmative. He advised the City Clerk
reports to the City Commission, as does the City Administrator and City
Attorney.
Member Damerst advised that Section 4.03 provides more information
that may be useful.
Chair Kubec said he would table the discussion until they review Section
4.03.
Charter 05 -11 -10/5
Section 3.06. Vacancies; forfeiture of office; filling of vacancies.
Reviewed with no recommendations.
Section 3.07. Judge of qualification. Reviewed with no
recommendations.
Section 3.08. Independent audit. Reviewed with no recommendations.
Section 3.09. Procedure. Reviewed with no recommendations.
Section 3.10. Action requiring an ordinance. Reviewed with no
recommendations.
Section 3.11. Ordinances and resolutions. Reviewed with no
recommendations.
Section 3.12. Emergency ordinances. Reviewed with no
recommendations.
Section 3.13. Codes of technical regulations. Reviewed with no
recommendations.
Section 3.14.- Authentication and recording; codification; printing.
Reviewed with no recommendations.
B. Article IV. City Officers.
Section 4.01. City clerk. Reviewed with no recommendations.
Section 4.02. City attorney. Reviewed with no recommendations.
Section 4.03. Appointment and term of office of city clerk and city
attorney.
Chair Kubec inquired what Member Damerst saw in Section 4.03 that
addressed his question regarding the City Clerk.
' Member Damerst said in this Section the City Commission has both the
appointment and the removal of the City Clerk. He asked if Chair Kubec's
point earlier was that the Commission could make requests directly of
employees working for the City Clerk.
Chair Kubec responded in the affirmative. He said it was his
understanding that the City Commission had to go through the City
Administrator or City Clerk to give employees direction or ask for them to
do anything. He stated his point on Section 3.05 was that the Charter
Charter 05 -11 -10/6
specifically states City Administrator and knowing that this also applies to
the City Clerk was why he wanted to consider adding the City Clerk. He
inquired if this was significant enough to spend any more time on it, or
should they keep on going.
It was the consensus of the Committee to keep on going.
Section 4.04. Appointment of city administrator; qualifications;
compensation. Reviewed with no recommendations.
Section 4.05. Removal of city administrator. Reviewed with no
recommendations.
Section 4.06. Temporary /acting city administrator.
Member Cetera said under paragraph (1) (a) it talks about a lot of things
for what a temporary absence shall be construed to mean. However, it
doesn't cover the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Chair Kubec said the FMLA would have its own set of rules, regulations,
and guidelines coming from the federal level and inquired if that would
supersede the Charter.
Mr. Chumley said it obviously would stand on its own. He stated one of
the concerns here was that the City Commission may not have the
authority to appoint a temporary City Administrator if it doesn't fall under
one of these absences. He said you could probably stretch the definition of
vacation or out -of -town official business to cover some of the things that
may be encompassed by the FMLA. He stated if the Committee wanted,
they could add family emergency or something vague of that nature to
make it clearer so it would better apply to that type of situation.
Member Cetera said this was defined by being incapacitated not more than
sixty (60) days. He stated if someone was to go out and give birth and end
up on bed rest before the birth of the child and take four to eight weeks
after, they would be beyond the sixty (60) days.
Chair Kubec said in his opinion that is where paragraph (2) Acting City
Administrator would come in giving the Commission the authority to
appoint someone as an Acting City Administrator up to one hundred and
twenty (120) days.
Member Cetera said if the Administrator was taking a four month leave of
absence, they may not be hiring a new City Administrator.
Chair Kubec suggested Member Cetera craft some proposed language and
submit it to the Recording Secretary to be distributed.
Charter 05 -11 -10/7
Mr. Chumley said he was not that familiar with the FMLA. He stated he
could take a look at it as sometimes governmental regulations affect
municipalities differently than they would private companies. He said it
may mandate that the City Administrator keep their job during that period.
Chair Kubec said the way they were reading this was that it covered up to
sixty (60) days as a temporary absence. However, paragraph two (2) talks
about in the event it is necessary to hire a new Administrator and there
needs to be something in between.
Mr. Chumley advised he interprets Section 4.06 that you first have a sixty
day absence which can be temporary. At that point, it is implied that it
becomes necessary to get an Acting City Administrator who is appointed
for one hundred and twenty days (120) after the sixty (60) days. He
pointed out it makes a special exception below so that if a. City
Administrator becomes incapacitated they can delay the appointment of a
permanent City Administrator for a period not to exceed three hundred
(300) days. He said he understands the Committee's point is that it is a
little narrower under the circumstances in which that can happen. He
stated that may be the focus of a provision.
Member Cetera said if the City Attorney can provide that information,
there may be no need to craft any language. At the next meeting if it is
something the Committee feels needs to be addressed they can come back
and revisit it.
Member Damerst said if some of the language in paragraph (2) (a) was
somehow contradictory or not in compliance to the FMLA, they may want
to correct this.
Chair Kubec said they may want to say in compliance with the FMLA so
there is no contradiction if it changes.
Mr. Chumley said this was one of those provisions with the intent and
assumption that the City Commission will try to meet that deadline.
Section 4.07. Powers and duties. Reviewed with no recommendations.
Section 4.08. Performance review and evaluation.
Member Cetera said this only talks about the City Administrator's
performance and inquired if they should consider having the City Clerk
added here since she is a direct report to the City Commission. He stated
this goes back to the other Sections they discussed.
Member Damerst said he thought the Clerk was handled elsewhere.
Charter 05 -11 -10/8
Chair Kubec said he believed it works the same as it does for the City
Administrator. He stated the City Clerk performs a different role and
function for the City.
Member Cetera said there obviously is an annual review of the
performance, so somebody has to be doing that today. He stated both of
those sections don't really address the position of the City Clerk.
However, the City Clerk position is held outside of all of the rest where it
defines the City Administrator has all of the employees report to them,
except for the City Clerk and City Attorney.
Chair Kubec suggested if they were going to add City Clerk to Section
4.08, then they should add City Clerk to Section 3.05.
Member Damerst said the Charter outlines, and rightfully so, the powers
and duties of the City Administrator. He stated it provides the ten
performance duties, which is followed by Section 4.08, Performance
review and evaluation. However, for the Clerk there is no such thing.
Member Cetera suggested one way to look at this was to make the City
Clerk report to the City Administrator and that would take care of it all.
Member Damerst said Section 4.03 has the City Clerk appointed by the
Commission and they can remove the Clerk.
Member Cetera said the review and performance appraisal is quantified in
relation to the City Administrator, but there was nothing there for the City
Clerk. He stated these were two direct paid employees of the City that
report directly to the Commission and it is addressing one and not the
other. He inquired if that was an area of concern.
Chair Kubec proposed adding City Clerk to Section 4.08 and Section 3.05
and put this on the Committee's talking point list. He said when they were
done with the Charter review the Committee coul&come back and take a
look at that to see if it is what they want to do.
. - � k• ;
Member Cetera asked if there was a reason the City Clerk' doesn't report
to the City Administrator.
Chair Kubec said he had no doubt in his mind there was a reason, but he
did not know what that reason was.
Member Damerst said the City Administrator runs the City organization.
The City Clerk works directly with the Commission to record their
activities. He stated the Clerk and the Office of the Clerk are almost an
extension of the Commission.
Charter 05 -11 -10/9
Chair Kubec said the City Clerk was the one who records all of the
directives by the Commission and is responsible as the Election Officer
for the City. Whereas the City Administrator runs the City, negotiates
contracts, hires people, and things of that nature.
Member Weller pointed out that. Section 4.01 specifies what they do. He
said their performance review is in the public.
Member Cetera said it didn't really say anything in Section 4.01 regarding
the measured criteria for the job. Section 4.08 clearly states the City
Commission will' conduct the annual appraisal and review of the
performance.
Member Damerst said the City Clerk works at the pleasure of the
Commission. He stated the City Administrator reports directly to the
Commission, but the directors and staff do not. He stated he wouldn't
agree with adding City Clerk under Section 4.08.
Chair Kubec said that Article IV was about the positions of the City
Administrator, City Clerk, and City Attorney. He agreed they have totally
different jobs and responsibilities. He stated they were not talking about
that, but were talking about using the same process for determining
whether they are successful or not.
Member Damerst said he didn't see the Clerk's position as a goal oriented
position. He inquired as to what other cities do and if there were statutes
- that govern this. ? ,
Mr. Chumley advised some cities have the Clerk under the City
Administrator and other cities make the City Clerk report to the
Commission.
The Recording Secretary advised the City Clerk has done a goal oriented
evaluation before the Commission in the past.
Member Damerst inquired if he could raise questions for amendments for
what, has.alreadybeen reviewed.
Chair Kubec responded in the affirmative and asked that he do this at the
next meeting.
6. New Business. None.
7. Agenda Items for Next. Meeting.
Charter 05- .11 -10 /10
Chair Kubec asked the Members to be prepared to review the Charter through
Article VIII. Nominations and Elections.
8. Adjourn. Chair.Kubec adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m.
C / Bruce Kubec, hair
ATTES `
- l
`i�
Linda F. Goff, C V C/ R ee ` a Secretary
Charter 05 -11 -10/11