Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 10-14-08 regular agenda — reading text

went onrecord as stating his feeling that the fireworks, the Kids' Day, and the two police vehicles would be better paid for from the excess of reserve fund and not from the general budget. The Mayor called for the vote on the motion and it carried by a vote of 5 to 1 with Holmes, Reeves, Pullen, Hartwell, and Minich in favor and Miller opposed (Garvie absent). The Mayor advised that the tentative budget for the City of Fort Walton Beach for Fiscal year 2008/09 is $ 36, 570, 582 with a tentative millage rate of 4. 3361, which is 7. 5% below the rollback rate of 4.6883 mills. The proposed budget is subject to a second and final public hearing that will be held on Monday, September 22, 2008, at 5: 30 pm in the Council Chambers of City Hall. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6: 35 p. m. APPROVED: ATTEST: MAYOR: CITY CLERK Ive  MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING CHARTER REVIEW OF THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 INTRODUCTION A Council Workshop Meeting of the City Council of Fort Walton Beach, Florida, was held on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 5: 30 p.m. with the following members present: Mayor Mike Anderson Councilmen: Mike Holmes; Virgil Miller; Dr. Wayne Pullen; Jim Hartwell; and Mike Minich Absent: Dennis Reeves; Bill Garvie, Mayor Pro Tem Also Present: Joyce Shanahan, City Manager; Helen Spencer, City Clerk; Brandy Wunker, Finance Director; Toni Craig, City Attorney; and Department Directors PURPOSE Charter Review: Title V Miscellaneous Provisions CALL TO ORDER The Mayor called the meeting to order. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led in the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Holmes moved to approve the agenda as the order of the day. Mr. Minich seconded motion and it carried unanimously with Holmes, Miller, Pullen, Hartwell, and Minich in favor ( Reeves and Garvie absent) CHARTER REVIEW The City Manager recapped the issues identified at prior meetings for further discussion, which included Section 4A Limit on number of terms for City Council; Section 5 Regular and special meetings of Council; Section 8 Quorum, compelling attendance of members; Section 15 Removal of officers and employees, civil service employees, procedure; Section 16 Council not to interfere in appointments or removals, violation a misdemeanor, forfeiture of office; Section 20 Departments to be supervised by a director; and Section 53 City officers, appointment and compensation. She mentioned the Mayor also requested a review of Sections 6 and 8 regarding voting issues and breaking ties. She noted the City Attorney provided an opinion about which sections can be amended by ordinance, referendum, or should be deleted. F TITLE V MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Section 57 Oath of office It was questioned whether every officer of the City included the Charter Officers and staff. The City Attorney said this section can be changed by ordinance to require the four Charter Officers to take an oath; however the elected officials are required by Florida Statute to take an oath. She said this section has been interpreted to mean the elected officials, consistent with the Florida Statute. No change was made to this section. 282 Council Workshop 9 -16 -08 Section 58 Continuance of present officers There was no discussion on this section. Section 60 Elections There was some discussion on subsection ( b) " Any qualified elector of the city may become a candidate for any elective office by filing with the supervisor of elections a petition in the form as prescribed by that officer, together with a filing fee which shall be established by ordinance, but which may not exceed the sum of fifty dollars ($ 50. 00)." It was questioned whether the amount of the $ 50.00 filing fee with the petition needed to be set in the section. It was recalled that the filing fee paid during an election was $ 75. 00, and that the Supervisor of Elections established the fee based upon the amount the elected position receives. Dean Covey, 270 Brooks Street SE, stated his belief that the filing fee is around 1. 5% of the amount paid to the elected officials. It was questioned if the amount of the filing fee always changes whether the section can be worded to just state that a filing fee will be paid. The City Attorney noted some clauses in that section are dictated by Florida Law and have to remain and in her opinion without having the elections law readily available, the amount of the fee is set by Council and can be amended by ordinance. There was some discussion on subsection ( e) " The council shall meet as a canvassing board and duly canvass the ballots within three ( 3) days after any municipal election." It was questioned whether Council appoints a canvassing board or acts as the canvassing board. The City Clerk explained that Council typically appoints the City Clerk and a member of Council to travel to the Supervisor of Elections Office to oversee the counting of the ballots. It was questioned whether the section is correct with the procedures that are currently used. The City Attorney stated it would depend on whether or not an ordinance has been passed. She suggested that historical research be done to find out whether an ordinance has been passed and whether it is consistent with current procedure. She said if not, they would be able to modify this section by ordinance. Section 60, subsections ( b) and ( e) were identified to be discussed at a later date. Section 62 Property rights, obligations, ordinances, etc., continued Historical section, there was no discussion. The City Manager pointed out the City Attorney' s opinion that this section, along with Sections 63, 67 and 68 are historical, and Section 64 is necessary for construction of the charter. The City Attorney explained the historical value of the sections means if there were to be a claim against the City regarding the Charter, they would rely on some of those provisions to determine that issue. She suggested they be left in the charter because they are historical and need to remain.  283 Council Workshop Section 63 Offices and employment continued Historical section, there was no discussion. Section 64 Construction Necessary for construction of charter, there was no discussion. Section 67 Repealer Historical section, there was no discussion. Section 68 Effective date Historical section, there was no discussion Section 73 Police jurisdiction over navigable waters It was questioned if the police department has exercised police jurisdiction over navigable water. It was mentioned the police department does go out on the water with the Fish and Wildlife or the Coast Guard during Bowlegs, but it was not known if there were any other times. Captain Tony Taylor, Police Department, responded very seldom but it has happened. The question was asked if the jurisdiction would allow the police department to take care of derelict boats in the water. The City Manager replied different rules govern derelict structures. There were no changes for Section 73. Section 74 Acquisition of recreational tracts It was mentioned that prior Council gave away some recreational tracts ( on Okaloosa Island) because it was too much to maintain and questioned if this section would apply. The City Attorney said it would apply because in F.S. 166. 021 any provisions that relate to the exercise of extraterritorial powers or which affect an area which includes lands within and without a municipality would require a referendum. She said basically the City has been granted special powers from the original adoption of the Charter by the Florida legislature and those remain unless they are changed by referendum. It was questioned if the City could reclaim the land along the beach that prior Council gave away. The City Attorney said that is a different issue; that is readdressing Council action. She said they have the right in the Charter to look at doing that if they chose to. There were no changes for Section 74. RECAP Section 60 Elections, subsections ( b) and ( e) were identified for future discussion for possible change. 284 Council Workshop 9 -16 -08 TITLE II LEGISLATIVE Section 6 Election of mayor and mayor pro tem, general duties of mayor Section 8 Quorum, compelling attendance of members The Mayor said he wished to review these two sections because of a conflict. Section 6 states the Mayor " shall have the right to cast a deciding vote should any issue before the members of the city council end in a tie vote." Section 8 states the " affirmative vote of a majority of the members elected to the council shall be necessary to adopt any ordinance, resolution, order or vote, except that a vote to adjourn or regarding the attendance of absent members may be adopted by a majority of the members present." The Mayor pointed out the City Attorney provided an opinion that Section 6 would have to be changed by referendum acid Section 8 could be changed by ordinance. The Mayor asked the City Attorney to further explain why the Mayor' s vote to break a tie does not apply to an ordinance but applies in all other situations. 12th The City Attorney referenced her June opinion and noted this issue has not come up except perhaps twice prior to June 2008 when three ordinances were addressed. She said whenever the Home Rule Power was passed in F. S. 166.021 the idea was that it would grant to every City full power and authority except what' s prohibited by Constitution or by Statutory Law. She said when they were dealing with ordinances in June, because of the substance of the ordinances and the issue regarding property rights with one ordinance a Comprehensive Plan change and one ordinance the Land Development Code, they were redone so if there was a complaint about the method the City had that would be addressed. She said those three votes were 3 to 1, basically there was not a full compliment of the Council, there was only a majority of the Council present and that is why they went back and each of those three ordinances have subsequently passed and, in her opinion, cause no problem at this time. She said since June 2008 there may have been two votes that failed for lack of that majority of four Councilmen, with one relating to a fee and the other was not relevant to an ordinance that related to any kind of property rights. The City Attorney said when she reviewed the entire body of law for this opinion for the Charter review, two things are most evident. She said one, there should be no restraint on the exercise by Council of the Home Rule authority, and whenever they talk about Council and the governing body that should include all eight. She said the Charter does set out a