Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-12-22 - City Commission Public Hearing Meeting Minutes5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE Y TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 TELEPHONE (305) 722.5900 MAIL REPLY TO, December 21, 1983 P.O. BOX 25010 TAMARAC. FLORIDA 33320 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL TAMARAC, FLORIDA Please be advised that the.City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on Thursday, December 22, 1983 at 10:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 5811 N. W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. The purpose of this PUBLIC HEARING is to consider CHARTER AMENUvEM presented by the Charter Board to be placed on the General Election Ballot on March 13, 1984, by Temp. Ord. #1.074, Second Reading. The City Council may consider such other business as may come before it. The Public is invited to attend. Carol A. Evans Assistant City Clerk Pursuant toSec:tion 28 .Ox0 5, F106t° w ie tut ' it a person decides to appeal any decislor, rr,-A i y ii;Fs Council with respect to any matter considered at so,,'+ hearing, he will need a record of the procee.°ing.v.+ purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim rein r i the testimony and evidence upon which the aPPS?a it to be "An Equal Opportunity Employer" CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA PUBLIC HEARING.pN PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS DECEMBER 22, 1983 Tape CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Walter W. Falck called the meeting to 1 order on Thursday, December 22, 1983 at 10:00 A.M. in Council Chambers. ROLL CALL: PRESENT. Mayor Walter W. Falck Councilman.Philip B. Kravitz Councilman David E. Krantz Councilman Jack Stelzer V/M Massaro was absent and excused. ALSO PRESENT_ City Manager, Laura Z. Stuurmans City Attorney, Jon M. Henning Secretary, Roslyn Brauner Mayor Falck read the Notice of Public Hearing into the record and stated that the purpose of this Public Hearing is to consider Charter Amendments presented by the Charter Board to be placed on the General Election Ballot on March 13,1984, by Temp. Ord. #1074 (Second Reading). City Attorney Jon Henning read the revised Ordinance by title. C/M Stelzer said yesterday Council received a copy of the Charter Board minutes of the meeting of December 9, 1983. C/M Stelzer stated that on December 6, 1983, the City Council publicly discussed all the Charter Amendments submitted by the Charter Board, which Amendments were approved and signed by all Charter Board members. The Charter Board reviewed all the City Council's actions at the Charter Board meeting of December 9, 1983, the minutes of which were made available to the City Council about noon on December 21, 1983, approximately twenty hours before the Second Reading was scheduled. C/M Stelzer said he would object to some of the statements made by Mr.Sydney Stein., the Chairman of the Charter Board. On Page 6, he states, "Councilman Stelzer was the spokesman for the Council". C/M Stelzer commented that the dictionary defines a spokesman as one who speaks for or on behalf of another. C/M Stelzer said if he was a spokesman for the City Council, then Sydney Stein should charge him with a violation of the sunshine law or refute his statement. C/M Stelzer said that on November 28, 1983 he wrote to the Mayor, with copies to Councilmembers, City Attorney and City Manager, and said, "I would appreciate if you would permit me to lead the dis- cussion at the Council meeting as I have written up comprehensive comments on each Amendment and feel I may be in a position to focus attention on several debatable points". C/M Stelzer stated that Mr. Stein further said that he (C/M Stelzer) withheld the second proposed Amendment from the people. C/M Stelzer said he did not withhold the Amendment from the people. He recommended to the City Council that they should not place this Amendment on the ballot and the Councilmembers were.in agreement. The Amendment then returns to the Charter Board as they have the right to a final vote. If they cannot get a 4 to 1 vote, then they withhold the Amendment from the public, not the City Council. -1- 12/22/83 /rb C/M Stelzer commented that Mr. Stein is trying to pass the buck to him and to the Council. The buck should stay with the Charter Board. C/M Stelzer said that further on in the minutes, it is stated, "Syd Stein stated that C/M Stelzer is saying that unless the Charter Board accepts the Council's Amendments, they never get to the people". C/M Stelzer said he would defy Mr. Stein to show him that this statement was made, either on the tapes or in his notes. C/M Stelzer said he had suggested several changes, most of which the Charter Board agreed to, according to the minutes of the December 9, 1983 meeting and he said to simplify things, he will take these up one at a time.C/P2 Stelzer said firstly, the Charter Board wants to change the placement of the questions from the top to the bottom of the ballot and asked the City Attorney what had to be done. Mr.. Henning said this can be accomplished by motion to amend the temporary Ordinance before it is passed on Second Reading today. City Attorney Jon Henning explained that the Charter Board has provided the Council with a draft of their ballot statements. After that, he sent Council a memo explaining that based upon Florida law, as well as the fact that the questions have to be answered by "yes" or "no" there has to be some kind of a question. Mr. Henning said he put in'the draft the language, "Are you in favor of" at the beginning, and then added their agreed language, "A proposed amendment providing.....". The Charter Board is asking that instead of saying, "Are you in favor of an amendment... just say, "An Amendment providing that the elected officials of the City......" and then insert, "Are you in favor of this Amendment". It can also be stated as "this proposal" or "the above amendment". In the Charter Board minutes, they state, "Are you in favor of the above amendment?" The Charter Board is asking that be placed at the end of each ballot item instead of at the beginning. The City Attorney said it would be appropriate at this time for Council to make a Motion to Amend this Temporary Ordinance to have the question, "Are you in favor of the above Amendment?°' placed as the last statement before the " Yes" or "No" on each ballot question. C/M Stelzer said he would so MOVE. The MOTION died for lack of a SECOND. C/M Stelzer said he would like to discuss the Amendments approved by the Council, with or without modifications. FIRST PROPOSED AMENDMENT - In the Amendment limiting thenumber of terms C/M Stelzer said he had suggested the word "different" be inserted on Page 3, Line 8. C/M Stelzer said lie does not know whether the Charter Board has approved of this insertion. Mr. Sydney Stein, Chairman of the Charter Board, stated if the word "different" is inserted on Second Reading, it will be approved as the Charter Board has no objection to it. C/M Stelzer MOVED to Approve Amendment #1 on Second Reading. SECONDED by C/M Kravitz. The Public Hearing was opened and closed.with no response. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE THIRD PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer said that Council had agreed to Sections d) and e) which state that the Charter Board shall have certain duties and he 14OVED to Approve the Amendment relating to the duties of the Charter Board with respect to Sections 3 d) and 3 e). SECONDED by C/M Krantz. The Public Hearing was opened and closed with no response. -2- 12/22/83 /rb City Attorney Henning stated that there are now two possibilities of proposed questions regarding the duties of the Charter Board. He said he had removed Subsection c) and used #12, which appears at the end of the language. C/M Stelzer said that is not needed since the Charter Board is not making a change. If the word "may" is left in, then the Charter is not changed at all and it should not go in as an amendment, and the c) section can be dele,td.d. Mayor Falck said he would agree with that. Mr. Sydney Stein stated that the Charter Board has accepted the removal of c) and it will not appear on the ballot. Therefore, a), b) and c) are Same, and the only sections that were changed were d) and e). VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE FOURTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer said the Amendment on the Redistricting Committee was approved as written. However, there is a deletion relating to the delivery and asked the City Attorney what should .be done to remove the deletion. City Attorney.Jon Henning said he sent a memo to Council this morning suggesting that regarding this roposed Amendment, on Page 6, Lines 19 to 22 be deleted. The deletedp language is, "The City Clerk shall be responsible for delivering the redistricting report to the Supervisor.of Elections forthwith, after the presentation at the joint meeting". Mr. Stein said this statement was not inserted for any particular reason except that the Charter Board thought it had to be done that way. If the Council deletes the wording, the Charter Board would probably go along with it and approve it at the meetinq next week. C/M Stelzer MOVED to approve the Redistricting Amendment to be placed on the ballot with the deletion of the delivery clause. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. The Public Hearing was opened and closed. Mr. Ben Lieber, resident, said if this is not done, there is no require- ment for the City Clerk to deliver. Council could not act on it because there will be no information before any sitting body. He said this should be mandatory and an absolute requirement. Mayor Falck said it is not wanted by the. County. Mr. Henning said the Amendment states, "A copy shall be kept on file for public inspection by the City Clerk". City Manager Stuurmans said the requirement is still there for delivery to be made to the Council and the Charter Board. There is also a requirement that it be kept a public record and available for public inspection. She said the portion stricken is the rdgUire- ment to take it to Jane Carroll'soffice because .that office has no need for that information. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE FIFTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer stated that the Unanticipated Surplus Amendment was changed to eliminate the last sentence in the first paragraph. The language, "It shall also show projected fixed expense for the next five (5) years and expenses for pensions, if any, and debt service" was stricken. Mr. Stein said as he recalls, there was no objection from the Charter Board to that deletion. -3- 12/22/83 /rb C/M Stelzer MOVED that the Unanticipated Surplus Amendment be placed on the ballot, eliminating the last sentence in the first paragraph. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. The Public Hearing was opened and closed with no response. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE SIXTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer said the word "different" was added to the Amendment on Vacancies, on Page 9, Line 6, and he would MOVE the Amendment relative to vacancies be approved to be placed on the ballot. SECONDED by C/M Kravitz. The Public Hearing was opened and closed with no response VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE SEVENTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer said the Amendment to adopt the State election laws was considered and rejected. Mr. Henning said there is a new Ordinance on this and it will have a Second-xeaaing, on January 3, 1984. He said the Charter Board has agreed to accept the Ordinance in lieu of the Amendment to the Charter, and it will become effective for this coming election. Section 2 of the Ordinance will state that the Amendment to the Charter was rejected. C/M Stelzer MOVED that the Amendment adopting the State election laws NOT be placed on the ballot. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. The public hearing was opened and closed with no response. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE NINTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer said that regarding the Amendment concerning emergency expenditures, he had requested the word "may" be changed to "shall" and he MOVED that the Amendment regarding emergency expenditures be placed on the ballot, and that the word "may" be changed to "shall". SECONDED by C/M Kravitz. The Public Hearing was opened and closed with -no response. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE. City Attorney Henning stated that for the record, the word "may" was changed -to "shall".on Line 24 of Page'10. TENTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/PQ Stelzer said there was no change in the Amendment regarding annexation and he would MOVE that the Amendment regarding annexation be placed on the ballot. SECONDED by C/M Kravitz. The Public Hearing was opened and closed, with no response. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE ELEVENTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer said in the Amendment regarding consultants' negotiations, it was suggested to change the word "repeal" to "amend", and the word "amend" was voted on. C/M Stelzer MOVED. that the Amendment regarding consultants' negotiations be placed on the ballot with the chance as the text reads, from "repeal" to "amend". SECONDED by C/M Krantz. The Public Hearing was opened and closed with no response. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE -4- 12/22/83 /rb C/M Stelzer said he would now like to discuss the Amendments the City Council did NOT approve.. SECOND PROPOSED AMENDMENT -C/M Stelzer said the Amendment providing a new method for placing Amendments on the ballot was turned down. Ile said he charged the Charter Board was hiding the fact that they were bypassing the City Council and asked if they were afraid the people would turn it down. He said oh Page 8 of the minutes of the December 9 meeting relating to this Amendment, Mr. Stein said, "I'd like to have someone move that it reads, An Amendment that provides the method for the Charter Board to propose Amendments to the Charter for referendum without review by the Council, and also provides for a Public Hearing". C/M Stelzer said this was moved, seconded and all voted. --i.ye . C/M Stelzer said the Council had originally voted this down and how that the Charter Board has come out in the open and says in effect, that they are bypassing the City Council, the subterfuge is disappearing. He said he would like to approve this but would like to insert after the words, "without review", the words "or approval". Therefore, it would read, "An Amendment that provides a method for the Charter Board to propose Amendments to the Charter for referendum without review or approval by the Council". C/M Stelzer said he noticed this change was not made. City Attorney Henning said this was not changed in the Ordinance because it was passed on First Reading, .and there was a Charter Board meeting in the interim and this was the recommendation made. He said it would be appropriate for Council to discuss whether or not it is desired to change the lanauaae of the ballot question which now reads, '"Are you in favor of an Amendment that provides a new method for the Charter Board to propose Amendments to the Charter for referendum and also provides for a public hearing?" The Charter Board is recommending something very similar to what it was earlier, and that is, "Are you in favor of an Amendment that provides the method for the Charter Board to propose Amendments to the Charter for referendum without review by the City Council, and also provides for a public hearing?" C/M Stelzer said he would like to insert the words, "or approval" after the words, "without review", and he MOVED the words "or approval" be placed after the words, "without review". SECONDED by C/M Krantz. Mayor Falck opened the public hearing. Ms. Alice Norian of the Charter Board, said that C/M Stelzer stated that the Charter Board wishes to bypass the Council. She said the Charter Board is an elected body and has assumed a responsibility to say they will consider Amendments, the Charter, etc. The Charter Board provides for public input and at no time is anyone in the City, particularly the Mayor and the Council, ever disrespected or disregarded by the .Charter Board. Ms.Norian said as a matter of point .and information, the Charter Board is most respectful to the Mayor and Council and always welcome comments at Charter Board meetings in the same manner that the Council respects the Charter Board at Council public hearings such as this one. Ms. Norian stated that she believes it would be in the best interest of the public that the Charter Board have the right to perform their duties to the public as it is the Charter Board's responsibility to do so. There was no other thought intended. For clarity and for the fulfillment of the platform on which she ran to be a member of the Charter Board,she would state that the Charter Board is determined to do their duty. -5-- 12/22/83 /rb Mr. Sydney Stein said he would ask the Council to reconsider the action taken at the beginning of this meeting. He said the Charter Board requested that the questions be placed at the bottom of the Amendments rather than at the top and C/M Stelzer made a Motion to that effect which was not Seconded. Mr. Stein said this places him, as the Chairman of the Charter Board, in a very unenviable position because technically the Charter Board will have to override the Council as although the Council is approving the Amendments, they are not being approved in the form they were set. Therefore, the Charter Board will have to say they disagree with the Council when actually the Charter Board is.not disagreeing as most of the Amendments have been accepted. Mr. Stein said he would suggest that when the Council has completed these Amendments, the Motion made by C/M Stelzer be reintroduced to put the question at the bottom of each Amendment, so that the Charter Board will not have to override the Council. Mr. Stein said he does not know what C/M Stelzer is referring to by the term "subterfuge". He said the Charter Board is very explicit. This Board was elected for a purpose and that purpose is to amend and compose Amendments to the Charter. The Charter Board does not feel these have to be submitted to the Council for vote and approval. Mr. Stein said the Charter Board does feel these should be submitted to the Council for review and all these proposed Amendments were discussed with the Councilmembers. In fact, four or five of these proposed Amendments were suggested by various members of the Council. Mr. Stein further stated that the Council can propose an Amendment directly, without consulting the Charter Board. He said C/M Stelzer finds -nothing wrong with that, but he does find fault with the very body that is created to review the Charter and must go before Council. The Charter Board is saying they would like to have the right to propose Charter Amendments to the public in the very same manner that the Council does. He said if C/11 Stelzer feels there should be a review by a Board, he would agree with.that and the Council should then have to send its Amendments to the Charter Board; but not have one body say they don't have to do it yet another body is wrong if they don't want to do it. Mr. Stein said he is happy that the Council has brought up the two rejected Amendments as he was going to do it but could not until the Council did so. Mr. Stein stated that he would appreciate it if the Council would follow through with the Charter Board's attitude and put these Amendments to the people to decide whether they like them or not; and not have anyone take them off the ballot by a 3 to 2 vote or a 4 to 1 vote. He said he feels these Charter Amendments are vital and the public should be able to decide just how they feel about them. This is the feeling of the Charter Board. It is a feeling that the public should have the right to decide what is right and what is wrong. Mrs. Melanie Reynolds of the Charter Board, stated that C/M Stelzer's statement that the Charter Board is bypassing the Council really has no basis. She said that under Chapter 166, the Council may, by Ordinance, put their own Amendments on the ballot. They have the freedom to do that and they do,not have to pay attention to the Charter Board in that instance. Mr. Ray Munitz, resident, said lie would like some clarification on the subject of placing the question at the end of each amendment, instead of at the beginning. He said he is wondering why one would be more beneficial than the other. Mayor Falck said he feels it would be appropriate to discuss this further after Council has concluded the discussion of the Amendments. He said additional discussion would be in order, since the Motion was not Seconded the first time around. The Mayor said he is specifically referring to Amendment #2, which is the Amendment to amend the ballot question. -6- 12/22/83 C/M Stelzer said he would again mention that he had requested the words "or approval" be inserted after the words "without review" and if this is not done, he will move not to place. this on the ballot. The City Attorney said this language will appear on Line 3 of Page 13. C/M Stelzer said he wants this to read, "An Amendment that provides a method for the Charter Board to propose Amendments to the Charter for referendum without review or approval by the Council". He said if the words "or approval" are inserted, he will move to place this on the ballot because then his entire objection would be removed. Mr. Stein said the Charter Board would agree to that. Mr. Henning said that for clarification, on line 4, the words "a new" are to be stricken, and the word "the inserted. On line 5 after the word "referendum" the words "without review or approval by the City Council" are to be inserted. The City Attorney explained that the new language, as approved by Council, is to be, "Are you in favor of an Amendment that provides the method for the Charter Board to propose Amendments to the Charter for referendum without review or approval. by the City Council and also provide for a public hearing?" C/M Stelzer MOVED to Amend the ballot question relative to placing Amendments on the ballot. SECONDED by C/M Kravitz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE C/M Stelzer MOVED to place the Second Proposed Amendment into Section 1 of this Okdinanc.e, .a's Amended. SECONDED by C/M Kravitz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE EIGHTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT - C/M Stelzer said this Amendment relates to the reduction in the amount that can be spent without referendum. He said he has recommended this Amendment not be approved, and the Council has agreed. C/M Stelzer said he would quote Mr. Stein saying on Page 9 of the minutes referred to previously, "The only question to this Amendment is whether or not we accept the Council's rejection". Mrs. Reynolds then stated, "I vote that we do not accept their rejection". C/M Stelzer said Mrs. Reynolds did not move; she voted. Mr. Stein then said, "There has been a Motion that we do not accept it". C/M Stelzer said he does not understand what this is all about and he feels the Council should disregard it. C/M Stelzer stated that he is still not in favor of the reduction of the amount that can be spent without referendum and Mr. Henning has come up with some suggestions he would like to discuss at this time. The City Attorney said that this was discussed on Page 4 of the memorandum he distributed to Council this morning, and at this point, the reduction from 2--1/2o to 1-1/2% has been rejected by the Council. Mr. Henning stated that earlier this morning at a Workshop meeting, the Council had asked him about the progress of his opinion on Recreation Fund expenditures. He said he is having a problem with -7- 12/22/83 /rb his opinion since the Charter states that there are certain limitations on improvements involving a cost in excess of -----(either 2-1/2% or 1-1/2%). Mr. Henning said. there is a possibility this Amendment will be on the ballot regardless of Council's approval or disapproval because the Charter Board has the last word. He said this came up recently and the Council asked for his opinion. Mr. Kenning said if Council wishes to insert language that this involves a project cost of that amount, or a cost to the City's budget, or a cost to the City's General Fund, or whatever language will clarify what the cost is attributed to, it would certainly clarify this provision because right now it does not say what the cost is. Tape City Attorney Henning said this goes back to the question .that 2 if the City had a one million dollar grant, with matching funds of $100,000.00 from the City, would a referendum be required? In the past, the interpretation had been that a referendum would not be required because the cost is only $100,000.00 to the City but the project cost is one million dollars. Mr. Henning said questions have since come up as to whether it would be a cost to the General Revenue Fund or to escrow funds held by the City. This is somewhat complicated and. perhaps Council would like to discuss it at this time in the event the question is placed on the ballot. Otherwise, Council can discuss it at some other time. Mayor lialck said it is his feeling that this should not be discussed today, and that Council should now either approve or disapprove this proposed Amendment. Ile said Mr. Henning has in- dicated that he is working on a proposal by C/M Stelzer relating to revenue bonds, and that should be tied in with this matter. C/M Stelzer said if it is agreeable to the Charter Board, he would like this Amendment to read, "a cost to the City's General Fund".. However, if that language were .inserted, he would still move not to place this question on the ballot because he feels 1-1/2% is unrealistic. But if the Charter Board puts this through, at least there will be a better understanding as to what the 1-1/2% relates to. C/M Stelzer MOVED to Amend the Eighth Proposed Amendment to include the language, "to the City's General Fund" to be added in after "a cost". SECONDED by C/M Krantz. Mayor Falck opened the public hearing. Mr. Stein said it might interest the Council to know that of all the Amendments discussed by the Charter Board as far as taking them off the ballot, this question is the one the public is most vehement about not taking off the ballot. He said he feels that before Council puts this to a vote, there should be some clarification. He said he understands C/M Stelzer's request concerning the General Fund, but the thought has occurred to him that if the City is receiving funds from developers for recreation and the City has about three or four million dollars, there is a question of whether the City can build without going to referendum. According to C/M Stelzer, the City can do that as there are funds available for that purpose, therefore, the City would not have to go to referendum. Mr. Stein said before telling the public that the Eighth Proposed Amendment affects the General Fund, there should be some clarification since it would infer that the Council can spend any amount of money the City has in other funds for any project they wish, without going to the public. City Attorney Henning said the City does have Ordinances relating to purchasing and it certainly would take Council authorization to spend money. -8- 12/22/83 /rb Mr. Stein stated that if the words "to the City's General Fund" were inserted in this Amendment, it would allow the Council to spend any other funds without going to referendum and the Amend- ment would only take effect when it would apply to the City's General Fund. Mr. Henning said he would add that this money was contributed to the City by the taxpayers, from ad valorem taxation. Mr. Stein said it should be understood that all the money is the taxpayers' money and if the public feels they want to have some sort of control over the expenditure of their money, whether the money be from ad valorem taxation or other funds, then a cap should be set on the amount Council can approve without a referendum regardless of where the money comes from. Mayor Falck closed the public hearing with no further response. City Attorney Henning said that on Line 22, after the word "cost", the new language, "to the City's General Fund" is to be inserted. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE C/M Stelzer MOVED not to approve placing the Eighth Proposed Amendment relative to the reduction of the rate of expenditure from 2-1/2o to 1-1/20 on the ballot. SECO14DED by C/M Krantz. City Attorney Henning said for the record that if he were asked by the Charter Board at their meeting, whether or not they could place the old language or the new language on the ballot, he would state they could put either language on the ballot. However, the Council is asking that if they do place it on the ballot, they use the new language. They have a choice. C/M Stelzer said he understands they have a choice, and it will be up to the Charter Board to decide which language they want on the ballot. Mayor Falck opened and closed the public hearing with no response. VOTE: C/M Stelzer Aye C/M Krantz Aye C/M Kravitz Nay Mayor Falck Aye Mayor Falck said it would be appropriate for Council to discuss at this time, the subject of placing the question at the beginning or the end of the proposed Amendment. City Attorney Henning said the language that C/M Stelzer is moving would be that instead of saying, "Are you in favor of an Amendment..." just state, "An Amendment...." and just before the "Yes" or "No" the language, "Are you in favor of the above Amendment'" be inserted. The statement could also be, "Are you in favor of this Amendment?" The quote from the Charter Board minutes was, "Are you in favor of the above Amendment?" Mr. Stein said he would agree with that. C/M Stelzer said this is strictly a question of form and it has nothing to do with language. Mr. Kenning explained that originally there was no question. He was asked to use statements. The Charter Board felt it was confusing and did not want,questions, and wanted statements instead. He said that a further investigation of the State Statute, indicated that the answers must be"Yes"or"No".Tf there is a statement,, the logical answer would be For or Against, but the law will not permit that. The ballot question must be"Yes"or"No".The Charter Board is saying if them must be a question, it should be placed at the end, just before the"Yes"or"No"so there will still be a statement, which they feel is clearer. -9- 12/22/83 C/M Stelzer asked for further clarification, a>s he would like to know, for example, what the First Proposed Amendment would state. Mr. Henning said the Charter Board wants the First Proposed Amendment to state, "An Amendment providing that the elected officials of the City (Mayor, Councilmembers and Charter Board Members) may only be elected to any particular office for two (2) consecutive terms (totalling four (4) years). This would amend Sections 4.02 and 8.01 of the City Charter. Are you in favor of the above (or this) amendment? " Mr. Stein explained that originally the Charter Board objected to questions because they did some research and it was found that the public generally votes"No"to questions. He said 72% of the people vote that way. When the Charter Board was told the State legislature does not permit statements on a ballot, the matter was discussed and the decision was made that it is clearer and more concise if a person reads a statement first and answers a question later. If the question is asked first, the person forgets what he is being asked by the time he finishes reading the statement. Mr. Stein said he would ask the Council to approve this form of putting the question at the end of the Amendment, because if this is not approved, the Charter Board would be in a position of having to assume all the Charter Amendments are turned down, because they would be in a form that is not acceptable to the Charter Board. C/M Stelzer said it would appear to him that the Charter Board wants to make a positive statement. The Statute says that a statement cannot be made and a question must be asked. He said the Charter Board is trying to get around that by making a positive statement and then Plating in a question. He said this would cover the Charter Board as far as the Statute is concerned. C/M Stelzer said he does not feel it -actuallv_makes a difference. City Attorney said the question must be asked somewhere, and that is his legal suggestion. C/M Stelzer MOVED to place, "Are you in favor of this Amendment?" after the statement of what the Amendment is, just before "Yes"or"No". SECONDED by C/M Kravitz. Mayor Falck opened the public hearing. Ms. Alice Norian said there would then be a statement and a question at the end. She said for clarification,the research done by the Charter Board encompassed a thorough analysis and it is known that when the public goes into the booth to vote a concise statement written for them must include the thoughts in the simplest language for them to be able to read it and vote without taking too much time in the ballot booth. She said with a statement, there is no question in anyone's mind as to the nature of the Amendment. She said in the past, there were Amendments on the ballot which were confusing because the statement was both positive and negative and that confusion is compounded when there is a question. A simple statement of .the fact and then asking whether one is tor or against it, makes it absolutely clear to the person who is voting. Mr. Ben Lieber 'stated that: for generations, people have been trained on true and false questions and it would be unwise and misleading to tell people to make a judgment before they read the statement. He feels it would be a better form to make the statement and then have them make the judgement. This is the way it is done on examinations and people have been trained to handle it that way. The public hearing was closed with no further response. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE -10- 12/22/83 /rb THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11:25 A.M. Mayor Palck mentioned that the Ordinance was not yet approved and it is his suggestion the meeting be reconvened. C/M Stelzer MOVED to reconvene the meeting. SECONDED by C/M Krantz. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE C/M Stelzer MOVED to accept Temp. Ord. #1074 as Amended on Second Reading, to include the Amendments by consecutive number. SECONDED by C/11 Kravitz. The Public Hearing was opened and closed with no response, 1t16202F ALL VOTED AYE THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11:30 A.M. ���.� � •.... Pik. � � � � 1 - M ',, .: Sl e City Cierk 0 �' ATTEST: r A STSTANT CTT CLERK This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ 98.12 or $2.73 per copy to inform the general public and public officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the Council of the City of Tamarac. -11- 12/22/83 /rb