Skip to main content

Tag: Charter Review Commission

Charter review begins in Anna Maria

Charter review begins in Anna Maria

ANNA MARIA – The city’s Charter Review Committee has begun its review of the city charter.

Recommended by Mayor Dan Murphy and approved by the city commission, the charter review committee consists of Chris Arendt, Stevie Coppin, Scott Isherwood, Pat Olesen and Chuck Wolfe. The committee members met for the first time on Feb. 2.

The state requires cities to review their city charters at least every five years and Anna Maria’s 20-page charter was last reviewed in 2019. Any charter amendments proposed by the committee and supported by the city commission would then be placed on a general election ballot for the city’s registered voters to approve or reject.

Anna Maria’s charter dates back to 1923 when Anna Maria officially became a Florida city. Similar to a state constitution, a city charter sets forth how a city government is structured and establishes the duties and powers of the mayor and commissioners. Anna Maria’s charter establishes the city’s strong mayor form of government that consists of a non-voting mayor and five voting commissioners.

The charter establishes which city actions require the adoption of a city ordinance.

It also establishes how citizen-initiated voter referendums are enacted, including citizen-initiated charter amendments.

Anna Maria’s city charter sets forth the duties of the city clerk, city treasurer and city attorney. It also includes a detailed written description of the city’s physical boundaries and corporate limits.

Height limits

The Holmes Beach and Bradenton Beach city charters limit building heights to three stories, with some minor height differences. Those height limits can only be changed or eliminated with the approval of those cities’ registered voters.

The Anna Maria charter does not establish building height limits, but the city’s land development code and comprehensive plan limit residential and commercial building heights to “three useable floors.”

Unlike the charter, the land development use and the comp plan can be amended by the city commission.

According to Section 3.08 of the Anna Maria charter, a future land use-related comp plan amendment requires an affirmative vote of four more of the city commissioners. A comp plan amendment does not require the approval of city voters.

Without the protection of a charter provision, any sitting city commissioners could move to abolish or increase Anna Maria’s existing height limits without the approval of the city’s registered voters.

Making a start

After being sworn in by Deputy Clerk Fran Berrios, the committee members selected Arendt to serve as the committee chair and Olesen to serve as vice chair.

Charter review begins in Anna Maria
Chris Arendt is chairing the charter review committee. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

City Attorney Becky Vose provided the committee with an overview of the charter review process and told the committee members not to feel disappointed if their review produces no proposed charter amendments.

With city commission chair and former charter review committee member Mark Short providing additional guidance, the committee began its review of the charter. Heeding Short’s advice, the committee agreed to review the charter one page at a time, from beginning to end – a process that will entail multiple meetings.

Charter review begins in Anna Maria
Chuck Wolfe is concerned about the number of commission appointments in recent years. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

When discussing the government structure established in Section 1.06, Wolfe noted that in recent years many commissioners have been appointed by the commission rather than elected by the public. He questioned whether reducing the commission to three members instead of five would produce more elected commissioners.

Short noted a three-member commission would only require the support of two commissioners to enact a new city ordinance or initiate other city actions. Vose said the appointment process in Anna Maria has resulted in many highly qualified individuals joining the commission.

Charter review begins in Anna Maria
Scott Isherwood fears the Form 6 financial disclosure requirements will further shrink the pool of potential mayoral and commission candidates. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Isherwood mentioned the Form 6 financial disclosure requirements that now apply to all elected and appointed city commissioners and mayors in Florida. He’s concerned the expanded disclosure requirements will further reduce the number of people willing to serve as mayors and commissioners. He, too, questioned whether reducing the number of commission members might be advantageous.

Olsen mentioned the possibility of hiring a city manager or a city administrator who would provide continuity as mayors and commission members come and go. She said Anna Maria currently has a “great mayor” but that hasn’t always been the case.

Coppin questioned whether the city could afford a city manager’s salary and whether the city manager could afford to live in Anna Maria due to the high cost of housing.

The committee discussed extending the current two-year terms for commissioners and mayors to four years to eliminate the need to run for office every two years. Wolfe suggested increasing the mayor’s term to four years and leaving the commission terms at two.

Isherwood said it’s important to create a larger pool of candidates for the long-term benefit of the city, especially at a time when the potential consolidation of the three Island cities is the current subject of a consolidation study requested by the local members of the Florida Legislature.

Reaching no initial conclusions, the committee agreed to engage in additional future discussion about the potential need for a city manager and adjusting the number of commission members and the length of the terms served. The committee will meet next at city hall on Friday, Feb. 23 at 1 p.m. The meetings are open to the public.

City manager amendment lacks supermajority support

City manager amendment lacks supermajority support

HOLMES BEACH – The quest to hire a city manager in Holmes Beach has suffered a significant setback, but the matter has not yet been officially decided.

Switching from a strong mayor to a city manager form of government would require a charter amendment recommended by the Holmes Beach Charter Review Commission (CRC) and supported by the city’s registered voters.

The Holmes Beach mayor’s responsibilities are set forth in Article IV of the city charter.

During the Thursday, April 4 CRC meeting, member Sean Murphy made a motion to leave Article IV as currently written.

“There shall be a mayor who shall be the chief executive officer of the city. The mayor shall be responsible to the electorate for the administration of all city affairs placed in his/her charge by or under this charter,” according to Article IV, §4.01.

“I recommend we make no changes to Article IV,” Murphy said when making his motion.

David Zaccagnino supported Murphy’s motion. CRC chairman Ed Upshaw and members Claudia Carlson and Nancy Deal opposed it.

Confusion then ensued as to what that 3-2 vote meant regarding the potential hiring of a city manager.

According to §13.03 of the city charter, “Any proposed amendment or amendments to the charter adopted by a vote of a supermajority of the charter commission shall be presented to the city commission which shall provide for its submission to the voters in the next city general election.”

A supermajority vote means at least four of the five CRC members must support a proposed charter amendment for it to move forward.

Filling in for City Attorney Patricia Petruff at Thursday’s meeting, attorney Thomas Thanus said, “There may be some confusion about the last vote. There were three ‘no’ votes and two ‘yes’ votes, which means the motion didn’t carry. The motion was to not make any changes to Article IV. That motion was defeated, which means that Article IV is still up for discussion. You’ve haven’t closed the door on any further discussion.”

The CRC members can continue debating the city manager question, but Thanus said any proposed amendment that doesn’t have supermajority support will not be included in the final recommendations presented to city commissioners.

“You still have the option of revisiting some or all of your decisions, but you will get to a point where you will have a final vote. At that point, it would take four ‘yes’ votes in order for something to be presented to the voters at a referendum,” Thanus said.

“You’ve had other 3-2 votes, which means you have not achieved the supermajority,” Thanus said regarding previous votes taken on other potential amendments.

City manager debate

During Thursday’s meeting, CRC members shared their personal views on the city manager issue.

“I think the process works. It is more democratic. Little towns like ours are the community garden of democracy and I think we need to do whatever we can to protect that,” Murphy said of the city’s current form of government.

“We have good strong department heads. I don’t think the chief of police needs another boss – and it’s expensive,” Murphy said of a city manager.

Carlson suggested it was undemocratic to prevent city residents from determining which form of government they want.

“The logic of that escapes me. The citizens have the right to make a choice,” Carlson said.

Zaccagnino said hiring a city manager would add another layer of government and make it harder for citizens to enact change through their elected officials. He also disputes the notion that a city manager can remain politically-neutral.

Zaccagnino and Murphy both noted citizens can still initiate by petition a city referendum if they wish to continue the pursuit of a city manager.

Upshaw said the CRC’s duty is not to set policy, but to present viable options to the public.

“There is a section of our citizens who favor this. Are they the majority, I don’t know? But the question keeps coming up. I think it should go before the citizens,” Upshaw said.

Upshaw said a citizen-initiated city manager referendum that does not fully address all aspects of the proposed hiring could cause “chaos.”

Recent hiring questioned

Deal questioned Mayor Judy Titsworth’s recent hiring of Barney Salmon as the city’s new development services director and whether Salmon serves as a department head whose hiring should have required city commission approval.

“Some people think it was an end-around to avoid having a city manager,” Deal said. “As to adding another layer to the administration, isn’t that what the mayor just did?”

The charter states the mayor needs commission concurrence to appoint or remove a department head or charter official whose position is listed in the charter. The charter doesn’t reference a developmental services director.

Human Resources Analyst Mary Buonagura defended the recent hiring.

“Mr. Salmon is the director of five developmental services. He coordinates work, period. He reports to the mayor just like the rest of the departments do. Mr. Salmon is not going to be recommended to become a charter member of the city. It’s not necessary,” Buonagura said.