Gardens Election Lawsuit Continues
In response to the city’s expenditure of taxpayer money on a campaign to pass the three ballot amendments, thinly desguised as an “education” campaign, a lawsuit was filed in advance of the election. It was triggered when the PAC “Voters in Control” started posting misleading signs at the early voting sites and hiring campaigners to wear tee-shirts with misleading information to wave them.
The lawsuit charges illegal use of taxpayer money and violations of the laws regarding government funding for advocacy of one side of a referendum question, and asked that the questions be thrown out, the vote not be tallied, and the PAC and the city be enjoined from continuing their illegal activity. The City of Palm Beach Gardens, the Supervisor of Election, the Canvassing Board and the “Voters in Control” PAC were all named as defendants.
The matter came before a judge in the final days before the election as an emergency pleading, but with early and absentee voting mostly done, the request to stop the canvassing was denied. Today, the parties agreed that SOE and the Canvassing Board would be dropped from the suit “without predjudice”, and Judge Peter Blanc would accept a motion to file a second amended complaint from the plaintiff in the next 20 days, the defendants would then have 30 days to respond, with a hearing within 45 days.
Some of this is moot as two of the three proposals have been soundly rejected by the voters. (See earlier article). What remains could include a challenge to the one that passed (Question 2), and the matter of a penalty for the City and PAC for illegal activity, depending on what the plaintiff, Sid Dinerstein decides to put in the amended complaint.
The whole exercise of a newly elected council trying to significantly weaken the term limits proposal passed by 80% of the voters was at least distasteful if not corrupt. Spending over $100K of taxpayer money to promote this flawed activity was outrageous. Thankfully, the voters are not stupid and let these 4 Council members know what they thought of it. (Council member Matthew Lane opposed placing it on the ballot).
It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit progresses. Here is the Palm Beach Post summary of today’s hearing.
Palm Beach Gardens Results – Q1-NO; Q2-Yes; Q3-NO
The voters of Palm Beach Gardens, 28% of those registered, made their positions known. The turnout for the Primary/Special Election was certainly greater than we in PBGWatch expected. The results for all 3 questions were definitive. See the chart below. We will update the website with a more detailed analysis of the results by precinct when the information becomes available. Sarah Peters of the Palm Beach Post included comments from Mayor Marino and Sid Dinerstein in her article.
Legal action continues:
- “The questions are the subject of an unresolved lawsuit filed by Dinerstein days before the election alleging that city-produced flyers, robocalls and information on the city’s website wrongly advocated for the passage of the questions rather than educating the public”. There is a hearing on Friday, 8/31 on the lawsuit.
- Also unresolved is a second lawsuit by Mr. Dinerstein, currently in the 4th District Court of Appeals, regarding what was Question 3 in March – the ‘sit-out and run-again’ provision.
Summarizing:
- Palm Beach Gardens current and future council members can only serve for two-consecutive three year terms- unchanged – 65.5% NO
- Palm Beach Gardens City Managers must reside in the City, and must move there if not already a resident, within 1 year – unchanged – 70% NO
- Palm Beach Gardens Charter will be replaced by the one approved by the voters, meeting state statutes, removing outdated provisions and including other changes such as how vacancies are filled, definiton of a term, and other changes unrelated to statutes/updates. – 60% YES
Thanks to all the voters who did their research and voted on these issues.
Martino: Propaganda and Deception – Vote NO NO NO
The twin spigots of propaganda and deception surrounding the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens unrelenting march to change term limits to match the craving of the incumbents and developers while dwarfing the desires of 80% of the 2014 voters have again sparked controversy that has led to the Courthouse for resolution. The August 28, 2018 three question City Charter Referendum election has been legally challenged by a private citizen of Palm Beach Gardens.
The basis for the challenge, as I understand it to be, is misuse of public funds to pay for a public information campaign deceptively disguised as a solicitation campaign for votes to support approval to push for the passage of three City Charter questions. A local government cannot use public funds for vote solicitation.
In analyzing the three propaganda brochures sent to our homes and the City’s “information” materials on its website it is obvious that the City Council is using their appointed Charter Review Committee as a foil and their recommendations as a shield to justify these three City Charter questions. They are hiding the facts that their appointed appointed Citizens Charter Review Committee was less than representative of the entire City and had two City lobbyists from the business and development communities as members, one of whom is not a city resident. The City Council has not stipulated as information that recommendations from appointed committees are not mandates to the City Council or its constituents and that it is not a requirement, legal or otherwise, to present a ballot question on any or all of the Charter Committee recommendations.
The question than is why is a City Council that has yet to complete a single term in office so obsessed with these Charter change questions. More particularly, what inspires their obsession with changing the 2014 Term Limit Law that was passed by 80% of those 2014 voters who came to the polls to mandate term limits as then presented. Could it be because the advantage of the changes, particularly to the Term Limits, inure to their benefit and the desires of the developers whose monies are fueling a PAC that is allegedly sponsoring a campaign of confusion and deception concerning these Charter change questions? This same Political Action Committee is alleged to be in collusion and cooperation with the City and its hired Public Relations firm.
Under the developing circumstances the argument of being above personal considerations and purity on the part of the City Council members is difficult to accept. The points of order that the City Council may use to argue for underpinning their contention that it has presented an information campaign and not a political campaign for votes has been debated, exposed, and found to be wanting.
Please vote on August 28, 2018. My recommendation has not changed. Its vote NO, NO, and NO!
Martino: Vote NO, NO, and NO!
On Tuesday, August 28, 2018, Election Day, Vote NO to Charter Question #1! Vote NO to Charter Question #2! Vote NO to Charter Question #3! That’s how “TOGETHER WE CAN FIX OUR CHARTER”. The City Council has again sent “slick” campaign-style brochures to our homes deceptively asking for our vote to “fix” a charter that is not broken, particularly, in the areas they suggest.
NO to Question #1! It changes existing City Council members’ term limits of two consecutive 3-year terms that approximately 16,000 registered voters, or 80% of those that cast ballots, approved in 2014 to three consecutive 3-year terms. Why? How is that a “fix”? Council members need more time to do what? If you can’t do what in 6 years is it worth doing? These five Council members were very well aware of the existing Term Limit Law when they asked for the voters trust and have not even completed one 3-year term. And they want more time!
NO to Question #2! It is a consortium of changes some of which are minor but others that could obviate City employee rights. It is an unhealthy menu of confusion dressed up to appear as a “fix”.
NO to Question #3! It is farcical to suggest that this question will “fix the City Manager contract process”. There is no contract process to “fix” per se and annual reviews of the City Manager are routine. It simply is another attempt to eliminate residency requirements for the City Manager. Leaving the residency requirement in the Charter is not a detriment but offers clarity to the people and to the employee under consideration
In case you did not know it is against the law for the City Council to solicit votes. They are allowed to authorize and/or provide basic election information to the public and nothing more. The City is spending over $100,000 to “educate” the electorate on why our City Charter needs a “fix”. None of that $100,000 expenditure was approved at a regular advertised Council meeting to my knowledge. The City’s contract vendor who is creating this “fix” illusion has been linked with a Political Action Committee, a PAC, which has reportedly received $13,750 mostly from City developers and landowners. An employee of this same City contract vendor is listed as the Treasurer of this PAC. Volunteers for this PAC were passing out City sponsored election guides and erecting misleading election signs encouraging a Yes vote on the Charter questions. Yet the City, the contract vendor, and the PAC, incredibly claim no affiliation and/or coordination exists between them. Further, we should recall that the Courts threw out two of four similar Charter questions in March 2018. One of the surviving March questions is before the Fourth District Court of Appeals for adjudication. How can we be sure that these new questions have judicial validity?
Before voting on these “fix” questions please consider the above. However, the real and basic questions to consider are why this “fix” now, and who benefits from this “fix”. It appears to me that the current City Council members would be big beneficiaries. They get to keep collecting their approximately $30,000 part-time salaries for 9 years which equals $270,000 which does not include their yearly automatic raises. They also would continue to receive their approximately $30,000 benefit package which is another $270,000 for a total of $540,000. If they sit-out 3 years and get elected again that gravy train keeps on rolling for another 9 years and they bank another $540,000 salary and benefit package. How does 18 years and $1,080,000 comport with term limits? It doesn’t! And the current City Council members can continue with their perceived power while carousing with and satisfying the developers and landowners who contribute large sums to their campaigns, as exampled above.
I see no benefit or “fix” for the people whose home rule rights are guaranteed in the City Charter. Rather those home rule rights would be diminished and some would disappear.
Preserve Your Home Rule Rights; Vote NO, NO, and NO on Tuesday, August 28, 2018.
Misleading Signage Says Vote YES – Keep Term Limits
Palm Beach Gardens voters may be confused by signs paid for by the Political Committee “Voters in Control“, on their way to the polls…. how can Vote Yes mean Keep Term Limits?
The City already has term limits passed in 2014 by over 16,000 voters, about 80% of the vote – for 2 3-year terms.
Voting YES would CHANGE term limits by adding a 3rd term.
A NO vote KEEPS term limits the way the voters passed them!!!!!
So who is Voters in Control?
A look at the FEC campaign treasurer reports listed on the City’s website shows that the Treasurer is Kim Lee Bove. Interestingly enough Kim Lee Bove is Director of Operations at Cornerstone Solutions, LLC – which is the same company that the City hired to ‘market’ the proposed charter changes.
One can review the listed donors in the March and April 2018 reports – the fairly short list includes mostly developers with business before the city. Why would they want council people to serve longer or not have term limits at all? We can think of lots of reasons…..
Who benefits by misleading the voter? You decide.
There is nothing wrong with donating to a PAC or having one – but their signage is highly misleading and we think that the voters should know.
Police Life-Saving Action and 12% Salary Increase Bookends Council Meeting
The August 2nd Council Meeting began with an update by Sherri Pla (the City’s Head PGA Professional) on the Junior Ryder Cup Challenge Trip to Scotland. Also covered during Announcements and Presentations were the Florida Law Enforcement Traffic Safety Award (where the Gardens won first place in the category for departments with 101-200 officers) and American Heart Association’s Mission Life Gold Plus Award to Fire/Rescue for the 4th year in a row. Throughout the beginning of the meeting the exclamations of a young child could be heard. Thus Mayor Marino segued to an early City Manager Report.
August 2ndQuick action by Officer Robert Ayala saved the life of young Lucia Graham while Officer Rafael Guadalupe called for Fire/Rescue and comforted her mother. See Gardens Cops who Saved Choking Baby…. for details and watch the segment of the Council Meeting recounting the event and honoring of these two officers here.
The last item on the Agenda was Resolution 45, 2018 approving and ratifying an agreement with the Police Benevolent Association granting an immediate 12% increase across the board and bringing the City to 2nd in salary only to Boca Raton among the local municipalities. This was presented to the Council as a ‘Fait Accompli’ and it was interesting that none on the Council even questioned the agreement nor addressed the implication on future labor negotiations. The only comments addressed impact on the budget, and then only as a done deal. See details from the Palm Beach Post here.
All resolutions passed 5:0 including Adoption of 2018-2019 Fees and Charges, the Annual Community Development Block Grant Action Plan, and the first of many to come presentations before the Council on Avenir. City Attorney Lohman also gave an update on the Rustic Lakes Annexation lawsuit, where Rustic Lakes has 20 days to respond to the latest ruling against their suit.
There will be two Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Budget Hearings on September 6th and 20th.
Please vote on the three Charter Amendments on the ballot on August 28th!
August 28 Ballot has 3 PB Gardens Referendum Questions
Whether one has a partisan or non-partisan ballot when you vote by mail, early voting or on the Primary Election Day on 8/28, there will be 3 questions pertaining to the Palm Beach Gardens City Charter at the end of your ballot. Please get familiar with the questions and VOTE.
The City has once again come out with an updated flashy website entitled Fix Our Charter. Here, however is a link to the unenhanced Elections Page which includes images of the sample ballot questions, Notice of Elections (as to be published in the Palm Beach Post in upcoming weeks) and a link to Exhibit A, Ordinance 8, 2018 – which is referenced in Question 2 and is the existing Charter annotated with the proposed changes in Question 2.
Here are the 3 questions as they appear in the Notice of Election:
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS REFERENDUM QUESTION NO. 1
SHALL THE PALM BEACH GARDENS CHARTER BE AMENDED TO CHANGE FROM THE EXISTING TERM LIMIT WHICH PROHIBITS A COUNCIL MEMBER FROM BEING ELECTED TO MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE FULL TERMS TO A TERM LIMIT THAT PROHIBITS A COUNCIL MEMBER FROM SERVING FOR MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE FULL TERMS AND MAKING THE CHANGE APPLY TO ALL SITTING COUNCIL MEMBERS?
SHALL THE ABOVE DESCRIBED QUESTION NO. 1 BE ADOPTED?
YES
NO
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS REFERENDUM QUESTION NO. 2
SHALL THE CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REMOVE PROVISIONS THAT ARE OUTDATED, UNNECESSARY OR CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW INCLUDING MUNICIPALITY, CITY CLERK, AND CITY TREASURER SPECIFIC POWERS/DUTIES; OATH OF OFFICE; MERIT SYSTEM; PROCEDURE REMOVING COUNCILMEN, QUALIFICATION OF ELECTORS, COUNCIL MEETING AND PROCEDURE, AND OTHER PROVISIONS; REVISE COUNCIL-MANAGER RELATIONSHIP; CHANGE FILLING OF VACANCIES; LIMIT INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM; DEFINE “FULL TERM”; REMOVE COUNCIL CONFIRMATION OF EMPLOYEES AND OTHER CHANGES; AS PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT A, ORDINANCE 8?
SHALL THE ABOVE DESCRIBED QUESTION NO. 2 BE ADOPTED?
YES
NO
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS REFERENDUM QUESTION NO. 3
SHALL THE PALM BEACH GARDENS CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY MANAGER BE A RESIDENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF APPOINTMENT AND INSTEAD PROVIDE THAT ANY RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR THE CITY MANAGER BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE CITY MANAGER’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT?
SHALL THE ABOVE DESCRIBED QUESTION NO. 3 BE ADOPTED?
YES
NO
Points to consider:
- See our position on Question 1 entitled Vote NO on PBG Q1 – Two 3-Year Terms Are Enough!
- Question 2 is a complete rewrite of the City Charter – which is its Constitution. The wording of the question now reflects all the areas of the charter which are modified and/or deleted. Now is a good time to refresh yourself on the charter itself and read the proposed charter with all modifications annotated. Not all of the changes are a result of state statute. The proposed charter retains the requirement for future charter reviews on a 5-year cycle.
- Question 3 – City Manager Residence – the current charter requires that the City Manager become a resident of the City within 1 year. A YES vote on this question will remove the requirement and make City residence a contract negotiation – which means a City Manager in theory could be hired without ever having to live in the city and leaves the decision up to the then seated Council. Proponents argue that a most qualified candidate for the position shouldn’t be rejected just because they live outside the city boundaries and shouldn’t be forced to move, depending on house, family or other situations. Opponents argue that the City Manager should live in the area they manage and be impacted by the same decisions they impose on others, as well as be in the city during emergencies (eg hurricanes).
Vote NO on PBG Q1 – Two 3-Year Terms Are Enough!
The Palm Beach Gardens City Council – none of whom have yet served a single term, are asking you to expand the definition of term limits to mean 3 consecutive 3-year terms (9 years), rather than the 2 consecutive 3-year terms (6 years) to which they are currently limited. Over 16000 residents, 80% of those voting, approved the existing 2 3-year term limits in 2014.
A form of the question was to be on the ballot in March and was pulled by the judge reviewing the language. It has since been rewritten to at least inform the voter that term limits already exist and what the change would be. But the City’s ‘Fix Our Charter’ website does not inform you about the landslide nature of the election in 2014. It does state that:
“In the March 2018 Municipal Election, Palm Beach Gardens voters approved two amendments to the City Charter. These amendments improved ** local elections by ensuring the candidate with the plurality (highest number) of votes wins the election and that any Council member who is termed out must wait a three-year period before running again for City Council.”
What they also didn’t tell you (nor sadly did the Palm Beach Post) – was that the results of March’s question 3, allowing term-limited council members to run again, is being appealed in the courts. The issue will not be resolved prior to the August 28 elections, and the March election results stand: term-limited council members can run again after sitting out a term (3 years)
IF QUESTION 1 PASSES, A COUNCIL MEMBER, ONCE REACHING THEIR FIRST TERM LIMIT (9 years in office) CAN RE-RUN AND BE IN OFFICE IF RE-ELECTED FOR 18 YEARS OR MORE.
Please consider why you voted for term-limits in 2014 and keep the two 3-year term limits intact – VOTE NO On August 28!
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS REFERENDUM QUESTION NO. 1
SHALL THE PALM BEACH GARDENS CHARTER BE AMENDED TO CHANGE FROM THE EXISTING TERM LIMIT, WHICH PROHIBITS A COUNCIL MEMBER FROM BEING ELECTED TO MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE FULL TERMS TO A TERM LIMIT THAT PROHIBITS A COUNCIL MEMBER FROM SERVING FOR MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE FULL TERMS AND MAKING THE CHANGE APPLY TO ALL SITTING COUNCIL MEMBERS?
SHALL THE ABOVE DESCRIBED QUESTION NO. 1 BE ADOPTED?
(** the City is making an editorial comment on the results of the March 2018 election)
Martino: City Legal Failures
In three recent Palm Beach Post newspaper editions the City of Palm Beach Gardens was in the headlines again. But the news and the articles did nothing to enhance the reputation of the City. All of the articles highlighted the seeming ineptness of the present City Council and its immediate predecessor Council to establish clear, cogent, and competent decision making in the legal areas of their responsibilities. These missteps have stumbled the City into costly lawsuits that competency could have avoided.
The City Council should be concerned with these legal failures. As a resident I am. And yes, in my opinion, these lawsuits are failures because they could have and should have been avoided. Failure should not be an option. Let’s briefly discuss the three lawsuits featured in the Post…
- Sears wants Gardens to pay $2.1 million for legal fees: In a case that involved a lease between The Gardens Mall and Sears that had no public implications the City Council passed an ill-advised City Resolution that resolved a position in favor of the Mall’s argument. Due to this Resolution the City was ultimately inserted into the litigation. On appeal Sears was victorious. The 4th District Court of Appeals ruled the City Council’s Resolution was unconstitutional because it impaired Sears’ contract rights while also ruling Sears was owed attorneys’ fees.
- My opinion: The City should not have consented to a Resolution that inserted its’ full faith into a private business contract dispute. $2.1 million for legal fees or any portion thereof is a lot of taxpayer money. The Council’s legal advice was and is suspect. If no Resolution is passed than there is no litigation against the City.
- Gardens to fix rejected questions: As a result of a private citizen’s lawsuit in February a County Circuit Court ruled that the City’s proposed language for City Charter revisions on the March ballot were misleading, therefore, illegal and any votes for them are negated.
- My opinion: The City Council simply did not discuss the legal advice being suggested in a logical and coherent process. Public workshop meetings should have been scheduled to flush out the propriety, purpose, and legalities of the Charter revisions. In a workshop format the Council members could have thoroughly discussed and vetted the associated language prior to moving to ordinance format and the required ballot wording. Perhaps, then a private citizen would not have had to sue the City.
- Rustic Lakes wants out of Gardens: Rural community, just annexed, says it was forced to join: It is rather difficult for a City to get sued over a balloted annexation. There is a state statute that offers a clear roadmap. The areas to be annexed must vote in the affirmative, as was the result in this past March election. Rustic Lakes claims dubious means were used by the City to “orchestrate a reprehensible method” of including them on a ballot question with two neighboring communities.
- My opinion: It is apparent that some Rustic Lakes residents were opposed to being annexed, thus the lawsuit. If annexing the two larger communities was possible without creating a non- contiguous situation, a reluctant Rustic Lakes community could have been removed from the annexation ballot question. Again more legal counsel and guidance together with more probing discussion at a workshop meeting among the Council members, perhaps, would have been the extra ounce of prevention necessary to avert this problem.
The above is only the latest in a list of failed legal decisions by Gardens City Councils’ past and present. The decision in 2013 and 2014 to keep the “baseball stadium fiasco” a secret from the residents based on the interpretation, wrongly in my opinion, of a State Statute by the City Attorney, a Statute whose intent the City Council had violated almost from the get-go, is on that list as well. Another list maker is the 2016 election for the Group 4 seat. The City Council on the advice of the City Attorney and City Clerk allowed the 4-term incumbent to be placed on the ballot as a candidate even though the Term Limit language in the Charter determined him to be ineligible. The election was legally challenged and the 4th District Court of Appeals ruled the incumbent to be disqualified and declared the challenger the winner.
So who is responsible for these legal missteps and failures? From my perspective, it’s the City Council. They were elected to be the decision makers and, therefore, the responsibility is theirs’. One could argue and rightly so, that the legal advice has been less than proficient in the above referenced decisions. However, it is up to the City Council to recognize and contend with what are defects in counsel and guidance.
My suggestions to the City Council are simple. Do your homework. Do not accept the advice and /or recommendations of the Administration as if it were the Holy Grail. Ask questions and more questions. Hold regular advertised workshop meetings so discussion among all Council members is shared with each other and the public; the exchange of thoughts and ideas may help to ferret out unforeseen defects in the Administration’s advice and recommendations. Be aware of bureaucracy creep. Jealously guard your rights to be the leader, the policy maker, and the decider, not the follower and the disciple.
Mayor Urges Professional vs Emotional Approach to “Gun Control” Resolution
Much of the May 3, 2018 City Council Meeting was not controversial or included much discussion.
State Senator Bobby Powell, as he did last year, gave a very thorough and engaging power-point presentation summarizing the last legislative session. Marcum LLP presented the Fiscal Year 2017 audit report with glowing results. City Manager Ferris presented an award to Deputy City Manager Stephen Stepp (in his former capacity of Police Chief), Laura Schuppert – Tennis Director gave an update on the new Tennis Clubhouse and Crystal Gibson of Code Enforcement described a most recent humanitarian effort by staff coordinating with Christ Fellowship.
Bookending the remainder of the meeting was the subject of “Gun Control”; Council Member Litt later in the meeting described the current ‘proper’ nomenclature to be “Gun Reform Legislation” or “Commonsense Gun Legislation”. During Comments From the Public, Joan Hoffman of Ballenisles gave a heart-felt statement about her former house-keeper Kassandra Morales who was killed recently in a West Palm Beach bar & grill. She spoke representing a few others that were in the room for Mom’s Demand Action. Her said that her personal focus was not necessarily on the guns but the people behind them. Speaking after her was Mary Castronovo, also a Gardens’ resident describing Mom’s Demand Action as the counter-weight of the “powerful gun control lobby”. The final item on the Council’s agenda for the evening was Resolution 26, 2018 – Firearms Control.
This was the first opportunity for the council members to express their positions on the Resolution they asked staff to draft. Mayor Marino, respectful of the passion and emotion on the subject, urged that the council not vote on the resolution that evening and that the council address the resolution from a professional approach rather than an emotional approach. All agreed. City Manager Ferris suggested that each member submit their comments in writing and that those would be incorporated and reflected at the June 7 City Council Meeting.
Public Comment also included:
- Steve Mathison representing the PGA Corridor and congratulating the City for the clean audit
- Paula Magnuson – thanking staff for progress on Gardens East Drive and handing a package to Council requesting that they review her response to what was said about her last month
- Carol Easton and Kevin Easton – expressing their concern that their properties were being targeted with code violations and describing the difficulty of Sunset neighborhood egress with new plans for expanded lanes on Northlake Blvd
- Sandy and Marty Groner of Gardens of Thornbury, asking for assistance on a code enforcement issue with the parking of a non-commercial bus-like vehicle in their neighborhood.
Consent Agenda and Public Hearings and Resolutions:
- Consent passed 5:0
- Resolution 19, 2018 – Frenchman’s Reserve clubhouse flagpole passed 5:0
Ordinance 6, 2018 – amending Chapter 26, Elections passed 5:0 on first reading; Kevin Easton requested that perhaps petitions could be filed on-line.
Ordinance 7, 2018 – Referendum Question 1 – Term Limits – passed on final reading 4:1. Council Member Lane described the huge advantage incumbents have and the combination of this question with the recently passed ‘run again’ provision essentially obviates term limits. He voted NO. Vice Mayor Woods once again quoted members of the Term Limits Committee saying that run again was never intended. Mayor Marino gave a lengthy statement essentially against Term Limits and for the need for longer number of years in office. - Ordinances 8, 2018 (Referendum Queston 2 – Repeal/Replace Charter) and Ordinance 9, 2018 – (Referendum Question 3 – City Manager Residence) both passed 5:0 on final reading with minimal discussion as did Ordinance 10, 2018, first reading (Voluntary Annexation for Richard Road Seacoast Utility Authority Parcel)
- Resolution 24 2018 – in support of the Steeplechase Community in its effort to mitigate impacts of planned Beeline Highway and Northlake expansion projects was passed 5:0 after Tom Berita thanked the Council for the Resolution and Council Member Lane summarized his efforts on the subdivision’s behalf
Note: Also on June 7 at 6pm is a City Council Workshop with Florida Department of Transportation on Beeline Highway