►
From YouTube: City Council Workshop Charter Review (04/22/2021)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Okay,
thank
you
jacob
and
thank
you,
council
and
our
special
guest
attorney
cliff
shepard.
A
A
B
Thank
you
mike
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
with
you
guys.
It's
been
an
interesting
last
few
weeks,
so
this
is
definitely
better
than
that.
B
I
wanted
to
share
with
you
that
this
process,
as
you
know,
I've
been
through
a
bunch
of
times
and
in
a
moment
I'm
going
to
get
to
share
the
screen
and
put
up
for
you
the
sections
one
through
three,
along
with
things
that
I
think
are
worthy
of
discussion
discussion,
meaning
it's
up
to
you
to
decide
if
you
want
to
do
anything
or
nothing
or
something,
and
those
are
based
on
those
recommendations
for
discussion
are
based
on
my
history
of
having
done
this
and
either
personally
seeing
problems
come
up
in
cities
that
I
represent,
or
otherwise
being
aware
of
cities
that
had
problems
that
I
don't
represent,
but
I
happen
to
know
about
the
problems,
so
I
I
have
no,
as
they
say,
dog
in
the
hunt,
so
to
speak,
but
I
did
that's
why,
when
I
review
them,
that's
the
eye
that
I
look
through
now.
B
That
does
not
mean,
and
just
this
is
a
precursor
it'll
apply
to
every
section.
Every
every
time
we
go
through
any
of
these
meetings
in
the
future,
but
I
wanted
to
get
it
on
the
table.
It
does
not
mean
that
you
don't
get
to
bring
not
only
things
that
relate
to
these
sections,
but
other
things
to
the
table.
B
If
you
choose
to
do
that,
it's
just
that
by
having
a
section
structure,
we
managed
to
get
through
the
whole
charter,
whereas
if
we
just
go
kind
of
free
for
all
and
just
say
well,
let's
talk
about
this
or
that
or
the
other
thing.
We
may
never
finish
the
actual
charter.
So
that's
kind
of
the
idea
and
with
that,
if
jacob
would
allow
me
to
share
the
screen,
I
will
pull
up
what
what
I
have
for
discussion.
B
You
should
already
have
okay
access
to
that
clip,
so
you
should.
C
B
Okay,
good,
I
see
nodding
heads,
I
don't
know
why
I
was
waiting
for
actual
sound,
so
the
print
is
small
for
an
old
dude
like
me,
but
the
most
important
part
is
where
I
say
that
the
areas
for
discussion
on
section
one
are
none
from
me.
B
Does
anyone
have
anything
on
section
one
they
want
to
discuss
before
we
move
to
section
two
amongst
the
members
of
council?
We
see
nodding
the
other
way.
Okay,
if
I
I,
if
I
don't
know
if
jacob
can
keep
track
of
raised
hands
or,
however
they
do
this
on
zoom,
it
would
be
great
because
I'm
not
sure
that
I
can
do
that
and
manipulate
the
screen
at
the
same
time
now,
on
section
two
enumerated
powers,
so
we
do
have
one.
D
D
Oh,
I
know
I
know,
but
and
and
so
if
we
want
to
have
that
discussion
of
changing
it
to
san
pablo
beach
or
something
else.
This
is
the
section
in
time
that
we
should
have
it.
B
That's
perfectly
fine
and
in
fact
something
so
significant
as
a
name
change
which
actually
may
dwarf
everything
else
before
that's
all
said
and
done
for
jack's
beach,
you
may
want
to
have
a
special
meeting
of
citizenry.
That's
completely,
in
addition
to
this
charter
review
to
see
what
the
ideas
are,
what
people
think
and
where
they
stand,
because
that
obviously
is
going
to
get
people's
attention.
B
D
I
think
a
special
meeting
would
be
good
and,
depending
on
how
many
changes
we
wish
to
make
to
the
charter,
I
think
it's
also
pertinent
to
get
people
to
pay
attention
to
the
changes
that
we're
trying
to
do
and
changing
the
name
of
the
city
will
get
them
to
the
polls
and
start
looking
at
what
it
is
that
we
are
looking
to
change.
So
this
might
be
the
carrot
to
get
them
to
start
paying
attention
to
a
lot
of
the
things
that
we'd
normally
get
a
glazed
eye.
D
B
Indeed,
I
agree
with
all
of
that
is
there
any
reason?
I
shouldn't
then
proceed
with
section
two.
E
I
just
want
to
just
say
one
last
note
on
the
item
of
name
change.
I
have
looked
into
some
historical
information
on
that
and
there
have
been
at
least
two
previous
attempts,
so
I'm
gonna
I'm
trying
to
pull
together
some
historic
information.
Just
so
everybody
knows
so
that
when
we
are
ready
to
talk
about
that
in
a
more
in-depth
manner,
we'll
have
that
information.
C
It's
mostly
probably
from
mike
and
hey
mike,
instead
of
a
a
special
meeting.
Can
this
be
added
into
a
council
briefing
and
we've
got
our
plate
full
of
special
meetings
for
the
next
six
months
and
just
trying
to
minimize
some
of
that.
C
A
D
I
think
a
council
briefing
could
start
the
discussion,
but
it's
got
to
go
to
a
workshop
and
an
open
meeting
for
people's
input,
and
I
know
that
yeah
we'd
have
every
name
from
north
lauderdale
to
like
anything
or
south
georgia
whatever,
but
people
will
need
to
be
able
to
have
an
input
and
buy-in
into
the
name
and
so,
depending
on
how
that
meeting's
structured.
I
have
no
problem
with
starting
with
a
briefing,
but
it's
got.
People
do
need
to
have
some
kind
of
a
say
before
we
go
on
the
ballot.
A
Yeah,
I
think
that
would
be
the
starting
point
of
the
conversation
for,
if
council
desires,
to
go
forward
to
at
least
start
the
conversation
about
what
the
process
would
look
like.
Do
you
want
to
hold
a
series
of
public
workshops?
Are
there
specific
names
that
you
want
to
recommend?
Do
you
want
to
take
advice
from
the
public
as
to
what
they
want
to
see
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
throw
that
on
for
a
briefing?
We
obviously
have
a
little
bit
of
time
here,
but
we'll
get
that
on.
F
F
B
All
right
we're
gonna
proceed
with
section
two.
If
there's
something,
if
we
need
to
backtrack,
we
certainly
can
on
section
two,
at
least
from
my
view.
The
only
thing
that
stood
out
is
the
reference
to
the
1950
federal
census,
which
is
I'm
highlighted,
and
it
should
be
highlighted
on
the
screen
in
front
of
you.
B
This
is
a
discussion
area,
obviously,
because
the
data
is
old,
but
that
does
not
mean
you
need
to
change
it.
It
means
that
if
you
chose
to
using
the
current
date
or
the
most
current
day,
that
would
allow
for
additional
liquor
licenses.
If
that
is
of
interest
to
the
council.
I
understand
speaking
to
mike,
I
think
the
current
cap
is
at
13,
based
on
the
50s
centrist,
the
1950s
federal
centrist
data,
but
this
is
not
a
preference
thing
for
me.
E
It
seems
like
a
really
oddly
specific
thing
to
have
in
the
charter
and
kind
of
randomly
placed.
I
would
support
re-looking
at
that.
I
don't
know
exactly
what
that
answer
would
be.
I
don't
think
I
want
to
bring
it
up
to
one
per
550
people.
We
were
quite
a
different
city
in
1950,
but
I
do
think
that
makes
us
look
very
outdated
and
out
of
just
out
of
touch,
so
I
would
support
looking
at
that.
C
I
agree,
I
think
that
I
have
my
hand
up.
I
don't
know
if
anybody's
seeing
hands
or
not,
but
I
think
we
should
be
brought
up
to
the
latest
current
standards.
It
does
look
like
we're
kind
of
dated
or
that
it's
a
policy
that
hasn't
been
looked
at
in
quite
some
time,
and
I
also
agree
with
the
mayor
about
with
that.
You
know
that
one
license
for
every.
However
many
I
think
we
kind
of
table
that
one,
but
at
least
bring
up
the
the
census
issue.
A
B
D
A
A
Yeah
we
have
the
police
chief
on
the
call
as
well,
who
can
provide
a
little
bit
of
oversight,
but
cliff
for
your
benefit.
I
think
the
way
the
community
has
interpreted
this
section
over
a
number
of
decades
is
that
this
language
is
directly
relatable
to
the
quota
licenses
for
liquor.
Only
so
it's
okay
bars
and
package
stores,
whereas
the
four
cop
srx
extension
for
restaurants,
such
as
a
chili's
or
carabas
or
any
of
those
other
types
of
establishments
that
have
the
combination
of
both
food
and
alcohol
were
not
considered.
A
F
We
currently
have-
and
I
gave
you
bad
information-
microsexual
called
a
for
cop
quota
license.
We
also
call
them
legacy
licenses
and
they
are
limited
by
chapter
two
and
the
reason.
There's
confusion
is
because
hop
tinger
and
shim
sham
because
of
the
physical
location
and
the
way
they're
they're
put
together.
They
actually
share
one,
even
though
they
have
different
names.
It
falls
under
one
license
so
that
that
there's
12
and
I
gave
you
bad
information
mike
there's
two
13
establishments
12
licenses
and
the
restaurant.
F
Whether
like
caravas,
is
a
four
cop
srx
which
can
be
abused
as
a
rhino
restaurant
in
name
only
and
that's
the
big
argument
between
the
four
cops
and
the
four
cop
srxs
and
my
feeling
is.
This
was
put
in
very
deliberately
to
limit
the
number
of
of
four
cop
licenses
deliberately
and
they
I
think
they
deliberately
whenever
this
was
put
in
pick
the
1950
census,
because
they
had
an
idea
what
they
wanted
to
limit
it
to,
and
I
I
think
that's
how
the
wording
they
came
up
with.
F
Well,
let's
put
it
on
a
per
capita
population
and
and
let's
leave
it
at
that
in
the
1950
census,
which
basically
limits
it
forever.
So
I
think
that's
why
I
was
worded
like
that.
I'm
just
guessing.
E
I
I'm
certainly
not
interested
in
opening
up
40
some
odd
quota
licenses.
However,
I
think
what
some
of
the
unintended
consequences
that
we
have
seen
in
this
is
that
these
12
licenses
are
held
by
a
very
small
group
of
people,
they're
extremely
valuable.
Now
to
the
point
where,
if
you
have
one
you're
going
to
use
it,
and
you
are
going
to
try
to
maximize
your
revenue
as
much
as
you
possibly
can,
and
if
you
can't
get
one
and
like
right
now,
you
really
couldn't
get
one
in
jacksonville
beach.
E
You
are
going
to
operate
if
you
want
to
open
a
bar
in
jackson,
beach
you're
going
to
operate
a
rhino
because
there's
just
no
other
option.
So
I
think
that
we
need
to
expand
this
a
little
bit
if
nothing
else,
chan
either
change
the
ratio
but
but
take
the
year
1950
out
of
there,
because
it
just
looks
extremely
out
of
date.
D
I
agree
with
the
mayor
there,
but
I
do
want
to
note
that
we
have
to
really
start
with
our
end
goal
in
mind.
D
What
is
what
we're
trying
to
achieve,
and
if
we
limit
them,
I'm
not,
I
I
agree
with
limiting
them,
but
regardless
of
what
you,
when
we
set
a
limit,
that
limit
is
going
to
be
met
and
once
it's
met
we're
going
to
end
up
in
that
same
situation
that
we're
in
so
I
think
the
conversation
really
needs
to
start
at
what
are
we
trying
to
achieve
when
it
comes
to
full
bar
licenses,
because
remember
in
our
ldc
bars
cannot
operate
within
500
feet
of
each
other
and
that's
not
currently
how
it's
working
with
rhinos
and
things
such
as
that.
D
So
we
need
to
really.
We
might
want
to
table
this
one
to
a
later
discussion
or
postpone
with
the
definite
date,
because
this
is
really
something
that
is
it's
a
much
larger
conversation
than
just
the
number
of
licenses.
Do
we
want
it
based
on
population?
Do
we
want
it
based
on
square
mileage?
We
want
it
based
on
density
of
the
city
again.
D
What
is
our
ultimate
goal
here
and
when
we
make
that
number
is
that
going
to
achieve
our
goal
and
then,
if
it
does,
we
have
to
be
able
to
identify
what
the
unintended
consequences
are
of
having
it
set
at
that
number,
and
so
that's
a
rather
deep
discussion
that
I
don't
think
anyone
here
is
prepared
to
dive
into
this
evening.
F
I
do
agree
with
mayor
and
councilmember
dumont.
I
think
the
1950
federal
consensus
should
be
removed.
I
know
for
the
one
license
for
each
550
could
be
updated,
maybe
instead
of
one
550,
maybe
one
per
000
to
100
individuals
or
square
mileage
of
density
and
a
question
that
I
have
when
I
was
reading
this
as
soon
as
it
was
emailed
to
us.
F
Is
there
a
specific
reason
cliff
and
if
you
can
answer
this,
why
it
says
intoxicating
liquors
for
whiskey,
not
just
liquors
or
spirits,
or
is
it
something
that
was
done
a
long
long
time
ago?.
B
Well,
I
I
don't
know
when
it
was
done,
but
I
suspect
it
was
quite
a
bit
ago.
I
know
it's
been
quite
a
while,
since
you
all
have
had
a
charter
review,
and
my
guess
is
that
they
were
trying
to
track
whatever
the
language
of
the
statutes
were
at
the
time
that
regulated
these
things
and
what
they
were
called.
B
But
I
don't
know
but
to
your
point,
if
we're
going
to
look
at
this
section,
what
stood
out
to
me
is
the
1950
federal
census
reference,
because
it's
so
old,
but
the
if
you're
going
to
go
down
the
road
of
figuring
out,
okay,
a
new
method.
Maybe
we
want
to
look
at
it
from
density.
We
want
to
look
at
it
from
square
miles
or
whatever
it
is.
You
want
to
change,
then
a
good.
That
would
be
a
good
time
to
also
look
at
okay
is
there?
B
Do
we
just
is
spirits
a
broad
enough
term
under
the
statute
says
it
exists
today
and
perhaps
clarify,
and
let
me
I'll
point
out
the
reason
why
I
might
completely
be
overstating
this
situation
here.
But
when
I
read
through
it,
I
wasn't
convinced
or
certain
that
this
was
to
regulate
what
you
call
quota
licenses
only
and
in
my
mind
recently,
because
of
what
we've
been
through
with
the
pandemic.
B
A
lot
of
the
governor's
orders
early
on
and
of
course,
we
had
so
many
orders.
I
think
we're
up
to
50
or
60.
Something
now
dealt
with
whether
you,
a
restaurant,
a
bar
dependent
on
your
liquor
to
food
sales
ratios,
and
if
you
were
within
a
certain
ratio,
you
couldn't
sell
anything,
and
if
you
were
below
a
certain
ratio
you
could
and
then
they
changed
it
to
where
you
could
actually
sell
drinks
that
were
covered
and
take
them
out
and
and
things
of
that
nature.
So
I
I
really
haven't
looked
at.
B
F
Okay
and
then
one
last
thing
I
know
I
when
mayor
said
we
don't
want
to
have
40
alcohol
licenses
full
bar
licenses.
I
agree,
but
also,
I
think
we
have
to
sit
down
and
actually
look
at
where
we
want
the
beach
to
be
in
20
years
as
a
form
as
how
many
license
should
we
have
and
obviously
we're
reviewing
this
now
should
we,
you
know,
allow
two
three
more
in
the
next
20
30
years.
That
is
something
I
guess
we're
going
to
have
to
talk
about.
F
I
mean
I
don't
want
to
see
jack
speech,
just
be
nothing
but
bars.
You
know
in
20
30
years,
but
I
also
want
to
see
it
progress.
So
I
guess
that's
something
that
we're
gonna
have
to
talk
about
a
little
bit
more.
G
I
have
my
hand
up
so
I'll
just
speak
up,
so
I
I
can
almost
say
with
100
certainty
that
this
was
very
intentional,
that
this
was
passed
at
the
time.
It
was
because
the
community
wanted
to
limit
the
number
of
bars
that
we
had
to
12..
G
So
I
guess
my
question
would
be
if
you
know
I
realize,
there's
some
interest
in
discussing
this
and
and
discussing
whether
it's
changed.
But
if
we
don't
change
it,
is
it
appropriate
to
instead
of
referencing
population
and
census,
just
say
that
we
are
limiting
the
number
of
liquor
licenses
or
whatever
the
proper
reference
would
be
to
twelve.
H
I
do
yes,
two
thoughts
is
first
is,
I
think
it
does
need
an
update
just
in
reading
it
it
it
dates
our
charter.
It
makes
you
realize
how
old
our
charter
is
and
how
little
it's
been
updated
and
then
also
just
thinking
when
this
was
done
in
1950.
H
You
know
alcohol
was
kind
of
viewed
a
little
bit
differently.
You
can
tell
just
in
the
way
that
it's
written
with
the
liquors
or
whiskey
intoxicating
liquors.
So
I
don't.
I
don't
know
what
the
magic
number
is.
I
think
that
we
need
to
have
that
discussion,
but
I
think
that
in
2021
and
beyond
that
alcohol
is
is
definitely
viewed
differently
than
it
was
in
1950.
H
Second
thought
that
I
had
while
reading
this
whole
section.
Is
this
just
putting
this
regulating
the
number
of
licenses
in
section
two
is
kind
of
strikes
as
odd,
because
it's
every
it's
the
whole
language,
except
for
the
part
on
the
liquor
license
is,
is
all
about
city
powers
and
it
just
then
it
just
talks.
I'm
just
wondering
is:
is
there
a
reason
to
leave
this
in
section
two
or
create
a
whole
new
section
regarding.
G
H
Okay,
that
would
that
would
make
sense,
because
it
yeah
there's
no
usually
on
the
amendments,
there's
a
where
it's
been
put
in
there.
So
that
would
be
my
only
question.
Is
it
just
strikes
me
strange
that
there
it's
talking
about
all
governmental
corporate
proprietary
powers,
conduct
municipal
government
than
it
goes
to
talk
about
liquor
licenses,
but
not
talk
about
any
other
power,
so
that.
B
B
C
G
I
don't
but
it
I
I
want
to
say
it
was
1957
and
that's
why
they
referenced
the
1950
census.
Maybe
mayor
hoffman
knows
from.
C
G
G
G
F
Question
mr
shepherd,
in
your
experience,
how
often
do
cities
or
municipalities
review
their
charters
and
do
you
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
add
into
the
charter
to
where
it
lets
the
future
council
members
to
review
the
charter?
Let's
say
every
10
15
20
years
instead
of
half
a
day,
half
a
century.
B
First
of
all,
there
is
no
norm
for
this
one
of
the
cities
that
I
represent.
That's
also
going
through
this
right
now
and
choosing
to
do
it
with
me
simply
being
available
for
consultation
whenever
they
need
it.
So
I
don't
have
to
go
to
those
meetings.
They
just
send
me
what
they
what
they
want
me
to
find
out
after
the
meetings.
B
B
Excuse
me,
and
that's
where
I
got
significant
charter
view
experience
until
they
finally
got
smart
and
said
you
know
this
is
kind
of
silly
to
have
all
these
people
sit
here
and
talk
every
three
years
about
something
we
just
got
used
to
having
in
the
charter
and
they
change
it.
I
don't
know
whether
they
went
to
five
or
seven
years,
but
something
longer.
B
Is
you
don't
have
so
much
heavy
lifting
to
do
as
if
you've
waited
15
or
20
years,
and
so
there
may
be
very
few
if
any
changes
and
that's
okay,
but
at
least
you've
taken
a
look
at
it
to
see
how
it
looks
compared
to
current
standards
and,
as
you
all
know,
obviously,
on
things
like
gender
neutrality
and
other
things
that
would
have
seemed
insane
to
the
people
who
wrote
the
charter
in
the
1950s
are
part
of
everyday
life
today,
and
so
I
don't
know
that
we're
going
to
find
those
things
here
necessarily.
B
But
the
point
is,
if
you
on
a
more
frequent
review
schedule,
whether
it's
by
adopted
ordinance
or
by
charter
itself,
you
can
put
it
in
the
charter,
because
you
don't
have
to
do
everything
that
you
want
to
do
in
the
charter
by
a
charter
change.
You
can
say
we're
going
to
review
the
charter
every
five
years
and
put
that
in
an
ordinance.
So
you
can
do
that
or
every
seven
or
whatever
the
time
is,
that's
appropriate
for
you
and
that's
that's
a
reasonable
way
to
go
about
it.
B
But
again,
from
my
perspective,
having
been
through
it,
I
think
it's
quicker
and
less
heavy
lifting
if
issues
are
reviewed
on
a
more
regular
basis
because
of
the
keeping
up
with
sort
of
the
modern
think
of
whatever
it
is,
and
if
an
issue
comes
up
any
issue
that
when
one
of
my
cities,
that's
going
to
have
a
charter
amendment
on
the
belt
next
time
this
has
to
do
with,
and
this
is
a
unfortunate
issue,
but
has
to
do
with
penalties.
B
That
should
be
applied
to
a
council
person
for
violating
the
charter,
and
they
have
been
very
concerned
about
a
specific
member
of
the
council
and
there's
nothing
in
the
count.
The
charter
that
gives
them
any
teeth
to
do
anything
about
that.
So
they're
going
to
not
as
a
part
of
a
regular
charter
view,
but
as
a
special
amendment
proposed
that
this
penalty
provision
be
added
to
their
charter,
so
understand
that,
in
addition
to
these
thorough
front
to
back
charter
reviews
at
any
time
something
comes
up.
That's
community,
specific
and
timely.
B
D
Thank
you.
I
know.
Jacksonville
does
a
10
year
charter
review
and
I
like
the
10
year
versus
the
5,
because
it
overlaps
councils
and
so
it's
cleaner
with,
since
we
have
the
term
limits
currently
until
we
get
to
section
3
and
the
on
the
mayor
and
the
council
terms.
D
As
of
this
moment
in
time,
the
ten
years
would
bring
new
life
into
the
review
versus
a
five-year
review
with
just
you
know,
statistically
speaking,
there's
very
little
change
over
on
a
council
within
five
years.
B
Again,
this
is
all
a
matter
of
what
is
your
personal
preference
as
a
body
and,
as
I
said,
the
the
key
to
it
all
is.
If
something
comes
up
which
needs
immediate
attention
based
on
something
that
was
unanticipated,
you
can
always
pose
a
specific
amendment
to
deal
with
that
specific
issue.
Much
like
just
at
the
beginning
of
last
year.
I
guess
it
was.
We
did
the
amendment
just
related
to
the
city
attorney
and
the
city
manager,
I
think,
was.
D
If
we
are
done,
I
don't
know
what
we're
done,
what
we've
decided
on
it,
I'd
like
a
decision
on
what
it
is
that
we
want
to
do
with
this.
Are
we
going
to
bring
it
back
so,
on
the
first
one,
we
decided
to
bring
that
back
to
a
council
briefing
to
decide
what
the
process
would
be
if
we
want
to
have
workshops
with
the
community
and
all
that
here,
we've
talked
about
changing
it
and
how
we
could
possibly
change
it,
and
we
don't
have
the
data,
but
we
haven't
discussed
how
we
will
readdress
it.
D
Would
this
include
possibly
a
14th
meeting
instead
of
just
a
13
for
the
charter
review
and
in
the
14th
we
come
back
to
the
city,
name
change,
possibly
and
the
liquor
licenses,
because
I
can
we
do
not
have
the
data
that
we
need
to
be
able
to
make
a
sound
decision
on
this
now
other
than
we
think
that
1950
sounds
outdated
and
that's
not
a
reason
to
change
the
charter.
The
charter
is
your
constitution.
D
C
C
A
lot
has
changed
in
more
than
50
years,
70
years,
so
I
think
there's
more
there
than
just
a
name
and
back
to
the
mayor's
original
statement.
C
I
think
there's
a
fine
balance
in
there
and
maybe
we're-
and
I
don't
want
to
put
a
number
out
there,
but
maybe
we're
a
few
licensed
short
of
where
we
really
should
be
versus.
You
know,
looking
at
our
population
70
years
later
versus
where
we're
sitting
right
now,
and
I
I
also
agree
that
we
shouldn't
open
up
the
floodgates
and
have
44
of
them
and
that's
for
sure,
but
but
I
think,
there's
a
there's,
probably
a
nice
balance
in
there.
I
think
we're
antiquated
just
just
on
face
value.
E
I
considering
we're
on
the
first
page
of
our
charter
review.
I
am
very
comfortable
with
the
concept
of
how
I
mentioned
earlier,
a
parking
lot,
knowing
that
there
are
going
to
be
some
things
that
might
stack
up
that
we're
going
to
need
to
revisit,
and
I
don't
expect
us
to
know
exactly
what
that's
going
to
look
like
at
this
moment.
But
I
think
the
commitment
is
that
we
I
I
think
it
sounds
like
everyone
is
interested
in
revisiting
this,
and
we
can
figure
out
the
technicalities
of
that
later.
E
B
I
think
that's
why
it's
just
for
this
think
of
that
what
we
ordinarily
have
in
these
situations
and
we're
not
in
non-coveted
times
is
we
have
the
meetings
like
this,
but
we're
face
to
face,
and
then
you
have
a
real,
robust
opportunity
for
public
input
and
the
public
knows
what's
coming
in
this
case,
that
that's
there's
a
little
bit
less
opportunity
for
that.
Although
they're
certainly
welcome
to
participate
via
this
platform,
it's
not
as
easy-
and
you
know
it's
it's
kind
of
a
little
bit
bulky
for
this
kind
of
a
discussion.
B
Okay,
I
have
mr
stokes.
H
Thanks
my
questions
for
cliff
and
mike
just
wondering
who
is
doing
research
for
kind
of
some
of
these
topics
if
we're
left
to
our
own
devices-
or
we
have
maybe
a
staff
member
or
something
helping,
because
I
think
what
would
be
very
helpful
when
we
come
back
in
the
parking
lot
is
possibly
have
some
comparatives
from
other
cities
of
the
same
size
and
how
they
operate
their
licensing.
H
And
maybe,
when
we
look
at
what
other
cities
are
doing,
we'll
realize
that
we're
doing
the
same
thing
or
we
realize
that
we
need
some
more
update,
because
I
would
like
to
know
what
another
city,
that's
roughly
nine
square
miles
and
24
000
people
is
doing
for
their
how
their
liquor
licenses
are
regulated.
H
I
know
a
lot
of
them
are
by
population,
but
it'd
just
be
nice
to
have
a
little
bit
more
data
for
review
when
we
do
it.
A
To
answer
to
answer
your
question:
chet
all
of
staff,
particularly
the
department
directors
in
the
clerk's
office,
are
all
prepared
to
provide
whatever
support
is
necessary
for
council
to
make
the
right
decisions
as
to
how
they
want
to
move
forward
with
the
charter.
A
A
So,
as
an
example,
you
know
the
city
of
jacksonville
beach,
being
eight
square
miles,
high
density
with
two
cras
and
a
downtown
entertainment
district,
maybe
completely
different
than
winter
park.
Maybe
completely
different
than
st
pete
beach,
based
on
the
values
that
those
communities
are
trying
to
achieve.
A
So
while
we
can
provide
you
with
comparables,
I
still
think
the
overarching
final
decisions
will
come
down
to
what
this
council
believes
is
in
the
best
interest
of
the
city
going
forward
with
regards
to
how
you
want
it
structured-
and
you
know-
I'm
I'm
hearing
at
least
a
little
consensus
amongst
the
council-
that
there
may
be
a
desire
to
allow
some
additional
licenses
for
quota.
A
But
the
the
number
is
unknown
at
this
point
as
to
how
many
that
would
be,
there
seems
to
be
a
universal
desire
to
change
the
language.
That's
in
the
charter
now
to
be
much
more
clear
as
to
what
it
addresses.
Not
necessarily
the
liquors
are
whiskey,
but
maybe
make
it
a
little
bit
more
relevant
to
contemporary
language
or
wording.
That's
used
in
current
state
statute,
and
there
may
be
even
a
desire
to
break
it
out
and
have
it
be
its
own
section,
as
opposed
to
lumping
it
into
the
enumerated
powers.
A
So
as
we
move
closer
and
start
funneling
down
towards
focal
points,
as
council
says,
they
want
additional
information
and
they
tell
us
what
they
want,
we'll,
hopefully
either
be
proactively,
bringing
it
to
the
conversation
or
bringing
it
to
the
next
meeting
or
how
we
decide
to
handle
it
subsequent
to
the
initial
meeting
being
held
so
for
tonight.
As
an
example,
we
had
chief
smith
put
together
the
the
listing
of
those
establishments
that
currently
have
the
quota
licenses.
A
B
And
mike
I'll
add
this
from
the
legal
perspective,
I
have
the
ability
to
go
out
the
resources
I
should
say
to
go
out
and
find
out
what
other
communities
are
doing,
if
anything,
because
there
may
be
an
assumption
that
other
communities
are
limiting
licenses
in
a
similar
manner,
and
there
may
not
be
that
many
that
do
I
just
don't
know,
or
they
may
make
a
distinction.
You
mentioned
cras,
obviously
for
many
of
the
areas
that
I
represent,
do
cras
all
over
the
state.
B
Their
cras
are
specifically
designed
to
attract
adult
nighttime,
entertainment
and
all
the
things
associated
with
it.
So
the
more
bars
the
better
and
entertainment
establishments
that
serve
a
lot
of
alcoholic
beverages,
the
better,
but
that
may
be
limited.
They
may
have
a
limit
for
that
area.
That's
significantly
different
than
other
areas
of
the
city,
so
all
of
those
things
are
on
the
table,
but
one
of
the
things
that
I
may
have
mentioned
to
you
all
before,
because
attorneys
are
not
known
for
being
particularly
innovative.
B
We
have
a
list
serve
for
municipal
lawyers
and
that
listserv
allows
us
to
write
reach
out
to
all
our
companion
municipal
lawyers
across
the
state
and
say
hey:
how
does
your
city
handle
this
issue
if
at
all,
and
please
send
me
a
link
and
in
very
short
order?
There
are
some
regulars
on
that
list.
That
will
supply
me
everything
I
wanted
to
know
and
way
more
than
I
want
to
know
miss
golden.
I
see
your
golden.
I
see
your
hands
up.
G
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
make
some
comments
regarding
getting
more
information
to
me.
It
seems
that
it
would
be
helpful,
perhaps,
to
I
know
we're
talking
about
putting
this
in
a
parking
lot,
but
I
think
it
might
be
helpful
to
have
some
discussion,
and
maybe
it's
in
in
the
format
of
a
briefing
to
talk
about
what
is
what
is
the
information
we'd
like
to
have
so
that
we
can
discuss
this
a
little
bit
in
in
more
detail?
G
So
I
could,
I
could
see
us
having
a
meeting
to
to
do
that
to
come
up
with
what
are
the
things
that
we'd
like
to
see,
so
that
we
can
give
the
staff
some
direction
on
what
information
to
gather
and
then
the
only
other
comment
I
would
make
is
that
you
know
I
would
just
say
that
we
could
we
can.
G
We
could
loosen
the
number
of
licenses,
but
I
am
of
the
opinion
that
that
we
will
probably
still
have
a
situation
where
the
the
licenses
would
be
become
high,
valued
and
we'd
be
right
back
where
we
were
with.
You
know
not
have
it
not
having
enough
licenses
or
people
feeling
that
there
aren't
enough
licenses
or
whatever
the
case
may
be
so
to
me.
My
concern
is
that
we
can.
We
can
increase
that
number,
but
that's,
I
don't
think
that'll
ever
fix
the
problem
of
of
you
know
those
licenses
becoming
expensive
or
sought.
B
Licenses,
I
don't
see
any
more
hands
up
at
the
moment,
but
what
I
understand
and
I'll
recap
it
and
if
hand
goes
up
I'll,
certainly
stop,
but
the
recap,
but
it
seems
like
to
me
that
at
a
future
briefing
maybe
some
further
direction.
I
think
mike
has
a
fairly
good
idea
of
where
this
is
headed,
because
his
summary
was
exactly
the
same
as
mine
would
have
been
at
that
particular
point.
B
B
In
section
three-
and
I
thought
that
was
going
to
be
the
one
that
took
a
while
in
section
three,
the
first
thing
I
noted
a
number
of
things
here
for
different
reasons.
Again,
I
don't
have
a
have
a
a
strong
feeling
about
any
of
them,
and
that's
always
going
to
be
the
case,
because
that's
not
my
role.
My
role
is
kind
of
to
direct
your
attention
to
things
that
I
see
and
then
let
you
all
take
it
from
there.
Much
like
we
did
before.
B
The
first
thing
I
have
highlighted
is
where
it
talks
about
a
term
shall
be
considered
a
full
term
if
the
elector
has
served
two
or
more
years
of
their
four-year
term
and
I'm
going
to
take
each
one
of
these
one
at
a
time.
So,
if
you
drop
below
in
the
format
that
I've
used
areas
for
discussion,
I
put
in
two
or
more
years
of
their
first
four-year
term
and
any
portion
of
their
second
consecutive
four-year
term.
B
This
is
being
raised
under
the
theory
that-
and
I
trust
me
recently,
my
life
is
full
of
these
theories.
Anything
that
can
happen
will
anything
that
you
think
will
never
happen.
It
happens.
I
just
can't
explain
it.
It's
like
the
universe
and
the
planets
align,
and
I
have
experienced
attempts
to
manipulate
term
limits
in
other
jurisdictions,
including
literally
right
now
it's
happening,
and
so
whether
or
not
you
want
to
do
anything
about
this.
B
You
would
think
that
someone
who
says
two
or
more
years
of
their
four-year
term
makes
it
a
full
term,
would
be
sufficient
distance
enough
for
them
to
quit
one
day,
shy
of
that
two-year
time
frame
and
then
and
and
be
done,
and
they
would
just
go
ahead
and
serve
out
their
full
second
term.
Don't
bet
on
it,
and
so
what
I'm
telling
you
is
possible.
B
The
way
it's
written
now
is
that
one
year,
one
four
year
term
and
almost
two
years
of
a
second
term,
if
a
person
quits
under
or
resigns
under
the
current
structure,
by
the
end
of
that,
what
would
have
been
the
full
term
they
can
run
again
or
whenever
the
next
election
is
for
an
open
seat,
because
they're
not
term
limited
out,
based
on
the
way
it's
currently
structured
and
it
seems
maybe
a
stretch
until
it
actually
happens,
which
I'm
dealing
with
I'm.
B
B
So
that's
something
for
you
all
to
discuss
or
not.
If
you
want
to
not
if
you,
if
you
want
to
discuss
it,
we'll
stop
here
while
that
takes
place
or
I
can
go
ahead
through
all
the
other
changes
of
the
section.
What
is
your
pleasure.
B
My
suggestion
is
that
when
you
get
into
the
final
term-
and
this
produce
presents
prevents
any
manipulation
of
the
system
is
that
if
you
serve
even
one
day
of
the
second
consecutive
term,
that's
a
full
term
and
your
term
limited
out
for
a
full
four
years
as
if
you'd
serve
the
full
four
sitting
there.
Now
that
may
seem
harsh,
but
the
idea
is
you're
trying
to
stop.
B
Essentially,
some
people
would
argue
bad
conduct,
and
so
you
take
the
strongest
possible
measure
if
you're
going
to
try
to
get
reelected
and
then
in
two
years
step
aside,
so
that
you
can
run
again
just
just
short
of
two
years
under
the
way
it's
currently
written.
So
you
can
run
again
and
based
on
rain
neck
ring
name
recognition.
People
might
not
even
know
you
aren't
still
on
council
there's
just
a
number
of
different
ways.
That
system
can
be
manipulated
and
it
may
never
be.
C
Does
doesn't
this
come
into
play
where
also
where
it
won't
happen
with
city
of
jacksonville
beach?
But
if,
if
a
council,
if
a
city
has
a
council
and
they're
receiving
a
salary
that
has
a
pension
tied
to
it,
they
I
think
they
have
to
do
on
their
second
term
two
years
in
a
day
in
order
to
capture
that
pension.
So
that
might
come
into
play,
but
it
won't
happen
for
us,
so
it
might
be
a
moot
point.
B
Yeah,
I
don't
I
don't
even
frankly,
I'm
not
sure
I'd
have
to
check.
I've
never
heard
that
any
of
my
cities
offer
those
kind
of
benefits
to
their
former
council
persons,
but
there
is
one
of
them
that
rep
that
provides
the
ability
to
have
health
insurance.
So
you
know
I
don't
know
how
that
ties
into
specific
personnel
situations
with
jack
speech.
B
D
So
there,
the
health
insurance
is
there,
and
I
think
what
mr
janssen
is
talking
about
is
jacksonville,
where
you
start
tapping
into
the
pension
system
it
once
you're
on
council.
Until
you
see
a
lot
of
leaders
in
jacksonville
go
from
council
to
other
officials
to
stay
in
the
pension
system
until
they
can.
B
A
B
Yes,
I
see
it
now.
I
I
it
disappeared
off
my
screen:
okay,
yes,
mayor
hoffman,
so.
E
B
G
G
B
Yes
and
again,
this
is
like
it
sounds
bizarre
until
you've
seen
it
actually
happen,
and
I
have-
and
so
I'm
jaded
in
that
regard,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
yeah,
that's
what
I'm
saying
so
because
it's
currently
structured,
you
can
be
a
council
person
for
a
total
of
essentially
eight
years,
two
four-year
terms
and
then
run
for
mayor
for
another
total.
B
Potentially,
if
you
served
it
all
the
way,
eight
years
two
four
year
terms,
however,
you
could
do
the
two
years
of
the
eight
years
as
council
do
six
years
as
mayor
or
just
short
of
six
years
resign
and
then
at
the
end
run
it
you
wouldn't
have
been
term
limited
the
way
this
is
written
now,
because
it's
not
a
full
term.
You
haven't
served
a
full
two
terms
in
office.
You've
served
basically
one
and
a
little
bit
less
than
a
half.
B
D
Let
me
be
reading
the
two
sandy's,
I'm
gonna
pick
on
you
sandy,
so
sandy
does
her.
Eight
years
takes
two
two
to
four
years
off
to
you
know,
sail
the
world
with
her
dogs
and
save
puppies
and
kitties
all
over
the
place
comes
back
and
with
your
suggestion
mike,
she
would
not
be
able
to
run
for
council
again.
So
it's
two
terms
and
done
that
suggestion
in
jacksonville
it
was
dead
in
the
water.
A
That
was
a
question
for
council
was,
is
the
is
the
intention
of
this
language
to
keep
an
individual
from
serving
more
than
two
terms
on
council
or
specifically
to
eliminate
them
from
or
to
specifically
restrict
them
to?
No
more
than
two
consecutive
terms,
and
if
and
if
it's
truly
the
two
consecutive
then
I
like
what
cliff
is
proposing,
which
is
language
that
tightens
up
what
defines
two
consecutive
terms.
A
But
if
the,
if
the
council
says
someone
can
run
for
office
for
a
for
a
council
seat
every
other
term
and
serve
a
total
of
six
or
eight
terms
over
their
life
span,
if
that's
what
they
want
to
do
and
you're
fine
with
it,
then
then
that's
okay,
and
then
the
focus
can
be
just
on
the
two
consecutive
terms.
E
D
Can
I
have
clarity
there?
Chris,
do
you
mean
the
consecutive
term
language
as
written
or
as
suggested
by
cliff,
as
suggested
okay?
Thank
you.
B
All
right,
I
see
it
seems
like
that.
Miss
golden
has
her
hand
up
again.
G
Yeah,
I
I
would
I
wanted
to
add
in
response
to
what
mike
was
saying,
that
my
understanding
was
that
at
the
time
that
this
was
passed,
the
intention
was
to
allow
consecutive
terms
and
to
even
allow
council
to
marry
consecutive
terms,
so
that
you
know
you
could
have
you
know
up
to
16
years
that
you're
serving
consecutively.
H
Yeah
just
to
get
clarification,
I
liked.
I
liked
your
area
of
discussion
to
eliminate
a
loophole
for
people
trying
to
consecutively
run
for
more
than
two
terms
I
was.
H
I
guess
I
got
a
little
confused
in
all
the
conversation
because
we
mentioned
where
you
could
run
like
I'm
currently
at
large,
so
I
could
do
my
eight
years
take
two
years
off
and
then
run
district.
I
I
don't
see
a
huge
problem
with
that.
I
don't
know
if
that
was
part
of
the
change
that
we
were
looking
to
make
no
okay,
I
see
chris.
E
H
G
B
And,
of
course,
what
this
is
addressing
is
how
you
cover
what
is
a
full
term
and
that's
the
definition
so
whether
you're
running
for
mayor,
what
is
a
full
term
or
council
person,
what
is
the
full
term
and
so
for
the
first
of
the,
if
you're
talking
about
consecutive
terms,
two
or
more
years
works,
because
we're
not
talking
about
running
again
and
where
you
would
avoid
being
term
limited
out,
there's
no
reason
for
you
to
quit
early
in
the
first
term,
unless
you
just
want
to
quit,
but
in
the
second
term
and
now
realizing
that
term
limits
are
coming
your
way
there
is
the
opportunity
to
manipulate
the
system
a
little
bit
and
then
run
what
would
have
been
essentially
for
a
re-election
at
the
end
of
the
full
for
four
years
of
the
second
four
years,
even
though
you
already
served
almost
half
of
that
second
term
and
shouldn't
be
running
at
all.
B
I
don't
see
any
more
hands
going
once
twice,
okay,
so
the
next
change
that
I
had
suggested
is
the
gender
neutrality
on
the
forfeit
his
office,
and
I
could
do-
and
certainly
you
can
have
discussions
about
what
you'd
like
here
his
slash
her,
but
we
even
have
issues
now
with
gender
pronouns,
and
so
I
just
said,
forfeit
that
office
and
if
you'll
see
the
area
for
discussion,
it's
a
strikethrough
is
what
I'm
suggesting
you
might
want
to
change.
And
then
the
underline
is
what
I'm
suggesting
you
might
want
to
substitute
in.
A
I
see
a
lot
of
head
nodding.
I
think
you
have
a
consensus
there,
cliff
okey
dokey,
actually
just
just
to
make
this
simple
for
cliff
as
we
go
through
this
document.
Does
the
council
agree
that
we
should
be
looking
at
gender
neutrality
through
the
whole
document,
all
right
cliff?
We
just
made
that
easier
for
you.
B
Okay,
great
all
right,
so
the
next
thing
that
I
had
that
I
hope
you
can
see
on
your
screen
now
is
there
was
a
reference
when
it
comes
to
a
council
members
pay
being
compatible
with
salaries
as
portrayed
by
the
florida
league
of
municipalities,
so
stopping
there
that
doesn't
exist
anymore,
at
least
under
that
name.
It's
the
florida
league
of
cities,
and
so
my
suggestion
here
is.
B
That
gives
you
an
idea
of
what's
out
there
if
you're
looking
for
comparisons,
and
so
that's
my
reason
for
discussion,
no
need
to
be
tied
to
one
source
of
data
which
may
not
be
current,
and
then
the
name
is
the
florida
league
of
cities,
and
my
suggestion
areas
for
discussion
is
to
simply
change
the
cities
of
comparable
size
as
opposed
to
portrayed
by
blah
blah
blah
blah.
B
So
I
would
strike
the
language
as
portrayed
by
the
flor,
the
florida
league
of
municipalities,
so
it's
just
reads:
compatible
with
salaries
for
cities
and
cities
or
comparable
sites
for
cities.
Excuse
me
what
did
I
say
here
for
cities?
I
got
it
scrolling
up
and
down.
I'm
I
keep
missing
myself.
Cities
of
comparable
size
and
form
of
government
is
how
it
would
read.
A
A
Just
as
an
aside
for
council,
karen
nelson
did
get
the
latest
information
from
florida
league
of
cities
for
communities,
population,
size,
15
to
40,
000.
and
sure
enough
they're
all
over
the
board.
But
you
guys
are
kind
of
right
in
the
middle.
B
That's
right
so
the
last
thing
in
section
three
of
our
journey
today
is
the
last
sentence
which
says
the
council
may
provide
members
shall
receive
an
allowance
for
expenses
incurred
in
the
performance
of
their
duties,
and
I
suggest
for
discussion
edition
of
the
language
to
the
extent
permitted
by
florida
law.
Now
there
it
that
compliance
with
the
florida
law
is
always
implied
in
anything.
B
So
I'm
certainly
not
a
believer
in
overkill,
but
the
reasons
why
I
think
it's
worthwhile
to
consider
or
at
least
discuss
putting
that
language
here
is
because
there
are
people
who
you
know
you
guys
have
maybe
had
your
ethics
training
and
you
know
what's
what
and
certainly
mike
does
and
if,
if
they
consult
with
a
city
attorney
or
with
me,
I
can
tell
you
what's
what.
B
But,
if
you
don't
know-
and
again
I
hate
to
say
this-
is
all
from
not
only
my
long
experience
but
actual
recent
experience
of
people
getting
in
office
and
sort
of
behaving
like
a
bull
in
china.
Clap
clock
would
not
close
it
without
realizing
that
their
life
has
changed
permanently
as
long
as
they're
in
office
from
what
they
can
and
can
accept,
and
so
I
could
envision
a
circumstance
was
going
through
my
head
that
someone
would
come
to
council
and
say:
hey,
listen.
B
B
Looking
at
this
provision
of
the
charter
saying
hey,
we
are
going
to
authorize
that
you
receive
allowance
for
expenses
and
hey
if
we
don't
have
to
pay
it,
that's
all
the
better
because
it'll
be
paid
by
this
vendor,
but
there's
an
ethical
problem
with
that,
and
so,
while
that
makes
him
an
extreme
example,
it's
what
was
going
through
my
mind
and
so
by
adding
the
reference
to
the
extent
permitted
by
florida
law.
I
would
hope
that
it
would
give
somebody
like
a
heads
up
that
hey
this
may
not
be
a
limited
discretion
here.
D
I
agree
I
just
had
a
conversation
with
a
council
member
from
another
municipality-
I'm
not
gonna,
note
which,
but
they
are
dealing
with
a
lot
of
these
same
issues.
So
I
am
very
comfortable
with
that
new
language
being
added.
B
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
more
hands
so
mike
unless
you
have
anything
more,
I
think
I'm
concluded
now.
We
didn't
read
my
intention
going
forward,
subject
to
any
additional
instructions
which
you
can
relate
to
me
now,
or
you
can
lay
through
mike
later
that
this
format
works
for
you
to
provide
in
each
set
of
sections
that
we
review.
What
are
my
areas
for
discussion?
B
The
reasons
why
I'm
bringing
up
the
discussion,
but
I'm
also
going
to
tell
you
that,
as
you
already
know
anyway,
that
it
is
not
up
to
me
to
to
to
tell
you
everything
you
need
to
know
about
your
charter.
I
am
unaware,
like
I
was
tonight
about
the
sensitivity
of
the
alcohol
issue.
B
I
just
knew
to
raise
it
as
a
discussion
point,
and
I
will
that'll
be
many
of
the
issues
in
your
charter
that
I
don't
know
where
you
know
where
what
what
screws
need
to
be
tightened
and
what
means
to
be
loosened.
So
that
means
to
you
essentially
that
be
doing
my
work
doesn't
mean
you
don't
have
to
do
your
homework
and
I'm
not
trying
to
apply
that
you
would
do
it
that
way.
B
I
am
trying
to
say
that
I
don't
want
to
miss
something,
that's
important
to
you,
because
I
simply
don't
know
that
it's
important
to
you
and
I
will
continue
if
you
like
the
format
to
present
what
I
have
based
on
the
experience
that
I
have,
but
obviously
there's
something
that's
relevant
to
that.
That
needs
to
be
brought
up
by
all
means,
bring
it
to
the
table
and
if
we're
not
ready
to
go
through
it,
we'll
do
what
we
did
before,
which
we'll
put
in
the
parking
lot.
I
see
a
hand
by
miss
golding.
G
Yeah
so
cliff,
I
I
like
what
you
did
and
how
you
presented
the
suggestions
and
and
is
that
something
that
you
could
potentially
send
to
us
say
a
few
days
in
advance
so
that
we
can
review
it
and
then
that
way
we
might
have
a
little
more
meaningful
input.
You
know
and
and
actually
have
some
time
to
digest
the
suggestions
too.
B
Yeah
and
the
reason
that
didn't
happen,
this
time
is
completely
on
me.
I
actually
did
not
realize
and
that's
again
it's
all
me.
I
did
not
realize
that
as
the
agenda
was
set
up
because
I
delivered
you
didn't
look
at
it
till
like
2
30
or
whenever
jacob
sent
it
to
me
that
I
was
the
meeting
I
thought
I
was
going
to
sit
there
and
be
on
the
sidelines.
B
While
you
all
figured
out
what
you
wanted
to
do,
and
I
would
just
be
described
and
answer
legal
questions
so
then,
when
I
realized
wait
a
minute,
I
am
the
meeting.
That's
when
I
said
okay.
Well,
I
better
start
putting
something
together,
so
it
will
be
my
full
intention
in
the
future
and
we
can
use
an
agenda
deadline
that
might
give
me
whether
it's
the
wednesday
before
or
you
know,
48
hours
whatever
he
thinks
is
appropriate
and
I'll
do
that.
B
But
I
will
follow
the
same
format
so
that
you'll
see
the
sections
as
they
read
highlight
the
portions
that
I
think
need
to
be
discussed
and
then
my
suggestions
for
how
you
may
want
to
formulate
the
discussion.
And
then,
if
you
get
into
that
further
from
my
own
personal
experience,
why?
I
think
it's
worthy
of
the
discussion.
G
B
B
D
And
I
just
have
a
little
clarity
to
close
up
this
meeting.
So
on
section
one
of
the
charter,
it's
a
revisit
comes
back
to
us
in
a
briefing.
Then
we
decide
if
we
want
to
go
to
workshops.
Section
two
comes
back
to
us
in
a
briefing
and
with
data.
Well,
in
the
briefing
we
decide
what
data
we
need
to
be
able
to
make
a
good
decision
on
section
two.
So
those
are
the
two
in
the
parking
lot
and
you
promise
not
to
let
the
parking
lot
get
too
full
section.
Three.
D
We
have
made
a
decision
to
revise
the
two
consecutive
terms
so
that
the
first
term
is
still
the
same.
The
second
term
would
start
on
day
one
and
if
you
were
to
resign
any
time
in
your
second
term,
it's
considered
a
complete
term.
Gender
neutrality,
not
just
for
section
three
but
throughout
the
charter.
So
you
kind
of
you
got
the
charge
on
the
gender
neutrality
there
and
then,
with
regard
to
council
salaries,
cities
of
comparable
size
and
form
of
government.
D
B
A
B
I
believe
so,
and
let
me
suggest
to
you
that,
how
I,
how
that
that's
a
very
important
part,
I
will
have
a
running
log
if
you
will
the
reason
I
went
ahead
and
suggested
language
for
the
things
that
I
brought
up
is
that
if
those
language,
if
that
language
was
acceptable,
then
everything
writes
itself.
B
What
you'll
see
at
the
end
of
this
process,
and
I
think
it
was
fairly
spelled
out
to
you
when
we
discussed
it
when
y'all
were
considering
how
to
proceed,
it's
an
ordinance
to
send
it
to
the
voters
and
if
we
are
have
agreed
there
will
be
a
a
place
again
to
address
these
things,
because
they'll
all
be
rolled
into
an
ordinance
as
questions
summaries,
an
actual
amendment
language.
So
you
have
the
ballot
title.
The
summary
shall
the
city
of
jacks
beach
charter
be
amended,
say
or
san
pedro
or
whatever
name.
B
You
are
at
that
time,
san
pablo
and
shall
it
be
changed
to
be
such
and
such
yes
or
no,
and
then
underneath?
That
is
the
entirety
of
the
change
in
context.
So
someone
reading
it
now,
that's
not
what
shows
up
on
the
ballot,
but
that
is
so
in
the
ordinance.
Anybody
who
reads
the
ordinance
can
see
the
full
amendment,
not
just
the
summary
and
the
the
title
on
the
ballot
itself,
so
I'm
sure
you've
seen
it
before
the
amendment
might
be.
You
know
500
words
long,
but
the
ballot.
B
In
summary,
the
title
is
15
words
and
the
summary
is
no
more
than
75..
So
that's
why
I
have
that's
kind
of
where
I
come
in
is
I
have
to
accurately
summarize
so
it
passes
legality
everything.
That's
in
the
however
many
words
thereafter,
so
that
it'll
pass
muster.
If
there's
a
legal
challenge,
that's
my
problem,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I'll
keep
a
running,
tally
and
I'll
be
bringing
back
to
you
along
the
way.
B
B
A
And
cliff
you've
you
brought
up
a
topic
or
you're
discussing
a
topic
that
I
think
is
is
probably
right
for
a
question.
Obviously,
there's
the
possibility
that
there's
going
to
be
multiple
ballot
questions
for
the
citizens
of
jacksonville
beach
to
vote
upon.
We
do
have
66
sections
within
our
charter.
B
If
I,
if
I
could
tell
you
the
answer,
I'd
also
be
picking
my
lottery
numbers.
You
know,
there's
the
old
story
about
the
the
man
who
constantly
prays
to
god
for
the
winning
lottery
ticket
and
at
some
point
god
says,
after
years
and
years
of
hearing
the
same
prayer,
hey
look,
you
got
to
do
me
a
favor
and
buy
a
ticket.
B
So
at
the
end
of
the
day,
all
I
can
tell
you
is
longer
is
not
your
friend
if
there
is
a
way
to
combine
like
with
like,
even
though
it
violates
my
single
subject
issue
if
they
are
related
such
that,
if
you
change
one
part,
it
makes
sense
that
you'll
be
changing
another
part,
you
might
cut
down
the
number
of
questions
by
doing
that,
but
this
is
why
more
frequent,
whether
that's
five
or
ten
or
seven
or
some
other
number
amendment
versus
long
periods,
where
you
then
have
longer
ballots
to
deal
with,
is
you
know
it
can
be
an
advantage,
but
there's
no
magic
number?
B
I
will
hope
that
we
will
have
sections
tonight
or,
as
we
go
forward,
that
don't
require
amending
at
least
not
now,
but
we
also
may
make
a
value
judgment
right.
We
may
go
through
and
say
based
on,
what's
important
to
us
substantively,
even
though
we
see
where
this
could
be
amended
just
to
shorten
the
ballot,
we
will
leave
it
off
for
now.
B
That's
your
call
you'll
be
presented
with
the
option
to
put
all
or
nothing
or
some
version
in
between,
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
had
suggested
early
on
that
the
decision
making
be
left
at
your
level
so
that
you
didn't
have
to
disappoint
some
member
of
a
citizen
appointed
charter
review.
Who
said
well.
That
was
my
thing.
I
really
wanted
that
thing
yeah,
but
there's
not
room,
you
know.
So
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
suggested
that
mayor.
I
see
your
your
hand
is
up.
E
Yeah
I
just
I
wanted
to
thank
you
for
for
jumping
in
and
guiding
us
through
this
process.
You're
really
helping
us
go
through
it
really
smoothly,
especially
for
our
first
time
out,
and
I
to
that
point,
I
think
that
they're,
you
know
when
we
get
to
the
end
and
we
look
at
the
list.
We
can
certainly
prioritize
and
maybe
push
things
off
for
for
two
years.
E
From
now
like
we
did,
you
know,
we've
already
had
two
items
on
the
ballot
for
as
part
of
our
charter
review,
so
it
might
make
sense
to
spread
that
out
a
little
bit,
especially
since
it
has
been
so
long
since
this
has
been
done,
and
then
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
to
my
colleagues
that
the
if
you
hadn't
gotten
that
far
noticed
already
section
50
addresses
the
quota
license
again,
so
it's
actually
in
our
charter
twice.
So
that
might
be
the
logical
next
time
it
comes.
B
A
A
Change
briefing
is
obviously
going
to
be
a
standalone
topic,
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
schedule
that
accordingly,
for
the
purposes
of
discussing
section
2
regarding
the
quota
licenses,
would
you
like
us
to
try
and
fit
that
in
at
next
monday's
briefing,
just
to
at
least
see
if,
over
the
weekend,
you've
had
some
thoughts
as
to
what
types
of
information
you
may
you
might
need
for
further
consideration,
karen's
going
to
be
running
that
particular
briefing,
but
if
we
limit
it
to
what
pieces
of
information
do
you
think
you
will
need,
then
that
gives
both
cliff
and
I
something
to
work
off
of
so
maybe
that's
a
starting
point
prior
to
bringing
it
back
to
a
full
briefing
topic,
but
that
would
be
my
hope
is
that
we
can
just
put
an
item
on
there.
A
H
Mike
real
quick
since
we're
a
little
ahead
of
schedule,
you
had
mentioned
three
things
that
we
kind
of
had
come
to
a
consensus
on
and
I'm
like
councilmember
dumas
I
like
to
take
notes.
Would
you
just
review
those?
I
got
that
we
need
change.
It's
a
maybe
antiquated
language,
possibly
add
new
licenses
and
possibly
move
out
of
section
two.
Is
that
some
good
kind
of
summary.
A
Yeah,
I
think,
we've
I
think
everyone's
on
the
same
page
with
that
that
the
intoxicating
liquors
and
whiskey
is
not
in
alignment
with
current
states.
A
A
So
with
that
being
said,
that
ends
for
tonight.
Think
about
the
information
you
need
with
regards
to
the
liquor
quota
licenses
for
monday,
and
we
will
go
ahead
and
set
up
a
separate
briefing
for
name
change
discussion
and
then
we
have
our
next
meeting
for
charter
review
is
scheduled
on
thursday
may
27th.
A
So
we
will
try
to
get
you
that
information
in
advance,
not
just
cliff's
information
with
his
discussion
topics,
but
if
there's
also
any
input
from
staff,
we
will
combine
it
with
cliff's
document
to
provide
to
you.