At the forefront of the meeting was the discussion on the board’s recommendations regarding the election cycle. Members considered the repercussions should voters reject the proposed amendments, particularly the changes to the election cycle and how to align with the charter’s language. The city attorney, in collaboration with the board, discussed the potential of adjusting election dates via ordinance as a contingency. The board resolved to recommend their amendments to the commission, while recognizing the possibility of needing a long-term solution if the voters disapprove.

Another point of discussion was the board’s advocacy strategy. Members debated the timing and extent of their involvement in advocating for the recommendations. Differing opinions emerged on whether it was appropriate to begin advocating before the city commission had voted on the proposals. Some members suggested that engaging with the public early could sway the commission’s decision, while others felt that such advocacy might be premature. The board agreed on the importance of educating the public, with an emphasis on information rather than advocacy, due to the limitations on using public resources for such efforts.

The board also tackled the issue of commission compensation, specifically the resolution to increase the car and cell phone allowances for the mayor and commissioners. The total proposed compensation for the mayor stood at $59,904, with the office of commissioner at $59,638. A debate ensued regarding the accuracy of these figures and whether the mayor’s compensation should be higher in reflection of additional responsibilities. The final numbers provided by Human Resources were scrutinized for precision before being accepted.

Members discussed the process of presenting their findings to local organizations and the general public, with an aim to schedule individual briefings with commissioners before the May meeting. The board was intent on transmitting the final report to the commissioners promptly and agreed on an expedited timeline for the upcoming events, which included these briefings.

The meeting also touched upon the board’s operational timeline, specifically the sunset date of the board’s mandate. There was a clarification on the sunset date, with some members initially referencing June 12th, but it was eventually affirmed that the actual date was June 30th. Further actions contingent on the city commission’s decisions were contemplated, including the possibility of the board reconvening to work on the recommendations further or concluding its duties after the sunset date.

In addition to these main topics, the board members also discussed the thematic introduction of the report and the reorganization of the list of speakers within it. Although the idea of including an alternative recommendation in the report was considered, the board decided to maintain their unanimous recommendation.

The meeting concluded with the board formally accepting the report and acknowledging the staff for their work. The members discussed the procedure for the report’s transmission to the city commission.