One of the meeting’s discussions centered on a proposed charter amendment concerning the use of eminent domain for acquiring dredge and spoil sites. The debate involved whether to include the term “City” in the proposal’s title, as this could impact public perception of who holds authority for such actions. While some members argued for its inclusion to prevent misunderstandings, others felt the city charter inherently implies municipal actions. Eventually, the motion to accept the paragraph and title as initially written passed unanimously.

The committee also deliberated on a proposal to increase the exemption threshold for real property transactions requiring a public referendum from $350,000 to $500,000. This amendment aimed to streamline city property dealings by reducing the number of transactions needing voter approval. The discussion on this item was brief, and the proposal was accepted without opposition.

Another topic was the requirement for the Board of Commissioners to review charter-mandated funding requirements when adopting the city budget. The amendment sought to ensure the budget aligns with the city’s charter obligations, addressing past issues like those related to the sidewalk fund. A suggestion was made to include a narrative summary with the ballot to clarify the funding requirements’ intent without altering charter language. This approach was viewed as a way to enhance public understanding while maintaining legal integrity. The committee voted in favor of this amendment.

Additionally, the committee discussed extending the review cycle for comprehensive and master plans from three to five years and including sustainability and strategic plans. There was a debate on whether to separate these issues into distinct questions for clarity. Ultimately, a consensus was reached to adjust the amendment’s title to reflect the inclusion of additional plans and the change in review periods. This decision aimed to ensure the amendment accurately depicted the committee’s objectives and respected the charter’s legal framework.

The meeting also addressed a proposed amendment regarding the city manager’s role in prioritizing future capital improvement programs. The committee debated whether the city manager should “require” or “recommend” prioritization. After thorough discussion, members agreed on language that recognized the city manager’s expertise while affirming the Board of Commissioners’ ultimate authority over budgetary decisions. This balanced approach was seen as a way to facilitate informed decision-making without creating potential conflicts.

Further amendments discussed included changes to the residency requirements for certain city officials and increasing the city manager’s spending limit without competitive bidding. The committee approved an amendment requiring the city manager, assistant city manager, fire chief, and police chief to reside within the city’s planning boundaries. The threshold for spending without competitive bidding was proposed to increase from $25,000 to $50,000.

Another area of focus was the sidewalk Improvement fund and plan. The committee deliberated on whether to maintain the existing fund or develop a new comprehensive plan for sidewalk improvements. Members highlighted the need for a strategic approach to addressing sidewalk issues rather than relying on immediate, piecemeal solutions. A motion to simplify the amendment language was made but lacked support.

The committee also reviewed amendments aimed at updating the city charter to reflect the current name of the city-owned hospital and correcting grammar and scrivener errors. These proposals were straightforward and met with approval.