A discussion unfolded regarding the interpretation of the city’s charter in relation to the process of appointing a city manager following a vacancy. The charter’s Sections 3.01 and 3.03 became focal points, with one indicating the mayor’s authority to nominate a city manager and the other outlining a separate process involving a search committee in cases of termination or removal. A motion was made to form a committee with the specific charge of locating a city manager and the flexibility to define the committee’s operational terms. However, concerns were raised about the potential conflict of interest based on the perception created by the outside counsel’s disclosure of their prior relationship with former city officials.

The debate intensified when a council member voiced their intention to motion for the establishment of a committee to undertake the search for a new city manager, aligning their perspective with the opinion provided by outside legal counsel. The legal opinion, which stated that the appropriate step was to set up a committee and initiate the search process, was emphasized as unbiased. Another council member raised concerns about the residents’ decision in the November 2014 ballot, which favored the mayor nominating city managers for council approval, and suggested that the current charter committee could re-examine the issue for possible inclusion in the November ballot.

The mayor challenged the thoroughness of the legal analysis presented, which they viewed as a “legal gymnastics” to arrive at a particular conclusion. They expressed frustration over what they perceived as a violation of the charter and the will of the voters. Despite accepting the need for a committee, the mayor insisted that the intent of the provision was for mayoral nomination, not a committee process.

A motion was passed to schedule a special meeting on February 20th at 10:00 a.m. for the council to provide their appointments to the city manager search committee. The council then moved on to the next agenda item, which involved an employment agreement for an interim city manager.

During the meeting, a council member presented a resume for a new interim city manager, Katie Brooks, proposing to amend the current agenda item to appoint her. The amendment led to a debate on whether this action would violate the charter’s provisions on submitting and advertising agenda items. The city attorney clarified that the charter requires items to be submitted seven days in advance, with supporting documentation provided four days before the meeting.

Ultimately, a motion to defer the appointment of a new interim city manager to the specified date was seconded. The interim city manager acknowledged the situation and clarified his understanding of the protections already afforded to him. The council also discussed the appointment of a search committee for the selection of a city attorney, with each council member nominating themselves. The motion was made and seconded to approve the nominations, and the motion passed unanimously.

Another notable discussion revolved around the resignation of the City Attorney. The City Attorney, whose firm had provided a letter of resignation, was asked about the circumstances leading to the resignation. The City Attorney described the decision as a business one and confirmed that the firm would fulfill its contractual obligation of providing 60 days’ notice, although they were open to waiving this period if the Council chose a different interim. The City Attorney’s resignation was not sought by all council members, with some expressing satisfaction with the services provided and reluctance to accept the resignation.

The council then addressed legislative resolutions, including one urging the Florida legislature to enact legislation to revise the distribution method of collected tourist and convention development taxes. The resolution sought to allocate 50% of these revenues to municipalities based on the amount collected within each municipality, potentially generating about $5 million for the Doral city budget. The funds could be used for infrastructure, business, tourism, police services, and overall city prosperity. Support for this resolution was unanimously passed.

Another resolution supported House Bill 3, which aimed to prohibit access to material harmful to minors and mandate the implementation of reasonable age verification methods by commercial entities publishing such material. The resolution’s intent was to protect children from accessing harmful content online, especially in a family-oriented community like Doral. A motion to approve the resolution was passed unanimously.

The council also tackled the issue of Lake Drive, a private road used by thousands of residents in multiple communities. The road’s condition, including the lack of sidewalks and flooding issues, was of concern. The council discussed collaborating with the road’s managing associations to improve conditions, as the perception was that the road was public when it was, in fact, private. The legal implications of using municipal funds for private purposes were explained; such action would be prohibited under state law. However, the city attorney mentioned that other options, such as setting up a municipal service benefit unit where residents could be specially assessed, might be a possible solution.

The recent Doral City Council meeting also covered infrastructure issues, particularly concerning the installation of new pumps to aid water flow in certain areas. There was agreement on the necessity of conducting studies to determine the best options and to ensure that any actions taken would not lead to legal challenges. The council expressed a desire to explore alternatives that would not expose the city to future liabilities concerning their funds.