The discussion around the city’s form of government was comprehensive, with members evaluating the commission-manager form currently in place. Attention was given to the challenges faced by commissioners who work full-time jobs, with concerns raised about the city commission business not being their primary focus. The transition to a new form of government was also considered, particularly the implications for the unexpired terms of current commissioners and the mayor. In contrast to concerns, there was a consensus that the current form of government has served Palatka well.

In the debate, the committee examined compensation for elected officials under different government models and compared them to structures in other cities. One member noted that a majority of Florida’s cities operate under a city manager system. After deliberation, the committee’s unanimous vote signified a preference to continue with the established framework.

The committee also tackled the issue of election cycles and the terms of commissioners. Clarity was sought on the election schedule, with acknowledgment that elections occur every two years and that commissioner terms are staggered. One point of discussion was a paragraph in the charter pertaining to changes made in 2005, which was explained as a cost-saving measure to align city elections with county elections.

Further discussions included the timing of mayoral elections, set off-year from presidential elections. The impact of this timing on voter turnout and the number of commissioners engaged in midterm elections was debated. Opinions were split on term limits; some members voiced concerns about the steep learning curve for new commissioners, while others highlighted the importance of continuity. Despite varying perspectives, the committee decided to retain the existing term limits for the city commission and mayor.

The election process itself was another topic of debate, specifically the choice between at-large voting and district representation. The pros and cons of each method were weighed, including the need for equitable representation of all city areas and the allocation of resources for city parks. One member supported the idea that commissioners should reside in the districts they represent. While the committee recognized the need for further discussion on this matter, it was agreed to revisit this topic in the future.

The possibility of creating subcommittees was a recurring subject throughout the meeting. Members expressed differing views on the necessity and timing of forming subcommittees to review specific sections of the city charter. While some members saw value in subcommittees for in-depth analysis and expert consultations, others were concerned about the limitations imposed by the Sunshine Law. The city attorney clarified that subcommittees could be exempt from the Sunshine Law if they were strictly on fact-finding missions. After considerable debate, the committee voted in favor of using subcommittees as needed, with the understanding that they would report back to the full committee.

The committee addressed the timeline for the charter review process, stressing the importance of adhering to deadlines, especially if subcommittees were to be involved. This underscored the need to ensure that all charter review activities were completed within the established timeframe for an efficient process.

Article Two, addressing the composition of the city manager plan commission, sparked a suggestion to consider other forms of government to confirm the current structure’s suitability. The committee also examined the necessity of a $5,000 bond for city commissioners and the process for judging their elections and qualifications, leading to a motion to create a subcommittee to review these specific sections.