Cape Coral City Council rejected what may have been the most controversial change proposed by the Charter Review Commission but directed the city attorney to explore a total revamp of who runs the day-to-day operations of the city Wednesday.<\/p>\n
The review commission tendered an amendment that would have both boosted Council compensation and allowed the elected board to determine its own raises in the future via a supermajority vote. It was nixed but Council added their own proposal to the mix \u2014 that voters elect the city\u2019s top administrator.<\/p>\n
Council voted 5-3 to direct the city attorney to develop language that would convert the city\u2019s long-standing city manager-council form of government to a strong mayor form of government. <\/p>\n
Currently, voters elect a mayor and seven council members who constitute the city council, which sets policy. The city council then appoints a city manager to run the city\u2019s day-to-day operations.<\/p>\n
Under a strong mayor form of government, an elected mayor is the city\u2019s chief executive who oversees all administrative functions.<\/p>\n
Councilmembers Joe Kilraine, Bill Steinke, and Dr. Derrick Donnell voted against having the attorney draft language for a referendum to possibly go before voters, the only way city charter changes may be made.<\/p>\n
Councilmember Keith Long brought the change forward at the end of the special meeting, saying he is a strong advocate for strong mayor form of government. <\/p>\n
He said the city currently has a flawed system, as a non-elected city manager currently controls all administrative operations, including hiring, directs all department heads, and controls the budget process.<\/p>\n
The city manager controls the city\u2019s budget because the position controls what information is emphasized and minimized and how financial staff is directed on how to present the information to council and the public, according to Long.<\/p>\n
He pointed out that since a city manager is not elected, he or she can not be voted out by unhappy voters.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt, unfortunately, falls on us. In a strong mayor form of government, it is all flipped,\u201d Long said, adding that when they look at the top five out of seven largest cities, each has a strong mayor form of government. <\/p>\n
Let\u2019s \u201cput our big-boy pants on to grow as we need to,\u201d Long said.<\/p>\n
A strong mayor form of government answers directly to the people every election cycle, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt worked with the school district. They put it to the voters, it passed, and immediately you see the results,\u201d Long said. \u201cYou have greater transparency. Greater accountability. Measurable budget reductions, fiscal responsibility. The voters deserve to make the decision.\u201d<\/p>\n
Long said it was not his desire to make the final decision Wednesday. What he wanted was to start the process of drafting the language to see what it would look like and start educating the public.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are not banging the gavel, and it is done and we can\u2019t go back. Residents deserve for us to flesh it out and see where we can go with it,\u201d Long said.<\/p>\n
The dissenting council members rejected the change out of hand.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat job needs to be done by the most highly qualified person, and it is not to say that person lives in Cape Coral at this moment,\u201d \u00a0Steinke said. \u201cI couldn\u2019t support it. The qualifications required to actually be put in charge of all of those things is a more lengthy process and a competitive process. The scope of candidates comes from a broader base that might be broader than the city limits.\u201d<\/p>\n
Kilraine was also \u201ctotally against it,\u201d as he said in order to have an operational, functional process to run the city, there needs to be someone with an experience level across many parameters that an average candidate on the street would not bring to the table.<\/p>\n
The magnitude of the change gave Donnell pause.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are way too far in front of this with that magnitude to put it on the ballot at this point. We don\u2019t have any information about how it would play out in the city. I am strongly against it today to put it on the ballot today,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Long argued that not putting it on the ballot would be depriving voters, a big mistake.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have a staff-driven government,\u201d he said. \u201cWith a strong mayor form of government, (they have the) same individual that works under the strong mayor to make those decisions. They still have experience, operational control \u2014 someone above them that is directly accountable to the electorate.\u201d<\/p>\n
Other council members supported verbiage going on the ballot for voter consideration.<\/p>\n
\u201cI have done a lot of research on the strong mayor form of government. Our city is getting to the size to consider that, or allow voters to choose,\u201d Councilmember Jennifer Nelson-Lastra said. \u201cI just feel we are growing. I like the accountability factor. Our system is flawed and I think the accountability piece is spot on. I would support this to go on the ballot and allow residents to decide.\u201d<\/p>\n
If the voters decide this is the route they want, naturally they will receive higher-qualified candidates, she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt would be a big job. We know we always have room for improvement,\u201d Nelson-Lastra said. \u201cHigher-qualified candidates to run in that role, that would definitely elevate our city.\u201d<\/p>\n
City Manager Michael Ilczyczyn said he has had numerous spirited discussions with Long for more than a year.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have shared dialogue back and forth. I appreciate everything that has been brought up,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Ilczyszyn highlighted a few \u201crelevant points\u201d for the council to consider.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou have a professional-run government. We run on a standard of principles, ethics and policy. In many cases, someone who is running an organization runs on the voter who is before them. That is how they run the organization,\u201d he said. \u201cThere are studies out there. IBM performed one of them. That study showed that a city management and a government run by a professional city manager was 10% more efficient than one run by an elected official. If there is an issue with accountability with a professional city manager, five of you can handle that next week, next month. An issue with an elected official, you could be stuck with them for four years, unless a criminal violation when the governor removes them.\u201d<\/p>\n
With a city manager, accountability can be reached quicker. In addition, he said there is not a cost savings with a strong mayor government, as they would hire more staff.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf I did something wrong, immoral, or illegal, you all can handle that tomorrow. If a mayor, a strong mayor (does something) the electorate doesn\u2019t like then it becomes a battle between the council and the mayor at that point,\u201d Ilczyszyn said. \u201cI will continue to share stuff. I am humbled by the opportunity to sit in this position every day. I understand it is an electorate decision for something of that change. My goal is to make sure the electorate has the information to understand what a change of that magnitude would bring.\u201d<\/p>\n
If the electors voted for a strong mayor government \u2014 the only way any charter change could be implemented \u2014 the change would not be immediate but would follow the next election where voters would elect a mayor for four years or some other term of office.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is not something that happens tomorrow,\u201d Long said. \u201cIt\u2019s a minimum of four years if we make that decision today.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mayor John Gunter said to have a strong mayor form of government is not the council\u2019s decision at all.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think we are the last people that should be making that determination. Back in 1970 when our city was incorporated, they chose a city manager form of government, and that is what they chose,\u201d he said. \u201cWe are the seventh largest city in the state of Florida, we will certainly be a top five city in some point in time. The decision is the citizens\u2019 \u2013 230,000 people.\u201d<\/p>\n
Gunter said he is looking at the future of the city and for that reason he would support giving the voters the choice.<\/p>\n
\u201cI have no problem letting the city attorney draft the language, for me personally, then I will decide if I want to support it or not,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
City Attorney Aleksandr Boksner said a strong mayor form of government would require him to alter the charter extensively. He said putting it on the General Election ballot next year would give him the most amount of time to work on the language, so that Council could have it well in advance.<\/p>\n
Council will have the opportunity to discuss the language at a future workshop. If it ultimately passes by the electorate, the strong mayor form of government would become effective in 2030 with some lead time to allow for a transitional period.<\/p>\n
\u201cI will have to restructure the entire charter and then I have to be mindful of what you did today. We may want to do away with that. There will be inconsistencies now \u2013 one passes and one fails. That might be a problem,\u201d Boksner said.<\/p>\n
Gunter said he would still like to see the other items discussed and given consensus for, as whatever passes in the primary would be effective up until 2030.<\/p>\n
Council also gave direction to Boksner to work on language for other sections of the charter as proposed by the Charter Review Commission.<\/p>\n
\u201cToday\u2019s meeting is basically to give the city attorney direction on which topics generally to bring back to Council with the verbiage that would be presented with the referendum,\u201d Gunter said.<\/p>\n
Charter Review Commission proposals that moved forward include, 4.02 \u2014 mayor and city council, 4.05 \u2013 candidate qualifications and election, 4.06 \u2013 mayor, mayor pro tem and 4.11 \u2013 vacancies, forfeiture of office, filling of vacancies.<\/p>\n
These are mostly housekeeping measures.<\/p>\n
The Council opted to not move forward with 4.08 \u2013 council and mayor compensation and expenses. The proposed language would have brought Council members\u2019 pay to $70,000 and the mayor to $80,000 with three big procedural ifs \u2013 if Council agreed to ballot language approved or developed by the city attorney\u2019s office; if Council voted to place the amendment on the primary or general election ballot next year and if voters approved the change at the polls.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt has a lot to do with the time and current affairs, and current economy and the resident struggle on compensation and where we are now. We need to further discuss this,\u201d Kilraine said.<\/p>\n
Gunter agreed that he could not support moving the proposed verbiage forward for legal consideration en route to the ballot.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t want to put something on the ballot that I don\u2019t think has a chance,\u201d he said. \u201cI would bet every penny I have \u2013 (if we) move this forward we are not going to get the votes we need to move this particular verbiage to get it approved.\u201d<\/p>\n