HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 04 12 Consent 202
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM 202
Consent X
Informational
Public Hearing
Regular
April 12. 2004
Meeting
Mgr. /
Att. /
Dept.
REQUEST:
The City Attorney requests that the City Commission consider adopting Resolution No. 2004-12,
establishing a formal policy for the public to address the Mayor and City Commission at public
meetings.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of Resolution No. 2004-12 is the establish a formal written policy for addressing the
Mayor and City Commission at public meetings.
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
1. Florida Municipal Home Rule Powers Act
2. Rowe v. City of Cocoa, 358 F.3d 800 (U.S. 11th Cir. 2004)
CONSIDERA TIONS:
Per Rowe v. City of Cocoa:
1. The First Amendment does not guarantee persons the right to communicate their views at all
times or in any manner that may be desired.
Page 1 of 2
2. City Commission meetings are limited public forums which access may be restricted, without
violating the First Amendment.
3. The City Commission may adopt content neutral conditions for the time, place and manner of
access to the Mayor and City Commission at public meetings. Such conditions must be tailored to
serve some significant government interest.
4. A significant government interest includes conducting orderly and efficient public meetings of
the City Commission.
5. City Commission meetings are not open for endless public commentary, but are limited public
platforms to discuss the topic at hand.
6. The Equal Protection clause does not guarantee nonresidents or non-taxpayers of the City the
right to speak at City Commission meetings.
7. Resolution 2004-12 is substantially similar to the resolution upheld in Rowe v. Cocoa.
Modifications were made, however, to tailor Resolution 2004-12 to the past practices of the City of
Winter Springs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Attorney recommends that the City Commission adopt formal written rules for the public
to address the Mayor and City Commission at public meetings.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Resolution No.: 2004 -12
2. Rowe v. City of Cocoa
COMMISSION ACTION:
The City Commission previously directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution which would
establish formal written rules for the public to address the Mayor and City Commission at public
meetings.
G:\Docs\City of Winter Springs\Agenda\PublicAddress.2004-12. wpd
Page 2 of 2
http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.htrnl?. ..38BAFFCB5 5DOFDBA06&dest=atp&format= HTML
Copr. @ West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
WeSflaw:
{ ...-'
358 FJd 800
17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 200
(Cite as: 358 FJd 800)
H
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Clarence ROWE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF COCOA, FLORIDA, Judy Parrish, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-14262
Non-Argument Calendar.
Jan. 28, 2004.
Background: Nomesident of city brought civil rights action challenging, as alleged violation of his free speech and equal
protection rights, a residency restriction that allowed city council members to decline to hear argument at their meetings by
persons who were not residents or taxpayers of city. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, No.
02- 01295-0RL-31KRS, Gregory A. Presnell, 1., 2003 WL 22102150._granted mayor's motion for summary judgment on
qualified immunity defense, and subsequently entered judgment in favor. of city and mayor, and plaintiff appealed from
judgment in favor of city.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals held that:
ULresidency restriction, as content-neutral restriction designed to promote orderly and efficient conduct of such meetings,
did not violate free speech rights of nomesidents; and
mrestriction did not violate equal protection rights ofnomesidents.
AffIrmed.
West Headnotes
illConstitutional Law €;:;::>90(3)
92k90(3) Most Cited Cases
Freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment is not inviolate; the First Amendment does not guarantee persons
the right to communicate their views at all times or in any m~er that may be desired. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1 .
In Constitutional Law €;:;::>90.1 (4)
92k90.1( 4) Most Cited Cases
City commission meetings are "limited public fora," access to which may be restricted, without violating the First
Amendment, by content-neutral conditions for the time, place and manner of access, as long as these conditions are narrowly
tailored to serve some significant government interest. U.S. C.A. Const.Amend. I .
ill Constitutional Law €=90.1 (1)
92k90.](l) Most Cited Cases
There is significant governmental interest, of kind sufficient to support content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions, in
lof4
3/31/2004 1:22 PM
http://print.westlaw.com/delivery .htrnl? ...38BAFFCB55DOFDBA06&dest=alp&format=HTML
conducting orderly, efficient meetings of public bodies. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. ] .
ffi Constitutional Law <C=>90.1 (1)
92k90.1O) Most Cited Cases
f.1l.Municipal Corporations <C=>92
268k92 Most Cited Cases
Residency restriction that allowed city council members to decline to hear argument at their meetings by persons who were
not residents or taxpayers of city, as content-neutral restriction designed to promote orderly and efficient conduct of such
meetings, did not violate free speech rights ofnomesidents. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1 .
ill.. Constitutional Law <C=>90.1 (4)
92k90.J( 4) Most Cited Cases
As limited public fora, for First Amendment purposes, city council meetings are not open for endless public commentary
speech, but are simply limited platform to discuss topic at hand. V.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 1 .
[Ql Constitutional Law <C=>225.1
92k225.1 Most Cited Cases
[QlMunicipal Corporations <C=>92
2681<92 Most Cited Cases
Residency restriction that allowed city council members to decline to hear argument at their meetings by persons who were
not residents or taxpayers of city reasonably restricted individuals who could speak at meetings to those who had direct stake
in business of city, and did not violate equal protection rights ofnomesidents. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. ]4 .
11lConstitutional Law <C=>211(1)
- 92k211 (1) Most Cited Cases
Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid classifications; it simply keeps governmental
decisionmakers from treating differently persons who are in all relevant aspects alike. U.S. C.A. Const.Amend. ] 4 .
*801 Lisa Kuhlman Tietig. Mark Tietig, Tietig & Tietig, Merritt Island, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Erin 1. O'Leary, Usher L. Brown, Brown, Salzman, Weiss & Garganese, P.A., Orlando, FL, Anthony A. Garganese , City
Atty., Cocoa, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before TJOFLA T , MARCUS and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal of the denial of a facial challenge to a City of Cocoa, F]orida regulation limiting the speech of
non-residents during its City Council's meetings. Article X of City Council's Rules of Procedure, entitled "ADDRESSING
THE COUNCIL," sets forth the following in relevant part:
In its discretion, the council may set aside up to thirty minutes of each regular meeting for "delegations." The purpose of
such delegations shall be for any resident or taxpayer of the city to make hislher views known to the city council upon any
subject of general or public interest.
* * *
The council recognizes that delegations is for the purpose oflegitimate inquiries *802 and discussion by the public and not
for the purpose of advancing arguments or repetitious questions concerning matters which the council believes to be
closed or not of general public concern. The council shall have the right at any delegations to decline to hear any person
or any subject matter upon proper motion and majority vote by the council.
(Emphasis supplied). Furthermore, by a majority vote, the Council "may decline to hear any person who is not a resident or
taxpayer of the City" subject to certain exceptions, such as, for example, if a user of the city's water or sewer system wishes
to be heard on a related matter.
This Court holds that the City Council's Rules of Procedure on their face are a permissible limitation of speech to
2 of4
3/31/2004 I :22 PM
http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?. ..3 8BAFFCB55DOFDBA06&dest=atp&format=HTMl
non-residents at the limited public forum of a City Council meeting and thus neither :violates the First nor Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution.
Plaintiff Clarence Rowe, a non .resident of Defendant City of Cocoa, regularly attended City of Cocoa Council meetings,
speaking several times on matters of general interest and public concern. At two particular meetings held on April 23, 2002
and July 9, 2002, Mayor Judy Parrish invoked and applied the residency rule, limiting non-resident Rowe's comments during
the public comment portion-- i.e. , "the delegations"--of the City Council's meeting to those relevant to, inter alia, the
Council's agenda for that plU1icular meeting.
Rowe ultimately brought this suit against the City and Mayor Parrish under 42 V.S.C. Ii 1983 for declaratory, injunctive and
compensatory relief, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression, as well as a
violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. In a well-reasoned order, the district court, inter alia,
granted summary judgment to Parrish on all claims, and subsequently entered judgment in favor of both the City and Parrish.
Rowe appeals only the grant of summary judgment to the City. Specifically, he argues that the City's residency requirement
for speakers during City Council meeting is overbroad on its face and therefore violates (1) his First Amendment rights of
free speech and expression; and (2) his Fourteenth Amendment right to Equal Protection by making an impermissible
distinction between resident and non-resident classes.
ill. ill_ The City Council's Rules of Procedure do not, on their face, violate the First Amendment. "The freedom of
expression protected by the First Amendment is not inviolate; the Supreme Court has established that the First Amendment
does not guarantee persons the right to communicate their views 'at all times or in any manner that may be desired.' " Jones
v. Hevman. 888 F.2d 1328. 1331 (11 th Cir.l989t(quoting Heffron v. International Soc'v.hI. Krishna Consciousness. _ 452
U.S. 640. 647.101 S.C!. 2559. 69 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981)). This Court has held in Jones that a city commission meeting is one
forum where speech may be restricted" 'to specified subject matter.' " Jones._888 F.2d.M 1332.(quoting City of Madison
Joint School Dist. v. Wisconsin Emolovment Relations Comm'n, _ 429 U.S. 167. 176.11.Jl....21 S.C!. 421. 50 L.Ed.2d 376
Q2..ZQ)J. Stated differently, city commission meetings are "limited" public fora-- i. e., "a forum for certain groups of speakers
or for the discussion of certain subjects." Crowder v. Housing Auth...Qf.. City of Atlanta. 990 F.2d 586. 591 (11 th Cir.1993)
(citing Perry Educ. Ass'n. v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n.. 460 U.S. 37.46 n. 7. 103 S.Ct. 948. 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983) ). As
such, "the government may restrict access to limited *803 public fora by content-neutral conditions for the time, place, and
manner of access, all of which must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest." Id (citing Perry. 460
U.S. at 45-46. 103 S.C!. 948).
illThere is a significant governmental interest in conducting orderly, efficient meetings of public bodies. Jones. 888 F.2d at
1332. One recognized way to conduct orderly, efficient meetings under Jones is for public bodies, such as a city council, to
confine their meetings to specified subject matter. Id at 1333 (holding that the removal of a public speaker by the mayor at a
city commission meeting was not a First Amendment violation and thus permissible because "to deny the presiding officer
the authority to regulate irrelevant debate and disruptive behavior at a public meeting ... would cause such meetings to drag
on interminably, and deny others the opportunity to voice their opinions"); see also Kindt v. Santa Monica Rent Control Ed.
67 F.3d 266. 272 (9th Cir.1995U"Meetings of a public body do not become free-for-aIls simply because the body goes
beyond what a.member of the public believes (even correctly) to be the body's proper purview. "); Wright v. Anthonv. .733
F.2d 575. 577 (8th Cir.1984) _ (noting that restriction during public debate "may be said to have served a significant
governmental interest in conserving time and in ensuring that others had an opportunity to speak").
IillRHere, the City Council's Rules of Procedure set forth a structure intended to both hear members of the community and
to move its meetings along. For example, the Council permits residents or taxpayers to speak during its delegation portion of
the debate, limiting their speech to "legitimate inquiries and discussion by the public and not for the purpose of advancing
arguments or repetitious questions concerning matters which the council believes to be closed or not of general public
concern . "To permit repetitious questions and arguments not related to an agenda topic would be "to deny the presiding
officer the authority to regulate irrelevant' debate ... at a public meeting ... would cause such meetings to drag on
interminably, and deny others the opportunity to voice their opinions." Jones. 888 F.2d at 1333. As a limited public forum, a
city council meeting is not open for endless public commentary speech but instead is simply a limited platform to discuss the
topic at hand. The rules on their face simply do not impermissibly restrict speech.
IQl_Rowe next argues that the City Council's Rules of Procedure on their face violate the Equal Protection Clause to the
Fourteenth Amendment because they afford City of Cocoa residents more flexibility to speak at City Council meetings
during the Delegations portion of the meetings than non- residents. This distinction does not violate that Equal Protection
Clause.
ill"The Equal Protection Clause does not forbid classifications. It simply keeps governmental decisionmakers from treating
differently persons who are in all relevant aspects alike." Nordlinger v. Hahn. 505 U.S. 1. 10. 112 S.Ct. 2326. 120 L.Ed.2d 1
30f4
3/3 1/2004 I: 22 PM
http://print.westlaw.comldelivery.html?...3 8BAFFCB5 5DOFDBA06&dest=atp&format=HTMl
(1992) . City council meetings are held to conduct business meetings for the City and its residents. It is reasonable for a city
to restrict the individuals who may speak at meetings to those individuals who have a direct stake in the business of the city--
e.g., citizens of the city or those who receive a utility service from the city--so long as that restriction is not based on the
speaker's viewpoint.
A bona fide residency requirement, as we have here, does not restrict speech based on a speaker's viewpoint but instead
restricts speech at meetings on the basis of "'804 residency. See, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rector and VisitorsgUniversitv.2J
Virf!inia. 515 U.S. 819. 830. 115 S.Ct. 2510. 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995) (noting permissible distinction between content-based
. discrimination in limited public fora and impermissible distinction of viewpoint discrimination); see also Police DelJlt.2J
Chicaf!O v. Moslev. 408 U.S. 92. 96. 92 S.Ct. 2286. 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (972) ("Selective exclusions from a public forum may
not be based on content alone, and may not be justified by reference to content alone.").
As we have noted, there is a significant governmental interest in conducting orderly, efficient meetings that are limited to a
specific subject matter germane to an agenda at hand. Jones, _ 888 F.2d at 1332._ To permit non- residents, those without a
direct stake in the outcome of a City's business, to ramble aimlessly at City Council meetings on topics not related to agenda
items would be inefficient and would unreasonably usurp "the presiding officer the authority to regulate irrelevant debate ...
at a public meeting." Jd The restrictions in the challenged regulations are reasonable and viewpoint neutral.
Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to the City.
AFFIRMED.
358 F.3d 800, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 200
END OF DOCUMENT
40f4
3/31/2004 I :22 PM
Sent By: BROWN,SAlZMAN,WEISS&GARGANESE; 407 425 9596;
Apr-6-04 2:53PM;
Page 12/13
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM 202
Consent X
Informational
Public Hearing
Regular
April 12. 2004
Meeting
Mgr. I
ALL /
Dcpt.
REQUEST:
The City Altorney requests that the City Commission consider adopting Resolution No. 2004-12.
establishing a formal policy for the public to address the Mayor and City Commission at public
meetings.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of Resolution No. 2004-12 is the establish a formal written policy for addressing the
Mayor and City Commission at public meetings.
APPLICABLE LA \V AND PUBLIC POLICY:
1. Florida Municipal Home Rule Powers Act
2. Rowe v. City o{Cocoa, 358 F.3d 800 (lLS. 11th Cir. 2004)
CONSIDERATIONS:
Per Rowe v. Cily of Cocoa:
1. The First Amendment does not guarantee persons the right to C(lnunllnic~te their vicws at all
times or in any manner that may be desired.
Page 1 of 2
Sent By: BROWN,SALZMAN,WEISS&GARGANESEj 407 425 9596;
Apr-6-04 2:53PMj
Page 13/13
2. City Commission meetings are limited public forums which access may be restricted. without
violating the First Amendment.
3. The City Commission may adopt content neutral conditions for the time, place and manner of
access to the Mayor and City Commission at public meetings. Such conditions must be tailored to
serve some significant government interest.
4. A significant government interest includes conducting orderly and efficient public meetings of
the City Commission.
5. City Commil)sion meetings are not open for endless public commentary, but are limited public
platfomls to discuss the topic at hand.
6. The Equal Protection clause does not guarantee nonresidents or non-taxpayers of the City the
right to speak at City Commission meetings.
7. Resolulion 2004-12 is substantially similar to the resolution upheld in Rowe v. Cocoa.
Modi fica lions were made, however, to tailor Rcsoluti on 2004-12 10. the past practices of the City of
Winter Springs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Attorney recommends that the City Commission adopt formal writlen rules for the public
to address the Mayor and City Commission at public meetings.
A IT ACHMENT:
1. Resolution No.: 2004 -12
2. Rowe \I. City of Cocoa
COMMISSION ACTION:
The City Commission previously directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution which would
establish fOffilal written rules for the public to address the Mayor and City Commission at public
meetings.
G:\Doc.\l';ty of Winter Srrjn8SI.~S"l'lda\1'ublicAddrc.~$.ZOO4.12.wpcJ
Page 2 of 2
Sent By: BROWN,SALZMAN,WEISS&GARGANESE; 407 425 9596;
Apr-6-04 2:51PM;
Page 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2004~12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A
POLICY REGARDING THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO
ADDRESS THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION AT
PUBLIC MEETINGS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT
RESOLUTIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, ("City
Commission") desires to conduct its business with order and efficiency; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has found it necessary to periodically review its practices
to provide guidelines for the most expedient and efficient business practices in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Rowe v. City o/Cocoa, 358 F.3d 800
(U.S. 11 In eir. 2004), recently upheld a city residency restriction peImitting the governing body of
the city to dccline to hear argument at their meetings by persons who were not residents or taxpayers
of the city; and
WHER.t:AS, the Rowe decision also affinned a city council's ability to establish rules of
procedure for council meetings in order to promote orderly and efficient conduct of such meetings;
and
WHEREAS, this resolution although adopted for City of Winter Springs purposes is
substantiaI1y similar to the City of Cocoa resolution upheld in the Rowe case; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it to be in the best interests of the health. safety,
and welfare of the citizens of the City that the City Conunission have rules of order for the conduct
of its business.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS;
Section 1,
resolution.
RECIT ALS. The foregoing recitals arc affinned and incorporated as part of this
Section 2. ADDRESSING TIIE MA YORAND CITY COMMISSION. The following policy
is adopted for City Commission meetings:
Resolution No. 2004-12
City of Winter Springs
Page 1 of 5
Sent By: BROWN,SALZMAN,WEISS&GARGANESE; 407 425 9596;
Apr-6-04 2:51PM;
Page 6
A. ORAL COMMUNlCA TIONS. Any person desiring to address the Mayor
and City Commission shall first secure the pe11l1ission of the presiding officer and
shall state his/her name and address for the record. If such person is speaking as an
authorized representative, such person shall also advise the Mayor and City
Commission of the name of the person, group, business, or organization being
represented. All remarks shall be addressed to the Mayor and City Commission as
a body and not to anymernber thereof. unless pennission to do so is first granted by
the presiding officer or the City Commission. Individual mem bers 0 fthe public sha II
limit their discussion or comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Individuals
representing a group or homeowner's association shall limit their discussion or
comments to no more than five (5) minutes. No questions shall be asked of the
Mayor or a City Commission member or city official except through the presiding
officer.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION. Interested persons may address the
Mayor and City Commission by written communications in regard to a matter then
under discussion.
C. READING OF PROTESTS. Interested persons may address the Mayor and
City Commission by reading ofprotests, petitions, or other communications related
to matters then being considered by the City Commission.
D. NON-RESIDENT AND/OR NON-TAXPAYER RESTRICTION. The
City Commission, by majority vote, may decline to hear any person who is not a
resident or taxpayer of the City. exccpt:
1. When the person is a user of the City's water or sewer systcm and
wishes to be heard on a matter related to the City's sewcr and/or water
system.
2. When such person is a city employee who wishes to be heard on a
matter relating to his/her employment; or
3. When such person is serving as an authorized representative for a
personwho would otherwise be permitted to be heard on the subject matter
before the City Commission.
E. DELEGATIONS. In its discretion. the City Commission may set aside up
to thirty minutes of each regular meeting for "delegations." The PllI1'ose of such
delegations shall b~ for any resident or taxpayer of the City to make his/her views
known to the City Commission upon any subject of general or public interest.
Additionally, a city employee shall be pennittcd to address the Mayor and City
Resolution No. 2004.12
City of Winter Springs
Page 2 of 5
Sent By: BROWN,SALZMAN,WEISS&GARGANESEj 407 425 9596;
Apr.6-04 2:51PM;
Page 7/13
Commission as to matters regarding hislher employment, and a user of the City's
se\ver or water system shall be pennitted to address the City Commission regarding
matters related to the City's sewer and/or water system. Each person addressing the
City Commission during public forum shall speak for no more than three (3) minutes
and a person representing a group or homeowner's association shall speak for no
more than five (5) minutes, unle~s a greater time is provided by a majority vote ofthc
City Commission.
1. If it appears that a matter presented by a speaker during delegations is
administrative in nature, and the question or matter raiseu can be adequatcly
answered or addressed by the City's City Manager or administrative staff, the City
Commission may request, upon proper motion and majority vote, that the speaker
refer the matter to the city manager or his designee during normal city business hours.
T[such a referral is made by the City Conunission, the speaker shall have no further
right to present that matter at the meeting. If the speaker is not adequately satisfied
by the City's administrative staffupon proper referral, the spcaker shall have the right
to bring the matter in question before the City Commission during the delegations
portion of any subsequent City Commission meeting.
2. The City Commission recognizes that delegations is for the purpose of
legitimate inquiries and discussion by the public and not for the purpose of advancing
arguments or repetitious questions concerning matters which the City Commission
believes to be closed or not of general public concern. The City Commission shall
have the right at any delegations to decline to hear any person or any subject mattcr
upon proper motion and majority vote by the City Commission.
F. PUBLIC HEARINGS IN GENERAL. The City Commission shall hold a public
hearing on every proposed ordinance that comes before the City COlrunission for adoption
in accordance with Section 166.041, Florida Statutes. or any procedure of general law that
supersedes this provision.
1. The City Commission shall hold a public hearing on any resolution affecting
rates and charges for potable water, reuse water, stonnwater, scwer services,
garbage, and special assessments.
2. All public hearings shall be advertised in a newspapcr of general circulation
one time in advance of the public hearing, stating the date, time, place, and nature of
the public hearing, and the location where further infom1ation. may bc obtained
regarding the subject matters to be considered. Advertisements shall comply with the
public notice requirements of the Florida Statutes.
3. Further, the proposed ordinance or resolution and notice shall be placed at
Resolution No. 2004-12
City of Winter Spnng9
Page 3 of 5
Sent By: BROWN,SALZMAN,WEISS&GARGANESE; 407 425 9596;
Apr-6-04 2:52PM;
Page 8/13
City Hall for public review in advan.ce of each public hearing.
4. At the public hearing, the city attorney shall read any ordinance or resolution
by title or in full, as required by general law of City Charter, for the public record,
and provide general background to the item.
5. Memhers of the public speaking on public hearing items, though entitled to
be heard by the Ci ty Comluission, are not emitled to an immediate response by either
administrative stafTmembers or City Commission members once the public hearing
is closed; however, commission discussion mayor may not include a response. No
question by the publi\; should be addressed directly to any memher of the
administrative staff.
6. Public debate by individual speakers from the audience on public hearing
agenda items shall be limited to three (3) minut.es. Representatives of recognized
groups shall be limited to five (5) minutes; and total debate on a single issue shall be
limited to thirty (30) minutes. Applicants shall. be limited to ten (10) minutes. The
City Commission may grant additional time by majority vote of the City Commission
if the complexity of the relevant issues raiscd during the public hearing require
additional public debate. The City Commission by majority vote also reserves the
right to reduce the time limits to speak i [tne hour ofthe Commission meeting is late
or a large number of speakers desire to speak. Only one (1) presentation per person
per issue shall be allowed.
7. Speakers shall be limited to speak on the subject matter of the puhlic hearing
item. The presentation of repetitious questions or information concerning the public
hearing item shall not be pennitted.
8. It shall be the responsibility of any person deciding to appeal any decision
made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at a public
hearing under this section, to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record shall include the testimony and evidence upon which any such
appeal is to be based.
Section 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, clause, phrase, word, or provision of this
resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
whether for substantive or procedural reasons, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and
independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
resolution.
Section 4. REPEAL O.F PRI OR INCONSISTENT RESOLUTIONS. All prior inconsistent
resolutions adopted by the City Commission are hereby repealed.
Resolution No. 2004-12
City of Winter Springs
Page 4 of 5
Sent By:, BROWN,SALZMAN,WEISS&GARGANESE; 407 425 9596;
Apr-6-04 2:52PM;
Page 9/13
Section 5. F.FFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall becomecfT~tive immediately upon
passage by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, and pursuant to the City
Charter.
Section 6. LIMITATIONS. The failure of the City Commission Or Mayor to abide by the
policies in this resolution shall not have any adverse effect on any final decision made by a majority
vote of the City Commission.
DONE AND ADOPTED in regular se~sion of the City Commission of the City of Winter
Springs. Florida, this _ day of ,2004.
JOHN F. BUSH, Mayor
ATTEST:
ANDREA LORENZO-LUACES, City Clerk
Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for
the City of Winter Springs only:
ANTHONY A. GARGANESE, City Attorney
Resolution No. 2004.12
City of Winter Springs
Page 5 of 5
. f
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A
POLICY REGARDING THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO
ADDRESS 'THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION AT
PUBLIC MEETINGS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT
RESOLUTIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, ("City
Commission") desires to conduct its business with order and efficiency; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has found it necessary to periodically review its practices
to provide guidelines for the most expedient and efficient business practices in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Rowe v. City of Cocoa, 358 F.3d 800
(U.S. 11th Cir. 2004), recently upheld a cityresidency restriction permitting the governing body of
t~e city to decline to hear argument at their meetings by persons who were not residents or taxpayers
of the city; and
WHEREAS, the Rowe decision also affirmed a city council's ability to establish rules of
procedure for council meetings in order to promote orderly and efficient conduct of such meetings;
and
WHEREAS, this resolution although adopted for City of Winter Springs purposes is
substantially similar to the City of Cocoa resolution upheld in the Rowe case; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it to be in the best interests of the health, safety,
and welfare of the citizens of the City that the City Commission have rules of order for the conduct
of its business.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
resolution.
RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and incorporated as part of this
Section 2. ADDRESSING THE MA YORAND CITY COMMISSION. The following policy
is adopted for City Commission meetings:
Resolution No. 2004-12
City'of Winter Springs
Page] of 5
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Any person desiring to address the Mayor
and City Commission shall first secure the permission of the presiding officer and
shall state his/her name and address for the record. If such person is speaking as an
authorized representative, such person shall also advise the Mayor and City
Commission of the name of the person, group, business, or organization being
represented. All remarks shall be addressed to the Mayor and City Commission as
a body and not to any member thereof, unless permission to do so is first granted by
the presiding officer or the City Commission. Individual members of the public shall
limit their discussion or comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Individuals __
representing a group or homeowner's association shall limit their discussion or
comments to no more than five (5) minutes. No questions shall be asked of the
Mayor or a City Commission member or city official except through the presiding
officer.
B. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION. Interested persons may address the
Mayor and City Commission by written communications in regard to a matter then
under discussion.
C. READING OF PROTESTS. Interested persons may address the Mayor and
City Commission by reading of protests, petitions, or other communications related
to matters then being considered by the City Commission.
D. NON-RESIDENT AND/OR NON-TAXPAYER RESTRICTION. The
City Commission, by majority vote, may decline to hear any person who is not a
resident or taxpayer of the City, except:
1. When the person is a user of the City's water or sewer system and
wishes to be heard on a matter related to the City's sewer and/or water
system.
2. When such person is a city employee who wishes to be heard on a
matter relating to his/her employment; or
3. When such person is serving as an authorized representative for a
person who would otherwise be permitted to be heard on the subject matter
before the City Commission.
E. DELEGA TIONS. In its discretion, the City Commission may set aside up
to thirty minutes of each regular meeting for "delegations." The purpose of such
delegations shall be for any resident or taxpayer of the City to make his/her views
known to the City Commission upon any subject of general or public interest.
Additionally, a city employee shall be permitted to address the Mayor and City
Resolution No. 2004-12
City of Winter Springs
Page 2 of 5
Commission as to matters regarding his/her employment, and a user of the City's
sewer or water system shall be permitted to address the City Commission regarding
matters related to the City's sewer and/or water system. Each person addressing the
City Commission during public forum shall speak for no more than three (3) minutes
and a person representing a group or homeowner's association shall speak for no
more than five (5) minutes, unless a greater time is provided by a majority vote of the
City Commission.
1. If it appears that a matter presented by a speaker during delegations is
administrative in nature, and the question or matter raised can be adequately
answered or addressed by the City's City Manager or administrative staff, the City
Commission may request, upon proper motion and majority vote, that the speaker
refer the matter to the city manager or his designee during normal city business hours.
If such a referral is made by the City Commission, the speaker shall have no further
right to present that matter at the meeting. If the speaker is not adequately satisfied
by the Ci ty' s administrati ve staff upon proper referral, the speaker shall have the right
to bring the matter in question before the City Commission during the delegations
portion of any subsequent City Commission meeting.
2. The City Commission recognizes that delegations is for the purpose of
legitimate inquiries and discussion by the public and not for the purpose of advancing
arguments or repetitious questions concerning matters which the City Commission
believes to be closed or not of general public concern. The City Commission shall
have the right at any delegations to decline to hear any person or any subject matter
upon proper motion and majority vote by the City Commission.
F. PUBLIC HEARINGS IN GENERAL. The City Commission shall hold a public
hearing on every proposed ordinance that comes before the City Commission for adoption
in accordance with Section 166.041, Florida Statutes, or any procedure of general law that
supersedes this provision.
1. The City Commission shall hold a public hearing on any resolution affecting
rates and charges for potable water, reuse water, storm water, sewer services,
garbage, and special assessments.
2. All public hearings shall be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation
one time in advance of the public hearing, stating the date, time, place, and nature of
the public hearing, and the location where further information may be obtained
regarding the subject matters to be considered. Advertisements shall comply with the
public notice requirements of the Florida Statutes.
3. Further, the proposed ordinance or resolution and notice shall be placed at
Resolution No. 2004-12
City of Winter Springs
Page 3 of 5
City Hall for public review in advance of each public hearing.
4. At the public hearing, the city attorney shall read any ordinance or resolution
by title or in full, as required by general law of City Charter, for the public record,
and provide general background to the item.
5. Members of the public speaking on public hearing items, though entitled to
be heard by the City Commission, are not entitled to an immediate response by either
administrative staff members or City Commission members once the public hearing
is closed; however, commission discussion mayor may not include a response. No
question by the public should be addressed directly to any member of the
administrative staff.
6. Public debate by individual speakers from the audience on public hearing
agenda items shall be limited to three (3) minutes. Representatives of recognized
groups shall be limited to five (5) minutes; and total debate on a single issue shall be
limited to thirty (30) minutes. Applicants shall be limited to ten (10) minutes. The
City Commission may grant additional time by majority vote of the City Commission
if the complexity of the relevant issues raised during the public hearing require
additional public debate. The City Commission by majority vote also reserves the
right to reduce the time limits to speak if the hour of the Commission meeting is late
or a large number of speakers desire to speak. Only one (1) presentation per person
per issue shall be allowed.
7. Speakers shall be limited to speak on the subject matter of the public hearing
item. The presentation of repetitious questions or information concerning the public
hearing item shall not be permitted.
8. It shall be the responsibility of any person deciding to appeal any decision
made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at a public
hearing under this section, to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record shall include the testimony and evidence upon which any such
appeal is to be based.
Section 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, clause, phrase, word, or provision of this
resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
whether for substantive or procedural reasons, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and
independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
resolution.
Section 4. REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT RESOLUTIONS. All prior inconsistent
resolutions adopted by the City Commission are hereby repealed.
Resolution No. 2004-12
City of Winter Springs
Page 4 of 5
Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon
passage by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, and pursuant to the City
Charter.
Section 6. LIMITATIONS. The failure of the City Commission or Mayor to abide by the
policies in this resolution shall not have any adverse effect on any final decision made by a majority
vote of the City Commission.
DONE AND ADOPTED in regular session of the City Commi~'Bio~ of the City of Winter
Springs, Florida, this 12th day of April ,2 .
~~
legal form and sufficiency for
er Springs only:
ANTHONY A. GARGANESE, City Attorney
Resolution No. 2004-12
City of Winter Springs
Page 5 of 5