The Redington Shores Town Charter was adopted in its modern form in 1955. Since 1974, the Charter has been amended 19 times, the most recent being in 2012. Section 16(F) of the Town Charter requires that, at least once every 10 years, the Town Commission shall appoint a Charter Review Committee for the purpose of reviewing the Town Charter and making recommendations to the Town Commission on any amendments.

Florida law also provides that the governing body of a municipality may submit to the electors of said municipality proposed charter amendments, and shall place the proposed amendments to a vote of the electors. In the spring of 2024, the Commission established a Charter Review Commission and appointed five Town residents (one from each District) to serve on it. The CRC submitted its recommendations to the Commission on June 10^th 2024. After conducting several public meetings on the proposals, the Commission adopted Ordinance 2024-04 which proposes a series of Charter amendments to the voters.

No, none of the proposals will result in increases in fees or taxes. The Town Board of Commissioners establishes the ad valorem tax rate each year after a series of public hearings, and any new fees would also require separate action by the Commission. The Charter amendments being proposed will also not result in any increased operational costs for the Town.

No, none of the referendum questions deals with these topics. The provisions in the Charter related to Commission terms of office and stipends remain unchanged.

No. These rights are set forth in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Code, and certain state laws. Development rights are not addressed in the Town Charter.

Yes, the Town has posted Ordinance 2024-04 on the Town’s website at the following link.

Below is an overview of each referendum question addressing the various Charter items to be revised if that question is approved:

Referendum Question # 1

HOME RULE AND ROLES OF TOWN COMMISSION AND TOWN MANAGER

Section 1 of the current Charter addresses the Town’s creation, but does not reference home rule. The Florida Constitution expressly provides that local governments should have the ability to self-govern. Over the decades, state laws have preempted various areas of local self-governance. The reference to home rule in the proposed amendment would not change legislative authority, but would be a clear expression of the desire of the Town’s residents to preserve the ability to adopt solutions to issues at the local level.

Section 3 of the Charter provides for a Commission form of government and does not reference a Town executive although one now exists. In 2021, the Town adopted an ordinance creating the position of Town Administrator. However, the current Charter does not expressly provide for professional management of the Town’s staff and operations. Referendum question 1 asks the residents if they want to formally recognize a Town Manager position to be responsible for managing the Town’s administrative affairs, to have that position appointed by and reporting to the Town Commission, and to provide that the Commission would not interfere in the Manager’s work or give direct orders to Town staff?

The primary positive of approval of this proposal would be to have the Charter recognize the position that the Town has already created. The modern administration of a municipal government has become too complex and requires too much time for local elected officials who frequently have full-time jobs, and who may not have the professional or technical background and experience to properly manage the many issues which arise on a daily basis. Having a professional qualified manager allows elected officials to perform their traditional roles of setting policy, establishing a budget, and being the direct representatives of the residents on the governing board.

Of course, residents may also feel that a full-time professional manager is not necessary, and that the Commissioners can manage the operations and staff of the Town directly. Not having a manager would, of course, result in the savings of the salary of that position. However, if residents know that they would be required not just to set policies and adopt and oversee budgets, but also to manage the day in and day out work of the Town and its staff, it may become difficult to get residents willing to serve on the Commission.

Referendum Question # 2

TOWN POWERS

Section 4 of the Charter is called “general powers”, and currently provides for a variety of powers which are either outdated or preempted by state law. Examples include the power to regulate the height of dirigibles, to establish health and quarantine rules, to create hospitals for the insane or indigent, to construct power plants, to establish “poor houses and houses for detention”, to punish gambling, to prevent cattle and other farm animals from running in the streets, and to regulate occupations and professions. These are all either antiquated concepts or matters which are reserved to be dealt with at the state level. Current Section 4 also states that the Town can directly collect property taxes due. However, this duty is now placed on the County’s Tax Collector. The referendum question asks if residents would like to remove these outdated or preempted provisions from the Charter.

Finally, the referendum question asks the residents if they wish Section 4 of the Charter to expressly allows the Commission to adopt and enforce property maintenance standards.

Referendum Question # 3

COMMISSIONER REMOVAL AND STIPENDS

Section 5 of the Charter currently allows a disabled Commissioner to remain indefinitely on the Commission even if good cause for removal otherwise exists. The Charter Review Committee concluded this was not in the Town’s best interests as it could deprive a district’s residents of the representation of their Commissioner for extended periods. The referendum question asks residents if they wish to remove this restriction and allow the Commission to remove a Commissioner if any good cause exists, which may include an extended absence due to disability. The Charter would retain the requirement that a Commissioner subject to removal would be entitled to notice and the opportunity to be heard before removal. The referendum also would remove an antiquated reference to a Roberts Rules procedure not applicable to a local government’s governing board.

Section 6 of the Charter states Commissioners receive a “salary.” However, Commissioners are not employees of the Town and the Charter Review Committee determined the term salary was not appropriate. The referendum question would change the word salary to stipend, and would strike an outdated sentence related to salaries taking effect in 2007.

Referendum Question # 4

ELECTION DISTRICTS

Currently, Section 8 of the Charter provides for four (4) election districts based on population. However, the Charter does not address the potential that one master homeowner or condominium association could be allowed to hold two district seats. The Charter Review Committee felt it was in the Town’s interests to make attempts, when district boundaries are revised, to avoid this potential where possible.

The referendum question asks residents if they want to add a new provision to the Charter providing that, when the Commission revises district boundaries in the future, it consider not just population distribution among the districts, but also attempt to develop district boundaries which would prevent or make less likely the election of more than one district Commissioner from any one master homeowner or condominium association. The intent of the proposed new provision is that no one condominium or master homeowner association should hold a majority of the Town Commission seats should the Mayor-Commissioner also be elected from that association.

Referendum Question # 5

INDUCTION INTO OFFICE; COMMISSION MEETINGS

Charter section 10 addresses elections. However, it does not currently address induction into office, and the current Charter language on that topic (to be relocated to section 10) could result in two different dates for induction of a new Commissioner. This could create a question on what legal date a Commission should be sworn in. The referendum question recommended by the Charter Review Committee asks residents if they want to amend section 10 of the Charter to provide that the first business day following the ballots having been canvassed, the results certified and declared and the officials so elected shall having been qualified (or as soon thereafter as is practical) as the date on which each new Commissioner may be sworn in and take office. Adoption of this provision would bring greater certainty as to the rules around swearing in new Commissioners and would not appear to have any negative impact on the Town or its operations.

Language from another section of the Charter confirming that the Commission shall meet not less frequently than once per month, and that all meetings shall be open to the public, would be moved to this section of the Charter if the referendum question is approved.

Referendum Question # 6

COMMISSION POWERS AND DUTIES

Section 11 of the Town Charter is called “powers and duties of the board of commissioners.” Section 16 of the Charter is called “town commission; duties and powers.” These two sections contain provisions outlining powers and duties of the Commission, at times in a redundant manner, or in a way inconsistent with modern Town practice.

For instance, both sections addressed appointing Town officials, budget adoption, and ordinance adoption. And section 16 of the current Charter provides that the Commission may directly terminate any Town employee even though Town Code now provides that there is a Town Administrator who hires, evaluates and disciplines subordinate Town staff.

The Charter Review Committee felt that it would allow the Charter to be clearer and well organized if all provisions related to the powers and duties of the Town Commission were collected in one section. The referendum question proposes to merge the powers previously set out in Charter section 11 into section 16, and to update these provisions to reflect modern practices.

Proposed new section 16 authorizes the Commission to adopted ordinances, resolutions and budgets, and to appoint and remove a Town Manager, Town Clerk, and Town Attorney, and broadly describes the duties of each of these Town positions. It also clarifies the Town Commission has the power to create and abolish any Town department.

Finally, the referendum question asks residents if they wish to move current language related to the periodic review of the Charter by a Charter Review Committee to its own new Charter section 17 (addressed in the following referendum question). This would have the effect of allowing the charter review process to be highlighted in the Charter.

Referendum Question # 7

TREASURER DUTIES; CHARTER REVIEW

Currently, section 17 of the Town Charter designates the Clerk as Treasurer and custodian of funds. However, this has not been the actual practice for many years. The Town has instead used qualified financial firms and professionals to provide financial services to the Town, including accounting, treasury, and auditing functions. The Charter Review Committee recommended that this antiquated description of the Clerk’s financial duties be removed from the Charter. This change would have no real impact on Town operations since the Clerk has not actually been performing the ever more complex treasury duties. Rather, these will continue to be performed by finance and accounting firms and professionals, under the oversight of the Town Manager and Town Commission.

With Charter section 17 thus being eliminated, the Charter Review Committee determined it would be in the Town’s best interests to relocate the periodic charter review process from section 16 (Commission duties) to its own stand-alone section. The CRC felt this would give the charter review process greater dignity, and would help ensure future Commissions remain mindful of the need to conduct the process every ten years (which has not always been followed).

The referendum question asks residents if they support making the above-described changes.

Referendum Question # 8

SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS

Currently, Charter section 18 requires every contract, bond, deed, and other instruments to be signed by the Clerk and Mayor or Vice Mayor. This provision has become antiquated. For instance, modern contracting practices of the Town, as set out in the Town’s detailed procurement code, provide for approval of expenditures (either by the Manager or, for higher dollar items, the Commission), but with the Manager executing any related contracts. The Town Attorney has advised that this is all that is legally required, and a Charter provision requiring additional signatures could needlessly undermine the validity of such documents.

In addition, the execution of municipal bonds, deeds, and other similar instruments are now governed by state statutes, none of which call for a municipal clerk’s signature.

The Charter Review Committee felt that Charter section 18 had become unnecessary and based on the Town Attorney’s advice, could create needless legal issues over document validity. Therefore, the CRC recommended that Charter section 18 simply be repealed. If approved, signatures would be governed by the Town’s procurement code and the applicable state laws.

Referendum question # 9

SIGNING AND PAYMENT OF WARRANTS

Charter section 19 deals with warrants and requires all warrants (payment authorizations) to be paid in the order presented, and to be signed by the Town Clerk. The Town Clerk no longer serves as Treasurer, and the Manager reviews and authorizes pay requests, with a counter-signature of the Mayor or Vice Mayor. The Charter Review Committee felt that requiring pay requests to be paid sequentially in the order received does not make sense, is difficult to enforce, and may result in vendors not being paid in a timely manner.

The referendum question asks residents if they wish to amend Charter section 19 to provide that warrants must be paid in a timely manner, and signed by the Mayor/Vice-Mayor along with a co-signer (currently the Manager) authorized by the Commission.

Referendum Question # 10

LOAN AND REVENUE BOND APPROVALS

Charter section 22 addresses tax revenue bonds. Currently, it requires 4/5 of the Commission to approve a revenue bond, and constrains loans to ½ of taxes levied in one year.

The Charter Review Committee determined that these provisions unduly constrained the Commission from issuing a municipal bond in the event the Town experienced the need for a substantial amount of capital which would exceed funds on hand in any given single budget year. In addition, the CRC was advised by the Town Attorney that the topic of issuing municipal revenue bonds is addressed in the Florida Constitution and statutes, which provide their own detailed procedural mechanisms for approval and issuance of such bonds. The CRC felt that if a majority of the Town Commission believed the issuance of a bond was the best financial decision to make (vs, for instance, taking a bank loan or raising the tax rate), then a minority of the Commission should not be able to prevent that action. In addition, since the issuance of a municipal bond (which often have payback periods over decades) would likely be for a significant financial need, a Charter provision limiting the bond to only ½ of a given tax year’s levies would artificially constrain the Commission’s ability to make the best financial decision to respond to the Town’s funding needs.

The referendum question asks residents if they wish to remove the supermajority requirement and the proceeds limitation from Charter section 22, and to instead provide that the Commission’s issuance of municipal bonds shall be in accordance with Florida law.

Referendum Question # 11

ETHICS IN CONTRACTING

Currently, Charter section 28, entitled limitation on contracts, prohibits the Commission from employing or contracting with any Commissioner or the Clerk, or their spouses or children.

However, it does not mention Commissioners’ business partners, nor does it reference the Town Manager as an official with which a Commissioner should not engage in personal contract relations with.

The Charter Review Committee felt that adding the Town Manager, and the spouses, business partners, and spouses of the Commissioners, Clerk or Manager’s children as being on the prohibited contracting list would further reduce the chance that a Commissioner and other Town official would engage in personal contractual relationships which might undermine their ethical obligations to the Town.

Finally, the CRC felt it would be appropriate to clarify that this ethical limitation is in addition to those provisions contained in Florida’s statewide code of ethics for public officials.

The referendum question asks residents if they wish to amend section 28 of the Charter to expressly reference the Florida Ethics Code, and to preclude contracting with a Commissioner, the Manager, the Clerk, or their respective spouses, children or business partners?

Referendum Question # 12

BUDGET AMENDMENTS

Currently, section 32 of the Charter provides the Mayor and Commission majority must consent to budget amendments. The Charter Review Committee noted that the Mayor-Commissioner is only ceremonial, and the Commission may approve budget amendments by majority vote under its general powers.

Since Charter section 32 essentially gives the Mayor a veto over a budget amendment, the CRC determined this was inconsistent with the Mayor’s role which is otherwise as one of five Commissioners, who only presides over meetings and signs certain documents. Therefore, it recommended deleting section 32 from the Charter and the referendum question asks residents if they desire to do so. Adoption of this amendment means a majority of the Commission may adopt a budget amendment regardless of the Mayor’s agreement.

Referendum Question # 13

TOWN NOTICES

The Town is required to provide public notices for a variety of matters, including for Commission meetings, public hearings, and the like. Currently, section 33 of the Charter addresses public notice methods centered on newspaper ads.

However, the Charter Review Committee noted that more current Florida statutes provide for additional electronic notice measures for those who may not subscribe to paper newspapers, which is a growing segment of our population. The CRC therefore recommended Charter section 33 be amended to recognize and allow the Town to use all lawful forms of notice, both newspapers and electronic notices. The referendum question asks residents if they wish to allow this added method of getting official Town notices.

Referendum Question # 14

MINOR ERRORS AND REDUNDANT PROVISIONS

This referendum question addresses numerous sections of the Town’s Charter, but the changes proposed are all directed toward fixing minor errors in the Charter, or removing redundant or unnecessary provisions.

First, current Town Charter section 9 (which addresses nominations for the Board of Commissioners), makes reference to “Chapter 12 of the Town Code.” However, a Charter is the superior source of law in a municipality, and since code sections and numbering can change over time, it is generally not good practice to refer to specific code provisions in the Charter. The Charter Review Committee therefore recommended striking the reference to the code noted above. The change does not in any way alter the Charter’s provisions related to how Commissioners are nominated for office.

Next, current section 14 of the Charter devotes two whole sections to state that the Commission may adopt ordinances, and that they are adopted as per general law. But Florida statutes already provides for the detailed method by which a municipality’s governing board must adopt ordinances, and that law is superior to any local code or charter. Since Charter section 14 really adds nothing, the Charter Review Committee felt it was a good opportunity to simply remove wording which was not necessary.

Section 20 of the Charter states the Clerk appoints deputy clerks. However, this is an outdated provision and the Town Clerk has not had the authority to hire any employees for decades. All appointments of deputy clerks are by way of hiring by the Town Manager. To be sure, the Manager will consult with the Town Clerk on the process since deputy clerks provide service in the Clerk’s office. However, since the Clerk is not a hiring official, the CRC recommends section 20 of the Charter be deleted.

Charter Section 27 states the Commission has all powers provided by law. The CRC felt that this provision was redundant of the provisions in Charter section 16, which provides essentially the same thing but in more detail. The CRC also noted that the Town Attorney advised that a Florida statute also provides for the powers of a municipal governing body. Therefore, again with the goal of removing a redundant and unnecessary provision from the Charter, the CRC recommended deletion of section 27.

Next, section 29 of the Charter states that the Town Clerk keeps the Town’s records. This provision is redundant to Charter section 16’s description of the Clerk’s duties as also serving as the custodian of the Town’s records. As a redundant provision, the CRC recommended section 29 be deleted.

Finally, Charter section 34 (a severability clause) contains a grammar error. Specifically, it uses the phrase “in no wise” where the correct word should be “not.” The CRC recommended striking the errant phrase and replacing it with the correct word.

Referendum question # 14 asks residents if sections 9 and 34 should be amended to correct the deficiencies outlined above, and whether Charter sections 14, 20, 27 and 29 should be repealed as redundant?

Referendum Question # 15

MAYORAL AUTHORITY

Currently, Charter section 15 (duties and powers of the Mayor-Commissioner) provides the Mayor’s powers are confined only to those in the Charter. However, various state statutes confer some added roles, duties or authority on municipal mayors, such as to receive service of process and to respond to certain declared emergencies.

The Charter Review Committee recommended adding a reference to Florida law to section 15 to ensure that if a state statute provides certain authority to a municipal mayor, the Charter’s language could not be read as preventing the Mayor from performing some duty or exercising some authority due to section 15’s limiting language.

If the referendum question is adopted, the Mayor’s duties and powers will be confined to those set forth in the Town Charter, and in general Florida law.

Referendum Question # 16

FIRST COMMISSIONERS/FIRST CHARTER

This final referendum question addresses two sections of the Charter. First, current section 7 of the Charter sets for the “first commissioners” who took office in 1955, and provides they would hold office until their successors were duly qualified. Section 7 then goes on to provide that if any of the named “first Commissioners” declined to serve, the Florida Governor, with the advice and counsel of the remaining first Commissioners, “shall appoint” someone else.

The Charter Review Committee concluded that in 2025, there was no real purpose in keeping this provision in the Charter since there have been many members of the Town Commission between then and now. Further, the Town Attorney advised the CRC that the provision related to the Governor would not likely even be enforceable since a local charter cannot create a mandate on the Governor to take any particular action.

Based on those reasons, the CRC recommended Charter section 7 simply be deleted.

The other Charter section addressed in referendum question # 16 is Charter section 35. This section sets forth the process used when the Town’s residents first voted to become incorporated and to adopt the initial Charter. Since the Charter was adopted, these provisions have no current purpose, and the Charter Review Committee concluded that they need not be included in the Charter and recommended section 35 be deleted.

Referendum question # 16 asks residents if they agree sections 7 and 35 of the Charter should be repealed?