Apopka commissioners move to present charter amendments for April readings, attorney to use March election date

Apopka City Commission members and staff spent a workshop session reviewing a multi-part charter amendment package that would change the city's election timing, limit consecutive terms for elected officials, clarify the city clerk's role in candidate qualifying, and offer voters a choice between a council‑manager and a strong‑mayor form of government.

City Attorney Cliff Shepherd told commissioners he would prepare the ordinance for first reading using March as the election date unless the commission directed him to use November. "I'll put March unless someone tells me to put November, then we have to have some further discussion," Shepherd said. He and commissioners agreed the charter language should match actual practice so that readers of the charter can determine when local elections occur without hunting for an implementing ordinance.

Why it matters: the changes would put multiple interrelated governance issues before voters and adjust how the city handles hiring, firing and employment contracts for senior positions. Shepherd and commissioners emphasized timing: the supervisor of elections' office gave a schedule that requires a first and second reading in April so referendum language can be provided by May 1 for a mid‑July election timeline.

Most immediate direction

Commissioners signaled consensus to present March as the election date on the ordinance for first reading in April. Shepherd said he would draft the ballot language and the full "all-changes" redline version of the charter amendment package for that first reading. The commission must still decide which of several additional suggested edits, submitted by the vice mayor via email, should be included as discrete ballot questions.

Discussion highlights

- Election timing: Commissioners debated whether to put the charter's election date in November (an off year on the general ballot for many municipalities) or March (the city's historical practice). Several commissioners said residents are accustomed to March local elections and preferred consistency with nearby cities; others noted November could yield higher turnout when paired with larger contests, but Shepherd and others observed that the November option under discussion would not coincide with a presidential year and turnout gains were not guaranteed.

- Council‑manager vs. strong‑mayor: Commissioners discussed offering voters a choice between the current strong‑mayor structure and a council‑manager form of government. Shepherd explained the practical differences: under a council‑manager model, a professional city manager would hold broader personnel authority (hire/fire department heads) and the mayor's role would become more like a presiding commissioner; under a strong‑mayor model, the mayor retains executive responsibilities and accountability to voters. Commissioners requested public education, and Shepherd offered to draft explanatory language and to propose speakers or white papers for a workshop to inform the public.

- City clerk authority and candidate qualifications: The draft charter language would explicitly limit the clerk's role to ministerial qualification tasks (accepting filed documentation) and clarify that the clerk does not have investigative authority to determine candidate eligibility. The vice mayor proposed an insertion requiring the clerk to notify the commission if the clerk becomes aware of any inaccuracy or inconsistency in qualifying material; some commissioners raised concerns that such a requirement could place the clerk in an investigatory role or be weaponized during campaigns. Commissioners discussed a narrower option—requiring the clerk to forward received complaints or inconsistent information to the commission—without directing the clerk to determine accuracy.

- Term limits: The draft specifies three full consecutive four‑year terms as the limit for service, with a four‑year waiting period after the final term before eligibility to run again. Shepherd said the current draft also treats any portion of a third consecutive term as counting toward the limit so officials cannot resign strategically at the end of a term to reset the limit clock. Commissioners asked whether a commissioner who serves three terms could subsequently run for mayor; Shepherd noted that is a separate drafting option and can be structured either to bar or to allow a run for mayor after serving commission terms.

- Appointment/removal of city clerk and city attorney; employment contracts: The vice mayor and members of the public raised concerns about past contract approvals that were not widely disclosed. Shepherd proposed drafting language to make appointment and removal of the city clerk and city attorney subject to majority commission action (rather than mayoral unilateral authority) and adding a charter provision that employment contracts require commission approval. Commissioners discussed whether to limit charter authority to require commission approval for all employment contracts or to identify categories (city manager, city attorney, city clerk and other department heads) for which contracts are appropriate; several commissioners asked staff to research which positions typically require contracts to remain competitive.

Public comment and community concerns

During public comment residents urged caution and more public education. Scott Hottenstein of the supervisor of elections office provided a written timeline and cost estimates that Shepherd read into the record: "Mail only election, approximately a hundred and 80 thousand dollars. In‑person election with 2 polling places, approximately $15,000. Our preferred timeline would be to hold the election mid July. So election would be mid July with a referendum and ballot language approved by May 1." Residents called for additional safeguards including forensic audits, clearer recall provisions, and stronger protections for public comment and for minutes. One speaker said, "This is the dog and pony show," and criticized perceived career politicians and previous undisclosed contracts; another urged the commission to "slow down" and hold more public workshops before finalizing ballot language.

Next steps

Shepherd said he will produce the draft ordinance and the "all changes" redline for first reading; commissioners directed staff to schedule first and second readings in April to meet the supervisor of elections' timetable for providing referendum language by May 1. The commission also discussed holding one or more educational workshops before the first reading to allow public input on the council‑manager vs. strong‑mayor question and on other proposed edits.

Ending

No formal votes were recorded at the workshop. Commissioners moved forward with drafting for first reading in April and signaled priorities for issues to reach the ballot: (1) set elections to March in the charter for the first reading draft; (2) include the council‑manager vs. strong‑mayor question as a ballot option and plan public education workshops; and (3) draft charter language clarifying clerk authority, term limits, and commission approval for employment contracts. The commission will receive Shepherd's draft ordinance and may modify language during the scheduled first reading.