Looking at the minutes, Brady has stated on the record that advertising both first and second readings of the ordinance at the same time in advance was legally sufficient for the requirements of City Charter 3.17. “They presumed it would pass on first reading”.
(That is a bunch of crap- you cannot assume something will pass- that takes away the Commission’s authority-Brady knows that- covering for JA again).
Look at the attachment (see below) — notice that on Aug 28 the second reading was not a public hearing.
FS 166.041 requires a 10-day notice and for it to be noticed as a public hearing.
Brady did not comment on the record if advertising first and second readings of the ordinance at the same time was legally sufficient for FS 166.041. He knows it is not.
Also it was not advertised on the second reading as a public hearing as required (where and when for residents to come to give input). Also see no exemption in FS 166.041 for presumption of something passing on first reading.
The City has always followed this FS in the past. A key former long term employee in this area has confirmed that the City always followed FS 166.041 strictly and is surprised by these actions and direction.
Refinancing 2.5m in Sep 2012 for 5 years will cost more in interest that refinancing 2.1m in Sep 2013 for five years. Especially at the same interest rate. Again he is not telling the truth.