1 CHARTER REVIEW BOARD, 1-11-01 **NOTIFICATION: **This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the **following meeting. It should be used for informational **purposes only. This document has not been edited; **therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words that **did not translate. [ GAVEL SOUNDING ] >>JAN SMITH: I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD'S PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ISSUES THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD IS PROPOSING TO PUT FORWARD TO THE PUBLIC FOR A REFERENDUM. MS. TUTTLE, WILL YOU LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE. >>JAN SMITH: MS. POUPART, CAN WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE. [ ROLL CALL TAKEN ] YOU HAVE A QUORUM. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS FOR THIS EVENING. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S REQUIRED BY OUR CHARTER FOR HOW WE PROPOSE TO PUT CHANGES TO OUR CHARTER BEFORE THE PUBLIC FOR A REFERENDUM. THIS EVENING WE ASK THAT YOU KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES ANNOUNCED IN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE. THAT YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE, GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES. WE ASK THAT YOU NOT HOLD TIME AND GIVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. WE WOULD LIKE FOR EACH OF YOU TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY WITHOUT INTERRUPTION, SO WE WILL NOT BE 2 ASKING QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. SO WE HAVE MANY, MANY PEOPLE SIGNED IN TO SPEAK THIS EVENING. THE FIRST PERSON ON THE AGENDA IS RALPH HUGHES. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. RALPH HUGHES, TAMPA. I WOULD LIKE TO TALK US BACK TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 14th. AFTER A DISCUSSION MADE BY KEVIN AMBLER OF THE PROS AND CONS OF THE ANNUAL INCREASE OF THE OPERATING BUDGET, THIS BOARD MOVED 10-4 TO MOVE IT TO PUBLIC HEARING. FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HAVE ERIC JOHNSON APPEAR AND SPEAK TO THE ISSUES. MR. JOHNSON DOES WITHOUT ANY SHADOW OF THE DOUBT KNOW OUR BUDGET INSIDE AND OUT. HIS MISSION WAS TO ADVISE YOU OF THE PITFALLS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BUDGET MEASURE. HE DID AN EXCELLENT JOB IN THIS REGARD. HE SPOKE WITH 45 MINUTES WITHOUT INTERRUPTION FOLLOWED BY 45 MINUTES OF Q AND A. WE ALL KNOW THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY. MR. JOHNSON COULD HAVE TOLD YOU HOW TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS BUDGET PROCESS AND ANY PITFALLS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS MATTER. I WOULD ADVISE YOU HOW TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROPOSAL AND AVOID THE PROBLEMS AND PITFALLS HE POINTED OUT BY MR. JOHNSON WHEN I SPOKE AT YOUR JANUARY 25 PUBLIC HEARING. TAKE YOU BACK TO LAST JUNE WHEN THIS BOARD CONSIDERED THE PERFORMANCE AUDIT ISSUE. YOU VOTED 10-4 TO MOVE THIS ISSUE TO PUBLIC HEARING AND AGAIN, 3 MADAM CHAIR, FELT IT WAS HELPFUL FOR MR. HUNZEKER WAS GIVEN AMPLE TIME TO STATE HIS CASE, HOWEVER MR. HUNZEKER WENT TOO FAR WHEN HE ADVISED YOU THAT PERFORMANCE AUDITS WERE IN 1994 AND HAD THE TAXPAYERS AND SAVINGS OF ONLY $600,000 AND RECOMMENDED SPENDING INCREASE OF $5 MILLION RESULTED IN A NET OUT-OF-POCKET COST OF $6 MILLION AS A RESULT OF PERFORMANCE AUDIT. I PRODUCED DOCUMENTATION IN THE FORM OF MEMORANDUM DATED APRIL 28, 1998, ISSUED BY DAN KLEMAN TO THE B.O.C.C. WHEREIN MR. KLEMAN STATED WE HAD ENJOYED A NET SAVINGS OF $31 MILLION AS OF THAT DATE AS A RESULT OF PERFORMANCE AUDITS SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW. A LETTER ISSUED BY COUNTY MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS OFFICE SAID THAT FURTHER REVIEW REDUCED THE SAVING TO $12.4 MILLION, A $12 SAVINGS FOR EVERY DOLLAR EXPENDED FOR 1998. A TREMENDOUS RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR PERFORMANCE AUDITS, WOULDN'T YOU SAY. THE FIRST PERFORMANCE AUDIT WAS CONDUCTED IN 1994 AND WAS OUR CABLE DEPARTMENT AT A COST OF $50,000. I ALSO ADVISE YOU THAT THE COUNTY RECEIVED A CHECK FOR $1 MILLION FROM THE CABLE SERVICE PROVIDER DURING THE FIRST HALF OF 2000 AND WOULD RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL $100,000 EACH YEAR THEREAFTER AS A RESULT OF THE COMPLIANCE PORTION OF THE PERFORMANCE AUDIT CONDUCTED IN 1994. KEVIN AMBLER MENTIONED THAT FACT AT THE DECEMBER 14th MEETING AND WAS REBUTTED BY STEVE LaBOUR WHO TOLD MR. AMBLER, QUOTE, NOT TO GO THERE, THAT IT WASN'T THROUGH. 4 I BELIEVE THAT MR. LaBOUR BELIEVED IT WASN'T TRUE, BUT IT APPEARS MR. LaBOUR HAD BEEN MISLED. I PRESENTED YOU WITH DOCUMENTATION THAT PROVES THAT MR. AMBLER'S STATEMENT WAS TRUE. IT IS IN THE FORM OF LETTER DATED AUGUST 22nd, 2000, FROM COMMISSIONER JIM NORMAN TO RICHARD AKE. THIS IS CONTAINED IN A BOOK THAT'S BEFORE YOU. NOW MY TIME IS UP, UNLESS SOME OF YOU ASK SOME QUESTIONS WHICH I NOW KNOW YOU CAN'T DO. BUT I'VE PREPARED A DOCUMENT, A BOOKLET CONSISTING OF EIGHT DOCUMENTS ENTITLED "COUNTY PERFORMANCE AUDITOR" AND IT IS BEFORE YOU -- >>JAN SMITH: PLEASE BRING YOUR COMMENTS TO A CLOSE. >> I'VE GOT TWO SENTENCES, CAN I FINISH? >>JAN SMITH: YES, SIR. >> AND THEY INCLUDE DETAILS OF TREMENDOUS BENEFITS ENJOYED BY PALM BEACH COUNTY AND BROWARD COUNTIES THAT ESTABLISHED THIS OFFICE 16 YEARS RESPECTIVELY. COMMISSIONER PAT FRANK WRITTEN AT THE REQUEST OF THIS BOARD THAT STATES THE CASE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS OFFICE MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN I EVER COULD. >>JAN SMITH: THAT'S TWO SENTENCES. THANK YOU. >> THE BOOK IS BEFORE YOU AND WILL BE WIDELY DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY. AND I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COURTESY, MADAM CHAIR. >> KARL WARREN, TAMPA, FLORIDA. 5 MADAM CHAIR. A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD DURING THE DECEMBER THE 28th MEETING IMPLIED THAT MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE AT THE JULY MEETING IN SUPPORT OF AN APPOINTED COUNTY PERFORMANCE AUDITOR, QUOTE UNQUOTE, DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ISSUE WAS ALL ABOUT. I TAKE EXCEPTION TO THIS SEEMINGLY CONDESCENDING CRITICISM OF THE 19 PEOPLE WHO SPOKE IN SUPPORT OF A COUNTY PERFORMANCE AUDITOR. I DO NOT BELIEVE PEOPLE LIKE PETER ALEXANDER, JOSEPH CATANO, FRANCIS KATE, MICHAEL CARDUCCI, KELLY KIM, NEIL COSENTINO, BETTY CRISLIP, ROY DAVIS, TOM JONES, LES SERIGHT, MARILYN SMITH, JOHN THIBODEAU, JANET WILSON, RALPH HUGHES AND MYSELF DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE OBVIOUS AND SUBTLE INDICATION OF SUCH A POSITION IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT. I BELIEVE ALL OF US CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THE IMPLICATION FOR A NEED TO HAVE SUCH A POSITION DIRECTLY UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOCC. I BELIEVE ALL OF US SUPPORTS SUCH A ROLE IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT, AND RECOGNIZES THAT FOR A VERY LONG TIME, THE TAIL, THAT IS THE ADMINISTRATION OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN WAGGING THE DOG, THAT IS THE BOCC. I BELIEVE THIS IS A VERY BROAD SHARED PERCEPTION BY MANY PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY. I BELIEVE THAT THOSE PERSONS OR GROUPS OPPOSED TO SUCH A ROAD THAT COULD LEAD TO GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT ARE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PRESENT INEFFICIENT AND INEFFECTIVE WAY OF DOING BUSINESS IN COUNTY 6 GOVERNMENT. I CHALLENGE THIS BOARD -- THIS CHARTER REVIEW BOARD TO LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT. I PRAY THAT NONE OF YOU BELIEVE YOU KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS COMMUNITY. I BELIEVE IN OPPORTUNITY FOR AN OPEN FORUM HAS BEEN PROVIDED. IMPORTANT ISSUES HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, AND IN SOME INSTANCES, MUDDLED THROUGH. I BELIEVE THIS CHARTER REVIEW BOARD HAS DONE ITS APPOINTED JOB. NOW I SAY TO EACH OF YOU, LET ALL THE CITIZENS DO THEIR JOB AS RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY. NOTE. I HAVE ATTACHED -- I'M GOING TO ATTACH FOR THE RECORD MY FULL PRESENTATION WITH THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE THAT I HAVE LISTED AND THEIR VARIOUS OFFICIAL AND CIVIC CAPACITIES. THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT IT TO THE BOARD. >>JAN SMITH: MR. WARREN, IF YOU WOULD GIVE THAT TO BARBARA MERRITT, SHE CAN COPY IT TO EACH OF THE BOARD MEMBERS. AND THEN I BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. >> THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: MS. DENA LEAVENGOOD AND AFTER MS. LEAVENGOOD, MIMI OSIASON. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M DENA LEVINGOOD, AND I'M PRESIDENT OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN 7 VOTERS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. AND MY COMMENTS WILL BE EXTREMELY BRIEF BECAUSE I WANT TO ALLOW YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE CHAIR OF OUR CHARTER REVIEW MEETING, WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN MEETING FOR SO MANY MONTHS AS YOU HAVE AS WELL AND WE SUPPORT THEIR ACTIVITIES AND WE PARTICULARLY SUPPORT YOUR ACTIVITIES, AND WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING THE COMMUNITY AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU, MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO HOLD THESE MEETINGS SO WE CAN PARTICIPATE AND FOR THE TIME AND ENERGIES AND EFFORTS YOU SPENT ON OUR BEHALF IN THE COMMUNITY. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU KNEW HOW MUCH WE FEEL THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ROLE YOU ARE PLAYING AND WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. FIRST I HAVE SOME GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THIS PROCESS AND THE CHARTER. THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS -- >>JAN SMITH: MIMI. GIVE YOUR NAME. >> MIMI OSIASON. SHE DID SO -- THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS BELIEVES IN OUR REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT. IF YOU PLACE A PROPOSAL ON THE BALLOT, YOU ARE ASSERTING THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS STUDIED THAT PROPOSAL, INCLUDING THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT CHANGE. YOU ARE ASSERTING THAT THIS BOARD BELIEVES THAT THE PROPOSAL 8 IS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE PRESENT SYSTEM AND IS RECOMMENDING IT TO THE CITIZENS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE MERELY GIVING THE CITIZENS THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE, WE WILL BELIEVE YOU HAVE ENDORSED THE PROPOSAL. THE CHARTER IS BASICALLY CONSTITUTION ON THE COUNTY LEVEL. IT IS DANGEROUS TO SPECIFY DETAILS OF GOVERNANCE IN OUR CONSTITUTION. IT IS AGAINST EVERY PRINCIPLE OF EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT TO PRESCRIBE LEGISLATIVE ISSUES IN OUR CONSTITUTION. IT IS IN OUR BEST INTERESTS AS CITIZENS THAT THE CONSTITUTION OUTLINE THE BROAD FRAMEWORK OF WHAT GOVERNMENT IS AND LET THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS BE ALLOWED TO WORK. IF WE ARE UNHAPPY WITH THE WAY THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS WORKS, THE ANSWER IS TO ELECT DIFFERENT LEGISLATORS, OR IN THIS CASE, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. FOR EVERY FEELING THAT OUR RIGHTS, AS CITIZENS, ARE NOT BEING PROTECTED OR OUR VOICES ARE NOT BEING HEARD, THERE ARE ALSO VOICES TO MAKE THE OPPOSITE ARGUMENT. SO WE ARE NOT TALKING, REALLY, ABOUT PEOPLE VS. GOVERNMENT. WE ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE VS. PEOPLE. THE IMPORTANT QUESTION IN LOOKING AT A CONSTITUTION IS TO ASK IF THERE IS A FRAMEWORK OF GOVERNMENT SO THAT EVERY PERSON WHO HAS AN INTEREST OR CONCERN HAS THE ABILITY TO GO IN AND EXPRESS THAT INTEREST OR CONCERN AND BE HEARD EQUALLY. IT IS WHEN THAT ACCESS IS DENIED OR WHEN IT IS WEIGHTED UNFAIRLY IN ONE DIRECTION THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE 9 FRAMEWORK OF OUR GOVERNMENT. BECAUSE OF TIME LIMITATIONS TONIGHT, I WILL ADDRESS ONLY THOSE PROPOSED CHANGES WHICH RELATE DIRECTLY TO THE POINTS I HAVE JUST STATED. THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS IS STRONGLY AGAINST THE PROPOSAL LIMITING INCREASES IN THE GENERAL REVENUE OPERATING BUDGET TO 3% OR ANNUAL INFLATION RATE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER. TAXATION IS A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION. NO TAX SOURCES OR REVENUE SHALL BE SPECIFIED, LIMITED, EXPECTED OR PROHIBITED IN THE CONSTITUTION. THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE A SIMPLE, UNDERSTANDABLE, AND INTEGRATED STATEMENT OF BASIC LAW, FREE OF OBSOLETE AND STATUTORY DETAIL, A FLEXIBLE INSTRUMENT FREE FROM UNSOUND LIMITATIONS BIDING UPON THE LEGISLATIVE BODY. THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS ALSO OBJECTS TO THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL FOR A COUNTY AUDITOR. WE AGREE WITH THE STATED INTENT OF THE PROPOSAL THAT FUNDING DECISIONS SHOULD FOLLOW POLICY DECISIONS; HOWEVER, THE CHARTER IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL. WE WILL HAVE COMMENTS ON THE OTHER PROPOSALS AT THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MS. OSIASON. C. JANE RANKY. I NEED FOR YOU ALL TO UNDERSTAND THE FIRST TIME YOU HEAR THE BELL, THAT MEANS YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS TO FINISH UP. SO IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU'RE FINISHED. 10 YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS AFTER THAT. AND SINCE MR. HUGHES WENT OVER, WE'LL -- >> I'M C. JANE RANKY. I LIVE IN SUN CITY CENTER. AND I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT YOUR PROPOSAL TO HAVE NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS. I AM HORRIBLY OPPOSED TO IT FOR MANY REASONS. I THINK THAT FOR ONE THING THE AMERICAN WAY IS TO HAVE POLITICAL PARTIES. I THINK IT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE ASKED TO VOTE FOR. I DON'T THINK THAT YOUR PLAN IS FAIR BECAUSE I THINK THAT VERY OFTEN WE HAVE NO CLUE AT ALL WHAT THE PERSON, WHAT HIS IDEOLOGY IS, AND WE ARE ASKED TO VOTE FOR A A PIG IN A POKE IN A SENSE. AND I THINK AT LEAST WHEN THE PARTY LABEL IS ON, YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO KNOW THAT YOU'VE GOT A LIBERAL PERSON OR A CONSERVATIVE PERSON OR A MODERATE. BUT YOU HAVE NO CHANCE AT ALL IF YOU DON'T KNOW. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE PARTISAN INFORMATION FOR US BECAUSE IT HAS SERVED OUR COUNTRY WELL. WE DON'T ALWAYS AGREE, BUT I JUST REALLY FEEL STRONGLY THAT IT ISN'T RIGHT. AND I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I KNOW I HAVEN'T -- I WASN'T PLANNING TO SPEAK, AND THEN I DECIDED THAT I WOULD BECAUSE I FEEL STRONGLY THAT WE CAN MAKE 11 A DIFFERENCE AND THIS WE CAN HAVE GOOD GOVERNMENT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO ASK US TO VOTE AND SUPPORT SOMEONE THAT PERHAPS WE DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT THEIR IDEOLOGY IS AND IF IT COMES ANYWHERES IS CLOSE TO OURS. I REALLY -- I'M GOING TO RELINQUISH MY TIME BECAUSE THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY AND I THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MRS. RANKY FOR COMING UP HERE. MR. GEORGE HAWK. >> GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. FELLOW CITIZENS. MY NAME IS GEORGE HOUGH, 6728 TWELVE OAKS BOULEVARD IN TOWN N' COUNTRY. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER. I STRONGLY OPPOSE HAVING ANY ELECTED OFFICES NONPARTISAN. I BELIEVE AS IT IS NOW, THE SCHOOL BOARD IS NONPARTISAN AND THE JUDGESHIPS. AT ELECTION TIME, WE, THE VOTERS ARE INUNDATED WITH TELEVISION ADDS, RADIO ADDS AND LITERATURE FOR PRESIDENT, WE KNOW HOW THEY STAND ON ISSUES. WHEN THE GOVERNOR RUNS, WE KNOW HOW THEY STAND ON ISSUES. BUT ON A LOT OF LOCAL OFFICES, WE JUST DON'T RECEIVE THAT MUCH INFORMATION. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE LAST TIME I RECEIVED SOMETHING FROM A SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER WHO WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE. I THINK -- I DON'T THINK I'M TOO FAR OFF-BASE TO SAY THAT IN THE COUNTRY TODAY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BASICALLY RUNS IN THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM FROM MODERATE TO LIBERAL AND THE REPUBLICAN 12 PARTY FROM MODERATE TO CONSERVATIVE. HAVING A CANDIDATE RUN IN THE POLITICAL PARTY TELLS ME SOMETHING ABOUT THAT CANDIDATE'S POLITICS AND HOW THEY MAY CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN OFFICE WHEN THEY ARE ELECTED. WITHOUT THIS, VERY OFTEN LITTLE IS KNOWN AS AN OFFICEHOLDER WILL VOTE ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN. MS. PHYLLIS BUSANSKY AND AFTER MS. BUSANSKY, JEAN CARR. >> FIRST I WANT TO TELL YOU I THINK IT IS GREAT YOU ARE DOING THIS. NOT AN EASY TASK AND YOU HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR A LONG TIME AND I KNOW MANY OF YOU, THAT YOU AS CITIZENS SIGNED UP TO TAKE ON THIS JOB IS REALLY REMARKABLE AND THANK YOU. I HAVE THREE VERY SHORT COMMENTS. AS A FORMER ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL, A COUNTY COMMISSIONER AT-LARGE, I FEEL THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE DISTRICTS AND THE DISTRICTING EXACTLY THE WAY IT IS NOW. IT'S AN ACCIDENT THAT, IN FACT, THREE COMMISSIONERS LIVE IN THE SAME AREA TODAY. WHEN I WAS FIRST ON THE BOARD, RODNEY COLESON WAS AT-LARGE AND HE REPRESENTED AT-LARGE, BUT HE CAME FROM PLANT CITY. JAN PLATT WAS AT-LARGE AND SHE REPRESENTED AT-LARGE, AND SHE CAME FROM SOUTH TAMPA. I REPRESENTED AT-LARGE, AND I COME FROM NORTH TAMPA. 13 YOU COULD NOT TELL BY THEIR VOTES THAT THEY HAD ANY PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IN THEIR -- OF INTEREST, BUT THEIR INTEREST WAS IN ALL. I BELIEVE IT IS THE VOTERS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT THE AT-LARGE MEMBERS AND THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT LISTEN TO AND THE AT-LARGE MEMBERS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE TO THOSE VOTERS AND THEY DO NOT SHOW, AND I'VE NEVER SEEN THEM SHOW A GEOGRAPHICAL PARTICULAR INTEREST OR POINT OF VIEW. THAT'S THE FIRST POINT I WANTED TO MAKE. SECONDLY, WHEN IT COMES TO THE ISSUE OF PARTISAN OFFICES, I HAVE NEVER ON MY EIGHT YEARS ON THE COMMISSION SEEN A REPUBLICAN POTHOLE OR A DEMOCRATIC POTHOLE. SO I WOULD TELL YOU TODAY THAT I BELIEVE THAT NONPARTISANSHIP WILL BE SOMETHING THAT I CERTAINLY WOULD FAVOR, AND I HOPE THAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER SUPPORTING. AND THIRDLY, AND IT'S PROBABLY THE MOST DIFFICULT THING I HAVE TO SAY, IS WE VOTE FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL MAKE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT FINANCIAL DECISIONS. AND THEY STAY IN OFFICE OR THEY LEAVE OFFICE BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE THEM WELL. TO PUT A CAP ON THAT ABILITY TO ME SEEMS TO REALLY EMASCULATE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF AN ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT PUBLIC OFFICIAL. SO I HOPE THAT WE WILL CONTINUE OR -- AND HOPEFULLY GO FORWARD IN ELECTING PEOPLE WHO ARE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. THEY WILL LISTEN TO THE WILL OF THE VOTER. THEY WILL LISTEN TO THEIR OWN INTELLIGENCE AND KNOWLEDGE AND 14 MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS WITHOUT PUTTING AN OUTSIDE STRUCTURE ON THAT AND HINDERANCE REALLY ON THAT ABILITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. GOOD LUCK ON YOUR EFFORTS. YOU'RE THE THIRD CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE I'VE SEEN. THE FIRST ONE I HAVE EVER SPOKEN BEFORE, AND I WISH YOU LUCK. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MS. BUSANSKY. JEANNIE CARR. MY NAME IS JEANNIE CARR. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE BARRINGTON OAKS EAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. AND I WANTED TO COME HERE TO SPEAK TONIGHT JUST TO TELL YOU THAT SOME RECENT REZONING ISSUES HAVE COME UP AND GETTING INVOLVED IN THAT, I'VE BEEN CONTACTED BY NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS IN THE BRANDON AND VALRICO AREA WHO HAVE EXPRESSED REAL CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND FEELING LIKE THEY HAVE NO VOICE IN WHAT'S GOING ON. I DON'T KNOW WHY THESE PEOPLE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO APPROACH THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS, BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A BREAKDOWN IN COMMUNICATION SOMEWHERE. AND SO I WANTED TO BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION. I HAVE RECENTLY BECOME AWARE OF F.A.I.R., AND AS WRITTEN UP IN THE ARTICLE IN THE BRANDON NEWS, I DO SUPPORT THE THINGS THAT THEY STAND FOR. I BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD BENEFIT FROM ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONERS. 15 AND DO NOT BELIEVE IN PUTTING A CAP ON THE FINANCIAL SPENDING. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TONIGHT. AND THANK YOU AGAIN. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU. R. BRUCE -- I CAN READ THE BEGINNING OF IT. THANK YOU FOR COMING THIS EVENING. >> BRUCE HOTON AND I LIVE AT 69 BAHAMA CIRCLE IN DAVIS ISLAND. PRECINCT 127 AND HAPPEN TO BE A COMMITTEE MEMBER. SPECIFICALLY I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT, AND I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO OBSERVE AND SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I WOULD LIKE TO KIND OF REITERATE WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE SAYING. YOU PEOPLE ARE VERY VALUABLE TO THE COUNTY AND TO THE CITY IN YOUR GUIDANCE. AND YOUR UNDERSTANDING, YOUR INVESTIGATION, AND SO FORTH. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THAT IN OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION THIS LAST NOVEMBER 7th, THERE WERE TEN CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. AND WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THESE PEOPLE RUNNING UNDER THE PARTICULAR DESIGNATION OF WHAT THEY PHILOSOPHICALLY BELIEVED IN. I AM OPPOSED TO NONPARTISAN OFFICES. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE JUDGES AND THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE NONPARTISAN. I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS A BAD THING FOR A PERSON TO HAVE OR TO MAKE SOME DESIGNATION OF WHAT THE IDEOLOGY MIGHT BE OF THAT PARTICULAR CANDIDATE. 16 THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO DON'T GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS. THEY VOTE BECAUSE OF A NAME. THAT PERSON'S NAME IS THIS. OH, THAT'S A GOOD GUY. OR THAT'S A BAD GUY. OR THEIR COLOR. OR WHATEVER IT HAPPENS TO BE. I THINK THAT TAKING AWAY THIS ONE MAJOR THING WE HAVE IS POLITICAL PARTY. AND I THINK THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AWAY. ALSO I FEEL AS THOUGH THIS SINGLE DISTRICT MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL WHEN YOU STOP TO FIGURE WHO IS BEING REPRESENTED SUPPOSEDLY BY THE CANDIDATES THAT WIN IN THE COUNTY COMMISSION. SUN CITY, I HAVE NO IDEA OF HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE LIVING OUT THERE. MAYBE 20,000 PEOPLE. BRANDON, DEPENDS UPON THE DISTRICT OF BRANDON, 30,000 PEOPLE. ARE THEY BEING REPRESENTED? I QUESTION THAT. I THINK SINGLE DISTRICT IS NOT A BAD THING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, SIR. MR. RON WOLF. AND AFTER MR. WOLF, TOM ROCKY. >> MADAM CHAIR, FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, I'M APPEARING TONIGHT TO ADDRESS SEVERAL OF THE ITEMS NOW ON THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD'S TABLE. 17 FIRST IS THE CHANGE IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE. NOW THIS CHARTER REVIEW BOARD HAS PRESENTED THREE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS IDENTIFIED AS 4-3 PLUS, 4-2-1 CHAIR, AND 6-1 CHAIR. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU ADD A FOURTH CHOICE FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY VOTERS, A DRAFT RESOLUTION IDENTIFIED AS 7-0. THIS WILL CALL FOR SEVEN SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, EACH WITH A POPULATION OF APPROXIMATELY 150 CITIZENS -- 150,000 CITIZENS, PARDON ME. DEALING WITH THE BOCC CHAIRPERSON, I SUGGEST THAT WE CONTINUE WITH THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF ELECTING A CHAIRPERSON. THE BOCC COMMISSIONERS ARE BETTER EQUIPPED TO SELECT THEIR OWN CHAIRPERSON WHO BEST DEMONSTRATES LEADERSHIP, VISION, AND CONSENSUS-BUILDING SKILLS. A RECENT EXAMPLE OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OF THIS CITIZEN WAS THE RE-ELECTION OF BOCC CHAIRPERSON PAT FRANK. IF COMMISSIONER FRANK CONTINUES TO DISPLAY THIS ABILITY, SHE SHOULD BE REELECTED EACH YEAR FOR THE BALANCE OF HER TERM LIMITS. YES, INDEED, MR. HURLEY, IN PAT FRANK WE MAY HAVE ANOTHER ELLSWORTH SIMMONS IN THE MAKING. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT INCLUDED IN THE BOCC MEMBERS' DECISION TO ELECT THEIR LEADER WAS AN EXPRESSED WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE IN GOOD FOLLOWERSHIP. WE NEED BOTH LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWERSHIP IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT. MOVING TO NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS, I BELIEVE THAT OUR 18 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ELECTIONS SHOULD BE NONPARTISAN, INDEPENDENT OF MAJOR PARTY AFFILIATIONS. I'M A REGISTERED REPUBLICAN. BECAUSE I SUBSCRIBE TO THE CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF GOVERNMENT. I SHOULD BE REJOICING OVER OUR NEW 4-3 REPUBLICAN BOCC MAJORITY, BUT I'M NOT. TOO OFTEN BOCC DECISIONS SEEM TO BE MADE ALONG STRONG MAJOR PARTY LINES. BY MOVING TO NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS, THIS PROBLEM WOULD BE ELIMINATED. THE INCREASE TO THE COUNTY BUDGET. I'M INTRIGUED WITH THE PROPOSAL TO LIMIT THE INCREASES TO THE COUNTY BUDGET TO 3% ANNUALLY OR THE ANNUAL INFLATION RATE, WHICHEVER IS LESS. I DO, HOWEVER, SUPPORT THE 6-1 VOTE OVERRIDE PROVISION SO THE BOCC'S HANDS ARE NOT TIED IN THE EVENT OF CRITICAL EMERGENCIES OR CRITICAL CITIZEN NEED. THE MEMBERSHIP IN ICMA. IF MEMBERSHIP IN THIS ASSOCIATION PROVIDES TO THE TAXPAYERS A BETTER QUALIFIED COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, WE SHOULD HAVE IT. I'M UNDECIDED WHETHER THIS SHOULD BE PLACED IN THE COUNTY CHARTER. IN CONCLUSION, MOST PERSONS I KNOW AGREE THAT THE RIGHT OF DECISION SHOULD BELONG TO THE MAJORITY, BUT THE RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION TO ALL. IT'S ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT THE BEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS THE ONE THAT IS CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE. 19 IN MY OPINION, THE ENGINE THAT DRIVES CITIZEN VOTER PARTICIPATION IS FAIR REPRESENTATION AND A FEELING THAT A SINGLE VOICE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. HOPEFULLY THIS MESSAGE WILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND INCORPORATED INTO YOUR FURTHER DELIBERATIONS. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. WOLF. MR. TOM ROCKY. >> THANK YOU. I'M TOM ROCKY, AND I LIVE IN PRECINCT 119 IN PALMA CEIA AND I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS SO-CALLED NONPARTISAN VOTE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS AT THE COUNTY LEVEL. THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, WHY NOW? WHAT IS IT -- IS THERE SOME INHERENT WEAKNESS IN OUR SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE THAT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE OR DIFFICULT FOR OUR GOVERNMENT TO FUNCTION? WHAT IS IT THAT IS BROKEN HERE? OR IS THERE SOME HIDDEN AGENDA THAT WE ARE NOT AWARE OF? I THINK WE'RE ALL AWARE OF THE SHIFT IN THE VOTER POPULATION, THE DEMOGRAPHICS IN OUR COUNTY. IN THE PAST NUMBER OF YEARS WE'VE SEEN QUITE A SHIFT IN OUR VOTER REGISTRATION AWAY FROM THE OLD GUARD. AND POSSIBLY, THIS IS WHAT THE ESTABLISHMENT IS AFRAID OF. OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, I BELIEVE, IS DESIGNED PURPOSELY TO DIMINISH THE ROLE OF ONE INDIVIDUAL. WE COME TOGETHER AND FORM POLITICAL PARTIES AS A NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF SOCIAL ACTIVITY. 20 WE COME TOGETHER, THOSE OF US WHO HAVE COMMON IDEAS AND COMMON GOALS. AND AS SUCH, WE ATTACH LABELS TO OURSELVES, AND I THINK THOSE LABELS HAVE A REASON AND A PURPOSE. SOMETIMES THEY ARE MISUNDERSTOOD, BUT GENERALLY THE VOTING PUBLIC HAS A PRETTY GOOD IDEA WHAT THESE LABELS REPRESENT. WE FIND THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE ELECTED OFTENTIMES DO CARRY OUT OR AT LEAST ATTEMPT TO CARRY OUT THEIR AGENDA BASED ON MAJORITY WILL THAT ELECTED THESE PEOPLE. I THINK THE CANDIDATES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL ARE AT THAT DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO COMMUNICATE THEIR INDIVIDUAL IDEAS AND THEIR PHILOSOPHY ON GOVERNING AS IS THE PEOPLE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE TO USE THE MASS MEDIA TO COMMUNICATE IDEAS. SO AS A RESULT, THE POLITICAL PARTIES CAN HELP TO COMMUNICATE THE IDEAS MORE EFFECTIVELY. LABELS LIKE DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, OR GREEN PARTY, I BELIEVE, HELP TO MAKE -- HELP THE VOTER MAKE A CHOICE. THEY OFTENTIMES LACK DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF A VOTER, AND AS SUCH, THEY CAN MAKE A CHOICE BASED ON PARTY AFFILIATION. AND WE ARE ALL PARTISAN, EVERY ONE OF US IN THIS ROOM ARE PARTISAN. IF SOMEONE SAYS THAT THEY'RE NOT COMMITTED, THEY ARE EITHER A FOOL OR THEY'RE JUST UNINFORMED. I WOULD ENCOURAGE OF THOSE PEOPLE HERE TO CHANGE THEIR PROPOSAL, AND LET'S NOT FIX SOMETHING THAT MAY NOT BE BROKE. 21 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. ROCKY. THE NEXT TWO SPEAKERS, FIRST, IS MS. BETTY CRISLIP AND THEN MS. CAROL CARTER. >> BETTY CRISLIP, 4405 WEST PLATT. I'VE NOTICED AS I'VE BEEN WATCHING YOU EITHER HERE OR ON TELEVISION THAT MANY OF THE PROBLEMS YOU PERCEIVE YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE MUST BE SOLVED BY CHANGE IN THE CHARTER; YET, I SEE THAT MANY OF THE PROBLEMS YOU'VE IDENTIFIED ARE POLITICAL, NOT STRUCTURAL. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU APPARENTLY FEEL THAT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL CAN'T REPRESENT ANY CITIZEN OTHER THAN THOSE AMONG WHOM HE OR SHE RESIDES. BUT IF YOU REALLY BELIEVED THIS, WHY HAVEN'T YOU HAD THE COURAGE TO PROPOSE ALL SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. THE PURPOSE OF AT-LARGE DISTRICTS IS TO HAVE OFFICIALS WHOSE MANDATES ARE TO REPRESENT ALL OF THE COUNTY, NOT JUST NEIGHBORS. WHAT EVIDENCE ALSO DO YOU HAVE THAT OUR PRESENT AT-LARGE COMMISSIONERS ARE PAROCHIAL AND REFLECT PRIMARILY SOUTH TAMPA? I'M SOMEWHAT TIRED OF HEARING THAT THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY HAS MORE CITIZENS THAN TAMPA, AND YET SOMEHOW IS DISENFRANCHISED AT ELECTION TIME. IF UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH HAS MORE VOTERS AND THEY WANT MORE OFFICIALS FROM THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY, WHY CAN'T THEY GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER AND ELECT THEM. THEY HAVE THE VOTING MAJORITY, YOU SAY. 22 CAN'T THEY GET CANDIDATES TO COME FORWARD WHO CAN WIN? THE PROBLEM YOU PERCEIVE IS POLITICAL. IT IS NOT RELATED TO STRUCTURE A CHARTER. IF YOU REALLY THINK THAT A RESIDENT OF A DISTRICT CAN PROPERLY REPRESENT IT, LOOK AGAIN AT ALL SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. YOUR PROPOSAL CREATES A HODGEPODGE, TWO-TIERED SYSTEM, FIVE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS PLUS THREE SUPER DISTRICTS WHICH WILL NO LONGER TRULY BE LARGE AT ALL. NEXT, YOU SEEM TO FEEL THAT RUNNING FOR COUNTY COMMISSION WITH A PARTISAN LABEL IS SOMEHOW BAD. IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHERE THIS IDEA COMES FROM. AND IN SOME OF YOUR MEETINGS, I'VE HEARD MEMBERS SAY THAT THE TAMPA CITY COUNCIL OR SCHOOL BOARD DON'T HAVE SHARPLY DIVIDED VOTING PATTERNS. AND THIS HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO THEIR NONPARTISAN STATUS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO. THE CITY COUNCIL AND SCHOOL BOARD FUNCTION UNDER GO-IT-ALONE EXECUTIVES THAT PRESENT THEM WITH FAIT ACCOMPLI WHICH THEY BOW REVERENTLY. ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU WANTED A STRONG MAYOR COUNTY LEADERSHIP, YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE. THERE IS A VERY IMPORTANT DRAWBACK TO NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS, AND THAT IS THAT THAT THEY DEPRIVE THE VOTER OF IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT A CANDIDATE. THERE IS A VERY REAL DIFFERENCE -- TWO SENTENCES -- VERY REAL DIFFERENCE IN HOW A DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN SEE THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT EVEN AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. 23 IF YOU WANT TO RUN FOR OFFICE, YOU SHOULD BE WILLING TO AFFIRM A PARTICULAR PHILOSOPHY AND GIVE THIS VERY HELPFUL SIGNAL TO VOTERS. PLEASE DON'T CHANGE THE PARTISANSHIP ELECTION. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MS. CRISLIP. CAROL CARTER. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS CAROL CARTER. I LIVE IN SOUTH TAMPA, WHICH SEEMS TO BE A BAD PLACE TO LIVE ACCORDING TO Y'ALL. [ LAUGHTER ] I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, ALSO, TO THE NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS. CREATING A NONPARTISAN RACE DOES NOT TAKE THE POLITICS OUT OF THESE RACES; IT ONLY CHANGES WHERE THE POLITICS TAKES PLACE. IN NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS, POLITICS TAKES PLACE IN VESTED INTEREST GROUPS, SUCH AS THE SCHOOL BOARD IS GREATLY INFLUENCED BY THE TEACHERS UNION. THE CITY COUNCIL RACES GREATLY INFLUENCED BY THE POLICE AND THE FIREMEN UNIONS. THESE ARE VESTED INTEREST GROUPS. THESE ARE GROUPS WHO -- WHO THESE PEOPLE FIGURE THEIR BUDGETS AND THEIR PAY WAGES AND THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO GAIN BY THE PEOPLE THAT WIN THESE ELECTIONS. TO MOVE THESE ELECTIONS FROM PARTISAN TO NONPARTISAN ONLY MOVES THEM TO A BACK, DARK ROOM AND THE BOARDROOMS OF THESE 24 VESTED INTERESTED. NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS HAVE ALWAYS ALSO HAD LESS INTEREST AND LESS LOOKING BY THE PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA. POLITICAL PARTIES LABELS DO INDICATE, AS OTHER PEOPLE -- AND THE WOMAN THAT SPOKE BEFORE ME SAID EVERYTHING MUCH MORE ARTICULATELY THAN I'M DOING IT, AND I ADMIRE HER VERY GREATLY. POLITICAL PARTY LABELS DO INDICATE A PERSON'S BELIEFS AND IDEAS. MOST PARTY VOLUNTEERS THAT WORK IN THESE CANDIDATE RACES DON'T HAVE A VESTED INTEREST. I'VE BEEN A VOLUNTEER IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR OVER 30 YEARS, AND I HAVE NOT BENEFITED ONE CENT FROM ANY OF THE RACES THAT HAVE BEEN WON OR LOST BY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. I WILL HAVE TO SAY, THOUGH, THAT YOUR MOVE FOR NONPARTISAN COUNTY COMMISSION RACES HAS GIVEN ME A GOOD FEELING. I HAVE BEEN AN ACTIVE WORKER IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AS I SAID FOR OVER 30 YEARS, AND ON A STATEWIDE LEVEL. AND I FOUND IN THOSE COUNTIES WHERE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BEGINS TO ELECT OFFICIALS AND SHOW A LITTLE BIT OF STRENGTH, THE FIRST THING IS A MOVE TO NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS. IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. SO I JUST WANTED TO STATE MY STATEMENT THAT I AM DEFINITELY OPPOSED TO ANY MOVE TO NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS FOR ANY RACE BECAUSE IT'S NOT UNDER A MAGNIFYING GLASS LIKE POLITICAL PARTY RACES ARE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MS. CARTER. 25 THE NEXT TWO SPEAKERS. FIRST, DENISE LAYNE. AND SECOND, MARGUERITE RICH. I'M SORRY, YOU'RE CORRECT. THE NEXT SPEAKER AFTER MS. LAYNE WILL BE JOYCE SMITH. [ INAUDIBLE ] >>JAN SMITH: DENISE LAYNE AND THEN JOYCE SMITH. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR AND BOARD. I, TOO, WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU. I'VE BEEN WATCHING YOU ON TV, EVEN THOUGH I HAVEN'T BEEN HERE PHYSICALLY, I'VE BEEN HERE IN SPIRIT. YOU ALL HAVE HAD ONE HECK OF A JOB. AND REALLY THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION. I DO APPRECIATE IT. AND IT'S BEEN VERY INTERESTING. YOU ACTUALLY DISCUSSED THINGS AND POINTS OF VIEW THAT I HAD NOT THOUGHT OF THAT WAS INTERESTING. I WANT TO BRING A COUPLE OF THINGS TO YOUR ATTENTION, AND I'M NOT GOING TO GET TOO DETAILED TONIGHT. I WILL BE HERE FOR YOUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING. JUST A FEW THINGS TONIGHT. FIRST OF ALL, THE 3% CAP, THE COUNTY AUDITOR, AND THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BEING REQUIRED TO BE PART OF THE INTERNATIONAL CITY-COUNTY MANAGERS ASSOCIATION. I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE MERITS OF THE CONCEPT. THEY DO NOT BELONG IN THE CHARTER. PLEASE KEEP THE CHARTER AS FRAMEWORK FOR GOVERNMENT. 26 DO NOT GET SPECIFIC LIKE THAT IN THE CHARTER. I URGE YOU TO RECOMMEND POSSIBLY THESE IDEAS BE PURSUED. I'M NOT GETTING INTO MERITS, TO LOOK AT THE MERITS VERY CAREFULLY, BUT TO BE DONE IN THE RIGHT FORUM. CHANGING THE CHARTER FOR THESE THREE THINGS IS NOT THE PROPER VEHICLE TO DO THAT. SECONDLY, I THINK IN THE ELECTED CHAIR, FROM WHAT I AM SEEING, YOU ARE NOT CREATING ANYTHING THAT WE'VE ALREADY GOT OTHER THAN JUST A COMMISSIONER CALLED "ELECTED CHAIR." THE NEGATIVE TO THAT IS, AGAIN, YOU GET A BAD CHAIR, SOMEONE WHO CAN'T BRING A CONSENSUS TO THE BOARD, YOU'RE STUCK WITH THAT PERSON FOR FOUR YEARS. NOW YOU HAVE A NONCONSENSUS BUILDER. WE'VE GOT TO SUFFER THROUGH A YEAR, BUT WE DON'T HAVE FOUR YEARS OF IT. WHAT THIS IS REALLY DOING, TRULY DOING, IS SETTING UP THE FRAMEWORK FOR A COUNTY MAYOR. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT, PLEASE SET THAT UP, HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. WHAT YOU'RE CREATING HERE IS CONFUSION. I GUARANTEE YOU THIS WILL BE NOTHING BUT CONFUSION. YOU ARE EITHER GOING TO POLARIZE THAT ELECTED CHAIR BY VOTE, OVERVOTE, AND NEGATION BY THE COMMISSION. IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN MORE THAN YOU THINK, AND YOU ARE GOING TO END UP BASICALLY WHERE YOU ARE NOW. THERE IS NO CHANGE TO WHAT YOU'VE GOT NOW. DON'T SET UP THE FRAMEWORK. 27 IT WILL HAPPEN FOR COUNTY MAYOR. IF THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT TO GO, GO TO THE COUNTY MAYOR AND START DISCUSSING THAT OR YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THAT. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I THINK YOU HAVE AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE WITH YOUR NONPARTISAN AND PARTISANSHIP. THE WAY THAT THIS READS, THAT I JUST GOT A COPY OF, BASICALLY WE ARE GOING TO BE ELECTING OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE PRIMARY. YOU'RE TAKING THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS THAT WOULD COME TO A GENERAL ELECTION AND THERE'S NOT THAT MANY OF THOSE IN THE GENERAL -- IF IT IS NOT A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, YOU ARE NOW DECREASING IT. HOW MANY PEOPLE VOTE IN PRIMARIES. I MEAN, LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, NO MATTER IF YOU ARE DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. SO I THINK THERE IS AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE WITH AT LEAST THE VERBIAGE YOU HAVE IN THIS CHARTER AND I URGE YOU TO PLEASE BE CAREFUL. YOU ARE TAKING AWAY A VOTER IN A GENERAL ELECTION'S RIGHT. SOME OF THESE COMMISSIONERS WILL BE ELECTED IN THE PRIMARIES. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MS. LAYNE. MS. JOYCE SMITH. >> HI. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JOYCE SMITH. AND I RESIDE AT 7201 DAIQUIRI LANE IN TAMPA. 28 YOU KNOW, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS SO BEAUTIFUL, AND IT'S BEAUTIFUL BECAUSE IT'S BRIEF. IT'S OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. IT DOESN'T HAVE THE DETAILS IN IT. AND I THINK THERE'S A BEAUTY TO THAT. AS FOR THE CAP ON THE BUDGET, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS THIS -- YOU KNOW, COMMISSION'S JOB, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I BELIEVE THAT IS THE COUNTY COMMISSION'S JOB AND THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE ELECTED TO DO. HAVING A CAP ON THE BUDGET -- I KEEP HEARING FROM PEOPLE WE SHOULD RUN THE COUNTY MORE LIKE A BUSINESS. YOU HEAR THAT. I'VE NEVER HEARD A BUSINESS PUTTING A CAP ON HOW MUCH THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT. SO I REALLY THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REALLY THINK THIS OUT. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT CRISIS YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE. AND REALLY, YOU WEREN'T ELECTED TO DO THAT, TO BE VERY HONEST WITH YOU. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M REALLY TRYING TO SAY THIS WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IT'S JUST NOT YOUR ISSUE. IT'S REALLY AN ISSUE FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT WE ELECT. SO BUSINESSES DON'T OPERATE THIS WAY. AND, YOU KNOW, YOU SEEM TO WANT THE COUNTY TO OPERATE LIKE A BUSINESS. 29 AS FOR THE COUNTY AUDITOR, I MENTIONED BEFORE I THINK THAT SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT. I DON'T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE HIRED OR FIRED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION. I THINK THAT IT WORKS WELL NOW. THE COUNTY CHAIR DETERMINING WHO SITS ON WHAT BOARD, OH, DON'T WE HAVE ACRIMONY NOW. THE LAST ASSIGNMENT OF COMMITTEES WAS A NIGHTMARE. I MEAN -- AND THERE WAS SOME VERY HURT FEELINGS ON THAT BOARD, AND THAT IS GOING TO HURT US FOR THE NEXT YEAR. AND SO TO HAVE A COUNTY CHAIR DETERMINE WHO IS GOING TO SIT ON WHAT BOARD, I THINK THAT'S NOT GOOD. I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO CREATE MORE ACRIMONY. AND I JUST BELIEVE THE COMMISSIONERS SHOULD WORK OUT THEIR ASSIGNMENTS. YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BE PUT ON A COMMITTEE THEY DON'T LIKE, AND IT'S GOING TO BE PLAYING FAVORITE TIMES. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME KING MAKER IN THE BACKGROUND DETERMINING WHO IS ON WHAT COMMISSION OR WHAT COMMITTEE OR WHAT BOARD, AND THAT'S REALLY NOT FAIR. IT'S FOR THE SEVEN ELECTED OFFICIALS TO DECIDE, NOT SOMEBODY IN THE BACKGROUND WHO IS DIRECTING PEOPLE TO DO THEIR BIDDING. I BELIEVE BETTY CRISLIP MADE A WONDERFUL STATEMENT ABOUT THE NONPARTISAN. I HONESTLY DON'T CARE IF IT IS NONPARTISAN OR NOT. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD. I THINK THAT BETTY MADE SOME GOOD POINTS. 30 I THINK THAT DENISE LAYNE MADE AN EXCELLENT POINT. WE DO DEFINITELY WANT TO VOTE FOR A COUNTY COMMISSIONER IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. YOU KNOW, I THINK THE PROBLEM IS, YOU KNOW, DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, YOU TEND TO STICK ON THESE LABELS, AND, YOU KNOW, WE ONLY LOOK AT LABELS AND WE DON'T LOOK AT THE PERSON. AND A LOT OF TIMES WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE PERSON. SOME -- THE TWO, I BELIEVE, MOST CONSERVATIVELY FISCAL PEOPLE ON THE COUNTY COMMISSION ARE TWO DEMOCRATS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING, AND ALSO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FOR SITTING ON THIS BOARD. THANKS. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MS. SMITH. MIKE CARDUCCI. AND THEN AFTER MIKE, MS. CAROL MEHLMAN. >> MADAM CHAIRMAN, CHARTER REVIEW BOARD, MY NAME IS MIKE CARDUCCI AND I'M FROM VALRICO. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO, AGAIN, EXPRESS MY VIEWS AND THOSE OF OUR ORGANIZATION FOR FAIR. REPRESENTATION. WITHOUT US STATING THE POSITION, I'VE ATTENDED MANY ORGANIZATIONAL MEETINGS, AND I'VE SPOKEN TO MANY PEOPLE. AND LIKE MOTHERHOOD, THEY SEEM TO AGREE WITH FAIR REPRESENTATION. THEIR DIFFERENCE IS FROM NOT BEING MEMBERS BUT ARE JUST FRIENDS WAS THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT IDEA IN HOW TO ACHIEVE THAT 31 GOAL, AND, OF COURSE, YOU ARE HEARING SOME OF THAT TONIGHT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMIND ALL OF YOU OF NOT MANY YEARS AGO, AND I'M A LONG-TIME FLORIDIAN BY HOME OWNERSHIP, THAT IF WE SCREENED MIAMI AND TALLAHASSEE IS KILLING US. WE HAVE NO REPRESENTATION. SO HOW DID SUDDENLY NOT RESIDING IN THE DISTRICT OF THE POPULATION CEASE TO BECOME IMPORTANT TO YOU? DO YOU NOT REMEMBER THAT OR HAVE YOU NOT LIVED HERE LONG ENOUGH. I DO. SO I'M TELLING YOU THAT 64% OF THE PEOPLE, THE POPULATION OF THIS COUNTY, SHOULD BE REPRESENTED. NOT ONLY IN THE COUNTY CHARTER BUT IT SAID SO IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. WE'RE NOT ASKING ANYTHING UNUSUAL. AND YOU SAY, WELL, WHY DOES THAT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE BECAUSE WE ARE ALL PAROCHIAL? THAT'S HORSE MANURE. THAT'S NOT TRUE. IF THAT'S THE CASE WE WOULDN'T HAVE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. WE WOULDN'T HAVE RESIDENCY RULES. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS YOU DO AND YOU REACT HONESTLY TO THE THINGS YOU KNOW. TO THE THINGS YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU DON'T REACT TO. AND WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU, IF WE ALL LIVE IN SOUTH TAMPA, YOU DON'T REACT TO THE NEEDS OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. YOU SAY THAT SOUTH TAMPA IS AN IDEAL GOAL. 32 AND IF YOU LISTEN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND I WATCHED YOUR SHOW, MS. SMITH, WHERE THEY EXPLICITLY SHOWED WHERE HIGH DENSITY IS A GREAT THING. I'M A CITY BOY. I DON'T WANT HIGH DENSITY, BUT IF EVERYONE WANTS THE CITY OF TAMPA, THEY SHOULD LIVE THERE. BUT WE KNOW FROM STATISTICS THE ONLY AREA IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT HAS NOT GROWN IS TAMPA. SO THOSE WHO LIVE IN SOUTH TAMPA AND TELL YOU THE GREATNESS OF IT, HOW WONDERFUL IT IS TO LIVE THERE ARE A MINORITY, AND I WANT THEM TO HAVE THAT RIGHT TO LIVE IN THAT HIGH-DENSITY AREA. I'M ONLY ASKING FOR THE RIGHT THAT WE HAVE OF REPRESENTATION IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. THE REST OF THE STORY, I'LL TELL NEXT SESSION BECAUSE THE BELL IS STARTING TO RING. THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MR. CARDUCCI. MS. CAROL MEHLMAN. >> CAROL MEHLMAN, BRIDGETON DRIVE. AS SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW, I'VE BEEN VERY INVOLVED IN PARTISAN POLITICS. BUT I THINK THAT THE MAIN HOPE WE MAY HAVE FOR A COMMISSION THAT WILL WORK TOGETHER IN SOME WAY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY IS TO HAVE NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. AT THE PRESENT TIME, THE REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IS BECOMING 33 MORE AND MORE NONE OF THE ABOVE. OR INDEPENDENT. SO THAT PARTY AFFILIATION IS DIMINISHING GREATLY, AND THE REASON YOU HAVE TEN PARTIES IS PEOPLE ARE BREAKING AWAY FROM THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES. SO THIS MAY BE JUST THE RIGHT TIME TO DO NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS. THAT'S WHERE THE FUTURE SEEMS TO BE GOING ANYWAY. WE ARE NOT SOLVING THE PROBLEMS OF THE COUNTY WITH PARTISAN POLITICS. MOST OF THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE DEALT WITH AT THE COUNTY COMMISSION DO NOT HAVE THOSE LABELS. SO IT MIGHT HELP TO HAVE SOME COLLEGIALITY AND A BROADER VISION. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS FOR THE SAME REASON. IN SOME WAYS, I LIKE KEN HOYT'S PROPOSAL TO HAVE MORE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE PLACE WHERE MOST PEOPLE SAY THEY COME FROM TOWN N' COUNTRY OR THEY COME FROM BRANDON OR THEY COME FROM TOWN N' COUNTRY OR THEY COME, YOU KNOW, FROM SOUTH COUNTY. THEY DON'T SAY THEY COME FROM HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THEY JUST DON'T. SO SOME KIND OF LOCAL REPRESENTATION I THINK WOULD BE A BIG HELP, AND MAYBE THEN A COUNCIL OF MAYORS TO DO THE COUNTYWIDE ISSUES BECAUSE MOST OF THEM NEED COUNTYWIDE SERVICES AND WILL HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE AND HAVE THE COUNTYWIDE VISION 34 THAT WAY. OTHERWISE, I REALLY WOULDN'T MIND HAVING A COUNTY COMMISSION THAT WAS ALL COUNTYWIDE ELECTED. SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE COUNTYWIDE VISION. THIS IS A LOT -- TOO MUCH MY BACKYARD THAT I HEAR IN MANY OF THE HEARINGS. SO THAT -- I URGE YOU TO THINK ABOUT THOSE THINGS. AND I'M AGAINST THE SPECIFICS BEING IN THE CHARTER, THE CAP AND THE AUDITOR AND WHAT MEMBERSHIP SHOULD BE HAD BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE. THAT SHOULD BE IN HIS CONTRACT AND NOT IN THE CHARTER. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MS. MEHLMAN. MR. BILL JENNINGS. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIRMAN. BILL JENNINGS, PRECINCT 129. GOOD TO SEE SOME FACES I RECOGNIZE HERE THIS EVENING. I JUST WANT TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO JUST ONE PART OF IT, AND THAT IS THE PART DEALING WITH MAKING IT NONPARTISAN COUNTY COMMISSION. AND I WOULD POINT OUT AN EXAMPLE TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU, AND THAT IS THE FLORIDA BAR ENGAGED IN A EXPERIMENT, THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL JUDGES THAT THEY WANTED TO MAKE THAT NONPARTISAN BY HAVING A RETENTION SYSTEM FOR THOSE. I WOULD DEMONSTRATE TO YOU THAT IF ANYBODY HERE THINKS THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES IS NONPARTISAN, THEN YOU ARE LIVING IN A DREAMWORLD. 35 I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN THROUGH THAT, AS WELL AS SEEN IT FOR YEARS, AND I CAN ASSURE YOU IT IS VERY PARTISAN JUST AS MUCH AS ANYTHING ELSE. I THINK WE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE PARTISAN POLITICS, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, NOT NECESSARILY THE RANCOR OF IT, I DON'T THINK WE NEED THAT, BUT I THINK THE IDEA OF THE PARTIES. WE HAVE A TWO-PARTY SYSTEM WITH SOME MINOR EXCEPTIONS FROM TIME TO TIME, AND I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH HERE TO STAY IN THIS COUNTRY, AND I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THAT PART OF THE SYSTEM, AND I WANTED TO CONGRATULATE AND THANK EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME OUT OF YOUR LIVES TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS, BECAUSE IT'S -- I'M SURE AN INTERESTING, SHALL WE SAY, EXPERIMENT THAT YOU ARE ENGAGED IN AND I WILL ASSURE YOU REGARDLESS OF THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE, I CAN PROMISE YOU, NOT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE HAPPY. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS NOT SIGNED UP WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? PLEASE COME UP. GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> GAYE TOWNSEND, 19905 LONG LEAF DRIVE, LUTZ, FLORIDA. I SIGNED UP, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS. ANYHOW, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR EFFORT. I CAN APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE DONE. MS. CRISLIP, YOU SAID IT QUITE WELL, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID. AS FAR AS AT-LARGE DISTRICTS, I'VE BEEN VERY SATISFIED, 36 PARTICULARLY WITH TWO AT-LARGE COMMISSIONERS I HAVE. I THINK THEY ARE WONDERFUL PEOPLE, AND THEY'VE SERVED THIS COUNTY QUITE WELL. AND IF WE WANT AN AT-LARGE CANDIDATE, THEN WE NEED TO WORK TO GET ONE. SECOND OF ALL, PARTISAN, NONPARTISAN, WE'RE ALL PARTISAN. EVEN IF WE HAVE A NONPARTISAN BOARD, IT STILL IS INFLUENCE BY PARTISAN POLITICS. AND I KNOW DEMOCRATS THAT GO REPUBLICAN, AND I KNOW REPUBLICAN THAT GO DEMOCRATS. I VOTE FOR THE PERSON THAT I FEEL WILL DO THE BEST FOR THE CITIZENS. ALSO, THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. I FEEL VERY STRONGLY HE DOES THINGS SOMETIMES HE SHOULDN'T BE DOING AND DOES THINGS HE SHOULD BE. BUT THAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. IF THEY CANNOT -- THEY NEED TO CONTROL THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. THAT IS THEIR JOB. AND IF THEY DON'T DO IT, THEN PERHAPS WE NEED TO FIND SOMEONE THAT WILL DO IT. COUNTY AUDITOR, NO. DON'T NEED THAT. AND AS FAR AS THE REST OF IT, I USUALLY LIKE CHANGE, BUT AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, WE CAN LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS. I'VE DEALT WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTS SUCH AS PINELLAS AND PASCO, 37 AND I'M VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY GOVERNMENT. TRY TO DEAL WITH PASCO GOVERNMENT. AS WE KNOW, PINELLAS ISN'T A FAVORITE OF MINE. AND PINELLAS -- AND PINELLAS DID GO TO SOME OF OUR WAYS, SO WE MUST NOT BE DOING A GOOD -- I MEAN NOT DOING A BAD JOB. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. AND JUST LEAVE IT ALONE. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MS. TOWNSEND. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD IS CONSIDERING? IF NOT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF OUR MEETING. AND WE'LL -- THERE IT IS BEHIND WHAT I THOUGHT WAS THE LAST PAGE, MS. TOWNSEND. YOU DID SIGN IN. IF I CAN FIND MY AGENDA. WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN WITH WHAT IS ON YOUR AGENDA AS NUMBER 5. YOU HAVE THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 14th MEETING. >> MOTION. >>DAVID HURLEY: SECOND. >>JAN SMITH: I'M SORRY. YOU MADE A MOTION. >>GERALD WHITE: MADAM CHAIR, APPROVE THE MINUTES. >>JAN SMITH: MOTION BY MR. WHITE, AND SECOND BY MR. HURLEY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14th. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE. 38 ANYONE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. IF YOU'LL NOTICE, I DID LEAVE OFF THE BOARD DISCUSSION UNDER NUMBER 4. I THOUGHT WE WOULD MOVE THROUGH A COUPLE OF THESE REPORTS AND THEN PERHAPS TAKE OUR BREAK AND WE'LL HAVE THE REST OF THE TIME FOR BOARD DISCUSSION. THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT. MS. CAMPBELL. >>MARY HELEN CAMPBELL: GOOD EVENING, FOR THE RECORD, MARY HELEN CAMPBELL WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I JUST WANTED TO UPDATE THE BOARD ON THE REQUEST FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION. WE SENT THAT UP ON THE 20th. WE GOT A RESPONSE THEY HAD RECEIVED IT ON DECEMBER 22nd. THE OFFICE CALLED ME, THEIR ADMINISTRATOR, ON TUESDAY, AND SHE -- I TALKED TO HER THE WEEK BEFORE. THEY ARE VERY WELL AWARE OF OUR TIME CONSTRAINTS. IT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO A STAFF ATTORNEY WHO IS LOOKING AT IT THIS WEEK, AND AS SOON AS THE ATTORNEY DRAFTS THE OPINION, IT GOES TO A COMMITTEE. BUT THEY KNOW THAT WE'RE ANXIOUS TO GET THEIR OPINION, AND THEY PROMISE TO FAX IT TO ME AS SOON AS IT'S FINISHED. I EXPECT TO HAVE IT BEFORE THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING. I CAN'T GUARANTEE IT, BUT I THINK SOMETIME NEXT WEEK WE SHOULD BE GETTING THE OPINION IN AND OBVIOUSLY AS SOON AS WE GET IT, WE WILL IMMEDIATELY LET THE MEMBERS -- THE BOARD KNOW WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID. 39 >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU. MS. CAMPBELL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU AND MR. TINKLER FOR ALL THE WORK YOU DID TO GET ALL OF THE DRAFT WORDING DONE FOR US IN THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS. I KNOW IT WAS A LOT OF WORK, REASON, AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE TIME CONSIDERING ALL THE OTHER PROBLEMS YOU ALL WERE DEALING WITH, A JOB WELL-DONE AND WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR YOUR EFFORTS. MR. HURLEY. >>DAVID HURLEY: WHEN THAT OPINION COMES IN, I ASSUME IT IS GOING TO BE WRITTEN IN LEGALESE, WHICH WILL BE FINE FOR THE THREE ATTORNEYS ON THE BOARD. >> USUALLY THEY'RE NOT TOO BAD. >>DAVID HURLEY: IF YOU CAN GO THROUGH THAT AND MAYBE PARAPHRASE IT FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE NOT LEGAL EAGLES, THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED. >> I'LL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. >>DAVID HURLEY: THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: MS. BARBARA MERRITT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. >> GOOD EVENING, BOARD. MY REPORT IS A LITTLE BIT SHORT TONIGHT. AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE THE AMOUNT OF PAPER, I'VE BEEN XEROXING. WE GOT ALL OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING PREPARATION OUT. WE HAD COVERAGE IN ALL THE MAJOR NEWSPAPERS. THERE WERE ADDITIONAL STORIES THIS WEEK. SOME OF YOU WERE QUOTED. 40 I WAS REALLY GLAD TO SEE THAT THERE'S MORE INTEREST IN WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. IN THE -- THIS PAST WEEK, WE'VE RECEIVED 45 CALLS IN THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD OFFICE ASKING FOR DIRECTIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND I'VE DIRECTED A LOT OF PEOPLE TO OUR WEB SITE. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF COMPLIMENTS. ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, I EVEN GOT TO SHOW THEM HOW TO GET TO THE WEB SITE, AND THEY WERE VERY EXCITED. SO, GERALD, YOU WERE RIGHT. GERALD IS ALWAYS CALLING ME TO TELL ME AND REMIND ME ABOUT THE WEB SITE. I THINK THIS MONTH WE MIGHT GO TO NUMBER 10 INSTEAD OF 13. IF ANYONE HAS ANY CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR TELEPHONE NUMBER, PLEASE LET ME KNOW, BECAUSE WE WILL BE WRAPPING UP SOME OF THE RECORDS FAIRLY QUICKLY, SO WE WANT TO HAVE EVERYTHING CORRECT. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON THE 25th. IT WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S ALSO BEEN NOTICED. WE'LL CONTINUE WITH HTV, AND IT WILL APPEAR IN THE NEWSPAPERS AGAIN. AND WE HAD ONE TELEPHONE CALL. IT WAS FROM MR. AL DAVIS. HE'S WATCHING AND HE'S GOING TO TRY TO BE HERE AT THE NEXT MEETING. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU, MS. MERRITT. I DO HOPE THAT -- I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WHO CAME DOWN HERE 41 THIS EVENING TO SPEAK TO THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD. AND I DO FEEL IT NECESSARY TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WHATEVER PROPOSALS THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD ULTIMATELY VOTES TO TAKE TO PUBLIC FOR A VOTE IN A REFERENDUM, THAT THE PUBLIC HAS THE FINAL SAY. THIS BOARD DOES NOT HAVE A FINAL SAY. AND I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR. MANY MEMBERS OF OUR AUDIENCE HAVE BEEN CONCERNED THAT WE'RE MAKING THE DECISION. WE ARE NOT. WE'RE STUDYING IT, AND WE'RE DISCUSSING IT, AND DEBATING IT, AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO PUT PROPOSALS OUT THERE THAT HOPEFULLY THE PUBLIC WILL BE INTERESTED IN AND VOTE FOR OR AGAINST. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT MS. MERRITT HAS WORKED VERY HARD FOR THIS BOARD. I THINK IT'S EVIDENCED BY A LOT OF THE PAPERS THAT YOU'VE RECEIVED OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS. BUT SHE IN NO WAY INFLUENCES THIS BOARD. SHE IS A WONDERFUL SOURCE OF GATHERING INFORMATION AND HAS BEEN WORKING WITH VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD TO HELP THEM SEEK ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS THEY MAY HAVE AND PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE REST OF US. SOME COMMENTS HAVE COME BACK TO ME THAT I -- I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT. AND I JUST WANT EVERYONE HERE AND IN THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS BOARD AND BARBARA MERRITT ARE NOT MAKING ANY FINAL 42 DECISIONS. WE'RE MAKING -- WE ARE HOPEFULLY GOING TO PUT SOME PROPOSALS ON THE BALLOT FOR YOU TO CONSIDER AND VOTE ON. IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENT -- MR. LaBOUR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS. ONE IS TO THE BUDGET, AND I APPRECIATE WHAT MS. MERRITT HAS PUT TOGETHER. SINCE I'VE NEVER BEEN ON THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD, WHILE IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE $30,000 REMAINING AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT I BELIEVE THE ADVERTISEMENTS FOR THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING ARE ALREADY SPENT AND THEN REALLY THE COSTS THAT I KNOW OF ARE JUST THE REGULAR OFFICE COSTS AND MS. MERRITT'S SALARY. ARE THERE COSTS THAT -- IN PUBLISHING OUR -- OUR RESULTS, ET CETERA, MADAM CHAIRMAN, YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS, GIVE ME A SENSE OF WHAT -- ARE WE OKAY WITH THIS BUDGET? >>JAN SMITH: YES, I THINK WE ARE IN GOOD SHAPE. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, PREVIOUS CHARTER REVIEW BOARDS HAVE PAID AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND ALSO PAID SOMEONE TO DO ALL THE TYPING AND ALL. IT HAS BEEN -- DEE WILLIAMS IS PROBABLY AS AWARE AS I AM IN THE DRASTIC CHANGE IN HOW THE INFORMATION IS DISSEMINATED. IT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY IT WAS FIVE YEARS AGO AND TEN YEARS AGO. THE COMPUTERS, THE E-MAILS, THE WEB SITES, ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN USED GREATLY BY THIS CHARTER REVIEW BOARD. TO SOME EXTENT, IT HAS REDUCED OUR COST. TO SOME EXTENT, IT HAS INCREASED OUR COST. 43 MS. MERRITT HAS DONE ALL THE TYPING. SHE DID NOT HIRE SOMEONE ELSE TO DO IT. SHE HAS ENTERED EVERYTHING, IN FACT, MANY, MANY TIMES YOU WILL GET THINGS AT 10:30 AT NIGHT IF YOU ARE UP AND LISTENING TO YOUR FAX BECAUSE SHE'S HOME WORKING. SO IT HAS ALLOWED HER TO SPEND HER HOURS DIFFERENTLY. ALSO, WHEN THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD IS -- HAS COMPLETED THEIR WORK AND ADJOURNED SINE DIE, THE REPORT STILL HAS TO BE WRITTEN. AND I IMAGINE BECAUSE BARBARA AND I TALKED ABOUT KEEPING TRACK OF THE MOTIONS, KEEPING TRACK OF A LOT OF THE THINGS, AND YOU ARE GETTING THAT REPORT EVERY -- EVERY TWO WEEKS NOW, SHOWING HOW WE'VE MOVED ALONG. I'M SURE THAT THAT IS GOING TO HELP US A GREAT DEAL IN WRITING THE REPORT. AND WHEN THE REPORT IS FINISHED, I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE WILL GET IT TO EACH OF YOU TO COMMENT ON BEFORE WE PUBLISH A FINAL DOCUMENT. BUT THAT WILL ALSO BE SOMEWHAT TIME CONSUMING FOR HER, BUT MOSTLY OUR EFFORTS, THE COSTS THAT WE INCUR ARE REALLY FOR HER WORK. AND IF WE HAVE TO GO TO A THIRD PUBLIC HEARING, WE DO HAVE THE FUNDING TO PUT THAT IN PLACE. >>STEVE LaBOUR: WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST TO MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS IS I ALSO BELIEVE THAT MS. MERRITT HAS DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB FOR US FOR WHAT WE ARE PAYING HER. I SUSPECT WE PROBABLY COULD VOTE FOR A BONUS IF WE HAVE SOME 44 MONEY LEFT OVER, WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER THAT. THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE. I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO THE MONITOR, BUT WAS THE PHONE -- WAS IT -- WAS IT CLEARLY EXPLAINED THAT PEOPLE COULD CALL IN TONIGHT? DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS? >>BARBARA MERRITT: BARBARA MERRITT. WHAT WE DID WAS ON HTV, THE BULLETIN BOARD, WE FLASHED IT ALL WEEK, ALL WEEKEND. IT WAS ON OUR WEB SITE. I DID LET THE PRESS ALSO KNOW THAT WE'RE TRYING TO REACH OUT FOR EVERYBODY. AND I THOUGHT THAT TO CALL IN -- WE MAY GET MORE CALLS THE SECOND TIME AROUND BECAUSE I THINK IT'S KIND OF A NEW PROCESS. PEOPLE AREN'T REALLY AWARE. THEY MAY BE HOME WATCHING AND DON'T REALIZE. AND BOTH NUMBERS ARE UP FOR HERE. AND I'M CALLING MY DESK AND CHECKING OUR VOICE MAIL. THAT'S WHY I'M IN THERE CHECKING EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE. >>STEVE LaBOUR: I THINK IF MAYBE WE COULD DO A CRAWL DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT SAYS THAT YOU CAN CALL IN, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO THOSE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HOME, DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THEY COULD HAVE COME DOWN TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEY COULD CALL IN A QUESTION. JUST A SUGGESTION. >>JAN SMITH: PERHAPS WE COULD TALK WITH THE -- >>BARBARA MERRITT: JUST DID. 45 >>JAN SMITH: SEE IF THEY CAN PUT IT UP. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK AND COME BACK AND THEN CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBERS, IF YOU CAN BE BACK IN ABOUT 15 MINUTES. >>JAN SMITH: THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD IS BACK IN SESSION. I KNOW THAT YOU ALL RECEIVED THE REMARKS THAT OUR SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, PAM IORIO, MADE TO THE GOVERNOR'S SELECT TASK FORCE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU SAW HER ON C-SPAN THE OTHER NIGHT, BUT MY DAUGHTER IN WEST VIRGINIA IN THE MOUNTAINS SAW IT TOO. SHE HAD SOME IMPORTANT COMMENTS IN THE LAST COUPLE OF PAGES ABOUT HER RECOMMENDATIONS. AND I HAVE ASKED BARBARA MERRITT TO PASS OUT TO YOU THE RULES FOR THE LAW ON ELECTING JUDGES. WE HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND THEN WHOLE BALL GAME FOR YOU SO -- AND THEN THE WHOLE BALL GAME FOR YOU. SO THAT DURING THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO, IF YOU ALL CAN THINK ABOUT THIS, WE TALKED ABOUT PROPOSING A RESOLUTION THAT WE WOULD PASS AND SEND TO THE LEGISLATURE, THE LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND I THINK IT WILL GIVE US TIME TO REVIEW IT AND PERHAPS COME UP WITH SOMETHING AT OUR VERY NEXT MEETING IF IT IS THE BOARD'S DESIRE TO DO THAT. SO YOU SHOULD HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION AND WE'LL TRY TO MOVE THAT ALONG AT THE NEXT MEETING. 46 I DON'T SEE HER. BUT, BARBARA, I THINK SHE WAS -- DID YOU PASS OUT THE LEGAL PART FOR ELECTING JUDGES TO GO ALONG WITH THIS? >>BARBARA MERRITT: OKAY. WHAT I DID IN THE PACKET THAT HAS YOUR AGENDA ON IT. YOU'LL FIND THE STATE STATUTE, AND IT CLEARLY OUTLINES EVERYTHING. >>JAN SMITH: THANK YOU. SO WE CAN CONSIDER THAT AT OUR NEXT MEETING AND DISCUSS WHAT KIND OF RECOMMENDATIONS WE SHOULD MAKE. NOW THAT'S -- THAT IS -- THAT IS HOW IT RELATES STRICTLY TO THE JUDGES. >> JUDICIAL RACES. >>JAN SMITH: AND THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THAT WILL BE THE SAME POLICY FOR THE SUPERVISORS OF ELECTION. SO WE CAN TAKE THAT UP AT THE NEXT MEETING. >>BARBARA MERRITT: AND MS. IORIO SAID SHE WOULD BE GLAD IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO CALL HER OR E-MAIL IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. SHE'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD. SHE WAS A LITTLE BIT BUSY BUT WILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME I GUESS IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS. >>STEVE LaBOUR: MADAM CHAIR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: THE ONLY THING I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT, I SUSPECT WHEN WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT OUR NEXT MEETING, OUR DISCUSSION WILL BE OBVIOUSLY VERY IMPORTANT AND WE'LL START GETTING INTO MORE THE TWEAKING OF SOME OF MAYBE THE 47 PROPOSALS AND THE DISCUSSION. I THINK IT WILL BE HELPFUL IF WE CAN PERHAPS HAVE, IF POSSIBLE, A DRAFT OF WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE US PASS, AND THAT WAY MAYBE IF WE CAN SEE IT BEFOREHAND, THAT DISCUSSION WILL BE SHORTER. >>JAN SMITH: I'LL WORK WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND MS. MERRITT AND COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF A PROPOSAL. >>STEVE LaBOUR: I KNOW MS. LAYNE IS INTERESTED IN THAT ISSUE AS WELL -- >>JAN SMITH: LASHER. >>STEVE LaBOUR: AND WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THAT. YES, WE DID. I APOLOGIZE. >>JAN SMITH: WE'LL PROCEED THAT WAY. >>KEVIN AMBLER: JAN, ARE WE MOVING INTO BOARD DISCUSSION? >>JAN SMITH: GO RIGHT AHEAD AND MOVE INTO BOARD DISCUSSION, AS YOU SPEAK, MR. AMBLER. >>KEVIN AMBLER: I WANTED TO BRING TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION I WAS ALMOST KIND OF GLAD TONIGHT THAT WE HAD NOT RECEIVED BACK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION. I FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT WE'LL BE OKAY WHEN THAT OPINION COMES IN, BUT I WAS GLAD FOR THIS REASON. WE DON'T YET HAVE THE EXACT DRAFT LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF US LIKE WE DO ON THE OTHER PROPOSALS. AND THAT GIVES ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS A FEW COMMENTS TONIGHT RELATIVE TO THE MOTION I PREVIOUSLY MADE ON THIS 3% CAP THAT I THOUGHT WAS NECESSARY TO CLARIFY MY MOTION. 48 I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS MADE TO THE CHARTER REVIEW BOARD ON DECEMBER 28th WHEN I WAS ABSENT BY ERIC JOHNSON AND STUDIED THAT MATERIAL ALONG WITH SOME OF THE OTHER MATERIAL WE RECEIVED EARLIER ON IN THE YEAR ABOUT THE BUDGET AND SO FORTH. AND HAVING GIVEN IT A THOUGHT -- SOME ADDITIONAL THOUGHT, I WANTED TO SUBMIT FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION A COUPLE OF MODIFICATIONS, AND I WANT TO MAKE THIS CAVEAT, I DON'T PRETEND TO BE A BUDGET EXPERT, SO THAT WAS -- IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO GET SOME OF THIS INPUT. AND I THINK ANY OF THESE PROPOSALS THAT WE MAKE, OF COURSE, CAN ALWAYS BE REFINED. BUT IN ANY EVENT, LET ME GET TO THE TWO AMENDMENTS THAT I -- OR CLARIFICATIONS THAT I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL GIVEN THE PRESENTATION BY ERIC JOHNSON. THE FIRST IS, WITH RESPECT TO THE CAP ITSELF, I WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER MODIFYING THE 3% -- THE LESSER OF THE 3% OR INFLATION RATE TO REFLECT THE ANNUAL INCREASE FOR POPULATION GROWTH. I THINK AFTER READING THE MATERIALS, THAT THAT IS PROBABLY AN IMPORTANT FACTOR THAT WE CANNOT EXCLUDE, AND IT GIVES US A REAL NUMBER, A REAL -- A REAL GROWTH NUMBER IN THE BUDGET THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT POPULATION SHIFTS. SO, THEREFORE, ESSENTIALLY, WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS THAT THE CAP WOULD BE DESCRIBED AS THE LESSER OF, EITHER, "A," 3% PLUS THE PERCENT INCREASE IN POPULATION GROWTH, OR "B," THE INFLATION RATE PLUS THE INCREASE IN POPULATION GROWTH. 49 SO BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAD AN INFLATION RATE OF 2% AND A POPULATION GROWTH OF 2%, THEN YOUR CAP WOULD BE 4% UNDER THAT PORTION OF THE FORMULA, AND IF YOUR POPULATION GROWTH IS 2% AND YOU ADD THAT TO THE 3, THAT WOULD BE 5, THE LESSER OF THE TWO WOULD BE 4 AND THAT WOULD BE YOUR CAP. BUT CONSIDERING POPULATION GROWTH, IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE CERTAIN EXPANSIONS OF OPERATING CAPITAL -- OR OPERATING EXPENSES THAT THE COUNTY WILL HAVE TO BUDGET FOR TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THOSE POPULATION SHIFTS THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRAINED BY THAT CAP. WE DON'T WANT TO ACTUALLY CREATE A REAL REGRESSION IN THE PROVISION OF SERVICES, WHICH IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS RAISED BY MR. JOHNSON. THAT WASN'T THE INTENT. THE INTENT WAS ACTUALLY IN MY MIND TO HAVE THE PROPOSAL FOR THE 3% CAP WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR PERFORMANCE AUDITOR SUCH THAT THE SAVINGS WE ARE RECEIVING ON ONE END AND THE IMPOSITION OF A CAP ON ANOTHER COULD KEEP REAL GROWTH -- OR NOT GROWTH, BUT COULD KEEP THE REAL EXPENDITURE OF OUR BUDGET IN CHECK. I FOUND IT INTERESTING TO LISTEN TO SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT. IT'S CLEAR THAT SOME OF THE PUBLIC ARE MISAPPREHENDING WHAT THE NATURE OF THIS CAP IS, IT IS NOT A CAP ON REVENUE, IT'S A CAP ON EXPENDITURES. AND MOVING TO THE SECOND PORTION I WANTED TO CLARIFY. THE TYPE OF EXPENDITURES I WAS AFTER, IN READING MR. JOHNSON'S 50 PRESENTATION, IT'S CLEAR THAT YOU REALLY HAVE TO BE A LITTLE MORE PRECISE. WHEN YOU SAY "OPERATING BUDGET" THE PORTION OF THE OPERATING BUDGET I INTENDED THIS TO AFFECT WAS THE GENERAL -- THE PORTION OF THE OPERATING BUDGET DERIVED FROM GENERAL REVENUE. THAT WOULD EXCLUDE SUCH THINGS AS, I THINK, WASTE AND WATER AND SOME OF THE BONDS AND SOME OF THE OTHER VARIABLES THAT MR. JOHNSON HAD CONCERNS ABOUT. IT DOES CONCERN -- AND I THINK I WOULD BE USING THE COUNTY'S DEFINITION AS OPPOSED TO THE STATE'S DEFINITION OF GENERAL REVENUE. IT WOULD INCLUDE MONIES COLLECTED FROM AD VALOREM TAX, THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE MONIES COLLECTED FROM FEES AND FINES AND LICENSING FEES, AND A PORTION OF THE SALES TAX, THAT'S THE 10% WE GET REBATED BACK TO US FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA THAT THEY'VE COLLECTED OFF THE 6%. IT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE C.I.T., WHICH IS A TAX THAT IS EARMARKED JUST FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE GENERAL REVENUE FUND THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT WILL INCLUDE ONLY THAT 10% THAT WE GET FROM THE STATE FOR THE REBATE FROM THAT 6% WE GET AT THE STATE LEVEL. SO IN ANY EVENT, I THINK WITH THE CLARIFICATION THAT THE OPERATING BUDGET BE THAT PORTION THAT'S BASED ON GENERAL REVENUE, AND THAT THE 3% OR THE INFLATION RATE INCLUDE THE PERCENT CHANGE IN POPULATION GROWTH, THAT IT SHOULD ADDRESS ALMOST ALL OF THE CONCERNS THAT I SAW THERE. NOW, TO LOOK AT THAT PROPOSAL NOW ANECDOTELY AND PLUGGING THE 51 DATA THAT WE RECEIVE AND I THINK IN GOING THROUGH THE MATERIAL IN THE FIVE-YEAR REGRESSION STUDY THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US THAT WE ARE PRETTY MUCH WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS. A COUPLE OF ABERRATIONS IN THERE. I THINK THERE WAS ONE YEAR WE SAW A BUDGET INCREASE OF 13% OR SOMETHING. BUT FOR THE MOST PART, WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE POPULATION INCREASE AND YOU CONSIDER EITHER THAT INFLATION RATE OR THE -- OR THE 3% TARGET FIGURE WITH POPULATION ADDED IN, WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO THAT. AND, AGAIN, THIS PROPOSAL HAS A FAIL-SAFE MECHANISM THAT IF THIS IS A TRUE NEED BECAUSE OF AN EXTREME CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE DEMANDS ON OUR OPERATING BUDGET, THE COMMISSION CAN ALWAYS OVERRIDE IT. AND I THINK THAT THE REASONS FOR AN OVERRIDE WOULD BE PARAMOUNT AND READILY APPARENT TO THE BUDGET IF THOSE CONDITIONS PRESENTED THEMSELVES THAT NO COMMISSIONER WOULD BE FAULTED. IT PROBABLY WOULD END UP BEING A UNANIMOUS VOTE, EVEN THOUGH THE MOTION DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT, BECAUSE THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE SO EVIDENT THE CASE WOULD BE MADE ON THE PART OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND WOULD BE DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC HEARINGS AND EVERYONE WOULD BE AWARE OF WHAT THE COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES WERE. BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPELLING. AND THAT'S THE IDEA OF A SUPER-DUPER MAJORITY VOTE IS THAT YOU WANT COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES, OTHERWISE, YOU WANT THAT CAP TO 52 SPEAK AS A STATEMENT OF THE VOTERS THAT GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO LIVE WITHIN CERTAIN MEANS, AND IF THEY NEED THE HELP OF -- OF AN IMPOSED CAP TO HELP KEEP THEM WITHIN THOSE MEANS, THEN SO BE IT. I MEAN, WE HAD DISCUSSIONS AT A NATIONAL LEVEL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL BUDGET, BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT. AND THAT'S BEEN KICKED AROUND FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW. SO TO SAY THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL I THINK IS -- IS REALLY DISINGENUOUS. IT IS VERY APPROPRIATE AT A CHARTER LEVEL TO THINK ABOUT, AND WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF OUR MANDATE AS THIS CHARTER REVIEW BOARD, TO LOOK AT SUCH ISSUES AS WHETHER THE BUDGET IS OFF -- OFF BOUNDARIES FOR US OR WHETHER IT IS INBOUNDS TO PUT THIS KIND OF -- EXCUSE ME, TO PUT THIS KIND OF AMENDMENT BEFORE THE VOTERS. IF THE VOTERS THINK IT'S A BAD THING, THEY CAN VOTE IT DOWN, AS JAN SMITH, OUR CHAIR, POINTED OUT, WE ARE NOT THE ULTIMATE DECIDER OF THAT. THIS IS MERELY A RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT CERTAINLY, AT THE VERY LEAST, IF IT IS GOING TO GO TO THE BALLOT, GOING TO GENERATE A LOT OF FURTHER DEBATE ON THE ISSUE. IT WILL GET THE TYPE OF PRESS ATTENTION THAT IT NEEDS, AND THE VOTERS WILL HAVE THE ULTIMATE SAY. SO I HOPE THAT THE BOARD WILL ACCEPT THOSE TWO CLARIFICATIONS. AND I ASK KEN TINKLER IF THAT WOULD CHANGE THE REQUEST THAT'S GONE UP FOR A LEGAL OPINION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HE SAID IT WOULD NOT. 53 SO WE'RE -- WE DON'T HAVE TO START THAT PROCESS OVER AGAIN. AND I THINK IT'S WITHIN OUR PURVIEW, GIVEN THAT WE JUST STARTED THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS THAT THESE TWEAKS, IF YOU WILL, TO THE MOTION, THESE CLARIFICATIONS DO NOT PUT US BACK AT GROUND ZERO IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I THINK WE'RE -- IT IS WITHIN OUR ALLOWED AUTHORITY TO MAKE SOME TWEAKS TO OUR MOTION. SO THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO BRING IT UP RIGHT NOW AS THE FIRST THING. >>JAN SMITH: MR. LaBOUR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: I DON'T WANT TO HAVE MR. AMBLER MISTAKE MY SILENCE TO ANY OF YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE, I WANT TO WAIT TO DEBATE THE ACTUAL ISSUE AFTER THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING, BECAUSE I THINK WHEN WE HEAR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT. BUT I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING. YOU ARE OFFERING THIS AS A MOTION? >>KEVIN AMBLER: I WOULD OFFER IT AS -- I THINK UNDER PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES, YOU CAN CLARIFY A MOTION WITH -- WITHOUT IT BEING A FORMAL AMENDMENT. IF I CAN'T, I WOULD SUBMIT IT AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION. >>STEVE LaBOUR: IT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION, MADAM CHAIR, THAT THESE ARE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT THEY ARE NOT JUST CLARIFICATIONS, THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO BE VOTED ON AS AN AMENDMENT. >>JAN SMITH: HE'S ON THE PREVAILING SIDE, SO HE CAN MAKE THAT AMENDMENT. 54 >>KEVIN AMBLER: I WILL SO MOVE IT AS AN AMENDMENT. >>JAN SMITH: IS THERE A SECOND TO THE AMENDMENT? >>HENRY BELTRAN: YES. >>JAN SMITH: SECOND BY MR. BELTRAN. MR. BEDKE? >>MIKE BEDKE: YES, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND THINGS YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER INCLUDING IN YOUR AMENDMENT OR AT LEAST MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY WANT TO CHEW ON AS WELL. BEFORE OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING. ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I'VE GOT IS THE LIMITATION TO THE LESSER OF THE 3% OR INFLATION. IF THAT HAD READ "THE GREATER OF" WHICH THE FIRST TIME OR TWO I WAS READING IT, I THOUGHT, CLEARLY, IT'S GOT TO BE THE GREATER OF, BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS IF WE ENTER A TIME -- KNOCK ON WOOD, HOPEFULLY IT WILL NOT BE ANY TIME SOON, BUT OF HYPER-INFLATION AGAIN, I SUSPECT THE RESPONSE IS THE OVERRIDE OR THE FAIL-SAFE PROTECTION, BUT I MAYBE DON'T HAVE QUITE AS MUCH CONFIDENCE THAT YOU DO THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE POLITICAL WILL TO DO THAT BECAUSE IF I WANTED TO RUN A CAMPAIGN AGAINST SOMEBODY, ALL I'VE GOT TO DO IS SAY THEY OVERRODE IT, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT IS TO PROVIDE A SHELTER FOR EVERY HOMELESS PERSON, CURE A.I.D.S., CURE CANCER. I DON'T THINK THAT IS PROBABLY GOING TO COME OUT OF THE CAMPAIGN. I'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN ABOUT THAT. THE OTHER THING THAT YOU MAY HAVE THOUGHT THROUGH, AND IT MAY BE PART OF YOUR CLARIFICATION IS THE PASS-THRUS. 55 IT SEEMS TO ME BASED UPON THE DISCUSSIONS FROM OUR LAST MEETING THAT ARGUABLY, WE ARE PENALIZING OURSELVES IF OUR LOCAL DELEGATION DOES A GOOD JOB OF BRINGING HOME THE PORK OR THE BACON. AND I'M NOT -- I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE AREAS OF THE BUDGET THAT YOU WOULD EXCLUDE IF YOU INTEND TO INCLUDE PASS-THRU MONIES, WHETHER IT IS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR THE STATE. BASICALLY, FOR EXAMPLE, MONEY THAT COMES IN TO OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY THROUGH THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I WOULD THINK YOU MAY WANT TO CARVE THAT OUT AS WELL. >>KEVIN AMBLER: JUST SO I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOUR QUESTION WAS. THAT'S MONEY COMING INTO THE REVENUE SIDE. THE CAP IS APPLICABLE TO EXPENDITURES GOING OUT. I THINK IT IS LIKE APPLES AND ORANGES, AT LEAST IF I'M UNDERSTANDING. >>MIKE BEDKE: BUT THE WAY -- IT'S ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BALANCE SHEET. IT COMES IN -- >>KEVIN AMBLER: OH, I SEE. SELF-SUSTAINING. PASS THROUGH AND GET SPENT OUT. MY INTENT WAS NOT -- RIGHT. MY INTENT WAS NOT TO INCLUDE THE PASS-THRU -- ANY PROGRAM THAT IS SELF-SUSTAINING BECAUSE IT COLLECTS MONEY IN AND IT GOES BACK OUT WOULD NOT BE PART OF THIS PROPOSAL. 56 >>MIKE BEDKE: OKAY, SO -- >>KEVIN AMBLER: I THINK WHEN I DEFINED IT AS "GENERAL REVENUE," THAT EXCLUDES THE PASS-THRUS. MAYBE I'M WRONG AND WE CAN GET ONE OF THE BUDGET PEOPLE IN HERE TO GO OVER THAT. AFTER I READ THE MATERIAL, IF YOU SAY IT'S THE GENERAL REVENUE, THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE PASS-THRU MONEY BECAUSE THAT HAS A DIFFERENT CATEGORY OR DEFINITION. >>MIKE BEDKE: I GUESS MY POINT IS -- >>KEVIN AMBLER: I WOULD CLARIFY IT TO INCLUDE PASS-THRUS. IF YOU ARE TELLING ME IT DOES NOT. >>MIKE BEDKE: THAT'S JUST WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS BEFORE THIS COMES FOR THE FINAL VOTE, I THINK THIS BOARD NEEDS TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS IN AND WHAT IS OUT, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE ANY OF US RIGHT NOW -- I CERTAINLY DO NOT HAVE A GOOD IDEA AS TO WHETHER THESE PASS-THRU TYPE FUNDS IN THE CURRENT DRAFT, EVEN AS AMENDED ARE IN OR ARE NOT IN. >>KEVIN AMBLER: I WOULD ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY IT EXCLUDES PASS-THRU. >>MIKE BEDKE: ABOUT THE OTHER THING BOARD MEMBERS MAY WANT TO THINK ABOUT OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY THINK ABOUT IN THIS OVERRIDE FAIL-SAFE POSITION, WHETHER IT BE, QUOTE, THE SUPERMAJORITY OF SIX VOTES OR WHETHER YOU WANT TO REDUCE THAT TO FIVE. I THINK THE EASIER IT IS TO OVERRIDE, THE MORE LIKELY YOU ARE TO FIND SUPPORT, BECAUSE, AGAIN, I THINK AS CURRENTLY CRAFTED, 57 IT IS A POLITICAL DEATH NOW FOR SOMEBODY TO VOTE TO OVERRIDE IF THIS WERE TO GO THROUGH. >>JAN SMITH: MR. WHITE. >>GERALD WHITE: WELL, IN SOME RESPECTS, THAT MAY BE A GOOD THING. YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY WITH THIS PROPOSAL. I'VE YET TO GET A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF IT. AND I BELIEVE TONIGHT THE PUBLIC HAVE SPOKEN LOUD AND CLEAR IN THAT PARTICULAR PROPOSAL IS DEAD ON ARRIVAL. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. EVERYONE THAT I HAVE TALKED TO DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. ARE NOT FULLY AWARE OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS PROPOSAL. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SERVED TOGETHER FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW, AND IF YOU WANT ANY CHANCE FOR THIS PROPOSAL, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB OF EXPLAINING THE FULL IMPLICATIONS AND DETAILS OF THIS PLAN. I THINK, AND I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, I WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING ON BEHALF OF THIS COMMUNITY. AND TO ASK US TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AMENDMENTS, WITH SUBSTITUTE MOTIONS AND ALL WHEN MYSELF, NOT FULLY AWARE OF THE ORIGINAL IMPLICATIONS OF THIS PROPOSAL. SO, I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT. AND IN ITS ENTIRETY AT THIS TIME. AND IF YOU ARE HERE TO CHANGE THAT, I'M HERE TO LISTEN. >>JAN SMITH: ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE. MS. WALDRON AND MS. LASHER. 58 >>ARLENE WALDRON: I AGREE I NEED A LOT MORE EDUCATION ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE EVERYTHING I HAVE HEARD AND STUDIED THUS FAR INDICATES THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE IN THE CHARTER. I AGREE. I HOPE YOU WILL HELP CHANGE MY MIND ON THIS IF I AM MISSING IT THERE. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU ARE JUST ADDRESSING THE GENERAL BUDGET, GENERAL FUND. >>KEVIN AMBLER: GENERAL REVENUE. THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DEFINITION OF GENERAL REVENUE. >>ARLENE WALDRON: WHICH ON THIS INFORMATION, WE HAVE TWO GENERAL REVENUE FUNDS. ONE GENERAL REVENUE FOR THE COUNTYWIDE AND ONE FOR THE UNINCORPORATED CITIZENS? >>KEVIN AMBLER: NO, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE GENERAL FUND. >>KEVIN AMBLER: GENERAL REVENUE FUNDS WHICH ARE BOTH OF THOSE CATEGORIES TOGETHER WHICH WOULD BE YOUR AD VALOREM. >>ARLENE WALDRON: BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER. >>KEVIN AMBLER: BOTH OF THOSE TOGETHER. >>ARLENE WALDRON: EXCLUDING THE PASS-THRUS. >>KEVIN AMBLER: EXCLUDING PASS-THRUS. >>DEE WILLIAMS: EXCUSE ME, MIKE, WHEN YOU MENTIONED SUPERMAJORITY AND YOU ADVISED HIM TO DROP IT TO FIVE, DON'T YOU THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO PURSUE THIS, IT SHOULD REMAIN A SUPERMAJORITY SINCE WE ARE DISCUSSING THE STRUCTURE OF HOW MANY COMMISSIONERS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AND THAT MIGHT CHANGE? THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND REDO THAT AGAIN IF YOU 59 ADDED COMMISSIONERS OR TOOK COMMISSIONERS AWAY. DON'T YOU THINK YOUR SUPERMAJORITY WOULD STILL BE APPLICABLE RATHER THAN DEFINE A NUMBER? >>MIKE BEDKE: FRANKLY I THINK THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS BODY AND THIS BOARD WILL HAVE TO WRESTLE WITH THE ENTIRE PACKAGE OF EVERYTHING. AND WE MAY HAVE TO TWEAK A COUPLE OF PROPOSALS BASED UPON THE ULTIMATE STRUCTURE IF WE DECIDE TO PUT ALL THREE PROPOSALS ON THE BALLOT WITH RESPECT TO AN ELECTED -- OR OUR STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT IF WE DECIDE JUST TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN ELECTED POPULARLY ELECTED COUNTY CHAIR. I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY WITH WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WE PUT ON, WHAT DO WE NOT PUT ON, AND WE NEED TO REALLY DISCUSS THAT. MY CONCERN IS SIMPLY THE MORE DIFFICULT IT IS TO HIT THAT FAIL-SAFE OVERRIDE KICK-OUT SAFE VALVE, HOWEVER YOU DESCRIBE IT, I THINK LOSES VOTES. I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CONCERNS WITH THIS PROPOSAL, BUT A 6-1 -- I DON'T THINK THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT I WOULD SUPPORT FRANKLY. SO I'M JUST -- ALL I'M DOING IS VOICING ONE PERSON'S CONCERN. AND AS I INDICATED, AND YOU WEREN'T HERE, KEVIN, LAST WEEK, BUT I SAID ONE OF THE THINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WE MAY HAVE TO WRESTLE WITH AS A BOARD IS IF WE DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE 3% CAP, THIS -- WHAT EVERYBODY SEEMS TO BE REFERRING TO IT AS, DO WE STILL WANT TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE I COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT -- BOTH OF THESE ARE 60 TRYING TO CUT OUT WASTE, INCREASE EFFICIENCY. DO WE NEED BOTH? AND IF WE ARE GOING TO CAP OUR DOLLARS THAT ARE EXPENDED, DO WE WANT SOME OF THOSE CAPPED DOLLARS GOING TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR'S STAFF AND SALARY, OR WOULD WE RATHER BUY AN EXTRA POLICEMAN. THOSE ARE THE THINGS I THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WRESTLE WITH. >>DENISE LASHER: I, TOO, HAVE A CONCERN WITH THE WORD LESSER OF THE TWO. A HIGH INFLATION RATE OF 12%, BUT THE POPULATION DOESN'T CHANGE MUCH AT ALL FOR THAT YEAR. WITH THAT HIGH INFLATION RATE, COMES HIGH ACQUISITION COSTS. AND PERHAPS HIGHER SERVICE IF THEY OUTSOURCE THINGS. AND YOU'RE DEALING WITH A HIGH PERIOD OF INFLATION, AND YET YOU'RE LIMITING THEIR BUDGET, WHICH NORMALLY GOES UP, AND YOU SEE, LIKE I SAID, THINGS COST MORE DURING HIGH TIMES OF INFLATION, AND YOU'RE SAYING IT'S LIMITED TO THE LESSER OF THE TWO, AND IT COULD POTENTIALLY -- 3% COULD BE ALL THAT YOU CAN INCREASE THEIR BUDGET. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS CALCULATION OF THE POPULATION INCREASE. WHO WILL BE DOING THAT. THOSE ARE ALWAYS KIND OF, YOU KNOW ARE VERY BROAD ESTIMATES. WOULD THAT BE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S NUMBERS. YOU KNOW, WILL THEY GET THOSE -- WILL THOSE NUMBERS BE AVAILABLE IN TIME WHEN THE BUDGET IS DETERMINED, WHEN THEY 61 HAVE TO VOTE ON THE BUDGET? I BELIEVE THE TIMING WOULD BE OKAY, BUT WE'RE NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. AND ALSO, ANOTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS IF THIS WOULD BE PASSED, IT ALSO AFFECTS SOME OF THE AGENCIES THAT ARE FUNDED THROUGH THE COUNTY BUDGET, THAT BEING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT WOULD IMPACT THEM ALSO. AND I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN. IS THAT CORRECT? WOULD THAT -- >>KEVIN AMBLER: YEAH, THEY ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, SO I THINK GIVEN THE PRESENTATION WE HAVE, THEY ARE UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE BUDGET -- I MEAN OF THE CHARTER. >>DENISE LASHER: AND WHAT I'VE SEEN HAPPEN IN THE PAST IS THEIR BUDGETS GET CUT IN ORDER FOR OTHER BUDGETS WITHIN THE COUNTY TO BE INCREASED OR TO GROW TO MEET SOME OF THEIR NEEDS. MANY TIMES THEY BECOME THE STEPCHILD DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS, AND I HAVE CONCERNS OF WHAT THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE TO OUR COMMUNITY ARE VERY NECESSARY RESPONSIBILITIES AND JOBS THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, SERVICES THAT THEY PERFORM FOR OUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND FOR OUR CITIZENS. THE OTHER QUESTION, I GUESS, I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER. JAILS AND CONSTRUCTION OF JAILS AND MAINTENANCE OF JAILS. NONE OF THAT. >>KEVIN AMBLER: THAT'S NOT INCLUDED. >>DENISE LASHER: ALL THOSE FUNDS SHOW UP IN THE SHERIFF'S 62 BUDGET. >>KEVIN AMBLER: IT'S EITHER CAPITAL OR THE CONSTITUTIONAL. >>DENISE LASHER: OPERATING THE JAILS, ALL OF THAT SHOWS UP IN THE SHERIFF'S BUDGET. >>JAN SMITH: LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET A CLARIFICATION ON THAT BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT. MS. MERRITT, ONE OF YOUR JOBS NEXT WEEK IS TO GET A CLARIFICATION ON THE OPERATING FUNDS FOR JAILS, WHETHER THEY COME OUT OF ANY OF THE COUNTY BUDGET OR WHETHER THEY COME STRICTLY OUT OF THE SHERIFF. I DO RECALL THAT THE COUNTY HAD TO FUND SOME OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE JAILS AND ALL, WHETHER IT HAD TO DO WITH OPERATING EXPENSES, I DON'T KNOW. BUT WE'LL GET THAT CLARIFIED. >>DENISE LASHER: AND THEN THERE ARE SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE TO PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM. THEY MAY NOT BE HOUSED IN OUR JAIL, BUT THEY ARE PART OF THE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM AND SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE TO THEM. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT SHOWS UP UNDER GENERAL REVENUE OR NOT. BUT I GUESS -- I GUESS A QUESTION WE NEED -- WHAT I NEED TO HAVE IS SOMEBODY HERE AT OUR NEXT MEETING TO ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS OR HAVE THEM GIVE ME A CALL SO I CAN HAVE THESE THINGS CLARIFIED FOR MYSELF. >>JAN SMITH: I THINK THE WHOLE BOARD NEEDS TO KNOW THAT. SO I WOULD ASK THAT SOMEONE FROM THE COUNTY STAFF COME FOR THE PREPARATION FOR ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT GENERAL FUNDS AND 63 GENERAL REVENUE. >>DENISE LASHER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>JAN SMITH: MR. HURLEY AND THEN MR. LaBOUR. >>DAVID HURLEY: I CAN SEE GOOD AND BAD IN THIS THING BOTH WAYS. I THINK HAVING A CAP MAKES SOME SENSE BECAUSE THE -- I'VE BEEN HERE AT BUDGET TIME AND I SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE DOWN HERE WHINING FOR DOLLARS REQUIRE MEAN, FOR EVERYTHING. AND I THINK IF THERE WERE A CAP, IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING FOR THE COMMISSION TO SAY, WELL, THIS IS HOW MUCH WE CAN SPEND. WHERE DO YOU WANT TO SPEND IT? AND MAKE THEM SET SOME PRIORITIES. I WOULD FEEL BETTER IF WE DEFINED THE SUPERMAJORITY AS A MAJORITY PLUS ONE, AS OPPOSED TO 6-1. PARAMOUNT TO BEING 12-2 TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT. IF IT WAS 12-2 TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT ON THIS BOARD, MY GUESS IS WE SHOULD HAVE STAYED HOME FOR THE LAST YEAR BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE LIKE PUSHING A ROPE UPHILL, YOU WOULD NEVER GET IT DONE. I'M NOT NECESSARILY IN FAVOR OF PUTTING THINGS LIKE THIS ON THE BALLOT, EXCEPT THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION THAT I'M AWARE OF IN OUR LAWS FOR THE PEOPLE TO START A REFERENDUM TO CREATE A LAW OR AN ORDINANCE. I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. YOU CAN LOBBY YOUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND YOU CAN DO ALL YOU WANT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY WAY OF TAKING IT TO THE 64 PEOPLE AND THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO TAKE IT TO THE PEOPLE. AND IF YOU CAN AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO SAY WE WANT TO BUILD A RAIL WHICH IS DEFINITELY A POLICY ISSUE, THAT'S THE STATE CONSTITUTION. WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO AMEND THE COUNTY A CHARTER TO HAVE SOMETHING AS SPECIFIC AS OUR BUDGET. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I WILL VOTE FOR THIS IN ITS FINAL FORM OR NOT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT FORM IT WILL BE IN AND WHAT -- I DON'T HAVE A -- CLEARLY IN MY MIND WHERE I WOULD WANT IT TO BE. BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME -- THERE'S SOME DEFINITE POSITIVE TO IT. I THINK THAT THE SUPER-DUPER MAJORITY WITH 6-1 JUST MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE. >>JAN SMITH: MR. LaBOUR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION. I APOLOGIZE. JUST ONE QUICK COMMENT. I WANT TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT ON THE STRUCTURE ISSUES, WE CANNOT PASS OUT ALL THREE. BECAUSE THEY APPEAR ON THE BALLOT AS YES OR NO. SO I -- I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED WITH YOUR COMMENT -- YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T MEAN IT THAT WAY, BUT IT SOUNDED AS IF WE CAN PASS OUT ALL THREE STRUCTURES. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE AND LISTENING THAT WE HAVE TO DECIDE ON ONE STRUCTURE CHANGE, NOT 65 ALL THREE. THANK YOU. OR NONE. >>JAN SMITH: MR. AMBLER. >>KEVIN AMBLER: JUST LISTENING, COMING BACK TO THE MOTION ON THE CAP. TO THE COMMENTS I HEAR AS WE GO AROUND THE DAIS, IT -- IT APPEARS TO ME THAT IF WE ARE TO MODIFY THIS THING IN THE INTEREST OF COMPROMISE TO GET SOMETHING ACTUALLY PASSED THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF TEN VOTES, THAT ENCOMPASSED BETTER DEFINING OPERATIONAL -- THE OPERATION BUDGET TO -- AND TO DEFINE WHAT I EVEN MEAN BY "GENERAL REVENUE" TO CLEARLY STATE IT EXCLUDES PASS-THRUS. TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE OVERRIDE, IF WE WERE TO PHRASE THAT AS A MAJORITY PLUS 1, AND WE DEFINED WHERE WE WERE TAKING THAT POPULATION INCREASE FIGURE FROM. AND ACTUALLY WHAT I WAS CONTEMPLATING, DENISE, WAS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BECAUSE THAT DATA IS READILY AVAILABLE, AND WE ARE ON A DIENNIAL BUDGET CYCLE, SO WE WOULD HAVE THAT DATA AND IT COULD BE DEFINED AT AN EARLY ENOUGH POINT IN TIME THAT IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THAT BUDGET PROCESS AND ACTUALLY HAVE TWO YEARS' WORTH OF FIGURES TO TAKE A LOOK AT. THE OTHER THING THAT IS -- I FIND INTRIGUING THAT I'M LISTENING TO IN TERMS OF THE CRITICISM OF THE PROPOSAL HAS TO DO WITH THE -- THE FACT THAT WRITING A PROPOSAL INTO THE CHARTER, WE'RE TRYING TO THINK ABOUT ALL CONTINGENCIES. DENISE BRINGS THE EXAMPLE OF 12% INFLATION, GOD FORBID, AND 66 HOW THAT WOULD PLAY WHEN MEASURED AGAINST A LESSER CAP OF 3 VERSUS THE INFLATION RATE. PERHAPS THE ANSWER IS JUST TO ELIMINATE THE ARBITRARY NUMBER OF 3% AND SAY THAT THE CAP IS THE INFLATION RATE PLUS THE PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN POPULATION GROWTH. THEN THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM. THEN YOU ARE TRYING TO TIE YOUR BUDGET EXPENDITURE CAP TO BEING A REAL NUMBER THAT IS ONLY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION YOUR INFLATION RATE AND YOUR POPULATION GROWTH. SO IT SHOULD HAVE REAL GROWTH IN THE BUDGET EXPENDITURES TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THOSE TWO FACTORS, BUT IF THE COMMISSION IS INTENDING TO SPEND BEYOND THOSE TWO NORMAL SOCIETAL VARIABLES, THEN IT IS GOING TO HAVE TO JUSTIFY IT. JUSTIFY THROUGH THE SUPER-MAJORITY OR THIS MAJORITY PLUS 1 CONCEPT. I'M NOT ABSOLUTELY MARRIED TO THE 6 PLUS 1. I SUGGESTED IT BE SIX VOTES BECAUSE WE HAVE OTHER PROVISIONS IN OUR COUNTY ORDINANCES, I BELIEVE THE ONE THAT COMES TO MIND IS THE ONE THAT DEALS WITH WATER RESTRICTIONS, THAT REQUIRES A SIX -- A SUPER-DUPER MAJORITY OF SIX VOTES IN ORDER TO PASS THOSE EMERGENCY RESTRICTIONS. >>JAN SMITH: NO. >>KEVIN AMBLER: NOT WATER RESTRICTIONS? WHAT AM I THINKING OF? >>JAN SMITH: I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS SO. WE'LL GET A CLARIFICATION ON THAT. >>KEVIN AMBLER: I RECALLED THAT WATER WAS ONE OF THE AREAS -- 67 WATER RESTRICTIONS WITH AS ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES. AND I SAW THE SENSE IN THAT. THERE WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY MEASURE THAT EFFECTED A LOT OF PEOPLE. NOTHING AFFECTS THE RESIDENTS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY MORE THAN THEIR BUDGET. AND TWA F R IF IT WAS GOING TO REQUIRE AN EXTRAORDINARY ACT TO PASS A WATER RESTRICTION, THEN THAT SAME NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS WOULD BE REQUIRED AS AN EXTRAORDINARY ACT TO EXCEED A BUDGET CAP THAT THE VOTERS, AS THEIR STATEMENT OF CONSENSUS AND A MAJORITY OPINION IN VOTING THIS MEASURE INTO PLACE, AND THAT ALL ASSUMES THAT IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL. IF THE VOTERS VOTE IT IN, THEY SAY WE WANT THIS REAL CAP, A CAP THAT CONSIDERS REAL GROWTH IN INFLATION AND POPULATION, BUT TO EXPAND YOUR BUDGET MORE THAN THAT MEANS THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG AND MAYBE YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR JOB OF SHARPENING YOUR PENCIL HARD ENOUGH. YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT ON THE LINE AND TAKE SIX OF YOU TO OVERRIDE IT. IF YOU TAKE THE ADJUSTMENT OF THIS PROPOSAL MAKING IT A MAJORITY PLUS 1 TO GET THE ADDED SUPPORT OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD TO GET IT THROUGH SO WE CAN PUT IT TO THE VOTERS, I WILL BE MORE THAN WILLING TO AMEND THE PROPOSAL TO DO THAT. FINALLY, COMING BACK TO GERALD'S CONCERN. GERALD, I THINK THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF GOING TO PUBLIC HEARING IS THAT IF WE COME UP WITH AN IDEA, IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SET IN STONE AND COMPLETELY THOUGHT THROUGH IN ALL ITS DETAILS 68 AT THE MOMENT WE TAKE IT TO PUBLIC HEARING. THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS PROCESS OF TAKING IT TO PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN GIVING THIS BOARD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION, THIS PERIOD OF TIME WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, IS NOW WE ARE FOCUSED IN OUR REMARKS AND OUR THOUGHTS ON JUST THOSE PROPOSALS THAT WE NOW SAID, AFTER MANY MONTHS OF DEBATE AND SO FORTH, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT THE PUBLIC TO THINK ABOUT, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO FOCUS AND MAKE AS OUR FINAL ROUND OF CUTS AND DECISIONS. SO, I DIDN'T ENVISION WHEN I VOTED FOR SEVERAL OTHER PROPOSALS THAT ARE UP FOR CONSIDERATION THAT I NECESSARILY ENDORSED ALL OF THOSE, AND I DIDN'T THINK THEY WERE ALL FULLY REFINED IN THEIR ARCHITECTURE THE WAY THEY WERE POSITED. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, I UNDERSTAND THEM WELL ENOUGH TO ADVERTISE IT AND GET THE PUBLIC IN HERE AND GET SOME OF THEIR INPUT SO WE, AS A GROUP, CAN FURTHER REFINE IT, DISCUSS IT, AND GET IT IN THE FORM THAT WE WERE SATISFIED WITH. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING RIGHT NOW. I'M TAKING THE INITIAL PROPOSAL THAT I MADE, AND I'M TRYING TO OFFER THE DISCUSSION RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX IN OUR VERY FIRST PUBLIC HEARING TO SAY, WE HAD SOME GREAT INPUT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS. AND BASED ON THAT, THAT THIS PROPOSAL, WITH CERTAIN REFINEMENTS, IS STILL A VERY VIABLE WORKABLE PROPOSAL. IT MAYBE NEEDS SOME MASSAGING TO MAKE IT PALATABLE TO THE MAJORITY MEMBERS ON THIS BOARD. BUT I THINK WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MIKE BEDKE WAS 69 SUGGESTING AND SO FORTH, WE CAN MAKE IT VERY PALATABLE. >>JAN SMITH: MR. HURLEY. THEN MR. WHITE. MR. LaBOUR. MR. BEDKE. AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO HOPEFULLY BRING THIS TO A CONCLUSION. MR. HURLEY. >>DAVID HURLEY: ONE OF THE THINGS WAS BROUGHT UP BY DENISE WAS THE HIGH PER INFLATION IF WE WERE TO GET INTO THAT -- THE HYPERINFLATION IF WE WERE TO GET INTO AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL NEVER SEE THE 11%, 12% INFLATION RATES AGAIN. IF WE DO, IT WON'T REALLY MATTER IF THIS BUDGET CAP IS IN PLACE OR NOT, BECAUSE BY THE TIME THE COUNTY KNOWS ABOUT IT, THEY WILL ALREADY HAVE THEIR BUDGET SET. AND BY THE TIME THEY FIND OUT IT WILL HAPPEN, THEY WILL BE IN THEIR NEXT BUDGET CYCLE AND IT SHOULD BE OVER AT THAT TIME. BEING IN THE BUSINESS THAT I'M IN, I'VE DEALT WITH THE COUNTY PAY LOT. I PROBABLY OUGHT TO GET A GOLD PASS FOR THE PARKING THING HERE. YOU KNOW, HERE IN THE BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET AND DOWN AT CITY HALL. AND I REMEMBER SEVERAL YEARS AGO WHEN THINGS SLOWED DOWN, THE EARLY '80s, THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AMONG MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT HAVING SO MANY PEOPLE IN -- THAT THE CITY AND THE COUNTY TO INSPECT OUR PLANS THAT THEY WERE PICKING EVERY LITTLE NIT THAT THEY COULD. 70 THE PROBLEM WAS THE VOLUME OF WORK THAT THEY WERE GETTING, THEY HAD ALL THOSE PEOPLE ON STAFF, BUT THINGS HAD SLOWED DOWN, BUT THEIR BUDGET WAS STILL THERE SO THEY STILL HAD THE PEOPLE AND THEY HAD TO HAVE THEM DO SOMETHING. SO THINGS SLOWED DOWN. DID GET RID OF A FEW PEOPLE AND THINGS SPEED UP. NOW WE ARE COMPLAINING BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE TO INSPECT OUR PLANS AND REVIEW THEM AND TAKING A LOT LONGER TO GET THEM OUT BECAUSE THE COUNTY IS RUNNING BEHIND IN ITS BUDGET CYCLE WITH WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN THE COMMUNITY. SO I DON'T SEE THE HIGHER INFLATION DOESN'T GIVE ME THE HYPERINFLATION DOESN'T GIVE ME THE EXCITEMENT, INFLATION RATE GIVES A LOT MORE PROBLEMS THAN A 3% CAP ON THE BUDGET IN THE COUNTY. >>GERALD WHITE: I WOULD SUGGEST WE FORM A COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT ALL THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS PROPOSAL AND BEFORE THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING COME BACK WITH A REPORT TO THE FULL BOARD. WE'VE GOTTEN A BRIEFING FROM THE BUDGET DIRECTOR, BUT THE FULL IMPLICATIONS OF THIS PROGRAM, I HAVE NO IDEA, AND YOU ARE ASKING FOR MY VOTE. AND I WANT TO BE FAIR TO THE PUBLIC AND FAIR TO THIS BOARD AND DO THE RIGHT THING. I'M TELLING YOU, AS A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE RECEIVED AND THE STAFF REPORTS, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. AND THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME BEFORE US, THE EXPERTS, IS NOT SURE. 71 NOW, IF YOU WANT THIS THING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH MY VOTE AND -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE OTHER BOARD FEELS THE SAME WAY I DO TO CAST THE APPROPRIATE VOTE ON FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE IMPLICATION, HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING OUTSIDE OF THIS BOARD MEETING TO GET A FULL BRIEFING. LET'S FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT THIS THING IS ALL ABOUT. YOU KNOW, I HAD A CITIZEN ASK ME, WELL, MR. WHITE, WHY 3%, I SAID I DON'T KNOW. WHY NOT 2%, WHY NOT 4%? I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THE 3%, YOU KNOW, JUST BE FAIR TO THE COMMUNITY AND LET'S SIT DOWN IN A ROUND TABLE AND ROLL UP OUR SLEEVES AND LOOK AT ALL THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS. IT MAY BE A GOOD IDEA AND I'M TELLING YOU AS A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD, I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ENOUGH INFORMATION. THE STAFF HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO THOROUGHLY BRIEF THIS SO WE CAN DO THE RIGHT THING ON BEHALF OF THIS COMMUNITY. >>JAN SMITH: MR. LaBOUR. >>STEVE LaBOUR: MR. AMBLER, I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION OUT OF COURTESY FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WOULD LIKE TO FINE-TUNE THE PROPOSAL. I DO NOT WANT YOU TO MISTAKE THAT VOTE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF YOUR PROPOSAL THAT I'M EVER GOING TO SUPPORT THE ULTIMATE CAP. I ALSO WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER PROPOSALS. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A BUDGET IN WHICH AS YOU'VE DEFINED IT NOW, THE IMPACTS OF ANY CUT OR CAP ARE GOING TO BE ON THE PEOPLE WHO NEED OUR SERVICES THE MOST. 72 AND IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT COME DOWN HERE AND SAY I JUST WANT GOOD GOVERNMENT. IT BOTHERS ME -- ALL OF YOU HAVE VERY -- VERY STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT GOVERNMENT WASTES MONEY OR NOT. AND I STAND WITH YOU ON THAT. BUT I HAPPEN TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS TO MAKE SURE. I'M TIRED OF HEARING COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHINE THAT THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE BUDGET. THAT'S HOGWASH. I HAPPEN TO BELIEVE THAT THIS KIND OF PROPOSAL IN OUR CHARTER HAS TO BE THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED AND UNDERSTOOD BEFORE I THINK WE CAN TAKE IT TO THE VOTERS. THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF THE PROPOSALS. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MR. AMBLER, IF YOU CAN BRING BACK THAT INFORMATION TO US AND MAKE THOSE ANSWERS. I'LL BE CANDID WITH YOU. BY THE FACT THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT'S PASS-THRU. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEFINE ALL OF THESE TERMS, AND THAT'S WHY I'M BEGO I THINK TO BELIEVE IT CLEARLY DOESN'T BELONG -- -- BECAUSE IT HAS BECOME TOO COMPLEX. THE CITIZENS -- ALSO MY LAST COMMENT -- DO HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE A VESTED POWER TO CHANGE THE CHARTER. ITS PROVISION -- AND I APPRECIATE MR. WHITE LOOKING IT UP FOR ME, SECTION 8.03 IN OUR CHARTER. SO IF -- SO IF THIS IS A STRONG CITIZEN BELIEF THAT OUR 73 GOVERNMENT IS WASTING MONEY AND WHY THEY ARE NOT THROWING OUT THE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND REPLACING THEM WITH ONES THAT ARE MORE FISCAL, I DON'T KNOW. SAY THEY DON'T DO THAT AND THEY WANT TO HAVE THIS KIND OF AMENDMENT, THEY CAN COME FORWARD AND PUT IT ON THE CHARTER. I'LL SUPPORT YOUR MOTION, BUT PLEASE DON'T MISINTERPRET IT AS SUPPORT FOR THE CAP. >>JAN SMITH: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IF THEY HAD A SUPER-MAJORITY VOTE, THEY CAN ALSO PUT IT BEFORE THE PUBLIC IF THEY HAVE A GOOD IDEA. MR. BEDKE. >>MIKE BEDKE: I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. IF YOUR AMENDED PROPOSAL PASSED, WOULD YOU THINK WE WOULD STILL NEED TO HAVE THE NOTION OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR MOVE FORWARD AS WELL, OR DO YOU SEE THEM AS MORE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE? >>KEVIN AMBLER: I SEE THEM AS MUTUALLY COMPATIBLE. I THINK THAT -- I GUESS I DON'T SHARE YOUR VIEW OF HOW THEY KIND OF WORK IN OPPOSITE FASHION, ALMOST IN AN INVERSE RELATIONSHIP. IN MY PERSPECTIVE, IF YOU'VE GOT A PERFORMANCE AUDITOR THAT IS DOING YOUR JOB -- FIRST OF ALL, THEY SHOULD BE PAYING FOR THEMSELVES AND THEN SOME. THE EXAMPLES, BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE'VE RECEIVED ON THE PERFORMANCE COUNTY AUDITORS THAT HAVE BEEN ACTING IN OTHER COUNTIES, SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT MR. HUGHES INCLUDED IN HIS MATERIALS TONIGHT, IS ACTUA