The Charter Review Board (CRB), Hillsborough County, Florida, met in Regular Meeting, scheduled for Thursday, April 27, 2000, at 6:00 p.m., in the 26th Floor Conference Room, County Center, Tampa, Florida.

The following members were present:
Jan Smith, Chairman
Denise Lasher
Kevin Ambler
Mary Lou Tuttle
Terry Ballard
Arlene Waldron
John Bales
Gerald White
Henry C. Beltran
Danny L. Wilkes
David Hurley
Dee Williams
Steve LaBour

The following member was absent:
Mike Bedke

Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. due to problems relocating people to ensure the meeting could be viewed live. Ms. Waldron led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The Deputy Clerk called the roll and noted a quorum was present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Beltran moved to approve the minutes from the previous meeting, April 6, 2000, seconded by Mr. White, and carried thirteen to zero.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Leslie E. Wiley, 6711 Village Grove Court, deferred his time to Mr. Carl Warren, Sr., Tampa, who submitted written copies of his presentation and columns he had written on various proposals and issues. Mr. Warren discussed possible violations of the Sunshine Law by staff if they served as a conduit between a citizen and County Commissioners. The structural relationship allowed the Administrator and staff to directly affect policy outcomes more frequently and definitively than County Commissioners and allowed the appointed Administrator's position to function as a silent ad hoc mayor without public accountability. Mr. Warren suggested sunshine limitations between the County Administrator and staff with any County Commissioner, as outlined by County Attorney Emeline C. Acton to former County Commissioner Joe Chillura on October 16, 1991, to strengthen the credibility and integrity in the policy and administrative process. Such language placed in the County Charter would help silence the criticism of a nonelected County Administrator.

Ms. Denise Layne, president, Lutz Civic Association, supported good government and urged the CRB to consider the following: a nonpartisan County Commission; an attorney or attorneys for the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC); supermajority votes for fees and taxes; and the form of government. Through the Hillsborough County Conference of Communities, Ms. Layne would stage a forum within the next two months to present pros and cons for a county mayor versus an elected chairman versus fixing the current form of government. The forum would be publicly noticed and televised, and the CRB was invited to attend. Ms. Layne supported the CRB having a meeting for citizen leadership to address issues.

DOUG BELDEN, TAX COLLECTOR
Mr. Doug Belden, Tax Collector, outlined the primary functions of the Tax Collector's Office and explained those functions were regulated by Florida Statutes. When elected as Tax Collector in November 1998, Mr. Belden's message had been to provide integrity, efficiency, modernization, and a customer-friendly attitude to the office. Before meeting with the Blue Ribbon Committee and Florida TaxWatch, Mr. Belden had received bids for health insurance, hired an in-house attorney, increased the level of competitive bidding, installed a cuing system to enhance productivity that was customer-friendly to taxpayers, consolidated upper-level management positions, and continued to dissect all aspects of the operation looking for innovative ways to make improvements. He thought constitutional officers were a good check and balance for government, because they were accountable to the voters. Mr. Belden responded to questions regarding accountability. He supported a nonpartisan commission and performance audits. The issue with a County mayor would be the person, not the position. He explained the Tax Collector's Office was fee-based and received 2 percent of the fees it collected; excess fees were returned to the BOCC's general fund.

ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ED HUNZEKER
Assistant County Administrator Ed Hunzeker, Management Services, gave an overview of the budget process, how the budget was adopted, and the framework within which it worked. He compared the County's budget process to that required by Florida Statutes. Florida Statutes controlled the minimum time frames for the budget, but the County had chosen to add an additional 45 days to the process. Staff could give the BOCC any information it requested, and the BOCC could change the budget schedule or the process anytime it desired, other than the legislative mandates for minimum dates and requirements, as outlined in the County budget schedule. Mr. Hunzeker outlined the total County budget and what part was under the County Administrator, other authorities, and constitutional officers. The $2.3 billion figure was misleading, because some dollars were counted twice if they were moved from one fund to another fund. The operating budget was about $900 million; the capital budget was about $400 million; and the debt service budget was about $200 million.
Mr. Hunzeker answered questions about the operating budget and budgets for counties without constitutional officers. About audit functions, Mr. Hunzeker explained the administration retained the services of an audit firm for financial audits; however, the Clerk of Circuit Court was the chief financial officer to the BOCC and audited departments within the administration for compliance with statutory requirements and grant awards and provided those reports to the BOCC. The BOCC retained independent outside firms to conduct performance audits within the administration.

Recalling comments made at the April 6 meeting by BOCC Chairman Pat Frank, Mr. White perceived that she was dissatisfied with the budget process, because she had been unable to ask questions of staff in formulating the budget. Mr. Hunzeker explained the process by which County Commissioners flagged budget items that were addressed on reconciliation day, and the biennial process whereby the BOCC adopted the budget for the first year and adopted a planned budget for the second year. In the second year, staff presented the items that had been unknown when the second year budget was adopted. Mr. Ambler asked the impact to the budget by adding the office of a County mayor, because a staff would be included with that position. Mr. Hunzeker explained how the cost would increase.

Chairman Smith said Ms. Barbara Merritt, CRB Executive Director, had developed lists for ad valorem taxes in different counties and various forms of government. Mr. Hunzeker suggested CRB members look at the total revenues, because other counties might have other revenues to support their operating budgets, and their millage rates would be lower. Chairman Smith suggested Mr. Hunzeker and Ms. Merritt review those numbers. Responding to Mr. LaBour, Mr. Hunzeker explained the County budget was on-line the day it was submitted to the BOCC, and hard copies and diskettes of the budget were provided to all County libraries for public access. CRB members were presented copies of the Taxpayer's Guide to the Hillsborough County Budget, which explained how the budget worked. Mr. Hunzeker defined surplus money and money available for emergencies. Mr. Ballard asked why the debt service amount decreased from $152 million to $87 million and asked about the County's indebtedness. Mr. Hunzeker would submit the answer in writing to be specific, but he explained the decline was probably from refinancing debt or bonds paid off in the regular cycle.

COUNTY ATTORNEY REPORTS
Issue of Proposing Charter Revisions on Two Separate Ballots - Assistant County Attorney Kenneth A. Tinkler said the CRB could propose charter revisions on two separate ballots. However, that had not been done by prior CRBs and might be subject to a legal challenge. The County Attorney's Office was comfortable with the position stated; however, if a conflict existed, then that issue would have to be researched.

Home Rule Charter History Regarding Preclearance - Senior Assistant County Attorney Mary Helen Campbell submitted an outline history for 1983 and 1984, when the charter was adopted. Mr. Ambler explained his curiosity was why the Attorney General withdrew the objection. Attorney Campbell would research the federal courthouse file and report to the CRB.

CONFLICT ATTORNEY INTERVIEWS AND SELECTION
Attorneys Marsha Ryberg and Stewart Eggert gave a brief resume, responded to questions by CRB members, and disclosed whether they had any contracts with or lawsuits against the County or organizations that would come under the charter. Attorney Ryberg was unanimously selected as conflict attorney. Chairman Smith would meet with Ms. Merritt and the County Attorney's Office to draft a contract.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 8:17 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:32 p.m.
Chairman Smith announced the May 11 meeting would be held on the 26th floor; guests would be Ms. Pam Iorio, Supervisor of Elections; County Commissioner Jan Platt; and County Administrator Daniel A. Kleman. The May 26 meeting would be on the 26th floor; guests would be Mr. Rob Turner, Property Appraiser; Mr. Richard Ake, Clerk of Circuit Court; Mr. Robert Hunter, Executive Director, Planning Commission; and Mr. Roger Stewart, Executive Director, Environmental Protection Commission. Ms. Merritt would post a sign on the 2nd floor to notice CRB meetings held on the 26th floor.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Ms. Merritt reported the web site was updated weekly, and short biographies of CRB members would be placed on the web site. The E-mail address was crboard@hillsboroughcounty.org; Ms. Merritt's E-mail address was merrittb@hillsboroughcounty.org. She reported on future meetings and speakers. A town hall meeting was scheduled for May 11 at Sun City Center, and the CRB was invited to participate. Business cards and public comment forms were being printed. Regarding news releases, in the last two weeks articles had appeared in La Gaceta, the Brandon News, The Sun, and The Shopper and Observer News.

Seven CRB members had submitted issues they would like to discuss, from which Ms. Merritt had compiled a list of priorities that included the County Attorney, qualifications of the County Administrator, an elected County Administrator versus an appointed County Administrator, Sunshine Law issues, nonpartisan elections, campaign finance limits, County auditor, changing the oath of office to include "sworn to defend and uphold the County Charter," et cetera. Ms. Merritt had contacted Library Services about a drop box for comment forms and was advised that measure had traditionally been unsuccessful. However, Library Services was willing to acquaint people with the web site. Questionnaires could be placed in utility bills and newsletters.

Chairman Smith noted the CRB had anticipated the executive director would work about 20 hours a week; however, Ms. Merritt had worked at least 30 hours a week in the first two weeks, setting up the office and taking required courses to use the County's E-mail system. Based on earlier comments from members, Chairman Smith had also asked Ms. Merritt to do research. Mr. Gary Shepherd, a prior CRB assistant, had volunteered his assistance; he would also write some stories for magazines and newspapers with which he was associated. Chairman Smith and Ms. Merritt would meet the day following CRB meetings to review what issues had been raised and to respond to CRB concerns. Members were encouraged to contact Ms. Merritt with specific requests.

CRB DISCUSSION
Chairman Smith had considered how to hold a less formal meeting, different from prior CRBs, and noted that citizen groups wanted a longer opportunity to speak to the CRB. She suggested a roundtable type meeting, with a facilitator, for citizen groups to speak, and including the business community, home builders, developers, and business entities involved with County government. Discussion included the philosophy of what the CRB would do, how that would be accomplished, and whether an issue would be placed on the ballot in 2000. Mr. LaBour expressed concern about limiting discussion to issues chosen by the CRB without hearing from more people. He asked the CRB to consider having the June 1 meeting as a call to civic leaders and citizens to participate in an open discussion about the charter.

Mr. White wanted to have campaign finance reform and the oath of office on the November 2000 ballot. Chairman Smith said the oath of office probably would not require a charter amendment, because the CRB could approve a resolution requesting the BOCC to change the way it inducted officers. She thought that would carry sufficient weight and could be considered at the next meeting. Mr. White moved to do that now, seconded by Mr. Bales. Mr. White proposed the wording include: sworn to defend and uphold the County Charter. Mr. LaBour asked the County Attorney's Office if approving the motion carried weight to force the BOCC to change the oath of office, et cetera. Attorney Campbell explained the CRB could not bind the BOCC, other than by amending the charter. A resolution would be a way to direct the issue to the BOCC's attention. She felt the BOCC would give the issue serious consideration. The motion carried twelve to one; Ms. Williams voted no. Ms. Merritt would work with Attorney Campbell to draft the resolution for Chairman Smith's signature and provide copies to CRB members.

Mr. White thought the CRB should move forward with campaign finance reform. Chairman Smith pointed out that CRB members would have an opportunity to ask the Supervisor of Elections questions at the next meeting and consider that issue then. Ms. Williams reported campaign finance reform was determined by Florida Statute, and the State set the limits at $500 per person. Chairman Smith understood local government could be more restrictive, but to solve the issue, she asked for copies of the statute. Attorney Campbell explained changes to the charter could not be inconsistent with general law, but the CRB could probably change other points that would not be such a direct mandate of the statute. Attorney Campbell would provide additional information at the next meeting.
Chairman Smith asked if the CRB wanted to add a separate meeting to invite the public to speak at a facilitated meeting. CRB members supported that meeting being on June 1. Chairman Smith said it might be an optional meeting between regular meetings. Mr. Ambler suggested Ms. Merritt work with Mr. Michael Raposa, Acting Director, Neighborhood Relations Office, to send out a special mailing to notify citizens. Mr. Ambler moved to limit the amount of public or invited input to no more than one hour, and he clarified the public meant invited guest speakers. A cap on input was needed so there would be time for the CRB to discuss the issues. Mr. White seconded the motion for discussion. Mr. White asked Mr. Ambler to withdraw the motion, because there should be one specific meeting to discuss issues with the public, like Chairman Smith had set up. Mr. Ambler supported having one roundtable meeting as an exception to the rule, and he amended the motion to include that.
Mr. LaBour objected to the motion, because it would amend the rules on which the CRB had agreed. The rules, as approved, were appropriate--5 minutes per speaker, which could be shortened if there were many speakers. Chairman Smith clarified the motion was to limit guest speakers; however, when speakers were invited, they were requested to limit their comments to 10 minutes or less so the CRB would have time to ask questions. Mr. Ballard asked the CRB to defeat the motion, because of the time constraint. Mr. LaBour called the question, which failed two to eleven, with all except members LaBour and Lasher voting no. Ms. Waldron said the CRB had an obligation to listen to the public, and she proposed a separate meeting, on a Saturday, to hear from citizens and move forward. Chairman Smith asked to schedule the meeting for either June 1 or have Ms. Merritt check the CRB members' calendars and schedule a separate date. CRB members agreed by consensus. The motion failed four to nine, with all except members Ambler, Hurley, Waldron, and White voting no.

Ms. Williams expressed concern about the pressure to place an issue on the ballot in 2000 when the CRB had a year to study the charter. The CRB should discuss issues it could deal with and eliminate those issues not within its purview. Mr. White moved that the Chairman schedule a special meeting outside the schedule to allow all invited guests and the public to participate. The motion was seconded by Ms. Waldron. Mr. LaBour wanted to hear from citizen groups, not home builders or the Chamber of Commerce. Chairman Smith said a roundtable discussion should be open to everyone who had an interest. Chairman Smith would decide how the meeting would be done, which the CRB could either approve or deny. Mr. Hurley called the question, which carried twelve to one; Ms. Lasher voted no. The motion for the special meeting failed three to ten, with all except members Lasher, Waldron, and White voting no.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Ralph Hughes, Tampa, addressed the issue of an appointed County auditor and submitted the following information: (1) a copy of the NALGA publication entitled Guidelines and Model Authorizing Legislation for Local Government Audit Functions; (2) a draft concerning that issue prepared by a former State Representative, County Commissioner, and CRB member, Attorney Ron Glickman, dated August 15, 1995, which was complete with charter language, modified by Mr. Hughes, and ballot language; and (3) a letter from the Broward County administrator's office to former CRB member Art Merish that addressed the success of their county auditor program. Ms. Marilyn Smith, County resident, spoke about accountability for the County Administrator--she supported an appointed auditor for performance and fiscal reasons--and abrogated powers regarding water issues.
Mr. Hurley moved to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Tuttle, and carried thirteen to zero.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.

READ AND APPROVED: CHAIRMAN

ATTEST: RICHARD AKE, CLERK

By: Deputy Clerk