The Charter Review Board (CRB), Hillsborough County, Florida, met in Regular Meeting, scheduled for Thursday, December 28, 2000, at 6:00 p.m., in the Boardroom, County Center, Tampa, Florida.

Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Mr. Bedke led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Chairman Smith offered Mr. Hurley condolences on the recent loss of his mother. The Deputy Clerk called the roll and noted a quorum was present.

PUBLIC COMMENT

County Administrator Daniel A. Kleman did not believe qualifications for the County administrator should be changed. However, if the CRB wanted changes, Mr. Kleman submitted language that would strengthen those qualifications, including a requirement for local government experience, membership in the International City and County Management Association (ICMA), and an adherence to the ICMA code of ethics. He responded to questions regarding the qualifications, changing the Administrative Code rather than the charter, and qualifications of the deputy and assistant County administrators.

COUNTY BUDGET STAFF

Mr. Eric Johnson, Director, Management And Budget Department, responded to questions raised at the last CRB meeting regarding the proposed budget expenditure limitation. He submitted and reviewed documentation that included the following: complexity of the budget due to accounting and budgeting requirements; factors that drove the operating budget such as inflation, population growth, regulatory changes, and unfunded mandates; differences in general and countywide funds; grants, which were subsidized with general and unincorporated funds; and pass-through revenue for surrounding municipalities, which was included in the operating budget. The proposed expenditure cap would not apply to programs provided by constitutional officers.

Mr. Johnson explained the definition used by the County for the operating budget included personnel costs, operating expenses, and equipment; however, the definition excluded all debt, reserves, and internal transfers between accounts. The definition used by the State was different in that it added principal and interest payments on outstanding debt and operating reserves and excluded expenditures of internal service and trust funds. The CRB would need to identify which definition would be used if the charter was changed to set the 3 percent expenditure cap. Mr. Johnson responded to questions about an enterprise fund, yearly percentage increases listed in the submitted documentation, and the effect a 3 percent cap would have on the two-year budget and the poor. At Ms. Lasher's request, Mr. Johnson agreed to provide yearly percentages with constitutional officers excluded from the operating budget. He pointed out, because the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) set budget priorities, it would be difficult to project what would be affected by the cap.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT

Assistant County Attorney Kenneth A. Tinkler submitted the draft County structure proposals and explained changes could be incorporated into the proposals. The auditor proposal had been included in packets to CRB members; the auditor would report to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). Mr. White asked if the CRB was required to take additional action on the auditor proposal. Chairman Smith explained further action would not be required; however, nothing was final until February 8, 2001. Discussion included the procedure to make changes to the auditor proposal, to which Mr. White opposed any change. Based on comments made by CRB members and whether the structure of government was changed, Chairman Smith said reconsidering the auditor proposal might become imperative. In answer to Ms. Lasher, Attorney Tinkler would research to make sure the term budget analyst was incorporated in the auditor proposal.

PUBLIC COMMENT - RESUMED

Mr. Ron Wolfe, P.O. Box 476, Ruskin, commented on recommendations from Fair Action in Representation, which included seven single-member districts, with residency requirements; clearly defining the chairman's duties; and allowing the BOCC to select the chairman.

Mr. Carl Warren, Tampa, opined budgets could be made simple or complicated depending on what was desired. He said most County office budgets had escalated; however, the Property Appraiser's budget had significantly reduced, which was an example to be followed.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:53 p.m.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT

Pursuant to CRB direction, Senior Assistant County Attorney Mary Helen Campbell said a letter had been sent to the Attorney General requesting an opinion regarding the proposed 3 percent operating budget cap. An acknowledgment had been returned. CRB members would be informed as soon as the opinion was received, perhaps by the following week.

Attorney Campbell said draft resolutions for the three proposed BOCC structures, including ballot language, had been submitted in the backup materials. Staff would move forward with advertising the public hearings. After the first public hearing, changes to the drafts could be made. She responded to questions regarding what would be included in and the timing of the notice for public hearing.

Mr. LaBour did not want to use prior ballot language regarding the CRB convening every eight years. Attorney Campbell said the language could be revised. Chairman Smith told CRB members to forward to Ms. Merritt concerns or changes to draft language proposals before the public hearing, and the final CRB report could be reviewed by CRB members before being finalized.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT

In working with the Florida Association of Counties, Ms. Barbara Merritt, CRB Executive Director, had discovered counties dealt with local budget caps through administrative codes, ordinances, or BOCC directives; Florida's 17 county charters had no specific reference to budget caps. The ICMA code of ethics was available for review on the Internet. Regarding public hearings, Ms. Merritt would notify approximately 750 homeowner associations, civic groups, and business entities registered in the County communications database and those who had appeared before the CRB. The newspaper advertisements would cost close to $2,000. Hillsborough Television would also advertise the public hearings, and citizens would be able to telephone in during those hearings. CRB public hearing proposals would be available for review on the web site.

Ms. Merritt verified the public hearing dates were January 11 and 25, 2001, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., with CRB discussion following. Mr. LaBour thought an additional meeting would be needed and suggested February 1, 2001. Ms. Merritt had tentatively scheduled a CRB meeting on that date in the Boardroom. Mr. LaBour moved to add a meeting on February 1, 2001, seconded by Mr. White, and carried nine to zero.

In response to Chairman Smith, Ms. Merritt said Supervisor of Elections Pam Iorio had not yet sent information promised at the last meeting regarding supervisors of elections being nonpartisan. Ms. Merritt reviewed CRB budget issues.

BOARD DISCUSSION - STRUCTURE ISSUES

Bring Supervisor of Elections Under the Charter and Nonpartisanship - Ms. Lasher initiated discussion of options for the Supervisor of Elections being nonpartisan. Mr. Hurley thought the issue needed more time for consideration than the CRB had available. Chairman Smith said a draft letter to the Legislative Delegation supporting the position of the Supervisors of Elections Association on nonpartisanship would be available for CRB consideration at a meeting in January. Mr. White agreed with the suggestion from League of Women Voters to create a study commission on constitutional officers. Such a commission could provide a report to the BOCC and the next CRB.

Frequency of Items to Be Placed on the Ballot - Mr. White submitted revised language from the County Attorney's Office for County Charter, Section 8.04, Elections and Notice. He commented on the dilemma the CRB faced earlier that year on whether to put referendums on two ballots in different years. If the proposal to convene the CRB every eight years was not approved, the following statement would be needed, "Charter review amendments shall be voted on at the next regular general election following the one-year term of the CRB." Mr. White moved to forward the wording to public hearing to place the language in the CRB section of the charter, seconded by Mr. LaBour. In response to Ms. Lasher, Assistant County Attorney Kenneth A. Tinkler said the language would allow the CRB to put amendments on a ballot after the CRB term was completed. Each prior CRB had followed that practice. Following discussion, the motion carried nine to zero.

Qualifications of the County Administrator - Mr. Hurley distributed a proposed change to County Charter, Section 5.03(1) County Administrator: Qualifications, Appointment, Compensation. He wanted the qualifications broad enough to find the person best suited for the position. The proposal deleted the required master's degree, added that the appointment would be based on executive and administrative qualifications, and added Mr. Kleman=s recommendation for ICMA membership and code of ethics. Mr. Hurley moved the language as submitted, noting the language was that of Pinellas County in regard to qualifications. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ballard. (The second was subsequently withdrawn.)

Following discussion of appropriate types of academic degrees and experience, a consensus was reached that a degree was an important factor along with the adherence to the ICMA code of ethics. Mr. Hurley suggested changing the language to hold a master's degree and three years of executive or management experience in public administration. Mr. Ballard withdrew the second. Mr. Hurley agreed to leave the qualifications as stated in the charter. Mr. LaBour moved to leave the language as stated and insert the ethical language penned by Mr. Hurley, seconded by Ms. Waldron, and carried eight to one; Mr. Hurley voted no.

Three Percent Budget Limitation Cap - Chairman Smith verified for Ms. Waldron that the operating budget had not been defined; the constitutional officers were not included in the proposal. Discussion ensued on what could be capped and that more information and time were needed before taking the issue to public hearing.

Ms. Lasher requested informational documents be drafted for the public on each item to be presented at public hearing. Chairman Smith directed Ms. Merritt to write synopses for each item. Mr. LaBour suggested cover sheets similar to those written by the Planning Commission when items were presented. Chairman Smith asked the County Attorney's Office to review the information when completed by Ms. Merritt; the material should be presented in a fair, factual manner and not influenced by personal opinions of CRB members.

Returning to the 3 percent cap issue, Chairman Smith noted differences in private and government budgets. Mr. Hurley pointed out the BOCC could override the cap with a six to one vote; however, he thought a supermajority vote would be sufficient. In response to Mr. White, Attorney Tinkler said the motion from the prior meeting made by Mr. Ambler would be taken to public hearing. The cap would not be an amendment to the charter, but a new passage would be inserted.

Mr. White expressed regret that the CRB could not address campaign finance reform. Ms. Waldron was concerned about presenting the cap at public hearing before the issues were defined. Chairman Smith assured CRB members there would be time to further define the issues after public hearing; backup material would be made available to the public.

PUBLIC COMMENT

In regard to the 3 percent cap, Mr. Ralph Hughes, Tampa, commented on benefits given to County employees, cost of public transit, and double bunking of jail beds. He felt constitutional officers would voluntarily cap their budgets if the public voted for the cap. Mr. Hughes reviewed the chart he had submitted entitled "County and Constitutional Offices Budget Record."

BOARD DISCUSSION - RESUMED

Mr. White did not want the performance auditor position readvertised for public hearing. Attorney Tinkler said that proposal was finalized; however, if CRB members wished to make changes, the item should be included in the public hearing advertisement. The auditor position was currently included in the draft press release, since prior discussions indicated changes to minor details were being considered. Mr. LaBour reminded the CRB that the government structure could affect that position, and the term budget analysis had been added to the ballot language. Responding to Mr. LaBour, Attorney Tinkler advised the safest way to rescind the item was to follow the same pattern used in the adoption.

In answer to Mr. White, Attorney Tinkler asked for a motion to clarify the position would not be part of advertisement for public hearing. Mr. White so moved, seconded by Mr. Hurley. Mr. White said the issue was closed. Mr. LaBour pointed out two additional public hearings would have to be held if a substantial change was proposed or for the issue to be rescinded. He would not support the motion for procedural reasons. Following discussion, Chairman Smith read excerpts from the prior meeting regarding the auditor position. The motion failed two to seven; Chairman Smith and members Bedke, Hurley, LaBour, Lasher, Waldron, and Williams voted no.

In response to Ms. Lasher, Attorney Tinkler suggested the term budget analysis should be included as a change for the public hearing. Chairman Smith thought Ms. Lasher should work with the County Attorney's Office regarding adding that term.

Returning to the 3 percent cap, Ms. Waldron commented on the chart Mr. Hughes had submitted that showed the largest increase was to the operating budget. Those figures included constitutional officers' budgets.

Mr. LaBour moved to adjourn, second by Mr. Hurley, and carried nine to zero.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

READ AND APPROVED:
CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:
RICHARD AKE, CLERK

By:
Deputy Clerk