The Charter Review Board (CRB), Hillsborough County, Florida, met in Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, scheduled for Thursday, January 11, 2001, at 6:00 p.m., in the Boardroom, County Center, Tampa, Florida.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Ralph Hughes, Tampa, refuted prior statements made by Mr. Eric Johnson, Director, Management and Budget Department; Assistant County Administrator Ed Hunzeker, Management Services; and others regarding the proposed 3 percent budget cap and performance audits. He submitted documents concerning the benefits of having an internal performance auditor. Mr. Carl Warren, 1710 South 20th Avenue, submitted a copy of his statement and spoke in support of the performance auditor position. He challenged the CRB to allow citizens the opportunity to decide if greater accountability in County government was needed.

Ms. Dena Leavengood, president, League of Women Voters of Hillsborough County (League), thanked CRB members for their contribution to the community and for giving the public the opportunity to participate. Ms. Mimi Osiason, charter review chairman, League, said the public would think the CRB endorsed all proposals put on a referendum. It was dangerous to specify details of governance or prescribe legislative issues in the charter. The charter should outline the broad framework of government; the legislative process should be allowed to work. If citizens were unhappy with the process, the answer was to elect a different Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The framework of government should be addressed only when citizen access was denied or was unfair. The League was against putting the 3 percent operating budget cap and the County auditor position in the charter.

Ms. C. Jane Rankie, Sun City Center, and Mr. George Hoch, 6728 Twelve Oaks Boulevard, spoke in opposition to nonpartisan elections. Ms. Phyllis Busansky, 3611 Schefflera Road, thought the current BOCC composition with single-member and at-large districts should remain. She spoke in favor of nonpartisan BOCC elections and against the 3 percent budget cap, which she thought was the responsibility of the BOCC. Ms. Jeanne W. Carr, 118 Barrington Drive, president, Barrington Oaks East Homeowners Association, said there was a breakdown in communication between the community and elected officials. She spoke in support of the views of Fair Action in Representation (FAIR), noting citizens would benefit from additional BOCC members, and a budget cap should not be imposed.

Mr. R. Bruce Houghton, 69 Bahama Circle, opposed nonpartisan elections and supported single-member districts. Mr. Ron Wolfe, P.O. Box 476, Ruskin, supported seven single-member districts, BOCC members electing the chairman, nonpartisan elections, and the six to one override provision regarding the 3 percent budget cap. If membership in the International City and County Management Association (ICMA) and adherence to the ICMA code of ethics provided a better qualified County administrator, then that should be a requirement; however, Mr. Wolfe was not sure that should be in the charter. He endorsed fair representation for all citizens.

Mr. Tom Rockey, 3502 West Palmira Avenue, spoke against nonpartisan elections. Ms. Betty Crislip, 4405 West Platt Street, submitted a copy of her prepared statement and opined the current problems in County government were not due to its structure but were political in nature. She supported at-large districts and opposed nonpartisan elections. Ms. Carol Carter, 5401 Bayshore Boulevard, Apartment M, said nonpartisan elections would not eliminate politics but would change where politics took place and would involve vested interest groups.

Ms. Denise Layne, 2504 Ayers Hill Court, thought the 3 percent budget cap, the County auditor, and the County administrator ICMA requirement did not belong in the charter. The charter should be the framework for government without such specifics. Those ideas could be pursued in a different forum. Having an elected BOCC chairman would set the framework for a County mayor. Ms. Layne noted an unintended consequence with the proposed charter language for nonpartisan elections would be a decrease in voter turnouts. Ms. Joyce Smith, 7201 Daiquiri Lane, said it was the BOCC's job to cap budget spending. An auditor should be independent and not hired or fired by the BOCC. The BOCC chairman should not determine BOCC appointments to other boards and councils. Ms. Smith agreed with Ms. Layne's comments that BOCC races should be on general election ballots; however, she thought people should be elected, not party affiliations.

Mr. Mike Carducci, Valrico, FAIR, spoke about fair representation, noting BOCC residency district requirements were important. Ms. Carole Mehlman, 9863 Bridgeton Drive, supported partisan BOCC elections. She was concerned with having single-member districts; more local governments were needed, with a council of mayors to address countywide issues. Specifics regarding a budget cap, the auditor position, and County administrator ICMA membership did not belong in the charter. Mr. Bill Jennings, 714 South Edison Avenue, spoke against nonpartisan BOCC elections. Ms. Gaye Townsend, 19905 Long Leaf Drive, was satisfied with at-large districts. She thought a nonpartisan BOCC would continue to be influenced by partisan politics, and it was the BOCC's job to control the County administrator. The government structure should remain as it currently existed, without adding the County performance auditor position.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Chairman Smith called for a motion to approve the December 14, 2000, minutes. Mr. White moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Hurley, and carried fourteen to zero.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT

Senior Assistant County Attorney Mary Helen Campbell reported the Attorney General opinion in regard to the 3 percent budget cap proposal should be available by the following week. Mr. Hurley asked that the opinion be put in terms CRB members would understand; Attorney Campbell concurred.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT

Ms. Barbara Merritt, CRB Executive Director, reported 45 calls had been received since the last meeting requesting information and offering thanks for information made available on the web site. The next CRB meeting would be on January 25, 2001, which would be noticed for public hearing. She said one person had called during the public hearing, who would try to attend the next meeting.

Chairman Smith thanked the people who had spoken at the public hearing. Recognizing the work Ms. Merritt had done for the CRB, Chairman Smith gave assurances that Ms. Merritt did not influence CRB members. Chairman Smith emphasized the public would have the final decision on referendum proposals. In response to Mr. LaBour, Chairman Smith said the remaining CRB budget would be sufficient. Mr. LaBour suggested offering Ms. Merritt a bonus if money remained in the budget at the time the CRB adjourned sine die, and he asked for Hillsborough Television to provide a crawl message for citizens to call in their opinions to the CRB during the next public hearing.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 7:09 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:34 p.m.

BOARD DISCUSSION

Chairman Smith asked CRB members to review comments provided by Supervisor of Elections Pam Iorio and the backup material regarding nonpartisan elections by the next meeting. In response to Mr. LaBour, Chairman Smith agreed to work with the County Attorney's Office regarding Ms. Iorio's comments and prepare a proposal for CRB members to review.

In regard to the 3 percent budget cap, Mr. Ambler had reviewed information about the County budget presented by Mr. Johnson at the last CRB meeting. Mr. Ambler asked the CRB to consider modifying the proposal, so whichever was less--the 3 percent or the inflation rate--would reflect the annual increase in population growth. The cap would be described as the lesser of 3 percent plus the percentage increase in population growth or the inflation rate plus the increase in population growth. He had not intended for the proposal to create a regression in services provided by the County. The cap would work in conjunction with the performance auditor to keep budget expenditures restrained. The portion of the operating budget derived from general revenue would be capped. Using the County's definition for the operating budget, ad valorem taxes, fees, fines, and a portion of the sales tax would be included. The Community Investment Tax would be excluded. Mr. Ambler said Assistant County Attorney Kenneth A. Tinkler had opined the modifications would not change the request for the legal opinion from the Attorney General nor would they affect CRB public hearings.

Mr. LaBour preferred to debate the proposal after the second public hearing. The modifications were significant and should be offered as an amendment. Mr. Ambler moved the modifications as an amendment, seconded by Mr. Beltran. (The motion was subsequently tabled.) Mr. Bedke thought the wording "lesser of the 3 percent or the inflation rate . . ." should be "greater of . . . ." He was concerned BOCC members would find it difficult to override the cap for political reasons. Pass-through funds should be excluded. Mr. Ambler clarified pass-throughs or programs that were self-sustaining were not part of the proposal. Mr. Bedke wanted CRB members to have a clear understanding of what was included in and excluded from the proposal. Mr. Ambler accepted the exclusion of pass-throughs as an amendment. Mr. Bedke asked the CRB to consider requiring five votes to override the cap rather than the proposed six votes.

Mr. White pointed out the public had spoken against the proposed cap. He did not fully understand the implications involved; details were needed before he would support the proposal. Ms. Waldron agreed more information was needed. What she had heard thus far indicated the budget cap did not belong in the charter. Ms. Williams suggested requiring a supermajority vote rather than using a number. Ms. Lasher was concerned the proposed language was not sufficient for times of high inflation. She asked who would provide the population estimates and noted budgets for the Planning Commission (PC) and the Environmental Protection Commission could be affected. Responding to Ms. Lasher's questions about jails and services provided by the correctional system, Chairman Smith directed Ms. Merritt to provide information regarding operating funds for those items. Chairman Smith would have staff available at the next meeting to respond to questions about general funds and revenue. Seeing good and bad in the proposal, Mr. Hurley preferred the supermajority override be defined as a majority plus one.

As a compromise, Mr. Ambler was willing to amend the motion to better define the operational budget by stating the following: general revenue excluded pass-throughs; addressing concerns about the override by defining the override as a majority plus one; defining from where the population increase figure would be taken, which Mr. Ambler contemplated should be the PC; addressing the inflation rate by eliminating the arbitrary number of 3 percent and stating the cap was the inflation rate plus the percentage change in population growth.

Mr. Hurley did not believe hyperinflation would be an issue. Mr. White suggested a CRB committee meet before the next public hearing to consider all ramifications regarding the budget cap proposal. Mr. LaBour would support the motion out of courtesy. However, he did not support the budget cap, which would affect those who most needed services.

In answer to Mr. Bedke, Mr. Ambler thought the budget cap and the performance auditor were compatible. Chairman Smith did not believe the budget cap belonged in the charter; it could be in the administrative code. She commented on budget cuts, County priorities, and matching fund and reserve requirements. Mr. Ambler moved to table the motion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bales and carried fourteen to zero. Taking the concerns into consideration, Mr. Ambler moved to refer the proposal to a committee to meet before the next public hearing. He proposed the committee would meet within the week, so there would be time to draft the language, send the draft to CRB members, and post it on the web site.

In response to Chairman Smith, Attorney Tinkler said the modifications to the proposal did not change what had been advertised for public hearing, which had not included specific language. The CRB could proceed with the committee to clarify the issues. As a clarification, Attorney Tinkler suggested incorporating the Attorney General opinion if the opinion was received before the committee meeting. Mr. Ambler agreed. Mr. White seconded the motion. CRB members Ambler, Lasher, Waldron, and White volunteered to serve on the committee. After Chairman Smith listed requirements for the committee meeting, the motion carried thirteen to one; Chairman Smith voted no. Mr. LaBour asked for a list of programs and services funded from general revenues. Chairman Smith agreed to have that information submitted. Mr. Ambler wanted the information before the committee meeting.

Ms. Tuttle took issue with the League's opinion that the CRB endorsed proposals that would be put on the ballot. Mr. Bedke initiated discussion of allowing additional speaking time for each member of the public, providing the number of citizens attending the next public hearing was not too high. Chairman Smith agreed to allowing citizens four minutes each. Additional comments were made regarding the public hearing and in appreciation of Mr. Hughes' participation throughout the CRB process.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ms. Crislip admonished the CRB for not listening to the public, particularly in regard to the budget cap that most citizens had commented against during the public hearing. Messrs. LaBour and Bales responded, noting the main discussion would be after the second public hearing. Mr. Hughes thought the public should have been allowed additional time in which to speak during the public hearing, and he reviewed information regarding the internal performance auditor.

Attorney Ron Weaver, County resident, spoke against the 3 percent budget cap, noting the fault was not in imprudence or wasting money but in not having the right government structure in which to make correct decisions. Ms. Ann White, Temple Heights resident, was confused about the budget cap; an overview was needed. She supported the six/one BOCC structure proposal, noting inclusion was important to the diverse areas of the County.

Ms. Osiason repeated citizens would perceive the CRB endorsed whatever was put on a referendum. Complex details like the budget cap did not belong in the charter. Mr. Hurley refuted the League's opinion by commenting on proposals prior CRBs had put on ballots against which citizens had voted. Mr. Joe Smith, 3327 Saffold Road, opined the budget cap did not belong in the charter. The CRB's purpose was to be a filter for citizens. Proposals put on the ballot should be supported by the CRB, which was what the public would assume. Ms. Tuttle thought citizens should have a choice regardless of her opinion. Mr. Smith disagreed and opined, after months of discussion, if CRB members had not decided on the proposals, how could citizens.

Mr. Hurley thanked CRB members and the public who had offered support regarding the loss of his parents. Mr. White stated due deliberation had been given to the proposals being considered.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m.

READ AND APPROVED:
CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:
RICHARD AKE, CLERK

By:
Deputy Clerk