The Charter Review Board, Hillsborough County, Florida, met in Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, scheduled for Thursday, January 25, 2001, at 6:00 p.m., in the Boardroom, Frederick B. Karl County Center, Tampa, Florida.

The following members were present:

Chairman Smith called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Ms. Williams led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The Deputy Clerk called the roll and noted a quorum was present. Chairman Smith gave the procedural rules for the meeting.

Assistant County Attorney Kenneth A. Tinkler presented the Attorney General draft opinion on the proposed budget limitation as follows: The County could not amend the charter to limit the annual increase in the County operating budget to 3 percent or the annual inflation rate, whichever was lower, with the provision that the cap might be waived by Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) affirmative vote of six members. Such an amendment conflicted with the provisions of Chapters 129 and 200, Florida Statutes, which set forth the manner in which the County budget and millage rates must be established. The County Attorney's Office had requested the draft opinion, which would not be final until it was signed by the Attorney General. The Attorney General's staff had indicated the Attorney General had reviewed the opinion and it would be the opinion rendered.

Chairman Smith said the public could still address the 3 percent cap. Mr. White asked if the subcommittee's revised language changed the question to which the Attorney General had responded. Attorney Tinkler said the draft language followed the same line as the proposal sent to the Attorney General. The Attorney General had taken the strict interpretation of Chapters 129 and 200; if the limitation was not in those chapters, it could not be included in the charter. The revised work by the subcommittee would not meet the standard.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Al Davis, 3724 East Wilder Avenue, offered a principle to identify a problem or situation that negatively impacted the quality of life for people. Mr. Carl Warren, 1710 East North Bay Street, submitted his comments in writing and urged that voters be allowed to approve or deny restraints on the County operational budget. Mr. Bart Siegel, 6107 South Elkins Avenue, supported comments by Mr. Warren to place constitutional officers under the charter, term limits for all elected officials and constitutional officers, the four/three system of government with geographical residency requirements, and partisan elections. Mr. Mark Schonbrun, 1802 North Morgan Street, disagreed with the Attorney General opinion on budget limitations.

Ms. Mimi Osiason, representing the League of Women Voters of Hillsborough County (League), objected to the proposals limiting increases in the general revenue operating budget, a County auditor, and requiring the County administrator to be a member of the International City and County Management Association (ICMA), because the League objected to placing those items in the charter. The debate regarding an elected BOCC chairman had dominated discussions over several CRBs. Literature supported and opposed both sides, but neither showed the advantage to changing the current structure. However, it was possible that changing the structure could be used as a stepping stone to add other responsibilities for the duties of the chairman that might undermine businesslike advantages enjoyed by the council/manager form of government. The League expressed concern about whether appointments to the Planning Commission (PC) would be made by the chairman; the PC needed independence, especially if the State moved forward with less oversight and more local control. Nonpartisan elections would have a positive outcome if they led to a more collaborative atmosphere for the BOCC. The League suggested the CRB draft language to correct the problem of elections being decided in the primary. Changing the process to have the CRB meet every eight years might encourage a more in-depth study of constitutional issues. The charter included a provision for citizen initiatives as a safeguard for situations that caused an outcry from citizens. Ms. Osiason preferred that citizens have more power to initiate ordinances.

Ms. Jeanne Weston Carr, 118 Barrington Drive, felt the BOCC was not responsive to the unincorporated area; five BOCC members from South Tampa did not provide equitable representation. Ms. Carr supported the proposals presented by Fair Action in Representation (FAIR), term limits, and placing the proposals by FAIR on the ballot. Mr. Ron Wolfe, P.O. Box 476, Ruskin, representing FAIR, submitted and summarized FAIR's position on the government structure, selection of the BOCC chairman, nonpartisan elections, County auditor, and CRB meeting schedule. Ms. Alma Gonzalez Haskins, 602 Rosemarie Avenue, supported FAIR recommendations. Mr. Neil Cosentino, 708 South Davis Boulevard, president and chief executive officer, Bay World Public Trust, Incorporated, submitted a press release regarding the land deal involving the Aviation Authority. He asked the CRB to prevent such a sale from happening again. Chairman Smith explained the Aviation Authority was created by a special act of the legislature, which was outside the purview of the CRB.
Mr. Henry M. Davis, 2104 East Beal Road, president, Bealsville, Incorporated, thought nonpartisan elections would disfranchise citizens, and supported CRB meeting less frequently; he opposed requiring membership in the ICMA for a County administrator. Ms. Joanna N. Tokley, 2118 West Carmen Street, supported the position of the League and amendments two, three, six, and option 1.A.; she opposed amendments four, five, and seven. Mr. Hurley announced Mr. Robert Bettis, 6334 Balboa Lane, had called in to agree with FAIR on having seven single-member districts. In response to the CRB, Ms. Tokley clarified the amendments and options she referenced were listed on the January summary page; she would complete the January 25, 2001, tally sheet for clarification.
Ms. Claire Cardina, 14024 Trouville Drive, president, Friends of the Tampa Hillsborough County Public Library System, opposed the budget limitation, which would prohibit staffing libraries. Mr. Ambler clarified the revised language did not include a 3 percent cap. Chairman Smith explained the language was not a substantial deviation from the wording sent to the Attorney General for an opinion. Mr. LaBour pointed out the CRB had not voted on language drafted by the subcommittee.
Mr. Gordon Commee, 1038 Commee Cove, Florida Tax Cap, supported comments made by Mr. Warren regarding tax caps, seven single-member districts, and an appointed County auditor; he disagreed with the Attorney General opinion. Ms. Josephine Terry, 14511 Sutter Place, supported libraries, because keeping up with growth was difficult for libraries. Ms. Janet Wilson, 1926 Wolf Laurel Drive, supported the comments made by Messrs. Davis and Warren; an internal performance auditor; a budget cap; and the four/three government structure, with the chairman elected by the BOCC. Mr. Owen Whitman, 413 Park Ridge Avenue, supported a spending cap on the County budget, residency requirements, and County auditor.

Mr. Michael J. Carducci, 1427 Clarion Drive, spoke about FAIR; he supported residency requirements, increasing the number of districts, nonpartisan elections, and a five-year CRB schedule to coincide with the census. Mr. Eugene Wells, 6205 Sanders Drive, opposed nonpartisan elections; he felt the budget cap proposal and County auditor should go to referendum. Mr. Tim Curtis, 3308 Fox Squirrel Lane, supported the tax limitation cap. Mr. Dave Hubbard, 2306 West Texas Avenue, supported partisan elections, limiting budget increases, and amending the County auditor proposal.
Ms. Lynn McGarvey, 13610 Diamond Head Drive, preferred the four/three government structure, with at-large BOCC members coming from three separate parts of the County. She wanted to include the southeast agricultural and northwest rural areas as two of the districts. Ms. McGarvey opposed limiting budget increases, because increases in the budget would be needed to catch-up with schools, transportation, and water needs; she opposed a County auditor and felt the ICMA requirement should not be placed in the charter. Mr. Richard Rutzke, 412 Lakeview Avenue, opposed nonpartisan elections and increased taxes and supported district residency requirements.

Ms. Kelly Clem, 12103 Shady Forest Drive, asked the CRB to allow voters the opportunity of placing a limit or cap on annual increases in the operating budget. She compared taxes and the cost of water and sewer between Pasco and Hillsborough Counties. Mr. Steven Jones, 923 Golf Island Drive, Save Our Bays, Air, and Canals member, submitted a written copy of his presentation supporting FAIR recommendations, single-member districts with residency requirements, a chairman elected by the BOCC, and nonpartisan elections. Dr. Sam Horton, 8003 Jackson Springs Road, endorsed seven single-member districts, but he would support a four/three structure of government. He commented on nonpartisan elections and the frequency in which the CRB convened; opposed budget increases; and thought a County auditor, independent of the County administrator, was needed to help the BOCC make decisions.

Mr. Ralph Hughes, Tampa, was uncomfortable about receiving an unsigned and unscrutinized Attorney General opinion. He felt there was a misunderstanding about the proposal and the issue on which the Attorney General based the opinion. The private sector would fund a challenge of the opinion. Mr. Hughes supported option 1.A, if the structure of government was going to be changed, and partisan elections. He suggested a change to the appointed County internal performance auditor proposal to read as follows: County internal performance auditor/budget analyst. The current language stated "an additional" budget analyst. The BOCC did not have a budget analyst.
Mr. Hurley said a telephone call was received from Mr. Joseph Fritz, 4204 North Nebraska Avenue, supporting the budget cap. Mr. Fritz was unhappy with the election process, but had not offered any suggestions. Mr. James P. Davison, 17823 Hickory Moss Place, felt people in the County should have the right to place an issue on the ballot that if approved, would require BOCC action. Mr. Joseph Caetano, 5304 Cannery Court, supported a cap on the budget.

Ms. Marilyn Smith, P.O. Box 66, Sydney, felt the budget limitation issue should be set aside, because people were confused by what had been said. She liked the current structure of government and the BOCC electing its chairman, but if something had to be changed, she would support reapportioning countywide districts so that geographic residency would be a requirement. Ms. Smith supported partisan elections; the current CRB schedule; a County auditor responsible to the BOCC, that position should be titled a budget analyst; and a referendum in 2002. She opposed requiring ICMA affiliation. Mr. Hurley said two telephone calls had been received: Mr. William Kaplan, 8712 Lindenhurst Place, who opposed the budget cap amendment but wanted the right to vote for an elected County administrator, mayor, or chief executive officer; and Ms. Janet Hiltz, 10902 Honey Hill Drive, who preferred a seven single-member district government structure, nonpartisan elections, and she wanted to know what happened to the idea of dividing the County into several townships. Mr. Roy Gene Davis, 3222 McIntosh Road, felt everything he wanted to say had been said, and he asked the CRB to have the voters decide.

County Commissioner Chris Hart, District 5, said the proposed options had raised questions of whether the CRB wanted to establish leadership, provide representation, increase citizen participation, or add more diversity to the BOCC. Commissioner Hart opined that BOCC members represented more people than the State representatives, senators, and U.S. congressmen. The CRB needed to answer the questions of accountability, responsibility, authority, and checks and balances before submitting its recommendations. The County was an urban center; therefore, the CRB should consider recommendations that would lead the County in that direction.

Mr. Eric Johnson, Tampa, said the requirement for membership in ICMA would not preclude someone from first being selected as the County administrator then becoming a member of ICMA. ICMA had established a code of ethics in 1923 and was either the first or one of the first professional associations to do so. The significance of ICMA was that it not only had a code of ethics, but it rigorously enforced that code. A code of ethics set a standard beyond anything that could be legally required. That standard recognized perception and encouraged a level of behavior not obtained through any other mechanism.

Attorney Ron Weaver, Tampa, supported an elected County chairman, five single-member districts and a second at-large district, partisan elections, and a five-year schedule for the CRB. Although Attorney Weaver had spoken against the 3 percent cap at the last meeting, he suggested the CRB should challenge the opinion if it disagreed with the Attorney General. The expense to amend the previously approved County auditor proposal would only fit with an elected County chairman. Attorney Weaver felt it was more appropriate to have the merits govern the County administrator and commissioners than membership in ICMA.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 8:18 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Chairman Smith called for a motion to approve the minutes of December 28, 2000, and January 11, 2001. Mr. White moved to approve the minutes of both meetings, seconded by Mr. Hurley, and carried thirteen to zero.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

Mr. Ambler gave an overview of the subcommittee meeting held to examine the proposed County budget limitation. The language to place a cap on the operating budget had been revised and was included in agenda materials. The annual percentage increase would be limited to the total of the annual inflation rate added to the annual population growth rate. The BOCC, with five affirmative votes, could override that provision. Mr. Ambler took issue with the Attorney General opinion, because the proposal did not affect revenue generating measures. A regressive study prepared by the Management and Budget Department showed the County had remained within the proposed budget limitation for the past five years.

CRB discussion included the County having remained within the proposed limitation, requesting an opinion from conflict counsel, and obtaining a list of programs that would be affected by the proposal. Ms. Waldron thought the information and debate were good, but the CRB had received other direction. She was prepared to table the issue so the CRB could discuss issues over which it had authority. Ms. Waldron made that a motion, which was seconded by Ms. Lasher. Chairman Smith said the issue would be tabled. The motion carried fourteen to zero. Chairman Smith asked the County Attorney's Office to clarify for the Attorney General the CRB was addressing a spending cap.
In response to Mr. Ambler, Attorney Tinkler said the draft opinion was for information purposes; however, the Attorney General's Office indicated the document would be signed. When the issue began, the County Attorney's Office had indicated the cases in the Second District Court of Appeals had focused on a limit on ad valorem taxes. There was concern that would spread to the proposed cap, for which reason the Attorney General opinion had been sought.

BOARD DISCUSSION

Nonpartisan Supervisors of Elections - Chairman Smith had requested Ms. Barbara Merritt, CRB Executive Director, and County Attorney's Office staff to develop a resolution and draft a letter to the Legislative Delegation and Supervisor of Elections Pam Iorio, based on CRB discussion regarding the change of supervisors of elections to a nonpartisan position statewide. Chairman Smith asked if the CRB wanted to carry forward the letter and resolution. Mr. LaBour moved the resolution, seconded by Mr. White. Ms. Williams did not feel the CRB should deal with that issue. Following discussion, the motion failed four to ten; members Ambler, Bales, Ballard, Bedke, Beltran, Hurley, Tuttle, Waldron, Wilkes, and Williams voted no.

Requiring the County Administrator to be a Member of the ICMA Upon Appointment - Mr. Bedke moved not to make that charter change, seconded by Mr. White. Mr. Bedke felt that requirement should be placed in the contract with the County administrator. Sending the message that the CRB wanted good government and ethics in good government was important, but the amendment was inappropriate for the charter. As requested by Mr. LaBour, Mr. Bedke amended the motion to put the issue on the ballot, Mr. Hurley accepted the amendment. The motion failed one to thirteen; Chairman Smith and members Ambler, Bales, Ballard, Bedke, Beltran, Hurley, Lasher, Tuttle, Waldron, White, Wilkes, and Williams voted no.

Chairman Smith said a citizen had discussed a preference for citizens to have more power to initiate ordinances. She explained citizens had the right to go to BOCC members regarding issues and possible ordinances. Therefore, there was no purpose in the CRB taking up that issue.

Change the Meeting Schedule of the CRB From Every Five Years to Every Eight Years to Coincide With the Presidential Election Schedule - Ms. Lasher had advocated the issue; however, based on public comment, she would not support changing the frequency for the CRB to meet. Mr. Hurley moved to change the meeting schedule to every eight years, seconded by Mr. Ambler. The motion failed zero to fourteen; Chairman Smith and members Ambler, Bales, Ballard, Bedke, Beltran, Hurley, LaBour, Lasher, Tuttle, Waldron, White, Wilkes, and Williams voted no.

Providing that CRB Proposed Amendments to the County Charter be Placed on the Ballot After the Conclusion of the CRB One-Year Term - Mr. White moved to go to ballot with number 6, that CRB proposed amendments to the County Charter be placed on the ballot after the CRB one-year term, seconded by Mr. LaBour. Mr. White said that issue had been a legitimate problem. Since the CRB had decided not to change the cycle in which it would meet, the amendment was more critical to solve the problem. Chairman Smith explained if the amendment was approved, the charter could be voted on during a special election. Therefore, wording would have to be changed in the charter, since it stated next general election ballot. Senior Assistant County Attorney Mary Helen Campbell said that could be addressed in the resolution. The intent was to place items on one ballot after the CRB adjourned.

Mr. Ambler recalled the County Attorney's Office had said the CRB was not precluded from placing issues on two ballots. The question was unsettled, because there had not been an occasion where the CRB placed issues on the ballot in two different elections. Attorney Tinkler said placing issues on two different ballots was possible, but that had not been done historically. Mr. LaBour felt the County Attorney's Office could publicly defend a CRB decision to do a split ballot referendum every ten years. He felt the intent of the original drafting of the charter was for the CRB to meet every five years, study government, and vote on referendums after two public hearings. Mr. LaBour expressed concern that a challenge to a CRB decision to place a controversial issue on one ballot could jeopardize future work of that particular CRB. Mr. Ambler asked if the intent of the first CRB could be obtained. Chairman Smith asked Mr. Joe Smith, 3327 Saffold Road, who had served on the original CRB, if he had any recollections on that intent. Mr. Smith recalled the five-year cycle would enable every other CRB to act earlier if a compelling issue arose during the CRB cycle.

Mr. Bedke opposed the motion, because the legislative intent bolstered his notion of not wanting to hinder future CRBs. Following discussion, Ms. Tuttle called the question, seconded by Mr. Hurley, and carried fourteen to zero. The motion failed four to ten; members Ambler, Bales, Ballard, Bedke, Beltran, Hurley, Tuttle, Waldron, Wilkes, and Williams voted no.

Mr. White asked Chairman Smith to schedule Mr. Michael Foerster, Director, Communications Department, to make a presentation on how the CRB could communicate its issues to the public. Chairman Smith explained there must be a report on the CRB within 60 days of the CRB's termination. That report was intended to be on the web site until issues were voted. Mr. LaBour thought that would be a good discussion for February 8, 2001. Chairman Smith agreed. Mr. Ambler moved to have a 15-minute presentation on February 8, 2001. The motion was seconded by Mr. White and carried fourteen to zero.

Amending the Previously Passed County Auditor Proposal - Ms. Lasher pointed out the notice of public hearings on the proposal stated in the last sentence that the auditor would report only to the BOCC serving as an additional budget analyst/internal performance auditor. She suggested wording should be corrected to "a budget analyst." Chairman Smith thought that had been a typographical error; it would be corrected.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Rick Eckhard, Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce (Chamber), supported an elected chairman and preferred option B as the government structure. The Chamber felt the proposed amendments of an internal auditor and a budget cap delved into the legislative arena and policymaking. Both proposals dealt with issues that could be accomplished and addressed by the BOCC under its current powers. Mr. Cosentino readdressed the Aviation Authority issue. Chairman Smith explained the CRB did not have time to advertise and hold public hearings to address that issue. However, CRB members might decide to take individual action and meet with people in that regard.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT

Ms. Merritt submitted an updated budget and schedule of future CRB meetings. Ms. Waldron asked for an E-mail outlining the minutes that contained information about tabling the term limits issue.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

READ AND APPROVED:
CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:
RICHARD AKE, CLERK

By:
Deputy Clerk