The Charter Review Board (CRB), Hillsborough County, Florida, met in Regular Meeting, scheduled for Thursday, February 8, 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 6:08 p.m. Ms. Lasher led in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The Deputy Clerk called the roll and noted a quorum was present.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT

Assistant County Attorney Kenneth A. Tinkler noted the final signed copy of the Attorney General opinion on the proposed expenditure cap had been received and distributed to CRB members. Mr. White asked if there were cases involving counties challenging State rule. Attorney Tinkler was not aware of recent cases. The issue did come up each time there was a constitution revision commission where home rule was addressed.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT

Ms. Barbara Merritt, CRB Executive Director, thanked CRB members for the opportunity to work for the CRB, and she thanked the staffs of the Communications Department, Planning Commission (PC), and Clerk of the Circuit Court (Clerk) for their help during the past year. The executive summary should be completed within ten days. Ms. Merritt submitted a sample of the CRB information that was available on the web site. All CRB records would be transferred to the Clerk's office when Ms. Merritt's office closed within three weeks. The next CRB would meet in 2005.

In answer to Mr. LaBour, Chairman Smith explained Ms. Merritt could work up to 60 days beyond the last CRB meeting. Mr. LaBour requested that a letter of thanks be sent to Attorney Marsha Rydberg, CRB conflict attorney; Chairman Smith agreed. Chairman Smith reported that because of a scheduling conflict, Mr. Michael Foerster, Director, Communications Department, could not attend the meeting. Mr. Foerster had sent a letter explaining how the Communications Department would help with keeping CRB information on the web site. Chairman Smith explained minutes for the last two CRB meetings would be distributed to CRB members. Time would be allowed for review before Chairman Smith approved them. Ms. Merritt should be notified if corrections were needed.

Ms. Lasher presented Chairman Smith with flowers from CRB members in appreciation for her leadership. Chairman Smith thanked the public and staff from the Communications Department, Hillsborough Television, the PC, the Clerk's Office, and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for the help given to the CRB throughout the past year.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Michael Carducci, 1427 Clarion Drive, opined there should be a major result for work the CRB had done. After listing citizens who supported seven single-member districts, Mr. Carducci asked the CRB to reconsider allowing citizens to vote on government structure. Mr. Vincent Ferraro, 1703 Ketch Place, read the preamble of the County Charter and commented on home rule, pointing out the BOCC members who lived in the city of Tampa service area. He listed issues that unincorporated County residents faced involving zoning, transportation, water, jails, et cetera. Mr. Ferraro asked that the seven single-member district structure be reconsidered. He thought the current structure was a government by and for the select few who were able to control.

Mr. Ralph Hughes, Tampa, listed reasons to support putting a limit on the operational budget, opining the Attorney General opinion had not responded to the CRB's question and, therefore, was worthless. Chairman Smith thanked Mr. Hughes for his involvement in the CRB process. Ms. Betty Crislip, 4405 West Platt Street, thought the auditor proposal was needed as an independent voice to the BOCC. She said to use a referendum as a public survey was not a solution unless the CRB saw a structural flaw in government. Mr. Pierre Mathurin, 3409 West Caracas Street, thought the needs of residents in unincorporated County areas were not being met. The BOCC should increase to nine members to reflect the increase in population, or areas such as Brandon should pursue incorporation. Another solution would be for the County to split.

Mr. Carl Warren, 1710 East North Bay Street, said African-American votes had been diluted; fair representation was needed. He thought the County should control spending and listed several examples. Chairman Smith thanked Mr. Warren for his participation with the CRB throughout the year. Mr. Ron Wolfe, Ruskin, felt the CRB was ending with unfinished business remaining. He commented on the position supported by members of Fair Action in Representation (FAIR). The structure of seven single-member districts was preferred; however, FAIR would agree to support the six/one structure. He requested reconsideration of that structure.

Chairman Smith said Ms. Beth Kalicki, Valrico, had called to support FAIR recommendations and requested reconsideration of seven single-member districts with a facilitator chairman. Ms. Marilyn Smith, County citizen, pointed out the proposed cap was on expenditures, not the taxes addressed in the Attorney General opinion. The CRB should continue to meet every five years, and the performance auditor should include the term budget analyst. Ms. Smith commented on the budget process currently being presented to the BOCC and spoke against the County funding the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce (Chamber).

Mr. Al Davis, 3724 East Wilder Avenue, asked for clarifications regarding how the charter could be changed, issues on which the CRB had held public hearings, and what would be put on a referendum. He was against putting the spending cap in the charter. Chairman Smith said Ms. Shirley May, Apollo Beach, had telephoned to support FAIR recommendations; proper attention was not being given to South County. After conferring with Attorney Tinkler, Mr. White wanted the CRB to reconsider government structure issues.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 7:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:17 p.m. Certificates of appreciation were presented to Senior Assistant County Attorney Mary Helen Campbell, Attorney Tinkler, and Ms. Merritt. Mr. Wolfe said citizens had relied on the accuracy of information Ms. Merritt had provided.

BOARD DISCUSSION

Reconsideration of the Six/One Government Structure - Mr. Hurley moved to renew the CRB's position on 1.C., which was the six/one format. The motion was seconded by Mr. White. Chairman Smith clarified the motion was for six single-member districts and an elected chairman. Discussion ensued for and against the motion. Those in support wanted to give citizens the opportunity to vote, especially in light of the public who had spoken throughout many CRB meetings, in support of changing government structure. The CRB had received information from members of the Legislative Delegation, the Planning Commission, et cetera, that indicated citizens needed to be fairly represented. Thirteen CRB members had previously voted to change government structure in some way. The minority community would benefit from the proposed structure, which would also give voters more choices, since campaigning was easier for single-member districts. CRB members who opposed the proposal were concerned about the chairman being elected for four-year terms, with diluted duties. The proposal would not guarantee minority representation and could create a parochial outlook among BOCC members; at-large BOCC members considered what was best for the entire County rather than one district. The six/one structure was not clearly defined.

The discussion included the FAIR recommendation for seven single-member districts with the chairman elected by BOCC members for one-year terms, for which CRB members expressed an interest in considering. In response to questions from CRB members, Attorney Tinkler explained two advertised public hearings were needed before that structure could be considered. Amending the six/one proposal by changing the elected chairman would be a substantial deviation from what had been specifically advertised for the last public hearings. Attorney Tinkler advised the CRB to follow Section 8.02 of the charter to avoid a possible legal challenge. The motion failed seven to seven; Chairman Smith and members Ambler, Ballard, Beltran, Lasher, Wilkes, and Williams voted no.

Chairman Smith called a recess at 8:14 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:31 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Chairman Smith asked for a motion to approve the January 25, 2001, minutes. Mr. White moved to approve, seconded by Mr. Hurley, and carried thirteen to zero.

BOARD DISCUSSION - RESUMED

Chairman Smith thanked Mr. Eric Johnson, Director, Management and Budget Department, for attending CRB meetings and providing CRB members with information to consider when addressing the expenditure cap proposal.

General Housekeeping Items - Attorney Campbell explained the preclearance process with the Justice Department. Before the November 2002 elections, the County Attorney's Office would run two required newspaper advertisements. The formal adopted resolution would be sent to Supervisor of Elections Pam Iorio, so the ballots could be made.

Limiting Increases in the Charter Government Operating Budget With the Stipulation That the Limit Could Be Overridden by a Five to Two Vote of the BOCC - Chairman Smith called for public comment on the proposed operating budget cap. Mr. Adam Smith, Chamber, said the Chamber opposed the cap; too many issues and unintended consequences had not been thoroughly considered.

Ms. Waldron noted the Attorney General opinion indicated the County could not amend the charter to place a cap on the annual increase to the operating budget. Attorney Tinkler recommended the CRB follow the Attorney General opinion. In clarification, Mr. Ambler said the cap was a spending limitation. Mr. Amber moved the CRB proposal, to the electorate of Hillsborough County, by means of a referendum, the question of amending a home rule charter for the governance of Hillsborough County by providing a limitation on the increase in the charter government operating budget of the annual inflation-rate percentage added to the annual population growth-rate percentage, providing for the ability of the BOCC to exceed the limit by an affirmative vote of five commissioners, and providing a definition section in providing for an effective date, all in accordance with the proposed draft that was submitted in the packet of resolutions. The motion was seconded by Ms. Williams.

In presenting why the CRB should go forward with the spending limitation, Mr. Ambler stated law clerks sometimes wrote Attorney General opinions. The opinion the CRB had received was advisory and not binding. Mr. Ambler was concerned that the opinion was misleading as to the law and the cases cited. He reviewed information from two booklets given to the CRB when first appointed last year. The information indicated it was appropriate to have financial and fiscal controls in the charter. After reviewing the law and the Charlotte County case cited in the Attorney General opinion, Mr. Ambler opined that an expenditure limitation with an override provision was within the parameters of general law. There had never been a reported case in the State to say otherwise.

Mr. Hurley believed the expenditure limitation was appropriate in the charter, and he did not think the Attorney General opinion pertained to the CRB's proposal. However, the limitation would only cover 9 percent of the budget. He was concerned the limitation would stop staff from attempting to cut expenditures even more. In answer to Ms. Lasher, Attorney Tinkler said Mr. Ambler was correct in that there was no case directly on point regarding the expenditure limitation issue. However, there were cases concerning taxation issues. The courts had looked at Chapters 129 and 200, Florida Statutes, which set the budget process for the State. It was up to the Florida Legislature to decide what would be in the budget process. The Attorney General said the limitation was to the budget process in Chapters 129 and 200, which did not allow the charter to impose the expenditure limitation. The County did not have an inherent right to the charter; the charter was given under the Florida constitution and must be in compliance with general law.

Responding to Mr. White, Attorney Tinkler confirmed the legislature could change Chapters 129 and 200 to allow the next CRB to place the issue on the ballot. Ms. Lasher and Mr. White were concerned taxpayers would have to pay for litigation if the proposal was challenged in court. Mr. LaBour wished the focus could have been on what the limitation would do instead of the Attorney General opinion; too many questions remained. The issue should be first on the list for the next CRB. Mr. Bales defended the judicial system. A constitution or charter set principles and was not made for specific items. The motion failed three to eleven; Chairman Smith and members Bales, Bedke, Hurley, LaBour, Lasher, Tuttle, Waldron, White, Wilkes, and Williams voted no.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chairman Smith said the following people had telephoned with comments for the CRB: Mr. Gary Stebbins, Apollo Beach; Ms. Connie Larkin, Apollo Beach; Ms. Maureen Krzanowski, representing the Brandon Service League; and Mr. Bruce Scheller, Apollo Beach. The comments were in support of FAIR recommendations; better representation was needed for South County. Chairman Smith directed Ms. Merritt to make information from citizens available in the final report.

Mr. White stated it was an honor to serve with fellow CRB members. Ms. Merritt gave additional information about the CRB web site. In answer to Mr. Ballard, Attorney Tinkler explained as soon as the CRB adjourned sine die, the CRB would cease to exist; CRB members would no longer be under the sunshine law. Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting sine die.

Ms. Merritt reminded the public to voice its opinions by calling (813) 276-8181 or E-mailing crboard@hillsboroughcounty.org.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m.

READ AND APPROVED:
CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:
RICHARD AKE, CLERK

By:
Deputy Clerk