CAPTIONING DECEMBER 17, 2008 BOCC REGULAR MEETING AFTERNOON SESSION ***This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the ***following meeting. It should be used for informational ***purposes only. This document has not been edited; ***therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words ***that did not translate. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, AND WELCOME BACK TO THE AFTERNOON SESSION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING. AT THIS TIME, PAT, I KNOW WE HAVE A 1:30 TIME CERTAIN, AND DO WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION? WE HAVE ONE ITEM THAT WAS ASKED TO BE CONTINUED TO 1:45. >>PAT BEAN: YES, SIR. I WANTED TO BE SURE THAT THE BOARD HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFICIALLY DELETE FROM THE AGENDA FOR TODAY ITEM B-2, WHICH WAS SCHEDULED FOR 1:45. THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS CONTACTED US AND SAID THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE HERE TO PRESENT THAT ITEM TODAY, SO IF YOU WILL OFFICIALLY DELETE THAT, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: AND THEY CONTACTED MY OFFICE AS WELL. I GUESS THEY HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO FINALIZE THEIR CONTRACT YET, AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF US UNTIL IT WAS COMPLETE, SO I'M SURE IT WILL BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA. CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE -- CONTINUE OR IS THIS JUST DEFERRED? >> SO MOVE. >>PAT BEAN: DELETE. >>KEN HAGAN: DELETE IT? DELETE THE ITEM? OKAY. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE -- >> SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: -- SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>KEN HAGAN: AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO RECOGNIZE WE HAVE SOME SPECIAL FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE THIS AFTERNOON FROM THE BRANDON CHAMBER AND LEADERSHIP BRANDON. SEVERAL OF US HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU THIS MORNING, AND COMMISSIONER NORMAN SAID HE THOUGHT WE HAD A BOWLING TEAM WITH ALL THE SHIRTS THAT YOU HAVE ON THERE. [LAUGHTER] AND I -- >>JIM NORMAN: BRANDON BOWLING TEAM. >>KEN HAGAN: I TOLD HIM -- I TOLD HIM I WAS MORE THAN HAPPY TO SAY THAT, BUT I WAS GOING TO ATTRIBUTE IT TO HIM SINCE HE'S THE ONE THAT BROUGHT THAT UP. SO WELCOME. I ENJOYED THE FEW MINUTES I HAD THIS MORNING SPEAKING WITH YOU, AND I HOPE YOU ENJOY BEING HERE WITH US IN THE AFTERNOON, SO THANKS FOR COMING. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. HAGAN, I GUESS MAYBE THEY MISINTERPRETED WHAT I SAID SINCE NOW YOU'RE INTRODUCING THEM AS THE BOWLING TEAM. I TALKED ABOUT LEADERSHIP, BUT I DIDN'T MEAN LEADERSHIP ON A BOWLING TEAM, SO MAYBE I SAID THE WRONG THING. SORRY, GUYS. [LAUGHTER] >>KEN HAGAN: THOSE TEAM BUILDING SKILLS. SO -- MS. BEAN. >>PAT BEAN: YES. YOUR FIRST ITEM THIS AFTERNOON IS ITEM F-3, SCHEDULED FOR 1:30. THAT IS THE PRESENTATION FROM PUBLIC WORKS REGARDING THE PD&E STUDY OF LITHIA-PINECREST, AND BOB GORDON IS HERE TO PRESENT THAT ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, BOB. >>BOB GORDON: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. WE'RE PASSING AROUND TO YOU A COPY OF A FLIER THAT WAS HANDED OUT AT THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON NOVEMBER 18th, 2008. IT WILL KIND OF HELP YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF SOME OF THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT. ALSO, WE'RE GOING TO BE PLACING ON THE ELMO MACHINE, THE OVERHEAD PROJECTOR, A SKETCH SHOWING THE LIMITS OF THE PD&E STUDY AND THE VARIOUS PHASES OF IT. SO THIS WAS REQUESTED BY COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM THAT WE MAKE THIS REPORT AS AN ORAL REPORT. WE DO HAVE -- WE DO HAVE SOME WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION TO GO ALONG WITH THAT TO EXPLAIN TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT IT IS WE'RE DOING, HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE'RE GOING, AND WHERE WE'RE GOING FROM HERE. I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE'RE WORKING IN COOPERATION WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THE CONSULTANT DOING OUR STUDY IS HDR. WE HAVE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF HDR BEHIND US. STEVE GORDILLO IS HERE, WE'VE GOT RICK ADAIR, AND THEY STARTED LATE IN 2006 TO DO THIS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT STUDY ON LITHIA-PINECREST FROM STATE ROUTE 60 TO COUNTY ROAD 39, APPROXIMATELY 11 MILES, AND JUST TO REFRESH EVERYONE'S MEMORY, SINCE I'M SURE SOME OF YOU WEREN'T HERE THEN -- AND SO THIS WILL BE NEW TO SOME OF YOU, BUT THE BRANDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BASICALLY WERE THE CHAMPIONS OF THE PD&E FOR LITHIA-PINECREST. THEY CORRECTLY POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE SOME FAILED SECTIONS OF LITHIA-PINECREST, IT'S NOT GOING TO GET ANY BETTER. THEY DID GET THE SUPPORT OF COMMISSIONER STORMS NOW SENATOR STORMS. THERE WAS A -- SEVERAL MEETINGS IN 2005 TO TALK ABOUT THE PD&E FOR LITHIA-PINECREST STARTING IN APRIL 6th OF 2005 WHERE REPRESENTATIVE SANDRA MURMAN ASKED US TO DO A MORE DETAILED PRESENTATION WITH THE BRANDON CHAMBER. WE ALSO HAD STATE REPRESENTATIVE TREY TRAVIESA INDICATING HE WOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE THE LEAD ON HELPING US TO WIDEN LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD AND OF COURSE, NOW SENATOR STORMS, STATE SENATOR STORMS, WHO ASKED US TO TAKE A LOOK AT LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD, AND THE BOARD SUBSEQUENTLY MOVED FORWARD WITH THAT. BACK ON JUNE 15th, STAFF PRESENTED TO THE BOARD THAT IT WAS GOING TO COST ABOUT $2.5 MILLION TO DO THIS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT STUDY, AND IT WAS SPECIFICALLY STATED TO THE BOARD WE NEEDED TO DID THIS TO FEDERAL GUIDELINES BECAUSE THIS WAS GOING TO BE AT THE TIME ESTIMATED AT ABOUT A $170-MILLION PROJECT. RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S GOING TO BE KIND OF HARD TO COME UP WITH THAT KIND OF CASH TO WIDEN THAT ROAD, WE WANTED TO BE SURE THAT THE STUDY THAT WE PERFORMED WAS TO FEDERAL STANDARDS SO WE'D BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL GRANT MONEY, AND IT WAS INDICATED THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY ALL THE WAY FROM STATE ROAD 60 TO COUNTY ROAD 39, WHICH IS KIND OF WHERE WE ARE TODAY, AND WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. THEN ON NOVEMBER 6th -- NOVEMBER 2nd, 2005, WE PREPARED A REPORT AT THE REQUEST OF COMMISSIONER STORMS NOW SENATOR STORMS TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OUTLINING THE PD&E STUDY, THE STUDY LIMITS BEING STATE ROAD 60 TO COUNTY ROAD 39, THAT WAS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD AT THAT MEETING WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. SO THAT'S JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND. I JUST WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PD&E THAT WE'RE UNDERTAKING TODAY IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE DISCUSSIONS HAD WITH THE BOARD BACK IN 2005 AND THAT WE'RE STILL IN THE PROCESS AND WE HAVE A WAYS TO GO, AND WE'LL TELL YOU, I THINK, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF ANGST RAISED IN THE COMMUNITY. I THINK TODAY I CAN HOPEFULLY ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT ANGST AS I CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION OR GO ON WITH MY PRESENTATION. THERE ARE TWO SEGMENTS OF LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD THAT ARE CURRENTLY FAILED, LEVEL OF SERVICE "F," BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES. THAT'S STATE ROAD 60 TO LUMSDEN AND LUMSDEN TO BLOOMINGDALE. THE REMAINDER OF LITHIA-PINECREST IS WORKING AT AN ACCEPTABLE STANDARD AT LEVEL OF SERVICE "D." THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION -- PLANNING ORGANIZATION HAS IDENTIFIED THE NEED TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD, AND WE HAD DISCUSSIONS RECENTLY WITH RAY CHIARAMONTE ABOUT THAT. THE CURRENT -- WHAT'S IN THE CURRENT MPO LONG-RANGE PLAN BASICALLY IS FOR A FOUR-LANE DIVIDED FROM STATE ROAD 60 TO BLOOMINGDALE AND ALSO FOUR-LANE FROM BLOOMINGDALE TO ADELAIDE AND FROM ADELAIDE TO FISHHAWK A TWO-LANE ENHANCED ROADWAY. THIS IS KIND OF IMPORTANT BECAUSE AS I GO ON IN MY DISCUSSION, I'M GOING TO BE TELLING YOU THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME RECENT -- AS EARLY AS JANUARY, FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR - - INTERPRETATIONS BY FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION THAT OUR PD&Es NEED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MPO, SO WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS IN 2006, IT HAD TO BE A COMPLETELY UNCONSTRAINED ANALYSIS IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THE MPO PLAN, SO I THINK WE CAN PUT SOME PEOPLE'S FEARS TO REST BY INDICATING THAT THE MPO NOW HAS A NEW INTERPRETATION THAT WOULD ALLOW OUR PD&E -- IN FACT REQUIRES OUR PD&E TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MPO LONG-RANGE PLAN, SO FOR THOSE THAT ARE CONCERNED -- ESPECIALLY WE GOT A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS BACK ON NOVEMBER 18th OF THIS YEAR ABOUT THE SECTION OF FISHHAWK -- OR LITHIA-PINECREST FROM FISHHAWK BOULEVARD TO COUNTY ROAD 39. THERE'S STRONG PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THE WIDENING OF THAT. THAT IS A PIECE OF THE ROADWAY THAT'S NOT INCLUDED FOR ANY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE MPO LONG-RANGE PLAN. I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHEN WE STARTED THIS STUDY, WE HAD TO LOOK AT AN UNCONSTRAINED ANALYSIS ALL THE WAY FROM STATE ROAD 60 TO COUNTY ROAD 39 TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOGICAL TERMINI BY THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION. IF YOU DON'T MEET THOSE CRITERIA, YOU CAN NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL GRANT FUNDING. SO WE ARE CURRENTLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT PROCESS. THE PD&E STUDY IS UNDERWAY. WE'RE LOOKING AT HAVING ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING IN THE SPRING OF 2009. WE ARE CURRENTLY TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT, AND WE'LL BE TAKING ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE SPRING OF 2009 AT THAT PUBLIC HEARING, AND BASED ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED SO FAR AND INTERPRETATION FROM THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, WE'LL BE GOING BACK WITH A FOUR-LANE OPTION THAT WILL ALSO BE -- THAT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MPO LONG-RANGE PLAN. NOW, AT THE NOVEMBER MEETING WE DID NOT HAVE THAT. IT WAS BASED COMPLETELY ON FOLLOWING A PROCESS THAT FEDERAL HIGHWAY SETS UP. YOU START OFF BY LOOKING AT WHAT'S -- WHAT IS THE PLANNING HORIZON FOR A ROAD UNDER FEDERAL PD&E? WE ESTIMATED THAT IT WOULD BE PROBABLY 20 -- 2018 BEFORE WE FINISHED PD&E, DESIGN, LAND ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO HAVE THE ROAD IN PLACE. ACCORDING TO FEDERAL PD&E GUIDELINES, YOU HAVE TO LOOK 20 YEARS BEYOND THE DATE THAT THE FACILITY'S IN PLACE, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO PLAN FOR IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES, SO THE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS THAT WE'VE DONE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OUT 2038. WE HAD TO TAKE THE ONES OUT TO 2025 AND EXTRAPOLATE THOSE TO 2038. GRANTED THAT'S PRETTY FAR OUT IN THE FUTURE, BUT YOU HAVE TO DO THAT TO MEET FEDERAL GUIDELINES. SO WE'VE DONE THAT. WHAT THAT CAME UP WITH IS IT BASICALLY SAID THE ONLY THING THAT'S GOING TO WORK FROM STATE ROAD 60 TO COUNTY ROAD 39 IS A SIX-LANE SECTION. THAT WAS THE PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH. WE TOOK THAT -- THAT TYPICAL SECTION TO THE NOVEMBER 18th MEETING. WE ALSO ASKED FOR COMMENTS ON ALIGNMENT. WE GOT SOME VERY STRONG NEGATIVE REACTIONS, OBVIOUSLY ABOUT THE SIX-LANE SECTION. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PD&E PROCESS IS TO GET THAT PUBLIC INPUT. WE KNOW VERY CLEARLY HOW THE COMMUNITY FEELS. WE CERTAINLY KNOW HOW THE MPO FEELS, MR. CHIARAMONTE, AND WE RESPECT THOSE OPINIONS AND THOSE PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS THAT ARE TAKEN BY OTHER AGENCIES IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. SO THAT'S -- THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO HERE, AND I THINK THAT'S RESULTED IN SOME OF THE STRONG NEGATIVE REACTIONS WE'VE GOT TO DATE, BUT I CAN TELL YOU IN TALKING TO OUR CONSULTANTS TODAY THAT BASED ON THE RECENT -- THE RECENT INTERPRETATION WITH FHWA, WE WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE BACK AN OPTION THAT I THINK WILL FIND A LOT MORE PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE IN THE SPRING OF THIS YEAR. I REALLY COULD GO ON. I THINK THAT REALLY COVERS THE HEIGHTS OF IT. I GOT A LOT OF DOCUMENTATION ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENT WE'VE RECEIVED. I KNOW IT'S VERY CONTENTIOUS, AND RATHER THAN MAKE THIS A VERY EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION AND PRESENTATION, I THINK I'D RATHER MAYBE JUST OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, AND I CAN HANDLE YOUR QUESTIONS AT THAT TIME. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ESP THERE. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. EXPLAIN THIS TERMINUS. I THINK THAT'S AN AREA -- I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS DEBATED HEAVILY AND DISCUSSED BACK IN 2005 WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS WHO WERE HERE. EXPLAIN THIS TERMINUS ISSUE AND WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT, AND ALSO, I'VE -- I HAVE HEARD ABOUT AN E-MAIL WHERE THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT MAYBE WE WERE MISLEADING THE FEDS ON THIS OR IT WAS DECEPTIVE WITH THE FEDS. >>BOB GORDON: RIGHT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: BUT EXPLAIN -- BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF FOLKS HERE WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THIS TODAY -- WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THIS TERMINUS. >>BOB GORDON: THE REASON THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRES THAT YOU LOOK AT LOGICAL TERMINI IS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT A LOGICAL CONNECTION FOR A MAJOR ARTERIAL LIKE LITHIA-PINECREST, BRUCE B. DOWNS, ANY MAJOR ARTERIAL, WHETHER IT BE A FEDERAL HIGHWAY, A STATE HIGHWAY, OR EVEN A LARGE ARTERIAL LOCAL HIGHWAY, IT HAS TO HAVE LOGICAL TERMINI TO CONNECT TO OTHER MAJOR FACILITIES. YOU CAN'T CONNECT IT, FOR INSTANCE, AT A COUNTY LINE. THAT'S NOT A LOGICAL TERMINUS BECAUSE IT COULD BE THE SAME AND IT WOULD BE EXTENDING BEYOND, AND THERE WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH CAPACITY TO ACCEPT THE TRAFFIC, SO BASICALLY IT'S TIED TO -- THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS TO KNOW THAT YOU'RE EVALUATING BETWEEN TWO LOGICAL POINTS THAT CAN ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THAT MIGHT BE CREATED BY WIDENING A PARTICULAR FACILITY. NOW, IF YOU DON'T PICK THOSE LOGICAL TERMINI, YOU RUN THE RISK OF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY REJECTING YOUR PD&E AND NOT ACCEPTING THAT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T PROVIDE A FULL TRANSPORTATION SOLUTION. NOW, WHAT WAS THE SECOND PART OF YOUR QUESTION? I'M SORRY, I MISSED THAT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: WELL, THE IMPORTANCE OF DOING IT, BUT THE PD&E -- ONCE YOU DO THIS, THEN WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PUT THE ROAD IN AND START TURN -- TURN THE DIRT AND PUT THE ROAD IN AFTER YOU'VE COMPLETED IT, OR IS THERE ANOTHER STEP TO THE PROCESS? >>BOB GORDON: THERE'S A LOT MORE STEPS TO THE PROCESS. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND I KNOW THERE IS, BUT HELP JUST EXPLAIN. >>BOB GORDON: CORRECT. THE FEDERAL -- THE PD&E -- AND THAT'S THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO KIND OF POINT OUT ABOUT A PD&E PROCESS. THE PD&E DOES NOT DRIVE THE FINAL DECISION-MAKINGS BY THE ELECTED OFFICIALS IN THE COMMUNITY. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: WE'RE THE ONES THAT MAKE THAT? >>BOB GORDON: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE MPO HAS CERTAINLY HAS A SAY IN THAT IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY ADOPT IN A LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. WHAT IT DOES MEAN, THOUGH, IS THAT WHATEVER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT DECIDES TO DO, TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR ANY PORTION OF THAT, IT NEEDS TO BE COMPATIBLE, IF YOU WILL, WITH THE PD&E STUDY, AND LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. FOR INSTANCE, BRUCE B. DOWNS. BRUCE B. DOWNS WAS STUDIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AS A PD&E ALL THE WAY FROM BEARSS AVENUE UP TO STATE ROAD 54. AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE ONLY WIDENING CURRENTLY FROM PALM SPRINGS UP TO PEBBLE CREEK. WE'RE NOT WIDENING THE PIECE TO THE NORTH OF THAT AT THIS POINT NOR THE PIECE TO THE SOUTH, YET ON A $104-MILLION PROJECT, WE HAVE SECURED $43 MILLION OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO FUND THE PORTION THAT'S CURRENTLY FUNDED. NOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT WIDENING THE SOUTHERN PHASE OR THE NORTHERN PHASE. THAT COULD HAPPEN TEN YEARS FROM NOW, 20 YEARS FROM NOW, NEVER, AND YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO REFUND THAT MONEY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IT'S ALL TIED TO WHAT YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH FINANCIALLY AND WHAT THERE'S POLITICAL WILL AND PUBLIC SUPPORT TO ACCOMPLISH. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND YOU MENTIONED WITH BRUCE B. DOWNS, WHAT -- THERE'S SEVERAL PROJECTS WHERE THE TERMINUS WERE NOT DONE CORRECTLY AND IT BECAME VERY COSTLY, AND IT WAS AN ISSUE WHERE NOW THE CITIZENS ARE LOOKING BACK AND SAYING, WHY DIDN'T YOU FOLKS DO THIS CORRECTLY TO BEGIN WITH? SO HELP ME -- HELP US OR EXPLAIN THIS AS WELL. >>BOB GORDON: WELL, THERE'S -- YEAH. ONE WAS A -- AND I DON'T MEAN TO THROW THE CITY UNDER THE BUS, BUT THE CITY OF TAMPA DISCOVERED, YOU KNOW, THE CRITERIA THAT FHWA APPLIES TO THE GRANT AS IT RELATES TO CROSS CREEK BOULEVARD. CROSS CREEK BOULEVARD THEY GOT A $1.5-MILLION FEDERAL GRANT, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT -- FHWA, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, INDICATED YOU HAVE TO DO A PD&E TO FEDERAL STANDARDS TO BE ABLE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT, SO THE CITY HAS HAD TO GO OUT, THEY'VE HAD TO, IF YOU WILL, DELAY THE WIDENING OF CROSS CREEK BOULEVARD AND SPEND ADDITIONAL MONEY TO GO AHEAD AND DO A PD&E TO FEDERAL STANDARDS SO THAT THEY WOULD THEN BE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT FEDERAL GRANT MONEY. I MEAN, IT'S JUST A FACT OF LIFE. THEY'VE REALIZED THAT. THE EAST-WEST CONNECTOR IS ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE THE CITY PROPOSED TYING THE EAST-WEST CONNECTOR INTO COMMERCE PARK INSTEAD OF NEW TAMPA BOULEVARD, WHICH THEIR NEW TAMPA BOULEVARD THEN CONNECTS IN TO BRUCE B. DOWNS. THE CONNECTION FROM THE EAST-WEST ROAD THROUGH NEW TAMPA BOULEVARD AND BRUCE B. DOWNS WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTABLE TO FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE THE CLASSIFICATION OF THOSE ROADWAYS WOULD HANDLE THAT TRAFFIC, BUT INSTEAD THEY WANTED TO DO IT -- THEY WANTED TO CONNECT TO COMMERCE PARK, AND THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION SAID NO, COMMERCE PARK CAN'T HANDLE THE TRAFFIC BASICALLY COMING OFF THE EAST-WEST CONNECTOR, SO THERE'S A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE TO PICK LOGICAL TERMINI OR YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANY FEDERAL MONEY. THOSE WERE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES WHERE IT'S IMPORTANT TO FOLLOW THAT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND SO THESE TERMINI THAT WE'RE USING AND THAT ARE OF CONCERN TO SOME FOLKS, IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE GOING TO SIX-LANE OR FOUR-LANE OR THREE-LANE, IT'S TO MAKE SURE UNDER THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES THAT WE'VE GOT FULL SCOPE SO THAT DOWN THE ROAD CITIZENS -- WHOEVER THE COMMISSIONERS ARE HERE AT THAT TIME, THEY -- THEY DON'T COME IN AND THEY SAY, WELL, WHY DIDN'T THOSE GUYS DO THE FULL STUDY. SO ALL THIS IS IS TRYING TO GATHER AS MUCH INFORMATION TO MAKE AS MINDFUL A DECISION AND AS PRUDENT A DECISION, A SMART DECISION WITH THE PRECIOUS TAX DOLLARS WE HAVE. IS THAT -- >>BOB GORDON: THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S -- IF YOU WILL, IT'S AN UNCONSTRAINED NEEDS ANALYSIS THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT THE CURRENT MPO PLAN IS -- EVEN WITHOUT GETTING ANY PUBLIC COMMENT -- WHEN YOU START OUT, YOU HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THIS IS THE TRAFFIC VOLUME IN 2038, WHAT'S GOING TO WORK, AND THEN YOU RUN THAT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROCESS, AND YOU GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU SAY, OKAY, THE MPO SAYS -- NOW THEY'RE SAYING WE CAN FOLLOW THE MPO PLAN, SO THERE'S A LOT OF TWEAKING THAT GOES ALONG THE WAY, AND WE'RE NOT BOUND BY THAT INITIAL ANALYSIS. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND THIS IS A PROCEDURE THAT WE'RE DOING THIS -- A COMMON PRACTICE WITH STUDIES LIKE THIS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY? >>BOB GORDON: ABSOLUTELY, YES, SIR. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: WE'RE NOT BOUND BY THIS? >>BOB GORDON: WE ARE NOT BOUND BY IT. THE ONLY CONNECTION WOULD BE IF YOU WANT TO GET FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT, WHATEVER YOU BUILD HAS TO BE COMPATIBLE. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EXACTLY. FOR INSTANCE, YOU COULD PHASE IT. YOU COULD BUILD -- IF IT CALLED FOR IT BEING A FOUR-LANE -- OR SIX-LANE, YOU COULD BUILD A FOUR-LANE, THE FIRST PHASE OF THAT. YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO BUILD THE FULL AMOUNT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND IF WE WERE TO SIX-LANE THE WHOLE THING -- AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH YOU FOLLOW THIS -- IT WOULD BE CLOSE TO HALF A BILLION DOLLARS? >>BOB GORDON: IT WOULD BE A LOT, YES, SIR. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND THERE'S NO WAY IN THIS BUDGET OR ANY FUTURE BUDGETS WE'RE EVER GOING TO HAVE THE MONEY TO DO THAT, BUT TO BE ELIGIBLE, WE'VE GOT TO DO -- >>BOB GORDON: WELL, AND AGAIN, IF YOU WILL, THERE'S A REAL GOOD SILVER LINING IN THAT THE FHWA IS NOW RECOGNIZING -- THIS WASN'T IN PLACE AT THE TIME THE PD&E WAS DONE ON BRUCE B. DOWNS, BUT THE NEW INTERPRETATION IS THAT IT HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MPO LONG-RANGE PLAN, WHICH SINCE THERE'S A DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE CURRENT MPO PLAN AND THE SIX-LANE FACILITY, THAT -- WHAT THAT ALLOWS US TO DO IS PRESENT A FOUR-LANE OPTION AND STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FUNDING, FEDERAL GRANT MONEY IN THE FUTURE, SO THAT'S A GOOD THING, AND WE'LL BE EXPLAINING THAT IN OUR PUBLIC HEARING COMING UP HERE IN THE SPRING AS WELL. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: GOOD. I'LL HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, BUT I KNOW YOUR LIGHTS ARE BLINKING THERE. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: SO, THEN, BOB, SECTION "D," IS THERE ANY INTENTION, THEN, TO SIX-LANE SECTION "D" FROM FISHHAWK TO STATE ROAD -- OR TO 39? >>BOB GORDON: I GUESS I WOULD -- MY INTENT -- IT WOULD BE NO, IT'S NOT. THE ANALYSIS WAS TO TAKE A LOOK AND SEE WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED THERE, BUT THE ACTUAL DECISION ON THAT -- THIS IS NOT A DESIGN, THIS IS JUST A WHAT-IF THING IF YOU EVER NEEDED TO MEET ALL THE TRAFFIC, BUT YOU'RE THE BOARD, YOU MAKE THAT FINAL DECISION. >>MARK SHARPE: IF YOU LOOK AT THE ROAD, THOUGH, THE ROAD STARTS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY AND EXTENDS OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, WHICH IS A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN INSIDE AND OUTSIDE, SO IF THERE WAS NO URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY AND WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT A LOGICAL TERMINUS, YOU COULD SAY, OKAY, WELL, 39, BUT IF THERE IS AN URBAN -- IF YOU'VE GOT THIS URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, WHICH PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT AND MAKING SURE THAT WE RESPECT THE INTEGRITY OF IT, WOULD WE - - DOES THAT NOT -- IS THAT NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU'RE DOING THESE PD&Es SO THAT CITIZENS -- >>BOB GORDON: IT IS, BUT IT'S TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION NOT AS A LOGICAL TERMINUS POINT OF DISCUSSION BECAUSE THE LOGICAL TERMINUS TALKS ABOUT THE PHYSICAL TERMINI OF THE ROADWAY AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE ROADWAYS IT NEEDS TO HOOK UP TO; HOWEVER, SINCE THE MPO HAS INDICATED THERE WILL BE NO IMPROVEMENTS FROM FISHHAWK TO 39, IF IT CAME UP WITH A PD&E RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS IN CONTRAST TO THAT, WE WOULD JEOPARDIZE FEDERAL FUNDING, SO WHAT I'M POINTING OUT TO YOU IS THAT THERE ARE OTHER MECHANISMS NOW IN PLACE, THE MPO IN PARTICULAR, THAT CAN LIMIT THAT WITHOUT US JEOPARDIZING OUR FEDERAL GRANT FUNDING. >>MARK SHARPE: LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. YOU DON'T NEED TO ANSWER IT RIGHT AWAY, BUT WE NEED TO THINK THIS THING THROUGH. THE PROCESS FOR FUNDING ROADS IS COMPLEX, FOR STUDYING THEM IS COMPLEX, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME OFTENTIMES EVEN OURSELVES, THERE'S CONFUSION WITHIN STAFF, WITH THE -- WITHIN CONSULTANTS THAT WE USE AS TO WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO, AND SOMETIMES YOU'LL HEAR ONE SAYING, OH, NO, NO, NO, WE'RE PLANNING TO SIX-LANE IT ALL THE WAY TO 39, AND SOMEONE ELSE WILL SAY, NO, NO, NO, NO, WE MIGHT BE LOOKING AT IT, WE'RE ANALYZING IT, BUT OF YOUR ANALYZING IT, THEN SOMEONE COULD CONSTRUE THAT MEANS YOU'RE PLANNING ON SIX- LANING IT DOWN TO 39, AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO REALLY, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH THAT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO COMMUNICATE TO THE CITIZENS RIGHT UP FRONT EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AND WHAT WE'RE STUDYING AND WHY, AND THEN IF THERE ARE CONSTRAINTS -- AND WE DO HAVE CONSTRAINTS, IT'S IN THE RURAL AREA OF OUR COUNTY, IT'S OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY -- RESPECT THAT WHEN WE DO THE PLANNING SO THAT NO ONE THINKS, WAIT A MINUTE, WE'RE JUST KIND OF BUSTING RIGHT THROUGH THE FIRE WALLS THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT THE RURAL SECTION OF THE COUNTY. >>BOB GORDON: THAT'S CORRECT. I THINK -- I CAN ANSWER THAT MORE QUICKLY -- I THINK THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS THAT THERE ARE -- THERE ARE LOCAL CRITERIA AND RULES IN PLACE REGARDING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, REGARDING THE MPO LONG-RANGE PLAN, AND AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL THERE ARE SEPARATE SET OF GUIDELINES. IF YOU WANT FEDERAL MONEY, HERE'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO, AND THEY'RE VERY STRICT, THINGS LIKE IF YOU GET FEDERAL GRANT MONEY ON A ROADWAY, YOU MAY HAVE TO BUILD A SOUND BARRIER. WE DON'T HAVE THAT AS PART OF OUR TYPICAL PROJECTS. WE DON'T USE FEDERAL MONEY. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT RIGHT OF ACQUISITION YOU HAVE TO DO DIFFERENTLY, AND IT ALSO GOES TO THESE PD&E STUDIES, WHAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT, THE PROCESS YOU WORK THROUGH, AND I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS PUT EVERYONE'S FEARS AT EASE THAT THIS PROJECT IS NOT GOING TO RESULT IN SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMUNITY, THE MPO, OR THE BOARD DOESN'T WANT IN THE LONG-RANGE, WHICH MEANS IF IT'S TO BE TWO-LANED FROM FISHHAWK TO COUNTY ROAD 39, THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE, AND IF IT'S IN THE LONG-RANGE PLAN AS THAT, THEN WE HAVE THE ADDED BONUS THAT WE STILL CAN GET FEDERAL MONIES FOR THAT -- THOSE PORTIONS OF LITHIA-PINECREST THAT WE ALL AGREE, THE BOARD, THE MPO, THE CITIZENS, NEED TO BE WIDENED. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, I'LL JUST CLOSE BY SAYING I LIKE THE FACT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE FEDERAL DOLLARS. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE, AND I THINK WE NEED -- AND OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO DO THE PLANNING, BUT MY CONCERN IS WHEN YOU HAVE A VERY COMPLICATED PROCESS AND PEOPLE PARTICIPATE FOR YEARS AND COMMUNICATE WHAT THEY WANT AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER STUDY THAT SOME MIGHT NOT EVEN ATTEND BECAUSE THEY'RE THINKING, WELL, THIS REALLY ISN'T IMPORTANT, WE ALREADY HAVE THESE PROTECTIONS, AND THEN YOU FIND OUT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SIX-LANING IT, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY SOME -- >>BOB GORDON: SURE. >>MARK SHARPE: EVEN IF IT'S JUST MISCOMMUNICATED -- I THINK THIS IS JUST AN ISSUE OF MISCOMMUNICATION. >>BOB GORDON: IT IS A MISCOMMUNICATION. I WILL SAY WE'VE DONE PD&Es THAT AREN'T TO FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR THOSE PROJECTS WHERE WE FEEL LIKE IT REALLY ISN'T WORTH THE EXTRA TIME AND EFFORT TO TRY TO EVEN GET FEDERAL MONIES. THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOING A PD&E MONEY TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY STANDARDS VERSUS FEDERAL STANDARDS, AND I THINK -- THEY ARE REALLY -- THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENCES, AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THAT. IN FACT, EVEN IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WE -- WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT MANY IN THE PAST. D.O.T. DOES THEM ALL THE TIME, WHICH IS WHY WE COORDINATED CLOSELY WITH THEM TO BE SURE THAT WE HAD LOGICAL TERMINI PICKED CORRECTLY, ALL KINDS OF ISSUES IN PLACE, SO IT WILL BE A CHALLENGE FOR US TO COMMUNICATE THAT, AND I THINK -- I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS PUT THEIR FEARS TO REST THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T WANT AND IS NOT APPROVED BY THIS BOARD. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. GORDON, THANK YOU. I WAS HOPEFUL THAT OUR CONVERSATION TODAY WOULD DO EXACTLY THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK SO SO FAR. WE TALKED ABOUT IT -- AND I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT LIT BITS AND PARCELS THAT MR. HIGGINBOTHAM ASKED AND MR. SHARPE ASKED IN TERMS OF PICKING THE TERMINI, AND IT BEING COUNTY ROAD 39 -- TELL ME AGAIN NOW WHY WOULDN'T IT BE A LOGICAL CHOICE TO JUST HAVE GONE TO FISHHAWK BOULEVARD IF -- I MEAN, I KNOW -- WELL, GO AHEAD, AND I'LL ASK IT AGAIN. >>BOB GORDON: BECAUSE FISHHAWK BOULEVARD -- BECAUSE BASICALLY LITHIA-PINECREST EXTENDS AS A CONTINUOUS TWO-LANE ROAD TO COUNTY ROAD 39 FROM THAT POINT. IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S VIEWPOINT, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT ANALYZING A ROADWAY, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IF YOU WIDEN -- LET'S SAY IF YOU WIDEN LITHIA-PINECREST TO SIX-LANE AND IT ENDS AT FISHHAWK, WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT LITTLE STRETCH OF LITHIA-PINECREST BETWEEN FISHHAWK BOULEVARD AND COUNTY ROAD 39? SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT'S BEHIND IT. >>ROSE FERLITA: I THOUGHT BASED ON WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF THE CORRIDOR PLAN AND LONG-RANGE PLANS, ET CETERA, THAT STAYS RURAL. >>BOB GORDON: YES. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. SO THEN IF THAT'S WHAT WE LOOK LIKE WE'RE GOING TO DO -- WELL, THE STUDY COSTS HOW MUCH, 2.5 MILLION, I UNDERSTAND? >>BOB GORDON: YES, MA'AM. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. SO THEN IF IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO THAT AREA THAT'S OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, WOULD WE NOT -- WHY ARE WE SPENDING THE MONEY FOR THE STUDY THAT EXTENSIVELY IF IN ALL LIKELIHOOD WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO DO THAT AFTER YOU GET OUT OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA? I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS YOU -- YOU HAVEN'T REALLY SAID ANYTHING STRONG ENOUGH IF I HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT KEEPING THAT PORTION OF IT, THAT SEGMENT "D," THE SAME BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE, WELL, WE REALLY DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, WE'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO DO IT, BUT WE'VE GOT TO DO THIS WHOLE THING, AND DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAY YOU'VE GOT TO DO THIS WHOLE THING REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU PLAN TO DO TO EACH SEGMENT? IS THAT A MANDATE? >>BOB GORDON: YES. >>ROSE FERLITA: HAVE WE SEEN THAT? >>BOB GORDON: THAT'S THE LOGICAL TERMINI MANDATE. THAT'S THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE. AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YEAH, WE ARE SPENDING MORE MONEY TO STUDY THAT PIECE THAT WE KNOW THAT THIS BOARD AND THE MPO HAS SAID IS GOING TO BE TWO-LANED, BUT WHAT THAT CAN DO FOR US IS MAKE US ELIGIBLE FOR TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AS ON BRUCE B. DOWNS WHERE WE GOT $43 MILLION. NOW, D.O.T. PERFORMED THAT STUDY, I THINK IT WAS, I DON'T KNOW, $4- TO $5 MILLION. IT WAS FROM BEARSS AVENUE TO STATE ROAD 54. NOW, WE'RE ONLY SPENDING $43 MILLION ON THE MIDDLE SEGMENT. WE'RE NOT DOING AT THIS POINT ANYTHING, TO THE CHAGRIN OF SOME, TO THE SOUTH THEN BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO THAT. THE SAME THING WILL APPLY HERE. WE CAN BE POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, SO AN INVESTMENT OF ABOUT A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS OR SO TO STUDY THAT LAST SEGMENT THEN MAKES US ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING ON THE PIECES THAT THIS BOARD AND THE MPO WANTS TO SEE IMPROVEMENTS ON, WHICH COULD AMOUNT TO TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, SO THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT IS MULTIPLE TIMES THE COST OF ANALYZING THAT SOUTHERN PHASE. >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, PERHAPS IT IS, BUT JUST RECENTLY THIS MORNING WE TALKED ABOUT THE ISSUES OF FINANCES THAT THIS COUNTY IS HAVING, SO I'M NOT SURE I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT TELL ME AGAIN HOW YOU ARRIVED AT YOUR GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS UNTIL 2038. >>BOB GORDON: THE -- I DO HAVE THE CONSULTANTS HERE, BUT THEY TOOK THE 2025 YEAR -- 2025 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS AND THEN EXTRAPOLATED THOSE OUT TO 2038. NOW, THAT'S ALL I KNOW, AND THE CONSULTANTS CAN ANSWER THAT MORE CLEARLY ABOUT HOW THEY DID THAT, BUT IT WAS AN EXTRAPOLATION THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE YOU GOT TO GO 20 YEARS FROM THE DAY THE FACILITY'S IN PLACE TO PROJECT THAT TRAFFIC OUT, WHICH TAKES US OUT TO 2038. >>ROSE FERLITA: AND WHAT WAS THE ASSUMPTION PERCENTWISE PER YEAR, ANY IDEA? >> [INAUDIBLE] >>ROSE FERLITA: SIR, COULD YOU JUST -- I CAN'T HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. >>BOB GORDON: THIS IS STEVE GORDILLO WITH HDR. >> YES, I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER EXACTLY, BUT IT WAS A GROWTH PERCENTAGE, AND IT'S PROBABLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 3%. IT'S A LINEAR EXTRAPOLATION FROM 2025 TO 2038. >>ROSE FERLITA: THAT'S FINE, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW EXACTLY? >> NO, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY. >>ROSE FERLITA: THAT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD INFORMATION FOR US TO KNOW SO WE COULD LOOK AT GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS. THANK YOU. I THINK I HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS TOO, MR. GORDON, BUT I'LL YIELD TO SOMEBODY ELSE WHO MIGHT HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AS WELL. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. SO JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND, THEN, IS IT A REQUIREMENT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SIX-LANE PROCESS BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME CONCERNS ABOUT TURNING THIS INTO SIX LANES. WE DISCUSSED FOUR LANES. DO WE HAVE TO PRESENT IT AS -- OR STUDY IT AS SIX LANES TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THOSE FEDERAL DOLLARS? >>BOB GORDON: NO, WE DON'T. WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS INITIALLY TO SAY -- AS I -- AS WE TALKED ABOUT, WE LOOKED AT THE TRAFFIC PROJECTION TO 2038. IF YOU LOOK AT THE HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL AND THE TRAFFIC -- AGAIN, THAT'S 30 YEARS OUT, IS IT EVER GOING TO MATERIALIZE, WHO KNOWS, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE AND YOU APPLY THAT TO HOW MANY LANES YOU HAVE TO HAVE, IT SAYS IT'S GOT TO BE SIX OR YOU'RE BUILDING A FAILED FACILITY IN THAT 20-YEAR TIME FRAME BETWEEN THE TIME IT'S BUILT AND THE 20- YEAR PROJECTION BEYOND, SO YOU HAD TO LOOK AT THAT INITIALLY, BUT AS I'M SAYING, WE CAN -- THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN HAVE THE MPO PLAN THAT CONSTRAINS PART OF THAT, CAN HAVE A TWO-LANE SECTION FROM FISHHAWK/COUNTY ROAD 39, CAN CONSTRAIN IT TO FOUR LANE FOR THE OTHER SEGMENTS, AND ACCORDING TO THE RECENT INTERPRETATION OF FHWA, YOU'RE STILL ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE PIECES THAT YOU WANT TO BUILD. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO YOU'RE SAYING THE SIX LANES HAVE TO BE PART IN ORDER FOR US TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THOSE DOLLARS? I UNDERSTAND YOU SAY WE'RE NOT BOUND TO IT. >>BOB GORDON: YES, IT'S A PROCESS YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH. YOU GO THROUGH AN UNRESTRAINED ANALYSIS. YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, WHEN WE STARTED THIS IN 2006 THEY DIDN'T HAVE THIS INTERPRETATION IN PLACE. IN 2006 WE HAD TO USE THE 2038 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS, WE HAD TO COME AND LOOK AT A SIX-LANE OPTION, WHICH WE HAVE, AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO BE PRESENTING A FOUR-LANE OPTION IN THE SPRING OF 2009. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. BECAUSE I GUESS THERE WAS JUST SOME CONFUSION ABOUT WHETHER THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT OR NOT BECAUSE FDOT SEEMED TO HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION OF WHETHER WE HAD TO PUT IT THAT WAY, SO I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAS -- >>BOB GORDON: WELL, I DO HAVE RICK ADAIR HERE FROM D.O.T., AND IF YOU'VE GOT JUST A MINUTE, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HIM MAYBE ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SURE. >>BOB GORDON: HE'S NO LONGER WITH FDOT, BUT AT THE TIME WE WERE GOING THROUGH THIS, HE WAS INVOLVED IN THAT, AND HE COULD PROBABLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION BETTER THAN I COULD. >>KEVIN BECKNER: GREAT. THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M RICK ADAIR. I USED TO WORK AT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR 30 YEARS, AND 25 OF THOSE YEARS I WAS PERFORMING PD&E STUDIES OF THIS NATURE, SO HOPEFULLY I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. I'M NOW WORKING AT HDR AFTER I RETIRED. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. COULD YOU PLEASE HELP US UNDERSTAND, IS THIS A REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE TO SHOW THE SIX LANES IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL FUNDING? >> IT'S THE EXPECTATION OF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION TO USE THE PROJECTED TRAFFIC INFORMATION TO DETERMINE THE PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROJECT IN TERMS OF HOW MANY LANES ARE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO CAUSE A LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITION TO BE ACCEPTABLE. IN THIS CASE, SIX LANES WERE DETERMINED TO BE THE DESIRABLE NUMBER OF LANES TO ACCOMMODATE PROJECTED TRAFFIC IN 2038, SO FHWA WOULD EXPECT THAT IN THE YEAR 2038 A SIX-LANE SECTION WOULD BE USED TO EVALUATE IMPACTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT CAUSED BY SIX-LANING THE PROJECT. SO THE EXPECTATION IS YOU WOULD NOT IN FHWA'S EYES UNDERESTIMATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IF YOU ONLY LOOKED AT DOING A FOUR-LANE SECTION BUT THE ACTUAL NEED WAS FOR A SIX-LANE SECTION, SO THEIR INTENTION IS TO ENSURE THE COMMUNITY AND THE AGENCIES -- THE PERMITTING AGENCIES IN THIS CASE TOO -- THAT THE PROJECT'S PROPOSED IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT ARE NOT UNDERSTATED, SO A SIX-LANE SECTION WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE A GREATER DEGREE OF IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT THAN A FOUR-LANE SECTION. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO THEN WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT -- I GUESS TO MORE DIRECTLY ANSWER THE QUESTION, THEN, IS THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY -- THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE'RE USING TO ARRIVE TO THE SIX-LANE, IS THAT ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE ARE FEEDING TO THEM? ARE THESE MANDATED BY FEDERAL GUIDELINES OR ASSUMPTIONS -- WHAT ASSUMPTIONS DO WE USE TO ARRIVE TO THE SIX LANE? >> NATIONALLY SPEAKING, THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WORKS WITH ALL INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING PD&E STUDIES TO FULLY EVALUATE THE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AND IF THE NEED FOR THE PROJECT SHOWS THERE NEEDS TO BE SIX LANE, THEY WOULD EXPECT THE INDIVIDUAL SEEKING FEDERAL APPROVAL FOR FUTURE FUNDING OF THE PROJECT TO EVALUATE THE SIX-LANE SECTION. IF THE NEED WOULD ONLY SHOW A FOUR-LANE SECTION OR IF IT WAS TO BE A CONSTRAINED CORRIDOR WHERE THE MPO'S PLAN SHOWS IT ONLY NEEDED TO BE FOUR-LANE, THEY WOULD EXPECT THE APPLICANT PERFORMING THE STUDY TO EVALUATE THE IMPACTS OF DOING A FOUR-LANE SECTION. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO IF WE DECIDED TO GO WITH A FOUR-LANE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WITHHOLD FEDERAL FUNDING DOLLARS -- >> NO. >>KEVIN BECKNER: -- BECAUSE WE DECIDED NO TO THE DO THAT? >> NO. AT THE END OF THE DAY -- AT THE END OF THE PD&E STUDY PHASE, WHAT'S GOING TO NEED TO BE DONE IS TO ENSURE THAT THE MPO'S LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE PD&E STUDY. THEY CANNOT BE INCONSISTENT. FEDERAL HIGHWAY WILL NOT APPROVE THE STUDY FOR FUTURE FEDERAL FUNDING WITHOUT THAT CONSISTENCY. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> CERTAINLY. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND IT'S -- TO KIND OF HELP YOU -- NOT HELP YOU, BUT TO UNDERSTAND THIS, WHY WOULD WE SUBMIT A PLAN OR A STUDY, EXCUSE ME, BECAUSE THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STUDY AND PLAN -- FOR A FAILED ROAD? IF WE SEND SOMETHING UP THAT IS JUST PIECEMEAL -- AND I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT PIECEMEAL HERE IN A MINUTE TOO -- PIECEMEAL RATHER THAN SHOW A SUCCESSFUL ROAD ALL THE WAY UP RATHER THAN A FAILED ROAD -- IF THE FEDS LOOK AT A FAILED REQUEST, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO FUND US, BUT JUST BECAUSE WE USED TERMINUS FROM WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE SAID AND WHAT THE FEDS HAVE OUTLINED FROM THE FURTHESTMOST POINT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO DO IT, AND WHEN WE END UP WITH A PLAN, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A STUDY, WHATEVER THE PLAN OR WHATEVER THE BOUNDARIES ARE, WE'VE GOT TO CONTINUE TO DO THOSE STUDIES. WHY WOULD WE WANT TO LIMIT OUR SCOPE OF STUDY -- YOU AND I JUST TOOK AN OATH OF OFFICE AGAIN, AND IT WAS, YOU KNOW, TO DO MANY THINGS, BUT ONE WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE HIT THE RED OR THE GREEN BUTTON THAT WE'VE GATHERED AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE, AND THAT'S ALL THIS STUDY IS DOING, AND I SHOULD -- THIS IS MY DISTRICT. I HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE, AND I'VE HEARD THAT THERE'S 30 OR 40 PEOPLE WHO'VE SENT AN E-MAIL IN IN SUPPORT OF THIS, AND THEY HAVE A CONCERN ON A -- A SEGMENT OF THAT ROAD, BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THERE ARE 300 PEOPLE WHO SIGNED A PETITION ON ANOTHER SEGMENT OF THAT ROAD, SO WE CAN'T LIMIT -- YOU KNOW, THOSE PEOPLE MAY SAY WE WANT AN EIGHT- LANE ROAD, AND I'M USING THAT HYPOTHETICALLY, BUT THEIR CONCERNS ON THAT PART OF THE ROAD ARE MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHERS, SO ONCE WE GET THE STUDY IN AND WE COMPLETE THE STUDY FROM POINT TO POINT, THE MAXIMUM POINT, TO SERVE ALL THE CITIZENS ALONG THAT ROAD, THEN WE CAN DECIDE IN THIS SETTING -- WHEN WE GET E-MAILS AND CALLS AND LETTERS AND FAXES AGAIN, THEN WE CAN DECIDE WHAT SECTIONS, BUT WHY LIMIT US RIGHT NOW ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO FOR EVERYBODY ALONG THAT ROADWAY, WHETHER THEY HAVE WRITTEN AN E-MAIL OR SIGNED A PETITION FOR OR AGAINST? I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER NOTES RIGHT NOW OR QUESTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE, THEN WE NEED TO KEEP MOVING. >>MARK SHARPE: BOB, I JUST -- I THINK -- I'M READING THE - - THIS IS FROM THE BRANDON NEWS, OPTIONS WIDEN FOR LITHIA- PINECREST ROAD PROJECT, AND YOU READ IT, AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE WIDENING OF LITHIA-PINECREST TO COUNTY ROAD 39, AND IT SAYS, OPTIONS BEING CONSIDERED ARE FOUR TO SIX LANES. IT DOESN'T SAY THIS SEGMENT TO THIS SEGMENT, IT SAYS FROM COUNTY ROAD 39 ALL THE WAY TO 60, AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM. I THINK IT'S -- AND I UNDERSTAND, AND I THINK WE NEED TO DO STUDIES. I'VE BEEN ARGUING FOR A WHOLE HOST OF STUDIES, YOU KNOW, LONG-RANGE VISIONING AND SUCH, BUT WHEN WE'RE DOING THE VISIONING, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE PROPERLY COMMUNICATE AND THEN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND USE AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE CERTAIN AREAS WHERE IT'S DESIGNATED THAT IT'S GOING TO REMAIN RURAL. I'M WONDERING, THOUGH, STILL WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHES THESE CRITERIAS, I MEAN, THEY UNDERSTAND ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT SPRAWL AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT GOVERNMENTS ESTABLISH THESE BOUNDARIES, SO HERE WE ARE CREATING -- WE HAVE A BEGINNING POINT AND AN END POINT, AND THE END POINT'S OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, BUT IT'S AS IF WHEN WE WERE DOING THE ANALYSIS, WE'RE NOT TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION OR YOU'RE LOOKING OUT TO 2038, BUT STILL, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE THAT WE FROM THE OUTSET WANT TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION? IT SEEMS THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS YOU WOULD COMMUNICATE BOTH TO THE CITIZENS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH IS WE UNDERSTAND OUR LAND USE, WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S AN URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, AND WE UNDERSTAND THOSE THINGS, SO WE'RE GOING TO STUDY IT BECAUSE WE WANT TO FREE UP THE CONSTRICTION ALONG LITHIA-PINECREST, BUT ONCE WE GET BEYOND FISHHAWK, CITIZENS AT THIS POINT HAVE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THEY WANT IT TO REMAIN A TWO-LANE ROAD. >>BOB GORDON: YOUR POINTS ARE VERY WELL TAKEN. I THINK A LOT OF IT IS GOING TO BE COMMUNICATION FROM THIS POINT FORWARD. REGRETTABLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS A ONE SIZE FITS ALL FOR EVERY COUNTY AND EVERY MUNICIPALITY ACROSS THE COUNTRY, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO -- AS IT COMES UP TO THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING, WE'RE GOING TO DO A BETTER JOB OF COMMUNICATING WHERE THIS IS GOING. I THINK ESPECIALLY NOW I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO FIND WHEN WE COMMUNICATE THAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THE SIX-LANE PIECE THAT WAS REQUIRED WHEN WE STARTED THIS THING, NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, BRINGING THIS INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE MPO LONG-RANGE PLAN, WE'RE GOING TO BE HAVING SOME OTHER OPTIONS TO TAKE A LOOK AT, AND WE'LL EXPLAIN TO THEM -- I MEAN, THE BEST THAT WE CAN, WE CAN EXPLAIN THIS UNTIL WE'RE BLUE IN THE FACE, BUT WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT FOR PEOPLE. >>MARK SHARPE: AND THEN ONE LAST THING -- YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER RIGHT NOW, BUT IT IS A QUESTION I HAVE BECAUSE I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ISSUE OF -- YOU HAVE BASICALLY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, YOU KNOW, NUMBERS OF PEOPLE, ROADS, MOVEMENT, HOW FAST YOU CAN MOVE ALONG, AND THEN YOU ESTABLISH THESE BOUNDARIES WHICH WE SET, WE WANT GROWTH TO LOOK LIKE THIS, WE WANT IT HERE, NOT THERE, BUT WE'VE GOT ROADS THAT -- I MEAN, THE REALITY IS THAT IF WE BUILD THE ROAD TO MAYBE EVEN MEET OUR COMP PLAN, AT SOME POINT THERE'S GOING TO BE CONGESTION. I CAN SEE SIX LANES COMING TO TWO, AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE LOOKING AT EACH OTHER POINTING THE FINGER GOING WHO PLANNED THAT -- >>BOB GORDON: EXACTLY. >>MARK SHARPE: -- WHO LET THAT HAPPEN BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO SAY, WELL, WE HAVE OUR COMP PLAN THAT SAYS THIS IS RURAL, SO HOW DO WE PLAN FOR THAT WITHOUT BUSTING THE COMP PLAN, HOW DO WE THEN PROVIDE RELIEF OR, IF NOTHING ELSE, COMMUNICATE TO THE CITIZENS THIS IS A CONSCIOUS DECISION THAT WE MADE COLLECTIVELY AND IT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE, BUT IN THIS AREA IT'S GOING TO GET TIGHT? >>BOB GORDON: THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE MPO AND THE BOARD. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT WE ANSWER HERE. YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT TO GET THESE STUDIES, WE'VE GOT TO DO THE MOST WE CAN TO BRING IN ALL THE DATA. DO YOU HAVE ANY -- I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROBLEM HERE WITH THE BOARD TO WANT TO HAVE OUR STAFF GATHER ANY -- AS MUCH DATA AS POSSIBLE. IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YEAH. [LAUGHTER] I WONDER DO WE NEED A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE ON THIS, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE GOING FORWARD, AND I KNOW -- I WENT BACK AND READ THE JUNE 15th, 2005, TRANSCRIPTS, AND IT WAS A UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FROM EVERYTHING -- YOU KNOW, THE ONE COMMISSIONER HERE TALKED ABOUT ALL THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS. THIS -- NOT ONLY DOES IT -- IS IT AN ISSUE OF GETTING PEOPLE FROM ONE POINT TO THE OTHER FASTER, BUT IT'S ALSO A SAFETY ISSUE, AND IF WE -- GO AHEAD. LET'S HAVE A -- >>MARK SHARPE: I SUPPORT GOING FORWARD BUT UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE COMPLY FULLY WITH WHAT THE MPO HAS ESTABLISHED AND WHAT OUR COMP PLAN SAYS, AND IF THE CITIZENS WANT TO CHANGE THOSE OR THERE'S A PROCESS WHEREBY WE CHANGE IT, WELL, THEN, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S CLEAR SO WE'RE NOT OUT HERE PLANNING FOR SOMETHING THAT OUR COMP PLAN DOESN'T ALLOW, AND I THINK WE NEED TO ADHERE TO THE PRECEDENT THAT'S ESTABLISHED. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YEAH, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE MOVING. >>BOB GORDON: WE AGREE WITH THAT. IN FACT, WE'RE REQUIRED TO UNDER THE PD&E REQUIREMENTS. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. COMMISSIONER FERLITA, THEN WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU. JUST ONE CLOSING COMMENT. IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE. WE'RE SAYING WE DON'T REALLY WANT THAT AND IT'S NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE LONG-RANGE PLAN OR THE CORRIDOR PLAN BUT WE STILL HAVE TO DO IT BECAUSE YOU GUYS SAY THAT THE FEDS WANT US TO DO IT. WE HAD A VERY GOOD STRATEGY RETREAT SESSION, AND I REMEMBER WE TALKED SIMILARLY TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS. REMEMBER, MS. GARSYS? AND I DON'T THINK THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE CONVINCED YET, BOB, BECAUSE ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS APPEARS AND THIS IS GOING TO BE ADDED, BUT DON'T WORRY, BECAUSE REALLY WE DON'T MEAN IT, WE NEED THAT BECAUSE OF THE FEDS. IT'S LIKE SMOKE AND MIRRORS, SO WHEN YOU SAY DO A BETTER JOB OF COMMUNICATING, I GUESS WE'RE OVERDUE TO START BETTER COMMUNICATION. I KNOW THAT I RECEIVED A COPY OF SOME REQUESTS FROM A CONSTITUENT ABOUT PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS, AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED. I CAN'T ANSWER THEM, OTHERWISE I'D BE HAPPY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY, BUT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE TO START SO PEOPLE WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE THAT THEY KNOW THE FACTS. WE TALKED ABOUT EXCLUDING THE PUBLIC TOO MANY TIMES IN THE LAST ROUND. MS. GARSYS AND I TALKED ABOUT IT, CERTAINLY NOTHING DIRECTED AT HER, BUT THE WAY IT HAPPENED, PEOPLE WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROCESS, SO THEN YOU ARE LEFT TO DECIDE WHAT YOU THINK THIS MEANS AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IT MAY OR MAY NOT REALLY MEAN, SO I THINK THE FIRST THING I WOULD ADVISE IS THAT WE RESPOND TO THAT PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST AND CONTINUE TO HAVE MORE DIALOGUE, BUT I AGREE WITH MARK, I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING IN CONFLICT WITH THAT PLAN THAT'S EXISTING, AND THIS IS IN CONFLICT WITH IT, SO I HOPE -- I HOPE THAT THIS IS JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE GUIDELINES OF THE FEDS. >>KEN HAGAN: LAST COMMENT FROM COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YEAH, AND I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR GOOD WORK, AND I KNOW THAT AS I'VE BEEN INVOLVED AND ON THE BOARD, I'VE BEEN ADAMANT ON THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS, IS JUST MAKING SURE WE HAVE ALL THE PUBLIC INPUT, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT. WE'RE GOING TO DO WHAT MAKES SENSE, IS COMMON SENSE, AND PROVIDES FOR GOOD LONG-RANGE PLANNING. >>KEN HAGAN: THANKS FOR THE UPDATE, BOB. >>BOB GORDON: THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY, PAT. D-1. >>PAT BEAN: YES, WE'RE READY TO GO TO D-1, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE THE LIST OF PROJECTS FOR COMMUNITY INVESTMENT TAX PHASE III. AND -- >>ROSE FERLITA: MS. BEAN, EXCUSE ME, OR MR. HAGAN, I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO HAVE HIM DO -- >>PAT BEAN: FRIENDSHIP TRAIL. >>ROSE FERLITA: WE KEEP FORGETTING THAT, DON'T WE? >>PAT BEAN: YES, WE DO. I'M SORRY. >>ROSE FERLITA: LET ME TRY AGAIN. >>BOB GORDON: BOB GORDON, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. MIKE WILLIAMS IS PASSING OUT -- PLEASE EXCUSE ME FOR THIS VERY DRAFT LIST OF NUMBERS YOU'RE GETTING HERE THIS AFTERNOON. I CAN TELL YOU OUR CONSULTANT CURRENTLY IS WORKING ON A FINAL REPORT THAT WILL BE OUT BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON FRIDAY. WE'VE BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH HIM ALL MORNING AND TRYING TO PULL SOME NUMBERS TOGETHER FOR YOU TO BE RESPONSIVE TO COMMISSIONER FERLITA AND COMMISSIONER NORMAN'S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE ARE WE WITH OUR ANALYSIS OF THE BRIDGE, WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS GOING TO COST SO WE CAN BEGIN TO PUT YOUR ARMS AROUND SOME KIND OF STRATEGY OF HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. SO I'M GOING TO WALK YOU THROUGH THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF HE CAN PUT ONE OF THESE ON ELMO MAYBE FOR THE PUBLIC, IF YOU WOULD, MIKE, PLEASE, SO WE CAN SHARE THIS WITH THE PEOPLE VIEWING. WE CALLED THE CONSULTANT THIS MORNING, KCA, AND THEY'VE COME UP WITH SEVERAL OPTIONS. AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE YOU'RE GOING TO SEE TWO OPTIONS THAT CALL FOR REPAIR, OKAY. NOW, THE FIRST OPTION IS THE REPAIR FOR THE ENDS ONLY. THAT'S GOING TO BE THE ENDS OF THE FRIENDSHIP TRAILBRIDGE THAT ARE CURRENTLY OPEN. THAT BASICALLY INCLUDES THE FISHING CATWALKS UP TO WHERE THEY'RE GATED OFF FROM THE REST OF THE BRIDGE. THE INITIAL BALLPARK ESTIMATES ARE -- THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION IS ABOUT $11 MILLION. NOW, THE DEMOLITION WOULD BE THE DEMOLITION OF THE MIDDLE OF THE BRIDGE BETWEEN THE ENDS OF THESE CATWALKS, AND THAT INCLUDES SUPER- AND SUBSTRUCTURE REPAIRS, BASICALLY THE PILINGS OR THE SUBSTRUCTURE, THE DECK SUPERSTRUCTURE, $11 MILLION. THE NEXT OPTION LOOKED AT WAS TO REPAIR -- AND THAT FIRST OPTION GIVES YOU MAYBE TEN YEARS. THE SECOND OPTION IS REPAIR OF THE ENTIRE BRIDGE, ANOTHER POTENTIALLY UP TO TEN-YEAR LIFE, AND THAT'S AGAIN SUB -- SUPERSTRUCTURE AND SUBSTRUCTURE REPAIRS ALL THE WAY ACROSS FROM THE HILLSBOROUGH SIDE TO THE PINELLAS COUNTY SIDE, AND AGAIN, IF I COULD, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHARE THESE NUMBERS WITH OUR -- WITH OUR COLLEAGUES IN PINELLAS COUNTY YET BECAUSE THESE WERE HOT OFF THE PRESS. WE'LL BE HAVING SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH PINELLAS COUNTY LATER ON THIS AFTERNOON, THE REST OF THIS WEEK, TALK ABOUT WHERE THEY WANT TO GO WITH THIS, BUT THIS IS A $30-MILLION OPTION, AND THIS BASICALLY KEEPS THE MIDDLE IN PLACE. YOU CAN OPEN IT UP TO TRANSBAY TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIAN, AND BICYCLISTS, WHAT HAVE YOU. ANOTHER OPTION THAT WAS LOOKED AT WAS REPLACING THE ENTIRE BRIDGE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ANALYSIS, I LOOKED AT IT BEING A BRIDGE THAT WOULD HANDLE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, SO IT'S GOING TO BE DESIGNED FOR, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY TRAFFIC. IF THE CHOICE IS MADE, WHAT THEY'LL LOOK AT IS A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE MAYBE AS 50% OF THIS NUMBER, SO WE'RE TALKING ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HERE. A REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE ABOUT $82 MILLION, MAYBE A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE HALF OF THAT OR SO. WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A GOOD NUMBER ON THAT, BUT WE WANTED TO KIND OF GIVE YOU ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. NOW, THE LAST ONE -- AND THE REPLACEMENT INCLUDES THE DEMOLITION COST OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE. YOU CAN'T REPLACE THE EXISTING BRIDGE, OF COURSE, WITHOUT DEMOLISHING IT, SO ABOUT $13 MILLION OF THERE IN THE $82 MILLION IS DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE. NOW, PER AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BOTH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND PINELLAS COUNTY ARE JOINTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DEMOLISHING THE BRIDGE TO THE MUD LINE AT SOME POINT IN TIME THAT THE BRIDGE CAN NO LONGER BE SUSTAINED AS A RECREATIONAL FACILITY. SO THIS IS THE COST -- THIS 13 MILLION, IF YOU WILL, YOU CAN ALSO LOOK AT THAT AS BEING SOMETHING YOU MIGHT NEED TO ADD TO REPAIR OPTIONS ONE AND TWO BECAUSE AT THE END OF TEN YEARS, IF YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE -- AND BY THAT TIME, YOU'RE PUTTING PATCHES ON TOP OF PATCHES -- YOU'RE LOOKING AT ADDING MAYBE ANOTHER $13 MILLION TO DEMOLISH IT AT THE END OF TEN YEARS. THERE ISN'T ANOTHER SPAN OUT THERE. THE SOUTH SPAN -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT ANALYSIS OF THE BRIDGE INSPECTION IS, BUT IT'S -- I THINK IN ABOUT 15 YEARS, IT'LL BE 50 YEARS OLD. THERE WAS SOME HOPE THAT PERHAPS WHEN D.O.T. NEEDS TO REPLACE THE SOUTHERN SPAN THAT THEY COULD JUST MOVE THE TRAIL TO THE SOUTHERN SPAN, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE AT LEAST A FIVE-YEAR HIATUS THERE IF THE REPAIR OPTIONS ONE OR TWO ARE CHOSEN, AND THAT DEPENDS ON HOW LONG THAT BRIDGE, THE SOUTHERN SPAN, ACTUALLY LASTS. IT MIGHT LAST LONGER THAN 50 YEARS. TO KCA CURRENTLY WE'VE SPENT $410,000. THAT WAS TO DEVELOP THE PLANS FOR $4.2 MILLION IN RENOVATION THAT WE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD ABOUT SIX WEEKS AGO THAT WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE WE WERE MADE AWARE BY D.O.T. OF SOME ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL THINGS THAT WE NEEDED TO TAKE A LOOK AT. WE SPENT AN ADDITIONAL $30,000 AFTER WE GOT THAT HEADS-UP FROM D.O.T. BASED ON THEIR ANALYSIS OF THE SUNSHINE SKYWAY, AND FROM THAT $30,000, THE INSPECTION, THEY FOUND SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL DAMAGE, A NUMBER OF TENDONS SUPPORTING THE LONGITUDINAL BEAMS AND STRUCTURES IN VERY BAD SHAPE, AND WE GOT A LETTER FROM OUR CONSULTANT SAYING THAT WE NEEDED TO CLOSE THE BRIDGE IMMEDIATELY, WHICH, OF COURSE, WE DID. WE SPENT $440,000 ON THE CONSULTANT SO FAR. WE HAVE CANCELED THE CONTRACT WITH MISENER MARINE FOR THAT $4.2-MILLION PROJECT, WILL COST US LESS THAN $30,000 TO TERMINATE, SO WE'LL HAVE BASICALLY THAT 4.2 MILLION PLUS ANOTHER $277,000 UNENCUMBERED ON A CAPITAL PROJECT THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR THIS BOARD TO DO AND THE PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD TO DO AS THEY SEE FIT. AND I THINK THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION ON THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. GORDON, THANK YOU FOR GIVING US AT LEAST A ROUGH IDEA OF WHERE WE ARE. BASED ON THE CONVERSATION THAT I HAD WITH YOU EARLIER THIS WEEK, THESE ARE SIMPLY ASSUMPTIONS, THEY'RE NOT HARD COSTS; RIGHT? >>BOB GORDON: THAT'S CORRECT. >>ROSE FERLITA: AND GOING THROUGH YOUR EXPLANATION RIGHT NOW, MIDDLE OF THE PAGE, CONSTRUCTION 13 MILLION, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT WE SELF-OBLIGATED TO FDOT? >>BOB GORDON: YES, MA'AM. >>ROSE FERLITA: AND THAT IS PART OF THE 82 MILLION RIGHT ABOVE IT THAT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION? >>BOB GORDON: THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S INCLUDED. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO REGARDLESS OF WHERE WE GO, WE HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO TAKE CARE OF THAT 13-MILLION DEMOLITION EXPENSE? >>BOB GORDON: THAT'S CORRECT. >>ROSE FERLITA: I HEAR TALK ABOUT LIVE LOAD/DEAD LOAD. TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE. >>BOB GORDON: THE LIVE LOAD BASICALLY IS THE LOAD THAT THE BRIDGE IS DESIGNED TO CARRY, THE VEHICLES, PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLISTS, WHATEVER. THE DEAD LOAD IS ACTUALLY THE LOAD OF THE BRIDGE ITSELF. IT HAS TO BE DESIGNED TO HOLD ITSELF UP AND THEN OVERDESIGNED, IF YOU WILL, TO HANDLE THE TRAFFIC LOAD ON TOP OF IT. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. WE STOPPED ACTIVITY THERE, AND I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE NOW FROM WHAT YOU SAID, BUT REGARDLESS OF ACTIVITY, IF WE GO BACK TO JUST THE DEAD LOAD, THE BRIDGE ITSELF, YOU EXPLAINED TO ME THE OTHER DAY, I BELIEVE, THAT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT GOT US TO THIS MESS WE'RE IN NOW WAS THE CHLORIDE INCLUSION THAT PENETRATES THE CONCRETE, AFFECTS THE STEEL, SO THAT WOULD CONTINUE TO ERODE EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE A LIVE LOAD, SO WE CAN'T JUST LEAVE IT THERE AND MAKE A DECISION SOME OTHER TIME, WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING? >>BOB GORDON: THAT'S CORRECT, ABSOLUTELY. ONCE THE CHLORIDE HAS PENETRATED THE CONCRETE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET IT OUT UNLESS YOU DEMOLISH IT. IT DOESN'T COME OUT. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. AND I THINK WE'RE ALL SCRAMBLING FOR SOME SORT OF SOLUTION. IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND ONE, I FEEL, ALTHOUGH I KNOW THAT PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN SOUTH TAMPA WHERE I LIVE HAVE LOOKED TO THIS FOR A LONG TIME AND THAT PARTNERSHIP WITH PINELLAS. I THINK I'M CORRECT, BUT I DON'T GUESS IT WAS A VERY COMPREHENSIVE REQUEST WHEN PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA TALKED ABOUT THE STIMULUS PACKAGE. PINELLAS HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED THIS, IS THAT CORRECT? -- >>BOB GORDON: THAT'S CORRECT. >>ROSE FERLITA: -- FOR CONSIDERATION, BUT WHEN IT SAID HOW MUCH, THAT WAS -- >>BOB GORDON: THEY PUT IN "TO BE DETERMINED." >>ROSE FERLITA: TO BE DETERMINED. SO THAT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT WE CAN JUMP ON EITHER. AND THEN I GUESS -- I'M JUST GOING THROUGH THE OPTIONS, AND THEY ALL HAVE PROBLEMS. I KNOW THAT AT THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION COMMISSIONER NORMAN TALKED ABOUT PERHAPS SOME HELP FROM THE STATE, AND I KNOW HE TALKS ABOUT LATER, BUT THAT STILL DOESN'T HELP US FOR THE SHORT-TERM? >>BOB GORDON: RIGHT. I THINK ONE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO ADD IF I COULD BRIEFLY, I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH FRANK MILLER -- THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW, FRANK MILLER WORKS ON THE COMMITTEE TO RAISE REVENUE TO OPERATE THE BRIDGE -- HAD BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH BARBARA SHEEN TODD, WHO INDICATED IT WAS HER UNDERSTANDING THAT BRIDGES OF THIS TYPE THAT PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION MIGHT BE VIEWED IN A HIGHER PRIORITY UNDER THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE UNDER PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA, AND SO HE INDICATED AT HER URGING HE WOULD BE SUBMITTING A PACKAGE TO HER ON THE FRIENDSHIP TRAILBRIDGE IN TERMS OF SOME KIND OF REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR. HE ASKED ME FOR THE NUMBERS. AT THE TIME I TALKED TO HIM ON MONDAY I DIDN'T HAVE ANY, SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT HE IS ALSO TAKING A SEPARATE INITIATIVE WITH BARBARA SHEEN TODD TO TRY TO PUT SOME PRIORITY AS -- JUST GETTING SOME FEDERAL GRANT MONIES IN THE FUTURE. >>ROSE FERLITA: AND I WILL TELL YOU, THIS IS AWFUL, BUT WE HAVE BEEN IN FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS THERE EVEN IN THE PAST, AS I SAT ON THAT COMMITTEE FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. FRANK MILLER AND HIS GROUP HAVE DONE A WHOLE LOT OF ATTEMPTS AT FUNDRAISING TO EVEN GET US TO WHERE WE ARE NOW BECAUSE WE JUST CAUGHT UP WITH PINELLAS COUNTY IN TERMS OF THE BATHROOM SETUP AND THE LIGHTS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, SO, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I AM SURE THAT WE'LL ALL BE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT WE CAN TRY TO DO AND BE VERY CREATIVE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR CHALLENGES AHEAD OF US, I THINK. THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPORT. >>BOB GORDON: THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: I HATE TO TAKE YOU-ALL DOWN MEMORY LANE AGAIN, BUT, YOU KNOW, RUNNING THE NUMBERS HERE, THIS IS A LITTLE MORE STAGGERING THAN I EVEN WOULD HAVE ANTICIPATED. BACK WHEN THE STATE AT THE TIME -- I'M GOING TO -- CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -- 6.5 MILLION THAT THEY GAVE US, THAT WAS THE NUMBER FOR DEMOLITION AT THE TIME. >>BOB GORDON: YES, SIR. >>JIM NORMAN: AND WE TOOK IT, AND WE -- WE INVESTED IT IN THE BRIDGE. I -- YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT -- THAT I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE, THERE'S ALL THESE PILINGS -- OR THESE PILINGS THAT GO ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE BRIDGE, AND THEY ALL HAVE THESE METAL STRUCTURES ALL WITHIN THEM, AND NOBODY AT THIS TIME CAN EVEN TELL -- WHEN THEY EXPAND AND ERODE, THEY EXPLODE THE PILINGS, AND ALL THE THINGS THAT HE HAS HERE DOESN'T TELL THE STORY, AND FRANKLY, I THINK BACK WHEN -- LET'S BE VERY HONEST. I WAS STRUGGLING WITH A WAY TO TRY TO KEEP IT. YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY WANTS TO HAVE SOME COMMUNITY PRIDE, AND THIS IS SOMETHING VERY UNIQUE TO THE BAY AREA AND WE SHOULD TRY TO KEEP IT IF WE COULD, BUT I DISAGREED WITH BOTH SIDES OF THE BAY, AND I KNEW THIS DAY WOULD COME. IF THE STATE DOESN'T TAKE IT OVER -- AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S LIKELIHOOD OF THAT WITH THESE NUMBERS -- FOR US TO COME UP WITH THIS AND THEN TO INHERIT IT, I BELIEVE THAT, HEY, LOOK, I'VE BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD FOR A LOT OF YEARS, I'VE HEARD ALL THE THINGS ABOUT THE -- THE WAY THEY'RE GOING TO FUNDRAISE AND EVERYBODY'S GOING TO FUNDRAISE, AND THEY'RE GOING TO DO THIS AND THAT, AND IT JUST NEVER COMES TO FRUITION. THE BILL -- THE BILL IS RUNNING, AND I THINK THAT WE -- WE GIVE -- AND I THINK WE HOLD -- WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US HAVE -- INVOLVE THE PUBLIC. YOU KNOW, LET'S HAVE COMMUNITY MEETINGS ON BOTH SIDES. LET'S BE REALISTIC AND PUT SOME TIME WHEN A DECISION'S GOING TO BE MADE, MAYBE BY JUNE OF THIS YEAR. I DON'T THINK YOU JUST DRAG THIS THING ON. IT'S UNSAFE, IT'S BECOMING UNSAFE. EITHER WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD AND TRY TO DO SOMETHING -- BUT THESE -- THESE NUMBERS JUST AREN'T, I DON'T THINK, WITHIN REALITY OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN OUR ECONOMIC SITUATION IN THIS COUNTY OR ANYWHERE ELSE. THERE ARE OTHER PRIORITIES. FOLKS, WE'VE GOT ALL THESE OTHER TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. IF WE'RE GOING TO BE REAL ABOUT TRANSPORTATION, WE CAN'T DUMP $30 MILLION INTO THIS BRIDGE. I MEAN, LET'S JUST BE HONEST. SO, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE YOU -- YOU AND PINELLAS, YOU INVOLVE THE PUBLIC, TELL THEM THE REALITY CHECKS OF WHAT WE'RE FACING, NOT THAT WE'RE JUST TURNING OUR BACK ON. I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE SEEN -- I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE KEPT THIS AS A COMMUNITY ICON, BUT IT'S MORE THAN AN ICON, IT'S BECOMING AN ANCHOR IF THIS KEEPS GOING ON LIKE THIS, AND I THINK THAT AFTER THE COMMUNITY'S INVOLVED, YOU SET A REALISTIC TIMETABLE THAT IF THEY -- THEY CAN GET BARBARA SHEEN TODD OR GET WITH OBAMA OR GET WITH ANYBODY YOU WANT TO TALK TO, PUT A TIME PERIOD ON, LOOK, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION ON MOVING FORTH ON THIS BRIDGE DURING THIS TIME PERIOD. LEAVE THE SIX MONTHS OPEN FOR US TO HAVE -- YOU KNOW, LET EVERYBODY GO TO WORK, BUT IF -- YOU KNOW, ON JUNE 1, IF A DECISION'S NOT MADE, WE HAVE TO TAKE SOME ACTION FOR ALL THE TAXPAYERS OF OUR COUNTY. IS THAT -- IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD WOULD -- I DON'T WANT TO SHUT THE DOOR, I DON'T WANT TO SAY, HEY, LOOK, BUT, FOLKS, YOU KNOW, THESE NUMBERS ARE JUST GOING TO GET WORSE, I GUARANTEE YOU. SO ACTUALLY, I WOULD MOVE THAT AS A DIRECTION TO OUR STAFF, TO TRY TO INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY, HAVE A -- HAVE A -- COMMUNITY MEETINGS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BAY, SEE IF THERE IS A LOVE TO KEEP JUST THE SEGMENT -- THE FISHING PIERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT HAVE THE COMMUNITY TRY TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, AND THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION, THAT WE PUT A TIME FRAME ON JUNE 1 OF '09 MAKING A DECISION WHERE WE GO WITH THE BRIDGE. >>BOB GORDON: IF I COULD MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON THAT, WE ARE EXPECTING THE FINAL REPORT ON -- AS I SAID, ON FRIDAY. I HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET. I HAVE HEARD PRELIMINARILY THAT THE LOWER PORTIONS OF THE BRIDGE MAY ACTUALLY BE IN WORSE CONDITION OR ARE IN WORSE CONDITION THAN THE ELEVATED BECAUSE THE LOWER PORTIONS ARE CLOSER TO THE SPLASH ZONE, THEY GET MORE CHLORIDES INTO THEM. >>JIM NORMAN: RIGHT. >>BOB GORDON: SO WE MAY FIND THAT THE LOWER PORTIONS OF THE BRIDGE MAY HAVE TO BE CLOSED SOONER THAN WE THINK. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO SAY, BUT WE MAY BE BACK HERE IN TWO WEEKS ASKING YOU TO CLOSE THE REST OF THE BRIDGE. I DON'T KNOW. >>JIM NORMAN: THAT'S FINE. APPARENTLY I DON'T HAVE THE SUPPORT -- >>MARK SHARPE: I'LL SECOND IT. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, MR. NORMAN, IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENTS, WE WANT TO SET A -- AN END DATE. WE HAVEN'T SAID FOR SURE WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE. >>JIM NORMAN: I DON'T WANT -- THE EFFORTS OF CITIZENS OF CONTACTING BARBARA SHEEN TODD OR PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA'S OFFICE OR ANY -- THOSE TRANSPORTATION MONIES OR ANYTHING, I DON'T WANT TO SHUT THE DOOR ON ALL THAT. >>ROSE FERLITA: RIGHT. >>JIM NORMAN: BUT I'M REALLY TRYING TO PULL A REALITY CHECK ON THOSE THINGS. IN NONE OF THOSE COME TO FRUITION, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT BRIDGE. YOU HEAR THE THINGS EVEN NOW, THAT CAN EVEN BE WORSE -- >>ROSE FERLITA: NO, NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND. >>JIM NORMAN: -- SO WE'RE GIVING THEM TO MID-YEAR. >>ROSE FERLITA: BUT YOU'RE NOT SETTING A DATE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS BEING A PROCESS. >>JIM NORMAN: NO, WE'RE GIVING THEM -- WE HOPE THAT OUR STAFFS WOULD SET COMMUNITY MEETINGS BUT TRY TO BRING BACK A DECISION UNIT BY MID-YEAR, LIKE JUNE 1, FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING, IN ORDER TO SUPPORT YOUR SUGGESTION, YOU'RE NOT SETTING THAT IN STONE AT THIS POINT, JUST SOMETIME THAT'S REALISTIC AND ALLOW HIM TO GET TOGETHER WITH THE COMMUNITY AND WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA BECAUSE IT'S IN TAMPA -- >>JIM NORMAN: RIGHT. >>ROSE FERLITA: -- AND GIVE THEM ENOUGH TIME TO TRY TO RESEARCH WHAT CAN AND CAN'T BE DONE. >>JIM NORMAN: THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. >>ROSE FERLITA: CASE IN POINT, I KNOW THERE'S AN ORGANIZATION GETTING TOGETHER TOMORROW NIGHT IN SOUTH TAMPA TO LOOK AT THIS AND TO DISCUSS IT, SO I THINK IF -- IF IT'S A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM ENOUGH TIME TO GIVE US INPUT, FOR US TO DIGEST THEIR INPUT, AND WORK WITH WHOEVER WE CAN AT WHATEVER LEGISLATIVE LEVEL, THEN, I MEAN, THAT'S REASONABLE. I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE END DATE SHOULD BE AT THIS POINT DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU FIND AND DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY'RE DOING, SO IF THIS IS JUST IN CONCEPT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING AT SOME POINT, THEN I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. >>JIM NORMAN: THAT'S THE GENERAL IDEA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THAT'S FINE. >>JIM NORMAN: AND WE TRY TO SET A -- AND JUNE 1 IS NOT JUST IN STONE, BUT THAT'S THE TARGET PERIOD THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME DECISIONS MADE, EITHER -- AND PLUS THAT ACTUALLY LETS -- GIVES -- MOTIVATES PEOPLE TO GET VERY BUSY ON TRYING TO COME WITH SOLUTIONS IF THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY. >>ROSE FERLITA: RIGHT. AND ALSO, MR. NORMAN, I DON'T THINK YOU'D BE OPPOSED TO THIS. IF WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THAT DEADLINE AND IT APPEARS THAT SOMEBODY BY SOME STROKE OF A MIRACLE, I DON'T KNOW HOW, FINDS A SOURCE THAT WILL HELP US, THEN WE CAN EXTEND IT. >>JIM NORMAN: OH, YES, MA'AM. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. I THINK THAT'S A FAIR PROCESS. >>KEN HAGAN: WE'VE GOT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. NO FURTHER COMMENT, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, BOB. NEXT ITEM. >>PAT BEAN: OKAY. NOW WE'RE READY TO MOVE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, D-1, TO RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT AND DISCUSS MODIFYING THE APPROVED LIST OF PROJECTS FOR THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT TAX PHASE III. WHERE'S ERIC? WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHERE ERIC IS, SO LET ME SEE IF I CAN JUST HANDLE THIS. WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >>PAT BEAN: WHERE IS HE? >>JIM NORMAN: HE'S TOO IMPORTANT. >>PAT BEAN: [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, ERIC. >>ROSE FERLITA: YOU GIVE HIM A TITLE, HE DOESN'T SHOW UP. >>KEN HAGAN: D-1. >>PAT BEAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>ERIC JOHNSON: THAT'S PUBLIC WORKS. >>PAT BEAN: THAT'S PUBLIC WORKS? WELL, THEY JUST LEFT. >>ERIC JOHNSON: WELL, THEN I'LL WING IT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN AMENDMENT OF THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT TAX. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING WHICH IS REQUIRED TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE ITEM. IF YOU'LL GIVE ME A MOMENT TO -- >>PAT BEAN: THE PLANT CITY ROADS, THE -- >>ERIC JOHNSON: IT'S A SUBSTITUTION OF PROJECTS FOR PLANT CITY COMMISSIONERS. >>ROSE FERLITA: GUYS, I JUST WANT TO HAVE A LITTLE INTERNAL CONVERSATION HERE. WE COULDN'T FIND ERIC. YOU WERE GOING TO WING IT. WE FOUND ERIC, HE SAID IT'S PUBLIC WORKS, THEY LEFT, HE'S GOING TO TRY TO WING IT. WHAT KIND OF -- IF WE NEED PUBLIC WORKS, LET'S NOT TRY TO WING IT, LET'S LET THEM COME BACK. >>JIM NORMAN: AND THE PLANT CITY COMMISSIONER IS AT HOME. [LAUGHTER] >>KEN HAGAN: I WAS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING NICE ABOUT HIM, BUT NOW THAT HE'S NOT HERE -- [LAUGHTER] >>ERIC JOHNSON: COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS A ROUTINE CHANGE. >>BOB GORDON: MY APOLOGIES. I GOT CAUGHT UP BY THE REPORTERS. I DIDN'T MEAN TO NOT BE HERE. COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS A REQUEST BY THE CITY OF PLANT CITY TO REPLACE TWO PROJECTS THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE AND ULTIMATELY BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT WOULD USE THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY WERE ALLOCATED FOR MEDULLA AND TRAPNELL, WHICH FOR VARIOUS REASONS WERE FOUND THE OPERATION TO BE TOO DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THOSE. THEY CAME UP WITH TWO OTHER PROJECTS. ONE'S THE PARK ROAD WIDENING EXTENSION NORTH OF I-4. THE OTHER ONE'S THE WHEELER INTERSECTION, A MULTILEG INTERSECTION IN PLANT CITY THAT WILL BE ENHANCED BY THE IMPROVEMENTS. THE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE HAS APPROVED THESE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS, AND WE'RE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPT THAT RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANKS, BOB. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? OKAY. I JUST WANT TO THANK -- ALTHOUGH HE'S NOT IN THE ROOM, I DO WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM FOR HIS LEADERSHIP IN WORKING WITH THE TASK FORCE. >>JIM NORMAN: CAN WE WAIT UNTIL HE COMES BACK? I THINK THAT WOULD BE ALL DUE RESPECT TO LET HIM COME BACK AND VOTE ON IT, IF YOU-ALL DON'T MIND. >>KEN HAGAN: THAT'S FINE. >>ROSE FERLITA: SURE. WILL SOMEBODY TEM TELL HIM THAT WE'RE WAITING FOR HIM? MR. HAMILTON, CAN YOU SEE IF HE'S OUTSIDE THE DOOR THERE, SEE IF HE CAN COME IN. >>JIM NORMAN: BECAUSE HE DID WORK SO HARD. >>PAT BEAN: DID YOU CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? >>KEN HAGAN: YES. >>PAT BEAN: OKAY. >>JIM NORMAN: ANYBODY WANT TO TALK? MR. -- >> [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] >>JIM NORMAN: I SEE IT. I SEE IT. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>PAT BEAN: WELL, COMMISSIONERS -- >>KEN HAGAN: ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ITEM, THEN WE'LL COME BACK. >>PAT BEAN: THE NEXT ITEM IS D-2, WHICH IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING. >> THERE'S AL. >>PAT BEAN: OH, THERE HE IS. >>JIM NORMAN: WE WANTED YOU TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON SOMETHING YOU WORKED REALLY HARD ON, COMMISSIONER. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER, HIGGINBOTHAM -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO COME BACK. >>KEN HAGAN: I WAS JUST STATING HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP IN WORKING ON THESE PROJECTS WITH THE TASK FORCE, AND I KNOW THESE PROJECTS ARE IN YOUR DISTRICT AND IMPORTANT TO YOU, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK ON THEM. AND WITH THAT, CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>MARK SHARPE: HE WOULDN'T LET US VOTE UNTIL YOU GOT BACK, SO -- >>PAT BEAN: ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM IS D-2. THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE BOARD TO COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN, AND VALMARIE TURNER IS HERE TO DISCUSS THIS. >>KEN HAGAN: WELCOME. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. VALMARIE TURNER, AFFORDABLE HOUSING OFFICE. WE'RE ASKING FOR YOU TO COMPLETE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND OPEN UP A PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE OUR AMENDMENTS TO OUR ACTION PLAN WHERE WE ARE SETTING ASIDE $350,000 FOR A TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. WE WILL BE WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES TO CREATE THAT RENTAL PROGRAM, AND WE ALSO WANT YOU TO RECEIVE AND APPROVE OUR [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT, AND THAT'S OUR ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORT THAT IS REQUIRED BY HUD. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>ROSE FERLITA: SO MOVED. >>KEN HAGAN: WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>KEVIN WHITE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >> THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, VALMARIE. >>PAT BEAN: NEXT ITEM IS D-3. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ALSO TO CONSIDER ENACTING A MARINE SAFETY ORDINANCE, AND PAUL JOHNSON IS DOING THIS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. PAUL JOHNSON WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE COUNTY CURRENTLY HAS THREE ORDINANCES CONCERNING THE MARINE SAFETY REGULATION. DUE TO STATUTORY CHANGES, THESE ORDINANCES NEEDED TO BE UPDATED. AT THE SEPTEMBER MEETING THE BOARD DIRECTED STAFF TO AMEND AND CONSOLIDATE THESE ORDINANCES INTO ONE ORDINANCE. WE PRESENTED A DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE BOARD AT ITS NOVEMBER MEETING, AND THIS HEARING WAS SCHEDULED FOR TODAY AND HAS BEEN PROPERLY ADVERTISED. STAFF RECOMMENDS BOARD APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AS DRAFTED. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. VERY QUICKLY, SIR, WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN -- I KNOW THERE WAS SOME RATIONALE IN DOING THIS IN TERMS OF COVERING COSTS THAT THE COUNTY HAS TO ABSORB. WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT? >> I'M SORRY, WHICH COSTS THAT THE COUNTY -- >>ROSE FERLITA: IN TERMS OF SIGNAGE AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE RECEIVING FROM IT IS NOT COVERING THE COST OF THE SIGNAGE AND THE EXPENSES. >> YES, COMMISSIONER. THE MARINE SAFETY COORDINATOR WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING THE DIFFERENT AREAS THAT MAY REQUIRE REGULATION. STATE STATUTES REQUIRE SIGNAGE TO BE POSTED IN THESE AREAS AND MAINTAINED. THAT IS A COST TO THE COUNTY, AND WE ARE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE TO TAKE THESE COSTS OUT OF THE FEES THAT WE COLLECT FOR THAT. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. A QUESTION THAT I HAD THAT IF THESE FUNDS BECOME DISCRETIONARY, IS THAT GOING TO REDUCE OR ARE YOU AWARE IF THAT'S GOING TO REDUCE ANY OF THE ENFORCEMENT ON OUR WATERS, OR ARE YOU ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT? >> YES, SIR, I'M ABLE TO ADDRESS IT. THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THE FUNDS BE USED FOR THE REGULATION AND PATROL OF THE WATERS. CURRENTLY WE HAVE THREE POSITIONS WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THREE WITH TAMPA PD, AND ONE WITH TEMPLE TERRACE, PLUS SOME FUNDS FOR OUR COORDINATOR. WE INTEND TO KEEP THE FUNDS TO THAT -- IT JUST GIVES US A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY ON IT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. SO THAT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT ENFORCEMENT OR PATROL OF THE WATERS THEN? >> NO, SIR. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. CAN WE HAVE A MOTION? >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE TO APPROVE. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>KEVIN BECKNER: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER BECKNER. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: THANKS, PAUL. >> THANK YOU. >>PAT BEAN: AND THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM E-1. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR 2:15. THIS IS THE ITEM FOR DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD OF THE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. AND I SEE KATHY HARRIS COMING FORWARD. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, MS. HARRIS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. HOW ARE YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. I'M KATHY HARRIS, THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OFFICE. APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO COME OVER AND SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY, THIS BEING THE LAST OPPORTUNITY UNDER MR. JOHNSON AS THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS BEFORE THE NEW SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TAKES OFFICE. WE MET WITH HER TRANSITION TEAM LAST WEEK, THOUGHT IT WAS BEST FOR US TO COME OVER AND EXPLAIN SOME OF THE COSTS RELATED TO THE RECENT ELECTION. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. HAGAN, EXCUSE ME. MAY I ASK A QUESTION BEFORE YOU START. >>KEN HAGAN: HOLD ON ONE MOMENT. YES. >>ROSE FERLITA: JUST SO I CAN QUIT LOOKING OVER YOUR SHOULDER, YOU'RE SAYING WE NEEDED TO COME HERE. IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. JOHNSON WILL NOT APPEAR? >> YES. >>ROSE FERLITA: THAT'S CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. >>KEN HAGAN: PLEASE PROCEED, MS. HARRIS. >> I'LL TRY TO BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. WHEN WE SUBMITTED OUR 2008 AND 2009 BUDGET, WE INDICATED TO THE BOARD THAT THIS WOULD BE OUR BEST GUESSTIMATE BECAUSE WE WERE UNABLE TO PREDICT THE COSTS RELATED TO THE TRANSITION TO THE NEW VOTING SYSTEM AS WELL AS THE IMPACT ON THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY. YOU MIGHT RECALL THAT WE INTRODUCED A BUDGET THAT WAS 6.69 MILLION, WHICH IS THE LOWEST BUDGET THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OFFICE HAS SUBMITTED DURING AN ELECTION CYCLE SINCE 2002. WE DID THAT BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE COULD NOT ANTICIPATE WHAT THE COSTS WERE GOING TO BE. IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE BUDGET OFFICE AT THAT TIME WE ASKED IF WE SHOULD PUT SOME CONTINGENCIES IN OUR BUDGET FOR UNANTICIPATED ISSUES. THEY SAID NO, THAT WE SHOULD UTILIZE THE BOARD'S CONTINGENCY PROCESS, SO HERE WE ARE TODAY. THE BIGGEST PART OF THE COSTS ARE RELATED TO THINGS THAT I'M -- UNFORTUNATELY ARE NOT VERY SEXY OR VERY EXCITING. AS YOU MAY RECALL, THIS WAS THE LARGEST TURNOUT IN THE HISTORY OF VOTING IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THERE WAS A 72.3% TURNOUT. THE OTHER BIG IMPACT WAS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT VOTED ABSENTEE AS OPPOSED TO THOSE VOTING AT THE POLLS AND THOSE WHO VOTED ALSO EARLY VOTING. THOSE THINGS PUT A TREMENDOUS IMPACT ON THE STAFFING OF THE ELECTION, AND SO, THEREFORE, YOU SEE THE INCREASES THAT ARE NEEDED IN THE OVERTIME AND SALARY BUDGETS. THE BIGGEST COSTS RELATED TO CAPITAL ARE FOR PRIVACY BOOTHS. WE HAD TO PURCHASE AN ADDITIONAL 1800 PRIVACY BOOTHS IN ANTICIPATION AT THE LAST MINUTE OF THE INCREDIBLE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WERE GOING TO TURN OUT. THOSE PRIVACY BOOTHS WERE $125 EACH FOR A TOTAL OF $697,125. OUR SHORTFALL THAT WE'RE BRINGING TO YOUR ATTENTION TODAY IS $298,000. THE OTHER MAJOR COSTS WERE FOR BALLOT BOXES. WE HAD TO PURCHASE -- YOU MAY RECALL WHEN WE INITIALLY BOUGHT THE SYSTEM WE ASKED FOR ONE BALLOT BOX PER SCANNER. WHAT WE FOUND DURING THE PRIMARY WAS THAT ONE BALLOT BOX WAS NOT ENOUGH TO HOLD THE NUMBER OF BALLOTS THAT WE ANTICIPATED PEOPLE VOTING. WE HAD A FOUR -- A TWO-PAGE FOUR -- FRONT AND BACK BALLOT, SO THAT WAS GOING TO REQUIRE THE CLERKS AND THE POLLWORKERS TO TAKE THE BALLOTS OUT OF THE BALLOT BOX AND PUT THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE. FOR SECURITY REASONS, WE THOUGHT IT MADE MORE SENSE TO BUY AN ADDITIONAL BALLOT BOX SO THAT THEY COULD MAKE THAT TRANSITION UNDER SECURITY. THOSE BALLOT BOXES, UNFORTUNATELY, WERE $1850 EACH. WE BOUGHT 220 FOR A TOTAL OF $421,000.55. THE OTHER MAJOR COSTS WERE SOME ADDITIONAL SCANNERS AND PRINTERS. YOU MAY RECALL THAT DURING THE EARLY VOTING PROCESS WE HAD TREMENDOUS LINES. WE HAD PROBABLY THE MOST CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING A BALLOT-ON-DEMAND SYSTEM AND AN ABSENTEE VOTING SYSTEM WHERE PEOPLE COULD COME TO -- ACTUALLY COME TO THE POLLS AND COME TO OUR OFFICE AND VOTE ABSENTEE. WE BOUGHT SOME ADDITIONAL PRINTERS AND SCANNERS TO HELP US MITIGATE SOME OF THAT TURNOUT. AS YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T THINK WE WERE EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE THE LINES WERE TWO HOURS LONG. AGAIN, THOSE ARE THE MAJOR COSTS. THE ONLY OTHER COSTS ARE RELATED TO THE HANDICAP PRIVACY BOOTHS, WHICH WE HAD TO PURCHASE ADDITIONAL ONE OF THOSE AS WELL, AND THEY WERE $199 EACH. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT, AGAIN, BRINGING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION AT THIS TIME, WE UNDERSTAND FROM ERIC AND FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THE IMPACT IT HAS ON THEM, BUT WE WANT -- AND WE WANT TO APOLOGIZE BUT EXPLAIN THAT THE VOTING CYCLE THIS TIME WAS SO TIGHT AND WITH THE ELECTION OF A NEW SUPERVISOR, WE FELT IT NECESSARY TO AUDIT ALL OF THE FINANCES FROM THE ELECTION, WHICH WE'RE JUST WRAPPING THAT UP, AND TO ALSO BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION UNDER THE CURRENT SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. YOUR NEXT MEETING WAS NOT GOING TO BE UNTIL AFTER THE NEW SUPERVISOR TAKES OVER. THE ONLY OTHER COSTS IN HERE IS $300,000 -- BIG COST -- AND THAT IS TO COVER WHAT IT WILL COST TO TRANSITION FOR THE NEW SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE MANY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUPERVISOR IN TERMS OF DOCUMENTATION AND THINGS THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO SEND OUT, AND SO THOSE DOCUMENTS NEED TO BE UPDATED FOR THE NEW SUPERVISOR, SO WE ESTIMATED BASED ON OUR HISTORICAL SPENDING WHAT IT WOULD COST SO THAT SHE HAS A GOOD CHANCE IN STARTING OUT WITH MONEY TO DO THAT. THE ONLY OTHER THINGS I WANT TO TALK ABOUT ARE THE -- THE IMPACTS. AGAIN, WE HAD TO GO THROUGH TWO RECOUNTS, YOU MIGHT RECALL, TWO RESCANS OF THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS. THE MEMBERS OF THE CANVASSING BOARD WERE THERE. THEY CAN TELL YOU WHAT WAS INVOLVED WITH THAT AFTER ELECTION NIGHT AND THE UPLOAD ISSUES. WE ALSO HAD TO IMPLEMENT NEW RULES THAT CAME OUT IN LATE AUGUST AND IN SEPTEMBER AND AS LATE AS OCTOBER FOR UNVERIFIED VOTERS. YOU MIGHT RECALL IN READING THE PRESS WE HAD IN THIS COUNTY 1282 UNVERIFIED VOTERS THAT REQUIRED ADDITIONAL STAFF TO COME IN AND TRACK THOSE DOWN. WE ALSO HAD ADDITIONAL RULES AND A NEW PROGRAM FOR FELONS WHO HAD THEIR RIGHTS RESTORED. AGAIN, THAT WAS VERY LATE IN THE PROCESS. WE HAD TO HIRE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE TO COME IN AND TAKE CARE OF THAT. AND THE FINAL OTHER CHANGE WHICH CAME IN, AGAIN LATE IN THE PROCESS, WAS THE STATE IMPLEMENTED ELECTION AUDIT REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WE THEN HAD TO IMPLEMENT THAT. THOSE THINGS, AGAIN, POSED THE BIGGEST DIFFICULTY IN TERMS OF STAFFING. AGAIN, I WANT TO REITERATE THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT LEAD US HERE TODAY THAT I'M SURE ARE VERY DISCOMFORTING FOR YOU GIVEN THE IMPACT ON THE OVERALL COUNTY FINANCES. BUT AGAIN, OUR INITIAL BUDGET WAS 6.69. IT WAS, AGAIN, THE LEAST AMOUNT OF A BUDGET THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED SINCE 2002 IN AN ELECTION CYCLE. THIS ADDITION OF 2.3 MILLION WILL BRING THE 2009 TOTAL BUDGET UP TO JUST OVER NINE MILLION. AND I'M PREPARED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: THANKS, MS. HARRIS. COMMISSIONER WHITE. >> I FORGOT ONE OTHER THING. AS PART OF THE TRANSITION, WE HAVE ALSO TRANSITIONED ALL OF THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS FINANCES BACK TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE. THAT WAS THE ITEM THAT YOU SAW THIS MORNING. I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER BECKNER HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. THAT ITEM ESSENTIALLY TOOK ALL OF THE -- OUR BUDGET, OUR PERSONNEL BUDGET, AND TRANSITIONED IT BACK TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE NEW SUPERVISOR WANTED US TO DO. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER WHITE. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. MS. HARRIS, NOTHING AGAINST YOU, BUT I WAS EXPECTING TO SEE MR. JOHNSON HERE, AND HOPEFULLY HE -- I WANTED HIM TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN SOME OF THESE THINGS, I GUESS, TO THE BOARD AND TO OUR COMMUNITY. THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST TOOK ME TOTALLY BY SURPRISE. AS ONE OF THOSE CANVASSING BOARD MEMBERS THAT YOU SPOKE OF -- COMMISSIONER FERLITA WAS THERE AS WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR HER, BUT -- IT WAS AN EXPERIENCE NONETHELESS, BUT SOMETHING I PERSONALLY CAN SAY, YOU KNOW, BEEN THERE, DONE THAT, GOT THE T-SHIRT, DON'T WANT TO GO BACK, BUT ON THE ISSUES OF SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE HERE, I -- FIRST OF ALL, MY FIRST AND FOREMOST CONCERN IS THE TEMPORARY STAFF AND THE PART-TIME EMPLOYEES THAT YOU-ALL HIRED. I NEED TO KNOW HAVE THEY BEEN PAID, OR IS THIS BUDGET REQUEST IN ORDER TO PAY THEM FOR SERVICES THEY'VE RENDERED ALREADY? >> NO, FOR THE MOST PART, THEY HAVE ALL BEEN PAID. WE HAVE STILL TEMPORARIES THAT ARE WRAPPING UP SOME OF THE FINAL PROCESSES FOR THE VOTER HISTORY UNTIL DECEMBER 31st, BUT WE'VE MADE EVERY PAYROLL. WE'RE NOT IN A SITUATION -- AGAIN, A BIG PART OF THIS EFFORT IS TO LEAVE THE NEW SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS WITH A - - ON SOLID FINANCIAL FOOTING. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. THE SECOND QUESTION, ON THE TRANSITION OF THE NEW SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, YOU TOUCHED ON THAT. CAN YOU EXPOUND UPON THAT? I MEAN, THIS IS A -- AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED -- A HUGE EXPENDITURE OF $300,000, AND AGAIN, I -- WELL, JUST COMING ONBOARD, BUT COMMISSIONER BECKNER AS JUST BEING HERE, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY TRANSITION FOR US, SO IF YOU COULD PLEASE EXPLAIN A LITTLE MORE IN DETAIL AND DEPTH OF WHAT THAT TRANSITION IS GOING TO CONSIST OF. >> PRIMARILY IT'S PRIMARILY PRINTING AND BINDING COSTS. I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. WE HAVE FROM THE DAY THE NEW SUPERVISOR STARTS 90 DAYS BEFORE THE PLANT CITY ELECTION. THERE ARE STATE-MANDATED REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF MAILING THINGS TO OVERSEAS VOTERS, TO VOTERS WITHIN THE COUNTY. ALL OF OUR DOCUMENTS HAVE THE NAME OF BUDDY JOHNSON, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. THOSE DOCUMENTS NOW HAVE TO BE UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE NAME -- TO TAKE BUDDY JOHNSON'S NAME OFF AND PUT THE NAME OF THE NEW SUPERVISOR. THESE ARE ALL MANDATED REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. HER TEAM WILL BE WORKING. THERE WILL BE SOME THINGS THAT, OF COURSE, WON'T REQUIRE IMMEDIATE CHANGING, BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE CERTAINLY RELATED TO THE ELECTIONS THAT WILL REQUIRE THAT. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. AND -- >> AND AGAIN, THAT'S OUR BEST ESTIMATE. THAT IS NOT A GUARANTEE. >>KEVIN WHITE: ALL RIGHT. AND THE $577,000 FOR THE OVERTIME, THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID AS WELL? >> THAT REPRESENTS -- WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY USED THE OVERTIME THAT WE HAVE BUDGETED FOR IN THIS BUDGET YEAR. THAT IS THE SHORTFALL SO THAT THE NEW SUPERVISOR CAN HAVE MONEY LEFT IN THOSE LINE ITEMS FOR THE PLANT CITY ELECTION AND OTHER ANTICIPATED NEEDS FOR OVERTIME AND FOR TEMPORARY STAFF. UNFORTUNATELY, A BIG PART OF OUR BUSINESS RESTS UPON BEING ABLE TO HIRE TEMPORARY STAFF TO COME IN AND RUN ELECTIONS AS WELL AS TO INPUT THE DATA RELATED TO VOTER REGISTRATION. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. WELL, LET ME JUST PUT MY POINT ON -- ON THE RECORD. MY FIRST PRIORITY AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED, AS FAR AS THESE ITEMS THAT -- THAT HAVE BEEN LISTED HERE, WAS THE SALARIES FOR THE TEMP AGENTS -- FOR THE TEMP PERSONNEL. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT -- THAT NEEDED THEIR MONEY IN THIS TOUGH ECONOMIC TIME HAD BEEN TAKEN CARE OF, AND SINCE THEY HAVE BEEN, RIGHT NOW THERE'S ANOTHER 15, MAYBE 21 DAYS LEFT BEFORE THE NEW SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TAKES PLACE. I, FOR ONE, CAN -- JUST SPEAKING FOR ONE COMMISSIONER, I CAN'T SEE APPROVING AN ADDITIONAL $2.3 MILLION AT THIS POINT IN TIME. I THINK THE NEW SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME IN AND DO THEIR OWN CLEAN SLATE AND HOUSEKEEPING AS FAR AS THE BUDGET, AND IF THERE'S ANY BUDGETARY REQUESTS -- AND IF THEY'VE ALREADY MET WITH BUDDY JOHNSON NOW AND PART OF THE TRANSITION TEAM OF GETTING THE NAME CHANGE, GETTING THE STATIONERY AND THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE GETTING READY TO BE MAILED OUT FOR THE OVERSEAS BALLOTS, IF THAT'S ALREADY IN PROCESS AND TRANSITION, I DON'T SEE WHAT ANOTHER -- OR CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY ANOTHER 20 DAYS WOULD BE SO IMPERATIVE? >> AGAIN, I THINK THE BIGGEST -- OUR GOAL HERE IS TO HAVE A BUDGET THAT IS -- CONTINUES TO FLOW SO THAT THERE IS NO DELAY FOR THE NEW SUPERVISOR WHO WILL TAKE OFFICE ON JANUARY 6th. THE STATE-REQUIRED TIME FRAME TO BEGIN MAILING OUT ALL DOCUMENTS FOR THE PLANT CITY ELECTION IS JANUARY 7th. WE ALSO HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTER HISTORY UPDATE IN GETTING READY FOR THAT ELECTION THAT WILL REQUIRE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES. THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OFFICE HAS 31 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES. IT IS AN OFFICE THAT HISTORICALLY HAS RELIED HEAVILY UPON TEMPORARIES. AND SO THAT MONEY WILL BE NEEDED FOR THE ABILITY FOR THERE TO BE A VERY SMOOTH TRANSITION WITHOUT ANY COMPLICATIONS RELATED TO A BUDGET. >>KEVIN WHITE: ALL RIGHT. MY LAST COMMENT ON THIS. IF THAT -- IF WE GET WITH STAFF AND WE FIND OUT THAT THAT IS A PROBLEM, THAT IS THE ONLY PORTION OF THIS BUDGET REQUEST THAT I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD ON BY HELPING THAT TRANSITION PORTION TO TRANSLATE SMOOTHLY SO WE CAN GO AHEAD WITH THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEW SUPERVISOR IN JANUARY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ANY OF MY OTHER COLLEAGUES -- AND I'M DONE, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY PORTION OF THIS BUDGETARY REQUEST THAT I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: MS. HARRIS, THANK YOU FOR -- THANK YOU FOR COMING HERE TODAY. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REQUESTS, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER WHITE AND SOME OF THE OTHERS MIGHT WANT TO MINE DOWN INTO EACH ONE. I'M NOT PREPARED TO -- TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THE INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS. I'M GOING TO NEED MORE INFORMATION. MY CONCERN -- AND I HAVE A SUGGESTION, ONE SUGGESTION, WHICH I THINK MIGHT ESTABLISH THE TRUST THAT'S GOING TO BE NECESSARY FOR US TO EXPEND ANYMORE FUNDS. DO YOU HAVE, THOUGH, RESOURCES AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME THAT WILL ENABLE YOU TO DEAL WITH, LET'S SAY, THE PLANT CITY ELECTION, SOME OF THE TRANSITION COSTS? SHOULD YOU NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE REQUESTS THAT WE HAVE HERE, DO YOU STILL HAVE DOLLARS AVAILABLE IN ORDER TO -- FOR YOUR OFFICE TO FUNCTION? >> YES. I THINK THAT IT WILL PUT THE NEW SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS AT A DECIDED DISADVANTAGE, BUT YES, SHE COULD -- >>MARK SHARPE: AND I UNDERSTAND -- LISTEN, SOMETIMES WE'RE GETTING OUR INFORMATION THROUGH THE PRESS, AND WHAT I'VE READ IS THAT THERE WAS SOME SURPRISE BY THE INCOMING SUPERVISOR OF ELECTION ABOUT THIS REQUEST, AND IT SEEMS TO ME -- AND THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHAT WE NEED IS A CLEAR LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE INCOMING SUPERVISOR AND THE OUTGOING SUPERVISOR WITH REGARD TO HOW WE RECTIFY THIS. I THINK THAT WHAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR ME IS TO HAVE THE CLERK'S OFFICE INVOLVED IN A THOROUGH AUDIT OF THE REQUEST, AND THAT WOULD, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, HAVE TO COME AT THE INVITATION OF THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTION, AND IT WOULD BE MY HOPE THAT THE SUPERVISOR WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION -- I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OVERTIME, AND THESE INDIVIDUALS WERE PAID, BUT THERE'S STILL SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE STILL THERE AND THERE'S EQUIPMENT THAT WE HAD. TO BE -- WE CAN'T CLEARLY CUT THROUGH ALL THAT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE PAID AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE PAID WHEN. I WOULD THINK THAT AN AUDIT THAT IS DONE WHERE AN INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL COULD COME IN, WORKING WITH OUR CURRENT SUPERVISOR, WHO HAS STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, AND OUR INCOMING SUPERVISOR, THAT WE COULD HAVE A TRANSITIONAL EFFORT MADE WHERE WE COULD THEN HAVE -- AND THEN THE CLERK AS WELL, IF THE SUPERVISOR WOULD BE WILLING TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN, COULD COME IN AND SAY, NOW, HERE'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO. OBVIOUSLY AT THIS TIME THERE'S NO WAY. I COULD NOT AND WILL NOT AT THIS MEETING VOTE FOR ANY EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS. I MEAN, I APPRECIATE -- TO ME IN IS LIKE THE OPENING LEVEL OF DISCUSSION, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMING IN HERE AND BRINGING THIS TO US BECAUSE IF YOU DIDN'T AND YOU WAITED, I COULD IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF IN JANUARY THE INCOMING SUPERVISOR CAME IN AND SAID, OH, MY GOSH, THERE'S THIS BIG GAPING HOLE, SO I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE BRINGING THIS TO US, BUT IT'S MY SENSE THAT THIS IS THE FIRST PART OF THE DISCUSSION, AND UNLESS THERE'S SOME LEGAL REASON WHY THE -- THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTION CANNOT MEET HIS OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND THERE'S SOME CHARGE THAT'S GOING TO BE INCURRED UPON HIS OFFICE BECAUSE OF A CONTRACT THAT'S NOT MET OR AN INDIVIDUAL WHO'S NOT GOING TO BE PAID, THEN I WOULD HOPE THAT OUR STAFF WOULD BE WORKING WITH THE SUPERVISOR SO THAT WE COULD HAVE OUR STAFF WALK IN AND THEY THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED THIS, AND THEY'RE SAYING, OKAY, OF THE REQUEST, HERE'S WHAT WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO PAY AT THIS TIME, AND THEN I WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER THAT BUT NOTHING MORE, AND TODAY NOTHING. >> I THINK THAT THAT IS CERTAINLY ACCEPTABLE TO US. AS PART OF THE TRANSITION BACK TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE, WE'VE ALREADY AGREED TO THAT SORT OF AUDIT AND -- AS PART OF THE AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH THEM FOR TAKING BACK OVER THE FINANCES. AGAIN, A GOOD PART OF OUR DISCUSSION TODAY IS THAT -- WHILE BUDDY JOHNSON IS STILL THE SUPERVISOR TO COME HERE AND RELAY TO YOU-ALL EXACTLY WHAT OUR FINDINGS ARE AT THIS POINT, HAVING WORKED -- BEEN WORKING THE LAST THREE WEEKS WITH THE ERNST & YOUNG AUDITOR IN OUR OFFICE IN TERMS OF THE ELECTION. I THINK THERE ARE MANY THINGS -- MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO TRY TO HAVE A SMOOTH TRANSITION WITH THE NEW SUPERVISOR SO THAT, AGAIN, SHE IS ABLE TO STEP IN AND RUN THE OFFICE EFFECTIVELY AND DO WHAT IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AS A SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. SHARPE, YOU WERE VERY POLITE. I'M GOING TO TRY TO BE AS POLITE, BUT I DON'T THINK I'LL SUCCEED. LET ME SEE WHERE I NEED TO START. FIRST OF ALL, MS. HARRIS, WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THESE AGENDA ITEMS IN THE BACKUP INFORMATION, WE TALKED ABOUT A BACKUP IN TERMS OF THE EQUIPMENT AND THE PRIVACY BOOTHS AND THE SALARIES OF THE TEMPS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, THAT CAME TO YIELD THE DEFICIENCY IN BUDGET DOLLARS THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING. THEN, OF COURSE, WE GOT THIS OTHER THING THAT WAS INITIATED ON DECEMBER 1st THAT ALSO ADDRESSES THE BUDGET SHORTFALL, BUT IT'S TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS, SO I GUESS, FIRST OF ALL, WHEN I STARTED DOING MY HOMEWORK, I WAS KIND OF CONFUSED ABOUT WHICH OF THESE LISTS I SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO. THAT'S JUST AN OBSERVATION ON MY PART. >> DO YOU WANT ME TO EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU? >>ROSE FERLITA: NO, NOT UNTIL I'M FINISHED. >> OKAY. >>ROSE FERLITA: FIRST OF ALL, LET ME JUST GO BACK TO MY FIRST SURPRISE HERE. MR. JOHNSON, AS YOU SAID VERY WELL AND VERY CORRECTLY AND VERY ACCURATELY, WHO IS STILL THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, REQUESTED THAT THIS AGENDA ITEM BE ON OUR -- ON OUR AGENDA TODAY. TO MAKE IT MORE COMFORTABLE FOR HIM OR EASIER FOR HIM, I THINK THAT WE MADE THIS A TIME CERTAIN. I'M STILL DISTRACTED BY THE FACT THAT WHAT I INTERPRET HERE IS NOT INCONVENIENT TO US, IT'S NOT UNCOMFORTABLE FOR US IN TERMS OF THE BUDGET. I'M FOCUSING MORE ON THE DISRESPECT THAT MR. JOHNSON IS SHOWING THE PEOPLE THAT HE STILL REPRESENTS. IT IS UNEXCUSABLE FOR HIM TO SEND YOU AS A DEFENSE MECHANISM SO WE CANNOT ASK HIM JUST SOME, NOT ALL -- JUST SOME OF THE CONCERNS WE HAVE TODAY. I DON'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE, I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR, AND YOU KNOW WHAT, IF HE COULDN'T COME TODAY, THEN WE'VE HAD CONTINUANCES BEFORE, WE'VE RESCHEDULED THINGS BEFORE. AFTER GOING THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON WITH MR. JOHNSON UNDER HIS WATCH, I CANNOT BELIEVE -- I AM STILL IN A STATE OF SHOCK -- THAT HE'S NOT HERE TO ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. IT'S UNEXCUSABLE. IT'S UNBELIEVABLE. WE TODAY, WHETHER YOU LISTENED TO THE REST OF OUR MEETING OR NOT, TALKED ABOUT AT THE SUGGESTION OF OUR -- OF OUR CHAIRMAN JUST KIND OF AN -- A STATE OF THE ECONOMY, THE STATE OF THE FINANCES. MIKE MERRILL, ERIC JOHNSON WENT THROUGH IT. IT WASN'T PLEASANT, BUT WE HAVE TO BE REALISTIC ABOUT WHAT WE'RE FACING, AND THE GUYS THAT ARE IN LEADERSHIP IN THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS WEREN'T HAPPY ABOUT WHAT THEY HAD TO PRESENT, BUT THEY WERE HERE TO PRESENT IT. THIS CAME AS QUITE A SHOCK TO MANY PEOPLE, I AM SURE, THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE ECONOMY BEING WHAT IT IS, SOME OF THE -- THE STORIES, WHETHER THEY'RE SPECULATIVE OR NOT THAT WE'VE READ ABOUT THE CURRENT SUPERVISOR OF ELECTION, AND NOW AT THE LAST MINUTE, AT THE 11th HOUR, YOU'RE ASKING FOR THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND THIS MAN IS NOT HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. SO THAT PUTS THE PUBLIC IN A SITUATION WHERE, WHAT'S GOING ON? IS THIS FAIR? IT PUTS US IN A PREDICAMENT BECAUSE, JUST AS MR. SHARPE WAS DOING, WELL, I THINK THIS MIGHT BE IT AND THIS MIGHT BE IT, BUT I'M NOT REALLY SURE ABOUT THIS, THEN WE TAG ON $300,000 FOR THE TRANSITION FOR THE NEW SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. THAT PUTS NOT ONLY US BUT MS. BUSANSKY BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE. WE WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT THESE CAREFULLY, LOOK AT THEM VERY WELL, SCRUTINIZE EVERYTHING YOU-ALL HAVE SUBMITTED, EITHER IN THIS LIST OR THAT LIST, WHICHEVER ONE WE WANT TO READ, AND DECIDE IF, IN FACT, THESE ARE COSTS THAT WE HAVE TO ABSORB. IF WE DON'T, THEN WE DON'T MAKE MS. BUSANSKY WHOLE AS SHE STARTS HER NEW TRANSITION BECAUSE OF A PREDICAMENT THAT THE FORMER SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS HAS PUT HER IN. THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I'M NOT GOING TO GET TO ALL OF THEM TODAY. WHAT I AM GOING TO GET TO TODAY IS THERE IS NOT ONE ITEM HERE THAT I'M GOING TO SUPPORT TODAY BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT EVEN MR. JOHNSON -- AND I'M SORRY TO SPEAK FOR HIM, AND HE CAN CERTAINLY COME UP WITH HIS OPINIONS DIFFERENT -- I DON'T THINK HE'S BEEN PAID THE COURTESY AS OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO LOOK AT THIS, SCRUTINIZE IT, JUSTIFY IT, BREAK IT DOWN, ITEMIZE IT, AND LET THIS COUNTY COMMISSION, WHO REPRESENTS THOSE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO ARE NOW TAGGED WITH ANOTHER $2.3 MILLION OF DEBT AN ACCURATE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY IT'S OKAY. YOU GUYS HAVE COMPLICATED IT FOR EVERYBODY. THE NEW -- THE NEW SUPERVISOR, THE PUBLIC THAT PAYS THOSE TAXES, WE HAVE THAT HAVE TO TAP DANCE AND TRY TO FIGURE WHAT YOU'RE DOING. IT'S UNBELIEVABLE TO ME. I KNOW NOW A COUPLE OF THINGS. IN JUNE ACCOUNTING WENT UNDER YOUR WATCH AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IT WAS FORMERLY, RIGHT, EXCEPT FOR THE PAYROLL WHICH STAYED WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE? >> CORRECT. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. AND I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS -- MR. JOHNSON, IF HE WERE HERE CERTAINLY COULD AFFIRM IT OR DENY IT, BUT HE'S NOT, SO WE HAVE TO GO ON WITH THE SHOW WITHOUT HIM. THAT WAS SO HE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE FINANCES UNDER ROOF TO BE ABLE TO PAY THE TEMPS AND PAY EVERYBODY ELSE IN A VERY TIMELY FASHION, MAYBE IN A VERY QUICK FASHION. WAS THAT ONE OF THE REASONS THAT HE STATED THAT HE DID THAT? >> YES, THE POLLWORKERS AND THE CLERKS, AND WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. SO MY QUESTION IS JUST FOR INFORMATION -- AND LIKE I SAID, I COULD HAVE DONE HAVE PUT EVERYTHING ASIDE AND DONE HOMEWORK ON THIS FOR THREE DAYS -- I DON'T THINK WE HAD THAT MUCH NOTICE, BUT ANYWAY, SO THAT WAS CERTAINLY LET'S JUST SAY COMMENDABLE THAT THEY GOT THEIR MONEY FASTER BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR MS. FRANK TO DO IT, WHICH I'M NOT SURE THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN MORE EFFICIENT BECAUSE I RESPECT MS. FRANK. I'M NOT SURE WHAT I RESPECT ABOUT THIS PROCESS. SO THAT -- THAT WAS HIS EFFORT TO PAY THEM MORE QUICKLY. SO THEY GOT THEIR MONEY. IT WENT UNDER ROOF. WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS ADDITIONAL COSTS -- I'M SURE THAT IT WAS, IT ABSOLUTELY WAS, BUT BESIDES THAT, THEY WERE GIVEN THEIR DOLLARS SOONER, AND NOW SPEAK TO ME ABOUT THESE VERY PRETTY PINS THAT THE POLLWORKERS GOT. YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE? THEY'RE PRETTY. THEY'RE REAL PRETTY. >> YES. >>ROSE FERLITA: UH-HUH. WAS THAT JUST BECAUSE HE WAS GRATEFUL THAT THEY WORKED A JOB THAT THEY GOT PAID FOR IN A VERY EXPEDITIOUS MANNER? WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE BEHIND THESE, AND IT'S NOT MUCH. IT'S ONLY $1.20. IT'S $1.20 FOR WHAT IT COSTS, BUT FOR 4,000 WORKERS IT WAS $4800, SO ONE TENDS TO KIND OF WANDER IN TERMS OF JUSTIFYING WHAT YOU-ALL ARE REQUESTING BECAUSE JUST AS I STUMBLED INTO THIS -- STUMBLED INTO THIS AFTER I RESEARCHED -- IN THE PRIMARY THEY GOT $140 FOR THAT DAY, IN THE GENERAL THEY GOT $140 FOR THE DAY, GOT PAID FAST, GOT THESE PINS JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT SAYING THANK YOU, I'M NOT SURE -- I WISH HE WERE HERE BECAUSE I WOULDN'T HAVE TO SPECULATE. DID MR. JOHNSON PAY FOR THESE OR DID THE BUDGET FROM THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OFFICE PAY FOR THIS? >> I BELIEVE THOSE WERE PAID FOR FROM STATE GRANT DOLLARS. PART OF WHAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THE POLLWORKERS AND THE CLERK AT THE POLLS IS TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT IDENTIFIES THEM, SO WE GOT THEM A PIN. >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, DON'T YOU THINK THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A CHEAPER WAY TO DO THIS? I BET YOU WE COULD HAVE JUST MADE LITTLE NAME TAGS OR SOMETHING. >> YES, WE PROBABLY COULD HAVE. >>ROSE FERLITA: AND MAYBE THESE DOLLARS COULD HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED TO SOMETHING ELSE. JUST LIKE I SAID, AGAIN, YOU'RE KEEPING US OUT HERE HANGING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE. I'M SURE I'LL FIND SOMETHING ELSE, BUT I -- >> I WILL SAY -- >>ROSE FERLITA: I'M NOT THROUGH, MA'AM. EXCUSE ME. I DIDN'T INTERRUPT YOU, AND I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO INTERRUPT ME. JUST AS I FOUND THIS AS I STUMBLED OVER IT, I BEGAN TO WONDER WHAT ELSE DID HE SPEND SOME OF THOSE DOLLARS ON THAT PERHAPS HE DIDN'T HAVE TO THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED SOME DOLLARS TO ALLOCATE TO SOME OF THESE LINE ITEMS THAT ARE NOW A DEFICIT FOR THIS COUNTY AND THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY. IT'S -- IT'S UNCONSCIONABLE TO ME, AND IT'S EVEN WORSE AND MORE IRRITATING AND MORE INSULTING THAT HE'S NOT HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF. IF I KNEW I WAS COMING IN HERE TO ASK FOR MORE DOLLARS, I WOULDN'T BE SENDING YOU, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MS. HARRIS, I WOULD BE COMING IN HERE TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHY I'M ASKING THIS AND WHAT THE REASONS WERE AND THAT IT'S ON THE UP-AND- UP. ANOTHER CONCERN I HAVE -- AND I -- I THINK THIS IS MAYBE PERHAPS CONDUCTING YOURSELF APPROPRIATELY AS OPPOSED TO STATE MANDATES. MS. LEE, IS THERE ANYTHING AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT REQUIRES SOMEONE WHO'S IN ELECTED OFFICE TO EXERCISE AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH SOMEBODY BEYOND THE TIME OF THE TERM THAT THEY ARE SERVING? WANT ME TO SAY THAT AGAIN? >>RENEE LEE: COMMISSIONER , I THINK I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, AND I THINK YOUR QUESTION IS ROOTED IN THE CONCERN THAT MRS. HARRIS'S CONTRACT GOES BEYOND THE TERM OF THE CURRENT SUPERVISOR, INTO I THINK MAY 2009. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN A -- A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER OR BOARD WILL EXECUTE CONTRACTS THAT EXTEND BEYOND THEIR TERMS. THE CONCERN HERE IS THE FUNDING THAT WILL SUPPORT THE BALANCE OF THE CONTRACT. HE'S NOT IN PLACE TO FUND THIS AGREEMENT, AND THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT THE DOLLARS HERE. >>ROSE FERLITA: YES, IT IS, AND THAT WAS MY CONCERN. THIS AGREEMENT WAS EFFECTIVE MAY 12th, '08 AND EXPIRES ON MAY 12th, '09. AND IT SAYS, GIVES THE EMPLOYEE THREE MONTHS' NOTICE WITH A CONTINUATION OF SALARY AND BENEFITS PAYING DURING THIS 90- DAY NOTICE PERIOD AND EMPLOYEE AGREES TO CONTINUE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. SHALL THE NEW SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS -- WHICH MAKES SENSE. WHEN YOU COME IN, YOU BRING IN YOUR OWN TEAM. SHALL THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS CHANGE AND A NEW SUPERVISOR OF ELECTION BE APPOINTED OR ELECTED AND NOT DESIRE -- NOT A SURPRISE, THEY WANT TO BRING IN THEIR OWN STAFF -- TO RETAIN THE SERVICES OF THE EMPLOYEE, THEN THAT EMPLOYEE MAY AT HER OPTION BE DEEMED TO BE TERMINATED, BUT SHE WILL BE ENTITLED TO THREE MONTHS' NOTICE. AND ANOTHER QUIRK IN THAT IS, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK JUST IN GOODWILL TO THE CITIZENS -- WE ALL WANT TO WIN EVERY ELECTION WE RUN, BUT, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT WE LOSE, SO IT SEEMS LIKE IT COULD HAVE ENDED -- HE WOULD HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO END IT CONSISTENT WITH WHEN THIS TERM HAD COMPLETED, ESPECIALLY SINCE -- ESPECIALLY SINCE UNTIL MR. JOHNSON -- AND SOMEBODY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, PERHAPS YOU, MR. CANE. THE LEGAL GUIDANCE FOR THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OFFICE CAME DIRECTLY FROM YOUR OFFICE, AND I THINK THAT THERE'S AN ATTORNEY THAT WORKS UNDER YOU THAT I HAVE SEEN FIRSTHAND FOR -- THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE CANVASSING PROCESS, MS. FARRIS, AND CERTAINLY DEBORAH, I THINK YOU HAVE QUITE CAPABLE ATTORNEYS THAT COULD HAVE CONTINUED TO DO THIS AND WOULD HAVE SAVED A LOT OF DOLLARS BECAUSE I THINK YOUR PRICE WAS PRETTY GOOD, CHEAP. IT WAS NO COST. AND MS. HARRIS -- AND THIS IS PUBLIC RECORD, SO I'M NOT DIVULGING ANY PRIVACY. THIS CONTRACT IS FOR A GRAND TOTAL OF $150,000, AND NOW IT'S EXTENDED TO MAY '09, AND I WOULD SUSPECT THAT MS. BUSANSKY IS PROBABLY, IF SHE HASN'T, GOING TO CONTACT YOU BECAUSE THAT MAKES GOOD SENSE, GOOD BUSINESS. YOU'RE GOING TO CHARGE NOTHING. WHY SHOULD SHE ABSORB ANOTHER 150,000 THAT SHE'S GOING TO PASS ON TO THE TAXPAYERS? THERE ARE SO MANY AREAS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT MR. JOHNSON COULD HAVE SAVED DOLLARS, BUT IN FAIRNESS TO HIM, HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DEFEND HIMSELF TODAY, BUT IN UNFAIRNESS TO THE TAXPAYERS, HE CHOSE NOT TO BE HERE. HE CHOSE TO SEND MS. HARRIS, SO THAT'S JUST SOME OF THE REASONS WHY I'M GOING TO SAY IT IS RIDICULOUS, IT IS RIDICULOUS THAT ANYBODY WOULD COME TO THIS BOARD TODAY AND SAY, HEY, GUYS, YOU'RE FLUSH WITH MONEY, WE NEED AN EXTRA TWO-POINT-SOMETHING MILLION DOLLARS. NO PROBLEMS? YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT, RIGHT, MR. ERIC JOHNSON? WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? I HOPE YOU SEND THAT MESSAGE BACK TO MR. JOHNSON. THIS IS NOT GOOD REPRESENTATION FOR THE PEOPLE THAT INITIALLY -- MAYBE NOT THIS TIME BUT INITIALLY PUT HIM INTO OFFICE. THIS IS PITIFUL, PITIFUL, PITIFUL, AND THAT'S JUST SOME OF WHAT I WANT TO SAY, AND WHEN WE COME BACK AGAIN, MAYBE AFTER A LITTLE BIT MORE RESEARCH I'LL HAVE SOME OTHER ISSUES THAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, BUT THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD. >>MARK SHARPE: COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR, AND THANK YOU, MS. HARRIS, FOR COMING HERE. CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW THE CURRENT FINANCIAL SITUATION OF YOUR OFFICE? I THINK MR. SHARPE HAD ADDRESSED PART OF THAT, BUT WHAT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IS HAVE ENOUGH CASH ON HAND TO CONTINUE RUNNING THE OFFICE UNTIL TRANSITION, AND I'M THINKING TRANSITION IS PROBABLY UNTIL MRS. BUSANSKY CAN GET A HANDLE ON WHAT'S HAPPENING INSIDE THE OFFICE. CAN YOU TELL US THE CASH ON HAND AND WHAT THE FINANCIAL SITUATION IS OF THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OFFICE, SAY THROUGH THE FIRST OF FEBRUARY? >> LET ME -- I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU JUST A NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, SO I'LL E-MAIL THAT TO YOU-ALL AND TO ERIC. >>KEVIN BECKNER: I GUESS THE QUESTION THAT WE WANT TO DETERMINE IS THAT WE DENY THE REQUEST, THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OFFICE IS NOT SHUTTING DOWN TOMORROW? >> OH, NO. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. >> I THINK -- AGAIN, A LOT HAS BEEN SAID, AND I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT THIS IS AN EFFORT FOR YOU-ALL TO UNDERSTAND THOSE THINGS THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO EXPEND MONEY ON IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE ELECTION, AND WE'VE GIVEN YOU A LIST OF WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THOSE. THESE ARE NOT THINGS THAT WE COULD HAVE ANTICIPATED AT THE TIME WHEN WE SUBMITTED OUR BUDGET. AGAIN, A BIG PART OF IT IS BALLOT BOXES, PRIVACY BOOTHS -- >>KEVIN BECKNER: WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, THEN, WHAT TIME FRAME -- WHEN DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE INCURRING SOME OF THESE MAJOR COSTS AND EXPENSES THAT WERE UNANTICIPATED? >> MOST OF THEM BETWEEN THE PRIMARY AND THE GENERAL AND AFTER THE 2000 -- AFTER SEPTEMBER 30th. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. AND I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION IS IF YOU KNEW THERE WERE GOING TO BE MORE EXPENSES AND THAT WE MIGHT NEED MORE MONEY, WHY WEREN'T WE APPROACHED AND SAY, HEY, LISTEN, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES, WE'RE GOING TO NEED YOUR HELP, WE'RE GOING TO NEED MORE DOLLARS FOR THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER? WHY ARE WE JUST HEARING ABOUT THIS NOW, YOU KNOW, SIX WEEKS AFTER THE ELECTION? >> AGAIN, I THINK WE NOTIFIED THE BUDGET OFFICE AND THIS BOARD AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS WHEN WE SUBMITTED OUR BUDGET, WHEN WE UPDATED OUR BUDGET, AND WHEN WE BROUGHT FORTH THE ITEM FOR THE NEW MACHINE. WHAT WE COULD NOT DO IS GIVE YOU THE EXACT AMOUNTS. THAT IS WHAT THAT IS TODAY. BUT WE HAVE SAID FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THAT OUR BUDGET WAS AN ESTIMATE BASED ON EVERYTHING WE KNEW AT THE TIME, SO THERE HAVE BEEN AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT TIMES WHEN WE'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THAT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: AND I GUESS, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE MR. JOHNSON CAN ADDRESS THIS AS FAR AS WHEN THE REQUEST FIRST CAME IN BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'M REALLY LOOKING AT IT THROUGH REPORTS, AND PINELLAS AND SOME OF THE OTHER COUNTIES, WHILE THEY WERE UNDER SOME OF THESE SAME CONSTRAINTS, CERTAINLY DIDN'T HAVE A 33% INCREASE IN THEIR BUDGET, AND, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THAT THEY HAD SOME UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE WHERE WE ALLOCATED THOSE DOLLARS, AND AGAIN, SOME OF THE -- I MEAN, THIS IS JUST SO ENORMOUS. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND OF HOW THIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED WHEN SOME OF THE OTHER COUNTIES OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T RUN INTO THESE TYPES OF ISSUES. >> WELL, I THINK IN COMPARING US TO PINELLAS COUNTY, ONE OF THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES IS THE NUMBER OF EARLY VOTING SITES AND ALSO THE WAY THEIR BUDGET IS HANDLED THROUGH PINELLAS COUNTY. I THINK ALSO THAT, AGAIN, PRIOR TO THE PRIMARY, WE ANTICIPATED A TURNOUT BASED ON THE HISTORY OF TURNOUT IN THIS COUNTY. WHAT WE FOUND IS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY AND LATE -- BETWEEN LATE SUMMER AND THE GENERAL ELECTION THAT OUR NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS INCREASED 100,000. 100,000 NEW VOTERS PUTS A TREMENDOUS IMPACT ON YOUR ELECTION IN A NUMBER OF WAYS, AND SO WE HAD TO RESPOND TO THAT AS BEST WE COULD IN A QUICK FASHION. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE NOT COMFORTABLE DOING -- AND I THINK IT'S EASY TODAY TO -- FOR ME TO SAY, OH, BOY, WE SHOULD HAVE EVERY MONTH SENT YOU AN UPDATE ON HOW MANY -- HOW MANY PRIVACY BOOTHS WE WERE BUYING, WHY WE THOUGHT WE NEEDED TO HAVE 15 AT ONE PRECINCT WHEN PREVIOUSLY WE ONLY HAD THREE TOUCHSCREEN MACHINES OR WHY WE THOUGHT IT NECESSARY TO GO AHEAD AND PURCHASE ADDITIONAL HANDICAP PRIVACY BOOTHS OR WHY WE DECIDED TO SPEND ALMOST A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS ON BALLOT BOXES FOR THE GENERAL WHEN WE DIDN'T SEE THAT TWO YEARS AGO OR A YEAR AGO, AND AGAIN, THE BIGGEST PART OF THAT WAS KNOWING THAT WE HAD A TWO-PAGE BALLOT, HOW MANY BALLOTS THE BALLOT BOX WOULD HOLD, AND THE IMPACT ON THE SECURITY FOR THE POLLWORKERS AND CLERKS. THESE ARE EXPENSES I THINK THAT WE CAN -- WE FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT WE DID THE RIGHT THING FOR THE COUNTY AT THE TIME IN MAKING THESE PURCHASES. WE CERTAINLY FEEL LIKE IF WE HAD NOT PURCHASED ADDITIONAL BALLOT BOXES AND PEOPLE WERE AT THE POLLS PUTTING BALLOTS THAT HAD BEEN VOTED IN BOXES OR CARDBOARD BOXES OR PAPER BAGS THAT WE WOULD BE HERE TODAY EXPLAINING HOW WE SECURED THOSE. >>JIM NORMAN: WE'RE STILL VOTING; RIGHT? [LAUGHTER] >> SO I THINK A LOT OF YOUR CONCERNS ARE -- ARE WELL -- ARE WELL HEARD. WE UNDERSTAND SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS, BUT I THINK THAT EVERYONE HAS TO UNDERSTAND THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS ELECTION IN TERMS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW SYSTEM AS WELL AS THE MAGNITUDE OF THE NUMBER OF VOTERS THAT VOTED. WE WERE FACED EVERY DAY IN EARLY VOTING WITH A TWO-HOUR EXTENSION IN TIME. THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE DECIDED AT THE LAST MINUTE TO EXTEND THE HOURS, WHICH ONLY EXTENDED, THEN, THE TIME THREE TO FOUR HOURS, WHICH MEANT THOSE PEOPLE NOT ONLY GOT THEIR REGULAR PAY, BUT THEY ALSO GOT OVERTIME. THOSE WERE IMPACTS THAT WE COULD NOT HAVE PREDICTED EARLY IN ADVANCE. WHEN WE HAVE THE RECOUNTS, WE CERTAINLY COULDN'T PREDICT THAT IN ADVANCE. WE CERTAINLY COULDN'T RE -- PREDICT THE RESCANS THAT HAD TO BE DONE. I THINK THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT YOU CAN GO THROUGH THE BUDGET AND SAY YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BOUGHT PINS FOR THE CLERKS AND THE POLLWORKERS. THESE ARE PROBABLY THE HARDEST-WORKING PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE IN AN ELECTION, MANY OF THEM HAVING SERVED FOR 20 AND 30 YEARS. BUYING THEM A PIN THAT IDENTIFIES THEM AT THE POLL AS A CLERK OR A POLLWORKER WE FELT WAS A SMALL THING FOR US TO DO. IN THE FUTURE, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD DOESN'T THINK IS WORTH SPENDING THE STATE GRANT MONEY ON, THAT'S -- THAT'S A LESSON WELL LEARNED, BUT AGAIN, IT WOULDN'T HAVE - - WE COULDN'T HAVE SPENT THAT MONEY BUYING BALLOT BOXES OR PRIVACY BOOTHS. >>KEVIN BECKNER: I'M GOING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BECAUSE I'VE GOT A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS. OF THESE DOLLARS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED, WHAT PERCENTAGE OR WHAT -- HOW MANY OF THESE DOLLARS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ENCUMBERED, AND HOW MANY -- AND WHAT'S THE -- AND HOW MUCH OF THIS IS REPRESENTATIVE AS FAR AS FUTURE FORECASTS OF WHAT YOU THINK THE INCOMING SUPERVISOR WOULD NEED? >> WE GAVE THAT -- THE BREAKDOWN IN TERMS OF WHAT THE SHORTFALL IS IN THE CURRENT BUDGET AND WHAT WERE THE UNEXPENDED AMOUNTS. THE -- IN THE BREAKDOWN THAT WE'VE GIVEN TO ERIC JOHNSON -- AND I THINK IT'S ATTACHED TO YOUR AGENDA ITEM, IT SPECIFIES WHAT THOSE ARE. >>KEVIN BECKNER: BUT WE'RE TALKING -- I MEAN, THE TRANSITION TO THE NEW SOE, WE HAVEN'T SPENT THOSE DOLLARS YET? >> NO. >>KEVIN BECKNER: AND WHAT ABOUT ANY OF THESE OTHER -- IS ANY OF THIS MONEY COMING FROM THE FUTURE -- FOR SALARIES, WHETHER THEY'RE TEMPORARY -- I ASSUME THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXPENDED, BUT ARE THERE DOLLARS IN HERE FOR OUTGOING EMPLOYEES OR ANYBODY THAT IS TO RECEIVE ANY TYPE OF COMPENSATION PACKAGES OR -- >> NO. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO THOSE AREN'T REPRESENTED -- >> THERE'S NO SEVERANCE IN THAT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. AND I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH INCOMING SUPERVISOR OF ELECTION, SUPERVISOR-ELECT BUSANSKY, AND JUST TO LET THE BOARD KNOW WHAT HER POSITION IS ON THIS BECAUSE SHE'S IN TALLAHASSEE AND COULD NOT BE HERE TODAY, IS THAT CERTAINLY SHE DOES NOT FEEL SHE NEEDS 300,000. SHE WASN'T CONSULTED ON THAT, SO SHE'S NOT SURE WHERE THOSE TERMS CAME FROM. SHE DID SUGGEST -- SHE SAID THESE COULD BE VERY REAL EXPENSES THAT HAVE BEEN INCURRED. WHAT SHE IS SUGGESTING TO THE BOARD IS WE TRANSFER LESS THE 300,000 APPROXIMATELY $2 MILLION INTO AN ESCROWED ACCOUNT WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE, AGAIN, NOT TO BE USED BY THE CURRENT SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, AND SHE HAS SAID THAT ONCE SHE IS SETTLED INTO HER OFFICE AND SHE IS PREDICTING PERHAPS BY THE SECOND PERIOD IN FEBRUARY SHE WOULD BE PREPARED TO COME TO THIS BOARD IN FULL AND FAIR TRANSPARENCY OUTLINING WHAT SHE BELIEVES IS THE SITUATION. SHE DID SAY THAT SHE WOULD REQUEST A FULL AUDIT BY THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, WHICH SHE BELIEVES IS APPROPRIATE AND THAT SHE WOULD COME BEFORE THE BOARD AND LET US KNOW EXACTLY WHAT EXPENSES NEED TO BE INCURRED AND WHAT SHE FEELS SHE IS GOING TO NEED AS A BUDGET GOING FORWARD. SO PART OF MY CONCERN -- ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THIS ORIGINALLY GOT PULLED IS I THINK THERE WAS -- THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCREPANCY THAT MAYBE THE STAFF COULD EXPLAIN. FIRST WAS PART OF A TRANSITION FROM THE -- IT HAD TO DO WITH PAYROLL OVER THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT'S OFFICE. IF YOU LOOK AND YOU READ THE DOCUMENT, IT SOUNDED LIKE AND IT LOOKED LIKE, TO ADDRESS MS. FERLITA'S CONCERN, THAT THIS WAS AN INCREASE TO THE BUDGET. UNBEKNOWNST TO US, THERE WAS ALREADY SOMETHING SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION TO INCREASE THE BUDGET BY 2.3 MILLION, SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THIS IS ADDRESSED BEFORE THE OUTGOING SUPERVISOR LEAVES OFFICE, BUT AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME, THERE NEEDS TO BE FULL AND FAIR TRANSPARENCY TO MAKE SURE, NUMBER ONE, THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING FOR THE SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE ARE PAID, AND NUMBER TWO, THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE UNDER SOME TYPE OF A LEGAL -- HAVE LEGAL ISSUES FOR BILLS GOING UNPAID, AND SO I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU, AGAIN, MS. HARRIS, ASSUMING THAT ALL THESE ITEMS HERE, THE THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ENCUMBERED, I WOULD ASSUME THAT YOUR OFFICE HAS DETAILED ACCOUNTING RECORDS AND RECEIPTS TO SUPPORT ALL OF THESE PARTICULAR NUMBERS? >> YES. I THINK THE ONLY THING TO MAKE CLEAR IS THAT THE ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR THE BALLOT BOXES, THE PRIVACY BOOTHS, AND THE SCANNERS AND PRINTERS ARE THINGS THAT WE PURCHASED OUT -- ALREADY USING MONEY IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET. SO THAT TOTAL AMOUNT IS NOW NOT INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET MOVING FORWARD WITH THE NEW SUPERVISOR. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. SO THEY ARE IN THESE FIGURES THAT YOU'VE PRESENTED OR THEY -- >> YES. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OR IS THAT PART OF THE -- I THINK MR. JOHNSON MENTIONED OR SOMEBODY MENTIONED AN ADDITIONAL 300,000 THAT MAY BE REQUESTED FOR PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT, OR HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT. >> NO. THESE EXPENSES THAT I OUTLINED FOR YOU ARE THINGS THAT WE PAID FOR, BOUGHT, AND PURCHASED FOR THE ELECTION. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SO WE DO NOT -- THESE ARE NOT LIABILITIES THAT WE OWE THEN? >> THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. WE USED THE EXISTING BUDGET TO DO THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT LEAVES THE SHORTFALL MOVING FORWARD IN SOME OF THE LINE ITEMS FOR THE NEW SUPERVISOR. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THIS WILL IMPACT HER BUDGET -- >> RIGHT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: -- COMING UP? ALL RIGHT. I'VE GOT THAT. AND YOU HAD MENTION THAT YOU HAD A FIRM AUDIT YOUR RECORDS? >> WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE AUDIT NOW WITH ERNST & YOUNG WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. SO YOU ARE GOING THROUGH THE CLERK'S OFFICE? >> YES. THE CLERK DOES THE YEAR-END OFFICE EVERY YEAR, AND AS PART OF THE TRANSITION BACK TO THE -- ALL OF THE FINANCES BACK TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE, WE'VE AGREED TO GO THROUGH AN AUDIT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. THEN I GUESS WHERE THE BOARD -- I THINK THERE MAY BE FURTHER DISCUSSION, BUT WE NEED THAT TALK ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW, FOR SOME TYPE OF A MOTION OR WHAT'S AN APPROPRIATE MOTION, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INCOMING SUPERVISOR HAS THE APPROPRIATE FUNDS, BUT I'M CERTAINLY -- I WOULD NOT SUPPORT ANYMORE DOLLARS BEING ALLOCATED FOR THE OUTGOING UNTIL A FULL AUDIT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT'S OFFICE. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: WELL, A LOT -- A LOT'S BEEN SAID TODAY, AND WE DO NEED TO GET -- AS JUST MANY COMMISSIONERS SAID -- DOWN TO THE BOTTOM AND WHAT OUR REAL NUMBER IS, AND I KNOW OUR ADMINISTRATOR FEELS THAT WE DO NEED TO GET THAT EXACT NUMBER. MY QUESTION -- MY FIRST QUESTION TO YOU IS -- AND I KNOW PHYLLIS IS NOT IN TILL THE 6th. WOULD YOU -- CAN YOU SPEAK FOR THE PRESENT SUPERVISOR TO SAY IF OUR -- OUR FINANCE TEAM ALONG WITH MS. FRANK'S OFFICE CAME IN -- CAN YOU OPEN YOUR OFFICE RIGHT NOW? >> OH, YES. >>JIM NORMAN: IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WOULD MAKE IT AVAILABLE -- I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS THERE IS AN ELECTION IN PLANT CITY, THERE IS SOME ELECTIONS COMING AROUND VERY SHORTLY. WE SHOULD NOT LET ANY DAY GO BY, AND I GUESS WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NEW SUPERVISOR COMING IN, BUT I BELIEVE OUR -- FOR OUR BENEFIT, OUR FINANCE TEAM SHOULD PUT TOGETHER AN AGENDA ITEM AT OUR FIRST -- AT OUR NEXT MEETING TO VALIDATE WHAT IS NECESSARY, WORKING WITH OUR CLERK, WORKING WITH OUR FINANCE TEAM, INVOLVING MS. BUSANSKY AS WE MOVE FORWARD, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I THINK WE CAN GET THE REAL NUMBER AND THAT THERE IS SOME COMFORT LEVEL BECAUSE IN DISCUSSIONS -- AND YOU-ALL MAY HAVE HAD THEM WITH MS. BEAN -- IT WAS SOMEWHAT A SHOCK THAT THIS REQUEST WAS HERE AND YOU HAD NOT HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY; IS THAT CORRECT? >>PAT BEAN: THAT'S CORRECT. >>JIM NORMAN: SO NOT -- AND I'M NOT -- I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE ANYBODY OUT, BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR US STARTING TOMORROW TO BE ABLE TO GO IN AND START -- IF -- AS COMMISSIONER BECKNER SAYS, IF THERE IS RECEIPTS, THERE IS PAYABLES, THERE IS THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT WE CAN SAY, OKAY, THIS GETS US THROUGH THE 1st -- MAYBE YOU DON'T PAY THE FULL 2.3 TODAY, MAYBE YOU -- THERE'S A 90-DAY THING THAT WE'VE GOT TO -- WE'VE GOT TO PAY 500,000 TODAY, MAYBE WE CAN ADDRESS IT AFTER WE GET THROUGH THE PLANT CITY ELECTION TO SEE WHERE WE ARE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A NUMBER THAT WE WOULD HAVE BROUGHT BACK AT OUR NEXT MEETING THAT WE CAN ALL CONCUR ON THAT HAS THE SIGN-OFF FROM OUR ADMINISTRATION ALONG WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE. DOES PEOPLE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, THAT WE WOULD GO IN IMMEDIATELY INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR MS. BUSANSKY BECAUSE, AGAIN, YOU'RE BUMPING UP AGAINST THAT PLANT CITY ELECTION, AND WE WOULD BE WORKING WITH -- IN CONJUNCTION WITH HER, BUT THEN SHE COULD TAKE ANOTHER SECOND LOOK TO SEE IN THAT NEXT SIX, NINE MONTHS WHAT SHE FEELS SHE NEEDS AS WE GO FORWARD BECAUSE, FOLKS, YOU KNOW, THIS ELECTIONS OFFICE IS OUR FOUNDATION OF EVERYTHING WE'RE KIND OF ALL ABOUT, AND WE CAN'T JUST IGNORE IT, AND I THINK WE GO IN TOMORROW. THERE'S CLEARLY NOT A SUPERMAJORITY HERE TO SPEND $2.3 MILLION WITH AN UNKNOWN COMMODITY OUT THERE, SO WITHOUT OUR ADMINISTRATION COMING IN AND VALIDATING EXACTLY WHAT YOU FEEL OUR LIABILITIES ARE, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I -- THIS COMMISSIONER CAN SUPPORT, THAT YOU WOULD GO IN TOMORROW WITH THEIR GRACES TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING TO START VALIDATING THOSE NUMBERS. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. NORMAN, I AGREE WITH YOU. THE SOONER WE START DOING THIS, THE LESS DISADVANTAGE WE PUT MS. BUSANSKY IN BECAUSE SHE'S GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF TRANSITION ISSUES, SO I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT, AND THEN CERTAINLY SHE WILL BE ABLE TO COME TO US IN A LOGICAL, SENSIBLE MANNER AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE NEED IN TERMS OF THE TRANSITION, SO THAT PART IS GREAT. I HAVE JUST TWO OTHER THINGS, AND CERTAINLY I WILL SUPPORT -- I GUESS THAT'S GOING TO BE IN CONJUNCTION WITH WHAT MR. BECKNER DID. >>JIM NORMAN: LET'S DO A MOTION. OKAY. >>ROSE FERLITA: LET ME JUST MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS FIRST NOT TO DO WITH THAT MOTION, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT, BRING IT BACK, AND WHEN WE DO GO FORWARD WITH THIS MOTION, WE SHOULD PROBABLY CHECK IN ADVANCE WITH MR. JOHNSON TO SEE WHEN HE'S AVAILABLE BECAUSE I REALLY BELIEVE THAT HE SHOULD BE HERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH MS. HARRIS. MR. JOHNSON, THE THIRD PART OF MY THREE THINGS HANGING HERE IS FOR YOU TO COME UP AND SAY WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE TO SAY, BUT ONE CLOSING COMMENT. JUST SO THERE'S NO MISUNDERSTANDING, THIS BOARD ACKNOWLEDGES, CELEBRATES, PRAISES, THANKS PEOPLE THAT IN OUR COMMUNITY DO THINGS ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS, AND CERTAINLY THE POLLWORKERS DO AN INCREDIBLE JOB BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT TO COME IN ON A TEMPORARY BASIS AND GET THIS ALL TOGETHER, SO IN NO WAY WILL I ALLOW MS. HARRIS TO DIMINISH OR DISTORT WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING. MY SUGGESTION WAS JUST AS WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE MANDATE OF THE STATE THAT SAYS ROSE FERLITA, POLLWORKER, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT IN THE FORM AND FASHION THAT HE DID. NOW, I ISOLATED THAT AS AN EXAMPLE, BUT I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE INTERPRETED THAT WAS SOMETHING I DIDN'T WANT HIM TO DO BECAUSE OF THE POLLWORKERS. THEY SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED IRREGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THEY GOT PAID. WE COULD GO DOWN A LIST AND WE COULD BE CATTY, WE COULD BE CATTY BACK. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT MAYBE HE COULD HAVE CUT COSTS ON, SO WHETHER IT WAS A PIN SITUATION OR A PEN SITUATION, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN COSTS THAT PERHAPS COULD HAVE REDUCED THE OVERALL DEFICIT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY, AND THAT'S NOT FOR YOU TO RESPOND TO, MS. HARRIS. THAT IS IN DEFENSE OF WHAT I MEANT INSTEAD OF WHAT YOU THINK I MEANT. MR. JOHNSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE A BIG PART OF THIS AUDIT WITH MS. FRANK. >>ERIC JOHNSON: FOR THE RECORD, ERIC JOHNSON, MANAGEMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR. COMMISSIONER, NO, WE'D BE PLEASED TO WORK WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE CURRENT SUPERVISOR AND THE INCOMING SUPERVISOR TO LOOK AT THE COST THAT HAVE BEEN INCURRED, LOOK AT THE OBLIGATIONS OUTSTANDING, AND WE UNDERSTAND THE MISSION, SO WE'D BE PLEASED TO PARTICIPATE. >>JIM NORMAN: AND I -- OH. >>ROSE FERLITA: WE CAN'T SPEAK FOR YOU CERTAINLY, BUT YOU'VE NEVER BEEN SHY ABOUT YOUR POSITION. THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO TELL US THAT MAKES YOU MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS SITUATION THAN WE ARE; RIGHT? >>ERIC JOHNSON: NO. I THINK YOU HAVE A GOOD SOLUTION. WE'RE NOT IN A POSITION TO SIGN OFF AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THE REPRESENTATION BECAUSE WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH UNDERLYING DETAIL TO MAKE THAT REPRESENTATION, BUT VERY COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IF THE CLERK'S OFFICE IS. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON. THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR THE EXTRA TIME. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. JOHNSON, JUST SO I'M CLEAR BECAUSE AGAIN, I THINK HOW THIS ALL CAME ABOUT WAS ACTUALLY -- IS INTERESTING BECAUSE WHAT WAS NOTED AS FAR AS IN THE -- IN THE -- UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA WAS A SUPPORTING ITEM THAT WAS SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT THAT WE'VE HAD CONVERSATION WITH STAFF FROM. WHEN DID WE ACTUALLY GET THE REQUEST FOR THE NOTIFICATION FROM THE SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE THAT THEY WERE SEEKING ADDITIONAL DOLLARS FOR THEIR BUDGET? >>ERIC JOHNSON: COMMISSIONER, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THAT CAME ABOUT LAST THURSDAY. THAT'S WHEN I THINK I FIRST LEARNED THAT THERE WAS AN INTEREST IN AN APPEARANCE BY THE SUPERVISOR AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY AN INTEREST IN ACTUALLY PROCESSING A BUDGET AMENDMENT, SO MY RECOLLECTION IS IT WAS THURSDAY DURING THE BOARD'S RETREAT THAT I LEARNED ABOUT IT, AND AS -- I THINK YOU'RE REFERENCING -- IN THE CLERK'S AREA OF THE AGENDA AND SOMETHING THAT I WAS CONFUSED ABOUT LITERALLY UNTIL YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, THERE WAS A SIMILAR-SOUNDING ITEM IN TERMS OF $2.3 MILLION, WHICH IS SIMPLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE AGREED SHIFT OF THE FINANCIAL FUNCTION BACK TO THE CLERK, AND IT'S A COINCIDENCE THAT THE $2.3 MILLION ON THAT ITEM "I" THAT YOUR OFFICE HAD CALLED ME ABOUT COINCIDES ALMOST EXACTLY WITH THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THE BUDGET REQUEST, BUT THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE ITEMS AND THE ACTUAL REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING. MY RECOLLECTION IS THE FIRST THING SURFACED LAST THURSDAY, AND IT WAS ABOUT 1.2 MILLION AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY GREW TO THE 2.3-MILLION REQUEST. >>KEVIN BECKNER: WHEN WAS THAT GOING TO COME BEFORE US FOR -- BECAUSE I KNOW IT WAS JUST ADDED TO THE AGENDA, SO WHEN WERE WE GOING TO SCHEDULE TO HAVE DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR ITEM? >>ERIC JOHNSON: WHICH ITEM? >>KEVIN BECKNER: I'M SORRY. THE BUDGET REQUEST THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW. >>ERIC JOHNSON: WELL, WE HAD A DISCUSSION LAST NIGHT ABOUT WHETHER TO PUT THE ITEM ON. IT'S THE AWKWARD SITUATION THAT TYPICALLY ITEMS DON'T MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE BOARD WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE OF MY OFFICE AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BUT WE HAD -- WE RECOGNIZED THAT THIS WAS A REQUEST FROM AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, AND WE WERE WEARY ABOUT WITHHOLDING THAT REQUEST FROM THE BOARD, SO IT WAS LATE YESTERDAY THAT THE DECISION WAS MADE TO PLACE IT ON THE AGENDA, AND AT THAT TIME I WROTE THE MEMO INDICATING THAT I WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEST TO THE FISCAL -- THE ACCURACY OF THE FISCAL IMPACT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: VERY QUICKLY, COMMISSIONERS, AND I SPOKE WITH DAN KLEIN OVER HERE, AND HE VERY MUCH CONCURS WITH THE ACTION THAT THE BOARD WOULD TAKE TO INVOLVE STARTING TOMORROW THAT MR. JOHNSON AND THE CLERK'S OFFICE BE INVOLVED IN DETERMINING THE ACCURACY OF THE DOLLARS BEING REQUESTED AND IT WOULD BE ON OUR NEXT BOARD AGENDA, SO IN CONCURRENCE WITH COMMISSIONER BECKNER, I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION AND -- THAT WE WOULD ASK OUR ADMINISTRATOR TO BRING BACK AN ON-POINT NUMBER THAT WOULD SUPPORT OUR SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OFFICE FOR THE FIRST 90 DAYS AND THEN HAVING HER HEAVILY INVOLVED AND THEN IN SIX MONTHS HAVING THE ACCURATE NUMBER THAT SHE FEELS SUSTAINABLE TO GO FORWARD. >>PAT BEAN: WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T LEAVE HER IN A POSITION WHERE SHE CAN'T PAY HER BILLS. WE WILL NOT LET THAT HAPPEN. >> NO, THAT WAS THE MAIN CONCERN AGAIN THAT WE'RE NOT LEAVING THE OFFICE IN A SITUATION WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T MAKE PAYROLL OR MEET THE -- >>JIM NORMAN: AND WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE -- AND WE DON'T WANT TO -- NOT ONLY THAT, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE HER INVOLVED AFTER -- >> CORRECT. >> -- LET OUR TEAM GO IN NOW, GET US A PAYMENT THAT WE'VE GOT TO MAKE NOW, INVOLVE HER IN THE NEXT REQUEST. >>KEVIN BECKNER: CORRECT. AND SHE SAID IN FEBRUARY THAT SHE WOULD BE PREPARED AT THAT TIME TO GIVE US AT LEAST A GENERAL IDEA OF WHERE SHE STOOD AND SHE WOULD COME BEFORE THE BOARD TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS IN PERSON. >>DAN KLEIN: ONE PROCEDURAL ITEM. THE CLERK'S OFFICE WOULD NOT GO AND AUDIT ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER WITHOUT THE BOARD'S DIRECTION AS WELL AS THE EXPRESS REQUEST OF THAT CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER. WE WILL ASK MR. JOHNSON'S OFFICE FOR A LETTER. >>JIM NORMAN: YOU HEARD ME ASK THAT PERMISSION. >>DAN KLEIN: I UNDERSTAND. >>JIM NORMAN: AND THAT'S WHY I DID THAT. >>DAN KLEIN: I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. >> DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION FOR US TO APPROVE TO GO -- TO REQUEST AN AUDIT OR -- >>DAN KLEIN: YOU HAVE DONE THAT. WE WILL LOOK FOR A LETTER FROM MR. JOHNSON JUST FOR THE FILE. >>KEN HAGAN: WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER BECKNER. NO FURTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAT BEAN: COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE TWO ITEMS LEFT. YOU HAVE A-98, WHICH IS TO APPROVE THE STIPULATION OF PARTIES BETWEEN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SABAL INDUSTRIAL PARK THROUGH CSX TRANSPORTATION AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THIS WAS PULLED FROM THE AGENDA BY COMMISSIONER HAGAN. >>KEN HAGAN: YEAH. I JUST HAD A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS. HEY, JOHN. WHAT'S THE -- I GUESS THE BASIS FOR THIS ACTION OR CLOSING THIS CROSSING? >> YES, SIR. JOHN NEWTON, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE DIVISION, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS. SIR, WE ARE IN AN AGREEMENT WITH SABAL PARK WHERE THEY ARE THE -- THEY PROVIDE THE MAINTENANCE FOR THREE CROSSINGS IN SABAL PARK, AND THEY'VE DECIDED THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO MAINTAIN THE CROSSINGS ANY LONGER AND CLOSE THEM. SO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SABAL PARK, PLUS THE COUNTY TO HAVE THEM CLOSED. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. AND WHAT WOULD BE THE BURDEN ON US IF WE WANTED TO -- >> WELL, WE DO HAVE SOME EXPOSURE BECAUSE OUR ROADS CROSS THOSE CROSSINGS. THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW ACCIDENTS, NOT SERIOUS, YOU KNOW, TIRE DAMAGE, RIM DAMAGE. WE GET A LOT -- WE'VE HAD SOME COMPLAINTS OF ROUGH RIDING ACROSS THE CROSSINGS, BUT WE DO HAVE EXPOSURE IF WE CONTINUE TO LET THE CROSSINGS -- NOT TAKE SOME ACTION LIKE WE'RE DOING NOW. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. AND THEN I GUESS THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE, IS THERE ANY CONCERN THAT WE COULD BE HARMING ANY FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY DOING THIS, BY CLOSING THESE CROSSINGS? >> SIR, I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER THAT. I JUST -- I DO KNOW THAT THOSE -- ONE CROSSING ONE OF THE RAILS HAS BEEN MISSING FOR YEARS. THE OTHER CROSSING LOOKS LIKE IT'S BEEN ABANDONED. YOU CAN TELL FROM THE HEAVY VEGETATION COMING THROUGH IT. SO THEY'RE NOT IN USE NOW. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M ABLE TO ANSWER IF THERE'S A FUTURE ECONOMIC IMPACT, BUT SABAL PARK IS THE -- THEY'RE THE ONES THAT MAKE THE DECISIONS, NOT -- NOT SO MUCH US, AND THEY DECIDED THEY DID NOT WANT TO MAINTAIN THEM, THEY WANT THEM CLOSED. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE THE ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. THANKS, JOHN. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>PAT BEAN: OKAY. I ASSUME, COMMISSIONER BECKNER, THAT YOU HAD REQUESTED THAT WE PULL I -- A-139-I, BUT I THINK THAT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE DISCUSSION WE JUST HAD WITH KATHY HARRIS. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THAT IS CORRECT. AND I GUESS -- DO WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION IN THE RECORD OF HOW EVERYTHING TRANSPIRED AS FAR AS THAT GOES? >>PAT BEAN: WELL, YES. I THINK BETWEEN THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND US, WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT. DAN, WOULD YOU JUST SPEAK TO THAT FOR A MOMENT. >>DAN KLEIN: YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. THAT BUDGET AMENDMENT, AS MR. JOHNSON -- ERIC JOHNSON INDICATED EARLIER -- IT'S UNFORTUNATE THEY WERE ON THE SAME AGENDA. IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE $2.3 MILLION IN BUDGET AMENDMENTS. THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY THAT WAS ON THE OFFICIAL RECORDS CLERK'S AGENDA HAD TO DO WITH CONSOLIDATING THE PERSONNEL COST BUDGETS OF THE SUPERVISORS. WE WERE GOING INTO THIS FISCAL YEAR WITH THE CONTINUED ASSUMPTION THAT THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTION WOULD ASSUME THE PAYROLL RESPONSIBILITIES AT THEIR REQUEST BEGINNING JANUARY 1, SO BASICALLY THREE-QUARTERS OF THEIR PERSONNEL BUDGET WAS ON THE SUPERVISOR'S BOOKS, ONE-QUARTER WAS ON THE CLERK'S BOOKS. WE HAD AGREED TO NOT PURSUE THAT AVENUE, THAT THE CLERK WOULD CONTINUE TO DO THE PAYROLL, SO THIS CONSOLIDATED THOSE BUDGETS ON THE CLERK'S OR COUNTY'S BOOKS, SO IT WAS MORE AN ADMINISTRATIVE. IT WAS NOT AN INCREASE IN THEIR BUDGET, JUST A REFLECTION OF BRINGING THE PAYROLL OR MAINTAINING THE PAYROLL ON THE COUNTY SIDE GOING FORWARD. >>PAT BEAN: AND PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO CONFUSING HAD THE NUMBERS NOT TURNED OUT TO MATCH ALMOST PERFECTLY. >>KEVIN BECKNER: RIGHT. WELL, THEY ALSO HAD MENTIONED ON THE FORMS ABOUT THIS IS AN INCREASE -- PLEASE PROCESS THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENT TO OUR FY 09 BUDGET, SO THAT WHAT -- I THINK ALSO LED US TO BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS AN ACTUAL BUDGET INCREASE, AND WHEN WE START REQUESTING NUMBERS, THAT'S WHY THESE NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE NUMBERS THAT MS. HARRIS TALKED ABOUT AND THAT WE RECEIVED LATER ON. I MEAN, THINK IT WAS OFF BY $30,000, BUT, YOU KNOW -- YOU KNOW, ANYTIME WHEN IT SAYS, PLEASE PROCESS AS AN ADJUSTMENT TO INCREASE THE BUDGET I THINK IT KIND OF RAISES SOME RED FLAGS, AND MORE DISTURBING, IT WAS BURIED IN THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND TO EVER THINK THAT SOMEBODY'S GOING TO COME AND REQUEST THESE -- THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY AS A CONSENT AGENDA, YOU KNOW, IS JUST -- AGAIN, THE ISSUE OF TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT I THINK IS SO IMPORTANT. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>PAT BEAN: YES. WOULD YOU JUST MOVE APPROVAL ON THAT ITEM? >>KEVIN BECKNER: I MOVE APPROVAL TO APPROVE A-139 ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. >>KEVIN WHITE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. MOTION COMMISSIONER BECKNER, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAT BEAN: AND YOUR FINAL DISCUSSION WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT ANYBODY ON THE BOARD HAS A FUTURE ISSUE THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF NOW THAT WE NEED TO BRING BACK AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YEAH. WE HAD A COMMENT MADE THIS MORNING DURING PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT AN OVERAGE. I KNOW WE INCREASED FEES, AND I KNOW THERE'S A DISCUSSION WHEN WE INCREASED FEES ON BUILDERS OR PEOPLE -- NOT BUILDERS BUT PEOPLE WHO WERE GETTING PERMITS THAT WE'D TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AT SOME POINT IF IT NEEDED TO BE ADJUSTED AND THERE APPARENTLY IS AN OVERAGE. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A REPORT BACK AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CHARGE IS APPROPRIATE, NEEDS TO BE RAISED OR LOWERED, OR IF WE TRULY HAVE AN OVERAGE THERE. >>PAT BEAN: YES, SIR. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER WHITE. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT BRINGING BACK FOR FUTURE ISSUE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE MAY WANT TO LOOK AT NOW, AND I'M SORRY I LET THE DISCUSSION GO BY. I FORGOT TO REALIZE IT. A-148, IT HAS TO DO WITH THAT. IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOTHING TO PULL FROM THE CONSENT ON ANY ITEMS THAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE, BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH THE LOWRY PARK ZOO, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO BRING TO OUR STAFF'S ATTENTION, OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT THE ZOO AND ITS PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW IS UNDER AN AUDIT FOR SOME ALLEGATIONS OF POTENTIAL IMPROPRIETY, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS LOOKING AT WITH OUR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA AS WELL AS WHAT WE DID WITH OUR STAFF DURING OUR BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OR APPROVALS, THIS YEAR WE APPROVED $1.8 MILLION FOR ZOO CAPITAL PROJECTS. SOME OF THE AUDIT THINGS THAT CAME OUT FROM THE PRELIMINARY AUDIT FROM THE CITY HAS TO DO WITH CAPITAL PROJECTS AND THINGS THAT ARE MISSING FROM THE ZOO. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO DO IN OUR -- IN OUR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, IT SAYS, IF THE COUNTY DETERMINES IN INSPECTION OR REVIEW THAT THE ORGANIZATION HAS NOT PERFORMED OR IS NOT PERFORMING, THE TOTAL AGREED-UPON SERVICES, PAYMENTS FOR THE ORGANIZATION SHALL PRO RATA A REDUCTION. IT FURTHER SAYS UNDER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT, THE ORGANIZATION REPRESENTS THAT IT -- PRESENTED HAS NO INTEREST OR SHALL ACQUIRE NO INTEREST, FINANCIAL OR OTHERWISE, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, NOR ENGAGE IN ANY BUSINESS OR TRANSACTION, PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY, OR INCUR ANY OBLIGATION OF A NATURE WHICH WOULD CONFLICT IN ANY MANNER WITH THE PERFORMANCE OR SCOPE OF SERVICES REQUIRED THEREUNDER. I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THIS ISSUE, BUT I JUST WANT ONE MORE MINUTE, THAT -- IT ALSO SAYS IN OUR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY ACKNOWLEDGES -- BECAUSE WE GIVE THE CITY THE MONEY, AND THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ALLOCATION AND THE AUDITING AND ALL OF THAT, BUT IT ALSO SAYS THAT WE -- IF ANY OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY CONDUCTS AN AUDIT, WE AS THE COUNTY HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE OUR AUDITOR OR ANYONE ELSE WE CHOOSE TO SIT IN ON THAT AUDIT AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN THAT AUDIT OR HELP DRIVE THAT AUDIT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, FORM, OR FASHION, BUT IN SOME OF THE FINDINGS, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF THE AUDIT, WE HAVE HAD SOME ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPRIETY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURES, AND IT SAYS IN OUR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, THE CITY ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT THE USE OF ALL FUNDS PAID TO THE CITY BY THE COUNTY PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT ARE TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY TO FUND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, AS SUCH DEFINED IN SECTION 21 -- 212.05, SUBSECTION 2, PARAGRAPH "B," FLORIDA STATUTES. THE CITY SHALL REIMBURSE THE COUNTY FOR ANY FUNDS NOT USED IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH. NOW, I THINK WITH THAT IN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, IF WE FIND THAT ANY OF THESE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURES THAT HAVE BEEN SPENT WENT TO ANY OF THESE OTHER PRIVATE ENTITIES, WE, OUR LEGAL STAFF, OUR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, THIS BOARD, WE NEED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE MAYOR AND THE CITY OF TAMPA ADMINISTRATION THAT WE EXPECT TO BE REIMBURSED HENCEFORTH AND IMMEDIATELY FOR THOSE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, AND ONE OF THE PRELIMINARY AUDITS SAYS IT'S IN THE - - OVER -- I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER HERE NOW, BUT OVER $200,000 ALREADY IN THE PRELIMINARY STAGES, SO BASICALLY WHAT I GUESS I'D LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION TO DO IS MAYBE HAVE OUR LEGAL STAFF AND SOMEONE ON PAT'S TEAM TO -- WHETHER IT'S OUR INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR OR WHOEVER WORK WITH THE CITY'S AUDIT TEAM, BECAUSE IT IS TOTALLY WITHIN OUR PURVIEW WITH OUR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA, AND FIND OUT WHEN THE FINAL CONCLUSION OF THE AUDIT IS GOING TO BE DONE, AND IF WE CAN PROVE OR THE - - THE AUDIT ACTUALLY CONCLUDES THAT SOME OF OUR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN SENT OUT TO SAFARI WILD OR THE -- THE OTHER ZOO, HIS RANCH. ALSO, I'M SORRY, THE ZOO GENERATED A LIST OF TRANSACTIONS FROM THIS FINANCIAL SYSTEM DETAILING PAYMENTS TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR FIXED ASSETS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, AND SUPPLIES THAT WERE BUILT AND INSTALLED AT SAFARI WILD FROM ZOO FUNDS. THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES AT THIS POINT ARE $158,849. ALL ITEMS WERE VOUCHED TO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, AND IT SAYS, BASED ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS, THERE IS NOT A -- THERE IS NOT A COST-EFFECTIVE WAY TO RECOUP OR BRING THESE ITEMS BACK, SO BASICALLY THEY'RE LOST, BUT WE NEED OUR MONEY BACK. ANY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, ANY DOLLAR THAT WE SPENT OUT OF COUNTY FUNDS TO BUILD SOMEONE'S PRIVATE ENTITY, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS IMMEDIATELY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER THINKS, BUT THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO CHARGE OUR ADMINISTRATION WITH PURSUANT OUR LEGAL CONTRACT AND OUR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. >>KEN HAGAN: PAT, YOU UNDERSTAND ALL THAT? >>PAT BEAN: YES, I DO. >>RENEE LEE: GOT IT. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. ANY OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS? >>KEVIN WHITE: IS THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO VOTE ON? >>KEN HAGAN: NO. WE DIDN'T TAKE ANY ACTION. >>ROSE FERLITA: JUST DIRECT THEM. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR THEIR PATIENCE TODAY. I WANT TO WISH EVERYONE MERRY CHRISTMAS, HAPPY HOLIDAYS, AND A WONDERFUL NEW YEAR. NO, SIR, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TALK TO YOU. >> I JUST WANT TO SUBMIT THIS BECAUSE I'M RIGHT THAT I'M LICENSED AS AN AUCTIONEER. [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] I'LL JUST SUBMIT IT FOR THE RECORD BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE LITIGATION OVER IT. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. LOOK FORWARD TO IT. OKAY. EVERYONE HAVE A GOOD DAY, AND THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE. 1