CAPTIONING MAY 6, 2009 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. WELCOME BACK TO THE AFTERNOON SESSION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. AT THIS TIME, MS. BEAN, I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO PICK UP OUR 11:00 TIME CERTAIN. >>PAT BEAN: YES. WE'RE GOING TO DO THE 11:00 ITEM NOW, B-7, AND THAT'S AN AUDIT REPORT ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BROUGHT TO YOU BY DAN POHTO. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, DAN. >>DAN POHTO: GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. DAN POHTO, DIRECTOR OF COUNTY AUDIT WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE. WE HAVE -- AUDIT 181 IS THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY, THE FISCAL OPERATIONS. THEY SEEM TO HAVE GOTTEN THEIR PLAN TOGETHER ON GETTING MOST OF THE FINDINGS TAKEN CARE OF, PROBABLY WITHIN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS. IT WON'T MAYBE HAPPEN UNTIL ABOUT JANUARY. THERE'S ONE OBSERVATION THAT THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FOLKS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET TOGETHER TO UPDATE AND MODIFY A BOARD POLICY THAT HAS TO DO WITH CHANGE FUNDS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. >>KEN HAGAN: DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >>JIM NORMAN: JUST GOOD JOB, AND I'LL MOVE TO ACCEPT. >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN TO RECEIVE THE REPORT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>DAN POHTO: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. >>PAT BEAN: YOUR NEXT ITEM, COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE BUDGET ITEM THAT WE SKIPPED OVER THIS MORNING ALSO. THAT'S ITEM B-2, AND ERIC JOHNSON IS HERE TO MAKE AN ORAL REPORT ON THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE BUDGET. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, ERIC. >>ERIC JOHNSON: GOOD AFTERNOON. ERIC JOHNSON, MANAGEMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR AND BUDGET DIRECTOR. COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE ABOUT FOUR WEEKS OUT FROM DELIVERING THE BUDGET FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS, FISCAL '10 AND '11. WHAT I WANTED TO DO IS GIVE YOU AN UPDATE. YOU'VE HEARD FROM US OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS TALKING ABOUT THE REDUCTION IN AVAILABLE REVENUE, AND WE'LL BE CONTINUING TO VISIT THE NUMBERS, AND IN FACT, THE NUMBERS I HAD YESTERDAY AND THE NUMBERS I HAVE NOW ARE SLIGHTLY REVISED BECAUSE WE CONTINUE TO WORK THEM, BUT AT THIS POINT WE'RE LOOKING AT A REDUCTION IN AVAILABLE REVENUE IN OUR COUNTYWIDE GENERAL FUND OF $77.9 MILLION NEXT YEAR. THAT'S ABOUT A 13.4% REDUCTION BETWEEN THIS YEAR AND NEXT, AND SO THAT NO ONE IS CONFUSED, WE'RE USING KIND OF OUR CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AS THE BASELINE. IN THE PAST SOMETIMES WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WE THOUGHT THE UPCOMING YEAR'S BUDGET WOULD BE AND THEN WHAT IT ENDED UP BEING, AND THAT LEAVES PEOPLE WITH A LITTLE CONCERN OVER WHAT WE'RE MEASURING THE CHANGE AGAINST, SO WE'RE MEASURING AGAINST WHAT WE HAVE APPROPRIATED THIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR. IN OUR COUNTYWIDE FUND WE ANTICIPATE ABOUT 13.4% LESS REVENUE TO SPEND ON COUNTY PROGRAMS. IF WE LOOK A YEAR OUT TO THE SECOND YEAR, THE GAP CONTINUES TO GROW, AND WE'LL -- WE EXPECT TO HAVE $112.7 MILLION LESS THAN WE HAVE THIS YEAR. THAT MEANS THAT TWO YEARS FROM NOW OUR APPROPRIATIONS MUST BE DOWN 19.4% FROM WHAT THEY ARE TODAY. NOW, STAYING WITH THE COUNTYWIDE GENERAL FUND, WE HAD SOME SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION PROVIDED LAST WEEK. THERE'S A MAY 1st DEADLINE FOR THREE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS TO SUBMIT THEIR BUDGETS, WHICH THEY EACH DID EARLY. THAT'S THE SHERIFF, THE CLERK, AND THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. IN LOOKING AT THEIR BUDGET SUBMISSIONS, IN THE COUNTYWIDE GENERAL FUND THEY'RE DOWN $4 MILLION NEXT YEAR VERSUS THE CURRENT YEAR. IF WE LOOK OUT TWO YEARS, THEY'RE UP $3.2 MILLION OVER THE CURRENT YEAR, SO IN TERMS OF THOSE BUDGET SUBMISSIONS, THEY'VE HELPED US A LITTLE BIT NEXT YEAR IN BALANCING THE BUDGET. THEY'VE BROUGHT THAT $77-MILLION ALMOST $78-MILLION DEFICIT DOWN BY FOUR MILLION, BUT THE FOLLOWING YEAR, THE DEFICIT BASED ON THOSE BUDGET SUBMISSIONS ACTUALLY GROW THE BUDGET DEFICIT FROM $112.7- TO $115.9 MILLION, AND THOSE ARE THE BUDGETS -- IN THE CASE OF THE SUPERVISOR AND THE SHERIFF, THOSE ARE THE BUDGETS YOU'RE REQUIRED TO USE. THERE'S NO ADJUSTMENT TO THOSE BUDGETS BEFORE PUBLIC HEARINGS IN SEPTEMBER. THE CLERK'S OFFICE DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME PROTECTION, BUT THOSE ARE THE OFFICIAL ESTIMATES THAT WE'LL USE IN PREPARING A BUDGET. IN THE CASE OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA GENERAL FUND AND FOR PEOPLE LISTENING, WE HAVE TWO GENERAL FUNDS BECAUSE THE BOARD PROVIDES COUNTYWIDE SERVICES WITH ONE SOURCE OF COUNTYWIDE REVENUES AND THEN WITH A SECOND SOURCE OF UNINCORPORATED OR MUNICIPAL-TYPE REVENUES. YOU PROVIDE MUNICIPAL-TYPE SERVICES. IN THAT UNINCORPORATED GENERAL FUND WE EXPECT REVENUE TO BE DOWN FROM THIS YEAR TO NEXT BY JUST UNDER 30 MILLION, AND THEN BY TWO YEARS FROM NOW TO BE DOWN A LITTLE OVER 45 MILLION, SO THAT REFLECTS ABOUT AN 8.3% REDUCTION OF REVENUE FROM THIS YEAR TO NEXT, AND LOOKING AT THIS YEAR VERSUS TWO YEARS FROM NOW ABOUT 12.6%. AGAIN, THE SHERIFF USES FUNDS OUT OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA GENERAL FUND BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE HE PAYS FOR THE ROAD PATROL PROGRAM, AND WITH THE SHERIFF'S BUDGET SUBMITTED LAST WEEK, THE SHERIFF HAS ASSISTED US NEXT YEAR BY REDUCING HIS BUDGET BY $7.8 MILLION, SO THAT REDUCES OUR DEFICIT FOR NEXT YEAR FROM JUST UNDER 30 TO ABOUT $22 MILLION, AND IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, COMPARED AGAINST THIS YEAR, THE BUDGET IS DOWN 5.7, SO NOT QUITE AS MUCH AS NEXT YEAR, BUT HE'LL BE CONTRIBUTING $5.7 MILLION IN THE UNINCORPORATED FUND TO REDUCE THE $45-MILLION DEFICIT THAT WE'D ANTICIPATED TWO YEARS OUT. SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE -- WHERE WE ARE. WE'VE BEGUN GOING THROUGH -- WE'VE REVIEWED ALL THE DEPARTMENTS' AND AGENCIES' BUDGETS AT LEAST ONCE. WE'RE IN THE PROCESS, WE BEGAN LAST WEEK, OF STARTING TO LOOK THROUGH MAKING SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO CLOSE THE -- THE GAP IN THE BUDGET, AND WE'LL BE CONTINUING THAT TOMORROW, FRIDAY, AND MONDAY, AND PROBABLY BY THIS TIME NEXT WEEK BE THROUGH THE FIRST ROUND OF THAT AND THEN CONTINUE TO FINE-TUNE THAT UNTIL WE START PUTTING THE ACTUAL BUDGET DOCUMENT TOGETHER FOR DELIVERY FOUR WEEKS FROM TODAY. BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: SO THE TOTAL REDUCTION FOR THE TWO-YEAR BUDGET CURRENTLY IS HOW MUCH? >>ERIC JOHNSON: IT IS -- I THINK IT'S UP TO $150 -- ALMOST $158 MILLION. THAT'S FUNDS -- WE HAVE OVER $800 MILLION IN REVENUE THIS YEAR, AND WE'RE LOSING ABOUT 11% OF THAT NEXT YEAR WITH A FURTHER DECLINE THE FOLLOWING YEAR. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR MR. JOHNSON? >>JIM NORMAN: AND THAT'S TOTAL AT 77.9, YOU SAID, RIGHT? >>ERIC JOHNSON: NEXT YEAR COUNTYWIDE 77.9, UNINCORPORATED 29.9, SO WE'RE AT ABOUT A HUNDRED -- I HAVE TO REFER BECAUSE THE NUMBERS ARE BEEN CHANGING. WE'RE AT -- IF I CAN FIND THE RIGHT SCHEDULE -- ABOUT $107 MILLION AND COUNTYWIDE OF WHICH -- WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER BUDGETS WE'VE CUT THAT BY 12.8 MILLION NEXT YEAR. SO WE HAVE A NET OF ABOUT $94 MILLION STILL TO CUT NEXT YEAR TO BALANCE THE BUDGET. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANKS FOR THE UPDATE. >>ERIC JOHNSON: THANK YOU. >>PAT BEAN: OKAY. MR. CHAIR, WE HAVE A -- ONLY TWO MINUTES BEFORE THE NEXT TIME CERTAIN. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM B-1, THE PROPOSED MEMBERSHIP OF THE HEALTH CARE STUDY COMMITTEE. IF EVERYONE IS PRETTY GOOD WITH THAT, YOU MIGHT GET THAT ONE OUT OF THE WAY, BUT IF YOU HAVE DISCUSSION, WE'LL HOLD IT UNTIL AFTER THE 1:45. >>KEN HAGAN: DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR -- >>PAT BEAN: QUESTIONS ON B-1, THE HEALTH CARE STUDY COMMITTEE MAKEUP. >>KEN HAGAN: B-1. >>ROSE FERLITA: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: HEALTH CARE STUDY COMMITTEE. IF NOT, CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MOVE APPROVAL. >>PAT BEAN: MR. HIGGINBOTHAM, DO YOU NEED TO -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: MY NOMINEE WITHDREW THIS MORNING, AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND PASS WITHOUT MINE AND GET A REPLACEMENT IN LATER. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAT BEAN: I WOULD SUGGEST NOW, THEN, THAT WE GO AHEAD WITH THE 1:45. THAT IS ITEM E-2. IT'S A SCHEDULED APPEARANCE BY SIMON CANASI TO DISCUSS AN UNFINISHED PROJECT IN THE LAKE ELLEN AREA. MR. CANASI'S HERE, AND I WILL ASK HIM TO COME TO THE PODIUM. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR ME OUT. I'VE GOT SOME HANDOUTS FOR EVERYONE HERE IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME. >>PAT BEAN: IF YOU'LL JUST GIVE THEM TO US, SIMON, WE'LL GET THEM OUT. >> I'M HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IS IN -- IN MY BACKYARD. IT'S -- BASICALLY, I CALL IT CHERNOBYL. THERE WAS A 28,000-SQUARE-FOOT STRUCTURE THAT WAS BEING BUILT THERE AND HAS BEEN ABANDONED, AND I'VE SHOWN YOU -- YOU'VE GOT PICTURES THERE, ONE DIRECTLY OF WHAT'S BACK THERE, ONE THAT SHOWS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT FROM MY DRIVEWAY, AND ONE THAT SHOWS YOU WHAT I'M LOOKING AT ALL THE WAY FROM THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE. MY HOUSE IS THE YELLOW ONE IN THE PICTURE, AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT'S BEHIND ME. >>KEN HAGAN: SIR, I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW I'M GIVING YOU FIVE MINUTES. >> OKAY. THIS HOUSE WAS BEING BUILT BY MR. PRADIP PATEL, PRADIP C. PATEL. BACK IN JANUARY OF 2006 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT THAT TIME APPROVED THE PROJECT 7-0, BUT EVEN BEFORE THE PROJECT GOT APPROVED THERE WAS ACTIVITY ON THE LAND, AND THE EPC WAS INVOLVED. BASICALLY, PHOTOGRAPHS IN NOVEMBER OF 2005 SHOW THE WETLAND AND THE LAKEFRONT DESTRUCTION THAT WAS SENT TO THE EPC. IT SHOWED COLLAPSED SILT BARRIERS, NONINSTALLED BARRIERS, VEGETATION DESTRUCTION ON THE WATERFRONT AND INTO THE LAKE, RUNNING OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES ON THE WATER SIDE OF THE SILT BARRIERS, EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES IN THE WETLANDS, AND THE -- AND SINCE THE PROJECT HAD BEEN ISSUED PREVIOUS WARNINGS FOR CUTTING DOWN TREES WITHOUT PERMITTING, THE PROJECT WAS GIVEN A STOP ORDER FOR TWO YEARS TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE LAKEFRONT VEGETATION TO NATURALLY RESTORE. IT'S INTERESTING THAT ALL OF THESE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED BEFORE THE APPLICATION HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLANNED. ONCE THE TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM WAS LIFTED OR WAS GONE, THEY STARTED CONSTRUCTION AGAIN. THEY BUILT THESE STEEL BEAMS THAT YOU'VE GOT THAT BASICALLY WHAT I CALL IT IS -- IS I GOT A BACKYARD FULL OF MONKEY BARS NOW, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE JOB WAS ABANDONED FOR WHAT I UNDERSTAND MAY BE FINANCIAL REASONS. YOU CAN SEE THE UNSIGHTLINESS THAT I HAVE TO LOOK AT EVERY DAY AND THAT MY NEIGHBORS HAVE TO LOOK AT EVERY DAY. IT'S DISGUSTING. I WANT TO THANK COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PAT BEAN. SHE'S BEEN WORKING WITH ME ON THIS, AND SHE'S DONE EVERYTHING WITHIN HER POWER THAT SHE CAN POSSIBLY DO. I UNDERSTAND THAT NOTIFICATION WAS SENT TO MR. PATEL TO AT THE VERY LEAST RIGHT NOW REMOVE ALL THOSE CONCRETE BLOCKS. NONETHELESS, THE STRUCTURE IS STILL THERE. IT'S ABANDONED, IT IS STARTING TO RUST, AS YOU CAN SEE. YOU'VE GOT PILLARS UP, AND I SPENT MANY YEARS SAVING A LOT OF MONEY TO BUILD MY DREAM HOME THERE, AND I'VE BEEN THERE ABOUT SIX YEARS, AND TO HAVE THIS HAPPEN BEHIND ME IS REALLY UNBELIEVABLE. I WOULD LIKE THE COUNTY COMMISSION TO SEE THIS. ATTACHED TO THIS INFORMATION IS BASICALLY A TIMELINE OF EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED WITH ALL THE VIOLATIONS AND ALL OF THE INSPECTIONS THAT WERE DONE, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE PICTURES. I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF ANYBODY'S GOT ANY QUESTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. AND I'LL SAY FOR ONE I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE STRUCTURE. I DRIVE THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, EVERY MORNING AND AFTERNOON TAKING MY SON TO SCHOOL AT CARROLLWOOD ELEMENTARY, IN ADDITION TO PASSING OVER A NUMBER OF SPEED BUMPS, BUT -- THAT'S A TOPIC FROM EARLIER DISCUSSION. >> I'M A LITTLE TICKED OFF ABOUT THE SPEED BUMPS TOO, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER CHAPTER; RIGHT? >>KEN HAGAN: WE'LL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION IN TWO WEEKS -- >> ABSOLUTELY. I'LL BE HERE FOR THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: -- ON ORIGINAL CARROLLWOOD. PAT, WE'VE SPOKEN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS. HAVE WE EXHAUSTED ALL REMEDIES THAT -- THAT WE CAN TO HELP THIS GENTLEMAN? >>PAT BEAN: WELL, I'VE HAD BOTH DEXTER BARGE AND HIS STAFF AND ALSO THE FOLKS FROM PGM -- >>JIM NORMAN: CAN'T HEAR YOU. >>PAT BEAN: I'M SORRY? >>KEN HAGAN: CAN'T HEAR YOU. >>PAT BEAN: OKAY. I'VE HAD DEXTER BARGE AND HIS STAFF AND ALSO THE FOLKS FROM PGM INVOLVED IN LOOKING AT THIS BECAUSE SIMON AND I HAD TALKED ABOUT IT ONCE. I HAD ASKED STAFF TO WORK ON IT. THEY HAD, AND IN THE MEANTIME NOTHING SATISFACTORY HAPPENED, AND SO HE CALLED ME AGAIN, AND I GOT STAFF BACK TOGETHER. I'D LIKE DEXTER AND MAYBE HARRY HEUMAN TO PERHAPS BOTH COME UP AND TELL YOU WHERE THEY ARE. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, DEXTER. >>DEXTER BARGE: GOOD AFTERNOON. DEXTER BARGE, DIRECTOR OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. YES, WE'VE BEEN -- MADE SEVERAL VISITS TO THE PROPERTY, MADE ATTEMPT TO CONTACT THE PROPERTY OWNER -- EXCUSE ME -- AND HE REFERRED US TO HIS REPRESENTATIVE, MR. SAM ARIF. WE HAVE MET HIM ON THE PROPERTY, WE'VE WALKED THE PROPERTY. IN ADDITION TO THE STRUCTURE BEING THERE, WE'VE IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF OTHER NUISANCE VIOLATIONS ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY. WE ADDRESSED THAT WITH MR. ARIF, AND AS OF THIS MORNING HE HAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH A CONTRACTOR TO GO OUT AND CLEAN UP -- AT LEAST CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR CODES AND ORDINANCES DOES NOT ALLOW US TO ACTUALLY GO IN AND CONDEMN AND DEMOLISH THAT STRUCTURE. WE'VE LOOKED AT IT FROM EVERY POSSIBLE ANGLE WE CAN TO TRY AND COME UP WITH, YOU KNOW, ALTERNATIVES AS TO WHAT WE COULD DO WITH THE STRUCTURE, AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE JUST -- WE JUST -- AFTER REVIEWING IT WITH LEGAL AND REVIEWING IT WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WE JUST -- WE DON'T HAVE THAT LEGAL AUTHORITY AT THIS TIME TO GO IN AND ACTUALLY DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE. >>KEN HAGAN: ARE FINES BEING GENERATED ON IN? >>DEXTER BARGE: CORRECT. WE ARE -- WHAT WE'VE DONE, WE'VE ISSUED THEM A NOTICE OF VIOLATION. WE HAVE A RECHECK ON MAY 15th. AT THAT TIME IF IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE, IT WILL BE REFERRED TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, AND THEN THAT'S WHEN FINES WOULD BEGIN. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: I HAVE A QUESTION, THEN, MR. BARGE. YOU MEAN THAT'S WHEN THEY WILL -- THAT'S WHEN THEY BEGIN. THERE ARE NO FINES IN PLACE NOW? >>DEXTER BARGE: THERE'S NO FINES RUNNING CURRENTLY, NO, MA'AM. >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, THEN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. MAYBE IT'S NOT IN A SITUATION WHERE WE AS A GOVERNMENT CAN CONDEMN IT, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT DOCUMENTATION HERE STARTING IN NOVEMBER OF '05, HOW IS IT THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S BEEN ABLE TO BE ACCRUED IN TERMS OF A NUISANCE OR ANYTHING ELSE? >>DEXTER BARGE: WELL, WE -- I REMIND YOU -- AND I'LL LET MR. HEUMAN TALK MORE TO THIS. THERE WAS A PERMIT FOR THIS STRUCTURE AND PERMITS WERE IN PLACE. WE DID HAVE FOLKS OUT THERE A YEAR AGO OR EVEN BEFORE THEN, BUT IT WAS AN ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION SITE WITH PERMITS AT ONE POINT, SO -- >>ROSE FERLITA: WHEN DID THE PERMITS EXPIRE IN WAS THERE - - >>DEXTER BARGE: I BELIEVE THEY EXPIRED A YEAR AGO, APRIL '08, I BELIEVE. THIS WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION AGAIN JUST RECENTLY WITHIN THE LAST -- PROBABLY WITHIN THE LAST MONTH WHEN I RECEIVED THE PHONE CALL FROM MS. BEAN, AND THAT'S WHEN WE ACTIVATED OUR STAFF, WENT OUT AND CONDUCTED ALL THE INSPECTIONS AND INITIATED OUR CASE. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. SO IF I WERE THE RESIDENT THAT WAS LOOKING AT THIS EACH AND EVERY DAY, WHAT CAN THE EXPECTATION BE? I MEAN, I KNOW THAT THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME BECAUSE OF STATE STATUTE, WHICH IS ALWAYS FRUSTRATING TO THE CITIZEN, BUT, I MEAN, THERE MUST BE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IS -- THAT IS ALLOCATED FOR COMPLIANCE. AND I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS TO WHERE WE ARE NOW THAT ALTHOUGH MAYBE WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A CONDEMNATION ORDER, WHAT IS IT THAT WE CAN DO TO GIVE THIS GENTLEMAN SOME RELIEF IS ACTUALLY WHAT I'M -- >>DEXTER BARGE: WELL, MA'AM, THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN -- WE'VE BEEN DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO IT. THE ONE THING THAT WE ARE -- OTHER THAN CLEANING UP THE PROPERTY, CUTTING THE GRASS, REMOVING ALL THE CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS THAT'S LEFT OUT THERE, WE HAVE MET WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, AND THEY HAVE AGREED TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION ON A -- ON A CONCRETE WALL THAT'S GOING TO BORDER HIS PROPERTY; HOWEVER, THAT WALL IS NOT GOING TO SHIELD HIS VIEW, AND WE'RE JUST AS FRUSTRATED AS HE IS BECAUSE OUR HANDS ARE SOMEWHAT TIED. >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, BUT -- BUT LET ME JUST CUT YOU SHORT FOR A MINUTE, MR. BARGE. I KNOW AGAIN THE CONDEMNATION WE CAN'T BECAUSE OF STATE STATUTE AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE VIOLATOR HAS MORE RIGHTS THAN THE PERSON THAT'S HAVING TO BE ANNOYED BY THIS, BUT EVEN IF THERE WERE A LESSER CHARGE OR A LESSER VIOLATION NOTICE OF OVERGROWTH, ACCUMULATION, DA, DA, DA, DA, DA, DA -- OKAY, WHEN THEY COMPLY WITH THAT, I KNOW THAT THEY CAN START AGAIN, BUT IF THEY DON'T COMPLY IN A TIMELY FASHION -- THAT'S WHAT I'M MISSING HERE -- WHY ARE THERE NOT ANY KIND OF PAPERWORK TRAIL OF FINES OR LIENS OR SOMETHING ELSE? >>DEXTER BARGE: MA'AM, IT WAS NEVER -- AND I CAN'T REALLY -- I CAN'T SIT HERE AND ANSWER WHY THERE WAS NOT ANOTHER COMPLAINT GENERATED. AT ONE POINT LAST YEAR THERE WAS AN ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND I GUESS THE GRASS WASN'T OVERGROWN, IT WASN'T AS BAD AS IT IS NOW, BUT OVER TIME IT HAS BEGAN TO WORSEN, AND SO WE HAVE GONE OUT -- ONCE WE RECEIVED ANOTHER COMPLAINT, GONE OUT AND DID OUR INSPECTION, AND NOW WE'VE REFERRED IT TO THE CODE -- WILL BE REFERRING IT TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD IF IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE BY THE 15th OF MAY. >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, THEN, JUST TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THIS -- AND NOT THAT I'M TRYING TO DRILL YOU, BUT I'M TRYING TO GET SOME RELIEF FOR MR. CANASI -- THEN OVER THIS PERIOD OF TIME BASED ON THE PAPERWORK HE'S GIVEN US, THERE HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLAINTS GENERATED ABOUT OVERGROWTH OR ACCUMULATION OR INAPPROPRIATE ANYTHING? >>DEXTER BARGE: I CAN'T SAY THAT THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS GENERATED. >>ROSE FERLITA: BUT MR. BARGE, IF A CONSTITUENT HAS REGISTERED THAT COMPLAINT, WOULD WE NOT HAVE ANY RECORD OF THAT? >>DEXTER BARGE: YES, WE WOULD. WE WOULD HAVE IT. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO, THEN, DO WE? >>DEXTER BARGE: I CAN'T -- I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS SINCE LAST YEAR OF APRIL -- APRIL THE 8th WHEN THE PERMIT EXPIRED. I KNOW THAT OUR STAFF -- >>ROSE FERLITA: ALL I'M SAYING IS IF THAT'S THE CASE AND IF THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINT, IT SEEMS LIKE -- WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO YOU, WE KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO COME UP TODAY. I WOULD EXPECT SOMEBODY THAT'S REPRESENTING CODE ENFORCEMENT TO BE HERE AND SAY, YES, COMMISSIONERS, SINCE THE TIME THE PERMIT EXPIRED, THESE ARE BEEN THE COMPLAINTS, AND SO THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH SOME OF THOSE COMPLAINTS. WE REALLY DON'T KNOW THEN? >>DEXTER BARGE: THE LAST ADMINISTRATIVE REFERRAL WAS CLOSED OUT IN APRIL OF '08, AND I'VE GOT SEEN ANY COMPLAINTS IN OUR SYSTEM SINCE THEN. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO THEN I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION ULTIMATELY IS TO MR. CANASI. HAVE YOU COMPLAINED TO SOMEBODY IN THIS CODE ENFORCEMENT STRUCTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY? >> I DID SO BEFORE APRIL OF 2008. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. SO THEN I THINK THE FIRST THING THAT YOU HAVE TO DO -- AND IT'S A SHAME THAT I'M PUTTING IT BACK ON YOU, MR. CANASI, BUT WHILE WE SEE WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT THE STATUTE ALLOWS US TO DO AS WE GO FORWARD -- BECAUSE THIS IS CERTAINLY ABANDONED -- THEN EVERY TIME YOU SEE SOME SORT OF DIFFICULTY WITH THE PROPERTY, YOU NEED TO CONTINUE SENDING US A COMPLAINT SO WE CAN SEND IT ON TO THEM, SO THEN THE NEXT TIME WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AND WE SAY WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMPLAINTS, THAT WOULDN'T BE TRUE. WE WOULD HAVE THEM. SO FEEL FREE TO SEND IT TO ANY OF US, BUT -- >> I PROMISE YOU, I'M GOING TO BE A GNAT ABOUT THIS. >>ROSE FERLITA: I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR CORRESPONDENCE, SIR. >> YOU KNOW ME, MS. FERLITA. YOU KNOW I CAN BE A GNAT WHEN I NEED TO BE. >>ROSE FERLITA: I HATE TO TELL YOU, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, SIMON, WE HAVE TO BUILD A CASE -- >> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. >>ROSE FERLITA: -- AND YOU CAN GET AGGRAVATED EVERY TIME YOU GO HOME AND LOOK AT IT WITH YOUR WIFE AND YOUR FAMILY, BUT YOU NEED TO JUST CONSTANTLY LET US KNOW THAT IT'S NOT SATISFACTORY, AND THEN HE WILL HAVE A PAPER TRAIL. >> AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE PERMITTING MAY HAVE EXPIRED IN APRIL OF 2008. THE JOB'S BEEN ABANDONED LONGER THAN THAT, AND I AM HAVING TO PAY SOMEBODY NOW TO COME OUT TO MY PROPERTY TO CLEAN UP MY BACK FENCE BECAUSE OF THE OVERGROWTH FROM BEHIND ME THAT'S GROWING THROUGH MY BACK FENCE. SO IF -- IF, IN FACT -- AND LOOK, I -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU -- ANY OF YOU FOLKS KNOW MR. PATEL, BUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED BACK THERE BASICALLY, IT'S BEEN A PHILOSOPHY OF I'D RATHER BEG FOR MERCY THAN ASK FOR PERMISSION. THIS IS WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON BEHIND MY HOME. AND IT'S GOTTA STOP. YOU KNOW, THESE ARE INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE ANY KIND OF SPECIAL TREATMENT BECAUSE OF WHO THEY ARE AND ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S AFFECTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD THE WAY IT. IT'S -- >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, RULES ARE RULES FOR EVERYBODY, SO THANK YOU. >> SO I WILL ASSURE YOU THAT I WILL BE VERY DILIGENT IN COMMUNICATING. I'M GOING TO GET CARDS FROM EVERYBODY, AND I'M GOING TO STAY ON IT, AND IF, IN FACT, THERE IS A WALL THAT'S COMING UP, I WELCOME THAT WALL JUST AS LONG AS HE MAKES MY SIDE PRETTY. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE OTHER SIDE LOOKS LIKE. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JIM NORMAN: MS. LEE, HAVE WE -- I KNOW CODE ENFORCEMENT OR WHATEVER -- HAVE WE -- BECAUSE OF THIS IRRITATION, I MEAN -- I MEAN, LOOK AT THE PICTURES. WE HAVE TRIED EVERY POSSIBLE WAY TO CONTACT THE PATELS TO SAY THIS IS -- >>RENEE LEE: COMMISSIONER, FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT -- >>JIM NORMAN: HAVE YOU CONTACTED THEIR ATTORNEY, HAVE YOU -- I GUESS MY POINT IS SOMEBODY NEEDS TO SAY, LOOK, YOU NEED TO BE A GOOD COMMUNITY CITIZEN HERE AND DEAL WITH THIS. THIS IS -- THIS IS AN EYESORE FOR NOT ONLY THIS GENTLEMAN, THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY OUT THERE, AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A PRIDE IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND IT'S JUST NOT DOWNTOWN AT AN ARTS FACILITY. >>RENEE LEE: I AGREE. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO WRITE THAT LETTER TO -- >>JIM NORMAN: AND I WILL SAY A STEP FURTHER, I MEAN, WHAT IS THAT PROPERTY BEING APPRAISED AT? I'D LIKE TO KNOW THAT. I'D ALSO LIKE TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, IF HE'S GOT -- FRANKLY, SIR, IF THEY BUILT THAT HOUSE THERE, YOUR PROPERTY VALUES WOULD HAVE DONE LIKE THAT. WITH THAT KIND OF SITTING THERE, WHAT'S MR. TURNER DOING ON HIS PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE GLAMOROUS CORNER PIECE, YOU KNOW, 30-BEDROOM HOUSE THAT WAS GOING TO GO THERE, YOU KNOW. I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE APPRAISALS AND WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE BECAUSE OF THIS EYESORE. I MEAN, THAT'S DETERIORATING ALL OF THE PROPERTIES OUT THERE INSTEAD OF ENHANCING, SO -- >>RENEE LEE: COMMISSIONER, I KNOW THAT RACHAEL GREENSTEIN, WHO IS THE ATTORNEY WORKING WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT, HAS LOOKED AT THIS ISSUE. THEY'VE DETERMINED THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE RIGHT NOW TO KNOCK IT DOWN. WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW THAT TOGETHER. >>JIM NORMAN: I'D LIKE TO SEE A LETTER, THOUGH, A -- A -- A LETTER GO TO MR. PATEL OR WHOEVER THE PROPERTY OWNER IS. HE SAID MR. PATEL. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT. >>PAT BEAN: IT IS. >> IT IS, PRADIP PATEL, PRADIP C. PATEL. >>JIM NORMAN: BUT MY POINT IS A REGISTERED LETTER ASKING THAT -- TAKE THESE PICTURES -- ASKING THAT IMMEDIATE ACTION BE TAKEN, THAT THIS IS A -- THIS IS A DETRIMENT TO THAT COMMUNITY OUT THERE, AND THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF PRIDE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND WOULD HE MAKE THIS A PRIORITY TO DEAL WITH THAT STRUCTURE. I MEAN, I THINK WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >>RENEE LEE: WE WILL DO IT. >> AND IN RESPONSE TO A COMMENT YOU MADE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF -- IF HIS STRUCTURE WERE COMPLETED THAT IT WOULD ENHANCE THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES, THAT'S TRUE, BUT THE HOME I LIVE IN, FROM THERE MY NEXT STOP IS GARDEN OF MEMORIES. I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE. I WANT TO SAY THERE, I JUST DON'T WANT THAT MONSTROSITY IN MY BACKYARD ANYMORE. NOW, MY CHILDREN CAN DEAL WITH THE APPRAISED VALUE LATER. >>KEN HAGAN: WE UNDERSTAND, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. MS. BEAN. >>PAT BEAN: OKAY. >>KEN HAGAN: WE HAVE A SERIES OF 2:00 TIME CERTAINS. >>PAT BEAN: YES. STARTING WITH ITEM D-1, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO ACCEPT COMMENTS ON THE COUNTY'S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 08-09 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN, AND THIS WILL BE PRESENTED BY VALMARIE TURNER. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, VALMARIE. >>VALMARIE TURNER: GOOD AFTERNOON. VALMARIE TURNER, DIRECTOR OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEPARTMENT. COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE HERE TODAY TO TAKE COMMENTS THROUGH PUBLIC HEARING ON THE COUNTY'S SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT FOR THE HOMELESS PREVENTION PROGRAM. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WILL BE RECEIVING $2.4 MILLION IN HOMELESS PREVENTION AND RAPID REHOUSING PROGRAM FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. THESE FUNDS ARE PART OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT. THE COUNTY WILL UTILIZE THESE FUNDS TO CARRY OUT ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES UNDER HOMELESS PREVENTION AND RAPID REHOUSING. THE PRIMARY INTENT OF THESE FUNDS IS TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR HOUSING EXPENSES TO PERSONS WHO ARE HOMELESS OR WOULD BE HOMELESS IF NOT FOR THIS ASSISTANCE. THE COUNTY IS PROPOSING TO IMPLEMENT A PORTION OF THESE FUNDS AND CONTRACT OUT FOR THE RAPID REHOUSING PORTION. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. RAYME KNUCKLES, CEO HOMELESS COALITION, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 2105 NORTH NEBRASKA, TAMPA, FLORIDA. AS YOU-ALL ARE AWARE, WE'RE THE LEAD AGENCY ON HOMELESS FOR THE CITY OF TAMPA, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THE STATE, AND IT'S RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS IS THE TEN-YEAR PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE'VE WORKED ON VERY DILIGENTLY. THESE FUNDS PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRANSFORM OUR CURRENT SYSTEM OF CARE, SHIFTING THE FOCUS FROM PROVIDING SHELTER TO PREVENTING HOMELESSNESS, IMPROVING COORDINATION AMONG SERVICE PROVIDERS, ELIMINATING THE FRAGMENTATION OF SERVICES AND DUPLICATION OF EFFORTS, AND INTEGRATING HOMELESS SERVICES WITHIN OUR MAINSTREAM RESOURCES. WHILE WE MAY NOT FULLY AGREE ON THE RFP PROCESS THAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED, WE WANT TO WORK CLOSELY WITH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE CONTINUUM OF CARE FOR THE USE OF THE HOMELESS PREVENTION FUNDS. WE UNDERSTAND THESE RESOURCES CAN'T POSSIBLY MEET ALL THE NEED -- POSSIBLY MEET ALL THE NEED, AND WE WANT TO BE STRATEGIC ABOUT THESE USES. THE CONTINUUM OF CARE SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES: THE CREATION OF A UNIFORM PROCESS FOR TARGETING ASSISTANCE THAT ASSESSES THE RISK OF HOMELESSNESS, ASSESSES STRENGTHS AND BARRIERS TO STABLE, PERMANENT HOUSING, AND PRIORITIZES INTERVENTIONS; THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE UNITY INFORMATION NETWORK TO IMPROVE THE ASSESSMENT, SERVICE COORDINATION, DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS OF SERVICE UTILIZATION, AND THE OUTCOMES; CREATION OF A FLEXIBLE POOL OF RESOURCES EASILY ACCESSIBLE BY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR THOSE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE USING MAINSTREAM MODELS THAT WILL HELP US HAVE ACCESS TO DOLLARS THAT FOLLOW THE CLIENT AND NOT THE ORGANIZATION; BETTER INTERVENTION OF MAINSTREAM RESOURCES WITH HOMELESS SERVICES; THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLICIES THAT PREVENT LOCAL TREATMENT FACILITIES FROM DISCHARGING PERSONS INTO HOMELESSNESS WITH RESOURCES TO ELIMINATE PLACEMENTS; AND OUTREACH TO LANDLORDS TO GAIN SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT THAT WAS STARTED WITH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND WITH FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, FLORIDAHOUSINGSEARCH.ORG. AS YOU'RE AWARE, THE HOMELESS COALITION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING TOGETHER VARIOUS AGENCIES, ENTITIES, SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS TO PLAN FOR AND PROVIDE A FULL RANGE OF ENERGY TRANSITIONAL AND PERMANENT HOUSING ALONG WITH SUPPORTIVE SERVICES TO ADDRESS THE VARIOUS NEEDS OF HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE HOMELESS AND AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT THE FULL SUPPORT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT A STRONG COLLABORATIVE EFFORT. ALONG WITH THE INFUSION OF THESE NEW RESOURCES, THE SERVICE SYSTEM WILL REMAIN FRAGMENTED, AND THERE WILL BE LIMITED IMPACT ON THE HOMELESS SYSTEM OF CARE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE POSITIVE LONG-TERM OUTCOMES. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MR. KNUCKLES. ANYONE ELSE? >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE THE ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: I'VE GOT ONE QUESTION. I'LL LET COMMISSIONER BECKNER GO FIRST. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND I KNOW MS. TURNER AND MR. ROGOFF AND I, WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE HOMELESS COALITION WITH THIS PROJECT, AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF -- BECAUSE I KNOW FROM MR. KNUCKLES' STANDPOINT -- WE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS OF THE CONCERN ABOUT WHAT ROLE THE HOMELESS COALITION MIGHT PLAY -- EXCUSE ME -- IN THIS PROCESS, AND I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD JUST SHARE WITH US WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE AND WHAT YOU SEE THE ROLE OF THE HOMELESS COALITION. >>VALMARIE TURNER: WELL, THE HOMELESS COALITION WOULD DEFINITELY -- VALMARIE TURNER. THE HOMELESS COALITION WOULD DEFINITELY BE AT THE TABLE AS IT RELATES TO THE DATA EVALUATION SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE LIKE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE TO MONITOR THE FUNDS THROUGH OUR IDIS SYSTEM. THE HOMELESS COALITION WILL BE WORKING WITH US AS IT RELATES TO HIS HMIS SYSTEM, SO WHEN WE START DEVELOPING THE CONTRACTS, WE CERTAINLY WANT HIM AT THE TABLE, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO THE INFORMATION THAT'S NEEDED, SO HE'LL DEFINITELY BE AT THE TABLE THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. >>KEVIN BECKNER: GREAT. MR. ROGOFF, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANTED TO ADD TO THAT? OKAY. >>KEN HAGAN: I GUESS -- YOU DO? >>JIM NORMAN: HE SHOOK HIS HEAD NO, AND THEN HE CAME RUNNING. [LAUGHTER] >>DAVE ROGOFF: DAVE ROGOFF, DIRECTOR OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES. JUST VERY QUICKLY. AS YOU'RE AWARE, COMMISSIONER, I'M ON THE BOARD OF THE HOMELESS COALITION, AND I THINK THAT SOME OF THE PLANNING THEY DO IS VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE HOMELESS ISSUE, SO AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, AS THIS IS IMPLEMENTED -- I'VE TALKED TO VAL ABOUT THIS. AS THIS IS IMPLEMENTED, THE PLANS THAT THEY'RE HAVING ARE VERY CRITICAL TO BEING SURE THAT WE ACCOMPLISH WHAT'S DESIRED BY THIS PROJECT, SO ANY INVOLVEMENT WE HAVE WE WOULD BE FULLY EXPECTING TO BE WORKING WITH THE HOMELESS COALITION AND OTHER PROVIDERS IN THE COMMUNITY. >>KEVIN BECKNER: AND THAT WOULD BE MY EXPECTATION AS WELL BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THE HOMELESS COALITION PROVIDES A VALUABLE SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY DEALING WITH ISSUES OF HOMELESSNESS, SO AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE SOME INVOLVEMENT IN THIS AND THAT THEY WOULD BE AT THE TABLE. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS -- AND I'VE SPOKEN WITH MR. KNUCKLES PREVIOUSLY. HE STATED THIS AFTERNOON THAT THEY ARE THE LEAD ORGANIZATION, AND THEN HE ALSO REFERENCED THAT HE MAY NOT AGREE WITH THE RFP PROCESS, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IF THEY ARE THE LEAD ORGANIZATION, WHY IS THERE AN RFP WITH RESPECT TO THE ONE ELEMENT OF THE FUNDS? >>VALMARIE TURNER: WELL -- VALMARIE TURNER. THE WAY WE LOOK AT IT IS IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTATION, CAPACITY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY. ULTIMATELY THE COUNTY IS TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE PARTICULAR DOLLARS. HE'S THE LEAD AGENCY AS IT RELATES TO THE CONTINUUM OF CARE, AND IT'S OUR JOB TO PARTNER WITH HIM AND COLLABORATE WITH HIM, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO SEPARATE SETS OF FUNDING. THE COUNTY RECEIVED THEIR OWN ALLOCATION AND THE CITY RECEIVED THEIR OWN ALLOCATION, AND WE DECIDED THAT FOR -- FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM THAT THE MIDDLEMAN IN THIS SCENARIO WAS NOT NEEDED IN TERMS OF FULLY IMPLEMENTING BECAUSE THE HOMELESS COALITION, MUCH LIKE OUR OFFICE, IS A CONDUIT OF FUNDS, BUT THEY DON'T ACTUALLY DO THE PROGRAM AND THE SERVICES THEMSELVES, BUT THEY'LL CONTRACT OUT FOR OTHER SERVICES, SO WE CERTAINLY, AGAIN, WANT THEM AT THE TABLE WORKING WITH US IN PARTNERSHIP WITH US, COLLABORATING WITH US, BUT ULTIMATELY WE'RE THE LEAD AGENCY ON THESE DOLLARS. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>KEVIN WHITE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>PAT BEAN: THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM D-2, DIRECTING STAFF TO NOT ARBITRATE TAMPA BAY WATER'S PROPOSED APPLICATIONS TO MODIFY THE EXISTING ERP FOR THE C.W. BILL YOUNG RESERVOIR AND REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLAN, AND MARIO CABANA IS HERE TO PRESENT THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, MARIO. >>MARIO CABANA: GOOD AFTERNOON. MARIO CABANA, WATER RESOURCE TEAM PROGRAM MANAGER. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. THIS NEXT ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO BOARD POLICY TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ARBITRATE A TAMPA BAY WATER ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION. THE PERMIT APPLICATIONS BEFORE YOU TODAY INVOLVE MODIFICATIONS OF TWO EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS HELD BY TAMPA BAY WATER. BASICALLY ONE APPLICATION IS TO ADDRESS INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AT TBW'S REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT, AND THE OTHER APPLICATION ADDRESSES ADJUSTMENTS TO WATER LEVEL CONTROLS AT ONE OF TBW'S WETLAND MITIGATION SITES NEAR THE REGIONAL RESERVOIR. BOTTOM LINE, STAFF HAS REVIEWED BOTH THESE APPLICATIONS AND FINDS THAT THERE ARE NO ISSUES WARRANTING ARBITRATION, AND, THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO NOT ARBITRATE THESE APPLICATIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>KEVIN WHITE: MOVE THE ITEM. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO -- DIRECTING STAFF NOT TO ARBITRATE THIS ITEM BY COMMISSIONER WHITE, SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM. >>PAT BEAN: THE NEXT ITEM IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AMENDING HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ORDINANCE 87-40 AS AMENDED RELATING TO FIRE PREVENTION AND LIFE SAFETY, AND YOU'RE GOING TO PRESENT THE ITEM? >>KEN HAGAN: YOU SKIPPED ONE. >> YOU SKIPPED D-3. >>PAT BEAN: OH, I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. 2:00. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING -- D-3, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 6.11.11 RELATING TO THE WAIVER OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PROXIMITY REQUIREMENTS. AND -- >>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, LOUIS. >>LOUIS WHITEHEAD: LOUIS WHITEHEAD, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. MR. CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS, THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS THE FIRST OF TWO REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARINGS ON A PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT THAT CONCERNS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PROXIMITY WAIVERS. THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING IN WHICH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR ADOPTION IS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 21st, 2009, AT 6:00 P.M. AS THE MATERIALS INDICATE, THE COURT HELD THE WAIVER PROVISION INVALID ON THE GROUNDS THAT ITS LANGUAGE VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES WHICH REQUIRE A WAIVER TO BE GRANTED IF THE APPLICANT SATISFIES THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE CODE. AS WRITTEN, THE WAIVER PROVISION IN SECTION 6.11.11.F AFFORDS THE HEARING OFFICER AN OPTION TO GRANT A WAIVER AND FURTHER PROVIDES THAT A HEARING OFFICER MAY ACT UPON THE WAIVER APPLICATION. THE COURT'S RULING ELIMINATED THE ABILITY OF APPLICANTS TO APPLY FOR AND TO RECEIVE WAIVERS PURSUANT TO 6.11.11 OF THE CODE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT INCLUDES THE REVISED WAIVER PROVISION RENUMBERED AS 6.11.11.E, WHICH ADDRESSES THE COURT'S OBJECTIONS AND, IF ADOPTED, WOULD RESTORE THE WAIVER PROVISION TO THE CODE. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. I'M PAMELA JO HATLEY, 14517 NORTH 18th STREET, TAMPA 33613. I'M AN ATTORNEY, AND I REPRESENTED THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT CASE, BUT I'M NOT HERE IN THAT CAPACITY TODAY, I'M HERE AS A CITIZEN OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROPOSED AMENDED ORDINANCE, THREE CONCERNS SPECIFICALLY. THIS WAIVER PROVISION IS A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION. COURTS HAVE HELD THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS REQUIRE ADEQUATE STANDARDS TO BE AN ORDINANCE TO GUIDE DECISION-MAKERS, THE STANDARDS HAVE TO BE SUFFICIENT TO BE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY TO SIMILAR APPLICANTS. I BELIEVE THE CRITERIA AT SECTION 6.11.11.E.3 ARE VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS. NOW, THE CIRCUIT COURT DID NOT FIND THOSE CRITERIA TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL; HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THEY ARE VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS. I THINK THE COUNTY CAN DO BETTER. I THINK THAT THEY EXPOSE THE COUNTY TO FUTURE CHALLENGES, AND ALSO, I BELIEVE THE CIRCUIT COURT'S DECISION, IF SUCH A DECISION WERE TO BE APPEALED, MIGHT NOT BE UPHELD. SECOND, I OBJECT TO THE NOTICE PROVISIONS AT 6.11.11.5. THOSE NOTICE PROVISIONS DON'T REQUIRE SURROUNDING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE USE ESTABLISH -- ESTABLISHMENT OWNERS TO BE NOTIFIED -- IF A WAIVER IS REQUESTED TO THE NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN 1,000 FEET, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE NOTIFIED. NOW, COURTS HAVE HELD THAT AB LICENSES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED PROPERTY AND THAT LICENSEES HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE PERMITS WHEN THEY'RE GRANTED AND ALLOW, YOU KNOW, NEARBY COMPETITORS TO MOVE IN. THIS ORDINANCE DOESN'T REQUIRE THEM TO BE NOTIFIED. THEREFORE, I BELIEVE THERE'S A DUE PROCESS PROBLEM THAT ALSO EXPOSES THE COUNTY TO CHALLENGES IN THE FUTURE. AND FINALLY, MY THIRD CONCERN IS THE SAME SECTION, 6.11.11.5 THAT REQUIRES PROOF OF NOTICE NO LATER THAN 20 DAYS AFTER A CUTOFF DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.02.00. WELL, SECTION 10.02.00 MENTIONS NO SUCH CUTOFF DATE, SO THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY MIGHT HAVE AN INTERPRETATION AS TO WHAT THIS MEANS, THE PUBLIC DOES NOT. THE PUBLIC DOES NOT KNOW THE CUTOFF DATE OR THE DATE THAT ANY PROOF OF NOTICE HAS TO BE SENT OUT, SO IN CONCLUSION, I BELIEVE THERE ARE DUE PROCESS ISSUES WITH THIS PROPOSED NOTICE AMENDMENT AND VAGUE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA. I WOULD LIKE TO PUT INTO THE RECORD MY LETTER THAT STATES ALL THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEARLY. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. >> OKAY. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS GOES TO RENEE LEE OR OUR -- OR OUR ATTORNEY, BUT MY QUESTIONS WERE DOES THIS -- DOES THIS CHANGE WEAKEN OUR PRESENT ORDINANCE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF CITIZENS AND PROPERTIES AND THE -- PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THIS NOTICE PROVISION OF EXISTING PROPERTIES CAN BE AFFECTED. >>RENEE LEE: OKAY. >>JIM NORMAN: I MEAN, MAYBE THIS NEEDS SOME MORE SCRUBBING, BUT PLEASE -- >>RENEE LEE: COMMISSIONER, THE INTENT OF THIS AMENDMENT WAS TO -- TO CORRECT THE FLAW THAT THE HEARING OFFICER IDENTIFIED IN OUR ORDINANCE. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS AMENDMENT CERTAINLY DOES THAT. AND ADAM, IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO THE -- SPEAK ABOUT THE NOTICE PROVISIONS AND THE AMENDMENTS THAT -- >>ADAM GORMLY: SURE. ADAM GORMLY WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. WE'RE AWARE OF MS. HATLEY'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE NOTICE ROW VISIONS. THAT WAS NOT AN ISSUE THAT SHE HAD LITIGATED IN HER CASE, BUT WE WERE AWARE OF THAT, AND WE DO -- HAVE LOOKED AT HER CONCERNS AND DO BELIEVE THAT THE NOTICE PROVISIONS THAT WE HAVE ARE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT. THERE IS MAILED NOTICE TO -- TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 TO 300 FEET, AS THE CASE WITH ALL SPECIAL USE PERMITS. IN ADDITION, THERE IS A PUBLISHED NOTICE FOR EACH OF THESE HEARINGS WHICH MEETS THE MINIMUM LEGAL REQUIREMENT PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES, AND IN TERMS OF THE WEAKENING OR AFFECTING THE -- THE STRENGTH OF THE ORDINANCE, IT'S NOT CHANGING THAT FROM WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY EXISTING. THERE WAS A -- IT WAS CORRECTING SOME PERMISSIVE RATHER THAN MANDATORY LANGUAGE ISSUE THAT THE COURTS HAD IDENTIFIED WITH THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. >>KEN HAGAN: AND THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS MAY 21st, 6:00 P.M. WE DON'T NEED ANY ACTION THIS AFTERNOON; IS THAT CORRECT? >>RENEE LEE: THAT'S CORRECT. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM. >>PAT BEAN: OKAY. NOW WE'LL GO TO D-4, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE FIRE PREVENTION AND LIFE SAFETY ORDINANCE, AND JANE ROSE IS GOING TO PRESENT THIS. >>JANE ROSE: GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. JANE ROSE WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. WE ARE PRESENTING TO YOU TODAY AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 87-40, WHICH IS THE FIRE PREVENTION AND LIFE SAFETY ORDINANCE. THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING SUGGESTED WILL ELIMINATE SOME OLDER LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE. IT WILL ALSO REPEAL THREE OLDER ORDINANCES WHICH ARE 95-10, 98-1, AND 01-20, AND IN ADDITION TO BRINGING THE LANGUAGE CURRENT, THE OTHER MAJOR THING THAT THE AMENDMENT WILL DO IS TO ALLOW THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE TO USE THE BOARDS OF APPEAL AND ADJUSTMENT WHICH CURRENTLY EXIST FOR HIS BOARD OF APPEALS, AND THE FIRE MARSHAL IS HERE AND THE FIRE CHIEF IS HERE SHOULD YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO EITHER OF THEM AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY NOTICED AND ADVERTISED ON APRIL 25th, 2009, AND IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO MOVE, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA TO AMEND -- >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: -- HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ORDINANCE 87-40, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE. NO FURTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>PAT BEAN: AND YOUR FINAL PUBLIC HEARING IS D-5. THIS IS TO ADOPT THE FINAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION FOR THE CHEVAL BORDEAUX RWIU, AND PAUL VANDERPLOOG IS HERE TO PRESENT THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, GENERAL. >>PAUL VANDERPLOOG: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS. YOU'VE HEARD THE PURPOSE. THIS IS A GOOD-NEWS STORY. RECALL PARTICIPATION IN RWIU IS VOLUNTARY. YOU APPROVED THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 2007. ALL THE STEPS HAVE TRANSPIRED SINCE THAT TIME. THE SYSTEM'S COMPLETED. 72 PARCELS ARE ON-LINE. THE PROJECT WAS CONSTRUCTED AT A COST OF ABOUT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS. THE ANNUAL -- THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT WILL BE $725, AND IT WILL APPEAR ON THE 2009 TAX BILL. THEREFORE, I'D RESPECTFULLY RECOMMEND YOU ADOPT THE FINAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION FOR THE CHEVAL BORDEAUX RWIU. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? PLEASE COME DOWN, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KELLY EGAN. DO YOU NEED AN ADDRESS OR ANYTHING? OKAY. I LIVE AT 19101 ST. EMILION COURT, LUTZ, FLORIDA 33518. I'M A SCHOOLTEACHER, NOT AN ATTORNEY, AND I GUESS THAT PART OF MY CONCERN IS THAT WHEN THIS WAS BEING TALKED ABOUT IN THE COMMUNITY AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE COST OF THIS, THE ESTIMATES THAT I WAS HEARING AT THE TIME, THAT IT WAS GOING TO RUN ABOUT $5,000 PER HOME, AND THIS WOULD BE ALLOCATED OVER A TEN-YEAR PERIOD AT A COST OF $500 A YEAR. NOW, THIS WASN'T PUT IN WRITING, AND, YOU KNOW, MY NEIGHBORS AREN'T HERE, SO MAYBE I'M THE ONE THAT MISUNDERSTOOD AND MISUNDERSTANDS, OR MAYBE I'M THE ONE WHO WATCHES MY BUDGET CLOSE ENOUGH TO WHERE IT MATTERS TO ME WHAT THIS ASSESSMENT IS, BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A NUMBER OF 8,200 AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $725 OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD AND THE -- AND THE FINAL AMOUNT BEING SOMETHING OVER $14,000, THAT IS -- THAT IS A LONG WAY FROM $5,000 THAT WE WERE ORIGINALLY TALKING ABOUT AS A COMMUNITY WHEN WE WENT FORWARD AND SAID, YEAH, THIS IS A GREAT IDEA BECAUSE IT MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF IT HELPS THE COMMUNITY WATER THEIR LAWNS AND IS RESPONSIBLE, AND IT MAKES SOMEWHAT OF ECONOMIC SENSE IN TERMS OF SAVINGS FROM -- FROM USING THE NORMAL WATERING SYSTEM, AND, YEAH, IT'LL BE A BREAK-EVEN FOR, YOU KNOW, FIVE TO TEN YEARS, BUT THEN YOU'LL GET PAYBACK ON IT, SO THAT WAS JUST MY CONCERN, AND I JUST WANTED TO VOICE IT, AND I'LL -- BE IT WHAT IT IS. OKAY. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: YEAH. GENERAL, WOULD YOU GO OVER THOSE NUMBERS. >>PAUL VANDERPLOOG: I DON'T HAVE THE TOTAL PACKAGE BEFORE ME, BUT HIS NUMBERS THAT HE GAVE YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY CORRECT. THE PROBLEM IS FROM INCEPTION TO CONCEPTION YOU HAVE TIME. TIME UNFORTUNATELY IN THIS DAY AND AGE TURNS OUT TO BE MONEY, AND THERE IS NO CONTRACT THERE. THE HOMEOWNERS GROUP IS ADVISED THROUGHOUT WHAT THE COST WILL BE. IT ELECTIVE. >>JIM NORMAN: WELL, THAT WAS MY SECOND -- MY NEXT QUESTION. THE ELECTORATE THAT VOTED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS VOTED KNOWING -- >>PAUL VANDERPLOOG: CURRENT COST, YES, SIR. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. THEY KNEW THE COST? >>PAUL VANDERPLOOG: YES, SIR. WE PROVIDE THAT TO THEM. I HAVE NO -- WE DON'T PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THEIR DELIBERATIONS OR BASIS FOR MAKING IT. THEY COME BACK TO US WITH SUFFICIENT PARTICIPATION, AND WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, THEN WE WILL EXECUTE AT THEIR BEHEST. THEY'VE BEEN ON THE WAITING LIST, AS YOU KNOW, FOR SOME TIME. THE POINT'S WELL MADE. I WISH I COULD WAVE A MAGIC WAND AND THAT WOULD CHANGE, BUT IT'S NOT, AND I THINK THE -- SHORT OF THE COMMUNITY COMING BACK AND NOT DESIRING TO PARTICIPATE, WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN, THE PROJECT WAS CONSTRUCTED. ALL COSTS ARE BORNE BY THOSE WHO PARTAKE THEREFROM. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE NEED A MOTION. COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A PLEASANT PROCESS, BUT FROM WHAT THE GENERAL SAID, IT IS A FAIR PROCESS, SO ALTHOUGH I'M NOT EXCITED ABOUT BEING THE ONE THAT'LL MAKE THE MOTION, I WILL, BECAUSE HIS EXPLANATION WAS FAIR. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>PAT BEAN: THE NEXT ITEM, COMMISSIONERS, IS YOUR FINAL TIME CERTAIN FOR TODAY, AND THAT IS ITEM F-1 THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR 2:20, AND THAT IS THE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ANNUAL EVALUATION PROCESS FOR THE IPA. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THIS ITEM WAS I GUESS AGENDAED BY THE REQUEST, I BELIEVE, OF COMMISSIONER NORMAN. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE ANY INTRODUCTORY MARKS OR DO YOU WANT TO HAVE THE IPA COME FORWARD, OR HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED? >>JIM NORMAN: YEAH, I -- THE WAY THE PROCESS WAS GOING LAST TIME, I THINK THE IPA NEEDS TO COME FORWARD, HE NEEDS TO LAY OUT HIS PLAN, AND THEN THE BOARD NEEDS TO DISCUSS SOME MORE DIRECTION. I MEAN, AND I'M GOING TO BE VERY UP FRONT AND FRANK WITH YOU. YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THAT POSITION IS DIFFERENT THAN MINE, CLEARLY. I MEAN, I SAT HERE WHEN IT WAS INITIATED, AND YOUR COMMENTS -- I WENT BACK AND REVIEWED YOUR COMMENTS FROM LAST TIME THAT YOU DIDN'T WANT TO BE JUST AN ADMINISTRATOR OVER -- THAT WASN'T THE WAY YOU PERCEIVED THAT POSITION. IT'S JUST DIFFERENT THAN WHEN -- WHEN I STRONGLY SUPPORTED IT AND WAS AN IPA AND AN ASSISTANT, AND THEN IT GREW AND GREW AND GREW. I THINK THE INVOLVEMENT OF MS. FRANK -- ACTUALLY, SHE WAS HERE WHEN I ALSO SAT HERE AND PARTICIPATED WITH THIS. THE DUTIES THAT -- THAT I UNDERSTOOD WAS THAT PERFORMANCE AUDIT WAS THE MAIN FUNCTION, THAT IS THE MAIN FUNCTION OF THAT DEPARTMENT. THEN WHILE THE BUDGET PROCESS IS GOING ON, IF A COMMISSIONER WANTS AN ASSISTANCE OF A REVIEW OF A PARTICULAR LINE ITEM, THEY WOULD ASK THE PERFORMANCE AUDITOR -- THAT'S WHERE THE -- THE BUDGET ANALYST IN A WAY CAME IN, THAT THEY WOULD ASK FOR ASSISTANCE ON A PARTICULAR UNDERSTANDING OF A SPECIFIC LINE ITEM, NOT FROM WHAT I HEARD -- FRANKLY, YOU DIDN'T MAKE THE PRESENTATION, BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF EVEN GIVING EXAMPLES OF OTHER COUNTIES IN AMERICA WHERE THE IPA TOOK OVER THE ENTIRE BUDGET PROCESS. I MEAN, IT'S GONE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF AN ANALYZATION OF ONE LINE ITEM TO TAKING OVER AND COMPLETELY BUDGETING FOR THE COUNTY. THAT IS SUCH A STICKER SHOCK TO ME THAT IT'S GROWING TO A POINT THAT IT'S GETTING OUT OF CONTROL, I MEAN, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT WE WANTED OUT OF THE IPA TO HELP US ACTUALLY SAVE MONEY, HELP US INTERPRET IF THERE'S A BETTER PROCESS AND A BETTER WAY, AND THESE THINGS -- I MEAN, IT'S, AGAIN, EXAMPLES OF THIS THING GROWING OUT OF CONTROL. THE REASON I WANTED THE CLERK HERE, THE CLERK'S OUR AUDITOR. THE CLERK AND -- THE CLERK AUDIT POSITION IS AN ELECTED AUDIT POSITION. THIS IS AN IPA POSITION, A PERFORMANCE AUDIT, TO EITHER GO OUT AND GET EXPERTISE TO ANALYZE A PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT OR DO IT THEMSELVES, HOWEVER WHAT'S BEST, BUT THAT'S OUR -- THAT'S OUR CLERK, THAT'S OUR AUDITOR, AND I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY REFOCUS THIS BEFORE WE JUST WENT OFF AND SAID, OKAY, LET'S -- LET'S REVIEW THIS POSITION AND GO OFF AND BE MERRY. THIS HAS GOT US SIDETRACKED, AND I REALLY FEEL BAD ABOUT THAT. I'LL LET YOU MAKE COMMENT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF MS. FRANK WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ABOUT MY THOUGHTS ON THAT, BUT WE SAT THROUGH THE WHOLE THING TOGETHER, AND THAT'S -- THAT'S HOW I PERCEIVED IT, AND I KNOW YOU ALSO HAD A LOT OF DEBATE DURING THAT TIME. >>PAT FRANK: WANT ME TO SPEAK NOW? >>KEN HAGAN: SURE. >>JIM NORMAN: YEAH. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CLERK. >>PAT FRANK: THANK YOU. PAT FRANK, CLERK OF THE COURT. MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS. LET ME -- LET ME SAY THAT WHEN I WAS A COMMISSIONER -- AND I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER NORMAN AND COMMISSIONER HAGAN HEARD ME MANY TIMES SAY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT WE DO IS PASSING THE BUDGET AS COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE YOU THEN SET THE PRIORITIES FOR THE COUNTY, AND HAVING CONTROL OF THE PURSE STRINGS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. I FOUND THAT A RATHER FRUSTRATING EXPERIENCE FOR ME. IF YOU'LL RECALL, I EVEN GOT TO THE POINT WHERE I STARTED GOING TO THE DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS SESSIONS THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAD SO THAT I COULD UNDERSTAND MORE FULLY WHAT IT WAS BEFORE THE BUDGET CAME BACK TO ME, AND THEN THOSE THAT I COULDN'T GO TO, I ASKED FOR THEM TO BE TAPED SO THAT I'D GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW WHAT WAS GOING ON. SO MY INTEREST WAS IN GETTING ALL THE ASSISTANCE I COULD IN GETTING MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED BEFORE I GOT INTO A FULL SESSION WITH THE BOARD ABOUT WHAT THINGS MEANT IN THE BUDGET. WHEN I SPOKE BEFORE THE CHARTER COMMISSION, I SAID THAT. THAT WAS THE THRUST OF MY INTEREST. THERE WERE OTHERS WHO WANTED THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR INCORPORATED IN THERE. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET ANALYST. I DID NOT OPPOSE THE PERFORMANCE AUDITOR AS LONG AS IT DIDN'T INTERFERE WITH THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CLERK'S OFFICE, AND I HAD NO INTENTIONS OF RUNNING FOR CLERK AT THAT POSITION, SO I FIND MYSELF IN A CURIOUS POSITION HERE WHERE I STILL MAINTAIN THAT POSITION. I DON'T WANT ANY INTERFERENCE WITH THE JOB THAT WE DO. WE ARE INDEED THE AUDITOR FOR YOU, AND WE AUDIT YOUR DEPARTMENTS. WE BELIEVE THAT OUR FUNCTION IS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH YOUR PROCESSES BUT TO ASSIST YOU, AND WE TRY TO COOPERATE WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR AND LET THEM KNOW AHEAD OF TIME WHAT WE'RE GOING TO AUDIT AND OUTLINE THE THRUST OF OUR AUDIT SO THAT EVERYONE'S COMFORTABLE WHEN WE GO IN AND DO OUR WORK. I DO NOT SEE EITHER ROLE, EITHER THE PERFORMANCE INTERNAL - - THE PERFORMANCE AUDITOR OR THE BUDGET ANALYST, AS BEING SOMEONE WHO GOES OVER AND STEPS OVER THE LINE BETWEEN THE COUNTY COMMISSION'S POLICYMAKING AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS THAT ARE PERFORMED. I THINK IT'S -- IT IS TO ASSIST YOU IN MAKING THE POLICY DECISIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE. NOW, I WENT THROUGH THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE AT THE PRIOR MEETING, AND I KNOW THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED, AND ONE WAS, WELL, WHY DON'T WE JUST LET THE CLERK DO THE PERFORMANCE AUDITING? LET ME SAY THAT WE ARE CAPABLE OF DOING THAT. IN FACT, I ASKED MR. POHTO TO GIVE ME AN OUTLINE OF HOW MANY PERFORMANCE AUDITS THE CLERK'S OFFICE HAD DONE -- HAS DONE PRIOR TO THIS DATE, AND BETWEEN 1995 AND '09 WE PERFORMED 13 PERFORMANCE AUDITS FOR YOU. I REMEMBER VERY WELL THE HARTLINE PERFORMANCE AUDIT THAT WAS DONE WHICH WAS WHEN I WAS SITTING ON THE BOARD, AND BEFORE THAT ONE OF THE MOST TESTY ONES WAS IN THE HEALTH CARE PLAN, LOOKING AT THE INDIGENT HEALTH CARE PLAN. THAT WAS VERY INTRICATE. IT REQUIRED THAT WE HAD TO HIRE EXPERTS BECAUSE IT DEALT WITH ACTUARIAL TABLES AND SO FORTH, AND WE DID THAT, AND AS BEST AS WE CAN RECALL, THE COST OF THAT WAS $25,000. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE TAKE OVER THAT, BUT I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE OPTIONS THAT YOU HAVE BECAUSE IT CERTAINLY IS NOT MY JOB TO INTERFERE WITH YOUR DUTIES AND TELL YOU WHAT YOU SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T DO, BUT WHATEVER YOU DECIDE, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE A CLEAR LINE THAT'S DRAWN BETWEEN THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR OR THE BUDGET ANALYST, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, AND OUR OFFICE, AND IF IT ONCE MOVES IN THAT DIRECTION, THEN I WILL BE FORCEFULLY SPEAKING OUT TO PROTECT OUR ROLE BECAUSE WE DO SERVE AS A GUARDIAN FOR YOU SO THAT THERE ARE THINGS -- NOTHING GOES WRONG WITH YOUR OFFICE, AND WE JEALOUSLY GUARD THAT POSITION OF INDEPENDENCE. SO I'D BE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS, OR IF I CAN JUST SIT DOWN AND YOU WANT TO ASK ME QUESTIONS LATER, THAT WOULD BE FINE. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. >>PAT FRANK: THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: APPRECIATE IT. >>JAMES BARNES: GOOD AFTERNOON. JIM BARNES, THE COUNTY INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR, AND FIRST I'D LIKE TO THANK COMMISSIONER NORMAN FOR HIS COMMENTS. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THEY WERE WELL RECEIVED, AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION. WE DID A LOT OF RESEARCH TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE ROLE OF THIS OFFICE SHOULD BE. EVEN WHEN I CAME ON, I MET WITH COUNTY ATTORNEYS TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD PROTOCOL IN PUTTING RESOLUTIONS BEFORE YOU TO DO ANY WORK RELATING TO PERFORMANCE AUDITS. IN RESPONSE -- IF I CAN SAY, COMMISSIONER, IT IS NOT MY INTENTION AND NEVER HAS BEEN MY INTENTION TO TAKE OVER THE BUDGET FROM THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. THE WAY THAT I ENVISIONED BUDGET ANALYST IS MORE THE WORD "ANALYST" IS THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE BUDGET AND THEN COMMENT TO YOU ON WHATEVER THE ISSUE MIGHT BE, BUT IT DEFINITELY WAS NOT MY INTENTION TO EVER PREPARE THE BUDGET OR IN ANY WAY INTERFERE WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S ROLE THERE. AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THAT BASED ON MY READING OF THE COUNTY CHARTER AND ACTING AS THE BUDGET ANALYST OR AS THE PERFORMANCE AUDITOR, THAT ANY WORK THAT I DO HAS TO BE APPROVED BY YOU-ALL. NOW, THAT INTERPRETATION OF WHEN I GET INVOLVED IN SOMETHING -- BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT REQUIRES DOING PRELIMINARY WORK TO WHERE I CAN COME TO YOU AND ASK YOU TO GO FURTHER, AND I GUESS THAT NEEDS TO BE DEFINED. AND I REALLY TOOK THAT AS THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION TODAY IS TO CLARIFY ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS SO THAT WE CAN GO FORWARD AND BETTER PERFORM FOR YOU-ALL IN THE ROLE THAT YOU SEE THIS OFFICE TO BE, WHETHER WE DO THE AUDITS INTERNALLY BECAUSE YOU APPROVE THAT OR THE FACT THAT WE OUTSOURCE AND FIND OTHER SOURCES TO COME IN HERE AND DO IT. WE CAN DO IT IN ANY FORM OR FASHION THAT BEST PLEASES YOU IN ACCOMPLISHING OUR MISSION. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD IN MY REVIEW OF PREVIOUS AUDITS THAT WERE DONE CALLED "PERFORMANCE AUDITS," VERY RARELY DID WE FIND WHERE THERE WAS COST EFFICIENCIES OR COST SAVINGS, ESPECIALLY THOSE DONE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF 2000, THE ONES THAT WERE DONE DURING THE 2000, 2004 BY EXTERNAL AUDITORS. WE ALSO EVALUATED WORK THAT WAS DONE PRIOR, AND TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON, MANY OF THE COST SAVINGS RECOMMENDED HAVE NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BY THE COUNTY, AND WE'VE NOT RECOGNIZED MANY OF THE COST SAVINGS THAT SOME OF THOSE AUDITS RECOMMENDED. I WOULD BE SUGGESTING IN THE FUTURE THAT WE TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE AUDITS TO SEE IF WE CAN'T IMPLEMENT SOME OF THOSE PRACTICES SO THAT THE COUNTY CAN REALLY ACHIEVE WHAT WAS REPORTED BACK AT THAT TIME. WE WANT TO SEE IF THEY'RE STILL APPLICABLE AND THAT SORT OF THING. BUT AGAIN, I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER NORMAN'S COMMENTS. HE WAS HERE. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ON YOUR ASSESSMENT. AGAIN, IT'S NOT MY INTENTIONS TO TAKE OVER ANY ROLE HERE OR TO PERFORM ANY ACTIVITY THAT THIS BOARD DOES NOT ASK US TO DO OR APPROVE IF I COME BEFORE YOU TO DO THAT. I WOULD HOPE THAT FROM THIS DISCUSSION TODAY THAT THIS WILL BE CLARIFIED AND UNDERSTOOD, THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, AND THAT MY OFFICE NO LONGER BE AN ISSUE BEFORE YOU BUT TO SERVE THE ROLE THAT IT WAS PUT IN HERE TO DO. ALSO, IN CLOSING, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT IT IS NOT MY INTENTION TO IN ANY WAY TREAD ON THE COUNTY CLERK'S RESPONSIBILITIES. I WISH TO WORK WITH HER OFFICES ON ANYTHING THAT RELATES TO IMPROVING THIS COUNTY'S OPERATIONS WHERE IT BE FINANCIAL AUDITS, COMPLIANCE AUDITS, PERFORMANCE AUDITS, BUT IN NO WAY DO I INTEND TO INTERFERE WITH HER ABILITY OR CAPABILITY IN DOING HER WORK. I RECOGNIZE THAT MINE IS TO PROVIDE THAT CONSULTING ROLE, IF YOU WILL, TO YOU-ALL, BUT AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE THAT YOU-ALL -- NOW THAT I THINK THAT WE HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY WHAT THAT ROLE IS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND PROVIDE THAT SERVICE TO YOU. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MS. FRANK, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME CLEAR SOMETHING. WHEN I WAS LISTENING TO YOU VERY INTENTLY, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF AUDITS YOU DID AND THE EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH YOU DID IT AND THE COST AT WHICH YOU DID IT. I WAS SNICKERING, CERTAINLY NEVER AT YOU TO BE DISRESPECTFUL, BUT IT WAS AMAZING TO ME THAT YOU GOT THAT DONE, AND I THINK MY LAST COMMENTS WILL MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT MY FIRST COMMENTS ARE ABOUT, SO -- LAST TIME I BROUGHT UP MY -- MY DISSATISFACTION ABOUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH OUR RELATIONSHIP AND THE EFFICIENCY OF THE IPA'S OFFICE I JOTTED DOWN SOME QUESTIONS, AND IN SOME CASES MR. BARNES DIDN'T PERHAPS UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION OR DIDN'T COMPREHEND WHAT I WAS WANTING HIM TO RESPOND TO, SO THIS TIME, INSTEAD OF SCRIBBLING NOTES -- AND I'M SAYING THIS, MR. CHAIRMAN, SO THAT YOU WILL INDULGE ME WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO STATE SPECIFICALLY WHAT I'M ASKING SO THAT IF MR. BARNES WANTS ME TO REPEAT IT, I WILL REPEAT IT EXACTLY AS I DID INITIALLY IN MY COMMENTS. OKAY. ON MARCH 18th MR. BARNES APPEARED BEFORE US REQUESTING PROMOTIONS FOR STAFF AND A STAFFING EXPANSION. AT THAT TIME I ASKED ABOUT A PEER REVIEW REQUIREMENT FOR HIS OFFICE. HE RESPONDED BY INDICATING THAT IT TAKES US ABOUT 400 STAFF HOURS TO PREPARE FOR THIS. HE USED THE PREPARATION OF PAPERWORK FOR THE PEER REVIEW AS A RATIONALE FOR REQUESTING A FIFTH POSITION FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 150 DAYS. I HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK BACK AT HIS WORK PLAN AND FOUND THAT HE'S BEEN COMMITTING QUITE A FEW HOURS ALREADY TO PREPARING FOR THAT SAME PEER REVIEW. FOR EXAMPLE, IN APRIL OF '08, WORK PLAN UPDATE YOU PRESENTED TO THE BOARD, MR. BARNES, YOU DEDICATED 300 HOURS LAST FISCAL YEAR TO PREPARING A PEER REVIEW. HE LATER REVISED THE WORK PLAN IN JULY OF '08 TO INCREASE THE HOURS FOR PEER REVIEW PREPARATION TO 400 HOURS FOR THAT SAME FISCAL YEAR. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE HE HAD SET ASIDE SUFFICIENT TIME LAST YEAR TO PREPARE FOR THE PEER REVIEW AND CERTAINLY WEREN'T OVERLOADED WITH AUDITS BECAUSE LAST FISCAL YEAR HE FINISHED UP WITH THE FIRST PERFORMANCE AUDIT IN THE HISTORY OF THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT POSITION. THIS YEAR'S WORK PLAN DEDICATED AN ADDITIONAL 200 HOURS TO PREPARE FOR THAT SAME PEER REVIEW. THAT TAKES US UP TO ABOUT 600 HOURS IN TWO FISCAL YEARS TO PREPARE FOR THIS PEER REVIEW. THAT IS BEFORE YOU ASKED FOR A DEDICATED FIFTH POSITION FOR 150 DAYS, AND THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY OTHER ALLOCATIONS OF TIME IN YOUR WORK PLAN FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, NETWORKING, AUDITING INTERFACES, ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES, AND FOR MISCELLANEOUS SELF-INITIATED RESEARCH AND STUDIES. MR. BARNES' RESPONSE TO COUNTY COMMISSIONER BECKNER'S QUESTION IN MARCH WITH A FOLLOW-UP REPORT DATED MARCH 20th IN WHICH HE REPRESENTED THAT YOU RESCINDED THE PRIOR WORK OF THE IPA AND THAT THE THREE-YEAR DEADLINE FOR A PEER REVIEW WAS RESTARTED -- WAS RESTARTED WHEN YOU ARRIVED. YOUR MEMO CITED THE YELLOW BOOK WITH ONE KEY OMISSION. YOU LEFT OUT A FOOTNOTE THAT CLEARLY STATES THAT THE EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW REQUIREMENT IS EFFECTIVE WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE AN AUDIT ORGANIZATION BEGINS FIELD WORK ON ITS FIRST ASSIGNMENT. I THINK THIS IS WHAT VIVIAN BACCA WAS TRYING TO POINT OUT ON OUR BEHALF IN REVIEW OF YOUR RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER BECKNER. I DISTRIBUTED HER COMMENTS, IF YOU-ALL RECALL, GENTLEMEN, AT THAT LAST BOARD MEETING. NOW, BY THE END OF THE LAST FISCAL YEAR, THREE YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE KATHY MATHEWS BEGAN FIELD WORK ON THE FIRST AUDIT IN '05. ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, THE YELLOW BOOK, THAT MEANS THE PEER REVIEW WAS DUE. I QUESTIONED YOU ABOUT THAT DURING YOUR EVALUATION THREE WEEKS AGO, AND YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT WAS THAT IT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CLOCK RESTARTED WITH YOU. I WAS CURIOUS WHY I HADN'T RECEIVED ANY FOLLOW-UP FROM YOU BECAUSE YOU'VE CERTAINLY HAD THREE WEEKS OR SO TO EITHER SUPPORT THAT OR CORRECT THAT ERROR. MR. JOHNSON, I HAVE A QUESTION OF YOU, SIR. MR. JOHNSON, AS YOU'RE COMING UP, I KNOW LAST TIME I KIND OF STUCK YOU IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS, AND YOU WERE A LITTLE BIT HESITANT TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS DURING HIS EVALUATION AT THE LAST MEETING. SINCE THEN I'VE ASKED YOU TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS PEER REVIEW REQUIREMENT, AND IF YOU COULD JUST PLEASE TELL US FOR THE RECORD, WHAT'D YOU FIND? >>ERIC JOHNSON: ERIC JOHNSON, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIRECTOR AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR. COMMISSIONERS, I CONTACTED GAO AND ASKED ABOUT THE PEER REVIEW REQUIREMENT, AND THEY INDICATED THAT -- AND I GOT AN E-MAIL BACK THAT THE PEER REVIEW REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO THE AUDIT ORGANIZATION, EVEN A ONE-PERSON AUDIT OFFICE, RATHER THAN THE INDIVIDUAL, SO FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE OVERDUE FOR THE PEER REVIEW. >>ROSE FERLITA: AND JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, HOW LONG DID IT TAKE FOR YOU TO GET THAT INFORMATION? >>ERIC JOHNSON: COMMISSIONER, I SENT THAT ON APRIL 15th AND RECEIVED A REPLY THE SAME DAY. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. JOHNSON, THANK YOU. BUT DON'T GO. I STILL HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS. SO BASED ON OUR DIALOGUE HERE, IT APPEARS THAT MR. BARNES' UNDERSTANDING WAS NOT CORRECT AND PERHAPS MAYBE INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING, I DON'T KNOW THAT. SO MR. JOHNSON, YOU'RE OUR BUDGET GUY. TELL ME WHY YOU WOULD HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE PEER REVIEW REQUIREMENT, AND I THINK YOU DO FROM OUR CONVERSATIONS. >>ERIC JOHNSON: COMMISSIONERS, ONE OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET IS TO WORK WITH AUDITORS AND THE DEPARTMENTS THAT THEY'RE AUDITING TO ENSURE THE COUNTY DEPARTMENTS ARE RESPONSIVE. WE DEAL WITH MR. POHTO'S ORGANIZATION ON A REGULAR BASIS, WE DEAL WITH THE EXTERNAL AUDITOR, AND WE DEAL WITH THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR. THE PEER REVIEW IS A QUALITY CONTROL ELEMENT OF THE AUDIT PROCESS, AND TO DATE OUR OBSERVATION HAS BEEN THAT THE PROCESS USED BY THE IPA HAS BEEN CONFUSING AT BEST. PROBABLY THE BEST EXAMPLE IS THE AUDIT THAT THE BOARD RECEIVED BACK IN DECEMBER ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IN NOVEMBER WE'D RECEIVED THE FINAL DRAFT OF THAT DOCUMENT, RESPONDED TO IT, AND THE DOCUMENT THE BOARD RECEIVED IN DECEMBER HAD CHANGES THAT WE HAD NOT YET SEEN, AND SO I THINK THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF A PROCESS THAT'S NOT WELL DEFINED AND CHANGES AS THE PROCESS EVOLVES, AND SO MY PERSONAL INTEREST IS I THINK THAT A WELL-DEFINED PROCESS WILL COME OUT OF THE PEER REVIEW. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. WELL, MR. JOHNSON, OBVIOUSLY, LIKE I SAID, YOU WERE A LITTLE BIT HESITANT LAST TIME, BUT I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT, AND YOU'RE OUR BUDGET GUY. SO IT SEEMS TO ME, GENTLEMEN, THAT -- THAT MR. BARNES' RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE OF A PEER REVIEW REQUIREMENT WAS LESS THAN INFORMATIVE AND AS I SAID, PERHAPS MISLEADING. SO IT ALSO APPEARS, IN FACT, SOME VALUE TO HAVING OTHER AUDITORS LOOK AT HOW YOUR OFFICE CONDUCTS THOSE AUDITS. MR. BARNES, I THINK YOU SAID THAT YOU DESCRIBED YOUR BUDGET SUBMISSION THIS YEAR -- AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO YOUR MEMO TO US, YOU'VE HAD TWO MEETINGS WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; IS THAT RIGHT? >>JAMES BARNES: THAT'S CORRECT. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO CAN YOU JUST GIVE ME AN IDEA BASED ON YOUR ASSESSMENT, HOW'D THOSE MEETINGS GO? >>JAMES BARNES: OH, I THINK THEY WENT VERY WELL. THAT'S MY OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF IT. >>ROSE FERLITA: FOR WHAT REASONS? >>JAMES BARNES: WELL, WHEN WE PUT THE BUDGET TOGETHER, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE PUTTING IT IN THE MANNER THAT THE BUDGET OFFICE NEEDED THAT INFORMATION. WE PREPARED DOCUMENTS BASED ON OUR PREVIOUS SUBMISSIONS, AND WE WENT OVER THAT, AND THEY CORRECTED SOME OF THE ASSUMPTIONS AND THINGS THAT SHOULD BE USED IN PREPARING THAT, SO WE WENT BACK AND PREPARED ANOTHER ONE BASED ON THAT AND HAVE SUBMITTED A FINAL -- OUR FINAL DRAFT BECAUSE I'M SURE THERE MAY BE SOME CHANGES TO HER FOR THAT PURPOSE. >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, THAT'S FINE. MS. BEAN, I DON'T MEAN TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT I DID TAKE A FEW ACCOUNTING COURSES, AND I LOOKED AT IT, BUT MAYBE YOUR ASSESSMENT MAY BE MORE ACCURATE BECAUSE I WASN'T AT THE MEETING. TELL ME HOW YOUR VERSION OF THAT MEETING WENT. >>PAT BEAN: WELL, WE DID MEET TWICE, AND THE FIRST TIME -- WE WERE ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING EVERYBODY'S BUDGETS ONE BY ONE. WE WERE BRINGING IN THE DIFFERENT PARTIES, DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS. AT THAT POINT WE HAD NOT RECEIVED A BUDGET FOR THE IPA, SO HE CAME TO THE MEETING THAT DAY AND BROUGHT THE BUDGET THAT HE WAS PRESENTING. IT WASN'T ON THE FORMS THAT WE HAD ASKED EVERYONE TO COMPLETE, AND IT DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT WE NEEDED IN ORDER TO DO AN ANALYSIS CONSISTENT WITH THE ANALYSIS WE DO ON EVERYBODY ELSE'S BUDGET, AND HE AGREED TO GO BACK AND PUT IT ON THE RIGHT FORMS, AND HE DID PUT IT ON THE RIGHT FORMS. THERE'S STILL SOME ISSUES, I THINK, WITH THAT THAT HE NEEDS TO REPAIR IN THAT THE NUMBERS DIDN'T ADD UP. IF YOU WENT TO ONE PAGE, YOU GOT ONE NUMBER AND IT LOOKED LIKE THE REQUEST WAS FOR A TOTAL OF EIGHT POSITIONS, BUT ON THE SUMMARY PAGE IT ONLY SHOWED FOUR, BUT THE OTHER PAGE SHOWED EIGHT, WHICH WOULD BE AN INCREASE IN THE SIZE OF THE OFFICE. >>ROSE FERLITA: I NOTICED SOME OF THOSE -- SOME INACCURACIES. ANYWAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, PLEASE INDULGE ME. I'VE GOT ABOUT ANOTHER PAGE, PAGE AND A HALF, OKAY. SO MR. BARNES, WE ESTABLISHED AT AN EARLIER MEETING YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING BOARD DIRECTION IN REGARD TO MR. GENTILE'S POSITION. I THINK I WAS VERY VERBAL ABOUT THAT. SPECIFICALLY THAT POSITION WAS AUTHORIZED BY RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD TO ONLY WORK ON PERFORMANCE AUDITS. THAT OCCURRED AT A TIME WHEN THE FORMER IPA ASKED TO DO AUDITS IN-HOUSE, AS I UNDERSTAND, RATHER THAN CONTRACT OUT AUDITS. WE NOW SEE THAT BY THE END OF THIS YEAR COUNTY TAXPAYERS WILL HAVE INVESTED $2.2 MILLION IN AN IPA FUNCTION AND PERHAPS -- LET'S JUST GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AS WE GO -- PERHAPS WE WILL HAVE OBTAINED A TOTAL OF THREE AUDITS, AND THAT'S GIVING YOU CREDIT FOR THE UNFINISHED ANIMAL SERVICE AUDIT. THAT'S QUITE A PRICE FOR TAKING AUDITS IN-HOUSE, AND THAT'S WHY I WAS SNICKERING AT WHAT MS. FRANK WAS SAYING. IN ESSENCE, YOU HAVE REDIRECTED RESOURCES AWAY FROM THE PURPOSE OF THE CHARTER AMENDMENT. YOU HAVE FAILED TO MEET PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS IN REGARDS TO THE PEER REVIEW SO THAT WHEN YOU OCCASIONALLY COMPLETE AN AUDIT, YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT YOU DON'T MEET THE STANDARD, AND HAVE YOU HAD THE -- AND YOU'VE HAD THE GALL FOR -- TO ASK FOR MORE RESOURCES WHILE FAILING EVEN THE MODEST TASK OF PREPARING A BUDGET SUBMISSION ON TIME AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH GUIDELINES. ADDITIONALLY, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'VE COMMITTED SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES, FOR EXAMPLE, TO REVIEW THE CONSENT AGENDA. I'M PERSONALLY SENSITIVE WHAT IS PLACED ON THAT AGENDA VERSUS THE REGULAR AGENDA, YET I FAIL TO SEE THE VALUE IN THE RESOURCES THAT YOU'VE COMMITTED TO REVIEWING THE CONSENT AGENDA INCLUDING THE TIME THAT MR. GENTILE HAS SPENT ON THOSE AUDITS. AND I KNOW THAT WE ASKED YOU FOR SOME OF THAT, SO WE WILL TAKE THE BLAME WHEN WE ARE DUE TO TAKE PART OF THAT BLAME, BUT CLEARLY WE NEED A MEANS OF DIRECTING RESOURCES TO ACHIEVING PERFORMANCE AUDITS AND ALLOWING IN-HOUSE STAFF IN PLACE OF CONTRACTING FOR AUDITS, AND OBVIOUSLY THAT WAS A MISTAKE. IT'S A PENNY WISE AND POUND FOOLISH PRACTICE, LET'S SAY, TO COMPARE THE HOURLY COST OF A STAFF MEMBER IN YOUR OFFICE WITH THE HOURLY COST OF AN EXTERNAL AUDITOR BECAUSE WE ONLY PAY THE EXTERNAL AUDITOR FOR AUDITS THAT ARE COMPLETED. WE CLEARLY PAY YOUR STAFF FOR ALL SORTS OF THINGS THAT DON'T RESULT MANY TIMES IN COMPLETED AUDITS. WE CONTINUE TO HEAR HOW LIMITED RESOURCES WILL BE THE PROBLEM FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS. AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE TO RESPECT THE CHARTER WHICH ESTABLISHES THE IPA POSITION, ALTHOUGH REALLY WE COULD, AS MR. NORMAN SAID, HAVE AN IPA POSITION FUNDED BUT NOT -- BUT VACANT. ANYWAY, RESPECTING THE CHARTER, I'LL GO FORWARD. WE CLEARLY ARE PAYING A HEAVY PRICE FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF AUDITS, 2.2 MILLION, FOR PERHAPS THREE AUDITS IN SIX YEARS. THIS IS NOT WORKING. WE HAVE TO DO BETTER. SO THESE ARE MY CLOSING COMMENTS. I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE A MOTION OR TWO FOR CONSIDERATION. COMPROMISE WOULD BE THAT WE DOWNSIZE THE OFFICE OF THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR TO TWO POSITIONS EFFECTIVE MAY 20th, CONSISTING OF THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR AND ONE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT. THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT IS SPECIFICALLY NOT TO BE FILLED WITH A SECOND AUDITOR BUT AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSON WHO SHOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH THE COUNTY ORGANIZATION AND ITS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, AND CERTAINLY, THIS IS NOT PART OF THE MOTION, BUT AS AN ASIDE COMMENT, CHRIS CASTELLANO, WHO IS CURRENTLY SERVING IN THAT CAPACITY, WAS EMPLOYED HERE BEFORE AND SEEMS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WOULD HAVE. SO THAT WOULD BE MY FIRST MOTION, AND THEN I HAVE A SECOND DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THAT ONE. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, I HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO SPEAK WITH SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS, ONE IN PARTICULAR, MR. HURLEY, WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE -- I GUESS THE CREATION OF THE OFFICE, AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES WHERE HAVING LISTENED TO COMMISSIONER NORMAN AND SOME OF THE OTHERS WHO WERE INVOLVED FROM THE BEGINNING AND THE INCEPTION AND THEN KIND OF REEVALUATING MY SENSE OF WHERE I THOUGHT ORIGINALLY THE OFFICE SHOULD GO, I'D ALWAYS -- I GUESS I'D ALWAYS LOOKED AT THIS OFFICE AS AN OFFICE THAT WOULD PERFORM, OBVIOUSLY, PERFORMANCE AUDITS, WHERE THERE HAD BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO YELLOW BOOK STANDARD, AND I TALKED WITH MS. MATHEWS ABOUT THIS AT LENGTH, AND WHEN I CAME ONBOARD MS. MATHEWS WAS HERE, AND IT SEEMED TO BE THAT SHE WAS PRETTY MUCH BENT ON THE CREATION OF A LARGE OFFICE SIMILAR TO OTHER MODELS AROUND THE NATION, KANSAS CITY, I GUESS WAS ONE, SOUTH FLORIDA, WHERE YOU HAD A LARGE OFFICE WITHIN THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, NOT WORKING FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, INDEPENDENT, BEING ABLE TO PERFORM PERFORMANCE AUDITS BUT ALSO LOOKING AT OTHER QUESTIONS THAT COMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE. MR. HURLEY INDICATED TO ME IN OUR CONVERSATION THAT HE THOUGHT IT WAS THE INTENT -- THE ORIGINAL INTENT NOT FOR THE AUDITOR TO PERFORM PERFORMANCE AUDITS BUT THAT THE AUDITOR WOULD MANAGE AUDITS OUTSIDE AND THEN WOULD -- AND THEN WOULD DEAL WITH SMALLER QUESTIONS THAT THEY WERE CAPABLE OF HANDLING THEMSELVES INTERNALLY, SO I ASKED HIM AGAIN, DOES THAT MEAN THE -- AND I SAID, MR. HURLEY, DID YOU MEAN THE PERFORMANCE AUDITS WOULD BE DONE TO YELLOW BOOK STANDARD, AND HE ACTUALLY SAID NO, BECAUSE MS. MATHEWS ALWAYS HAD INDICATED TO ME WE COULDN'T USE AN OUTSIDE FIRM BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PERFORM THE AUDIT TO YELLOW BOOK STANDARD. THAT WAS HER ANSWER. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING TO IS I'VE LOOKED AT THIS OFFICE, AND I REALIZE AT A TIME WHEN WE ARE DOWNSIZING ALL OF GOVERNMENT, WE CAN'T BE AT THE SAME TIME TRYING TO BUILD A LARGE INTERNAL -- IPA OFFICE. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. AND SO THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES, WELL, THEN -- AND IF WE ARE TRYING TO BUILD AN IPA OFFICE, HOW BIG SHOULD IT BE? AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE CALLED AROUND AND I'VE ASKED, CAN YOU DO IT WITH FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT PEOPLE? THEY SAID, REALLY NO, TO GET THE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU NEED AND THE SIZE, IT NEEDS TO BE LARGER. SOME OF THESE ARE 15 AND 20 PEOPLE. WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO TO 15 OR 20, SO IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO TO 15 OR 20, WHERE SHOULD WE GO, HOW SHOULD WE DO THIS, AND I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, BUT I'VE ACTUALLY FOUND MYSELF LOOKING AT THIS DIFFERENTLY AND THINKING PERHAPS WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS GO BACK TO -- IF THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT, THAT WE HAVE A -- SOMEONE WHO MANAGES THE PERFORMANCE AUDITS AND THEN SOMEONE WHO -- AND TRACKS THEM, BUT WE'RE USING OUTSIDE AUDITORS, AND THEN WHEN WE HAVE -- IF WE HAVE BUDGET QUESTIONS, WE ASK THOSE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS; IF WE HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW -- I MEAN, I KNOW WE'VE LOOKED AT THE AUDITOR FOR ISSUES LIKE THREE STRIKES, WE'VE LOOKED AT THE AUDITOR FOR A WHOLE NUMBER OF ISSUES WHERE IT'S LIKE, OKAY, GO OUT AND TACKLE THIS ONE PROBLEM. TEMPS. WHEN I FIRST CAME ON THE BOARD, WE WERE LOOKING AT THE WAYS WE COULD SAVE MONEY BY I BELIEVE ELIMINATING A LARGE NUMBER OF TEMPORARY POSITIONS WE HAD AT THE TIME. AND SO I JUST -- I THINK, YOU KNOW, I'M -- I'M SEEING FOR MYSELF KIND OF AN ADJUSTMENT, AND WHILE I APPRECIATE THE POSITION WE'VE PUT YOU IN -- AND I WON'T SAY WE -- I -- LET ME JUST -- JUST MYSELF, AND AT TIMES, YOU KNOW, ASKING YOU TO DO A WHOLE HOST OF THINGS, I THINK AT TIMES YOU'VE COME IN WITH AN IDEA ON HOW YOU COULD DO EVEN MORE, BUT ACTUALLY, I THINK THAT WAS A MISTAKE. I THINK REALLY WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE WAS LET'S LOOK AT WHAT WAS REQUESTED AT THE BEGINNING, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN DO IT RIGHT, LET'S START, YOU KNOW -- LET'S WALK SLOWLY BEFORE WE START TO RUN, AND -- AND WITH KATHLEEN MATHEWS, BEGINNING WITH HER, THERE WAS NEVER EVEN THE INTENT OF HAVING A SMALL OFFICE AS SOME HAVE SUGGESTED. IT WAS ALWAYS THE PLAN TO HAVE A LARGE OFFICE, AND QUITE FRANKLY, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: WELL, LET ME JUST SAY, COMMISSIONER, IF YOU WOULD AMEND THAT TO OCTOBER 1, I WOULD -- I WOULD SECOND YOUR MOTION. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. NORMAN, THAT WOULD BE FINE, AND -- AND I'D CERTAINLY CONSIDER THAT, BUT WHAT MR. SHARPE SAID WAS VALID, BUT I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE UNDER A SEPARATE MOTION, SO YES, IN TERMS OF YOUR FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, ABSOLUTELY YES. >>JIM NORMAN: NO, AND THAT'S THE PERFORMANCE AUDITOR AND CHRIS CASTELLANO AS THE -- I MEAN, THEY WORK FOR US. >>ROSE FERLITA: NO. ABSOLUTELY, SURE. ABSOLUTELY. I'LL ACCEPT THAT WILLINGLY. >>JIM NORMAN: OCTOBER 1st. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WAS 13 AUDIT -- PERFORMANCE AUDITS THAT WERE PERFORMED BY THE CLERK'S OFFICE AT A TOTAL OF $25,000 FOR THE 13. IS THAT WHAT -- I'M ASKING FOR A CLARIFICATION. >>ROSE FERLITA: 25,000 EACH OR SOMETHING? >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>DAN POHTO: DAN POHTO, DIRECTOR OF COUNTY AUDIT WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THIS IS A LITTLE AWKWARD FOR ME, BUT WE WENT THROUGH AND TRIED TO LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE LOOKED AT FOR THE LAST 12, 14 YEARS, AND TO CLARIFY THE 25,000, WE -- WE WERE ASKED BY THE BOARD TO DO A -- A -- WHAT I WOULD CALL A HUGE AUDIT OF HSS, INCLUDING GENERAL ASSISTANCE ON THE INDIGENT PLAN AND HOW IT WAS PERFORMING. THAT BEING SAID, WE HIRED EXPERTS -- SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS TO COME IN IN ASSISTANCE IN SOME MEDICAL AND ACTUARIAL THINGS THAT WE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE, SO THAT'S -- FOR CLARIFICATION, THAT'S WHERE THE 25 WAS, FOR THAT ASSISTANCE, TO USE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SO -- BUT WE GOT 13 PERFORMANCE AUDITS FOR $25,000, AND WE'VE GOTTEN FOUR FOR TWO MILLION FROM HIM? I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. >>DAN POHTO: CAN I CLARIFY? >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YES, SIR. >>DAN POHTO: NO, WE'VE DONE 3 AUDITS THAT PROBABLY MOST OF THEM COULD BE CONSIDERED PERFORMANCE. IN THAT TIME FRAME, WE DID THEM INTERNALLY, AND ONE OF THEM WE WENT OUTSIDE AND SPENT $25,000. I EVEN HAD TO COME DOWN HERE FOR A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE BOARD, SO THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION I'D LIKE TO MAKE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHERS, IN FACT, COST? >>DAN POHTO: WELL, JUST OUR STAFF -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: IT WAS CONTINUING OVER -- GO AHEAD. >>JIM NORMAN: THE REASON -- I WAS INVOLVED WITH THAT TOO, AND MY POINT IS THERE WAS SOME EXPERTISE -- THAT WAS A $100-MILLION PROGRAM PER YEAR, AND -- AND THE LIABILITY THAT WE FELT SITTING AT THIS BOARD WAS THERE WAS A LOT OF CARE THAT -- WE WANTED TO BE VERY TECHNICAL AND VERY SENSITIVE ON WHERE STREAMLINING OR CUTS WOULD BE MADE IN SUCH A DELICATE PROGRAM THAT AFFECTED PEOPLE'S LIVES SO MUCH, SO WE INVOLVED THE CLERK'S OFFICE. THEY HAD TO GO OUT AND GET EXPERTS ON WHERE WE COULD STREAMLINE. THAT WAS JUST NOT A -- AN ADDING UP A COLUMN EXPERTISE THAT THEY HAD TO BRING TO THE TABLE. AND YOU-ALL UNDERSTAND THAT. I MEAN, THERE WAS ALL SORTS OF -- COMMISSIONER HART -- I MEAN -- WERE YOU HERE THEN WHEN WE DID THAT AUDIT? >> [INAUDIBLE] >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. I JUST RECALL THAT THE SENSITIVITY OF THE -- THE TYPE CARE THAT WE WERE COVERING, WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT ALL COUNTIES WERE DOING AND THE STREAMLINING THAT WE -- WE ONLY HAD SO MUCH MONEY AND WE HAD TO MAKE IT ALL WORK. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: OKAY. >>JIM NORMAN: AND SO THAT MONEY WAS WELL INVESTED BECAUSE IT SAVED US BOTH PEOPLE, LIVES, AND MONEY. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR MR. BARNES. YOU'VE DONE -- HOW MANY AUDITS HAVE WE REQUESTED THAT YOU DO? >>JAMES BARNES: WELL, SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE, WE DID ONE FOR PTC AT THE REQUEST OF THE -- THAT PARTICULAR BOARD, AND COMMISSIONER WHITE BROUGHT THAT REQUEST TO YOU-ALL. WE DID ONE OF EPC, WHICH WAS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE EPC BOARD. WE DID -- WHEN I WAS -- WHEN I CAME ON, THE PGM AUDIT WAS IN PROCESS. WE COMPLETED THAT AUDIT. IN FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR WE TOOK ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AUDIT, AND THAT TOOK UP QUITE A BIT OF OUR TIME DOING THAT PARTICULAR AUDIT, SO THOSE ARE THE ONES -- AS FAR AS AUDITS THAT WE'VE COMPLETED UNDER MY WATCH, THOSE ARE ONES THAT WE'VE COMPLETED, AND WE'RE CURRENTLY WRAPPING UP OUR ANIMAL SERVICES AUDIT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. AND WHY -- THERE IS A QUESTION THAT'S ARISEN ABOUT THE AUDITS NOT CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD OR -- THERE'S CRITICISM ON THAT ONE. AND THEN ALSO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, YOUR SIDE OF THIS -- OF THE CRITICISM ON MISLEADING THE BOARD -- POTENTIALLY YOU MISLED THE BOARD ON YOUR PEER REVIEW. >>JAMES BARNES: COULD I COMMENT ON THAT? >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR. >>JAMES BARNES: IT WAS NOT MY INTENTIONS TO MISLEAD THE BOARD ON THAT AT ALL. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING -- AND I APPRECIATE THAT MR. JOHNSON WENT TO GAO ON THAT. I FOLLOWED UP AND WENT TO THEM ALSO BECAUSE I WANTED TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF THAT, AND OF COURSE, WHAT I WAS TOLD WAS AT THE TIME THAT WE FIRST CLAIMED DOING YELLOW BOOK AUDITS, WHENEVER THAT STARTED, THAT'S WHEN THE CLOCK STARTED TICKING, AND MY PREDECESSOR DID NOT HAVE A PEER REVIEW DONE. THE TIME THAT WE SPENT THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED ON PEER REVIEW -- ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO IS PARTICIPATE IN A PEER REVIEW, TO GO OUT AND UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT IT ENTAILS SO THAT WE CAN PREPARE OUR OWN. THE TIME THAT HAS BEEN SPENT PRIOR TO THIS, EVEN THOUGH WE BUDGETED EITHER 400 OR 300 OR WHATEVER THE WORK PLAN SAYS, WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY USE ALL THAT TIME, BUT A LOT OF THE TIME THAT WAS SPENT WAS OUR PARTICIPATION IN OTHER PEER REVIEWS SO THAT WE WOULD GET AN UNDERSTANDING SO WE COULD COME BACK AND PREPARE OUR OWN. AGAIN, IT WASN'T MY INTENTION TO MISLEAD THE BOARD, IT WAS MY, FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCES, THINKING THAT I -- YOU KNOW, ONCE I CAME ON, HOW COULD I BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR WORK THAT WAS DONE PRIOR, SO I FIGURED THE CLOCK STARTED TICKING AT THAT POINT, BUT GAO IS RIGHT, IT'S THE OFFICE, NOT THE AUDITOR. AGAIN, THAT WAS MY MISINTERPRETATION OF IT. GAO CLEARED THAT, AND I AGREE WITH THAT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER WHITE. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. BARNES, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I WANTED TO ASK, THE -- WAS ABOUT THE PEER REVIEWS AS WELL, BUT WITH THE YELLOW BOOK STANDARDS, YELLOW BOOK, IS THAT THE ONE THAT GIVES THE DIRECTIVES OF THE PEER REVIEW, AND -- FIRST PART OF THAT QUESTION. SECOND, ARE YOU OR ANY OF YOUR STAFF ACTUALLY CERTIFIED BY YELLOW BOOK, OR IS THAT A PART OF THE PROCESS AS WELL? >>JAMES BARNES: THE GAO STANDARDS, THE YELLOW BOOK, THE GAGAS -- I MEAN, IT GOES BY A LOT OF DIFFERENT NAMES -- REQUIRE THAT EVERY THREE YEARS THAT A PEER REVIEW BE DONE IF YOU'RE CLAIMING THAT YOU PERFORM PERFORMANCE AUDITS OR THAT YOU USE THE YELLOW BOOK STANDARDS. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION -- AND I INQUIRED TO GAO. I WORKED FOR THEM FOR EIGHT YEARS. I NEVER WAS CERTIFIED YELLOW BOOK, AND THEY DO NOT ISSUE CERTIFICATIONS AS SUCH. THERE IS NO YELLOW BOOK CERTIFICATION. THE PEER REVIEW DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH YELLOW BOOK AS AN OFFICE, BUT IT DOES NOT CERTIFY AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE YELLOW BOOK COMPLIANT. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. I'M GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU IN A MINUTE, BUT I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION FROM THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, IF I CAN. IS THE MOTION TO DOWNSIZE THE OFFICE OF THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR TO ONE PERFORMANCE AUDITOR, WHICH WOULD BE MR. BARNES, AND ONE ASSISTANT? IS THAT THE -- IS THAT THE -- >>ROSE FERLITA: ONE EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT BASED ON HOW THE CHARTER -- >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>ROSE FERLITA: AND SINCE CHRIS IS THERE, LIKE I SAID, I CAN'T MAKE THAT INTO THE BODY OF THE MOTION BECAUSE AT ANY POINT HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING ELSE TO FIND ANOTHER JOB, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW CHRIS CASTELLANO IS FAMILIAR WITH THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, SO I THINK HE WOULD BE IDEAL TO FILL THAT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT POSITION. YES, SO ANSWER, YES, MR. WHITE. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. NOW, MR. BARNES, HAVING BEEN HERE SINCE THE TIME YOU'VE BEEN HERE BASED ON THE WORKLOAD THAT YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, DO YOU FEEL THAT YOUR OFFICE WOULD BE CAPABLE OF HANDLING THE WORKLOAD WITH JUST YOURSELF AND ONE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT? >>JAMES BARNES: WELL, AGAIN, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE WORKLOAD IS GOING TO BE AND HOW THE BOARD DEFINES THAT. IF MY WORK PLAN CALLS FOR ONE AUDIT, TWO AUDITS, THREE, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS AND WE ARE TO USE OUTSOURCE, THEN I WOULD COME BACK WITH A BUDGET BASED ON THAT. IF WE'RE WANTING ONE AUDIT DONE A YEAR, IT WILL TAKE APPROXIMATELY 25 YEARS TO DO EVERY DEPARTMENT, SO IF WE WANT TO EXTEND IT OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME OF ONE AUDIT A YEAR, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE CAN EXPECT AS FAR AS PERFORMANCE AUDIT. SO IT'S REALLY UP TO THE BOARD, AND ALSO, THE OTHER THING THAT DRIVES, OF COURSE, WHAT'S THE OBJECTIVES OF THE AUDIT? FOR US TO GO OUT, MY OFFICE, AND MAKE A DETERMINATION EITHER BASED ON RISK OR WHATEVER, THEN WE WOULD -- YOU KNOW, THERE WOULD BE TIME SPENT ON THAT -- >>KEVIN WHITE: ALL RIGHT. WELL, BASED -- >>JAMES BARNES: -- TO MONITOR THEM. >>KEVIN WHITE: BASED ON THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW -- AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ACCEPTED FOR OCTOBER 1 -- DO YOU FEEL THAT YOUR OFFICE WITH YOUR STAFF -- THE STAFF THAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE BETWEEN NOW AND OCTOBER 1, DO YOU THINK YOU COULD HAVE A PEER REVIEW DONE? >>JAMES BARNES: NO, SIR. WE'RE STILL IN THAT PROCESS OF PUTTING ALL THE PAPERWORK TOGETHER. WE WERE SCHEDULING IT. AT THIS TIME -- WE HAVE TO CONTRACT SIX MONTHS IN ADVANCE, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE A SELF-ASSESSMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW IS MAKING SURE THAT OUR PROCEDURES, EVERYTHING THAT THAT PEER REVIEW REQUIRES IS IN ORDER, AND THAT'S WHAT STAFF HAVE BEEN WORKING ON -- RATHER THAN DOING AUDITS THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON AT THIS TIME. WE ALSO -- IN ORDER TO GET THIS PEER REVIEW AT MINIMAL COST, WE WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN ANOTHER PEER REVIEW. THEY'VE ALREADY REQUESTED OUR ASSISTANCE IN DOING THAT, AND AS A TRADE-OFF, WE WILL GET THE PEER REVIEW FOR ZERO DOLLARS EXCEPT FOR THE TRAVEL COST OF THE TEAM COMING IN. WE HAVE TO PAY THAT PART OF THE EXPENSE. >>KEVIN WHITE: HOW LONG DOES A PEER REVIEW NORMALLY TAKE? >>JAMES BARNES: WHEN THEY COME IN, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE? THEY WILL PROBABLY BE HERE FOR ONE WEEK. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. JOHNSON, COME BACK UP, PLEASE. NOW, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'M NOT GOING TO ENGAGE IN DEBATING MR. BARNES, BUT JUST FOR -- JUST FOR CLARIFICATION ON THAT PEER REVIEW, THAT 3.55 THAT HE TALKED ABOUT AND THEN FAILED TO MENTION THE FOOTNOTE, THAT FOOTNOTE CLEARLY SAYS THAT IT BEGINS WITH THE FIRST ASSIGNMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH FINANCIAL AND PRACTICES AND THINGS, SO HE'S OVERDUE FOR THAT. IN TERMS OF WHAT MY MOTION WAS, THAT WAS -- THAT WAS THE FIRST PART, AND WE WILL ADDRESS IF THAT GOES FORWARD SETTING ASIDE FUNDS FOR EXTERNAL AUDITS. MY PROBLEM IS THAT I THINK THAT WE ASKED, MS. LEE, IF -- WHEN YOU GAVE US AN OPINION ON THE INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR THAT THEY SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION, SO THAT DOES NOT -- BASED ON THAT OPINION, THAT WOULD PROHIBIT MS. FRANK FROM BEING AN IPA? >>RENEE LEE: FROM ACTUALLY SERVING IN THE POSITION OF INTERNAL PERFORMANCE AUDITOR. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO THAT'S WHY MY TWO MOTIONS WOULD TRY TO GET THE MOST EFFICIENT RESPONSE OUT OF THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION POSSIBLE WITHOUT VIOLATING THAT -- THAT OPINION. SO AGAIN, JUST AS I SAID THE MOTION WOULD GO, AND THEN AFTER WE ADDRESSED THAT, WE WOULD SET ASIDE FUNDS FOR EXTERNAL AUDITS THAT THE IPA WOULD CONTRACT AND CONSIDER WHETHER WE MIGHT SUPPLEMENT THEM BY HAVING THE BOARD REQUEST ADDED PERFORMANCE AUDITS BE CONDUCTED BY THE CLERK UNDER EXISTING AUTHORITY FOR HER TO ASSIST IN. SO THE IPA WOULD CONTRACT IT OUT AND MS. FRANK'S OFFICE WOULD CONDUCT SOME PERFORMANCE AUDITS. AND IN TERMS OF HIS CONVERSATION A WHILE AGO IN RESPONSE TO MR. HIGGINBOTHAM, BY THE WAY, SOME OF THOSE THINGS HE TALKED ABOUT AUDITS, PTC, ET CETERA, IT'S MY OPINION AS A LAYPERSON ON THIS TYPE OF ISSUE THAT I THINK THOSE WOULD PROBABLY BE CATEGORIZED MORE AS NONAUDIT ACTIVITIES THAN AUDITS. MR. JOHNSON, DID YOU HAVE SOME SENSE ABOUT WHAT AMOUNT OF HOURS IT MIGHT TAKE FOR SOME EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE FOR AUDITS? >>ERIC JOHNSON: COMMISSIONER, I THINK IT VARIES. WE'VE TALKED TO KPMG, WHICH IS THE FIRM THAT HAS HISTORICALLY DONE SOME OF THE EXTERNAL AUDITS, THE OTHER FIRM BEING VALIENTE HERNANDEZ, AND IT WILL OBVIOUSLY VARY, AND MR. BARNES MAY WANT TO FOLLOW UP, BUT IT VARIES ON THE SCOPE OF THE AUDIT. WE CONTACTED KPMG -- ACTUALLY, I HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM NEXT WEEK ON A DIFFERENT ISSUE, BUT THEIR ORLANDO OFFICE DEALS WITH PERFORMANCE AUDITS. THEY'VE TOLD US $50- TO $100,000 PER AUDIT. AT THE EXTREME, THE LARGEST AUDIT THAT THEY'VE EVER UNDERTAKEN, THEY'RE CURRENTLY DOING A PERFORMANCE AUDIT FOR THE WATER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA. IT'S A HALF-MILLION-DOLLAR AUDIT, BUT THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY TOLD TO BRING IN SEVEN SPECIALISTS AT AN EXTRA COST TO DEAL WITH THAT, AND THAT'S A SYSTEM THAT HAS 1500 EMPLOYEES, SO IT'S CLEARLY A DIFFERENT SCALE THAN TYPICALLY WHAT WE WOULD SEE -- >>ROSE FERLITA: THAT'S HUGE. >>ERIC JOHNSON: -- BUT THEY HAD SAID EXPECT $50- TO $100,000, AND THAT FIRM IS AVAILABLE ON STATE CONTRACT. THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA AS AVAILABLE FOR THOSE TYPES OF SERVICES. >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, AND SHORT OF GOING FOR SOMETHING LIKE AN IPA POSITION THAT'S UNFUNDED, I THINK WHAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE A MOTION OF HERE MAKES MORE FINANCIAL SENSE BECAUSE AGAIN, BASED ON THE AUDIT, IF WE DON'T GET THE AUDIT DONE, WE DON'T PAY THEM. AND MR. SHARPE IS RIGHT, IN SOME CASES WE HAVE DISTRACTED MR. BARNES, AND THAT'S KIND OF PART AND PARCEL TO WHAT WE NEED TO DO IF WE WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH MORE EFFICIENCY. IF THIS GOES FORWARD AND I HAVE THE MAJORITY OF MY COLLEAGUES' SUPPORT, MAYBE WE COULD DO SOMETHING TO MAYBE RELOCATE HIM TO ANOTHER PART OF THE BUILDING SO WE DON'T DISTRACT HIM. AND AGAIN, LET ME JUST SAY PART OF THAT WAS OUR FAULT BECAUSE WE WERE DISTRACTING HIM TO DO OTHER THINGS. WE NEED TO GET BACK TO THE PROGRAM, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT MY MOTION ADDRESSES, SO IT'S STILL ON THE FLOOR. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. BARNES, IF THESE TWO POSITIONS ARE ELIMINATED -- AND I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR. IN YOUR MIND RIGHT NOW, ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC DUTIES OR ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC SERVICES THAT WE CAN EXPECT THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PERFORM OR YOUR ORGANIZATION WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PERFORM THAT WERE COMMONLY PERFORMED BEFORE WITH THESE TWO POSITIONS? >>JAMES BARNES: WELL, WE'LL DEFINITELY BE LIMITED TO WHAT WE CAN DO INTERNALLY. MANAGING OR MONITORING AN OUTSOURCE CONTRACT WILL TAKE UP A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TIME, BOTH IN PREPARATION WHILE THE AUDIT IS GOING ON AND THEN POST-AUDIT ACTIVITIES BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING LIKE GETTING AN AUDIT REPORT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS AND NOTHING FOLLOWED UP ON, SO YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT CAPABILITY. BUT I WOULD PROBABLY -- AND I CAN ONLY MAKE ASSUMPTIONS HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT IN THAT POSITION, BUT THAT WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DO CONSENT REVIEWS, WE WON'T BE AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE INQUIRIES THAT WE'VE BEEN PROVIDING FOR YOU IN THE PAST, AND OUR ABILITY TO REVIEW THE BUDGET WILL -- THAT FUNCTION WILL TOTALLY GO AWAY. >>KEVIN BECKNER: AND THEN THAT KIND OF LEADS INTO MY OTHER QUESTION, AND MY CONCERN, AS I EXPRESSED CONCERN BEFORE, AT LEAST HAVING THE AVAILABILITY TO BE ABLE TO -- IF AS A COMMISSIONER WE HAVE SOMETHING PARTICULAR THAT WE WANT TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT THAT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR ORGANIZATION, YOU KNOW -- MS. FRANK HAD TALKED ABOUT THE CAPABILITIES OF THE CLERK. I GUESS PERHAPS THIS QUESTION WOULD BE TO MRS. FRANK IS THAT IF -- IF YOUR DEPARTMENT, MS. FRANK, WOULD -- IF WE WERE -- AS AN INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER WERE TO CALL OVER TO YOUR DEPARTMENT AND REQUEST A SPECIFIC AUDIT OF SOMETHING INTERNALLY HERE, IF YOU WOULD HAVE, NUMBER ONE, THE WILLINGNESS AND, NUMBER TWO, THE CAPABILITY TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM THAT ON OUR BEHALF. >>PAT FRANK: WELL, FIRST OFF, WE ARE CERTIFIED. I CAN TELL YOU THAT. AND DAN POHTO DOES ALL OF HIS DUE DILIGENCE IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE HE HAS PEER REVIEW AND EVERYTHING'S UP TO SPEED. SECONDLY, YES, WE DO HAVE -- WE DO HAVE THE PERSONNEL TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE REQUESTS AS LONG AS THEY AREN'T OVERWHELMING, BUT ONE THING -- WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT DIRECTION YOU WANTED TO GO IN, AND I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT IT AND TALK WITH MR. POHTO IN GREATER DETAIL, BUT WE SPOKE ABOUT PERHAPS HAVING A SEPARATE DIVISION OF THE CLERK'S OFFICE THAT WOULD BE INDEPENDENT IN A SENSE. IT WOULD BE THE CLERK'S OFFICE, BUT IT WOULD BE A RESPONSIBLE BODY TO YOU. AND THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE CHARTER AND ALSO WOULD KEEP US SEPARATED FROM THE DAY-TO-DAY ACTIVITIES. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM IN OUR TAKING ON THE RESPONSIBILITY, BUT I DO WANT TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IT AT GREATER DEPTH IF THAT'S THE WAY THAT YOU WANT TO GO. >>KEVIN BECKNER: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE -- AND AMONGST MY COLLEAGUES -- THAT BY MAKING THIS CHANGE, WE'RE NOT -- AND I GUESS MAYBE IT'S MORE OF A QUESTION -- IS THAT WOULD WE BE LIMITED AS FAR -- WOULD WE BE ELIMINATING OUR RIGHTS TO GO OUT AND -- TO THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, WOULD WE HAVE TO BRING THIS IN FRONT OF A BOARD BEFORE WE CAN HAVE OUR OWN FOUR-HOUR STUDY LIKE WE TYPICALLY HAVE? >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEVIN BECKNER: OKAY. SO THAT WOULD REMAIN THE SAME. THEN YOU COULD LOOK INTO IF YOUR DEPARTMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE THAT. I JUST, AGAIN, WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STILL HAVE ACCESS TO INDEPENDENT EYES THAT ARE ABLE TO LOOK INDEPENDENTLY OUTSIDE OF OUR ORGANIZATION AT A PARTICULAR PROJECT. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: WOULD YOU COME TO THE PODIUM FOR A MINUTE. I REALLY NEED TO TELL YOU THIS. I MEAN, I'M GOING TO TRY TO BE A REALLY NICE GUY AND TELL YOU THIS. YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU'VE GOT A HECK OF A RESOURCE RIGHT THERE, AND I -- AND I KNOW, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS, ZINGERS THAT JUST SENT ME THROUGH THE ROOF WHEN YOU SAY, OH, YOU KNOW WHAT, I CAN DO ONE A YEAR, IT WOULD TAKE ME 25 YEARS. YOU KNOW, IF I WERE YOU, I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, I WOULD HAVE A COOPERATION TEAM, I WOULD -- I WOULD -- DAN POHTO AND MS. FRANK ARE -- THEY'RE GREAT IN THIS AREA, OKAY. I MEAN, IF YOU CAN'T GET THAT -- THEY'RE SOMEBODY THIS BOARD ADMIRES, RESPECTS. I WOULD SIT DOWN WITH THOSE FOLKS AND I WOULD SAY, OKAY -- FIRST OF ALL, THEY CAN IDENTIFY THE AREA OF NEED BY THE AUDITS THAT THEY'VE DONE -- BY THE FINANCIAL AUDITS THEY'VE DONE, THEY HAVE A VISION OF THIS COUNTY, AND THEY CAN IDENTIFY AREAS THAT WOULD NEED A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC REVIEW ON A PERFORMANCE LEVEL. YOU COULD COORDINATE A SECTION THAT SHE'S REPRESENTING TO YOU, THAT YOU COULD WORK WITH DAN POHTO. IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT EVER FLAIRS UP AS A MAJOR THING LIKE THE CATASTROPHIC CARE AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS WE SPOKE OF EARLIER, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE WOULD FUND THAT KIND OF AUDIT IN COOPERATION WITH YOU, IN COOPERATION WITH MS. FRANK, THAT WE WOULD AGENDA THAT AND WE WOULD HAVE A FUND THAT WE WOULD SET ASIDE FOR KEY MAJOR PROJECTS LIKE THAT. BUT TO HAVE YOU COORDINATING WITH THEM ON IDENTIFIED -- MAYBE THE TOP FIVE THAT YOU COULD GO DOWN THAT HAVE PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTY. THEY -- MS. FRANK, YOU'VE GOT TO KNOW WHERE THE HICCUPS ARE A LITTLE BIT AROUND WHERE THERE'S LITTLE ROUGH EDGES IN THIS COUNTY THAT NEED A LITTLE REVIEW. DAN POHTO I'M SURE DOES, AND YOU-ALL COULD WORK AS A TEAM THAT WAY AND NOT HAVE THIS GOING ON LIKE THIS. PERFORMANCE AUDIT, AUDITS, AND THEN MAYBE HAVE THAT SUBDIVISION THING THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT WE COULD STREAMLINE AND HAVE THOSE KIND OF THINGS. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE CAN'T DO THAT. >>PAT FRANK: I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOUR SUGGESTION IS, BUT I REALLY WANT TO HAVE SOME TIME AND DISCUSS IT WITH THE STAFF. >>JIM NORMAN: I UNDERSTAND. >>PAT FRANK: I'D HATE TO JUMP TO SOME CONCLUSION THAT WOULDN'T BE WORKABLE, SO IN ANY WAY WE CAN HELP YOU, WE WILL, BUT WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE INDEPENDENT INTEGRITY OF THE OFFICE. >>JIM NORMAN: EXACTLY. EXACTLY. >>PAT FRANK: AND SO WE HAVE TO BE SURE WE HAVE THAT BALANCE. >>JIM NORMAN: AND IN THE BEGINNING OF EVERY BUDGET CYCLE, WE COULD SAY -- WHEN WE SAY WE WANT THREE A YEAR, WE COULD PUT ASIDE 250,000 OR 200,000 OR WHATEVER IN A BUDGET. WE DON'T HAVE TO USE IT ALL, BUT IT CAN BE THERE WHEN WE IDENTIFY PROBLEMS THAT WE'D NEED TO GO OUT FOR OUTSOURCING. AND THAT'S THE WAY YOU STREAMLINE THIS DEPARTMENT, THAT'S THE WAY YOU HAVE A COORDINATION WITH OUR CLERK'S OFFICE, AND WE DON'T HAVE THIS STUFF GOING ON, AND DAN POHTO IS A PRO, AND I KNOW, MS. FRANK, YOU KNOW THAT. >>PAT FRANK: YES, HE IS. >>JIM NORMAN: AND, FOLKS, WE COULD HAVE A REAL GOOD AUDIT OPERATION HERE. AND GOING BACK ON THOSE AUDITS, I REMEMBER A MILLION DOLLARS THAT WAS SAVED, AND I KNOW YOU -- MS. -- WHENEVER A PERFORMANCE AUDIT WAS DONE ON THE CABLE STUFF, WE SAVED A MILLION BUCKS. >>PAT FRANK: CAN YOU SET A DATE WHEN YOU'D LIKE FOR US TO COME BACK WITH A RESPONSE? >>JIM NORMAN: MAYBE -- WOULD YOU LIKE TO PUT THAT IN YOUR MOTION? >>ROSE FERLITA: SURE. YOU TELL ME WHAT'S -- WHAT -- IS TWO WEEKS TOO LONG -- I MEAN TOO SHORT? 30 DAYS? WHATEVER YOU NEED BECAUSE, MS. FRANK, LET ME JUST TELL YOU, YOU NEED TO BE VERY COMFORTABLE THAT THAT KEEPS YOUR AUTONOMY SEPARATE FROM THIS AND WE STILL HAVE A SECOND ALTERNATIVE THAT I THINK, BASED ON THE MOTION -- THE LANGUAGE OF THE MOTION, IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU FEEL YOU CAN'T DO, THEN OF COURSE WE CAN MAKE THAT SAME MOTION EFFECTIVE BUT TO HIRE OUTSIDE CPA FIRMS AS MR. JOHNSON REFERENCED. >>PAT FRANK: RIGHT. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO IS 30 DAYS OKAY WITH YOU? >>PAT FRANK: IT IS. THAT WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO ME IF WE CAN WORK THAT OUT BECAUSE WE HAVE A FEW PROBLEMS WITH THE STATE BUDGET RIGHT NOW. >>ROSE FERLITA: THAT'S FINE. AND SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS WHEN YOU COME BACK FOR THAT IF THIS WORKS, I THINK ALL OF US WILL BE DELIGHTED; IF IT DOESN'T, THEN WE'LL GO TO MY PLAN "B," AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION SEPARATE FROM THIS ONE. >>PAT FRANK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU. SO -- >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YEAH, I THINK, MR. BARNES, YOU'RE HEARING THE CONCERN OF SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HERE, AND YOU NEED TO TAKE THAT TO HEART AND WORK THROUGH THESE ISSUES. I'VE NEVER FELT OR SENSED THAT YOU WANTED TO TAKE OVER THE BUDGET OR TAKE OVER SOMETHING THAT WAS A RESPONSIBILITY OF MS. BEAN'S. IT IS MY INTEREST AND DESIRE THAT THERE STILL BE THIS INDEPENDENT ARM OF RESEARCH THAT GIVES US THE OVERSIGHT OF MS. BEAN AND THE BUDGET OFFICE, AND I'LL CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE FOR THAT. I WILL NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION. I HAVE A FEELING I'LL BE IN THE MINORITY ON THIS, BUT IT'S FOR THE REASONS OF MY ADVOCACY IS FOR THE TAXPAYERS AND VOTERS THAT I FEEL WE STILL NEED THAT EXTRA INDEPENDENCE, SO I WON'T SUPPORT THE MOTION, BUT I KNOW WE'VE -- YOU'VE GOT THE VOTES, SO I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SAY. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, I SUPPORT THE -- OBVIOUSLY VERY MUCH SUPPORT THE SPIRIT OF THE OFFICE AND THE ORIGINAL INTENT, AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A DEFINITE VALUE THAT THE IPA OFFICE CAN PROVIDE, YOU KNOW. PEOPLE HAVE USED THE WORDS "PROFIT CENTER," "GREATER EFFICIENCY," AND SUCH, AND I ALSO WANT TO SAY TO THE TWO OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE IN THIS ROOM THAT HAVE WORKED FOR THE IPA, AT TIMES YOU'VE BEEN POORLY LED, AND I -- I APOLOGIZE TO YOU IN THE SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE ONLY DONE WHAT YOU'VE BEEN ASKED TO DO. I THINK YOU'VE WORKED VERY HARD, YOU COME IN EARLY, YOU STAY LATE, AND YOU -- I THINK YOU'VE -- YOU'VE DONE -- YOU'VE DONE GOOD, BUT -- BUT I SHARE -- I'LL TELL YOU AGAIN, RECENTLY I'VE BEEN GROWING FRUSTRATED. EVEN THAT LAST COMMENT THAT COMMISSIONER NORMAN SPOKE OF, IT JUST -- DAGGONE, SOMETIMES A QUESTION TO YOU COMES BACK WITH ANOTHER QUESTION, AND -- AND WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR ARE ANSWERS AND A CLEAR PATH AND DIRECTION ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO SOLVE PROBLEMS IN A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION WHEN THINGS ARE CHANGING DAILY, AND, YOU KNOW, I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE HAD YOU COME FORWARD AND SAY, LOOK, THERE'S A WAY THAT I CAN WORK WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE -- IT'S JUST LIKE ALMOST COMMON SENSE -- AND HERE ARE THINGS WE CAN DO. OBVIOUSLY AS THE BUDGETS ARE BEING CUT AND WE'RE REDUCING, WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO GROW THE OFFICE, SO LET'S -- IF YOU HAD BEEN AHEAD OF THE CURVE -- AND I FEEL LIKE WHAT WE'VE HAD TO DO IS ALMOST TO DRAG YOU OVER. AT TIMES IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE WENT THROUGH AGAIN WITH KATHLEEN MATHEWS, AND MY FRUSTRATION WITH HER GREW AND GREW AND GREW. AND SO MY QUESTION IS I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN A DYNAMIC SITUATION WHERE THE -- THIS OFFICE IS GOING TO LOOK DIFFERENTLY, YOU KNOW, THAT -- I MEAN, THAT YOU CAN DO IT AND THAT YOU'RE CAPABLE OF WORKING WITH WHETHER IT'S THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR WHOMEVER IT MIGHT BE TO -- TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE THAT THE TAXPAYERS DEMAND. I MEAN, WE'RE SPENDING VALUABLE DOLLARS. WE OUGHT TO BE GETTING A RESOURCE BACK, AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS AND GETTING NEW QUESTIONS BACK AT ME. I WANT ANSWERS. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE MOTION. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST ONE COMMENT, AND THEN IF I MIGHT ASK FOR THE FLOOR WHEN WE DO TAKE THIS VOTE REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT GOES. BUT THIS IS NOT ANYTHING EASY FOR ANY OF US, AND I KNOW WE'RE GOING HAVE SOME HARD TIMES BETWEEN NOW UNTIL THE END OF THE BUDGET CYCLE, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE'RE CHARGED WITH, TO LOOK AT THINGS THAT HAVE BETTER EFFICIENCIES THAN WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON, AND ALTHOUGH MR. HIGGINBOTHAM AND I DISAGREE AND HE STATED HIS REASONS WHY HE'S NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, MY REASONS FOR MAKING -- BEING THE MAKER OF THIS MOTION ARE EXACTLY THAT, TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCIES WITH THE DOLLARS THE TAXPAYERS GIVE US AND ASK US TO GUARD FOR THEM. SO WHEN SOMETHING IS NOT WORKING AND -- AND WE'RE HAVING -- SIX YEARS ARE NOT ALL YOURS, JIM, BUT WITH A LIMITED NUMBER OF AUDITS 2.2 MILLION FOR PERHAPS THREE AUDITS IN THREE YEARS, IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT WORKING, WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, SO THAT'S JUST WHAT DEMANDS THAT WE DO SOMETHING, AND ONCE WE FINISH THEN, JUST TO MAKE THIS FULL CIRCLE, MR. HAGAN, I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT A SECOND MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE EXTERNAL AUDIT DOLLARS SO WE CAN HAVE THAT GO FORWARD -- JUST THE PROCESS TO GET THOSE DOLLARS SET ASIDE, SO ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. NO FURTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-1, COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM VOTING NO. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: AND MR. HAGAN, I THINK THIS IS VERY STRAIGHT, CLEAR-CUT. SECOND MOTION WOULD BE TO SET ASIDE FUNDS FOR EXTERNAL AUDITS THAT THE IPA WOULD CONTRACT AND CONSIDER WHETHER WE MIGHT SUPPLEMENT THAT BY HAVING THE BOARD REQUEST ADDED PERFORMANCE AUDITS BE CONDUCTED BY THE CLERK UNDER EXISTING AUTHORITY FOR HER TO ASSIST US, AND THEN OF COURSE, PAT, THAT'S DEPENDENT ON WHAT YOU COME BACK WITH. IF NOT, WE'LL CHANGE MOTION ONE TO GO ALONG WITH MOTION TWO. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER, THAT MEANS ALSO THAT THEY COULD BE A FLOW-THROUGH THAT -- FOR INSTANCE, THEY COULD GO OUT FOR EXPERTISE. >>ROSE FERLITA: RIGHT. >>JIM NORMAN: THAT FLEXIBILITY -- IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE JUST SETTING UP A BUDGET FOR OUTSIDE AUDITS? >>ROSE FERLITA: I'M SETTING UP A BUDGET, JIM, SO THAT IF THEY DON'T HAVE EXPERTISE IN-HOUSE -- >>JIM NORMAN: RIGHT. >>ROSE FERLITA: -- THEY WILL KNOW WHO TO GET IT IN A CERTAIN FIRM THAT HAS EXPERTISE FOR THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC OF AUDIT. >>JIM NORMAN: YES. YES. SECOND. >>ROSE FERLITA: YES. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA, SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? IF NOT, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-1, COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM VOTING NO. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>PAT BEAN: YOUR NEXT ITEM, COMMISSIONERS, WOULD BE ITEM B-3. THIS IS AN ITEM BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DEPARTMENT, AND THIS IS TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ADVERTISE AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 20 TO SOLICIT PUBLIC INPUT AND DISCUSS REDUCING BUDGETED REVENUES AND OFFSETTING APPROPRIATIONS, TRANSFERS, OR RESERVES FOR THE HALF-CENT SALES TAX. >>ERIC JOHNSON: COMMISSIONERS, ERIC JOHNSON, MANAGEMENT SERVICES. THIS ITEM, CONSISTENT WITH BOARD POLICY ENTITLED "ANTICIPATED REVENUE SHORTFALLS," IS ASKING YOU TO AUTHORIZE US TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING SPECIFIC REVENUES THAT WE CURRENTLY ANTICIPATE TO COME IN SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW BUDGET. THE LIST IS ON -- IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AGENDA ITEM. IT'S A VARIETY OF REVENUES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, THOSE BASED ON SALES TAXES, GAS TAXES, AND ESSENTIALLY, WITHOUT LOOKING THROUGH ALL THE BACKUP, THE ANSWER TO WHAT DO WE DO TO GET THERE IS FOR THE MOST PART, WE'LL BE REDUCING RESERVES, ALTHOUGH HE IN SOME CASES WITH THE TOURIST TAXES THERE WOULD BE REDUCED APPROPRIATIONS TO SPECIFIC ORGANIZATIONS FUNDED WITH THE THREE-CENT TOURIST TAX. YOU'LL ALSO FIND THAT IN TERMS OF SOME OF OUR REDUCTIONS, THEY IMPACT DISTRIBUTIONS TO MUNICIPALITIES, SO AS WE REDUCE THE REVENUE ANTICIPATED FROM THE CIT OR FROM GAS TAXES, WE ACTUALLY WILL BE TRANSFERRING FEWER DOLLARS TO TAMPA, TEMPLE TERRACE, PLANT CITY, AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING? >>JIM NORMAN: SO MOVE. >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. I WOULD JUST ASK STAFF TO TRY TO AVOID HAVING FIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE SAME MEETING. I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER SEEN THAT MANY ON ONE AGENDA SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, SO -- >>PAT BEAN: WE'LL DO OUR BEST. >>KEN HAGAN: PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. I'M JUST SAYING. [LAUGHTER] >>RECORDING SECRETARY: COMMISSIONER SHARPE, MAY I HAVE YOUR VOTE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>PAT BEAN: THE NEXT ITEM IS THE REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT PRESENTING ITEM B-5. THIS IS TO EXPAND THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF THE UPPER TAMPA BAY TRAIL PHASE IV, SEGMENT C-1, AND MIKE KELLY'S HERE TO PRESENT THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, MIKE. >>MIKE KELLY: COMMISSIONERS, MIKE KELLY, REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT. BRIEFLY, THE BOARD REMEMBERS THAT THE UPPER TAMPA BAY TRAIL PHASE IV CONSISTS OF FOUR SEGMENTS. ON FEBRUARY 18th THE BOARD REMOVED ONE SEGMENT BECAUSE THE LANDOWNER DID NOT WANT THE ALIGNMENT ON THEIR PROPERTY. THE BOARD ALSO DIRECTED US TO GO OUT AND HAVE PUBLIC MEETINGS. WE DID THAT. WE ALSO MET WITH THE GREENWAY COMMITTEE TWICE AND WE MET WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD, THE CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, AND THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE BRING YOU TODAY IS TO EXPAND THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR SEGMENT C-1, WHICH IS THE FUNDED PORTION ALONG LUTZ-LAKE FERN ROAD, TO INCLUDE C-2 WHICH RUNS THROUGH THE BROOKER CREEK PRESERVE. AND WHAT WE WILL DO IS GO FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN OF BOTH C-1 AND C-2, AND WE'LL LOOK FOR FUNDS TO TRY TO BUILD C-2. AT THE SAME TIME WE'LL CONTINUE OUR EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY A SUITABLE CORRIDOR DOWN FROM VAN DYKE ROAD TO COPELAND ROAD. THAT'S IT. >>KEN HAGAN: ONE QUESTION I HAVE. YOU SAID THAT -- THAT THERE'LL BE A FUNDING PLAN COMING BACK IN THE NEAR FUTURE. ANY IDEA WHEN OR -- >>MIKE KELLY: WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO BID C-2 THE SAME TIME WE BID C-1, THEN WE'LL HAVE A FIRM PRICE. WE WOULD ANTICIPATE IN THE FALL, AND THEN WE'LL USE EXISTING DOLLARS THAT WERE IN THE TRAIL PROJECTS TO COME BACK AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO YOU. ONE SOURCE OF THOSE FUNDS WOULD BE ANY REAL ESTATE FUNDS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN SPENT TO DATE. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? CAN WE HAVE A MOTION? >>MARK SHARPE: SO MOVE. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MIKE. >>PAT BEAN: YOUR NEXT ITEM, COMMISSIONERS, IS ITEM B-6. THIS IS TO APPROVE THE REVISED BOARD POLICY .03 -- 03.03.02.00. JIM ROBERTS IS HERE FROM WATER RESOURCE SERVICES TO PRESENT THIS ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: WELCOME, JIM. >> ALL RIGHT. JIM ROBERTS, WATER RESOURCE SERVICES, AND IN ITEM REPRESENTS A ROUTINE CLEANUP OF AN EXISTING BOARD POLICY, ESSENTIALLY TO REALIGN IT TO THE ENHANCED CAPABILITIES OF OUR NEW AUTOMATED BILLING SYSTEM THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED ON FEBRUARY THE 4th. I'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OF MR. ROBERTS? >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE THE ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER NORMAN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>PAT BEAN: THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM F-3. THIS IS BROUGHT TO THE BOARD BY COMMISSIONER HAGAN. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE WADE BOGGS SELECTION COMMITTEE. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONERS, CAN WE JUST HAVE A MOTION APPROVING THE SELECTION BY THE WADE BOGGS COMMITTEE. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO MOVED, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: ALSO HAVE THE PRESENTATION ON MAY 20th. SO THANK YOU. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>PAT BEAN: THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM F-4, TO APPROVE RESERVING THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE NEW TAMPA COMMUNITY PARK TOTALING 13.4 ACRES TO BE ESTABLISHED AS A LOCATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS OF BOTH THE NEW TAMPA PLAYERS AND TAMPA BAY SPORTSPLEX, INC. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONERS, AT FIRST GLANCE THIS APPEARS TO BE A BIG STEP FORWARD WITH THIS LAND, AND WHILE IT CERTAINLY IS A BIG STEP FORWARD, I WANT TO REMIND THE BOARD SINCE IT'S BEEN SO LONG AND I THINK ONLY COMMISSIONER NORMAN AND I MYSELF -- WE WERE THE ONLY ONES AROUND AT THE TIME, BUT THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME ITEM THAT THE BOARD APPROVED BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF '04. AT THAT TIME WE APPROVED SETTING LAND ASIDE FOR THE NEW TAMPA CULTURAL CENTER; HOWEVER, THAT WAS A MUCH MORE INTENSIVE REQUEST, AND THEY WERE UNABLE TO MAKE THE NUMBERS WORK, SO OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH TWO GROUPS IN NEW TAMPA, THE NEW TAMPA PLAYERS IN NEW TAMPA OR THE TAMPA BAY SPORTSPLEX, ON HOW TO MAKE THEIR GOALS A REALITY. EACH WANTS TO PARTNER WITH THE COUNTY IN CONSTRUCTING A FACILITY. FOR THE NEW TAMPA PLAYERS IT'S FOR A COMMUNITY THEATER, AND THE TAMPA BAY SPORTSPLEX, A HOCKEY AND ICE SKATING FACILITY. I'VE MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR TO THESE GROUPS THROUGH THE YEARS THAT DO NOT COUNT ON THE COUNTY FOR ANY FUNDING, AND I WAS MAKING STATEMENTS TO THAT EFFECT BACK WHEN WE WERE IN PRETTY GOOD FINANCIAL SHAPE, AND SO THAT'S ESPECIALLY TRUE IN THIS DIFFICULT ECONOMIC CLIMATE THAT WE'RE FACED IN RIGHT NOW AND THE BUDGET BATTLES THAT WE HAVE GOING ON. HAVING LIVED MYSELF IN NEW TAMPA FOR 13 YEARS, I'VE LONG FELT THAT NEW TAMPA WAS MISSING A REAL FOCAL POINT OR CENTERPIECE THAT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY COULD ENJOY, AND I FEEL THAT WE HAVE A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE THAT HERE WITHOUT THE RISK OF PUTTING THE COUNTY IN A POSITION TO BE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE OR BE ON THE HOOK FOR THE BUILDING OR OPERATING OF THE FACILITIES, AND IN THE PAST I KNOW STAFF HAS HAD THOSE CONCERNS. MY PERSONAL VISION INCLUDES THIS PROPERTY HAVING A COMMUNITY THEATER, A HOCKEY COMPLEX, TRAILS, POSSIBLY A DOG PARK, A BAND SHELL OR A GAZEBO-TYPE STRUCTURE, BUT THAT'S MY PERSONAL VISION. THAT'S CERTAINLY A LONG-TERM VISION THAT MAY OR MAY NOT EVER MATERIALIZE, BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF TODAY, WHAT THIS BOARD CAN SAY IS THAT WE -- YOU KNOW, WE SUPPORT THESE ORGANIZATIONS, YOU KNOW, WE WANT THIS TO HAPPEN, AND WITH THE VERY STRICT CONDITIONS THAT PROTECT THE COUNTY, YOU KNOW, WE'LL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED. THIS IS THE SECOND STEP, THE FIRST BEING BACK IN AUGUST OF '07 WHEN WE TRANSFERRED THE LAND TO OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT FOR THE CREATION OF A NEW TAMPA COMMUNITY PARK. THIS IS THE SECOND IN A LONG, FRANKLY, EXTREMELY CHALLENGING PROCESS THAT BOTH OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS FACE; HOWEVER, BY IDENTIFYING THE LAND FOR THEIR POTENTIAL USE, WE'RE GIVING BOTH ORGANIZATIONS AN OPPORTUNITY TO FUNDRAISE, AND ANY GROUP OR CAPITAL CAMPAIGN WILL TELL YOU THAT UNTIL YOU HAVE LAND IDENTIFIED, A SUCCESSFUL FUNDRAISING EFFORT WILL NOT OCCUR. THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY OUR FINANCE TEAM, OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT, AND STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED IT. I WANT TO SAY THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE CONDITIONS ON THE AGREEMENT, BUT QUITE HONESTLY, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A REAL CHALLENGE FOR BOTH GROUPS TO RAISE MONEY IN THIS ENVIRONMENT; HOWEVER, I BELIEVE IN WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, AND I'M CONVINCED IF IT CAN OCCUR THAT NEW TAMPA WILL HAVE A GEM OF A CENTERPIECE IN THAT COMMUNITY. HAVING PURCHASED LAND IN PREVIOUS YEARS FOR ACTIVE PARK NEEDS, WE HAVE LAND IN LIVE OAK AND IN BRANCHTON, WE DO NOT NEED THIS LAND FOR ACTIVE FIELDS; HOWEVER, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER NORMAN HAD MENTIONED BACK IN '07, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IN THE INTERIM OR THROUGH THE NEXT CERTAINLY FOUR OR FIVE YEARS WE HAVE THE OPTION TO USE THE LAND FOR PRACTICE FACILITIES SHOULD LOCAL LEAGUES NEED TO USE IT. TO DATE THIS HASN'T OCCURRED, AND IT LIKELY WILL NOT, BUT I STILL WANT TO HAVE THAT -- US TO HAVE THAT OPTION. AND IT WAS ALSO STATED BACK IN '07 THAT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT -- I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER FERLITA MIGHT HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP -- OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO NEED TO USE ONE OR TWO ACRES FOR STAGING DURING THE BRUCE B. DOWNS WIDENING PROJECT. THIS IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN, I THINK, IN THE NEXT THREE OR FOUR MONTHS, AND THIS COULD TAKE TWO OR THREE YEARS. AGAIN, THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM. PER THE AGREEMENT THEY'VE GOT FIVE YEARS TO RAISE THE MONEY, SO THE PROJECT WILL BE COMPLETED BY THEN, BUT FOR SOME MIRACULOUS WAY THEY GET THEIR FUNDING IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO, HAVING SPOKEN TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THEY CAN WORK AROUND -- WORK AROUND THAT, SO BASICALLY I'M GOING TO PASS THE GAVEL TO COMMISSIONER SHARPE, BUT I'D LIKE TO ASK MARK THORNTON -- I BELIEVE HE'S HERE -- TO COME FORWARD, JUST KIND OF STATE ON THE RECORD YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU SUPPORT IT, AND THERE'S REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH ORGANIZATIONS HERE IF -- IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS FROM THEM. >>MARK THORNTON: GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. MARK THORNTON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION, AND CONSERVATION. COMMISSIONER HAGAN, YOU KIND OF WRAPPED UP EVERYTHING ABOUT THE PROJECT. WE SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION. IT DOESN'T LOCK US IN FOR MORE THAN THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, AND WE DO HAVE VACANT LAND THERE THAT CAN BE USED FOR THE STAGING THAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR BRUCE B. DOWNS. IF WE HAVE A REQUEST AND NEED FOR PRACTICE -- AT THE TIME THAT THAT ISSUE WAS THERE WE DID, BUT THEN WE OPENED UP THE FOUR FIELDS AT LIVE OAK, SO WE'VE BOUGHT SOME TIME THERE ON FIELD PRESSURES IN NEW TAMPA, SO THAT DIDN'T -- THE NEED FOR THAT WASN'T THERE, BUT IT'S ALWAYS THERE DURING THE TIME THAT -- THAT THEY'RE DOING THEIR FUNDRAISERS, SO IT WON'T IMPACT US, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY PLANS FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT AT THIS POINT ON THAT PROPERTY, SO -- >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. >>MARK THORNTON: THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: OTHER COMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. HAGAN, YOU DEFINITELY BROUGHT UP LOTS OF DETAILS THAT BRING US RIGHT BACK TO THE INITIAL CONVERSATION WE HAD ABOUT THIS, AND OF COURSE, YOU RECALL THAT I DIDN'T SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS TOO PREMATURE TO TRANSFER THIS PROPERTY FROM PUBLIC WORKS TO PARKS AND REC, FOR SOME OF THE VERY REASONS YOU SAID ABOUT STAGING, ET CETERA, BUT AT THE TIME, ONE OF MY ISSUES THAT PERHAPS -- WAS PERCEPTION, PERCEPTION WITH PEOPLE THAT YOU DEALT WITH AND PEOPLE THAT I DEALT WITH WHEN I WAS AT THE CITY OF TAMPA IN TERMS OF THIS NEW TAMPA PROJECT, AND I THINK MR. HARRISON WAS INVOLVED TOO, THAT PERHAPS IT WOULD APPEAR THAT IT WAS NOT INCLUSIVE ENOUGH, NOT COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH, AND WAS SPECIFICALLY CONTOURED TO JUST THE NEW TAMPA PLAYERS, AND I KNOW THERE WAS SOME OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE INTERESTED IN DOING SOMETHING THERE. WELL, WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS WE HAVE A VERY GOOD BUSINESS PLAN. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEM SUBMITTING THEIR OWN FULL BUSINESS PLAN TO BE REVIEWED AND THEN TO OBTAIN A FULL AND COMPLETE FUNDING OR FINANCING FOR ALL INFRASTRUCTURE, SUCH AS WASTEWATER, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. SO ANYWAY, THIS HAS TURNED OUT TO BE A VERY GOOD PROCESS. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED NOW HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT THEIR PLAN AND SEE IF IT WORKS. I THINK, AGAIN, YOU WERE RIGHT ON TARGET WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT WE COULDN'T CONTROL WAS THE -- THE ECONOMY AS IT IS NOW AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL BE ABLE UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES TO COME UP WITH AN ACCURATE OR REALISTIC PRO FORMA, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE CERTAINLY CANNOT CONTROL, BUT IN TERMS OF WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS, I'M HAPPY THAT THIS HAS GONE FULL CIRCLE, SAME PLAYERS BUT DIFFERENT SCENARIO, AND THAT BEING SAID, MR. HAGAN, I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SECOND THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SECOND YET. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FERLITA. COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: YEAH, AND I -- I'M PRETTY EXCITED ABOUT THIS. I MEAN, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WHAT THEY CAN OFFER -- AND, YOU KNOW, I SAW HOW INCREDIBLE PEOPLE CAME TOGETHER LIKE THE HISTORY CENTER, AND I'M HOPING THAT SOME OF THE THINGS CAN OCCUR OUT THERE. THAT'S -- THAT'S AN AWFUL LARGE LAUNDRY LIST TO WISH TO GO THERE WITH HOCKEY ARENAS AND PERFORMING ARTS AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, BUT I BELIEVE IT CAN BE DONE. THAT IS A -- THAT IS A HUGE DEVELOPMENT AREA OUT THERE FOR OUR COUNTY, AND THE THINGS THEY HAVE GOING ON FOR THOSE FAMILIES TO BE ABLE TO GO THERE, PARTICIPATE, AND COMMISSIONER, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU ALSO, THAT IN THE INTERIM, I HOPE THAT WE VERY MUCH COORDINATE WITH THE LEAGUES OUT THERE AND THAT WE DO -- LIKE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THESE OTHER PARKS, WE GET IT LEVELED, MAYBE THROW SOME GRASS SEED OUT THERE AND LET KIDS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO -- BECAUSE JUST LIKE THERE AND EVERYWHERE ELSE, FIELDS AND THINGS ARE AT A PREMIUM, SO THOSE KIDS CAN AT LEAST HAVE SOMEWHERE TO PLAY AND USE THE SITE, SO I APPRECIATED YOU THROWING THAT IN THERE, AND I'M EXCITED ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THAT SITE OUT THERE. MAN, I MEAN, IT'S -- WE'VE HAD TOWN HALL MEETING OUT THERE AND WE'VE HAD DIFFERENT THINGS OUT THERE. YOU-ALL HAVE SEEN HOW IT'S JUST EXPLODING, AND I BELIEVE THEY CAN DO IT. I MEAN, THOSE -- AND COMMISSIONER BECKNER, IF YOU'D SEEN SOME OF THE THINGS AND HOW THEY'VE BEEN INNOVATIVE, THEY'VE ACTUALLY BROUGHT DOWN STARS THAT ARE PERFORMING REALLY THE NIGHT BEFORE ON BROADWAY. THEY'VE BROUGHT THEM DOWN HERE AND HAD THEIR FUNDRAISERS AND TRYING TO GET THINGS JUMPSTARTED AND WHATEVER IT IS. THAT IS QUITE A GROUP OUT THERE INSPIRED IN THE ARTS, SO WHAT A -- WHAT A BIG OPPORTUNITY FOR NEW TAMPA. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND I'M ALSO -- WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS WITH A COUPLE THINGS. I THINK, NUMBER ONE, OF COURSE, IS IT WAS STATED THAT WE HAVE A FULL AND COMPLETE APPROVABLE BUSINESS PLAN THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE I NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A STATEMENT IN THERE -- YOU KNOW, LET ME JUST BACK UP FOR A MOMENT -- IS THAT WHEN WE PUT TOGETHER BUSINESS PLANS, I KNOW AS A BUSINESS OWNER, I ALWAYS PLAN FOR SUCCESS, BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT THERE'S A RISK WHERE THINGS DON'T SUCCEED, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME TYPE OF A CONTINGENCY WHERE IF THINGS AREN'T WORKING OUT FINANCIALLY FOR THE PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS -- I NOTICE THAT THERE'S A STATEMENT THAT THIS WOULD PRECLUDE A SITUATION WHERE THE COUNTY COULD BE REQUESTED AT A LATER DATE TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR ANY SHORTFALL. I THINK BEFORE WE ULTIMATELY APPROVE THIS, WE NEED -- AS A COUNTY NEED TO KNOW WHAT THAT POTENTIAL -- WHAT WE COULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR. WE'RE GOING THROUGH SOME TOUGH BUDGET TIMES NOW, AND I EXPECT THAT THEY PROBABLY WILL IMPROVE, BUT, HOWEVER, I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW THAT IF THERE ARE SHORTFALLS IN THE FUTURE, YOU KNOW, HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR THESE SHORTFALLS AND THEN EXACTLY HOW WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THAT, SO I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT DETAILED. AND THEN ALSO AS FAR AS THE PRACTICE FIELDS GO, I'M OPEN FOR THAT AS WELL, BUT NOT TOO LONG AGO WE APPROVED A $15- MILLION PROGRAM AS WELL AS COMMITTED OVER $1.1 MILLION FOR THESE ADDITIONAL FIELDS THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE FOR PRACTICE FIELDS, SO MY QUESTION IS WHAT TYPE OF FINANCIAL IMPACT NOW WOULD THAT HAVE IF WE'RE GOING TO START OPENING UP AN ADDITIONAL PRACTICE FIELD? SO I THINK BEFORE WE ULTIMATELY APPROVE THAT, WE NEED TO KNOW THE FINANCIAL -- HOW THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT US FINANCIALLY, SO AGAIN, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF LOOKING AT A BUSINESS PLAN AND CONSIDERING THIS PROJECT, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE FULL -- THAT WE ARE FULLY AWARE AND HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE COUNTY COULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR IF -- WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROVIDING THIS ORGANIZATION OR THESE ORGANIZATIONS WITH REVENUE. >>KEN HAGAN: AND MARK, I'D LIKE YOU TO COMMENT ON THAT BECAUSE I KNOW IN -- IT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT, AND I KNOW IN YEARS PAST WE'VE HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS, AND THOSE -- THAT'S BEEN YOUR CONCERN IS THAT THEY PARTIALLY BUILD A STRUCTURE OR THEY BUILD A STRUCTURE AND THEN SUDDENLY TRY AND GIVE US, YOU KNOW, THE OPERATIONAL COSTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, SO I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE THAT THERE ARE ENOUGH SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE AND THROUGHOUT EVERY -- EVERY STEP ALONG THIS PROCESS WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT, SO ESSENTIALLY -- >>MARK THORNTON: THAT'S CORRECT. >>KEN HAGAN: -- ARE THOSE THE SAFEGUARDS OR CAN YOU JUST ELABORATE ON THAT. >>MARK THORNTON: I HAVE VERY STRONG FAITH IN THE DEBT MANAGEMENT OFFICE, BOB GRIFFIN WITH DEBT MANAGEMENT WHO WORKS WITH THESE ORGANIZATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY PREPARE A PROPER BUSINESS PLAN. I CAN REVIEW IT AND SAY IT LOOKS GOOD, BUT HE'S THE EXPERT. I RELY ON HIM, AND HE HASN'T LET US DOWN YET. I DON'T THINK HE WILL. SO THAT -- THAT'S WHAT -- THEY HAVE TO DO THAT, AND THEY HAVE TO SATISFY HIM, AND HE'S TOUGH, SO ONCE WE DO THAT, I THINK THAT -- THAT WE'RE AS PROTECTED AS WE CAN BE. THE WORLD COMES TO AN END AND WE HAVE TO TAKE IT OVER, THAT'S MY CONCERN OF WHERE WE WOULD FIND THE OPERATING DOLLARS OR NOT OPEN IT, BUT BOB PROTECTS US FOR THAT BECAUSE HE MAKES THEM DO THEIR WORK ON THEIR BUSINESS PLAN. REGARDING FIELDS AND SUCH, USING THE VACANT PROPERTY FOR THE PRACTICE AREAS WAS RECOMMENDED IF WE NEED IT AND IT'S THERE. THE PROPERTY -- THE CONFIGURATION ISN'T SUCH THAT WE WOULD USE THIS PROPERTY FOR ACTIVE BALL FIELDS, AND WE HAVE PROPERTY IN NEW TAMPA AND FUNDING TO DO THAT IN SEVERAL LOCATIONS THERE, SO THIS PROPERTY NEVER WOULD ENTER INTO THAT. WE JUST -- IF IT'S VACANT -- AND THE NEED FOR ANY SQUARE INCH OF VACANT PROPERTY FOR PRACTICE FIELDS IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE -- WE'D SUGGEST AT THAT TIME IF WE NEED IT WE CAN BLADE IT OUT AND DO IT. WE JUST HAVEN'T NEEDED IT, BUT IF WE DID THIS FALL, WE WOULD DO IT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THERE WOULD BE ZERO OPERATING EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AS A PRACTICE FIELD? >>MARK THORNTON: IT WOULD BE A VERY INFORMAL PRACTICE AREA. IT WOULD BE GENERALLY TEMPORARY, AND IT WOULD PROBABLY REQUIRE AS MUCH MOWING AS WE'RE DOING NOW JUST IN THE PROPERTY JUST SITTING VACANT, SO VERY LIMITED WITH NO LIGHTING, NO UTILITIES, JUST A THREE-PANEL BACKSTOP FOR BASEBALL AND MAYBE A FLAT AREA FOR FOOTBALL AND THAT'S IT. IT'S VERY RUDIMENTARY ACTUALLY. >>KEVIN BECKNER: I GUESS ALSO WE'D HAVE TO -- I WOULD IMAGINE THAT WE WOULD HAVE LIABILITY ISSUES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO I WOULD THINK THERE HAS TO BE SOME COST ASSOCIATED WITH -- >>MARK THORNTON: JUST IN THE LEVELING -- MAKING SURE THAT IT'S LEVEL SO THAT NO ONE'S INJURED IS THE ONLY THING WE WOULD DO FOR -- TO INVITE THE KIDS IN THERE FOR PRACTICE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S A SAFE SURFACE. IT WON'T BE A MANICURED SURFACE TO ANY MEANS BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE IRRIGATED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT WE HAVE THOSE ALL OVER THE COUNTY NOW, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE LIABILITY WOULD BE ANY GREATER THAN WHAT WE HAVE ON ANY OTHER COUNTY PARK. THIS IS NOW A DESIGNATED COUNTY PARK, SO WE WOULD DO OUR WORK TO MAKE IT SAFE IF WE NEED TO USE IT FOR OTHER THINGS. IF NOT, RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST AN UNDEVELOPED PIECE OF PROPERTY. >>KEVIN BECKNER: WELL, AGAIN -- AND THAT'S UNDERSTOOD. I WOULD JUST STILL LIKE TO SEE THE OUTLINE OF ANY EXISTING EXPENSES AS WELL. >>MARK THORNTON: SURE. >>KEVIN BECKNER: AND AGAIN, IN THE BUSINESS PLAN, JUST THE WHAT-IF SCENARIO. WE NEED TO HAVE FULL UNDERSTANDING WHERE THESE ORGANIZATIONS -- IF THESE DO NOT WORK OUT, WHAT IS OUR BACKUP PLAN AND WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO AS A COUNTY WITH THIS PROPERTY, HOW WOULD THESE FACILITIES BE OPERATED, AND THEN WE NEED TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING THAT WORST-CASE SCENARIO, IF WE HAVE TO FULLY TAKE OVER THE OPERATIONS OF THESE FACILITIES, WHAT IS IT GOING TO COST US AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO BUDGET FOR THAT, AND ARE WE WILLING TO DO THAT I THINK AS WE -- ARE THE QUESTIONS WE NEED TO ANSWER. >>MARK THORNTON: THAT'S WHERE WE RELY ON BOB GRIFFIN, AND HE DOES LOOK AT THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO, WE KNOW WHAT THEIR OPERATING COSTS ARE, SO WE'LL HAVE ALL THAT BEFORE YOU ARE ASKED TO APPROVE ANYTHING. >>KEVIN BECKNER: GREAT. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE SAFEGUARDS DO NOT END WITH THE BUSINESS PLAN. YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW AND APPROVE ALL THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SITE PLANS, CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS, EVERYTHING ELSE, SO THERE IS A NUMBER -- >>MARK THORNTON: IT'S A TRUE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN US AND THESE NONPROFITS, I BELIEVE, IF NOT A LEGAL PARTNERSHIP, BUT A GOOD PARTNERSHIP OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. >>KEN HAGAN: AND I JUST -- YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO THANK THE BOARD MEMBERS IN ADVANCE FOR THEIR SUPPORT. I THINK, AS COMMISSIONER NORMAN SAID, IT IS A VERY, VERY EXCITING OPPORTUNITY. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE CHALLENGING FOR BOTH ORGANIZATIONS, BUT IT'S AN EXCITING OPPORTUNITY AND ALSO EXCITING TO ENVISION WHAT HOPEFULLY WILL BE ERECTED THERE WITHIN A NUMBER OF YEARS, SO MS. BEAN, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A QUICK MEANT? >>PAT BEAN: I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT MIGHT HELP COMMISSIONER BECKNER FEEL A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE IN THAT WHEN THEY GET THE GO-AHEAD, ONCE THEY HE HAVE PRESENTED THEIR BUSINESS PLAN THERE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT BEFORE THEY COULD ACTUALLY START BUILDING I BELIEVE IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHOW US THAT THEY'VE NOT ONLY RAISED ENOUGH MONEY TO BUILD THE BUILDING BUT THEY'VE ALSO GOT MONEY SET ASIDE LIKE IN A RESERVE FUND THAT WOULD GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPERATE AT LEAST FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME. IF ALL THEY HAVE IS RAISED THE MONEY TO BUILD, THEN I DON'T BELIEVE THE BOARD WILL BE ASKED TO GO FORWARD. WE WON'T BRING IT FORWARD UNTIL WE KNOW THEY'VE GOT THAT KIND OF MONEY. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY CHAIRMAN HAGAN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBERS. >>PAT BEAN: THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM F-6. THIS IS AN ITEM BROUGHT TO THE BOARD BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE, AND THIS IS TO REQUEST THAT THE BOARD TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION ON SENATE BILL 360 BY DRAFTING A LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR AND REQUESTING THAT HE VETO SENATE BILL 360 AND TO HAVE OUR LOBBYIST ACTIVELY LOBBY THE GOVERNOR. >>MARK SHARPE: BOARD MEMBERS, I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE ACTIVITIES IN TALLAHASSEE FROM AFAR WITH REGARD TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT SINCE I FIRST HEARD DISCUSSION OF -- OF A BILL BEING PROPOSED THAT WOULD TRY TO -- TO FIX SOME OF THE CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS WITH THE EXISTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT LAW, AND CONCURRENCY IN PARTICULAR BUT HAD ALSO EXPRESSED EARLY ON MY CONCERN THAT ANY FIX SHOULDN'T MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE. I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY APPROXIMATELY A WEEK AGO TO TALK TO OUR LOBBYISTS REGARDING THIS BILL BECAUSE I WAS CONCERNED. FIRST I WAS CONCERNED THAT IT SEEMED AS THOUGH IT WAS BEING BATTED BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE WITH SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES BEING MADE IN THE BILL, AND IT WAS DIFFICULT AT TIMES TO EVEN FOLLOW WHAT WAS IN THE BILL BECAUSE THE CHANGES WERE COMING SO FAST AND FURIOUS, AND SO I ASKED OUR STAFF IN TALLAHASSEE WHAT WAS THE POSITION OF THE COUNTY WITH REGARD TO 360. THIS WAS A WEEK AGO. AND I WAS INFORMED THAT WE WERE OPPOSED BUT THAT OUR OPPOSITION WAS BEING VOICED THROUGH -- AND I'M NOT PUTTING WORDS IN ANYBODY'S MONTH, SOMEONE WILL HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO COUNTER ANYTHING I'M SAYING BUT THAT THEIR OPPOSITION WAS BEING EXPRESSED THROUGH THE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, AND AT THE TIME, I WAS VERY CONCERNED BECAUSE -- AND I FEEL THIS TODAY. THERE'S NO ISSUE MORE IMPORTANT TO EVERY PERSON LIVING HERE CURRENTLY OR WHO WILL AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE LIVE IN OUR STATE AND IN OUR COUNTY THAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT. WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. WE KNOW THAT GROWTH OCCURRED AND IT OCCURRED QUICKLY. WE KNOW THAT AT TIME TO KEEP THE COST OF GROWTH DOWN, WE DID NOT BUILD SUFFICIENT ROADS, SCHOOLS, WATER SYSTEMS, IN ADDITION TO LIBRARIES AND OTHER FACILITIES, AND THAT WE'VE BEEN FOR QUITE A WHILE TRYING TO PLAY CATCHUP TO THE RAPID LEVEL OF GROWTH. AND WHEN THE -- THE LANGUAGE CAME BACK TO US, WHICH I THEN ASKED STAFF TO REVIEW -- FIRST I ASKED OUR STAFF HERE, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT, HAD THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY REVIEW IT, AND THE ANSWER WAS NO, WE ARE TRYING - - WE ARE TRACKING IT, BUT BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES WHICH ARE OCCURRING SO QUICKLY, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A CHANCE -- WE HAVEN'T REALLY HAD A CHANCE TO GET A FIRM GRIP ON THIS BILL. SO WHEN THE FINAL VERSION CAME, HERE ARE SOME OF THE POINTS THAT HAVE COME OUT FROM THIS FINAL VERSION WHICH CAUSE ME GRAVE CONCERN, AND LET ME BE VERY CLEAR, AND I'LL BE VERY CLEAR IN THE MOTION THAT I MAKE. I BELIEVE THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM, I BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE GOOD MEN AND WOMEN IN TALLAHASSEE ON BOTH SIDES WHO WERE ATTEMPTING TO RECTIFY THE PROBLEM, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT AS WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH OTHER ISSUES THAT THEY'VE DEALT WITH UP IN TALLAHASSEE, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN -- ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH ISSUES THAT IMPACT DIRECTLY THE COUNTY THAT THERE SHOULD BE AMPLE CONVERSATION, COMMUNICATION, AND EXPLANATION OF A BILL BETWEEN TALLAHASSEE AND OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE OPERATE IN A SEAMLESS FASHION, THAT THE LAW IS ABIDED BY, AND THAT THERE ARE NO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. THIS BILL, AS I UNDERSTAND -- AND HERE'S SOME OF MY QUESTIONS. MR. ALUOTTO -- I'M NOT SURE IF HE'S IN THE ROOM, BUT I WANTED TO POSE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS TO MR. ALUOTTO. -- CREATES, ONE TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREAS, AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COUNTY'S URBAN SERVICE AREA IS -- OR WOULD BE DESIGNATED AS A TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREA, WHICH, ONE, CAUSED CONCERN FOR ME. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, AN EXCEPTION AREA? DOES THIS MEAN ANY FUTURE PROJECTS THERE WOULD BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENTS? TWO, THE COMMENTS THAT CAME BACK FROM STAFF WOULD BE THE IMPACT TO THE COUNTY ON THIS PROVISION, NOW, NOT IS BUT MAY BE EXTENSIVE. IT WENT ON TO STATE THAT DEVELOPMENT -- FOR EXAMPLE, PROJECTS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA NOW DESIGNATED TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREA THAT HAVE ENTERED INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS TO PROVIDE IMPROVEMENTS BASED ON CONCURRENCY MAY SEEK TO HAVE THE AGREEMENTS VOIDED, AS THEY ARE NOW IN AN AREA WHERE THERE ARE NO LONGER CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENTS, AND THEY WOULD BE AT THE COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE TO NEWER PROJECTS THAT HAD NO SUCH REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS A VERY GOOD POINT. ALSO WENT ON TO SAY THAT DEVELOPERS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA THAT DO NOT HAVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS MAY, AGAIN, SEEK TO HAVE THE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL AMENDED TO MODIFY OR ELIMINATE CONCURRENCY-BASED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS. THERE WAS A SECTION OF THIS BILL, SECTION 163.3180(5), WHICH CAUSED ME GRAVE CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO THE TAXPAYERS OF OUR COUNTY. IT SAYS, WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BECOMES EXEMPT FROM TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENTS, THE COUNTY IS TO ADOPT -- AND I QUOTE -- TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES TO SUPPORT AND FUND MOBILITY WITHIN THE EXCEPTION AREA. NOW, MY QUESTION WAS, WHAT IS A TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY TO SUPPORT AND FUND MOBILITY? WELL, IT'S GOING TO BE A FEE OR A TAX THAT SOMEONE, A TAXPAYER, WILL LIKELY HAVE TO PAY. THERE ARE -- IS ONE IN PARTICULAR SECTION OF THIS BILL WHICH CAUSES ME EVEN GRAVER CONCERN. IT SAYS PER 380 -- 380.0629-E, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DRIs WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREA MAY AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPER HAVE THE OPTION TO BE GOVERNED BY 380.1151. THE REFERENCED SECTION PROVIDES THE FOLLOWING, AND I QUOTE, IF REQUESTED BY THE DEVELOPER OR LANDOWNER, THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ORDER SHALL BE RESCINDED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAVING JURISDICTION UPON A SHOWING THAT ALL REQUIRED MITIGATION RELATED TO THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT EXISTED ON THE DATE OF RESCISSION HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THE ACT OF RESCISSION IS AN ACT OF CANCELLATION OF A CONTRACT AND THE RETURN OF THE PARTIES TO PORTIONS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE CONTRACT HAD NOT BEEN MADE. THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF "RESCISSION." WHICH MEANS ACCORDING TO A VERY QUICK REVIEW -- AND I ADMIT THIS IS A VERY QUICK REVIEW OF THIS BILL -- THAT PROJECTS SUCH AS LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD, BELL SHOALS ROAD, FISHHAWK BOULEVARD, BIG BEND ROAD, LEISEY ROAD, APOLLO BEACH BOULEVARD, THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD NO LONGER BE REQUIRED. NOW, BOARD MEMBERS, I'VE GOTTEN LOTS OF E-MAILS IN OPPOSITION AND IN SUPPORT. SOME OF THE -- SOME PEOPLE TRIED TO FRAME THIS AS A LEFT/RIGHT, REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT, BIG GOVERNMENT/SMALL GOVERNMENT DISCUSSION, AND I DISAGREE. I REALLY BELIEVE THIS IS AN ISSUE OF HOW THIS STATE IN THE FUTURE IS GOING TO DEAL WITH THE VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE OF GROWTH. I'M FRUSTRATED THAT WE DID NOT HAVE BETTER INFORMATION THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS SO THAT WE COULD WEIGH IN ON A BILL THAT IMPACTS US DIRECTLY AND WILL OR COULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT THE TAXPAYERS WHERE A COST SHIFT OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS COULD POTENTIALLY TAKE PLACE OR WHERE THE IMPROVEMENTS JUST DON'T OCCUR AT ALL AND WHERE NEW PROJECTS COMING IN WOULD SAY WE ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED BECAUSE NOW WE ARE WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREA TO MEET CONCURRENCY. I KNOW THERE ARE VERY GOOD THINGS IN THIS BILL. I'M NOT GOING TO ENUMERATE THEM, BUT I RECOGNIZE THERE ARE GOOD THINGS IN THIS BILL WHERE THEY'VE TRIED TO FIX THE PROBLEM, BUT THERE'S CONFUSION, THERE'S CONFLICTING LANGUAGE, THERE'S LANGUAGE WHICH CONTRADICTS PREVIOUS PIECES OF -- BECAUSE SOME -- SOME HAVE POINTED TO LANGUAGE WHICH SAYS THIS HOME RULE DOES NOT -- PROVIDES THE STATEMENT THIS BILL DOES NOT AFFECT LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOME RULE POWERS OR EXISTING CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS. WELL, THAT IS CONTRADICTED AGAIN BY 380.1151. AND MY CONCERN IS THIS: IF WE WERE TO NOT -- ESPECIALLY AFTER WE'VE ALREADY INDICATED -- IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING -- I'VE CALLED AND ASKED DOES THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THIS BILL, AND I WAS INFORMED THAT THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AT THIS POINT OPPOSES THE BILL. YOU'VE GOT TO DIG DEEP TO GET TO THAT ANSWER BECAUSE EVERYONE'S AFRAID TO ANSWER IT CLEARLY. I'VE ASKED THE DCA THE SAME TYPE OF QUESTION. YOU'VE GOT TO DIG DEEP. LOTS OF CONCERNS. WE WANT TO STUDY IT, WE WANT TO ANALYZE IT, BUT AT THE VERY END OF THE DAY DCA HAS MADE CLEAR THAT THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE GOOD PUBLIC POLICY, IT UNDERMINES FLORIDA'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT LAWS. SO IF WE RECOGNIZE THAT AND IF WE'VE SAID THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WHY WOULD WE NOT WANT TO SEND A LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR DOING THE FOLLOWING: EXPRESSING OUR GRAVE RESERVATION -- IN FACT, EXPRESSING OUR OPPOSITION FOR THIS BILL BUT ALSO MAKING CLEAR THAT WE DO RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEMS INHERENT IN THE CURRENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT LAWS AND IN CONCURRENCY. THERE ARE PROBLEMS. MR. ALUOTTO HAD SUGGESTED TO THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS TASK FORCE A RECOMMENDATION, RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 2, TO ELIMINATE CONCURRENCY NEGOTIATIONS IN FAVOR OF A MITIGATION FEE TABLE OR FORMULA. WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO MR. BROOKS THIS MORNING ABOUT SOME CONCERNS THAT THEY HAD, AND IT IS MY SENSE THAT IF WE WERE TO GO IN THIS DIRECTION, WE'D HAVE A BETTER OPPORTUNITY OF RESOLVING THE ISSUE WHILE AT THE SAME TIME NOT RISKING FOR THE CITIZENS OF BRANDON, WHICH IS PROBABLY WHY SENATOR STORMS VOTED AGAINST THIS BILL, SENATOR VICTOR CRIST VOTED AGAINST THIS BILL, IN FACT, ALL FOUR OF OUR SENATORS -- AS I'VE BEEN EXPLAINED, CRIST VOTED FOR IT AND THEN CHANGED HIS VOTE AS I UNDERSTAND, VOTED AGAINST THIS BILL. OUR FOUR SENATORS HAVE VOTED AGAINST THIS BILL. SO WITH THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE, THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON OUR COUNTY, AND THE FACT THAT I RECOGNIZE AND -- YOU KNOW, FOLKS HAVE SAID, MY GOSH, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T -- YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T STOP GROWTH, YOU'RE SIDING WITH THE ANTIGROWTH -- WITH THIS ANTIGROWTH MOVEMENT. NO, I'M NOT. I SUPPORT GROWTH, BUT IN ORDER FOR US TO DO IT, WE'VE GOT TO DO IT PROPERLY, AND I'M NOT AFRAID FOR US TO GO BACK AND ADDRESS THE AREAS WHERE THERE ARE WEAKNESSES AND TAKE OUR TIME AT GETTING IT RIGHT RATHER THAN HAVING YET MORE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE GOING TO LAND DIRECTLY ON THE LAP OF THE TAXPAYERS AND/OR FUTURE CITIZENS WHO AREN'T EVEN LIVING HERE WHO WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE RAMPANT GROWTH AND THE LACK OF CORRESPONDING INFRASTRUCTURE, ROADS, SCHOOLS, WATER SYSTEMS. SO MY MOTION WAS JUST SIMPLY THAT WE WOULD DO WHAT WE'VE BEEN -- WHAT WE SAID WE'VE BEEN DOING. WE'VE SAID WE'VE BEEN OPPOSING THIS BILL. THE -- OUR LOBBYIST INDICATED THAT WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, AND THEY'RE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. AND I THINK THAT IT IS DISHONEST -- INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST FOR US TO SAY WE'RE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS BILL BUT THEN NOT WANT TO GO TO THE GOVERNOR AND SAY THAT HE SHOULD VETO, AND AT THE SAME TIME -- I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR, WHETHER IT'S IN THIS LETTER OR THE DIRECTION THAT WE GIVE TO MR. ALUOTTO, THAT AT LEAST WE, THIS COUNTY, MOVE FORWARD QUICKLY ON SOME OF THE STEPS THAT HAVE BEEN EVEN INCLUDED IN THE BILL ITSELF, BUT YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF A - - SOME FORMULA. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO EVEN ADDRESS -- AND WE'VE HAD SOME OF THESE AGREEMENTS THAT CAME UP YEARS BACK, A YEAR OR TWO AGO, THREE. THE ECONOMIC CONDITION AND CLIMATE WAS DIFFERENT. IT MIGHT BE NECESSARY FOR US TO LOOK AT THOSE -- NOT TO LET EVERYONE OFF THE HOOK OR TO SHIFT THE BURDEN TO THE TAXPAYER, BUT PERHAPS THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO DO THIS IN A WAY WHERE THE DEVELOPER CAN MAKE THE IMPROVEMENTS BUT STAY IN BUSINESS AT THE SAME TIME. SO MY MOTION IS SIMPLE. WE ADVISE THE GOVERNOR OF OUR OPPOSITION AND WE THEN MOVE QUICKLY TO TRY TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: WELL, I DID EVERYTHING I COULD TO TRY TO FIND OUT -- I'VE CALLED TALLAHASSEE, I'VE DONE WHAT I CAN DO TO TRY TO GET WHAT I PERCEIVE ARE EXPERTS ON HOW THIS BILL AFFECTS HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THIS IS A STATEWIDE BILL. IT DOES DIFFERENT -- THERE'S DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THIS BILL. THERE ARE A LOT -- AS COMMISSIONER SHARPE SAID, THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD THINGS IN THIS BILL. AS AN EXAMPLE, IT -- IT'S MANDATORY RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR -- TO FACILITATE RESOLUTION OF OUR INTERGOVERNMENTAL DISPUTES. YOU-ALL RECALL THE STUFF WE'VE GOT -- WE HAD WITH PASCO COUNTY, THE MALLS, THE -- YOU KNOW, ALL THOSE KIND OF THINGS THAT -- I MEAN, THAT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO -- I REMEMBER COMMISSIONER CASTOR BEING HERE. THERE'S ALSO ASPECTS OF THE BILL THAT I WAS TOLD ABOUT PROVIDES GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN THE STATE'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS IN THERE THAT ARE BENEFICIAL THAT ARE OUTSIDE OUR ABILITIES TO FACILITATE, BUT WHAT I BELIEVE -- IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A LETTER SENT, THERE NEEDS TO BE SPECIFICS ON POINT ON HOW IT AFFECTS HILLSBOROUGH IN A NEGATIVE WAY, AND I'VE BEEN -- I'VE EVEN ASKED PAT BEAN, I'VE ASKED OUR -- OUR LAND USE PEOPLE TO TRY TO GIVE ME SPECIFICS, AND IS SOMEONE PREPARED TO STAND UP TODAY AND DO THAT? IF WE'RE GOING TO SEND -- IF WE'RE GOING TO SEND A LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR, YOU BETTER BE ON POINT AND YOU BETTER BE RIGHT, AND I WOULD LIKE FOR SOMEBODY TO STAND UP AND DO THAT. >>MARK SHARPE: SORRY, MR. ALUOTTO. >>JIM NORMAN: I MEAN, THIS CAN'T BE -- >>PETER ALUOTTO: PETER ALUOTTO, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. >>JIM NORMAN: IT WON'T BE AS BAD AS, WOULD YOU SAY, OTHER -- IF WE'RE NOT DEAD ON AND SAY HOW IT AFFECTS THIS COUNTY IN A VERY NEGATIVE WAY, THIS BILL -- AND I AGREE WITH YOU THAT [INAUDIBLE] -- >>PETER ALUOTTO: UNFORTUNATELY -- >>JIM NORMAN: SO YEAH. >>PETER ALUOTTO: -- I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. WE TOOK GREAT PAINS NOT TO SAY THAT THIS WAS GOOD OR BAD OR INDIFFERENT, BUT WE JUST SAID WHAT WE THOUGHT THE IMPACTS OF WHAT THIS WOULD BE BASED ON ITS PLAIN ENGLISH MEANING, AND BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE WAY IT LOOKS TO US. IT LOOKS TO US THAT IN THE ENTIRE URBAN SERVICE AREA ALL THOSE PROJECTS GET A PASS. IT ALSO LOOKS TO US LIKE IF YOU HAVE A DRI OUT THERE AND YOU HAVEN'T BEGUN YOUR PROJECT YET, YOU CAN REQUEST IT TO BE RESCINDED AND IT WOULD BE RESCINDED. >>JIM NORMAN: NOW, LET ME JUST SAY THIS TO YOU. >>PETER ALUOTTO: NOW, AGAIN, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. THAT'S JUST MY -- >>JIM NORMAN: REQUESTS BY WHO? >>PETER ALUOTTO: I'M SORRY? >>JIM NORMAN: YOU SAY REQUESTS TO BE RESCINDED. TO US? >>PETER ALUOTTO: DRI REQUIREMENT. >>JIM NORMAN: HUH? >>PETER ALUOTTO: YES, IT WOULD COME TO THE COMMISSION. >>JIM NORMAN: WHAT IF WE SAID NO? >>PETER ALUOTTO: WELL, IT SAYS SHALL BE RESCINDED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. >>JIM NORMAN: BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS -- I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU WAS WOULD WE BE ABLE TO PUT OUR OWN CONCURRENCIES IN AND OUR OWN LEVEL OF CHANGES? >>PETER ALUOTTO: WELL, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW, AND THE REASON WHY I DON'T KNOW, AGAIN, IS BECAUSE IT -- THERE'S A MOBILITY FEE THAT'S TALKED ABOUT HERE THAT D.O.T. WON'T COME UP WITH UNTIL DECEMBER, AND THEN WE HAVE TWO YEARS AFTER THAT TO TRY TO IMPLEMENT IT. THE QUESTION IS IF I'VE HAD MY PROJECT RESCINDED AND I ALREADY HAVE IT PASS CONCURRENCY, CAN I NOW GO BACK TO SOMEBODY WHO'S PROJECT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND IMPOSE IT ON THEM? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE THERE'S AN ATTORNEY WHO CAN ADDRESS THAT QUESTION, BUT -- >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, IF -- >>PETER ALUOTTO: YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT'S POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, THAT'S FOR YOU-ALL TO DECIDE. >>MARK SHARPE: THE LANGUAGE, THOUGH, SAYS, IF REQUESTED BY THE DEVELOPER OR LANDOWNER, THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT ORDER SHALL BE RESCINDED. I DON'T SEE ANY INTERMEDIARY IN THERE THAT SAYS IT'S REVIEWED AND VOTED ON UP OR DOWN. THAT'S WHAT CAUSED ME CONCERN WHEN I READ THAT LANGUAGE AS WELL. AND MY CONCERN, COMMISSIONER NORMAN, IS I THINK THAT AGAIN -- THEY'VE DONE THIS BEFORE IN TALLAHASSEE. THEY'VE -- THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND -- WELL, THEY UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, BUT WE HAVE TO WORK THIS PROCESS, AND I JUST THINK THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH ISSUES AS IMPORTANT AS GROWTH MANAGEMENT THAT BEFORE - - I MEAN, I'M FINDING OUT WE'VE GOT DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS AND DIFFERENT OPINIONS, AND I'M NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING THE ATTORNEY'S OPINIONS -- >>JIM NORMAN: WAIT, COMMISSIONER SHARPE. SEE, I WANT OUR ATTORNEY TO TELL ME OR MR. ALUOTTO TO TELL ME DEAD ON, NOT MAY, NOT SHALL, NOT IF, I WANT YES, THIS WILL HURT OUR COUNTY BECAUSE OF THIS. I WANT THAT IN A LETTER. I WANT IT WILL DO THIS. I WANT A PRO THAT'S TELLING US WHY THIS IS -- >>RENEE LEE: COMMISSIONER, LET ME JUST TELL YOU THAT I THINK THIS BILL IS NEW TO ALL OF US, AND WE REALLY WEREN'T PREPARED FOR THE DISCUSSION TODAY TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU'D LIKE US TO IDENTIFY. WE CERTAINLY CAN GO BACK AND -- AND SIT DOWN TOGETHER, IDENTIFY THOSE ISSUES, AND -- AND BE MORE SPECIFIC IN THE LETTER THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I KNOW THAT THEY ARE SETTING ASIDE TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY AND SUBSTITUTING THE MOBILITY ASPECT OF IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT IMPACTS US AND WHAT IT DOES TO THE DRIs THAT WE HAVE OUTSTANDING. I KNOW THAT IT DOES ALLOW THE DR -- THE CURRENT DRIs TO COME BACK IN AND AMEND THEIR DEVELOPMENT ORDER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE HAVE OUT THERE, WHAT THE IMPACT IS. I MEAN, WE REALLY NEED TO SIT DOWN AND EXAMINE THIS IN A MORE DETAILED MANNER. YOU KNOW, THIS WAS ADDED ON, SO WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION AT HAND IF YOU WANT US TO ADDRESS THAT. WE NEED MORE TIME. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: AND I WOULD ASK -- I DON'T SEE HOW A BILL AS IMPORTANT AS THIS WITH THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF POSSIBLY HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON TAXPAYERS -- WHY WE WEREN'T FOLLOWING THIS -- >>PAT BEAN: WE WERE. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, OKAY. BUT THEN WHEN IT CHANGES AND IT'S ADJUSTED, WE OUGHT TO KNOW WHEN THEY ADD THIS AMENDMENT, THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS. WHEN THEY TAKE THIS AMENDMENT OUT, THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS. BOARD MEMBERS, ON OUR DAILY TRACKING -- I RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE MANY -- YOU'RE WORKING A BUDGET, YOU'RE TRYING TO BALANCE A BUDGET. WE'RE ALL FOCUSING ON ISSUES HERE. WE'VE GOT LEGISLATURES UP IN TALLAHASSEE REPRESENTING US, OF WHICH FOUR SENATORS VOTED AGAINST IT. SO THERE ARE -- I'VE BEEN CONTACTING COMMISSIONER STORMS' OFFICE TO ASK HER WHY DID YOU VOTE NO? AND I WAS TOLD THAT SHE RESEARCHED THIS THOROUGHLY AND THAT SENATOR STORMS FELT THIS BILL WAS INJURIOUS -- AND YOU KNOW HOW RONDA IS. IF SHE WAS SITTING HERE, IT WOULD BE 7:00 RIGHT NOW AND WE WOULD STILL BE SITTING HERE WITH RONDA, BUT SHE WAS VERY CLEAR IN HER CONCERNS REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THIS BILL, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BILL WHICH WE ALL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CLEAR IMPLICATIONS, ALTHOUGH WHEN I READ THIS, I MEAN, I THINK IF -- IF REQUESTED, SHALL BE RESCINDED IS A PRETTY CLEAR TRAIN OF THOUGHT THAT -- THAT THE -- THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF THIS COUNTY BEING IMPACTED IN A WAY WHICH WE MAY MIGHT NOT EVER RECOVER -- AND I MEAN, MY CONCERN WAS THIS. WE SAT BACK, WE DID NOTHING, IT GETS SIGNED, EVERYONE THINKS IT'S OKAY BECAUSE THERE'S GREAT LANGUAGE UP FRONT, AND THEN THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN BRANDON FIND OUT ALL THEIR PROJECTS ARE STOPPED AND WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT. >>JIM NORMAN: AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT THEM TO TELL US. I MEAN, IS THAT TRUE? I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I WANT THEM TO TELL US. >>MARK SHARPE: BUT I THINK THAT OUR LETTER SHOULD STATE THAT BASED UPON OUR READING OF THIS BILL AND THE READING OF OUR -- OF OUR DIRECTOR OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT THAT WE -- THE BURDEN'S ON THE STATE, AND THAT'S WHY DCA, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS STILL IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL AS OF THIS MORNING. >>EDITH STEWART: COMMISSIONER, IF I MIGHT. >>MARK SHARPE: YES, MA'AM. >>EDITH STEWART: THIS BILL, AS YOU ARE READING IT, HOLDING IT IN YOUR HANDS, HAPPENED IN THE LAST TWO HOURS OF MAY 1st. WOULD YOU HAVE WANTED ME TO BRING THIS BILL TO YOU FOR YOUR APPROVAL? THE WHOLE SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. NOW, WE WERE IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH OUR STAFF. THEY KNEW WHAT THESE AMENDMENTS WERE, WHAT WAS INCLUDED IN IT, AND THE REASON THAT COMMISSIONER STORMS HAD THE INFORMATION SHE DID IS BECAUSE WE DEALT WITH HER REGULARLY AND PROVIDED HER EVERYTHING SHE ASKED FOR. ALL FOUR OF OUR SENATORS VOTED NO. THEY DIDN'T DO THAT IN A VACUUM. THEY DID IT BECAUSE WE BROUGHT THEM INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WE LIKED AND WHAT WE DID NOT LIKE IN THE BILL. >>MARK SHARPE: SO IF OUR SENATORS HAVE VOTED NO, I THINK THAT'S A CLEAR INDICATION OF PERHAPS WHAT OUR POSITION SHOULD BE HERE ON THIS BOARD. IS THAT CORRECT? >>EDITH STEWART: WELL, EACH OF THEM HAD A SEPARATE REASON, I FEEL SURE, AND I WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO TELL YOU WHY THEY VOTED NO ON THE BILL. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE, WHAT I'M SAYING, THOUGH, IS WE NEED TO BE DEAD-ON SPECIFIC IN A LETTER IF IT'S GOING TO GO TO THE GOVERNOR SAYING IT'S GOING TO CAUSE THESE FIVE PROJECTS TO GO AWAY, IT'S GOING TO COST US $5 MILLION -- THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. WE NEED -- AND IF THE MOTION IS CONTINGENT UPON -- I WON'T SAY CONTINGENT UPON -- IF THE MOTION ANTICIPATES OUR STAFF BEING VERY SPECIFIC IN DETAIL, THAT'S WHAT I WANT. THE THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE FOUR SENATORS THAT -- THAT HAD DETAIL OF WHY THEY VOTED NO, I -- I'D LOVE TO HAVE THAT IN THAT LETTER OR SOMETHING THEREABOUTS THAT -- ACTUALLY, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET AN ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, A STAFF ANALYSIS. I WANT TO READ IT. I CAN'T EVEN READ IT. >>EDITH STEWART: WELL, IT'S NOT UP-TO-DATE. THE STAFF HASN'T HAD ADEQUATE TIME. >>JIM NORMAN: I MEAN, THIS IS -- >>MARK SHARPE: BUT THAT'S -- BUT THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD QUESTION. THIS IS HOW WE DECIDE GROWTH MANAGEMENT? AND SO A DECISION'S GOING TO BE MADE -- >>EDITH STEWART: NOT TO BE AN APOLOGIST, COMMISSIONER, BUT IF YOU WILL RECALL THE LAST TIME SENATE BILL 360 PASSED, THAT WAS THE SAME NUMBER IN THE LAST TREMENDOUS GROWTH MANAGEMENT BILL, THE VERY NEXT YEAR THEY DID A GLITCH BILL, AND I WILL TELL YOU WE ARE NOT STANDING ALONE IN THIS. THERE ARE EIGHT OTHER COUNTIES, ONE -- 190 CITIES WHICH ENCOMPASS A TOTAL OF 24 COUNTIES, ALL OF WHOM WILL BE DEALING AND STRUGGLING WITH INTERPRETING, UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS. THERE WILL BE CHANGES NEXT YEAR. THERE ALWAYS ARE. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, I HAVE NO PROBLEM IN A LETTER -- BECAUSE AGAIN, WHEN -- I DID NOT WANT TO DRAFT A LETTER AND SIMPLY SAY, GOVERNOR, WE OPPOSE THIS BILL, END OF SUBJECT. NO, MA'AM THAT'S MY -- >>MARK SHARPE: BECAUSE I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE EXISTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT LAW, WHICH EITHER PELHAM HIMSELF HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR ABOUT HIS CONCERNS ABOUT GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND HOW IT WORKS. >>EDITH STEWART: I WILL TELL YOU THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE WAS INVOLVED TOTALLY UNTIL THE FINAL MOMENTS. >>MARK SHARPE: BUT BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTING THIS AND LIVING WITH IT -- >>EDITH STEWART: I UNDERSTAND. >>MARK SHARPE: -- AND PAYING FOR IT, I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE CLEARLY STATE IN THE LETTER OUR CONCERNS REGARDING THIS BILL IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL AS WE UNDERSTAND IT AND LAY OUT THOSE QUESTIONS AND SPECIFICALLY QUESTIONS REGARDING 380.1151. ALSO I'M INTERESTED IN THE 163.3180(5) WHICH IS WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THIS EXEMPTION BEING CREATED, THE COUNTY IS TO ADOPT TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES TO SUPPORT AND FUND MOBILITY. I'VE HEARD IT'S SUGGESTED FROM SOME, WELL, YOU'RE RIGHT, COMMISSIONER, WHAT YOU'LL DO IS YOU'LL HAVE A NEW FEE, AN IMPACT FEE. REALLY? AN IMPACT FEE. WHAT TYPE OF IMPACT FEE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MAYBE A TAX. REALLY? THIS IS ONE OF THOSE UNFUNDED MANDATE TYPE STATEMENTS WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE A COST -- >>EDITH STEWART: WHICH CLEARLY IT IS, AND SOME OF THE FINAL WORDS IN THIS DECLARE IT A PUBLIC PURPOSE, WHICH IS HOW THEY OVERCOME THE UNFUNDED MANDATE. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, THE -- MY CONCERN GOES BACK TO MY BEGINNING STATEMENT, WHICH IS I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS PROCESS IS -- IS A FAR-FROM-PERFECT PROCESS, BUT I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THE RAPID GROWTH THAT OCCURRED WITHOUT THE CORRESPONDING INFRASTRUCTURE ON ROADS AT LEAST A YEAR OR SO AGO TO THE TUNE OF ANYWHERE FROM $3 BILLION TO $6 BILLION WE WERE BEHIND. I BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL WILL ONLY PUSH US FURTHER BEHIND, AND THAT MEANS SOMEONE'S GOING TO HAVE TO PICK UP THE TAB, AND WE NEED TO BE AS CLEAR AS WE POSSIBLY CAN BE THAT WE WANT TO WORK TOWARDS A SOLUTION, AND I BELIEVE THE SOLUTION IS SOME REMEDY WHICH MR. ALUOTTO HIMSELF HAS ALLUDED TO THAT WOULD INCLUDE A MATRIX AND/OR FORMULA TO DO AWAY WITH ALL THE NEGOTIATIONS, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT THE DEVELOPERS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IT. THERE ARE OTHER ELEMENTS -- MANY OTHER ELEMENTS THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS, BUT I JUST THINK THERE'S SO MANY QUESTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES, HOW COULD WE JUST TAKE A PASS AND SAY, WELL, BECAUSE WE AREN'T AWARE, WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DETAIL WELL ENOUGH, WE'RE GOING TO SILENTLY SIT BACK -- I MEAN, I'M SUGGESTING WE'RE SILENT AND SITTING BACK, BUT SILENTLY SIT BACK AND ALLOW IT THIS TO BE SIGNED, AND THEN WE'VE GOT TO AFTER IT'S NOW LAW GO BACK AND FIX IT. SO I WILL REPEAT THAT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION WHICH IS TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR LAYING OUT OUR CONCERNS REGARDING THIS BILL, OUR OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING POINTS AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM, BUT WE SHOULD ALSO MAKE CLEAR IN THE LETTER OUR CONCERN WITH -- REGARDING CONCURRENCY AS IT NOW STANDS. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A -- A FAIR BALANCE, BUT IT WOULD ALLOW US TO MAKE CLEAR OUR OPPOSITION TO WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE AN INJURIOUS BILL. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: YOU WANT TO GO FIRST? OKAY. MR. SHARPE, I AGREE WITH YOU. THE COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME WE HAVE TO REGISTER OUR POSITION? >>MARK SHARPE: [INAUDIBLE] >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. SENATOR IN WAITING, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT -- BUT THE POINT IS YOU'RE WANTING TO DO IT, I'M CERTAINLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE MOTION. HE WANTS SPECIFICS. THERE'S SOMEBODY -- THERE'S NOT ANYBODY HERE WHO CAN TELL US SPECIFICALLY THIS IS HOW IT'S GOING TO HURT US BECAUSE SOME THINGS MIGHT BE GOOD, BUT THE POINT IS WE REACTED TOO LITTLE BIT TOO LATE, AND SO NOW WE'RE IN A BUM'S RUSH TO HURRY UP AND GET SOMETHING OVER THERE. WHO EXACTLY IS GOING TO COMPOSE THE LANGUAGE OF THIS OPPOSITION LETTER? I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU GUYS KEEP BATTLING BACK AND FORTH WITH. I MEAN CAN YOU -- CAN YOU -- >>PAT BEAN: WE WILL TAKE A STAB AT IT IF THAT IS THE BOARD'S DIRECTION. I JUST NEED TO REPEAT AGAIN, THOUGH, THAT I REALLY DON'T THINK I CAN LEAVE ON THE RECORD THE IMPLICATION THAT WE WEREN'T FOLLOWING THIS AND WE WEREN'T TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, DO WHAT WE COULD DO TO PROTECT THE COUNTY BECAUSE THERE IS NOBODY ANY BETTER AT HER JOB THAN EDITH STEWART, AND I KNOW WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT, BUT IF THE BOARD DIRECTS US TO DO SO, WE'LL PUT TOGETHER A LETTER THAT WILL HIGHLIGHT BOTH THE POSITIVES THAT WE SEE IN THE BILL AS WELL AS THE THINGS THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT AND ASK FOR ANSWERS BEFORE ANY BILL IS SIGNED. IS THAT KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, COMMISSIONER? >>ROSE FERLITA: I'M SORRY, MAYBE I'M JUST -- I'M NOT FAMILIAR -- HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT'LL TAKE BEFORE HE SIGNS IT? EDITH, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA? >>EDITH STEWART: DURING THE SESSION -- HE HAS A CONSTRICTED PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THE SESSION HAS ADJOURNED, AND I'M SORRY, I CAN'T GIVE YOU A LEGAL OPINION ON WHETHER THEY'RE STILL -- YOU KNOW, THEY ARE COMING BACK ON FRIDAY. I BELIEVE THEY EXTENDED. SO IF THE BILL GOT TO HIM THIS WEEK, THEY'VE RUSHED THIS BILL THROUGH BILL DRAFTING TO PUT IT IN THE ENROLLED FORM. IT DIDN'T GO IN ITS NORMAL ORDER. SOMEONE HAS PUSHED IT FORWARD. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO IF THAT WERE THE CASE, WHEN COULD YOU ANTICIPATE THAT HE'D HAVE THE OPTION -- >>EDITH STEWART: THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW. THE OFFICERS OF EACH HOUSE HAS TO SIGN IT AND THEN IT GOES TO THE GOVERNOR, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING HE'S ATTEMPTING TO SET UP A SCHEDULE TO DO IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, THEN, THERE AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF BEING SPECIFIC. WE CAN SAY THAT WE FEEL ON ITS FACE IT'S GOING TO DO A LOT OF DAMAGE TO OUR GROWTH PATTERNS IN THIS COUNTY. AND LET ME JUST SAY -- MAKE A COMMENT ASIDE HERE. YOU KNOW, WORKING ON THESE THINGS IS ALWAYS A WORK IN PROGRESS, AND I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON ELECTED OFFICIALS TO IMPROVE THAT WORK IN PROGRESS. I KNOW THAT I WAS IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH EDITH STEWART ON ANOTHER BILL, WHICH WAS A PRESCRIPTION DRUG MONITORING PROGRAM, AND I DID CALL YOU AND I THINK I DID E-MAIL YOU WHEN I GOT SOME CONCERNS FROM CONSTITUENTS. NOW, THIS IS WATER OVER THE DAM, BUT I THINK -- I HOPE WE'VE ALL LEARNED A LESSON THAT REGARDLESS IF IT'S INITIATED FROM YOU TO US OR US TO YOU, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING MORE PROACTIVE NEXT TIME. WE DROPPED THE BALL A LITTLE BIT, AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE, BUT LESSONS LEARNED, BUT LET'S HURRY UP AND SEND OUR OPPOSITION. IF IT'S -- IF YOU'RE ABLE TO DO THE DETAILING, THEN DO IT. IF NOT, I'D RATHER HAVE A BILL -- A LETTER THERE IN GENERALITIES AS OPPOSED TO NONE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS COUNTY IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT THAT THIS BILL IS GOING TO HAVE ON OUR CONSTITUENTS. SO, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU-ALL WANT TO GO WITH THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND I'M ALSO SUPPORTIVE OF THE MOTION BECAUSE I THINK THIS REALLY DOES HAVE A POTENTIALLY NEGATIVE IMPACT IN OUR COUNTY. YES, WE'RE A LITTLE SLOW IN GETTING TO THIS, BUT WE'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO GET A BETTER HOLD OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN TALLAHASSEE AND BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO IT, SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, BUT THEN IF THE BOARD WOULD ENTERTAIN, I HAVE A SOLUTION THAT I THINK -- FOR THE FUTURE THAT I THINK WOULD RESOLVE THIS ISSUE, AND ONCE WE VOTE ON THIS, I'D LIKE TO JUST BRIEFLY BRING THAT MOTION FORWARD. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR, I THINK THAT THE LETTER SHOULD BE WRITTEN BY STAFF. THERE ARE GOING TO BE CERTAIN THINGS WHICH WE'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW, BUT THAT'S PART OF MY OPPOSITION. I THINK ANYTIME -- WE TALKED ABOUT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE EARLIER, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALL MADE IT VERY CLEAR, WE WANTED IT TO BE SCRUBBED, UNDERSTOOD BEFORE WE GO FORWARD UP OR DOWN, AND AN ISSUE AS IMPORTANT AS GROWTH MANAGEMENT, IT OUGHT TO BE THE SAME. AND IF THERE ARE OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES, WELL, THEN, I THINK THAT WEIGHS AGAINST THE BILL. SO MY SENSE IS THAT WE -- THE LETTER IS CLEAR THAT WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. THIS IS NOT A WE HAVE CONCERNS PRO AND CON, THIS IS A WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, AND THEN WE CAN LAY OUT, AS YOU'VE LAID OUT AND COMMISSIONER NORMAN AND OTHERS HAVE LAID OUT, THE COMMENTS, INCLUDING AREAS WHERE PERHAPS -- AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO ENUMERATE ALL THE AREAS THAT WE SUPPORT, JUST INDICATE THAT THERE ARE SOME ELEMENTS OF THE BILL WHICH ARE POSITIVE ELEMENTS, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE CLEAR TO THE GOVERNOR OUR OPPOSITION BUT ALSO AS WELL -- AND I'VE MADE THIS CLEAR TO MR. BROOKS AND OTHERS THAT I'VE TALKED WITH. THIS IS NOT THAT WE'RE SATISFIED WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM BECAUSE WE'RE NOT AT ALL. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: THE REASON I THINK SPECIFICS ARE IMPORTANT, IF WE WRITE A LETTER LIKE THAT AND THE GOVERNOR SIGNS THE BILL, I THINK HE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY OR SOMEONE IN THAT OFFICE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY OF SAYING -- LIKE USE AN EXAMPLE, ALL OF OUR CONTRACTS AND ALL THE THINGS IN BRANDON GO AWAY OR OUR 301 AGREEMENT GOES AWAY. HAVE WE MISSED SOMETHING THAT HE WILL BE ON POINT TO SAY THAT'S NOT TRUE, YOUR -- YOUR STUFF IS STILL WHOLE, YOUR DRI -- YOU KNOW, THEY CAN COME IN, BUT THERE IS THIS FIX? I THINK IF WE'RE ON POINT AND HIGHLIGHT OUR MAJOR CONCERNS, I THINK THEY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY IF THE BILL IS SIGNED THAT THEY GIVE US ANSWERS TO OUR -- OUR VERY KEY POINTS THAT WE THINK ARE DEVASTATING TO US. THAT'S -- THAT'S WHY I THINK IF WE HAD SOMEBODY THAT WOULD PUT THOSE IN A LETTER, THEY -- WE -- I THINK THEY HAVE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF DOING THAT, SO SAY -- THEY WOULD WRITE BACK AND SAY, WELL, FOR MORE CLARIFICATION, THIS IS HOW THAT BILL DOESN'T AFFECT THAT. I'M -- I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE WOULD BE, SO -- ANYWAY. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO COMMISSIONER SHARPE'S MOTION? >>ROSE FERLITA: YES. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER BECKNER. NO FURTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>PAT BEAN: COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE SOME CONSENT ITEMS THAT WERE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION. ITEM A-9, THAT WAS PULLED BY -- I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER BECKNER, YOU HAD ANOTHER -- >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER, YOU HAD ANOTHER MOTION. I'M SORRY. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT GOING FORWARD, WE NEED TO TAKE TO HEART AS COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF MEMBERS THAT WE ARE THE KEEPERS OF THIS COUNTY, AND WE NEED TO STAY ON TOP OF BILLS FLOWING THROUGH TALLAHASSEE THAT COULD HAVE A POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR COUNTY OR THERE MAY BE SOME BILLS THAT WE REALLY WANT TO ADVOCATE FOR, AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS IN THE FUTURE PROVIDE A MECHANISM THAT -- OR ACTUALLY A FORUM THAT WOULD ALLOW US AS COMMISSIONERS TO STAY ON TOP OF THESE ISSUES. BEFORE I GET TO THAT, I DO WANT TO THANK EDITH STEWART FOR ALL THE WORK THAT SHE'S DONE IN TALLAHASSEE. WHEN I WENT UP TO TALLAHASSEE, I SPOKE WITH HER REGARDING SOME MOBILITY ISSUES FOR OUR SENIORS, AND SHE WAS VERY INSTRUMENTAL IN PUTTING SOME THINGS IN MOTION, SO I KNOW THAT HER AND OUR LOBBYISTS WORK EXTRAORDINARILY HARD, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT FOR NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION THAT WE ADD A LEGISLATIVE SECTION TO OUR BOCC AGENDA THAT WOULD ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR LOBBYISTS TO COME IN HERE, EXPLAIN AND PROVIDE US DETAILS ABOUT SOME UPCOMING BILLS THAT COULD IMPACT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THAT WOULD PROVIDE A FORUM FOR US AS COMMISSIONERS WE COULD DISCUSS THE PROs AND CONS OF THESE BILLS AND THEN AS NECESSARY TAKE PROACTIVE ACTIONS AND SEND DIRECTIVES TO THE LEGISLATORS SO WE'RE NOT WINDING UP HERE AGAIN AT THE LAST HOUR TRYING TO STOP SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE A POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT TO OUR COUNTY. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION. >>KEN HAGAN: I HAVE ONE QUESTION. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA, BUT ARE YOU SUGGESTING FOR EVERY -- EVERY MEETING DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION OR -- I MEAN, I KNOW A LOT OF TIMES OBVIOUSLY EDITH IS IN TALLAHASSEE AND PROBABLY ALL OF THE LOBBYISTS, SO HOW OFTEN ARE YOU ASKING IT, AND WHO WOULD PROVIDE IT IF SHE'S IN -- IF OUR STAFF'S IN TALLAHASSEE AND THOSE TYPE OF THINGS? >>KEVIN BECKNER: WELL, I THINK THAT DURING EACH BOARD MEETING, AGAIN WE SET ASIDE AN "X" AMOUNT OF TIME. IT CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT CONSUME OUR ENTIRE BOARD MEETING, BUT WE PROVIDE A SECTION ON THE AGENDA, AND AGAIN, DURING THAT -- I THINK DURING EACH BOARD MEETING, AND IF THERE'S NO UPDATES OR ANYTHING TO REPORT, THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANYTHING SET FOR THAT PARTICULAR BOARD MEETING. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. CHAIRMAN, ALTHOUGH, MR. BECKNER, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO GO WITH THIS SO THAT WE CAN KEEP BETTER TRACK OF WHAT'S GOING ON, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. I DON'T SEE HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE HERE AT EACH BOARD MEETING THROUGH LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND STILL TRACK BILLS ON A QUICK-BY-QUICK BASIS. I MEAN, DO YOU NOT AGREE, EDITH? I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN BE UP THERE AND COME DOWN HERE, SO I HATE TO PUT YOU IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, BUT -- >>EDITH STEWART: NOT ONLY THAT, I AM SO SORRY TO HAVE TO SAY THIS, BUT THESE THINGS CHANGE SO QUICKLY, I CAN BRING YOU A BILL WITH A NUMBER, AND YOU'RE GOING TO CEMENT IT IN YOUR MIND, AND THEN THAT BILL IS ROLLED INTO ANOTHER BILL - - >>JIM NORMAN: THE SENATE VERSION. >>EDITH STEWART: -- AND YOU'LL NEVER SEE IT BY ITS NUMBER AGAIN, AND YOU KNOW, THIS GROWTH MANAGEMENT BILL HAS THE ENTIRE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THING THAT THEY HAD TOTALLY DISREGARDED UNTIL THE LAST HOUR AND AMENDED IT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT BILL, BUT I'LL BE HAPPY TO KEEP YOU APPRISED OF THE ITEMS AS THEY COME UP, BUT LET ME TELL YOU, WE ALWAYS WORK UNDER YOUR INSTRUCTIONS TO STOP UNFUNDED MANDATES AND TO KEEP LOCAL CONTROL. THERE WERE TERRIBLE BILLS THIS YEAR. THEY WANTED TO DECIMATE YOUR EPC, PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS WERE BEING ABROGATED BY THE STATE, THEY WANTED TO TAKE AWAY YOUR ABILITY TO COLLECT STORMWATER FEES ON AGRICULTURAL LAND. THERE WAS NO LOCAL CONTROL CONSIDERATION HERE, BUT I CAN BRING YOU GENERAL ISSUES AND LET YOU KNOW AND DO ALERTS. OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE A DESIRE TO BE BETTER INFORMED, AND I'M LISTENING TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND I'LL DO THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: AND COMMISSIONER BECKNER, I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN UP THERE 30 YEARS, I -- BACK AND FORTH DOING THIS STUFF, AND THE THINGS THAT SHE JUST SAID A FEW MINUTES AGO, THAT AT THE CLOSE OF THE LAST DAY OF THE SESSION IF THEY'RE THERE UNTIL 11:00 AT NIGHT, THEY GET TOGETHER AND THE LAST TWO HOURS THEY WILL GET A BILL, THEY'LL SEND IT OVER MESSAGES, AND WE'RE NOT MEETING. THIS BILL MIGHT HAVE -- WHEN WE HAD OUR MEETING MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOMETHING EVERY ONE OF US SUPPORTED, BUT THEN WHEN AMENDMENTS START BEING TACKED ON AND THEY'RE IN THERE ADVOCATING FOR US -- BUT THERE'S NO WAY UNLESS -- UNLESS SHE'S TEXTING EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US THAT VERY SECOND THAT WE WOULD THEN MAYBE GET ON PHONES AND CALL PEOPLE AND TRY TO REACH THEIR STAFFS -- I MEAN, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THIS STUFF ABOUT EVERY TWO WEEKS REPORTING OR EVERY WEEK REPORTING, IT'S SO OLD AND DEAD NEWS IT'S UNBELIEVABLE. I MEAN, IT TRULY IS. >>MARK SHARPE: DO YOU TWITTER? [LAUGHTER] >>EDITH STEWART: YES, BUT AS AN ASIDE, BROWARD COUNTY HAD THREE COMMISSIONERS THERE THE ENTIRE LAST WEEK. BROWARD COUNTY'S ONE OF THE COUNTY'S INCLUDED IN THE BILL. >>JIM NORMAN: AM I PRETTY DEAD-ON WHAT I'M TELLING YOU? >>EDITH STEWART: YES, SIR, YOU ARE. MEMBERS TWITTER BACK AND FORTH TO TELL EACH OTHER HOW TO VOTE. >>JIM NORMAN: I MEAN, THAT'S WHY THEY LIVE THERE -- THEY LIVE THERE, AND IT'S FROM EARLY MORNING, AND THEY CAN CONTINUE THINGS UNTIL LATE AT NIGHT, AND THAT'S WHY CITIZENS HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS ABOUT OPEN GOVERNMENT BECAUSE WHEN THEY'RE DOING THINGS, THINGS JUST -- NO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE OPEN, AND THEY'RE JUST CONTINUING THEIR WORK. THAT -- YOU HAVE GOT TO GET THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN THERE THAT ARE SUPPORTING YOUR CAUSES FROM YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THAT'S WHAT ELECTIONS ARE ALL ABOUT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: NO, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE, THOUGH, THERE'S GOT TO BE A MECHANISM OR THERE'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING WE CAN DO TO KEEP OUR CITIZENS UP-TO-DATE ABOUT WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON, TO GIVE THEM A FORUM TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, THESE ARE ISSUES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO US, IT'S HAPPENING IN TALLAHASSEE, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT EDITH BE HERE EVERY DAY, BUT CERTAINLY THERE SHOULD BE SOME WAY THAT THEY CAN DELIVER TO THE BOARD A REPORT OF WHAT'S HAPPENING. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THINGS CHANGE ALL THE TIME, BUT WHEN THERE ARE VITAL THINGS THAT ARE CHANGING, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ALSO RECEIVE SOME TYPE OF A COMMUNICATION THAT ALLOWS US TO RESPOND TO THAT SO WE CAN MAKE A DECISION AS A BOARD IF WE WANT TO TAKE AN ACTION AS, FOR INSTANCE, SENDING A LETTER TO OUR REPRESENTATIVES OR TO THE GOVERNOR, SO I DON'T NECESSARILY ACCEPT THAT THERE'S NO WAY TO DO THIS. WE HAVE GOT TO BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A, A WAY, AND BEING AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT, YOU KNOW, I JUST THINK THE BEST -- ONE OF THE BEST FORUMS IS TO HAVE AT LEAST SOME TYPE OF AN UPDATE THAT WE CAN RECEIVE DURING OUR REGULAR BOCC MEETINGS. >>EDITH STEWART: AND WE CAN DO THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: I'LL PASS THE GAVEL TO COMMISSIONER SHARPE. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION, BUT LET'S JUST -- PERHAPS BEFORE THE NEXT SESSION WE'LL HAVE TO IRON OUT THE SPECIFICS ON HOW WE WANT TO DO IT. I'M ALL FOR GETTING AN UPDATE, BUT JUST REALIZING EVERYTHING -- WHAT COMMISSIONER NORMAN AND COMMISSIONER FERLITA ARE SUGGESTING THAT, AGAIN, IT COULD BE OLD NEWS BY THE TIME WE DO DISCUSS IT, BUT CERTAINLY THERE ARE TOPICS THAT WE COULD POINT OUT, MAYBE NOT SPECIFIC BILLS, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE JUST A BROAD EXPLANATION. I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT IT TO GET INTO 30-MINUTE, HOUR-LONG DISCUSSION ON EVERY MEETING, BUT I'M SURE WE CAN FIND A WAY TO UPDATE THE BOARD ON SPECIFIC ISSUES OR TOPICS, EVEN IF WE DON'T GO TO THE DEGREE OF EVERY ITEM ON EVERY BILL BECAUSE AS WAS STATED, IT CHANGES HOURLY IT SEEMS. SO -- COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: BASICALLY THAT'S IT, MR. HAGAN. I THINK THE SESSION'S OVER FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, AND SO IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO FIND SOME -- REFINE SOME WAY OF COMMUNICATION, THAT'S FINE, BUT WE STILL HAVE THE ISSUE OF IT CHANGING CONSTANTLY, SO WE PROBABLY NEED TO TARGET THE THINGS THAT APPEAR TO BE OF CONCERN AND THEN TRY TO BE IN AS FREQUENT COMMUNICATION AS POSSIBLE OVER THOSE SPECIFICS. OTHER BEING UP THERE, I DON'T KNOW MUCH ELSE THAT OUR LOBBYISTS CAN DO ON A CHANGE-BY-CHANGE, HOUR-BY-HOUR BASIS, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO DIMINISH WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, MR. BECKNER, BUT I THINK BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT SESSION LET'S SEE WHAT WE COME UP WITH COLLECTIVELY, LET'S HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS AND SEE HOW WE CAN DO TWO THINGS, GET BETTER COMMUNICATION WITH OUR LOBBYISTS AND AT THE SAME TIME NOT IMPEDE THEM FROM FOLLOWING SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY'RE BUSY GIVING US WHAT COULD BE AT THAT POINT OUTMODED INFORMATION, SO LET'S JUST TRY TO WORK TOWARDS IT. I THINK WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE, BUT WE'RE NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW WE'RE GOING TO ACCOMMODATE THAT OR IMPROVE IT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: NO, AND WE DO HAVE TIME TO IRON THIS OUT, SO I DON'T EXPECT US TO FIND A SOLUTION TODAY, BUT I'M CONFIDENT THAT -- WITH STAFF AND INPUT WE'LL FIGURE OUT A WAY BEFORE THE NEXT LEGISLATURE -- >>ROSE FERLITA: YOUR MOTION IS CERTAINLY BEING SUPPORTED, SO WE'LL GO FROM THERE. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU. >>MARK SHARPE: SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BECKNER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAGAN. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>PAT BEAN: OKAY. NOW WE'RE DOWN TO THE CONSENT AGENDA QUESTIONS THAT WERE PULLED OR ITEMS THAT WERE PULLED. ITEM A-9, COMMISSIONER BECKNER, WAS YOUR ITEM. THIS IS DIRECTING STAFF TO SCHEDULE AND ADVERTISE A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC ART ORDINANCE. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MS. BEAN. I JUST -- I HAVE A REAL CONCERN THAT WE ARE HEADING DOWN TOWARDS A PATH TOWARDS ELIMINATING THE PUBLIC ARTS PROGRAM, WHICH, IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, I THINK WOULD BE A SERIOUS MISTAKE. I PASSED OUT A BROCHURE THAT WAS ACTUALLY A STUDY THAT WAS DONE BY THE PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS FOR THE TAMPA BAY BUSINESS COMMITTEE FOR THE ARTS, AND IN THAT STUDY YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE ARTS -- THAT THE -- RESEARCH FOUND THAT THE ARTS AND CULTURE AT ABOUT $521.3 MILLION TO THE TAMPA BAY ECONOMY WITH 323 MILLION GOING DIRECTLY TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM MR. KEEBLE, THE ARTS COUNCIL, THAT THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL STUDY COMING OUT THAT'S GOING TO SHOW EVEN A GREATER IMPACT, AND IT'S NOT ONLY THE ECONOMIC VALUE, OF COURSE, IT'S THE CULTURAL VALUE THAT OUR -- THAT IT ADDS AS WELL AS TO OUR LANDSCAPE, AND I BELIEVE THAT REALLY THE ARTS ARE A MAGNET FOR CREATIVE INDUSTRIES, CULTURAL TOURISTS, SCHOOLCHILDREN, AND THE WORKFORCE THAT I WOULD DEEM OF TOMORROW. SO I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY VITAL THAT WE CONTINUE TO INVEST IN THE ARTS. NOW, WITH THAT SAID, I'M ALSO WELL AWARE OF THE FINANCIAL CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE TODAY, AND I'M SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT WE FACE THE POTENTIAL OF LAYING OFF PEOPLE, AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO AGENCY OR PROGRAM OUT THERE THAT SHOULD BE IMMUNE TO ANY TYPE OF BUDGET CUTS, AND THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE THAT OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS REALLY JUST TOO RESTRICTIVE AND RIGID AND DOES NOT ALLOW ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY FOR OUR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AS WELL AS THIS BOARD TO REACT TO FINANCIALLY CHALLENGING TIMES, AND SO THE QUESTION IS, IS HOW CAN WE BE REACTIVE TO THAT WHILE STILL REMAINING COMMITTED TO INVESTING IN THE ARTS? SO I ACTUALLY HAVE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS THAT I BELIEVE THAT COULD PROVIDE A SOLUTION TO THIS, AND I'LL STATE MY MOTIONS FOR BOTH OF THOSE, AND THEN -- BECAUSE THEY TIE IN TOGETHER -- AND THEN WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION ABOUT THEM. MY FIRST MOTION WOULD BE TO KEEP THE ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE AT 1% BUT INSERT LANGUAGE THAT DURING THE BUDGET CYCLE IN WHICH THE COUNTY IS PROJECTED TO EXPERIENCE AN AGGREGATE DECLINE IN MAJOR COUNTY REVENUE FROM THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY LOWER THE ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE TO NO LESS THAN ONE-HALF PERCENT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME NOT TO EXCEED TWO YEARS UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS THIS WOULD GIVE US SOME FLEXIBILITY - - INSTEAD OF BEING SO RIGID ON A PERCENTAGE, WHEN WE HAVE MILD DECLINES IN THE BUDGET OR PROJECTED BUDGET THAT WE ARE ABLE TO ACTUALLY CUT THE FUNDING BY 50% BUT YET STILL HAVE SOME COMMITMENT TO THE PROGRAM. MY SECOND MOTION WOULD STATE THAT -- IT WOULD AMEND SECTION 4-D AND ALL CORRELATING SECTIONS AND WOULD READ, DURING A BUDGET CYCLE IN WHICH THE COUNTY IS PROJECTED TO EXPERIENCE A SEVERE AGGREGATE DECLINE OF MAJOR COUNTY REVENUE, A FULL OR PARTIAL WAIVER OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR ALL COUNTY FACILITY PROJECTS MAY BE GRANTED BY SUPERMAJORITY VOTE BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR UP TO TWO YEARS UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. A SEVERE AGGREGATE DECLINE WOULD BE DEFINED AS AN ACTUAL AGGREGATE DECREASE OF 5% OR MORE FROM THE LAST FISCAL YEAR OF MAJOR COUNTY REVENUES. NOW, WHAT THIS WOULD ALLOW US TO DO IS WHEN WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE -- LIKE TODAY THAT IF IT'S NECESSARY, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND ADJUST THAT PERCENTAGE BELOW THE ONE- HALF PERCENT THRESHOLD AND TAKE IT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO ZERO IF NECESSARY, BUT AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME, IF WE FIND THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ALLOCATE MAYBE A 10th OF A PERCENT, A QUARTER OF A PERCENT, THAT WOULD GIVE THIS BOARD AND THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THE FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. SO AGAIN, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY TO THIS ORDINANCE BEFORE WE PUT IT OUT THERE, AGAIN, BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THESE CHALLENGING ECONOMIC TIMES THAT WE'RE IN, AND BOTH OF THESE WOULD -- WOULD CONTAIN SUNSET PROVISIONS THAT AT THE END OF THE SPECIFIED TIME THAT IS AGREED UPON THAT THAT ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE WOULD RETURN TO THE -- TO THE ORIGINAL 1%. SO THOSE ARE MY TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS THAT I'D LIKE TO BRING FORWARD, AND I WILL YIELD THE FLOOR TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR COMMENTS. >>MARK SHARPE: MR. NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: WELL, LET ME SAY LET'S REMOVE THE ARTS, LET'S REMOVE SPORTS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF. WHAT I THINK GENERALLY WE NEED TO FOCUS ON -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN DO IT TODAY -- AND I THINK TO RUSH INTO THOSE KIND OF MOTIONS TODAY WOULD BE WRONG. I THINK WITH THE BUDGETARY ISSUES THAT WE FACE, I WOULD SUPPORT YOU REFERRING SOMETHING OVER TO THE ADMINISTRATION. I BELIEVE THIS COUNTY NEEDS TO SUPPORT ISSUES THAT ARE REVENUE GENERATING, AND THAT'S THE BASIS OF SPORTS OR THIS OR WHATEVER THAT I START OUT WITH, THAT IF WE MAKE INVESTMENTS AND HAVE THOSE RETURN ON INVESTMENTS, THAT'S RUNNING GOVERNMENT LIKE A BUSINESS, AND THOSE ARE -- THOSE ARE SOME OF THE PHILOSOPHIES THAT WE NEED TO REALLY KEEP AN EYE ON. WHATEVER LEVEL THAT IS, I -- AND TO VERIFY SOME OF THE -- AND I HAVE SAID THAT TO THE -- THE DIFFERENT ARTS FOLKS THAT HAVE COME AND MET WITH ME BEFORE. I WOULD -- I WOULD SUPPORT YOU SENDING THAT OVER TO PAT AND SAY -- ADOPTING A PHILOSOPHY ON RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND WHAT LEVELS CAN WE SUPPORT IT THIS YEAR OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS. TO SAY THE THINGS -- I DON'T KNOW IF THINGS ARE GOING TO RECOVER IN TWO YEARS, AND THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE SAYING ARE -- AND HOW YOU'RE PUTTING IN THE NO SUNSETS IN AND WHATEVER -- I SUPPORT SOMETHING, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF STRUCTURE THEY COULD BRING BACK TO GET US THERE. I BELIEVE WE -- AN ECONOMIC GENERATOR WE SHOULD NOT ELIMINATE, AND HOW THAT COULD BE STRUCTURED, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. NOW, YOU MAY HAVE THE VOTES FOR EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING, BUT THAT'S WHERE I AM, AND I BELIEVE THERE COULD BE SOME -- WE'RE IN A -- WE'RE IN A BUDGET PROCESS THAT I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME PRETTY CRAFTFUL MINDS OVER THERE, AND I WOULD SUBMIT THAT OVER AND SUPPORT YOU SUBMITTING THAT OVER TO THE ADMINISTRATION TO BRING BACK SOME STRUCTURE ON HOW THAT WE CAN STILL MAKE AN INVESTMENT IN ARTS FOR A RETURN ON OUR INVESTMENT. [INAUDIBLE] >>MARK SHARPE: WE HAVE A MOTION BUT NO SECOND AT THIS TIME, AND ARE YOU -- ARE YOU MAKING THAT AS A MOTION OR JUST OFFERING IT AS -- >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER BECKNER, REFER SOMETHING TO THE ADMINISTRATION TO COME UP WITH A FORMULA TO WHAT LEVEL DURING THIS BUDGET TIME WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD MAKE AN INVESTMENT, KEEP ARTS GOING, RETURN ON INVESTMENT FORMULA, AND BRING THAT BACK AND HAVE ERIC JOHNSON, MIKE MERRILL, ALL OF OUR FINANCE TEAM KNOWING WHERE WE ARE, TO HAVE THAT HARD CRAFT OF -- OF THE 1% AND WHATEVER. I KNOW -- I APPRECIATE WHERE YOU'RE GOING, BUT I BELIEVE THEY NEED TO WORK ON IT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: NO, AND -- NO, AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE'RE CRAFTING THE ORDINANCE THAT, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GOING DOWN THE ROAD THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO NOT INVEST IN THE ARTS, AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO BECAUSE -- >>JIM NORMAN: WHAT I JUST SAID IS I BELIEVE THAT'S AN ECONOMIC ENGINE, AND I BELIEVE THAT IF WE CRAFTED IT IN A WAY -- I EVEN HAD SOME THOUGHTS WITH THEM ON -- ON HOW TO MAKE INVESTMENTS BEFORE ON HOW TO INVEST IN THE ARTS AND HAVE THOSE SPECIFIED RETURNS, BUT I THINK STAFF COULD WORK ON THAT AND BRING BACK A GOOD SOLUTION AND KEEP AN INVESTMENT IN THE ARTS GOING, AND THERE'S NO ATTEMPT -- THAT'S NOT -- DON'T READ INTO THAT AT ALL. THERE'S NO ATTEMPT THERE TO ELIMINATE EVERYTHING, SO -- >>MARK SHARPE: YEAH, I MEAN, I REMEMBER VISITING WITH THE SHERIFF WHEN I FIRST GOT ELECTED, AND I WAS LOOKING AT JAIL DOORS THAT HE HAD ON THE WALLS, AND I SAID, WHAT'S THAT? HE SAID, WELL, WE WERE REQUIRED TO COME UP WITH AN ART. IT WAS KIND OF SILLY, SO THEY BASICALLY SPENT SOME MONEY AND PUT JAIL DOORS -- I MEAN, IT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING TO LOOK AT, BUT, I MEAN -- SO THIS REALLY TALKS ABOUT THE EXEMPTION OF FIRE RESCUE, DETENTION FACILITIES WHERE I THINK IT MAKES SENSE THAT -- THAT WE WOULDN'T ASK THEM TO EXPEND PUBLIC DOLLARS -- >>JIM NORMAN: RIGHT, AND COME UP WITH A FORMULA THAT WORKS, BUT YOU STILL HAVE INVESTMENT IN ARTS. THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING. >>KEVIN BECKNER: NO, AND I'M OKAY WITH THE OTHER PARTS OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY AND NOT JUST SOMETHING RIGID THERE THAT SAYS, WELL, EITHER WE CAN INVEST, YOU KNOW, A PERCENT OR HALF A PERCENT OR WE HAVE TO WAIVE THE WHOLE ENTIRE THING. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THIS BOARD HAS AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY AS POSSIBLE THAT, AGAIN, WHERE WE CAN ADJUST DOWNWARDS, YOU KNOW, WHEN THINGS GET CHALLENGING BUT WE CAN ALSO INVEST APPROPRIATELY WHEN THINGS ARE A LITTLE BIT BETTER, AND I JUST THINK WITH WHAT WE HAVE NOW, WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY. EVERYTHING ELSE AS FAR AS THEY HAVE STATED I AGREE. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE'RE INVESTING IN THE ARTS THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS VIABLE AND FEASIBLE, MAKES SENSE, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT -- YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE CHANGING THE LANGUAGE WHERE -- YOU KNOW, THE THINGS THAT WE DON'T INVEST IN BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IT NECESSARILY MAKES SENSE TO INVEST ART IN SOME OF THE THINGS STATED LIKE JAIL DOORS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. >>MARK SHARPE: MS. BEAN. >>PAT BEAN: YES, I JUST WANT TO GO ON THE RECORD, IF THERE'S ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM WHO LOVES ART, IT'S ME, AND I AM DEFINITELY TRYING MY BEST NOT TO DO ANYTHING HERE THAT WOULD LEAD US TOWARDS NOT CONTINUING THIS PROGRAM. IT'S -- I THINK IT'S AN EXTREMELY VALUABLE PROGRAM, THE COMMUNITY NEEDS IT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE'VE NEVER FACED A SITUATION LIKE THE ONE WE'RE FACING RIGHT NOW, AND I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE TO CHANGE. NOW, MAYBE WE CAN ADD SOME FLEXIBILITY THAT THE AMOUNT CAN BE UP TO 1% DEPENDING ON THE ECONOMY AND THAT IN EVENTS LIKE WHAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR CAN RECOMMEND SOMETHING FROM WHATEVER TO ZERO. I REALLY FEEL THIS YEAR IS NOT A TIME FOR US TO SET -- THIS COMING YEAR PARTICULARLY IS NOT A TIME FOR US TO SET ASIDE MONEY FOR ART PROJECTS WITH THE NUMBER OF FOLKS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LAYING OFF, BUT I WANT TO KEEP A VERY VIABLE PROGRAM. I TRULY VALUE -- EVEN THOUGH I KNOW SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE STATUE OVER IN FRONT OF THE COURTHOUSE, I DO, AND I LIKE THE ONE DOWN AT RUSKIN IN FRONT OF THE FIRE STATION. THOSE ARE ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS PIECES OF ART, AND WE'VE GOT OTHERS ALL OVER THIS COUNTY. SO I AM DEFINITELY WITH YOU. I DO NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT PUTS THIS PROGRAM AT RISK. >>KEVIN BECKNER: NO, AND WHEN WE HAD OUR CONVERSATIONS, I GATHERED THAT, AND AGAIN, LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, THE WAY THIS WOULD READ NOW, THIS WOULD GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY TO BRING IT ALL DOWN TO ZERO IF THAT'S WHERE IT WARRANTS. AGAIN, I JUST THINK IT'S BEST THAT WE CREATE AN ORDINANCE THAT HAS THE MOST FLEXIBILITY FOR YOU AND FOR ALL THIS BOARD, SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND I WILL AMEND PART OF MY MOTION. I'LL REFER THIS BACK OVER TO MS. BEAN, AND WE CAN WORK ON THIS, AND PERHAPS BY THE NEXT BOARD MEETING WE CAN BRING BACK SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PRESENT. >>MARK SHARPE: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: KEVIN, LET ME JUST WEIGH IN ON THIS. YOU KNOW, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS BUDGET, WE'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE SOME PROBLEMS, AND I THINK WHAT WE DO INITIALLY IS TRY TO SAVE SOMETHING FROM EACH OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE -- THAT ARE OF INTEREST TO EACH OF US, SO I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY A GOOD DIRECTION. I, JUST AS YOU, JUST AS PAT, JUST AS ALL OF US UNDERSTAND THE VALUE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC ART. I CERTAINLY THINK AT THIS POINT, AS PAT SAID, WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE SOME JOBS, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME COMMONSENSICAL APPROACH TO THE EXCEPTIONS. I MEAN, WE DON'T REALLY NEED PUBLIC ART IN FIRE RESCUE OR DETENTION FACILITIES, ET CETERA, BUT RATHER THAN RUSH TO SOMETHING THAT YOU MAY GET SUPPORT FOR OR NOT, THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING, AND NOT THAT I'M SUCH AN EXPERT, YOU HAVE MORE EXPERTISE IN FINANCIAL MATTERS THAN I DO, BUT I FOUND OVER THE PERIOD OF THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS THAT WE'VE TRIED TO WORK THROUGH THE PROCESS SO THAT WE CAN ACCOMMODATE SOME REDUCTION IN EACH OF THE CATEGORIES BUT NOT ELIMINATION UNLESS IT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, SO I THINK IT WILL WELL SERVE PUBLIC ART, I THINK IT WILL WELL SERVE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. I'VE HAD SOME OF THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH JIM PORTER WHO'S OUT THERE, AND HE KNOWS THAT I'M CERTAINLY AN ADVOCATE FOR PUBLIC ART, BUT I THINK BY GIVING HER THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT, TO WORK AT IT, TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT'S REASONABLE BUT NOT OUT OF WEIGHT SO THAT -- YOU KNOW, PEOPLE AND THINGS, I KEEP TALKING ABOUT THAT, PEOPLE OUT OF JOBS, PUBLIC ART THINGS, SO LET HER COME BACK WITH SOMETHING, AND THEN WE CAN CERTAINLY ALL WEIGH IN ON IT, AND DEPENDING ON WHERE YOUR MOTION GOES OR HOW IT'S CRAFTED, THEN WE WILL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO FOR PUBLIC ART. >>MARK SHARPE: MS. LEE. >>RENEE LEE: COMMISSIONERS, WHAT I'D HEAR IS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE A SLIDING SCALE IN THE ORDINANCE TO GIVE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MORE FLEXIBILITY, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY ACCOMMODATE THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM. TODAY THE MOTION THAT'S BEFORE YOU IS TO SET THIS ORDINANCE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I WOULDN'T WANT YOU TO ADDRESS THAT. THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT WE NEED MORE THAN -- WE WON'T BE ABLE TO MAKE THE NEXT MEETING WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO THIS ORDINANCE. THE AGENDA DEADLINE IS FRIDAY, SO WE ACTUALLY NEED MORE TIME. >>ROSE FERLITA: WE HAVE TIME. >>RENEE LEE: OKAY. >>MARK SHARPE: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: AND COMMISSIONER BECKNER, SEE, PUBLIC ART MEANS A LOT OF THINGS TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE. SEE, I PERCEIVE THAT WE COULD HAVE LIKE ART FESTIVALS THAT FUND SOMEHOW OUT OF THIS, HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY OF DOING THINGS WITH THE ARTS COUNCIL, FUNDING ARTS FESTIVALS THAT BRING A LOT OF BODIES IN THAT STAY AT HOTELS AND SPEND MONEY IN OUR COMMUNITY AND HAVE, YOU KNOW, ALL THOSE ART GIGS KIND OF THING. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S JUST NOT, YOU KNOW, A PRAYING MANTIS OR EXPLODING CHICKEN THAT WE'RE GOING TO BUY, IT'S GOING TO -- WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO -- WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING THAT -- THAT REWARDS THE COMMUNITY OTHER THAN A STRUCTURE. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE HAVE -- WE HAVE DIFFERENT EYES OF ART HERE MAYBE. [LAUGHTER] >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. >>ROSE FERLITA: SOMEWHERE IN THAT MOTION, THOUGH, MR. CHAIRMAN, LET'S MAKE SURE HE'S NOT IN A POSITION TO SELECT THE SPECIFIC PIECES OF ART THAT WE WANT. I CAN TELL THAT'S A PROBLEM. >>PAT BEAN: NO WAY. NO WAY. >>JIM NORMAN: CATCHER'S MITT. >>MARK SHARPE: SO IN THIS MOTION THAT'S MADE BY COMMISSIONER BECKNER AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA - - >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND, SURE. >>MARK SHARPE: -- WE WILL REFER THIS OVER TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND HAVE HER COME BACK AT A TIME SUFFICIENT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> THAT'S FINE. >>MARK SHARPE: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 5-0. >>PAT BEAN: THE NEXT ITEM PULLED FOR DISCUSSION WAS ALSO PULLED BY COMMISSIONER BECKNER, AND THIS IS TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO POLICY 01.05.01.00, WHICH COMBINES AND CLARIFIES POLICY -- WELL, ANYWAY, THE POLICY FOR MAKING CITIZEN APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. >>KEVIN BECKNER: THANK YOU, MS. BEAN. THERE'S ALSO JUST A COUPLE MINOR THINGS, MINOR CONCERNS THAT I HAVE. WELL, ACTUALLY ONE OF THEM IS ACTUALLY -- A MAJOR CONCERN AROUND THIS IS WHEN I STUDIED THIS POLICY AND I UNDERSTOOD THE SPIRIT OF WHY WE HAD RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR SOME OF THESE BOARDS, IT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE NOT OVERREPRESENTATIVE IN ONE PART OF THE COUNTY AND UNREPRESENTATIVE AND PROBABLY IN PERHAPS INCORPORATED, AND SO I THINK THAT OVER THE YEARS THE POLICY HAS SERVED ITSELF WELL TO KEEP THE BALANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATION OF UNINCORPORATED AND AGAIN WE HAD THE BALANCE IN THE OTHER AREAS. I THINK THIS IS ESPECIALLY CRITICAL WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BALANCE WITHIN THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CITY- PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE HART BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE LEARNED, ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE STARTING TO GET INTO -- WE'VE HAD THESE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ISSUES. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATION IN THE UNINCORPORATED -- FROM THE UNINCORPORATED RESIDENTS OF THE COUNTY. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE WOULD ALWAYS HAVE THAT IF WE ALLOWED A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT. WITH THE ISSUE WITH THE TAMPA SPORTS AUTHORITY, I THINK THERE'S A MORE -- FOR ME IT'S A MORE REGIONALIZED APPROACH, AND THE BOARD SERVES MORE OF A REGION WITHIN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AS OPPOSED TO MAYBE NECESSARILY UNINCORPORATED AND INCORPORATED. SOME PEOPLE MAY ARGUE ON THAT, BUT I'M NOT AS SENSITIVE TO MAKING SURE THAT -- AROUND THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SPORTS AUTHORITY. SO I JUST THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT FOR -- AT LEAST FOR HART AND FOR THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY-CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WE KEEP THOSE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS AND NOT ALLOW WAIVERS FOR THOSE TWO PARTICULAR COMMITTEES UNLESS THERE ARE NOT APPLICANTS THAT HAPPEN TO BE -- THAT HAPPEN TO BE QUALIFIED TO APPLY THAT LIVE IN THE -- IN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY. SO WITH THAT, I ACTUALLY -- I HAVE TWO MOTIONS HERE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE CONSIDERED, AND THE FIRST WOULD BE TO REMOVE THE OPTION TO WAIVE THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY-CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TAMPA SPORTS AUTHORITY MAY BE WAIVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER, WE DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO MOVE THOSE -- CHANGE THOSE. >>KEVIN BECKNER: WELL, THAT'S WHAT'S STATED IN -- >>RENEE LEE: WE DO. >>JIM NORMAN: IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION? NO, I'M SAYING WE -- THE CITY'S GOING TO HAVE THEIR APPOINTMENTS AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE -- >>KEVIN BECKNER: LET ME RECLARIFY THAT. THAT'S FOR OUR APPOINTMENT, NOT FOR THEM SPECIFICALLY BUT FOR OUR PARTICULAR APPOINTMENT. >>MARK SHARPE: SO COULD YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE. >>KEVIN BECKNER: YES. I MOVE TO REMOVE THE OPTION TO WAIVE THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY-CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY. RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TAMPA SPORTS AUTHORITY MAY BE WAIVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THAT'S AS IT PERTAINS TO OUR REPRESENTATIVE. >>RENEE LEE: AND COMMISSIONERS, JUST AN EXPLANATION SO YOU'LL UNDERSTAND. IT REQUIRES THAT THERE -- THESE APPOINTMENTS HAVE PEOPLE FROM THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER BECKNER IS SAYING IS THAT HE WANTS THAT REQUIREMENT TO REMAIN FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE TRANSIT AUTHORITY, BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE TAMPA SPORTS AUTHORITY, THAT REQUIREMENT COULD BE WAIVED, SO THEY COULD COME FROM HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, IN THE CITIES, OR IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. IF YOU'LL LOOK AT PAGE 4 OF THE DOCUMENT -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT IT LISTS THE NAMES OF THE COMMITTEES OR THE BOARDS THAT REQUIRE RESIDENCY FROM UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, AND HE WANTS TO CONTINUE THAT REQUIREMENT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE TRANSIT AUTHORITY. FOR THE SPORTS AUTHORITY THAT REQUIREMENT COULD BE WAIVED. >>MARK SHARPE: COMMISSIONER WHITE. >>KEVIN WHITE: MS. LEE, DON'T WE HAVE THAT OPTION NOW? I MEAN, THAT'S THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW, BUT WE HAVE THE OPTION -- I REMEMBER IN PAST SOMETIMES WE HAVEN'T HAD PEOPLE FROM THE UNINCORPORATED AREA THAT HAS APPLIED FOR SOMETHING, AND WE ONLY HAD PEOPLE FROM THE CITY OF TAMPA OR TEMPLE TERRACE OR PLANT CITY THAT -- >>RENEE LEE: THE DIFFERENCE IS -- AND COMMISSIONER, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'VE HAD THAT OPTION. YOU'VE HAD TO WAIVE YOUR BOARD POLICY IN ORDER TO MAKE THOSE APPOINTMENTS. NOW IT'S WRITTEN INTO THE POLICY. THE BOARD DIRECTED US TO AMEND THE POLICY TO ALLOW THIS WAIVER. WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE PAST IS THAT IF SOMEONE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT BECAUSE THEY LIVED IN THE -- IN ONE OF THE CITIES, THEN THEIR NAMES WERE NOT EVEN BROUGHT FORWARD TO THE BOARD. THEY WERE WRITTEN AND SAID YOU'RE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT. THIS ALLOWS THOSE NAMES TO COME FORWARD TO THE BOARD, AND YOU WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT, THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT. >>ROSE FERLITA: BUT I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING THAT ALREADY. THAT'S MY CONFUSION TOO. >>KEVIN WHITE: THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING. >>RENEE LEE: YEAH, BUT YOU WERE WAIVING YOUR POLICY. NOW IT'S IN THE POLICY. >>MARK SHARPE: NOW IT WILL BE IN THE POLICY. WE GO FROM WAIVING THE POLICY EACH TIME TO HAVING A POLICY WHICH STATES THERE IS NO RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR THE SPORTS AUTHORITY, BUT THERE WILL BE -- IT WILL REMAIN FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE TRANSIT AUTHORITY. IS THAT CORRECT? >>RENEE LEE: YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >>KEVIN WHITE: THAT'S WHERE I'M UNCLEAR. YOU'RE SAYING WE CAN WAIVE IT FOR THE SPORTS AUTHORITY, BUT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE REGIONAL -- OTHER AUTHORITIES, YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE CANNOT WAIVE IT, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >>MARK SHARPE: NO, I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, BUT MY SENSE IS THE LANGUAGE WOULD NOW STATE -- WE COULD THEN CONTINUE TO WAIVE IT ON A CASE-BY-CASE I WOULD IMAGINE FOR THOSE OTHER AUTHORITIES IF WE SO CHOSE, BUT THE LANGUAGE ITSELF WOULD NOT HAVE A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FROM THIS POINT FORWARD FOR THE SPORTS AUTHORITY, BUT IT WOULD RETAIN RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE TRANSIT AUTHORITY UNLESS SO WAIVED AT THE TIME THAT WE WERE MAKING THE APPOINTMENTS. IS THAT CORRECT? >>KEVIN BECKNER: WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS -- FROM WHAT I READ THIS POLICY IS THAT BEFORE WE WERE NOT ABLE TO -- TO WAIVE THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR HART AND FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT -- I MEAN, THAT'S THE WAY THAT I INTERPRETED THE POLICY FROM THE DISCUSSIONS. >>ROSE FERLITA: CAN'T WE DO THAT NOW, RENEE? >>RENEE LEE: WE WERE ABLE TO DO IT, BUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING IS THE NAMES WEREN'T BEING PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS, SO SOMETIMES -- >>KEVIN WHITE: MS. FINLEY WAS AUTOMATICALLY SENDING THEM REJECTION LETTERS. >>RENEE LEE: YES, AND THE BOARD SAID NO, WE WANT ALL THE NAMES PRESENTED HERE SO THAT YOU CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO WAIVE THE POLICY IF YOU WANTED TO. NOW THAT'S INCORPORATED IN THE POLICY, THE WHOLE WAIVER PROVISION, THE PROCESS OF BRINGING ALL THE NAMES FORWARD AND IDENTIFYING WHO MEETS THOSE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS AND WHO -- >>ROSE FERLITA: AND I'M SORRY, I'M BUMPING IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT NOW WE'RE TELLING HER BRING THEM ALL, BUT THEN WE ARE NOTICED -- OR WE ARE NOTIFIED THAT SOME OF THEM DON'T MEET THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT, BUT WE CAN WAIVE THEM AS WE SUPPORT ONE CANDIDATE OVER ANOTHER? BEFORE THEY WEREN'T COMING TO US; RIGHT? >>RENEE LEE: THAT'S CORRECT. >>ROSE FERLITA: IF THEY DIDN'T LIVE WHEREVER THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO LIVE, THEY DIDN'T -- SO NOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IF WE PICK CANDIDATE "A" AND THAT CANDIDATE DOESN'T LIVE IN UNINCORPORATED, WE HAVE TO STILL GO THROUGH THE MOTION OF WAIVING THE RULE? >>RENEE LEE: YES. >>ROSE FERLITA: THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEFORE IS WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THAT OPTION, NOW WE HAVE AN OPTION? >>RENEE LEE: YES. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE THAT HE'S REQUESTING OF THAT? FORGET ABOUT THE SPORTS AUTHORITY ONE RIGHT NOW, LET'S GO TO THE FIRST PORTION OF HIS CONCERN. >>RENEE LEE: OKAY. FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE TRANSIT AUTHORITY, I THINK COMMISSIONER BECKNER, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU, YOU WOULD MAINTAIN THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE TWO BOARDS? >>KEVIN BECKNER: THAT IS CORRECT, AND WITH THOSE TWO BOARDS THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT COULD NOT BE WAIVED UNLESS THERE WAS NOT AN APPLICANT -- A QUALIFIED APPLICANT THAT MET THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD HAVE APPLIED. >>RENEE LEE: SO YOU WOULD NOT GET TO SEE THE NAMES OF THOSE APPLICANTS THAT APPLIED TO THOSE TWO BOARDS WHO DID NOT MEET THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT. YOU WOULD -- >>MARK SHARPE: THIS IS CONFUSING. >>KEVIN WHITE: THAT'S STILL A LITTLE CONFUSING. >>ROSE FERLITA: [INAUDIBLE] >>RENEE LEE: THE ONLY ONE -- >>KEVIN WHITE: WOULDN'T IT BE SIMPLER TO SAY ALL HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY RESIDENTS THEN? >>MARK SHARPE: MIGHT AS WELL. >>RENEE LEE: THE ONLY AUTHORITY THAT RESIDENCY COULD BE WAIVED ON WOULD BE THE TAMPA SPORTS AUTHORITY. OTHERWISE YOU WOULD HAVE TO WAIVE YOUR POLICY TO APPOINT SOMEONE LIVING IN ONE OF THE CITIES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR TO THE TRANSIT AUTHORITY. >>KEVIN WHITE: WELL OTHERWISE TO COMPLETELY CLARIFY THAT, OTHER THAN THE SPORTS AUTHORITY, THEN YOU WOULD JUST SAY YOU WOULD HAVE TO LIVE IN UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, PERIOD, TO APPLY, AND -- AND THEN IF WE COULDN'T GET ANYBODY FROM UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THEN YOU WOULD WAIVE THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS IF SOMEBODY FROM THE CITY OF TAMPA APPLIED. BUT -- >>RENEE LEE: AND IT WILL TAKE JUST A -- IF THAT'S YOUR DIRECTION, COMMISSIONER, IT WOULD JUST TAKE A LITTLE FINE- TUNING OF THE ORDINANCE TO ACHIEVE THAT. >>MARK SHARPE: CAN I ASK A QUESTION, I GUESS, OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR? IS THERE MERIT IN HAVING THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT? I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHEN THIS WAS DESIGNED ORIGINALLY THE PURPOSE. IS THERE STILL A VALUE IN HAVING THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT, AND WHAT I -- WHAT I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT, COMMISSIONER BECKNER, IS JUST CHERRY-PICKING. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND YOU'VE MADE IT CLEAR WHY YOU THINK WE SHOULD HAVE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR -- FOR CERTAIN BOARDS AND THEN NOT FOR OTHERS, BUT IT JUST APPEARS MAYBE WE'RE MAKING THIS FOR ONE BOARD, AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST HAVE ASKED FOR WAIVERS OF REQUIREMENTS. I JUST THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A RULE UP OR DOWN. I'M NOT SURE. I'M JUST -- IS THERE A VALUE IN MAINTAINING THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS? >>PAT BEAN: IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT REQUIRING A PERSON TO BE A RESIDENT OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WITHOUT DEFINING THE THREE CITIES, I THINK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL BECAUSE I THINK YOU WANT PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS COUNTY WHO DEAL WITH THE RULES, THE REGULATIONS, ET CETERA IN THIS COUNTY. IF IT'S SOMEBODY WHO LIVES, LET'S SAY, IN POLK COUNTY, THEY MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME SENSE OF THIS COMMUNITY THAT SOMEONE WHO LIVES IN THIS -- >>MARK SHARPE: MY QUESTION WAS NOT ABOUT OUTSIDE THE COUNTY, IT WAS THE COUNTY-CITY JURISDICTION. >>PAT BEAN: OH. >>KEVIN WHITE: WELL, BUT PAT, ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO KEEP A BALANCE ON, I BELIEVE, IS KEEPING THE UNINCORPORATED AREA BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT 20 PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN SOUTH TAMPA OR IN HYDE PARK OR IN SEMINOLE HEIGHTS TO COMPLETELY -- SAYING WHAT'S GOING ON OUT IN RIVERVIEW, RUSKIN, AND WIMAUMA. WE NEED TO HAVE COMMUNITY INPUT FROM ALL OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA IN WHICH WE REPRESENT AND SEARCHING IN THOSE COMMUNITIES, BUT WHAT -- I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE'LL JUST PLUCK OUT, I GUESS, THE CITIES -- THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE NOW, RIGHT, THE CITIES THEMSELVES, PLANT CITY, TEMPLE TERRACE, CITY OF TAMPA ARE OUT OF THOSE. THAT'S -- IF THOSE CAME IN FOR ONE OF THE COUNCILS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, THEY WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED; CORRECT? >>RENEE LEE: YES. >>KEVIN WHITE: WELL, THEN, WHY DON'T WE JUST AMEND THAT TO JUST SAY ANYBODY BUT RESIDENTS OF THE AREA OF CITY OF TAMPA PROPER? EVERYBODY ELSE WOULD BE UNINCORPORATED -- WELL, UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. >>RENEE LEE: LOOK, COMMISSIONER, IF I CAN RESPOND TO THAT -- >>ROSE FERLITA: MS. LEE, EXCUSE ME. WOULD YOU MIND HOLDING THIS UNTIL THE NEXT TIME AND LETTING THEM COME THROUGH AND EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS BECAUSE CLEARLY I'M NOT COMFORTABLE BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO GO WITH THIS. I MEAN, I -- RIGHT NOW. >>MARK SHARPE: WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND. WELL, ACTUALLY, I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO CAST -- WE HAVE NOT CAST OUR VOTE FOR THIS CONSENT AGENDA ITEM; IS THAT CORRECT? >>RENEE LEE: YOU HAVE NOT. >>MARK SHARPE: SO WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO CAST OUR VOTE, AND WE HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO'S INDICATED HE WANTS TO MAKE A CHANGE, BUT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND JUST MOVE THE CONSENT ITEM AS IT STANDS NOW, WE CAN VOTE TO DEFER AND HAVE IT BROUGHT BACK, WHICH I THINK SEEMS TO BE THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD. >>PAT BEAN: YES. >>MARK SHARPE: SO WHY DON'T WE DO THAT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, COMMISSIONER FERLITA? >>ROSE FERLITA: I'M SAYING THAT I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW WHAT HE'S TRYING TO GET TO AND I'M NOT CLEAR, SO IF I'M NOT CLEAR, I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT ANYTHING, SO IF HE DOESN'T HAVE A PROBLEM AND YOU'RE TELLING ME PROCEDURALLY WHAT WE HAVE TO DO, IF WE CAN DO THAT AND DEFER IT, I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT MORE TO MS. BEAN AND MS. LEE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. I JUST WON'T SUPPORT IT. >>KEVIN BECKNER: I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WITH THE WHOLE INTENTION HERE IS THAT I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP IN PLACE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS TO KEEP A MORE BALANCED BOARD ON OUR BOARDS AND ON OUR COUNCILS, AND TO BE ABLE TO CHERRY-PICK AGAIN OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO WAIVE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO HART AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE WE HAVE RESIDENTS THAT NEED TO BE REPRESENTED IN UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND WE DON'T -- WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO AMASS IS EVERYBODY APPLYING AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE WAIVING RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FROM TAMPA AND ALL OVER AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE DON'T HAVE UNINCORPORATED HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY REPRESENTED. LIKE I SAID, I DON'T HAVE -- I HAVE STRONGER FEELINGS TOWARDS THOSE TWO BUT NOT AS STRONG TOWARDS THE SPORTS AUTHORITY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE SPORTS AUTHORITY WHEN THEY ADDRESS ISSUES, IT IS MORE REGIONALIZED, AND THERE ARE PROBABLY LESS ISSUES THAT ARE SENSITIVE THAT WOULD AFFECT - - IMPACT ONE PART OF THE COUNTY VERSUS THE OTHER, SO LIKE I SAID, THOSE ARE THE TWO MAIN BOARDS THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, AND I -- AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP THE BALANCE OF THE BOARDS. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA HAS PROBLEMS. YOU KNOW, I'LL SUPPORT CONTINUING IT UNTIL THE LAND USE. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU. THAT WOULD BE FINE. >>JIM NORMAN: THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY PEOPLE FILING, AND I -- SO I'LL -- >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. SO WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND SECOND TO CONTINUE. >>JIM NORMAN: CONTINUE TO OUR LAND USE. >>DAN KLEIN: ONE THING IF I COULD JUST CLARIFY. WE ARE FUNCTIONING AS THE BOARD HAS PREVIOUSLY VERBALLY DIRECTED US TO. I MEAN, IN SOME CASES THIS POLICY IS MEMORIALIZING YOUR ACTIONS OR DIRECTIONS YOU'VE ALREADY GIVEN US. WE HAD SOME ISSUES WHERE WE WERE REJECTING APPLICANTS TO BOARDS AND COUNCILS THAT DID NOT MEET THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT. THE BOARD DIRECTED US IN OUR ADVERTISEMENTS TO NOT RESTRICT IT TO THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT BUT BRING THEM BACK TO THE BOARD AND ALLOW THE BOARD THE DISCRETION TO WAIVE THOSE REQUIREMENTS, SO THAT'S AS WE ARE FUNCTIONING. YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO CLARIFY SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU WANT THOSE EXEMPTIONS OR THOSE EXCEPTIONS AND WHERE YOU DON'T. WE CAN BE VERY RESTRICTIVE, WE CAN BE VERY OPEN. WE CAN MODIFY THE PROCESS TO SOLICIT APPLICATIONS FROM EVERYONE THAT ISN'T RESTRICTED BY ORDINANCE OR STATUTE, SPECIFICALLY UNINCORPORATED AREA, BRING BACK, WE CAN IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF RESIDENCY ON THE BALLOT, AND THAT CAN BE PART OF YOUR CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR SELECTIONS. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE POLICY IS REFLECTIVE OF THE WAY YOU WANT US TO FUNCTION IN THE PROCESS. >>MARK SHARPE: THANK YOU, DAN. >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE TO CONTINUE TO THE LAND USE. >>MARK SHARPE: WE HAVE A MOVE TO CONTINUE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 5-0. >>PAT BEAN: AND THE FINAL ITEM PULLED FROM CONSENT FOR DISCUSSION WAS PULLED BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA, AND THIS IS ITEM A-71, RECEIVING A REPORT FROM PARKS, RECREATION, AND CONSERVATION REGARDING THE MANN WAGNON MEMORIAL PARK AT RIVER COVE. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, PAT, AND THIS WILL JUST TAKE A COUPLE OF MINUTES. WE OWN THIS PARTICULAR SITE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, RIGHT, MS. LEE? AND WE HAVE MOVED SOME OF OUR OFFICES OUT OF THERE, AND THERE WAS SOME OPPORTUNITY AT SOME POINT WHERE MAYBE THE CITY THOUGHT THEY WERE GETTING IT, WE WERE GOING TO KNOCK THE BUILDINGS DOWN, AND NOW YOU HAVE ALL THESE COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS -- AND RIGHTLY SO, I WENT TO ONE SOME OF THEIR MEETINGS -- WHO WANT TO PROTECT IT AND DO SOMETHING WITH THE RIVER COVE PROPERTY. BECAUSE THERE'S A JOINT OWNERSHIP, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS. LET ME JUST SAY THAT IN ALL MY EXPERIENCES, IN ADDITION TO THIS ONE, MARK THORNTON HAS ALWAYS WANTED TO BE A PLAYER AND ALWAYS HAS WANTED TO COOPERATE. HE REALLY DOESN'T HAVE A REPORT BACK EXCEPT THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE, AND I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THIS AND THEN CONTINUE IT BECAUSE MESSAGE TO THE CITY OF TAMPA IS THAT WE WANT TO WORK WITH THEM SO SOME -- SOME NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY CAN BENEFIT FROM THIS BUILDING. IT'S A REALLY, REALLY PRETTY SITE ON THE RIVER, BUT THEY NEED TO INCLUDE, MR. THORNTON -- IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT HE REALLY HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED. I HAVE ATTENDED. I WOULD LOVE TO ATTEND MORE MEETINGS WITH HIM IF THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY THAT'S OFFERED, BUT HE NEEDS TO BE AT THE TABLE WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE DIFFERENT PLANS ARE FOR THAT PARTICULAR SITE, AND IT'S TO MY UNDERSTANDING IT HASN'T HAPPENED, AND MARK, YOU DON'T NEED TO COME UP HERE, BUT JUST -- I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, COOPERATE WITH US AND THE CITIZENS WHEN -- AND BOTH THE CITY OF TAMPA AND THE COUNTY CAN WORK TOGETHER TO DO SOMETHING IN PARTNER FOR THIS SITE. SO ANYWAY, I WANT TO REFER IT OVER TO -- >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>MARK SHARPE: WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU. >>MARK SHARPE: THANK YOU, MA'AM. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 5-0. >>PAT BEAN: THE ONLY ITEM LEFT NOW, BOARD MEMBERS, IS IF YOU HAVE FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEMS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO BRING UP AT THIS POINT IN TIME. I THINK WE'VE WORN YOU OUT TODAY. >>KEVIN WHITE: I THINK SO TOO. >>MARK SHARPE: WE STAND ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. >>PAT BEAN: THANK YOU. >>JIM NORMAN: WE'VE GOT PUBLIC COMMENT. [INAUDIBLE] >>JIM NORMAN: HEY, MAN, YOU ALMOST CAUSED A RIOT. >>MARK SHARPE: I TELL YOU WHAT. MARK KLUTHO, YOU'VE BEEN WAITING PATIENTLY. YOU CAN COME FORWARD, AND THEN WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHERS THAT DO -- THIS HAS KIND OF BEEN A -- OKAY. AND THEN MR. WEAVER IS NEXT. SORRY, MR. KLUTHO, AND THANK YOU. >> MARK KLUTHO, 14496 120th AVENUE NORTH, LARGO. ANTARCTICA IS MELTING FASTER THAN THOUGHT. NEARLY A THIRD OF BIRD SPECIES IN THE U.S. ARE FOUND DECLINING. AND HERE'S CREATIVE LOAFING'S THE GREEN 100, AND I'M NOT ON THIS LIST. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. IF NO OTHER REASON, I INSTIGATED THAT SEMINAR WHERE I HAD THE BOOK, A PRIMMER ON SUSTAINABLE BUILDING AUTOGRAPHED BY THE AUTHOR, TO MARK, THANKS FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND PASSION, BILL BROWNING. AND THEN APRIL 1st OF '98, THE RESOLUTION BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY GOVERNMENT TO SAY THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS. SOMETHING'S WRONG HERE. AND COMMISSIONER FERLITA, I'M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED WITH YOU AND YOUR SHINDIG AT THE BIG CHILLER. YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF LIKE COMMISSIONER WHITE SAYING THAT WE FIXED THE LIGHTING WHEN THEY PUT A TIMER ON THE SWITCH AND YOU HAVE FOUR TIMES THE WATTAGE NECESSARY. THAT DOESN'T FIX THE PROBLEM. YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF STUPID BUILDINGS. SEE, IT'S THE ARCHITECTURE, STUPID. BETTER BUILDINGS BY DESIGN. WE SHAPE OUR BUILDINGS THEREAFTER, THEY SHAPE US. ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I'M SAYING? >>ROSE FERLITA: I'M UNDERSTANDING. YOU KNOW WHAT, THOUGH, I WAS NOT AT THE CHILLER, BUT GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE. >> THE BIG SYSTEM, THE AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM -- >>ROSE FERLITA: I WASN'T THERE. >> WASN'T YOU? >>ROSE FERLITA: I WAS NOT THERE. >> WAS IT IORIO THEN? >>ROSE FERLITA: I DON'T KNOW. >>KEVIN WHITE: THEY LOOK A LOT ALIKE. >> EFFICIENCY GURU AMORY LOVINS ARGUES THAT TODAY'S BEST TECHNIQUES COULD SAVE HALF THE U.S.'S OIL AND GAS AND THREE-FOURTHS OF OUR ELECTRICITY. NOW, YOU WEREN'T WITH YOUR ENERGY MAN? >>ROSE FERLITA: HE HAD A PRESENTATION AT THE COURTHOUSE, AND THEN THEY WENT ON TO LOOK AT THE CHILLER AND DO WHATEVER THEY WERE DOING AT THE CHILLER. >> OH, SO THEN INDEED THAT'S WHAT IT WAS, THE CHILLER, THE BIG CHILLER, THAT'S WHAT THE ARTICLE IN THE PAPER WAS TALKING ABOUT. >>ROSE FERLITA: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON TALKING TO ME. I WASN'T AT THE CHILLER, BUT PLEASE CONTINUE. >> THE POINT IS THAT THIS HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT IN YOUR ENERGY MAN SAVING MONEY. THAT IS A LIE. YOU'RE SQUANDERING TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR BECAUSE OF THE STUPID BUILDINGS. YOU CAN'T EVEN GET THE LIGHTING SYSTEMS RIGHT. I TOLD YOU PEOPLE ABOUT THE WATER -- THE WATER BOARD BUILDING, YOU BETTER MAKE A HIGH-PERFORMANCE BUILDING, AND THAT HAS A $400-A-DAY ELECTRIC BILL BEFORE THE RATE INCREASE. >>MARK SHARPE: THANK YOU, MR. KLUTHO. >> IT'S CRIMINAL WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. >>MARK SHARPE: THANK YOU, MR. KLUTHO. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MR. WEAVER, AND THEN WE HAVE MR. BROOKS. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, RON WEAVER, 401 EAST JACKSON STREET. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CREATIVITY AND THOUGHTFULNESS IN ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDING AND YOUR BUSY DAY AND YOUR PRUDENCE WITH RESPECT TO YOUR BUDGET. RESPECTFULLY, WHILE YOU'VE ALREADY MADE YOUR MOTION AND WILL RESPECT THAT YOU ARE GRATEFULLY LOOKING OUT FOR THE ROADS OF THIS COMMUNITY AND FOR THE TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE OBLIGATIONS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT ORDERS AND THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED UNDER CONCURRENCY ENFORCEMENT CONTINUE TO PARENT THE PROVISION OF ROADS FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO PREVENT CONGESTION; HOWEVER, AS IN ANY KIND OF RECESSION ECONOMICS, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY HOPE THAT YOU IN THE WORDING OF YOUR LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR, IF YOU INSIST ON SEEKING TO VETO SENATE BILL 360, WOULD REMIND ALL THAT WE HAVE A CRUCIAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION THROUGHOUT THIS SENATE BILL 360 IN THE VERY SAME MEASURE THAT NEEDS TO BE ATTENDED TO, AND WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL THAT IN A DEEP RECESSION WE DO NOT TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME KINDS OF BALANCED RELIEF WHICH THE HOUSE AND SENATE NEGOTIATED FOR THOUSANDS OF HOURS AND COMPROMISED ON A WAY THAT WE COULD HAVE SOME DEVELOPMENT INSTEAD OF NONE. THOSE WHO ARE BUILDING NOTHING CANNOT BUILD THE ROADS UNDER THEIR OBLIGATIONS. THOSE WHO MIGHT BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED UNDER -- AND I QUOTE THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU CITED VERY THOUGHTFULLY IN YOUR MAGNIFICENT PRESENTATION, COMMISSIONER SHARPE -- NEW ORDINANCES AND NEW FEES CAN BE ADOPTED BY HOME RULE GOVERNMENTS. YOU ARE A HOME RULE GOVERNMENT, AND THAT WAS THE CRUCIAL BALANCE THAT WAS PROVIDED, IF YOU CHOOSE TO RECONSIDER YOUR MOTION NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT SENATE BILL 360 IS THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE AND HUNDREDS OF THOSE WHO BALANCED THE FACT THAT BETTER TO HAVE SOMETHING THAN NOTHING, SOME TAX BASE THAN NONE, AND SOME PEOPLE BUILDING FOR CRUCIAL JOBS, JOBS, AND JOBS, MIXED WITH A BILL THAT INCLUDES AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE VERY SAME BILL TO GIVE IT A FAIR HEARING AS HOPEFULLY THE GOVERNOR WILL IN DECIDING NOT TO VETO IT DESPITE YOUR ADVICE, WHICH I, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR CARING ABOUT OUR ROADS AND OUR PEOPLE, BUT WE NEED TO BE, IN A DEEP RECESSION, COGNIZANT TO OUR JOBS. SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING AND THAT THE LAW IS ALREADY BALANCED, AND HOPEFULLY THE GOVERNMENT WILL SEE SO AND NOT VETO IT BECAUSE IT CONTAINS NEW ORDINANCES AND NEW FEES, CAN BE ADOPTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE HOME RULE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. YOU ARE A HOME RULE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. YOU COULD HAVE ADOPTED SUBSTITUTE COMPROMISES, AND I'LL SIT DOWN WITH ONE FINAL THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING CONCURRENCY IS BROKEN. WE NEED TO FIX IT. THIS WAS A WAY OF CLEARING THE FIELD SO WE COULD FIX IT PROPERLY. THANK YOU FOR WILLINGNESS TO CLEAR UP THE FACT THAT CONCURRENCY ISN'T WORKING, BUT WE DO NEED TO FIX OUR ROADS. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. >>MARK SHARPE: THANK YOU, MR. WEAVER. AND THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MICHAEL BROOKS. MR. BROOKS GONE? OKAY. I THINK THAT WITH THAT I HAVE NO OTHER SPEAKER REQUESTS, WE STAND ADJOURNED. 1