CHARTER
REVIEW COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 20, 2018
CHARTER COMMISSION: District 1 – Josh Strzalko
- Tom Boyko
- Vice Chairman Tom O’Hanlon
District 2 - Edward L. Schons
- Colleen Hufford
District 3 - Robert O’Malley
- Robert Levy
- Pasha Baker
District 4 - Bob McMillan
- Chairman Larry Strickler
District 5 - James Dicks
- Michelle Smith
- Robert Turnage
ABSENT: District 2 - Michelle Ertel
District 4 - Kevin Grace
ATTENDEES: Dennis Lemma, Sheriff
David Johnson, Property Appraiser
Joel Greenberg, Tax Collector
Grant Maloy, Clerk of Court & Comptroller
Dana Crosby-Collier, Attorney
Nicole Guillet, County Manager
Jane Spencer, Deputy Clerk
The following is a non-verbatim transcript of the CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING, held at 6:30 p.m., on Tuesday, February 20, 2018, in Room 3024 of the Seminole County Services Building at Sanford, Florida.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chairman Larry Strickler called the meeting to order and confirmed that they have a quorum. Tom O’Hanlon led the Pledge of Allegiance.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
Chairman Strickler reported that thus far, they have voted on only one issue as it relates to the charter, and that issue is the politics that might occur within the County Manager's Office and County Attorney's Office. He requested that Ms. Crosby‑Collier summarize what she has found in her research.
Dana Crosby‑Collier, attorney for the Charter Review Commission (CRC), advised that she did reach out to Hillsborough County. The CRC had talked about the Hillsborough County charter having provisions that do not allow the County Administrator, the County Attorney, and the Internal Auditor (who are all charter officers) to engage in political activity while they are in their post. She advised that she reached out to the County Attorney's Office and asked them about the history of the provisions and whether there had ever been any pushback on the issues with the provisions in their charter.
Ms. Crosby‑Collier explained that Hillsborough County adopted its initial charter in 1983; and in that 1983 charter, it set out to establish the executive and legislative branches of the County. The language in the creation of the County Administrator's position was such that he or she was precluded from engaging in political activity. She pointed out that also included in the original 1983 Hillsborough County charter was the provision, which the CRC talked about at the last meeting, that says the political activity of officers and employees of county government is controlled by general law but that they will not hold any political office or take part in any political activity relating to County Commission elections. There is a provision in the charter that says the County Administrator will not engage in political activity other than voting; and then, in the same document that was approved by the voters, there was a more specific provision as to county officers and employees that says they will not take part in any commission-related political activity.
Ms. Crosby-Collier reported that in 2004 when they did a charter amendment in Hillsborough County, they extended the provision so there would be no political activity other than voting to the County Attorney. From what she was able to determine, since she did not look at the ordinance itself but did talk to general counsel in the County Attorney's Office, in 2010 they created an Internal Auditor position, which was also a charter position. When they created the Internal Auditor's position, they extended this same responsibility to that office. Ms. Crosby‑Collier reported that Hillsborough said they are not having any problems with it, everyone accepts it, and it is the way that it is there.
Ms. Crosby‑Collier stated the CRC also talked about Sarasota County having a similar provision, that the County Administrator would not engage in political activity. When she looked at the legislative history, she found that it was added in 1996. She reached out to the County Attorney's Office because she wanted to look at the enabling document because she finds a lot of good history when reading the document in its context, but she has not received it yet. Sarasota County reported there have been no problems with enforcement and no issues in the County Administrator abstaining from political activity under the charter. She stated if anything interesting or amazing comes out when she looks at the actual ordinance that adopted that provision in the Sarasota County charter, she will come back to the CRC with an update.
Robert McMillan advised that he missed Mr. Grace's presentation; and therefore, he might have questions that have been otherwise asked. He stated he has an issue with what they consider political activity and asked Ms. Crosby‑Collier if she just stated that part of it is political activity across the board and part of it is in the County races. He asked if they are saying the County Manager, County Attorney, and the Internal Auditor cannot engage in any political activity, be it presidential or whatever. Ms. Crosby‑Collier explained that is how it reads in the charter; the County Administrator shall not hold any political office or take part in any political activity other than voting. She added that in that same charter, they have a provision (which is like what they discussed at the last CRC and what the CRC was more interested in pursuing perhaps) limiting it to not engaging in any political activity relating to County Commission elections.
Mr. McMillan stated that was the more specific one. The general one, which they didn't include that language in, just said political activity. It was not even limited to electoral activity. Ms. Crosby‑Collier agreed that it was “any political activity.” Mr. McMillan remarked that working on behalf of some organization for good government proposals and things like that might be considered political. Ms. Crosby‑Collier stated it might be. She suggested that she could follow up with the general counsel. It appears to her from reading the charter from 1983 that the two are construed together; but she can raise that specific question, whether they extend “any political activity” to anything other than the County Commission. Mr. McMillan pointed out that if they were more specific in one and left it out of the other provision, that would generally by rules of construction tell you that it wasn't read into the other prohibition; otherwise, why did they specify it here if they didn't need to say it there.
Chairman Strickler advised that the group's discussion on that issue was to specify this only applies to County Commission races; that is all that they agreed to. He added that could change. He suggested they could really get into even the U.S. Constitution if it is tightened too tight. The general opinion around the table was anybody that reports to the County Commission and whose job is controlled by the County Commission, those folks, would not be allowed to participate in their political efforts. Mr. McMillan confirmed with Chairman Strickler that it would apply even in their personal lives. The Chairman stated it would be a term of employment. Chairman Strickler stated that unless something changes in the room, their charge is to look at fashioning rules that would only apply to County Commission races.
Tom Boyko confirmed with Chairman Strickler that if someone is not at work and is in their personal life, they cannot do that. The Chairman stated he believes it takes a lot of the pressure off of those folks. Mr. Boyko stated he just wanted it to be clear that what they heard is what they heard so there is no question later on about whether it is in their personal life. Chairman Strickler asked Ms. Crosby‑Collier if that is what she heard, and she replied yes. She added that they were talking about narrowing the prohibition to County Commission races. She was asked to look at the other counties to see if they had ever encountered any problems such as what they were just discussing with regard to enforcement or implementation of that provision. She reiterated it was to be for County Commission races. Mr. McMillan confirmed with Ms. Crosby‑Collier that it would be a ban on the person being engaged and not just while they were acting in the role of County Manager or County Attorney. If someone is in the position of county manager, they can't go home at night and start making calls on behalf of candidates or anybody else. They are out of the political realm. Edward Schons remarked that it is from a county perspective, and Ms. Crosby‑Collier repeated that it was for County Commission activity.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Tom Boyko, seconded by Josh Strzalko, to approve the Official Minutes of February 6, 2018.
All members present voted AYE.
REPORT FROM CRC SUBCOMMITTEE
Chairman Strickler stated a subcommittee was formed to look at possibly more efficient ways of managing among the existing elected officials (both the constitutional officers as well as the Board of County Commissioners) within the County. He reported that the way the subcommittee managed that process a week ago was by taking the list of all of the constitutional officers, as they appeared on one of the pages in the CRC book, and going one at a time to discuss whether it would make sense to put this constitutional officer under the umbrella of the Board of County Commissioners, the pros and cons of doing that. In going down the list, he believes they were unanimous in their opinion for every constitutional officer to stay just like they were with no reason for change except possibly the Tax Collector.
Chairman Strickler reported that they then had presentations by the attorney for the Tax Collector, the Tax Collector, and Jim Stelling. He advised what came out of the process was that they did not take a vote among the subcommittee members. They all discussed and asked questions and gave opinions. The closest they came to a vote was when Kevin Grace felt like there was no reason to change and mentioned all of the reasons. The Chairman stated he felt like maybe they should look more deeply at this and advised he was leaning towards putting it under the County Commission. He stated he is still leaning that way. He explained that after the presentations by the Tax Collector, by the attorney, and by Jim Stelling, this really comes down to whether you believe the County is going to be better off professionally and financially by putting the Tax Collector under the Board of County Commissioners or leaving it like it is.
Chairman Strickler explained that they asked Mr. Greenberg if he could provide the CRC with some documentation of what he would expect, assuming nothing major changes, he would be able to give back to the County this year and the next years throughout his term. That document (copy received and filed) was distributed to the CRC members when they arrived at tonight’s meeting. The Chairman then asked whether any of the three other members of the subcommittee, who were present, wanted to add to what he had said for clarification.
Pasha Baker addressed the CRC and explained that she took minutes at the subcommittee meeting last week. Ms. Baker summarized that there was no change to any of the other constitutional officers. She reported they did look at Volusia County heavily and their structure with their constitutional officers. Ms. Baker added that they looked at the pros and cons of the Tax Collector in general and what his attorney said. The pros are the fiscal control on expenses the County would have and then the State-level controls because it would be more of a direct approach. Volusia County does not have a constitutional officer for their Tax Collector. The committee was looking at local accountability, budget uncertainty, more collaboration, and just an extra layer of accountability. Ms. Baker added that they also looked at Mr. Stelling's comments that it should be independent. She believes everyone on the committee agreed that they appreciated Mr. Greenberg's entrepreneurial initiatives that he has done within the Tax Collector's Office.
Ms. Baker talked about Proposition #13, which came up heavily. Chairman Strickler added that part of the State's Constitution Review effort is Proposition #13, and it may or may not go on the ballot. The subcommittee said for now that is irrelevant to the CRC because they can't prognosticate what might happen with Proposition #13. If it were to pass, maybe some of the stuff the CRC wants to do can't be done; but they should keep moving forward with what they feel is right for the County. If something happens at the State level to overturn it, so be it.
Ms. Baker reported that Mr. Vose, the attorney for Mr. Greenberg, put forth some of the cons that he said would affect the CRC's decision. One con was that Mr. Greenberg was voted in by the voters and he has that right to run his office as he sees fit. Another con would be customer service. They are looking at balance of power and conflicts of interest, responsiveness, and accountability at the ballot box. Ms. Baker stated that one of the things that Mr. Greenberg has done to improve the office was his massive investment in technology and improved customer service and wait time. She noted that other big conflicts of interest that Mr. Vose pointed out were the tax certificates, collecting ad valorem taxes, that it would be a disruption of the balance of power between the County and the Cities, and that it would be unconstitutional to convert Mr. Greenberg during mid‑cycle. Mr. Greenberg seconded those comments.
Ms. Baker advised that the subcommittee wanted to get an estimate of the financial return of the investments, the ROI basically, for what Mr. Greenberg has done with that office. She pointed out that is the document that Mr. Greenberg provided today. The subcommittee wanted an estimate of what the contributions would be back to the County. Ms. Baker talked about how the subcommittee wanted a projection and an estimation of what could be delivered back to the County, a short‑term and long‑range plan of what the Tax Collector would like to do during his term. She added that the subcommittee wanted to see something like a business plan or a strategic plan.
Robert Turnage reported that he went to Volusia County and spent a couple of hours with the County Attorney Daniel Eckert to educate himself on how they do things there. There is just one constitutional officer and the other officers are elected but they have no staff. All the staff works for the County. Mr. Eckert estimated that they save $10 million a year by having unified County structure. He added that the airport is under the County and is not a separate entity, and the bus service is part of the County entity. He stated they discussed what would happen if they did the same with the Tax Collector here. Mr. Turnage stated a question he had was since the Tax Collector is not a constitutional officer in Volusia, he does not issue driver's licenses; and obviously, that would be a huge impact and not to the positive here. He announced he had asked Ms. Crosby‑Collier to research that.
Ms. Crosby‑Collier stated she and Mr. Turnage did talk about that after the meeting and she did some research. She reported there are three counties that have a County Tax Collector; and they are Broward, Miami‑Dade, and Volusia. She talked about how she determined, as near as she could, that they don't issue driver's licenses out of those three County Tax Collector Offices. Ms. Crosby‑Collier referred to a recent charter amendment in Orange County where they did, in fact, turn their constitutionals into charter officers. That case is still pending in the courts in Orange County. She went to the Orange County docket and pulled some pleadings and some other filings that have been filed in that case on this very issue; there has been a lot of work done by a lot of really good attorneys to look into this exact issue.
Ms. Crosby‑Collier stated if the Charter Tax Collector becomes a County Tax Collector, he will no longer be a constitutional officer. The question is will he be able to issue driver's license. She explained that the Orange County Tax Collector's counsel has filed a petition with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles which asks will Tax Collector Randolph be able to continue to issue driver's licenses if he becomes a County charter officer. They have not heard back from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. In fact, the docket hasn't been updated since mid‑December.
Ms. Crosby-Collier discussed the argument (which she believes is a good argument) that the County Attorney has made in response. There are two provisions in law. The first provision in law was in Chapter 322. At that time, the Legislature said to all of the constitutional tax collectors that by June 30 of 2015 they will issue driver's licenses; and so they did. They went out and made their offices driver's licenses offices. Constitutional tax collectors do issue driver's licenses because they had that mandate by the Legislature that said you will do this. That included the Seminole County Tax Collector and the Orange County Tax Collector.
Ms. Crosby-Collier advised there is a provision in the law, which is what Orange County was asking the Department of Highway Safety to opine on, that says (after it says you guys will do that by June 30 of 2015) that the transition of services to appointed charter county tax collectors may occur on a limited basis as directed by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Ms. Crosby‑Collier explained that the argument of the County Attorney, who is a very good litigator in Orange County, is that they have already done it. They met their mandate. They were providing the services by June of 2015. Now, they are asking if they will be able to continue to do it. The attorney thinks that, of course, they will be able to continue issuing driver's licenses under this authority of the Department to allow them to do that because they all know that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles pulled up stakes and has left town. They are no longer in Seminole County or in Orange County; you go to the Tax Collector. Mr. Crosby‑Collier suggested that as part of the CRC's thought process, she believes they could incorporate this into the transition plan, to seek this authority just like the Orange County Tax Collector is doing, to seek the authority for an appointed charter county tax collector to continue to issue those driver’s licenses based on Florida Statute 322.02.
Mr. Boyko asked whether the counties that do not have the tax collector as a constitutional officer still take that responsibility. Ms. Crosby‑Collier responded no, not that she was able to find; and then she talked about her research into that matter. She did point out that in Broward County, the County Tax Collector had been a County Tax Collector well in advance of 2015; so it is something that they did not establish before the law as the law required. The Tax Collector in Miami‑Dade is now in the Department of Finance, which is his title. The director is appointed by the Mayor and the Clerk. She added that Volusia County has a charter tax collector, and they do not issue driver's licenses, but that also well predated 2015.
Upon inquiry by Mr. Boyko, Ms. Crosby‑Collier explained that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles would still be in those counties doing that service. Mr. Turnage stated that Volusia County also contracts with several independent title companies that do the same. Mr. Boyko asked whether these tax collectors would be appointed or elected. Ms. Crosby‑Collier stated it would depend on how the position was structured. In Seminole County, the main charter officers (the County Attorney and County Manager) are appointed and serve at the pleasure of the Board. In Volusia County, the charter tax collector is appointed by the County Manager and he is confirmed by the Counsel. In Miami‑Dade, he is appointed by the Mayor and the Clerk. In Broward, the charter tax collector is appointed by the County Administrator. Mr. Boyko asked for clarification as to whether it would be a voted position, and Ms. Crosby‑Collier stated it probably would be appointed and serve at the pleasure of the County Commission. She emphasized that it would depend on how they structure the position.
Mr. McMillan stated he thinks in those three counties, they make the tax collector essentially a department director appointed by the county executive and confirmed by the Board of County Commissioners, just like every other department head. They aren't hired by the County Commission; they are appointed by the chief executive officer, whoever that is under their structure. In the organization structure, they are a department head. When asked who issues the driver's licenses in those counties, Ms. Crosby‑Collier responded that it is the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, the State’s department. Mr. McMillan pointed out that in those three counties, their tax collectors existed before tax collectors issued driver's licenses. He believes in Orange County they are saying that any county where the tax collector was issuing driver's licenses at the time they went from constitutional officers to charter officers, they just continued to do it. Those three never did it and weren't doing it at the time the law (which said the State is not doing it anymore so the tax collectors will) went into effect. It didn't apply to them because they weren't doing it.
Chairman Strickler stated he thinks realistically the DMV situation is a red herring. He added that as he has grown to know, especially with State bureaucrats, if they have got somebody that has been doing it, they don't care what title they have as long as they can do it. They are not going to set up a whole new organization to come back in and run the DMV. The Chairman noted that is just his opinion.
Colleen Hufford stated she is probably going down a different path right now and asked that the committee bear with her. She has been trying to look into it and wondered when the County had the change in the constitutional officers, what year that happened. She wondered when Seminole County went to having constitutional officers and added that it wasn't that way originally. Several audience members responded it was always that way. Ms. Crosby‑Collier responded that it was the 1968 Constitution and then added that it probably was even before the 1968 Constitution. Ms. Hufford announced that she would be interested in knowing about that. She was talking to someone trying to get some data about when they became constitutional officers because that was another check-and-balance. Ms. Hufford explained that what was happening in the old days is they all were too familiar and everybody was helping everybody get whatever they needed. She was looking for that information. Ms. Hufford pointed out that having the constitutional officers working independently allowed for no co‑mingling and granting favors back and forth to friends and things like that. That is what kept it independent because you independently work and you do your job. She stated she has been looking for the information and has not been able to find anything on this, as to why it was put together this way. She wondered whether Ms. Crosby‑Collier knew the reasons why.
Ms. Crosby‑Collier stated the latest rendition of their Constitution was adopted by the voters in 1968, as the Constitutional Officers behind her are saying. It did predate that 1968 constitution; the constitutional officers were in there before that. She added there have been several constitutions in Florida over their existence since they became a state in 1845; so there is a lot of history in their constitution about these positions.
Ms. Hufford asked about Orange County. Ms. Crosby‑Collier replied they are the same because these are State Constitutional Officers; so they are established through the State Constitution until they do something that allows them to change it. She explained that under the State Constitution, there is a provision that tells charter counties they can do that if they want to. It says that you, charter county, can take these five constitutional officers and make them charter officers. It is in the provision of the Constitution that regulates all counties that are charter counties; there are 20 of them. Any charter county since the 1968 Constitution can establish their constitutionals as charter officers by virtue of State Constitution.
Mr. Schons asked if they look at Mr. Greenberg's document, what would the change do to the picture, if anything, as it relates to the County. Chairman Strickler stated that before they get too deep into that document, he would like to make a suggestion. One reason for the suggestion is that even though Mr. Greenberg delivered his information very quickly, the CRC is just seeing it now. He would also like Mr. Grace to be in the meeting when they start making decisions on this. Mr. Schons stated he is not recommending a decision and it is just a point of information. He would like to know how this would impact them and whether it would positively do things for the County. That is a decision that he wants to make, whether this is best for them and their citizens. Mr. Schons stated he is looking at Mr. Greenberg's information, and it appears that in the past and in some sense currently, there will be dollars that will benefit Seminole County from this function. He wondered what the impact will be.
Mr. Turnage stated he dug into this a little bit more. The difference he sees is that the office could be run more towards a division of the Board of County Commissioners and what is best for the County. It may be to maximize the revenue. He stated he is not criticizing what Mr. Greenberg is doing but Mr. Greenberg’s objective is different from the Board of County Commissioners obviously, and that is why they have the discord. Mr. Greenberg remarked that that is why he was elected.
Mr. O'Hanlon stated he is only here for the taxpayers; and the question in his mind is if it appears this can be done, then is the net result better service for the citizens at a lower cost. To make a change in the charter because of an individual that is in office is a gross mistake. They don't do it that way; they are doing it because it is better for the citizens. He pointed out that somehow they need to come up with a detailed analysis as to whether this would be a good move for the citizens because they get better service at a reduced cost.
Ms. Hufford stated she thinks the check‑and‑balance is the voter. The voter makes that decision. They are the ones that say this is efficient or this is not efficient. If they find efficiencies in service at the same time the expense of doing that job goes up and up and up, then the question is is it worth someone having a one‑minute quicker transaction. Regarding those things, she believes the voter is the one that makes that decision.
Mr. McMillan stated he guesses the bottom line is the voter would be making the decision if they were voting on the charter amendment. He stated he just wants to make it clear what his position is and that is number one, the charter should be set up and any issue should be considered systemic rather than personal. Does it make more sense structurally that the Tax Collector works under the County Commission or are there reasons why they should not? Mr. McMillan stated he has asked people what is gained by having the Tax Collector as a separate constitutional officer. He understands where the conflicts of interest are if you have got the Sheriff working for the County Commission or if you have the Property Appraiser working for the County Commission. He wondered, systemically, what check‑and‑balance you get as opposed to economies of scale in having them work as part of the whole organization and not duplicating efforts and computer systems and all of that other stuff; he does not know what that is. Generally speaking, most of what a tax collector does is ministerial rather than policymaking and the collection of taxes. If there is some risk of having the office work for the County Commission, then he would like to hear what it is; but he is really only interested in the systemic analysis of whether it works better "here" or works better "there."
With regard to the whole issue of who is in office and what they are doing and how well they run the office, Mr. McMillan stated he didn't go to any of the “dog-and-pony shows” that he was invited to because it didn't matter to him whether Mr. Maloy was doing a better job than Ms. Morse and whether Mr. Greenberg was doing a better job than Mr. Valdes because that is not the issue. Incumbents will change. The issue is does the structure make sense, and some do and some don't. Of all of them, like he guesses the subcommittee determined, he pretty clearly sees where the potential conflicts of interest are with having the other constitutional officers under the County Commission. He does not necessarily see very clearly what having an independent tax collector does to make the system better or check and balance each other. He suggested you can argue who does a better job, but that is incumbent-based and not system based.
Mr. Boyko asked who would control all of the funds that now go to the Tax Collector. Ms. Crosby‑Collier stated the Board of County Commissioners would have another department that they would budget for in their general budget every year. Mr. Boyko suggested the BCC could say that some of the responsibilities that are there now could be assigned to another department within the County. Ms. Crosby‑Collier agreed with Mr. Boyko's statement. She added that the BCC would fill the positions that they need to fill in order to make the office look the way that they need it to look to do the job.
Mr. O'Hanlon stated to Mr. Boyko's point, they wouldn't need another IT Department because now one group does everything. Mr. Boyko suggested they are talking about saving money for the taxpayer and making it run more efficiently. If they took it and assigned some of the responsibilities that are there now and broke them down into other areas, they would save money. Mr. O'Hanlon remarked it would be economies of scale, yes; and Mr. Schons added it would be in theory.
James Dicks stated that obviously this is a big issue and in his opinion to make a change would require a lot more information, more than the subcommittee has brought and more than they have right now. He certainly understands the need for the taxpayers to become efficient; that is why they are here. However, he thinks Mr. McMillan made a good point; and to make sure this isn't a personal issue, they really need to make sure what those economies of scale are and what the economics are. He stated he really wants to hear from the Chairman how he thinks they are going to get the information they would need to make such a big decision.
Chairman Strickler agreed with Mr. Dicks that it is a big decision, and the one thing that he is always balancing is creativity in government and creativity in the private sector. Sometimes you get better on one side and not so much on the other; but it depends on the individuals, too. The Chairman suggested that, before the next meeting on March 6, they all read the information provided by Mr. Greenberg and make notes. He wants the committee to communicate directly with the Tax Collector. Chairman Strickler stated he started reading the information and had a lot of questions. The purpose of this information was to give the CRC more of an accurate assessment of what he is predicting his financial situation is going to be for this year and the next years as far as what probably can be remitted to the County. There is no crystal ball; you can't guarantee anything, but at least it gives the committee a sense. He stated the bar chart at the back of the information is an example. He added that is assuming if he is providing great customer service, that does not fall apart.
Chairman Strickler suggested the committee look at the information and email Mr. Greenberg, his staff, his attorney, or whoever is the best person to answer the questions. Get the answers before they come to the next meeting. They will have all five of the subcommittee back. Mr. O'Hanlon stated at this point, he sees they are going with the committee doing a lot of research. He would like each one of the constitutional officers to address the CRC, and he would like for them to stretch their brains as to who could do this research for them as to cost effectiveness of the County taking it over. Mr. O'Hanlon stated he knows he personally cannot do it and he knows they cannot ask anyone at the County to do it. They need some outside person or agency or something like that to give them an honest rundown as to what they are spending now and what they could do with economies of scale merging the two departments together with the County. Chairman Strickler remarked that would be a big waste of money and it would depend on who they hired. Michelle Smith pointed out that Mr. Greenberg has put a lot of time into this and she would be interested to hear a recap of what he thinks is important in the information he provided. She believes that could be valuable for the committee to help them evaluate it. They could then look through the information on their own time and evaluate how they read it and what questions they have. Mr. Boyko stated there is a lot of detail that needs to be refined. He added that reading through the information, he is sure they will have a lot of questions. They need to think about down-the-road and not just today. Mr. Dicks suggested they put a time limit on when people are going to send emails to the Tax Collector, like maybe by next Tuesday, to allow him to prepare maybe a list of frequently asked questions and send it. He would not want to be Mr. Greenberg sitting around and waiting for emails from all the committee members with all of these different questions and have to respond to all of them.
Robert Levy stated he almost looks at this from a business perspective, like a profit center. Mr. Levy noted they are going to be hard pressed to look at the pros and cons to see which is more effective. He stated from what he understands from the feedback that he is getting, people that are using the system are very pleased. It is more efficient, faster, and they like it. They are looking at it from a structural perspective trying to compare apples and oranges; and he thinks it may take a popularity input to see if the people, the voters, are happy with the present system.
Mr. McMillan remarked that that is what a charter amendment does. He stated he has another question; the extra, the surplus funds, from the Tax Collector are currently paid to the County Commission by virtue of what? He thinks they need to know the answer to that question. His concern is that State law currently provides that that money comes to them. Then they are once again at the mercy of the State Legislature; so unless the charter is changed and they become charter officers, two years from now the State can say, no, we need that money and none of it would be coming to the County Commission. They have seen the State on any number of occasions decide to grab hold of revenue streams that had come to the County. Mr. McMillan suggested that Mr. Grace could probably give example after example of those things happening from a County Manager's perspective. In the Clerk's Office certain fines and forfeitures used to come to the County and now they go to the State.
Mr. McMillan stated that if, in fact, there is a possibility that by a charter change and making them a charter officer, you have locked in that revenue stream to the County as opposed to being at the mercy of the Legislature every year deciding whether or not they are going to reach out and grab that revenue stream and put it in their budget and take it away from the County, he thinks they need to know that. If it is at risk both ways, that is fine. If you look at it only from the static way the law works now, you have missed part of the picture because the State has a habit of reaching out and grabbing County revenue streams when they have budget problems. Mr. McMillan remarked that he does not know, but he thinks they should probably have that looked at. If it turns out it does not matter, fine and dandy; but he thinks they ought to know whether it does or not because he has seen it happen too many times. Chairman Strickler requested that Ms. Crosby‑Collier at some time in the near future render an opinion on that. Ms. Crosby‑Collier stated she can look into the budget process and the return of funds to the County from the Tax Collector.
Chairman Strickler asked Mr. Greenberg if he is prepared to make any comments. Mr. Greenberg advised that the information the CRC has before them is what he was asked to bring, which was a high level forecast essentially of current and previous years and then a few years out. The first couple of pages are just a synopsis of the office and a rundown of the services that are offered. The forecast was what they anticipated. The technologies, the investments that they are making now, coincide with a drop-off in personnel through natural attrition retirement. He explained that over the next two to three years, they will need to increase revenue because of the technologies they are using. They will not have to rehire people; so there will be a significant drop‑off in workforce over the next two to three years which will be realized ultimately at the end of the year by the County in unused revenue being turned over. The initial investment they made the first year was to bring everything up to code, up to par. Legally, there were things that they had to do, such as document retention and servers being backed up online. None of that was in place. They started from behind and had some catching up to do.
Mr. Greenberg pointed out that regarding Volusia County and Seminole County, their systems of government are apples and oranges. In trying to compare the two, you can't do it. He stated if they look at the efficiency of his office, one of the graphs shows transaction per employee and that is a measure of efficiency. That is something his office takes pride in. He talked about how the Orange County Tax Collector's Office sends a lot of people over to Seminole County, and there were so many that last month his office had to take a hiatus from taking Orange County people to do a study as to exactly where that is going and how to properly schedule Orange County or Volusia County people. More people are coming to Seminole County than any other county in the state of Florida because of the service that they offer. That is something that is reflected at the ballot box. That is why he was elected, to make sure that the services that are provided stay at a level that Seminole County residents have become accustomed to expect. He stated that is why it is important that this position remain independent.
Mr. Greenberg stated his office collects 100% of the taxes and delivers those taxes to the County. It is a huge separation that is necessary. He added it is not just the taxes that they pay to the County. The delinquent tax part is where his office comes in and maintains the checks and balances and makes sure that delinquent taxes are sold properly through the certificate method. In concert with the Clerk's Office, properties are auctioned to make investors whole or to pay for delinquent taxes down the road. He emphasized that there are a number of things his office provides, and he does not believe the County is in any shape whatsoever to absorb the number of services that his office does. Mr. Greenberg advised they have invested so much in the office to get it to the point where it runs very smoothly, as Mr. Levy has pointed out. Trying to break that up would be a gigantic mess and cost a lot of money and there is absolutely no guarantee what the outcome would be. They have someone who is responsible as the one person that is elected, not five people that can “kick the can down the road” or share the blame but one person who is accountable for making sure that all of these services are performed in a manner that Seminole County residents expect. If he does a poor job, he gets voted out.
Chairman Strickler referred to Mr. Greenberg's bar chart on financial projects and asked what his projection of a much lesser number in Year 2019‑2020 is based on. Mr. Greenberg replied that Year 2019‑2020 revenues do not include other assets which probably won't be used. Anything that is not used, whether it is capital or operational, gets bundled together and then turned over. He pointed out they have certain capital projects that in the Year 2019‑2020 will probably be turned back to the County. Everything gets returned in a lump sum unless it is an excess fee/revenue/asset, whatever you want to call it. The Chairman asked for an example of that. Mr. Greenberg stated one example would be real estate, money set aside for real estate or real estate itself. He added it is primarily real estate.
Chairman Strickler remarked that what Mr. Greenberg is really saying is in Year 2019‑2020 he might have more capital investment. Mr. Greenberg agreed and added that it would be combined with the turnover in employees. He mentioned the retirement of 12 to 15 of his employees year after year and pointed out they are expecting there will be around 25 next year, and that is going to have a significant impact on the numbers. Mr. Greenberg then questioned if he and the Chairman are talking about the same thing. He asked the Chairman if he was asking about the drop in revenue or the increase in excess funds. Chairman Strickler stated he was talking about the drop in unused revenues that are returned to the County in the bar on the far right of the chart. Mr. Greenberg advised that the overall revenues have gone down because the assumptions are based upon the homestead amendment and whether that is passed. David Johnson, Property Appraiser, stated there will be a third homestead exemption kicking in. Mr. Greenberg noted that may impact the bottom line when it comes to homestead exemption. He added that even if revenues do go down, if they are able to cut operating costs, then it is a win‑win at the end of the year for the County. It would be not just for the County because it gets remitted back to all of the taxing authorities prorated.
Chairman Strickler asked the committee for an agreement on how they are going to deal with the Tax Collector issue moving forward. He stated he has suggested they ask questions via email and get answers, and then they can come back at the next meeting. Hopefully, Mr. Grace will be here because the Chairman respects his background as a former County Manager, and they will make a decision. Ms. Hufford noted that Ms. Ertel will also be at the next meeting. The Chairman told the committee that he wanted them to do a little bit of homework. He stated he easily could come up with five or six questions regarding Mr. Greenberg’s information. He likes the structure of what Mr. Greenberg put together and the CRC can go from there. He then thanked Mr. Greenberg for his comments.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Sheriff Dennis Lemma thanked the members of the committee for their service on the CRC. Sheriff Lemma stated that by now, the CRC has heard all of the facts and presentations from them about why the independence of the constitutional offices is important. He thinks by now they have heard him and his counterparts at the County Commission, the County Manager, and staff talk about how wonderful of a relationship his office has with them. Sheriff Lemma noted they are extremely proud of that. He added that many would argue, keeping this conversation candid and real, that he could sit back and be passive and say “let me mind my business,” but this is his business and it is the business of all five of them that hold independent constitutional offices. Even with the budget prediction, the Sheriff stated he does not know how Mr. Greenberg does it. He does not know how the Tax Collector predicts where he is going to be several years from now because there are so many variables and unknowns that are out there.
Sheriff Lemma stated when he goes into a private business and the service is bad, he looks for somebody to hold accountable and responsible. If the service is bad, he looks to say who do we fire, who do we get rid of. He stressed that that is the case in any one of their offices; if you don't like the services being offered by the Sheriff's Office, you find a new Sheriff every four years.
Sheriff Lemma pointed out they have talked a lot about relationships; and if they are truthful, every one of these meetings has been heavily dominated by conversations about the constitutional officers. They have heard the County talk a lot about constitutional officers, they heard the constitutional officers talk about constitutional officers, and they heard the community leaders like Jim Stelling and Fred Streetman talk about the importance of independence. Then they will hear from him and every one of his colleagues say that they will leverage every aspect of their political capital to ensure that none of their offices fall under the charter. He explained that the reason why is because they are the envy of every single county across the state; people model what they want after what Seminole County does. When he goes to conferences with his colleagues, they say how do we become like a Seminole County. Sheriff Lemma noted that in Seminole County they have a partnership with the School Board, which he highlighted on the first day that he spoke. The Sheriff added that unlike any other relationship in the state, they have a dedicated school resource deputy or officer on every single public school campus. Right now every jurisdiction across the country is trying to replicate the same exact thing. They did it and it generated a little bit of controversy because it was an expense. There are jurisdictions down in South Florida that wish they had.
Sheriff Lemma emphasized that he cannot run his office in fear of making a tough decision that is not going to be liked because of the financial effects and pointed out that the same would hold true for any one of these offices. He cannot be fearful in six years about whether or not they will be talking about his office, if he is lucky enough to be here. Sheriff Lemma stated he does not think this would pass and he does not even think it will get a vote to move to the ballot from this group because he knows most of them. If it was to get put on the ballot, he knows that the taxpayers and the citizens and residents who choose to live here because of the quality of life that is provided would not vote for it. Sheriff Lemma stated that out of everyone in the room, he probably has the greatest captive audience every single day talking to hundreds of people in community meetings and neighborhood associations. He added that he will do everything that he can to persuade them from moving down this path and that alone would create friction between all of their offices and the County staff and the County Commission, a relationship that he holds dear. He thanked the committee for the opportunity to weigh in.
Grant Maloy, Clerk of the Court and Comptroller, noted that the audience has heard the County is looking for revenue sources. Clerk Maloy stated he thought the subcommittee was interesting because a lot of this seems to be driven by SunRail. He found it interesting that at the time Mr. Grace was County Manager, he went to the Commissioners at that moment when they were going to embark on this long‑range, multiyear plan and said they have got to find a way to pay for it. When Clerk Maloy was on the BCC, that was always a concern for him, how do you commit yourself and the taxpayers down the road. Clerk Maloy stated that at the subcommittee meeting, Mr. Grace indicated that the Board rejected it; so they went into this with eyes wide open. The Clerk stated he finds that with most things in government, you take the cost and multiply the estimates by two or three or four.
Clerk Maloy pointed out that the Clerk's budget is less than one percent of the whole, entire budget. He remarked that there seems to be a lot of pointing at all of the constitutional officers like they are not doing enough when the slide was shown that indicated the constitutionals were the biggest problem. He stated he has a lean office, and he feels like they are taking the brunt for some actions of the past that weren't properly planned out for. Clerk Maloy also suggested they be very careful when people use the term "economies of scale." If that were true, the federal government at $4 trillion would be the most efficient operation in the history of mankind. They would be able to produce pennies at less than a penny since they spend about two to three cents for every penny.
With regard to the $10 million in savings in Volusia County that was mentioned, Clerk Maloy stated he does not believe that. He suggested if that is true, then why is Volusia’s millage rate 22.7269 and Seminole’s is 15.4670. Volusia County has substantially higher property taxes. They have spent about six months talking about constitutional officers. He believes every department needs to focus on what they do best. He knows what his office does best, and that is what he is working on. He pointed out there are opportunities to work together and save and talked about how the Sheriff's Office helped the Clerk in removing cabinets and helped saved $20,000 on contractors when the County would not come through and remove them. His office had an IT summit to see how they can do things more efficiently at the County. He stated that the County went forward with a $400,000 consultant for the ERP system that the Clerk holds control of and never communicated with the Clerk's Office. Clerk Maloy stated he believes they can save hundreds of thousands of dollars on getting rid of redundant systems on the financial software. He believes the County is working toward that and he thinks things are coming together. The Clerk remarked that there are a lot of ways to look at efficiencies and then talked about how the Clerk does the Supervisor of Election's payroll and pays his bills, which helps his budget come in low. Clerk Maloy reiterated that he believes there are a lot of ways to work together; and as they get better at cooperation, he believes that will continue to get better. He believes they need to focus on what they are good at.
Clerk Maloy concluded by talking about Red Bug Park and how it has always frustrated him when he goes there that it is dirty. It doesn’t look good; and yet they build a zillion dollar softball thing with all of the lights and glitz on it. He then discussed how bad the racquetball courts at Red Bug Park are with paint chipping off the walls, spider webs in the corner, balls on the top of the court that he thinks he hit in high school that maybe have been up there for 30 years; the floor is chipped and the lighting is bad. Clerk Maloy explained that the County went forward to refurbish the racquetball courts, and he and his friends were so excited. They returned to the see the refurbished racquetball courts; the lighting is dark, the walls are chipped, there is dirt on the floor, there are spider webs, balls are up on top of the court, and there is a brand new blue floor. He remarked that if you play racquetball, you know that the balls are blue. The Clerk reiterated they need to focus on what they are good at. The County needs to work on the parks; they need to work on the roads; they need to take care of the stuff that they need to do. He added that Mr. Johnson needs to do his job and Mr. Greenberg needs to do his job. Clerk Maloy stated he believes they are spending a lot of time that is not all that productive and everyone just has to do their jobs and things will be fine. He suggested if they really want to look at savings, they could propose something like a Grace Commission and get some experts on board and look at overall ways to cooperate and find some ideas there too. That was something big back in the Reagan days. Chairman Strickler remarked that the Grace Commission Report is still collecting dust. Clerk Maloy repeated that he is all for good ideas to save money.
Chairman Strickler stated he likes the cheerleading going on among the constitutional officers, but it is unnecessary. He pointed out that the total consensus of the subcommittee was that they were all okay with the constitutional officers as they are now set up and are just dealing with the Tax Collector issue. That is all that he wants to deal with. The Chairman stated he wants to get it resolved hopefully by the next meeting and he believes they will. He appreciates the comments from the constitutional officers, but it does not influence him one way or the other. He has lived in Seminole County since 1979 and would not move anywhere else for a lot of the reasons the Sheriff mentioned.
Chairman Strickler stated he is coming back to what he suggested, and he wants to make sure there is consensus. He requested that the committee get their questions to Mr. Greenberg early; and then hopefully, they won’t have another subcommittee meeting. They will decide at the next meeting and get consensus from the group on whether they think it is an issue; and if it is an issue, what will they want to do. If it is not an issue, then it is business as usual. The Chairman stated he thinks that all of the members of the committee, no matter what happens in the entire CRC process, will be able to look back and say no one can argue with the process; they may or may not argue with the outcome. He believes they are going through the right process from education to dialogue to input and trying to be as transparent as they can during the process. Chairman Strickler asked if anyone disagreed with what he stated and no objections were voiced.
David Johnson, Property Appraiser, asked to speak and stated it is not going to be cheerleading. Mr. Johnson explained that his office works closer than anyone else’s with Mr. Greenberg’s office and he does not know how Mr. Greenberg is going to ever satisfy what the committee is asking for. He advised that Mr. Greenberg has done a yeoman’s job, as the Sheriff pointed out, of doing his best estimate. Mr. Johnson stated he was surprised that Mr. Greenberg was actually able to do it. He remarked that he is not quite sure how many questions the committee is going to ask Mr. Greenberg and what answers he will give; but he is not sure the committee is ever going to be satisfied because some of the CRC members have already made the comment that they kind of know where they want to go with this. As to whether there are eight votes on this, who knows.
Mr. Johnson stated in working with Mr. Greenberg’s organization day in and day out, it is efficient. It was efficient when Mr. Valdes was there, and it is even more efficient now. The customer satisfaction is excellent. As the Clerk pointed out, in Mr. Johnson’s entire career in elected office and as a government employee, he has never seen anyone in the state want to emulate Miami-Dade, Broward, or Volusia counties. As it was pointed out, 22.7 mills compared to 15.4 mills for the same unincorporated county is ridiculous. He suggested all they need to do is talk to the people that live in Volusia County who move to Seminole as quick as they can or as soon as they can afford to and they will tell you Seminole has so much more. They are paying so much less in taxes and getting so many more services. Mr. Johnson reiterated that he does not think it is cheerleading. He agreed that all of the constitutional officers are holding hands and trying to be supportive of one another, but he thinks they are trying to give the CRC facts also and trying to make the CRC not make a poor decision. He thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak. Chairman Strickler replied that is why they asked Mr. Greenberg for his information, because they want to deal with facts.
Josh Strzalko stated he thinks there is one thing they need to really make sure they understand and that is that it is not always about the dollars. Mr. Strzalko stated it is not about the excess revenue number that goes back into the County. Sometimes a little bit less or a little bit more, if it is servicing the citizens of the county from an efficiency standpoint, might just be okay and the County might just make less money from the Tax Collector’s Office. He wondered if the citizens are happy, what does it matter?
Chairman Strickler stated that early on in some of the conversations, he thought they clarified that they were not comparing the previous Tax Collector’s effort with the existing Tax Collector’s effort because it is a balancing act. It is both customer service and budget items, and it can’t be one or the other. To say someone is doing a better job or a worse job than someone else, it is really hard to prove that; and sometimes you just have to go with your gut.
Chairman Strickler requested the County Attorney’s Office forward to each of the committee members a couple of folks’ suggestions for possible charter changes that he has been sitting on for about six weeks. He requested that the members look at those; and if there is anything in either document that they feel should be brought forward, do so at the next meeting. The Chairman stated he has reviewed them; and the more that he looked at them, there were some things in there that he agrees with and some things that he definitely would not agree with. He suggested the other members may find the same thing. He stated that information will be going out probably tomorrow.
Chairman Strickler asked if there was any additional public comment, and Don Menzel stated he appreciated the committee’s time. Mr. Menzel remarked that he knows this will be a difficult topic to go over before the next meeting. The Chairman confirmed with Mr. Menzel that his suggestion for changes is one of the ones that will be sent to the committee. Mr. Menzel thanked the Chairman and stated that is what he wanted to discuss. One of the documents that will go out talks about a recall amendment, and he would like to see the potential of this recall amendment and whether legally it can apply to constitutional officers. He is not sure but believes the attorney can vet that. Mr. Menzel gave an example of a Commissioner that sexually harasses a staff member and an EEOC complaint is filed. There is nothing that the citizens can do except wait the four years if that person does not choose to resign, even if it is brought out to the public. He explained that a recall amendment could be put in place where the citizens can stand up and say that is pretty egregious behavior and we don’t want it. Because of the behavior, we are going to do “x, y, and z” to remove you from office. Mr. Menzel suggested that may be a solution to what to him looks like a witch hunt right now for one specific constitutional officer.
Ms. Crosby-Collier requested that they get the name of the speaker for the record. Mr. Menzel introduced himself and stated his address is 270 East Bahama Road in Winter Springs.
With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke and public input was closed.
Chairman Strickler reported that one package of information will be Mr. Menzel’s and one package of information will be coming from Jessie Phillips. The Chairman requested if any member of the committee has received anything else, they should bring it to the next meeting. Mr. Schons asked that his email address be double-checked because he is not receiving everything. Ms. Smith requested Mr. Greenberg’s email and Mr. Greenberg replied his email address is joel@seminolecounty.tax.
NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING
Chairman Strickler announced the next scheduled meeting is March 6, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. at the County Services Building.
-------
Hearing no objections, Chairman Strickler adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m., this same date.
js