CHARTER
REVIEW COMMISSION
PUBLIC
MEETING
NOVEMBER 10,
2011
CHARTER COMMISSION: District 1 – Tom Boyko
- Jeffrey Bauer
- Regina Bereswell
District 2 - Imogene Yarborough
- Mark Wylie
- Patti Green
District 3 - Michael Bowdoin
- Kimberly Carroll
- Daryl McLain
District 4 - Larry Strickler
- Allen Sneath
District 5 - Sherry Bellomo
- Stephen Coover
- James Dicks
ABSENT: District 4 - Robert McMillan
ATTENDEES: County Attorney Bryant Applegate
Deputy
Co. Attorney Lynn Porter-Carlton
Chief
Deputy Clerk Bruce McMenemy
Deputy
Clerk Eva Roach
The
following is a non-verbatim transcript of the CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING, held at 6:34 p.m. on
Thursday, November 10, 2011, in Room 1028 of the Seminole County Services
Building at Sanford, Florida.
PUBLIC
INPUT
Chairman
Stephen Coover stated the Charter Review Commission has been appointed by the
BCC to receive input and to make recommendations on possible changes to the
charter. He stated if the public would
like to see any changes considered by the CRC to fill out the Speaker Request
Forms that are available in the lobby.
The CRC will only receive information from the public and will not
decide whether or not to include that information.
John
Casselberry addressed the CRC to state the taxes for the cities are around 5
mills and the County is about the same.
The School Board’s millage went up to 7.7 and that is the highest he has
ever seen in any single millage. He
stated it seems to him that 70% of what the BCC does appears to be just related
to the unincorporated areas. He said he
had asked the BCC to start asking their employees to track their hours to see
how much actual labor is involved before an item gets to a Board meeting. Everyone in the county is paying for the 70%
unincorporated activity. That is about
half of the population and half of the value of the tax base compared with all
the municipalities put together. The
County has the ability to levy 10 mills and they also have the ability to levy
another 10 mills for municipal services within the County. He stated he feels the County should start
dividing their labor into municipal and countywide services and just have a County
millage and pay for their own city-level services to the County’s
unincorporated areas. That would
probably save the municipalities approximately 3 mills. He added he doesn’t believe it will cost the
County taxpayers any more than what they are paying now once they get a real
efficient budget. He stated he feels the
County should look at unincorporated taxation like they do for the fire
departments. From his point of view, the
cities do a good job; but the County is far more into the city pockets than
they should be. Speaker Request Form was
received and filed.
Upon
inquiry by Daryl McLain, Mr. Casselberry advised that he feels whoever the
legal counsel is, they should evaluate paying for the Sheriff’s patrol like the
County pays for the fire department.
Mr.
McLain stated he believes Mr. Casselberry is suggesting that the County should
not have a millage against incorporated city residents.
Mr.
Casselberry stated he is suggesting regular patrol of the unified leaders
(jail, courthouses, etc.). He stated
there is only one government spending money on that, but the residents are paying
for city patrols and county patrols and they shouldn’t be in the cities.
Mr.
McLain stated he believes what Mr. Casselberry is saying is that the County not
charge millage for the law enforcement inside city limits.
Mr.
Casselberry stated the detectives are in the city limits and the police
cooperate more with each other. He added
he doesn’t believe the Sheriff’s Department should waste their time in
neighborhoods, streets and cities that the police departments are
patrolling.
MINUTES
APPROVAL
Motion by Mr. Larry Strickler, seconded by
Mr. Tom Boyko to approve the October 13, 2011 minutes.
All
members in attendance voted AYE.
OLD
BUSINESS
Mr.
Strickler stated the subcommittee was charged to develop a short list of
potential law firms that they might want to consider should the CRC ever need
legal representation in the CRC process.
The subcommittee met twice and they short-listed four law firms. There were two major criteria they were
looking at, and one was trying to ensure a minimal possibility of conflicts of
interest, meaning they do not need to pick a firm that is currently doing
business for the BCC or Constitutional Officers in Seminole County. The second criteria was to make sure that the
law firm have someone with a good background in charters, and they would be within
close driving distance to make it reasonable.
The four firms are Goren Cherof Doody and Exrol located in Fort
Lauderdale; Wade Vose located in Winter Park; Bryant Miller & Olive located
in St. Petersburg; and Cobb & Cole located in Daytona Beach. The Subcommittee’s goal was to present this
to the CRC this evening for approval so they can solicit these firms for
individual attorney’s expertise to develop a further short list the CRC may
want to consider early next year.
Upon
inquiry by Chairman Coover, Mr. Strickler advised he is not aware of any
conflicts with the four firms that the subcommittee has chosen. He stated the subcommittee tried to be
sensitive to attorneys that regularly interact with the BCC and they eliminated
those with obvious strong relationships.
Upon
further inquiry by Chairman Coover, Mr. Strickler advised from the
subcommittee’s perspective, they do not need to do more work before these four
firms come before the CRC for a presentation.
He stated from the CRC’s perspective, they will need to inform the
subcommittee if they need to do more work.
Mr.
Jeff Bauer recommended that the subcommittee obtain information on specific
attorneys from these firms that would be representing the CRC, and then have
those attorneys come in to answer questions from the CRC.
Chairman
Coover stated he was thinking why the CRC would want to spend December
listening to the law firms when they don’t have any issues at this time. He said he is inclined to go with Mr. Bauer’s
recommendation of allowing the subcommittee to do more work in getting more
specifics from each firm, who they are looking at and their backgrounds. The CRC can spend December’s meeting trying
to look at what few issues they still have that are not cleared out.
Mr.
McLain stated one of the things that he is interested in knowing is what public
agencies (cities or governmental agencies), if any, each of these firms
represent.
Mr.
Boyko stated he would like to know if the contract is going to be written in such
a way that shows what the CRC expects of them as far as salary and availability
of coming to a meeting on an as-needed basis.
Chairman
Coover stated he believes the CRC may need to rely on the subcommittee to come
up with a recommendation for some key points in the contract.
Mr.
Strickler stated the subcommittee needs to find out whether these four firms are
sufficient or does the CRC want to add more.
He stated the subcommittee can obtain a copy of a couple of contracts on
charters with attorneys, and develop a generic contract and then make a
recommendation in priority order of the four or more firms based on their
experience. The specifics of the generic
contract can be reviewed when they meet with the four firms. The subcommittee could deliver a recommendation
in priority order by January, 2012; and the final step after that would be to
go into negotiations of the contract.
Chairman
Coover stated he doesn’t want the subcommittee to select the attorney. He stated the CRC needs to have concepts that
they intend to have in the contract, such as, if they do not want to pay them
to drive, then tell them. Once the CRC
ranks the attorneys, then they negotiate the contract with number one and if
they do not get a contract that they like, then they will go with number
two. The option is to have the
subcommittee do the contract and then the CRC submit that to all the law
firms. If the subcommittee identifies
who those who are going to participate, then let them come in and sell
themselves at the meeting. The CRC will then
rank them and they will go from there. He
stated if the subcommittee could bring that back for the December meeting, then
the CRC will go into the meeting knowing what they want from them and what they
expect from them.
Mr.
McLain stated if these firms have dealt with charter committees before, he is
sure they have dealt with contracts before.
He recommended obtaining a copy of the contracts with different agencies
they have worked for.
Mr.
Boyko stated there are a few of them that have dealt with charters. There have been many times in past charters
that they have dealt with issues and they found out at the eleventh hour that
it was unconstitutional. The attorney also
needs to be aware of what is taking place in Tallahassee.
Upon
inquiry by Michael Bowdoin, Chairman Coover advised in December, the CRC needs
to dive into the few issues (2006 election items and litigation items) that are
still hanging to see if they want to tackle them. He stated if it is not resolved, it may be
smart to push the attorney interviews off for another month until they know
what they are doing. The CRC members
could review the leftovers from the last CRC at the next meeting.
NEW
BUSINESS
Chairman
Coover stated the next meeting is scheduled for December 8, 2011 in Room
3024.
Upon
inquiry by Sherry Bellomo, Chairman Coover advised Mr. Applegate provided a
letter at the September 23, 2011 meeting as well as information on the 2006
election and the resolution of the Charter Review Committee, including all of
the recommendations and ordinances. He
stated Mr. McMillan indicated that there were a couple of ordinances that were
passed that, in his opinion, didn’t meet the intent of the Charter Review or
the electorate.
Mr.
Strickler stated he believes the intent is to be aware of the recent history of
the Seminole County Charter Review Commission to be sure of any issues that
were brought up that either passed or were found unconstitutional. He stated anything on the hit list should be
open to anyone on the CRC for discussion.
Mr.
Strickler stated his notes show that pay raises was an issue that was brought
up, as well as ethics and Issues 4, 5 and 6 (audit committee litigation).
Ms.
Bellomo stated she would like for someone to give the CRC more history on this
as it is hard to understand what went on six years ago.
Chairman
Coover stated the CRC can invite the Clerk to provide the committee with the
2006 CRC minutes to read what was discussed.
He stated the CRC could rely upon Mr. McMillan and Mr. Boyko’s
memories.
Ms.
Bellomo stated she wants to know if there is anything else she needs to be
doing between now and the next meeting to be prepared. She stated she will probably be more confused
by reading the previous minutes.
Mr.
Boyko stated he believes Mr. McMillan wanted to know the percentage of the vote
on the referendum. He stated he believes
the whole idea is to know where they stand.
He added some of the audits have failed and he would like to know the
procedures on audits. He said the procedures
being done in the County sounds pretty insufficient and he feels that the CRC
should be looking at doing audits again.
Bruce
McMenemy, Chief Deputy Clerk, addressed the CRC to state he is sure the Clerk
of Court, Maryanne Morse, is willing to come in and speak to the CRC relative
to audits. He stated he feels people sometimes
get confused when they hear internal audit.
The Clerk is an independently elected Constitutional Officer who is
responsible for auditing the BCC functions.
County
Attorney Bryant Applegate addressed the CRC to state his office and the County
Manager’s office will provide documentation if the CRC needs additional information
in the operation of the County, history, or any other issues. He stated legal advice will be provided to
the CRC if they hire outside counsel. He
said the BCC salaries have actually gone down since the last Charter Review
Commission. The ordinance accurately
reflected what the charter proposition was on the ballot. The County Attorney indicated that the yearly
consideration of the BCC salaries must be adopted at the County’s budget public
hearing.
Chairman
Coover gave the results of the previous referendum for salaries, ethics, ballot
title, transportation, Clerk’s function as auditor and custodian, creation of
volunteer Advisory Audit Committee, and Constitutional Officers subject to
audit for certain County funds. He
stated he will make arrangements for inviting the Clerk of Court to attend the
next meeting.
Mr.
Strickler asked if those items that came up at the previous charter review have
been passed by ordinance.
Mr.
Applegate stated he will respond to that question at the next meeting or prior
to that meeting.
-------
Chairman Coover adjourned the
meeting at 7:12 p.m., this same date.