May 16, 2022 Charter Review Commission

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:09]

>> GOOD EVENING. I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE

[MOMENT OF SILENCE ]

WE WILL START WITH -- PLEASE, ARISE FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE, FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, WHICH WILL BE LED BY CHRISTINE (NAME). PLEASE, BOW YOUR HEADS.

[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY

AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> THANK YOU.

IF THERE ARE ANY CELL PHONES ON, PLEASE PUT THEM ON MUTE OR TURN THEM OFF. OR SERGEANT MCDADE IS GOING TO COME OVER AND FIND YOU $10 (LAUGHING)!OKAY.

EVERYBODY HAVE THEIR DEVICES ON MUTE OR SILENT?

[WELCOME]

WELL, WELCOME, EVERYBODY. TONIGHT IS THE SECOND OF THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

I'D LIKE TO START WITH WELCOMING EVERYBODY.

AS I LOOK AROUND THE ROOM, AND WE WILL GET INTO ROLL CALL AND JUST A SECOND, I SEE WE HAVE PMS. (NAME), WHO IS OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY. (NAME), WHO IS REPRESENTING THE CLERK'S OFFICE. AND THEN, I LOOK OVER AND I SEE MS. CAPO WHO IS KEEPING US ALL ON THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW.

[ROLL CALL]

FROM THE DEPUTY'S OFFICE, WE HAVE SERGEANT MCDADE.

WE ALSO HAVE DEPUTY ASH. WELCOME.

LET'S START WITH ROLL CALL. AND I THINK, TONIGHT, WE WILL START WITH MR. GILLIS. AND MAKE SURE YOUR MICROPHONE IS ON.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

APPROVE. >> (INDISCERNIBLE).

>> ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> OKAY.

SECOND BY DEANN. ANY CORRECTIONS? EDITS? DELETIONS? NO? THEN SEEING NONE, I WILL TAKE A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR BY APPROVING THE MINUTES SAY AYE. OPPOSE? ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES.

THE NEXT ITEM WILL BE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE ARE GOING TO APPROACH THIS IN THREE SEPARATE PIECES.

SO WE WILL OPEN AND CLOSE EACH OF THE PROPOSED BALLOT INITIATIVE ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE SHEETS IN FRONT OF YOU FOR THE AGENDA. AND THEN, ONCE WE FINISH PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THAT, THEN WE WILL CLOSE IT AND OPEN UP THE NEXT,

[1.  Public Hearing to Consider Charter Amendment For Cost of Living Increase to Salaries of Clay County Commissioners]

AT THE END OF THAT, WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT, IF THERE IS ANY FOR THAT. OKAY? SO LET ME OPEN UP THE FIRST ITEM.

THE FIRST ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE TO THE SALARIES OF CLAY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. AND IT'S THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.2 POINT SEE OF THE CLAY COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER, REVISING SALARIES AND OTHER COMPENSATION.

I HAVE A CARD FROM MR. KLINZMA .

MR. KLINZMAN, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK? OKAY. AND IF SO, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. AND THEN, MS. CAPO WILL START THE CLOCK. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES ON EACH COMMENT.> RICHARD KLINZMAN, 1985 TEMECULA TRAIL, MIDDLEBURG. I'M APPEARING TODAY, I SUPPOSE, AS THE PUBLIC. I DID WANT TO ADDRESS EACH OF THE THREE ITEMS THAT ARE GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT.

IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT.

[00:05:01]

THIS HAS TO GO TO THE COMMISSIONERS, AND THEY DECIDE TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. THIS IS THE SECOND CRC IN A ROW WHERE THE EMPHASIS HAS REALLY BEEN PLACED -- FOR THE BENEFIT OF FIVE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY, OUR CONDITIONERS.

10 IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL'S AND THE REPEAL OF THE LAST VOTE FOUR YEARS AGO.

WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHY THIS CAME UP FOUR YEARS AGO? IT WAS VOTED DOWN, DECISIVELY, AND WHY HAS IT BEEN BROUGHT BACK AGAIN? BECAUSE CALLING IT A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE IS JUST -- IT'S NOT STRAIGHT.

IT'S JUST LOOKING FOR A RAISE. BECAUSE WHAT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED, AT LEAST NOT WHAT I CUMULATIVE.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN A COMMISSIONER GETS IN AFTER THE FIRST YEAR, AND THEY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE -- WHETHER THAT'S A SET NUMBER OR INFLATION -- THIS WILL BE ADDED TO IT YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR.

AND AT THE END OF THEIR TERM, AND THIS IS WHERE THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION COMES IN, I'D LIKE TO HEAR THAT.

WITH THIS AUTOMATICALLY GET RESET TO 37,000 WHEN THE COMMISSIONER LEAVES OFFICE AND A NEW ONE ASSUMES? OR IS THIS GOING TO CONTINUE TO CLIMB OVER THE YEARS AT INFANT ITEM? MY THOUGHTS WERE SINCE SO MUCH TIME HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO MAKING THINGS BETTER FOR FIVE PEOPLE OUT OF ABOUT 215,000, WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME IMPROVEMENTS ALSO IN THE COUNTY, WHY NOT GO THE COMMON SENSE ROUTE AND PETITION TO MAKE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER JOB FULL-TIME POSITION? THEN, YOU GET A CLEAN SLATE AND YOU START OVER. YOU SAY OKAY.

WE HAVE A FULL-TIME JOB HERE. WHAT A BEGIN A SET AS A SALARY? PNOT PLAYING GAMES WITH CUMULATIVE INCREASES -- LITTLE ONES OVER THE YEARS. THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

THE PUBLIC SPOKE DECISIVELY WHEN THEY PASSED THIS SALARY ROLLBACK. AND WITH THAT, I'LL LET YOU

DISCUSS. >> THANK YOU.

JUST AS A REMINDER, THERE WILL BE NO DISCUSSION TONIGHT.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S DESIGNED JUST TO HAVE THE PUBLIC COME AND TELL US WHAT THEY THINK OF THE PROPOSALS, AS YOU JUST DID. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION WOULD WAIT UNTIL A FINAL MEETING, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO HAVE HAPPENED AFTER THE THIRD PUBLIC HEARING.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM NUMBER 1?

[2.  Public Hearing to Consider Charter Amendment Removing Term Limit Provision for Elected County Constitutional Offices]

I HAVE ONE CARD SO FAR ON THAT. AND THAT, AGAIN, IS MR. KLINZMAN. PLEASE STEP FORWARD.

MIDDLEBURG. AS I SAID THE LAST TIME I SPOKE HERE, THIS WAS ONE THAT REALLY BAFFLES ME.

REPEALING THE LAST VOTE. MEAN, FOUR YEARS AGO THEY WERE ADAMANT ABOUT REMOVING -- OR INFLICTING TERM LIMITS ON ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS.I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM, BUT I SUSPECT IT WAS THE FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL'S WE HAD AT THAT TIME, FOUR YEARS AGO, CONTINUED TO GET ELECTED BASED SOLELY ON THEIR COMPETENCE.

THEY DID AN EXCELLENT JOB AND VERY RARELY DID ANYONE EVER WANT TO RUN AGAINST THEM. SO I SUSPECT THE IDEA WAS TO GET SOMEBODY OUT OF THE WAY FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO STEP IN.

I THINK THAT WAS SNEAKY, AND IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.

SO I'M FOR THIS PARTICULAR REPEALING OF TERM LIMITS.

BUT WHAT I'M ALSO WONDERING IS, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS WHEN THE DISCUSSION AMONG THE BOARD HAPPENS AFTER THE THIRD MEETING

[00:10:05]

FOUR YEARS AGO, THEY SAY WE ARE ADAMANT.

WE HAVE TO GET RID OF THIS. WE HAVE TO STOP IT.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CRC DIDN'T EVEN PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. THAT CAME FROM THE BCC.

THEY WERE THE ONES WHO SAID LET'S GET RID OF -- NO MORE TERM LIMITS -- LET'S INFLICT TERM LIMITS (LAUGHING) UNCONSTITUTIONAL'S, SO OTHER PEOPLE CAN GET IN THERE AND DO THE JOB. AND NOW, WE ARE TURNING AROUND FOUR YEARS LATER SAYING ALL RIGHT.

WERE GOING TO PULL THAT AWAY. HY IS THAT? THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO WANT AN ANSWER ON THAT.

SO I JUST LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU. AND HOPEFULLY, I CAN BE HERE TO SEE THAT DISCUSSION. BECAUSE COMCAST ISN'T BROADCASTING ANY OF THESE MEETINGS ANYMORE.

[3.  Public Hearing to Consider Charter Amendment Revising Appointment of Charter Review Commission]

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER 2. AND OPEN IT ON NUMBER 3. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CHARTER AMENDMENT REVISING APPOINTMENT OF CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION. THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT IS SECTION 4.2 POINT BE OF THE CLAY COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER.

REVISING AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS BY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION. MR. KLINZMAN, I HAVE A CARD FROM YOU. PLEASE, STEP FORWARD.

TERESA, LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU ARE READY.

>> RICHARD KLINZMAN, 1985 TO MUCH SHEILA TRAIL, MIDDLEBURG.

SO HERE, REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC.T'S A HEAVY BURDEN! THIS ONE FLABBERGAST ME. BECAUSE AS I MENTIONED THE LAST TIME, THE ONLY REASON THE CRC PUT UP A LENGTHENING OF TIME IN BETWEEN CRC COMMISSIONS BEING APPOINTED WAS THE LAST ONE WAS IN SUCH A SHAMBLES. IT WAS A DISASTER FROM START TO FINISH. BUT THE PUBLIC, IN AN OVERWHELMING VOTE OF 80 PERCENT, SAID NO.

AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO SEE HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC.OW, THE LAST TIME AROUND, WHEN ALL OF THIS WAS O , THERE IS NO BUDGET TO EXPLAIN THIS TO THE PUBLIC.

THERE IS NO WAY THAT ANYBODY IS GOING TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE AND WHY, AND WHY THESE AMENDMENTS OR THESE CHANGES SHOULD BE VOTED ON. AND FRANKLY, WITH ALL OF THE OTHER PROBLEMS WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTY AND LOOKING AT OUR CHARTER AS OUR OWN PERSONAL LITTLE CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS ALLOWED TO BE IN EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF TALLAHASSEE, WE CAN DETERMINE WHAT WE WANT TO DO AND HOW TO DO IT IN THIS COUNTY. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GONE OVER THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE THAT OTHER COUNTIES MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE. THERE ARE ONLY 20/67 THAT ARE CHARTERS.ND I THINK WE HAVE BEEN DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB SINCE THEN. BUT THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER THINGS THAT WE COULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSING FACET LIKE RIGHT NOW, NOBODY CAN ARGUE WITH THE MESS THAT WE HAVE WITH TRAFFIC.

AND THIS OUT OF CONTROL AND IRRESPONSIBLE OVERGROWTH AND DISCRETION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE WHOLESALE SLAUGHTER OF THE WILDLIFE. ALSO, ONE GUY CAN MAKE A LOT OF MONEY, AND EVERYBODY ELSE HAS GOT TO SUFFER.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.

AND I'M HOPING THE NEXT CRC WILL STAND UP AND DO SOMETHING, AND TRY TO MAKE A CHANGE -- TO MAKE THINGS BETTER FOR A COMMUNITY OF 215,000 PEOPLE AND NOT A HANDFUL OF DEVELOPERS.

TO ME, THAT'S COMMON SENSE. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR

FORBEARANCE AND GOOD LUCK! >> THANK YOU, SIR.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ON THESE THREE ITEMS. THE NEXT ITEM IS PUBLIC COMMENT. SO I WILL OPEN UP PUBLIC

[1.  Approval of Payment to Glenn A. Taylor, P.A., for Professional Legal Services]

AND THEN, WE HAVE NEW BUSINESS. SO THE FIRST ITEM ON THE NEW BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF PAYMENT TO MR. TAYLOR FOR LEGAL SERVICES. IN THE BACK OF YOUR PACKAGE, YOU WILL SEE SEVERAL INVOICES THAT MR. TAYLOR HAS SUBMITTED.

[00:15:03]

AND OF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THEY CAN BE ASKED.

>> I MOTION APPROVE. >> SECONDED BY MR. TAYLOR.

>> OKAY. IT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

YOU WILL SEE, AS YOU LOOK THROUGH HERE, A SERIES OF INVOICES. THE FIRST ONE TOTALING 1950 AND THE SECOND ONE $1725. THAT TAKES US THROUGH 29 MARCH.

AND COURTNEY, OUR BUDGET WAS $10,000, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. SO WE ARE WELL WITHIN BUDGET.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. TAYLOR? NO? SEEING NONE, THEN I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.

ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE INVOICES SUBMITTED, SAY AYE. A POST? NOBODY? THEY ARE APPROVED.

BEFORE WE GO INTO MEMBER COMMENTS, I JUST WANT TO PUT OUT A COUPLE OF DATES FOR YOU. YOU KNOW THAT WE HAVE 31 MAY SCHEDULED AS THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING.

I'D LIKE TO HAVE YOU LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING DATES FOR A POTENTIAL FOURTH AND FINAL MEETING.

THEY ARE 20 JUNE, 21 JUNE, OR 22 JUNE.

[CRC MEMBER COMMENTS]

I INTERRUPT? >> GO RIGHT AHEAD.

>> FOLLOWING THE LAST MEETING AND DISCUSSION OF THE TIMELINE, I REACHED OUT TO TERESA AND I THINK SHE REACHED OUT TO COURTNEY. THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR US TO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING. O I WOULD PROPOSE TO US, AS A GROUP, THAT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE GO AHEAD AND COMPLETE OUR BUSINESS, AS OPPOSED TO

SCHEDULING ANOTHER MEETING. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT?

>> I WILL SECOND. >> MR. TAYLOR SECONDS.

OKAY. IT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT DO YOU THINK? WOULD YOU WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS ANY FURTHER

AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT? >> I WOULD.

I WOULD LIKE AN ADDITIONAL MEETING.

I THINK WE'VE DEVOTED A LOT OF TIME.

I THINK A WRAP UP MEETING WOULD BE CONDUCIVE OF US, UNDERSTANDING WHAT EXACTLY THE PEOPLE AT THESE HEARINGS WANTED, RIGHT? AND THEN, FOR US TO GO FORWARD AS A COMMITTEE AND TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

I THINK THAT MEETING WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

>> I THINK THE MEETING WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR US AS A GROUP.

AND TO DISCERN, EXACTLY, WHAT OUR DUTIES ARE.

AND SO, I WOULD BE AGAINST NOT HAVING THAT LAST MEETING.

>> OKAY. MR. THEUS?

>> I THINK THE CHALLENGE TO WRAP IT UP, YOU KNOW, ON THIS LAST MEETING? IT'S OBVIOUS AND IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR ALL OF OUR SAKE. ESPECIALLY IF IT GOES LIKE WE HAVE SEEN THIS MEETING AND THE MEETING PRIOR.

I DON'T HAVE A SENSE OF CONFIDENCE 100 PERCENT -- WE COULD HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE SHOW UP NEXT WEEK.

AND THEN, WE ARE GOING TO JAM UP AGAINST THE NEXT MEETING.

AS MUCH AS I WOULD LOVE TO WRAP IT UP IN A BOW QUICKER THAN NOT, FOR THE SAKE OF NOT BEING RUSHED, I'D BE OPEN TO ONE MORE MEETING. WHAT IS OUR ROLE? I GUESS YOU COULD HELP CLARIFY, ONCE WE'VE DONE THIS, DO WE SUBMIT SOMETHING OR REPORT TO THE COMMISSION? OR -- CLARIFY THAT, IF YOU DON'T MIND? WHAT LOGISTICALLY HAPPENS AFTER WE ARE DONE?

>> COURTNEY, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO PROVIDE THE LEGAL

REQUIREMENTS. >> SO AFTER YOU HAVE YOUR THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS, YOU WILL THEN DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO MOVE THE THREE ITEMS OR ANY OF THE ITEMS FORWARD TO THE BOARD.

YOU MAKE THAT DECISION, AND IT GOES TO THE BOARD.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT ACCOMPLISHED BY -- IN ORDER TO MEET THE BOARD'S DEADLINES AND CHARTER REQUIREMENTS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT DECISION MADE BY AUGUST 2. AT THE SAME TIME, YOU WILL FINALIZE YOUR FINAL REPORT.

AND THAT'S USUALLY SOMETHING THAT YOUR ATTORNEY WILL PREPARE AND THAT YOU WILL JUST APPROVE. IT'S JUST A SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU

DISCUSSED AND COME UP WITH AND DECIDED TO MOVE ON WITH.>> THANK YOU. I THINK ON THAT NOTE, WE COULD HAVE THE BUSINESS OF CLOSURE ON THIS LAST MEETING, ASSUMING WE

[00:20:03]

BUT WE COULD GO AHEAD AND CLOSE, AND GIVE MR. TAYLOR THE FINAL. IN THE FOLLOW-UP MEETING WOULD BE APPROVAL, I'D SAY. IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO APPROVE THE FINAL REPORT?

>> YES. I MEAN, LAST TIME THEY DID IT ALL IN ONE MEETING. IT'S REALLY AT YOUR PLEASURE OF

HOW YOU WANT TO. >> IT'S BASICALLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. ONCE WE APPROVE, TO SUMMARIZE FOR MY BENEFIT -- SWEAT THE NEXT PUBLIC MEETING WE WOULD HAVE, AT THE END OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE WOULD APPROVE THE THREE ITEMS.AND THEN, THE MEETING IS DONE.

BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT IS ALL ADMINISTRATIVE IN THE BACKGROUND BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS AND TERESA?

>> SO WHETHER YOU WANT TO DO IT OR AT THAT MEETING OR ANOTHER MEETING, THE REMAINDER OF YOUR JOB IS TO DETERMINE WHAT OF THE THREE THAT YOU'VE HAD YOUR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON, YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD AND DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD AND APPROVE YOUR FINAL REPORT. SO WHAT MR. TAYLOR WOULD DO IS PRIOR TO THE MEETING, HE WOULD PREPARE THE FINAL REPORT.

IT WOULD BE ATTACHED AS A BACKUP AND YOU WOULD MAKE THE

DECISION. >> OKAY.

>> (INDISCERNIBLE), DO YOU THINK IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ENOUGH TIME BY THE 31ST TO PREPARE THE

FINAL REPORT? >> YES, SIR.

I CAN DO WHATEVER THE COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE ME TO DO.

[LAUGHTER] >> OKAY.

SO WE HAVE, AGAIN, THE DISCUSSION IS OPEN.

THE QUESTION IS WHAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE TO THE GROUP? IS IT TO CONCLUDE ON THE NEXT MEETING? OF COURSE, IF YOU HAVE SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, THEN YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO AMEND THAT AND CONTINUE.

OR WE WOULD CONCLUDE ON THAT LAST MEETING.

AND ALSO APPROVE THE FINAL REPORT.

>> MY FINAL COMMENT WOULD BE -- I WOULD RATHER ERR ON THE SIDE OF TRANSPARENCY. MEANING THAT GIVE THE PUBLIC EVERY OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO CURE THEM, FIRST OF ALL.

AND THEN, IN A TIMELY FASHION, PROCESS WHAT THEY HAVE SAID, ASSUMING THEY SHOW UP. IF THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T.

IT MAY LOOK LIKE WE ARE TRYING TO CLOSE BUSINESS FOR, YOU KNOW -- WHO DOESN'T WANT TO GET ON WITH JUNE AND JULY? I GET THAT. BUT I WOULD RATHER ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND GIVE THE PUBLIC THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR TRANSPARENT FORMAT. WE HAVE ONE MORE MEETING.

THAT'S IT. THEN WE ARE DONE.

>> I WOULD DAVID. I THINK 90 PERCENT OF CLAY COUNTY PROBABLY DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A CLUE WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. I APPRECIATE THE MAN COMING HERE SPEAKING. I THINK YOU HAVE SOME VERY VALID POINTS, SIR. BUT I DON'T THINK YOU CAN HAVE A BIG INFLUX OF PEOPLE COMING IN HERE TO DISCUSS THIS.

I HATE TO SAY THAT. FOR A COUNTY OF OUR SIZE, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE 100 PEOPLE STANDING IN THE HALLWAY ALKING ABOUT WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE.

BUT I THINK WE'LL WRAP IT UP IN ONE MEETING.

I THINK AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT'S, THAT'S GOTTA BE THE END OF IT.

I THINK THE DECISION WILL BE MADE.

IT WILL GO TO THE COMMISSION, AND THAT WILL BE THE END OF IT.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GOING TO REITERATE MY COMMENT AND BACKUP MR. THEUS ON THIS ONE. BECAUSE I BELIEVE I UNDERSTOOD THIS CORRECTLY -- I THINK THE ONE PROBLEM WE HAVE BEEN HAVING WITH THE PUBLIC IS EVERYONE IS WONDERING WHAT THE CRC DOES.

AND IF WE TRY TO SHOVE IT ALL INTO -- AND I DON'T KNOW A BETTER TERM FOR THAT -- COMPACT IT INTO THE LAST HEARING, THEY ARE GOING TO WONDER WHY. AND I THINK WE SHOULD ERROR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION WHEN IT COMES TO THE PUBLIC

OPPORTUNITY. >> OKAY.

ANY OTHERS? SUSIE?

>> FOR ME, I KIND OF FEEL THE SAME WAY.

THAT WE SHOULD HAVE IT OPEN. IF IT'S ONE PERSON, I APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT. AND I AGREE THAT I WISH THERE WERE MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED AND CAME AND GAVE INPUT.

BUT QUITE HONESTLY, YES, WE MADE DECISIONS.

THERE PROBABLY GOING TO GO FORWARD THE WAY THEY WERE.

BUT I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD GIVE THE PUBLIC A CHANCE TO VOICE ANY CONCERNS. AND THEN, JUST COME BACK AND HAVE A FOLLOW-UP MEETING AND JUST CLOSE IT OUT.

THAT'S JUST ME.I'M AVAILABLE ANY OF THOSE DATES IN JUNE.

SO --. >> MR. CHAIRMAN? I'M CONFUSED. I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE IN OUR NEXT MEETING, WE WILL HAVE A THIRD PUBLIC HEARING.

[00:25:11]

>> CORRECT. >> SO THE PUBLIC WILL STILL HAVE A CHANCE TO BE HERE AT THE NEXT MEETING AND TALK AND EXPRESS THEIR OPINION. AS A COMMISSION, WE HAVE THE LATITUDE THAT -- TO REFERENCE, I THINK, MR. THEUS'S COMMENT -- IF 100 PEOPLE SHOW UP AND WANT TO TALK, WE CAN ALWAYS, IN THAT MEETING, SAY WE CAN MAKE A DECISION TO PUT THIS OFF IN A WEEK OR TWO WEEKS AND HAVE A FOLLOW-UP MEETING.

AS TO THE POINT OF PEOPLE FEELING WE ARE TRYING TO SHOVE SOMETHING THROUGH, IF PEOPLE AREN'T PAYING ATTENTION OR NOT LOOKING AT HER, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW.

I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULDN'T DO SOMETHING BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST QUESTIONING WHY WE FEEL THE NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING ? TO COME BACK AFTER THAT MEETING TO SAY WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON WHICH OF THESE THREE ITEMS GO THROUGH.

I'VE BEEN CONTACTED BY PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUES.

I STILL FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE POSITIONS WE'VE TAKEN AT THIS POINT. ULTIMATELY, THE VOTERS DECIDE.

IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY NO, AND IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT THEY WILL VOTE YES.

THAT'S WITH THE ULTIMATE ANSWER WILL COME.

I WILL BE AT ANOTHER MEETING. IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WANT TO HAVE A SECOND MEETING AFTER THAT? I THINK IT'S A WASTE OF TIME AND A WASTE OF COUNTY

RESOURCES. >> YEAH, I WOULD SAY I AGREE WITH MR. TIMBERLAKE. JUST BECAUSE THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING MEETING AND THIS ONE, REALLY, WE WERE DONE WITH BUSINESS OTHER THAN THIS DISCUSSION IN ABOUT 10 OR 15 MINUTES. SO TO BE ABLE TO REFLECT ON THAT WHILE IT'S FRESH IN OUR MINDS FROM THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING -- I THINK WE WILL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME FOR RIPOSTE ISCUSSION WITHOUT HAVING TO COME BACK TO ANOTHER MEETING.

AND AS YOU POINTED OUT, HAVING THE STAFF HERE AND SPENDING THEIR TIME FOR AN ADDITIONAL MEETING.

SO I WOULD BE FINE WITH IT. I THINK WE ARE GIVING THE PUBLIC AS MUCH TRANSPARENCY AND ABILITY TO COME AND SPEAK IN THAT WAY. BUT I DO AGREE.

IF WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE AND IT RUNS LATE? THEN, WE SET ANOTHER MEETING AT THAT TIME.

AND HOPEFULLY, WE DO. >> BRIAN?

>> I JUST WANTED TO GET A CLARIFICATION.

AM I CORRECT IN THINKING THAT IF WE CHANGE ANY OF THESE ITEMS, THAT THAT WOULD TRIGGER ANOTHER THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY.

IF WE DECIDE NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE

ITEMS, DOES THAT NOT TRIGGER? >> IT DOES NOT.

>> OKAY. >> IT EITHER MOVES FORWARD OR

DOESN'T. >> RIGHT.

>> BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE, HANNAH, PLEASE REFLECT THAT MR. HODGES HERE. SO WE NOW HAVE 11 MEMBERS PRESENT. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

UNLESS THERE IS ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO NOT HAVE A FOLLOW-ON MEETING AFTER THE 31ST. IT'S BEEN SECONDED.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON EQUITY SUSIE?

>> I DO AGREE THAT IF WE COME AND THEE'S NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE AND WE WANT TO CLOSE THAT, THEN I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. IT'S JUST THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE, WHICH I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE.

BUT I KNOW WE'VE HAD A ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT ALL OF THESE FROM THE GET GO. (LAUGHING) FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WE HAVE SPENT HOURS. SO I AM OKAY WITH THAT PART.

BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE RESOURCES AND PUSHING IT OUT .

AND MAKING SURE EVERYBODY CAN BE BACK.

SO --. >> SECOND LAST PIECE! SO I'VE GOTTEN A LITTLE CLARIFICATION, WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY, AT THE END OF A MEETING SUCH AS THIS ONE TONIGHT, TO SAY NOT MANY PEOPLE ARE HERE.

WE CAN CLOSE OUR BUSINESS AND WE CAN DO THAT? WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT IT ON THE DOCKET TO HAVE ANOTHER ONE SCHEDULED. SO WE COULD CLOSE AND XM, RIGHT? REX YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING -- WHAT YOU INTEND.

BUT AT THE NEXT MEETING, IF YOU DETERMINED NOT TO TAKE ACTION AT THAT MEETING AND TO TABLE IT OR CONTINUE IT TO ANOTHER MEETING, THEN YOU --

>> SO WHAT WE HAVE REALLY DONE IS STAY TO THE PUBLIC IS AT THE NEXT MEETING BY HAVING IT ON THE AGENDA IS WHAT WAS PROPOSED. THE CAVEAT BEING WHAT YOU SAID

-- TO CHANGE IT IF WE NEED TO. >> RIGHT.

I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. >> SO ONE MORE QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION. THAT IS, AFTER THE PUBLIC

[00:30:01]

>> THAT IS CORRECT. THERE WILL BE A DECISION TO CHANGE -- WELL, YOU COULD, BUT REALIZING IT WOULD TAKE THREE MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A DECISION OF ARE WE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD OR NOT?

>> JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY.

THAT IS WE CAN SAY WE ARE NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH ONE OF THEM AND MOVE FORWARD WITH TWO OF THEM?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IT WOULDN'T TRIGGER THE

THREE HEARINGS? >> CORRECT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BUT WE DO HAVE DECISIONS TO

MAKE? >> YES.

AND THAT WOULD BE ON THE AGENDA.

AGAIN, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR THAT'S BEEN SECONDED TO MAKE THE NEXT MEETING AFTER THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING THEN TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT TO DO WITH THE THREE ITEMS. AND MAKE THAT OUR LAST MEETING.

OF COURSE, THERE'S ALWAYS THE OPTION OF NEED BE THAT WE COULD HAVE ANOTHER MEETING. OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS STATED, SAY AYE.

OPPOSE? ALL RIGHT.

SO WE HAVE 10 FOUR AND ONE AGAINST.ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. ANY OTHER MEMBER COMMENTS BEFORE WE ADJOURN? ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?

>> MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> I'LL SECOND.

[LAUGHTER] >> ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE MR. TIMBERLAKE MAKING THE MOTION, AND MS. (INDISCERNIBLE) SICKENING. DO YOU HAVE THAT, HANNAH? VERY GOOD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.