Volusia County Government Online
CHAMBERS PLEASE COME TO ORDER. EVERYONE PLEASE HAVE A SEAT. AT THIS TIME, TURN YOUR CELL PHONES AND ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS DOWN TO A DULL OFF, SO WE DON'T INTERRUPT INDIVIDUAL SPEAKING. THIS IS THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. SEPTEMBER4th, 2014. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION VOLUSIA COUNTY GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE, SO WE'RE GOING TO HOLD YOU TO YOUR THREE MINUTES STRICTLY. SO PLEASE WHEN I SAY OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BECAUSE I WANT EVERYBODY TO BE HEARD. MS.LINDA CARLTON, YOU ARE FIRST UP TODAY. AFTER THAT, LISA HOOSIER, YOU WILL BE NEXT.
I'M LINDA CARLTON --
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
LINDA CARLTON, IN DE LAND.
THREE MINUTES, MADAM.
I'M REPRESENTING THE VOLUSIA FLAGLER SIERRA CLUB. OUR CHAIR AND VETERAN COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY, BUT I'M GOING TO READ A LETTER HE ASKED I READ TO YOU, REALIZING THIS REFLECTS A POSITION WE AS THE CLUB STAND BY. AS CHAIRMAN OF THE VOLUSIA FLAGLER SIERRA CLUB I'D -- AS I UNDERSTAND THIS PROPERTY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SET ASIDE FOR ITS ECOLOGICAL VALUE. WHILE HUNTING FOR A FEW EXCEPTIONS MAY BE USED FOR THIS LAND, ALLOWING THE ADDITION OF DOGS CLEARLY ISN'T IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE LAND ITSELF NOR THE GENERAL POPULATION OF VOLUSIA COUNTY. SOMEPOINTS TO CONSIDER, BY PERMITTING DOGS ON THE LAND DURING HUNTING SEASON AND ACCOMPANYING TRAINING TIMES, YOU WOULD BE ENCOURAGING EXTRA VEHICULAR ACTIVITY ON SENSITIVE TERRAIN WITH ADDITIONAL WEIGHT OF TRUCKS, LADEN WITH DOGS AND DOG BOXES, DOING MORE DAMAGE TO ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS. DOGS WHILE SUPPOSEDLY TRAINED TO FIND AND CHASE DEER, ARE PRONE TO DISTURBING AND KILLING OTHER FORMS OF WILDLIFE, INCLUDING MANY PROTECTED SPECIES FOUND ON AND AROUND THE PRESERVE. EVEN MINOR DISTURBANCES OF SOIL AND VEGETATION CAN RESULT IN THE INFILTRATION BY AND ESTABLISHMENT OF EXOTIC AND INVASIVE NONNATIVE PLANT SPECIES, WHICH FLORIDA HAS BEEN AFFLICTED WITH DUE TO THE ROOTING BEHAVIOR OF FEE RAL PIGS AS AN EXAMPLE. PARASITES SUCH AS HOOK WORMS AND A HOST OF OTHERS POSE A REAL AND SERIOUS RISK TO HUMANS. BACTERIAL INFECTIONS POSE A SIMILAR RISK. THERE'S NO PRACTICAL WAY TO PREVENT DOGS FROM URINATING OR DEFECATING IN THE WILD AND NO WAY TO DISPOSE OF THEIR DROPPINGS. YOU ONLY NEED TO LOOK AT GEMINI SPRINGS TO SEE THE -- I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSIDER THESE FACTS ON CLINTON TO HAVE A RE-- WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE A REVOTE. WE HOPE THE COUNCIL RECONSIDERING THE USE OF HUNTING DOGS ON DEEP CREEK RESERVE. I MIGHT ADD, THERE'S NO WAY THAT DOGS WON'T DISTURB MIGRATION. EVERYONE IS SO CONCERNED ABOUT BEARS IN THEIR BACK YARD. LET'S NOT RUN THEM OUT OF THE CONSERVATION AREAS EVEN MORE THAN THEY HAVE BEEN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT, MS. LISA HOOSIER. AFTER MS. LISA, SANDRA WALTERS. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
LISA HOOSIER, 2075 AVOCADO DRIVE, PORT ORANGE, FLORIDA. I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE NARCOTIC OVERDOSE AND PREVENTION EDUCATION TASK FORCE. I'M A REGISTERED NURSE AND SERVE AS MODERATOR FOR THE PROGRAM. THE FORCE WORKS HARD ON THE BYRNE ASSISTANCE GRANT AND WITHOUT FUNDING. WE'RE HERE TO ASK THE COUNCIL FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR THE GRANT FUNDING. IT'S IMPACTED THE MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS OF VOLUSIA AND FLAGLER COUNTIES. WE HAVE ALSO PRESENTED IN THE PRISON SYSTEM. WE HAVE HAD 22,825 STUDENTS AND HUNDREDS OF ADULTS ATTEND OUR PROGRAMS SINCE 2012. OUR COMMUNITY BASED PROGRAM RUNS ON THE VOLUNTARY EFFORTS OF PARENTS WHO HAVE LOST THEIR CHILD TO ACCIDENTAL DRUG OVERDOSE, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND ADDICTION PROFESSIONALS. OUR TASK FORCE HAS BEEN ADDRESSING THE DRUG CRISIS IN OUR COMMUNITY THROUGH SCHOOLS BY PROVIDING SUBSTANCE ABUSE EDUCATION TO YOUTH AND PARENTS. VOLUSIA COUNTY HAS LOST 96 INDIVIDUALS TO OVERDOSE IN 2013 ACCORDING TO THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. WE MUST CONTINUE TO GO INTO THE MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS TO EDUCATE THEM ON THE DANGERS OVERDOSE. IF WE SAVE JUST ONE LIFE OUR EFFORTS ARE WELL WORTH IT. WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT IN OUR EFFORTS TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT. THE PROGRAM IS RECOGNIZED BY SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY LEADERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AS BEING A POWERFUL PROGRAM IMPACTING THE LISTENER. WILLIAM JAMES FROM THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR WRITES, THE RESULT OF THE PROGRAM IS POSITIVE, WITH MANY STUDENTS REEVALUATING THEIR CHOICES. I COMMEND THEIR EFFORTS TOWARDS EDUCATING OUR YOUTH ABOUT THE RESULTS OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE. YOU HAVE OUR CONTINUED SUPPORT WITH THE PROGRAM AND ITS EXPANSION. THE FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION STATED THAT THEY HAVE PARTNERED TO TAKE ITS POWERFUL, SOMETIMES YOU NEVER SLEEP IT OFF CAMPAIGN, TO 10 OF FLORIDA'S PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES. THE GRANT IS AIMED AT 10,000 STUDENTS AND KITS OF MAKING ONE HOUR PRESENTATIONS AND WE PLAN TO PRESENT TO A THOUSAND INMATES. THE MAIN THING THE COUNTY STAFF TOLD US WAS WE DID NOT HAVE MEASURABLE OUTCOMES. YOUR STAFF ADVISED THE BOARD THEY COULD POSSIBLY WORK WITH US, BUT THE ASPAB REJECTED THAT IDEA. WITH A LITTLE EFFORT FROM THE COUNTY STAFF WE COULD HAVE MADE THIS GRANT ACCEPTABLE TO ALL. THE OTHER COMMENT MADE BY COUNTY STAFF WAS THAT THEY DID NOT SEE THE CONNECTION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. THIS WAS JUST NOT THE FACT. WE CANNOT PRESENT THE PROGRAM WITHOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT PRESENT. THEY HAVE A SCRIPTED PIECE IN THE PROGRAM. OUR TOTAL PROJECTED BUDGET IS 10,000 -- EXCUSE ME. OVER $10,000. THE TYPE OF SERVICE WE OFFER IS ONE HOUR PROFESSIONAL SERVICE TO STUDENTS AND INMATES. WE NEED THE COUNCIL'S HELP IN ASSISTING US WITH FUNDING OR WE CANNOT CONTINUE OUR WORK. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MA'AM. SANDRA-- DO WE GET -- YES. SANDRA WALTERS. AFTER MS. WALTERS IS JANET MARKS.
HELLO.
NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES.
SANDRA WALTERS, 480 WARRIOR TRAIL IN ENTERPRISE. I'M EXPOSED TO THE ONE YEAR LEASE OF DOGS TO HUNT ON DEEP CREEK PRESERVE AND I REQUEST SOMEONE ON THE PREVAILING SIDE OF THAT VOTE SEEK A REVOTE. MINIVER MAIN REASON -- MY FIVE MAIN REASONS ARE, NUMBER ONE, USING DOGS TO HUNT GOES AGAINST THE 25-YEAR-OLD POLICY THAT PROHIBITS DOG HUNTING ON PUBLIC CONSERVATION LANDS. NUMBER TWO, THE RULES OF DEEP CREEK PRESERVE, WHICH I DOWNLOADED LAST NIGHT, INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING RULE, MOTOR VEHICLES ARE PROHIBITED AND PETS MUST BE LEASHED AT ALL TIMES. USING THE FIGURES THAT WERE QUOTED IN THE NEWS JOURNAL, I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE REVENUE STREAM TO THE COUNTY FROM THIS LEASE WILL AMOUNT TO INCOME OF $65 A DAY. WHICH IS ABOUT FOUR PEPPERONI PIZZAS. AND THE LAST THING I WANT TO BRING UP IS I DOWNLOADED AN EXCERPT FROM THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE DEER STUDY GROUP THAT WAS HELD SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND I'D LIKE TO READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH. THIS METHOD OF HUNTING INVOLVES USING DOGS, TRUCKS, ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT AND PUBLIC ROADS TO TRAIL DEER. FREQUENTLY DEER AND DOGS RUN OVER LARGE ACREAGES WITH LARGE TRACKS TO KEEP DOGS OFF NEIGHBORING LANDS. CONFLICTS BETWEEN LAND OWNERS AND HUNTERS AND DOG DEER HUNTERS IN ASCENDING ORDER OF INTENSITY ARE, NUMBER ONE, BLOCKING OF PUBLIC ROADS, TWO, TRESPASS TO RECOVER DOGS, AND THREE, TRESPASSING BY DEER HOUNDS. THEREFORE, I REQUEST THAT THIS ISSUE BE BROUGHT BACK UP FOR A VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MA'AM. MS.JANET MARKS, AND AFTER THAT IS SONIA GIDRY? WE NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES.
JANET MARKS, 1324 16th STREET, ORANGE CITY, UNINCORPORATED AREA. I'M WITH THE WEST VOLUSIA AUDUBON SOCIETY ALSO. I ASK BOTTOM LINE THAT THE VOTE BE RESCINDED, PLEASE, AND RESCHEDULE A HEARING TO ALLOW MORE PUBLIC CONCERNS TO BE HEARD. THIS WAS NOT DONE AT THE PASSING OF THE NEW -- OF THE NEW EXTENSION OF LEASED LAND TO DEEP CREEK, SPORTSMAN CLUB. IN THE ORANGE LEASE INFORMATION AND LAND RESTRICTIONS OF THE LESSEE, FOR THE BID THAT WAS CANCELED TO GO OUT, STATE ONLY STILL HUNTS ARE ALLOWED. NO DOGS PERMITTED. AND THIS NEW HUNTING AGREEMENT WOULD GO AGAINST THE LAND WHICH IS PURCHASED FOR CONSERVATION AND WATER PROTECTION AND OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE. THE HUNT LEASE HAS STOPPED USING DOG HUNTING LAST YEAR IN 2013. AND THE HUNTING PERIOD WOULD BE FROM SEPTEMBER 13th THROUGH DECEMBER, THE END OF DECEMBER IN 2014. THAT WOULD MEAN THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF TIME THAT PUBLIC WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO SOME OF THESE LANDS AND THE RESTRICTIONS. I BELIEVE THE NOISE ALONE AND THE ACTIVITY WOULD DEEPLY INTERFERE WITH THE BIRD MIGRATIONS AS WELL AS ANY ANIMAL MIGRATION DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME. AND THERE ARE MANY BIRDS THAT DO FLY THROUGH THE AREA IN THE MIGRATION PERIODS. THAT'S JUST ONE MINOR POINT IN SOME PEOPLE'S EYES, BUT MAJOR IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL WORLD. IN GENERAL, IN VOLUSIA COUNTY, DOG HUNTS ARE NOT PERMITTED ON PUBLIC CONSERVATION LANDS. IT GOES AGAINST VOLUSIA'S POLICY OF RESTRICTING HUNTING ON PUBLIC CONSERVATION LANDS UNLESS PROVIDED FOR IN CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLANS. THIS LATEST AMENDMENT WOULD NOT -- HAS NOT BEEN ON THE CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT, GOING AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN, MS. GIDRY. AFTER YOU MR. MORGAN GIL BREATH.
SONDRA BAKER GIDRY. I AM A NATIVE FLORIDIAN, MY FATHER WAS BORN HERE AND SO WAS I. I LOVE THIS COUNTY. I'M A MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY. I HAPPEN TO LEAD FIELD TRIPS TO HELP VOLUSIA COUNTY RESIDENTS AND FRIENDS TO LEARN ABOUT THE NATIVES, TO THEN THEM IDENTIFY THEM. I KNOW ON DEEP CREEK PROPERTY ITSELF THERE IS A -- THERE'S A POPULATION OF THAT RARE ENDEMIC PAW PAW, WHICH IS THE ONLY PLACE IT'S FOUND IS IN EAST VOLUSIA COUNTY. THAT'S NUDGING OVER TO THE WEST, BUT IT'S ALSO ON DEEP CREEK PRESERVE. AS A MEMBER OF THE NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, I HAVE ALSO VOLUNTEERED MY SERVICES IN LAND MANAGEMENT REVIEW MEMBER ON THEIR TEAM. I'VE HELPED REVIEW ST. JOHN'S PALM BLUFF CONSERVATION AREA, AND I RECENTLY DID ONE UP AT PUTNAM COUNTY'S CARVELL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA. LET ME SAY THE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA SEEMS TO HAVE THE BUSINESS OF TIMBERING FOR ST. JOHNS, THEY DON'T GET THE MONEY, AND ALSO HUNTING. WELL REGULATED HUNTING. IF YOU'RE ALLOWED TO GO IN THERE, ONLY CERTAIN TIMES. THEY CAN CAMP ONLY INSIDE THE GATE THERE, AND WITH ALL THEIR REGULATIONS, THE ONE THING THEY DO NOT PERMIT IS HUNTING WITH DOGS. THERE HAS TO BE A REASON WHY THEY DON'T HAVE IN A HUNTING AREA ALLOW HUNTING WITH DOGS. THAT CONCERNS ME. ALSO I'VE BEEN CHECKING OUT AT A STATE RESERVE, AND THEY ALLOW HUNTING, BUT ITS DISCONCERTING, A HUNTER TOLD ME I SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFF THE TRAIL. SAME THING FOR THE OCALA FOREST, I RUN INTO HUNTERS THERE. SAME THING WITH PADDLING DOWN THE SUWANEE RIVER. A SMALL GROUP OF SIERRA PEOPLE WHO CAMPED I THINK ON THE FLORIDA SIDE AND ON THE GEORGIA SIDE AT NIGHT, HEARD THE DOGS BAYING AND HEARD GUNSHOTS. WE'RE KIND OF CONCERNED NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO. THEY SAY, LAY LOW, DON'T SIT UP, BECAUSE YOU CAN BE IN THE LINE OF FIRE. AND THEN I WILL SAY I HEAR THE BLEATING, SOUNDS LIKE A GOAT, AND I THINK MAN, THAT SOUNDS TERRIFYING. FINALLY, A LITTLE LATER FEW MORE SHOTS AND THE BLEATING STOPS. LATER, TWO DOGS SWIM ACROSS THE SUWANEE RIVER AND THROUGH THE AREA WHICH WE ARE CAMPING. SO I'VE BEEN ON BOTH SIDES OF THE HUNTING AND THE DOG ISSUE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY AS A MEMBER OF THE NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, WE ARE FOR CPR CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION, RESTORATION, AND I'D LIKE TO DO MY PART IN RESTORING KEEPING VOLUSIA COUNTY AS IT IS, A BEAUTIFUL PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO VISIT AND A PLACE FOR NATURE, AND I AS A LONG TIME CITIZEN, DO VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION. THANK YOU.
MR. GILRATH. OUR COUNTY TAX APPRAISER. WELCOME ABOARD. AFTER YOU, MR. STEPHEN KIT NER.
I'M A CITIZEN OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, AND I'M ALSO PROPERTY APPRAISER, BUT I'M NOT HERE FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES. I'M HERE TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO THE COUNCIL REGARDING THE ALS CHALLENGE.
I WROTE THE CHECK.
SINCE MY CHALLENGE I'VE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE COME UP AND TELL ME ABOUT PERSONAL EXPERIENCES THEY'VE HAD WITH EITHER FAMILY MEMBERS OR OTHER FOLKS. I WAS NOT THAT AWARE OF ALS AND THE DISEASE, AND IT IS REALLY SOMETHING, AND THIS CHALLENGE HAS BEEN, I THINK, ACROSS THE COUNTRY, SOMETHING THAT HAS ENCOURAGED A LOT OF PEOPLE TO FIND OUT ABOUT, KNOW ABOUT, AND RESPOND TO SOMETHING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. IT DOES RENDER ONE VERY ALERT AND ALL WET. BUT I DO ENCOURAGE YOU TO RESPOND AND WITH THAT, I'LL YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME.
THANK YOU. I'M WRITING THE CHECK. MR.KITNER. THEN AFTER YOU, SUSIE PIECE AND I SEE WE ARE GETTING MORE PEOPLE COMING IN. WE MAY RUN OUT OF TIME, BECAUSE THIS IS A, FROM 8:30 TO 9:00. I'LL GET AS MANY AS IN AS POSSIBLE, BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF BUSINESS AT 9:00.
ALL THE MORE REASON TO HAVE ANOTHER HEARING ON THIS. I'M STEPHEN KITNER, YOU LED ME INTO IT, CONSERVATION CHAIR, AUDUBON. DE LAND. YOU'LL HEAR PEOPLE REFER TO DOG HUNTING. AT ANY RATE, IT'S CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE, EVEN TEXAS HAS BANNED DOG HUNTING FOR DEER. SO IT IS A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE. YOU'LL HEAR LOTS OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THAT. MUCH MORE CONCERNED THAT WE HAVE A HISTORY IN VOLUSIA COUNTY OF HAVING OPEN HONEST AND FAIR GOVERNMENT. Y'ALL KNOW I WAS HERE OVER 21 YEARS AS YOUR EMPLOYEE. WE BELIEVED IN REACHING OUT TO THE PUBLIC, GETTING THE PUBLIC INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. WE HEAR THEM TALK ABOUT TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC. WE CERTAINLY WERE NOT AWARE DOG HUNTING WAS ON THE AGENDA. HAD WE HAVE KNOWN THAT, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE. HUNTING OCCURS ON COUNTY PROPER. I SIGNED LEASES WHEN I WAS HERE, BUT NEVER FOR DOGS. SO THIS IS A NEW CHANGE IN DIRECTION, SOMETHING WE THINK YOU NEED TO SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESCIND THAT VOTE AND TAKE IT BACK TO PUBLIC HEARING AND LET THE PUBLIC HAVE THEIR SAY, ALL SIDES, LET THEM COME FORWARD AND TALK ABOUT IT. YOU'LL BE AMAZED -- I KNOW YOU'RE RECEIVING E-MAILS AND RECEIVING LETTERS ON THIS. LOTS OF LEADERS IN THE COMMUNITY ARE TELLING YOU THIS IS REALLY NOT THE THING TO BE DOING. SO PLEASE, PLEASE, AMAZE RETHINK THIS, RELOOK AT IT AGAIN. LET THE PUBLIC HAVE THEIR SAY, LET THE PUBLIC COME UP AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS, AND LET'S DON'T MAKE THIS A NEW NOVEL ABOUT VOLUSIA COUNTY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY THIS MORNING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
VERY SHARP TODAY, STEVE. MS.PIECE, AND ERIC WEST, YOU'RE AFTER MS. PIECE.
SUSIE PIECE, 1571 ALLISON DRIVE, DE LAND FLORIDA. I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO RESCIND THIS, HOWEVER THIS HAPPENED OVERNIGHT, THIS HUNTING AGREEMENT, I READ MR. DINNEEN'S NAME IN THE PAPER. I REPRESENT A LOT OF GROUPS THAT, WELL, I DON'T REPRESENT THEM, I BELONG TO THEM, INCLUDING NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, WEST VOLUSIA AUDUBON, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS. IT WAS QUITE A SHOCK TO FIND OUT ABOUT THIS. THERE ARE FOUR WORDS THAT DISTURB ME ABOUT THIS, ONE IS PUBLIC, PUBLIC LAND. ONE IS PRIVATE, PRIVATE HUNT CLUB. ELITE PRIVATE HUNT CLUB WITH DOCTORS AND SMALL BUSINESSMEN IN IT, IT SAID IN THE NEWSPAPER. THE OTHER WORD IS DOG AND THE OTHER WORD IS GUN. DOGS BRAYING, WAILING, ARE VERY UPSETTING TO ME AND IF I'M OUT IN THE WOODS, IF I HEAR GUNSHOTS, I WANT TO KNOW WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM, AND ON TUESDAY THE FWC IS GOING TO EXAMINE THE MATTER OF HUNTING WITH DEER HUNTING WITH SUPPRESSERS, GUN SUPPRESSERS. GUN SUPPRESSERS ARE ALREADY LEGAL IN FLORIDA, BUT NOT LEGAL FOR HUNTING. IF THEY DECIDE TO ENACT HUNTING WITH GUN SUPPRESSERS, THAT MAKES IT EVEN HARDER TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE BULLETS ARE COMING FROM, AND OF COURSE THE SOUND IS NOT AS LOUD, SO THEREFORE THAT INHIBITS YOUR HEARING AS WELL. I'M VERY MUCH AGAINST THIS. I LIKE NATURE, WILDLIFE VIEWING IN A PEACEABLE KINGDOM, AND PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. MR. WEST. THEN NANCY EPPS, YOU'LL BE AFTER.
ERIC WEST, I LIVE AT 3943 SOUTH PENINSULA IN WILLBUR BY THE SEA ACTUALLY. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS THING ABOUT THE DOG HUNTING ALSO. I'VE GOTTEN ALL MY FACTS FROM THE NEWSPAPER, SO YOU'LL HAVE TO BEAR WITH ME IF THE FACTS ARE NOT FACTS. I WOULD HAVE WRITTEN THE ARTICLE DIFFERENTLY. THEY SAID THAT EIGHT STATES PLUS FLORIDA ALLOW DOG HUNTING. THAT MEANS THAT 41 STATES DON'T. AND I THINK THAT'S A LOT STRONGER STATEMENT. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE GOING BACK INTO THE 13th CENTURY WHEN VOLUSIA COUNTY HAS HAD A LONG HISTORY OF AT LEAST TRYING TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO PASS SANE LAWS. THE OTHER THING THAT BOTHERED ME WAS MR. DINNEEN'S STATEMENT THE DOGS WILL HAVE COLLARS. I CAN TELL YOU THE COLLARS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DISTANCE FOR CONTROLLING A DOG IS, BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW, THAT'S TO CONTROL A DOG FROM CHEWING UP THE DEER BEFORE YOU SHOOT IT. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO WORK IF THE DOG WANDERS OFF THREE OR 4 MILES AND YOU KNOW FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT YOU'VE SEEN SIGNS, ALL SORTS OF RURAL PLACES, DOG LOST, HUNTING DOG LOST. SO THESE DOGS ARE GOING TO WANDER OFF. AND THE OTHER THING WAS A BID CONTRACT AND A NO-BID CONTRACT. EVERYTHING YOU DO IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE OVERWHELMING PUBLIC INTEREST. I DON'T SEE ANY PUBLIC INTEREST IN HAVING A NO-BID CONTRACT. WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, WHEN YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN UNDER THIS CLOUD OF THIS ETHICS VIOLATION INVESTIGATION GOING ON NOW FOR MONTHS, TO TAKE SOMETHING THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A PUBLIC BID AND SUDDENLY MAKE IT A NO-BID PROCESS, IT LOOKS SORT OF LIKE THE GOOD OLD BOY CLUB. I SUSPECT IF THE NEWSPAPERS INSPECT CAMPAIGN DONORS AND FOUND IN ANYONE IN THIS CLUB GAVE MONEY TO A CAMPAIGN IT'S NOT GOING TO LOOK GOOD. AND I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS THAT WAS IN THE OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO ANYTHING UNLESS IT'S IN THE OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST. WHAT'S THE OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST OF ALLOWING HUNTING OUT THERE WHEN IT'S NOT ALLOWED, ACCORDING TO YOUR AGREEMENT? WHAT'S THE OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST IN ALLOWING DOGS WHEN ALMOST ALL OF THE NATION SAYS THIS IS A DANGEROUS THING? IF THESE DOGS GET LOOSE AND WANDER OFF ON PEOPLE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THEY KILL CHICKENS OR DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR SOME PERSON IS OUT WALKING THEIR DOG AND THE DOG ATTACKS THEM, YOU KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN OUTLAWED, WHAT'S YOUR LIABILITY THERE? YOU KNOW. FOR MAKING THIS PROACTIVE DECISION TO ALLOW THIS POSSIBILITY. I THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA AND I'D LIKE TO ASK SOMEBODY TO DO A REVOTE. THANK YOU.
NANCY EPPS AND SHE WILL BE THE LAST ONE UP. ANYBODY ELSE?
BEST FOR LAST. NANCY EPPS, PONCE INLET, 127 OLD CARRIAGE ROAD. WANTED TO ECHO THE FORMER SPEAKERS AGAINST THE DOG HUNTING IN THE DEER CREEK PRESERVE AND ESPECIALLY ADD A COUPLE OF MY OWN ANTIDOTES. WHEN I WAS A YOUNGER PERSON I HAD A FRIEND WHO WAS SHOT IN THE CHEST BY A STRAY BULLET FROM A HUNTER AND ALMOST DIED. I'VE HAD FRIEND WHO HAVE HAD THEIR ANIMALS SHOT AND KILLED BY STRAY BULLETS FROM HUNTERS. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN ON VOLUSIA COUNTY LANDS. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, THE WILDLIFE FEDERATION'S OWN EXPERTS SAY THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PROPERTY IN DEER CREEK PRESERVE FOR DOG HUNTING TO BE SAFE. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS NUISANCES CAUSED BY THEM, TRESPASSING ON PROPERTIES. AND IF A DOG IS IN THE FRENZY OF A HUNT, THEY'RE GOING TO PROBABLY BE DANGEROUS FOR OTHER CREATURES. I WON'T BELABOR THE POINT, BUT I WOULD ALSO ASK THOSE OF YOU THAT VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE BRING THIS UP FOR ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU, MS. EPPS. WITH THAT, WE ARE CONCLUDING OUR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR APPROXIMATELY THE NEXT FIVE MINUTES. COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING WILL START PROMPTLY AT 9:00.
GOOD MORNING. IF CHAMBERS COULD PLEASE COME TO ORDER. TODAY'S DATE IS SEPTEMBER 4th, 2014. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
YES, SIR. MS.CUSACK.
HERE.
SORRY. LET ME PUT MY GLASSES ON. MR.DANIELS?
HERE.
MS. DENYS.
HERE.
MS. NORTHEY.
HERE.
MR. PATTERSON.
HERE.
MR. WAGNER.
HERE.
MR. DAVIS.
PRESENT.
ALL PRESENT.
THANK YOU. THIS MORNING'S INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WILL BE LED BY SUSANNA ORENSKY, PASTOR OF THE DELTONA CHRISTIAN CHURCH. GOOD MORNING, MADAM. IF COUNCIL WOULD PLEASE RISE.
LET US CENTER OURSELVES SO WE MAY FOCUS ON THE DIVINE AS I PRAY. OH GREAT SOVEREIGN ONE, THIS GATHERING TODAY SHARES THE ENORMOUS RESPONSIBILITY TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY. WE THANK YOU FOR OUR LEADERS, FOR THE SACRIFICES THEY MAKE TO BE HERE SERVING, AND FOR THE WAY THAT YOU HAVE UNIQUELY EQUIPPED THEM TO LEAD. FLOW THROUGH THE WORK THAT THEY WILL DO TODAY, THAT THEIR ACTIONS MAY BE WISE. PRICK THEIR HEARTS WITH THE NEEDS OF THOSE WHOSE VOICES GO UNHEARD, THAT THEY MAY GOVERN JUSTLY FOR ALL PEOPLE. ALMIGHTY, IGNITE INSPIRATION AND CREATIVITY THAT PROBLEMS MAY BE SOLVED THROUGH COLLABORATION. AND MAY YOUR SPIRIT OF PEACE DESCEND ON THESE PROCEEDINGS AND OVERTAKE THEM. AS YOUR PEOPLE WE CALL ON YOUR NAME, NOW AND ALWAYS. AMEN.
[ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. EVERYONE PLEASE BE SEATED.
ALL RIGHT. POINT OF RECORD, OR FOR THE RECORD HERE, ITEM NUMBER 4 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. I GUESS MR. ECKERT, SOMEBODY, ITEM FOUR WILL COME BACK BEFORE US LATER. THAT IS THE EXTENSION ON BERESFORD ROAD. THAT WILL COME BACK BEFORE US LATER. APPARENTLY THEY'RE GETTING MORE INFORMATION TOGETHER ON THAT. ALL RIGHT. PULLING OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. MS.CUSACK, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WISH TO PULL?
NO, MR. CHAIR.
MR. DANIELS?
NO, MR. CHAIR.
MS. DENYS?
NO, MR. CHAIR.
MS. NORTHEY?
I HAVE ONE, BUT I LOOKED AT THE NEW AGENDA AND I DIDN'T SEE IT ON HER HERE. LET ME LOOK FOR IT.
I WILL COME BACK TO YOU. MR.PATTERSON?
NOTHING.
MR. WAGNER?
[INAUDIBLE]
WE'LL GIVE MS. NORTHEY A FEW MORE MOMENTS.
ITEM 20.
ITEM 20 TO BE PULLED. SEE WHAT ITEM 20 IS. VERY
WELL. OKAY. ITEM 20 IS PULLED BY MS. NORTHEY. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MOVE APPROVAL.
SECOND.
FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE SIGNIFY IN FAVOR SAYING AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SO CARRIED. NUMBER ONE, MINUTES FOR THE MINUTES OF JULY 7th AND AUGUST 7th COUNCIL MEETINGS.
MOVE.
CHANGES? AS IS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? SO CARRIED. ITEM NUMBER 2. N DOT PRESENTATION ON THE VOLUSIA TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
THIS IS A PRESENTATION, NOT AN AGENDA ITEM FOR ACTION. AS YOU RECALL, MAY NOT, MAY 2012 THE COUNCIL SITTING AT THAT TIME APPROVED A RESOLUTION TO THE TPO SUPPORTING THE COMPLETION AND FUNDING OF WHAT WAS REFERRED TO THEN AS AN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS. AN ANALYSIS TO CONNECT THE EAST SIDE TO THE WEST SIDE OF VOLUSIA COUNTY. THE TPO PROJECT WAS FUNDED BY FDOT IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR. THE BOUNDARY OF THAT STUDY HAD DISCUSSION ON THAT. THE COUNCIL HAD DISCUSSION ON THAT THAT INCLUDES IT'S BEEN EXPANDED TO INCLUDE STATE ROUTE 46 TO THE U.S. 1 CORRIDOR IN VOLUSIA COUNTY. AND PICKS UP THE DE BARRY AND FUTURE DE LAND SUN RAIL STATIONS. WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE FDOT DISTRICT 5 OFFICE. SHE'S THE PROJECT MANAGER. AND MR. RALPH BOVAY JUNIOR, THE DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGER CONSULTANT TO PROVIDE A KICKOFF, PROJECT KICKOFF PRESENTATION ON THIS SUBJECT.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M LEIGH ANDERSON, AND I'M THE D.O.T. PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE VOLUSIA TRANSIT STUDY. WITH ME IS IS BRENDA YOUNG, THE DISTRICT MODAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGER AND RALPH BOVAY, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE FIRM CHOSEN TO CONDUCT THIS STUDY. THE PURPOSE OF OUR PRESENTATION THIS MORNING IS TO NOTIFY THE COUNCIL THAT THE STUDY HAS STARTED. TO INTRODUCE THE PROJECT TEAM, TO PROVIDE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT SCOPE, PLANNING PROCESS AND PROJECT SCHEDULE, AND TO DESCRIBE THE APPROACH TO THE PUBLIC AND PUBLIC AGENCY PROGRAM. THE PRIMARY CONTEXT FOR THE PROJECT TEAM ARE PROVIDED IN THE SLIDE FOR YOUR REFERENCE. AS I MENTIONED, I'LL BE THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR D.O.T. [INAUDIBLE]-- WILL BE THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE CONSULTANT TEAM. HE WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND TODAY AND RALPH BOVAY THE DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGER. BASED ON THEIR COORDINATION BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT, VOLUSIA COUNTY AND OTHER AGENCY PARTNERS, THE LIMITS OF THE STUDY WERE DEFINED AS SHOWN IN THIS MAP TO EXTEND FROM STATE ROAD 46 IN SEMINOLE COUNTY TO U.S. 1 IN VOLUSIA COUNTY. THIS STUDY IS A SYSTEMS PLANNING STUDY THAT WILL IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES TO PROVIDE, ENHANCE TRANSIT SERVICE BETWEEN STATE ROAD 46 AND U.S. ONE IN DAYTONA BEACH. DURING THE STATE ROUTE AND -- THE GOAL IS TO IDENTIFY RECOMMEND AN ALTERNATIVE THAT CAN BE ADVANCED INTO THE PROCESS AS DEFINED BY THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION. THE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS WILL BE CONDUCTED FOLLOWING A THREE-TIER SCREENING PROCESS. AT THE OUTSET CONDUCTING DATA COLLECTION, THAT'S ALREADY STARTED. WE WILL BE REVIEWING PAST STUDIES, IDENTIFY POTENTIAL FATAL FLAWS THAT MAY PRECLUDE A PARTICULAR ALTERNATIVE. IN TIER TWO, WE WILL DEVELOP A SET OF EVALUATION MEASURES THAT WILL BE USED TO EVALUATE THOSE INITIAL ALTERNATIVES AND THEN ADVANCE TO TIER 3 FOR MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS. THE EVALUATION CRITERIA WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH INPUT FROM THE LOCAL AGENCIES. THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFY IS THE ONE THAT COULD BE ADVANCED INTO THE NEXT PHASE OF THE MAP 21 PROCESS TO BE ACCEPTED INTO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. THESE ARE THE DIFFERENT STEPS THAT WE'LL FOLLOW. WE ARE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS NOW. WHEN THE ALTERNATE IS RECOMMENDED, WE WILL LOOK TO MOVE INTO THAT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. AND FOLLOWING THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PHASE, THE PROJECT RECEIVES AN EVALUATION FOR FTA, WHICH INCLUDES A RATING AND APPROVAL PROCESS TO ALLOCATE FUTURE FEDERAL FUNDING. PUBLIC OUTREACH IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THIS STUDY PROCESS. THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THE OUTREACH IS TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, TRANSIT AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENT STAKE HOLDERS, PROJECT STAKE HOLDERS TO DEFINE THE PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED TO DEVELOP PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES THAT WILL BE USED TO EVALUATE THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES. THROUGHOUT THESE PROCESS WE'LL BE PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR INPUT FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. OUR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM WILL COMPLY -- [INAUDIBLE]. ONE OF THE KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PUBLIC AGENCY COORDINATION EFFORT IS THE USE OF A PROJECT ADVISORY GROUP OR PAG. THE PAG WILL CONSIST OF -- REPRESENTING THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND TRANSIT PROVIDERS IN THE STUDY AREA. INPUT FROM THE PAG IS VALUE AND WILL ASSIST THE DEPARTMENT IN DEFINING PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED, DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVES FOR ENHANCED TRANSIT SERVICE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA, AND ESTABLISHING PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO EVALUATE THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES. WE WILL BE MEETING WITH THE PAG ON A MONTHLY BASIS, OUR FIRST MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15th FROM 10:00 TO 12:00 P.M. WILL BE IN THE D.O.T. DISTRICT 5 MATERIALS OFFICE ON KEPLER ROAD IN DE LAND. IN ADDITION TO THE PAG, WE WILL HAVE UPDATES TO ELECTED OFFICIALS REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS, INCLUDING THE VOLUSIA COUNTY COUNCIL AND -- [INAUDIBLE] -- AND WE'LL BE HOLDING WORKSHOPS AND OPEN HOUSES AND MEETINGS. WE'LL BE DEVELOPING A WEB SITE AND PROVIDING THE RELEASES AND OTHER ADVERTISEMENTS. HOWEVER, AS WE LEARN FROM SIMILAR ONGOING PROJECTS, WE MUST -- WE ARE ALSO LOOKING TO TAKE A GRASS ROOT APPROACHES IN RELATION TO REACHING OUT TO THE PUBLIC. BECAUSE WE HAVE FOUND THAT WITH A LARGE DIVERSE AREA LIKE THIS, IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET THE WORD OUT TO THE PUBLIC. THE STUDY WILL BE CONDUCTED OVER AN 18-MONTH TIME FRAME, WHICH BEGAN IN LATE JUNE OF THIS YEAR. THE PROJECT MILESTONES ARE CENTERED AROUND THE PUBLIC ACTIVITIES SHOWN IN THIS SLIDE. WITH THIS STUDY EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED DECEMBER OF 2015. I WILL BE THE PRIMARY CONTACT FOR FDOT AS AN ALTERNATE IN CASE I CANNOT BE REACHED, WE HAVE BRENDA YOUNG, AND OUR CONTACT INFORMATION IS HERE FOR YOUR REFERENCE. THANK YOU FOR GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING, AND AT THIS TIME, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? MS.DENYS?
THANK YOU. NOT NECESSARILY A QUESTION, BUT A COMMENT, IN GOING FORWARD, IN LOOKING AS A HOLISTIC APPROACH IN TRANSPORTATION, WHICH IS WHAT THIS STUDY IS ABOUT, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED OR AT LEAST ON THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION, ALL BOARD FLORIDA WILL GO UP THE EAST COAST USING THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE. AND WORKING WITH OUR CONGRESSMAN MICA WHO IS OUT FRONT ON THIS, HAVE WE CONSIDERED ACCESS OR STOP IN VOLUSIA COUNTY, THAT THAT'S THE ONE STOP THAT MAKES SENSE, WE KNOW THE SECOND LEG THE TIER THEY'RE GOING TO OIA AND THAT HUB HAS ALREADY BEEN FUNDED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND THEY'RE IN THAT PROCESS. AFTER THAT IT WILL COME BACK UP AND GO STRAIGHT UP THE EAST COAST AND STOP IN JACKSONVILLE. IT'S NOT COMMUTER RAIL, IT'S NOT LIKE COMMUTER RAIL. BUT IT'S HIGH SPEED RAIL. AT THE SAME TIME, WE WOULD BE REMISS IF WE DIDN'T FORECAST A STOP IN VOLUSIA COUNTY AND A CONNECTOR WITH WHATEVER WE'RE DOING. IS THAT AT LEAST IN THE DISCUSSION OR ON THE TABLE?
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE IN THE AREA THAT COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON OUR PROJECT. SO YES, WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT WHAT COMES IN THAT DIRECTION. ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS WE NEED TO SHOW INDEPENDENT UTILITY FOR OUR PROJECT.
CERTAINLY.
SO IT SHOULD SHOW THAT IT WOULD WORK EVEN IF -- [INAUDIBLE] -- WERE TO CONTINUE ON. YES--
I UNDERSTAND IT'S A STAND ALONE PROJECT AND STAND ALONE FUNDING STREAM. I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT. HOWEVER, IN THE BIG PICTURE FOR US NOT TO PLAN --
RIGHT.
-- AND INCLUDE THAT POSSIBILITY, I THINK WE WOULD FAIL TO PLAN.
RIGHT.
IF THAT IS NOT INCLUDED LOOKING AT THE FUTURE.
RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
MS. NORTHEY?
THANK YOU, MR. DAVIS. COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGENCY COORDINATION PROGRAM ON ONE OF THE SLIDES, WHAT EXACTLY THAT MEANS?
THE PUBLIC OUTREACH?
NO, NO. COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC AND PUBLIC AGENCY COORDINATION PROGRAM. IT CALLS IT A PROGRAM.
WELL, PART OF WHAT WE'RE DOING AS COORDINATION IS THAT PROJECT ADVISORY GROUP MEETING WITH INDIVIDUAL GROUPS, MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE CONSIDERED ALL THE STAKE HOLDERS. IS THAT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION?
NO. IT'S A SLIDE THAT IS --
THE STUDY -- OH, THIS IS WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING --
THE STUDY AREA.
YEAH.
THE SLIDE WITH THE STUDY AREA ON IT. COULD WE GO TO THAT ONE, PLEASE?
YEAH. IN THE SCOPE OF SERVICES THE COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC AND PUBLIC AGENCY COORDINATION.
RIGHT. IT SAYS PROGRAM. WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PROGRAM?
I GUESS THAT'S THE PROGRAM YOU'RE THINKING OF, IT'S SEPARATE FUNDING -- THE SCOPE OF SERVICES CALLS FOR THE CREATION OF THAT PROJECT ADVISORY GROUP.
OKAY. THAT'S THE PROJECT ADVISORY GROUP?
PROJECT ADVISORY GROUP.
HAVE WE NAMED THE PEOPLE TO THAT GROUP?
WE HAVE SENT INVITATIONS. WE'RE STILL RECEIVING RESPONSES.
DID WE INCLUDE PARTICIPANTS FROM SEMINOLE COUNTY IN THAT?
YES. YES. IT INCLUDES ALL -- WE LOOKED TO INCLUDE EVERYONE WITHIN THAT STUDY AREA.
OKAY, THANK YOU.
OKAY. NO FURTHER COMMENTS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU.
WE LOOK IN ORDER TO HEARING BACK -- FORWARD TO HEARING BACK FROM YOU SOON. ALL
RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 3. MR.JON KANEY.
GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN.
HOW ARE YOU?
GOOD. SHALL WE?
GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND FOR THE RECORD, SO EVERYBODY KNOWS. WE HAVE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET LISTENING TO YOU.
I HAVE A PHOTO I.D. HERE WITH ME.
THAT WON'T WORK FOR THE RECORD, THOUGH.
JON KANEY. I'M HERE IN MY CAPACITY AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, WHICH THIS COUNCIL APPOINTED ME. MY PURPOSE IS TO PRESENT MY REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF WHAT WE ALL KNOW AND CALL THE WAVERLY MATTER. THIS STUDY, THIS INVESTIGATION, BEGAN WHEN THE COUNCIL
ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2014, 01. TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER WAVERLY MEDIA LLC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND ASSOCIATED PERSONS HAD A PLAN OR SCHEME OVER COUNTY GOVERNMENT BY VARIOUS MEANS, INCLUDING SUPPORT OF CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE AND THE USE OF -- AND TO USE BUS BENCHES WITH THE COUNTY OR ITS AGENTS AND LOCATED ON RITES OF WAY OWNED AND REGULATED BY THE COUNTY TO AFFECT THAT PLAN. THAT'S WHAT WE CALL THE WAVERLY MATTER. THE ORDINANCE AUTHORIZED THE TWO OF US, AND ULTIMATELY JUST ME, TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS FOR SWORN TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRODUCTION TO SUCH PERSONS AS WE DETERMINED NECESSARY AND TO ENFORCE THE SUBPOENAS BY LEGAL ACTION. WE WERE DIRECTED TO SUBMIT A FINAL REPORT BY MARCH 14th, UNLESS UNABLE TO DO SO, FOR NONCOMPLIANCE, AND THERE WAS NONCOMPLIANCE BY SEVERAL WITNESSES AND THE REPORT HAS BEEN DELAYED UNTIL NOW. I CONDUCTED THIS INVESTIGATION BY REVIEWING ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE AVAILABLE TO ME, INCLUDING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS -- [INAUDIBLE] -- AND IN ADDITION TO BETWEEN FEBRUARY 5 AND JUNE 30th, I CONDUCTED SWORN INTERVIEWS WITH 24 WITNESSES WHO I'VE LISTED IN MY WRITTEN REPORT. TRANSCRIPTS OF THESE INTERVIEWS TOGETHER WITH THEIR EXHIBITS AND ELECTRONIC FORMAT WERE FILED WITH THE COUNTY OF PUBLIC RECORDS. ACTUALLY, I WASN'T CORRECT IN THAT. ALL THE EXHIBITS WERE NOT IN THE PDF COPIES OF THE TRANSCRIPTS. I'VE FILED A COUPLE DIRECTLY MENTIONED IN THE REPORT AND GAVE MEM TO MR. WAGNER. AND WHEN I GET BACK TO THE OFFICE WE'LL RUN THE SCANNING MACHINE AND PRODUCE THE REST OF THE EXHIBITS AND I'LL GIVE THEM TO YOU AS SOON AS I CAN. I HAD A MISCOMMUNICATION WITH MY COURT REPORTER WHEN I UNDERSTOOD WAS PUTTING THOSE IN. I GAVE HER THE EXHIBITS AND I UNDERSTOOD HER TO PUT THEM IN THE PDF. THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE INTERVIEWS DON'T LOOK LIKE WHAT YOU USUALLY SEE IN LITIGATION, ENDLESS TRANSCRIPTS. BUT THEY ARE ACCESSIBLE. EACH ONE OF THOSE WITNESSES TESTIFIED CLEARLY THEIR STORY. AND I RECOMMEND THAT I THINK THE BIGGEST RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION IS THOSE TRANSCRIPTS. I RECOMMEND THAT YOU LOOK AT THEM. ALSO, IN THE FILING I MADE OR SUMMARY, WHICH WE CALL INDEXES TO THE TRANSCRIPTS, SO YOU CAN GO TO THE SUMMARIES, SEE A PAGE SITE AND READ THE TESTIMONY IF THAT INTERESTS YOU. [ CHANGING CAPTIONERS ]
EACH OF THEM FAILED TO APPEAR IN RESPONSE TO THE SUBPOENA. SOME OF THEM TOLD ME THEY WEREN'T COMING. ONE OF THEM, MR. KIND DIDN'T SHOW. I FILED A PETITION TO FORCE THE SUBPOENAS. THE COUNTY COURT HAD JURISDICTION BECAUSE IT DID NOT INVOLVE A MONEY AMOUNT. IT WAS THE EQUITABLE RELIEF ENFORCING ORDERING THE WITNESSES TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY. MR. DORAN --
I HATE TO INTERRUPT YOU REAL QUICK. COULD EVERYONE PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES OR TURN THEM DOWN TO VIBRATE THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER INTERRUPTION, ESPECIALLY YOU, MR. KANEY.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. AND, WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD OFF QUESTIONS UNTIL --
EYES BASED ON -- A QUESTION TO YOU. ARE WE ASKING QUESTIONS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS? S.
THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
WHAT IS BEING SAID IS ALREADY CONCERNING ME. WILL YOU VOLUNTARILY GO UNDER OATH AND SWEAR TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING RIGHT NOW?
WHAT.
WILL YOU VOLUNTARILY GO UNDER OATH.
I DON'T LIE.
SO, YOU ARE OKAY TO GO UNDER OATH.
I SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, JOSH.
MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU SWEAR HIM IN.
HOLD IT.
I SAID I WOULD BUT THEY HAVE TO DECIDE THAT.
WILL YOU GIVE THE REPORT OR ME.
ARE YOU GOING TO SWEAR.
GENTLEMEN.
I WILL TAKE THAT AS A NO.
MR. KANEY, PLEASE.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, I DO AFFIRM AND VERIFY THAT WHAT I'M SAYING IN THIS REPORT IS TRUE AS IF I WERE UNDER OATH AND TESTIFYING. I GOT NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. SOME PEOPLE IN THIS INVESTIGATION HAD A BIG PROBLEM WITH SWEARING, NOT MR. WAGNER, HE SWORE, BUT HIS PARTNER WOULDN'T AND OTHERS WOULDN'T. THAT LEAVES SOME QUESTIONS YET TO BE -- THAT ARE STILL UNKNOWN. CAN I GO AHEAD, NOW.
PLEASE.
I FILED A PETITION WITH THE COUNTY COURT TO ENFORCE THE SUBPOENAS. THAT PROVOKED A COUNTERCLAIM BY MR. DORAN, ONE OF THE WITNESSES WHO ALLEGED THAT THE ORDINANCE VIOLATED HIS CIVIL RIGHTS, RIGHTS TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. HE SAID THAT WE ONLY SUBPOENAED HIM AND NOT OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED SO THAT DENIED HIM EQUAL PROTECTION. HE SAID THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS BECAUSE IT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND THE DAMAGES WOULD EXCEED THE COUNTY COURT'S JURISDICTION. SO, THEY MOVED TO REMOVE THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. ULTIMATELY I DID NOT OPPOSE THAT AND IT WAS REMOVED AND THE JUDGE RECEIVED THE CASE. PART OF MY INVESTIGATION, MY RESEARCH, INVOLVED REVIEW OF THE STATE ATTORNEY R.J. LORIZZA'S RECORDS. HE WAS CONDUCTING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AT THE TIME YOU ADOPTED THE ORDINANCE AND CONTINUED UNTIL EARLIER LAST MONTH, I THINK. AND I CONTACTED HIM FOR THE LOGICAL REASON OF MAKING SURE THAT WE COOPERATED, LOOKING FOR THE SAME
THING. AND HE OPENED HIS FILE TO REVIEW IN HIS OFFICE ON TWO OCCASIONS. HE DID NOT RELEASE IT TO THE PUBLIC, SO, AT THAT POINT, THE QUESTION I HAD WAS WHETHER THESE MISSING WITNESSES, FIVE WITNESSES FROM WAVERLY WERE IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO FORCE THE SUBPOENAS TO THE BITTER END. I CONCLUDED THAT THEY WEREN'T. ONCE HE RELEASED THE REPORT, I HE RELEASED THE REPORT, I PROPOSED TO MR. DORAN THAT WE -- THAT WE CONTINUE THAT HEARING ON HIS -- ON HIS -- I SHOULD BACK UP AND SAY, I FILED A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON MY PETITION AND MR. DORAN FILED A CROSS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF YOUR ORDINANCE. I ASKED MR. DORAN IF WE COULD POSTPONE THAT WHILE I DIGESTED THE PUBLIC RELEASE -- I HAVE TO QUIT THAT. OH, GOOD, THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC RELEASE OF HIS RECORDS. MR. DORAN WOULD NOT AGREE TO THAT. SO, I QUICKLY MADE THE DECISION AND CAME TO COURT THAT MORNING AND MOVED TO DISMISS MY PETITION WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE I DIDN'T DEEM IT ANY LONGER NECESSARY. AND THEN I SUGGEST LETTERED WITHOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBPOENAS HANGING ON THE ISSUE THAT THE PETITION WAS MOOT. NO ACTUALLY RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED WHEN I DISMISSED IT WITH PREJUDICE. THE JUDGE AGREED ON BOTH POINTS. MR. DORAN DOES NOT AGREE. HE WANTS TO LITIGATE THE QUESTION. HE IS ACADEMICALLY CURIOUS. I HEARD OTHERS SAY THAT THEY ARE CURIOUS TO KNOW. THAT PROBABLY WILL HAPPEN. BUT THAT IS STILL YET TO BE DETERMINED. IN MAKING THE INVESTIGATION, THOUGH, I HAD TO DECIDE WHAT AM I LOOKING FOR AND HOW WILL I KNOW IF I FOUND IT. TO MAKE THAT DECISION, I HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. IT'S NOT EVEN AN INVESTIGATION THAT WILL LEAD TO CIVIL PENALTIES. IT IS AN INVESTIGATION TO INFORM THE COUNCIL OF THINGS THAT HAPPENED THAT ARE PERTINENT TO YOUR POLICY MAKING ROLE GOING FORWARD. [NO
AUDIO]. .
HAD A PLAN OR SCHEME FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES BY VARIOUS MEANS INCLUDING SUPPORT OF VARIOUS CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE AND USE BUS BENCHES PROVIDED UNDER THE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNTY AND LOCATED ON RIGHTS OF WAY REGULATED BY THE COUNTY TO EFFECT THE PLAN. NOW, ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE INCLUDING WHAT THE STATE ATTORNEY HAS FOUND AS WELL AS WHAT I FOUND, I DO CONCLUDE THAT WAVERLY HAD SUCH A PLAN OR SCHEME. THAT THE PLAN WAS MADE AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE CONTROLLING PARTIES, JIMMY, A MORA AND JIM BROWN, EITHER OWNERS OR EMPLOYEES OR BOTH OF WAVERLY. IN ADDITION, I CONCLUDED THAT KIMBERLY WASP, THE MANAGER, WHO WAS NOT THE MANAGER AT THE TIME UNTIL MR. BROWN LEFT, WHICH HE DID IN A BIT OF CONTROVERSIAL THING, KIMBERLY WASP WAS A KNOWING PARTICIPANT IN THE SCHEME BUT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO CREATE THE SCHEME BUT SHE WAS A PARTICIPATE. SHE KNEW WHAT SHE WAS DOING, SOLICITED PHONY REPORTS BY MR. BROWN AND MAYBE MR. SOTOLONGO. THESE ARE CLEAR WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STATE ATTORNEY'S REPORT. I INCLUDED IN MY REPORT THE CHARGING MATERIAL AND AFFIDAVIT THAT THE STATE ATTORNEY FILED WHEN THEY CHARGED MR. BROWN FOR VIOLATING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS. THE TECHNIQUE AND METHOD OF DOING THAT, OF GIVING THE SIGNS, COSTING UP TO THE CANDIDATE BUT THEN A CONTRIBUTING THE CONTRIBUTIONS, MOST OF WHOM DID NOT ACTUAL FUND THE CON TRY BUCKS. WAVERLY WAS PROVIDING THESE BUS BENCH SIGNS OUT OF HIS RESOURCES AND SAYING THAT THESE PEOPLE MADE THE IN KIND CONTRIBUTION CLAIMING THAT THESE PEOPLE HAD GIVEN THEM FUNDS TO PAY FOR THE BUS BENCH SIGN THEY PUT ON THE ROAD. AND THAT'S WHAT AN IN KIND CONTRIBUTION TRANSLATES. NOT LIKE THEY PICKED UP A BENCH AND SAID HERE IS A CAMPAIGN BENCH IN KIND. THEY HAD TO PAY WAVERLY TO PUT IT OUT THERE. THE FINANCIAL TRAIL OF THAT TRANSACTION HAS BEEN -- NOT BEEN REVEALED. WAVERLY REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH MY SUBPOENA FOR RECORDS. I BELIEVE THE RECORDS IN THE STATE ATTORNEY'S FILE, WHICH IS VOLUMINOUS WILL LEAD YOU TO THE ANSWER OF THAT QUESTION. IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE STATE ATTORNEY REPORT SHOWS, MY INVESTIGATION CONFIRMED HIS FINDINGS AS NARRATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT AND I FOUND NOTHING TO THE CONTRARY. SO, I CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS SUCH A SCHEME AND THAT THE PRINCIPALS THAT I MENTIONED WERE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE. BUT THAT MUCH WE REALLY KNEW BACK IN JANUARY WHEN HE PASSED THE ORDINANCE. WE DID NOT KNOW THAT THE TIME, BECAUSE THE STATE ATTORNEY HAS NOT DIVULGED ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT HE DID WITH CHARGING JIM BROWN. HE HAD NOT DIVULGED THAT HE WAS CONTINUING TO WORK OR THAT THERE WERE MORE FINDINGS. AND AT THAT POINT, I THINK THAT CONCLUDED TO THE COUNCIL'S CONCERN OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. THAT WAS DISCUSSED WHEN YOU ALL DEBATED THIS ISSUE AND ULTIMATELY PASSED THE
ORDINANCE. THE QUESTION OF MORE CONCERN IS TO WHAT EXTENT WERE THE CANDIDATES WHO RECEIVED THESE IN KIND CONTRIBUTIONS, TO WHAT EXTENT WERE THEY AWARE THAT IT WAS UNLAWFUL AND IMPROPERLY REPORTED CONTRIBUTIONS. THE STATE ATTORNEY SAID HE FOUND NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT THE CANDIDATES WERE AWARE. INTERESTING WORD COMPELLING. BUT IT'S PROBABLY AN ACCURATE WAY TO DESCRIBE THE CRIMINAL BURDEN OF PROOF. HE LATER, TOLD IN A PRESS RELEASE THAT THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT REVEAL UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR. IN MY INVESTIGATION, I DO NOT QUARREL WITH THAT. I THINK THE STATE ATTORNEY DID A THOROUGH JOB OF INVESTIGATING THIS THING. HE HAD DONE A LOT BY THE TIME HE CHARGED MR. BROWN. BUT WHEN THIS COUNCIL STARTED TO EXPRESS ITS CONCERN WITH WHERE IS THE STATE ATTORNEY INVESTIGATION GOING, MR. LOUR RIZZO, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THEY WENT BACK AND REINTERVIEWED SOMETHING LIKE 39 WITNESSES WHICH HE DID AFTER HE RESPONDED TO YOUR CONCERN. THIS WAS A VERY THOROUGH INVESTIGATION. AND THE RECORDS THAT HE RELEASED, THEY ARE VOLUMINOUS, THOUSANDS OF PAGES, BUT THEY GOT THE STORY. NOW, I DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE STATE ATTORNEY. I DO NOT -- I THINK YOU DID A THOROUGH JOB. I DO NOT QUESTION HIS DECISION TO CHARGE NO ONE FURTHER THAN MR. BROWN. THERE ARE OTHERS HE COULD HAVE CHARGED BUT THEN, AS A PROSECUTOR, HE HAS TO DECIDE WHETHER HE CAN OVERCOME THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO GO FORWARD. THAT IS A DISCRETIONARY DECISION HE MAKES. SOME OF US WOULD HAVE SIDE PUSH A LITTLE HARDER BUT YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH WHAT HE DID. NOW, THE MAIN THING THAT I FOUND, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO YOUR POLICY MAKING, I DID NOT FIND COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT THE RECIPIENTS WERE ENTIRELY INNOCENT OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF THESE CONTRIBUTIONS. THAT IS NOT SHOWN ANYWHERE. THE CANDIDATES USUALLY DENIED THAT THEY KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO SAY, WHY DIDN'T THEY? WHAT IS THE CANDIDATE'S RESPONSIBILITY WHEN SOMEBODY LIKE JIM BROWN SENDS THEM AN E-MAIL AND SAYS THIS IS A LIST OF PEOPLE THAT MADE IN KIND CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOU. IN THIS DIALOGUE YOU SEE, NOT ALL REPEAT IN MY REPORT BUT IN THE TESTIMONY, IN KIND BECAME A SYNONYM FOR FREE. MR. KELLY ASKED FOR A PRICE AND MR. BROWN RESPONDED THE PRICE IS IN KIND. MR. KELLY JUST ABOUT WORE OUT HIS COMPUTER THANKING MR. BROWN FOR THE -- THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, HE SAID. THEN HE IMPLIED TO KARL PERSIS THAT THIS WAS A GRATUITOUS THING. COULD YOU GET MORE BUS SIGNS THAN YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE PAYING FOR, WINK AND A NOD. THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT BOTHERS ME. WHAT DID THEY DID TO DETERMINE THAT THESE -- THAT THEY WERE IGNORANT OF THIS CRIMINAL TRANSACTION GOING ON. THE STATUTE THAT GOVERNS THAT SAYS THAT THE CANDIDATE MUST CERTIFY -- DOESN'T SAY SWEAR, IT SAYS CERTIFY THAT THE REPORT HE IS FILING IS ACCURATE. THE CANDIDATES SAY THEY DIDN'T KNOW. THEY RELIED ON JIM BROWN'S E-MAILS. HOW DO YOU CERTIFY THAT THAT IS ACCURATE? HOW DOES THE CANDIDATE SAY I KNOW THIS IS ACCURATE WHEN HE IS SAYING I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S THE TESTIMONY, I DIDN'T KNOW. THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM IS. THE CANDIDATES ALL DENIED KNOWLEDGE. AS YOU GO THROUGH THE EVIDENCE YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS MORE OR LESS EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT THEY REALLY DID KNOW. BUT THE STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM TO KNOW. IT REQUIRES THEM NOT TO FILE A FALSE -- EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS THEY MUST CERTIFY, BUT THE ONLY CRIMINAL PENALTY IS FOR KNOWINGLY FALSELY REPORTING. THAT, I THINK IS SOMETHING YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER IF YOU CAN DO ANYTHING BETTER THAN THAT. THESE CANDIDATES ALL -- MANY OF THESE CANDIDATES WHICH I DISCUSSED IN THE REPORT SIMPLY SWALLOWED JIM BROWN'S E-MAIL WHOLE. MR. WAGNER TESTIFIED THAT HE DOESN'T BELIEVE THERE IS ANY DUTY ON THE CANDIDATE TO VERIFY WHAT THEY ARE REPORTING AND CERTIFYING IS TRUE. HIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT -- HE QUAID, QUOTE, WHEN YOU ARE IN A CAMPAIGN AND SOMEONE HAS THE COMPANY OF SAYING HERE IS THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, I THINK THE DUTY STOPS THERE. THAT'S WHAT HE -- I THINK -- I DO NOT THINK THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE. I DO NOT THINK THAT YOU CAN CERTIFY TO SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T KNOW. AND I THINK THAT IS WHERE THE CORE PROBLEM WITH ALL THESE CANDIDATES FILING THESE REPORTS, A CONTRIBUTING THESE CONTRIBUTIONS TO OTHERS -- THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE CANDIDATES, THAT SOME OF THE CANDIDATES WERE AWARE OF THE TRUE NATURE. MR. WAGNER TESTIFIED THAT HE BELIEVED IT WAS MR. BROWN WHO DECIDED WHO BENEFITED FROM THE WAIFERLLY CONTRIBUTIONS -- WAVERLY CONTRIBUTIONS, NOT HIM. I ASKED IF HE THOUGHT MR. SOLOLONGO WOULD HAVE ALLOWED A EMPLOYEE, MINORITY PARTNER THE DISCRETION TO INVADE THE COMPANY'S RESOURCES TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES OF HIS CHOOSING WITHOUT ANY PARTICIPATION BY MR. SOLOLONGO. AND WHAT MR. WAGNER SAID IT WOULD BE AN ASSUMPTION. I THINK YOU COULD PROBABLY GIVE A BETTER ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IF HE REALLY WANTED TO. FOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, FOUR OF YOU EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THIS WAS, IN FACT, SOMETHING THAT MR. WAGNER HAD A STRONG ROLE IN. SOMEBODY USED THE WORD RINGLEADER, I THINK WAS THE WORD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I REPORTED ON THAT. THE EVIDENCE THAT -- THE MEMBERS THAT EXPRESSED THAT, THE FOUR OF YOU THAT EXPRESSED THAT BELIEVED THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THAT BELIEF. THERE IS NO DIRECT TESTIMONY THAT GOES TO THAT BUT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SUCKS THAT IS TRUE. ONE OF THE BELIEFS IS THAT MR. WAGNER WANTED TO OVERCOME HIS POSITION AS MINORITY OF THREE ON THESE CONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS THAT THE COUNCIL IS GETTING INTO. AND THE STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL MEMBER, WITNESS WAS THEY BELIEVE THAT HE WAS OUT TRYING TO ATTRACT ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO AGREE WITH HIS VIEWS. HE FREELY ADMITS THAT. THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE. HE OBVIOUSLY HAS A PERFECT RIGHT TO DO THAT. BUT IT'S HIS BEHAVIOR IN RELATION TO THIS UNDER CURRENT OF IMPROPER CAMPAIGN FINANCING THAT GIVES SOME OF YOU THE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS MORE TO IT THAN
THAT.
I WAS STRUCK BY MISS NORTH THY'S TESTIMONY ABOUT HER TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MICHAEL KEPERT, THE PUBLISHER OF AN INTERNET NEWSLETTER IN WEST VOLUSIA. SHE UNDERSTOOD HIM TO BE SAYING, FIRST, THEY WEREN'T GOING TO GIVE HER ANY SIGNS BECAUSE SHE NEVER SUPPORTED THEM, US, THEN SAID I DON'T WANT YOU TO GIVE THEM TO ME, I WANT YOU TO LET ME BUY THEM. HE SAID I HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. HE WAS NOT PREPARED TO QUOTE A PRICE. HE WAS PREPARED TO TELL HER HE WOULD GIVE THEM TO HER. BUT SHE SAID HE NEVER GOT BACK TO HER. IN THE END -- MISS DENYS TESTIFIED HE WAS TOLD THE SIGNS WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT A TIME THEY HAD NOT EVEN GONE UP YET AND SHE WAS RUNNING AGAINST JUSTIN KENNEDY WHO MR. WAGNER WAS HEAVILY SUPPORTING. THAT ADDS TO THE BELIEF CHRIS SOMETHING GOING ON HERE. IN THE END, WHEN I APPLIED THE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT STANDARD, I CAN'T SAY THAT IT'S MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT MR. WAGNER WAS IN CONTROL OF THE DISPEN SAYS. AGAINST THE EVIDENCE THAT IS THERE, WHICH IS EVIDENCE ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT BE CALLED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THERE ARE -- THERE IS LITTLE DIRECT TO CONTRADICT THAT. AT TIMES MR. WAGNER'S TESTIMONY SEEMED TO SAY -- LAID SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ALLOCATION OF THIS DIRECTLY ON JIM BROWN. HE SEEMS TO BE SAYING THAT. AT OTHER TIMES HE TESTIFIED THAT HE -- THAT MR. SITALONGO AND MISS GARRETT WERE INVOLVED IN THE DECISIONS AND HE AGREED THAT HE MADE HIS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEM AS TO WHO THEY WOULD BE SUPPORTING. BUT THAT DOESN'T PROVE THE POINT. SO, I AM SAYING THAT THAT IS -- THAT IS NOT DETERMINED. WHAT I DO SAY TO YOU IS THIS IN KIND CONTRIBUTION PROCESS DESERVES FURTHER SCRUTINY, THAT IT COULD GET OUT THERE LIKE IT WAS. THAT THE RECORDS COULD BE COVERED UP AND YOU COULD NOT REALLY FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. THAT SUGGESTS TO YOU THAT YOU LOOK AT THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR IN KIND CONTRIBUTIONS AND GET YOUR ADVICE FROM MR. ECKERD WHAT YOU COULD DO WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATE'S ELECTION CODE WHICH DOES NOT FULLY PREEMPT YOUR ABILITY. THERE WAS ANOTHER EPISODE THAT THE STATE ATTORNEY PAID A LOT OF ATTENTION TO THAT INVOLVED IN KIND CONTRIBUTIONS. THAT WAS AN EVENT THAT WAS HELD AT A PLACE CALLED CRABBY JOE'S RESTAURANT IN DAYTONA BEACH SHORES ON THE PIER, I BELIEVE. THAT IS A LONG STORY THAT INVOLVES TESTIMONY BACK AND FORTH PROVIDED TO THE STATE ATTORNEY, NOT TO ME. IT IS IN HIS REPORTS. BUT WHAT I DID, I APPENDED TO MY REPORT A SUMMARY OF THE BACK AND FORTH THAT WENT ON WITH THAT. TO ME, WHAT IS RELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION IS THAT IT APPEARED TO BE THAT A BIG DISCOUNT WAS PROVIDED TO MR. WAGNER, AS THE HOST OF THAT PARTY, WHICH HE DID NOT REPORT AS A CONTRIBUTION. IT'S EVIDENT TO ME FROM THE REPORT THAT HIS POSITION WILL BE OR IS THAT HE HAD A CONTRACT WITH THE RESTAURANT TO PROVIDE THE THING AT NO MORE THAN $300, I BELIEVE WAS THE NUMBER, BECAUSE THAT WAS ALL THAT WAS LEFT ON MISS HOOPER, THE OWNER'S CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMIT. AS IT TURNED OUT IT WENT UP TO SOMETHING LIKE $1,400 OR MORE. AND THAT WAS NOT REPORTED AS A DISCOUNT. BUT MR. WAGNER WOULD SAY THAT HE HAD A CONTRACT AND, SO, IF THERE WAS MORE THAN THE CONTRACT PRICE, IT WAS THE OWNER'S LOSS AND NOT A CONTRIBUTION TO HIM. AND I BELIEVE THAT MUST HAVE BEEN WHY THE PROTESTOR DID NOT PURSUE THAT ISSUE AS A DEFENSE. THEN ANOTHER QUESTION THAT CAME UP THAT IS TROUBLING BUT UNRESOLVED. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT. THIS INVOLVES TED DORAN AND HIS CAMPAIGN DISTRIBUTIONS. THERE WAS A MEMORANDUM, WHICH I CALLED THE FAUX MEMORANDUM, FALSE, BECAUSE IT IS FALSE, BUT THE MEMORANDUM APPEARED TO BE FROM JIM, PEOPLE INTERPRET TO BE JIM BROWN -- TO JIM BROWN, SIGNED WITH AN INLEGAL GIBEL SCRAWL THAT PEOPLE SAID THAT'S WHAT JIMMY SITALONGA LOOKS LIKE. BIG ORDER, PROCESS ASAP. KEEP OFF BOOKS. BILL 10-K, REST IN TRADE. THAT WAS A FALSE. IT WAS DRAFTED OR ENGINEERED BY MANNY BORNEA WHO HAS BEEN ACTIVITY IN WAVERLY'S MAGAZINE PUBLICATION AND MUSIC PROMOTION AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO NAME A HALL AFTER HIM AT DAYTONA STATE COLLEGE. HERE HE WAS COMPLAINING THAT -- THAT HE SHOULD NAME HIS HOUSE AFTER THE COLLEGE IS WHAT HE -- HE SAID THAT HE WAS VERY UNHAPPY WITH HIS WORK RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. SOTOLONGO, THAT HE WAS IMPOSED UPON TO COMPARE CAMPAIGN MATERIALS FOR CANDIDATES NOT PART OF HIS NORMAL DUTIES AND HE DIDN'T THINK THE COMPANY WAS GETTING PAID FOR THEM. SO, HE FAKED THIS E-MAIL, MEMO, WHICH HE SAYS IS FALSE, HE AGREES IT'S FALSE, HE ADMITS IT'S FALSE, BUT IT'S LIKE FIX BASED ON TRUE STORY. HE SAID WHAT IT DESCRIBES IS WHAT I HEARD GOING ON IN THE OFFICE. THAT THEN LEADS TO QUESTIONS THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT THE TIMELINE THAT I HAVE ON PAGE 16 OF MY MEMO, MY REPORT. JULY 7, MR. BORNEA CREATES THIS FAUX MEMO THAT I READ TO YOU, WHAT IT POUR PORTED TO SAY. JULY 11 WAVERLY CUTS AN INVOICE TO MR. DORAN'S CAMPAIGN. THE STATE ATTORNEY INVESTIGATOR SHOWED MR. DORAN THIS INVOICE AND HE TOLD THE INVESTIGATOR THAT IT WAS FABRICATED AND THEN HE PRODUCED AN INVOICE FOR 10,$500 FOR SIGNS PROVIDED TO HIM. THAT WAS A CHECK. THEN HE PAID THAT WITH A CHECK DATED JULY 20. ON AUGUST 9, MR. DORAN INTERVIEWED SIERRA OSBOURNE, A LADY WHO WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF MANNY BORNEA AT FLORIDA MAGAZINE. MR. DORAN INTERVIEWED HER REGARDING THAT MEMO. AND IN THE INTERVIEW, WHICH IS UNILATERAL, SHE CAME TO MR. DORAN'S OFFICE AND HE ASKED HER QUESTIONS. THE WORD IS LEAD, HE LEAD HER THROUGH. WASN'T IT TRUE AND SO FORTH. THEY AGREED IT WAS NOT TRUE. EVERYBODY AGREES IT WAS A FALSE MEMO. THEN SHE TOLD HIM, SHE REFERRED TO A CONVERSATION THE PREVIOUS NIGHT WITH MR. SOTOLONGO. MR. DORAN DID NOT FOLLOW-UP ON THAT. WERE YOU BRIEFED FOR THIS INTERVIEW, NOTHING LIKE THAT. HE WENT ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION. THEN HE THANKED MISS OSBOURNE FOR COMING, VOLUNTARILY COMING TO HIS OFFICE FOR THE INTERVIEW. MISS OSBORNE TOLD THE STATE ATTORNEY INVESTIGATORS THAT SHE HAD BEEN TOLD TO GO THROUGH BY MR. SOTOLONGO, DIDN'T VOLUNTEER. SHE FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT SHE DID NOT BELIEVE MR. DORAN ACTUALLY PAID FOR THE SIGNS. SHE STATED, QUOTE, THE STATE ATTORNEY REPORTS STATE SHE DID NOT HONESTLY KNOW IF THERE BASS ANY TRUTH TO THE FACTS -- WAS ANY TRUTH TO THE FACTS. SHE KNEW THE FACTS WAS FALSIFIED BUT THE UNDERLYING TRUTH. SHE THOUGHT IT WAS TRUE. SHE DID NOT BELIEVE MR. DORAN PAID FOR THEM. NOW, THEN, JIM BROWN TESTIFIED IN HIS INVESTIGATION THAT MR. SOTOLONGO AND MISS GARRETT DELIVERED A CHECK FROM MR. DORAN FOR $10,500 AS PAYMENT OF THAT INVOICE THAT I MENTIONED. AT THE SAME TIME HE SAID THAT MR. SOTOLONGO DIRECTED HIM TO DREW A CHECK PAYABLE TO MISS GARRETT FOR $5,000. THEY TOLD HIM IT WOULD BE PAID TO TED DORAN AND LABELED AS PREPAID LEGAL EXPENSE. THE STATE ATTORNEY DID NOT PURSUE THIS QUESTION. I WAS ADVISED IN MY VISITS OVER THERE THEY THOUGHT THERE WAS TOO MANY WAYS TO EXPLAIN THIS AWAY. NO FURTHER PURSUIT OF THIS. THERE WAS -- IT'S DIFFICULT TO KNOW. AND IT'S SIMPLY SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AS YOU MAKE POLICY. I CERTAINLY DO NOT SAY THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT MR. DORAN DID ANYTHING WRONG. IT JUST SHOWS THAT HE COULD HAVE, THAT THE RULES ARE SUCH THAT IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED THAT WAY OR NOT. AND THAT'S RELEVANT TO MAKING POLICY. I TRIED TO GET MR. DORAN TO TESTIFY TO ME, TO SWEAR TO HIS STORY. BUT HE WOULDN'T DO IT. WHEN WE WERE IN COURT, I TOLD HIM THAT THIS STORY WAS OUT THERE. AND MY PURPOSE FOR TELLING HIM THAT WAS TO SUGGEST TO HIM THAT HE OUGHT TO SIT DOWN AND TELL HIS SIDE. IF IT'S NOT TRUE, SWEAR IT OUT. HE JUST DISMISSED AND SAID BROWN IS NOT CREDIBLE. WELL, IF BROWN IS NOT CREDIBLE, A LOT OF THINGS THAT SEEM TO HAVE HAPPENED DIDN'T HAPPEN. MR. WAGNER DEPENDED ON HIS CREDIBILITY FOR A LOT OF THINGS. AND OTHERS DID. SO, TO JUST SAY BROWN IS NOT CREDIBLE, HE WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER IN TENNESSEE AND HE DID OTHER BAD THINGS. THERE AREN'T ANY GOOD GUYS IF YOU LOOK AT THIS. IF YOU WANT TO PICK WHO YOU THINK IS LYING, YOU GOT A WIDE VARIETY OF CHOICES. BUT PEOPLE WERE DEPENDING ON HIM, ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS DICHOTOMY HERE WERE DEPENDING ON BROWN'S TESTIMONY. SO, JUST SAY HE IS NOT CREDIBLE AND NOT FOLLOW-UP AND NOT RESPOND TO SOME EXAMINATION ABOUT HOW THAT CAME TO BE LEAVES ME WITH A BIG GAP. I DON'T KNOW. MR. DORAN SUCCEEDED IN BEATING THE SUBPOENA, WHICH I DON'T REGRET BUT I WILL SAY THIS, IT BEGS FOR AN EXPLANATION. IF MR. DORAN WANTS TO, I WILL BE HAPPY TO SIT DOWN WITH HIM AT HIS OFFICE, WHEREVER HE WANTS, AND TAKE HIS TESTIMONY SO THAT HE CAN REFUTE THIS IF HE SWEARS WITHOUT ANY FURTHER FORMALITY. I AM WILLING TO DO THAT. I KNOW THERE IS A GAP HERE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE HIS STORY OTHER THAN BROWN IS NOT CREDIBLE. NOW, ANOTHER THING THAT MR. DORAN HAS DONE, HE SAID -- THIS IS SOMETHING MR. KENNEDY DID AS WELL, I WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO TALK TO MR. KANEY IF HE ASKED ME. TED SAID HE WROTE ME A LETTER SAYING HE WOULD TELL ME ANYTHING HE WANTED TO KNOW BUT NOT IN RESPONSE TO A SUBPOENA. IN FACT, WHAT TED DID, I PUT THE LETTER IN THIS REPORT BECAUSE HE KEEPS EMPHASIZING THAT HE WAS PERFECTLY WILLING TO TEMPERATURE HIS STORY AND I WOULDN'T ASK HIM. WHAT HE DID WAS HE WROTE ME A LETTER AND HE SAID I AM NOT GOING TO APPEAR. I THINK THE ORDINANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I WILL BE HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT MY CONCERNS WITH THE POLICY -- THE POLICY. THE WAY I LOOKED AT IT, WE DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT THE POLICY. HE IS NOT ON THE COUNTY COUNCIL. MR. DAVIS IS. BUT THE THING IS, WITHOUT THE SWORN TESTIMONY, IT WOULDN'T REALLY ADVANCE THE INVESTIGATION. AND A DISCUSSION OF THE POLICY, WE WILL HAVE A POLICY DISCUSSION WHEN WE DEBATE THIS CASE IN COURT, THAT'S FINE. NOT AN OFFER TO TESTIFY, EVEN UNSWORN TESTIMONY. HE OUGHT NOT TO BE CALLING IT THAT. THEN THERE IS THE ISSUE OF THE MEMO THAT MR. WAGNER -- THE E-MAIL MEMO THAT HE SENT TO MR. KEN FISHER IN WHICH MR. WAGNER REVIEWED THE RFP THAT WAS -- A DRAFT RFP DONE AT THE TIME AND MADE CRITICAL COMMENTS ABOUT IT AND SUGGESTED CHANGES AND OTHER -- APPLAUDED CERTAIN OTHER THINGS. WHEN THIS E-MAIL CAME TO LIGHT, LAST YEAR WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THIS WAVERLY ISSUE AND THERE WAS DEBATE ON THE COUNCIL ABOUT WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT. AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT SOME OF YOU CRITICIZED MR. WAGNER FOR GOING AROUND THE MANAGER, GOING AROUND THE COUNCIL AND INTERVENING IN AN RFP PROCESS. IN FACT, EACH OF THE FOUR THAT SUPPORT THE INVESTIGATION TESTIFIED THAT THAT IS NOT PROPER. THAT IS NOT THE NORM. WHEN MR. WAGNER WAS CRITICIZED, HE DEFENDED THAT HE WAS HELPING THE STAFF DO AN RFP, ROUTINE ORDINARY THING. TWO THINGS ABOUT THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT IS TRUE. I DON'T THINK IT IS DONOR MALI. I FOUND THAT IT'S NOT DONE NORMALLY. SAID NEVER HAS I KNOWN A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT ENGAGED ON AN RFP IN THAT PART OF THE PROCESS. NO DEPARTMENT HEAD SENT ME AN E-MAIL SAYING WHAT DO YOU THINK. QUOTE OF HER TESTIMONY. MR. WAGNER TOLD ME THAT -- THE CRITICISM, WHEN HE TESTIFIED TO ME, HE SAID OBVIOUSLY I COULDN'T TALK TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, REFERRING TO THE SUNSHINE LAW. AS IF THAT JUSTIFIED HIS UNILATERAL INTERVENTION IN THE RFP PROCESS. WE KNOW INCLUDING MR. WAGNER, THE SUNSHINE LAW WOULD HAVE PROHIBITED HIM FROM HAVING A PRIVATE DISCUSSION WITH MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL ABOUT THAT. IT WOULD NOT PREVENT HIM FROM TELLING THE MANAGER, WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THESE PEOPLE HE IS INTERVENING WITH, THAT HE IS DOING THAT. IT WOULD NOT PREVENT HIM FROM SITTING UP HERE AT OPEN MIC TIME, WHATEVER YOU CALL IT, AND ANNOUNCING THAT HE WAS DOING THIS. THAT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY HE WAS GOING IN THERE. SO, I ASKED HIM, YOU KNOW, THIS INVOLVED WAVERLY. HE IS INVOLVED WITH WAVERLY PRINCIPLES. I DON'T THINK HE HAS ANY INTEREST IN IT. AT LEAST HE NEVER SAID HE DID. BUT I ASKED HIM IF ANYONE FROM WAVERLY ASKED HIM TO REVIEW THE RFP? HE SAID, NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. THIS WAS IN HIS INTERVIEW LAST YEAR. THEN I ASKED HIM A SECOND TIME, DID JIMMY ASKED YOU TO LOOK AT THAT RFP? NO, I DON'T THINK SO. THEN I REFERRED TO JIM BROWN. THE I SAID DID JIM BROWN ASK YOU TO DO THAT? NO, I DON'T THINK SO. EACH ONE OF THOSE ANSWERS -- THE THING ABOUT MR. WAGNER'S TESTIMONY IS HE DOESN'T LIKE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY. HE WILL ARGUE IT. I ASKED HIM IF HE KNEW THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE BUS BENCHES WERE FALSE, FAKE AND HIS ANSWER WAS, I SENT THEM THANK YOU NOTES, WHY WOULD I DO THAT? THAT'S AN ARGUMENT, NOT AN ANSWER. IT'S A PATTERN THAT APPEARS, IF YOU REVIEW THE TESTIMONY, IT APPEARS IN HIS TESTIMONY. BUT HE ARGUED TO ME THAT HE HAD NOT DONE THAT. IN FACT, AS I REPORT HERE, BROWN HAD ASKED HIM. ON MARCH 20, 2013 BROWN SENT A TEXT TO WAGNER, MR. WAGNER, I SHOULD HAVE SAID, STATING IN PERTINENT PART PLEASE READ THE PROPOSED RFP. IT IS RIDDLED WITH ERROR AND TOTALLY REI DIKE CUE LOUSE. MORE WAGNER REPLIED ON MARCH 25th I WILL CHECK IT OUT. THIS EXCHANGE WAS PART OF A SERIES OF MEASURES IN MY E-MAIL REPORT AND IT SEEMS TO HAVE CONCLUDED ON APRIL 4 WHEN BROWN TEXTED TO MR. WAGNER, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANKS. I NOTED THE RFP AND RFK HAD BEEN PULLED. THANKED HIM FOR GETTING IT PULLED. THIS IS THE MAN THAT MR. WAGNER DID NOT THINK ASKING HIM TO INTERVENE IN THE PROCESS. AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD TAKE MR. WAGNER OUT AND SPANK HIM OR DO ANYTHING TO PUNISH HIM. I AM NOT EVEN SAYING I KNOW WHAT IS THE TRUTH BECAUSE ALL OF THIS IS BACK AND FORTH. BUT THE QUESTION OF PARTICIPATION BY COUNCIL MEMBER IN AN RFP IN THE PURCHASE OF GOODS IS SOMETHING THAT THIS SHOWS THE COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER FROM A POLICY MAKING POINT OF VIEW. THIS SHOWS YOU HOW CLOSE TO HOME IT CAN GET. THERE WERE A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS, ONE WAS WHETHER THE PROBLEM OF THE WAVERLY CONTRACT SEEMED TO HAVE LAID OUT THERE A LONG TIME. SEVERAL OF YOU MENTIONED THAT. WHAT OF WHAT I WAS ASKED TO DO, WHETHER THERE WAS UNDUE INFLUENCE ON BEHALF OF WAVERLY TO FORESTALL OR DELAY THE ISSUE OF RFP THAT WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN WAVERLY LOSING THEIR CONTRACT. I LOOKED AT THAT VERY CAREFULLY BECAUSE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WERE CONCERNED. I DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY SIGN THAT WAS DONE. MR. WAGNER'S ME MALE TO MR. FISHER HAD AN EFFECT OF SLOWING DOWN THE PROCESS. BUT THAT DELAY OVERHAPPENED WITH OTHER DELAYS FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS. I DON'T THINK IT HAD ANY EFFECT, MATERIAL EFFECT ON THE TIMING. THAT IS MY CONCLUSION ON THAT. THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT MR. ECKERT AND WHEN HE DISCLOSED TO THE COUNCIL THAT THERE WERE ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPER CAMPAIGN FINANCE BEHAVIOR WITHIN A COUNCIL RACE. THAT WAS REFERRING TO MR. KELLY AT THE TIME WHO WAS OPPOSING MR. LEWIS, I THINK, AT THAT TIME. I INTERVIEWED ANN, MISS NORTHEY AND MR. DANIELS BECAUSE THEY EXPRESSED CONCERN HOW THAT WAS HANDLED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, HIS HANDLING OF THE QUESTION OF WHEN AND HOW TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNCIL THAT THIS ISSUE WAS OUT THERE. I ALSO INTERVIEWED TIM FISHER WHO SUCCEEDED AT VOTRAN. THEN I HAD A LENGTHY AND IN DEPTH DISCUSSION WITH MR. ECKERT, AN INTERVIEW ON THIS SUBJECT. I RECOMMEND THAT YOU REVIEW THAT TRANSCRIPT IN WHICH MR. ECKERD CLEARLY EXPLAINS HIS REASONING WHY HE FELT THAT HE HAD TO DO THAT. AND YOU CAN ARGUE WITH THAT AND SOME OF YOU HAVE, BUT YOU CAN'T QUESTION DAN ECKERT'S PROFESSIONALISM. THERE IS NOTHING UNTOWARD ABOUT THAT. YOU COULD QUESTION IT BUT I SAY I DON'T QUESTION IT. IT SEEMS TO ME A GREAT PART OF THIS, THIS IS A POSSIBLE POLICY QUESTION WITH THE REVIEW COMING UP. IN 1971 WE ADOPTED THE CHARTER. I WAS HERE, SEE. THE PRACTICE HAD BEEN THERE WAS A COUNTY ATTORNEY BUT MOST OF THE INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND OTHERS HAD THEIR OWN NOTE BUT THAT WAS INEFFICIENT AND SOME PATRONAGE GOING ON. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION THOUGHT THAT WAS BAD AND THEY REINFORMED THAT PACK -- REFORMED THE PRACTICE BY SAYING THERE SHOULD BE ONE COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR THE UNIFIED COUNTY ADMINISTRATION AND THAT JOB HAS BEEN HELD BY MR. ECKERT FOR A LONG TIME. WHEN THERE IS ONE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND DIFFERENT SOMETHING LITTLE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION, SOMETIMES THERE IS CROSS PRESSURE ON THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, CONFLICTING CLAIMS ON HIS LOYALTY. THAT IS THERE. HE FELT THAT HE HAD TO DO IT ONE WAY. THERE WERE AGENCIES THAT THOUGHT HE SHOULDN'T HAVE. ONE WAS MISS McFALL. SHE DIDN'T APPROVE OF THE TIMING OF NOT REVEALING THAT TO THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE. THAT IS THE RESULT OF THE REFORM. IF YOU ONLY HAVE ONE COUNTY ATTORNEY, YOU WILL HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE THAT ARISES. MR. WAGNER EXPLAINS CLEARLY WHY HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT WAS AN ETHICAL CONFLICT. THAT WAS A CROSS PRESSURE. THE COUNTY HIMSELF IS THE CLIENT. THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION THAT DIDN'T AGREE WITH WHAT HE WAS DOING BUT THAT IS NOT A LEGAL, ETHICAL CONTRACT. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. I ALWAYS TRUSTED DAN ECKERT COMPLETELY AND I AGREE WITH HIS REASONING. HE IS VERY CANDID. WE DISCUSSED IT AT LENGTH. I DO RECOMMEND THAT, IF THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO MAKE -- TO REFORM THAT, BY CHANGING THAT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO THINK LONG AND HARD WHETHER TO GO BACK TO THE OLD WAYS BUT THAT IS NOT FOR ME TO RECOMMEND. AT THIS POINT, THAT'S WHERE I AM. THIS IS MY FINAL REPORT AND I AM AVAILABLE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE WILL TAKE A LITTLE BREAK HERE. THERE IS A REQUEST TO TAKE A LITTLE BREAK HERE. YOU STATED STATE STATUTE -- WHAT STATE STATUTE THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO, THE STATUTE, THE STATUTE.
SECTION 106 -- LET ME FIND THE NUMBER, IN THE ELECTION PAGES.
JUST FOR THE RECORD.
YES.
I SHOULD HAVE PUT A YELLOW MARK ON THAT. SECTION 106.07 PAREN 5.
OKAY.
IT PROVIDES -- FLORIDA STATE STATUTE.
FLORIDA STATUTE. IT PROVIDES THAT THE CANDIDATE OR HIS TREASURER SHALL CERTIFY AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF EACH REPORT AND EACH PERSON CERTIFYING SHARE BEAR RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE ACCURACY AND VERACITY OF THE REPORT.
THANK YOU.
YOU ARE NOT ON A MIC.
I AM. [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TAKE A -- A REQUEST FOR A 10-MINUTE BREAK. WE WILL TAKE A 10-MINUTE RECESS AND RECONVENE IN APPROXIMATELY 10.
CHAMBERS PLEASE COME TO ORDER. COUNCIL. I WANT TO GET BACK INTO -- WHERE DID MR. KANEY DISAPPEAR TO.
HE HAD TO RUN TO THE BATHROOM.
ALL RIGHT. WE DO HAVE SOME PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON THIS PARTICULAR MATTER AND WE ARE TAKING THEM IN ORDER. BEFORE WE GET INTO THAT, I WILL READ THE DISCLAIMER REAL QUICK. VOLUSIA COUNTY COUNCIL WELCOMES YOUR INVOLVEMENT AND INTERESTED IN HEARING YOUR CONFLICT. PLEASE CON FLEET A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SLIP AND INDICATE IN THE SUBJECT LINE THE ISSUE YOU WANT TO ADDRESS. USE THE BACK IF YOU HAVE TO. AFTER YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD THEN BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS. YOU MAY SPEAK UP TO THREE MINUTES PER TOPIC EITHER DURING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OR WHEN THE AGENDA ITEMS IS HEARD AS WE ARE DOING NOW. THE COUNTY COUNCIL WILL NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS DURING THAT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. BE COURTEOUS, RESPECTFUL OF THE VIEWS OF OTHERS. PERSON ATTACKS ON COUNCIL MEMBERS, COUNTY STAFF OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WON'T BE TOLERATED. WITH ALL THAT SAID, THE FIRST GENTLEMAN UP WILL BE MR. STAN LESKADERO. STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I'M STAN. I LIVE AT 3034 SOUTH PENINSULA ON DAYTONA BEACH SHORES. MR. CHAIRMAN AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY AS A CITIZEN OF OUR COUNTY DEEPLY CONCERNED BY THE UNMISTAKABLE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY REVEALED BY ATTORNEY KANEY'S REPORT AMONGST A NUMBER OF OUR LEADERS INCLUDING TWO SITTING MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. HAPPILY THE INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED BY MR. KANEY AND BY STATE ATTORNEY LARUZA OF WHAT HAS BECOME TO BE KNOWN AS THE WAVERLY MATTER CONCLUDED THERE IS NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE, CLOSED QUOTE, THAT ANY OF THE POLITICIANS INVOLVED KNEW THAT THE CONTRIBUTIONS WERE IMPROPER OR ILLEGAL. HOWEVER, NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE IS A FAR CRY FROM EXONERATION. AS MR. KANEY CONCLUDED, THERE IS NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW AND THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. THEY APPEAR TO HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO VERIFY IDENTIFY THE APPROPRIATE NECESSARY. FAR FROM AN ACQUITTAL, THIS IS LIKE THE OLD SCOTTISH VERSION OF NOT PROVEN. OF SPECIAL CONCERN TO ME IS THE ISSUE ON PAGES 17 TO 19 OF HIS REPORT FROM WHEN IT SEEMS THAT A MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL INTERVIEWED PERSONALLY AND BEHIND THE SCENES TO PROPOSE CHANGES IN AN RFP AT THE BEHEST OF THE CONTRACTOR INVOLVED. COUNCIL MEMBER APPARENTLY ENJOYED SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL CAMPAIGN SUPPORT FROM THE CONTRACTOR FIRM AND ACCORDING TO THE KANEY REPORT DENIED HIS ROLE IN THIS AFFAIR, A DENIAL WHICH LATER APPEARED TO BE BE LIED BY AN EXCHANGE OF E-MAILS BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND THE COUNCIL MEMBER. MR. CHAIRMAN THE COUNCIL IS TO BE COMMENDED FOR AUTHORIZING THIS INVESTIGATION WHICH DEMONSTRATES THE COUNCIL'S DESIRE TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE WAVERLY AFFAIR, ONE OF WHICH WAS SHOWN TO BE OUTRAGEOUSLY FALLS. THE FULL FIELD OF EVIDENCE WHICH IS SO HARD HITTING, SO COMPELLING IT MANDATES FURTHER CONSIDERATION IF ONLY TO DEVELOP REGULATIONS WHICH WILL ENSURE THAT SUCH CHARGES CAN NEVER AGAIN BE LEVELED AT ITS MEMBERS. BEYOND THAT, THE REPORT SHOULD BE SUBMITTED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION AND THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR FOR WHATEVER ADDITIONAL ACTION WILL BE WARRANTED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU.
I HOPE I CAN PRONOUNCE THIS. DOUGLAS GARDENLOT.
IT'S A MOUTHFUL.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, SIR.
I AM AN ATTORNEY WITH THE FIRM OF BURR AND FOR MAN ON BEHALF OF WAVERLY MEDIA. ADDRESS OF THE FIRM IS 20 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE, ORLANDO, FLORIDA, 32801. WHERE DO I BEGIN? I WILL ATTEMPT SOMETHING THAT MOST ATTORNEYS ARE NOT GOOD AT. I WILL ATTEMPT TO BE BRIEF. IN THREE MINUTES, THERE REALLY ISN'T ENOUGH TIME TO DEMOLISH THIS REPORT AND ITS ALLEGED FACTUAL FINDINGS LIKE IT DESERVES. THAT SAID, THIS REPORT IS THE BEST EVIDENCE I CAN THINK OF THAT THIS STATUTE WAS ILL CONCEIVED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE FACT IS ONE OF THE PARTS OF THIS REPORT THAT STOOD OUT WAS IT IS ALMOST ENTIRELY BASED ON HEARSAY, INNUENDO AND MATTERS THAT WOULD NEVER SURVIVE IN A CRITICAL COURT WHETHER A PUBLIC HEARING OR A COURT OF LAW BUT IT'S HERE IN SOME MIDDLE GROUND WHERE NONE OF THE PARTIES ACCUSED REALLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTACK IT AS IT SO RICHLY DESERVES. THE FACT IS, WITH THIS COUNCIL BY MY UNDERSTANDING PAID OVER $100,000 TO GET IS A REPORT THAT CONDEMNS PEOPLE FOR ADMITTEDLY ACTIVELY SUPPORTING CANDIDATES FOR THE COUNCIL. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO THAT. ARE WE GOING TO CONDEMN THEM ALSO? THEY ARE CALLED POLITICAL PARTIES. THAT'S OUR SYSTEM. OUR SYSTEM ENSHRINES POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEOPLE WE SUPPORT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GAINING THEIR EAR AND BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT THINGS THAT WE AS PART OF THIS PROCESS ONCE SUPPORTED. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. THAT IS THE ONLY CONCLUSION THAT MR. KANEY MADE WAS THAT HE FOUND THE PEOPLE, WHETHER WAVILY OR OTHERS SUPPORTED -- WAVERLY OR OTHERS SUPPORTED CANDIDATES FOR THIS OFFICE. ONE PERSON BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REPORT WAS CONVICTED OF UNDER $2,000 OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS LINKED TO NO SCHEME, INCIDENTALLY. NO PLAN OTHER THAN SUPPORTING CANDIDATES APRIL PARENTALLY. THAT'S -- APPARENTLY. THAT'S ALL. WHAT WE GOT OR WHAT YOU GOT FOR $100,000 WAS SOMETHING YOU KNEW AT THE BEGINNING, SOMETHING MR. KANEY, THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATOR, FREELY ADMITTED, JUST ADMITTED BEFORE YOU, HE STARTED WITH THE PREMISE EXITED THAT THERE WAS A -- EXISTED THAT THERE WAS A PLAN TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES FOR THIS OFFICE, SOMETHING THAT IS NOT AGAINST THE RULES. THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN, AGAIN, HEARSAY, INNUENDO, VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS THAT THIS COUNCIL PAID A LOT OF MONEY FOR TO FIND OUT SOMETHING IT ALREADY KNEW BY SOMEBODY WHO SAID THAT WAS HIS VIEW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU, SIR.
PHILLIP GLENN -- PHILLIP JORNO.
IT LOOKS LIKE GLENN.
HOW YOU DOING.
THANK YOU SO. COUNCIL FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY AND GIVING THE PUBLIC THE RIGHT TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER. THE MATTER IS, OF COURSE, INFLUENCED WITH COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND YOUR OWN INVESTIGATION TOOK PLACE AND NOW WE ARE LOOKING AT THE EFFORT TO TRY TO -- WHAT WE CAN DO IN THE FUTURE MAYBE TO TAKE A LOOK AT ALL OF THIS BECAUSE WAVERLY IS ONE MINOR GLITCH IN THE ROAD AND THE LAST SPEAKER HAD THE TRUE RIGHT THAT PEOPLE CONTRIBUTE TO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. SOME PLACES IN THE COUNTY, MAYBE CORPORATIONS AND THEY HAVE TEN OTHER CORPORATIONS AND THEY ALL CONTRIBUTE FOR PEOPLE'S CORPORATIONS. NOW YOU HAVE 14,000, $10,000 COMING FROM ACTUALLY ONE PLACE BUT SPREAD OUT AMONG DIFFERENT CORPORATIONS. WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS SOMEWHERE TO LOOK FORWARD. I AM AN ADVOCATE TO THE CHARTER GOVERNMENT. I LOVE CHARTER GOVERNMENT. I THINK IT'S A GREETED THING. I THINK THE COUNTY MANAGER WHO DOES THE ADMINISTRATION SHOULD BE THAT AND THE COUNCIL SHOULD SET POLICY. I THINK YOU SHOULD ALSO LISTEN TO YOUR ATTORNEY. YOUR ATTORNEY HAS BEEN HERE A LONG TIME AND THINKS FOR THE HEART OF THE COUNTY SOMETIMES MORE THAN HIMSELF. THAT'S WHAT HE SHOULD DO AS YOUR ATTORNEY. I WILL LOOK FORWARD AND -- I KNOW SOME OF YOU HAVE HEARD AND I HAVE GIVEN YOU EACH A SHEET OF PAPER CONCERNING COUNTY ETHICS. ETHICS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, TEN COUNTIES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA ADOPTED A COUNTY ETHICS POLICY. IT WILL LIMIT CONTRIBUTIONS. THE STATE IN ITS GREAT WISDOM UPPED THE ANTI0 -- ANTI TO A THOUSAND SO THEY CAN DUMP MONEY IN CAMPAIGNS. ONE CAMPAIGN A FEW YEARS AGO, 200 SOMETHING SOMETHING THOUSAND DOLLARS WAS IN THE CAMPAIGN FOR A CHARTER RUN GOVERNMENT WITH COUNTY MANAGER ADMINISTRATION AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO, I THINK THAT EACH OF YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE A LOOK. THE CHARTER REVIEW IS COMING UP. YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT ETHICS THROUGHOUT VOLUSIA COUNTY' AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT OTHER COUNTIES ADOPTED, NOT JUST ONES WITH PROBLEMS WITH ETHICS, DADE COUNTY, BROWARD COUNTY BUT SEMINOLE COUNTY ADOPTED IT, ST. JOHNS. THEY ADOPTED POLICY WHERE FOR EXAMPLE LOBBYISTS CAN'T TRIBUTE MONEY TO CANDIDATES. OH, MY GOODNESS. MAYBE THAT MIGHT WORK HERE, TOO. HOPEFULLY YOU WILL PUSH THAT THROUGH WITH THE ETHICS POLICY, MOVE FORWARD AND WE CAN OVERCOME ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED TODAY BECAUSE IT'S A BIG, BIG -- IT'S THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT. IF YOU COULD DO THAT AND TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE POLICY, READ IT AND I THINK YOU WOULD DO WELL FOR THE CITIZENS OF VOLUSIA COUNTY TO DO THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
THANK YOU. IT'S WORKING. MR. LEDBETTER, TONY LEDBETTER YOU ARE THE NEXT ONE UP. AFTER THAT MR. HENRY FREDERICK. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE? SPEAK NOW. OKAY.
MR. LEDBETTER YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. NAME, ADDRESS AND THREE MINUTES.
TONY LEDBETTER 24 CONCORD AVENUE ORMOND BEACH BY THE SEA. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN AND THE COUNCIL FOR ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK JON KANEY FOR HIS INVESTIGATION INTO THIS WAVERLY ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION SCANDAL. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. THE INTERVIEWS HELP PEOPLE UNDER STAT MANY CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS WERE NOT FOLLOWED CORRECTLY BY MANY CANDIDATES. I BELIEVE THAT ALL IN KIND CONTRIBUTIONS WILL BE LOOKED AT MORE CLOSELY THAN THEY HAVE IN THE PAST AS A RESULT OF THIS INVESTIGATION. TWO PEOPLE ON THIS COUNCIL MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ELECTED HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR TAKING THESE CONTRIBUTIONS, JOSH WAGNER AND JOYCE CUSACK. IT WAS WRONG. I AM GLAD THAT MR. KANEY EXPOSED IT. IT IS MONEY WELL SPENT. IF IT ENCOURAGES CANDIDATES TO FOLLOW THE LAW, THEN I SUPPORT THAT. AND I SUPPORT EVERYTHING THAT STAN SAID. YOU KNOW, THE IN KIND CONTRIBUTIONS GO BACK TO SOME RACES IN 2010. THIS DIDN'T JUST START IN 2012. IT RAISED ITS UGLY HEAD IN THE 2010 RACES, TOO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE BEFORE WE CONTINUE? ALL RIGHT. MR. HENRY FREDERICK YOU HAVE -- NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
JUST GIVE ME A SECOND HERE. MY NAME IS HENRY FREDERICK, STATE ROAD 46 IN SANFORD, FLORIDA. I'M THE PUBLISHER OF HEADLINE . AS PUBLISHER OF HEADLINE SURFER AND ADVOCATE FOR THE PUBLIC AND FULL TRANSPARENCY, I HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HYPOCRISY AND NONDISCLOSURE BY AT LEAST ONE ELECTED OFFICIAL WHO IN FACT TOOK OUT BUS BENCH ADVERTISING NOT WITH WAVERLY BUT WITH ANOTHER ENTITY 2020 MEDIA. I WILL READ A SNIPPET FROM THE SWORN STATEMENT WITH MR. KANEY. INTERVIEW OF DEBORAH DENYS TAKEN FEBRUARY 12, 2014, 1:46 P.M., 2:12 COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. DENYS CALLED AS A WITNESS, FULLY SWORN TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS. MR. KANEY, YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL. WHEN WERE YOU ELECTED.
2012, ELECTION 2012. QUESTION. THAT WAS THE FIRST ELECTION TO THE COUNCIL. ANSWER YES. QUESTION YOU WERE ON THE SCHOOL BOARD BEFORE. ANSWER YES. QUESTION, DID YOU, I DON'T HAVE A SCRIPT, DID YOU HAVE -- DID YOU USE BUS BENCH ADVERTISEMENTS ON BUS BENCHES IN YOUR CAMPAIGN? ANSWER, NO, NEVER HAVE. AT THE END OF THE SESSION IS THE FOLLOWING, I SHANNON GREEN REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY CERTIFY DEBORAH DENYS PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME AND DULY SWORN ON THE 12th OF FEBRUARY 2014 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014. COUNCILWOMAN DENYS ON OCTOBER 9th, 2006 AND THIS IS BASED ON MY REVIEW OF PUBLIC RECORDS RUNNING FOR SCHOOL BOARD ACCEPTED TWO $500 IN KIND CONTRIBUTIONS AND PAID FOR $65 IN ANOTHER 620 FOR A TOTAL SUM OF 1,$685 WITH 2020 MEDIA OF ST. CLOUD. I SHOULD NOTE THAT MR. LEDBETTER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER JACK HEYMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TOOK OUT ADVERTISING WITH 2020 MEDIA BUT I DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO LOOK IT UP FOR HERE. WITH THAT SAID, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE IS A CONCERN THAT I HAVE ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC AND TAXPAYERS ABOUT FULL TRANSPARENCY AND MOTIVATIONS IN SEEKING $150,000 IN TAXPAYER MONEY WHEN THERE IS NO REVELATION OF ANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS THAT THEY IN FACT TOOK OUT BUS BENCH ADVERTISING AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE PENALTY IS FOR VERACITY OR LYING UNDER OATH. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
ALL RIGHT. WE WILL CLOSE THAT SECTION. IT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. MR. DANIELS, YOU WERE PATIENTLY WAITING WITH YOUR LIGHT ON. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, SIR.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK MR. KANEY FOR DOING AN EXCELLENT JOB.
I WAS ONE THAT ASKED HIM TO DO IT AND GOT HIM INVOLVED IN THIS. AND I THINK HE IS PROBABLY READY TO SHOOT ME FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF GETTING HIM INVOLVED. BUT YOU HAVE TRULY DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION. THIS WAS A COUNTY COUNCIL SCANDAL BY AND LARGE, EXTENDED BEYOND THAT TO SOME OF THE CITIES BUT BY AND LARGE COUNTY COUNCIL. AND IT WAS A DEMOCRATIC PARTY SCANDAL, SOMETHING THAT I HATE TO ADMIT BEING A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THERE WERE DEMOCRATS THAT WERE SUPPORTED. OTHER DEMOCRATS WHO WERE NOT. YOU CAN'T GET AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT ALMOST EVERYBODY THAT THE WAVERLY ORGANIZATION SUPPORTED WAS A DEMOCRAT AND THAT IS TROUBLING TO ME. THE STATE ATTORNEY'S REPORT DECIDED THERE WERE NO CRIMINAL WRONGDOINGS AMONG THE VARIOUS MEMBERS -- THE VARIOUS CANDIDATES. THE STANDARD OF PROOF HERE IS HIGH. YOU HAVE TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND THAT IS ALWAYS SOMETHING DIFFICULT AS I UNDERSTAND THE STATUTE THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE A VIOLATION. IT DOES RAISER USE ETHICAL QUESTIONS. MR. KANEY POINTED THAT OUT. WHEN YOU SIGN THE AFFIDAVIT, THE OATH SAYING YOU CERTIFY THAT THESE ARE CORRECT, IT SEEMS TO ME, I AGREE, THAT THAT REQUIRES DUE DILIGENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT IS INDEED CORRECT. PRESUMES THAT THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO
DO.
WE HAD A QUESTION WITH THE -- THE PROBLEM WITH THE SOTOLONGO AND ISN'T THIS LIKE ANYTHING ELSE? NO, IT ISN'T LIKE ANYTHING ELSE. MR. SOTOLONGO HAD A DRUG CONVICTION SOME YEARS AGO, I THINK FIVE COUNTS THERE. WAS ENGAGED IN MORTGAGE FRAUD TO THE TUNE OF THE FBI SAYS AROUND $80 MILLION. SOME SAY MORE. WHEN YOU READ THROUGH THE REPORTS HE WAS ENGAGED IN PHYSICAL VIOLATION AGAINST HIS OWN EMPLOYEES AND PERHAPS OTHERS. VERY DANGEROUS
PERSON.
WITH THAT LEVEL OF TYPE OF INVOLVEMENT, THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SOME OF THE -- THE -- THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE HAVE AROUND TOWN, SOME OF THE COMPANIES AROUND TOWN THAT DO MAKE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH THAT TYPE OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES. I THINK THE ETHICAL ISSUES ARE PARAMOUNT. I UNDERSTAND A NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN RECEIVING THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS DISPUTE THE ISSUE AND I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS GIVE THEM THE FAIR SHOT AT IF THEY DON'T LIKE THIS INVESTIGATION, WHICH THEY APPARENTLY DO NOT, THE ATTORNEY FOR WAVERLY INDICATED THAT HE DID NOT. HE THOUGHT IT WAS MORE OF A KANGAROO COURT MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, FINE. I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE DIRECT MR. KANEY TO PACKAGE UP THIS REPORT AND TO SEND IT TO THE FLORIDA ETHICS COMMISSION WITH INSTRUCTIONS OF WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO DO TO MAKE A COMPLAINT WITH THE FLORIDA ETHICS COMMISSION, THAT YOU SEND IT TO THE FLORIDA ETHICS COMMISSION AND WE WILL LET THEM SORT IT OUT AND I WILL ABIDE BY WHAT THEIR DETERMINATION IS.
I HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
I WILL SECOND IT FOR DISCUSSION.
OKAY.
SECOND FOR DISCUSSION. DO YOU WANT TO HEAR THE REST OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL -- WE HAVE TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE NOW, THIS NEW MOTION. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, MR. DANIELS.
I'M DONE. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. MR. WAGNER, THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION OR THE LIGHTS WERE YOUR COMMENTS ON THE WAVERLY MATTER.
I HAD QUESTIONS FOR THE SPECIAL COUNCIL.
OKAY.
MISCUE SACK YOUR LIGHT IS THERE -- MISS CUSACK YOUR LIGHT IS THERE. DO YOU WISH TO DISCUSS THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. ARE YOU WAITING FOR THE. [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IT'S DONE BY THIS COUNCIL AND WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS IF WE PACKAGED THIS UP, ANY DISCUSSIONS AS A COUNCIL. HOW DOES THAT IMPACT OUR POLICY AND OUR PROCEDURES HERE.
WELL, I WELCOME THE SPECIAL COUNCIL'S INPUT. AS I UNDERSTAND THE ETHICS COMMISSION PROCEDURE, YOU NEED A SWORN COMPLAINT OF A SPECIFIC VIOLATION BY A SPECIFIC PERSON. THE ETHICS COMMISSION IN FLORIDA DOES NOT ACT OF IT IS OWN INITIATIVE. SO, I THINK MR. DAN YELLS' MOTION SAID THAT YOU, MR. KANEY WOULD TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IS NECESSARY. I THINK THAT'S -- I WOULD ADVICE, I THINK THAT'S THE ACTION THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A SPECIFIC ALLEGATION OR AT LEAST A GENERAL ALLEGATION REGARDING A SPECIFIC PERSON.
MR. DANIELS TO YOUR MOTION, IS THERE A SPECIFIC ALLEGATION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THIS COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE AGAINST A PERSON?
YES, IF YOU READ MR. KANEY'S REPORT.
I DID.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS IN THERE. AND WHAT HE SUGGESTS IS VERY STRONGLY AND IN VERY DOCUMENTED TERMS IS THAT THE CANDIDATES KNEW OR AT LEAST SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT THE -- THEY WERE GETTING ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. THAT WOULD BE AN ETHICAL VIOLATION AND CERTAINLY SIGNING THE AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT HAVING INVESTIGATED THE BACKGROUND OF THOSE IN KIND CONTRIBUTIONS WOULD BE A PROBLEM. IN -- YOU KNOW, MR. KANEY, IF YOU WOULD COME FORWARD, I WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. THIS --
MISS CUSACK HAS THE FLOOR.
I AM ANSWERING MANAGER QUESTION.
I DON'T WANT TO GO TOO FAR.
I AM NOT, REALLY NOT. THERE WAS A WITNESS INTERVIEW YOU DID ADMITTED FROM YOUR REPORT, FRED COSTELLO. HE WAS OFFERED TO GET IN KIND CONTRIBUTIONS TO COVER HIS BUS BENCH ADVERTISING. WHAT WAS FRED COSTELLO'S RESPONSE?
HIS REPORT IS NOT -- HIS TESTIMONY IS NOT IN THE REPORT I FILED?
NO, YOU DON'T MENTION THAT PARTICULAR --
I DON'T MENTION IT. HIS AFFIDAVIT.
HIS STATEMENT IS IN THERE.
ASK ME THE QUESTION AGAIN BECAUSE YOU DISTRACTED ME. I THOUGHT I LEFT SOMETHING OUT.
I WAS ASKING YOU, FRED COSTELLO GOT OFFERED IN KIND BUS BENCHES AND FRED DID NOT TAKE THEM. HE SAID HE WANTED TO PAY FOR THEM. NOW, WHAT WAS THE REASONING. WHAT WAS FRED'S REASONING IN SAYING THAT HE WANTED TO PAY FOR THEM RATHER THAN TAKE THEM AS IN KIND?
HE DID NOT SAY THAT IN TERMS. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT HE TESTIFIED TO AND DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSION. I THINK HE DIDN'T TAKE THEM BECAUSE HE WAS CONCERNED THAT THEY WEREN'T LEGITIMATE. THAT'S THE IMPRESSION I GOT FROM HIS ON THE RECORD TESTIMONY.
WASN'T HE MENTIONED THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND IT WOULD BE A LOT OF TROUBLE TO GO THROUGH AND FIND OUT IF ALL THESE PEOPLE GIVING IN KIND CONTRIBUTIONS HAD THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT CONTRIBUTION?
YES, I BELIEVE HE DID.
WOULDN'T THAT BE THE STANDARD THAT WE SHOULD ALL ADHERE TO? DOESN'T FRED COSTELLO SET THE STANDARD THAT CANDIDATES SHOULD ADHERE TO IN THIS SITUATION?
I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT.
THANK YOU.
YOU WERE SAYING THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD DO THIS BASED ON WHAT FRED COSTELLO'S TESTIMONY INDICATES? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IN THE MOTION.
I AM SAYING WE SHOULD DO IT BASED UPON MR. KANEY'S REPORT. I WAS USING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE.
MR. ECKERT, YOU SAID THAT THERE HAS TO BE A SPECIFIC --
THE DISCUSSION WHICH ENSUED SINCE MR. DANIELS MADE HIS MOTION INDICATES TO ME THAT HE INTENDS -- I BELIEVE HE MAY INTEND TO REFER TO THE ELECTIONS COMMISSION, NOT THE ETHICS COMMISSION, WHICH REQUIRES -- STILL REQUIRES A COMPLAINT BE FILED REGARDING A SPECIFIC MATTER, AT LEAST SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO IDENTIFY IT BECAUSE IT IS -- THE STATUTE IS TO BE DESIGNED TO BE INVOKED BY A LAYPERSON, DOESN'T REQUIRE A PARTICULAR FORM OF PLEADING BUT THERE DOES REQUIRE IDENTIFICATION OF THE MATTER. AND THAT IT WOULD BE REGARDED -- ELECTIONS -- I SAID ELECTION. FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS -- ELECTION COMMISSION HAS -- I MAY BE USING THE WRONG WORD COMMISSION, THAT HAS A TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATION BUT REQUIRES A SPECIFIC COMPLAINT OF A VIOLENCE BASED UPON INFORMATION ON PERSONAL INFORMATION OR INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE HERE SAY IN COURT.
ADMISSIBLE HERE SAY IN COURT.
YES.
EITHER PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OR ADMISSIBLE HEARSAY.
THAT STATUTE IS TWO YEARS.
AT LEAST THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. THAT REQUIRES A SPECIFIC -- A COMPLAINT, A TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
ALL RIGHT. YES -- SO, BEFORE WE GO TOO MUCH FARTHER. I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. ECKERT, YOU SAYING THAT THIS SHOULDN'T GO TO ETHICS BUT THE ELECTION BOARD AND WITH THAT THERE WILL HAVE TO BE A CHANGE IN THE MOTION AND CHANGE FOR THE SECOND, AM I CORRECT? BECAUSE HE SAID WE NEED TO SEND THIS TO THE --
I THINK THE MAKER OF THE MOTION WOULD HAVE TO SPEAK TO THAT. THE ELECTION COMMISSION HAS COGNIZANCE OF VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 104 AND 106.
SO, THIS WOULD HAVE TO GO TO -- THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING, IT GOES TO ELECTIONS, NOT ETHICS.
I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. WHAT IS THE INTERPLAY OF ETHICS? I THOUGHT THE ETHICS COMMISSION WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS.
NO, SIR, I THINK THE ELECTION COMMISSION WOULD HAVE VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 112 IF THAT IS YOUR INTENT BUT IT APPEARS TO ME YOUR DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED ON THE IN KIND CONTRIBUTION.
106?
THEN I WILL AMEND TO THE ELECTIONS COMMISSION AND THE ETHICS COMMISSION TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.
OKAY.
IS THE SECOND --
I WILL SECOND THAT BUT I'M NOT CLEAR, MR. ECKERT. YOU ARE TALKING TO ATTORNEYS AND -- I'M A LAYPERSON. THERE ARE ETHICAL VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED HERE. WHY WOULD IT NOT GO TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION? I'M NOT CLEAR ON THAT. WHAT IS THEIR ROLE IN ELECTIONS? THERE IS A ROLE THEY PLAY IN ELECTIONS?
THE -- THEY HAVE COGNIZANCE OF -- JURISDICTION OVER SEPARATE PORTIONS OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES. ELECTION COMMISSION DEALS WITH CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS AND THE LIKE. VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 104 AND 106 COULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE ELECTIONS LAW AND IF THAT IS THE INTENT OF THE MOTION, YOU WOULD -- I INTERPRET THAT MR. KANEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A SWORN COMPLAINT OF -- REGARDING CONDUCT THAT VIOLATIONS THE ELECTION LAW BASED ON HIS REPORT THAT HE FINDS TO VIOLATE THE ELECTION LAW THAT IS WITHIN A TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. THE ETHICS COMMISSION WOULD -- WOULD -- DEALS WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS, VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 112. THAT'S NOT WHAT MR. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND THE LIKE, THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WHERE MR. DANIELS MOTION IS HEADED. BUT I'M NOT TRYING TO -- TAKING HIS MOTION AS HE IS STATING IT. [CHANGE OF CAPTIONERS].
THE SECOND STAND? MR. WAGNER, THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT.
IT'S ALL RELATED. .
HE'S GOING TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS, WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE ANSWER.
I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN SPEAKING EARLIER ABOUT THE ETHICS VIOLATIONS SINCE THEIR ORGANIZATION WAS JUST FINED $4200 A YEAR AGO. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET INTO THIS. GOOD MORNING. IT'S STILL MORNING.
GOOD MORNING.
I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. WHEN DID YOU FIRST BECOME AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF BECOMING SPECIAL COUNSEL?
I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW I COULD SAY WHEN. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THE OCCASION. THE OCCASION WAS MR. DANIELS COMMUNICATED WITH ME, I THINK BY E-MAIL AND TOLD ME HE THOUGHT I OUGHT TO DO THAT.
OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT MONTH THAT WAS?
NO, BUT IT WAS BACK, IT WAS BACK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY. I HAD BEEN READING ABOUT THE CONTROVERSY.
I UNDERSTAND.
I THINK YOU COULD PROBABLY FIND IT IN MY RECORDS.
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ROUGHLY OCTOBER 18th. YOU WERE APPOINTED, IT APPEARS, BY THE COUNCIL. THEY SAID THEY WANTED TO HIRE THEM. I WAS ONE OF THEM. THERE WERE SEVEN IN A VOTE, AS INDICATED IN AN E-MAIL FROM MR. DANIELS TO YOU, THAT WAS ONE OF THE FEW SEVEN VOTES THAT WE RECEIVED. AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT, THAT WAS NOVEMBER 21st, 2013. YOU IMMEDIATELY RECEIVED A BUNCH OF E-MAILS FROM THE MEDIA, WHICH WAS INTERESTING. BUT THEN SOON AFTER THAT, YOU STARTED THIS RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. DANIELS PER THESE E-MAILS. WHO IS -- WHEN YOU -- YOU'RE CONSIDERED THE EXPERT ON THIS. WHO IS YOUR CLIENT? AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, WHO DO YOU VIEW AS YOUR CLIENT?
THE WAY I STYLE THAT IN MY FILE IS THE COUNCIL, THE COUNTY COUNCIL IS MY CLIENT.
AS A GROUP?
AS AN ENTITY, YES.
AS AN ENTITY. SO IF I CAME TO YOU AND I WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION OR GIVE YOU DIRECTION AS JOSH WAGNER, COUNCILMAN OF DISTRICT 2, WOULD THAT BE APPROPRIATE?
IF YOU WANTED TO DO WHAT MR. DANIELS IS DOING, WHICH IS GIVE ME INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONTROVERSY, AS YOU KNOW, HE HAD GATHERED A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION--
WE'LL GET THERE. I'M JUST ASKING THE HYPOTHETICAL, IF SOMEONE GIVES YOU DIRECTION AS AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER, IS THAT--
I WOULD NOT AGREE THAT ANY OF YOU WOULD GIVE ME DIRECTION. YOU MIGHT MAKE SUGGESTIONS, MAKE REQUESTS, BUT I COULDN'T BE DIRECTED BY ANY INDIVIDUAL.
BUT WHAT IF SOMEONE DID?
I WOULD TAKE IT AS A SUGGESTION.
WHAT IF YOU ACTED ORDER THAT SUGGESTION?
IF I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD SUGGESTION, I WOULD ACT ON IT.
WHAT IF YOU ASKED FOR THE SUGGESTION?
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT NOW, JOSH.
IF YOU ASK AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER FOR DIRECTION, WHAT IS THAT? IF YOU ASK THEM WHAT TO DO, IS THAT AN ETHICS VIOLATION?
I DON'T THINK SO.
IS THAT A VIOLATION OF OUR CHARTER?
NO.
DAN, IS THAT A VIOLATION OF OUR CHARTER FOR YOU TO ASK AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER DIRECTION AND YOU ACT ON THAT DIRECTION?
WELL, OUR CHARTER DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
IS THERE AN ISSUE AT ALL? CAN I START DIRECTING YOU AND JUST SAYING, DAN, I WANT YOU TO DO THIS, THIS, THIS AND THIS?
I CONSIDER THE COUNCIL TO BE MY CLIENT AND TO ACT UPON A MAJORITY OF THE, THE MAJORITY DIRECTION. I RECEIVE REQUESTS AND SUGGESTIONS THAT I -- TO RESEARCH MATTERS. I ACT UPON THOSE AS WELL. BUT ULTIMATELY, I PROVIDE ADVICE TO THE COUNCIL. THE -- YOU'RE ASKING -- WE'VE HAD -- IF BY-- IF A COUNCIL MEMBER OFFERS SUGGESTIONS AS TO THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION WITH THE LARGE--
I'M NOT SAYING -- AT THIS POINT, ALL I'M ASKING IS WHAT IF YOU ASK AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER FOR DIRECTION? YOU.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE OCCASION FOR ME TO DO THAT.
IS IT RIGHT OR WRONG? DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE OCCASION. CAN YOU, AS THE ATTORNEY, YOUR CLIENT IS THE COUNTY COUNCIL. CAN YOU ASK AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER?
I DON'T TAKE DIRECTION FROM AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER.
OKAY. THAT'S ESTABLISHED. IT'S WRONG. THERE'S NOT -- WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT LATER, BUT IT'S WRONG.
I DIDN'T HEAR HIM SAY THAT, BUT GO AHEAD.
HE CAN'T DO IT. I TAKE IT CAN'T DO--
HE SAID HE DOESN'T TAKE DIRECTION, COUNCIL MEMBER.
OKAY. THEN LET ME ASK YOU THAT QUESTION.
WHAT'S THE QUESTION?
CAN YOU, AS AN ATTORNEY, GO TO AN INDIVIDUAL AND ASK FOR DIRECTION?
WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE IS YOU'RE PUTTING A LOT ON THE WORD "DIRECTION." I CAN ASK FOR SUGGESTIONS, COUNSEL, GUIDANCE, LEADS. I'M INVESTIGATING. IF ONE OF YOU KNOWS SOMETHING YOU WANT ME TO TALK TO SOMEBODY ABOUT IT, THAT'S A SUGGESTION.
GOTCHA. BUT CAN YOU ASK ONE PERSON AND NOT ALL SEVEN?
YES.
UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY? YOU CAN TAKE DIRECTION FROM ONE, BUT NOT SEVEN?
I'M INVESTIGATING AND I'M FOLLOWING MY DISCRETION TO WHERE I NEED TO GET INFORMATION AND IT'S UP TO ME. I DON'T HAVE TO ASK ALL OF YOU. AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A SUNSHINE MEETING TO TELL ME THERE'S A LEAD OVER HERE, THERE'S AN FBI COP THAT'S GOT INFORMATION YOU SHOULD CALL HIM. THAT'S JUST, THAT'S JUST NOT, THAT'S JUST NOT IN THE REAL WORLD, JOSH.
OKAY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT REAL WORLD THAT IS.
I KNOW YOU DON'T.
THE--
JUST A POINT OF ORDER. IF YOU COULD JUST REFER TO HIM AS MR. WAGNER, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. WE'RE A LITTLE MORE FORMAL HERE.
KNOWN HIM FOR A LONG TIME. IT'S A HABIT. I DON'T MEAN DISRESPECT.
I DON'T TAKE IT.
NONE TAKEN, JUST A REQUEST.
YEAH.
ALL RIGHT. IT'S OBVIOUS FROM THE E-MAILS, PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST THAT YOU HAVE A VERY -- YOU AND A PARTICULAR COUNCIL MEMBER HAVE ESTABLISHED AN OPEN LINE OF COMMUNICATION IN REGARDS TO THIS INVESTIGATION.
IS THAT A QUESTION?
I'LL JUST STATE THE E-MAIL, MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU. THE -- DURING THE TIME -- WHEN IS THIS, NOVEMBER 24th, YOU RECEIVED AN E-MAIL FROM A MEMBER OF ANOTHER LAW FIRM, HOLLAND ANTIKNIGHT. THERE APPEARS TO BE MULTIPLE E-MAILS FOR THE LAW FIRM HOLLANDE & KNIGHT, ENGAGES IN THE ORDINANCE, ENGAGES IN MEETINGS WITH YOU, MR. DANIELS, I BELIEVE A GENTLEMAN NAMED MICHAEL HULLETTE. THIS WAS AN E-MAIL ON THE 24th THAT ESTABLISHES THE TIME YOU'RE GOING TO MEET. THAT LAW FIRM OF HOLLAND & KNIGHT ISSUES YOU A MAP, E-MAIL YOU PUBLIC RECORDS FROM MR. JIM BROWN, STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE RECORDS. WHY IS ANOTHER LAW FIRM IMMEDIATELY ENGAGED IN THIS INVESTIGATION?
I DON'T KNOW WHY. WHAT I'M DOING IS INVESTIGATING. I'M LOOKING FOR INFORMATION. I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO AN E-MAIL FROM CLAY HENDERSON.
E-MAILS. MULTIPLE. S.
E-MAILS. CLAY APPEARED TO ME TO HAVE INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE USEFUL, SO I AVAILED ON IT.
HE ACTUALLY SENT YOU E-MAILS IN CONSTRUCTION OF ORDINANCES ON INSPECTOR GENERAL, THE FIRST TIME THAT INSPECTOR GENERAL I NOTICED IN THIS E-MAIL, THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I SAW IT, WAS THROUGH THAT LAW FIRM.
IT WAS AN OBVIOUS SUGGESTION.
OKAY. WHEN YOU WERE WORKING ON THIS CASE, ONE OF YOUR BIGGEST ARGUMENTS WE HEARD IS THAT YOU THOUGHT ALL THESE THINGS WERE PUBLIC RECORD. OR NOT PUBLIC RECORD. THAT YOU WERE OUTSIDE OF THE -- IT WAS AN INVESTIGATION, SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE PUBLIC RECORD AT THE TIME. CORRECT?
NO. WHAT I SAID IS THAT THE INFORMATION GATHERED IN THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE EXEMPT DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE INVESTIGATION. IT IS A PUBLIC RECORD. THE QUESTION IS, IS IT EXEMPT OR NOT.
THAT MAKES SENSE. NOW, THAT PROCESS, YOU WERE HIRED, SPECIAL COUNSEL. OBVIOUSLY, YOUR LAW FIRM, IF THERE'S MEMBERS OF YOUR FIRM THAT ARE EMPLOYED, THINGS REMAIN AS AN EXEMPTION. BUT ONCE OTHERS AND OUTSIDE PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED, HOW CAN YOU CLAIM THE EXEMPTION?
WHAT DO YOU MEAN, OUTSIDE PEOPLE? WITNESSES?
YES. ONCE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT EMPLOYED BY YOUR FIRM ARE INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER, HOW DOES THAT EXEMPTION SURVIVE?
MR. WAGNER, THE EXEMPTION IS FOR A LOCAL INSPECTOR GENERAL. I TOOK THE POSITION, AND I STILL DO, ALTHOUGH JUDGE ZAMBRANO DISAGREED.
ON THREE COUNTS HE DISAGREED.
I DON'T REMEMBER COUNTS. HE DISAGREED.
MM-HMM.
I TOOK THE POSITION THAT AN INSPECTOR GENERAL IS A PERSON WHO, FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IS A PERSON WHO IS CHARGED BY THE GOVERNMENT WITH INSPECTING, INVESTIGATING ALLEGED THINGS, CONTRACT ISSUES, AND SO FORTH. I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF INSPECTOR GENERAL IN THAT STATUTE. NOBODY CAN TELL YOU WHAT AN INSPECTOR GENERAL IS, ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE THAT DID NOT, DID NOT LIKE THE POSITION I WAS TAKING, SAID THEY COULD. YOUR PARTNER SAID, WELL, AN INSPECTOR GENERAL IS BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. THERE'S NO STATUTE SAYING THAT. SO JUDGE ZAMBRANO AND I AGREED, BUT ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF IT, THAT IT'S A QUESTION OF WHAT YOU CALL SOMEBODY. IF THIS COUNCIL DESIGNATES AN INVESTIGATOR, AUTHORIZES--
MR. KANEY, IT'S OKAY. WE'LL GET TO THAT LATER.
LET ME FINISH MY ANSWER.
YOU ALREADY GAVE IT EARLIER IN YOUR PRESENTATION.
NO, I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. [ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]
THAT'S NOT THE ANSWER. I'M, I'M THE ONE ASKING QUESTIONS NOW. YOU'VE HAD YOUR CHANCE. IT'S NOW MY CHANCE.
OKAY. I, I--
I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE E-MAILS. THIS IS ALL RELATED BECAUSE IT'S RELATED TO FINDINGS LATER, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO FINDINGS LATER.
WELL, I MEAN, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR--
IS GOING TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION, WHICH MEANS EVERYTHING IN THIS REPORT IS NOW RELEVANT TO THIS MOTION.
OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STILL--
ABSOLUTELY. I UNDERSTAND. THERE'S A BUNCH -- CONTINUED E-MAILS BETWEEN MR. DANIELS, INDEPENDENT COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU, A MEMBER OF ANOTHER LAW FIRM. THERE'S SOME INFORMATION FROM PLAINTIFF STAN HE IS CAME DER ROW, WHO IS HERE TODAY, FROM DOUG, WHO FORWARDED THAT TO YOU AS WELL, SO IT'S INTERESTING THEY ARE HERE NOW. THERE IS MORE E-MAILS FROM MR. DANIELS COPIED ON THEM. THEY START GETTING A LITTLE INTERESTING, THOUGH, BECAUSE HE STARTS ASKING YOU QUESTIONS. YOU START ANSWERING QUESTIONS IN THE MANNER OF WHAT DO YOU THINK I SHOULD DO? YOU START TAKING DIRECTION. OBVIOUSLY, YOU AND I DISAGREE ON IF THAT'S ETHICAL OR NOT ETHICAL. BECAUSE YOUR CONTENTION IS ONE MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL COULD GO TO AN EMPLOYEE AND GIVE SUGGESTIONS. THAT'S YOUR POSITION, CORRECT?
I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT. YOU'RE TRYING TO JUSTIFY YOUR E-MAIL ON THE--
JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION.
I HEAR YOU.
CAN SOMEONE GO TO AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE? YOU'VE ALREADY SAID THE STATEMENT. I CAN READ IT BACK. I CAN HAVE THE CLERK READ IT BACK TO YOU. AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER CAN GO GIVE SUGGESTIONS.
WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING IN CONTEXT. I'M INVESTIGATING--
HOW ABOUT WE LOOK AT THIS?
HOW ABOUT YOU LET ME ANSWER THE QUESTION.
YOU'RE NOT ASKING THE QUESTION, SIR. YOU'RE ANSWERING AS AN ARGUMENT.
OFTEN.
POINT OF ORDER. MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU NEED TO GET CONTROL OF THIS. YOU DON'T TREAT GUESTS, YOU DON'T TREAT--
I HAVE THE FLOOR, SIR.
ALL RIGHT. POINT OF ORDER TAKES PRECEDENT. YOU DON'T TREAT GUESTS THIS WAY.
BUT WE ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL AND HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO HAVE DIALOGUE ABOUT THIS.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE DIALOGUE, BUT YOU SHOULD--
I'M ASKING QUESTIONS. [ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]
I HAVEN'T RAISED MY VOICE AT ALL. VERY CALM AND RELAXED.
LET'S TRY TO KEEP IT CIVIL, GENTLEMEN.
OKAY.
I HAVE TOUGH QUESTIONS. I AGREE. I HAVE TOUGH QUESTIONS.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS -- [ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]
THERE'S NO REASON TO GET HEATED. IT'S OKAY. I HAVE TOUGH QUESTIONS. I GET IT.
I'M STILL WONDERING HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE MOTION ON THIS.
WELL, HE SPECIFICALLY-- [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
I'M WAITING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET TO THE MOTION. TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS STUFF IS PUBLIC RECORD.
I'LL MAKE THIS EASY FOR YOU.
PLEASE.
MR. DANIELS IS MAKING A MOTION THAT THIS SHOULD BE WRAPPED UP AS AN ETHICS COMPLAINT. I'M ESTABLISHING A CLEAR, ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT WHAT MR. DANIELS IS AND WHAT MR. KANEY IS SAYING IS PROPER OF AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER, CAN GO TO AN EMPLOYEE AND GIVE DIRECTION IS COMPLETELY ETHICAL, BECAUSE HE DID IT HIMSELF. THAT IS WHAT I'M ESTABLISHING. AND I THINK THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT IN THE MATTER AT HAND.
OKAY.
AND THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING.
THAT'S YOUR ARGUMENT.
OKAY.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YOU STILL HAVE THE FLOOR.
I'M GOING TO CONTINUE.
IF WE COULD MOVE, YES.
THE -- WE HAVE AN E-MAIL ON DECEMBER 5th SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO E-MAIL US AN OUTLINE. ANOTHER COUPLE OF E-MAILS FROM DOUG WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER'S SALARIES AND PERKS. YOU ASKED DOUG FOR A COPY OF THE, HIS SALARY, HIS PERKS, THINGS LIKE THAT. YOU ASKED DOUG TO GET IT FOR YOU. I FIND ONE E-MAIL INTERESTING, BECAUSE ON 12-10-2013, YOU'RE WORKING ON YOUR SCOPE OF WORK, CORRECT? YOU HAD TO PROVIDE THE COUNCIL A SCOPE OF WORK TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
THAT SOUNDS RIGHT ON THE DATE.
OKAY. IF THE SCOPE OF WORK WENT ONE WAY, IF THE SCOPE OF WORK WENT ANOTHER, THAT COULD AFFECT HOW MUCH MONEY YOU MAKE. HOW DEEP THIS THING GOES, YOU COULD GET PAID MORE, CORRECT?
I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR PREMISE AT ALL.
WHY NOT?
THE INVESTIGATION IS IN THE INVESTIGATION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY SCOPE OF WORK.
WELL, THE SCOPE OF WORK WAS, I BELIEVE, PER THE ORDINANCE AND PER YOUR ACTUAL SCOPE OF WORK, THAT IT WOULD BE THE WAVERLY MATTER. WELL, IF IT WAS WAVERLY MATTER AND THE PEER MATTER, WHICH SOMEHOW GOT CROWBARRED INTO THIS THING, IF THAT SCOPE OF WORK WAS ADDED IN, THERE WOULD BE MORE WORK FOR YOU, CORRECT? THE BIGGER THE INVESTIGATION, THE MORE WORK YOU WOULD HAVE.
THE BIGGER THE INVESTIGATION, THE MORE WORK I WOULD HAVE TO DO, YES.
YOUR HOURLY RATE WOULD INCREASE.
NO, MY HOURLY RATE IS THE SAME.
HOURLY RATE'S THE SAME, BUT THE AMOUNT OF HOURS WOULD INCREASE.
AMOUNT OF HOURS TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS THING, YES, IS A LOT. WE KNOW THAT.
WE APPRECIATE THAT. YOU'RE SAYING YES, AND WE BOTH AGREE.
I'M NOT SAYING YES TO ANYTHING YOU PUT OUT THERE.
GUYS, THIS IS VERY PERTINENT TO EVERYTHING THAT'S ESTABLISHED. EVERYTHING I'M BRINGING IN GOES TO MY ISSUES. IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT, THEN YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO SEE. YOU WROTE AN E-MAIL TO MR. DANIELS, LAST SHOT, I HAVE TO SEND THIS OUT ON WEDNESDAY. ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS APPRECIATED. AND THAT IS A COPY OF YOUR SCOPE OF WORK. YOU ARE INDICATING WEDNESDAY, YOU'RE GOING TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS COUNCIL FOR A SCOPE OF WORK. YOU'RE ASKING, AND YOU SAY ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS, WHICH MEANS YOU'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED IT. SO HOW IS THAT NOT UNETHICAL?
JESUS. THAT'S RIDICULOUS.
WHY?
LOOK, I'M CONSULTING -- HE'S A LAWYER. I'M PREPARING -- THAT SCOPE OF WORK, THE SCOPE IS THERE. IT IS MY LEGAL OPINION, AND I'M ASKING FOR A FELLOW LAWYER WHO'S GOT AN INTEREST IN THE MATTER TO GIVE ME ANY COMMENTS HE'S GOT. I GOT THEM FROM HIM, FROM CLAY HENDERSON AND I THINK FROM MY PARTNERS.
WELL--
I DON'T SEE ANY ETHICAL ISSUE HERE.
THE REALITY IS HE'S ALSO A MEMBER OF YOUR CLIENT. HE'S ALSO THE MEMBER TWO DAYS LATER WAS GOING TO VOTE ON YOUR SCOPE OF WORK, WHICH WE SPOKE TO A SECOND AGO, COULD CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU RECEIVE.
AH.
OBVIOUSLY WE DISAGREE ON THAT ONE.
I HAVE TWO INITIALS FOR YOU ON THAT.
B--
I THINK I MADE THE POINT.
YEAH, YOUR POINT IS MADE.
JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, MR. DANIELS DID E-MAIL YOU BACK AND SAY IT LOOKS GOOD. SO HE APPROVED OF YOUR, OF WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO.
I WOULDN'T SAY APPROVED. HE SAID IT LOOKED GOOD. IT WAS GOOD. IT'S A GOOD OPINION.
IT WAS A SCOPE OF WORK, NOT AN OPINION. BUT THAT'S OKAY.
YOU LOOK AT IT AGAIN.
THE -- AND YOU CAN DO THAT LATER. I AGREE. I'M ONLY GOING TO GO THROUGH A FEW E-MAILS AND THEN WE'LL GET TO SPECIFICS OF HOW IT RELATES TO ME.
I'M MORE CONCERNED HOW IT RELATES TO THE MOTION.
WELL, THE MOTION RELATES TO THE FILING OF AN ETHICS COMPLAINT OF ME. I WOULD SAY THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT.
I BELIEVE THAT -- I'M LOOKING RIGHT AT IT. THERE ARE SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS, COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE WHO ARE MENTIONED.
I'M ONE OF THEM.
NON-COUNCIL MEMBERS. THIS IS NOT A DIRECT ATTACK, I BELIEVE, ON YOU PERSONALLY.
NO, NO, I'M A MEMBER OF THIS, MR. CHAIR. I'M A MEMBER.
I UNDERSTAND.
I AM GOING TO BE LISTED AS A MEMBER IN THIS ETHICS VIOLATION COMPLAINT.
ELECTIONS.
BUT THEN AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN EVEN DO THE ELECTIONS THING. WE'LL HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT LATER. THE MOTION IS TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AND A COMPLAINT, AND I'LL GO DOWN THE LAUNDRY LIST HERE. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM YOUR MOTION, SIR, GOING BACK TO THE MOTION, THEY ARE LOOKING AT FILING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DENNIS MOLDER, JIM HATHAWAY, JUSTIN KENNEDY, ANDY KELLY, ERIC HENRY, RUTH TREGREER, JOSH WAGNER, MISSY KELLY, JEFFALEN BACK, JOYCE CUSACK AND GEORGE -- THESE ARE ALL OVERAGE ON THE INCOME CONTRIBUTION LIST. THAT'S THE LIST. AM I CORRECT ON THAT LIST, SIR?
WELL, I HAVEN'T CHECKED IT, BUT IT SOUNDS RIGHT.
IS THAT YOUR MOTION, SIR?
SOUNDS RIGHT.
SOUNDS GOOD, OKAY. SO THAT'S, THAT'S A LAUNDRY LIST OF PEOPLE.
AND I AM DEFINITELY ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.
AND YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE, AS ANOTHER COUNCIL, YES.
ALL RIGHT. THERE'S SIGNIFICANTLY MORE E-MAILS FROM MR. DANIELS, WHICH AS YOU KNOW, MY LINE OF THOUGHT IS FOR THAT. BUNCH OF E-MAILS START GOING FROM MR. DANIELS IN REGARDS TO JIM DENENE ISSUE, WHICH WAS LATER FOUND TO BE COMPLETELY UNCREDIBLE, INVOLVING A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT MATTERS, BUT IT WAS REALLY A SILLY THING. AND THEN WE HAVE MR. DANIELS CONTINUING TO SAY ALL IS GOOD IN WAVERLYLAND, GIVING YOU MORE INFORMATION.
SO IT'S ESTABLISHED THAT MR. DANIELS AND MR. KANEY HAD QUITE A FEW E-MAILS TOGETHER.
AND I WOULDN'T SAY A MAJORITY, BUT THERE ARE DEFINITELY MORE THAN A HANDFUL OF E-MAILS THAT EITHER HE PROVIDES DIRECTION, SPECIFIC DIRECTION, OR YOU ASK FOR DIRECTION. AND WE DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK, BUT THAT IS MY LINE OF THOUGHT.
THAT IS YOUR WORD, NOT MINE.
IT'S OKAY. YOU ARE HIRED TO INVESTIGATE MATTERS RELATED TO WAVERLY, CORRECT?
RIGHT.
ON PAGE 2 YOU LIST, I BELIEVE, 24 WITNESSES. YOU SAY THEY WERE ALL SWORN. WERE ALL 24 SWORN?
YES.
OKAY. WERE THEY ALL SUBPOENAED?
NO.
CAN YOU PROVIDE A LIST OF WHICH ONES WERE SUBPOENAED AND NOT? YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT NOW.
NOT RIGHT NOW. BUT I CAN.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND REQUEST IT.
YOU'RE ASKING FOR A LIST?
YES, WHO WAS A LIST WHO WAS SUBPOENAED.
WHAT IF I DON'T HAVE A LIST? DO YOU WANT ME TO MAKE YOU A LIST?
WELL, YOU DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE RIGHT NOW. I CAN. IT'S A WASTE OF TIME. CAN YOU JUST PROVIDE IT?
YEAH, I THINK I'VE GOT T WE'VE PROBABLY GOT IT SOMEWHERE.
IT'S KIND OF A WASTE OF YOUR TIME. I JUST NEED THE LIST. BUT YOU CAN GET IT TO ME LATER? YOU'RE OKAY WITH HA?
SURE.
ALL RIGHT. STANDARD OF CONCLUSIONS, YOU SAY ASSIST IN FORMING THE COUNCIL -- CAMPAIGN FINANCE ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS OR OTHER MATTERS COUNTY GOVERNMENT IS WARRANTED TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT IN THE TRUST OF THE PUBLIC. OBVIOUSLY, THE ETHICS, EVERY TIME PEOPLE SPOKE, YOU SAID MANY A TIMES STATE STATUTE, ELECTION CODE, LAWS WERE FOLLOWED, WERE NOT FOLLOWED CORRECTLY, ONE PERSON SAID. I BELIEVE MS. NORTHEY SAID ETHICS VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. AND THEN YOU WOULD GO ON AND SAY YOU'RE HIRED FOR FACT-FINDING, CORRECT?
THAT'S WHAT I SAID.
YOU'RE A FACT FINDER. AT WHAT POINT AS A FACT FINDER DID YOU DECIDE THAT YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO MAKE CONCLUSIONS?
A CONCLUSION AS TO THE FACTS.
YEAH.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I DID.
BUT IN THE COUNCIL MEETING WHEN YOU WERE SPECIFICALLY HERE ONE DAY WHEN YOU WERE ASKED, WHEN YOU WERE HIRED, YOU SAID YOU ARE GOING TO GATHER FACTS, BRING THEM BACK TO THIS COUNCIL AND THEY WOULD MAKE THE DECISION. THERE WOULD BE NO OPINIONS. YOU SAID IT. YOU WERE STANDING RIGHT THERE.
WELL, AGAIN, WE'RE WORKING ON TWO DIFFERENT VOCABULARIES. TO SAY THAT SOMETHING'S A FACT INCLUDES A CONCLUSION AS TO WHAT THE FACT IS. I LOOKED AT THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY. I APPLIED THE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT STANDARD, PARTICULARLY AS TO WHETHER YOU WERE THE CONTROLLING PARTY IN THE WAVERLY DISPENNIZATION OF SIGNS, AND I DECIDED THE EVIDENCE DID NOT MEET THE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT STANDARD. SO I EXPRESSED THAT CONCLUSION.
THE CONCLUSION--
IT'S ABOUT THE EVIDENCE.
THE CONCLUSIONS ARE OPINION. IS YOUR OPINION BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS WHAT I FOUND.
WELL, YOU'RE PLAYING WITH WORDS AGAIN. EVERYBODY HAS OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT THE FACTS ARE. I TOLD YOU WHAT MY OPINION OF THE FACTS IS. YOU CAN PLAY WITH THAT WORD IF YOU WANT TO, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO GET US ANYWHERE.
OKAY. THE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT STANDARD, WHAT IS THAT OFTEN CALLED?
PREUPON DENSE OF EVIDENCE.
WHERE DID IT SAY YOU SHOULD PICK A STANDARD TO WEIGH THE FACTS?
IT DID NOT SAY THAT. YOU HAVE TO APPLY THE FACT. I WASN'T APPLYING A CRIMINAL STANDARD.
WHY WOULDN'T YOU APPLY THE CRIMINAL STANDARD?
BECAUSE I'M NOT A PROSECUTOR.
OKAY.
AS I SAY IN THERE, MR. WAGNER, THE INVESTIGATION IS FOR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES. IT'S NOT -- I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU'RE GUILTY OF ANY CRIME. I AM SAYING THAT THESE ARE WHAT I THINK THE FACTS ARE. AND THAT INCLUDES WEIGHING THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY. THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU SAID THAT I DON'T BELIEVE, AND THERE ARE THINGS THAT OTHERS SAID THAT I DON'T BELIEVE. I HAVE TO MAKE A FACT-FINDING.
WELL, DOESN'T A JURY WEIGH THE FACTS? ISN'T THAT, IN A NORMAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS, THE JUDGE WILL SAY YOU WEIGH THE FACTS, YOU WEIGH THE CREDIBILITY. THAT IS WHAT A JURY DOES.
THAT'S WHAT THE FACT FINDER DOES. IF THE COURT IS FINDING FACTS FROM THE BENCH, THAT'S WHAT HE DOES. IN MY CASE, I'M THE INVESTIGATOR. I'M THE FACT FINDER. AND I APPLIED THE STANDARD. THAT'S WHAT YOU DO. THAT'S WHAT I DO.
OKAY. I THINK WHERE WE DISAGREE IS I DON'T THINK YOU WERE GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO ACTUALLY MAKE THOSE TYPE OF CONCLUSIONS. IT'S OKAY. I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW WHERE I WAS.
WELL, LET ME JUST SAY THAT I COULD -- IF THAT'S THE CASE, I COULD SIMPLY SEND YOU A COPY OF ALL THE TRANSCRIPTS AND YOU COULD FIGURE IT OUT FOR YOURSELF. I GUESS THAT'S WHAT YOU WANTED, RIGHT?
THAT'S WHAT YOU STATED. MY RECOLLECTION OF THAT MEETING IS THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD STATED, YOU WOULD GET DOCUMENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT. IT'S OKAY.
AS FAR AS THE STANDARD, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DISCUSS, WAS THAT PICKED BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED QUITE OFTEN THE ELECTIONS CODE, THINGS LIKE THAT. YOU MENTIONED IT SPECIFICALLY THE LINE BEFORE IT. ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS. IS THAT WHY YOU BRING IN MORE LIKELY THAN NOT?
THE STANDARD -- WHAT I SAID -- WHAT YOU JUST QUOTED IS FROM THE ORDINANCE. THE ORDINANCE SAYS THE COUNCIL NEEDS THE INVESTIGATION TO INFORM THE COUNCIL REGARDING THE NEED -- I'M NOT PARAPHRASING, BUT THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION AND THEN IT LISTS TOPICS, ONE OF WHICH IS WHAT YOU JUST READ.
AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE MOTION, IS WE CAN ALL -- ANYONE CAN JUST GO OUT AND PICK A STANDARD. OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE REASONABLE DOUBT. AND YOU HAVE A STANDARD THAT YOU OFTEN MIX IN THE ETHICS, THE STATE ETHICS AND YOU MIX IN THE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT STANDARD. DO YOU FEEL UNDER THAT MORE LIKELY THAN NOT STANDARD WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MULTIPLE COUNCIL MEMBERS, WHEN YOU SUBMIT THIS, THE MOTION IS TO SUBMIT IT, ARE THEY GOING TO BE FOUND GUILTY UNDER YOUR STANDARD OF MORE LIKELY THAN NOT FOR ETHICS?
HE HAS TO ANSWER IT BECAUSE HE HAS TO SIGN THE ACTUAL PETITION SAYING YOU THINK IT WILL.
NO.
YES. AND YOU'RE ACTUALLY TALKING VERY THICK PAPERWORK. HE HAS TO SIGN THE PAPERWORK.
YOU CAN'T IN GOOD FAITH FILE IT IF YOU DON'T THINK IT CAN BE DONE.
YOU'RE CORRECT ON THAT. AND I WON'T, IF THAT'S WHAT I CONCLUDE.
SO YOU CONCLUDE AT THIS, AT THIS RATE, MORE LIKELY THAN NOT STANDARD OUT OF YOUR REPORT, THIS IS IMPORTANT, OUT OF YOUR REPORT, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE SIGNING THIS THING. YOU'VE ALREADY MADE CONCLUSIONS WHO'S GOING TO BE FOUND GUILTY BECAUSE YOU'RE FILING IT.
YOU'RE ASKING ME TO SAY THAT. I'LL SAY IT. I THINK YOU'RE GUILTY OF VIOLATIONS OF THE ELECTIONS--
I'M ASKING THE QUESTIONS. IT'S OKAY. I'M OKAY. NO, THESE ARE HARD QUESTIONS, MR. KANEY. I'M OKAY WITH YOUR ANSWERS.
THEY ARE EASY.
OKAY.
BEFORE YOU GO TO YOUR NEXT QUESTION, MR. ECKERT--
NO, I HAVE THE FLOOR. I DON'T WANT ANYONE COMING IN RIGHT NOW. THERE'S SOMETHING IMPORTANT I NEED TO GET TO. I DON'T WANT ANY LEGAL ADVISORY THAN MY SPECIAL COUNSEL. SO YOU THINK--
OKAY.
-- BASED ON THE -- BASED ON THE ETHICS COMPLAINT, WHICH ONE, THERE'S MENTIONED MULTIPLE TIMES. WHICH ONE AM I GOING TO BE FOUND GUILTY ON, OF A FINE? WHICH ONE WILL I HAVE TO PAY A FINE? I'LL BE FOUND OF WRONGDOING?
I BELIEVE THAT YOUR CONDUCT AT THE CRABBY JOE'S EVENT, I KNOW YOU'VE GOT THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU HAD A CONTRACT AND SO THE DISCOUNT DOES NOT COUNT AS A CONTRIBUTION. I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION THAT THE ELECTIONS COMMISSION SHOULD DECIDE.
ALL RIGHT.
AND IF THEY AGREE WITH ME THAT THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE IT, PARTICULARLY IN THE WAY THAT YOU WERE GOING AROUND, TRYING TO USE THE IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION LOOPHOLE TO FIT THIS EXPENSIVE PARTY INTO YOUR DWINDLING CAMPAIGN LIMIT.
OKAY.
OKAY. SO THAT'S ONE. IF THE COMMISSION -- WHOEVER THE LEGAL FINDER IS, I GUESS THE COMMISSION, IF THEY DETERMINE THAT THAT'S NOT A GOOD EXCUSE, THEN THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND YOU GUILTY.
WELL, TECHNICALLY I WOULD -- I WOULD PAY A FINE. SO THAT'S ONE. WHAT ELSE? BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE SIGNING IT. I WANT TO KNOW WHICH ONES--
I HAVEN'T AGREED I'LL SIGN ANYTHING YET. THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL.
OKAY. I'M OKAY WITH HYPOTHETICALS.
OKAY.
AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU KEEP MENTIONING THE STATE STATUTE AND ELECTION CODE AND THIS PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. YOU THINK A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO SHOW I DID THESE THINGS. OKAY. WHAT ABOUT REASONABLE DOUBT? DOES IT RISE TO THAT LEVEL? YOU SAID IT DIDN'T.
NO. THAT'S MY POINT. THAT'S WHY I DISCUSSED THE STANDARD, BECAUSE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT MR. LARISSA, THE STATE ATTORNEY HAD TO DETERMINE, AS YOU REMEMBER FROM YOUR DUTY OVER THERE.
YEAH, I DO.
AND MINE. I REPRESENTED YOU WHEN THE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED YOU. WE HAD A NICE DAY THAT DAY. TALKED ABOUT ALLIGATOR HUNTING, OTHER THINGS. BUT--
YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT SOME CLARITY JUST TO WHAT YOU SAID, THAT IN MY JOB CAPACITY. THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION.
YES.
IT WAS NOT ME.
YOU WERE NOT PERSONALLY--
I WAS A PROSECUTOR.
YOU AND I AND EVERYBODY ELSE WAS IN THE LINE OF FIRE--
AND YOU BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE I KNOW UNDER THE LAW WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT GRAND JURY INVESTIGATIONS, SO I DID NOT DISCUSS THIS AT ALL, JUST SO YOU KNOW. I DID NOT BRING THAT UP.
MOVE ALONG, PLEASE.
OKAY. SO WE HAVE -- I ASKED THE QUESTION, REASONABLE DOUBT, YOU SAID NO. OBVIOUSLY, I APPRECIATE THAT FINDING, BECAUSE I WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE ARRESTED FOR IT, SO I APPRECIATE THAT YOU AGREED WITH THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
WELL, ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE, I WOULD EVEN TAKE YOUR CASE, WAGNER.
HUH?
I WOULD EVEN DEFEND YOU ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE.
THANK YOU. [ LAUGHTER ]
FOR A FEE.
UNDERSTANDABLY SO. SO I GUESS, I JUST WANT TO GET TO HOW STRONG OF A CASE YOU HAVE. IS THAT THE STRONGEST ONE, THE JOE'S? CRABBY JOE'S?
NO. THE FACT FINDER WOULD ALSO HAVE TO APPLY CREDIBILITY TEST TO WHETHER YOU IN FACT DID NOT HAVE, YOU DID NOT CORRECTLY CERTIFY THE CAMPAIGN REPORT. THAT'S A CREDIBILITY TEST.
GOTCHA.
WHEN I LOOK AT YOU, I SAID I DON'T WANT TO CALL YOU A LIAR, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT YOU, I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR DENIAL OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF HOSE CONTRIBUTIONS. THE EVIDENCE WHICH IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES STRONGLY INDICATE THAT YOU WERE NOT IGNORANT OF THAT.
OKAY.
AND I THINK, I THINK SOMEBODY, WHAT IS THE ELECTIONS COMMISSION OR THE ETHICS, WHOEVER IT IS, SOMEBODY SHOULD TEST THAT.
THEY WILL WEIGH IT. IT WILL BE WEIGHED.
YOU'RE ASKING ME. I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I WASN'T ASKED BY THE COUNCIL TO MAKE THAT KIND OF DETERMINATION.
WE'LL GO INTO THAT SPECIFIC ONE IN A SECOND, BUT I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THAT. IT'S INTERESTING, AND IT'S RELEVANT TO THIS. YOU WERE HIRED FOR THE WAVERLY MATTER INVOLVING WAVERLY. IT WAS SPECIFIC TO THE WAVERLY MATTER. EVERYONE'S CALLED IT THE WAVERLY MATTER. HOW DOES AN EVENT THAT TOOK PLACE AT THE PIER TIE INTO YOUR SCOPE OF WORK WHATSOEVER?
WELL, I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD RATHER NOT TALK ABOUT THAT SUBJECT, BUT IT TIES IN BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATION CENTERS ON ABUSE OF THE IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION AND THE EPISODE AT CRABBY JOE'S IS HIGHLY ABUSIVE OF THE IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION LOOP HULE.
MR. KANEY, YOU SAID CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATION, WAVERLY MEDIA, AFILLIATES, OFFERS, ASSOCIATES HAD A PLAN TO SCHEME OR ATTAIN INFLUENCE -- BY VARIOUS MEANS. I DON'T SEE HOW THE PIER DEAL, AND IT IS, IT'S IN HERE, A PUBLIC RECORD NOW, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW YOU FIT IT IN UNDER YOUR SCOPE OF WORK.
WELL, I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT IN THERE.
I'M NOT SAYING I DON'T WANT IT IN. MY QUESTION FOR YOU, WHY WOULD YOU CROWBAR SOMETHING IN?
BECAUSE YOU'RE USING THE IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION LOOPHOLE TO MUSTER YOUR MAJORITY, TRY TO MUSTER YOUR MAJORITY FOR THE COUNCIL, AND I CONSIDER IT WITHIN THE PIR PURVIEW OF THE WAVERLY MATTER.
ALL RIGHT. NOW TO THE SPECIFICS OF THE ACTUAL, IF YOU DECIDE TO TAKE THIS COMPLAINT. IT DOESN'T RISE TO REASONABLE DOUBT, AND YOU SAID IT'S THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU THINK IT REACHES THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE? WHAT FACTS WOULD YOU PROVIDE IN YOUR COMPLAINT?
THEY ARE IN THERE, IN THE TRANSCRIPTS.
OKAY. I HAVE YOUR -- I BELIEVE THERE'S A SUMMARY IN HERE AT SOME POINT.
IS THAT -- THAT'S, LIKE, PAGE 4 OF THE REPORT OF SEPTEMBER.
TALKING ABOUT CRABBY JOE'S?
YEAH, CRABBY JOE'S, THAT'S THE SPECIFIC ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.
BY THE WAY, THAT'S A GREAT NAME AND MAY SHE REST IN PEACE.
I LIKED THEM AS WELL. IT'S UNFORTUNATE THE OWNER PASSED AWAY. VERY SAD.
I KNOW.
AS FAR AS CRABBY JOE'S IS CONCERNED, I KNOW YOU'VE SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THE ETHICS ISSUE IS PREPONDERANCE, BUT WHAT IF JUST FOR THE CITIZENS' SAKE WE SAY, WELL, IS THERE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT? DOES IT EVEN RISE TO THAT LEVEL? WOULD YOU DEFEND ME FOR PAY ON THAT?
YES, I WOULD. I DON'T THINK IT'S CLEAR AND CONVINCING. THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE POINTS I TRIED TO MAKE IN THE REPORT.
IS THERE -- ALL THESE ITEMS, AND I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO SUBMIT THEM. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS DOCUMENT -- I KNOW IT'S NOT REASONABLE DOUBT. BUT IT GOES TO WEIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING IN HERE ON ELECTED OFFICIALS? YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT ABOUT THE BUSINESSES. JIM BROWN PLED GUILTY. SO WE KNOW HE HAD REASON--
HE PLED NO CONTEST ACTUALLY.
PLED NO CONTEST. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS REPORT THAT EVEN RISES TO CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE?
REGARDING THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS?
ANYTHING INVOLVING CANDIDATES. I'M LEAVING THE BUSINESSES OUT OF IT BECAUSE -- THERE'S A LOT OF TESTIMONY. I'VE READ, JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS, I'VE READ THIS. IT'S A LOT. I'VE READ EVERY PAGE. I'VE HIGHLIGHTED IT. MY KID'S SICK LAST NIGHT, CRYING, AND ISLAND TRYING -- I'M READING IT. I'M TIRED. I'M NOT FEELING WELL. I'VE READ IT. I'VE GONE THROUGH T I'VE ONLY HAD A SHORT TIME. AND I HAVEN'T SEEN CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. DO I SEE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT YOU CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT, I'M OKAY. BUT DO YOU CONCEDE THAT THERE IS CONFLICTING EVIDENCE?
OH, YES.
OKAY. WOULD IT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING?
I HAVEN'T REALLY ANALYZED IT LIKE THAT, BUT OFF THE CUFF, SINCE I WASN'T LOOKING AT IT THAT WAY, I DOUBT THAT ANYBODY WOULD AGREE IT WAS CLEAR AND CONVINCING, BECAUSE IT GOES BOTH WAYS. THEN YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WHO IS FIBBING AND WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH.
AND YOU KNOW THIS MATTER MORE THAN -- OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW THIS MATTER -- I KNOW IT PRETTY WELL, BUT YOU EVEN KNOW IT MORE THAN ME.
I THINK YOU HAVE ME MATCHED THERE.
SO WOULD YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THIS COUNCIL, IF YOU HAD TO GIVE AN OPINION, YOUR OPINION WOULD BE NO. IT'S NOT REASONABLE DOUBT. IT'S NOT -- PROBABLY NOT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, BUT IT'S PREPRON DENSE OF THE EVIDENCE.
THAT'S THE STANDARD I'M APPLYING.
OKAY. WOULD IT SHOCK YOU IF THE ETHICS COMMISSION BASES THEIR ENTIRE STANDARD OF PROOF AS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE?
ACTUALLY, I KNOW THAT.
HOW COULD YOU SAY WE COULD GO THROUGH THIS, WHEN YOU YOURSELF IN YOUR OWN -- I JUST ASKED YOU.
PLEASE.
YOU SAID YOU DID NOT THINK THAT IT WOULD. PROBABLY NOT. YOU GOING THROUGH A LOT OF STEPS, MR. KANEY.
YES. AND THE STEP I'M GOING THROUGH IS I HAVE NOT SAID THAT I AGREE THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD FILE WITH THE ELECTIONS COMMISSION. WHAT I'VE SAID IS I'VE SEEN A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AS THE POINTS I MENTION AS CONCLUSIONS. I DO NOT, DO NOT SAY THAT -- AND LET ME GO BACK. THE PURPOSE -- AGAIN, THIS IS AN INVESTIGATION FOR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES. THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO MAKE THEIR DECISION AS TO THE POLICY THEY WANT TO MAKE BASED ON THEIR BEST JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT HAPPENED, WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, AND IT'S REALLY NOT A COURT STANDARD. MY INPUT TO THE COUNCIL WAS BASED ON THAT, ANYTHING THAT I DIDN'T THINK WAS SHOWN BY PREPONDERANCE, INCLUDING YOU'RE ROLE AS CHIEF ALLOCATOR--
I CAN TELL YOU THIS. THE REALITY IS YOU SUBMITTED A REPORT BASED ENTIRELY ON PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE AND EVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THIS COUNCIL, I HAVE THEM QUOTED, HAVE STATED ETHICS COMPLAINTS, ETHICS VIOLATIONS, ALL THESE THINGS. AND IT'S EASY. I DON'T GET A LOT OF AH-HA MOMENTS IN MY LIFE. PERRY MASON WAS A GREAT SHOW. BUT YOU MESSED UP, MR. KANEY. IT'S OKAY. YOU USED THE STRONG STANDARD. IT'S OKAY. YOU CAN ACCEPT IT WAS WRONG, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO READ TO YOU WHAT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE IS. PREPONDERANCE -- IF YOU HAVE SIMPLY MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, THAT'S A LOW STANDARD. BUT I'M GOING TO READ TO EVERYBODY WHAT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO BE FILED WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND I'M ONE OF THEM. LET ME READ IT FOR YOU. REQUIRES THAT EVIDENCE MUST BE FOUND TO BE CREDIBLE. THE FACTS TO WHICH THE WITNESS TESTIFY MUST BE DISTINCTLY REMEMBERED. THE TESTIMONY MUST BE PRECISE AND ELICIT. AND THE WITNESSES MUST BELAKING IN CONFUSION AS TO THE FACTS IN ISSUE. THE EVIDENCE MUST BE SUCH, OF SUCH WEIGHT THAT IT PRODUCES IN THE MIND OF THE TRIER OF FACT A FIRM BELIEF OR CONVICTION, WITHOUT HESITANCY AS TO THE TRUTH OF THE ALLEGATIONS SOUGHT TO BE IDENTIFIED. I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHY I FIND THIS APPALLING. WHAT'S LEFT OUT, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE CRABBY JOE'S SITUATION. THE MANAGER, WHICH, BY THE WAY, WHAT HAPPENED AT CRABBY JOE'S IS IN AUGUST, I HAD A CAMPAIGN EVENT THERE THE NIGHT OF MY ELECTION. IT COST ME $289. WHY I KNOW THAT IS BECAUSE WHEN -- I WAS HOPING THAT I WAS GOING TO WIN THE ELECTION THAT NIGHT. I REALLY KIND OF THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO, BUT IT DIDN'T WORK OUT THAT WAY. SO I ONLY HAD $300 LEFT. I KNEW WHAT I HAD. SO I CALLED AND SAID HEY, THIS IS WHAT I HAVE. WE'LL DO SOME PITCHERS OF BEER, WE'LL DO SOME WINGS. THEY DO AN ASSORTMENT. IT WAS $229, I THINK, AND I THINK I LEFT THEM A PRETTY DECENT TIP. IT WAS OVER 20% BECAUSE I USED TO WAIT TABLES AND I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT. TWO MONTHS LATER, WE'LL FAST FORWARD, I CALLED THE PIER. I SAID I WANT TO DO THE EXACT SAME THING. YOU'VE ALREADY GIVEN ME $200 CASH, WELL, A CHECK. I HAVE $300 AVAILABLE FOR IN-KIND DONATIONS, WHICH IS NOT FREE, BUT IT'S AN IN-KIND DONATION. I SAID I WANT IT THE EXACT SAME. THE PERSON I SPOKE TO WAS LUKE ZONA. ON AND OFF THROUGH THE YEARS, THERE'S PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO KNOW WHY, WHAT I TELL MR. ZONA IS, WE CAN DO THIS IN-KIND. I HAVE THE AVAILABILITY. BUT I NEED IT TO BE THE SAME AS THE LAST TIME BECAUSE THERE'S RULES OF HOW MUCH MONEY THERE IS. SO WHAT DOES HE DO? WE PREP FOR THE PARTY. IT HAD A SILLY NAME. IT WAS REALLY SILLY, BUT TO SURFERS, IT WAS FUNNY. IT WAS WE LIKE TO SHOCKA, WHICH IS THIS, BUT NOT A SHOCKER PARTY. IT WAS TO TEXT PEOPLE. IT WASN'T A FUND-RAISER. IT WAS PEOPLE TO COME IN AND TEXT, DRINK SOME BEER, EAT SOME CHICKEN WINGS, NOTHING MORE. SO LUKE DECIDES NOT TO GO TO WORK THAT DAY, SO I SHOW UP AND I HAVE PEOPLE COMING. THIS IS NOT A ROOM YOU RENT AT A RESTAURANT. THIS IS AMONGST THE RESTAURANT. I CAN'T TELL YOU SPECIFICALLY IF SOMEONE WAS JUMPING ON OUR TAB. I ONLY KNEW MY COUPLE TABLES, 35 AT MOST. I REALLY WENT THROUGH IT AND TRIED TO FIGURE OUT, 35 AT MOST PEOPLE WERE THERE. SO WHAT DO THEY DO? I GET A BAR TAB AT THE END OF THE NIGHT WHEN IT WAS COMPLETE CHAOS AND THEY WERE PACKED WITH OTHER PEOPLE. I GET A BILL, NOT REALLY TOLD THE BILL BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE IT IN THE LITTLE ENVELOPE. THEY TRY TO GIVE ME A BILL AND I'M, LIKE, HEY, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN IN-KIND EVENT. WAITER GETS PISSED. THE MANAGER IS NOT THERE. THE PERSON I WENT INTO AN ORAL CONTRACT WAS NOT THERE. IT WAS A TOTAL MESS. UTTER MESS. I CALL LUKE AND SAY WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? WHAT DOES HE DO? SAYS, HEY, I'LL TAKE CARE OF IT. IT MAY HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE. SO WHAT DO I DO? I THINK IT'S FINE. COME TO FIND OUT, IT'S $650. WELL, I FIND OUT AFTER MEETING WITH THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IT'S REALLY 1400. I HAD NEVER SEEN THE BILL BECAUSE IT WAS, LIKE, GOING TO THE GROCERY STORE IT WAS SO LONG, AT TEQUILA, VODKA, SHOTS AND SHOTS AND SHOTS OF THESE DRINKS. THIS IS A COUPLE, TWO WEEKS BEFORE MY ELECTION. THE POINT OF THIS MATTER IS I'M NOT PAYING FOR SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T AGREE TO. I MEAN, I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT WAS $1400. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN I MET WITH THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, I WAS -- THERE'S NO REASON FOR ME IN MY OPINION TO WORRY ABOUT 350 BUCKS OVER AN ELECTION. SO I CALLED AND SAID WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? I SENT THEM A LETTER SAYING, SORRY ABOUT THE CONFUSION, I DON'T THINK IT WAS ME, BUT SORRY ABOUT THE CONFUSION. HERE'S THE MONEY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORTH MY TIME. IT JUST ISN'T, BECAUSE THE REASON THAT WAS CITED WITH FRED COSTELLO EARLIER, THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT HE WAS SAYING WAS HE HAD TO SPEND SO MUCH MONEY TO DEFEND IT. THAT'S WHY HE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT. IT WAS THE DEFENSE PART, BECAUSE IT'S EXPENSIVE. SO -- AND I APPRECIATE THAT. NO ONE WANTS TO DO IT. SO THE POINT IS, I DIDN'T KNOW. THE PERFECT EXAMPLE IS I GO TO THE NEWS JOURNAL AND ASK FOR A QUARTER-PAGE AD. I PAID $300 FOR THE AD. THE AD'S GREAT. I LIKED IT. IT WAS EFFECTIVE. I REALLY APPRECIATED THEIR WORK. I CALL TWO MONTHS LATER AND I SAY I WANT TO RUN THE SAME AD, EXACT SAME AD, BUT THEY DECIDE TO RUN A FULL-PAGE AD. I OPEN THE PAPER AND GO, WHOA, THAT'S NOT GOOD. AND THEY COME BACK AND SAY HERE'S YOUR BILL FOR $1400, OR IN-KIND, I GUESS THE IN-KIND WOULD HAVE BEEN 300. I SAID, WHOA, THAT'S NOT WHAT I CONTRACTED WITH. THAT'S NOT WHAT I DID. BUT TO BRING IT ALL TOGETHER, WHAT'S LEFT OUT OF YOUR REPORT IS VERY IMPORTANT STATEMENT, AND IT GOES TO CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, WHICH I READ, NOT PREPONDERANCE, BECAUSE PREPONDERANCE IS HE SAID IT MAY HAVE BEEN A MISUNDERSTANDING. IT'S A GOOD LINE FOR SOMEONE WHEN YOU SAID YOU WOULD DEFEND SOMEBODY IN THAT SITUATION. THAT'S A GOOD LINE YOU WANT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
BUT HE IS NOT THE ONE THAT MADE THE MOTION TO GO FORWARD TO BRING THIS FORTH. THAT'S--
THE MOTION WAS ASKED FOR MR. KANEY TO DO IT.
MR. KANEY--
NOT BY ME.
IT'S MENTIONED.
NO, MR. KANEY MAY NOT EVEN BE ASKED TO FILE THE REPORT. THIS MAY BE THROUGH SOMEBODY DIFFERENTLY. IT MAY BE SOMEBODY THAT IS A DISINTERESTED THIRD PARTY.
MR. DAVIS, IT WAS MENTIONED.
MR. DANIELS, DID YOU MENTION--
IT WAS MENTIONED MR. KANEY DO THIS.
-- MR. KANEY TO FILE THE MOTION? [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
HE JUST SAID TAKE THE REPORT AND FILE IT.
COULD YOU NOT READ THAT REPORT? READ THE MOTION.
THE CLERK WOULD KNOW.
YEAH. [ INDISCERNIBLE ] [ LAUGHTER ]
THE MOTION, THE MOTION WAS FOR HIM TO, YOU KNOW, FILE THE REPORT.
OKAY. SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE HIM FILE THE REPORT, STRAIGHT UP.
THAT WAS THE MOTION. NOW, IF MR. KANEY FEELS THAT WHEN HE DOES THAT, THERE IS NO BASIS, THEN THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING HE WOULD HAVE TO INCLUDE IN THERE. AND I GUESS THAT WOULD BE, IF I CAN INTERRUPT A LITTLE BIT--
THAT'S NOT FAIR TO TAKE THE FLOOR AWAY FROM ME.
OKAY. I'LL GET TO IT LATER ON.
YEAH, THANK YOU. IT'S--
THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH LEFT.
CAN WE MOVE IT ALONG?
I'M MORE THAN HALFWAY THROUGH.
MORE THAN HALFWAY.
ALL RIGHT.
I NEED A STOOL.
SO ON TO -- IF YOU DON'T MIND.
SIR?
I NEED A STOOL.
YOU MAY SIT.
TO ESTABLISH THIS, THERE IS A LIST, NUMBER ONE, WHETHER WAVERLY HAD A SCHEME. [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
YEAH, YOU CAN--
THEN YOU CAN SIT DOWN. I APPRECIATE THAT.
MAKES MY BACK HURT.
NO, I UNDERSTAND.
I UNDERSTAND.
YOU SAID WHETHER WAVERLY HAD A SCHEME, THAT'S NUMBER ONE ON THE ITEMS. DOES IT WORK?
THIS IS A LIST ON PAGE 5, 6 AND 7. THERE'S A LIST OF ALL THE IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM WAVERLY IN REGARDS TO A SCHEME. THAT PAGE.
YES, I REMEMBER.
OBVIOUSLY, BY NOW YOU UNDERSTAND MY POSITION OF I THINK THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME THINGS GOING ON WITH YOU AND DOUG. I DIDN'T HIDE THAT. OR MR. DANIELS. CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHY, SINCE MR. DANIELS RECEIVED AN IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION, I DON'T SEE HIM ANYWHERE ON THIS LIST.
HMM, I HADN'T NOTICED THAT.
YOU DIDN'T NOTICE THAT SOMEONE, MR. DANIELS, WHO I LITERALLY PROBABLY HAVE 50 E-MAILS BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU, IS CONVENIENTLY NOT IN YOUR REPORT? DID YOU WRITE THE REPORT?
I DIDN'T ACTUALLY COMPILE THAT LIST. THAT WAS DONE BY MY STAFF. IF THAT'S THE ONLY THING NOT ACCURATE ABOUT IT, I APOLOGIZE.
I ASSUME YOU WOULD BE ADDING HIS NAME TO THIS REPORT.
IF I SUBMITTED IT, MOTION PASSED, AND I SUBMITTED IT, YEAH, I WOULD CORRECTLY REPORT.
PERFECT. NOW, SINCE IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THAT REPORT, THIS REPORT, THE MOTION IS TO PACKAGE THIS AND SEND THIS TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION, SO HE'LL BE PART OF THAT. HIS NAME WILL BE PART OF THE RECORD IN WHAT'S SUBMITTED TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION, CORRECT?
CORRECT.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WHEN MR. DANIELS WAS QUESTIONED ON HIS IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM WAVERLY, FROM GARRETT, YOU ASKED HIM ABOUT IT, AND HE PUT DOWN THE STATEMENT. IT WAS QUICK. IT WAS AT THE BEGINNING AND YOU MOVED ON. I PUT IT THIS WAY. YOU ASKED HIM ABOUT ALCOHOL. HE HAD A $250 CONTRIBUTION. I PUT IT DOWN FOR 250. $250. I THINK IT WAS ABOUT THAT IN BEER AND WINE. IT'S HARD TO SAY EXACTLY. FOR THE PAST COUPLE HOURS, I'VE HEARD YOU SAY HOW CERTAIN SOMEONE SHOULD BE WHEN THEY GET AN IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION. I'VE HEARD IT QUITE OFTEN. IT'S HARD TO SAY EXACTLY. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A CERTAIN, SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT HE RECEIVED?
THE STATEMENT ABOUT ACCURACY REFERS TO WHETHER IT IS A FAKE REPORT. WHAT WAVERLY WAS DOING, WHAT JIM BROWN WAS DOING, PUTTING PEOPLE THAT DO NOT PARTICIPATE ON THE REPORT. DISCUSSING THE VALUE OF BEER AND WINE, BEER AND WHISKEY, WHATEVER IT WAS, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD SAY IS A FACTUAL QUESTION. IT'S AN EVALUATION QUESTION.
OKAY. I'M FINE WITH THAT RESPONSE.
GOOD.
I CAN GO THROUGH THESE. IT'S PROBABLY 1200 PAGES I'M GUESSING, AT LEAST A THOUSAND. THERE'S A LOT OF TREES THAT TALK ABOUT PUFFERY. SO IF YOU'RE SAYING NOW THAT PUFFERY IS NOT AN ISSUE, THAT IT'S JUST ACCURACY OF THE IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS AND RELATED TO THE REPORT, HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS IS PUFFERY AND HOW COULD YOU SAY IT'S NOT?
I DON'T THINK I SAID ANYTHING WAS PUFFERY AND I DON'T THINK I SAID PUFFERY IS NOT AN ISSUE. A FALSIFIED REPORT AS TO VALUE, IF IT'S INTENTIONALLY FALSIFIED, THAT'S A MISDEMEANOR. AND THAT'S AN ISSUE.
I'M GO--
A BAD ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF THE ALCOHOL LEFT OVER FROM MS. GARRETT'S PARTY, I DON'T THINK THAT RISES TO ANYTHING THAT REALLY OUGHT TO CONCERN US.
OKAY. SO YOU DON'T THINK IT'S CONCERNING THAT SOMEONE DOESN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY PUT ON THEIR REPORT TO BE ACCURATE?
JOSH, THE WAY YOU TWIST THINGS AROUND, WE COULD BE HERE ALL DAY WITH ME CORRECTING YOUR MISSTATEMENT OF THE PREMISE OF THE QUESTION. I DON'T THINK THAT. NO, I DON'T THINK THAT.
OKAY. ON PAGE 9, I'M GOING TO READ YOU A STATEMENT. IT SAYS MY INVESTIGATION REVEALED NO EVIDENCE THAT CANDIDATES WERE AWARE OF THE ILLEGALITY OF IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION FROM WAVERLY AND I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH MR. LA RISE SEWS DECISION TO BRING NO CHARGES. YOUR NEXT LINE. I APPRECIATE THAT LINE. I'M GLAD YOU MADE THAT FINDING.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THE ONE I DO HAVE ISSUE WITH IS NEXT. I FOUND NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE UNLAWFUL CONTRIBUTIONS WERE ENTIRELY INNOCENT OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS. AND FOR THOSE THAT ARE IN THE LISTENING AUDIENCE, IN THE UNITED STATES, AND ONE OF THE THINGS LUCKILY WE HAVE IN OUR SYSTEM, AND IT IS A GOOD SYSTEM, YOU'RE USUALLY FOUND INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. USUALLY, YOU -- WHOEVER IT IS MAKING THAT DECISION IS THE ONE THAT SAYS HERE'S THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE GUILTY OF. WHY? BECAUSE IT WILL BE LIKE A BUNCH OF OTHER COUNTRIES THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ESTABLISH, NO, I'M INNOCENT, I'M INNOCENT. SO INSTEAD, I FOUND NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE UNLAWFUL CONTRIBUTIONS WERE ENTIRELY INNOCENT OF THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE NATURE OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS. YOU DO IT BACKWARDS.
NO, I, I'VE SAID OVER, OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT I'M NOT APPLYING A CRIMINAL STANDARD. THAT, THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER MR. LARISSA USED THE PHRASE COMPELLING EVIDENCE. I SIMPLY SAID THERE'S NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF THE CONTRARY. NOW, THAT'S NOT SAYING ANYBODY'S GUILTY. IT'S SAYING I'M TELLING THIS COUNCIL WHAT PROBABLY HAPPENED, EVEN IF IT'S NOT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. YOU NEED TO MAKE A DECISION. AND YOU NEED TO MAKE SOME RULES TO KEEP THIS KIND OF THING FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.
OKAY. BUT A STATEMENT LIKE THAT GIVES THE PREMISE, AND AN ATTORNEY SAID IT EARLIER AND I DIDN'T KNOW THAT ATTORNEY WAS COMING, WHAT HE WAS GOING TO SAY. YOU'RE STARTING OUT, BY SAYING THAT STATEMENT, YOU'RE STARTING OUT THAT EVERYONE IS GUILTY.
THAT IS NOT TRUE. THAT IS NOT A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE REPORT.
OKAY. THAT'S, THAT'S A GOOD ANSWER. I'LL TAKE IT.
THERE'S A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT I DID NOT FIND ROSE TO THE PREPONDERANCE THAT SAYS YOU AND THE OTHERS KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON. THERE'S JUST NO, NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO OVERCOME YOUR PRESUMPTION THAT YOU'RE TOTALLY INNOCENT. JUST AN NT LITTLE BOY.
OKAY. AS YOU SAID EARLIER--
YOUNG MAN.
I'M NOT GOING TO BE SPANKED. IT'S OKAY. I'M YOUNGER. I GET THAT.
I'M KIDDING AROUND.
I'M A BIG BOY. I CAN HANDLE IT. THIS IS, IN MY OPINION, THE NEXT LINE, THE EVIDENCE GATHERED IN BOTH INVESTIGATIONS SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT SOME CANDIDATES RECEIVE IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THESE CONTRIBUTIONS WERE NOT LAWFUL. IS THAT FROM A STATUTE? I READ IT IN THE PAPER LAST NIGHT AS A HEADLINE. THEY CHANGED IT. BUT I READ THE PAPER THAT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN AND ALL THESE THINGS. WHAT'S THAT FROM?
WHAT DO YOU MEAN, WHAT'S THAT FROM?
YOU'RE GIVING THE OPINION THAT EVIDENCE GATHERED IN THE INVESTIGATION -- SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE CONTRIBUTIONS WERE NOT LAWFUL.
WELL, WE'VE BEEN OVER THAT BEFORE. BUT THE CONCLUSION IS THAT THE CLOSING YOUR EYES AND STOPPING UP YOUR EARS AND NOT LOOKING AT IT, BEING, AS YOU SAID, JUST TAKING THE GUY'S WORD PERIOD, THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT YOU'RE INNOCENT OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNLAWFUL CONTRIBUTION. YOU'RE STUDIOUSLY INDIFFERENT. STUDIOUSLY IGNORANT OF THAT FACT. AND TO SAY I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IS TO MY MIND DOESN'T LIVE UP TO THE STANDARD REQUIRING FOR YOU TO CERTIFY. SPEAKING OF BURDEN OF PROOF, WHAT DOES IT SAY FOR YOU TO CERTIFY A FACT IS TRUE?
OKAY, AND SO UNDER THAT PREMISE AND YOU'RE LINE OF THINKING, IF I SAW YOU AND WE RAN INTO EACH OTHER AT A RESTAURANT AND I FORGOT MY WALLET AT HOME, AND BEFORE THIS, BECAUSE WE'VE OBVIOUSLY HAD A HEATED CONVERSATION, AND I SAID JOHN, I FORGOT MY WALLET, COULD I BORROW 10 BUCKS? WOULD YOU LOAN ME $10 BECAUSE I COULDN'T PAY MY BILL?
I WOULD ASK YOU TO SIGN A NOTE ON A NAPKIN.
I WOULD SAY, LOOK, JOHN, I'M GOING TO GET YOU THE MONEY BACK. YOU BASED THAT DECISION -- THAT CREDIBILITY IS BASED ON OUR PRIOR RELATIONSHIP. WE'VE KNOWN EACH OTHER FOR YEARS.
YEP.
TO SAY THAT GENERAL STATEMENT SAYING, HEY, I'M GOING TO DO THIS, YEAH, I TRUSTED THE GUY, HE GAVE IT TO ME, IT'S BECAUSE OF MY PRIOR DEALINGS WITH THE PERSON, I'VE ESTABLISHED CREDIBILITY. I'VE ESTABLISHED A RELATIONSHIP WHERE I THINK WHAT HE'S PROVIDING ME, BECAUSE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE PAST OF YEARS OF EVIDENCE, HE HAS PROVIDED ME INFORMATION THAT HIS CREDIBILITY WAS SUBSTANTIAL. I HAD NO IDEA OF THIS WHOLE MURDER THING AT ALL ACTUALLY, JUST TO BRING THAT UP. I HAD NO IDEA OF THAT. IT WAS SHOCKING WHEN I FOUND THAT OUT. BUT THAT'S HOW I SEE CREDIBILITY. BUT WHAT I HAVE SEEN THIS STATEMENT, THE MEDIA OUTLETS HAVE INTERRUPTED IT, IN YOUR OPINION, THE EVIDENCE GATHERED IN BOTH INVESTIGATIONS SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT SOME CANDIDATES SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THESE CONTRIBUTIONS WERE NOT LAWFUL. WHERE IS THAT FROM? YOU'RE MAKING A CONCLUSION, BUT YOU'RE ALMOST CREATING YOUR OWN STATUTE TO SAY THIS IS WRONG. THIS IS WRONG.
I SAID THE STATUTE ONLY PUNISHES INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION, INTENTIONAL INCORRECT
STATEMENT. THE STATE ETHICS STANDARD IS NOT WHAT THIS COUNCIL NEEDS TO BE LOOKING AT. YOU NEED TO BE LOOKING AT STANDARDS OF GOOD BEHAVE YOUR AND YOU CAN CREATE YOUR OWN STANDARD, AS MR.-- [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
YES, BUT MR. KANEY, HERE'S THE PROBLEM. HERE'S THE PROBLEM TO THAT. THIS IS WHERE ALL OF THIS IS RELEVANT. COMING HERE TODAY, IT WAS THOUGHT, I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS REPORT WAS GOING TO BE GIVEN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY NOTION THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE USED AS ETHICS COMPLAINT. I DON'T THINK HE SHOULD WE SHOULD HAVE STAPLED THIS TOGETHER. WHERE IT BECAME RELEVANT IN THE OBVIOUS, THE PROOF, THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS WHEN WE DO TALK ABOUT THE ETHICS COMPLAINTS, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TAKING YOUR DOCUMENT AS SAYING WE VIOLATED AN ETHICS COMPLAINT WHEN WE'VE ESTABLISHED EARLIER IN OUR DISCUSSION THAT THERE'S ISSUES WITH CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, WHICH IS THE STANDARD. THAT'S WHY I ASKED YOU THAT
QUESTION. YOU CITE SPECIFICALLY LINES 16 THROUGH 21 IN HIS DEPOSITION, AS MY REASONS FOR ARGUMENTIVE, THAT DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WAY YOU PHRASED IT WAS THAT I SIMPLY STATED THAT I SENT THANK YOU NOTES. IF I SENT A THANK YOU NOTE, WHY WOULD THEY, WHY WOULD THEY NOT RESPOND? I'M GOING TO READ YOU THE PAGE THAT YOU CITED. PAGE 55, LINES 16 TO 21. LOT OF TREES.
WHILE YOU'RE SEARCHING THROUGH YOUR DOCUMENTS, WOULD IT BE ALL RIGHT IF I ASKED MR. KANEY ONE QUESTION, SIR?
YES.
THANK YOU. WHEN WERE ALL OF THESE IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS TAKEN? CAN I HAVE THE YEAR, PLEASE?
THE YEAR?
THE YEAR ALL THESE IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS WERE TAKEN.
I THINK IT WAS IN 2013 MOSTLY.
LAST YEAR?
LAST YEAR.
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
I WAS, I WAS -- LAST YEAR WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ELECTION.
OH, I'M SORRY. 2012, FOR THE TERM STARTING IN 2013. BUT MS. CUSACK IS CORRECT. SHE WASN'T RUNNING THEN. SHE WAS ON THE LAST TWO YEARS OF HER FOUR-YEAR TERM. AND IN THAT LAST TWO YEARS.
THAT'S RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE ARE ACTUALLY EVEN WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY FILE.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO. ALL RIGHT. SO PAGE 55, LINES 16 THROUGH 21. YOU SAY THAT I WAS ARGUMENTATIVE AND I DIDN'T WANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. YOU SAY 16 TO 21 IS -- ACTUALLY YOU STATED IT IN HERE. WHY WOULD I SEND A THANK YOU NOTE SAYING OBVIOUSLY THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD KNOW THAT THEY GAVE THE CONTRIBUTION, IS WHAT YOU'RE ALLUDING TO. BUT THEN IF I GO BACK AND LOOK AT MY OWN DEPOSITION AND I LOOK AT YOUR QUESTION, YOU SAY WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE WITNESS WHO IS HAVE TALKED TO TO GIVE YOU CREDIT FOR BEING THE MASTERMIND--
THAT'S A COMPLIMENT, BY THE WAY. MASTERMIND.
MASTERMIND, RING LEADER, I'VE NEVER BEEN CALLED THOSE THINGS, SO IT WAS PRETTY INTERESTING. I THINK KING MAKER WAS MY FAVORITE. OF THE PROGRAM OF WAVERLY DOING IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR SIGNS. MY RESPONSE, THAT'S SILLY. IT GOES BACK TO THE WHOLE THING OF IF SOMEONE WANTED TO DO SOMETHING ILLEGAL, WHY WOULDN'T YOU JUST DO IT. SO IT'S JIM BROWN, LIKE I SAID. I HONESTLY BELIEVE THE FELLOW REALLY WAS TRYING TO DO THE THINGS THE RIGHT WAY, BECAUSE WHY WOULD HE? WHY WOULD HE EVEN DO THAT? YOU KNOW, IT WOULDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL. I THINK HE THOUGHT HE WAS DOING IT RIGHT. HE OBVIOUSLY WASN'T. HE PLED TO IT. I'VE GOT A LOT OF ENEMIES CALLING ME MASTER MINDS. THEY HAVE GOTTEN THE SAME INFORMATION SAYING LIKE HEY, THESE ARE THE ONES THAT DONATED. THEN I GO INTO I SENT THEM THANK YOU NOTES. IF I SEND THEM A THANK YOU NOTE, THEY WOULD OBVIOUSLY KNOW I GAVE THE CONTRIBUTION. WHY WOULD I SEND THE NOTE IF I KNEW IT WAS FALSE, IF I KNEW PEOPLE WERE FAKE? BUT THE POINT OF THE ISSUE IS, MR. KANEY, YOU SAY I'M ARGUMENTIVE, BUT WHEN YOU ASK ME THE QUESTION, YOU LEFT OUTLINES 1 THROUGH 15 TO MY ANSWER. AND YOU ONLY GIVE A SLANTED VIEW THAT I SAID I SENT HIM A LETTER AND YOU TURN AROUND AND SAY WHEN MR. BROWN ASKED A QUESTION, YOU GAVE A SIMILAR ANSWER, WHICH WAS ANOTHER BEGINNING TO HIM, REFERRING TO THANK YOU NOTES BECAUSE I THINK HE SAID, I THINK JOSH SENT MY WIFE A THANK YOU NOTE, SOMEWHERE IN HIS REPORT.
YEAH, HE DID.
INSTEAD OF TAKING A STATEMENT THAT IS CONSISTENT, WHAT HE JUST DID WAS REAFFIRM THAT I ACTUALLY DID SEND A THANK YOU NOTE, YOU TOOK IT AS A NEGATIVE AND YOU ONLY USED SUCH A SMALL PART OF MY STATEMENT. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT? [ CHANGE IN
" ."
HE JUST REAFFIRMED AND YOU TOOK IT IS A NEGATIVE. .
I AM OKAY WITH IT, YOU NEED TO PUT IT IN THERE AND YOU NEED TO BE BALANCED AND YOU CAN'T TAKE THE END OF MY STATEMENTS AND IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE I AM ARGUMENTIVE AT ALL. .
YOU HAVE ONE WITNESS SAYING SOMETHING AND IN YOUR DEPOSITION HE SAYS ANOTHER THING, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A PRE-UPON REFERENCE OF -- PRE-UPON RUNS OF EVIDENCE YOU ARE CREATING A TRUTH AND THAT'S THE ISSUE I HAVE WITH SOME THINGS LIKE THAT. AFTER THE JOHN, THE HALF TRUTH IS THAT I DIDN'T GO THROUGH ALL OF YOUR ANSWERS AND POINT OUT HOW ARGUMENTIVE YOU ARE AND HOW EVASIVE YOU ARE. WHY WOULD JIM BROWN HAVE DONE IT THIS WAY? THAT IS AN ARGUMENT, YOU MAKE THAT ARGUMENT ALL THE TIME. YOUR ANSWERS COULD BE CHARACTERIZED, I AM NOT GOING TO LIE, HOW TO SPOT SOMEBODY BY NOT BELIEVING IN WHAT HE IS SAYING, THAT IS THE LYING ANSWER AND YOUR NOSE GETS LONGER AND LONGER. THAT IS A NONTRUTH TELLING.
DURING THE DEPOSITION AT ANY TIME DID YOU SPECIFICALLY AT ANY TIME SAY MR. WAGNER SAY "YES" OR "NO." BECAUSE IT IS EASY NOW TO PLAY MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK AND WHEN YOU HAD ME UNDER OATH THE BEST RECOLLECTION, DID YOU MAKE ANY ARGUMENTS DID YOU MAKE ANY STATEMENTS THAT I SHOULD ANSWER DIFFERENTLY?
NO. I SIMPLY WANTED YOUR STORY. I DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE YOU A STORY BUT NOW YOU ARE CRITICIZING MY STORY.
YOUR STORY IS NOT GOOD. YOU HAVE AN OPINION TO THAT AND HAVE A DISAGREEMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUE SHOULD BE MADE.
AS FAR AS THE PEOPLE YOU CITED, THERE IS NO DUE DILIGENCE TO DETERMINE THE VERY ROSSTY. YOU MUST -- VERY ROSSTY. IT PUNISHES ONLY THE STATEMENT. YOU SEEM TO BLEND IN THIS PRE-UPON REFERENCE WITH ANOTHER STANDARD, SO YOU ARE GIVING THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN -- I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING I WOULD NOT CONSIDER TO THE CALIBER OF WHAT I KNOW YOU HAVE. YOU CITE DOUG DANIELS AND ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE YOU ARE USING FOR THIS REASONABLE DILIGENCE.
YOU HAVE OTHERS WHO ARE SIGNIFICANTLY RELATED TO THIS MATTER. AND LAMAR PATTERSONER SON, ANDY KELLY IS HERE. DOUG DANIELS AND I HAVE A DIFFICULT RELATIONSHIP. .
YOU AGAIN GO INTO A LOT OF THE RING LEADER, THE KING PIN, MASTERMIND, THINGS LIKE THAT, IN THE DEPOSITIONS, DOUG DANIELS, PAT NORTHEE, I THINK HE WAS KNOWN AS "THE SUN COMES UP TOMORROW" WHICH IS BASED ON SCIENCE, BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS, YOU ARE USING THE PEOPLE THAT SAY ALL THESE RIDICULOUS THINGS THAT USE ALL THESE BUZZ WORDS WHICH I FOUND INTERESTING, THEY USED THE SAME ONCE AND IF YOU FOLLOWED THE E-MAIL TRAIL THERE WERE A FEW COUNCIL MEMBERS BUT YET THEY ARE IN THE E-MAILS. I FOUND THAT INTERESTING BUT YOU LEAVE OUT OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE CREDIBLE WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT, WAS IT KNOWN THAT JOSH WAGNER WAS THE PERSON TO GET THIS FREE, DID YOU KNOW ABOUT ALL OF THIS STUFF, WHERE ARE THEY IN HERE, BECAUSE USUALLY WHEN YOU HAVE BALANCE AND WHEN YOU ARE DOING AN INVESTIGATION AND YOU HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT MR. COSTELLO IS CREDIBLE. WHERE IS THAT TO SAY HE IS NOT BECAUSE YOU GET TO THE RIGHT -- I THINK YOU MAKE THE RIGHT CONCLUSION AND I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE A CONCLUSION BUT HE ACTIVELY SUPPORTS CANDIDATES AND THEN YOU GO ON TO SAY THAT I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. BUT YOU DON'T SAY THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE SAID. YOU DON'T USE SOME OF THE CREDIBLE PEOPLE. YOU ARE ONLY USING THE ONES THAT BEAT ME UP. YOU DON'T USE THE ONES WHO SAY ANYTHING THAT IT IS NOT CREDIBLE, WHY?
WHAT THEY SAID, RAISE IS THE QUESTION. I WENT THROUGH -- I'M SORRY -- THANK YOU I WENT THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND I CONCLUDED THAT EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH MORE LIKELY THAN NOT. YOU GOT THAT GOOEY IS A LOW STANDARD AND WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY GOOD. I AM NOT OBVIOUSLY -- THE PIER IS THE NEXT ONE AND THERE IS NO REASON TO GO THROUGH THAT ONE, PAGE 17, WHETHER MR. WAGNER WAS ASKED BY WAY OF INTERVENING BY WAY OF BUS BENCHES AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ONE TO TALK ABOUT THIS OBVIOUSLY IS BECAUSE I THINK I ESTABLISHED IT PRETTY WELL BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS AND I WILL GET THAT PRINTED OUT THAT A COUNCIL MEMBER CAN GIVE SUGGESTIONS TO AN EMPLOYEE AND IS THAT AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF OUR CONVERSATION?
YES, YES YOU CAN SAY THAT YES.
SO THAT PART OF IT, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ETHICAL ISSUE WITH ME TALKING TO AN EMPLOYEE IN THAT MANNER?
YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THAT. YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THAT UNDER THE ORDINANCE THAT THE COUNTY HAS NOW, THAT WHAT YOU DID IS NOT ETHICAL AND COULD BE QUESTIONED AS FAR AS VIOLATING THE CLAUSE WHICH SAYS YOU ARE NOT TO DIRECT EMPLOYEES BUT I DON'T THINK YOU WERE DIRECTING, I THINK YOU WERE LOBBYING AND THAT'S AN ETHICAL QUESTION THE COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER. SHOULD THEY LOBBY ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS WITH STAFFERS IN KEEPING IT AWAY FROM THE MANAGER AND AWAY FROM THE COLLEAGUES AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT. YOU HAVE TO PASS AN ORDINANCE.
ON A SPECIFIC CASE, THERE IS NO FINANCIAL GAME, NOTHING AT ALL BUT I WILL USE AN EXAMPLE. SAY I AM AN ATTORNEY FOR A CITY AND THE CITY NEEDS ME TO MEET WITH COUNTY OFFICIALS. AND LOBBY AND/OR TO FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON TO USE AN EXAMPLE OF THE LIGHT ORDINANCE SO I AM BEING PAID BY THE CITY TO GO TALK TO EMPLOYEES. ALSO KNOWN AS LOBBY BE TO MAKE CHANGES TO A LIGHTING ORDINANCE, IS THERE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT?
THE ISSUE I HAVE RAISED IS YOUR CONDUCT TO THE SIGNED RF P. THAT IS AN ISSUED. YOU CAN MAKE UP HYPOTHETICALS ALL DAY AND MAYBE THEY ARE IRRELEVANT BUT I THINK WHAT YOU DID OUGHT TO BE BANNED BY AN AUDIENCE.
WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS ACTUALLY TECHNICAL SO LET'S SAY WE WILL DO ME WHICH IS EASY -- WELL I AM EMPLOYED BY -- I WILL MAKE IT EASIER, DOUG DANIELS WAS EMPLOYED TO WORK ON THE E-ZONE. THEY HAD THINGS THEY WANTED TO MAKE CHANGES TO WITH THE COUNTIES' LIGHTING ORDINANCE. HE SAT IN ON MEETINGS, HE DID ALL THESE THINGS, HE HAS LOBBIED AND HOW IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT? I AM MAKING THE ASSUMPTION I LOBBIED AND I WILL GET TO THIS BUT THINGS WERE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. UNDER THE HYPOTHETICAL, IS THAT AN ISSUE?
IF YOU CONSIDER THAT, YES YOU SHOULD CONSIDER A MEMBER BEING A HIRED LOBBIEST -- HIRED LOBBIEST BEFORE THE COUNCIL TO STAFF.
MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO EVENTUALLY VOTE ON IT. IF A CHANGE IS MADE TO THE ORDINANCE OR IF THE ARGUMENT IS IF THE RF P CAME AND IF COUNCIL TO VOTE ON IT, THAT IS WHERE IT IS.
ARE YOU BUYING?
YES, I AM PAYING YOU BACK THE $10 I BORROWED IN MY LAST HYPOTHETICAL. AS FAR AS THE BEST BENCHES, THERE IS ONE CONCERNING PART. I TOOK A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME TO WRITE A VERY DETAILED RECORD OF WHAT HAPPENED. THE COUNCIL MEETING WHERE I FEEL I WAS AMBUSHED -- I DIDN'T THINK IT FAIRLY REFLECTED WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND I TOOK THE TIME TO WRITE A VERY NICE PUBLIC RECORD FOR YOU TO SUBMIT ON REASONS WHY THIS ACTUALLY OCCURRED.I DON'T SEE A SINGLE MENTION OF IT IN HERE. THEY STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT INCIDENT. WHAT HAPPENED WAS AND I HAVE E-MAILS TO PROVE IT WAS THAT I REPRESENT WILBUR BY THE SEA AND PEOPLE THINK I AM A HANDFUL AND I AM HIGH MAINTENANCE, THEY ARE AS WELL. IT IS WHAT IT IS. SO THEY HATE BUS BENCHES, THEY HATE THEM, I CAN ACTUALLY USE THE WORD HATE, "HATE, HATE, HATE" AND I GOT AN E-MAIL FROM ONE OF THE CONSTITUENTS WHO SAID : "THE BUS BENCHES FROM THE RESIDENT SAID SHE DOESN'T LIKE THEM" VERY LENGTHY, THEY SHOULD BE ILLEGAL, SINCERELY AND SOMEBODY I RESPECT SOMEBODY I THINK IS CREDIBLE AND SHE HAS ESTABLISHED CREDIBILITY WITH ME. I HAVE WAS COPIED ON AN E-MAIL RIGHT AFTER THAT AND I BELIEVE IT WAS THE NEXT DAY BY ANOTHER MEMBER OF THAT GROUP WHO MISS PAT NORTH THY IS FRIENDS AND CAN ATTEST. HE STATES ALL GREAT POINTS, BUT I THINK WE CAN ASSUME AND GOVERNMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE ARM IS MORE POWERFUL THAN THE ELECTED ARM. THE OVERLAYING STATES IS CHARGED WITH IMPLEMENTING VIA SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN 2005 AND NONE OF WHICH I SAW MATERIAL ICED. SO WE DON'T -- MATERIALIZED, SO WE DON'T NEED TO FIGHT FIRES BUT THIS FIRE WE MUST FIGHT TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. I AM NEW TO THE COUNCIL, I HAVE LITERALLY BEEN ON ON THERE A YEAR, MAYBE 14 MONTHS AND AS NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS KNOW IT IS DIFFICULT TO GET BOMBARDED. SO I E-MAILED DAN, SAYING CAN YOU LOOK INTO THIS TO SEE IF THERE IS SOMETHING TO THEM BECAUSE I NEIL I AM DOING MY JOB AS A REPRESENTATIVE. AND I BELIEVE I HAD A PHONE CALL WITH DAN ABOUT THE MATTER TO THE E-MAIL I SENT HIM AND ON MAY 30 MAY 30th 2010, I SEND THE E-MAIL, I DIDN'T CALL HIM, I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING OFF THE RECORD AND TECHNICALLY IT IS THE ONE THAT MADE IT. I HAD BEEN RECEIVING MANY CALLS TO BUS ADVERTISING IN WILBUR BY THE SEA. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING IT WILL BE RELEASED SOMETIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE. CAN YOU BETTER PROJECT AND I NEED TO MAKE SURE I HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT IS GOING ON. THE DIRECTOR E-MAILED ME BACK ALLS FOR BENCHES ON ADVERTISING AND I INSTRUCTED STAFF TO ISSUE AND R P P WHICH IN 20 -- RF P WHICH IN 20 YEARS HAD NOT BEEN DONE AND THAT THING LAID AND CIRCLED THROUGH AND THAT WAS IT. BASED ON THE QUESTIONS I RECEIVED AND THE SCEPTICISM HOW THEY WERE OPERATING AND HOW EVERYTHING WAS GOING WITH ADVERTISING, THEY WERE MAD. THEN, ON JULY 28th, WHICH IS MY E-MAIL TO KEN WAS MAY 3rd. JULY 28th, I DON'T EVEN AT THIS POINT, IT'S NOT ON MY RADAR, I AM NOT FOLLOWING UP AND I AM NOT DOING ANYTHING. THE REASON I DID IT BECAUSE I WAS TIRED OF DOING IT, I ASKED THEM TO STOP WILBUR BY THE SEA. I SAID THIS IS TAKING UP SO MUCH TIME IT IS KILLING ME. CAN YOU STOP DOING IT, I AM JUST TIRED OF DEALING WITH IT AND I SAID JUST STOP AND THEY DID. THEY ACTUALLY STOPPED DOING IT, THEY LOST MONEY ON IT AND THEY STOP DOING IT. SO MY ISSUE WAS DONE. THE PEOPLE BY THE SEA WERE HAPPY AND I WAS AN AFFECTIVE COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBER IN THEIR EYES AND I THOUGHT I WAS AFFECTIVE IN GETTING IT DONE. BUT THEN ON SEPTEMBER 2nd, I GET AN E-MAIL FROM MR. KEN FISHER SAYING THEY ARE READY TO ISSUE THE RF P ON COUNTY INCORPORATORS, DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THE INFORMATION WE PROVIDED YOU?
THE REASON I DIDN'T RESPOND WAS MY WORK WAS ALREADY DONE AND I WAS NOT WORRIED ABOUT IT ALTHOUGH I SHOULD HAVE SENT A HAREM YOU, THAT WAS SENT FIRST AND A LITTLE AFTER YOUR COMMENT, I AM A NEW COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE WHOLE SUNSHINE THING WAS BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION. MY ISSUE WAS THAT THE E-MAILS OR ANY OF THAT STUFF, I THOUGHT KEN WAS ASKING ALL OF THE ARE YOU GUYS GETTING THESE -- I RESPONDED DIFFERENT OPINIONS AS TO WHAT THEIR RESPONSE WAS AND I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WERE PERTINENT BUT THE ISSUE I BROUGHT THIS UP, I LAID A PRETTY CLEAR RECORD OF MY CONVERSATIONS WITH MEMBERS THAT I REPRESENTED AND I THOUGHT THEY WERE PRETTY CREDIBLE YOU HAVE THEIR CREDIBILITY AND IF A FAIR INVESTIGATION WAS TAKING PLACE, ESPECIALLY A MATTER WHERE YOU LISTENED TO THAT MEETING, I PROBABLY ILY AND TO HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT IS GOING ON, BUT THERE IS ONE MORE THYME.
ODDLY ENOUGH LOW, WHICH IS AND -- LOIS AND I HAVE AN INTERESTING RELATIONSHIP. SHE LEFT THE COMPANY AND THEY VOTED TO BRING HER IN AT THE T.P. O WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A PROCESS AND I WORKED ON SHUTTING IT DOWN BECAUSE I SAID THERE HAD TO BE A PROCESS SO ANYBODY WOULD AND SHE HAD AN EXCELLENT JOB BUT DID I FIND IT SO INTERESTING COUNCIL MEMBERS, THEN I DOUBT HE TEST -- WHEN I GET TO THIS ONE, WHERE I GET TO THIS PART OF THE REPORT, RATHER THAN GIVING HER POSITION ON WELL, THESE THINGS HAPPEN IN THE PAST. WHEN YOU ASKED THE QUESTIONS, YOU ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT DEALING WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS AND I KNOW YOU FOUND HER CREDIT AND. KNOWING HE HAS NEVER SEEN ANY ASPECTS OF THE BUS BENCHESSEN AND HER ANSWER WAS YES, MA'AM AND HER ANSWERS WERE WHAT SHE TALKS ABOUT, WITH BEING INVOLVED AND SHE SAID, YES HE WAS INVOLVED. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A DISABLED STUDENT AND I WAS TRYING TO HELP A DISABLED STUDENT AND I WOULD TRY TOO HELP PEOPLE AND SHE SAID A NUMBER OF OUR PEOPLE DO THAT SPECIFICALLY BEING IN THE MINOR WHY. SHE ACTUALLY USES A PERSON I THINK WE ALL AS ALL THE COUNTY EMPLOYEES KNOW AND RESPECT BUT SHE HAVE USES IT. I HAVE MEAN SHE WAS INVOLVED.
YOU KNOW WHERE SHE LEARNED THAT?
MY MOTHER WAS HER ENGLISH TEACHER IN HIGH SCHOOL.
OKAY, SHE SAID THAT. WHEN YOU ASKED HER THE QUESTION SPECIFICALLY RYE 199 TO AND SHEET SHE IS ABSOLUTELY MAKING NO MENTION TESTIFY AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS OVERLOOKED OR IT GOES TO AGAIN LET'S JUST PICK THE EVIDENCE WHICH IS MOST DAMMING TO THE INDIVIDUAL. WAS IT OVERLOOKED OR KEPT OUT ON PURPOSE SPOKESPERSON.
ACTUALLY IT WAS NEITHER OVERLOOKED NOR KEPT OUT. THE REPORT IS 20 PAGES. THE REPORT WAS, I DON'T KNOW, 1,000 PAINS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY THERE ARE. YOUR MEMO WAS NOT UNTIL FORM IT IS IN THERE NOW AND IT INTEREST MY ATTENTION AND ALL OF YOUR STUFF IS NOT JUST THE 20 PAGE.
BUT THE REALITY IS, IT IS 1,000 PAGES LONG FOR THESE DEPOSITIONS AND IF IT'S JUST CHERRY PICKING THE NEGATIVES, NOT THE ONES THERE ARE SHOWING, DO WOOL NEED THIS AND EYE I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A AND THIS IS GOING TO BE POSTED ON THE INTERNET AND THIS IS A CREDIBLE ASSASSINATION, IT IS AND WHEN YOU MAKE STATEMENTS LIKE THIS I HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND SAY THIS, RATHER THAN JUST SAYING, OH SHE SAID THAT, THAT TOO ECOULD TO BE A NOMINAL AND YOU WOULD UP INCLUDE SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AS FAR AS THE INFORMATION CAN I AM IN WEREN'T AND BROWN,EN THE ISSUE BY THE SEA BEFORE THIS MESSAGE BY BROWN, IT IS LIKE WHAT IS GOING ON AND WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS THING BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, WHAT IS LEFT OUT OF THIS REPORT IS IF ANYBODY SHOULD HATE ME, IT SHOULD BE WAVERLY MEDIA.
THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.
WELL I AM JEST VOTED OUT, YOU CAN MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT, BUT IF I WAS REALLY THIS PERSON THAT HAD THIS DESIRE TO HELP THEM OUT, WHY WOULD I VOTE TO PUT IT OUT THERE, BECAUSE MISS NORM -- GET YOUR QUESTION OUT.
John: I WILL NOT HESITATE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. UM... I GUESS DEPENDING ON WHAT COMES BACK, I DID, I HAVE ONE FINAL ISSUE THAT I REALLY DID FIND TO IT BE INTERESTING. IS THAT ON -- LIKE I SAID, THERE IS ONE MORE THING ON YOUR BILLING REPORTS, I JUST SAID MET WITH WITNESS, MET WITH WITNESS, CAN YOU GO BACK AND WRITE IN EVERY TIME YOU SAID WITNESS, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO THAT IS.
I DON'T THINK I CAN DO IT NOW.
WHY NOT?
BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY WANT TO
THE TRAPS -- YOU DON'T THINK THE PRODUCT SHOULD KNOW WHO YOU WITHOUT TO AND TRAPPED TRAPS SCRIPT OF THE DEPOSITION TELLS YOU WHO THE WITNESS IS.
YOU MADE PHONE CALLS, YOU GIVE PLANK KIT STATEMENTS -- BLANKET STATEMENTS OF SPOKE SPOKE TO THIS WITNESS, SPOKE TO THIS WITNESS.
WELL, I FOUND A COUPLE OF HANDWRITTEN NOTES AND ANYBODY I SPOKE TO, I WOULD HAVE MADE A NOTE, AND YOU COULD FIGURE IT OUT AND MY LAST ONE WAS IN THE LAST DEPOSITION THAT WAS DONE.
HE IS LISTED AS A MICHAEL CAINNY. IS HE RELATED?
HE IS MY GRANDSON, 4th YEAR LAST SEMESTER OF FLORIDA STATE AND HE WILL GO TO LAW SCHOOL AND COURT SOME DAY.
WELL, A LOT OF THE OTHER -- WHAT ARE THESE THINGS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM. THEY ARE INTERVIEWS BUT INTERROGATIONS AS WELL, SO SOMETIMES I AM THINKING OF THEM AS IF THEY WERE A DEPOSITION.
YOU USED THAT WORD DEPOSITION QUITE A BIT. THIS IS EVEN HIGHER, I WOULD SAY. I WOULD SAY ACTION NATION UNDER OATH, EXCUSED, FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN T- SEEMS LIKE HE WANTS TO DO STUFF IN THE COMMUNITY HE BEING ME, THE LINE OF THOUGHT, HE WANTS TO BE INVOLVED AND IT SEEMS LIKE BENEFICIAL THINGS FURTHER HIM BUT LAWS WERE BROKEN WITH THE CAMPAIGN FINANCING. IS IT SEEMS REASONABLE -- IT SEEMS REASONABLE, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY, IT WOULD SEEM REASONABLE THAT SOMEBODY LIKE JIMMY, IN HIS CORNER GETTING A FEW EXTRA FOR HIS CAMPAIGN WOULD HELP HIS POWER AND HELP HIM DO STUFF IN THE COMMUNITY SO THE ENDS COULD HAVE BEEN, I WOULD SAY BENEFICIAL, THE MEANS TO GET THEM, POSSIBLY TO GET THEM ILLEGALLY. AND THAT'S TECHNICALLY A QUESTION I GUESS TO THE PERSON, BUT WHAT I FOUND INTERESTING IS THAT, THE LINE IN THERE TO A THIRD-PARTY WAS BUT THE LAWS WERE BROKEN WITH THE CAMPAIGN FINANCING. MR. JAIL LETTER SAID THERE WAS NO -- JAILER SAID THERE WERE NO LAWS BROKEN.
THAT IS NOT TRUE, HE PROSECUTED JIM BROWN.
HE TALKED ABOUT "HE."
I GUESS THAT IS HIS HIS INTERPRETATION. I AGREE HE WAS DEFINITELY NOT IMPRESSED BY WHAT HAPPENED THERE. YOUNG MAN WAS SHOT.
WELL, WHAT I FIND SHOCKING IS THAT YOU HAVE A TH YEAR COLLEGE STUDENT ENGAGED IN THE UNLINES PRACTICE OF LAW. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH BAR VERSUS BERRY THAT A DEPOSITION IS CONSIDERED A U P L?
YES, AND WE JUST DISCUSSED WHETHER THIS WAS A DEPOSITION OR NOT BUT IT IS AN INTERVIEW AND SOMETIMES I CALLED IT A DEPOSITION BUT IT WAS AN INTERVIEW AND SO, THERE YOU GO.
FOR THE RECORD IF I HIRED SOMEBODY AT MY LAW FIRM AND ALLOWED THEM TO PRACTICE UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF THE LAW I WOULD HAVE AN ETHICS PROBLEM.
YOU ARE BEGGING THAT QUESTION.
IN CLOSING, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT AT LEAST I HAVE ESTABLISHED YOU ON THE RECORD AND I WILL GO BACK AND READ IT AND USE IT AS DOCUMENTATION HAD PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AND WHEN QUESTIONED ABOUT THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THE PERSON WHO KNOWS THIS THE BEST DID NOT THINK IT ROSE TO IT. WHAT IT SAYS EXACTLY I WILL READ IT BUT I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT WAS SAID.
I THINK MY INVESTIGATION WAS BASED ON A PREPONDERANCE STANDARD. YOU ASKED ME ABOUT THE EVIDENCE AND I AM NOT IN THAT AND THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
I BELIEVE THE PERRY MASON MOMENT EXISTED AND YOU USED THE WRONG STANDARD OF LAW BECAUSE EVERYTHING YOU CITED STATES CITES STATUTE AND IT IS AN ETHICS CRIMINAL VIOLATION AND WE CAN LEAVE IT AT THAT AND YOU AT THAT.
YOU CAN LEAVE IT AT THAT AND YOU ARE WRONG.
YOU STILL HAVE -- YOU DO YOU STILL HAVE A COMMENT AND FROM THERE WE WILL MOVE TO MISS NORTH THY.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND THANK YOU FOR REPORTING FOR ALL OF OUR DISCUSSION HERE TODAY. I NEED TO MAKE SURE AS WE APPROACH THIS VOTE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT IS IMPLIED IN THIS REPORT. FOR INSTANCE, I AM WELL AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THERE ARE FOLK HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME ETHICAL VIOLATIONS FILED AGAINST ME AND THEY HAVE PERSONAL AGENDAS, AND I KNOW THAT. BUT I WANT THE CITIZENS TO UNDERSTAND THAT I BELIEVE IN FAIR GOVERNMENT. AND MY CHARACTER HAS BEEN QUESTIONED FOR PERSONAL REASONS FOR OTHER FOLK WHO WANT POLITICAL GAIN IN THIS GAME. SO I SAY TO YOU, WE NEED TO MOVE PASSED THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE WAISTED A LOT OF TIME DOING THINGS THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO SET SOME POLICY, BUT IT TAKES STATE'S STATUTES TO CHANGE THE ELECTION LAWS. AND SO WE COME HERE TODAY AND I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE DIRECTION WE HAVE TAKEN. FOLK THAT WANT TO BELIEVE NEGATIVELY ABOUT YOU WILL DO THAT IF YOU WANT TO RUN YOUR CAMPAIGN BASED ON NEGATIVITY THAN DO SO. BUT MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WE ALL HAVE A ROLL TO PLAY -- ROLE TO PLAY IN GOVERNMENT AND WE WANT TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT. I VOTED TO HAVE THIS INVESTIGATION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CLEARED THE AIR. AND I DO KNOW THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS TWO YEARS AND YOU ARE GOING BACK TO YOUR YEARS WHEN I RAN FOR OFFICE.
THIS IS MY 6th ELECTION.
AND YOU NEVER LOST ONE.
I NEVER LOST ONE. BUT I HAVE NEVER BEEN AGAINST SUCH NEGATIVITY AS I HAVE IN THIS CAMPAIGN.
SEE YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO RUN YOUR RACE. AND DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO GET TO THE PEOPLE. I DON'T HAVE TO SLANDER ANYBODY. I CAN DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO WIN, SO AS FAR AS THIS ELECTION COMPLAINT OR ETHICAL COMPLAINT THAT WE ARE HERE ANTICIPATING OUR FILING TODAY, I AM GOOD IN ANY DIRECTION YOU WANT TO GO. BECAUSE I KNOW HOW TO TO RUN ARRAYS. AND YOU -- RUN A RACE. BUT YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND I WILL STAY CLOSE TO THE PEOPLE AND I WILL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO RUN A CLEAN GOOD RACE AND I WILL LET THE CITIZENS DECIDE THAT. SO IF THIS IS ALL A PART OF A CONVERTED -- CONCERTED EFFORT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT I HAVE DONE OR HAVE NOT DONE, THEN YOU GO FOR THAT WHILE I GO TO THE PEOPLE. WITH THAT IN MIND MR. CHAIR, I THINK WE HAVE OUR WORK HERE IS DONE AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, THERE ARE THOSE WHO WOULD THINK NEGATIVELY ABOUT ME, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU SAY MR. CAIN, LORE LESS AND ALSO TRYING TO DEGRADE ME AS A PERSON. MY CHARACTER IS UNREPROACHABLE AND I HAVE LIVED THAT WAY FOR LONGER THAN ANYBODY HAS DARED TO ASK. AND TO THE CITIZENS OUT THERE LISTENING, LET'S PUT THIS BABY TO BED AND GET ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THIS COUNTY GOVERNMENT IN A GOOD FAIR EQUITABLE WAY WITH THE INTEGRITY OF THIS PROCESS AND FOR PEOPLE THAT WEIGH WANT TO SERVE. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU.
MR. DENNIS?
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE LOWEST POINTS IN VOLUSIA COUNTY ELECTIONS BUT IT CAN'T GO WITHOUT BEING STATED THAT THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS. THIS WAS STARTED BY ANOTHER OFFICIAL AND THIS WAS RED FLAGGED BY THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTION AND THIS COUNCIL INN ITERRED THE -- INHERITED THE CONTROVERSY. WE DIDN'T CREATE IT. IT WAS SOMETHING WE INHERITED. WE CAN'T HIDE FROM THAT. WE JUST CAN'T. THERE COMES A POINT IN TIME WHEN YOU HAVE TO SEE IT OUT, IS IT UNCOVER THE -- UNCOMFORTABLE. IT IS ABOUT THE SANCTITY OF ELECTIONS EVEN WITH OUR CONTRACT CONTRACTINGS AND GOING FORWARD, THAT IS WHAT IS IS AT STAKE AND THAT'S THE UNDERLYING ISSUE WITH THIS AND TO THAT END, I THINK WE NEED TO AS A COUNCIL TO REVIEW POLICIES, THAT WILL COME. WE NEED TO REVIEW POLICY WITH CONTRACT AND R S B. WE ALREADY HAVE A HUNTING LEASE, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE A CURRENT EXAMPLE BEFORE WE GET TO THAT POINT, AS A COUNCIL WE NEED TO DISCUSS WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THE BID PROCESS AND WHAT WE WANT TO PUT IN TO MAKE SURE THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AND THAT WE ARE NOT IN THIS POSITION, THAT STAFF IS NOT PUT INTO THIS POSITION AND THOSE THAT ARE BIDDING IS SEEN AS A FAIR AND OPEN PROCESS. WE ARE TASKED WITH THE PROCESS. AT THE SAME TIME I AM NOT A LAWYER, AND I AM GLAD I AM NOT A LAWYER BUT I CAN'T QUOTE LAW BUT I WILL QUOTE SHAKESPEARE. WE THINK THOU DOES PROTEST TOO TESTIFY.
WELL YOU KNOW EVERY TIME SOMEBODY QUOTES SHAKESPEARE, IT REMINDS ME OF WHEN HE SAID LET'S KILL ALL THE LAWYERS.
I DID NOT SAY THAT, MR. CAINNY AND I DON'T KNOW HOWEVER ,IF THIS IS PROPER PROCEDURE BUT IT WOULD BE HOOF COUNCIL THAT WOULD INCLUDE ALL OF THE TESTIMONY BE SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE OFFICIAL MINUTES SO IT'S NOT JUST REFERENCED TO ANOTHER SITE. THIS SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS ANOTHER PART OF THE AUTOMATIC RECORD SO IT IS RECORDED.
IMPROBABLELY GOING TO -- I AM UNCOMFORTABLE GOING FORWARD WITH A BLANKET PACKAGE, OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION OR TO THE ELECTIONS COMMISSION. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS MY POSITION I DON'T SEE THAT AS MY POSITION TO BRING ETHICS CHARGES AGAINST MY COLLEAGUES. I JUST -- I DON'T SEE THAT. IF THERE ARE THOSE THAT THEY BELIEVE SHOULD GO FORWARD, FAIR ENOUGH, THATS A PROCESS -- THERE IS A PROCESS, THEN GO FORWARD BUT I JUST CAN'T DO THAT AND I JUST DONE THINK THAT IS WHERE WE AS COUNCIL SHOULD GO IT IS TIME TO FINISH THIS AND IT'S TIME TO BRING THIS TO A REST, TO A CONCLUSION. AND I THINK THE END OF THE MATTER WILL BE IN THE END OF THE GENERAL ELECTION. THAT IS WHERE THIS WILL BE PLAYED OUT AND IT SHOULD, HOWEVER WE ENJOY. AND THIS IS DISTURBING AT BEST, IT IS UNSETTLING AND IT PUTS ME ON GUARD FOR ANYBODY THAT CHOOSES TO ENTER POLITICS. IT REALLY -- IT IS A PRESIDENT THAT HAS NEVER BEEN, LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY, DOCUMENTED. AND MR. WAGNER, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH TRYING TO LINEUP YOUR CANDIDATES, I GET THAT, I GET THAT. AND FOR THE RECORD WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MOST OF THEM I ADVERTISED I BEAT FOR THE RECORD SO I WOULD NOT SUGGEST ANYBODY. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT SUCCESSION BUT WE MAY WANT TO SET POLICY THAT NO POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT OCCURS ON COUNTY PROPERTY, ANY COUNTY PROPERTY. LET'S SET THE STANDARD AS A COUNCIL GOING FORWARD .
I HAVE READ ALMOST EVERYTHING AND SOME OF IT HAZARDOUS APPOINTED ME AND SOME OF IT HAS SURPRISED ME SOME OF IT SURPRISED ME AND I BELIEVE IN THE PROCESS OF GOVERNMENT AND MR. CAINNY I THINK YOU HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB FOR US. THIS SHOULD NOT SURPRISE ANYBODY. IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME EXCEPT THAT IT'S ALL DOCUMENTED. SO THAT IS ABOUT ALL I HAVE TO SAY OTHER THAN I JUST -- I AM PERSONALLY NOT COMFORTABLE GOING FORWARD WITH AN ELECTIONS COMPLAINT AND I AM JUST NOT GOING TO DO IT BUT THAT'S MY COMMENTS FOR NOW, THANK YOU.
I THINK THAT WE ALREADY HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T PUT CAMPAIGN SIGNS ON COUNTY PROPERTY, IS THAT TRUE?
MR. HE CAN KITER, YOU HAVE THE --
YOU HAVE THE CHAIR.
SPEAKING TO THE MOTION, I THINK -- NOT SPEAKING FOR MYSELF BUT PUTTING SOMEONE BEFORE THE ELECTION COMMISSION BUT IF YOU ARE ASKING MR. CAINNY TO SIGN A SWORN COMPLAINT THOSE ARE ISSUES HE MAY NOT HAVE CONSIDERED BEFORE TODAY WHEN HE WAS ASKED TO BE A FACT FINDER AND IN THE COURSE THEY HAVE UPONNERRED -- POND DERRED, I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY IF IT IS THE TEE SIRE TO DO THAT IN THE STATUTE OF THIS LAW AND I THINK MUCH OF THE ELECTIONS COMMISSION ISSUES WILL FALL OUTSIDE AND I THINK HE NEEDS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT. AND SPEAKING FROM THIS, IGNORE THIS QUESTION AND IF HE THOUGHT THAT THE REVIEW OF THE RF P WERE A TOPIC FOR THE ETHICS COMMISSION THAN HE NEEDS TO REVIEW THAT AS WELL BEHALF HE WOULD SIGN THAT BUT HE COULD SPEAK ABOUT --
WELL, YOUR LIGHT JUST WENT OFF, DID YOU TURN YOURS OFF?
MISS NORTH THINK -- I WILL DEFER TO HER BECAUSE SHE HAS NOT SPOKEN YET.
OKAY, WOW, THAT WAS AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE BUT NOT MUCH HELP TO THE LAYPERSON AND THAT'S WHAT IS I AM. FOR ME, IT DID SURPRISE ME BECAUSE I WAS -- IT WAS VERY AND THE REALITY IS, THERE IS 23,000 DOLLARS OUT HERE IN CONTRIBUTIONS AND WHEN I STARTED ASKING ABOUT THIS, BACK IN -- I THINK IT WAS JUNE 0 JUNE- ^
CONCERNS GASH MY CONCERNS WERE THE TAX BENCHES BECAUSE EVERY ONE OF THOSE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE PAID AND THEY COULD NOT DELEGATE THEIR AUTHORITY BECAUSE THEYSWERE GIVEN THOSE BUS BENCHES. SO IN ALL OF THE CONVERSATION, THAT PIECE GOT LOST AND IT MERVED INTO -- MORPHED INTO SOMETHING MUCH BIGGER BUT WHAT IS MERVED -- I WOULD CONTINUE TO SAY I PACKAGED IT UP AS A PACKAGE AND ASKED THEM TO SORT IT THROUGH FOR US AND GIVE US SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. IT IS NOT AWAY HUNT AND IT IS ABOUT WHAT CAN WE DO BETTER FROM A COUNCIL PERSPECTIVE TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THEIR POLL SUGGESTIONS ARE ACTING APPROPRIATELY.
WE NEED TO HAVE SOME HELP IN IDENTIFYING WHAT THE ETHICS COMMISSION OR ELECTIONS COMMISSIONER IS AND I AM STILL UNCLEAR ON THAT MR. HE CANNER BECAUSE I AM -- EEKER. WHAT WOULD BE -- WHAT WOULD IT BE BECAUSE THEY NEVER ALLOW THAT THE LEVEL OF INFLUENCE THAT PEOPLE THINK HAPPENED WITH THIS AND THAT ALSO WHAT IS OUT THERE. I AM PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD AND IF THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE WE CAN DO I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN IT WITHOUT SIGNING OFF ON IT AND PUT IT INTO A POSITION WHERE HE IS SIGNING OFF ON IT BUT WE AS A COUNCIL SAY, THIS HAPPENED IN OUR COUNTY AND WE WANT TO FIX IT AND WE WANT YOU -- NOT TO FOCUS ON INDIVIDUALS. I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS AFFAIR AND RESPONSIBLE WAY BUT THANKS JOHN, BY ITS WAY THEY CAN'T JUST NOT DO ANYTHING WITH IT, SOMETHING HAS TO COME OUT OF THIS TO PREVENT THIS FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN, BECAUSE THIS IS BAD STUFF, IT IS BAD STUFF. SO WHETHER WE SEND IT TO OUR CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AND I DON'T KNOW MR. EEKER IF THAT THIS IS THE PLACE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, HERE IS SOME RECOMMENDATIONS I CERTAINLY THINK THIS IS A CONCERN AND YOU AND I HAVE HAD THIS CONVERSATION AND NOW I GET WHY THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS TWO ATTORNEYS, ONE FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD AND ONE FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT. I SAY OKAY, I KIND OF GET THAT NOW, BECAUSE I WAS REALLY CONCERNED WHEN YOU WOULD NOT SHARE INFORMATION WITH -- WITH ME, SO YET THERE IS A LOT OF THE PIECES THAT ARE NOT YET CLOSED AND THAT'S WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR, I AM LOOKING FOR PACKAGING IT UP AND HELP US MAKE SENSE OF THIS AND HELP US FROM PREVENTING THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN AND I AM NOT INTERESTED IN ATTACKING ANYBODY AND HOW DO WE FIX IT, IF IT IS THE CHARTER REVIEW THAN THAT WAS IT. I AM DONE.
CAN I GO FIRST? I DIDN'T TURN ON MY LIGHT THOUGH..
IF IT IS OVER TWO YEARS OLD, OUR ELECTIONS COMMISSIONS CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH IT. IF IT IS -- IF IT IS AN ETHICS COMMISSION AND HAVING GONE THROUGH ALL OF THESE ETHICS COURSES WE ALWAYS HAVE TO GO THROUGH, THEY CONSTANTLY TELL US, YOU CAN'T DO A BLANKET SORT OF THINGS WHERE YOU HAVE TO HAVE COORDINATING EVIDENCE SO PACKING THIS THING UP AND SAYING OFF YOU GO, HERE WE GO. I AM A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH DOING IT THIS WAY. AND THIS IS AN ISSUE WE NEED TO ADDRESS. WE NEED TO CLEAN OUR HOUSE UP FIRST BEFORE SENTINGIT AND ANOTHER ISSUE IS, WHO WILL SIGN THIS COMPLAINT, ARE YOU WILLING TO FILE INDIVIDUALS CHARGES TO INDIVIDUALS TO SEND THIS OFF? IF NOT, THAN MR. CAINNY, WE ARE AT AN IMPASSE AND WHO IS WILLING TO PUT THEIR NECK ON THE LINE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK AS AN ELECTED BODY, WE ARE EVEN ALLOWED TO GO THAT ROUTE. I DON'T EVEN THINK WE WERE ALLOWED TO GO THAT ROUTE BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER BEEN MENTIONED, AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN DO THAT, SO I AM A LITTLE UNSTABLE.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE HERE ARE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT. THE -- YOU KNOW WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE WHO OBTAINED CONTRIBUTIONS AND THEY HAVE OBTAINED THEM FROM THE COMPANY THAT PERFORMED A SERVICE FOR THEM. THE COMPANY PROVIDED ADVERTISING SERVICES FOR THEM AND WE WILL FAX YOU THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE AND THAT WILL COVER THE ADVERTISING WE DID FOR YOU. THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE VERY SUSPICIOUS AND THAT WOULD BE THE SORT OF THING THAT PUT YOU ON NOTICE THAT THERE IS PROBLEM THERE THAT YOU REALLY SHOULD KNOW THERE IS DIFFICULTY THERE AND PARTICULARLY BY AND LARGE, THE PEOPLE THEY PUT DOWN ARE PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THEM AND FAMILY MEMBERS OF THEIRS AND FRIENDS AND THAT KIND OF THING. PEOPLE WHO DONE MAKE A LOT OF MONEY, PEOPLE WHO MAKE $40,000 A YEAR, THESE ARE NOT WEALTHY PEOPLE. ANYBODY WHO TALKS POLITICS, THEY DO NOT MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS BUT IF THEY LOVE YOU, THEY LOVE YOU VERY MUCH AND THAT IT IS ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTION YOU GET FROM SOMEBODY WHO MAKES THAT KIND OF MONEY, THAT SORT OF PERSON GIVING YOU 500 IS JUST NOT CREDIBLE. THAT IS WHY I BROUGHT UP MR. COST TELL LOW, IT IS JUST TOO MUCH TROUBLE TO LOOK BEHIND THIS TO FIGURE OUT WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO GIVE ME THE SIGNS AND DID THEY REALLY PROVIDE THE MONEY TO THE SIGNED COMPANY TO MAKE THIS WORK? REALLY WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE IS THEY ARE NOT FULL COULDN'T DRIVERS -- THEY ARE NOT REALLY WORKING OUT AND WITH A WINKER AND A NOD THAT IT IS OKAY BUT THE STATE ATTORNEY DID NOT THINK HE COULD PROVE THAT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I'VE GOT THAT AND I UNDERSTAND. I WAS HOPING THAT THE ETHICS COMMISSION WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE THAT UP AND TAKE IT UP IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CERTIFICATION INDEED WHAT MR. CHENY BROUGHT OUT WOULD BE THAT WHAT IS ACCURATE, YOU ARE TESTIFYING THE VERACITY IS THERE AN ACCURATE FROM BEGINNING TO END AND WOULD BE THE SORT OF THING THAT WOULD BE DILIGENCE THAT WENT BEHIND IT TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AND THAT'S WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT -- AND THAT WOULD WOULD BE SOMETHING WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE 2012 ELECTION, IT WOULD NOT BE ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE BEYOND THAT. THE OTHER THING WOULD BE THE FUNDRAISER THAT WAS HELD DOWN AT THE PIER. TO ME THAT WAS MR. CHENY, IF I AM CORRECT, THE MANAGER OF THE PIER TESTIFIED THAT MR. WAGNER WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT FOR THAT, IS THAT RIGHT?
THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION.
AND THAT THE OWNER TESTIFIED HE WAS TO PAY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT FOR THAT?
YES.
YOU ARE NODDING YES?
YES.
AND IT WAS MR. WAGNER GETTING ON THE TELEPHONE AND RAISING HIS HAND WITH THE MANAGER THAT GOT HIM TO SAY, OH WELL, WE WILL JUST GIVE IT TO YOU FREE, IS THAT RIGHT?
YES. YES.
AND THE WAITRESS WHO THOUGHT SHE WAS NOT GOING TO GET A TIP CAME OUT AND COMPLAINTED, AND MR. WAGNER CALLED THE MANAGER AND GOT HER FIRED, IS THAT RIGHT?
SHE GOT FIRED -- UDURING --
ON THE RECORD, SIR?
SHE GOT FIRED DURING THAT CONVERSATION AND I WOULD NOT SAY MR. WAGNER MADE THAT SUGGESTION BUT --
BUT HE GOT HER FIRED?
YEAH, WELL --
THOSE KIND TO ME ARE THE SOURCE OF THINGS THAT ARE TROUBLING AND I DO THINK NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. I DO THINK IT IS WHEN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ETHICS COMMISSION WHICH NEEDS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION BUT YOU ARE NOT TALKING AND YOU DON'T NEED THAT STANDARD OF DETERMINATION TO MAKE THAT COMPLAINT . THE WHOLE POINT AND THE ETHICS COMMISSION WOULD SORT THROUGH EVERYTHING AND COME OUT WITH WHAT IT CAME OUT WITH AND I WOULD BE PREPARED TO LIVE WITH THE RESULT BUT I SEE THAT THE REST OF THE COUNCIL WOULD PROBABLY NOT PREFER TO GO IN THAT DIRECTION, SO I AM WITHDRAWING MY MOTION. IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU?
MR. CHENY?
ONE MOMENT.
THE MOTION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FOR THE RECORD. NOW WE HAVE NO MOTION AT THE TABLE. [ CAPTIONER IN TRANSITION. ]
.
WHAT KEEPS COMING TO MY MIND IS BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE, SOME KIND.
THERE YOU GO.
THAT YOU WOULD CHARGE WITH GOING THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT TRANSPIRED, CONSIDERING WHAT LEGISLATION THEY WOULD RECOMMEND AND THEY WOULD BRING IT BACK TO YOU.
THAT IS PROBABLY AN EXCELLENT IDEA. BEFORE -- I'LL MAKE A MOTION IN THAT REGARD. BEFORE WE GET THERE, I WANT TO CLEAR UP A FEW THINGS. IF YOU HEARD MR. WAGNER'S DISCUSSION, IT WAS -- YOU WOULD THINK THAT YOU AND I WERE IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION. NOW, WHEN YOU FIRST GOT HIRED, I SENT YOU AN E-MAIL SAYING, YOU KNOW, MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THIS WAS ALL ABOUT, YOU ASKED ME FOR INFORMATION, AND I SENT IT TO YOU. THAT WAS IN THE VERY BEGINNING. HOW MANY CONVERSATIONS HAVE YOU AND I HAD SINCE THIS INVESTIGATION STARTED?
AFTER THAT INITIAL--
AFTER THAT INITIAL BIT.
GATHERING OF INFORMATION. NOT A WHOLE LOT. NOT AS MANY AS MR. WAGNER MAKES IT SEEM. EVERY NOW AND THEN, YOU HAVE CALLED ME OR I'VE CALLED YOU A COUPLE TIMES ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION ABOUT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. BUT I DON'T REMEMBER YOU EVER TELLING ME, MAKE SURE TO MAKE JOSH WAGNER LOOK BAD OR WHATEVER. THAT WASN'T THAT WAS ALL ABOUT.
OR ANYONE ELSE.
THAT'S CORRECT.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION, THERE WAS NO CONSTANT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN US. YOU CONDUCTED THIS INVESTIGATION PRETTY MUCH ON YOUR OWN.
THAT'S CORRECT.
AND BESIDES THAT, OUR RELATIONSHIP IS SUCH THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WORKED TOGETHER BEFORE, YOU WERE MY BOSS.
THAT'S CORRECT.
SORT OF.
WELL, I DON'T RECALL YOU EVER TAKING ORDERS FROM ME BACK IN THOSE DAYS.
NO, YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
AND I DON'T THINK YOU'VE CHANGED SINCE. SO ALL OF THAT, I THINK, IS PRETTY MUCH A NONISSUE. THE IDEA OF THE BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION, I THINK, IS PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA. AND I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION THAT WE APPOINT A BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION TO COME UP WITH PROCEDURES WITH REGARD TO ETHICS AND PURCHASING AND OTHER ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS.
SECOND.
I HAVE A MOTION TO CREATE A COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS THIS AND COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS. MOTION MADE BY MR. DANIELS. SECOND FROM MS. NORTHEY. FURTHER -- DO YOU STILL WISH TO RETAIN THE FLOOR, SIR?
NO, I DO NOT.
OKAY. MR. WAGNER, COMMENTS, SIR?
THERE'S AN EASY SOLUTION TO THIS. A BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE IS GOING TO TEAR EVERYBODY APART MORE. THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY SHOULD BE DONE IS JUST WHEN YOU DO THE RFP FOR THE BENCHES, DON'T ALLOW POLITICAL ADS ON THE BENCHES. I CAN TELL YOU, THE RFP ONE TIME, ONE ALLEGATION, FIVE YEARS AGO, AND YOU WANT TO ESTABLISH A BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE TO DEAL WITH A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EXIST? I MEAN, I, I -- WHY DON'T WE JUST AS A COUNCIL SAY THERE'S A PROBLEM HERE. I DON'T THINK OBVIOUSLY IT RISES TO THE LEVEL ANYONE SAYS. FOR ME, THE POLITICAL ADS, WHO IS GOING TO TAKE A BUS BENCH AD AS AN IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION?
THAT WOULD BE THE LAST PLACE--
I SAY WE'VE KILLED THAT.
SO MY POINT IS, YOU PUT A BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE, I'M GOING TO MAKE IT EASY. USE PORT ORANGE AS YOUR EXAMPLE. IF YOU WANT TO GO THERE, HAVE A GREAT TIME. I'M NOT VOTING FOR IT. THIS COUNCIL CAN MAKE DECISIONS. YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE SPECIAL COUNSEL, ALTHOUGH I DON'T AGREE WITH A LOT OF THINGS. HE CAN GIVE RECOMMENDATIONS. IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO SAY DON'T ALLOW POLITICAL ADS ON A BUS BENCH. YOU CAN PUT IN PLACE NO DIRECT CONTACT WITH ANY EMPLOYEE, ALTHOUGH I ESTABLISHED THAT YOU COULD CONTACT AN EMPLOYEE. SO THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME ISSUES BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT DON'T TRY TO FIX SOMETHING THAT BASED ON A VERY BAD SITUATION OF, JUST A BAD SITUATION WHERE THINGS HAPPEN AND SOMEONE WENT TO JAIL. DON'T OVERLY CORRECT SOMETHING. THERE ARE SOME CHANGES THAT CAN BE MADE THAT I WOULD AGREE TO, JUST BECAUSE I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO EVER HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN. I MEAN, IT'S JUST SILLY. THAT BEING SAID, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT ONE THING. I HAVE READ THESE DEPOSITIONS AND AT LEAST IT CAN GET USE OUT OF IT. IT WOULD BE VERY -- I CAN'T EVEN SAY THE WORD. IT WOULD BE WRONG TO SAY BY MS. NORTHEY THAT SHE DID NOT WANT THIS TO BE AN ATTACK, WHEN IN THE DEPOSITION SHE SHOWS UP WITH PICTURES OF JOYCE CUSACK'S CAMPAIGN OFFICE AND JUST PROVIDES THEM TO MR. KANEY AND SAYS, HERE'S JOYCE CUSACK'S OFFICE. I MEAN, LET'S ALL BE SERIOUS HERE. LET'S -- IT IS WHAT IT IS. BUT THE RECORD REFLECTS ITSELF. SO THAT BEING SAID, I'M NOT SUPPORTING BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE. I THINK -- DO WE NEED TO ADDRESS ISSUES? YES. WILL I SUPPORT ADDRESSING THEM? YES. BUT I THINK THE COUNCIL CAN ADDRESS THEM. THANK YOU.
VERY WELL. MR. PATTERSON? I WAS JUST GOING TO GO FURTHER QUESTIONS, SIR.
PRETTY MUCH. YOU KNOW, IN 2006 TO 2008, I CHAIRED THE ETHICS AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE IN THE LEGISLATURE, SO I'M VERY AWARE OF THE PROCESS AND WHAT'S INVOLVED IN IT. AND WE MADE SOME CHANGES BECAUSE IN THE PAST SOME THIRD PARTY OUTSIDER COULD JUST SUDDENLY FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST SOMEBODY AND THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW, THEY WERE OUT THERE WITH THE POSSE GOING AFTER A CANDIDATE. SO WE CHANGED THAT TO MAKE IT SO IT'S A LITTLE TOUGHER IN THE SENSE THAT THE ACTUAL PERSON THAT WITNESSED THE EVENT COULD FILE THE ETHICS COMPLAINT OR THE ELECTIONS COMPLAINT. YOU KNOW, EVERY CANDIDATE SIGNS A DOCUMENT THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO TURN IN WITHIN 10 DAYS OF FILING THEIR INTENT TO RUN FOR OFFICE, THAT THEY HAVE READ AND THEY UNDERSTAND CHAPTER 106. I DON'T -- IT'S NOT A SUGGESTION ON HOW YOU RUN A CAMPAIGN. IT'S THE ACTUAL LAWS OF FLORIDA. AND ANY CANDIDATE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THEY PUT ON THAT CAMPAIGN REPORT. I'M REALLY NOT HAPPY WITH THE WAY THIS IS GOING, BUT THIS IS ABOUT THE BEST I THINK WE CAN DO. I WANT TO SEE SOME CHANGES. I THINK IN OUR RFP PROCESS, WITH POLITICAL CAMPAIGN ADS IN OUR RIGHT OF WAYS, THIS IS OUR COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY, THAT SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT THAT. AND I THINK WE NEED TO AGGRESSIVELY, AND I MEAN AGGRESSIVELY GO AFTER WAVERLY FOR THE COMMISSION ON THOSE BUS BENCHES THAT THEY CLAIMED WERE IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS. THEY OWE IT TO US. I MEAN, THAT'S--
THEY OWE BACK TAXES, TOO, FOR THE RECORD.
YEAH. SO THAT'S JUST MY COMMENTS. MR. CHAIR, I'LL MOVE THE QUESTION.
THE QUESTION IS CALLED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, CALL THE QUESTION. WE'RE CALLING THE QUESTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNATURE FYE BY AYE. OPPOSED? UNANIMOUS CARRY. THE MOTION IS FOR BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS, TO GET THIS REPORT, REVIEW IT, AND TO COME BACK WITH SUGGESTIONS. ALL THOSE -- [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
HOW ARING GOING TO APPOINT THIS COMMITTEE?
MOTION WAS JUST TO CREATE THE COMMITTEE. WE WILL HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE RULES ON HOW TO CREATE THIS COMMITTEE AFTER WE CREATE THE COMMITTEE. THAT REALLY DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. THAT DID NOT MAKE A LICK OF SENSE! WE WILL FIGURE OUT HOW TO APPOINT AFTER WE CREATE THE COMMITTEE. THAT'S--
LET'S ADJOURN IT TO THE NEXT MEETING.
WE ARE DIRECTING STAFF TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING.
OKAY. ALL THOSE -- ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED?
ME.
MR. WAGNER, MR. DAVIS OPPOSED. VERY WELL.
WITH THAT SAID, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
YES, WE'RE -- SAY WHAT? [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
WE WERE GOING TO TAKE A LUNCH BREAK.
SHE MENTIONED EARLIER SHE WANTED IT IN THE RECORD. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS IN THE RECORD OR NOT.
OKAY.
IS THIS IN THE RECORD? THIS REPORT?
YEAH, I WOULD LIKE -- I THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE US TO MAKE ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS IN THE MATTER OF THE RECORD IN THIS PARTICULAR MEETING.
I AGREE. THIS IS PUBLIC RECORD.
TO BE INTO THE MINUTES.
WE'RE GOING TO DO NUMBER 5. WE HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF CITIZENS WAITING HERE FOR NUMBER 5. I AM SO SORRY.
ITEM 5, BUDGET RESOLUTION, APPLICATION FOR THE--
MR. CHAIR?
YES, SIR.
BASED ON YOUR DIRECTION, ONE OF THE PERSONS WHO WANTED TO SPEAK HERE JUST WENT TO LUNCH. THERE WAS ANOTHER PERSON, THERE WAS ANOTHER PERSON.
SORRY. COME ON BACK.
THERE WAS ANOTHER PERSON.
THEY ARE HERE NOW. THIS SHOULDN'T TAKE--
MR. STEVE SALLY WAS HERE.
OH, YEAH, WHERE'S STEVE?
BASED ORDER YOUR DIRECTION, I TOLD HIM WE WERE GOING TO BREAK FOR LUNCH.
STEVE SALLY WASN'T HERE. HE DIDN'T FILL OUT A SLIP. HE CAN'T SPEAK. I'LL HAVE TO TALK TO MR. SALLY. ANYWAYS, LET'S GET ON HERE NUMBER 5, BUDGET RESOLUTION, APPLICATION FOR THE EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANT GRANT COUNTY WIDE
FUNDING. ITEM
5. OKAY. THE FLOOR IS YOURS, MR. BYRNE.
GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M DAVE BYRNE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE ALLOCATION OF $163,427 THROUGH THE EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT. THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY ADVISORY BOARD ARE SCREENED, FIVE APPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDED THREE FOR APPROVAL, AND THAT'S WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY, MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL.
THANK YOU, SIR. ANY FURTHER STAFF REPORT ON THIS? NOPE. VERY WELL. LET'S HEAR FROM VICTORIA McKIRK. SHE IS OUR CITIZEN THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
YES. OKAY. VICTORIA McGURK, 954 BRAMBLE BUSH CIRCLE WEST IN PORT ORANGE, 32127.
YOU HAVE THE FLOOR FOR THREE MINUTES, MADAM.
HI. I AM VICTORIA McGURK, PRESIDENT OF THE STRAIGHT UP SOLDIER FOUNDATION. I AM THE MOTHER OF SOMEONE WHO WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BID HIS TEACHER AND HIS TESTIMONY WHEN HE WAS ONLY 10 YEARS OLD PUT HIS PREDATOR IN PRISON FOR 155 YEARS. I AM HERE TODAY ASKING FOR YOUR HELP TO CONTINUE MY SON'S DREAM OF HELPING OTHER VICTIMS LIKE HIM. MY GRANT WAS WRITTEN TO HELP VICTIMS WHO HAVE NO INSURANCE AND NO WAY TO PAY FOR THEIR MUCH-NEEDED COUNSELING. WE HAVE BEEN HELPING AND PAYING FOR VICTIMS SINCE 2012. MY MAIN REASON TO COME HERE TODAY IS TO TELL YOU THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT OUR GRANT WAS TREATED FAIRLY BY YOUR ADVISORY BOARDS AND YOUR COUNTY STAFF. FIRST OF ALL, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO BE AWARE OF IS THAT OUR COUNTY IS IN A CRISIS MODE WHEN IT COMES TO HANDLING KIDS OR ADULTS WHO HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ABUSED. THE MAIN PROVIDER OF THESE SERVICES THAT CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER, CLOSED ITS DOORS ON JUNE 30th. NOW, THREE MORE SEXUAL PREDATORS HAVE COME IN THE NEWS. I TRIED TO GET THE FACTS FROM TALLAHASSEE ON HOW MUCH THE CONTRACT WAS WORTH. THAT WAS AWARDED TO THE FIRST COAST CHILD PROTECTION TEAM AND HOUSE NEXT DOOR. BUT I COULD NOT. THE NEWS JOURNAL QUOTED THEY TOOK OVER A $2.5 MILLION CONTRACT THAT ONCE BELONGED TO CAC. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO KNOW FROM YOU COUNTY STAFF, COUNCIL PEOPLE, WHY THEY -- YOU ARE NOT GOING AFTER THE $304,000 THAT WAS MISAPPROPRIATED BY CAC. THAT MONEY COULD BE USED FOR OTHER WORTHY CAUSES. NOW, I WOULD EXPLAIN WHY WE WERE NOT TREATED FAIRLY. COUNTY STAFF STATED MY OUTCOME MEASURES WERE NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH AND THE BOARD STATED THEY WOULD HELP ME WORK ON MY GRANT NEXT YEAR. WE ARE IN CRISIS NOW. I HAVE ALREADY GOTTEN CALLS FROM FOUR MOTHERS INVOLVED IN THESE RECENT ARRESTS. HOUSE NEXT DOOR'S APPLICATION ON PAGE 3, IT MENTIONS THAT, QUOTE, EMPHASIZING THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AND UNDERSCORING IT AS A PRIORITY, VOLUSIA COUNCIL MEMBER JOYCE CUSACK, ALSO A VOTING MEMBER OF THIS BOARD, CONTACTED HOUSE NEXT DOOR AND REQUESTED WE PROVIDE SERVICES AT SOUTHWEST MIDDLE SCHOOL. THE SCHOOL WITHIN THE SPRING HILL COMMUNITY, END QUOTE. NOT ONLY DID MS. CUSACK VOTE ON THIS APPLICATION, SHE GAVE IT A VERY HIGH SCORE. THAT SEEMS TOTALLY UNFAIR TO ME. THIRD, WHEN I SENT E-MAILS BACK TO THE COUNTY ASKING QUESTIONS, THEY ANSWERED SOME OF THEM, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. AS TO EACH APPLICATION THAT WAS AWARDED MONEY, SOME OF THEM HAD UNIT COSTS FOR 15 MINUTES, 35 MINUTES, AN HOUR, AND OURS WAS HAVEN RECOVERY WAS 254. STEWART MARSHMAN WAS 253. HOUSE NEXT DOOR WAS 108. HOURS WAS 5750. NOTES WAS A DOLLAR. ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS WHY NOT OTHER APPLICATIONS, MY APPLICATION, NOT ONE OTHER APPLICATION HAD TO ADDRESS A LOT OF THINGS THEY ASKED ME TO ADDRESS. I DID NOT THINK THAT WAS FAIR. THEY GAVE ME A LIST OF THINGS I HAD TO DO. IT STILL SAYS 27 MINUTES.
NO, MA'AM.
SECONDS.
YOU'RE OUT OF TIME. IT'S GOING UP.
MR. CHAIR--
IT GOES FROM ZERO AND STARTS TO GO UP.
MR. CHAIR, AS A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE, I WOULD BEG INDULGENCE TO TALK ABOUT THAT CONCERN.
SURE. HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU RECOMMEND?
AT LEAST THREE MORE MINUTES. IS THAT OKAY?
WITH THE COUNCIL? GOOD. RESET THE CLOCK, PLEASE, FOR THREE MORE MINUTES.
I'M GOOD. I SAID PRETTY MUCH WHAT I WANT TO SAY.
OKAY.
YOU KNOW, I GOT -- OUR UNITS WERE 57. NOPE, WHO IS A WONDERFUL PROGRAM, WHO SPOKE EARLIER, BUT FOR MOST OF YOU GOT HERE TODAY, HER CLASS WAS ONLY A DOLLAR PER UNIT. THE COUNTY GAVE ME A LIST OF THINGS AND SAID I HAD TO ADDRESS THEM AND THEN I READ EVERYBODY'S GRANTS AND THREE OR FOUR OF THEM, NONE OF THEM SPEAK IN ENGLISH, SAID I HAD TO HAVE A BILINGUAL PERSON, NOT ONE OTHER GRANT HAD THAT IN THERE. WHY DID THEY TELL ME I HAD TO HAVE THAT IN THERE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD WE GET A STAFF REPORT ON THIS?
COULD SOMEONE FROM THE STAFF TALK ABOUT THIS?
MR. BYRNE'S LOOKING THAT UP RIGHT NOW.
MA'AM, THAT'S IT.
WHAT, THAT'S IT?
GO AHEAD AND HAVE A SEAT.
THAT'S ALL, OKAY. MR. CHAIR?
YES.
DAVE WILL ADDRESS -- WE TALKED INTERNALLY. THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS YOU HAVE A FINITE AMOUNT OF MONEY, 163,000. YOU'VE GOT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY GETTING GRANTS AS THAT COMMITTEE DIVIDES UP THAT MONEY. YOU GOT TWO ADDITIONAL REQUESTS, TWO ADDITIONAL REQUESTS -- THE ADDITIONAL REQUESTS, TOGETHER WITH THE MONEY THAT ONE GROUP WAS GIVEN LESS AMOUNTS TO ABOUT $80,000 MORE. SO THAT'S A 50% INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THIS GRANT. THERE IS NO 50% INCREASE. WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SUGGEST IS -- I'LL LET DAVE GET INTO THE SPECIFICS. GO AHEAD, DAVE. THEN I'LL COMMENT ON THEM.
YES. FOLLOWING UP ON MR. DENENE, WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS. THERE HAS BEEN A QUESTION RAISED ABOUT THE PROCESS HERE AND WHETHER FOLKS THAT ARE ON THE REVIEW COMMITTEE SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE FUNDS. WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ANY CONFLICT, BUT I THINK SOMEONE COULD RAISE THE QUESTION THAT IT MAY BE THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT, AS WELL AS SOME QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE CRITERIA ARE AS SOLID AS THEY SHOULD BE, SO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO YOU IS THAT WE COULD RELEGATE THIS PROCESS TO THE CFAB BOARD, WHICH IS VERY, VERY FAMILIAR WITH GRANT RECEIPTS, REVIEWING APPLICATIONS, ASK THEM TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE CRITERIA, ASK THEM TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE SCORING, AND ASK THEM TO REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT YEAR'S ALLOCATIONS. WE THINK THAT WOULD BE JUST A CLEANER WAY TO DO IT.
NOW, IN ADDITION TO THAT, I THINK, SO THAT WE GET EVERYBODY ON EVEN KEEL, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT THE COMMITTEE, WHILE A GOOD COMMITTEE AND WE HAVE GOOD MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE, WE MAY HAVE OUTLIVED OUR NEED FOR THAT COMMITTEE FOR THIS ISSUE. THIS IS A SMALL AMOUNT TO GET THIS COMMITTEE TOGETHER. WHILE I DON'T THINK HAPPENED IMPROPERLY, YOU CAN DRAW THE CONCLUSION, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MEMBERSHIP ON THE COMMITTEE. THAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL GROUPS THAT UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES AND AT THE SAME TIME HAVE TO WEIGH IN ON WHEN WE DIVIDE UP MONEY LIKE THIS. HERE'S OUR SUGGESTION. MAKE -- TAKE THE GROUP THAT WOULD HAVE -- THAT LOST MONEY THIS YEAR, THAT WAS A RECIPIENT LAST YEAR. I THINK IT'S ABOUT $20,000. WE CAN COME UP WITH THE $20,000 AND MAKE THEM WHOLE. THEN, WHAT WE WOULD DO IS IN THE FUTURE, REFER THIS GRANT OVER TO CFAB, WHICH I THINK THEY COULD THEN LOOK THROUGH AND MAKE SURE WHO IS APPLYING AND THERE WOULD BE NO ARGUMENT ABOUT BEING OBJECTIVE, AND ALSO TO GIVE A CHANCE TO THE TWO PEOPLE THAT WERE NEW, WHAT THEY COULD DO IS GO TO CFAB AND THEY COULD SUBMIT THEIR APPLICATION TO CFAB. CFAB WOULD LOOK AT IT AND THEY WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE FUNDED. NOW, THERE'S A LOT OF CRITERIA TO FOLLOW THROUGH. IF THEY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO BE FUNDED, THEN IF THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE, I COULD LOOK AT ONE-TIME FUNDING FOR THIS YEAR WITH THE IDEA THAT IT WOULD START INTO A NEW PROCESS IN THE NEXT YEAR. SO WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WAIT TO SEE IF THEY RECOMMENDED IT AND AT WHAT AMOUNT, AND I THINK WE COULD MAKE THE OTHER PERSON WHOLE AND I THINK FROM THEN ON, WE TAKE IT TO CFAB AND I THINK IT WOULD ELIMINATE THESE ISSUES. I THINK THAT WOULD GIVE EVERYONE A FAIR SHOT.
ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU CLEAR MY SCREEN, PLEASE?
WHAT -- WHOA. NO, IT'S FOR THIS.
OH, OKAY.
GEEZ.
I JUST LOST MY PLACE.
IT SAID THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE. [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
I'M SITTING HERE LOOKING. IT WAS KIND OF FUNNY, BECAUSE IT WAS THE SAME ORDER AND THAT WAS ON THE BLUE -- THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE. THANK YOU, MA'AM.
I LOST MY PLACE.
MS. CUSACK, BECAUSE SHE WAS ON THE BOARD, SHE WANTED TO SPEAK FIRST. SHOULD HAVE HIT YOUR BUTTON FIRST, BUT GO AHEAD. MR. WAGNER.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE. I WANTED THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT THIS COMMITTEE WORKED IN GOOD FAITH IN THIS SELECTION AND THERE WAS NOTHING INAPPROPRIATELY DONE. HOWEVER, WE HAVE THE FUNDING THAT WE WILL TRY TO EXTEND TO MAKE HAVEN RECOVERY WHOLE AND PROVIDE THEM WITH WHAT THEY HAD REQUESTED. AND TO THE NOPE OF VOLUSIA, FLAGLER, AND TO THE STRAIGHT UP SOLDIER, THAT WE WOULD FUND THAT ONE-TIME FUNDING. MR. CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT WE PROVIDE THEM WITH SOMEONE-TIME FUNDING AFTER THEY HAVE HAD THEIR INTERVIEW AND REVIEW WITH THE CFAB. I FEEL VERY STRONG ABOUT THIS. THERE WAS NOTHING, MA'AM, THAT WAS DONE INAPPROPRIATELY, AND YOU HAVE A CRITERIA THAT THEY -- THAT WE FOLLOWED IN ORDER TO DO THAT. SO I DON'T WANT YOU TO GO AWAY THINKING THAT WE WERE PULLING STRINGS OR DOING ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL -- EVERY ONE OF THESE PROGRAMS ARE SO WORTHY AND ARE SO HELPFUL TO OUR COMMUNITY. YOUR ORGANIZATION IS VERY IMPORTANT. THERE IS NOTHING ANY MORE DEVASTATING TO HAVE A CHILD WHO HAS BEEN MOLESTED. AND AS A NURSE, THE PROBLEMS THAT CAN EXIST AS A RESULT. SO ALL -- STEWART MARSHMAN, HAVEN, AND ALSO THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, THEY ALSO DO WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO BE GOOD STEWARDS. AND SO IF -- WHENEVER A TIME IS MADE TO MAKE THAT MOTION, I, MR. CHAIR, WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION TO REFER THEM TO CFAB FOR -- AND GET THEIR RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THAT BUDGET AT THAT TIME.
SO YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION. WHAT IS THE MOTION, MA'AM?
THE MOTION IS THAT WE WOULD FUND THE THREE PROGRAMS AS INDICATED, STEWART MARSHMAN, HAVEN RECOVERY AND THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, AND REFER THE NOPE AND THE STRAIGHT UP SOLDIER TO CFAB FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATION AND IF APPROVED, THAT WE WOULD HAVE ONE-TIME FUNDING AVAILABLE OF 10,000.
WHATEVER THEY RECOMMENDED.
WHATEVER THEY RECOMMENDED.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. AND YOU WOULD SECOND IT, MR. WAGNER?
I'LL SECOND IT.
THAT'S A SECOND FROM MR. WAGNER. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
NO, YOU'RE WINNING.
YOU'RE WINNING.
DON'T SAY ANYTHING. YOU MAY TALK PEOPLE OUT OF IT!
MS. CUSACK, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
MR. WAGNER, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR NOW.
YOU'RE WINNING, SO DON'T SAY ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU CAN TALK PEOPLE OUT OF IT. NO, NO, NO, I'M JUST TRYING TO HELP. WHEN IT GOES TO CFAB, THEY ARE GREAT. THAT'S A GREAT BOARD AS WELL. I CAN TELL YOU THE NOPE ORGANIZATION IS EXCELLENT AS FAR AS WHAT THEY DO, AND THE STRAIGHT-UP SOLDIER, AS FAR AS WHAT THEY DO, THERE'S NO COST. THERE'S NO EXPENSE. IT'S JUST EVERY DOLLAR GOES TO A GOOD PRICE THAT THEY HAVE NEGOTIATED WITH THE COUNSELORS TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE KIDS. THERE'S NO OVERHEAD, ZERO, NONE. 100% GOES STRAIGHT THROUGH. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO DO IT. I THINK IT'S VERY--
FAIR.
IT'S A FAIRWAY TO DO IT, AND I APPRECIATE IT. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, I AM ON THE BOARD OF STRAIGHT UP SOLDIER. I'VE KNOWN THE FAMILY A LONG TIME. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG AT ALL. AND I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WHERE THEIR NEXT FUND-RAISER, IS AFTER ALL THE CONVERSATIONS WE JUST HAD. BECAUSE YOU WOULD FIND IT VERY PECULIAR, BUT I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. YOU CAN GUESS WHERE IT'S LOCATED.
MR. CHAIR, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CLARIFY, I DIDN'T KNOW IF I HEARD IT IN MS. CUSACK'S MOTION, BUT I THINK THE $20,000 FOR HAVEN RECOVERY TO MAKE THEM WHOLE WAS IN HER MOTION.
RIGHT.
OKAY.
YEAH, YEAH.
ALL RIGHT, MS. DENYS, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A PROCESS AND PROCEDURE. WE'RE POLICY MAKERS. WE HAVE A POLICY FOR A REASON. AND A PROCESS AND PROCEDURE FOR A REASON. I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT WE MOVE THESE TWO REQUESTS TO CFAB. THEY HAVE -- I HAVE VICE CHAIRED, AS YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE YEARS, CFAB. READ MULTIPLE GRANTS, THE CRITERIA AND THE SCORING. THERE IS A REASON -- THERE'S A REASON THESE TWO WERE NOT FUNDED. I DIDN'T READ THE CRITERIA. I DON'T GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. BUT I DO KNOW THE PROCESS EXISTS AND IT WORKS. AND THERE'S A SCORING MECHANISM. SO I HAVE TO TELL YOU STRAIGHT UP, IF I WAS TO TELL A CFAB BOARD MEMBER, MY FIRST RED FLAG WOULD BE, COUNCIL, HERE'S TWO NEW NONPROFITS WITH NO HISTORY, AND RIGHT AWAY THE FIRST ONE WANTS OVER 55,000, WHEN WE'RE ONLY GIVING THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, AN ORGANIZATION THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR YEARS, 30,000, AND STEWART MARSHMAN 104 AND OUR VOLUSIA COUNTY COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE, THAT WE GET DIRECT REQUESTS FOR, 16,000. KEEP THE PERSPECTIVE. THE PROCESS, THE POLICY, THE AMOUNT OF DOLLARS REQUESTED. I FOR ONE, I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I DON'T CARE WHO THE ORGANIZATION IS, I AM UNCOMFORTABLE WITH A FIRST-YEAR ORGANIZATION JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN APPLICATION DOESN'T DEMAND THAT COUNCIL FUNDS IT. IT JUST DOESN'T. WE DO HAVE CRITERIA, AND THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT. I'VE SAT ON THAT BOARD. WE FUNDED MANY GRANTS. AND WE'VE TURNED DOWN MULTIPLE GRANTS AND WE HAD TO GO BACK AND RECAPTURE DOLLARS FROM GRANTS WHERE THERE WERE RED FLAGS THROWN UP YEARS AGO. I'VE BEEN THROUGH THAT PROCESS, TOO. SO AS A COUNCIL, I THINK THIS IS GOOD TO SEND IT TO CFAB, BUT IF IT DOESN'T -- THIS IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC FUNDING MECHANISM. IT'S GOT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND SO IF WE MOVE IT UNDER THE CFAB UMBRELLA, THEN ALL OF THE CFAB CRITERIA EXISTS WITH THIS, OR NO?
YES.
DONNA IS SAYING NO.
DONNA BUTLER, COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE DIRECTOR. WHAT WE WOULD HAVE THE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ADVISORY BOARD, IF YOU AGREE DO, IS LOOK AT THE FDLE CRITERIA AND MAKE A DETERMINATION BASED ON THEIR CRITERIA. SO IT WOULD BE TWO SEPARATE POTS OF FUNDING THAT THE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ADVISORY BOARD WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING ON YOUR BEHALF. THEY WOULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU ON TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES. ONE IS THE RFP PROCESS AND THE CONTINGENCY FUNDS.
RIGHT.
AND THE SUMMER CAMP. THAT WILL BE ONE SET OF PROCESSES. THE OTHER WOULD BE THE JAG PROCESS.
OKAY. SEE, I GUESS THAT'S -- AND HERE, HERE'S WHERE WE OPEN THE DOOR. WE MOVE THIS OVER TO CFAB, WE'VE GOT THE JAG GRANTS, WE MOVE THIS OVER THERE. THEN DOES THAT MEAN IF WE USE A ONE-TIME FUNDING STREAM TO FUND THESE TWO, DOES THIS THEN AUTOMATICALLY SLIDE THIS UNDER CFAB AND THEN TAKE FROM THE OTHER POT OF DOLLARS?
NO. THESE WILL BE TWO SEPARATE POTS OF FUNDS. WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF WOULD BE IS IF YOU DECIDED -- LET'S GO BACK. IF CFAB REVIEWS THESE TWO APPLICATIONS AND MAKES A RECOMMENDATION, WHICH YOU DECIDE TO FUND, THAT WOULD COME OUT OF GENERAL FUND RESERVES.
ONE TIME.
ONE TIME. NEXT YEAR, WHEN CFAB, WHO IS STILL GOING TO BE OVERSEEING THE JAG PROCESS, LOOKS AT THE CRITERIA, IT'S REALLY TIGHT ON HOW THEY WRITE UP THEIR CRITERIA AND REVIEWS GRANT APPLICATIONS, WHATEVER THAT POT OF FUNDING IS, THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE TO SPEND.
SEE, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE RIGHT BACK HERE NEXT YEAR, WITH -- IF WE DO ONE-TIME FUNDING, ESPECIALLY -- I'M THROWING UP THE RED FLAG ON THIS. I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT. I'M JUST GOING ON THE RECORD.
MS. DENYS, I APPRECIATE YOUR DISCOMFORT. HERE'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, IS THAT I THINK -- WHILE I THINK THERE WAS NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE OF WHAT HAPPENED, I DO BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THAT GROUP AND WHAT THEY TRY TO DO AND HOW THEY HANDLED THOSE REVIEWS, SOMEONE COULD HAVE THE APPEARANCE THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT COULDN'T GIVE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY. SO WE'RE SAYING MAKE SURE THEY GET REVIEWED BY CFAB. WHAT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN IS TO SAY, WELL, LET'S HAVE THEM REVIEWED BY CFAB AT THIS POINT, WHERE THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE THEY WOULD GET FUNDED BECAUSE THEN IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE SENDING THEM OVER WITH NO OPPORTUNITY. I WILL TELL YOU, I DO THINK THAT CFAB, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE AND HOW THEY HOLD THEM TO STRICT CRITERIA, EVEN IF THEY GOT FUNDED THE ONE TIME -- NOW, FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD ASK SHOULD THEY BE FUNDED AND AT WHAT LEVEL. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPETE THE NEXT YEAR AGAINST EVERYONE ELSE, AND AT THAT POINT, I THINK WE WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE IF THEY TAKE MONEY FROM SOMEBODY AND MOVE THE MONEY AROUND. AT THIS POINT, I THINK THERE ARE SOME ISSUES ABOUT US BEING COMFORTABLE ABOUT THEM MOVING THE MONEY. SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT. BUT I WILL TELL YOU, THE BIGGEST ISSUE HERE WASN'T HOW THEY PICKED PEOPLE. LET'S NOT KID OURSELVES. THE BIG ISSUE IS THIS IS ABOUT $80,000 MORE.
FOR FIRST YEAR ORGANIZATIONS.
DOESN'T MATTER. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT IF -- THE ISSUE IS NEEDS AND PEOPLE COMING FOR THESE NEEDS WHEN WE ONLY HAVE X DOLLARS. AND THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS, I THINK, BECAUSE WE LIKE TO DO EVERYTHING TRANSPARENT. THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY SOMEBODY THINKS THAT SOMETHING WASN'T COMPLETELY ABOVE BOARD. THAT'S WHY WE MADE THIS RECOMMENDATION ONE TIME FOR THIS TO BE REVIEWED. BUT I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD TAKE YOUR WORDS TO HEART ABOUT QUALIFYING AND BEING COMPETITIVE.
JUST A QUICK POINT, THE AMOUNT OF DOLLARS IS ESTABLISHED BY FDLE EVERY YEAR, SO WE'RE TOLD HOW MANY DOLLARS ARE AVAILABLE. AND THIS YEAR'S ALLOCATION WAS SLIGHTLY LESS, FOR NEXT YEAR WAS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN THE CURRENT YEAR. SO THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IS SET BY THE GRANT ITSELF.
AND, SEE, THAT'S REALLY THE BIGGER PICTURE, BECAUSE WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, THIS STARTED OUT AT OVER A MILLION DOLLARS. IT WASN'T LIKE $1.4 MILLION. AND IT'S BEEN DECREASING EVERY YEAR. BUT WE HAVE A RECORD, WE HAVE A HISTORY OF ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE COMMUNITY, WITH A SMALLER POT OF DOLLARS, WITH AN EXPANDING SERVICE AREA. I GET THAT. SO IF WE -- SO I'M CAUTIOUS ABOUT JUST BECAUSE THERE'S AN APPLICATION, AND IT'S NOT PERSONAL, BECAUSE THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE'RE TASKED WITH A SMALLER POT OF DOLLARS AND SERVING A LARGER COMMUNITY. SO TO BROADEN THAT IN AN UNTESTED AREA, I THINK IS A RED FLAG. IT JUST IS.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. MS. NORTHEY, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, MA'AM.
THANK YOU. YEAH, I HAVE A LOT OF THE SAME CONCERNS. I CHAIRED THE EDWARD BYRNES JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT MANY YEARS AGO WHEN WE DID HAVE A LOT OF MONEY AND WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY SEEN IT BE REDUCED. BUT MY QUESTION IS HOW MANY APPLICATIONS DID WE REJECT FROM CFAB THAT WERE NEW? BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT TAKEN NEW APPLICATIONS AT CFAB, I THOUGHT. I THOUGHT WE HAD NOT TAKEN NEW APPLICATIONS. [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THERE'S -- [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
THE PROCESS IS -- THERE'S NO PROCESS HERE.
FOR CONTINGENCY FUNDS, WHICH IS THE ONLY PLACE WE WOULD ALLOW NEW APPLICATIONS.
FOR CFAB?
FOR CFAB. WE HAVE TWO PROCESSES. THE RFP PROCESS, WHERE THROUGH PURCHASING WE SELECT THE LEAD AGENCY, WHICH WE HAVE DONE AND YOU'VE GOT ONE MORE YEAR OF RENEWALS COMING IN FRONT OF YOU. THAT LEAD AGENCY THEN SUBCONTRACTS WITH THE--
WITH THE OTHER AGENCIES, CORRECT.
THAT THEY FIND APPROPRIATE TO MEET THAT, THOSE GUIDELINES THAT WERE APPROVED BY YOU, FOR WHAT SERVICES SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE COMMUNITY. THEN WE HAVE A SECONDARY SOURCE OF FUNDING, WHICH IS ONLY $100,000, WHICH IS CONTINGENCY GRANTS FOR ANY PROGRAM THAT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN ONE OF THE SERVICE AREAS UNDER THE RFP. SO THE ONE APPLICATION THAT WAS REVIEWED THIS YEAR AND WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCORING PROCESS WAS STRAIGHT UP SOLDIER.
THROUGH CFAB.
THROUGH CFAB.
SO THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH CFAB?
UNDER A CONTINGENCY GRANT.
ISN'T THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE?
WHAT THEY WERE TOLD -- NO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REVIEWING THEM UNDER THE JAG CRITERIA.
RIGHT.
NOT UNDER CFAB.
BUT WE'RE NOT FUNDING THEM OUT OF JAG. WE'RE GOING TO FUND THEM OUT OF CONTINGENCY, CORRECT?
NO.
NO?
NOT OUT OF WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ADVISORY BOARD CONTINGENCY. [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
OUR -- OKAY. SO JUST GENERAL FUND.
WE COME TO YOU -- YOU HAVE ON YOUR NEXT COUNTY COUNCIL -- YOU HAVE ON YOUR NEXT COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM, NEXT AGENDA, AN ITEM THAT LISTED OUT HOW THE RFP WILL BE ALLOCATED, HOW THE SUMMER SCHOLARSHIPS WILL BE ALLOCATED AND THE CONTINGENCY GRANT WOULD BE ALLOCATED.
OKAY. SO HOW MANY ORGANIZATIONS DID WE DENY FUNDING TO WITH CFAB?
ONE.
ONE. AND FOR WHAT REASON?
BECAUSE THEY WOULD FALL UNDER ONE OF THE RFPS.
OKAY.
THEY WERE DIRECTED TO TALK WITH LEAD AGENCY--
AND THAT WAS THIS ORGANIZATION HERE?
YES, MA'AM. AND THEY WERE DIRECTED TO TALK TO, WHICH THEY DID, TO STEVE SALLY, THE DIRECTOR.
AND WHAT DID STEVE SAY. WHERE'S STEVE?
HE LEFT BECAUSE IT WAS STATED TO HIM THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE DOING THIS AFTER LUNCH. WE'VE CALLED HIM TO SEE IF HE CAN GET BACK, BUT HE'S NOT HERE RIGHT NOW.
OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT WE ARE TRYING VERY HARD TO MAKE EVERYBODY WHOLE. BUT I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT PROCESS HERE. I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND, IF THEY DIDN'T QUALIFY FOR CFAB AND THEY DIDN'T QUALIFY FOR EDWARD BYRNE, WHY WE'RE PUTTING THEM BACK TO CFAB.
WE'RE SUGGESTING THE CHILDREN AND FAMILY ADVISORY BOARD BE THE BODY, A NEUTRAL BODY THAT MAKES THE DECISIONS ON RECOMMENDING TO YOU FUNDING UNDER THE JAG.
SO WE'RE GOING TO DO AWAY WITH THE JAG?
NO.
COMMITTEE? NEXT YEAR?
THAT'S YOUR CALL. THAT'S YOUR CALL. BUT -- IF THEY WERE TO STAY IN PLACE--
WE WOULD DO AWAY WITH THEM HANDLING THE JAG FUNDS. THAT GROUP, YES.
OKAY. BUT THEY ARE MOSTLY PEOPLE IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AREA, AREN'T THEY, FROM WHAT I REMEMBER LOOKING AT THE LIST?
I BELIEVE THERE'S TWO FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ARENA.
YEAH, SOME.
NO, THERE ISN'T. THAT USED TO BE QUITE A POT OF MONEY, BUT IT'S REALLY GONE DOWN. ALL RIGHT. I, I'M -- I WILL TELL YOU I'M VERY UNHAPPY WITH THE WAY THIS IS COMING TO US. I WILL SUPPORT IT BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE STAFF FEELS LIKE THEY WORKED OUT, WORKED OUT A PLACE FOR US TO GO, BUT I CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE CFAB BOARD TO LOOK AT THIS AND NOT JUST SIGN OFF ON IT, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M AFRAID I'M HEARING.
I'M NOT ANTICIPATING THEY WILL JUST SIGN OFF ON IT. I'M ANTICIPATING THEY WILL EXAMINE THE FDLE CRITERIA, WHICH THEY HAVE YET TO SEE. SO THEY WILL BE PUTTING FRESH EYES TO IT, TAKE THAT CRITERIA AND LOOK AT THESE TWO APPLICATIONS AND SAY DO THESE APPLICATIONS MEET THE CRITERIA THAT FDLE HAS SET OUT FOR THE JAG FUNDING? AND IF THEY DO AND THEY WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO YOU, IT IS STILL UP TO YOU ALL AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE FUNDING THAT RECOMMENDATION.
RIGHT.
THEY WILL ALSO TELL TO YOU WHAT DEGREE THEY WANT TO FUND EACH OF THOSE, IF THEY DO.
THE ISSUE -- THE REASON WE'RE GIVING THEM ANOTHER SHOT IS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT--
WHAT IS THE REASON?
THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THEY WERE GIVEN A FAIR EVALUATION OVER, WITH THE JAG GROUP. THEY BELIEVE THEY WERE NOT GIVEN A FAIR EVALUATION. AND GIVEN -- WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE IS TRUE, BUT THAT IS THE -- SO YOU COULD SIMPLY SAY YOU DIDN'T GET ANYTHING, THAT'S IT. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID WAS ANY VIEW THAT SOMEHOW THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE THEY WERE EVALUATED CORRECTLY. WE THOUGHT IF THEY WENT TO CFAB, THEY WOULD GIVE A REAL EVALUATION.
SO THERE WEE ESSENTIALLY AN EVALUATION THAT EDWARD BYRNE'S GRANT GROUP DID, THEN THE CFAB WILL DO, BUT THEY WERE ALREADY UNDER CFAB ORIGINALLY AND CFAB REFERRED THEM TO EDWARD BYRNE, IS THAT CORRECT?
NOT UNDER THE SAME CRITERIA. IT WAS ONLY ONE GROUP, NOT BOTH OF THEM.
SHE--
I'M SORRY, BUT--
STRAIGHT UP SOLDIER APPLIED UNDER CONTINGENCY.
UNDER CFAB.
AGENCIES CAN ONLY RECEIVE FUNDS UNDER CFAB IF THEY DO NOT FALL UNDER ONE OF THE LARGE--
OKAY, BUT THIS GROUP FALLS UNDER--
THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE WOULD FALL UNDER--
WHY WOULD THEY NOT CONTRACT WITH THAT AGENCY, THEN?
THAT--
ISN'T THAT THE WHOLE GOAL OF AN AGENCY THAT WOULD--
THE LEAD AGENCY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE WHO THEY WISH TO SUBCONTRACT WITH, AND IT'S NOT -- WE DON'T GIVE--
I KNOW, WE DON'T GET INVOLVED.
-- WE AS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ADVISORY BOARD DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN THE MIX OF TELLING A LEAD AGENCY TO WHOM THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT--
THE LEAD AGENCY HAS DECLINED?
YES.
DO WE KNOW WHY THE LEAD AGENCY DECLINED? IS THAT STEVE SALLY'S GROUP?
THAT'S STEVE SALLY'S GROUP. I THINK HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT FOR YOU IF HE WERE HERE.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU STILL ON THE LINE? ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION IS, MOTION IS TO PUSH US OVER TO THE CFAB ORGANIZATION, HAVE CFAB LOOK AT IT AGAIN, TO BRING UP -- WHICH ONE WAS IT? HAVEN RECOVERY, BRING THEM UP TO BUDGET. AND TO HAVE CFAB LOOK AT THESE OTHER TWO AND WE CON TEMP REARL FUND THEM IF THEY ARE SO APPROVED. MOTION WAS MADE BY MS. CUSACK, SECONDED BY MR. WAGNER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SO CARRIED. WE MOVE FORWARD.
ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, SORRY IT TOOK SO LONG. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE A ONE-HOUR LUNCH. EVERYBODY CAN DO THAT, TAKE AN HOUR? AN HOUR? OKAY. WE WILL RECONVENE BACK HERE AT QUARTER TILL 3:00.
ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE HAVE A SEAT. AT THIS TIME, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES OR TURN THEM TO VERY QUIET. THANK YOU, TRACY. I SAW YOU REACHING OVER. WE DO HAVE A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE NEXT ITEM UP, WHICH IS THE RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING THE FARMTON MASTER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ORDER. THAT WOULD BE OUR NEXT ISSUE COMING UP. BEFORE WE GET THAT FAR, WE HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO READ TO YOU -- LET ME READ THE PUBLIC [AUDIO DIFFICULTIES] WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? I HAVE NO CONNECTION? SOUNDS LIKE I HAVE CONNECTION. WE'RE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. I WILL READ THIS. THE VOLUSIA COUNTY COUNCIL WELCOMES YOUR INVOLVEMENT AND IS INTERESTED IN HEARING YOUR COMMENTS. PLEASE COMPLETE A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SLIP AND INDICATE ON THE SUBJECT LINE THE ISSUE YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT. YOU MAY USE -- [ INDISCERNIBLE ] IF YOU HAVE TO. I'M GOOD. ALL RIGHT, AFTER YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS OR POSITION FOR THE RECORD BEFORE BEGINNING YOUR COMMENTS. YOU MAY SPEAK UP TO THREE MINUTES PER TOPIC EITHER DURING THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OR WHEN AN AGENDA ITEM IS HEARD. THE COUNCIL WILL NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS OR REQUEST DURING THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SECTION. AT ALL TIMES, BE COURTEOUS AND RESPECTFUL OF THE VIEWS OF OTHERS, PERSONAL ATTACKS ON COUNCIL MEMBERS, COUNTY STAFF, OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. SO, GOOD AFTERNOON AND WE WILL BEGIN HERE. I HELD ON AS LONG AS I COULD.
I'M SORRY.
THAT IS QUITE ALL RIGHT. WE LEFT AT QUARTER TILL 2. THAT IS QUITE ALL RIGHT. WE HELD OUT FOR YOU. ALL RIGHT. NOW, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO 34 AND THEN BRING 20 IN. HUH. BECKY MENDEZ OR KELLY McGEE. WHO IS -- EITHER OF THEM. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS THE RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING THE FARMTON MASTER DEVELOPMENT OR REGIONAL IMPACT DEVELOPMENT.
STATE YOUR NAME AND -- [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
JEFF.
YOU'RE BACK ON.
I KNOW. I NEED TWO. I NEED BATTERIES. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, SIR. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION AND -- .
I'M PALMER PENNTON, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. AS NOTED TEXT IS A RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING THE FARMTON MASTER DEVELOPMENT REGIONAL IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ORDER. THE FARMTON LOCAL PLAN COVERS APPROXIMATELY 47,000 ACRES IN SOUTHEASTERN VOLUSIA. AND THERE IS A LIST OF DATES ON THE, ON YOUR OVERHEAD THAT TALKS ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE FARMTON LOCAL PLAN, THE CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN, THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT REGIONAL IMPACT AGREEMENT, THE AGREEMENT APPLICATION, THE PLANNING AND 20 REGULATION COMMISSION, THE EAST-CENTRAL -- EAST CENTRAL REGIONAL PLANNING FLORIDA COUNCIL AND THE ROLUCIA GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION. -- VOLUSIA GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION. THERE IS A MORE EXTENSIVE HISTORY ON PAGES 34-3 THROUGH 34-6. THE AGENDA ITEM, THE RESOLUTIONS AND THIS IS ACTUALLY THE END OF THE PROCESS. THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH ADDITIONAL INCREMENTAL DEVELOPMENTS AS THEY ACTUALLY DEVELOPMENT THE PROPERTY. THIS DEVELOPMENT ORDER SATISFIES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNED CONDITIONS AND THE BGMC CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT THAT TRIGGERS CONVERSION OF CONSERVATION COVENANTS INTO EASEMENTS PER THE CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN AND IT ESTABLISHES FISCAL NUTRALITY TO JOBS AND HOUSING METHODOLOGIES. AND IT PROVIDES THE INCREMENTAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS. THESE TERMS WILL RUN WITH THE LAYOUT. WE HAVE ADDED PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS TO PARAGRAPHS 114, 10, AND 122. THOSE ARE IN YOUR SUPPLEMENT TO THE AGENDA ITEM AND THEY REQUIRE THAT THE LAND OWNER NOT ANNEX THIS PROPERTY UNTIL EITHER A DEVELOPMENT ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR ADDITIONAL INCREMENTAL DEVELOPMENT OR THE CITY OF EDGEWATER AND THE COUNTY JOIN INTO A JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT. THAT SPECIFICALLY PROTECTS THE PROPERTY AND KEEPS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE FARMTON LOCAL PLAN AND THIS DEVELOPMENT ORDER. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
MS. NORTHEY.
THANK YOU.
WE HAVE PLENTY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
SPECIFIC TO COMMENTS HE MADE. A JOINT PLANNED AGREEMENT. WHY, IF WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS, ALL OF THIS PROCESS AND WE HAVE HAD ALL OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS SIGN OFF ON IT, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY PLANNED THIS PIECE.
WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED ONE. THIS WOULD BE IN CASE THERE IS AN ANNEXATION PRIOR TO -- .
I UNDERSTAND THAT. THERE IS GOING TO KNOW AN ANNEXATION FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. THAT THAT IS PROBABLY THE NEXT THING COMING UP. AND SEE WHAT, WHY WOULD THE AGREEMENT, AS IT'S WRITTEN AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL LANGUAGE, WHY WOULD THAT NOT SUFFICE, WHY DO WE NOW NEED A JOINT PLAN AGREEMENT? AND MAYBE MRS. SEAMAN, YOU CAN ANSWER THAT.
THANK YOU, MS. NORTHEY. WHEN PROPERTY ANNEXES INTO A CITY OUT OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER WOULD APPLY UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE CITY ADOPTED THEIR OWN COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AND THEIR OWN ZONING.
EXCEPT A THOUGHT IN THIS CASE, WE HAD LANGUAGE THAT SAID THAT THEY MUST ADOPT THE COUNTY'S PLAN. THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT THE WHOLE LANGUAGE WAS THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS WE HAVE WORKED ON.
THAT, THAT IS WHAT PALMER'S POINTING OUT TO YOU, THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE I SENT TO YOU ALL.
OKAY.
LATE YESTERDAY THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL WITH THIS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT ASSURES -- .
EXCEPT HE JUST SAID WE WOULD GO INTO A JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT WITH EDGEWATER, AND THAT JUST GOT MY ATTENTION WHY WE WOULD DO BOTH.
SO THAT WE HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT TOOL RATHER THAN TAKING THEM TO COURT IF THEY DON'T COMPLY.
SO, IN OTHER WORDS, THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU FORWARDED TO ME ABOUT 3:00 YESTERDAY.
YES, MA'EM.
IS THE ONLY WAY THAT THAT COULD BE ENFORCED WITHOUT A JOINT PLAN AGREEMENT IS THROUGH THE COURSES? -- COURTS?
YES, MA'EM. IF YOU WILL REMEMBER, I WILL POINT YOU TO A SIMILAR LARGE DRI, LAKE -- [ INDISCERNIBLE ] IN ORANGE COUNTY. ORANGE COUNTY DIDN'T INDUSTRIAL -- DID AN INDUSTRIAL DRI ON LAKE NONA AND ORANGE COUNTY SLOWLY BUT SURELY ANNEXED EVERY SINGLE PART OF IT AND CHANGED IT FROM AN INDUSTRIAL DRI THAT WAS TO SUPPORT THE ORLANDO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TO A RESIDENTIAL DRI. AND WE DO NOT WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN. WE DON'T WANT TO BE PUT IN A POSITION WHERE WE HAVE TO CHALLENGE THEIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT OR ANYTHING ELSE. THE CITY IS WILLING TO COOPERATE, THEY'RE WILLING TO DO THIS. IT'S MUCH BETTER FOR US TO ENTER INTO A JOINT PLAN AGREEMENT SO THAT WE CAN ENFORCE IT THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
AND HOW LONG WILL A JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT TAKE?
IT SHOULD NOT TAKE VERY LONG. WE COULD HAVE IT DONE PROBABLY -- BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR MOST CERTAINLY, PROBABLY BY NOVEMBER .
SO WHY WOULD WE NOT WANT THAT IN PLACE FIRST BEFORE WE MOVED FORWARD ON THIS.
IT'S THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOW.
BUT FOR PURPOSES OF THE COUNCIL, WE COULD REQUIRE A JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT SIGNED FIRST BEFORE WE DID THIS. CORRECT? I AM JUST -- .
YES, MA'EM.
OKAY.
YES, MA'EM.
OKAY.
AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME. IS THIS A STAFF REPORT THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING NOW?
YES, MA'EM.
OKAY. SO ON NUMBER 9, THE EAST-CENTRAL FLORIDA PLANNING REGIONAL COUPLE ALSO APPROVED THE MDRI AGREEMENT, AND I THINK THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH SEA LEVEL RISE. WHERE DID I SEE THAT.
RIGHT.
YEAH. WHO SERVES ON THE COUNCIL FOR THE -- FROM US NOW? I HAVEN'T KEPT UP WITH THAT AND WHAT IS THE SEA RISE LEVEL ISSUE? WHO REPRESENTS US NOW DOWN THERE? WE USUALLY HAVE TWO. THERE ARE USUALLY TWO PEOPLE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS MR. CHAIRMAN AND -- .
OH, OKAY.
MR. CHAIRMAN AND -- [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
OKAY.
AND WHAT IS THE SEA LEVEL RISE ISSUE?
THERE IS A THEORY, BECKY CAN PROBABLY EXPLAIN IT BETTER THAN I CAN.
OKAY.
SOMEONE EXPLAIN IT TO ME WHY THAT WAS AN ISSUE FOR THEM. BECKY MENDEZ, SENIOR PLANNING MANAGER, PLANNING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES VOLUSIA COUNTY, THE STAFF OF EAST-CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL STAFF REQUESTED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER BE REVISED TO FUTURE PLANNING ADDRESS SEA LEVEL RISE ISSUES AS IT MAY OCCUR. IT WAS ABOUT A SENTENCE CONDITION ADDED IN. I COULD PROBABLY FIND IT FOR YOU.
I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. AND THEN YOU -- .
WE CAN GO ON.
THANK YOU. IT'S ADDED NEW CONDITION NUMBER 15. IN THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER, PAGE 34 OF 11 OF YOUR AGENDA ITEM.
THANK YOU. THAT IS IT FOR ME. FOR NOW.
ALL RIGHT. MS. DENYS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE DO HAVE PUBLIC OR ARE YOU -- .
JUST A QUESTION WITH STAFF. YOU HAVE WORKED ON, I KNOW WE HAD A COUPLE OF BUMPS IN VERBAGE, BUT YOU WORKED THAT OUT WITH THE CITY OF EDGEWATER. YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT?
YES, MA'EM.
OKAY. I WILL WAIT UNTIL AFTER PUBLIC INPUT. SO, THE CITY AND THE COUNTY, WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE LANGUAGE TOGETHER?
THAT'S CORRECT.
OKAY, SO WE KNOW. THANK YOU.
MR. WAGNER, YOU HAVE STAFF QUESTIONS?
SCOTT HUFFINGTON POST UPDATE THAT JOAN RECEIVERS PASSED AWAY AND IT CAUGHT ME OFF GUARD. SORRY.
IT'S ALL RIGHT.
NOW THAT IS PART OF THE RECORD FOR THE DRI, PROBABLY. I HAVE NO QUESTIONS. I SUPPORT IT AND I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE AND SO WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, I'M READY.
OKAY.
I KNOW WE HAVE COMMENTS.
WE HAVE LOTS.
I'M ALWAYS OPEN MINDED.
VERY WELL.
IS THE -- LET'S SEE. DID DAN CONTROL ONE OF THESE?
HOPEFULLY HAVE IT -- YES. THANK YOU.
I SEE. WHERE ARE YOU AT. THERE YOU ARE. AND NOW IT COMES TO US, THE APPLICANT, MR. STORCH. GOOD AFTERNOON.
GOOD AFTERNOON.
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR OCCUPATION WHAT YOU'RE DOING TODAY.
THAT'S RIGHT. MY NAME IS GLEN STORCH, I AM A ATTORNEY, I REPRESENTED THE MIAMI CORPORATION FOR CLOSE TO 30 YEARS NOW, AND WE ARE FORTUNATE TODAY TO BE HEARING THE MASS DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT THAT IS THE CULMINATION OF EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE DONE FOR THE PAST EIGHT YEARS THAT WILL RESULT IN APPROXIMATELY 40,000 ACRES OF LAND BEING PRESERVED IN PERPETUITY, AS WELL AS THE DEERING PRESERVE AT DEEP CREEK BEING FINALLY DEEDED AND TRANSFERRED TO THE COUNTY WITHOUT A [ INDISCERNIBLE ] CLAUSE. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE SOMETHING WE WORKED ON VERY STRONGLY. YOU SHOULD ALL BE VERY PROUD OF THIS. DON'T I HAVE A POWERPOINT OF SOME SORT? OKAY. RIGHT. AND LET ME START WITH A COUPLE OF THINGS. THIS IS A FRAMEWORK. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS BASICALLY A REQUIREMENT OF VOLUSIA COUNTY THAT WE LOOK AT THIS AS A FRAMEWORK AND SHOW HOW SOME OF THESE THINGS WILL BE ADDRESSED BY ACTUAL DRIs. NOT JUST ZONING. YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH A FULL-SCALE DRI PROCESS FOR ANY OF THESE OTHER THINGS. YOU WILL GET CRACK AFTER CRACK AFTER CRACK AT US AS WE GO THROUGH THESE DRIs, AND THEN YOU WILL LOOK AT WHAT WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE SURE THINGS WERE DONE. THIS IS A FRAMEWORK TO SHOW THE QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THE DID, RIs. -- DRIs. THIS DOES NOT GIVE ANY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AT THIS POINT. IT DOES ALLOW US TO THEN PROVIDE THE PERPETUAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND REVERTER CLAUSE MOVEMENT FROM DEEP CREEK. THE ANNEXATION ISSUE, I THINK I SHOULD ADDRESS, BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER NORTHEY WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE INTENT AT SOME POINT THAT THE CITY OF EDGEWATER WOULD HAVE CONTROL OVER ITS SERVICE AREA. ITS SERVICE AREA IS THE GATEWAY AREA, WHICH IS ABOUT FIVE MILES AWAY FROM THE REST OF FARMTON. AND THAT IS THE SMALL GATEWAY AREA AT THE CORNER OF 442. THERE IS NO PLANS WHATSOEVER AT THIS POINT TO ANNEX THAT AREA RIGHT NOW. WE'RE WORKING ON, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE -- ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE -- [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
I USED TO BE.
NOW WE KNOW HOW TO STOP HIM.
THAT'S RIGHT.
THAT'S RIGHT.
WE'RE WORKING ON, WITH THE CITY OF EDGEWATER RIGHT NOW ON SOMETHING CALLED DEERING PARK CENTER THAT USED TO BE CALLED REFLECTIONS. THAT IS GOING TO TAKE A LONG TIME. AGAIN, WE HAVE NO PLANS TO ANNEX ANY OF THESE PARKET -- PARCELS. THERE WAS AN ISSUE AS FAR AS THE FACT THAT THERE MIGHT BE A POTENTIAL FOR ANNEXATION DOWN THE LINE SOMEWHERE. IF THAT TAKES PLACE, IT WAS ALWAYS THE INTENT OF EVERYONE THAT THE FARMTON LOCAL PLAN WOULD CONTINUE. DON'T FORGET, WHEN I'M DOING MY MASTER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, I HAVE TO REVIEW THIS WITH EVERYONE. WE REVIEWED THIS WITH THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, THEY SIGNED OFF ON IT. WE REVIEWED IT WITH THE CITY OF DAY TONE -- DELTONA, THEY SIGNED OFF ON IT. NEW SMYRNA, EVERYONE SIGNED OFF ON THIS AND THEN WE WENT TO EAST-CENTRAL REGIONAL FLORIDA PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEY PRAISED US UP AND DOWN FOR DOING THIS THE RIGHT WAY. THIS IS THE RIGHT KIND OF PLANNING ON A 50-YEAR PLAN AND, AS A RESULT, WE GET THE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS, WE GET GOOD PLANNING, SUSTAINABILITY, EVERYTHING WE'RE LOOKING FOR. NOW, BECAUSE OF THE -- BECAUSE OF THE FACT THE QUESTION OF ANNEXATION WAS RAISED, WE WORK CLOSELY WITH STAFF AND CLOSE WITH THE CITY OF EDGEWATER TO QUICKLY SOLVE THAT ISSUE AND TO MAKE CERTAIN THERE WERE NO PROBLEMS. AND IF YOU WILL LOOK AT WHAT IT SAYS AND THERE WAS A LITTLE CONFUSION THERE, I CAN SEE THAT, WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ANNEX UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THERE IS A LOCAL AGREEMENT IN WHICH ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE FARMTON LOCAL PLANNER ARE PUT IN PLACE AND, IN FACT, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, AND VOLUSIA COUNTY HAS FINAL APPROVAL OF ANY DEVELOPMENT FOR DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES OR WE DO A FULL-SCALE DRI. WE CAN'T DO ANY ANNEXATIONS UNTIL THOSE THINGS ARE DONE. SO, THAT IS HOW WE SET THIS UP. SO, THERE WILL BE NO ANNEXATIONS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS EITHER ONE OF THOSE ARE DONE AND, AT THAT POINT, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANNEX BASED ON COMING BACK TO YOU. WE CAN'T DEVELOP BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO CONTROL THE DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS STILL IN PLACE. ALL OF THIS WAS DESIGNED TO BE A REGIONAL APPROACH TO WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE WHAT WE'RE DOING IS THE RIGHT THING. AND WHAT THIS MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, MASTER DRI HAS DONE, REALLY, IS ALL OF THIS SET THE STAGE FOR THE NEXT STAGE. SORRY, AND SO WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT. AND I HOPE WE HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB BECAUSE, LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. BECAUSE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF LAND. THIS IS 47,000 ACRES IN VOLUSIA COUNTY. THIS IS 11,500 ACRES IN BREVARD COUNTY. THE FARMTON TRACK IS 94 SQUARE MILES. THAT IS HUGE AND NOW WE'RE PRESERVING IN PERIPETYT OVER 75% OF IT. -- PERPETUITY OVER 75% OF IT FOR FREE WITHOUT THE COST TO TAXPAYERS. GO TO THE NEXT ONE. THIS SHOWS WHERE WE HAVE GONE THROUGH. WE STARTED THIS IN 2008 AND NOW IT'S 2049. AND -- 2014, AND WE HAVE WORKED TOGETHER ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH COUNTY COUNCIL SUPPORT, WITH BREVARD COUNTY COUNCIL SUPPORT, WITH ALL OF THE VARIOUS MUNICIPALITY SUPPORT, DEO, BG&C, AS YOU WILL NOTICE -- ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN DONE. THE CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT YOU ADOPT SIDE BASED ON THIS VERY CONCEPT AND WORKING TOGETHER WITH AUDUBON AND SAINT JOHN'S AND EVERYONE ELSE. LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE. THE PLAN ITSELF, I DON'T HAVE TO REMIND MOST OF YOU. IT'S A VIRALLY -- FAIRLY SIMPLE PLAN, IF YOU LOOK AT IT. IT BASICALLY TAKES THIS AND SAID THE AREAS APPROPRIATE FOR DEVELOPMENT, THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AREAS, THOSE ARE SET ASIDE FOR POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE REST OF IT, IN THIS CASE, THE GREEN KEY AREAS, 31,876 ACRES ARE GOING TO BE YOU THE IN CONSERVATION. LIKE I SAID -- TO BE PUT IN CONSERVATION. WE HAVE HALF WITH OUR MITIGATION BANK, THE OTHER HALF WILL BE PUT IN CONSERVATION AS SOON AS THIS THING IS APPROVED. THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AREA AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO DEVELOP THIS AND WHAT WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO, YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TIME AND TIME AGAIN AND DO DRIs AS TO HOW THIS WHOLE THING WORKS TOGETHER. LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE. BECAUSE, THE WAY THAT THE MASTER AGREEMENT HAS WORKED SO FAR, WE HAVE HAD TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE AGENCIES TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT. WE HAD TO GO THROUGH ALL THE MUNICIPALITIES TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT. EVERYONE IS SIGNED OFF WITH THE PLDRC, UNANIMOUS APPROVAL, EAST-CENTRAL REGIONAL FLORIDA PLANNING COMMISSION, COMMISSIONER CUSACK WAS THERE AND SHE SAW THE HIGH PRAISE WE GOT FROM THE REGION FOR DOING THIS THE RIGHT WAY. VGMC CERTIFIED THE MDO. NOW, HERE'S WHAT IS INTERESTING. I BELIEVE THAT COMMISSIONER NORTH EY'S QUESTION WAS VALID. WHAT THE QUESTION WAS WAS WHY DO WE HAVE TO PUT THIS LANGUAGE IN THERE. WOULDN'T WE NORMALLY HAVE THIS, ANYWAY?
YES, YOU WOULD. IF THERE WAS TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, YOU HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE THAT BEFORE THEY CAN MAKE ANY CHANGE TO THE COMP PLAN, IT HAS TO GO THROUGH VGMC AND IT HAS TO BE CONSISTENT AND APPROVED BY YOU AT THAT POINT. YOU ALREADY HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS DONE CORRECTLY AND TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T LOSE ANYTHING IN THE FARMTON LOCAL PLAN. OF COURSE, EDGEWATER, I WILL TELL YOU THIS RIGHT NOW, HAS ALWAYS AGREED WITH THE FARMTON LOCAL PLAN AND ALL THE CONSERVATION IS REQUIREMENTS WE HAVE IN THERE, THE SUSTAINABILITY REQUIREMENTS -- THEY HAVE AGREED TO THAT ALREADY. SO, IF THIS WAS EVER TO ANNEX, EVEN WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE WE PUT INTO PLACE, IT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED AND OF MY THINKING, FOR IT TO BE I DENT CAT IN EDGEWATER. THE SAME -- IDENTICAL IN EDGEWATER. THE SAME COMP PLAN LANGUAGE WOULD HAVE TO BE IN EDGEWATER TO DO IT AND MEET VGMC COMP TEST. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS CLARIFIED THAT AND PUT EVEN STRONGER LANGUAGE IN THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT NO ANNEXING AS CAN TAKE PLACE UNTIL EVERYONE AGREES AS TO WHAT CAN TAKE PLACE AND THE COUNTY'S ABILITY TO CONTROL THIS. UP NEXT. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE NATURAL RESOURCES. WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THIS, THE DEEP CREEK AREA, WHICH IS THE DEERING PRESERVE AT DEEP CREEK IS NOW IN THE NAME OF THE COUNTY. THAT IS A 1400-ACRE PARK THAT EVERYONE, I SHOULDN'T SAY PARK, BUT A PRESERVE, THAT EVERYONE WORKED ITING THE ON. IT'S THE JEWEL AND THE CROWN. IT'S WHERE DEEP CREEK GO THROUGH. WE'RE WORKING NOW TO HOPEFULLY PROVIDE FOR SOME CANOE LAUNCHES IN THESE AREAS AND STOW THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS SPECIAL. -- SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY SPECIAL. THAT WOULD REVERT THE PROVISION THAT IS IN NOW THAT WE'RE ALL WORRIED ABOUT, WHAT HAPPENS IF THE COUNTY DOESN'T GO ALONG WITH THESE THINGS, THAT REVERT PLOUGHS GOES AWAY. THE ADDITIONAL -- CLAUSE GOES AWAY. THE 13,000 ACRES, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, THE 10-YEAR ROLLING COVENANTS OF EASEMENTS, THAT BECOMES PERPETUAL AND THOSE COVENANTS WILL NEW TURN INTO ACTUAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS GIVEN TO THE COUNTY, GIVEN TO AUDUBON AND SAINT JOHN'S. AGAIN, WE HAVE THE SUPPLY PARTING SYSTEM TO MAKE SURE THIS DOESN'T EVER GO BACK TO ANYWHERE ELSE. LET'S GO BACK. I MEAN NEXT ONE. SUSTAINABILITY. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NOTICED THIS, BUT WE HAVE WON A NUMBER OF AWARDS, AND I'LL GET INTO THOSE LATER ON. THIS IS THE MODEL FOR SUSTAINABILITY NOW IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE, AND WE HAVE, IN FACT, BUILT THOSE SUSTAINABILITY STANDARDS INTO THE LANGUAGE WITH WHICH WE WORK WITH EDGEWATER. EDGEWATER IS WORKING WITH THAT. IN FACT, EDGEWATER WILL DO A RESOLUTIONS, MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT MONDAY NIGHT? MONDAY NIGHT, THEY WILL DO A RESOLUTIONS ENDORSING THIS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT SUPPORTS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TO ENFORCE SUSTAINABILITY STANDARDS, THE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND THE COUNTY APPROVAL STANDARDS. ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE IN PLACE AND I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE, THE LEGAL STAFF, EDGEWATER, AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO HAS HAD INPUT ON THIS TO MAKING SURE THAT WAS CLARIFIED AND PUT INTO PLACE. NEXT
ONE. FISCAL NUTRALITY. WE TOOK THAT AND WE REFINED THAT, CREATED METHODOLOGIES TO ENSURE AS TO EXACTLY HOW WE WILL MEASURE FISCAL NUTRALITY FOR EVERYTHING THAT IS DONE ON FARMTON. ROADS, WATER, SEWER, DRAINAGE, WATER, UTILITIES, ET CETERA. THESE MAY BE FUNDED BY THE CDD AND, AS YOU PROBABLY REALIZE, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF CREATING A CDD IN EDGEWATER TO HELP WITH THE FUNDING OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE ON THAT. WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING TOGETHER. THE IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER ABOUT THIS ONE IS THAT ALTHOUGH IT MAY TAKE PLACE AT SOME POINT, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING IN FARMTON PROPER. IN THE AREA ALONG MAYTOWN. WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD OR EXPAND, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO FIX MAYTOWN, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING UNTIL AT LEAST 2026, AND PROBABLY MUCH LONGER THAN THAT. SO, ALTHOUGH SOMETHING MAY BE HAPPENING, IT'S NOT HAPPENING IN FARMTON FOR DECADES TO COME. NEXT. JOB TO HOUSING RATIO. ONE OF THE TRULY INNOVATIVE THINGS THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THIS CASE, AND WE HAVE INCORPORATED THIS INTO THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, IS A JOBS TO HOUSING RATIO. WE DON'T WANT THIS TO BE A RES DIDDENTUAL COMMUNITY. WE WANT THIS TO BE A LIVE, WORK, PLAY AREA. THE PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THAT THAT I HAVE A JOB HERE. THEY CAN LIVE THERE. ONE OF THE PLACES, SOME OF THE PLACES THAT HAVE FAILED IN THE PAST BECAUSE OF THIS IS THEY WERE NOT LARGE ENOUGH. THEY DIDN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT BUFFERS AROUND THEM. WE TOOK ALL OF THOSE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION, IF YOU WILL RECALL, WHEN WE WERE DOING THE FARMTON LOCAL PLAN, AND WE GOT EXPERTS FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO HELP US ON CRAFTING THIS. AND SO NOW, WE'RE REQUIRED TO CREATE ONE JOB FOR EVERY NEW HOUSE THAT GOES INTO FARMTON, AND WE HAVE A METHODOLOGY TO MEASURE ALL OF THAT AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. NEXT. THESE ARE THE, IF YOU WILL LOOK AT THIS. THESE ARE ALL THE VARIOUS THINGS WE WERE REQUIRED TO ADDRESS AS PART OF THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT. AGAIN, THIS IS JUST THE FRAMEWORK. WE ADDRESS THE FRAMEWORK FOR HOW THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE DONE AND WHEN EACH DEVELOPMENT COMES IN, EACH DRI COMES IN, THEY WILL HAVE TO DO A REGIONAL IMPACT, THEY WILL HAVE TO COME TO YOU AND DO THE SAME PROCESS OVER AS FAR AS GETTING BUY-IN FROM DELLEN TOA AND -- DELTONA AND EDGE WATER AND ALL THE AREAS. MAKING CERTAIN THAT ALL OF THESE THINGS WERE ADDRESSED FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT TO PROCEED. THIS IS NOT -- I WANT TO CALL THAT A REAL DRI OPPOSED TO THE FRAMEWORK DRI BECAUSE THIS WAS I, HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT DRI, BUT IT DOESN'T ALLOW US TO BUILD ANYTHING. NEXT IS. THIS IS SOMETHING I AM PROUD OF. AND HONESTLY, YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF THIS AS WELL. THIS STAFF AND THIS COUNCIL AND BREVARD COUNTY AS WELL HAS DONE SOMETHING THAT HAS WON THREE STATEWIDE AWARDS FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND GOOD PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP. THE SUSTAINABILITY FLORIDA BEST PRACTICES AWARD AT THE COLIN CENTER, THAT IS A MAJOR AWARD AND IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF. THE FLORIDA PLANNING AND INNOVATION AWARD FROM THE FLORIDA PLANNING AND ZONING ASSOCIATION. WE WON THAT. THIS IS THE MODEL FOR HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE, HOW YOU SHOULD DO PLANNING IN THE FUTURE IN FLORIDA FLAT. THE AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP AWARD, I WISH YOU HAD BEEN THERE FOR THAT ONE. THEY HAD A FILM, I GAVE A COPY OF THE FILM SHOWING WHY THIS WAS SO IMPORTANT AND WHY IT WAS SO IMPORTANT FROM A STATEWIDE STANDARD. WE ARE LOOKED AT AS THE LEADERS IN ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING. THIS IS THE MODEL FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND, AGAIN, I THINK YOU SHOULD BE VERY PROUD. THE MASTER DRI SIMPLY WRAPS UP THIS SECTION OF IT AND, LOWS US TO GO TO THE NEXT. MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT TIES UP THE PERPETUAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND THE REVERTER CLAUSE AND WE ARE THEN ABLE TO START CONCENTRATING ON OTHER ISSUES. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? WE HAVE OUR ENTIRE TEAM HERE. NEXT. AND THIS IS A GREAT TEAM, I HAVE TO TELL YOU. LAST IS THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GROUP. THEY HAVE DONE A TERRIFIC JOB ON THIS. DIVA WAS OUR HYDROLOGIST AND GEO TECH. I THINK YOU KNOW HIS STATEWIDE REPUTATION. MARK DOW, WALSH PLANNING AND TERA BLUE AND OUR ECONOMIST. WE HAD TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES OF THE FISCAL NUTRALITY, WHICH WAS NOT THE EASIEST THING TO WORK OUT. SO, ALL OF THESE THINGS, ALL THESE PEOPLE HERE ARE READY FOR YOUR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM. IF WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE, I UNDERSTAND THERE WERE QUESTIONS REGARDING MAYTOWN, I WOULD BE GLAD TO ANSWER THOSE AS WELL. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
WE GOT A LOT. MS. CUSACK, YOU PUSHED YOUR BUTTON OR ARE YOU WAITING FOR AFTER THIS, AFTER THE CITIZENS?
WE COULD -- IS THIS ONE ISSUE THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE MAYTOWN ROAD.
UH-HUH.
YOU WANT ME TO DO THAT NOW OR AFTER? LET'S DO THAT NOW?
THAT'S FINE.
WILL YOU ADDRESS THAT MAYTOWN ROAD ISSUE AS IT RELATES TO SIX -- [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
YEAH.
I HAVE MADE IT VERY CLEAR. WE ARE REQUIRED TO, AT SOME POINT, REBUILD MOST OF MAYTOWN ROAD. ALL RIGHT. AND TWO-LANE AT LEAST. ANYTHING THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT AS FAR AS BEYOND THAT IS FAR OUT IN THE DISTANCE. IN FACT, I HAVE SAID IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN IN MY LIFETIME, AND I CONFIRMED THAT WITH MY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. BECAUSE ONCE HE SAW WHAT MY LIFETIME WAS. [ LAUGHTER ] BOTTOM LINE IS THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON. WE CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DO ANYTHING UNTIL, WHAT, DECADES FROM NOW, 2026, 2031. I SAW THE ONE LINE THAT SAID OH, IT MAY HAVE TRAFFIC THAT MAY BE AS MUCH AS SIX LANES OR MORE BY, IN 50 YEARS FROM NOW. OKAY. FIFTY YEARS FROM NOW. THAT IS PRETTY MUCH OF A GUESS AT THAT POINT. AND WHAT THEY HAD TO DO IS THEY HAD TO TAKE THE WORSE CASE SCENARIO OF HOW MUCH TRAFFIC THERE WOULD BE. THEY HAD TO TAKE THE OLSTEIN LOCAL PLAN, WHICH YOU MASS PASAYSED AND SAY THE ENTIRE OLSTEIN LOCAL PLAN IS BUILT OUT. THEY HAD TO TAKE ALL OF OUR STUFF BUILT OUT AND TAKE EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND THERE AND SHOW IT BUILT OUT AND HOW MUCH TRAFFIC WILL THERE BE? YEAH, IN 50 YEARS, THERE MIGHT BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC USING THE EAST-WEST ROAD. BUT, FOR NOW, THERE WOULD NOT BE. I HAVE ALSO HEARD FOLKS SAY OH, MY GOSH, THEY'RE GOING TO INFRINGE ON OUR HOUSES AND LOOK AT THE IDEA OF EXPANDING THIS, AGAIN, TO FOUR LANES AND TAKE THE BIKE TRAIL. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. ANYTHING YOU BUILD, AS FAR AS EXPANDING MAYTOWN WOULD HAVE TO BE TO THE NORTH OF THE BIKE TRAIL. YOU WOULD NEVER WANT TO DO THAT. AT FARMTON, ALL OF OUR PLANS ARE NORTH OF THE BIKE TRAIL. NOW, WE HAVE SET UP RIGHT AWAY IN FARMTON, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, TO TAKE CARE OF THIS. WE FIGURE THAT MAYTOWN IN 20, 30, 40, 50 YEARS, WHATEVER, WILL HAVE TO BE REBUILT AND IT MAY BE STRAIGHT AND IT MAY BE REALIGNED. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WE'RE SEATING ASIDE -- SETTING ASIDE AREAS FOR THAT NOW FOR THE SPINE ROADS AS PART OF OUR PLANNING PROCESS. SO, THERE IS NO COST TO TAXPAYERS AT ANY POINT IN THE FUTURE. THERE IS NO PLANS AT ALL TO BUILD ANY OF THOSE ROADS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. IT'S A EDUCATED GUESS AS TO THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC 50 YEARS FROM NOW. WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO. DOES THAT HELP?
MY BIG CONCERN IS I TALKED WITH YOU ABOUT THE BIKE TRAIL. WE'RE SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THAT RIGHT NOW.
YEAH.
WE DON'T NEED TO TEAR IT UP IN 20 YEARS.
NO.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND WOULD NEVER EVEN THINK ABOUT DOING THAT. DON'T FORGET, THE BIKE TRAIL FOR FARMTON WILL BE A TREMENDOUS AMENITY BECAUSE YOU HAVE THIS BIKE TRAIL NOW GOING THROUGH 16 MILES OF FARMTON. AND I FIND IT FASCINATING BECAUSE YEARS AGO, AND I MEAN YEARS AGO, NATIONALTON WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE IDEA -- FARMTON WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE RAILS OF TRAILS THROUGH FARMTON. WE WORKED TOGETHER WITH COUNCILMAN, WE WORKED TOGETHER WITH FUC AND THE STATE AND IT TURNS OUT THAT A BIKE TRAIL IS GOING TO BE A WONDERFUL THING FROM AN ECONOMIC STANDPOINT AND, WHICH IS FASCINATING ALSO, IS THE WAY THAT THINGS HAVE CHANGED. THE DEMOGRAPHICS HAVE CHANGED. IT USED TO BE FOLKS WANTED TO LIVE IN AREAS WHERE THERE ARE GOLF COURSES. THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT ANYMORE. THEY WANT TO LIVE IN AREAS WHERE THERE ARE LINEAR TRAILS WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO BIKE, TO DO -- TO WALK AND DO OTHER THINGS AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS A VERY GOOD DEMOGRAPHIC. [PAUSING TO SWITCH CAPTIONERS]
.
AND I KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE SAID, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN FOR ANOTHER 15 YEARS, BUT THIS IS THE FINAL DECISION FOR THE FARMTON PLAN, WHETHER YOU BUILD IT TOMORROW OR 30 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. WHAT IS DECIDED TODAY IS FINAL. WE HAVE LEARNED THE HARD WAY TO SERVE WHAT WE WANT OUR TOWN TO LOOK LIKE THIS THE FUTURE. MAYBE 20 YEARS AGO IN FARMTON WHEN THEY WERE IN THE PLANNING STAGE, USING THESE ROADS SEEMED LIKE A GOOD CHOICE. HOUSE WERE NOT VALUED OVER $300,000 LIKES THE NOW. BUT NOW YOU F A BEAUTIFUL THRIVING FAMILY COMMUNITY THAT NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED. YOU HAVE TODAY'S PLAN TO KEEP FARM'S LAND ON A SCENIC ROADWAY WITH A BIKE TRAIL THAT ALLOWS HOME OWN ORS TO PULL OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAY SAFELY. THE PROBLEM IS YOU'RE NOW NOW ACING THIS FUTURE PLAN THAT'S OPPOSITE AND CALLS FOR 6-8 LANE HIGHWAY THE SIZE OF I-4. IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO PULL OUT OF RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS AND REQUIRE SO MUCH LAND HOMEOWNERS WOULD HAVE TO TEAR DOWN THEIR HOMES BECAUSE YOU NEED OVER 300 FEET. THE ROAD WOULD NEVER BE SCENIC AGAIN . YOU DON'T SEE HOUSES WITH COWS AND HORSES, YOU SEE WOODS AND SHOPPING CENTERSERS AND MAYBE A SUBDIVISION. WHY DO THIS? SO MUCH WORK TIME AND MONEY WAS PUT INTO THIS BEAUTIFUL ROAD TO DESIGNATE AS A SCENIC ROADWAY AND RECEIVE SO MUCH PRAISE IT CONFUSES ALL OF US WHY THERE'S A PLAN TO CONVERT IT TO AN 8-LANE HIGHWAY. THAT'S NOT SCENIC. THAT'S HORRIBLE. SO HOW DO WE FIX THIS PROBLEM WITH A BETTER PLAN? YOU SHOULD CONNECT THE CURRENT LARGEST CITY OF DELTONA TO THE FUTURE LARGEST SEE OF FARMTON BY WAY OF STATE ROAD 442. SINCE THERE'S NOT HARDLY ANYONE OUT THERE BUT COWS, YOU WON'T GET THE RESISTANCE YOU'RE GETTING NOW, AND YOU WILL COMPLIMENT US INSTEAD OF DESTROYING US. THE HIGHWAY DESTROYS OUR FAMILY COMMUNITY, SCENERY AND COSTS TOO MUCH MONEY. I THINK YOU SHOULD NOT MAKE A FINAL DECISION ON THIS PART OF THE PLAN TODAY AND WORK TOGETHER WITH EDGEWATER TO MAKE THIS A BETTER PLAN LATER ON. I JUST HAVE ONE OTHER EXHIBIT I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW. AND AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE DOTTED LINE --
YOU MADE YOUR 3 MINUTES.
OKAY.
BYRON PEEVEY. WELL, EVERYTHING THAT I SAT HERE AND WROTE UP, MR. GLENN KIND OF ANSWERED IT FOR ME. SO THIS WILL BE SHORT AND SWEET. ONE OF THE THINGS I HOPE THE PROMISE IS HELD, WE DON'T HAVE AN 8-LANE HIGHWAY IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE THIS FIVE YEARS OR WHATEVER. BUT ONE THING -- THE LAST TWO COUNCIL MEETINGS WE WERE AT, ABOUT THE MURPHY ACT, THE COUNTY DID AND THE COUNCIL SAID THEY WOULD HELP US GET OUR REMAINING 70 FEET BACK. INSTEAD OF TAKING THE 30, THEY WENT TO THE STATE AND TOOK 100. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR THAT HELP TO GET THE 70 FEET BACK THAT WAS PROMISED US. ONE OTHER THING, I DID GO OVER WITH CHERYL, AND I AGREE WITH HER, IF YOU COULD LOOK INTO BUILDING A ROAD TO STATE ROAD 442, AND BYPASS AND MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY AND KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS. I MOVED HERE TO BE IN A RURAL AREA. THAT'S WHERE I GREW UP. I GREW UP IN OCOY AND IT'S BLOWED UP BECAUSE IT START WINDOW A BIKE TRAIL, AND THEN THE 417 OR 419, I JUST APPRECIATE THE THINGS WERE LOOKED INTO TRYING TO KEEP US SMALL OUT THERE AND GET MY 70 FEET BACK. THANK YOU.
DR. JOSEPH WALSH?
MR. MATTHEW WEST, ARE YOU ONE OF THEM TOO?
I AM.
WE'RE DWINDLING DOWN. CLAY EARN?
I NEED ONE OF THEM TO TALK.
YOU NEED ONE OF THEM TO TALK? WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT? THE REST ARE YOUR PEOPLE. WHO DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK? CLAY URBAN. GROUP 123, LIVE OAK AVENUE DAYTONA BEACH FLORIDA. WHAT I BRING COMING FORWARD, THIS IS NOT THE FINAL PLAN, FIRST AND FORMOST. IT'S DELINEATED IN THE ORDER, ANY TIME NEW LAND IS COOING FOR DEVELOPMENT, HAS TO GO THROUGH IMPACT. THAT MEANS, THIS DETAILED ANALYSIS WE HAD TO DO HERE, GETS FURTHER ELABORATED ON. IN OTHER WORDS, AT THAT POINT WE'RE LOOKING AT HARD FACT POINTS OF DEVELOPMENT WHERE WE HAVE TO COME IN AND ANALYZE THE TRUE IMPACTS THAT WILL BE RESULTING FROM IT. JUST TO FURTHER REITERATE, WHEN WE DID THIS, WE HAD TO LOOK AT A VERY AGGRESSIVE DEVELOPING TIME FRAME. WE HAD TO COME IN AND IDENTIFY BASICALLY AS GLENN CALLED IT "WORST CASE SCENARIO." WITH THIS INCREMENTAL, WE'RE FACING THE REAL WORLD. HOW MANY HOUSES AND HOW MANY SQUARE FEET, AND WHICH ROADS WE WILL BE FACING. AND AT THAT POINT WE WILL BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. WE WILL BE OPEN TO EVERY OPTION WE HAVE IN REGARDS TO ROAD ALIGNMENTS AND CONFIGURATIONS AND WHAT CAN BE DONE. ONE OF THE CRITICAL ELEMENTS IS THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE MULTIMODEL. WE REALIZE BUILDING MORE ROADS IS NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS. PUTTING OUR LAND USES NEXT TO EACH OTHER, AND COMING THROUGH WITH VIABLE TRANSIT, INTERNAL TO FARMTON AND PROVIDING ACCESS TO OTHER MAJOR ROUTES IS WHERE WE WILL BE STRIVING FOR. AS WE GO THROUGH THIS AND YOU HEAR THE CONCERNS, WE HEAR THE SAME CONCERNS. WE HAVE PROVISIONS THAT REQUIRE THE ORDER PROINCOMPETENT THED AND WE HAVE PROVISIONS TO INSURE AND PROTECT THE TRAILS BEING BUILT THROUGH THIS AREA. AND WE ALSO HAVE TO KEEP COMING BACK IN FRONT OF YOU EVERY TIME WE PLAN TO DO ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE. I CAN PROMISE YOU THAT WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS NOT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IN 50 YEARS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DRI'S, MANY OF THEM HAVE GONE THROUGH MANY IT RATIONS. AND WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THE GROUND IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, IF NOT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHEN THEY WERE APPROVED. I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THIS IS NOT CAST IN STONE. YOU ARE GOING TO GET ADDITIONAL LOOKS AT IT AND WE HAVE PROVISIONS TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.
AS FAR AS ROAD SIZE, THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT?
YES. EVERYTHING IS WIDE-OPEN AT THAT POINT.
I APOLOGIZE. BUT WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY, AS FAR AS ROAD SIZE, ROAD WIDTH, YOU GET THE CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT EVERY TIME WE COME IN WITH AN INDIVIDUAL DRI. SO IF THERE'S AN ISSUE, AS FAR AS EXPANSION, WE CAN ADDRESS THAT AT THE DRI LEVEL WHEN YOU CAN BUILD SOMETHING. THIS FRAMEWORK DOESN'T ALLOW US TO BUILD ANYTHING. IT JUST GIVES THEM IDEAS AS TO PROBLEMS WE MAY ADDRESS AT THAT TIME. THE INDIVIDUAL DRI'S, YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO DETERMINE THAT AND WHETHER THERE'S A ROAD -- THE SIZE OF THE ROADS, WHETHER IT'S TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE. WHATEVER. YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO DETERMINE WHERE THAT IS. ALL THE THINGS WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THE DRI'S. I BET YOU THERE WILL BE AT LEAST 8-DRI'S AS APART OF THIS. YOU WILL GET TO SEE THIS AT LEAST 8 TIMES.
OH, JOY.
[LAUGHTER].
THANK YOU. IS THAT MRS. COLLINS? ARE YOU SHARON COLLINS?
NO.
COME ON UP FRONT. IT'S ALL YOURS NOW.
JAIL DEAN CLINTON. AND -- GERALDINE CLINTON. THIS PROJECT IS IN A LOW AREA, SURROUNDING LASH ASHBY, EDGEWATER, AND OAK HILL. AND ALL THE STORM WATER FLOODS FROM THESE AREAS. ST. JOHNS FLOODS THROUGH IT ALL. THE SUGAR CANE FARMERS FROM SOUTH FLORIDA HAS FLOOD GATES ASK THEY OPEN THEM WHEN THEY GET TOO MUCH STORM WATER, AND RUNS BACK INTO THE ST. JOHNS. WE ALL KNOW THE ST. JOHNS RIVER FLOWS NORTH FROM LAKE HEARNY AND GOES INTO LAKE ASHBY. IT GOES STRAIGHT INTO FARMTON AND CAUSING FLOODING FOR MONTHS ON END. REMEMBER THE 42-INCHES OF WATER THAT WAS ACROSS MAY TOWN ROAD A FEW YEARS AGO? WELL, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE FLOOD GATES ARE OPENED IN SOUTH FLORIDA. THEY ALSO -- THE FLOOD LAKES IN LAKE ASHBY CANAL ARE USED AS BACKUP WATER. THE BANKS OF THE LAKE HEARNY BACK UP TO MAY TOWN ROAD. SO ONCE FARMTON IS APPROVED HERE, OUR FLOOD PROBLEMS WILL BE VERY EXTREMELY SERIOUS. BECAUSE ST. JOHNS' STORM WATER WILL BACK UP INTO THE ST. JOHNS. HOW IS IT GOING TO TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF THE FARMTON DEVELOPMENT PLAN? AT THE SAME TIME, THE WATERS WILL HAVE TO LEAVE THE AREA. THEY ARE GOING TO GO INTO THE OAK HILL AND MAY TOWN AND DEEP CREEK AND KYLE CREEK AREA. NOW, THAT'S GOING TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PLANNED ESCAPE ROUTE DURING A HURRICANE, WHICH WAS SPOKE ABOUT AT THE LAST MEETING. MAY TOWN AND ESTEEM ROADS, 6-8 LANES. THAT HAPPENS TO BE OUR HOMES, RANCHES AND FARMS. THAT SAME PROPERTY IS WHERE INHERITED GENERATIONS AGO, OR PURCHASED, ALL WITH PROMISES OR HOPE AND DREAMS AND HANDING IT DOWN TO OUR CHILDREN. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE THAT WE ARE GOING TO LET THIS HAPPEN WITHOUT GETTING OUR PROMISES TO OUR CHILDREN? OKAY. WHO IS GOING TO PAY THE TAXES ON IN THIS IN YEARS TO COME? IN MY OPINION, THE TAKING CLAUSE OF THE 5th AMENDMENT JUST COMPENSATION IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. THERE'S NO AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION THAT COULD REPLACE WHAT WE HAVE ALL WORKED SO HARD TO KEEP. OAK HILL IS AGAINST THIS WHOLE PROJECT, AS I AM PERSONALLY. OUR DREAMS OF LIVING THE QUIET COUNTRY LIFE WILL FADE AND TURN INTO WHAT DELTONA HAS BECOME, WHICH IS A LOW-INCOME PROJECT WITH A HIGH CRIME RATE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU FIX THE SCREEN? I HAVE WORD OPENED ON MY LITTLE SCREEN. I CAN'T READ ANYBODY'S NAME AND I KNOW THERE'S A COUPLE OF LIGHTS PUSHED. SHE'S WORKING ON IT. IT'S STILL THERE. ANY OTHER CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AT THIS POINT DURING THIS? ALL RIGHT. WE WILL CLOSE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PORTION OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL GO TO COUNCIL COMMENT, MRS. PAT NORTHEY UP FIRST.
THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR STAFF, PLEASE. THIS IS A FRAMEWORK DRI. AND THOSE ARE THE WORDS THAT WERE USED. I SAW THE PRESENTATION, WHERE IT OUTLINED ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT OVER THE YEARS THAT WOULD GO INTO A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. AND LET ME JUST PUT ON THE RECORD, MY CONCERN IS NOT EDGEWATER. I MEAN, I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH EDGEWATER, AND I HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THE I THINK WATER CITY COMMISSION WILL ADOPT THIS. HOWEVER, I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED WHY WE'RE DOING IT BACKWARDS, BECAUSE OUR STANDARD HAS BEEN THAT THE CITY COMES FIRST, AND THEN IT COMES TO THE COUNTY. THAT STILL CONCERNS ME. AND I AM HOPING MAYBE MR. BAR LOW WILL GET UP AND MAKE REMARKS ABOUT EDGEWATER'S INTENTION. BUT THIS IS NOT -- HERE'S MY CONCERN. WE CALLED A FRAMEWORK DRI, AND I NEED ASSURANCE THE SUSTAINABLE PIECES OF THIS, THE OUTLINE THAT WE SAW THERE, BECOMES THAT RECORD THAT WHEN SOME DEVELOPER 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, 25 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, WHEN THERE'S A WHOLE NEW COUNCIL SITTING UP HERE IN EDGEWATER, THAT THAT IS REQUIRED OF THEM TO CONTINUE TO DO THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. BECAUSE THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE CONCERN OF PEOPLE THAT'S TALKED TO ME. WE DO THIS DRI, AND THEN SOMEBODY COMES IN YEARS LATER, AND FORGETS THAT WE MADE PROMISES ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WERE APPROVING.
YES, MA'AM. JAMIE SEAMAN, DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE GIVEN YOU, AND GIVE YOU THOSE ASSURANCES TO YOU. THIS IS A FRAMEWORK DRI. A TRUE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT HAS ENGINEERING DESIGNS AND STANDARDS. IT'S MUCH MORE DETAILED THAN THE DOCUMENT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. AND THAT'S WHAT WILL COME THROUGH IN INCREMENTS. BECAUSE THIS IS A LARGE PIECE OF LAND YOU CA CARDIOVASCULAR NOT GENERATE THIS LAND IN ONE PIECE. YOU HAVE TO DO IT IN CHUNKS AS THE DEMAND WARRANTS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY 8, YES, MA'AM. GATEWAY WILL GO FIRST. FARMTON LOCAL PLAN, THE MASTER AGREEMENT FOR THIS, THE START OF THIS, PROHIBITS THEM FROM FREE-THROW LINE DEVELOPING ANY OTHER PORTION OF IT BEFORE 2025. GATEWAY CAN START AS EARLY AS 2017. BECAUSE IT WILL GO FIRST, IT ALSO ALLOWS SOME OF THOSE DEVELOPMENT WIDES TO BE TRANSFER -- DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE OTHER SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AREAS. WE HAD ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED LANGUAGE THAT SIMPLY SAID THEY WOULD NOT ANNEX INTO THE CITY UNTIL THAT INCREMENT TALL DRI, THE HARD ENGINEERING DRI HAD BEEN WRITTEN. WHAT -- THEY ARE EXPENSIVE. THESE ARE NOT CHEAP DOCUMENTS TO CREATE, AND WOULD HAVE ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THEY HAVE REQUESTED THAT -- HE MAY ANNEX BEFORE THAT INCREMENTAL DRI IS COMPLETED. AND IF HE DOES, WE HAVE TO HAVE A JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT IN PLACE WITH THE CITY WHERE THE CITY WILL HONOR THE SAME CRITERIA AND OBLIGATIONS WE HAVE AT THE FARMTON PLAN. THE MASTER DOCUMENT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU SPELLS OUT THE FARMTON LOCAL CONTROLS ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE FARMTON LOCAL PLAN, AND THE FARMTON LOCAL PLAN CONTROLS. AND IT CLEARLY SPELLS OUT THE DARK SKIES, THE LEAD, THE FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, THE STEP BY STEP. YESTERDAY, I SAT WITH MRS. SELLER FROM OUR OFFICE, AND WE WENT THROUGH THE MASTER DRI AND COMPARED IT TO THE FARMTON LOCAL PLAN, AND I ASKED HER "IS THIS THERE" IS EVERY ONE OF THESE GREEN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REPEATED IN THE MASTER DRI. IN 201, WE FOUND IT. AND WE ALSO FOUND THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS IF IT ISN'T, IT'S ALSO -- -- YOU RELY ON THE MASTER PLAN.
AND THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THEY ARE VOTING ON, MONDAY NIGHT?
YES, MA'AM. AND THEY HAVE DONE A VERY SIMILAR DEVELOPING. YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THE RESTORATION DRI CAME BEFORE FARMTON, AND THAT PREDECESSOR HAS ALMOST IDENTICAL LANGUAGE RELATED TO THE DARK SKIES WATER WISE LEAD, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, ALL OF THOSE THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT WITH CLEAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WERE PART OF THE FARMTON DRI. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE CONSERVATION LANDS. IT WAS ABOUT HAVING A WHOLE NEW DIFFERENT, BETTER TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. AND THEY HAVE DONE THAT WITH RESTORATION. WE HAVE CHECKED THEIR COMP PLAN AND CHECKED THEIR DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, AND THEY HAVE THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE AND WE FEEL CERTAIN THAT THEY WILL DO THE SAME THING.
OKAY. WELL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN WORKING ON THIS MR. STOREG?
8.
I'VE GONE THROUGH SEVERAL ELECTION CYCLES AND LOST SOME SUPPORTER WHO REALLY QUESTIONED WHAT WE WERE DOING HERE. AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU ASSURED ME WAS THAT THE SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES WOULD BE IN PLACE, THAT WE WERE JUST -- WE WERE CALLED LIARS THIS WEEK BY PEOPLE ABOUT THE ROAD NETWORK. AND I WANT TO ASK YOU AGAIN TO EMPHASIZE THAT WE ARE NOT 8-LANE, 6-LANING MAY TOWN ROAD ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE. THAT THOSE PLANS, THEY ARE NOT ON THE 20-YEAR ROAD PROGRAM FOR THE COUNTY. WE DO NOT HAVE THE FUNDING FOR THEM.
WE DON'T EITHER.
RIGHT.
AND I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. IF IT'S ALL RIGHT TO RESPOND, ABSOLUTELY FIRST OF ALL, WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THE SUSTAINABILITY PROVISIONS WE HAVE PUT IN THERE.
AS I AM TOO.
FOR THE LAST 8 YEARS, AND SECONDLY, AS TO THE ROAD, WHICH IS TURNED INTO AN ISSUE BY ITSELF, BUT WE ALWAYS LOOKED AT THIS. BUT DON'T FORGET, EVERYTHING WE DO, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND LOOK AT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. WE CAN'T BUILD THAT ROAD UNTIL WE GO THROUGH THE NEXT DRI AND LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON. SO THE IDEA WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ALL THE QUESTIONS LAID OUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE TIME YOU DO THE DRI. AND AGAIN, I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MUCH I APPRECIATE EDGEWATER'S WILLINGNESS TO BEND OVER BACKWARDS AND ENFORCE THE SUSTAINABILITY AND WE THINK IT'S GREAT. I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, WE STOLE A LOT OF THAT -- A LOT OF THAT FROM RESTORATION. CLAY WILL TELL YOU THE SAME THING. WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD. WE THOUGHT THE LANGUAGE WAS GREAT. AND THOSE ARE THE SORT OF THINGS THAT WE WANT TO SEE FOR THE FUTURE. AND WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THIS. THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS VERY PROUD OF THIS.
IT WAS A PROJECT THAT THE SUSTAINABILITY PIECE OF IT AND THE ROAD NETWORK WERE CRITICAL THIS MY THINKING WHEN WE MOVED THIS PROJECT FORWARD. AND I WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD THAT ALL OF THAT REMAINS IN PLACE. AND WE WILL MOVE FORWARD AND EDGEWATER IS AGREEABLE TO THAT. AND THAT'S JUST A LITTLE UP COMFORTABLE BECAUSE -- UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING.
IF THEY DON'T, I AM NOT ALLOWED TO ANNEX. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. IT'S NOT JUST EDGEWATER. OAK HILL HAS GIVEN US RESOLUTIONS OF SUPPORT. DELTONA HAS NO OBJECTIONS. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER WITH EVERYONE, JUST AS WE PROMISED. EVERYTHING WE HAVE PROMISED TO YOU OVER THE PAST EIGHT YEARS, WE HAVE TRIED TO DO AND MAKE SURE IT'S DONE. AND I THINK THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING WHEN YOU SEE THE CONSERVATION LAND PUT INTO PLACE. AND PRESERVE DEEP CREEK. I THINK THOSE ARE TWO TANGIBLE EFFORTS WE HAVE MADE TO SHOW WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO. OKAY. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DID YOU WANT -- EDGEWATER -- WE HAVE THE CITY MANAGER FROM EDGEWATER HERE. DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
THANK YOU.
I TALKED TO YOU LAST NIGHT AND TOLD YOU I WAS GOING TO MAKE COMMENTS AND EVERYTHING.
FOR THE RECORD TRACEY BARLOW, TO ATTEST TO MRS. SEAMAN'S COMMENTS, YOU LOOK AT YOUR MDO ASSOCIATED FARMTON, AND IT'S A REPLICA IN MANY FASHIONS OF ACROSS THE STREET, THE RESTORATION DEVELOPMENT THAT WE HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE DRI PROCESS. WE CAN'T TAKE ALL THE CREDIT FOR THAT BECAUSE YOUR STAFF WAS VERY INSTRUMENTAL IN OUR PROCESS AND PUTTING THE INITIATIVES IN THERE. SAME THING WITH WATER STAR STANDARDS, AND ENERGY STAR STANDARDS, AND DARK SKIES, VERY SIMILAR TO FARMTON AND PUTS 75% INTO CONSERVATION. ALMOST 75% INTO CONSERVATION. 74.6. A LOT OF SIMILARITY AS WELL THERE. FOR THE RECORD, I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY INTEREST OF THEM ANNEXING ANY TIME SOON INTO THE CITY OF EDGEWATER. I TALKED TO THE STAFF ABOUT MAYBE INCLUDING THAT IN THE ISBA AND IT'S JUST GIVINGS A CONTRACTUAL OPPORTUNITY IF WE LIKE TO PROVIDE A MORE EFFICIENT SERVICE THE IF WE DECIDE. THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON, AND THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND THAT CAN BE PULLED OUT IF THAT WAS A CONCERN . AS FAR AS EVERYTHING ELSE, YES, I'VE TALKED TO INDIVIDUALLY WITH THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE SIMILARITIES AND RESTORATIONS IN THOSE STANDARDS AND THEY WOULD APPROXIMATE THE SAME GOOD STEWARTS OF ENFORCING THOSE STANDARDS AND WOULD ADOPT VERY SIMILAR, IF NOT THE SAME EXACT LANGUAGE THAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE IN YOUR PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH OUR FARMTON LOCAL PLAN. AS A MATTER OF FACT, YOU CALLED IT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AREA, WE CALL IT RESTORATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. DOES THAT HELP YOU OUT?
IT DOES. THANK YOU.
VERIED GOOD.
-- VERY GOOD.
ALL RIGHT. MRS. DENYS, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
YES. BEFORE THE RECORD, WE HEARD PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD THAT OAK HILL AND OSTEEN IS AGAINST THIS. IS THAT ACCURATE STATEMENT?
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR OSTEEN BECAUSE IT'S NOT A CITY. BUT WE WORK CLOSELY WITH OAK HILL, AND WE HAVE ADDRESSED ALL OF THEIR CONCERNS, AND THEY HAVE IN FACT HAVE GIVEN US A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT AND WORKED CLOSELY WITH US ON THIS. OUR GOAL IS TO BE PARTNERS WITH EVERY COMMUNITY WE'RE SURROUNDING AND WE HAVE BEEN A BIG PARTNER WITH OAK HILL AND WORKED CLOSELY WITH EDGEWATER, AS THEY WILL TELL YOU. AND WE HAVE WORKED CLOSELY WITH DELTONA. THAT'S WHY IT WAS SO IMPORTANT.
ALL OF THIS IS DONE THROUGH DISCLOSURE?
TOTALLY.
THERE'S NOTHING DONE IN THE DARK.
TOTALLY TRANSPARENT. WHEN WE PRESENTED IT TO OAK HILL, WE DID IT DURING A CITY COMMISSION HEARING.
I AM GOING TO TWO ON THE RECORD WITH THIS. BECAUSE MRS. NORTHEY REFERENCED WE WERE CALLED LIARS, I BELIEVE THE E-MAIL CAME TO -- THIS IS PUBLIC RECORD BECAUSE IT GOES TO THE MEDIA TOO. THE FAB 4. THERE'S 7 THAT VOTE ON IT, NOT JUST 4, GOING FORWARD, AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN HERE ARE ENOUGH. AND THE LAST STATEMENT SAYS JUST BECAUSE YOU KEEP PEOPLE IN THE DARK DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO THINK PEOPLE ARE STUPID AND LAZY. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE PROCESS OF GOVERNMENT AND TRANSPARENCY IS ON THE RECORD IN MEETINGS IN PUBLIC EITHER HERE OR AT THE CITY'S. MR. STORAGE I DON'T VIEW THIS COUNCIL AS SNEAKY IN THIS PROCESS, OR YOURSELF OR ANYBODY ELSE I HAVE DEALT WITH. I FOR ONE AM GOING ON THE RECORD WITH THIS --
I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I WILL TELL YOU THIS. THERE'S ALL THE POTENTIAL FOR MISUNDERSTANDINGS. THERE'S ALWAYS CONCERN WHEN YOU HAVE STATUS QUO. I HAVE DEALT WITH THIS FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS. WE WANT TO WORK TOGETHER TO SOLVE THIS MISUNDERSTANDING AND WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE BEST PRODUCT POSSIBLE AND HOPEFULLY I HAVE DONE THAT. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU JUST READ WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE CASE.
NOT ACCURATE AND NOT THE TRUTH.
YES. IN MY CASE, I NEED TO MAKE SURE WE SOLVE PROBLEMS, ASK I THINK WE HAVE DONE THAT. AND I WILL WORK WITH ANYBODY. I'VE TOLD THE RESIDENTS IF HE NEED ME TO COME OUT THERE ANY TIME, I WILL BE GLAD TO TELL THEM WHAT'S GOING ON. BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN THIS PROCESS. IF IF YOU LOOK AT THE EIGHT YEARS WE PUT INTO THIS WITH STAKEHOLDERS MEETINGS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THAT'S WHAT THIS PROCESS IS ABOUT. AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
YOU'RE NOT HIDING BEHIND E-MAILS, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT AND APPROVE.
SECOND.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM MRS. DENYS.
SECOND.
SECOND FROM MRS. NORTHEY.
CONTINUING WITH CONVERSATION, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, MADAM.
I MADE THE MOTION. I AM GOOD.
MR. WAGNER? THE CONCERN I AM HEARING IS THAT IT COULD HAPPEN -- NOT THAT IT IS. BUT THAT IT COULD. IS THERE ANY REASSURANCE OTHER THAN JUST SAYING THERE'S NO MONEY FOR IT?
YES, THERE IS.
I KNOW THE TRIGGER.
YOU MAY HAVE BEEN OUT THERE.
SORRY.
I AM OUT THERE ALL THE TIME.
OUT OF YOUR SEAT. [LAUGHTER]. ONE OF THE THINGS TO THINK ABOUT IS WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL WE DO AN ACTUAL DRI, AND INCREMENTAL DRI AND THAT WILL COME BACK TO YOU FOR APPROVAL, FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, SO WE WILL NOT BE DOING ANY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS UNTIL THE NEXT DRI COMES IN. I KNOW JAMIE SAYS LOGICALLY GATEWAY WOULD BE THE FIRST. IT'S NOT THE CASE BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA THAT WOULD BE CLOSER TO THE MAY TOWN INTERCHANGE, IF IT'S EVER DONE IN 2040. THERE MAY BE NOTHING DONE IN THAT AREA FOR DECADES TO COME. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, YES, WE HAVE TO DO A DRI AND WE HAVE TO HAVE APPROVAL. THE ASSURANCE IS NOT BASED ON MY ASSURANCE BUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU.
YOU THANK YOU.
NOW, WHICH ONE OF YOUR PEOPLE THERE IS THE HYDRO ENGINEER?
THAT WOULD BE DEVO.
CAN YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE? .
I'VE TALKED PRIOR TO THIS MEETING AND IT BROUGHT MY CONCERNS AND CONCERNS OF THE CITIZENS ABOUT THE 6-LANING AND 8-LANING, AND I AM STAFFED WITH THIS. WHAT IS A DRI, FIRST? I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW. I UNDERSTAND. BUT TELL EVERYONE WHAT A DRI.
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT. IT IS A LARGE ENOUGH DEVELOPMENT THAT HITS A THRESHOLD OF DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD OF REVIEW, AND THAT REVIEW WILL REQUIRE ALL THE AGENCIES TO BE INVOLVED, AS WELL AS SURROUNDING MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES. WE TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT BECAUSE IT HAS AN IMPACT.
THE REASON I ASKED IS BECAUSE WE KEEP SPEAKING GOVERNMENT. WE TALK CRA AND DRI, AND WE TALK ALL KINDS OF OTHER ACT ANYMORES. SO WE NEED TO EXPLAIN -- ACRONYMS.
STORM WATER WILL BE AN ISSUE WE HAVE TO ADDRESS DURING THE DRI. CAN YOU EXPLAIN.
I'VE DRIVEN DOWN MAY TOWN ROAD, AND I'VE DONE IT IN THE RAIN. AND IT IS LESS THAN FUN IN THE RAIN. BECAUSE THE WATER KIND OF FLOWS OVER THE ROAD A LITTLE BIT. WHAT IS IN THE FUTURE PLANS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES HERE FOR THE CITIZENS OUT THERE?
CERTAINLY. FOR THE RECORD, I AM MARK DELL. WE'RE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS IN DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA. THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU ARE APPROVING HAS IN PLACE THE DRI PROCESS, OF COURSE. DURING THE DRI PROCESS, DETAILED FLOOD STUDIES WILL NEED TO BE DONE. SOME HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE. THE COUNTY DID ONE BUT THERE WILL BE FAR MORE DETAILED AND DETERMINE THE FLOWS AND WHERE THE FLOOD PLANES ARE AND ROAD NETWORKS WILL NEED TO BE DESIGNED THAT ARE FLOOD-FREE THAT FUNCTION AS PROPER EVACUATION ROUTES. SO THERE'S STANDARDS THE COUNTY HAS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE COUNTY CODE REQUIRES IF YOU BUILD A ROAD, IT HAS TO BE 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE. WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT A ROAD LIKE MAY TOWN, OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE BUILT TO A HIGH STANDARD. SO WHEN THAT ROAD IS REBUILT, IT WOULD BE FLOOD FREE AND SERVE AS A PROPER EVACUATION ROUTE AND SO FOR. ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO MENTION --
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE ROAD. WHEN THE WERE YOU COMES OFF THE -- WATER COMES OFF THE ROAD, WHERE IS IT GOING TO GO? THAT'S THEIR CONCERNS.
ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED TO MEET STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS. WE HAVE TO DO THE USUAL WATER QUALITY, PROPEST CONTINUATION, AND ANOTHER CRITICAL PART OF IT IS THAT WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE CALL COMPENSATING FLOOD STORAGE. SO IF THERE'S AN AREA WHERE FLOOD WATERS RESIDE, AND THERE'S ANY AREA, IT HAS TO BE COMPENSATED FOR. SO THE END RESULT, THERE'S NO NET DIFFERENCE IN WHAT OTHER AREAS SEE AS A RESULT OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ONE OF THE CRITICAL THINGS ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT ACTUALLY MAKES IT -- WILL MAKE IT EASIER TO BE ENGINEERED IN THE FUTURE, THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT WAS GREEN PRINTED. WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT THE AREAS THAT WERE SET ASIDE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AREAS, THESE ARE THE BEST AREAS. ALL THE NATURAL FLOW AREAS AND SO FOR, YOU WILL FIND THEY CALL WITHIN THE GREEN PRINT AREAS AND PRESERVED IN THE ENTIRETY. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING AS ENGINEERED AS WE HAVE THE LUXURY OF DEALING WITH. BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE PLANS ARE DEVISED, THEY WILL ALLOW THOSE ISSUES TO BE HANDLED IN THE FUTURE.
THE WAY MAY TOWN IS RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NO STORM WATER PROVIDED FOR BECAUSE THIS IS SUBSTANDARD. THIS WAS A DIRT ROAD THAT WAS LAID OVER WITH PAVEMENT SO THERE'S NOTHING THERE. WHEN THIS IS REBUILT, IT WILL PROVIDE FOR A PROPER STORM WATER PROTECTION. THAT'S GOING TO BE IN 30-50 YEARS IN THE FUTURE.
RIGHT.
NOT BEFORE THAT.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. SEEING NO DISCUSSION, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MRS. DENYS FOR APPROVAL. AND SECOND FROM MRS. NORTHEY. CORRECT? ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE OPPOSED.
AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK YOU AND WE WILL WORK ON TRANSFERRING THE EASEMENTS OUT NOW AND I SUSPECT THERE WILL BE ANOTHER AWARD SOON . THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SIR. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO CONSENT ITEM NUMBER 20, PLEASE. THAT'S A CONTRACT RENEWALS FOR FLEET, TIRE, AND DIESEL SERVICE OF DAYTONA. AND EARL CONTROL VOIR DIRE DOING BUSINESS FOR VEHICLE AND IMPLEMENT TIRES.
I SUSPECT THERE WILL BE SOMEONE WHO WILL MAKE A MOTION AND SECOND BUT IT WON'T BE ME AND I WON'T BE VOTING FOR IT.
I MOVE FOR APPROVAL.
[LAUGHTER].
MR. CHAIR, I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE IT.
MRS. CUSACK BEAT YOU TO THE MOTION.
OH, I HAVE A SECOND.
SECOND BY MR. PATTERSON. FURTHER DISCUSSION?
OKAY. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONTRACT -- WAIT A MINUTE. MR. MANAGER? THIS DID GO THROUGH THE REQUEST FOR BID? -- REQUEST FOR BID?
TWO BIDDERS.
AND ADVERTISING ON BENCHES?
NO. BUT THEY ARE SELLING TIRES.
BUT THEY ARE SELLING TIRES.
TIRES AIN'T PRETTY.
NO.
OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH FLEET TIRE AND DIESEL SERVICE, SIGNIFY BY I. MRS. NORTHEY IN OPPOSITION. 6-1. MOVING
ON. WE HAVE SOME APPOINTMENTS TO MAKE .
WE'RE STILL ON AGENDA ITEMS.
WE'RE DONE. NOW WE'RE MOVING FORWARD TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 35. WHICH IS APPOINTMENT FOR THE HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL OF NORTH EAST FLORIDA INCORPORATED. ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY MAKE AN APPOINTMENT. DO I HAVE A MOTION?
MR. BELL AND MR. MERRELL?
THOSE ARE TWO GOOD CHOICES.
I NOMINATE THEM BOTH.
YOU CAN'T DO THAT. BUT THANK YOU FOR PLAYING. CUSACK MADE A NOMINATION NOR LINDA MERRELL. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING DONE. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? MRS. LINDA MERRELL --
I NOMINATE CHESTER BELL.
OKAY. THAT'S MADE BY MR. WAGNER. FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY I? ALL OPPOSED? MOVING ON. 35-A. MRS. CUSACK. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR ON ITEM 35A.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE SARAH HETEL FOR THE WEST VOLUTION I CAN'T ADVERTISING AUTHORITY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? SIGNIFY BY I? ALL THOSE OPPOSED? MR. PATTERSON?
CHAIR REQUESTS A CONTINUANCE BECAUSE THERE'S NOBODY ELSE TO NOMINATE.
YOU RECOGNIZE MR. CHAIR?
OKAY. I NEED TO GET A REQUEST OR MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ON ITEM 35A FOR MY APPOINTMENT.
SO MOVED. SECONDED BY MRS. DENYS. ANY OBJECTION TO THE MOTION? WITHOUT OBJECTION, SHOWING THE MOTION -- WITHOUT OBJECTION SHOWING, THE MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU, SIR.
UNANIMOUS.
BEFORE WE GO TO COUNCIL COMMENT -- COUNCIL COMMENT, THIS WAS SENT TO ME FROM THE ACTION COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP. WE HAVE A APPOINTMENT REQUEST FOR WILLIAMS TO SERVE ON THE MID FLOOR COMMUNITY SERVICES INC. WOULD THE COUNCIL LIKE TO CARRY THIS FORWARD TO OUR NEXT MEETING, OR WOULD SOMEBODY LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION? HOW DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS, GUYS?
I HANDED THIS OUT AT OUR LUNCHTIME.
MR. CHAIR?
YES, MA'AM.
I WOULD NOMINATE MRS. MUSCULOSKELETAL WILLIAMS.
OKAY. -- MCWILLIAMS.
OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NO DISCUSSION.
SHE HAS SERVED PREVIOUSLY ON THAT BEFORE.
YES. YES. DORIS HAS BEEN NOMINATED TO THE NEXT YEAR. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY I. ALL OF THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MRS. CUSACK, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN MAKE THIS BY 5:00 SO WE CAN GO THROUGH OUR BUDGET THIS AFTERNOON. SO WE'RE GOING TO START OFF WITH COUNCIL'S CLOSING COMMENTS. MRS. CUSACK, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR MA'AM.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I HAVE NO CLOSING COMMENTS.
THAT WAS GOOD. GET A CUP OF TEA.
ALL RIGHT. MR. DANIELS, DO YOU HAVE ANY CLOSING COMMENTS?
NO MR. CHAIRMAN, I DO NOT. MRS. DENYS?
I DO. WE HAD A GOOD MEETING YESTERDAY AT THE DOOR SLEEPER REGARDING THE BRUCE CREEK PRESERVE. STAFF DID A GOOD JOB MEETING WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS ON THE TRAILS, AND THE ONLY THING I WOULD ASK MR. MANAGER GOING FORWARD, WHEN WE HAVE THESE MEETINGS IN DISTRICT OF THIS PROPORTION, SUCH A SENSITIVE ISSUE, ESPECIALLY WITH MUNICIPALITIES THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD BE NOTIFIED ON A MORE TIMELY FASHION AND WE WOULD BE MORE AWARE OF THAT. IT WAS A GREAT MEETING AND A GOOD TURNOUT, AND I WOULD SAY IT WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL. THE OTHER THING IS, MORGAN STOPPED MRS. NORTHEY AND MYSELF ON THE WAY IN. HE'S INSISTING ON A THROW-DOWN FOR THE ALS CHALLENGE. I'VE BEEN CHALLENGED 3 TIMES PREVIOUSLY FOR THE RECORD, AND I'VE WRITTEN CHECKS. BUT HE SEEMS TO WANT ICE. [LAUGHTER]. SO MRS. NORTHEY, WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I ACCEPT THAT CHALLENGE.
A WET T-SHIRT CONTEST.
[LAUGHTER].
THAT'S WHY I'VE BEEN WRITING THE CHECK. [LAUGHTER]
PICK A TIME AND A DAY AND A PLACE.
MORGAN, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, WHICH I AM SURE YOU ARE, WE ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE WITH A SMALL BUCKET ON A WARM DAY. SO WE WILL WAIT TO GET THAT SCHEDULED. ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO JOIN US ARE WELCOME.
MY CHECK IS IN THE MAIL. [LAUGHTER].
I ALREADY HAVE THE CHECK WRITTEN, AND IT'S SITTING ON THE COUNTER.
BEING GOOD SPORTS, MRS. NORTHEY AND I AND ANYBODY ELSE -- MR. DANIELS --
IT WOULDN'T DO ANY GOOD FOR ANYBODY TO SEE ME IN A WET T-SHIRT CONTEST. THAT'S NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTEST.
SURE IT IS.
ANYWAY, I MAY WRITE ANOTHER CHECK BEFORE THIS IS OVER. ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. MRS. NORTHEY?
THANK YOU. I HAVE SEVERAL THINGS. ONE, I AM HOPING THAT WE HAVE RESOLVED THE ISSUE OF BIKE TRAIL, BIKE-PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AND SIGNAGE AND ROAD MARKINGS ON OUR -- I SEE MRS. SEAMAN SHAKING HER HEAD "YES."
CAN WE SHOW YOU?
WOULD YOU PLEASE? I WOULD LOVE TO SEE WHAT WE CAME UP WITH.
JERRY BENTON, COUNTY ENGINEER.
YOU GOT THAT DOWN PRETTY FAST.
LET'S NOT MAKE A HABIT OF THAT TOO MUCH.
[LAUGHTER]. DON'T GO THERE, MR. MANAGER. DON'T GO THERE. [LAUGHTER].
THAT'S RIGHT. I DON'T WANT TO CREATE EXPECTATIONS. [LAUGHTER]. THE CONCERN CAME UP WAS WITH WHERE OUR TRAIL, OUR MAJOR MULTIUSE TRAILS CROSS COUNTY ROADS, PARTICULARLY ONES THAT HAVE A GOOD BIT OF TRAFFIC. MRS. NORTHEY BROUGHT UP THE CROSSING AT MANSION BOULEVARD WHERE OUR TRAIL, THE SPRING TO SPRING TRAIL, AND WENT UNDER I-4 AND HAD A RIBBON CUTTING AND ALL OF THAT. WE NOW HAVE -- IT'S IN AN AREA THAT HAS A LOT OF TRAFFIC AND WHAT WE'RE DOING -- I WILL SHOW YOU SOME SLIDES. BUT WHAT WE HAVE ON THE PAVEMENT, THIS IS WHAT WE JUST FINISHED PUTTING IN LARGE LETTERS. YOU CAN SEE THERE "TRAIL CROSSING" AND WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE OUT THAT SIGN, WHICH IS A PEDESTRIAN SIGN, AND I WILL SHOW YOU THE ONE WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN. IT'S BEEN ON ORDER. BUT IT SHOWS A BICYCLE SYMBOL AND A TRAIL SYMBOL.
AND A PEDESTRIAN?
THIS IS IN THE EASTBOUND DIRECTION DIRECTION. THERE'S -- THIS IS IN THE EASTBOUND DIRECTION. AND THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS YOU THE SYMBOLS.
THAT'S THE RIGHT ONE. YOU GOT IT RIGHT.
THE NEXT SLIDE, THIS IS SHOWING AN AREA THAT ET GOES VERY LITTLE CROSSING BUT WE HAVE A BIKE AND ARROW FOR THE CROSSING. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF COURT LAND. WE HAVE BEEN IT PUTTING BIKE AND THERE'S A CROSSING BEYOND THAT. YOU SEE THE BICYCLE SYMBOL AND THE CROSSING ITSELF. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE IS AT BARFIELD AND YOU SEE THE SAME TREATMENT.
WHICH ONE?
I WOULD RECOMMEND WE LEAVE THE BIKE PAVEMENT MARKING.
YEAH.
BUT ON THE SIGNS, I THINK WE WANT TO GET INTO CONSISTENT AND I WOULD MARKET THAT IT'S A TRAIL CROSSING.
THAT WOULD BE GOOD. THANK YOU.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE LAST ONE.
AND I COULDN'T BE MORE PLEASED WITH THAT. THANK YOU.
YOU ARE WELCOME.
OKAY
I JUST WANTED TO ALSO COMMENT -- TWO OTHER THINGS. I WENT THROUGH A RECOUNT LAST WEEKEND AND I WANT TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO MRS. MCFALL AND HER STAFF WHO DID A REMARKABLE JOB IN A FRUSTRATING EXPERIENCE FOR SOME BECAUSE OF THE TIME. BUT THERE WAS NOT A MORE PROFESSIONALLY-RUN RECOUNT AND I HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE IN IT AS WELL AS YOU DO MR. DANIELS. WE WENT THROUGH IT IN 2000. HER STAFF WAS PROFESSIONAL AT ALL TIMES. THEY WORKED HARD. THEY WERE UP -- I KNOW SOME OF THEM UP 24 HOURS, AND THEY JUST KEPT AT IT. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWN THE THEY WERE UPSET, IF THEY WERE HAVING A PREFERENCE. THEY JUST STAYED PROFESSIONAL AND MRS. MCFALL RAN A VERY PROFESSIONAL CANVASSING BOARD FROM HER PIECE OF IT. AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT IT WAS GOOD TO HAVE MR. BREW KNOW THERE. HE'S A PROFESSIONAL -- BRUNO THERE. HE'S PROFESSIONAL AND EXPERIENCED. MRS. KELLY TOOK OVER FOR A JUDGE BACK WHO HAD TICKS TO FLY -- TICKETS TO FLY TO SEATTLE, I THINK IT WAS. CHRIS DID A GREAT JOB AS WELL. I REALLY WANTED TO JUST ACKNOWLEDGE STAFF ON HOW WELL THEY PERFORMED IN A SHORT TIME AND UNDER STRESSFUL CIRCUMSTANCES. SO THANK YOU TO THE ELECTIONS WORKERS. THEY DID A GREAT JOB. AND THEN MY LAST THING, MR. DAVIS, IS I WOULD ASK SOMEBODY WHO WAS ON THE PREVAILING SIDE OF THE DECISION TO ALLOW HUNTING ON THE LOWER SECTION OF DEEP CREEK PRESERVE TO RECONSIDER THAT VOTE SO WE CAN PUT IT BACK ON THE AGENDA AND HAVE A REAL ROBUST AND HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. I TALKED TO MR. EKARD AND POINTED OUT THAT THELESS AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE USING TO -- LEASE AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE USING TO SUPPORT THE DECISION TWO WEEKS AGO SAYS THERE SHALL. THERE SHALL NOT BE ANY HUNTING ON THE DEEP CREEK PROPERTY. SO I AM HAVING A HARD TIME RECONCILING THAT WITH WHAT WE DID. I AM HAVING A HARD TIME RECONCILING THE FACT THERE WAS A LETTER THAT SHOULD HAVE COME TO COUNCIL. AND I HAVE YET TO FIND OUT WHEN IT CAME TO ME. I COULD HAVE MISSED IT. BUT I DON'T RECALL SEEING IT. AND SO I THINK THAT WE ACTED IN HASTE. AND I WAS NOT ON THE PREVAILING SIDE, SO I CAN'T MAKE A MOTION, BUT I WOULD JUST ASK COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER THAT.
ALL RIGHT.
SO MOVED.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. DANIELS. IS THERE A SECOND?
I DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT. I CAN'T.
SHE'S NOT ON THE PREVAILING SIDE SO SHE CAN NOT MOTION OR SECOND
I THINK I CAN SECOND.
NO, YOU CAN NOT.
I THINK YOU COULD SECOND THE MOTION.
I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.
CAN YOU RESTATE THE MOTION?
MOTION IS TO BRING FORTHE DEEP CREEK CONTRACT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR A NEW DISCUSSION AND NEW VOTE. THAT'S A MOTION FROM MR. DANIELS, WITH A SECOND FROM MRS. CUSACK. CAN'T BE A SECOND FROM MRS. CUSACK.
I SECONDED IT.
I AM SORRY.
THE PURPOSE FOR BRINGING IT BACK MRS. NORTHEY?
FOR US TO RECONSIDER THE DECISION AND TO HAVE AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT AND FRANK DIALOGUE ABOUT WHAT WE DID. WE CHANGED COUNTY POLICY WITHOUT DISCUSSION AT ALL.
IS THIS THE HUNTING LEASE?
YES.
I SUPPORT THAT.
ALL RIGHT. FINE. MR. WAGNER?
IT WAS ON THE AGENDA. IT'S NOT LIKE IT WAS THE TYRANT AN AGENDAD ITEM.
I DOUBLE CHECKED. AND I HAD THE INITIAL THING --
I DID NOT. IT WAS PUT ON THE AGENDA THE DAY BEFORE THE COUNCIL MEETING, THAT'S WHEN I FIRST HEARD ABOUT IT AND WE DID NOT GET ANY BACKUP MATERIAL ON IT. THERE WAS A ALREADY THAT CAME TO COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND I DON'T RECALL SEEING IT. I HAD ASKED FOR THE LEASE. AND I READ THE MANAGEMENT AND WENT BACK AND READ THAT PLAN AND CLEARLY, THE LEASE SAYS THAT WE SHALL NOT HUNT.
OKAY. MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WAS MY REASON FOR MAKING THE MOTION. I DID NOT KNOW IT VIOLATED AN AGREEMENT WE ALREADY HAVE.
ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE MR. WAGNER?
MR. PATTERSON, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
WELL, THIS IS SOMETHING I SUPPORTED BECAUSE THE GROUP CALLED ME AND THEY WERE LOOKING TO LEASE THE PROPERTY AND I THINK WITH JIM AND I THAT TALKED ABOUT IT, AND GOING FORWARD WITH THIS GENERAL USE PERMIT, I BELIEVE FOR A ONE-YEAR, TO TEST IT OUT WAS THE PROPER WAY TO GO. I JUST THINK THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN OVERREACTING TO THIS. AND I THINK THAT THAT'S NOT FAIR. I THINK WE HAVE SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO USE THE LAND FOR HUNTING. I THINK WE HAVE SOME REVENUE COMING IN ON IT. I DON'T THINK ALL OF THIS DEATH AND DESTRUCTION THAT PEOPLE ARE PREACHING ABOUT BECAUSE THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT BUFFER OUT THERE.
FOR THE RECORDS THIS IS ABOUT THE PROCESS.
IT WAS ON THE AGENDA. I THINK YOU HAD EVERY RIGHT TO PULL IT OR VOTE AGAINST IT OR WHATEVER. BUT JUST TO PULL IT BACK BECAUSE YOU HAVE GOTTEN A FEW E-MAILS, YOU KNOW, WITH PEOPLE JUMPING UP AND DOWN, I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR. I DON'T. THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO GO BECAUSE IN ONE YEAR, WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH THIS PROPERTY AND SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE WANT TO CONTINUE OR STOP IT AT THAT POINT. THE STAFF HAS GUARANTEED THEY ARE WATCHING THIS VERY CAREFULLY TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOT ANY PROBLEMS OUT THERE.
WE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED A COUNTY POLICY WE HAVE HAD IN PLACE ON 30 YEARS ON A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM. THAT'S WRONG. THAT'S WRONG.
MR. WAGNER?
BUT WASN'T IT PULLED?
YEAH, IT WAS PULLED.
SO IT'S NOT CONSENT AGENDA. IT WAS PULLED ITEM. IT'S ONLY A YEAR.
MR. MANAGER, DO WE REMEMBER WHAT NUMBER THAT ITEM WAS? WAS IT ON THE CONSENT?
WE PULLED IT FROM CONSENT TO DISCUSS IT.
I AGREE WITH PATTERSON. IT'S A YEAR. I AM OKAY WITH TESTING IT OUT. THERE'S A LOT OF LAND OUT THERE. WE CAN CHANGE IT IF THERE'S A PROBLEM. BUT I DON'T SEE ONE YET.
MRS. ZIMMERMAN, CAN YOU TURN MY SCREEN BACK ON, PLEASE? ANYBODY ELSE WITH A COMMENT ON THAT?
YEAH. LET ME JUST REAL QUICK. WE HAVE AN EXCELLENT RECORD WITH THIS GROUP BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY LEASING LAND FROM US. HAVE WE HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH THEM?
WE HAVE NOT.
SO WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH THEM, AND THEY TAKE CARE OF THE LAND. I DON'T SEE WHAT THE BIG DEAL IS. I DON'T REALLY DON'T.
FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE LEASEHOLDER. THIS IS ABOUT PROCESS AND POLICY, AND WE ARE VIOLATING OUR OWN LEASE AGREEMENT.
THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP AT THE TIME.
YES, IT SHOULD HAVE AND IT WASN'T.
WHY WOULD I WANT TO DO THAT NOW?
BECAUSE WE'RE STILL IN VIOLATION.
OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. YOU CAN TAKE MRS. CUSACK AND WAGGER IN OFF MY SCREEN -- WAGNER OFF MY SCREEN. YOU KEEP PUTTING THE MOTION AND THE SECOND ON THERE. ANYWAYS, THIS IS A MOTION TO BRINGING BACK THE LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE DEEP CREEK -- IS IT DEEP CREEK? DEEP CREEK. BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR REVALUATION AND DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO BRING IT BACK? THE MOTION WAS TO BRING THE DEEP CREEK BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION AND RE-EVALUATION. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY I? ALL OF THOSE OPPOSED? SO FAILED. IT DOES NOT COME BACK. IT'S 4-3. MRS. CUSACK, MR. WAGNER, AND MR. PATTERSON AND MR. DAVIS IN OPPOSITION. THE NONFAB 4.
THE NON-FAB 4.
EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, IT'S A GOOD THING.
[LAUGHTER]. MRS. NORTHEY, ANYTHING FURTHER?
NO, THAT'S IT FOR ME. THANK YOU.
MR. PATTERSON WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A CLOSING COMMENT?
NO, I WOULD NOT.
MR. WAGNER?
NO.
ALL RIGHT. I HAVE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY. CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL OF YOU WHO ESPECIALLY DENYS HERE, 52% ON YOUR ELECTIONS. CONGRATULATIONS. CONGRATULATIONS ON ALL OF THOSE WHO HAVE PUSHED THROUGH THE PRIMARY, AND GOOD LUCK TO YOU IN YOUR FUTURE FOR THE NEXT 3 MONTHS TO SEE WHO COMES OUT AHEAD ON THAT. AND TWO MONTHS, 8 WEEKS, GOOD LUCK. ROCK 'N' ROLL. THAT'S ALL I AM GOING WITH. OTHER THAN THAT I AM DONE WITH MY COMMENTS. MR. DENINE? CAN YOU DO IT IN TEN MINUTES?
REAL QUICK, CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL THE CANDIDATES, MRS. DENYS TO THE OTHER ONES, HAPPY TO SEE YOU WON 8 MORE WEEKS OF CAMPAIGNING.
[LAUGHTER]. THEY ARE DOING IT NOT ME. HERE'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO AND I HOPE EVERYONE BEARS WITH ME SO WE CAN PUT THIS ITEM ASIDE FOR A MOMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF I CAN GET GUIDANCE OVER THE ISSUE WITH MR. CANENY THIS MORNING. I HAD AN IMPRESSION THERE WAS A CONCEPT YOU WANT TO GO FOR THE BLUE COMMITTEE, AND I THOUGHT I HEARD STAFF HELPING TO MAYBE FORMULATE A SCOPE OR STRUCTURE. DO YOU WANT US TO DO ANYTHING? DO YOU WANT US TO -- I AM LOST ON WHETHER YOU WANT US TO START TRYING TO DO THAT SCOPE OR DO YOU WANT ME TO WORK WITH MR. CANENY AND TRY TO DEFINE WHAT YOU WANT THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT? I AM ONLY SAYING THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT SOMEWHERE IN THAT DISCUSSION, I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT COMMENT. IF THAT'S NOT THE DIRECTION, I JUST NEED TO KNOW. I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE AN EXPECTATION THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE THAT I AM NOT AWARE OF. I JUST NEED DIRECTION. THAT'S ALL.
ANY SUGGESTIONS?
I THINK IF YOU WORK WITH MR. CANENY, COME UP WITH SOMETHING. AND THERE SHOULDN'T BE A LARGE GROUP. MAYBE EACH POINT ONE WITH A TIME CERTAIN.
WELL, I WOULD ASSUME YOU DECIDE HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU WANT AND WHAT TIME. WHAT I WOULD LOOK AT IS DO YOU WANT ME TO WORK WITH MR. CANENY? I THOUGHT HE WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE PERSON TO HELP FIND THE ISSUES HE SAW. MR. WAGNER SAYS HE KNOWS IT BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. COULD HE HELP ME CRAFT WHAT HE THINKS ARE THE THINGS YOU WANT TO LOOK AT LEGISLATIVETY. IF THAT'S NOT YOUR DIRECTION, LET ME KNOW. I THOUGHT SOMEONE SAID IN THE DISCUSSION. IF NOT, THAT WOULD BE FINE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I AM CLEAR.
MR. CANENY IS WORKING WITH HIM, MAYBE FOR INPUT.
WE WOULD BRING THIS BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBERS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE INPUT AND AGREE. IF YOU WANTED ME TO WORK ON IT AND START DEFINING WHAT THE SCOPE IS, I DO THINK ME ASKING HIM WHAT HE BELIEVES WOULD BE THE EXTENT OF THE THINGS HE BELIEVES LEGISLATIVELY CAME OUT OF HIS REPORT WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO START. BUT I JUST NEED DIRECTION. I KNOW I THOUGHT I HEARD SOMEONE SAY IN THE DISCUSSION, THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT STAFF.
MRS. CUSACK IS SOMEONE WHO MENTIONED ABOUT THAT.
BY THE WAY, ARE WE GOING TO PAY MR. CANENY TO ADVISE US?
OF COURSE. I THINK HE'S YOUR SPECIAL COUNCIL, AND I WOULD BE ASKING HIS ADVICE ON THOSE THINGS. HE HEARD WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, AND I THOUGHT HE COULD HELP GUIDE WHAT HE THINKS YOU OUGHT TO HAVE IN YOUR BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE.
SO DID OUR ATTORNEYS. THEY ARE THE SAME THING.
CORRECT.
WHY DO WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO PAY?
I WOULD RECOMMEND AFTER ALL THIS MONEY WE HAVE SPENT, THAT AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE REASON I WOULD GET HIS PERSPECTIVE, IT SHOULDN'T COST MUCH, MAYBE FREE, BUT HE DID THE REPORT AND IF THERE IS ANYTHING HE THINKS LEGISLATIVELY HE BELIEVES WERE FLAWED, THERE'S NO CRITICISM THAT WE MISSED SOMETHING. IN OTHER WORDS IF HE SAYS THESE ARE THE THINGS I FOUND, I THINK YOU CAN'T SAY YOU DIDN'T GET EVERYTHING.
ALL RIGHT. MRS. NORTHEY?
I WAS NOT FINISHED.
OH. OKAY. LET'S FINISH WITH CUSACK.
MY ONLY CONCERN IS IF OUR STAFF DRAFTS THE CONCERNS, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH US CONSULTING MR. CANENY FOR ANYTHING HE THINKS WE HAVE OVERLOOKED IN OUR CRAFT. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD BE -- THAT WE SHOULD PAY HIM TO DO THIS DRAFT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE OUR INSIDE ATTORNEYS TO DO THAT. BUT YOU CERTAINLY CAN CONSULT WITH HIM AS TO WHAT YOU HAVE THERE. AND IF HE HAS ANYTHING TO OFFER, BUT I THINK IT OUGHT TO BE DONE IN-HOUSE.
I AM NOT ARGUING THAT. I WOULD MAKE SURE THAT HE DOESN'T BELIEVE WE MISSED ANYTHING.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MRS. NORTHEY.
I AM COMFORTABLE WITH MR. CANENY EXPLORING IT AS TO WHAT IT IS HOW HE WOULD SEE THIS AND THAT COMES BACK TO COUNCIL IN THE FINAL CONTROLLING PIECE OF IT. BUT I THINK THAT MR. CANENY CERTAINLY HAS SOME IDEAS AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE HIM TO WORK WITH DAN. I MEAN, I AM NOT -- DAN HAS SOME THOUGHTS AS WELL. AS WELL AS YOU MIGHT, MR. MANAGER.
IF YOU REMEMBER, I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BRING THIS UP BUT I ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED THAT WE DON'T DO ANY BUS ADVERTISING.
I THINK I WAS THE ONE --
I THINK NOW BACK, IF WE HAD FOLLOWED MY RECOMMENDATION -- BUT THAT WAS A LOT OF YEARS AGO.
ALL MY FAULT. [LAUGHTER].
THAT WAS BEFORE MY TIME.
THAT'S BEFORE YOUR TIME, MRS. CUSACK.
ARE YOU DONE?
YES, I AM.
MR. DANIELS?
THANK YOU THE. I THINK -- THANK YOU. YES, I THINK JOHN WORKS VERY WELL. I'VE KNOWN HIM FOR A LONG TIME AND WORKS VERY WELL. AND I WOULD EXPECT THE STAFF TO WORK WITH HIM CLOSELY AND COME UP WITH WHAT WE NEED AND LET'S JUST GO FORWARD. NOT GET INTO SEMANTICS AS TO HOW MUCH BUT LET'S MAKE SURE ALL THE BASES ARE COVERED AND JOHN'S INPUT IS THERE. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. AND MR. WAGNER?
WELL, IF THAT'S THE CASE, AS LONG AS IT'S A STAFF-DRIVEN INITIATIVE, WHERE WE ARE USING AND CONSULTING AND CAPACITY, WHICH IS WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE, I DON'T WANT TO GET IN A SITUATION TO WHERE WE ARE RELIVING. I WANT IT TO BE STRUCTURED TO WHERE IT'S A GOOD THING FOR THE COMMUNITY. I DON'T WANT TO GET IN THAT FIGHT AGAIN. IF WE THINK SOMETHING POSITIVE TO DO, BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS, I AM FINE. IF IT'S STAFF-DRIVEN EFFORT, I'VE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE WITH STAFF. I CHANGE MY VOTE IF THAT'S THE CASE. THAT'S ALL I NEED TO DO, DAN. 6-1. I CAN CHANGE MY VOTE BASED ON THIS DISCUSSION. I VOTED AGAINST THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE BECAUSE IT WAS UNDEFINED. I THOUGHT IN THE SAME MEETING, I'VE SEEN IN THE PAST, YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR VOTE. RIGHT? ON THE LOSING END?
YES.
CONSIDER ME A 6-1 BECAUSE I HAVE MY FAITH IN STAFF. AND ALWAYS HAVE. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. NIGGERLINGS, SIR?
NO I WILL TRY TO GET THAT WORKED OUT AND TALK TO MR. CANENY AND TO DAN.
ALL RIGHT. THE ONLY THING I WOULD REMIND EVERYONE IS THAT 5:02 WE HAVE THE BUDGET HEARING. THIS 5:02, PAT WOULD KNOW IT BETTER THAN ANYBODY, THAT USED TO BE THE TIME YOU USED ALL THE TIME. BECAUSE THAT WAS REPEATED SO MANY TIMES, BY ACCIDENT, WE GOT IT SHOWN ON MORGAN'S NOTICE AS 5:02. THAT'S WHY WE KEPT IT BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE TRIM NOTICES. WHAT I PLAN ON DOING IN THE NEXT BUDGET HEARING AND FOR THE ONES AFTER THAT, TO GO BACK TO 6:00 IF THAT'S OKAY WITH EVERYBODY. IT GAVE COUNCIL A LITTLE MORE TIME BUT I DIDN'T BELIEVE WE COULD CHANGE IT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE CONFUSING. AND THE LAST THING I WANTED PEOPLE TO THINK IS WE PUT A NOTICE ON THE TIME AND HAD IT AT A DIFFERENT TIME. CONSPIRACY THEORIES WOULD HAVE ABOUNDED.
WE CHANGED I IT TO 6:00 BECAUSE IT WAS COMPLAINTS PEOPLE COULDN'T GET THERE ON TIME FROM OUT OF WORK. IT WAS EASIER AT 6:00.
RIGHT. I WOULD BE MORE CONCERNED THE WE PUT THE 5:02 AT THE SECOND BUDGET HEARING THAN THE FIRST. BECAUSE THE SECOND IS THE ONE WHERE YOU MAKE THE FINAL DECISION WITHOUT A DOUBT. SO I AM LETTING YOU KNOW I WILL SWITCH THAT TO 6:00 SO YOU KNOW. BUT I THINK THE ACCIDENTAL PUTTING IT AT 502 THE IS UNDERSTANDABLE BECAUSE IT USED TO BE THE STANDARD TIME ALL THE TIME.
THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY CLOSING COMMENTS? NO, SIR.
OKAY. THEN WITH THAT, WE WILL GO TO RECESS. GIVE ME 20 MINUTES. ANYBODY NEED MORE TIME?
WE WILL RECONVENE FOR BUDGET HEARING AT 5:02 P.M. ( RECESS TAKEN )
FOR THE PUBLIC LISTENING IN I'LL TRY TO TOUCH ON THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS. THERE ARE ACTUALLY 65 FUNDS WE TAKE CARE OF, NINE ARE TAXES FUNDS, AND I SUGGEST NINE OF THEM WOULD BE A FLAT RATE. THE TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET IS
$620,349,000.I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT OVER 550 POSITIONS HAVE BEEN UNFUNDED, AND THOSE POSITIONS FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES ARE NOT GHOST POSITIONS, WE UNFUND THEM. SO IT'S AN ANNUAL $21 MILLION COST SAVINGS ANNUALLY. I'D LIKE YOU TO GO TO THE FIRST SHEET. AS YOU CAN SEE OF THE, AND WE'RE FOCUSED HERE ON THE GENERAL FUND, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE PORTION OF THE BUDGET MOST PEOPLE GRAVITATE TO, THE GENERAL FUND. AS YOU CAN SEE OUR GENERAL FUND ONLY MAKES UP 155,806,000,000 OF THE AD VALOREM TAXES. THIS IS ALL THE MATERIAL WE HAD WHEN I SUGGESTED A TRIM RATE. WE HAVE A NEW SHEET AND I PASSED THIS OUT, YOU SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN THIS EARLIER, THIS IS FRESH OFF THE PRESS, THIS IS THE LATEST UPDATE, AND THE GOOD NEWS IS THIS IS WHERE WE GET THE FINAL CALCULATION FROM MORGAN TO SHOW WHAT ACTUALLY WE WOULD BRING IN. WE ACTUALLY ENDED UP BASED ON THE NUMBERS I GAVE YOU BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE IN NEW CONSTRUCTION, APPROXIMATELY $8,000 WE HASN'T ANTICIPATED. NOW, WHERE -- HADN'T ANTICIPATED. NOW WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO? AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE AD VALOREM TAXES BASED ON THE RATE AND NEW GROWTH WE'LL BRING IN APPROXIMATELY $8,649,776, AND THE QUESTION I'VE BEEN ASKED SOMETIMES IS WHAT IF YOU WEPT BACK TO ROLL -- WENT BACK TO ROLL BACK. YOU WOULD LOSE $7,700,000 OF THAT, SO YOU WOULD BRING IN VERY LITTLE, YOU'D ONLY BRING IN ABOUT $1 MILLION EXTRA IN REVENUE, NOW WE HAVE SOME OTHER REVENUE THAT WE GET THAT'S NOT RELATED TO TAXES, AND THAT WAS SOME SALES TAX AND MISCELLANEOUS THAT BROUGHT IN 1,009,000, IF YOU CAN SEE BY THE SHEET, I BROKE THIS INTO TWO AREAS, SO THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW I GAVE YOU MORE DETAIL, AND I TRIED TO BREAK THIS INTO A DETAIL WHERE YOU CAN SEE WHAT I CONSIDER NONDISCRETIONARY AND DISCRETIONARY MONEY. OUR HEALTH INSURANCE WILL GO UP, FLORIDA RETIREMENT FOR A TOTAL 2,000,001 # 55,000. THAT'S THINGS I HAVE TO PAY. INCREASED COST FOR PERSONAL COST I BELIEVE UNDER OPERATING WE CAN'T ESCAPE, WE KNOW FROM THE BIDS WE GOT IN, AND WE'RE DECIDING WHICH TO PICK, THE CORRECTIONS CLINIC IS 1,400,000 MORE THAN IT WAS IN THE PAST. THERE'S SOME JUDICIARY SERVICES FOR DISASTER RECOVERY AND THE CLERK OF COURT. THE ONE FOR THE STATE ATTORNEY IS 70,000, THE CLERK OF COURT IS 172,429. EVAC OPERATING COST, I'M SHOWING $261,094, AND THIS IS THAT WE ALSO HAD HEALTH INSURANCE AND FLORIDA RETIREMENT FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES IN EVAC. THE REASON I SHOW THAT SEPARATELY IS I ALWAYS LIKE TO KEEP IT SEPARATE BECAUSE I LIKE TO CLEARLY SHOW ACTUAL MONEY WE SUBSIDIZE EVAC BECAUSE MOST OF EVAC, 90 PERCENT OF IT COMES FROM CHARGES FOR SERVICE, ESPECIALLY THROUGH INSURANCE COMPANIES. ALSO, COMMUTER RAIL, OUR DEBT SERVICE INCREASED 480,000. NOW IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, WE HAVE $3 MILLION, AND THESE ARE THE FOLLOWING THINGS THAT WE MUST DO. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WE ACTUALLY HAVE ADDITIONAL MONEY FOR ELECTIONS TO REPLACE VOTER EQUIPMENT. WE'VE BEEN PUTTING ASIDE MONEY, 2 MILLION AND 2 I BELIEVE, AND WE HAVE TO ADD TO THAT TO GIVE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY NEED TO MOVE FORWARD. AS YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY THOSE THERE AT ELECTIONS, WE HAVE ANTIQUATED EQUIPMENT WE MUST REPLACE. ALSO, THE 800 MEGAHERTZ RADIO SYSTEM, WE NEED TO REPLACE THEM, WE BELIEVE WE CAN DO IT OVER FOUR YOURS, WE'LL -- YEARS, WE'LL IMPLEMENT THE CHANGEOVER IN 2018 IN ONE LUMP SUN. E -- SUM. EVAC REPLACEMENTS, 138,000. THESE ARE THE NUMBER THINGS IN THE BRANCH JAIL I BELIEVE WE CAN NO LONGER WAIT ON. WE HAVE A 1977 EMERGENCY GENERATOR THAT SUPPORTS THE CENTRAL SYSTEMS, INCLUDING THE LOCKING SYSTEMS. THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED, THAT'S 900,000, I CAN'T WAIT ANY LONGER. THE FENCES, THERE'S A BUNCH THAT NEED REPLACE, SOME WITH THE SMOKE ALARM SYSTEM, BOTH 225,000. AS MENTIONED BEFORE WE HAVE A MAJOR ROOF PROBLEM, SO WE HAVE WEST RING -- SO WE HAVE THE WEST WING ROOM OUR LOADING DOCK -- ROOF. OUR LOADING DOCK IS ABSOLUTELY IN NEED OF REPLACEMENT. THE TRANSPORT TUBES, I DEFINITELY BELIEVE WE NEED ADDITIONAL FENCING OF RAZOR WIRE, ADDITIONAL SECURITY CAMERAS, ANOTHER 40,000, SELF-BREATHING APPARATUS FOR THE CONNECTIONS OFFICER, THIS IS 200 AND $66,000, AND THIS IS FOR SOME ROOF REPAIRS THROUGH CENTRAL SERVICES, THIS IS NOT ALL THE WORK WE NEED TO DO, BUT IF WE DON'T DO SOME REPAIRS WE'LL HAVE WATER INTRUSION AND THAT LEADS TO BIGGER PROBLEMS. CENTRAL SERVICES, FIRE ALARMS, $600,000 WORTH OF FIRE ALARM IMPROVEMENTS TO MAKE, AND SECURITY ISSUES IN THE JUDICIAL AREAS. SO $8,488,000 APPROXIMATELY WORTH OF IMPROVEMENTS, AND SO FROM THE 10,648,000 THAT LEAVES THE FOLLOWING, I SHOW DISCRETIONARY, NOW INDIES CESSION THEIR, WE'LL BE LEFT WITH $300,000 IS ALL WE HAVE LEFT OF OUR INCENTIVE MONEY AND MATCH MONEY, AND WE ARE THE ONLY MATCHING FUND FOR THE ENTERPRISE GRANT, FLORIDA ENTERPRISE GRANT, AND FOR EXAMPLE ALL THE JOBS PROGRAMS AND THINGS WITH MATCHING GRANTS, WE DO THEM ALL. I WOULD NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT MONEY. A GOOD EXAMPLE OF HAVING MONEY IN THE FUNDS WAS THAT WITH THE INCREASE LAST YEAR YOU AGREED TO ALLOW ME TO MOVE 1.6 MILLION INTO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. WITHOUT THAT WE COULDN'T DO TRADER JOE'S, SO THAT WAS THE ONLY MONEY I HAD AVAILABLE, AND THAT CLENCHED THE DEAL TO GET THEM HERE. ALSO, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, SO 1.3, OBVIOUSLY YOU MOVED IT THERE, IT'S NOT REQUIRED, SO THAT'S DISCRETIONARY. IMPROVEMENTED I BELIEVE THAT I NEED TO DO BUT I GUESS I COULD GET BY ANOTHER YEAR, N. BRANCH JAIL WE HAVE A COMMERCIAL TRACTOR THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED, KITCHEN STEAM KETTLES, COPY YES, SIR, ALL THOSE -- COPIERS, ALL THOSE ARE DISCRETIONARY, SO TOGETHER IT COMES UP WITH $9,842,116. THE DIFFERENCE IS 806, THAT'S THE AMOUNT I DIDN'T SHOW IN THE LAST PROJECTION BECAUSE WE HADN'T CLARIFIED THE ACTUAL AMOUNT. SO FINAL ADJUSTMENTS, YOU WANT TO GO OVER THE FINAL ONES THERE TAMMY?
SURE. BECAUSE WE HAD ADDITIONAL VALUES WE RECEIVED FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, WE DID ALLOCATE SOME TO RESERVES FOR FUTURE CAPITAL IMPROMS, SO -- IMPROVEMENTS, AND THE OTHER ITEM WAS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE TO HELP MAINTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
ALL RIGHT, I HOPE, I'VE TALKED TO ALL THE MEMBERS, I HOPED THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION AT HOW MUCH MONEY AND WHERE DID IT GO, AND THESE ARE INCREASED COSTS THAT WE HAVE THAT WILL IN SOME WAYS, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THESE ARE GOING TO RETURN NEXT YEAR BECAUSE THERE'S ON GOING EXPENSES IN MOST CASES. I WILL HAVE OTHER NONDISCRETIONARY NEXT YEAR, BUT THE INCREASED EMPLOYEE COST, THE MEDICAL COST, THOSE WILL BE RECURRING, SO THOSE ARE COSTS WE CAN'T ESCAPE. NEXT SLIDE. WE'LL SKIP THIS. THIS IS THE OLD SLIDE. I GAVE YOU MORE DETAIL TODAY, BUT IT RELATES TO THE NEW COSTS. WE'LL WALK THROUGH QUICKLY, I'LL JUST FLIP THESE CHARTS TO SHOW THAT I'M PROUD IN THE GENERAL FUND WE STAYED CONSISTENTLY BELOW THE STATE STANDARD, AND I THINK THE STATE STANDARD IS REASONABLE. THE LIBRARY FUND AS YOU CAN SEE I'M RECOMMENDING FLAT IN THAT, SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW THE STATE STANDARD. MSD FUNDS, I WORRY ABOUT THAT. IT'S NOT THAT WELL FUNDED AND IT'S THE ESSENTIAL URBAN PACKAGE, THEY REALLY COUNT ON IT. WE'RE RIGHT AT THE STATE STANDARD. THE FIRE FUND, WE ALL KNOW THE DISCUSSION WE HAD IN THE FIRE FUND, I RECOMMENDED FLAT, WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT CONSIDERING RAISE IN THAT, I THOUGHT MR. DANIELS BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT, WHAT WOULD IT COST, WE BELIEVED HOW MUCH WAS IT? 35 CENTS RIGHT? I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE FIGURED. TO GET TO BREAK EVEN. I WILL TELL THE COUNSEL SO WE KEEP IN MIND, THIS WILL BE A BIG TOPIC FOR NEXT YEAR. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR MEETINGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THIS IS ONE WHERE WE EITHER HAVE TO SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE MODEL AND REDUCE, SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY, IT WOULD BE SOME REDUCTION OF SERVICE, BUT ALSO CHANGING THE DELIVERY MODEL. CHANGING THE MODEL IN FIRE I THINK BRINGS ARTIFICIAL FEAR TO PEOPLE, AND WITH THAT PEOPLE ARE APPREHENSIVE OF THE CHANGES, BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE REALLY UNDERSTANDS THE NATURE OF FIRE PROTECTION, ABOUT 90 PERCENT OF IT IS ACTUALLY NON-EMERGENCY MEDICAL. BUT THE FIRE FUNDS IS ABOUT THE STATE STANDARD. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS, AND UNLESS WE MAKE THE MODEL CHANGES THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT, I SEE THAT THE COUNCIL ALREADY FORCED TO RAISE THE RATE. NOW THE IMPLICATIONS IS SIGNIFICANT. IN THE CASE OF LAKE HELEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'D DO, SO WE GIVE THEM ADVANCE NOTICE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO ADJUST TO THIS. SO THIS WILL BE A PROBLEMATIC FUNDS FOR SURE NEXT YEAR. WITH THAT WE GET TO THE MILL RATES NOW OVER TO TAMMY.
GOOD EVENING, I JUST WANT TO STATE FOR THE PUBLIC.
COUPLE QUESTIONS.
ONE MOMENT.
OF COURSE.
THE 1.3, THE FUNDING INCREASE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WHAT HAVE WE TRADITIONALLY SPENT ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE LAST, I DON'T KNOW, THREE YEARS AVERAGE FOR AN ANNUAL AMOUNT? WHAT DO WE BASE THAT 1.3 ON, JIM?
IT HASN'T BEEN EQUAL ALL THE TIME. TO DO THIS JUSTICE, IF I COULD I'D LIKE TO BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING. WHAT WE'VE DONE, PAT, IS WE HAD RERECEIVERS, YOU'LL REMEMBER THERE WAS A -- RESERVES, YOU'LL REMEMBER THERE WAS A TIME BEFORE RAIL, THAT MONEY WENT INTO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND IT WAS GREATER THAN THE AMOUNT WE SPENT AND WE BUILT UP A RERECEIVER, THEN THAT MONEY WENT TO RAIL, AND WE WERE LIVING OFF THE RESERVE WE BUILT. THE REASON I PUT THE 1.3 THIS YEAR IS THAT I KNOW BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED WITH TRADER JOE'S, WE TOOK SORT OF A STAB AT, THE BALL PARK, IF WE DID THE SAME TYPE OF ROAD IMPROVEMENT, WHICH TO ME WOULD BE REASONABLE IN TERMS OF ANOTHER BUSINESS, IN TERMS OF THE KIND OF ROAD IMPROVEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD JUDGE UNITED STATES, IN FACT I HAVE A -- JUDGE US, IF FACT I HAVE A PROJECT THAT'S SIMILAR TO TRADER JOE'S, AND THEY WANT TO KNOW THE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS WE GAVE TO TRADER JOE'S, AND AT THIS POINT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THE DEMAND, I NEED TO SHOW AN AMOUNT AT LEAST AS BIG AS WHAT WE DID FOR TRADER JOE'S, IF ASKED ABOUT IT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN I'D MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT IF WE WOULD A COMPANY AS GOOD OR BIG, AND I DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY. AND THE OTHER PROBLEM, THE CASE OF TRADER JOE'S IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THIS. YOU TRUST ME TO TRY AND FOLLOW THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL, IN SOME CASES LIKE TRADER JOE'S I WAS SWORN TO SECRECY, THERE WAS NO WAY THEY WANTED TO GET THAT OUT. IF I NEEDED TO ASK YOU FOR THE MONEY TO BACK UP WHAT I WAS DOING, THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC IF I TRIED TO DO IT AT THE COUNCIL MEETING WHEN I'D BE SAYING GIVE ME THIS MONEY BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU WHY, SO I REALLY NEED TO HAVE THE MONEY AVAILABLE IN THE ACCOUNT SO I CAN MAKE THE COMMITMENT, SO WHAT I BELIEVE I NEEDED TO DO WAS HAVE AT LEAST THE SAME AMOUNT, AND IT DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE IF WE DON'T SPEND IT. WE HAVE 300,000 LEFT, MOVE THE 1.3 I'M BACK TO 1.6. I WILL TELL YOU I THINK WE MAY HAVE A MORE UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THE ECONOMY WAS SO BAD, AND NOW WE'RE STARTING TO SEE REAL CHANGE AND GET MORE OFFERS. THE DOWN SIDE WOULD BE YOU MAY PUT SOME INCENTIVES, THE UPSIDE IS GROWING JOBS, SO I'LL GET YOU THAT OVERVIEW PAT AS TO WHAT WE'VE SPENT AND WHERE IT WENT, AND HOW IT HAPPENED, BUT IT'S, THE LAST FEW YEARS WERE NOT AS CHARACTERISTIC AS THE FUTURE YEARS, BUT I HOPE THAT EXPLAINED IT.
THAT'S, I'M JUST INTERESTED IN THAT, AND ALSO IF I UNDERSTAND THE GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW, THIS IS NOT INCLUDING THE SWEEP OF THE ACCOUNTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR OFF BEACH PARKING.
WHATEVER YOU WANT TO USE IT FOR. WHAT HAPPENED WAS IS THAT I HAVE ENOUGH MONEY COMING IN WITH THE NEW MONEY THAT I CAN TAKE CARE OF THIS INCREASED COSTS WHICH ARE ON GOING COSTS, SO I'LL KNOW I HAVE THIS MONEY FOR THIS YEAR, AND IF WE KEEP THE RATE FLAT I'LL HAVE THE SAME MONEY FOR THESE INCREASED COSTS. WHAT THAT ALLOWS ME TO DO IS AS I SWEEP THE ACCOUNTS AT THE END OF THE YEAR I CAN IDENTIFY $9 MILLION ONE TIME, NOW WHAT I'VE SAID IS AND NOW YOU CAN ADD 800,000 TO IT, SO 9.8. THAT'S THE DISCRETION OF THE COUNCIL AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH THAT MONEY, AND I THINK ID MEMBERS THAT INDICATED -- I HAD MEMBERS THAT INDICATED TO ME THAT WAS A GOOD POT TO MATCH, SO THAT'S AVAILABLE, BUT THAT'S UP TO THE COUNCIL. THE ONLY SUGGESTION I WOULD MAKE IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT USE THIS FOR ON GOING COSTS BECAUSE IT'S ONE TIME MONEY, BECAUSE NEXT YEAR YOU WON'T HAVE THE MONEY, YOU HAVE DOUBLE THE BILL BECAUSE YOU HAVE ARTIFICIALLY KEPT THE COST HIGH.
AND FOR PURPOSES OF CLARIFICATION FOR ME, THE 9 MILLION THAT WE WOULD SWEEP OUT OF THE ACCOUNTS AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, IS THAT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T SPEND THE MONEY OR OUR COLLECTION RATE CAME IN HIGHER THAN WHAT WE HAD ANTICIPATED.
THAT IS PRIOR YEAR FUNDING THAT WAS NOT SPENT.
WAS NOT SPENT. SO WHEN WE FORECAST OUR AD VALOREM TAXES, WHAT ELECTION RATE DO WE FORECAST AT?
WE BUDGET AT 96 PERCENT.
AND WHAT IS OUR --
IT'S PRETTY DARN CLOSE.
THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. AND THEN, HAVE WE, MR. MANAGER, ON, THIS WILL BE A CONVERSATION FOR WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FIRE, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS POINTED OUT TO ME BY SOMETHING THIS WEEK IS THAT ISO RATING IS CONTINGENT UPON SERVICE LEVELS, AND SO I THINK AS WE TALK ABOUT FIRE SERVICES WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
WHAT'S INTERESTING IS MOST PEOPLE WOULD LIKE YOU TO BELIEVE IT'S DUE WITH MANNING ET CETERA, BUT THERE'S MORE. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, WHEN WE WENT TO TWO PEOPLE IN A TRUCK, AND REDUCED ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I'VE TOLD YOU AND MADE ALL THE OTHER CHANGES, OUR ISO RATING IMPROVED.
OKAY.
SO WE'LL EXPLAIN THAT. ONE OTHER QUALIFICATION ON THE STAFF, WE DID MAKE ONE CHANGE, IS THAT OF THE 806,000, I FORGOT, AT THE BOTTOM WE ADDED ONE OTHER NONDISCRETIONARY, IT SYSTEMS INFRASTRUCTURE, WE HAVE TO DO SO UPGRADES, THAT TOOK UP 448,000 OF THE 806, SO IT'S ACTUALLY 9 -- WE ACTUALLY ADDED TO THE $9 MILLION, WE ACTUALLY ADDED ALMOST ANOTHER 300,000, SO IT'S 9.3 THAT'S DISCRETIONARY, BECAUSE YOU USED ALMOST 450,000 OF IT FOR IT UPGRADES.
AND THIS IS A COMMENT ABOUT THE DISTRICT FUND. WE CURRENTLY HAVE, ACCORDING TO THIS BUDGET, 535,000 SET ASIDE IN THE UPCOMING BUDGET FOR MARINE WILD LIFE AND ARTIFICIAL FISHING REEF, AND I'M CURIOUS WHY WE WOULD NOT WANT TO CONSIDER THAT RATHER THAN DOING ARTIFICIAL REEFS THIS YEAR, PUT THAT INTO OFF-BEACH PARKING ACQUISITION, AND MAYBE PUT SOME OF THAT FUNDING BACK INTO ECHO BECAUSE WE'VE APPARENTLY REALLY UPSET SOME BOARD MEMBERS ON ECHO, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH ECHO, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT WHAT WE EXPECT IT TO BE THIS YEAR.
WELL IT'S 4.9 LEFTOVER THAT'S NOT USED OR ALLOCATED, AND NEC YEAR WE ANTICIPATED -- NEXT YEAR WE ANTICIPATE 3.7 MILLION. YOU KNOW I'VE BEEN AGGRESSIVE ABOUT THAT PROGRAM, BUT IF THE COUNCIL DECIDED, AND I DO THINK BUYING PARKING NOW, AND I THINK WE'VE ALL TALKED ABOUT THIS, MR. DANIELS MADE THIS POINT, WE MAY NOT BE AT THE BOTTOM VALUE WISE AT THIS POINT, BUT WE'RE STILL, YOU CAN STILL MAKE SOME DEALS, BUT THAT'S GOING TO DISAPPEAR, SO THIS MAY BE THE MORE APPROPRIATE TIME TO USE THE MONEY. THAT MONEY COULD BE AVAILABLE, WE COULD TAKE THAT, NOT DO THE REEFS, THE OTHER THING IS I STATED EARLIER THAT 3.3 MILLION, IF WE DON'T, WHICH I BELIEVE WE HAVE NO, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD NOT HOLD THAT FOR THE JETTY ANYMORE.
IS THAT THE APPROPRIATED RESERVE?
YES, 3.3 MILLION.
YES.
I ALSO SAID THAT YOU COULD USE, I BELIEVE SOME OF THAT, A PORTION OF THAT ALSO FOR BEACH PARKING, IF WE WANTED TO, ON WHETHER WE THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE PORT, SO WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY THERE TOO.
THANK YOU. THAT'S IT FOR ME MR. DAVIS.
ALL RIGHT, PLEASE REIDENTIFY YOURSELF, YOUR POSITION.
TAMMY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIRECTOR. AT THIS POINT IN TIME I JUST WANT TO ANNOUNCE TO THE PUBLIC OR ANYBODY WITH INTEREST ON TAX BILLS THEMSELVES, THE OFFICE IS OPEN, IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION AS IT RELATE TOSS PROPERTY VALUES, THEY'D BE HAPPY TO ASSIST YOU WITH THAT. I'M GOING TO READ IN EACH FUND WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING AT AND DELIBERATING ON, AND THE RATE WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING. THE GENERAL FUND IS PRESENTED AT 6 HAD THE 3189 MILLS, OPERATING PORTION IS AT .0627 WITH REMAINING GOING TO FOREVER. ECHO IS .2 MILLS, FOLLOWING YOUR MOSQUITO CONTROL IS .1880, PORT AUTHORITY IS .0929, DISTRICT SERVICE FUND IS .2399, SILVER SANDS IS .150, AND FIRE SERVICES HAS BEEN REDUCED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION PACKET DOWN, DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS ADVERTISED IN THE TRIM RATES FOR YOUR DISCUSSION TODAY. AND THAT WOULD CONCLUDE THE OPENING PRESENTATION. HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT, I DON'T SEE ANY LIGHTS POPPING ON HERE THIS EVENING, SO ANY OTHER STAFF REPORTS WHATSOEVER? OKAY, WE'LL CLOSE THE STAFF REPORT SECTION OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING, AND OPEN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. QUITE A CHANGE. WE HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. THAT WOULD BE MR. STANLEY. SIR, PLEASE STEP FORWARD TO THE PODIUM. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND WE'LL GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES.
I LIVE AT 3034 SOUTH PENINSULA, I APPRECIATE YOU HEARING FROM ME AGAIN TODAY. LET ME SAY I'M IMPRESSED BY THE RANGE OF NEW EXPENDITURES YOU PUT FORWARD, AND JUST TRYING TO RUN THEM THROUGH MY HEAD AS QUICKLY AS I COULD IT APPEARS TO ME AS A RESULT OF TAX INCREASES IMPOSED LAST YEAR, PART OF WHICH WERE INTENDED FOR THIS HERE IN ADVANCE, IN THE AMOUNT OVERALL OF 10.3 PERCENT, PLUS THE ADDITIONAL 10 MILLION OR SO YOU'LL BE GETTING, 5.1 PERCENT I BELIEVE AS A RESULT OF HIGHER REVENUES FROM THE INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES, AND THE 9.3 WHICH YOU'LL BE GETTING FROM THE SWEEPING OF THE ACCOUNT, THE COUNTY COUNCIL HAS MORE MONEY TO PLAY WITH THIS YEAR THAN IT DID LAST YEAR, AND I'M IMPRESSED THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY FOUND A LARGE NUMBER OF ON GOING COSTS TO EAT UP THAT MONEY, SINCE I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THE ON GOING COST WOULD BE THE SUBJECT OF THE CALCULATIONS THAT LED TO THE 10.3 INCREASE FOR THIS YEAR, BUT NEVER MIND. MY POINT IS THAT WHILE WE CERTAINLY HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE OTHER COUNTIES DO, I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU RAISED TAXES BY THE TOTAL AMOUNT, INCLUDING THE CAMOUFLAGE TAX INCREASE, AND YOU ADD IN WHAT'S BEEN DONE TO US BY THE OTHER TAXING AUTHORITIES IN THE COUNTY, AND UNFUNDED MAN DATES FROM THE STATE, WE'LL BE AT RISK OF BEING THE HIGHEST TAXED COUNTY IN THE STATE THIS YEAR. AND WHILE I'M SURE THERE ARE MANY WORTHY PROJECTS THAT LAY CLAIM TO ALL THIS MONEY, I HAVE TO POINT OUT OUR PER CAPITA VALUES FALL BELOW THE MEDIAN, SO WHY, HOW DOES IT HAPPEN TO COST SO MUCH MORE THAN OTHER COUNTIES DO? HOW MUCH MORE THAN OTHER COUNTIES WILL WE GET FOR THE EMPLOYER OF BEARING THE -- GLORY OF BEARING THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE. THE COUNTY AND NATION ARE JUST BEGINNING TO CLAW THEIR WAY OUT OF THE WORST RECESSION IN LIVING MEMORY, WHY NOT LET'S BREAK THE PATTERN? RIGHT HERE. ROLL BACK THE MILLAGE RATE TO OFFSET THE INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUE. LET SOME PEOPLE KEEP SOME OF THEIR MONEY, SHOW SOME MERCY. THANK YOU, SIR.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE. WE WILL NOW OPEN UP COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION. I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. I HAVE WORKED WITH, TALKED WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER, AND I HAVE TALKED WITH MISS PALM AND MISS WIDE WEAVER, AND I HAVE TO AGREE WITH HIM THIS YEAR. BUT AFTER HAVING READ AND UNDERSTAND THE BUDGE AS IT IS -- BUDGET AS IT IS THIS IS A ONE TIME THING WE CAN DO THIS YEAR BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT YEAR. WE DO HAVE AN $8 MILLION HOLE IN OUR BUDGET. WE CAN TAKE THIS SWEEP ACCOUNT OF 9.3 MILLION, CORRECT? WE CAN PLUG THIS 8 MILLION-DOLLAR HOLE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR BUDGET, AND STILL RETAIN $1.3 MILLION FOR PROJECTS SUCH AS LOOKING INTO PURCHASING LANDS OR USING IT AS SEED MONEY FOR WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO THROUGH THE ECHO PROGRAMS AND SUCH LIKE THIS. SO WITH THAT ALL SAID, I HAVE LOOKED AT THE BUDGET. I KNOW THIS IS A ONE SHOT DEAL WITH WE CAN DO THIS YEAR UNLESS SOMETHING REALLY SPECTACULAR HAPPENS IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS. WE WILL HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE CURRENT RATE, BUT I AM GOING TO NOT APPROVE THE BUDGET THIS YEAR, I WILL BE PUSHING FOR THE ROLL BACK RATE. ANY ELDER COMMENTS IN COUNCIL? MR. WAGNER.
I'M A STRONG BELIEVER WE NEED TO BUY OFF BEACH PARKING. WE HAVE TO. THERE'S NO FUTURE WITHOUT IT, SO I'M MOVING FORWARD. DO YOU NEED ANYTHING? UNLESS THERE'S MORE COMMENTS?
NO FURTHER COMMENTS, IT WILL BE A MOTION.
WHAT SHE HAS TO DO, SHE NEEDS TO TAKE IT RATE AT A TIME, AND THEN YOU VOTE ON THEM ONE AT A TIME.
ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER COUNCIL DISCUSSION?
I'M GOING TO START WITH THE LIBRARY FUND, IT'S A TAX RATE 5.3 PERCENT THAN THE ROLL BACK RATE.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL?
WE NEED A SECOND ON THAT.
SECOND.
THANK YOU.
SECOND FROM MR. PATTERSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
AYE.
HOW MANY AYES IN TWO. TWO NOES.
THE FOREVER OPERATING FUND IS AT 0.0627 MILLS.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
SECOND.
FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. SAME TWO.
THE VOTER DEBT IS 0.1372 MILLS. MOTION OF APPROVAL.
SECOND.
I GOT TO HEAR THE SECOND. SECOND FROM MR. PATTERSON. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED. THAT'S 6-1, I OPPOSE.
ECHO FUND TAX RATE IS 0.2 --
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, I DID NOT HEAR THE SECOND AYE. WERE YOU OPPOSED? I'M SORRY, SAME TWO OPPOSED.
ECHO FUNDS IS AT A TAX RATE OF .20.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
MOVE FOR APPROVAL, DO A HEAR A SECOND?
SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE APPOSED. -- OPPOSED. SAME TWO.
MOSQUITO FUND IS 0.18880 MILLS.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL, DO I HEAR A SECOND? MR. WAGNER WILL SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY AYE.
THE PORT AUTHORITY FUNDS TAX RATE IS 0.0929 MILLS.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
SECOND.
SECOND, FURTHER DISCUSSION. SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED.
THE SERVICE CONTRADICT TAXING FUNDS IS APPROXIMATE -- DISTRICT TAGGING FUND.
SECOND.
SECOND, FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSE.
GET CONFUSED THERE.
IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY.
THE SILVER SANDS FUND IS 0.050 MILLS.
MOTION OF APPROVAL. SECOND?
I HAVE A SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION. AS TO SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. OKAY.
THE FIRE SERVICE DISTRICT TAX FUND IS 3.615 MILLS.
MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
AND THIS IS THE REDUCED ONE?
THIS IS THE FLAT RATE, YES IT'S THE REDUCED ONE.
FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, ALL OPPOSED.
AND THE LAST ONE IS GENERAL FUND RATE SUBMITTED AT A 6.3189 MILLS, 5.2 PERCENT GREATER THAN THE ROLL BACK RATE.
MOTION OF APPROVAL.
SECOND.
FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL
OPPOSED?
THE NEXT ITEM IS THE APPROVAL TO ADOPT THE FISCAL YEAR TENTATIVE OPERATING BUDGET TOTALING $628 MILLION, AND A NONOPERATING BUDGET OF $111,935,093.
MOTION FOR
APPROVAL. FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ALL OPPOSED. SAME TWO.
THE LAST ITEM OF ACTION FOR THIS EVENING IS THE APPROVAL OF THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING WHICH WE HAVE SLATED OF COURSE WITH YOUR APPROVAL SEPTEMBER 18th, 2014 AT 6:00 P.M., AND IT WILL BE SUBMITTED IN THE NEWSPAPER AS WELL.
OKAY, WE'LL NEED A MOTION FOR THE SECOND HEARING WHAT DATE?
SEPTEMBER 18.
6:00 P.M.
SO MOVED.
MOTION.
SECOND.
SECOND. FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED?
AND THAT CONCLUDES YOUR COMPLAINS FOR THIS EVENING. -- COMPLIANCE FOR THIS EVENING. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, WE'LL SEE EVERYBODY HERE FOR THE NEXT BUDGET MEETING IN TWO WEEKS. OUR NEXT DATE FOR COUNCIL MEETING IS 18th?
>. SEPTEMBER 18th, 0900 IN THESE CHAMBERS.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- volusia county schools vportal
- volusia county schools student portal
- student portal volusia county schools
- volusia county public schools vportal
- v portal volusia county schools
- gradebook volusia county vportal
- my volusia county schools vportal
- volusia county schools application portal
- volusia county focus portal
- volusia county school parent portal focus
- volusia county schools vportal staff
- parent portal volusia county school