Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF FLORIDAOFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET
IN RE: CABINET AIDES MEETING_________________________________________/
CABINET AIDES: KRISTIN OLSON, CHAIRAMANDA CAREYROB JOHNSONERIN SUMPTERANDREW FAYROBERT TORNILLOSTEPHANIE LEEDSJESSICA FIELDBROOKE McKNIGHTKENT PEREZ
DATE: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2016
LOCATION: CABINET MEETING ROOMLOWER LEVEL, THE CAPITOLTALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
REPORTED BY: NANCY S. METZKE, RPR, FPRCOURT REPORTER
C & N REPORTERSPOST OFFICE BOX 3093
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32315-3093(850) 697-8314 / FAX (850) 697-8715
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
2
INDEX
PAGE NO.
Office of Insurance RegulationBy Caitlin Murray 3
Board of TrusteesBy David Clark 7
Administration CommissionBy Mr. Penrod 14
Interview and AppointmentFor the Office ofInsurance Regulation Commissioner 70
* * * *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
3
OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION
MS. OLSON: All right. We'll go ahead and get
started.
Good morning, everyone. Today is the
April 20th Cabinet Aides' meeting for the
April 26th Cabinet meeting.
Before we get to OIR, does anybody have any
questions for the Veterans' Affairs appointment or
any housekeeping items of any kind?
(NO RESPONSE).
MS. OLSON: No? Good deal.
First up is Insurance Regulation.
MS. MURRAY: Good morning. Caitlin Murray,
Director of Government Affairs for the Office of
Insurance Regulation.
Our first item on the agenda is the request
for approval of minutes from the December 8th,
2015, meeting of the Financial Services Commission.
Our second item is a request for approval for
final adoption of proposed amendments to
69O-143.046, .047, and .056. This is a
registration of insurer standards, acquisition of
controlling stocks. The rule implements the
provisions of the NAIC model related to insurance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
4
holding companies and updates provisions regarding
the reporting of enterprise risk as adopted in 2014
in Senate Bill 1308.
Item Number 3 is the request for approval for
publication of repeal of Rule 69N-121.007, .010,
public records. And these rules are no longer
necessary as the process for public records is
mostly governed by statute, and the indexing
process for final orders was revised by statutory
amendment in 2015.
Item Number 4 is the request for approval for
publication of repeal of Rule 69N-121.066. The
rule provides procedures for an informal conference
before the Office. The rule is unnecessary as the
procedures for the publication of a report of
examination is governed by statute, and accordingly
the rule should be repealed.
Item Number 5 is the request for approval for
publication of repeal of Rules 69N-3.001, .002,
.003, .004, .005, .006, and .007 relating to
smoking policies. These rules predate the Florida
Clean Indoor Act, so needless to say, they are
antiquated and should be repealed.
Item Number 6 is the request for approval for
publication of repeal of Rule 69O-186.010. This --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
5
Florida Statute gives the Office authority to
directly review and approve forms for use by title
insurance underwriters and agents. It
specifically -- this rule specifically adopted the
Closing Protection Letter or CPL, and the revised
CPL was recently approved by the Office under
statute, which makes the rule obsolete.
Items Number 7 and 8 are -- they are dealing
with the annual and quarterly reporting
requirements of the NAIC, as well as the NAIC
Financial Condition Examiner's Handbook. We have
to update the dates 2015 and 2016.
And finally, Item Number 9 will be a
presentation by Commissioner McCarty next week,
which we will cover cumulative quarters, fiscal --
the fiscal year quarters 1 through 3, and he will
give an update on the Office's status and on his
performance measures.
That is our agenda. Do you have any
questions?
MS. MCKNIGHT: I just have one request. I
know in the presentation you provided the aggregate
total for quarter 1, quarter 2, and quarter 3, and
I believe the Commissioner reported on quarter 1 in
October. Is it possible to break out quarter 2 and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
6
quarter 3 just so we can see what those look like
individually as well?
MS. MURRAY: Absolutely.
MS. MCKNIGHT: Perfect. Thank you.
MS. MURRAY: All right. Thanks, Caitlyn.
* * * *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
7
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND
MS. OLSON: Okay. Next up is the Board of
Trustees.
Good morning, David.
MR. CLARK: Good morning. David Clark with
DEP.
There are five items on the Board of Trustees'
agenda. Item 1 is submittal of the minutes from
the March 2nd, 2016, Cabinet meeting.
Item 2 is consideration of the as-is where-is
sale of a .83 acre parcel of State-owned
nonconservation land in Duval County, which
contains a two-story building constructed in 1946
totaling approximately 20,000 square feet.
The property was competitively bid with a
minimum offer amount of $754,000. One bid was
received in the amount of $811,000 from Block Five,
LLC. Block Five intends to redevelop the property,
along with adjacent properties they own, into a
mixed-use development.
The Department recommends approval of this
item.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
8
MR. PEREZ: Hey, David, how much did you say
the maintenance costs were on those again?
MR. CLARK: It's approximately 9,000 a year.
The Department of Children and Families is paying
for the maintenance on the structure.
MR. PEREZ: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CLARK: Item 3 is a request from
Winslow Farms on behalf of Bannon Development to
exchange 1.5 acres of conservation land jointly
owned by the Board of Trustees and the St. Johns
River Water Management District for five acres
owned by Bannon Development.
This exchange will be parcel for parcel with
the State-owned land parcel worth 15,000, and the
Bannon Development parcel worth 10,000, with 5,000
cash boot to be distributed based on joint
ownership between the Florida Forever Trust Fund
and the Water Management District.
Winslow requested the exchange due to its need
to use the State parcel for its new entrance road
for a proposed 20-acre commercial retail
development. As part of this development, Winslow
plans to construct numerous improvements for the
public's use and benefit, which include a parking
lot, boardwalk, and a dock for a proposed canoe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
9
launch area at an estimated cost of $281,000.
Should the exchange be approved, the
State-acquired parcel will be managed by the
St. Johns River Water Management District as part
of the Julington Durbin Preserve.
The Department recommends approval.
MS. FIELD: Are the public improvement
projects part of the exchange, or are they required
for something separate?
MR. CLARK: They are required as part of the
DRI, but the DRI doesn't specifically state that it
has to be on the State-owned property. It says it
has to be on county or other property. So from our
perspective, it's a win-win that everyone can come
together and do the improvements to the
Julington Durbin Preserve.
MS. FIELD: Thank you.
MR. CLARK: Any other questions?
MR. PEREZ: Madam Chair, can I just ask a
question?
Yeah, thank you, David, for giving us the
triage map.
MR. CLARK: Absolutely.
MR. PEREZ: So, and I think that's important
to demonstrate the science behind the value of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
10
those environmental lands that we're going to be
acquiring, which are going to be much greater than
the ones we are trading for -- exchanging for. And
I think that map might be valuable to include in
the backup so that folks can see that.
MR. CLARK: Absolutely, we can do that. And
the map that Kent is referring to is the Triage
Assessment Map, which is an environmental
assessment of the resource values of the properties
that we're giving up and the properties we're
receiving. And it shows that the properties we're
receiving is of a much higher resource value. So
we will include this map as additional information
to the backup.
MR. PEREZ: Do we know if they are going to
relocate the stormwater pond to the acre-and-a-half
property?
MR. CLARK: So at this time, they don't know
that. There is a proposed retention pond just
north of the new entrance. The retention pond
that's currently existing on the aerial that you
can see right now, they're going to have to wait
until the permitting is done to see if there will
be a land bridge to access their proposed
development, or they'll be able to fill in part of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
11
that pond and expand a different pond.
MR. PEREZ: So they may have to bridge over
what's existing?
MR. CLARK: That's correct.
MR. PEREZ: Thank you. I didn't have any more
questions.
Thank you, Kristin, appreciate it.
MR. CLARK: Item 4 is consideration of an
option agreement to acquire a conservation easement
over 5,236 acres within the St. Johns River Blueway
Florida Forever Project for $5.975 million from the
Meldrim family. The easement will permanently
limit development while allowing the landowner to
sustainably harvest timber, thereby ensuring
forestry jobs stay in the community.
The easement will create a significant
watershed buffer for the St. Johns River,
protecting and maintaining the water and wetland
systems of the region and state.
The Department recommends approval of this
item.
MR. PEREZ: Can I just make a comment,
Madam Chair?
Thank you for including the illustration on
what the fee value was, the cost of the easement as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
12
it relates to fee simple.
MR. CLARK: Absolutely.
MR. PEREZ: I think that looks really good and
makes the item look great as well to the Board.
Thank you.
MR. CLARK: You're welcome.
Item 5, consideration of the 2016
Florida Forever five-year plan, 2016 Acquisition
Priority List and the Division of State Lands
2016/2017 Annual Work Plan. The five-year plan
describes each of the ARC-approved Florida Forever
projects, the 2016 plan contains 117 projects.
The acquisition priority list ranks the
projects individually within six project
categories. The Division of State Lands 2016
annual work plan focuses on the priority list
projects which protect Florida's water resources,
have funding partnerships, are conservation
easements, present unique acquisition
opportunities, or are substantially complete.
The 2016 work plan contains 44 projects. The
Acquisition and Restoration Council adopted the
priority list in December of 2015 and the work plan
in February of 2016.
The Department recommends approval.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
13
If there are no other questions, that
concludes the Board of Trustees' agenda.
MR. JOHNSON: Thanks, David.
MR. CLARK: Thank you.
* * * *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
14
ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION
MS. OLSON: Next up we have
Administration Commission.
COMMISSIONER KRUSE: Good morning. We have
one item on the agenda, Midbrook 1st Realty Corp
versus Martin County.
Peter Penrod, our staff attorney, will walk
you through the particulars of the case. We'll
break at certain points during his presentation to
provide opportunity for responses from the
petitioner, represented by Greg Munson today; as
well as Martin County, represented by Linda Shelly
here today.
So I'd like to ask Peter to come up, please.
MR. PENROD: Good morning, Peter Penrod, and I
will present this agenda item.
The issue I'll be presenting is the
Recommended Order in the case of Midbrook 1st
Realty versus Martin County and several
intervenors. This agenda item is a challenge to
Martin County's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 13-5
which was passed by Ordinance 938 and then amended
by Ordinance 957. Collectively these will be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
15
referred to as operative amendments.
Before presenting this item, I'd like to
briefly explain my role in this process. As staff
attorney for the Commission, I reviewed the
Recommended Order, and the applicable law.
I then met with each office individually and
advised each office of the contents of the
Recommended Order, relevant filings by each party,
and the applicable law. I then met with each
office individually and advised each office of the
contents of the Recommended Order, the contents --
the exceptions, laws governing the administrative
law process, as well as advising on potential legal
outcomes of this case. I did not, however, advance
any particular outcome, nor did I discuss my
conversations with the other offices.
The parties in this case are Petitioner,
Midbrook 1st Realty Corporation, and they're
represented by Brian Seymour. The Respondent in
this case is Martin County, Florida, and they are
represented by Linda Shelly.
The municipal intervenors are the Town of
Jupiter Island, the Town of Sea Walls Point,
City of Stuart. They are represented by
Thomas Baird, but they will not present today.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
16
The organizational intervenors are 1000
friends of Florida; Martin County Conservation
Alliance; Treasure Coast Environmental Defense
Fund; Indian River Keeper, and they are represented
by Howard Heims.
They will present today, and I'm not certain
whether or not they will present at the actual
hearing.
Due to the size and complexity of this case, I
will break this presentation into six parts. In
Part 1, I'll give a brief background to the
amendment process, as well as an overview of the
Petitioner's challenges to the amendment.
Part 2 will be a summary of the material facts
found by the Administrative Law Judge.
Part 3 will be a summary of the material
conclusions of law.
Part 4, I will break and let the parties
present their various arguments.
Part 5, I'll come back and do a review of the
parties' exceptions.
And then, Part 6 will be a vote on the
Final Order -- Proposed Final Order. We will not
have a proposed Final Order today, but we expect to
post one shortly, and we will have one on Tuesday.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
17
And so Part 1, I'll give background to the
amendment process, as well as the Petitioner's
challenges:
On August 3, 2013, Martin County adopted
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 13-5, which revised
Chapters 1, 2, and 4 of the County's Comprehensive
Growth Management Plan.
On September 12, 2013, the Petitioner, along
with several other parties -- plaintiffs filed with
the Division of Administrative Hearings challenges
to 13 dash -- amendment 13-5 pursuant to
Section 163.3184.
On January 27th, 2014 -- excuse me, on
March 21st, 2014, the case was placed in abeyance,
during which time the County adopted Ordinance 957,
which further amended its Comprehensive Plan. It
also resolved the challenges to its amendment
brought by the other parties, with the exception of
the Petitioner here today.
Petitioner filed an amended petition on
August 7th, 2014, following the adoption of
Ordinance 957. Petitioner alleges the operative
amendments are not supported by relevant and
appropriate data and analysis as required by
Section 163.3177(1)(f), especially with regard to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
18
the population projections, the housing demand, and
residential capacity determinations. They argue
the Plan is internally inconsistent in violation of
Section 163.3117, Subsection 2, and the Plan fails
to provide meaningful and predictable standards for
the use and development of land and meaningful
guidance for the development of land development
regulations --
MR. PEREZ: Could you slow down?
MR. PENROD: Sorry. Certainly.
-- as required by Section 163.3177,
Subsection 1. The hearing was subsequently held
between the dates of September 30th through
October 3rd.
We'll now move to Section 2, which is the
material facts. Before reviewing the facts, I will
provide a quick overview of the standard review for
findings of fact:
The standard review for findings of fact is
set forth in Section 120.57(1)(l), Florida
Statutes, which provides: The Commission may not
reject or modify the Administrative Law Judge's
finding of fact unless the Commission first
determines, from a review of the entire record, and
states with particularity in the Order that the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
19
findings of fact were not based on competent and
substantial evidence in the proceeding -- excuse
me, in the record or that the proceeding on which
the findings were based did not comply with the
essential requirements of law.
Therefore, the findings of fact can be
modified or rejected only if they are not based on
competent and substantial evidence in the record,
or the proceedings did not comply with the
essential requirements of law.
I will now go over the Administrative Law
Judge's findings of fact.
MR. PEREZ: Can I ask a question before you
do, Peter? And I don't know the process, if the
Cabinet -- I don't know if they'll be asking,
you know, you questions during your presentation or
how they'll approach it, but I'm assuming the
motion in limine is part of the record below?
MR. PENROD: Yes.
MR. PEREZ: Because the ruling that we saw and
that the Judge ordered on that was clearly part of
the record.
MR. PENROD: Yes.
MR. PEREZ: Thank you. I just wanted to be
clear.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
20
MR. PENROD: First, the Administrative Law
Judge determined that all parties, including
intervenors, properly participated in the amendment
process and have standing to participate in this
proceeding.
Second, the County complied with all notice,
meeting, and hearing requirements in passing the
operative amendments.
Third, there are several findings regarding
the growth calculations for the development.
Within this, first you have the population
projections. The Administrative Law Judge
determined that the Bureau of Economic and Business
Research Population estimates are professionally
acceptable data for population projections.
Next is the residential demand methodology.
The Administrative Law Judge determined that the
County's residential demand methodology of
excluding unoccupied housing units other than
seasonal units is professionally acceptable and
does not ignore data available at the time the
operative amendments were adopted.
Next we have the residential demand
calculations. The Administrative Law Judge made
three findings relevant to this issue. First, she
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
21
determined using the 2010 census data was
appropriate and did not violate Policy 4.1D.3.
Second, the residential demand calculation
considers both seasonal and permanent population
figures.
And third, Policy 4.1D.3 and Section 1.7 are
not in conflict since Policy 4.1D.3 considers both
permanent and seasonal population figures.
The next issue is a residential capacity
analysis. The Administrative Law Judge determined
that there are four differences between the 2009
and 2013 residential capacity analysis:
First, the current residential capacity
analysis no longer reduces available residential
acreage by 8.5% to account for loss of developed
acreage due to the presence of road right of ways
and utility easements. The county offered no
explanation for this change.
Second, the 2013 residential capacity analysis
now includes as vacant residential acreage
subdivided but vacant lots and single family in
duplex subdivisions. This added approximately
3,300 residential units which were not counted as
capacity in 2009.
Third, the 2013 methodology counts as capacity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
22
vacant acreage within approved multi-family
residential projects. By contrast, the 2009
methodology counted approved but unbuilt units in
multi-family. The Administrative Law Judge
determined that the 2013 residential capacity
analysis -- methodology is not professionally
acceptable because it ignores the development
rights already assigned to the vacant property
within approved multi-family projects.
Fourth, the 2014 formula includes as capacity
excess vacant housing not used by permanent or
seasonal residents and defines excess as exceeding
a 3% vacancy rate. The Administrative Law Judge
determined that the Petitioner failed to show
beyond fair debate that the 3% threshold is neither
appropriate nor professionally acceptable for the
Martin County housing market.
The next issue is the merging of the Eastern
Urban Service District and the Indiantown Urban
Service District. The Administrative Law Judge
determined that the 2009 methodology treated the
Eastern and Indiantown Urban Service Districts
separately for purposes of calculating residential
demand and supply and arrived at a separate housing
needs determination for the two Urban Service
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
23
Districts. By contrast, the 2013 methodology
treats the two Urban Service Districts together for
purposes of calculating the needs determination.
In 2009, the needs analysis showed a shortfall
of 616 units in the Eastern Urban Service District
to meet the demand for the 15-year planning period
and an oversupply of 6,260 units in the Indiantown
Urban Service District for the same time period.
By contrast, the 2013 needs analysis determined an
oversupply of 20,768 units in the combined Urban
Service Districts to meet demand for the 10-year;
an oversupply of 17,361 for the 15-year planning
period.
The county introduced no evidence of changed
population data or trends to support aggregating
the two Urban Service Districts for purposes of
calculating residential demand and supply in 2013;
therefore, the County's decision to combine the
Eastern and Indiantown Urban Service Districts in
the 2013 methodology is not supported by relevant
data and analysis available at the time of the
operative amendments.
Petitioner proved beyond fair debate that
neither Policy 4.D.3 nor Policy 4.1D.5 is a
professionally accepted method of collecting the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
24
applicable data.
The Administrative Law Judge further concluded
real estate markets in the Eastern Urban Service
District and the Indiantown Urban Service Districts
are unique markets; and by spreading the capacity
to meet housing demand across both Urban Service
Districts, the operative amendments increase the
threshold, which triggers expansion of or a density
increase within the Urban Service Districts.
The next issue is the maximum theoretical
density. There was no change between the 2009 and
2013 version to the Comprehensive Plan regarding
this issue.
The last issue in this category, we have
commercial and industrial lands. The
Administrative Law Judge determined that
Policy 2.4C.3 considers sufficient variables in
calculating future commercial and industrial land
expansion; therefore, the Petitioner failed to show
beyond fair debate that this provision is out of
compliance.
The next category, we have several findings
regarding the stricter rule. The Administrative
Law Judge determined the Petitioner failed to bring
the evidence the stricter rule acknowledges
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
25
internal inconsistencies, that the county has
previously been incapable of addressing internal
inconsistency in its Comprehensive Plan and that
the County will interpret conflicting provisions
arbitrarily or unpredictably.
The Administrative Law Judge also determined
that the Petitioner failed to show Section 1.1,
Subsection 5, and Sections 1.4 are in conflict with
one another, thus creating an internal consistency
and failing to provide meaningful guidance through
the application of the Comprehensive Plan. And
finally, Petitioner failed to show beyond fair
debate that the stricter rule is substantive
instead of procedural.
The next finding concerns balanced
development. The Administrative Law Judge
determined that the County was not required to
prepare an economic analysis of the operative
amendments prior to their adoption in order to
foster balanced development.
The Administrative Law Judge determined that
the Petitioner failed to demonstrate beyond fair
debate that the operative amendments failed to
designate adequate lands for commercial use to
serve for future needs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
26
The Administrative Law Judge also determined
that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate beyond
fair debate that the operative amendments do not
balance economic and environmental concerns.
And the last finding concerns the super
majority vote. Section 1.11.D6 of the operative
amendments require four votes for transmittal and
for the adoption of plan amendments involving a
number of critical issues specified therein. The
Administrative Law Judge determined that this is a
legal conclusion and addressed it in the
Conclusions of Law section.
We will now move to Part 3: Conclusions of
Law. Before moving, are there any questions?
MR. PEREZ: Madam Chair, can I ask a question?
Do you think, Peter, it may be wise for you
just to -- obviously the Administration Commission
may know, but you may want to just in one sentence
tell them what the stricter rule is; i.e. that part
of the plan --
MR. PENROD: Certainly.
MR. PEREZ: -- and so as you're going through
your outline, that may resonate with them better.
MR. PENROD: Certainly.
The stricter rule was an amendment they added
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
27
that said, if there are two provisions within the
Plan that conflicts or -- the County can resolve
the conflict by going with whichever rule is
stricter.
Stricter is not defined, but it presumably
means the rule that's stricter towards development.
MR. PEREZ: Thank you. I think that would be
helpful for them so they'll hear it.
MR. PENROD: All right. We'll move to Part 3,
Conclusions of Law. And before going over the
Conclusions of Law, I'll give a brief overview of
the standard of review for Conclusions of Law.
The standard found in Section 120.5710, and it
provides: The Commission, in its Final Order, may
reject or modify the Conclusions of Law which it
has substantive jurisdiction -- interpretation of
administrative rules over which it has substantive
jurisdiction.
When rejecting or modifying such Conclusions
of Law or interpretations of administrative rule,
the Commission must state with particularity in its
reasons for rejecting or modifying such conclusion
of law; and it must also make a finding that its
substituted conclusion of law is as more reasonable
than what was rejected or modified. Rejection or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
28
modification of a conclusion of law may not form
the basis for rejecting or modifying a finding of
fact.
I will now go over the Administrative Law
Judge's Conclusions of Law. First, there are
several procedural issues she makes conclusions on.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that
all parties have standing. In compliance means
consistent with the requirements of Sections
163.3177; 163.3179; 163.3180; 163.3191; 163.3245;
and Section 163.3248, Florida Statutes. It also
means that it's in compliance with the appropriate
strategic regional policy plan and with the
principles for guiding development in designated
areas of critical state concern and with Part III
of Chapter 369 where applicable.
The fairly debatable standard applies to any
challenge filed by an affected person. Under the
fairly debatable standard, the Petitioner bears the
burden of proving beyond fair debate that the
challenge operative amendments are not in
compliance. This means if reasonable persons could
differ as to its propriety, a plan amendment must
be upheld.
First up we have public participation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
29
Section 163.3181, Florida Statutes requires that
the public participate to the fullest extent
possible in the comprehensive planning process.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the
Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that
the public was unable to participate in the process
for adoption of the operative amendments nor that
Petitioner was prejudiced by the County's adoption
of amendments which were originated by
Ms. Rochelle. That's Maggie Rochelle.
Next up we have meaningful and predictable
standards. Section 163.3177, Subsection 1 requires
the Comprehensive Plan to guide future decisions in
a consistent manner and establish meaningful and
predictable standards for the use and development
of land.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that
the Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate
that the stricter rule failed to establish
meaningful standards for implementing the
Comprehensive Plan.
The next issue is internal inconsistency.
Section 163.3177, Subsection 2 requires that
coordination of the several elements of the
Comprehensive Plan shall be consistent and that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
30
where data is relevant to several elements,
consistent data shall be used, including population
estimates and projections.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that
the Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate
that the operative amendments create
inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan or
acknowledge inconsistencies through adoption of the
stricter rule.
The Administrative Law Judge also concluded
the Petitioner failed to show beyond fair debate
that Policy 4.1D.3 excludes seasonal population
from the calculation of residential housing demand,
thus creating an internal conflict with
Section 1.7.
The next category is data and analysis, and
there are several conclusions regarding this issue.
Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires plan amendments to
be based upon relevant and appropriate data and
analysis by the local government.
That includes surveys, studies, community
goals, and vision, and other data available at the
time of adoption. Data must be taken from
professionally accepted sources. To be based on
data means to react to it in an appropriate way and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
31
to the extent necessary indicated by the data
available on that particular subject at the time of
the adoption of the plan amendment.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that
the operative amendments do not react to readily
available data regarding the County's population
projections and trends by separate -- by combining
the Eastern and Indiantown Urban Service Districts
for purpose of calculating both residential demand
and residential capacity.
The methodologies in Section 1.7.B and 1.7.C,
as well as policies, and 4.1D.3 and 4.1D.5 are not
based on data and analysis.
The Administrative Law Judge also concluded
that the Petitioner proved beyond fair debate that
the Policy 4.1D.5, Subsection 4 is not based on
data and analysis because it is not a
professionally accepted methodology for obtaining
data on a residential capacity within approved
multifamily developments.
The Administrative Law Judge also concluded
that Policy 2.4C.3 was -- excuse me, the Petitioner
did not prove that the allegations, the 2.4C.3, was
limited to commercial and industrial growth by
solely basing future population estimates.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
32
The Petitioner did not prove beyond fair
debate that the residential capacity analysis is
not based on data and analysis for failure to
account for limitations affecting a property
owner's ability to achieve maximum theoretical
density.
The next category is real estate markets.
Section 163.3177(6)(a)(4) requires the amount of
land designated by the local government for future
land use should allow for the operation of real
estate markets to provide adequate choices for
permanent and seasonal residents, and may not be
limited solely by the projected populations.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that
the Petitioners proved beyond fair debate that the
combining of the two Urban Service Districts for
purposes of calculating housing demand and supply
is out of compliance with Section 163.3177,
Sub Part 2.
The next category is balance of uses.
Sections 163.3117, Subsection 1, and
Section 163.3177, Subsection 6-A-4,
Florida Statutes requires that a Comprehensive Plan
shall provide for the orderly and balanced future
economic, social, physical, environmental, and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
33
fiscal development.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that
the Petitioner failed to prove beyond fair debate
that the operative amendments failed to achieve a
balance of uses to foster a vibrant, viable
community, and economic development opportunities.
The final subject is the supermajority vote.
Section 163.3184 provides that a local government
decision to amend its Comprehensive Plan shall be
by an affirmative vote of not less than a majority
of the members of the governing body present at the
time of the hearing.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that
the procedure -- procedural requirements of
Section 163.3184 are not compliance issues.
The Administrative Law Judge further concluded
that the supermajority vote is a purely procedural
issue and is not required to be based on data
analysis; therefore, the Petitioner failed to show
beyond fair debate that the supermajority provision
is not based on data and analysis.
That concludes the overview of the Conclusions
of Law. We'll now move to the party presentations.
The first party will be the Petitioner represented
by Greg Munson.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
34
MR. MUNSON: My primary plan here today was to
make sure I answered any and all questions, so I'll
do a brief introduction and be prepared to walk
through the exceptions that we've presented and --
but mainly I hope I can take any questions that
y'all may have. And so feel free, of course, it's
your meeting, to let me know if you have any.
Again, I'm Greg Munson. I represent
Midbrook Realty. Brian Seymour, my co-counsel
below, had hoped to be here today but has a
stomach bug so is not here, but he will be here
with your principal next week.
Martin County presented -- I'm sorry, Midbrook
presented a total of seven exceptions. Rather than
go exception by exception, they sort of clump
together in three basic sets, and I think opposing
counsel is prepared to respond in those three sets
of issues. So rather than go one by one, I thought
what I'd do is just highlight our position on each
of those three sets.
The first are our Exceptions 1 and 2, which
relate to the ALJ's interpretation of Policy 2.4C.3
of the Comprehensive Plan. And the ALJ ultimately
concluded that this was in compliance but -- and
she included that in her findings of fact. But
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
35
because it is a pure interpretation of the language
as amended in Policy 2.4C.3 -- this is a change to
the Comprehensive Plan -- it is, in fact, a
conclusion of law that the Administration
Commission can disagree with and reverse.
The operative language in 2.4C.3 is really
what the crux of this debate is about. There are
two sentences at issue. The first sentence, which
we rely heavily upon and we think is the
controlling sentence, says: The County shall limit
commercial and industrial land use amendments to
that needed for the projected population growth for
the next 15 years.
That projected population growth is for
Martin County. We see that there is absolutely no
room for debate about the idea that what
Martin County is doing here is saying that unless
the Martin County population needs additional land,
commercial and industrial land, it shall not be
approved.
Now what you'll hear from the County and what
the ALJ agreed with was that that 15 years and that
phrase "shall limit" was, in fact, altered. And we
say altered to the point where it's read out of
existence by the second sentence, which provides
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
36
that the determination of need shall include a
consideration of various other factors: How fast
population has increased relative to commercial and
industrial acreage in the past, in the previous
ten years; the existing inventory of vacant and
commercial land, and some other factors.
And the ALJ found or -- and should have
concluded, or there should have been a conclusion,
albeit an incorrect one, that the consideration of
all of these other factors kind of got around the
limitation in the first sentence. But I think any
fair reading of that first sentence and the second
sentence don't lead to that result.
I think the best way to read this and to give
both sentences effect, which is what the law says
one should do when interpreting statutory or any
sort of ordinance or those sorts of provisions, is
to give both of these sentences effect by
understanding that the limitation still applies,
you're still limited to the commercial and
industrial land needed for the next 15 years. When
you make that determination of the land needed for
those next 15 years, you'll use the factors they
list in the second sentence.
So there's nothing in that second sentence
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
37
that necessarily overrides it. That's an
interpretation, but it's an incorrect one, and it's
a conclusion of law which can be overturned.
I'll leave it at that on those exceptions.
Our next set of exceptions relate to the
balance development issue. In part, the ALJ relied
very heavily on her misinterpretation, as I've just
outlined, of Policy 2.4C.3, but there are other
things as well.
As you know balance development -- I should
back up just to be clear too.
Chapter 163 contains a requirement that there
be enough land, including commercial and industrial
land, for the 10-year planning horizon. And so
that's what we are alleging Policy 2.4C.3 was
inconsistent with in Chapter 163.
So really, it boils down to the
interpretation. I don't think there's any debate
if -- and obviously opposing counsel can speak for
herself. But I think if the
Administration Commission accepts the ALJ's
Conclusions of Law, we would agree that at that
point it would be in compliance with 163.
But vice versa, if the Administration
Commission rejected the ALJ's findings -- again, I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
38
say those are mislabeled findings, it should have
been conclusions -- then it would not be in
compliance with Chapter 163. So that's why I
focused on simply that interpretation issue on
Policy 2.4C.3.
And before I go there, let me make sure I
didn't lose anybody in that last change. If there
are any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
(NO RESPONSE).
MR. MUNSON: Okay. So the next set of our
exceptions relate to balance development, and
Chapter 163 requires that the principles,
guidelines, standards, and strategies for the
orderly and balanced future and economic, social,
physical, environmental, and fiscal development of
the area are contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
Likewise, the amount of land designated for future
planned uses shall provide a balance of uses that
foster vibrant, viable communities and -- and --
economic development opportunities.
As we made clear below, and as about which
there is no dispute, Martin County did not do any
specific economic analysis of these particular
amendments. They relied on more general economic
elements in their plan in response to this, but we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
39
still fail to see how a county can determine that
the plan is in balance without doing any economic
analysis whatsoever, in balance to include economic
factors without doing any economic analysis.
That's Point Number 1.
Point Number 2, the ALJ, as I mentioned,
relied heavily on her interpretation of policy --
misinterpretation in our view of Policy 2.4C.3 that
I just covered.
She basically said -- well, she correctly
characterized our argument as -- part of our
argument as, hey, there's an imbalance here because
there's not going to be enough commercial and
industrial land based on Policy 2.4C.3. Having
rejected our position in Policy 2.4C.3 that I just
discussed, she, therefore, rejected it as a basis
for finding a lack of balance in the Plan between
those various factors: Economic, physical,
environmental, and social.
And then finally, we attempted to point out
some other provisions in the Plan that supported
our view, not that we were challenging these other
provisions, but that there were other provisions in
the Comprehensive Plans that indicated a similar
lack of -- that would lead to a similar lack of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
40
balance, and these are the objectives 2.4C and
2.4C.1.
The ALJ rejected these. She said we hadn't
raised these issues below; but in fact, she
misinterpreted, in fact, what we were doing there.
We're citing Objective 2.4C and Policy 2.4C.1 as
evidence, as simply another piece of the plan
showing lack of balance. We're not challenging
those -- that objective or those policies directly
ourselves.
But as a result of that misunderstanding, the
ALJ concluded that we waived our opportunity below.
Had she considered them, as our experts explained,
there's sort of an inflexible approach outlined in
2.4C and 2.4C.1 about how to account for population
projections. And our expert testimony would have
showed, and we were allowed to go ahead and present
the testimony, that the County's approach there
would arbitrarily sort of shut down permitting when
it hit this 125% wall of projected need there.
I'm not going to dwell on that one. It gets
back into some fairly complex testimony fairly
quickly, and I think there are three bases there.
The final -- let me ask if there are any
questions though.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
41
(NO RESPONSE).
MR. MUNSON: Okay. The final piece -- or our
final exception, our Exception Number 7, so we did
1 and 2 as Policy 2.4C.3 on commercial and
industrial land. Our Exceptions 3 through 6 relate
to balanced development, and our Exception Number 7
was a challenge to the supermajority vote.
Essentially, we challenge this as lacking
appropriate and relevant data and analysis. And
the ALJ concluded, although she did note that it
was a legal issue, that no data and analysis was
necessary. We do agree with Martin County that
purely procedural matters do not require data and
analysis.
So if the Administration Commission agreed
with the ALJ, as a matter of law, that the
supermajority vote was a procedural issue, then
that effectively resolves it. If on the other
hand -- our position is that it is a substantive
issue; and if that's the case, it would require
data and analysis and there is no data and
analysis.
The reason we believe it's substantive, quite
simply, is because anybody who has ever had to go
get an additional vote from a multi-member body
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
42
knows it gets more difficult. In fact, that's the
whole reason you go to a supermajority vote is to
make things a little bit more difficult.
When you start impacting people's substantive
rights, the likelihood of getting a particular
outcome, it has to be substantive and not
procedural. Procedural are things like: What time
of day do you file something? What order does it
go in? Your substantive rights aren't impacted by
procedure.
And that's why we cite; albeit, a criminal
case, a case from the Florida Supreme Court on that
point. It makes essentially the same point. We
acknowledge it's a criminal case, but similar to
cases cited by Martin County, it's not binding
precedent on the Administration Commission. I
think the Administration Commission can treat this
as a conclusion of law and find that it is a
substantive issue and therefore requires data and
analysis for which none was provided.
And I guess the only other point I'll make on
the supermajority vote -- well, I'll tell you what,
I'll close it at that and just see if there are any
questions.
(NO RESPONSE).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
43
MR. MUNSON: Thank you. And I think I
understand the process is going to be Ms. Shelly on
these exceptions, and then I'll have a brief
opportunity for rebuttal, so thank you.
MS. SHELLY: Good morning. We had a brief
opportunity to talk earlier, and we are thinking it
might be helpful for you to hear our argument and
our discussion about exceptions so that we only
have to do this once instead of hearing about the
Recommended Order and then we do something and then
we hear about exceptions and then we hear about --
so we're just trying to make the process simpler,
and we will deal with that with Mr. Penrod, and
hopefully it will go smooth for you.
As you can tell from Mr. Penrod's summary,
there were many issues heard by the ALJ. Only two
of the issues that were heard were found against
Martin County. To be sure, you are aware that in a
163 challenge, the Petitioner has a heavy burden
because the County, when they adopt amendments, is
entitled to the fairly debatable standard of
review. And that's the traditional land use
authority of local government to make those
decisions for its jurisdiction.
The only two issues of the ones that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
44
Mr. Penrod went over that the ALJ agreed with the
Petitioner on related to the residential capacity
analysis. And I've had a chance to show some of
you the document that is produced pursuant to the
policies that are in the Plan about residential
capacity analysis; and in fact, the first one that
she mentions, which I refer to as the multi-family
component, is -- we didn't file any exceptions. It
was a disputed issue: Was that in compliance?
And she said it was not professionally
acceptable, there was not adequate data and
analysis to support it, and so we said fine. The
Administration Commission will issue a Final Order,
will find that not in compliance pursuant to the
recommendation of the ALJ, and we will either amend
or repeal that policy pursuant to your Final Order.
The other issue that she found against the
County on was the merge -- she calls it the merging
of the Eastern Urban Service Districts and the
Indiantown Urban Service Districts.
That is also found in that same policy but
it's crossed out. It's former paragraph 3 that
says the Eastern Urban Service District and the
Indiantown Urban Service District shall be
considered separately, and she found that we had
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
45
not sufficient data and analysis to remove that
policy. It is presumed as a matter of law, when
that is adopted, which it was adopted in 2009 and
went into effect in 2011, that it was supported by
data and analysis.
So to change it, you need data and analysis,
and she found that our data on that was
insufficient, our analysis was. And for you, I
have given some of you, when I remembered to bring
them, copies of the map that you might find. It
was in -- it's in the record, it's in the Plan, and
it's attached to our exceptions, but if you want a
bigger one, you can have one.
MR. JOHNSON: Thanks, Linda.
MS. SHELLY: And I think the issue that I
wanted to show -- there is no dispute about that
between counsel. The -- I don't know what color to
say this is -- light peach, is primary Urban
Service District, and pink is secondary Urban
Service District. And the Martin County Plan does
not make a distinction anywhere in the Plan between
the rules for development and the primary Urban
Service District and the secondary Urban Service
District, no matter where they are located -- no
matter where they are located.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
46
So that phrase "Eastern Urban Service
Districts" and "Indiantown Urban Service Districts"
is in that one sentence that's crossed out, and
nowhere else in the Plan. And that forms the basis
for all 16 exceptions filed by Martin County. So
I'm hoping that we do not need to go through them
one by one because it is, in fact, all the same
issue; and that is, the law does not require --
when you're evaluating for the 10-year supply, the
law does not require you to have a certain amount
of supply in one area versus another area.
And we can use Killearn and south county --
the jurisdiction of Leon County is how they
calculate, I assume, their residential capacity.
And that's how Martin County always did it before.
In 2009 it changed to make that calculation
separately, of course they then combined them, but
they did make the calculation separately.
We lost that issue on data and analysis, and I
would encourage you, if you agree with the
Petitioners on that issue, that you limit the
finding to a data and analysis issue because it is
not the law that a local government everywhere else
in Florida needs to plan by separate parts of their
jurisdictions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
47
That is the only basis for her finding of
balance. If you agree with Petitioner on the
issue, we will amend to reinsert that sentence and
say: Calculate it separately, shall be
calculated -- shall be considered, I'm sorry, shall
be considered separately, and we will consider them
separately.
And so the reason that this map is important
is there is a large distance between East and
Indiantown areas of the County. And so
factually -- Doctor Fishkin's testimony about
different markets, et cetera, we're not here to
tell you that if you want to go to Martin County,
you don't care whether you go to Indiantown or
Stuart. That is not our position. Our position is
that legally we are not required to calculate them
separately.
MR. PEREZ: Can I ask a question, Madam Chair,
on that?
MS. SHELLY. Sure, I'm sorry.
MR. PEREZ: Linda, if there's nothing in 163
that talks about regional separation there, is
there a legal determination or distinction with
regard to primary versus secondary?
MS. SHELLY: That is totally a made-up
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
48
category in the Martin County Plan. There is no
requirement in state law that you have an urban
service district. Many have transect boundaries
within projects, many have -- Dade County has an
urban boundary. You're very familiar with it if
you've heard any of those cases on expanding that
boundary. Sarasota has an urban boundary. Several
counties have urban boundaries. Cities don't
usually need urban boundaries because cities are
urban, and so you will find them in many counties
in Florida. Orange County has an urban service.
Urban service areas generally are directed,
and the ALJ makes this reference, to
infrastructure: I want to be smart about where I
am spending my money on infrastructure, so I'm
going to have regional wastewater there, I'm going
to have -- I'm going to focus my schools, I'm going
to focus my population, and I'm going to focus my
stuff that I have to do for my population inside an
urban service boundary, and she makes reference to
that in her Order.
MR. PEREZ: Thank you.
MS. SHELLY: Okay. So that's pretty much the
16 exceptions. We didn't accept on the
multi-family, we did file the 16 exceptions on the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
49
merging of the Eastern and Indiantown Urban Service
Districts.
Since -- I do want to just take this
opportunity to reply to Mr. Munson's comments about
his exceptions. The first two, as he said, relate
to 2.4C.3; and that is, in the words of the ALJ --
I think she called it inartful.
It is -- if you read the paragraph together,
we certainly do not violate the requirement that
you cannot base your population -- I mean you can't
base land uses solely on population.
Last year I stood here in front of you on
behalf of an applicant in Manatee County, and I
indicated to you that, indeed, interpretation of a
plan amendment is a question of law, and in that
you are to show deference to the local government.
Martin County does not interpret this in a way
that would violate the solely-based-on-population
restriction, and I am asking that you show the same
deference to Martin County that the ALJ showed and
that you showed to Manatee County last year; and
that precedent is that the County's interpretation
of its plan is entitled to great weight.
And so we urge you to deny the first two
exceptions based on 2.4C.3. If you disagree and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
50
believe that the only possible way to read that is
consistent with Petitioner's argument, then you
should direct us to amend or repeal the policy and
we will do so.
As Mr. Munson mentioned, Exceptions 3 through
6 are on lack of balance. The first one of those
exceptions, however, got a separate legal point to
recall, and that is that the -- there is nowhere in
the law a requirement that a county or local
government have any original data collection in
order to adopt an amendment, and the upshot -- and
the ALJ mentions that.
The upshot of the requirement that we would
have to do an economic analysis of a plan amendment
unrequired, not -- totally not required and,
in fact, it says in the law, not required:
Original data collection by local governments is
not required for adoption of a plan amendment.
That's in 163.3177(1)(f)(2).
If that is so, then we cannot be required to
do an economic analysis of the possible impact of
an amendment, and so I wanted to pull that out of
the issue of 3 through 6.
Exception 4 hints that she missed the boat on
all of this, and, in fact, what the paragraphs that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
51
are being complained of are paragraphs in which she
says that they don't carry their burden. And as
you know when you go to an administrative hearing,
it's a polite but pitched battle. You put on your
evidence, they put on their evidence, the ALJ
decides.
Well, she didn't decide in favor of the
Petitioner on these various issues, and so they are
saying, go back, we want a do-over, we want to have
her reconsider and reweigh the evidence. That is
not appropriate and you should not do it.
Similarly, 2.4C.1, objective -- policy in
2.4C, the objective, she said, look, that wasn't
raised in your pleadings, it wasn't raised in your
prehearing stip, it wasn't in the discovery, you're
not going to raise it now. A very good lawyer
says, oh, I wasn't complaining about the policies,
I just wanted to use them as evidence. She said,
no, that's the first time we've heard about those
policies, and I'm not going to use it as evidence.
It is the ALJ's responsibility to make those
calls, it is not your responsibility as the
Administration Commission to reweigh them.
Again, the Petitioner argues a huge leap from,
this is flawed, to, the whole Plan is flawed. She
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
52
specifically rejected the argument that it's out of
whack from an environmental versus economic
standpoint. She found a lack of balance under
163.3177(6) because of the merging of the Eastern
and Indiantown Urban Service Districts, and she's
very clear about the reason for that.
Finally, supermajority, the cases cited in our
response to the exceptions filed by Petitioner are
growth management cases in Florida, they're not a
criminal case. They are about adopting either a
rezoning or a plan amendment. They mention
supermajority votes, and they call them procedural,
and so voting requirements -- and I've mentioned to
you all the 60% requirement in the Constitution.
It doesn't matter what the substance of the
amendment, it's a 60% voting requirement.
And as importantly, 163.3184 has the
definition of in compliance. It lists the various
statutes that we can be found not in compliance
about, about which the Administration Commission
has jurisdiction.
The voting requirements for plan amendments is
in 163.3184 as well. There are a bucket of cases
that say: If it isn't in the list of things listed
in the definition of in compliance, then it is not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
53
a matter for the Administration Commission. You
may have a circuit court case, you may have some
other kind of complaint, but it is not a compliance
issue to be brought before the Administration
Commission.
For those reasons we ask you to deny all of
the exceptions filed by the Petitioner. If there
are any questions, I am totally happy to answer
them.
MR. FAY: I have a quick question. Good
morning, Linda.
MS. SHELLY: Good morning.
MR. FAY: So my question -- your point that
the 60% amendment is not something that's
specifically in the record, and I think it's
something you spoke about a little bit about with
us. Do you see a distinction between a
constitutional requirement that would apply 60%
only to specific types of amendments; whereas the
current structure, it would apply 60% to all of
those amendments?
MS. SHELLY: I think what wasn't challenged
was whether or not the list of amendments covered
by the supermajority are unclear. That wasn't an
issue at the hearing.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
54
If you will look at that portion, it says the
four-story height limitation, the 15 units per
acre. And importantly, during the settlement with
the first three petitioners in this matter that
resulted in 957, it was important to those
petitioners that we amend the supermajority so that
changes in the urban service boundary are subject
to supermajority; therefore, not just expansions as
was in 938, but also contractions.
No, I think that a local government -- and,
in fact, that's true in Hillsborough County. Map
amendments, project-specific map amendments have a
different voting requirement than text amendments.
And a local government can say which ones go which
way because it's procedural.
MR. FAY: Okay. Thank you.
MS. SHELLY: Anything else?
(NO RESPONSE).
MS. SHELLY: I think that you may know that
the Chairman of our County Commission, who is
Ann Scott, will be here and will speak briefly. I
believe that none of the intervenors,
environmental, or the other local government
intervenors on behalf of the County will speak.
Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
55
MS. FIELD: I have a quick question, Peter,
actually for you. Sorry.
While we're on the topic of supermajority and
speaking to Linda's comments, can you tell us what
the jurisdiction is for the Administration
Commission to rule on that topic?
MR. PENROD: Can you elaborate?
MS. FIELD: Sure. The jurisdiction that the
Administration Commission would have to rule on the
supermajority, it sounded like Linda said that
based on definition in statute on compliance of
comprehensive plans --
MR. PENROD: Sure, if we were --
MS. FIELD: -- that we would not have
jurisdiction.
MR. PENROD: If we were to make the
determination and agree with the Respondent that
it's purely procedural, then we can't rule on the
other and say it's purely procedural and that's in
the discretion of the County. If we were to
determine for whatever reason it's partially
substantive, then we could rule on the basis that
it had to be supported by data and analysis.
MS. FIELD: So you're saying the
Administration Commission can make a ruling one way
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
56
or another?
MS. SHELLY: I definitely disagree with that.
MS. FIELD: Sorry.
MS. SHELLY: Excuse me, if I can, just to
clarify. The issue -- it's a two-fer.
The data and analysis issue, if it's
procedural, as Mr. Munson agrees, no data and
analysis required. Whether or not it's procedural,
it is in the portion of the statute that is not
listed in the definition of "in compliance." So
separately, this body does not make a determination
on that issue.
MR. MUNSON: Let me start there, and then I'll
go back, if I may, because I do want to talk about
it.
The argument that we're talking about here,
this idea that it's beyond the things that can be
challenged in 163 stems from a provision in
163.3184 which we agree, if we were challenging
this under 163.3184, we would not be successful or
should not be successful.
But just to explain, it says that at least a
majority of a county commission must approve it.
Okay, fine, we don't dispute that. That's a voting
provision. It is in 163.3184.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
57
What we are challenging is the lack of data
and analysis supporting the supermajority vote
provision. The requirement for data and analysis
is in 163.3177 and is challengeable, and there is
no debate that provisions in 3177, that requirement
for data and analysis can be challenged.
So if the Commission agrees that this is
substantive and, therefore, lacks data and
analysis, it can find the Comprehensive Plan
changes inconsistent with 163.3177 and strike it
down on that -- and strike it out on that -- reject
it on that basis.
MS. FIELD: Linda, you referenced
Hillsborough County. Do you know when they made
the change for specifics on their mapping, if they
used data and analysis before changing the vote
requirement?
MS. SHELLY: I can find out when
Hillsborough County implemented it. I can tell you
it's been years, it's not recent.
MS. FIELD: Okay.
MS. SHELLY: I will, I'm -- the 163.3177, to
quote, says: All mandatory and optional elements
of the Comprehensive Plan and Plan amendments shall
be based on relevant and appropriate data and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
58
analysis.
This is not in a mandatory or optional element
that's listed in 163.3177; it's in the preamble of
the Plan. It is not subject to review under 3177
either.
MR. MUNSON: I'm sorry to continue this, but
obviously where Martin County puts it in its Plan
does not make it challengeable or not
challengeable. It is a mandatory or optional
element. Those are the only two things it could
be.
Anyway, but going back to Hillsborough County,
there are -- our expert testified that there are
other counties that have supermajority vote
provisions; but, of course, what we don't know is
what data and analysis they may have used, and
that's not in the record. We don't know whether
those were challenged, so none of that is in the
record.
Our expert testified in the hearing to a
situation in which similar -- a similar type of
voting issue came up and they supported that with
community polling and a statement about -- in that
case they were concerned about a particular type of
invasive species and they made findings about the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
59
scope of that and the impact, the environmental
impact of those invasive species.
So there is data and analysis out here that
could be done to support the supermajority vote as
a whole, or the specific issues that have been
identified as needing the supermajority vote.
So I guess I'll stick with the supermajority
vote here. My recollection, by the way, is that
the two cases that have been cited, one is actually
an Illinois case -- and in both situations neither
was examining specifically whether an amendment to
a supermajority vote was or was not procedural.
As I've said before, there is no, in our view,
binding precedent, even though we think our case is
more persuasive because it actually talks about the
difference between procedural and subjective. We
don't think there is any binding precedent on the
Administration Commission here.
And the final point I will make on the
supermajority vote is if you accept the County's
ultra deference position, that it's procedural and
that, in fact, they don't need to provide any basis
whatsoever for the change or justify it at all,
there's nothing that would prevent development
approvals or anything else from being unanimous,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
60
requiring a unanimous vote by a county commission,
there is no distinction there.
I do want to briefly, if I may, respond to
some of the other points that Ms. Shelly made since
we went first. And I'm kind of picking up on that
theme appropriately, of course -- if I were the
County, I would remind everybody too about the
appropriate -- about the deference that they're
entitled to under the fairly debatable standard
that exists in law.
That was -- but I will also point out that
despite arguments to the contrary, that deference
is not unfettered, State supervision of growth
management laws remains in place and has not ended.
On the Urban Service Districts, which is sort
of responding to Ms. Shelly's exceptions there, let
me address what I think is sort of the underlying
issue: Why does it matter whether they're
considered or together? When you combine the
population capacity, you get a much larger capacity
number when you combine the two. If you want to
expand the Urban Service District, the only way you
can do that is by showing that there is no capacity
left.
So if you own property, as Ms. Brook does,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
61
just outside the Urban Service District, and there
is plenty of space in the Indiantown Urban Service
Districts, and there's going to be plenty of
capacity in the Indiantown Urban Service Districts
for many years to come, the fact that you're now
combining those two rather than treating them
separately is very significant.
And the County's own employee who was
responsible for doing the population projections
and capacity connections, Samantha Lovelady,
testified explicitly that she would want to
consider them -- she would want to know that data
separately. And she acknowledged, in fact, that
they were now being considered separately.
By the way, the only reference -- the
reference to them being considered separately that
was stricken that Ms. Shelly showed you all, that's
not the only reference to it in the Plan.
If you don't mind, I'll just pass these down
so you can have them.
MR. FAY: And when you're done, can I ask you
a quick question?
MR. MUNSON: Sure. Was there a question? I
didn't see where it came from.
MR. PEREZ: Is that information that's in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
62
record below?
MR. MUNSON: Yeah, what I'm passing out is a
provision in the Martin County Comprehensive Plan.
MR. PEREZ: Okay.
MR. MUNSON: And I'll give you the page number
here as soon as I get it, my only remaining copy
back.
It's on Page 28, and you'll see there's a
series of calculations for the Eastern Urban
Service Districts and what are labeled "Indiantown
Units," but it's the same thing. And they've
stricken that table out; it contained the data.
Martin County is probably a little unusual in
actually putting data in its Comprehensive Plan to
support it, but it shows both of those items.
MS. SHELLY: Yeah, it was the data from the
2009 Plan.
MR. MUNSON: So there are multiple references
to it in the Plan that have been stricken out.
Sorry, I'm assuming I answered the question
then.
MR. FAY: I'll wait until you're done. It's
kind of interrupting what you're --
MR. PENROD: I don't mind. I'm pretty --
MR. FAY: Are you sure?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
63
MR. PENROD: Yeah.
MR. FAY: Okay. On the voting process, if we
accept the premise that the compliance argument is
satisfied and the premise that there's some
substantial -- substantive component to that voting
requirement, how do you see the Administration
Commission addressing that requirement? What data
or analysis would you require them to put forward
to make that argument?
MR. PENROD: Okay. Well, as a preliminary
matter of course, the Administration Commission
wouldn't need to decide that in this proceeding.
It would only need to decide that there had to be
data and analysis, and that would be a sufficient
basis to accept our exceptions, if you will.
Having said that, if the question is sort of
a -- what sorts of things would you do, I would
point to our expert's testimony in that other
situation where they look to community visioning
statements, which are explicitly recognized in 163.
And if you're going to identify particular
areas -- an example, not that we really have any
heartburn with this particular provision but, you
know, one of the issues that are cited as requiring
a supermajority vote are any approvals that would
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
64
impact the health I think of the Indian River
Lagoon.
Okay, well, let's have some data and analysis
about the need to protect the Indian River Lagoon.
I think they could probably do that quite easily,
so it's an easy example.
But do those sorts of -- that sort of, in that
case, environmental analysis. How did you pick
these particular areas? Why them? Is there a
particular need in the County shown by the data?
I don't know if that answers your question.
MR. FAY: So do you think the analysis then is
just to make a determination that it's a
substantive component and not necessarily to
analyze within the record what those -- what that
data and analysis would look like?
MR. PENROD: Correct. Correct.
MR. FAY: Okay.
MR. PENROD: It's simply a determination as to
whether it's substantive and, therefore, requires
data and analysis, and that none was -- and I don't
think there's any dispute in this record that none
was provided.
MR. FAY: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MUNSON: Let's see, so on the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
65
Urban Service Districts, as I mentioned, there are
multiple references in there. And I think I've
also explained why it's important to Midbrook and
others, why those areas are, in fact -- what the
impact is of considering those areas separately.
It's not simply a matter of infrastructure
although -- and the County is essentially arguing
here, if you boil it down, that they can locate
growth anywhere they want to. In other words, if
they wanted to, they could say -- under this
argument, they could say, look, we're going to put
ten acres up in the northwest corner of
Martin County and as long as there's capacity
there, then there's no reason to expand the Urban
Service Districts in the east where everybody wants
to live.
That simply undermines the purposes of the
Community Planning Act which is supposed to do
that. As Mr. Penrod said when we opened, the goal
of the Community Planning Act is to help direct
growth; and this, as Doctor Fishkin noted, is
really just a cynical attempt to stop growth by
manipulating the capacity numbers that exist.
I want to respond briefly to a couple of the
points that Ms. Shelly made, I won't belabor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
66
this, on 2.4C.3, which is the limitation on
commercial and industrial land. She's asking you
all for deference on that point, but this is a
conclusion of law, and the
Administration Commission is under no obligation
whatsoever to defer to the County's interpretation
of that provision.
And I also would note that the other -- I
think there was some discussion of a previous
Administration Commission proceeding involving
Manatee County. That was not opposed. As I recall
from watching that, there was no opposition to
that, so deference may have been more appropriate
in that situation than here, but I do not believe
it constitutes precedent for deference to the
County in this case.
And I think with that, we've probably covered
everything that there's patience for today.
Are there any remaining questions?
(NO RESPONSE).
MR. PENROD: I had originally planned to go
through all of the exceptions, but I think that
we've covered them. So unless there are any
questions, we'll conclude this agenda item.
MR. PEREZ: Can I ask one question, if I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
67
could, for Linda Shelly, please?
So I mean if you listened to Mr. Munson's
statement, he says that the next parade of
horribles would be a unanimous vote. I mean if I
look at the language in 163, it appears only to
require not less than a majority of the members.
I'm not sure, practically speaking, anybody would
require a unanimous vote, but I'm not sure it's
prohibited.
MS. SHELLY: The St. Pete Beach cases were
about that.
MR. PEREZ: Okay.
MS. SHELLY: If you'll recall, in St. Pete
Beach, they passed initiatives. We actually
prohibited them by statute as a result of the
City of St. Pete Beach requiring unanimous votes
for different things and requiring referendums and
referenda on plan amendments and things like that.
But the cases that looked at that talked about the
voting requirements being procedural. That's the
reason they're cited.
MR. PEREZ: Sure. But just out of curiosity
then, is the language -- so under 163, the not less
than a majority of the members of the governing
body, so you're saying a unanimous vote would be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
68
prohibited?
MS. SHELLY: No, I'm not.
MR. PEREZ: No, that's what I'm --
MS. SHELLY: I'm not saying that.
MR. PEREZ: That's the question.
MS. SHELLY: I'm saying that if a local
government did that and there were -- it could
raise other issues --
MR. PEREZ: Sure. But right now in 163 --
MS. SHELLY: -- in circuit court, but it would
not raise a compliance issue --
MR. PEREZ: I understand that.
MS. SHELLY: -- before the Administration
Commission.
MR. PEREZ: Yes, ma'am.
MS. SHELLY: Because if you can reach that
issue by saying, well, it's not really data --
MR. PEREZ: No, we saw those cases in your
filing and the County --
MS. SHELLY: Yeah, if you go at it as a data
and analysis issue, you might as well get rid of
the limitation in 163.3184 on what the definition
of "in compliance" is, and the order in limine
would be wrong on right to farm and every other
thing if you could approach everything by a data
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
69
and analysis argument.
MR. PEREZ: Sure. Thank you.
MS. SHELLY: Uh-huh.
MR. PENROD: Thank you.
Do we have any other questions?
(NO RESPONSE).
MR. PENROD: All right. That concludes our
agenda item.
MR. JOHNSON: Thanks, Peter.
MS. OLSON: Thank you.
* * * *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
70
INTERVIEW AND APPOINTMENT
FOR THE OFFICE OF
INSURANCE REGULATION COMMISSIONER
MS. OLSON: Last on our agenda is the OIR
Insurance Commissioner appointment.
Applications were re-opened and then closed
again on Friday. There is a total of 71. I hope
everyone had gotten all of those applications.
Are there any candidates anybody would like to
add to Tuesday's interview schedule?
(NO RESPONSE).
MS. OLSON: The Governor would like to
interview Mr. Bragg again and have him considered.
And if you guys have anybody else or -- Rob.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, again, you know, we're --
we don't have any new names to add to the interview
list. I would imagine if the -- Robert, are you
planning on bringing any names forward today?
MR. TORNILLO: No, the CFO is still con --
he's still reviewing and re-reviewing both the
original applications and then the new ones that
came in that closed on Friday. I believe we
actually got one even on Monday because they didn't
submit it until late Friday afternoon.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
71
So he's conducting additional interviews. I
believe the last one is probably 4 p.m. today. So
once he has a chance to assess the new candidates
and the new interviews that he's conducting, I
would say that probably kind of similar to what we
did last time, if he has any new names to add, I
would probably commit by close of business tomorrow
we would notify the Governor's office so they could
put that on the web page and notify a candidate or
candidates, if there are multiple, to come to the
Cabinet meeting, so --
But I did have a question on -- so does that
mean that Commissioner -- that Representative Hager
will be at the meeting? You said you had no new
names, but --
MR. JOHNSON: I have no idea. I mean,
you know, the CFO moved Representative Hager to be
the Insurance Commissioner so, you know, without
the Governor and the CFO being on the same page,
we're not going anywhere. So I will leave that up
to you.
MR. TORNILLO: I was just trying to get some
clarity on the two candidates that were here, if
they're expected to both be back. I know you did
say --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
72
MS. OLSON: Mr. Bragg.
MR. TORNILLO: Okay. All right. And if we
have -- again, if the CFO has any additional names,
we'll let the Governor's office know, and we'll put
it on the web page so everybody will have an
understanding tomorrow, hopefully by close of
business tomorrow.
MR. JOHNSON: Okay.
MS. OLSON: Are we good?
(NO RESPONSE).
MS. OLSON: All right. Thank you.
(WHEREUPON, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED).
* * * *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
73
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF FLORIDA )COUNTY OF LEON )
I, NANCY S. METZKE, RPR, FPR, certify that Iwas authorized to and did stenographically report theforegoing proceedings and that the transcript is a trueand complete record of my stenographic notes.
DATED this 29th day of April, 2016.
_________________________
NANCY S. METZKE, RPR, FPRCourt Reporter
$
$281,000 [1] - 9:1
$5.975 [1] - 11:11
$754,000 [1] - 7:19
$811,000 [1] - 7:20
0
002 [1] - 4:19
003 [1] - 4:20
004 [1] - 4:20
005 [1] - 4:20
006 [1] - 4:20
007 [1] - 4:20
010 [1] - 4:5
047 [1] - 3:22
056 [1] - 3:22
1
1 [13] - 5:16, 5:23,
5:24, 7:11, 16:11,
17:1, 17:6, 18:12,
29:12, 32:21, 34:21,
39:5, 41:4
1.1 [1] - 25:7
1.11.D6 [1] - 26:6
1.4 [1] - 25:8
1.5 [1] - 8:9
1.7 [2] - 21:6, 30:15
1.7.B [1] - 31:11
1.7.C [1] - 31:11
10,000 [1] - 8:15
10-year [3] - 23:11,
37:14, 46:9
1000 [1] - 16:1
117 [1] - 12:12
12 [1] - 17:8
120.57(1)(l [1] -
18:20
120.5710 [1] - 27:13
125% [1] - 40:20
13 [1] - 17:11
13-5 [3] - 14:23, 17:5,
17:11
1308 [1] - 4:3
15 [5] - 35:13, 35:22,
36:21, 36:23, 54:2
15,000 [1] - 8:14
15-year [2] - 23:6,
23:12
16 [3] - 46:5, 48:24,
48:25
163 [12] - 37:12,
37:16, 37:23, 38:3,
38:12, 43:19, 47:21,
56:18, 63:20, 67:5,
67:23, 68:9
163.3117 [2] - 18:4,
32:21
163.3177 [10] -
18:11, 28:10, 29:12,
29:23, 32:18, 32:22,
57:4, 57:10, 57:22,
58:3
163.3177(1)(f [2] -
17:25, 30:18
163.3177(1)(f)(2) [1] -
50:19
163.3177(6 [1] - 52:4
163.3177(6)(a)(4 [1] -
32:8
163.3179 [1] - 28:10
163.3180 [1] - 28:10
163.3181 [1] - 29:1
163.3184 [9] - 17:12,
33:8, 33:15, 52:17,
52:23, 56:19, 56:20,
56:25, 68:22
163.3191 [1] - 28:10
163.3245 [1] - 28:10
163.3248 [1] - 28:11
17,361 [1] - 23:12
1946 [1] - 7:16
1st [3] - 14:7, 14:20,
15:18
2
2 [12] - 5:23, 5:25,
7:13, 16:14, 17:6,
18:4, 18:15, 29:23,
32:19, 34:21, 39:6,
41:4
2.4C [4] - 40:1, 40:6,
40:15, 51:13
2.4C.1 [4] - 40:2,
40:6, 40:15, 51:12
2.4C.3 [16] - 24:17,
31:22, 31:23, 34:22,
35:2, 35:6, 37:8,
37:15, 38:5, 39:8,
39:14, 39:15, 41:4,
49:6, 49:25, 66:1
20 [1] - 1:15
20,000 [1] - 7:17
20,768 [1] - 23:10
20-acre [1] - 8:21
2009 [9] - 21:11,
21:24, 22:2, 22:21,
23:4, 24:11, 45:3,
46:16, 62:17
2010 [1] - 21:1
2011 [1] - 45:4
2013 [11] - 17:4,
17:8, 21:12, 21:19,
21:25, 22:5, 23:1,
23:9, 23:17, 23:20,
24:12
2014 [5] - 4:2, 17:13,
17:14, 17:21, 22:10
2015 [4] - 3:19, 4:10,
5:12, 12:23
2016 [10] - 1:15,
5:12, 7:12, 12:7, 12:8,
12:12, 12:15, 12:21,
12:24, 73:7
2016/2017 [1] - 12:10
20th [1] - 3:6
21st [1] - 17:14
26th [1] - 3:7
27th [1] - 17:13
28 [1] - 62:8
29th [1] - 73:7
2nd [1] - 7:12
3
3 [13] - 4:4, 5:16,
5:23, 6:1, 8:7, 16:16,
17:4, 26:13, 27:9,
41:5, 44:22, 50:5,
50:23
3% [2] - 22:13, 22:15
3,300 [1] - 21:23
3093 [1] - 1:23
30th [1] - 18:13
3177 [2] - 57:5, 58:4
32315-3093 [1] - 1:24
369 [1] - 28:16
3rd [1] - 18:14
4
4 [7] - 4:11, 11:8,
16:18, 17:6, 31:16,
50:24, 71:2
4.1D.3 [5] - 21:2,
21:6, 21:7, 30:12,
31:12
4.1D.5 [3] - 23:24,
31:12, 31:16
4.D.3 [1] - 23:24
44 [1] - 12:21
5
5 [4] - 4:18, 12:7,
16:20, 25:8
5,000 [1] - 8:15
5,236 [1] - 11:10
6
6 [5] - 4:24, 16:22,
41:5, 50:6, 50:23
6,260 [1] - 23:7
6-A-4 [1] - 32:22
60% [5] - 52:14,
52:16, 53:14, 53:18,
53:20
616 [1] - 23:5
697-8314 [1] - 1:24
697-8715 [1] - 1:24
69N-121.007 [1] - 4:5
69N-121.066 [1] -
4:12
69N-3.001 [1] - 4:19
69O-143.046 [1] -
3:22
69O-186.010 [1] -
4:25
7
7 [3] - 5:8, 41:3, 41:6
71 [1] - 70:8
7th [1] - 17:21
8
8 [1] - 5:8
8.5% [1] - 21:15
83 [1] - 7:14
850 [2] - 1:24
8th [1] - 3:18
9
9 [1] - 5:13
9,000 [1] - 8:3
938 [2] - 14:24, 54:9
957 [4] - 14:25,
17:15, 17:22, 54:5
A
abeyance [1] - 17:14
ability [1] - 32:5
able [1] - 10:25
absolutely [5] - 6:3,
9:23, 10:6, 12:2,
35:15
accept [4] - 48:24,
59:20, 63:3, 63:15
acceptable [5] -
20:15, 20:20, 22:7,
22:16, 44:11
accepted [3] - 23:25,
30:24, 31:18
accepts [1] - 37:21
access [1] - 10:24
accordingly [1] -
4:16
account [3] - 21:15,
32:4, 40:15
achieve [2] - 32:5,
33:4
acknowledge [2] -
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
1
30:8, 42:14
acknowledged [1] -
61:13
acknowledges [1] -
24:25
acquire [1] - 11:9
acquired [1] - 9:3
acquiring [1] - 10:2
Acquisition [2] -
12:8, 12:22
acquisition [3] -
3:23, 12:13, 12:19
acre [3] - 7:14,
10:16, 54:3
acre-and-a-half [1] -
10:16
acreage [5] - 21:15,
21:16, 21:20, 22:1,
36:4
acres [4] - 8:9, 8:11,
11:10, 65:12
Act [3] - 4:22, 65:18,
65:20
actual [1] - 16:7
add [3] - 70:11,
70:17, 71:6
added [2] - 21:22,
26:25
additional [5] -
10:13, 35:18, 41:25,
71:1, 72:3
address [1] - 60:17
addressed [1] -
26:11
addressing [2] -
25:2, 63:7
adequate [3] - 25:24,
32:11, 44:11
adjacent [1] - 7:22
ADJOURNED) [1] -
72:12
ADMINISTRATION
[1] - 14:2
Administration [23] -
2:7, 14:5, 26:17, 35:4,
37:21, 37:24, 41:15,
42:16, 42:17, 44:13,
51:23, 52:20, 53:1,
53:4, 55:5, 55:9,
55:25, 59:18, 63:6,
63:11, 66:5, 66:10,
68:13
administrative [4] -
15:12, 27:17, 27:20,
51:3
Administrative [33] -
16:15, 17:10, 18:22,
19:11, 20:1, 20:12,
20:17, 20:24, 21:10,
22:4, 22:13, 22:20,
24:2, 24:16, 24:23,
25:6, 25:16, 25:21,
26:1, 26:10, 28:4,
28:7, 29:4, 29:17,
30:4, 30:10, 31:4,
31:14, 31:21, 32:14,
33:2, 33:13, 33:16
adopt [2] - 43:20,
50:11
adopted [8] - 4:2,
5:4, 12:22, 17:4,
17:15, 20:22, 45:3
adopting [1] - 52:10
adoption [10] - 3:21,
17:21, 25:19, 26:8,
29:7, 29:8, 30:8,
30:23, 31:3, 50:18
advance [1] - 15:14
advised [2] - 15:7,
15:10
advising [1] - 15:13
aerial [1] - 10:21
Affairs [2] - 3:9, 3:15
affected [1] - 28:18
affecting [1] - 32:4
afternoon [1] - 70:25
agenda [10] - 3:17,
5:19, 7:11, 13:2, 14:7,
14:18, 14:22, 66:24,
69:8, 70:5
agents [1] - 5:3
aggregate [1] - 5:22
aggregating [1] -
23:15
agree [6] - 37:22,
41:12, 46:20, 47:2,
55:17, 56:19
agreed [3] - 35:22,
41:15, 44:1
agreement [1] - 11:9
agrees [2] - 56:7,
57:7
ahead [2] - 3:3,
40:17
AIDES [2] - 1:4, 1:9
Aides' [1] - 3:6
albeit [2] - 36:9,
42:11
ALJ [17] - 34:23,
35:22, 36:7, 37:6,
39:6, 40:3, 40:12,
41:10, 41:16, 43:16,
44:1, 44:15, 48:13,
49:6, 49:20, 50:12,
51:5
ALJ's [4] - 34:22,
37:21, 37:25, 51:21
allegations [1] -
31:23
alleges [1] - 17:22
alleging [1] - 37:15
Alliance [1] - 16:3
allow [1] - 32:10
allowed [1] - 40:17
allowing [1] - 11:13
altered [2] - 35:23,
35:24
AMANDA [1] - 1:9
amend [5] - 33:9,
44:15, 47:3, 50:3,
54:6
amended [4] - 14:24,
17:16, 17:20, 35:2
amendment [19] -
4:10, 16:12, 16:13,
17:2, 17:11, 17:17,
20:3, 26:25, 28:23,
31:3, 49:15, 50:11,
50:14, 50:18, 50:22,
52:11, 52:16, 53:14,
59:11
Amendment [2] -
14:23, 17:5
amendments [31] -
3:21, 15:1, 17:23,
20:8, 20:22, 23:22,
24:7, 25:19, 25:23,
26:3, 26:7, 26:8,
28:21, 29:7, 29:9,
30:6, 30:18, 31:5,
33:4, 35:11, 38:24,
43:20, 52:22, 53:19,
53:21, 53:23, 54:12,
54:13, 57:24, 67:18
amount [5] - 7:19,
7:20, 32:8, 38:17,
46:10
analysis [58] - 17:24,
21:10, 21:12, 21:14,
21:19, 22:6, 23:4,
23:9, 23:21, 25:18,
30:16, 30:20, 31:13,
31:17, 32:2, 32:3,
33:19, 33:21, 38:23,
39:3, 39:4, 41:9,
41:11, 41:14, 41:21,
41:22, 42:20, 44:3,
44:6, 44:12, 45:1,
45:5, 45:6, 45:8,
46:19, 46:22, 50:14,
50:21, 55:23, 56:6,
56:8, 57:2, 57:3, 57:6,
57:9, 57:16, 58:1,
58:16, 59:3, 63:8,
63:14, 64:3, 64:8,
64:12, 64:16, 64:21,
68:21, 69:1
analyze [1] - 64:15
AND [2] - 1:1, 70:1
ANDREW [1] - 1:11
Ann [1] - 54:21
annual [2] - 5:9,
12:16
Annual [1] - 12:10
answer [2] - 38:8,
53:8
answered [2] - 34:2,
62:20
answers [1] - 64:11
antiquated [1] - 4:23
anyway [1] - 58:12
applicable [4] - 15:5,
15:9, 24:1, 28:16
applicant [1] - 49:13
application [1] -
25:11
applications [3] -
70:7, 70:9, 70:22
applies [2] - 28:17,
36:19
apply [2] - 53:18,
53:20
Appointment [1] -
2:8
APPOINTMENT [1] -
70:1
appointment [2] -
3:9, 70:6
appreciate [1] - 11:7
approach [4] - 19:17,
40:14, 40:18, 68:25
appropriate [11] -
17:24, 21:2, 22:16,
28:12, 30:19, 30:25,
41:9, 51:11, 57:25,
60:8, 66:13
appropriately [1] -
60:6
approval [10] - 3:18,
3:20, 4:4, 4:11, 4:18,
4:24, 7:24, 9:6, 11:20,
12:25
approvals [2] -
59:25, 63:25
approve [2] - 5:2,
56:23
approved [8] - 5:6,
9:2, 12:11, 22:1, 22:3,
22:9, 31:19, 35:20
APRIL [1] - 1:15
April [3] - 3:6, 3:7,
73:7
arbitrarily [2] - 25:5,
40:19
ARC [1] - 12:11
ARC-approved [1] -
12:11
area [4] - 9:1, 38:16,
46:11
areas [7] - 28:15,
47:10, 48:12, 63:22,
64:9, 65:4, 65:5
argue [1] - 18:2
argues [1] - 51:24
arguing [1] - 65:7
argument [10] -
39:11, 39:12, 43:7,
50:2, 52:1, 56:16,
63:3, 63:9, 65:11,
69:1
arguments [2] -
16:19, 60:12
arrived [1] - 22:24
as-is [1] - 7:13
assess [1] - 71:3
Assessment [1] -
10:8
assessment [1] -
10:9
assigned [1] - 22:8
assume [1] - 46:14
assuming [2] -
19:17, 62:20
attached [1] - 45:12
attempt [1] - 65:22
attempted [1] - 39:20
attorney [2] - 14:9,
15:4
August [2] - 17:4,
17:21
authority [2] - 5:1,
43:23
authorized [1] - 73:5
available [6] - 20:21,
21:14, 23:21, 30:22,
31:2, 31:6
aware [1] - 43:18
B
background [2] -
16:11, 17:1
backup [2] - 10:5,
10:14
Baird [1] - 15:25
balance [15] - 26:4,
32:20, 33:5, 37:6,
37:10, 38:11, 38:18,
39:2, 39:3, 39:17,
40:1, 40:8, 47:2, 50:6,
52:3
balanced [5] - 25:15,
25:20, 32:24, 38:14,
41:6
Bannon [3] - 8:8,
8:12, 8:15
base [2] - 49:10,
49:11
based [16] - 8:16,
19:1, 19:4, 19:7,
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
2
30:19, 30:24, 31:13,
31:16, 32:3, 33:18,
33:21, 39:14, 49:18,
49:25, 55:11, 57:25
bases [1] - 40:23
basic [1] - 34:16
basing [1] - 31:25
basis [8] - 28:2,
39:16, 46:4, 47:1,
55:22, 57:12, 59:22,
63:15
battle [1] - 51:4
Beach [3] - 67:10,
67:14, 67:16
bears [1] - 28:19
behalf [3] - 8:8,
49:13, 54:24
behind [1] - 9:25
belabor [1] - 65:25
below [6] - 19:18,
34:10, 38:21, 40:4,
40:12, 62:1
benefit [1] - 8:24
best [1] - 36:14
better [1] - 26:23
between [10] - 8:17,
18:13, 21:11, 24:11,
39:17, 45:17, 45:21,
47:9, 53:17, 59:16
beyond [17] - 22:15,
23:23, 24:20, 25:12,
25:22, 26:2, 28:20,
29:5, 29:18, 30:5,
30:11, 31:15, 32:1,
32:15, 33:3, 33:20,
56:17
bid [2] - 7:18, 7:19
bigger [1] - 45:13
Bill [1] - 4:3
binding [3] - 42:15,
59:14, 59:17
bit [2] - 42:3, 53:16
Block [1] - 7:20
block [1] - 7:21
Blueway [1] - 11:10
Board [6] - 2:5, 7:5,
7:10, 8:10, 12:4, 13:2
BOARD [1] - 7:2
boardwalk [1] - 8:25
boat [1] - 50:24
body [4] - 33:11,
41:25, 56:11, 67:25
boil [1] - 65:8
boils [1] - 37:17
boot [1] - 8:16
boundaries [3] -
48:3, 48:8, 48:9
boundary [5] - 48:5,
48:7, 48:20, 54:7
BOX [1] - 1:23
Bragg [1] - 70:14
bragg [1] - 72:1
break [4] - 5:25,
14:11, 16:10, 16:18
Brian [2] - 15:19,
34:9
bridge [2] - 10:24,
11:2
brief [5] - 16:11,
27:11, 34:3, 43:3,
43:5
briefly [4] - 15:3,
54:21, 60:3, 65:24
bring [2] - 24:24,
45:9
bringing [1] - 70:19
Brook [1] - 60:25
BROOKE [1] - 1:13
brought [2] - 17:18,
53:4
bucket [1] - 52:23
buffer [1] - 11:17
bug [1] - 34:11
building [1] - 7:16
burden [3] - 28:20,
43:19, 51:2
Bureau [1] - 20:13
business [2] - 71:7,
72:7
Business [1] - 20:13
BY [1] - 1:19
C
Cabinet [5] - 3:6, 3:7,
7:12, 19:15, 71:11
CABINET [4] - 1:1,
1:4, 1:9, 1:16
Caitlin [2] - 2:3, 3:14
Caitlyn [1] - 6:5
calculate [3] - 46:14,
47:4, 47:16
calculated [1] - 47:5
calculating [6] -
22:23, 23:3, 23:17,
24:18, 31:9, 32:17
calculation [4] -
21:3, 30:13, 46:16,
46:18
calculations [3] -
20:10, 20:24, 62:9
candidate [1] - 71:9
candidates [4] -
70:10, 71:3, 71:10,
71:23
candnreporters.
com [1] - 1:25
cannot [2] - 49:10,
50:20
canoe [1] - 8:25
capacity [23] - 18:2,
21:9, 21:12, 21:13,
21:19, 21:24, 21:25,
22:5, 22:10, 24:5,
31:10, 31:19, 32:2,
44:2, 44:6, 46:14,
60:20, 60:23, 61:4,
61:10, 65:13, 65:23
CAPITOL [1] - 1:17
care [1] - 47:14
CAREY [1] - 1:9
carry [1] - 51:2
case [18] - 14:10,
14:20, 15:14, 15:17,
15:20, 16:9, 17:14,
41:20, 42:12, 42:14,
52:10, 53:2, 58:24,
59:10, 59:14, 64:8,
66:16
cases [9] - 42:15,
48:6, 52:7, 52:9,
52:23, 59:9, 67:10,
67:19, 68:18
cash [1] - 8:16
categories [1] -
12:15
category [6] - 24:14,
24:22, 30:16, 32:7,
32:20, 48:1
census [1] - 21:1
certain [3] - 14:11,
16:6, 46:10
Certainly [2] - 18:10,
26:21
certainly [2] - 26:24,
49:9
CERTIFICATE [1] -
73:1
certify [1] - 73:5
cetera [1] - 47:12
CFO [4] - 70:20,
71:17, 71:19, 72:3
CHAIR [1] - 1:9
Chair [4] - 9:19,
11:23, 26:15, 47:18
Chairman [1] - 54:20
challenge [6] -
14:22, 28:18, 28:21,
41:7, 41:8, 43:19
challengeable [3] -
57:4, 58:8, 58:9
challenged [4] -
53:22, 56:18, 57:6,
58:18
challenges [4] -
16:13, 17:3, 17:10,
17:17
challenging [4] -
39:22, 40:8, 56:19,
57:1
chance [2] - 44:3,
71:3
change [7] - 21:18,
24:11, 35:2, 38:7,
45:6, 57:15, 59:23
changed [2] - 23:14,
46:16
changes [2] - 54:7,
57:10
changing [1] - 57:16
Chapter [4] - 28:16,
37:16, 38:3, 38:12
chapter [1] - 37:12
Chapters [1] - 17:6
characterized [1] -
39:11
Children [1] - 8:4
choices [1] - 32:11
circuit [2] - 53:2,
68:10
cite [1] - 42:11
cited [5] - 42:15,
52:7, 59:9, 63:24,
67:21
cities [2] - 48:8, 48:9
citing [1] - 40:6
City [2] - 15:24,
67:16
clarify [1] - 56:5
clarity [1] - 71:23
Clark [2] - 2:5, 7:8
CLARK [13] - 7:8,
8:3, 8:7, 9:10, 9:18,
9:23, 10:6, 10:18,
11:4, 11:8, 12:2, 12:6,
13:4
Clean [1] - 4:22
clear [4] - 19:25,
37:11, 38:21, 52:6
clearly [1] - 19:21
close [3] - 42:23,
71:7, 72:6
closed [2] - 70:7,
70:23
Closing [1] - 5:5
clump [1] - 34:15
co [1] - 34:9
co-counsel [1] - 34:9
Coast [1] - 16:3
collecting [1] - 23:25
collection [2] -
50:10, 50:17
collectively [1] -
14:25
color [1] - 45:17
combine [3] - 23:18,
60:19, 60:21
combined [2] -
23:10, 46:17
combining [3] - 31:7,
32:16, 61:6
comment [1] - 11:22
comments [2] - 49:4,
55:4
commercial [14] -
8:21, 24:15, 24:18,
25:24, 31:24, 35:11,
35:19, 36:3, 36:6,
36:20, 37:13, 39:13,
41:4, 66:2
COMMISSION [1] -
14:2
Commission [31] -
2:7, 3:19, 14:5, 15:4,
18:21, 18:23, 26:17,
27:14, 27:21, 35:5,
37:21, 37:25, 41:15,
42:16, 42:17, 44:13,
51:23, 52:20, 53:1,
53:5, 54:20, 55:6,
55:9, 55:25, 57:7,
59:18, 63:7, 63:11,
66:5, 66:10, 68:14
commission [2] -
56:23, 60:1
COMMISSIONER [2]
- 14:6, 70:3
Commissioner [6] -
2:9, 5:14, 5:24, 70:6,
71:13, 71:18
commit [1] - 71:7
communities [1] -
38:19
community [5] -
11:15, 30:21, 33:6,
58:23, 63:19
Community [2] -
65:18, 65:20
companies [1] - 4:1
competent [2] - 19:1,
19:8
competitively [1] -
7:18
complained [1] -
51:1
complaining [1] -
51:17
complaint [1] - 53:3
complete [2] - 12:20,
73:6
complex [1] - 40:22
complexity [1] - 16:9
compliance [20] -
24:21, 28:8, 28:12,
28:22, 32:18, 33:15,
34:24, 37:23, 38:3,
44:9, 44:14, 52:18,
52:19, 52:25, 53:3,
55:11, 56:10, 63:3,
68:11, 68:23
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
3
complied [1] - 20:6
comply [2] - 19:4,
19:9
component [3] -
44:8, 63:5, 64:14
Comprehensive [21]
- 14:23, 17:5, 17:6,
17:16, 24:12, 25:3,
25:11, 29:13, 29:21,
29:25, 30:7, 32:23,
33:9, 34:23, 35:3,
38:16, 39:24, 57:9,
57:24, 62:3, 62:14
comprehensive [2] -
29:3, 55:12
con [1] - 70:20
concern [1] - 28:15
concerned [1] -
58:24
concerns [3] - 25:15,
26:4, 26:5
conclude [1] - 66:24
concluded [17] -
24:2, 28:7, 29:4,
29:17, 30:4, 30:10,
31:4, 31:14, 31:21,
32:14, 33:2, 33:13,
33:16, 34:24, 36:8,
40:12, 41:10
concludes [3] - 13:2,
33:22, 69:7
conclusion [9] -
26:11, 27:22, 27:24,
28:1, 35:4, 36:8, 37:3,
42:18, 66:4
conclusions [4] -
16:17, 28:6, 30:17,
38:2
Conclusions [10] -
26:12, 26:13, 27:10,
27:11, 27:12, 27:15,
27:19, 28:5, 33:22,
37:22
Condition [1] - 5:11
conducting [2] -
71:1, 71:4
conference [1] - 4:13
conflict [4] - 21:7,
25:8, 27:3, 30:14
conflicting [1] - 25:4
conflicts [1] - 27:2
connections [1] -
61:10
Conservation [1] -
16:2
conservation [3] -
8:9, 11:9, 12:18
consider [2] - 47:6,
61:12
consideration [5] -
7:13, 11:8, 12:7, 36:2,
36:9
considered [8] -
40:13, 44:25, 47:5,
47:6, 60:19, 61:14,
61:16, 70:14
considering [1] -
65:5
considers [3] - 21:4,
21:7, 24:17
consistency [1] -
25:9
consistent [5] - 28:9,
29:14, 29:25, 30:2,
50:2
constitutes [1] -
66:15
Constitution [1] -
52:14
constitutional [1] -
53:18
construct [1] - 8:23
constructed [1] -
7:16
contained [2] -
38:16, 62:12
contains [4] - 7:16,
12:12, 12:21, 37:12
contents [3] - 15:7,
15:11
continue [1] - 58:6
contractions [1] -
54:9
contrary [1] - 60:12
contrast [3] - 22:2,
23:1, 23:9
controlling [2] -
3:24, 35:10
conversations [1] -
15:16
coordination [1] -
29:24
copies [1] - 45:10
copy [1] - 62:6
corner [1] - 65:12
Corp [1] - 14:7
Corporation [1] -
15:18
correct [3] - 11:4,
64:17
correctly [1] - 39:10
cost [2] - 9:1, 11:25
costs [1] - 8:2
Council [1] - 12:22
counsel [4] - 34:9,
34:17, 37:19, 45:17
counted [2] - 21:23,
22:3
counties [3] - 48:8,
48:10, 58:14
counts [1] - 21:25
County [55] - 7:15,
14:8, 14:14, 14:21,
15:20, 16:2, 17:4,
17:15, 20:6, 22:17,
25:4, 25:17, 27:2,
34:13, 35:10, 35:15,
35:17, 35:18, 35:21,
38:22, 41:12, 42:15,
43:18, 43:20, 44:18,
45:20, 46:5, 46:13,
46:15, 47:10, 47:13,
48:1, 48:4, 48:11,
49:13, 49:17, 49:20,
49:21, 54:11, 54:20,
54:24, 55:20, 57:14,
57:19, 58:7, 58:12,
60:7, 62:3, 62:13,
64:10, 65:7, 65:13,
66:11, 66:16, 68:19
COUNTY [1] - 73:3
county [9] - 9:13,
21:17, 23:14, 25:1,
39:1, 46:12, 50:9,
56:23, 60:1
County's [11] -
14:23, 17:6, 20:18,
23:18, 29:8, 31:6,
40:18, 49:22, 59:20,
61:8, 66:6
couple [1] - 65:24
course [5] - 34:6,
46:17, 58:15, 60:6,
63:11
court [2] - 53:2,
68:10
COURT [1] - 1:19
Court [2] - 42:12,
73:11
cover [1] - 5:15
covered [4] - 39:9,
53:23, 66:17, 66:23
CPL [2] - 5:5, 5:6
create [2] - 11:16,
30:6
creating [2] - 25:9,
30:14
criminal [3] - 42:11,
42:14, 52:10
critical [2] - 26:9,
28:15
crossed [2] - 44:22,
46:3
crux [1] - 35:7
cumulative [1] - 5:15
curiosity [1] - 67:22
current [2] - 21:13,
53:20
cynical [1] - 65:22
D
Dade [1] - 48:4
dash [1] - 17:11
data [61] - 17:24,
20:15, 20:21, 21:1,
23:15, 23:21, 24:1,
30:1, 30:2, 30:16,
30:19, 30:22, 30:23,
30:25, 31:1, 31:6,
31:13, 31:17, 31:19,
32:3, 33:18, 33:21,
41:9, 41:11, 41:13,
41:21, 42:19, 44:11,
45:1, 45:5, 45:6, 45:7,
46:19, 46:22, 50:10,
50:17, 55:23, 56:6,
56:7, 57:1, 57:3, 57:6,
57:8, 57:16, 57:25,
58:16, 59:3, 61:12,
62:12, 62:14, 62:16,
63:7, 63:14, 64:3,
64:10, 64:16, 64:21,
68:17, 68:20, 68:25
DATE [1] - 1:15
DATED [1] - 73:7
dates [2] - 5:12,
18:13
David [6] - 2:5, 7:7,
7:8, 8:1, 9:21, 13:3
deal [2] - 3:12, 43:13
dealing [1] - 5:8
debatable [4] -
28:17, 28:19, 43:21,
60:9
debate [20] - 22:15,
23:23, 24:20, 25:13,
25:23, 26:3, 28:20,
29:5, 29:18, 30:5,
30:11, 31:15, 32:2,
32:15, 33:3, 33:20,
35:7, 35:16, 37:18,
57:5
December [2] - 3:18,
12:23
decide [3] - 51:7,
63:12, 63:13
decides [1] - 51:6
decision [2] - 23:18,
33:9
decisions [2] -
29:13, 43:24
Defense [1] - 16:3
defer [1] - 66:6
deference [8] -
49:16, 49:20, 59:21,
60:8, 60:12, 66:3,
66:13, 66:15
defined [1] - 27:5
defines [1] - 22:12
definitely [1] - 56:2
definition [5] - 52:18,
52:25, 55:11, 56:10,
68:22
demand [13] - 18:1,
20:16, 20:18, 20:23,
21:3, 22:24, 23:6,
23:11, 23:17, 24:6,
30:13, 31:9, 32:17
demonstrate [3] -
9:25, 25:22, 26:2
density [3] - 24:8,
24:11, 32:6
deny [2] - 49:24,
53:6
DEP [1] - 7:9
Department [5] -
7:24, 8:4, 9:6, 11:20,
12:25
describes [1] - 12:11
designate [1] - 25:24
designated [3] -
28:14, 32:9, 38:17
despite [1] - 60:12
determination [9] -
22:25, 23:3, 36:1,
36:22, 47:23, 55:17,
56:11, 64:13, 64:19
determinations [1] -
18:2
determine [2] - 39:1,
55:21
determined [16] -
20:2, 20:13, 20:17,
21:1, 21:10, 22:5,
22:14, 22:21, 23:9,
24:16, 24:24, 25:6,
25:17, 25:21, 26:1,
26:10
determines [1] -
18:24
developed [1] -
21:15
development [25] -
7:23, 8:22, 10:25,
11:13, 18:6, 18:7,
20:10, 22:7, 25:16,
25:20, 27:6, 28:14,
29:15, 33:1, 33:6,
37:6, 37:10, 38:11,
38:15, 38:20, 41:6,
45:22, 59:24
Development [3] -
8:8, 8:12, 8:15
developments [1] -
31:20
differ [1] - 28:23
difference [1] - 59:16
differences [1] -
21:11
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
4
different [4] - 11:1,
47:12, 54:13, 67:17
difficult [2] - 42:1,
42:3
direct [2] - 50:3,
65:20
directed [1] - 48:12
directly [2] - 5:2,
40:9
Director [1] - 3:15
disagree [3] - 35:5,
49:25, 56:2
discovery [1] - 51:15
discretion [1] - 55:20
discuss [1] - 15:15
discussed [1] -
39:16
discussion [2] -
43:8, 66:9
dispute [4] - 38:22,
45:16, 56:24, 64:22
disputed [1] - 44:9
distance [1] - 47:9
distinction [4] -
45:21, 47:23, 53:17,
60:2
distributed [1] - 8:16
district [1] - 48:3
District [16] - 8:11,
8:18, 9:4, 22:19,
22:20, 23:5, 23:8,
24:4, 44:23, 44:24,
45:19, 45:20, 45:23,
45:24, 60:22, 61:1
Districts [23] - 22:22,
23:1, 23:2, 23:11,
23:16, 23:19, 24:4,
24:7, 24:9, 31:8,
32:16, 44:19, 44:20,
46:2, 49:2, 52:5,
60:15, 61:3, 61:4,
62:10, 65:1, 65:15
Division [3] - 12:9,
12:15, 17:10
do-over [1] - 51:9
dock [1] - 8:25
Doctor [2] - 47:11,
65:21
document [1] - 44:4
done [4] - 10:23,
59:4, 61:21, 62:22
down [6] - 18:9,
37:17, 40:19, 57:11,
61:19, 65:8
DRI [2] - 9:11
due [3] - 8:19, 16:9,
21:16
duplex [1] - 21:22
Durbin [2] - 9:5, 9:16
during [4] - 14:11,
17:15, 19:16, 54:3
Duval [1] - 7:15
dwell [1] - 40:21
E
easement [4] - 11:9,
11:12, 11:16, 11:25
easements [2] -
12:19, 21:17
easily [1] - 64:5
East [1] - 47:9
east [1] - 65:15
Eastern [12] - 22:18,
22:22, 23:5, 23:19,
24:3, 31:8, 44:19,
44:23, 46:1, 49:1,
52:4, 62:9
easy [1] - 64:6
economic [15] -
25:18, 26:4, 32:25,
33:6, 38:14, 38:20,
38:23, 38:24, 39:2,
39:3, 39:4, 39:18,
50:14, 50:21, 52:2
Economic [1] - 20:13
effect [3] - 36:15,
36:18, 45:4
effectively [1] -
41:18
either [3] - 44:15,
52:10, 58:5
elaborate [1] - 55:7
element [2] - 58:2,
58:10
elements [4] - 29:24,
30:1, 38:25, 57:23
employee [1] - 61:8
encourage [1] -
46:20
ended [1] - 60:14
ensuring [1] - 11:14
enterprise [1] - 4:2
entire [1] - 18:24
entitled [3] - 43:21,
49:23, 60:9
entrance [2] - 8:20,
10:20
environmental [10] -
10:1, 10:8, 26:4,
32:25, 38:15, 39:19,
52:2, 54:23, 59:1,
64:8
Environmental [1] -
16:3
ERIN [1] - 1:10
especially [1] - 17:25
essential [2] - 19:5,
19:10
essentially [3] -
41:8, 42:13, 65:7
establish [2] - 29:14,
29:19
estate [3] - 24:3,
32:7, 32:11
estimated [1] - 9:1
estimates [3] -
20:14, 30:3, 31:25
et [1] - 47:12
evaluating [1] - 46:9
everywhere [1] -
46:23
evidence [10] - 19:2,
19:8, 23:14, 24:25,
40:7, 51:5, 51:10,
51:18, 51:20
examination [1] -
4:16
Examiner's [1] - 5:11
examining [1] -
59:11
example [2] - 63:22,
64:6
exceeding [1] -
22:12
Exception [2] - 41:3,
41:6
exception [5] -
17:18, 34:15, 41:3,
50:24
Exceptions [3] -
34:21, 41:5, 50:5
exceptions [23] -
15:12, 16:21, 34:4,
34:14, 37:4, 37:5,
38:11, 43:3, 43:8,
43:11, 44:8, 45:12,
46:5, 48:24, 48:25,
49:5, 49:25, 50:7,
52:8, 53:7, 60:16,
63:15, 66:22
excess [2] - 22:11,
22:12
exchange [5] - 8:9,
8:13, 8:19, 9:2, 9:8
exchanging [1] -
10:3
excludes [1] - 30:12
excluding [1] - 20:19
Excuse [1] - 56:4
excuse [3] - 17:13,
19:2, 31:22
exist [1] - 65:23
existence [1] - 35:25
existing [3] - 10:21,
11:3, 36:5
exists [1] - 60:10
expand [3] - 11:1,
60:22, 65:14
expanding [1] - 48:6
expansion [2] - 24:8,
24:19
expansions [1] -
54:8
expect [1] - 16:24
expected [1] - 71:24
expert [3] - 40:16,
58:13, 58:20
expert's [1] - 63:18
experts [1] - 40:13
explain [2] - 15:3,
56:22
explained [2] -
40:13, 65:3
explanation [1] -
21:18
explicitly [2] - 61:11,
63:20
extent [2] - 29:2,
31:1
F
fact [22] - 18:18,
18:19, 18:23, 19:1,
19:6, 19:12, 28:3,
34:25, 35:3, 35:23,
40:4, 40:5, 42:1, 44:6,
46:7, 50:16, 50:25,
54:11, 59:22, 61:5,
61:13, 65:4
factors [6] - 36:2,
36:6, 36:10, 36:23,
39:4, 39:18
facts [3] - 16:14,
18:16
factually [1] - 47:11
fail [1] - 39:1
failed [13] - 22:14,
24:19, 24:24, 25:7,
25:12, 25:22, 25:23,
26:2, 29:19, 30:11,
33:3, 33:4, 33:19
failing [1] - 25:10
fails [1] - 18:4
failure [1] - 32:3
fair [17] - 22:15,
23:23, 24:20, 25:12,
25:22, 26:3, 28:20,
29:5, 29:18, 30:5,
30:11, 31:15, 32:1,
32:15, 33:3, 33:20,
36:12
fairly [6] - 28:17,
28:19, 40:22, 43:21,
60:9
familiar [1] - 48:5
Families [1] - 8:4
family [7] - 11:12,
21:21, 22:1, 22:4,
22:9, 44:7, 48:25
farm [1] - 68:24
Farms [1] - 8:8
fast [1] - 36:2
favor [1] - 51:7
FAX [1] - 1:24
FAY [11] - 1:11,
53:10, 53:13, 54:16,
61:21, 62:22, 62:25,
63:2, 64:12, 64:18,
64:24
February [1] - 12:24
fee [2] - 11:25, 12:1
feet [1] - 7:17
fer [1] - 56:5
FIELD [10] - 1:12,
9:7, 9:17, 55:1, 55:8,
55:14, 55:24, 56:3,
57:13, 57:21
figures [2] - 21:5,
21:8
file [3] - 42:8, 44:8,
48:25
filed [6] - 17:9,
17:20, 28:18, 46:5,
52:8, 53:7
filing [1] - 68:19
filings [1] - 15:8
fill [1] - 10:25
final [7] - 3:21, 4:9,
33:7, 40:24, 41:2,
41:3, 59:19
Final [6] - 16:23,
16:24, 27:14, 44:13,
44:16
finally [4] - 5:13,
25:12, 39:20, 52:7
Financial [2] - 3:19,
5:11
findings [13] - 18:18,
18:19, 19:1, 19:4,
19:6, 19:12, 20:9,
20:25, 24:22, 34:25,
37:25, 38:1, 58:25
fine [2] - 44:12,
56:24
first [21] - 3:13, 3:17,
18:23, 20:1, 20:11,
20:25, 21:13, 28:5,
28:25, 33:24, 34:21,
35:8, 36:11, 36:12,
44:6, 49:5, 49:24,
50:6, 51:19, 54:4,
60:5
fiscal [4] - 5:15, 5:16,
33:1, 38:15
Fishkin [1] - 65:21
Fishkin's [1] - 47:11
five [4] - 7:10, 8:11,
12:8, 12:10
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
5
Five [2] - 7:20, 7:21
five-year [2] - 12:8,
12:10
flawed [2] - 51:25
Florida [16] - 4:21,
5:1, 8:17, 11:11, 12:8,
12:11, 15:20, 16:2,
18:20, 28:11, 29:1,
32:23, 42:12, 46:24,
48:11, 52:9
FLORIDA [4] - 1:1,
1:17, 1:24, 73:3
Florida's [1] - 12:17
focus [3] - 48:17,
48:18
focused [1] - 38:4
focuses [1] - 12:16
folks [1] - 10:5
following [1] - 17:21
FOR [1] - 70:2
foregoing [1] - 73:6
forestry [1] - 11:15
Forever [4] - 8:17,
11:11, 12:8, 12:11
form [1] - 28:1
former [1] - 44:22
forms [2] - 5:2, 46:4
formula [1] - 22:10
forth [1] - 18:20
forward [2] - 63:8,
70:19
foster [3] - 25:20,
33:5, 38:19
four [3] - 21:11, 26:7,
54:2
four-story [1] - 54:2
fourth [1] - 22:10
FPR [3] - 1:19, 73:5,
73:11
free [1] - 34:6
Friday [3] - 70:8,
70:23, 70:25
friends [1] - 16:2
front [1] - 49:12
fullest [1] - 29:2
FUND [1] - 7:3
Fund [2] - 8:17, 16:4
funding [1] - 12:18
future [8] - 24:18,
25:25, 29:13, 31:25,
32:9, 32:24, 38:14,
38:17
G
general [1] - 38:24
generally [1] - 48:12
given [1] - 45:9
goal [1] - 65:19
goals [1] - 30:22
governed [2] - 4:8,
4:16
governing [3] -
15:12, 33:11, 67:24
government [11] -
30:20, 32:9, 33:8,
43:23, 46:23, 49:16,
50:10, 54:10, 54:14,
54:23, 68:7
Government [1] -
3:15
governments [1] -
50:17
Governor [2] - 70:13,
71:19
GOVERNOR [1] - 1:1
Governor's [2] -
71:8, 72:4
great [2] - 12:4,
49:23
greater [1] - 10:2
Greg [3] - 14:13,
33:25, 34:8
growth [9] - 20:10,
31:24, 35:12, 35:14,
52:9, 60:13, 65:9,
65:21, 65:22
Growth [1] - 17:7
guess [2] - 42:21,
59:7
guidance [2] - 18:7,
25:10
guide [1] - 29:13
guidelines [1] -
38:13
guiding [1] - 28:14
guys [1] - 70:15
H
Hager [2] - 71:13,
71:17
half [1] - 10:16
hand [1] - 41:19
Handbook [1] - 5:11
happy [2] - 38:8,
53:8
harvest [1] - 11:14
health [1] - 64:1
hear [5] - 27:8,
35:21, 43:7, 43:11
heard [4] - 43:16,
43:17, 48:6, 51:19
hearing [8] - 16:8,
18:12, 20:7, 33:12,
43:9, 51:3, 53:25,
58:20
Hearings [1] - 17:10
heartburn [1] - 63:23
heavily [3] - 35:9,
37:7, 39:7
heavy [1] - 43:19
height [1] - 54:2
Heims [1] - 16:5
held [1] - 18:12
help [1] - 65:20
helpful [2] - 27:8,
43:7
herself [1] - 37:20
higher [1] - 10:12
highlight [1] - 34:19
Hillsborough [4] -
54:11, 57:14, 57:19,
58:12
hints [1] - 50:24
hit [1] - 40:20
holding [1] - 4:1
hope [2] - 34:5, 70:8
hoped [1] - 34:10
hopefully [2] - 43:14,
72:6
hoping [1] - 46:6
horizon [1] - 37:14
horribles [1] - 67:4
housekeeping [1] -
3:10
housing [8] - 18:1,
20:19, 22:11, 22:17,
22:24, 24:6, 30:13,
32:17
Howard [1] - 16:5
huge [1] - 51:24
I
i.e [1] - 26:19
idea [3] - 35:16,
56:17, 71:16
identified [1] - 59:6
identify [1] - 63:21
ignore [1] - 20:21
ignores [1] - 22:7
III [1] - 28:15
Illinois [1] - 59:10
illustration [1] -
11:24
imagine [1] - 70:18
imbalance [1] -
39:12
impact [5] - 50:21,
59:1, 59:2, 64:1, 65:5
impacted [1] - 42:9
impacting [1] - 42:4
implemented [1] -
57:19
implementing [1] -
29:20
implements [1] -
3:24
important [4] - 9:24,
47:8, 54:5, 65:3
importantly [2] -
52:17, 54:3
IMPROVEMENT [1] -
7:3
improvement [1] -
9:7
improvements [2] -
8:23, 9:15
IN [1] - 1:4
inartful [1] - 49:7
incapable [1] - 25:2
include [5] - 8:24,
10:4, 10:13, 36:1,
39:3
included [1] - 34:25
includes [3] - 21:20,
22:10, 30:21
including [4] - 11:24,
20:2, 30:2, 37:13
inconsistencies [3] -
25:1, 30:7, 30:8
inconsistency [2] -
25:3, 29:22
inconsistent [3] -
18:3, 37:16, 57:10
incorrect [2] - 36:9,
37:2
increase [2] - 24:7,
24:9
increased [1] - 36:3
indeed [1] - 49:14
INDEX [1] - 2:1
indexing [1] - 4:8
Indian [3] - 16:4,
64:1, 64:4
Indiantown [16] -
22:19, 22:22, 23:7,
23:19, 24:4, 31:8,
44:20, 44:24, 46:2,
47:10, 47:14, 49:1,
52:5, 61:2, 61:4,
62:10
indicated [3] - 31:1,
39:24, 49:14
individually [4] - 6:2,
12:14, 15:6, 15:10
Indoor [1] - 4:22
industrial [11] -
24:15, 24:18, 31:24,
35:11, 35:19, 36:4,
36:21, 37:13, 39:14,
41:5, 66:2
inflexible [1] - 40:14
informal [1] - 4:13
information [2] -
10:13, 61:25
infrastructure [3] -
48:14, 48:15, 65:6
initiatives [1] - 67:14
inside [1] - 48:19
instead [2] - 25:14,
43:9
insufficient [1] - 45:8
Insurance [6] - 2:3,
2:9, 3:13, 3:16, 70:6,
71:18
insurance [2] - 3:25,
5:3
INSURANCE [2] -
3:1, 70:3
insurer [1] - 3:23
intends [1] - 7:21
internal [5] - 25:1,
25:2, 25:9, 29:22,
30:14
INTERNAL [1] - 7:3
internally [1] - 18:3
interpret [2] - 25:4,
49:17
interpretation [10] -
27:16, 34:22, 35:1,
37:2, 37:18, 38:4,
39:7, 49:14, 49:22,
66:6
interpretations [1] -
27:20
interpreting [1] -
36:16
interrupting [1] -
62:23
intervenors [6] -
14:22, 15:22, 16:1,
20:3, 54:22, 54:24
INTERVIEW [1] -
70:1
interview [4] - 2:8,
70:11, 70:14, 70:17
interviews [2] - 71:1,
71:4
introduced [1] -
23:14
introduction [1] -
34:3
invasive [2] - 58:25,
59:2
inventory [1] - 36:5
involving [2] - 26:8,
66:10
Island [1] - 15:23
issue [37] - 14:19,
20:25, 21:9, 22:18,
24:10, 24:13, 24:14,
29:22, 30:17, 33:18,
35:8, 37:6, 38:4,
41:11, 41:17, 41:20,
42:19, 44:9, 44:13,
44:17, 45:15, 46:8,
46:19, 46:21, 46:22,
47:3, 50:23, 53:4,
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
6
53:25, 56:5, 56:6,
56:12, 58:22, 60:18,
68:11, 68:17, 68:21
issues [12] - 26:9,
28:6, 33:15, 34:18,
40:4, 43:16, 43:17,
43:25, 51:8, 59:5,
63:24, 68:8
Item [7] - 4:4, 4:11,
4:18, 4:24, 5:13, 7:11,
12:7
item [14] - 3:17, 3:20,
7:13, 7:25, 8:7, 11:8,
11:21, 12:4, 14:7,
14:18, 14:22, 15:2,
66:24, 69:8
items [4] - 3:10, 5:8,
7:10, 62:15
J
January [1] - 17:13
JESSICA [1] - 1:12
jobs [1] - 11:15
Johns [4] - 8:10, 9:4,
11:10, 11:17
JOHNSON [7] - 1:10,
13:3, 45:14, 69:9,
70:16, 71:16, 72:8
joint [1] - 8:16
jointly [1] - 8:9
Judge [30] - 16:15,
19:21, 20:2, 20:12,
20:17, 20:24, 21:10,
22:4, 22:13, 22:20,
24:2, 24:16, 24:24,
25:6, 25:16, 25:21,
26:1, 26:10, 28:7,
29:4, 29:17, 30:4,
30:10, 31:4, 31:14,
31:21, 32:14, 33:2,
33:13, 33:16
Judge's [3] - 18:22,
19:12, 28:5
Julington [2] - 9:5,
9:16
Jupiter [1] - 15:23
jurisdiction [8] -
27:16, 27:18, 43:24,
46:13, 52:21, 55:5,
55:8, 55:15
jurisdictions [1] -
46:25
justify [1] - 59:23
K
Keeper [1] - 16:4
Kent [1] - 10:7
KENT [1] - 1:13
Killearn [1] - 46:12
kind [6] - 3:10,
36:10, 53:3, 60:5,
62:23, 71:5
knows [1] - 42:1
Kristin [1] - 11:7
KRISTIN [1] - 1:9
KRUSE [1] - 14:6
L
labeled [1] - 62:10
lack [7] - 39:17,
39:25, 40:8, 50:6,
52:3, 57:1
lacking [1] - 41:8
lacks [1] - 57:8
Lagoon [2] - 64:2,
64:4
land [24] - 7:15, 8:9,
8:14, 10:24, 18:6,
18:7, 24:18, 29:16,
32:9, 32:10, 35:11,
35:18, 35:19, 36:6,
36:21, 36:22, 37:13,
37:14, 38:17, 39:14,
41:5, 43:22, 49:11,
66:2
landowner [1] -
11:13
Lands [2] - 12:9,
12:15
lands [3] - 10:1,
24:15, 25:24
language [4] - 35:1,
35:6, 67:5, 67:23
large [1] - 47:9
larger [1] - 60:20
last [7] - 24:14, 26:5,
38:7, 49:12, 49:21,
71:2, 71:6
Last [1] - 70:5
late [1] - 70:25
launch [1] - 9:1
Law [42] - 16:15,
18:22, 19:11, 20:1,
20:12, 20:17, 20:24,
21:10, 22:4, 22:13,
22:20, 24:2, 24:16,
24:24, 25:6, 25:16,
25:21, 26:1, 26:10,
26:12, 26:14, 27:10,
27:11, 27:12, 27:15,
27:20, 28:4, 28:5,
28:7, 29:4, 29:17,
30:4, 30:10, 31:4,
31:14, 31:21, 32:14,
33:2, 33:13, 33:16,
33:23, 37:22
law [24] - 15:5, 15:9,
15:13, 16:17, 19:5,
19:10, 27:23, 27:24,
28:1, 35:4, 36:15,
37:3, 41:16, 42:18,
45:2, 46:8, 46:10,
46:23, 48:2, 49:15,
50:9, 50:16, 60:10,
66:4
laws [2] - 15:12,
60:14
lawyer [1] - 51:16
lead [2] - 36:13,
39:25
leap [1] - 51:24
least [1] - 56:22
leave [2] - 37:4,
71:20
LEEDS [1] - 1:12
left [1] - 60:24
legal [5] - 15:13,
26:11, 41:11, 47:23,
50:7
legally [1] - 47:16
LEON [1] - 73:3
Leon [1] - 46:13
less [3] - 33:10, 67:6,
67:23
Letter [1] - 5:5
LEVEL [1] - 1:17
light [1] - 45:18
likelihood [1] - 42:5
likewise [1] - 38:17
limine [2] - 19:18,
68:23
limit [4] - 11:13,
35:10, 35:23, 46:21
limitation [5] - 36:11,
36:19, 54:2, 66:1,
68:22
limitations [1] - 32:4
limited [3] - 31:24,
32:13, 36:20
Linda [8] - 14:14,
15:21, 45:14, 47:21,
53:11, 55:10, 57:13,
67:1
Linda's [1] - 55:4
List [1] - 12:9
list [7] - 12:13, 12:16,
12:23, 36:24, 52:24,
53:23, 70:18
listed [3] - 52:24,
56:10, 58:3
listened [1] - 67:2
lists [1] - 52:18
live [1] - 65:16
LLC [1] - 7:21
local [12] - 30:20,
32:9, 33:8, 43:23,
46:23, 49:16, 50:9,
50:17, 54:10, 54:14,
54:23, 68:6
locate [1] - 65:8
located [2] - 45:24,
45:25
LOCATION [1] - 1:16
look [8] - 6:1, 12:4,
51:13, 54:1, 63:19,
64:16, 65:11, 67:5
looked [1] - 67:19
looks [1] - 12:3
lose [1] - 38:7
loss [1] - 21:15
lost [1] - 46:19
Lovelady [1] - 61:10
LOWER [1] - 1:17
M
ma'am [1] - 68:15
Madam [4] - 9:19,
11:23, 26:15, 47:18
made-up [1] - 47:25
Maggie [1] - 29:10
maintaining [1] -
11:18
maintenance [2] -
8:2, 8:5
majority [5] - 26:6,
33:10, 56:23, 67:6,
67:24
managed [1] - 9:3
management [2] -
52:9, 60:14
Management [4] -
8:11, 8:18, 9:4, 17:7
Manatee [3] - 49:13,
49:21, 66:11
mandatory [3] -
57:23, 58:2, 58:9
manipulating [1] -
65:23
manner [1] - 29:14
map [8] - 9:22, 10:4,
10:7, 10:13, 45:10,
47:8, 54:11, 54:12
Map [1] - 10:8
mapping [1] - 57:15
March [2] - 7:12,
17:14
market [1] - 22:17
markets [5] - 24:3,
24:5, 32:7, 32:11,
47:12
Martin [27] - 14:8,
14:14, 14:21, 14:23,
15:20, 16:2, 17:4,
22:17, 34:13, 35:15,
35:17, 35:18, 38:22,
41:12, 42:15, 43:18,
45:20, 46:5, 46:15,
47:13, 48:1, 49:17,
49:20, 58:7, 62:3,
62:13, 65:13
material [3] - 16:14,
16:16, 18:16
matter [10] - 41:16,
45:2, 45:24, 45:25,
52:15, 53:1, 54:4,
60:18, 63:11, 65:6
matters [1] - 41:13
maximum [2] -
24:10, 32:5
McCarty [1] - 5:14
McKNIGHT [1] - 1:13
MCKNIGHT [2] -
5:21, 6:4
mean [5] - 49:10,
67:2, 67:4, 71:13,
71:16
meaningful [6] -
18:5, 18:6, 25:10,
29:11, 29:14, 29:20
means [5] - 27:6,
28:8, 28:12, 28:22,
30:25
measures [1] - 5:18
meet [3] - 23:6,
23:11, 24:6
MEETING [3] - 1:4,
1:16, 72:12
meeting [8] - 3:6,
3:7, 3:19, 7:12, 20:7,
34:7, 71:11, 71:14
Meldrim [1] - 11:12
member [1] - 41:25
members [3] - 33:11,
67:6, 67:24
mention [1] - 52:11
mentioned [4] - 39:6,
50:5, 52:13, 65:1
mentions [2] - 44:7,
50:12
merge [1] - 44:18
merging [4] - 22:18,
44:18, 49:1, 52:4
met [2] - 15:6, 15:9
method [1] - 23:25
methodologies [1] -
31:11
methodology [9] -
20:16, 20:18, 21:25,
22:3, 22:6, 22:21,
23:1, 23:20, 31:18
METZKE [3] - 1:19,
73:5, 73:11
Midbrook [6] - 14:7,
14:20, 15:18, 34:9,
34:13, 65:3
might [4] - 10:4,
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
7
43:7, 45:10, 68:21
million [1] - 11:11
mind [2] - 61:19,
62:24
minimum [1] - 7:19
minutes [2] - 3:18,
7:11
misinterpretation [2]
- 37:7, 39:8
misinterpreted [1] -
40:5
mislabeled [1] - 38:1
missed [1] - 50:24
misunderstanding
[1] - 40:11
mixed [1] - 7:23
mixed-use [1] - 7:23
model [1] - 3:25
modification [1] -
28:1
modified [2] - 19:7,
27:25
modify [2] - 18:22,
27:15
modifying [3] -
27:19, 27:22, 28:2
Monday [1] - 70:24
money [1] - 48:15
morning [9] - 3:5,
3:14, 7:7, 7:8, 14:6,
14:17, 43:5, 53:11,
53:12
mostly [1] - 4:8
motion [1] - 19:18
move [4] - 18:15,
26:13, 27:9, 33:23
moved [1] - 71:17
moving [1] - 26:14
MR [93] - 7:8, 8:1,
8:3, 8:6, 8:7, 9:10,
9:18, 9:19, 9:23, 9:24,
10:6, 10:15, 10:18,
11:2, 11:4, 11:5, 11:8,
11:22, 12:2, 12:3,
12:6, 13:3, 13:4,
14:17, 18:9, 18:10,
19:13, 19:19, 19:20,
19:23, 19:24, 20:1,
26:15, 26:21, 26:22,
26:24, 27:7, 27:9,
34:1, 38:10, 41:2,
43:1, 45:14, 47:18,
47:21, 48:22, 53:10,
53:13, 54:16, 55:7,
55:13, 55:16, 56:13,
58:6, 61:21, 61:23,
61:25, 62:2, 62:4,
62:5, 62:18, 62:22,
62:24, 62:25, 63:1,
63:2, 63:10, 64:12,
64:17, 64:18, 64:19,
64:24, 64:25, 66:21,
66:25, 67:12, 67:22,
68:3, 68:5, 68:9,
68:12, 68:15, 68:18,
69:2, 69:4, 69:7, 69:9,
70:16, 70:20, 71:16,
71:22, 72:2, 72:8
MS [46] - 3:3, 3:12,
3:14, 5:21, 6:3, 6:4,
6:5, 7:5, 9:7, 9:17,
14:4, 43:5, 45:15,
47:20, 47:25, 48:23,
53:12, 53:22, 54:17,
54:19, 55:1, 55:8,
55:14, 55:24, 56:2,
56:3, 56:4, 57:13,
57:18, 57:21, 57:22,
62:16, 67:10, 67:13,
68:2, 68:4, 68:6,
68:10, 68:13, 68:16,
68:20, 69:3, 69:10,
72:1, 72:9, 72:11
multi [6] - 22:1, 22:4,
22:9, 41:25, 44:7,
48:25
multi-family [5] -
22:1, 22:4, 22:9, 44:7,
48:25
multi-member [1] -
41:25
multifamily [1] -
31:20
multiple [3] - 62:18,
65:2, 71:10
municipal [1] - 15:22
MUNSON [11] - 34:1,
38:10, 41:2, 43:1,
56:13, 58:6, 61:23,
62:2, 62:5, 62:18,
64:25
Munson [5] - 14:13,
33:25, 34:8, 50:5,
56:7
Munson's [2] - 49:4,
67:2
Murray [2] - 2:3, 3:14
MURRAY [3] - 3:14,
6:3, 6:5
must [5] - 27:21,
27:23, 28:23, 30:23,
56:23
N
NAIC [3] - 3:25, 5:10
names [5] - 70:17,
70:19, 71:6, 71:15,
72:3
NANCY [3] - 1:19,
73:5, 73:11
nancy@metzke.
com [1] - 1:25
necessarily [2] -
37:1, 64:14
necessary [3] - 4:7,
31:1, 41:12
need [11] - 8:19,
36:1, 40:20, 45:6,
46:6, 48:9, 59:22,
63:12, 63:13, 64:4,
64:10
needed [3] - 35:12,
36:21, 36:22
needing [1] - 59:6
needless [1] - 4:22
needs [7] - 22:25,
23:3, 23:4, 23:9,
25:25, 35:18, 46:24
new [8] - 8:20, 10:20,
70:17, 70:22, 71:3,
71:4, 71:6, 71:14
next [22] - 5:14, 7:5,
14:4, 20:16, 20:23,
21:9, 22:18, 24:10,
24:22, 25:15, 29:11,
29:22, 30:16, 32:7,
32:20, 34:12, 35:13,
36:21, 36:23, 37:5,
38:10, 67:3
NO [10] - 2:2, 3:11,
38:9, 41:1, 42:25,
54:18, 66:20, 69:6,
70:12, 72:10
nonconservation [1]
- 7:15
none [5] - 42:20,
54:22, 58:18, 64:21,
64:22
north [1] - 10:20
northwest [1] - 65:12
note [2] - 41:10, 66:8
noted [1] - 65:21
notes [1] - 73:6
nothing [3] - 36:25,
47:21, 59:24
notice [1] - 20:6
notify [2] - 71:8, 71:9
nowhere [2] - 46:4,
50:8
number [3] - 26:9,
60:21, 62:5
Number [10] - 4:4,
4:11, 4:18, 4:24, 5:8,
5:13, 39:5, 39:6, 41:3,
41:6
numbers [1] - 65:23
numerous [1] - 8:23
O
Objective [1] - 40:6
objective [3] - 40:9,
51:12, 51:13
objectives [1] - 40:1
obligation [1] - 66:5
obsolete [1] - 5:7
obtaining [1] - 31:18
obviously [3] -
26:17, 37:19, 58:7
October [2] - 5:25,
18:14
OF [8] - 1:1, 1:1, 3:1,
7:2, 70:2, 73:3, 73:3
offer [1] - 7:19
offered [1] - 21:17
office [7] - 2:3, 15:6,
15:7, 15:10, 71:8,
72:4
OFFICE [4] - 1:1,
1:23, 3:1, 70:2
Office [5] - 2:9, 3:15,
4:14, 5:1, 5:6
Office's [1] - 5:17
offices [1] - 15:16
OIR [2] - 3:8, 70:5
OLSON [11] - 1:9,
3:3, 3:12, 7:5, 14:4,
69:10, 70:5, 70:13,
72:1, 72:9, 72:11
once [2] - 43:9, 71:3
one [27] - 5:21, 7:19,
14:7, 16:25, 25:9,
26:18, 34:18, 36:9,
36:16, 37:2, 40:21,
44:6, 45:13, 46:3,
46:7, 46:11, 50:6,
55:25, 59:9, 63:24,
66:25, 70:24, 71:2
ones [4] - 10:3,
43:25, 54:14, 70:22
opened [2] - 65:19,
70:7
operation [1] - 32:10
operative [16] - 15:1,
17:22, 20:8, 20:22,
23:22, 24:7, 25:18,
25:23, 26:3, 26:6,
28:21, 29:7, 30:6,
31:5, 33:4, 35:6
opportunities [3] -
12:20, 33:6, 38:20
opportunity [5] -
14:12, 40:12, 43:4,
43:6, 49:4
opposed [1] - 66:11
opposing [2] - 34:16,
37:19
opposition [1] -
66:12
option [1] - 11:9
optional [3] - 57:23,
58:2, 58:9
Orange [1] - 48:11
order [4] - 25:19,
42:8, 50:11, 68:23
Order [13] - 14:20,
15:5, 15:8, 15:11,
16:23, 16:24, 18:25,
27:14, 43:10, 44:13,
44:16, 48:21
ordered [1] - 19:21
orderly [2] - 32:24,
38:14
orders [1] - 4:9
ordinance [1] - 36:17
Ordinance [4] -
14:24, 14:25, 17:15,
17:22
organizational [1] -
16:1
original [3] - 50:10,
50:17, 70:22
originally [1] - 66:21
originated [1] - 29:9
ourselves [1] - 40:10
outcome [2] - 15:15,
42:6
outcomes [1] - 15:14
outline [1] - 26:23
outlined [2] - 37:8,
40:14
outside [1] - 61:1
overrides [1] - 37:1
oversupply [3] -
23:7, 23:10, 23:12
overturned [1] - 37:3
overview [4] - 16:12,
18:17, 27:11, 33:22
own [3] - 7:22, 60:25,
61:8
owned [5] - 7:14,
8:10, 8:12, 8:14, 9:12
owner's [1] - 32:5
ownership [1] - 8:17
P
p.m [1] - 71:2
PAGE [1] - 2:2
Page [1] - 62:8
page [4] - 62:5, 71:9,
71:19, 72:5
parade [1] - 67:3
paragraph [2] -
44:22, 49:8
paragraphs [2] -
50:25, 51:1
parcel [7] - 7:14,
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
8
8:13, 8:14, 8:15, 8:20,
9:3
parking [1] - 8:24
part [12] - 8:22, 9:4,
9:8, 9:10, 10:25,
16:18, 16:20, 19:18,
19:21, 26:19, 37:6,
39:11
Part [9] - 16:11,
16:14, 16:16, 16:22,
17:1, 26:13, 27:9,
28:15, 32:19
partially [1] - 55:21
participate [3] - 20:4,
29:2, 29:6
participated [1] -
20:3
participation [1] -
28:25
particular [9] -
15:15, 31:2, 38:23,
42:5, 58:24, 63:21,
63:23, 64:9, 64:10
particularity [2] -
18:25, 27:21
particulars [1] -
14:10
parties [6] - 15:17,
16:18, 17:9, 17:18,
20:2, 28:8
parties' [1] - 16:21
partnerships [1] -
12:18
parts [2] - 16:10,
46:24
party [3] - 15:8,
33:23, 33:24
pass [1] - 61:19
passed [2] - 14:24,
67:14
passing [2] - 20:7,
62:2
past [1] - 36:4
patience [1] - 66:18
paying [1] - 8:4
peach [1] - 45:18
PENROD [19] -
14:17, 18:10, 19:19,
19:23, 20:1, 26:21,
26:24, 27:9, 55:7,
55:13, 55:16, 62:24,
63:1, 63:10, 64:17,
64:19, 66:21, 69:4,
69:7
Penrod [6] - 2:7,
14:9, 14:17, 43:13,
44:1, 65:19
Penrod's [1] - 43:15
people's [1] - 42:4
per [1] - 54:2
PEREZ [32] - 1:13,
8:1, 8:6, 9:19, 9:24,
10:15, 11:2, 11:5,
11:22, 12:3, 18:9,
19:13, 19:20, 19:24,
26:15, 26:22, 27:7,
47:18, 47:21, 48:22,
61:25, 62:4, 66:25,
67:12, 67:22, 68:3,
68:5, 68:9, 68:12,
68:15, 68:18, 69:2
perfect [1] - 6:4
performance [1] -
5:18
period [3] - 23:6,
23:8, 23:13
permanent [4] -
21:4, 21:8, 22:11,
32:12
permanently [1] -
11:12
permitting [2] -
10:23, 40:19
person [1] - 28:18
persons [1] - 28:22
perspective [1] -
9:14
persuasive [1] -
59:15
Pete [3] - 67:10,
67:13, 67:16
Peter [7] - 14:9,
14:16, 14:17, 19:14,
26:16, 55:1, 69:9
petition [1] - 17:20
petitioner [3] -
14:13, 17:20, 17:22
Petitioner [30] -
15:17, 17:8, 17:19,
22:14, 23:23, 24:19,
24:24, 25:7, 25:12,
25:22, 26:2, 28:19,
29:5, 29:8, 29:18,
30:5, 30:11, 31:15,
31:22, 32:1, 33:3,
33:19, 33:24, 43:19,
44:2, 47:2, 51:8,
51:24, 52:8, 53:7
Petitioner's [3] -
16:13, 17:2, 50:2
Petitioners [2] -
32:15, 46:21
petitioners [2] -
54:4, 54:6
phrase [2] - 35:23,
46:1
physical [3] - 32:25,
38:15, 39:18
pick [1] - 64:8
picking [1] - 60:5
piece [2] - 40:7, 41:2
pink [1] - 45:19
pitched [1] - 51:4
place [1] - 60:14
placed [1] - 17:14
plaintiffs [1] - 17:9
plan [24] - 12:8,
12:10, 12:12, 12:16,
12:21, 12:23, 26:8,
26:20, 28:13, 28:23,
30:18, 31:3, 34:1,
38:25, 39:2, 40:7,
46:24, 49:15, 49:23,
50:14, 50:18, 52:11,
52:22, 67:18
Plan [39] - 12:10,
14:23, 17:5, 17:7,
17:16, 18:3, 18:4,
24:12, 25:3, 25:11,
27:2, 29:13, 29:21,
29:25, 30:7, 32:23,
33:9, 34:23, 35:3,
38:16, 39:17, 39:21,
44:5, 45:11, 45:20,
45:21, 46:4, 48:1,
51:25, 57:9, 57:24,
58:4, 58:7, 61:18,
62:3, 62:14, 62:17,
62:19
planned [2] - 38:18,
66:21
Planning [2] - 65:18,
65:20
planning [5] - 23:6,
23:12, 29:3, 37:14,
70:19
plans [2] - 8:23,
55:12
Plans [1] - 39:24
pleadings [1] - 51:14
plenty [2] - 61:2,
61:3
Point [3] - 15:23,
39:5, 39:6
point [12] - 35:24,
37:23, 39:20, 42:13,
42:21, 50:7, 53:13,
59:19, 60:11, 63:18,
66:3
points [3] - 14:11,
60:4, 65:25
policies [6] - 4:21,
31:12, 40:9, 44:5,
51:17, 51:20
policy [7] - 28:13,
39:7, 44:16, 44:21,
45:2, 50:3, 51:12
Policy [19] - 21:2,
21:6, 21:7, 23:24,
24:17, 30:12, 31:16,
31:22, 34:22, 35:2,
37:8, 37:15, 38:5,
39:8, 39:14, 39:15,
40:6, 41:4
polite [1] - 51:4
polling [1] - 58:23
pond [5] - 10:16,
10:19, 10:20, 11:1
population [22] -
18:1, 20:11, 20:15,
21:4, 21:8, 23:15,
30:2, 30:12, 31:6,
31:25, 35:12, 35:14,
35:18, 36:3, 40:15,
48:18, 48:19, 49:10,
49:11, 49:18, 60:20,
61:9
Population [1] -
20:14
populations [1] -
32:13
portion [2] - 54:1,
56:9
position [6] - 34:19,
39:15, 41:19, 47:15,
59:21
possible [4] - 5:25,
29:3, 50:1, 50:21
post [1] - 16:25
POST [1] - 1:23
potential [1] - 15:13
practically [1] - 67:7
preamble [1] - 58:3
precedent [5] -
42:16, 49:22, 59:14,
59:17, 66:15
predate [1] - 4:21
predictable [3] -
18:5, 29:11, 29:15
prehearing [1] -
51:15
prejudiced [1] - 29:8
preliminary [1] -
63:10
premise [2] - 63:3,
63:4
prepare [1] - 25:18
prepared [2] - 34:3,
34:17
presence [1] - 21:16
present [8] - 12:19,
14:18, 15:25, 16:6,
16:7, 16:19, 33:11,
40:17
presentation [5] -
5:14, 5:22, 14:11,
16:10, 19:16
presentations [1] -
33:23
presented [3] - 34:4,
34:13, 34:14
presenting [2] -
14:19, 15:2
Preserve [2] - 9:5,
9:16
presumably [1] -
27:5
presumed [1] - 45:2
pretty [2] - 48:23,
62:24
prevent [1] - 59:24
previous [2] - 36:4,
66:9
previously [1] - 25:2
primary [4] - 34:1,
45:18, 45:22, 47:24
principal [1] - 34:12
principles [2] -
28:14, 38:12
priority [3] - 12:13,
12:16, 12:23
Priority [1] - 12:9
procedural [18] -
25:14, 28:6, 33:14,
33:17, 41:13, 41:17,
42:7, 52:12, 54:15,
55:18, 55:19, 56:7,
56:8, 59:12, 59:16,
59:21, 67:20
procedure [2] -
33:14, 42:10
procedures [2] -
4:13, 4:15
proceeding [5] -
19:2, 19:3, 20:5,
63:12, 66:10
proceedings [2] -
19:9, 73:6
process [13] - 4:7,
4:9, 15:3, 15:13,
16:12, 17:2, 19:14,
20:4, 29:3, 29:6, 43:2,
43:12, 63:2
produced [1] - 44:4
professionally [8] -
20:14, 20:20, 22:6,
22:16, 23:25, 30:24,
31:18, 44:10
prohibited [3] - 67:9,
67:15, 68:1
project [2] - 12:14,
54:12
Project [1] - 11:11
project-specific [1] -
54:12
projected [4] - 32:13,
35:12, 35:14, 40:20
projections [7] -
18:1, 20:12, 20:15,
30:3, 31:7, 40:16,
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
9
61:9
projects [9] - 9:8,
12:12, 12:14, 12:17,
12:21, 22:2, 22:9,
48:4
properly [1] - 20:3
properties [4] - 7:22,
10:9, 10:10, 10:11
property [8] - 7:18,
7:21, 9:12, 9:13,
10:17, 22:8, 32:4,
60:25
proposed [6] - 3:21,
8:21, 8:25, 10:19,
10:24, 16:24
Proposed [1] - 16:23
propriety [1] - 28:23
protect [2] - 12:17,
64:4
protecting [1] -
11:18
Protection [1] - 5:5
prove [6] - 29:5,
29:18, 30:5, 31:23,
32:1, 33:3
proved [3] - 23:23,
31:15, 32:15
provide [8] - 14:12,
18:5, 18:17, 25:10,
32:11, 32:24, 38:18,
59:22
provided [3] - 5:22,
42:20, 64:23
provides [5] - 4:13,
18:21, 27:14, 33:8,
35:25
proving [1] - 28:20
provision [8] - 24:20,
33:20, 56:18, 56:25,
57:3, 62:3, 63:23,
66:7
provisions [10] -
3:25, 4:1, 25:4, 27:1,
36:17, 39:21, 39:23,
57:5, 58:15
public [6] - 4:6, 4:7,
9:7, 28:25, 29:2, 29:6
public's [1] - 8:24
publication [5] - 4:5,
4:12, 4:15, 4:19, 4:25
pull [1] - 50:22
pure [1] - 35:1
purely [4] - 33:17,
41:13, 55:18, 55:19
purpose [1] - 31:9
purposes [5] - 22:23,
23:3, 23:16, 32:17,
65:17
pursuant [4] - 17:11,
44:4, 44:14, 44:16
put [6] - 51:4, 51:5,
63:8, 65:11, 71:9,
72:4
puts [1] - 58:7
putting [1] - 62:14
Q
quarter [6] - 5:23,
5:24, 5:25, 6:1
quarterly [1] - 5:9
quarters [2] - 5:15,
5:16
questions [16] - 3:9,
5:20, 9:18, 11:6, 13:1,
19:16, 26:14, 34:2,
34:5, 38:8, 40:25,
42:24, 53:8, 66:19,
66:24, 69:5
quick [4] - 18:17,
53:10, 55:1, 61:22
quickly [1] - 40:23
quite [2] - 41:23,
64:5
quote [1] - 57:23
R
raise [3] - 51:16,
68:8, 68:11
raised [3] - 40:4,
51:14
ranks [1] - 12:13
rate [1] - 22:13
rather [3] - 34:14,
34:18, 61:6
RE [1] - 1:4
re [2] - 70:7, 70:21
re-opened [1] - 70:7
re-reviewing [1] -
70:21
reach [1] - 68:16
react [2] - 30:25,
31:5
read [4] - 35:24,
36:14, 49:8, 50:1
readily [1] - 31:5
reading [1] - 36:12
real [3] - 24:3, 32:7,
32:10
really [6] - 12:3,
35:6, 37:17, 63:22,
65:22, 68:17
Realty [4] - 14:7,
14:21, 15:18, 34:9
reason [7] - 41:23,
42:2, 47:8, 52:6,
55:21, 65:14, 67:21
reasonable [2] -
27:24, 28:22
reasons [2] - 27:22,
53:6
rebuttal [1] - 43:4
received [1] - 7:20
receiving [2] - 10:11,
10:12
recent [1] - 57:20
recently [1] - 5:6
recognized [1] -
63:20
recollection [1] -
59:8
recommendation [1]
- 44:15
Recommended [5] -
14:20, 15:5, 15:8,
15:11, 43:10
recommends [4] -
7:24, 9:6, 11:20,
12:25
reconsider [1] -
51:10
record [13] - 18:24,
19:3, 19:8, 19:18,
19:22, 45:11, 53:15,
58:17, 58:19, 62:1,
64:15, 64:22, 73:6
records [2] - 4:6, 4:7
redevelop [1] - 7:21
reduces [1] - 21:14
refer [1] - 44:7
reference [5] - 48:13,
48:20, 61:15, 61:16,
61:18
referenced [1] -
57:13
references [2] -
62:18, 65:2
referenda [1] - 67:18
referendums [1] -
67:17
referred [1] - 15:1
referring [1] - 10:7
regard [2] - 17:25,
47:24
regarding [6] - 4:1,
20:9, 24:12, 24:23,
30:17, 31:6
region [1] - 11:19
regional [3] - 28:13,
47:22, 48:16
registration [1] -
3:23
Regulation [4] - 2:3,
2:9, 3:13, 3:16
REGULATION [2] -
3:1, 70:3
regulations [1] -
18:8
reinsert [1] - 47:3
reject [3] - 18:22,
27:15, 57:11
rejected [7] - 19:7,
27:25, 37:25, 39:15,
39:16, 40:3, 52:1
rejecting [3] - 27:19,
27:22, 28:2
rejection [1] - 27:25
relate [5] - 34:22,
37:5, 38:11, 41:5,
49:5
related [2] - 3:25,
44:2
relates [1] - 12:1
relating [1] - 4:20
relative [1] - 36:3
relevant [8] - 15:8,
17:23, 20:25, 23:20,
30:1, 30:19, 41:9,
57:25
relied [3] - 37:6,
38:24, 39:7
relocate [1] - 10:16
rely [1] - 35:9
remaining [2] - 62:6,
66:19
remains [1] - 60:14
remembered [1] -
45:9
remind [1] - 60:7
remove [1] - 45:1
repeal [6] - 4:5, 4:12,
4:19, 4:25, 44:16,
50:3
repealed [2] - 4:17,
4:23
reply [1] - 49:4
report [2] - 4:15,
73:5
reported [1] - 5:24
REPORTED [1] -
1:19
Reporter [1] - 73:11
REPORTER [1] -
1:19
REPORTERS [1] -
1:23
reporting [2] - 4:2,
5:9
represent [1] - 34:8
Representative [2] -
71:13, 71:17
represented [7] -
14:13, 14:14, 15:19,
15:21, 15:24, 16:4,
33:24
request [8] - 3:17,
3:20, 4:4, 4:11, 4:18,
4:24, 5:21, 8:7
requested [1] - 8:19
require [8] - 26:7,
41:13, 41:20, 46:8,
46:10, 63:8, 67:6,
67:8
required [12] - 9:8,
9:10, 17:24, 18:11,
25:17, 33:18, 47:16,
50:15, 50:16, 50:18,
50:20, 56:8
requirement [14] -
37:12, 48:2, 49:9,
50:9, 50:13, 52:14,
52:16, 53:18, 54:13,
57:3, 57:5, 57:17,
63:6, 63:7
requirements [9] -
5:10, 19:5, 19:10,
20:7, 28:9, 33:14,
52:13, 52:22, 67:20
requires [9] - 29:1,
29:12, 29:23, 30:18,
32:8, 32:23, 38:12,
42:19, 64:20
requiring [4] - 60:1,
63:24, 67:16, 67:17
Research [1] - 20:14
residential [24] -
18:2, 20:16, 20:18,
20:23, 21:3, 21:9,
21:12, 21:13, 21:14,
21:19, 21:20, 21:23,
22:2, 22:5, 22:23,
23:17, 30:13, 31:9,
31:10, 31:19, 32:2,
44:2, 44:5, 46:14
residents [2] - 22:12,
32:12
resolve [1] - 27:2
resolved [1] - 17:17
resolves [1] - 41:18
resonate [1] - 26:23
resource [2] - 10:9,
10:12
resources [1] - 12:17
respond [3] - 34:17,
60:3, 65:24
Respondent [2] -
15:19, 55:17
responding [1] -
60:16
response [2] - 38:25,
52:8
RESPONSE) [9] -
3:11, 38:9, 41:1,
42:25, 54:18, 66:20,
69:6, 70:12, 72:10
responses [1] -
14:12
responsibility [2] -
51:21, 51:22
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
10
responsible [1] -
61:9
Restoration [1] -
12:22
restriction [1] -
49:19
result [3] - 36:13,
40:11, 67:15
resulted [1] - 54:5
retail [1] - 8:21
retention [2] - 10:19,
10:20
reverse [1] - 35:5
review [8] - 5:2,
16:20, 18:17, 18:19,
18:24, 27:12, 43:22,
58:4
reviewed [1] - 15:4
reviewing [3] -
18:16, 70:21
revised [3] - 4:9, 5:5,
17:5
reweigh [2] - 51:10,
51:23
rezoning [1] - 52:11
rid [1] - 68:21
rights [3] - 22:8,
42:5, 42:9
risk [1] - 4:2
River [7] - 8:11, 9:4,
11:10, 11:17, 16:4,
64:1, 64:4
road [2] - 8:20, 21:16
ROB [1] - 1:10
Rob [1] - 70:15
ROBERT [1] - 1:11
Robert [1] - 70:18
Rochelle [2] - 29:10
role [1] - 15:3
room [1] - 35:16
ROOM [1] - 1:16
RPR [3] - 1:19, 73:5,
73:11
rule [20] - 3:24, 4:13,
4:14, 4:17, 5:4, 5:7,
24:23, 24:25, 25:13,
26:19, 26:25, 27:3,
27:6, 27:20, 29:19,
30:9, 55:6, 55:9,
55:18, 55:22
Rule [3] - 4:5, 4:12,
4:25
rules [4] - 4:6, 4:21,
27:17, 45:22
Rules [1] - 4:19
ruling [2] - 19:20,
55:25
S
sale [1] - 7:14
Samantha [1] - 61:10
Sarasota [1] - 48:7
satisfied [1] - 63:4
saw [2] - 19:20,
68:18
schedule [1] - 70:11
schools [1] - 48:17
science [1] - 9:25
scope [1] - 59:1
Scott [1] - 54:21
Sea [1] - 15:23
seasonal [6] - 20:20,
21:4, 21:8, 22:12,
30:12, 32:12
second [8] - 3:20,
20:6, 21:3, 21:19,
35:25, 36:12, 36:24,
36:25
secondary [3] -
45:19, 45:23, 47:24
section [4] - 26:6,
26:12, 29:1, 32:8
Section [19] - 17:12,
17:25, 18:4, 18:11,
18:15, 18:20, 21:6,
25:7, 27:13, 28:11,
29:12, 29:23, 30:15,
30:18, 31:11, 32:18,
32:22, 33:8, 33:15
sections [1] - 32:21
Sections [2] - 25:8,
28:9
see [12] - 6:1, 10:5,
10:22, 10:23, 35:15,
39:1, 42:23, 53:17,
61:24, 62:8, 63:6,
64:25
Senate [1] - 4:3
sentence [11] -
26:18, 35:8, 35:10,
35:25, 36:11, 36:12,
36:13, 36:24, 36:25,
46:3, 47:3
sentences [3] - 35:8,
36:15, 36:18
separate [5] - 9:9,
22:24, 31:7, 46:24,
50:7
separately [14] -
22:23, 44:25, 46:17,
46:18, 47:4, 47:6,
47:7, 47:17, 56:11,
61:7, 61:13, 61:14,
61:16, 65:5
separation [1] -
47:22
September [2] -
17:8, 18:13
series [1] - 62:9
serve [1] - 25:25
Service [36] - 22:19,
22:20, 22:22, 22:25,
23:2, 23:5, 23:8,
23:11, 23:16, 23:19,
24:3, 24:4, 24:6, 24:9,
31:8, 32:16, 44:19,
44:20, 44:23, 44:24,
45:19, 45:20, 45:23,
46:1, 46:2, 49:1, 52:5,
60:15, 60:22, 61:1,
61:2, 61:4, 62:10,
65:1, 65:15
service [5] - 48:3,
48:11, 48:12, 48:20,
54:7
Services [1] - 3:19
set [3] - 18:20, 37:5,
38:10
sets [3] - 34:16,
34:17, 34:20
settlement [1] - 54:3
seven [1] - 34:14
several [9] - 14:21,
17:9, 20:9, 24:22,
28:6, 29:24, 30:1,
30:17, 48:7
Seymour [2] - 15:19,
34:9
shall [14] - 29:25,
30:2, 32:24, 33:9,
35:10, 35:19, 35:23,
36:1, 38:18, 44:24,
47:4, 47:5, 57:24
SHELLY [24] - 43:5,
45:15, 47:20, 47:25,
48:23, 53:12, 53:22,
54:17, 54:19, 56:2,
56:4, 57:18, 57:22,
62:16, 67:10, 67:13,
68:2, 68:4, 68:6,
68:10, 68:13, 68:16,
68:20, 69:3
Shelly [7] - 14:14,
15:21, 43:2, 60:4,
61:17, 65:25, 67:1
Shelly's [1] - 60:16
shortfall [1] - 23:4
shortly [1] - 16:25
show [10] - 22:14,
24:19, 25:7, 25:12,
30:11, 33:19, 44:3,
45:16, 49:16, 49:19
showed [5] - 23:4,
40:17, 49:20, 49:21,
61:17
showing [2] - 40:8,
60:23
shown [1] - 64:10
shows [2] - 10:11,
62:15
shut [1] - 40:19
significant [2] -
11:16, 61:7
similar [6] - 39:24,
39:25, 42:14, 58:21,
71:5
similarly [1] - 51:12
simple [1] - 12:1
simpler [1] - 43:12
simply [6] - 38:4,
40:7, 41:24, 64:19,
65:6, 65:17
single [1] - 21:21
situation [3] - 58:21,
63:19, 66:14
situations [1] - 59:10
six [2] - 12:14, 16:10
size [1] - 16:9
slow [1] - 18:9
smart [1] - 48:14
smoking [1] - 4:21
smooth [1] - 43:14
social [3] - 32:25,
38:14, 39:19
solely [4] - 31:25,
32:13, 49:11, 49:18
solely-based-on-
population [1] - 49:18
soon [1] - 62:6
Sorry [2] - 18:10,
55:2
sorry [6] - 34:13,
47:5, 47:20, 56:3,
58:6, 62:20
sort [8] - 34:15,
36:17, 40:14, 40:19,
60:15, 60:17, 63:16,
64:7
sorts [3] - 36:17,
63:17, 64:7
sounded [1] - 55:10
sources [1] - 30:24
south [1] - 46:12
space [1] - 61:2
speaking [2] - 55:4,
67:7
species [2] - 58:25,
59:2
specific [4] - 38:23,
53:19, 54:12, 59:5
specifically [6] - 5:4,
9:11, 52:1, 53:15,
59:11
specifics [1] - 57:15
specified [1] - 26:9
spending [1] - 48:15
spreading [1] - 24:5
square [1] - 7:17
St [7] - 8:10, 9:4,
11:10, 11:17, 67:10,
67:13, 67:16
staff [2] - 14:9, 15:3
standard [8] - 18:17,
18:19, 27:12, 27:13,
28:17, 28:19, 43:21,
60:9
standards [6] - 3:23,
18:5, 29:12, 29:15,
29:20, 38:13
standing [2] - 20:4,
28:8
standpoint [1] - 52:3
start [2] - 42:4, 56:13
started [1] - 3:4
State [8] - 7:14, 8:14,
8:20, 9:3, 9:12, 12:9,
12:15, 60:13
state [5] - 9:11,
11:19, 27:21, 28:15,
48:2
STATE [2] - 1:1, 73:3
State-acquired [1] -
9:3
State-owned [3] -
7:14, 8:14, 9:12
statement [2] -
58:23, 67:3
statements [1] -
63:20
states [1] - 18:25
status [1] - 5:17
statute [6] - 4:8,
4:16, 5:7, 55:11, 56:9,
67:15
Statute [1] - 5:1
statutes [1] - 52:19
Statutes [4] - 18:21,
28:11, 29:1, 32:23
statutory [2] - 4:9,
36:16
stay [1] - 11:15
stems [1] - 56:18
stenographic [1] -
73:6
stenographically [1]
- 73:5
STEPHANIE [1] -
1:12
stick [1] - 59:7
still [5] - 36:19,
36:20, 39:1, 70:20,
70:21
stip [1] - 51:15
stocks [1] - 3:24
stomach [1] - 34:11
stood [1] - 49:12
stop [1] - 65:22
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
11
stormwater [1] -
10:16
story [2] - 7:16, 54:2
strategic [1] - 28:13
strategies [1] - 38:13
stricken [3] - 61:17,
62:12, 62:19
stricter [10] - 24:23,
24:25, 25:13, 26:19,
26:25, 27:4, 27:5,
27:6, 29:19, 30:9
strike [2] - 57:10,
57:11
structure [2] - 8:5,
53:20
Stuart [2] - 15:24,
47:15
studies [1] - 30:21
stuff [1] - 48:19
Sub [1] - 32:19
subdivided [1] -
21:21
subdivisions [1] -
21:22
subject [4] - 31:2,
33:7, 54:7, 58:4
subjective [1] -
59:16
submit [1] - 70:25
submittal [1] - 7:11
Subsection [8] -
18:4, 18:12, 25:8,
29:12, 29:23, 31:16,
32:21, 32:22
subsequently [1] -
18:12
substance [1] -
52:15
substantial [3] -
19:2, 19:8, 63:5
substantially [1] -
12:20
substantive [14] -
25:13, 27:16, 27:17,
41:19, 41:23, 42:4,
42:6, 42:9, 42:19,
55:22, 57:8, 63:5,
64:14, 64:20
substituted [1] -
27:24
successful [2] -
56:20, 56:21
sufficient [3] - 24:17,
45:1, 63:14
summary [3] - 16:14,
16:16, 43:15
SUMPTER [1] - 1:10
super [1] - 26:5
supermajority [22] -
33:7, 33:17, 33:20,
41:7, 41:17, 42:2,
42:22, 52:7, 52:12,
53:24, 54:6, 54:8,
55:3, 55:10, 57:2,
58:14, 59:4, 59:6,
59:7, 59:12, 59:20,
63:25
supervision [1] -
60:13
supply [5] - 22:24,
23:17, 32:17, 46:9,
46:11
support [4] - 23:15,
44:12, 59:4, 62:15
supported [6] -
17:23, 23:20, 39:21,
45:4, 55:23, 58:22
supporting [1] - 57:2
supposed [1] - 65:18
Supreme [1] - 42:12
surveys [1] - 30:21
sustainably [1] -
11:14
systems [1] - 11:19
T
table [1] - 62:12
talks [2] - 47:22,
59:15
TALLAHASSEE [2] -
1:17, 1:24
ten [2] - 36:5, 65:12
testified [3] - 58:13,
58:20, 61:11
testimony [5] -
40:16, 40:18, 40:22,
47:11, 63:18
text [1] - 54:13
THE [5] - 1:1, 1:17,
7:2, 70:2, 72:12
theme [1] - 60:6
theoretical [2] -
24:10, 32:5
thereby [1] - 11:14
therefore [9] - 19:6,
23:18, 24:19, 33:19,
39:16, 42:19, 54:8,
57:8, 64:20
therein [1] - 26:9
they've [1] - 62:11
thinking [1] - 43:6
third [3] - 20:9, 21:6,
21:25
Thomas [1] - 15:25
three [6] - 20:25,
34:16, 34:17, 34:20,
40:23, 54:4
threshold [2] -
22:15, 24:8
timber [1] - 11:14
title [1] - 5:2
today [12] - 3:5,
14:13, 14:15, 15:25,
16:6, 16:24, 17:19,
34:1, 34:10, 66:18,
70:19, 71:2
together [5] - 9:15,
23:2, 34:16, 49:8,
60:19
tomorrow [3] - 71:7,
72:6, 72:7
topic [2] - 55:3, 55:6
TORNILLO [4] -
1:11, 70:20, 71:22,
72:2
total [3] - 5:23,
34:14, 70:8
totaling [1] - 7:17
totally [3] - 47:25,
50:15, 53:8
towards [1] - 27:6
Town [2] - 15:22,
15:23
trading [1] - 10:3
traditional [1] -
43:22
transcript [1] - 73:6
transect [1] - 48:3
transmittal [1] - 26:7
Treasure [1] - 16:3
treat [1] - 42:17
treated [1] - 22:21
treating [1] - 61:6
treats [1] - 23:2
trends [2] - 23:15,
31:7
triage [1] - 9:22
Triage [1] - 10:7
triggers [1] - 24:8
true [2] - 54:11, 73:6
Trust [1] - 8:17
TRUST [1] - 7:3
Trustees [3] - 2:5,
7:6, 8:10
TRUSTEES [1] - 7:2
Trustees' [2] - 7:10,
13:2
trying [2] - 43:12,
71:22
Tuesday [1] - 16:25
Tuesday's [1] - 70:11
two [17] - 7:16,
22:25, 23:2, 23:16,
27:1, 32:16, 35:8,
43:16, 43:25, 49:5,
49:24, 56:5, 58:10,
59:9, 60:21, 61:6,
71:23
two-fer [1] - 56:5
two-story [1] - 7:16
type [2] - 58:21,
58:24
types [1] - 53:19
U
ultimately [1] - 34:23
ultra [1] - 59:21
unable [1] - 29:6
unanimous [6] -
59:25, 60:1, 67:4,
67:8, 67:16, 67:25
unbuilt [1] - 22:3
unclear [1] - 53:24
under [8] - 5:6, 52:3,
56:20, 58:4, 60:9,
65:10, 66:5, 67:23
Under [1] - 28:18
underlying [1] -
60:17
undermines [1] -
65:17
underwriters [1] -
5:3
unfettered [1] -
60:13
unique [2] - 12:19,
24:5
units [8] - 20:19,
20:20, 21:23, 22:3,
23:5, 23:7, 23:10,
54:2
Units [1] - 62:11
unless [3] - 18:23,
35:17, 66:23
unnecessary [1] -
4:14
unoccupied [1] -
20:19
unpredictably [1] -
25:5
unrequired [1] -
50:15
unusual [1] - 62:13
up [13] - 3:13, 7:5,
10:10, 14:4, 14:16,
28:25, 29:11, 37:11,
47:25, 58:22, 60:5,
65:12, 71:20
update [2] - 5:12,
5:17
updates [1] - 4:1
upheld [1] - 28:24
upshot [2] - 50:11,
50:13
urban [10] - 48:2,
48:5, 48:7, 48:8, 48:9,
48:10, 48:11, 48:12,
48:20, 54:7
Urban [36] - 22:19,
22:22, 22:25, 23:2,
23:5, 23:8, 23:10,
23:16, 23:19, 24:3,
24:4, 24:6, 24:9, 31:8,
32:16, 44:19, 44:20,
44:23, 44:24, 45:18,
45:19, 45:22, 45:23,
46:1, 46:2, 49:1, 52:5,
60:15, 60:22, 61:1,
61:2, 61:4, 62:9, 65:1,
65:14
urge [1] - 49:24
uses [5] - 32:20,
33:5, 38:18, 49:11
utility [1] - 21:17
V
vacancy [1] - 22:13
vacant [6] - 21:20,
21:21, 22:1, 22:8,
22:11, 36:5
valuable [1] - 10:4
value [3] - 9:25,
10:12, 11:25
values [1] - 10:9
variables [1] - 24:17
various [5] - 16:19,
36:2, 39:18, 51:8,
52:18
versa [1] - 37:24
version [1] - 24:12
versus [5] - 14:8,
14:21, 46:11, 47:24,
52:2
Veterans' [1] - 3:9
viable [2] - 33:5,
38:19
vibrant [2] - 33:5,
38:19
vice [1] - 37:24
view [3] - 39:8,
39:22, 59:13
violate [3] - 21:2,
49:9, 49:18
violation [1] - 18:3
vision [1] - 30:22
visioning [1] - 63:19
vote [23] - 16:22,
26:6, 33:7, 33:10,
33:17, 41:7, 41:17,
41:25, 42:2, 42:22,
57:2, 57:16, 58:14,
59:4, 59:6, 59:8,
59:12, 59:20, 60:1,
63:25, 67:4, 67:8,
67:25
votes [3] - 26:7,
52:12, 67:16
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
12
voting [9] - 52:13,
52:16, 52:22, 54:13,
56:24, 58:22, 63:2,
63:5, 67:20
W
wait [2] - 10:22,
62:22
waived [1] - 40:12
walk [2] - 14:9, 34:3
wall [1] - 40:20
Walls [1] - 15:23
wants [1] - 65:15
WAS [1] - 72:12
wastewater [1] -
48:16
watching [1] - 66:12
Water [3] - 8:11,
8:18, 9:4
water [2] - 11:18,
12:17
watershed [1] -
11:17
ways [1] - 21:16
web [2] - 71:9, 72:5
WEDNESDAY [1] -
1:15
week [2] - 5:14,
34:12
weight [1] - 49:23
welcome [1] - 12:6
wetland [1] - 11:18
whack [1] - 52:2
whatsoever [3] -
39:3, 59:23, 66:6
where-is [1] - 7:13
whereas [1] - 53:19
WHEREUPON [1] -
72:12
whichever [1] - 27:3
whole [3] - 42:2,
51:25, 59:5
win [2] - 9:14
win-win [1] - 9:14
Winslow [3] - 8:8,
8:19, 8:22
wise [1] - 26:16
words [2] - 49:6,
65:9
worth [2] - 8:14, 8:15
Y
y'all [1] - 34:6
year [6] - 5:16, 8:3,
12:8, 12:10, 49:12,
49:21
years [7] - 35:13,
35:22, 36:5, 36:21,
C & N REPORTERS TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 850-697-8314
13
36:23, 57:20, 61:5