Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Financial Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses tightening county financial impact statement language after court guidance; legal staff to advise
Summary
A board member proposed expanding and standardizing the county's financial impact statement (section 8.05 of the charter) and making draft statements public before hearings. Legal counsel said a recent court ruling limits placing such statements on ballots; the board asked legal staff to research options and report back in June.
Charter Review Board member Mr. Roche urged the board on May 13 to strengthen the county's financial impact statement requirement under section 8.05 of the Hillsborough County Charter and to make draft fiscal analyses public earlier in the process.
Roche reviewed the history: county voters approved a 75‑word financial impact requirement in 2012, intended to provide a short revenue/cost estimate for charter amendments and ballot measures. He proposed expanding the statement up to 100 words, requiring a two‑part disclosure for tax measures (current rate, proposed rate, term, revenue in first 12 months and over the term using escalation factors, and average household cost), and posting drafts at least 14 days before the first public hearing and final statements 60 days before a referendum on the county website.
Assistant County Attorney Mary Helen Farris told the board that a Florida Supreme Court ruling and state election law restrict placing certain election‑related materials on ballots. Board members discussed two statutory citations raised at the meeting: Florida Statute 97.0015 (mentioned in the discussion) and Chapter 101.161, which governs financial impact statements for constitutional amendments and the Financial Impact Estimating Conference. Charter Review Board member Miss Hall asked legal staff to examine whether the problem is the placement of the statement on the ballot or which entity is responsible for preparing it. Legal staff agreed to research statutory constraints and return with advice by the June meeting.
Board members expressed general support for greater transparency but disagreed on whether the charter is the right instrument. Some members said the county already prepares fiscal statements when appropriate and that procedural changes might be implemented administratively or by ordinance rather than amending the charter. Others argued the charter language should be clarified because voters had approved the requirement and the present phrasing may now conflict with state law.
No formal charter amendment was proposed or adopted at the meeting. The board directed legal staff to return in June with recommendations about how the board can achieve the stated transparency goals consistent with state election law and any court precedents.
