Sign of the Times?

Going through the agenda for next Tuesday's BOCC meeting, I noticed the Commissioner Finegan is bringing back the monument signs for Citrus County.
These were approved on August 15, 2023 as part of the Beautify Citrus campaign.

So what are they? Below is the conceptual design provided in the agenda. The idea is that these will be placed on the roads at 5 different locations (one in each district) for people to see as they enter the county.

The locations are: on 19 north of Crystal River. On 19 south of Homosassa. On 41 north of Citrus Springs. On 44 east of Inverness. And on 200 North of Hernando.

Shout out to the person who put this together. The conceptual designs look great and they are certainly impressive signs...

But I question the need of this. Would is be a cool thing for people to see as they enter the county? Sure. But is it needed? It is certainly better looking than a single sign on a post. I get that.

But aren't we pushing to save money where we can? The commissioners tasked staff with pinching every penny they can, but want to spend $$ on signs? The signs are estimated to cost $30k each, for $150k total. Over the last two meetings, we had heated discussions regarding space needs for commissioners and staff and leasing the government building from the City of Inverness. Some did not want to pay $115k a year to lease space from Inverness... and they are going to vote on paying $150k for signs?

Space is needed NOW. Do we need signs now?

Yes, they were approved in 2023 and budgeted for this cycle, but is this the best use of tax payer funds at this time when we need to address other things? This $150k can the commissioners out of the courthouse now, with money already budgeted. It can go towards a building purchase in Inverness, if that is the route they want to take instead. It can go to a number of things. Yes, commissioners are still leaving the courthouse location, signs or not, but for a board wanting the best use of tax dollars... is this it?

I can be convinced either way. I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of the signs and they certainly look great, I just question if it's the best thing to spend money on now, but willing to listen.

One of my other favorite things is coming to the board at this next meeting. The Ex-Parte communication ordinance for quasi judicial hearings. I wrote about it before.

As mentioned previously, Citrus County is operating under the Jennings doctrine. This means that ANY ex-parte communication with commissioners is presumed to be prejudicial to the application. Commissioners would then have to prove that their decision was not prejudiced if challenged during an appeal.

Why is this an issue? Because back in June/July, commissioners silenced the public at the podium during a meeting telling them they could not talk about the Sandmine as it was going through the application process (Read about it here).

Ex-parte is not only about conversations. It also includes email. When you get a contentious case like Pine Ridge or Tuscany, there could be 100s of emails. The commissioners are told they are not supposed to read them by the county attorney, but they admit that they read them and want the public to email them.... Oh boy.

To date, it hasn't really caused any issues. For clarification, there is nothing illegal with reading emails or even talking to someone about the case. They can talk to whoever they want. The problem is the presumed prejudice from those emails and talks.

However, that doesn't mean they are out of the woods. I found out recently that commissioner's emails were not included in the packet for the Pine Ridge golf course hearing. I heard commissioners reference some of these emails during the hearing as to why they made the decision to approve it.

Since they were not included as part of the record, those emails are presumed to be prejudicial to the hearing. The save the golf course group COULD appeal the decision based on that and try to show that the emails were a factor in the decision and that the decision was prejudiced, rather commissioners would need to show that it wasn't. Will they do it, I have no idea, but the door is cracked.

This new ordinance will address that. Commissioners would be required to disclose any communication they had with anyone, including emails. They would fill out a form and provide it, along with the email, to staff to include in the record for the application. Sounds great right?

Here is the form

As you can see, its pretty simple. Fill in a few boxes and have whatever conversation they want to have. That is where I have the problem.

You see, if just filling out some basic information is all that is required for a commissioner to have a conversation with someone and it remove the presumed prejudices from those conversations, what stops them from doing it? It is not a burden. It is going to be open season on commissioners, mostly by developers, moreso than it is now. Once the presumed prejudice is removed, they can discuss anything they want at any time and have zero issues. Even if they "forget" to disclose it, the ordinance still removes presumed prejudices.

I am all for the change as it gives the people a voice. They can go to any meeting now and share their views about any application, not just waiting for the hearing. That is a good thing (I would argue they still can do that today, but I digress).

But, I want to see a more in depth form. If commissioner are going to meet with people, make them fill out a summary of the entire meeting. What was said? What was discussed? Were any promises/concessions made about the project? And so on. Give the public a FULL picture of the conversation, not just check a box of "we talked about traffic". What specifically about traffic did they talk about?

Our commissioners want transparency in government, here is that opportunity. Doing this will also likely limit those meetings because now it is "work" to fill out that summary. Why take 10 meetings if they have to spend an entire day willing out forms?

That said, how quickly will we see a commissioner out with a developer at dinner after this goes through? Again, nothing illegal and they can do it now, only currently, it can be held against them potentially.. going forward, not so much. It would just be bad optics, which maybe that is enough... But now they have the removal of that presumed prejudice.

Let's not make that easier to do with a simple form like this.