OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET 2 IN RE ... - Florida€¦ · nonconservation land in Duval County, which contains a two-story building constructed in 1946 totaling approximately

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

[email protected]

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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 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


30

where data is relevant to several elements,

consistent data shall be used, including population

estimates and projections.


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


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 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.


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.


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


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 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


33

fiscal development.


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 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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] -


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,


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


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


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


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,


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,


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,


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,


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


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


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


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,


13

36:23, 57:20, 61:5

Documents

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET 2 IN RE ... - Florida€¦ · nonconservation land in Duval County, which contains a two-story building constructed in 1946 totaling approximately