Transcript 6-18-16 Conflict Assessment Meeting

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HERNANDO COUNTY, FLORIDA

HERNANDO COUNTY,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
CASE NO: H-27-CA-2016-15
CITY OF BROOKSVILLE,
Defendant.
______________________________/
TRANSCRIPT OF CONFLICT ASSESSMENT MEETING

DATE TAKEN: June 18, 2016
TIME: 9:00 a.m. to 10:22 a.m.
PLACE: County Attorney's Office
20 N. Main Street
Brooksville, Florida 34601
This cause came on to be heard at the time and
place aforesaid, when and where the following
proceedings were reported by Brooke Stuart Day, Court
Reporter.
APPEARANCES:
GARTH C. COLLER, ESQ.

JON A. JOUBEN, ESQ.
County Attorney's Office
Appearing on behalf of Hernando County.
20 N. Main Street, Room 462
3
4
5
6
7
8
THOMAS S. HOGAN, JR., ESQ.

JENNIFER C. REY, ESQ.
The Hogan Law Firm
Appearing on behalf of the City of Brooksville.
P.O. BOX 485
9
10
ALSO PRESENT:
11
Leonard Sossamon, County Administrator.
12
T. Jennene Norman-Vacha, City Manager.
13
Lisa Morgan, Legal Assistant to City Attorney.
14
Bill Geiger, Community Development Director.
15
Ricky Leach, Hernando County Utilities.
16
Paul L. Wieczorek, Department of Planning and Zoning.
17
Ronald F. Pianta - Department of Planning and Zoning.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CAROLYN F. ENGEL & ASSOCIATES
1
2
Thereupon:
MR. JOUBEN:
Right at the beginning, we're going to
do a roll call for the benefit of the court reporter, so
she knows who is speaking, at her request.
start with...
6
7
MR. SOSSAMON:
Why don't we
Leonard Sossamon, County
Administrator, Hernando County.
MR. JOUBEN:
Jon Jouben, Deputy County Attorney.
MR. COLLER:
Garth Coller, County Attorney.
10
MR. LEACH:
11
MR. PIANTA:
12
Richard Leach, Utilities Director.

Ron Pianta, Assistant County
Administrator.
13
MR. WIECZOREK:
14
MR. GEIGER:
15
Development Director.
16
17
19
MS. MORGAN:
22
23
Jennene Norman-Vacha, City Manager
for Brooksville.
MR. HOGAN:
21
Bill Geiger, City of Brooksville
MS. NORMAN-VACHA:
18
20
Paul Wieczorek, Planning Department.
Tom Hogan, City Attorney.

Lisa Morgan, office manager at Hogan Law
Firm.
MS. REY:
Jennifer Rey, attorney with the Hogan Law
Firm.
MR. JOUBEN:
All right.
Again, this is Jon Jouben.
24
We are all here for the Conflict Assessment Meeting in
25
Hernando County versus City of Brooksville.

Under Chapter
164.1053 is the conflict assessments phase, which I can
pass out the statute because it's very short.
we're here on (indicating.)
It's what
By mutual agreement of the parties, we've limited
this discussion to the issues of compactness and
contiguity with regard to the annexations that are at
issue.
the conflicts are, is the way I read the statute.
obviously, I think, since we've challenged five
And so right now, we have to first ascertain what

And
10
annexations, we've challenged them on the issues relevant
11
to this meeting for continuity and compactness.
12
So does the City have any additional issues?
13
MR. HOGAN:
Not with regard to those.
I think that's
14
in compliance with the Court order.
15
know, if the discussions may take their own course.
16
never been through one of these before, quite frankly, and
17
I tried to read -- I've read this.
18
could find, but it didn't give me a real clear picture of
19
where we are actually going to end up going.
20
talked to you on Friday, I got the same sort of feeling,
21
that you're not sure where we're going, so...
22
23
MR. JOUBEN:
I don't know, you

I've
I've read everything I
And when I
Just for the record, the person you're
speaking to is Jon Jouben, which is me.
24
MR. HOGAN:
25
MR. JOUBEN:
I'm sorry.
Yes, I would think that we should just
proceed organically, unless anybody -- from our starting
point that we agreed to at the last judicial hearing and
move forward.
Wherever it takes us, it takes us.
MR. HOGAN:
So, with that said, the City's position
is that the annexations all are statutorily compliant, and
so we want to annex the property, as we've done.
MR. COLLER:
the litigation issues.
really is that the whole annexation process, this has been
Obviously, we're not going to belabor

I think the County's position
10
a longstanding series of challenges that need to be more
11
planned, timed better, need to come from the central core
12
and work its way out.
13
the donuts from forming to move outward in a rational
14
planned basis pursuant to the statutes.
15
that happening, and I think that's what's creating the
16
problems.
17
Need to stop all of the holes in
And we don't see
You know, maybe a timing mechanism would be helpful
18
in that you could say, okay, Phase 1 will be this
19
circular -- if you imagine a target for the bull's eye,
20
you know, you'll have the bull's eye, which is the
21
county/city boundaries; and then you have the next ring
22
out, and those would be the next series of annexations;
23
and then after that, another series of annexations in that
24
it would then comply with the statutes.
25
well-planned.
It would be
It could be worked with the county to
remove pockets that are being created, or serpentine,
those kind of things, which obviously the statute
(unintelligible.)
looking for change.
MR. HOGAN:
So I think that's where the County's
Garth, as much as I would like to stay
away from the litigation -- and Jon and I had a good --
and Jennifer -- had a good, frank discussion on Friday.
But I can tell you that my client is not going to -- I'm
not going to get much movement from them so long as Count
10
11
12
7 in the complaint survives.

MR. COLLER:
I am not as familiar with the
litigation.
13
Jon, Count 7 is what?
14
MR. HOGAN:
The racial allegations.
They are fixated
15
there.
16
we can have that discussion, if you want to, but they
17
don't feel that it's fair or accurate.
18
they've done a lot to relieve that situation, and to bring
19
that up was sort of a slap in the face and divisive as
20
opposed to bringing us to a point that we can have a
21
meaningful discussion.
22
and I'm sure you can relate to this.
23
in this position over the years with commission or
24
counsels.
25
And I understand their position.
MR. COLLER:
And, you know,
They feel that
So I need, as their attorney --
Oh, absolutely.
I'm sure you've been
I understand how easy
it is for single, narrow issues to essentially consume all
the broader dialogue.
MR. HOGAN:
And that's where we're at.
And so when I
go back to them after this meeting, which they expect me
to do, in which I will do -- I'm sure you'll go back to
your client -- the first thing that I'm going to be asked
is, is that Count 7 gone.
it.
time or do any of those things.
And so I don't want to debate
There's no real need, I don't think, to go back in

I don't think that it
10
gets us anywhere.
11
philosophy about annexation and try to come to some middle
12
ground on it.
13
We are more than willing to discuss our
When I talked to Mr. Jouben on Friday, Ms. Rey and I
14
did, we all agreed -- and I'm assuming that -- I mean, I
15
don't want to breach any confidences.
16
a confidential conversation, I'll stop talking.
If you think it was
17
MR. JOUBEN:
Depends where you're going with this.
18
MR. HOGAN:
It's just that I think that we agreed,
19
anyway, that the City does need to grow.
20
a municipality to grow.
21
municipal services beyond its current boundaries.
22
agree that the serpentine shape of the city limits or
23
the -- to me, it looks like a child put it together with
24
Legos or something.
25
remedied.
It's natural for
The City is prepared to provide

We
But we agree that that needs to be
Where the discussion's going to take place is
how that's remedied.
you've described as growing, you know --
MR. COLLER:
MR. HOGAN:
MR. COLLER:
And what we view as opposed to what
In a more rational -We do need a more rational plan.

And that was really where I was headed.
Obviously, the idea of a target was the classic zoning
scenario, of how zoning was to be accomplished.
merely aspirational.
dealing with rectangles and squares, and those can never
That's
Obviously, we understand that you're
10
be round, but obviously, the more compact, the better
11
pursuant to statute; the more contiguous, the better for
12
statute.
13
MR. HOGAN:
14
MR. COLLER:
Sure.
And planning, I think we'll agree that
15
that is the aspirational goal, to be as organically
16
growing as you can.
17
MR. HOGAN:
Sure.
That's my understanding.
But the
18
reality is, that where we are today, is that we have
19
utilities, and the ability to provide service, you know,
20
out in certain areas and not in other areas, so it's just
21
not going to fit into a circle or a square.
22
like to see is us agree upon perhaps an aspirational
23
geometrical shape that makes sense.
24
25
MR. COLLER:
Right.
What we would
And maybe that's part of the
future planning process for the utilities, to make sure

that the utilities is thinking annexation, so that when
you set up your next utility project, you can fill in the
gaps so that you do it more organically.
I think that's probably part of what's missing, is
that left hands are not talking to right hands.
think that's something that's got to come from up high;
it's either going to be the city counselor, Jennene,
that's going to say, okay, we need to be thinking about
the broader issues when we get into this.
10
MR. HOGAN:
And I
Well, I think that's probably true.
Over
11
the last few days, I've been trying to understand 171,
12
Part 2.
13
that that's what you're talking about, is to try to come
14
to some agreement on who's going to do what so that you
15
don't --
16
Perhaps you can clarify it for me.
MR. COLLER:
But it seems
Step on each other's toes, absolutely,
17
and obviously waste financial resources in duplicating
18
governmental efforts.
19
the whole statutory screening.
20
21
MR. HOGAN:
So, yeah, that is a huge part of
And, you know, the City is the County.
We pay county taxes, as well.
22
MR. COLLER:
23
MR. HOGAN:
24
waste of tax dollars.
25
MR. COLLER:
I understand.
So we don't want to see duplication or
I think that's why we were so hopeful
10
that there would be a dialogue, because I think we can do
things a lot better than it's being done now.
MR. HOGAN:
Well, we are all for a dialogue.
But
returning to my problem, speaking to you two guys as the
attorneys, Mr. Jouben and Mr. Collar --
MR. COLLER:
I, too, am going to be careful about
what I say, because obviously I don't want to mislead.
And, Jon, correct me if I'm wrong, but absent the
count that was so inflammatory, there was no dialogue
10
going on whatsoever, so it may have brought this to the
11
attention of a lot of people that just weren't paying
12
attention.
13
MR. HOGAN:
There was preparation for dialogue on our
14
side when Count 7 came out, which, you know, kind of
15
brought us reaching hope to take all the focus off of what
16
I've been talking about.
17
MR. COLLER:
I have seen none of that, so maybe I am
18
in error.
19
impasse at that point.
20
But I thought we were at a complete, you know,
MR. HOGAN:
No.
In fact, Cliff Manuel had offered to
21
intervene, I guess sort of help, sort of in a mediation
22
role.
23
engineer.
But, also, he serves, a lot of times, as our
24
MR. COLLER:
25
MR. HOGAN:
Uh-huh.
And there was a process that we
11
questioned a protocol, and a process that we had put in
place to establish -- you know, go back to the JPA that
we've been working on since 2010.
meeting.
attended.
and the county administrator and some other folks, Mr.
Geiger, I think --
I didn't attend it.
And there was a
None of the lawyers
But there was a meeting with the city manager
MR. GEIGER:
MR. HOGAN:
I did not.
Oh, Mr. Malmberg.
Mr. Malmberg, I think,
10
was there, and Mr. Manuel.
11
the summer there would be a series of meetings, and by the
12
end of the six-month period, there would be a JPA prepared
13
to present to the city counsel and the county commission.
14
So there was -- in my mind, there was progress going
15
forward but --
16
MR. COLLER:
And it was agreed that over
I know Mr. Manuel did meet with us, and
17
that includes the lawyers.
18
all of the county's positions with him, and that he, from
19
my understanding, was very understanding, and I don't want
20
to get him into trouble, but seemed in agreement with the
21
County's position, for the most part.
And I think we had discussed
22
MR. HOGAN:
23
MR. COLLER:
24
So, anyway, Jon, anything you wanted to add,
25
I can say the same.

Yeah.
particularly from the Count 7 perspective?

Maybe you can
12
enunciate -- I know Tom's also worrying about the
discussion.
3
4
5
MR. HOGAN:
What I don't want to do is waste
everybody's time.
MR. COLLER:
Yeah.
And so if there's anything we can
say now, you know, I want to make sure Jon gets an
opportunity.
other remaining items.
MR. JOUBEN:
And if there isn't, then we move on with the
Just as a clarification, since it was a
10
Petition for Certiorari, I don't think I organized it into
11
counts; it's just Section 7.
12
MR. HOGAN:
13
MR. JOUBEN:
Okay, Section 7.
Well, currently, we're in -- I'll say
14
this.
15
that count is simply to resolve the litigation in one big
16
package.
17
dispute resolution processes that we're going through,
18
then there is no longer any Section 7 to debate.
19
litigation will be over.
The easiest and best way to facilitate the end of
Obviously, if we resolve the issues through the
20
MR. COLLER:
21
MR. HOGAN:
The
It will become moot.

Well, if you're telling me that the
22
County's going to voluntarily dismiss their Writ, Petition
23
for Writ, then there is no issue and we can go forward.
24
If you're telling me that the County's not going to take
25
that action until, you know, some future date at the end
13
of these discussions, then I'm going to have a hard time
getting any kind of movement from my client to confirm,
you know, what we're doing here.
we spend a lot of effort in these meetings only to still
remain at a stalemate.
confident, that if I don't go back with some concession,
some success on Section 7, then I'm not going to get much
support from my counsel and from my client to support us
continuing these, the resolution process, and instead
And my concern is that
So my feeling is, and I'm fairly
10
return to the litigation process, which, you know, nobody
11
really wants.
12
MR. COLLER:
We're kind of stuck with the same
13
problem.
14
board about dismissing the suit until there is an
15
agreement on the issues that can lead to a settlement of
16
that litigation.
17
I don't see how we can get any traction from our
MR. HOGAN:
I've heard -- and this is all hearsay,
18
Garth.
19
me -- because, again, the City is the County.
20
county commissioners have said that:
21
dismissed -- the petition was dismissed while -- that's
22
what I've been told.
23
MR. COLLER:
24
MR. HOGAN:
25
But the information, the messages that get back to

Various
One, the lawsuit was
I've heard nothing like that.

That's what I've been told.
need to look at me like -CAROLYN F. ENGEL & ASSOCIATES
You don't
14
MR. COLLER:
MR. HOGAN:
MR. COLLER:
MR. HOGAN:
And then specifically the Section 7 has
been dismissed.
And so when those things are said, then
my client, of course, gets excited, and then I get a lot
of phone calls, and they become more hopeful that the
dialogue can continue.
It comes as a shock to staff.

Well, that's what I've been told.
Okay.
But they are highly offended by Section 7.
And in
10
light of the fact that they feel they've made a lot of
11
effort in that regard, they don't want -- I don't want the
12
litigation to go on, because it can only get uglier if I
13
take direction from my client, which is -- you know,
14
there's only so much you can do as an attorney to
15
control --
16
MR. COLLER:
17
MR. HOGAN:
18
MR. COLLER:
19
MR. HOGAN:
Understood.
-- the tenor of responses.
I understand.
And so we've done that.
But as you can
20
see from the volume that you've heard thus far, through
21
the resolution, that was after a lot of tamping down.
22
I don't want to go back to the litigation, because
23
affirmative defenses, counterclaims, whatever there may
24
be, would be just as rancorous as your Section 7.
25
MR. COLLER:
Understood.
So
15
MR. HOGAN:
You know, the vast majority of the
African American community is in the county, not the city,
so all of the historical problems that are part of history
that, you know, there's nothing we can do about are there,
and to relive it all seems useless to me.
MR. COLLER:
Well, I don't think there was ever any
intent from Section 7 to have anything to do with those
issues.
circles.
It was merely as part of, again, the growing

That, like every other section of the growing
10
circle, needs to be included, and compactness and
11
contiguity and all of those things.
12
recognizes a geographic fact, that it hasn't been dealt
13
with, and will have to be dealt with if we're going to
14
achieve that ideal contiguity and compactness that good
15
planning requires.
16
MR. HOGAN:
And I think Section 7
The question though is, could we not have
17
addressed those geographic areas without going into
18
restating 1925 ordinances and 1948 ordinances and opening
19
old wounds?
And I'll tell you that the City would like to
20
annex those.
We have recently annexed one parcel from the
21
south side of Martin Luther King, a voluntary annexation,
22
and if we get more requests for voluntary annexation, we
23
will annex it.
24
25
We would like to take those parcels of Mitchell

Heights, I think it's called -- and I grew in that
16
enclave, if that's what it is.
I'm very familiar with it.
Even as a child, I wondered why, you know, we weren't in
the City.
sense, and it still doesn't.
should be in the City.
disagrees with that.
8
9
10
11
12
13
That's where I grew up, so
It should be part of the City.
It's half a mile away.
It just didn't make any
So both of those areas
I don't think anybody in the City
There's some concern about inheriting some drainage

problems that Jon and I discussed, which I think probably
are on their way to being resolved.
MR. COLLER:
Some have been resolved, and probably
some are close to being resolved.

MR. HOGAN:
Right.
Right.
And there's some concern
14
about inheriting some potential pollution issues that were
15
caused by the old DPW James Griffin Barn there on Martin
16
Luther King.
17
18
But Jon and I also --
MR. COLLER:
Haven't those all been accomplished,
mitigation through a RAP process, Jon?
19
MR. JOUBEN:
Yes.
20
MR. COLLER:
The last I remember it was.
21
MR. HOGAN:
That's what we were discussing.
So, you
22
know, if I can go back to my counsel with that kind of
23
information, we would have no hesitancy in bringing those
24
areas into the City.
25
MR. COLLER:
They need to come into the City.
See, that's, I guess, part of the
17
disconnect between this building and that building, is
that maybe there are facts not in evidence on your side,
and we look at them, and having known these facts -- the
RAP was done what, three, four years ago?
recent process.
MR. JOUBEN:
Yeah.
MR. COLLER:
It's been a long time.
It's not a
So we assumed
that all of that knowledge that we had filtered into
Brooksville was done by George Foster, who is a local boy.
10
I would assume he keeps you every bit as informed as Cliff
11
does.
12
were facts well known to Brooksville.
13
So maybe there's assumptions on our part that these
MR. JOUBEN:
Just for the edification of the people
14
in the audience, Remedial Action Plan is the RAP, how you
15
clean up ground pollution, the plan to do so.
16
Just for clarification, what Mr. Hogan and Ms. Rey
17
and I had discussed was that there was some off-site
18
contamination.
19
property on, I believe, if I get my geography right, the
20
north side, Avenue A, which is where it was located, so
21
that it can become part of our remedial action plan.
22
we have since remediated it, and that has been approved by
23
FDEP, and all the challenges to it that we discussed have
24
been resolved in our favor.
25
MR. HOGAN:
We resolved that by actually buying the
And
I was aware -- and not from talking to
18
George Foster.
friendship with George Foster or Cliff Manuel, or anybody
else and, you know, interrogate them for --
I wouldn't want to take advantage of my
MR. COLLER:
Oh, no.
I mean, these are all public
records, so a simple phone call, can we get a copy of the
RAP?
Not a problem.
MR. HOGAN:
MR. COLLER:
9
10
That's just not my daily life.

And you see, my daily life is all of
that stuff, so there's a disconnect again.

MR. HOGAN:
That is not my daily life, but I was
11
aware of the fact that the County had taken some action
12
there.
13
gotten the approval.
14
MR. COLLER:
15
16
I was not aware that it was finalized or they had
And approved by the board as well as
State, yeah.
MR. HOGAN:
So that information was new to me, but I
17
don't know how much my client knew or doesn't know.
18
what I'm telling you is that Section 7, if it was intended
19
to get my client's attention or -- I don't know what the
20
intent was.
21
very divisive.
22
hey, City, you need to take, you know, these areas because
23
this makes sense geometrically, we're more than willing to
24
take this; we want those areas.
25
about, will you, can we force you to take this, or why
But
But what the reality of it is, is that it's

And if it was the County's intent to say,
So there's not a debate
19
won't you take this.
MR. COLLER:
regards to Section 7.
apparently my clients have been discussing this with the
City.
MR. HOGAN:
MR. COLLER:
We want to take it.
Let me give you one assurance with

You made a statement that
And with the public.

Or with the public or whatever.
I can
tell you, I, at no time, have advised my clients that
Section 7 had been dismissed in any way, shape or form.
10
never have implied that.
11
whether or not he has any different thing, because he
12
obviously talks to the commissioners, too.
13
14
15
16
17
MR. HOGAN:
I'll leave it up to Jon as to
If you recall, I prefaced my statement
with this, at least hearsay, if not double, triple.

MR. COLLER:
So I don't know where that has come from
or why.
MR. JOUBEN:
As a brief aside that might hopefully
18
shortcut some of this, I did not know if the City was
19
aware of the recent statutory change.
20
of this.
21
the statute, the 2015 version of 171.046, the Annexation
22
of Enclaves.
That may solve some
I'm passing out -- this is the old version of
23
MR. HOGAN:
24
MR. JOUBEN:
25
MR. HOGAN:
This is the old version?

This is the old version.
That you're passing out now?
20
1
2
MR. JOUBEN:
Yes.
We'll be passing out the amended
version that went into effect, I think, June 1st.
And then I will pass out -- what I'm passing out is a
copy of Chapter 2016-148, and direct everyone to the third
page.
I copied them front and back.
MR. HOGAN:
MR. JOUBEN:
This is what I'm familiar with.
the amended one, 171.046.
MR. HOGAN:
10
MR. JOUBEN:
11
MR. HOGAN:
12
MR. JOUBEN:
13
If you go to Page 3 in that, you'll see

It's Objection 2.
Say that again.

171.046.
It's at the bottom of Page 3.
Got it.
To allow the agreement by annexation,
they've made it 100 acres larger.
14
MR. HOGAN:
15
MR. JOUBEN:
I see.
Okay.
Which may make some of this resolution
16
of the issues that we were just discussing significantly
17
easier.
18
MR. HOGAN:
Yes.
Under Subsection A, how does that
19
work?
20
the County were to agree on a annexation of 100-acre
21
parcel by interlocal agreement, what would happen next?
22
If there's an interlocal agreement, the City and
MR. JOUBEN:
It would have to be jointly approved by
23
both entities.
24
be.
25
challenge of a resident, I think it was either in Marion
Obviously, any interlocal agreement would
And then there was actually a case on this, a
21
or St. Johns Counties, where it was just annexed.
resident challenged it, and did not prevail, because the
statute -- you know, the municipal annexation is a
province of the legislature that they've delegated to the
parties.
to agree to 110-acre annexation of enclaves, that was the
end of the case as far as the Court was concerned.
8
9
The
Since the legislature has delegated the ability
MR. HOGAN:
It says "or."
So if the City and the
County reach an interlocal agreement, and the interlocal
10
agreement says that this particular 100 acres is now going
11
to be part of the City, and that's that.
12
MR. JOUBEN:
13
MR. HOGAN:
14
That's all she wrote.

That's all she wrote.
And the residents
there have no standing to --
15
MR. JOUBEN:
Correct.
16
MR. COLLER:
Can be done by agreement.
That's what the Court ruled.

And so,
17
again, you know, I think a lot of the batteries to getting
18
the good planning done, the vision, if you will, of
19
compactness and contiguity and sort of the target model is
20
more achievable now than it's ever been.
21
MR. HOGAN:
Yeah.
This is irrelevant, too, but I am
22
going to try get up to speed on this.
23
me that, at one time, legislature had to move city lines,
24
so this makes it -- I was not aware of this, so thank you.
25
MR. JOUBEN:
No problem.
It's interesting to
22
MR. COLLER:
There's been a lot of, I think, animus
created by the annexation statutes over the years, and I
think this is their way of saying we can relieve some of
that, if you guys get together and figure it out, it's
doable.
MR. HOGAN:
Well, as long as we can get either back
to a point or to a point that the -- I know that the City
feels that the County does recognize the City as part of
the County, and that we are working together to fill in a
10
logical geometrical shape.
I don't think it's going to
11
happen neatly in circles.
And the County does recognize
12
that the City does need to grow.
13
City to grow.
14
either back to a point I was hoping we were in 2007, when
15
you and I had a nice visit --
16
It's logical for the
And we can work together, and we can get
MR. COLLER:
And I thought we were heading in that
17
direction.
18
about from annexation perspective is the City growing
19
essentially like the map of Italy; you know, a long skinny
20
boot down 41.
21
it's bad for the City.
22
So when I see more and more of that, you know, it
23
immediately sets, you know, the hair on the back of my
24
neck up.
25
make sure we say, whoa, think about it, you need to plan
I can tell you the one thing that I worry
I think that's terrible planning.
I think
I think it's bad for the County.
It's like, why are they doing this.
We need to
23
the whole thing.
that's needed in a whole bunch of areas before we go down
to the next set.
That's why we're doing what we're doing.
animus to the City of Brooksville other than the fact that
it just -- as we had in our discussion in 2007, it's bad
planning.
inefficiencies in both our governments.
the rancor of people stepping on each other's toes, all
And you still got remedial actions
And that's my advice to my clients.

There's no
And I think bad planning leads to

It ends up with
10
the rest of that stuff.
11
smart growth, if you want, issue of where the utility's
12
going to go, where the next boundary's going to go, and
13
people can plan for that, I think it relieves a lot of the
14
stress.
15
MR. HOGAN:
However, if we've got a mutually
I've got two responses to that.
And just
16
don't lose track of the fact that I don't want to leave
17
here today without some concession on Section 7.
18
that to go back so I can get some relief, so I can get
19
some permission to go forward from my client.
20
I need
But because I wanted to personally, at least, express
21
my view on it, on what you just said, we only have one
22
annexation ordinance that extends the City on down 41.
23
The rest of them are back, you know --
24
25
MR. COLLER:
The one down 41 is the one that
personally stood out to me as, whoa, what's this all

24
1
2
about.
It got my attention more than any other.
MR. HOGAN:
So if the other annexations are not
really a problem, and we need to just focus on that one
Christian church annexation --
5
6
MR. COLLER:
that's the only problem.
MR. HOGAN:
MR. COLLER:
Well, I'm not prepared to agree that

To me, it's the prime problem.
Okay, it's the prime problem.

And I think, Jon, pursuant to your
brief, the Section 7 issue was way down the list.
It
10
wasn't our prime issue.
11
to fix the annexation issue, here are other problems.
12
that was, what, Number 7 on the list?
It was just, while we're trying

And
13
MR. JOUBEN:
I was going to say it was the seventh.
14
MR. COLLER:
Of how many, seven?
15
MR. HOGAN:
It was the last one.
16
MR. JOUBEN:
It was in the amended.
17
MR. COLLER:
So it was the amended petition.
18
MR. HOGAN:
Well, I don't think that's an issue.
19
Those areas, those geographic areas, the City would like
20
to have them.
21
would seem that we may be able to accomplish that by
22
interlocal agreement.
23
MR. COLLER:
24
25
And looking at this new amended 171.046, it
Is that --
We think there are real possibilities,
which is why we -MR. HOGAN:
Is that what you think?
25
MR. JOUBEN:
For the record, I mean, that's why I
handed it out.
to deal with the animus of the -- and excuse me if I'm
criticizing your drafting, but the verbosity and the --
Anyway, let me not criticize your drafting, because you
draft good legal documents.
it, you made it very pointed and very clear, and so now
the focus is totally on that.
that.
Yeah.
Okay.
So I think, if I didn't have
But because you're good at
I need to get away from
And I can take this back and say, that's gone,
10
let's get over that, let's put a Band-Aid on that, but
11
let's work on an interlocal agreement for those parcels.
12
And we can get back to the discussion of what your real
13
concern is.
14
And the reason that the City is down 41 as far as
15
they are is because of Southern Hills.
16
pre Jennene.
17
that time.
18
economic crash that occurred in '05, '06, or whatever year
19
is your opinion of when it was, '08, whenever, you know,
20
we would be having a Cascades 2 and 3, and we would be
21
looking at development all the way to Powell Road.
22
Whether that occurs, you know, in the next few years, or
23
during my tenure -- I hope I'm not around that long.
That was pre me,
So I don't know what happened during all
But the utilities are there.
24
MR. COLLER:
25
MR. HOGAN:
So, but for the
I concur.
But eventually it will.
It's all platted
26
and so forth.
continuity.
City's there first.
you look at it from that perspective.
off -- you know, when you back off, you go up to 10,000
feet, then that's --
MR. COLLER:
MR. HOGAN:
going out that way.
So that's why -- you know, it's the
It's the access to the water, sewer.
The
So that's why that makes sense when

When you back
Then it makes no sense.

-- then that's when you have the Legos
But if we can use this to fill in
10
some of the areas that are left behind, eliminate the
11
issues that were raised, you know, that are divisive, you
12
know, then maybe we can move forward and focus on what
13
your real concerns are, and the City can start thinking
14
about how they're going to provide --
15
MR. COLLER:
Part of the issue, I guess, Tom, for me
16
at least, is that I thought we had had this discussion in
17
2007.
18
MR. HOGAN:
19
MR. COLLER:
Well, you and I did.

Yeah, exactly.
But I thought Scott had
20
also done that.
21
that dialogue was well in hand, that this is what we were
22
looking to see, and there was an agreement that we would
23
challenge those that didn't meet the statutory mandate,
24
and then we'd find ourselves back in the exact same
25
position we were prior to the last litigation.
The last litigation we had, I thought
27
MR. HOGAN:
MR. COLLER:
Prior to which one?

The last litigation.
The last challenge
to the annexation.
MR. JOUBEN:
I think that was D'Marie & Bell.
MR. COLLER:
Yeah.
So we thought that the City had
gotten it, and it was, like, yeah, we're going to move to
do the more realistic planning, we're going to be looking
at the utility stuff.
another one comes that seems to exacerbate the already bad
And then sort of out of left field,
10
problem of the Italian boot going down 41.
11
of a shock to me that, you know, we haven't learned
12
anything.
13
the issues.
14
So it was kind
So, hopefully, this is the time we can solve
MR. HOGAN:
Well, you know, I was hoping, looking at
15
it from the opposite end of the pipe, that we had
16
developed a communication link that would allow at least
17
you and I --
18
MR. COLLER:
19
MR. HOGAN:
20
MR. COLLER:
21
22
23
24
25
Yeah.
-- or you and I and Jon -And I think, historically, we've never
had difficulty communicating.

MR. HOGAN:
That's true.
But I never heard from
anybody until there was a Writ and then -MR. COLLER:
That was time wise.
We just were
running out of time, and things are being handled without

28
it coming to a lawyer, nobody had seen it, nobody knew it
had happened and, all of a sudden, wow, we're in the same
problem.
MR. HOGAN:
MR. COLLER:
6
7
That's on your side.

We're not blaming you.
I'm just letting
you know what happened.

MR. HOGAN:
In fact, we got a letter, you know, we
sent it over per statute, per procedure, and we got a note
back.
It says, no comment, which we can only interpret it
10
as acquiescence.
11
MR. COLLER:
12
MR. HOGAN:
And we've dealt with that internally.

Yeah.
And also, as part of that picture,
13
Garth, is that after you and I met then, not immediately
14
thereafter, but soon thereafter, we began, on our side,
15
drafting a new JPA, which we thought was, up until very
16
recently, an important agreement.
17
Mr. McAteer who worked for us at that time, and your staff
18
and the City staff, they worked together and got that over
19
to you.
20
and you guys had a lot of trouble, we all did.
And then, you know, the economic downturn came,
21
MR. COLLER:
22
MR. HOGAN:
23
MR. COLLER:
24
MR. HOGAN:
25
And Ms. Rey, and
Yes.
And the draft became -Languished.
Languished.
Unimportant, languished.
And so we waited, and we sent it over in 2010.

And I
29
think we got it back in '14, or something like that.
Don't hold me to these dates, but it was -- there were
more red lined than not.
first wave of frustration:
time to get it back, even though there were a lot of phone
calls and prods and hey, where is it.
Mr. Sossamon.
8
9
And so that's when there was a

One, because it took a long
Before your time,
And so that led to some frustration.
And then we had
the meeting with Mr. Manuel, and we felt that, okay, we're
10
back on track, and Cliff Manuel felt optimistic that he
11
and Mr. Malmberg could work through the summer and have a
12
JPA by the end -- within six months that could be
13
presented to the two boards.
14
Are we on schedule?
15
MR. COLLER:
16
MR. HOGAN:
17
MS. REY:
18
MR. HOGAN:
I'm getting a text.

But that was on a Thursday or Friday.
Thursday.
Thursday.
On Friday and the following
19
Tuesday, on your agenda was the resolution to send this
20
pursuant to, I think, 171 to this resolution process, and
21
included, you know, a massive number of issues.
22
client felt like, well, why didn't somebody say that, why
23
did we spend all day Friday working on this.
24
a lot of time before Friday preparing for it.
25
And my
And we spent
And then recently, in a discussion that I had with

30
Mr. Jouben, you know, he said that the County's position
now was that a JPA was not necessary, which would have
been nice to know before we spent a lot of time on it,
which is money.
billed a lot of time for this JPA account, and our client
hasn't said anything about it yet, but budget time is
coming up, and I always hate those few weeks, and want to
stay below the radar.
to that effort, thinking that that's what you all wanted.
You know, we're outside counsel, so we've
But we have billed some time today,
10
So, if we're changing direction, and going with a
11
utility service agreement, I believe 171, Part 2, it's
12
okay with me, but, you know, I'd like to get some
13
clarification on that.
14
statute, 171.046, that Mr. Jouben says went into effect
15
earlier this month, great, you know, let's gets together
16
and let's fill in some of those enclaves.
17
MR. COLLER:
18
you were not aware of.
19
MR. HOGAN:
And if we're going to use this new
I think it gives us options that maybe
I was not.
And I think it could
20
alleviate some potential enclaves.
21
current annexation creates any enclaves, but it's
22
irrelevant.
23
7 of the petition's irrelevant, because we want those
24
areas.
25
We want those areas.
I don't agree that our
And that's why Section
And I need some --
MR. COLLER:
Well, obviously I can't give you that at
31
this meeting.
clients, and I will do that.
your position with regards to Section 7.
why it's sticking in the craw.
I will be happy to discuss it with my
MR. HOGAN:
MR. COLLER:
7
8
Okay.
We understand
That's what I want.
I want you --
We will see if any possible avenues
present themselves to at least remediate those issues.

MR. HOGAN:
Okay.
understand my problem.
10
MR. COLLER:
11
MR. HOGAN:
12
And I think we understand
That's what I want.
I want you to
I want you to --
Well, I clearly do understand.

And I want you to tell me that you're
going to try to help me.
13
MR. COLLER:
Any other issues on your agenda?
14
MR. JOUBEN:
I mean, my personal agenda?
15
MR. COLLER:
Ours.
Not you personal agenda.
You're
16
more familiar with the litigation in terms of its detail.
17
Are there any other subsections you want to address that
18
are not covered in the general discussion?
19
MR. JOUBEN:
No.
I think that this was very
20
productive.
21
hearing on Thursday, but that's, I think, to our benefit,
22
not to our detriment.
23
We sort of strayed far afield from the
I mean, obviously -- you know, I mean the -- where I
24
was going with this, I'm not sure.
25
of thought, for those who will eventually read this
I just lost my train
32
1
2
transcript -You know, obviously, there's a lot of details in
those discussions.
joint planning agreement at the end of the -- for reasons
that I'm not sure, Mr. Pianta was not a part of those
discussions.
I didn't mean he was the entire planning department.
You know, so if we're going to move forward, we
should move forward, you know, with -- I don't know if you
While the parties had discussed a
He was our planning person, department head.
10
want to continue these types of meetings, which we're
11
allowed to do under the statute, or go to a mediation
12
format, which we are allowed to do, or go through this
13
sort of meeting again, but with a facilitator.
14
that is fine, just as long as everybody that has to chime
15
in and discuss these issues is present.
16
MR. HOGAN:
All of
Well, I'd have to think about it.
17
don't know what preference I would have.
18
preference is that you guys would dismiss, meaning the
19
County, the petition, and we can get down to discussing
20
interlocal agreement, start filling in some of these
21
enclaves, and then we could -- if we could have a fair
22
debate over US 41 and come to some resolution of that
23
without litigation.
24
there, we have the service there, you don't, so we're
25
ready.
My personal
You know, our position is, we're
The church wants the services.

We can provide
33
them.
But I think that's a debate for another day.
I think right now I'm more excited about the fact
that we have this ability to, by interlocal agreement,
start filling in some of these potential enclaves, and
start moving towards a geometrical shape that makes some
sort of rational sense for first responders and future
utility --
8
9
10
MR. COLLER:
It's not just the utilities, obviously.
That's maybe what's driving the logic of the map, but

obviously it affects all services once you do that.
11
MR. HOGAN:
12
MR. COLLER:
Sure.
Absolutely.
And I think, as you understand, that all
13
planning of government services is an expensive
14
proposition, that's where taxes go.
15
MR. HOGAN:
16
MR. COLLER:
17
18
Right.
So I think the County's every bit as
concerned as you are about getting it right.

MR. HOGAN:
Personally, I don't like it when -- this
19
is no comment on the current litigation or the current
20
judge that we have in the litigation -- but I don't like
21
it when the judicial branch gets involved in deciding on
22
how the legislative branch will work together or how an
23
annexation process will work.
24
that should be decided between the legislative bodies, and
25
I don't think that courts are always informed enough.
I think that's something
34
They have to cover such a wide variety of issues, I don't
think that they really get excited about delving into --
MR. COLLER:
I'm sure it's not pleasant for them,
either, to want to get involved, but unfortunately, that's
a statutory scheme we're being dealt.
MR. HOGAN:
MR. COLLER:
Oh, I understand.
And the problem is, I guess, is that
from a historical perspective, I don't think the County
and City have done a great job agreeing to agree in the
10
past.
11
MR. HOGAN:
12
MR. COLLER:
I don't want to be handcuffed to that.

Well, I don't think we are.
I think
13
that's what this meeting was about.
14
trying to say we think there are avenues for mutual
15
resolution, which is what you want, that might be able to
16
get us out of the legal litigation side of it and the
17
judges deciding, but, obviously, if we can't, that's the
18
mechanism, statutorily, we have to take and we will take.
19
20
21
22
23
MR. HOGAN:
I understand that.
So, you know, we're
I'm a litigator from
way back.
MR. COLLER:
It's never my choice to go litigation,
never, but sometimes you have to.

MR. HOGAN:
I come from the litigation world, but I
24
always tell my clients, since I've been 27 years in
25
private practice, that litigation takes on a life of its

35
own.
control.
3
4
5
Once we go that route, then we're not really in
MR. COLLER:
And it's always antagonistic.
The
definition is it's two parties saying we can not agree.

MR. HOGAN:
It's antagonistic.
And depending on what
attorney's on the other side, it could go down into
tangents that could cost you, the client, lots of money.
8
9
10
MR. COLLER:
And as I'm sure you'll agree, most
clients come away not feeling happy on both sides.
That's
generally how it works.
11
MR. HOGAN:
12
MR. COLLER:
Yes.
So, that being said, you know, the next
13
position, I guess, would be for us to talk to our various
14
clients, see what, if anything, we can offer with regards
15
to Section 7.
16
should be discussing ways to deal holistically with the
17
planning process in the future given that there are cards
18
in the deck we didn't have before.
19
that's probably all we can achieve today.
20
But at the very least, I think our staff
MR. HOGAN:
Okay.
I think at that point,
Well, please -- I want to make
21
sure that I'm conveying the right message.
22
reiterate.
23
harmonious working relationship with the County.
24
not sure how it got off track.
25
pretty good working relationship at one time a few years
Let me just
It's my belief that my client wants to have a

We're
We thought that we had a
36
ago.
MR. COLLER:
MR. HOGAN:
We did.
Okay.
So we kind of agree on that.
We're not sure what happened to get us off track.
have a -- in my opinion, we have a good city counsel right
now.
past counsels, please, at all, but probably some of the
smartest people that we've had in awhile.
attorney, we have a CPA, and business folks, and so we
10
have some good opportunities for the next few years to
11
make some intelligent progress.
12
know, they're also protective, they also take pride in
13
their past efforts, and I need you to give me some help to
14
get over this Section 7.
15
very best to move us forward so that the litigation
16
becomes irrelevant --
17
MR. COLLER:
18
MR. HOGAN:
19
20
21
22
23
But we
Probably some of the -- and this is no reflection on
We have an
But they also -- you
If you do, then I will do my
Uh-huh.
-- and we can start filling in those
potential enclaves with this tool.

MR. COLLER:
And I hope we can get back to where we
once were.
MR. HOGAN:
Right.
We can resolve issues with phone
calls and --
24
MR. COLLER:
Yeah.
25
MR. JOUBEN:
With that being said, before we wrap up,
37
I have to address 164.1053.
to do now with Subsection 2, 3, or 4.
We have a choice about what
MR. HOGAN:
MR. JOUBEN:
Yes, I did.
MR. COLLER:
That was the first document I believe he
6
7
gave you.
Did you give us that?
I didn't keep one. I've got it on my computer.
MR. HOGAN:
I think that -- and I've read this over,
even last night.
with these two statutes I've been carrying around for the
I had my little black three-ring binder
10
last week.
11
yesterday, with my wife in the other room yelling and
12
screaming at the T.V. about something exciting -- but some
13
legal issue was mishandled.
And instead of watching the golf tournament
14
MR. COLLER:
15
MR. HOGAN:
16
I think we're at Paragraph 2.
In the golf game, yes.

But I was reading 164, so darn you guys.
I think we should
17
schedule an informal meeting.
18
should each go back to our clients -- hopefully you're
19
going to give me some movement or relief on Section 7 --
20
and I'm going to reconfirm with them that I'm --
21
especially given this new tool, that we will start to fill
22
in some of those areas, blocks that make things look
23
serpentine, or whatever the legal term has come to be.
24
25
Like Garth said, I think we
And we have some research to do on our side, as well.

We're not really sure -- we've never been real sure of
38
what our eastern boundary is, because it was dictated in
1957 by the legislature.
-- I can't remember if it was Jackson, or whoever it was
that said -- was it Madison?
said -- they were arguing over where the Treasury
Department was going to be, and he got tired of it and
just said put it there.
ruins the whole view from the mall to the capital.
You know, it sort of looks like
Anyway, some president
Of course, it blocks the view,
So we have some other work to do there, too.
But I
10
think we can continue in a informal format.
11
will.
12
like to get back to the point that -- and maybe the three
13
of us and Ms. Rey or Mr. Taylor, whoever, maybe we should
14
have a monthly coffee or something.
I think it would be a lot more productive.
15
MR. COLLER:
I'm amenable.
16
MR. JOUBEN:
All right.
17
I think we
I would
So we are going to proceed
under Sub Part 2, which is the continuing of meetings?
18
MR. HOGAN:
19
MR. JOUBEN:
Yes.
We have to confirm, from both of our
20
clients, in Shade, I would assume, and then reconvene.
21
When is the next city counsel meeting?
22
23
24
25
MS. NORMAN-VACHA:
We have a meeting tonight, and our
next meeting is July the 18th.

MR. HOGAN:
We can call a special Shade executive
session.
39
MR. JOUBEN:
MR. SOSSAMON:
MR. JOUBEN:
Yeah.
Our next meeting is the 28th.
So our side doesn't need to schedule a
special meeting, because we can sufficiently advertise the
executive session, otherwise known as a Shade meeting.
MR. HOGAN:
MS. NORMAN-VACHA:
That sounds shady.

Don't you have to announce it at
your next meeting first?
28th.
10
11
12
You would have to have it in your following
meeting.
MR. JOUBEN:
That's true.
When is our next meeting
after that?
13
MR. SOSSAMON:
14
MR. JOUBEN:
15
MS. NORMAN-VACHA:
16
MR. SOSSAMON:
17
MR. JOUBEN:
18
So you couldn't have it on the
It's like a Tuesday in July.
Okay.
So we're July 2nd.

July 12th.
July 12th.
Then do we have a day that we can
reconvene?
19
MR. COLLER:
20
MR. HOGAN:
21
MS. REY:
22
MR. JOUBEN:
We've got one on 6/28 and 7/20.

Okay.
Forty-five days from --
I think an order came out Friday.

If we're discussing the return date for
23
the amended petition, I promised Mr. Taylor at the
24
hearing -- I've never, except for once, and that was when
25
I was co-counsel with you, I don't know if you remember -CAROLYN F. ENGEL & ASSOCIATES
40
denied a request for an extension of time in an appellate
proceeding.
MR. HOGAN:
MR. JOUBEN:
That was when --
MR. COLLER:
A boy that likes continuances, who shall
remain nameless.
7
8
9
10
MS. REY:
Who are "we?"
In the hearing, he didn't even have to name
who he was.
MR. HOGAN:
It's the same person I was referring to
about tangents being expensive.
11
MR. COLLER:
12
MS. REY:
Yes.
My concern is that there's a response due
13
to the Court in 45 days, to allow the informal process,
14
because the abatement's now.
15
resolution, so it was sort of a mixed direction on Friday.
16
MR. JOUBEN:
17
MR. HOGAN:
18
But we're now in conflict
Yes, it was.
How about the 15th?
It's a Friday.
know Garth doesn't like that.
19
MR. COLLER:
20
MR. HOGAN:
21
MR. COLLER:
22
MR. HOGAN:
23
MR. COLLER:
24
MR. HOGAN:
25
MR. COLLER:
I'm always here on Fridays.

Oh, you are?
Yes.
I thought you were off on Fridays.
I wish.
Let me negotiate here.
Now what day was that?
41
MR. HOGAN:
MS. REY:
MR. COLLER:
4
5
Fifteenth.
Friday, July 15th.

Looks good for me.
What's it look like
on Friday?
MR. SOSSAMON:
I could probably make it work.
19th might be better for me, though, the following
Tuesday.
MR. COLLER:
MR. HOGAN:
10
11
Is that too long down the road?

The 19th?
MR. SOSSAMON:
superstitious.
Either that or the 13th.
MR. COLLER:
13
MR. HOGAN:
14
MR. COLLER:
I can do the 13th.
15
MR. PIANTA:
The 19th, I've got --
16
MR. SOSSAMON:
17
MR. PIANTA:
18
MR. SOSSAMON:
19
MR. COLLER:
20
MS. REY:
21
MR. GEIGER:
23
24
25
I'm not
It's not a Friday.
12
22
The
The 19th is okay, too.

The 13th is fine with us, as well.
Which one is better for you, Ron?
Thirteenth.
Thirteenth at 9:00 a.m.?
That works.
Will you be here?

I'll be back on the 14th.
I'll be on
the road that day.

MR. HOGAN:
Will you be available by phone if I have
questions?
MR. GEIGER:
I can reschedule the 19th if that's
42
better for you.
MR. HOGAN:
MR. COLLER:
MR. HOGAN:
MR. SOSSAMON:
MR. HOGAN:
I can reschedule that meeting.

I didn't check with the boss.
Now it's going to be your fault.
That's right.
Go back to the 19th.
The 19th?
I think that's going to be good for me,
because I usually don't schedule anything for Tuesdays
because I have therapy on Tuesdays.

MR. JOUBEN:
So can we reach a consensus to reconvene
10
this on June 19th at 9:00 a.m. in this room?
11
parties can coordinate all the continued ads or
12
advertisements.
13
MR. HOGAN:
Yeah.
And the
And then we will also, in the
14
meantime, have met with our clients, and we'll have some,
15
hopefully, discussion lawyer to lawyer as to where we are.
16
Members of the Public, is this meeting convenient for
17
18
19
you?
MR. JOUBEN:
All right.
the record, unless anyone objects.
20
MR. SOSSAMON:
21
MR. COLLER:
22
23
24
25
Then I think we can go off
Did we decide on a location?
This room, 9:00 a.m., on the 19th of
July.
MR. JOUBEN:
All right.
I think we can go off the
record.
(Whereupon, the meeting concluded at 10:22

43
a.m.)
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
C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3
4
I, BROOKE STUART DAY, Court Reporter, do hearby
certify that I was authorized to and did report the
foregoing proceedings, and that the transcript is a
true and correct record of my stenographic notes.
8
9
Dated this 6th day of July, 2016, at
Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida.
10
11
12
13
___________________________________
BROOKE STUART DAY, COURT REPORTER
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Transcript 6-18-16 Conflict Assessment Meeting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transcript 6-18-16 Conflict Assessment Meeting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR HERNANDO COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: H-27-CA-2016-15

TRANSCRIPT OF CONFLICT ASSESSMENT MEETING

GARTH C. COLLER, ESQ.

THOMAS S. HOGAN, JR., ESQ.

Leonard Sossamon, County Administrator.

T. Jennene Norman-Vacha, City Manager.

Lisa Morgan, Legal Assistant to City Attorney.

Bill Geiger, Community Development Director.

Ricky Leach, Hernando County Utilities.

Paul L. Wieczorek, Department of Planning and Zoning.

Ronald F. Pianta - Department of Planning and Zoning.

Right at the beginning, we're going to

do a roll call for the benefit of the court reporter, so

she knows who is speaking, at her request.

Leonard Sossamon, County

Administrator, Hernando County.

Jon Jouben, Deputy County Attorney.

Garth Coller, County Attorney.

Richard Leach, Utilities Director.

Jennene Norman-Vacha, City Manager

Bill Geiger, City of Brooksville

Paul Wieczorek, Planning Department.

Tom Hogan, City Attorney.

Jennifer Rey, attorney with the Hogan Law

Again, this is Jon Jouben.

We are all here for the Conflict Assessment Meeting in

Hernando County versus City of Brooksville.

164.1053 is the conflict assessments phase, which I can

pass out the statute because it's very short.

we're here on (indicating.)

By mutual agreement of the parties, we've limited

this discussion to the issues of compactness and

contiguity with regard to the annexations that are at

the conflicts are, is the way I read the statute.

obviously, I think, since we've challenged five

And so right now, we have to first ascertain what

annexations, we've challenged them on the issues relevant

to this meeting for continuity and compactness.

So does the City have any additional issues?

Not with regard to those.

in compliance with the Court order.

know, if the discussions may take their own course.

never been through one of these before, quite frankly, and

I tried to read -- I've read this.

could find, but it didn't give me a real clear picture of

where we are actually going to end up going.

talked to you on Friday, I got the same sort of feeling,

that you're not sure where we're going, so...

I don't know, you

I've read everything I

Just for the record, the person you're

speaking to is Jon Jouben, which is me.

CAROLYN F. ENGEL & ASSOCIATES

proceed organically, unless anybody -- from our starting

point that we agreed to at the last judicial hearing and

Wherever it takes us, it takes us.

So, with that said, the City's position

is that the annexations all are statutorily compliant, and

so we want to annex the property, as we've done.

the litigation issues.

really is that the whole annexation process, this has been

Obviously, we're not going to belabor