Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/12/1995 J (w/Lee BCC and Charlotte BCC)WORKSHOP MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the Counties of Collier, Charlotte and Lee and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:35 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION at the Lion's Club, 10346 Pennsylvania Avenue, Bonita Springs, Florida, with the following members present: COHMISSIONERS FROH COLLIER COUNTY: John C. Norris, Vice-chairman Timothy J. Constantine Pamela Hac'Kie Tim Hancock COHMISSIONERS FROM CHARLOTTE COUNTY: Max Fartell COHMISSIONERS FROM LEE COUNTY: John Albion Andrew W. Coy Ray Judah Douglas St. Cerney ALSO PRESENT: Donald D. Stilwell, Lee County Manager CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good morning. I'd like to call the Lee, Collier and Charlotte Commissions joint meeting of January the 12th, 1995, to order. I would like to thank the Bonita Chamber of Commerce and the Lions Club for helping us with this event. And we'll start out with pledge of allegiance to the flag. (Attendees invoked the pledge of allegiance in unison.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I would like to thank all the members of the various commissions for their attendance today. I hope we can move forward as we have in the past with a spirit of cooperation between the counties and make some progress as we go along. I think these meetings have been very helpful and have been long overdue. So our first item today is the exploration of the privatization of jails. Whose item is that? MR. STILWELL: That is mine. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Stilwell, would you like to take that? COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt. Once again, I apologize. I know that we would certainly like to hear from the public today. And I didn't want to interfere, but I suspect we'll take their input after we get through with specific items. How did you want to do that, Mr. Chairman? I apologize. That evidently was not included on the agenda here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public input could be taken after each individual item. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So that the public has a chance to comment on each item as we discuss it. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Very good. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And then we will also ask at the end of the meeting if there's any further comment from the public on something that we may not have covered. COHMISSIONER ALBION: Just if I could, I first want to extend the apologies of Commissioner Manning. He's up in Tallahassee today at a Florida Association of Counties meeting. Of course, he's the third vice president of the Board of Association of Counties, so he's trying to do the good work of what all the counties are trying to promote in development in the State of Florida. But he wanted first for me to extend that. Also, I received a request -- and I apologize, Commissioner Norris, for not making you aware of it. Skip Lepola has asked, he's the head of the Bonita Springs Chamber of Commerce, to perhaps be able to offer some opening welcoming remarks. I don't know if you would like to take them at this time. As our sponsors -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. Absolutely. Let's do that now and get it going. MR. LEPOLA: I would just like to take -- thank you, commissioners. And it's certainly exciting to see us come together with some quorums on both sides and get closer with our northern partners. On behalf of the Chamber of Commerce here in Bonita Springs, we welcome you once again and certainly thank you for your attendance in this meeting. And I'm sure it will be as productive and fruitful as it was in the past. So again we would thank you very much for your participation. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Mr. Stilwell. MR. STILWELL: Yes, we thank you. I have to put out a little disclaimer first of all. I'm a little embarrassed. This is the second meeting in a row this has happened. I want you to know that I have no part of this. I am not a county commissioner. Each time I sign -- for two meetings in a row now says I am a county commissioner. I am not a county commissioner -- actually I'm the county manager now. I'm sorry. I served as the county administrator. COMHISSIONER ST. CERNEY: I think it's just wishful thinking. MR. STILWELL: Well, it's kind of embarrassing. I don't know if someone's telling me something or what's happening. I am not a county commissioner. COMMISSIONER ALBION: Don, it's easier to get three votes than the 96,000. MR. STILWELL: I need all the help I can get, thank you. What we want to talk about just very briefly this morning, and I want to keep it on a very much an overview, we are .... we" being Staff in Lee County -- are just starting to look at the idea of perhaps privatizing the jails or contracting out some of the jail service. We have not done much on it other than we're just collecting data. The sheriff is currently having an operational audit of his jail. Once we get that operational audit we'll be in a better position to know what we're really talking about. But we have looked -- and you've got some figures here. We have looked at what's being done throughout the country and what's being done even in Florida. And you can see that throughout the country there are currently 78 jails that are being operated in the private sector. And in Florida there are six jails currently being operated. Hendry County's the county closest to us, and that's on the second page there, and you'll note where I just made a circle around it. Hendry County's budget director estimates that the county is saving $3 million a year through privatization. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Excuse me, Don. I apologize. I see the table you have there, it's Hernando County. And then down below you talk about Hendry County. You're not mixing those up? MR. STILWELL: No. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Two separate issues? MR. STILWELL: No, Hendry County. That's on the second page. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: Right, right. MR. STILWELL: There's also additional potential savings that is in medical care. As we all know jail medical care runs very very high. And we have in Lee County -- and I suspect you'll hear the same thing in Collier County -- we often times hear from people, golly, the prisoners are getting better medical care than what I personally, I the taxpayer, gets. So there is some concern in Lee County about the level of medical care that the prisoners get. And the costs of medical care is very high. And there are companies out there that will provide on a contract basis medical care to jails. So that's another thing we're looking at. And what I'm saying to you this morning, we do not have direction form our board yet. We're not asking for any kind of real direction other than if you all would be interested in this, I would like to get with Mr. Dotrill and his office and see if there's some economies of scale and also the people in Charlotte County too and see if there's some economy scales in maybe siting future jails, maybe combining jails, combining medical care service, maybe looking through a third-party contractor, one, two, or three of the counties doing a contract with the private sector in providing medical services. Look at the whole thing. And I don't -- I can't -- I don't even want to speculate with you that we can save any number of dollars. I don't know. But what we'd like to do is look at it and kind of have the subtle blessing of the two boards on it and go forward there. And I'll try to respond to any questions. I want to keep it on a high level this morning. I don't want to get too specific. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Stilwell, Mr. Chairman, I talked to our manager, Neil Dotrill, in reference to this. I think you had sent a memo down with some information to him, and he and I had gone over that. The costs per day for our jail guests are, I believe, even higher than yours are -- and we traced it -- as you started to look at the costs around the State and what we're paying. So as an individual I encouraged him. And I think as a board we should certainly encourage them to look. And no harm done by looking. And I think we may come up with some alternative means of doing this considerably cheaper. MR. STILWELL: And one of the things, and I hate to say this, I really am not saying anything about any of the sheriffs, and I know this is a very very tickly situation. But it's very easy to talk about jail costs, per-bed costs and all that, but I suspect if we went to all three counties that we're involved in, each of us would have a different way of arriving at what costs are, bed costs are. You know, how far do you take it? How much the overhead? The private sector, they have to factor in all the overhead. Typically, the government doesn't do that. So when the government says gee, I do it for "X", if we really crossed out the two costs, often times the cost is much higher than what we think it is initially. So I think it's very important if we do get involved in this, we look into these costs, make sure we're looking at a common approach to crossing out so that we all know what we're talking about. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Stilwell, first of all thank you for bringing this to the floor. What I would like to ask is, as you proceed with looking at this matter, is if there's the potential for a cost savings if one or two adjacent county facilities, facilities that are within close proximity to each other, if there's a savings of cost regarding administration, shifting of personnel. In other words, if one of these vendors were to handle two counties very close to each other, they could move personnel back and forth. It's common sense in business that if you have four branches located close to each other, you save on some administrative costs and so forth. There may be some cost-saving potential if all the counties that are looking at privatization within close proximity to each other look at the same vendor, potentially it may even drop the price a little bit more. MR. STILWELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I would hope that that's a part of the analysis. And I think it would probably provide some positive results. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Coy. COMMISSIONER COY: Yes. Thank you, sir. Don, as I look back here on the last page, on the states that have most of the private facilities -- MR. STILWELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COY: -- I notice it's California, Florida and Texas. And these are the three states that I think are growing population the quickest or possibly the quickest. Is this because of just pragmatic approach or is it because of philosophy that these three states -- MR. STILWELL: I think the economic realities are such that all governments are having to look at new ways of doing things. I think governments cannot continue to do what they've always done in the past, assuming this is the cost-effective way to do it. I think government are being forced to look at alternatives, and I think that's very healthy. COMMISSIONER COY: So possibly because of the rapid population growth in these three states that we're forced to look at it? MR. STILWELL: I'm sure that is a contributing factor. COMMISSIONER COY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Judah. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Mr. Chairman, Don, certainly I applaud you for looking at any areas where we can improve on cost efficiencies. And I think Commissioner Hancock had a brilliant suggestion with the savings and the satellite jails and the transportation costs. But I wanted to mention, Don, as I recall the board, before we were going to take any further action looking at privatization, was going to wait on the audit of the jail and the Lee County Sheriff's Department. I know I don't want to be part of getting any action today until we have a chance to look at that audit before we look at privatization. MR. STILWELL: That was the audit I was eluding to at the outset. If you recall, initially the audit was supposed to be done by the 15th of December, and I understand it is still coming out soon. And we've contacted the sheriff as recent as this week. Hopefully it will be out. And obviously we need to look at that audit too before we do anything else. But what we're talking about this morning is just general direction that hopefully three county -- if not three county, two county or whatever it happens to be that we kind of do it in conjunction with one another. First of all, it's not very cost-effective for one county just do it, and that county do it, and that county do it. It just makes more sense that we all look at it. We have a common problem, maybe we can come up with a common solution. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: I'm just a little nervous, as you can imagine, when this kind of information gets in the paper and it's misunderstood. The first step is to get that audit and review the audit. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. I have one question myself, Mr. Stilwell. And perhaps it may be better directed to one of our legal staff, or perhaps you've already explored the answer. Is there -- first of all, you know, I'm all for privatization and cooperation when we can. And Commissioner Hancock says that if we can cooperate with a joint agreement that we would be probably better off from a cost-effectiveness basis. But is there any legal constraint or any legal obstacle that we would place in having one county's prison inmates and the jails associated to mingle? Is there any constraint against that that you know of? MR. STILWELL: Mr. Yaeger's here. And I'm being unfair because I don't know that he's looked into this. Do you have -- he's the county attorney from Lee County. MR. YAEGER: Off the top of my head I couldn't, you know, give you a definite answer on that. I know when we looked at a stockade for juveniles we had to look at it on a circuit-wide basis. And so that may be the answer as long as we're dealing within the judicial circuit. But that's a valid question, and we would have to work on that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, just as point of curiosity, just the thought had occurred to me. I'm sorry. Commissioner Mac'Kie, did you have an answer to that question? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Maybe later, but not today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When I was talking about the potential cost savings, talking about the shifting of administrative staff and personnel among, you know, if one company were to cover the three facilities in three counties or a number of facilities, it saves us in the end, but not necessarily talking about the shifting of inmates. MR. STILWELL: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think we want to get into that. It's probably a can of worms that we'd just rather not open. But I was talking about a potential administrative savings. If we all fell under a contract with the same company, it certainly should lessen the administrative end for that contract. MR. STILWELL: And this whole thing is wide open. I think one of the exciting things is there's many ways to approach this. One of the things we're doing currently is we have one jail for all prisoners. You get the person that's shoplifted, they go to jail, they get put next to the person accused of murdering someone. You have different levels of security. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They probably won't shoplift again though. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Albion. COMMISSIONER ALBION: Thank you, Mr. Norris. Just a couple points. One is, you know, I agree with Commissioner Judah. We have to be concerned and go slowly because there also -- we also have to look at the safety factor to make sure our public is going to be protected. And that's a key element. But Don, I thought it might be helpful if you can perhaps explain a little bit what we've been going through. We've gone through a number of privatizations now within county government. And perhaps you can discuss the potential cost savings you think we're going to be having. And what's really exciting about it, and Commissioner Hancock is right, that if you basically increase volume of business you see usually a drop in price. And that's a lot of -- because we increase the competition. That's one of the nice things this exercise can bring. It's also for the benefit of competition, of course, is that even within the public sector they have to go through and find ways, if they're indeed going to compete themselves, to be able to get their price down. And I'm a great believer in the free enterprise system, the competition does lower price. And that's one of the problems the public sector's experienced for most of the life of this country. And that's why costs have spiralled. Our sheriff's department alone from 1988 to present has gone from a budget of 18.6 million to last year's budget was 42.215 million. That's quite a spiral upward. And admittedly it was to get a number of -- well, get the equipment aspect of it up to snuff. But I don't see that budget going down. So we have to find ways to work with our sheriffs' departments to make sure that we can find cost-effective ways to get those costs down, still producing a quality product. So I think if you were to discuss a little bit about where we're going on the privatization excercise and some of the results we're beginning to see, that may be helpful in the discussion. MR. STILWELL: One of the board's goals in the last two years has been privatization, contracting out, exploring it, no commitment. That's what we're gonna do, but let's floor it and see the cost-effective way to do that. And I think the biggest thing that happens with that -- the two things that happen, I think, that are very important to elected officials, first of all, we have credibility to the departments because the departments have to compete against the private sector. Just that alone makes a lot of sense. But each instance in Lee County -- we've done this several times now with different departments. Each time the county department, even where we kept it in-house, even after going through the bidding process, we found out we really can't compete in the county. The county's done it for considerably less than what we were doing it before because the county has had to compete. So it's very healthy. It's a win for everyone, the taxpayers, the board. Everyone comes out a winner even if we do keep it in-house. And if we can't keep it in-house and someone can do it less expensive at the same service level outside, to me that's just good business. If we can't compete, we don't have any business doing the business. So that's kind of what's been happening in Lee County. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're moving the same direction in Collier as well. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one quick comment, that while I certainly support privatization, certainly think we should cooperate in this effort to explore, I want to echo something that I heard from Commissioner Judah, that we move cautiously. I hate to see a great deal of staff time expended and a great deal of tax money spent on this before we've done an adequate evaluation of just how well our sheriff is operating the jails. Not just take a piece of paper and go from there and make presumptions. So I want us to move carefully in cooperation with the sheriff. MR. STILWELL: I think it has to be in cooperation of the sheriff, but I have to take the devil's advocate and give you the other side of it. Any audit the sheriff has -- and our sheriff is not an exception to that -- is he commissions that audit. And whenever I commission anyone to do anything, they typically find what I want them to find. And they come back and tell me every time I'm doing a wonderful job and everything's just fine. COHMISSIONER ST. CERNEY: I think we'll remember that. MR. STILWELL: I don't think you'll ever see me get an audit in my office. I don't think that's a valid audit. I would never do that. And I think that's not good management for a manager to come in and say, I want to go hire someone to see how well I'm doing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it may be that in Collier County we can evaluate whether or not the sheriff should internally audit, order his own audit, but my point for Collier County is merely that I don't want us to make presumptions that privatization -- I don't want to leave here with the idea that this board has said privatization is a good idea for Collier County. And I don't want to see us spending a great deal of time and Staff effort on it until we have looked at it more carefully. MR. STILWELL: And I think that's exactly where our board is coming from too. And, you know, no one's saying -- I don't want anyone to get the feeling I'm saying that we can save vast sums of money. I don't know. What I'm suggesting to these two boards is that we look into it and do it cooperative with the sheriffs. I don't want a fight with anyone. It doesn't make sense. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I hear you saying isn't let's privatize. You're saying let's look at it and see if it makes sense. MR. STILWELL: Exactly. COHMISSIONER ST. CERNEY: We'll know better from our side of the table, Tim, once the operational budget or audit is done by the sheriff's department, which we're waiting for, and we put any discussion on hold until we receive that and get an opportunity to see his efficiencies or inefficiencies and see if there's room for improvement on that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Is there any member of the public that would like to comment on this item? MR. STILWELL: The gentleman from Charlotte County. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, Max. I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER FARRELL: I think everyone's having the same experience with the sheriff's budget. That's not gonna go away. There's several institutions the government are just pricing themselves out of commission with the employees' retirement program if nothing else. The sheriff budgets -- the add-on is something over 50e now, just for fringe benefit. That's add-on. That doesn't include all the absent time that's paid for like nobody else in the private economy would even dream of paying for. So that's an area that has huge opportunities for savings. It won't be easy by any means. There's two aspects of it. One's privatization and one's joint ownership of some of these facilities. That will be very difficult to get to. We practically have boundaries built around our counties. But as we get into more and more specialized facilities, like juvenile facilities, it's hard for one county to justify some of the specialized facilities that you might like to have. On a multi-county basis or judicial district basis you might justify some of those things. The voters in Charlotte County authorized a penny sales tax for four years to build a new courthouse and a jail. And we're fairly far along in the planning of the courthouse where we're about to hire an architect. We aren't that far along with the jail. We've got an RFP out to select the consultant to do preliminary planning, site selection and that type of thing. So we're right at the time where -- I don't know how we're gonna get together on this, but we're facing building a new jail. We know where the money is coming from. We're in the process of selecting a consultant. And, you know, I would -- I wish I could make decisions for our board. I don't know how to do that. But I would invite you -- here's our chairman. I would invite you to somehow communicate with him, keep him informed. And he is the one that is representing the board on the planning committee. And I'd like to take a look at anything that you're proposing to do. Could we do it on some kind of a joint arrangement? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you very much. If there's no public comment, then -- Mr. Judah, you have one more comment? COHMISSIONER JUDAH: If the comment is finished. Well, I was just gonna suggest that this item, perhaps, then be scheduled on our next agenda joint meeting. And at that time we'll certainly have the opportunity to have had a chance to look at the audit. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Will you have the audit by then? COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You will? COHMISSIONER JUDAH: 'Cause we're looking at, what, about -- are we looking at quarterly meetings? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Quarterly meetings. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: We should definitely have the audit then -- by then, yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Very good. If there's no further comment then I think the consensus is that we should probably at least begin the exploratory stages of this and see if it makes sense for any of us or all of us or jointly or how we can best implement it if we decide to do so. And then we'll move along to item two, which is discussion of the West Coast Inland Navigation District. And whose item is that? Who has that item? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would ask if we could have a discussion on this. And if Ray might just kind of share with us what all's going on and whether Collier -- we want to look at whether we may or may not have an interest in participating. But I know you've been very active, so I just wanted to kind of get an explanation of what's going on with the WCIND here. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: As chairman of the West Coast Inland Navigation District, certainly I can. A lot of issues pertain to West Coast Navigation District, and this issue had been briefly discussed. I understand there was a task force that was set up to look into bringing Collier in with Hanatee, Sarasota, and Lee and Charlotte County into the West Coast Inland Navigation District. It's gonna require, as I would understand and Jim Yaeger can confirm it, an act of legislature to incorporate Collier into the district. To this date, though, I don't know what progress has been made, to be perfectly honest with you, Commissioner. What I can do, however, is get a hold of the director of the West Coast Inland Navigation District, Chuck Lastowski (spelled phonetically), our legal counsel with the West Coast Inland Navigation District, and provide a status report to members of the Collier County Commission. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That'd be great. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: That's the best I can do for you right now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Judah, if I may ask -- I'll preface with my name from now on. I spent eight years in the coast guard reserve. I ran the waters from Tampa Bay all the way down to Ft. Myers. I spent the last four years stationed out of Ft. Myers Beach. And I guess I'm just kind of looking for a summary of what the purpose of the West Coast Inland Navigation District is. What's its goal or what's it trying to achieve? And the information you'll send will probably give me that, but If you could just give me a one -- little summary on it, I'd just greatly appreciate it. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Certainly. As I mentioned, those four counties are involved in a special taxing district. Those taxpayers see the line item on their tax bill, you know, West Coast Inland Navigation District. It's primarily -- has been primarily set up to handle rain-related type of activities, dredging, channel marking, restoration of spoil islands, marine education. There's a gamut of activities and programs that would qualify under the West Coast Inland Navigational District. Some are outright grants, others are matching funds. It certainly would behoove Collier to look very seriously at possibly inclusion within the district, because the funding could very well be forthcoming to assist in past maintenance, dredging, even bypassing, pumping of sand from one -- one island to another. The maintenance of passes, et cetera, is primarily what it's used for. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there any member of the public that has a comment on this particular subject? MR. WARD: I'm David Ward, vice president of Business Association of Bonita Beach. I'm from Bonita Springs here which is, of course, bi-county. And a number of years I felt it would be economically beneficial to Collier County, and because I live on a line and I boat down there and I boat in Lee County also, and I'm in full agreement with -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: David, is that part of that new voter bill where you get to vote more than once? MR. WARD: Well, what this Inland Water District the money actually -- maybe I'm saying it wrong, but when you buy a boat license, a little portion of that goes into the district. And I think there's four counties in it now; is that right? COHMISSIONER FARRELL: Yes. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: David, yes, the moneys will come from the ad valorem tax bill. MR. WARD: They come from the ad valorem taxes? COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Right. The fund you just talked about goes to the Florida boater improvement fund. MR. WARD: Yeah. Well, That's not tied in with the Inland Water District? COHMISSIONER JUDAH: No, sir. MR. WARD: Oh, well, I'm mistaken. I thought it was. I would think it would be practical to do that even, you know, from the licensing of the boats there and the ones using the waterways. The only thing I feel is that if they got together and bought one dredge between the four or five districts, if you did include Collier County, that there would be substantial savings for many of them. They could all have a quarter of a year or some portion of the year to use that dredge, and that there's a lot of projects that go on that people want done; for instance, here in Bonita Springs the tepid waters where there's one place where you narrow it down and can't get through. You've got places like this in the Collier County also. There's a lot of dredging projects that cost an excessive amount of money because of contract bidding and so forth, whether it's truly contract or what I don't know. But it gets political, costs us taxpayers a lot of extra money. And I think if you had to dredge and had a man on it full-time and spread the money amongst a group of counties, it would be great savings for the public. That's something I thought of long ago, and maybe some day it will come to pass. You'll just have to share and get along with a dredge. You can keep it maintained once you've done -- there's nothing that you dredge out, whether you're talking about a pass or in the back bay area, that keeps the boats where they belong if you do it, for one thing. And there's nothing that doesn't go back and fill in again, so it has to be maintained. So you don't want to get somebody into the act of a big project and a lot of permitting and all this stuff. You can kind of -- each county can kind of figure out their own maintenance problems. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Ward. Our next item is number 3, the foreign trade zone. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had asked to put that on. Give me about 60 seconds to bring anyone who's not familiar with the FTZ up to snuff as best you can in 60 seconds. Foreign trade zones allow companies to, in effect, minimize their duty costs. They can either manufacture or assemble or both within an FTZ and can save literally millions of dollars a year when you start savings percentages on duties and so on. The local area of benefit of any foreign trade zone is obviously have jobs that might otherwise be in countries where you wouldn't have to pay those duties. You can also have an infusion of cash in the local area. The grantee of a foreign trade zone has the ability not only at their home site, such as an airport, but in a radius -- I think it's 90 miles around that site -- two grant sub-zones where people can do business. They don't necessarily have to have their warehouse on the airport facility and stay within the confines of that trade status where they were never considered to have been in the United States. If they ship parts in, assemble them here, and then ship them out, the grantee gets a fee for that depending on the business and depending on the size of their operation, location of their operation and so on. They can charge anywhere -- they set their own fees, but on average they will charge 30,000 to 50,000 a year per company within their purview for the right to use that duty status. The Lee Port Authority, which is made up of these four gentlemen and one other has applied for foreign trade zone status. There will be a public hearing coming up a week from today; is that right, the 19th? Yeah, that's right. This will be the one and only hearing before the federal folks who grant or deny this status. Frankly, it's going to be very good for the region if we get foreign trade zone. It's -- the focus has been at the international airport. But as I said the companies can take advantage within a 90-mile radius, so this can be a benefit to all our communities. The one question I had raised during the initial plots on this, and I just wanted to pass to the Lee County board and then on to our own board, is every company that comes and takes advantage of this will benefit all of us, but most of all will benefit the Lee County folks who own the FTZ. You all will gather a -- collect a fee from them annually and also will take advantage of the customs program and so on. I think this is going to build into something great at the International Airport. What I hope we can do as time goes on is be able to set up grounds within each of the fringe counties, if you will, to encourage business. For example, at our Immokalee airport I'm gonna guess that some of our staff probably are more familiar with what's going on at that airport than the Lee County staff just by nature we deal with it regularly. My hope is that we can take advantage of that knowledge in some formal mechanism for drawing in businesses within that FTZ. You all will still collect the moneys from that and still derive the benefit from that, but at least have some formal mechanism so that the people within Charlotte and the people within Collier who are familiar with their area can be out there beating the bushes trying to bring companies into our FTZ too. Host importantly, I just wanted to make sure we all -- and perhaps next Tuesday we should be passing, we meet on Tuesdays, a resolution supporting it. But come next Thursday before that federal group there is -- that is, as I understand, our one and only shot to sell them on the concept at a public hearing. There's a lot of meetings that go on over and above that, but I think we need to make sure that we're unified as a group behind the FTZ status and the good it's gonna do for the region. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sounds like a good idea. Mr. Albion. COHMISSIONER ALBION: Perhaps I prefer to do because, Commissioner Constantine, I don't really -- we need to have a discussion as to how that free trade zone can be best utilized on a regional basis and, of course, we naturally have to protect all our taxpayers. What is important that kind of leads into is, of course, we had an area that was going for enterprise zone, you had an area that was going for enterprise zone, neither one made it. It does bring up, I think, a very interesting situation. I don't want to say it's us against the world, but when trying to go after these statuses and trying to get especially federal moneys, the more unified we can show ourselves and the stronger force in trying to build the types of contacts and connections that need to occur if we are to have a chance at success, I really think we have to try to form a more unified approach. And the reason why is because, let's face it, any one -- any of our counties can put together the best application in the world, but if it doesn't get to the right eyes it's worthless. Meanwhile, you can have other parts of the country that can put together a much lesser application, offering far less as far as what the end product is going to be, and you see that they get it. Arkansas comes to example these days. But seriously though, I think one of the reasons you're finding, for example, these other states -- for example, the jail privatization, if you'll get a number of other issues and you're seeing where they're going from a different vent than what's traditional, it's because we have not been, shall we say, on the upside at the Washington level. So as a result with less dollars you have no choice but to find a way to still reach your goals seemingly with the less dollars. Now in one sense that's good because that usually means you can do it cheaper and that's better for the taxpayers. The downside is that the money's still falling north and west, not south. We need to find ways, therefore, to try to succeed as programs, become available out of Washington, moneys that may presently become available. And that's gonna be changing over the next few months with the new Congress, and I think you're gonna see a lot of pairing down. That means the competition's gonna be that much sharper. So if there's certain ways that we can try to create a more unified approach and try to create successes -- it helps Lee County when Collier County has some of these things happen. It helps, I believe, Collier County when Charlotte County has success at that level. So I think it's really time we start talking about really increasing our power base in the form of creating a regional power base instead of a county power base. And the example that I would offer is around the Polk County area, I believe all those counties got together to create a strong economic development group to try and go after businesses for that area. And you look at that area, they need to do something in order to be able to compete with the remainder of the state. And that's what they've done. And they've actually seen a great deal of success, I believe, from it. So if there are ways that we can look at more regional approaches to try to create successes in a much more competitive situation especially, I think it's incumbent on each board to try to bring it forward and try to create a process that that can happen. It may be at some point we may have to look at lobbyists in certain areas. I know that at the urging of Bettye Matthews we now have three counties who are going to be renting an apartment in Tallahassee and we're going to be having representation up there. And the representation's gonna be on a regional power base, not based on a county situation. And I think that we have to look seriously still at Washington or any area that may be helpful to us overall. I think it's time that these counties got together. I think we have the ability to do it at this point in time. We've, if you will, grown up enough now, and we have the needs now. What the federal government especially is doing is they're trying to catch up on past needs and they've still been playing the old game. We have the growth right now, and we have to find a way to meet those growth problems. And the best way to do it, I think, is to try to come together and find ways to save costs. And we can be the model of strength, I think, that can make it happen. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You hit the nail on the head with your federal example. I think probably the best example is California delegation has often worked together, whereas Florida which has a pretty good-sized delegation is not often organized as a group. And as a result we have suffered, I think, in Tallahassee. Now, on a state level you're right as well in that the major metropolitan areas representation, because of their numbers, is greater than ours. But by all working together and then all of a sudden we have this -- pretty much the same population and same representation and so on. So I think we're all headed in the right direction. I think the best example -- and we'll find out how good of an example later in the meeting, I think -- is the university. No one came into an argument that no we want it in Charlotte or no we want it in Collier. We wanted to get it in Southwest Florida, and we knew it would be a benefit to us all regardless of where the exact site location was. And I think that's the overall attitude we have to take on economic development and on everything we to do together whether it's the FTZ or university or anything. So I think hopefully we're on the right track. One of the things that's encouraging to me is we are up now to quarterly meetings rather than twice a year. As I look at this agenda we have three or four items of some fairly heavy substance to them. The first couple meetings got us to where we are, but they were lighter, get to know one another, get comfortable with one another type meetings. It's kind of nice that we've reached a point where we're hitting some items such as the FTZ or such as the university that have an impact and are a little more solid items. So I just appreciate the opportunity to work with you all, and particularly with the FTZ item. Thanks for the opportunity to serve on the airport special management committee. I think that's been very beneficial to have Youssef from Charlotte and myself. It's been very helpful so far. COMMISSIONER ALBION: The next item is board member items, hopefully -- because this is also within the realm of this umbrella conversation now. And that has to do with -- and you might have read about it in the newspaper. And, Tim, I know you're familiar with it because of the regional planning counsel. But, you know, we do have a concern and should have a concern about what's going on on the funding formula on -- coming from Tallahassee on roads. And we could be looking at, shall we say, a significant downside to the tune of as much as $600 million if this funding formula goes through. Now the argument is that because our interstate system is now in place that because -- now the greatest need of the interstate is up at I-4, that suddenly those funds should shift up there. Now, I can appreciate reciprocity from within the State, but at some point it would be nice to get an explanation from the state on how a roadway that goes from Tampa to Daytona Beach is considered an interstate. And if it is not an interstate road, why is it being thrown in the mix based on the interstate part of the system on that funding formula? And if that's the case, then why are we paying potentially up to $600 million out of our district in order to make those road improvements? Now that fight needs to happen. And this is coming down to power bases within the state again. And that's why it's time, I think, that we kind of -- we have to get that message across that, you know, there needs to be fairness, there needs to be reciprocity to get major projects done. But folks, we are in Southwest Florida amongst the fastest growing regions in the United States. And we can either do it from the back side of growth, meaning we try to make up the distance, or we try to get it done right in the front side, which means land costs will be lower and so on. And it's also gonna get in some of the imminent domain discussions that need to take place. Commissioner Judah, I applaud his efforts and he's made some progress. And we really need to start, I think, delving right into those issues and getting prepared to go to battle, because that's what it's gonna take. And they're not in the sunshine up there so we don't know all the hidden agendas that are going on, but we can look at the dollars and cents and those matrixes and understand how much of an uphill battle we're fighting. So I think that's critical. The other point I would like to make is on the agenda itself, if any of these counties we sit down at the table with, if we're going to be going for certain statuses or opportunities in the state and federal government, I'd like to see what they are. If there are ways that maybe we can offer cooperation and help, I think we need to do it. We have a grants coordinator. I'm sure your counties have the same. And maybe there are ways that we can get minds working together to try to create those potential opportunities into realities. It will have a significant impact on all of our budgets and all of our communities' quality of lives. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. It appears we have moved into item number 4. We have a public speaker? Okay. This is on item three, the free trade zone? MR. NERON: Yes. For the record, my name is Bill Neron, director of government affairs for the economic development council of Collier County. Over the past several months we have been working with Mr. Daugherty and the staff at the International Airport and your economic development office on the foreign trades zone application. We see that as a very very excellent benefit for the region as a whole in the area of international trade in helping us to develop as a region in international presence. We're working with them to include as part of the application the potential to designate general purpose zones of your foreign trade zone within Collier County and sub-zones to take benefit of some of the potential we have at the Immokalee airport, which is undergoing development on -- thanks to the efforts of the Collier County Commission and the new airport authority we have in Collier County. I just want to double applaud the remarks of Commissioner Albion, that I couldn't have said it any better than we are a region and there are a lot of benefits to all of us working together in these areas. And we want to commend your efforts in that regard. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Neron. Item 4 is board member items. Who would like to start? Mr. Fartell. COMMISSIONER FARRELL: I'd like to talk about waste water reuse. I'm going to use the development where I live to iljustrate what I think is going to grow into a state-wide problem. We're into a massive sewer system, modernization, expansion came out of general development bankruptcy. We condemned their subsidiary which ran the water sewer system. Reuse is a very important part of that, being by legislature that the EPA, water management districts, it's not even going to be voluntary anymore. You're going to have to do it in some way. And one of the first ways we propose to do that as part of the modernization of our waste water treatment plant was run a transmission line up through Deep Creek, where I live, which is about 7,000 lots. And it would serve six golf courses. That's the quick, economic, easy way to dispose of your fund. And one of those is in Deep Creek. Well, that's private utility territory, Southern States Utility. And we have a letter that's really hard ball and they say you put one foot into our service territory, you know, put reuse in here and we're gonna sue you. And there's a little one on up the road that's notified us the same way. And that's gonna present some very difficult problems if you have private utility territories and, you know, you need to put reuse into this somehow. How are you gonna do it? One of the plans we were coming up with is the cost of putting reuse into, you know, every place we put a sewer was about $1400 a house. Well, that's rather difficult with all the other costs, so we backed off of that and said we were gonna do this on a voluntary basis. We'll survey an area, and Deep Creek, since the transmission line was going to be there, was one of the primary candidates, that we're going to survey Deep Creek and if 51~ of the people said they'd like to have reuse, we're gonna put it into Deep Creek. Well, again we're running head on into to SSU. And it's an area that the legal department's researched, and there aren't any rules. Legislature hasn't set any rules. Public Service Commission doesn't have any rules. If you look at the certified territories and private utilities and what rights they have, does that include reuse? Nobody seems to know. And I think we've got two or three alternatives, and one is litigated on an individual basis. And maybe you can renegotiate it, maybe you can't. It would be a one of a kind situation if you do. If you can't get together, you're gonna litigate it, which would go on for years and cost an unbelievable amount of money. Or we could try to get a bill in the legislature that would spell out the rules. They've said we want you to do this, we're gonna require you to do this. Okay. Well, what are the rules for doing it, particularly where private companies are involved? And we may try to relate -- and I don't know what that bill would say, but we may try to get some kind of bill introduced into the legislature. I don't know, maybe one option would be to turn this over to Public Service Commission and say you set the rules, you're gonna be the administrative agency to administer this. But it's an area where -- and I don't know if any of you run into it or not. But if you have private utilities that you want to put reuse into, I think you will have that problem. I think it's probably a state-wide problem. I think legislature probably is the place to resolve it, rather than trying to fight it through the courts. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's an interesting point. COMMISSIONER FARRELL: If we get that far, you know, and you think it's a good idea, we'll need some help on that. I think the legislature's probably a quick and easy and right place to do it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We in Collier County have Marco Island, which is served by Southern States Utilities for their portable water supply. However, there are actually three different people or units supplying sewer service, Southern States being the major one, but Collier County also does and a little company called Marco Island Utilities. There are a couple of groups at the moment that are in discussion with Southern States about expanding their reuse system down there. And the discussions seem to be going along pretty well, the problem being funding, and Southern States needs to expand their -- their water treatment plant before they -- they go into the water reuse expansion. But we haven't had a problem dealing with this as you down there, even though there's cross-jurisdictions, overlapping jurisdictions. So we haven't had the same problem that you had. But your point is well made is that -- is that our commission has determined that reuse is one of our primary goals for the future. And if we're going to encounter legal difficulties in getting the job done, then perhaps now is a good time to start at least making inquiries as to what our legislative possibilities are to facilitate what we want to do in the future. So it's a very good point. Thank you for that. Next. COMMISSIONER ST. CERNEY: I was just gonna give you a brief update on what our board did yesterday on the status of Florida Gulf Coast University. Yesterday, our board passed a unanimous resolution and an offering agreement to the Army Corps of Engineers. There's some messages in this that I think we have to learn from for the future, because I think it's gonna be pivotal for the growth of the Bonita Springs area because North Collier/South Lee is where the growth is truly truly gonna happen. And I think there's been a lot of messages sent through from all the different permitting agencies that we've been dealing with over the last seven months. What we did yesterday was to send resolution and an offer into the Army Corps of Engineers after Colonel Rice's being down last weekend and having had an opportunity to meet with him one-on-one and get into some detailed discussions on the overall growth patterns of South Lee County and Northern Collier County. And what's gonna happen? What is going to be the secondary and cumulative impacts of this university being built? We tendered an offer of $2 million to the Corps of which $300,000 of that is a direct impact for mitigation for 15 acres of wetlands that we will be destroying for building Tree Line Avenue. So on a 10-1 ratio we're gonna be required to replace those with 150 acres. And we seem to think that $300,000 will do that. The balance of the million-seven that we tendered as an offer is mitigation, basically, for the university, for Florida Gulf Coast University, the Board of Regents, and I would have to say our state legislature. The university doesn't have the funds or the ability to mitigate. And yet the cumulative and secondary impacts are gonna be critical. Our board had wisdom enough through our budgeting process in August to see this coming, and we set aside $2 million that we had marked for environmentally sensitive land acquisitions to hold in abeyance until we saw where this permitting process was gonna go. I think the cumulative and secondary impacts for projects in the future is gonna be a buzz word for us to have to watch as joint governments working together. And I know the concern with the Bonita Springs residence on north-south corridors and connectors and how are we gonna move all these people other than Highway 41 and Interstate 75. So I think this has been a real test case for all of us to see how we're going to be working with all these permitting agencies. I did mention to my board yesterday when we passed this that since we were having a joint meeting today I would bring up the fact that we would accept any contributions from our adjoining two counties since we're paying the mitigation for the university. And I think both other counties are gonna be enjoying the rewards of what that university's gonna bring to the area. So search your conscience and if you have a time at one of your commission meetings you want to bring it up -- my county administrator's all smiles anytime you talk about revenue and income. MR. STILWELL: Shall we take the cup and pass it around? COMMISSIONER ST. CERNEY: But we're excited about it. I think we have worked hard and we've done a good job. Saturday night it was great to see the amount of people who were there at the public hearing to speak to Colonel Rice. And believe me, there was a cross-section of citizens from all over, from Collier County, Charlotte County, Hendry County, Bonita Springs area, conveying to him the importance of what this university is going to mean to all of us for generations to come. I can't think of anything not only more exciting but is gonna have a greater impact on all of us. Our board realized this early on. We worked in unanimity from day one on every phase of this project. So I am comfortable, contrary to some of the reports, that the permits will be issued. I've been assured that Southwest Florida Water Management permits will be issued, and I also in my heart have been assured that the Army Corps of Engineers is gonna issue their permits. We can still make the deadline with construction. We can still be ready to open in the fall of '97. And believe me when that day comes it's gonna be a monumental day for everyone in Southwest Florida. If you've got any questions, I'd be glad to answer them, but that's just kind of an overview of where we are. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: On behalf of the Collier County Commission, I'd like to thank you for your efforts in furthering that permitting process along. That's certainly important to our entire region. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. I know a lot of people have done a lot of work, but you've done a lot of work above and beyond. So thanks for helping make it a reality. I don't think we're in a position to make any sort of financial commitment. However, I will make a commitment to you that we will put it on our regular board agenda, and we need to decide whether to help and I -- I hope we can do that in some way. And then, obviously, how much? What formula do we come up with? What's the share? But I think this is something that's clearly going to benefit all of Southwest Florida, Charlotte, Collier, and hopefully we can participate in that as well. COMMISSIONER ST. CERNEY: I think the message in it, Tim, isn't so much -- it's a little late for this now because we've been in such, I would say for lack of better terms, sensitive negotiations, it was hard to open this up to other counties. I realize bringing it up this late date is a lot of water's passed under the bridge. But I can tell you from what I envision the future to be that there's going to be other projects, maybe not other universities but other things that are gonna come along that are gonna have a financial impact on the expense side to a particular county that is going to have a regional impact of benefit for everyone else. And I think it's something we have to look at from this point forward and say we all have to become active partners in this. And if it's something that we're all gonna benefit from, we need to work together to do it and maybe not one county shouldering all the expenses for accomplishing it. Today it's the university in Lee County, okay. Tomorrow it's going to be something else. And I merely bring this up that this is something I think we should address and we're going to have to work together in in the future. But there's just a lot of great things going on in Southwest Florida right now, it's a real exciting time. And to have the dialogue and communication among counties, I think, is only gonna enhance it for all of us. We're all dealing from a dwindling pot of gold. And the taxpayer's only gonna pay in so much, and I think we have to be more efficient with what we're doing. But moreover, I think we have to have a united, solid voice for our legislative delegation to let them know who we are and what we expect from them. And just like Commissioner Albion was talking earlier on this $600 million that they're trying to move out of our district, we can't allow that to happen. I mean we have to have a united voice that's gonna say no, this is not gonna happen to Southwest Florida. And with that, I'll let it go. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Albion. COHMISSIONER ALBION: I'd like to just piggyback on that a little bit. You know, we kind of do it in a half joking matter, but we're really actually serious about the fact that whatever involvement the surrounding counties would like to do as far as participation and opportunity, there's -- and it's not just the known. It's also the fact that if you can get into some involvement and work with us then you will, I think, begin to realize what type of impact it can have for your community, instead of waiting till the university opens and sees what happens, instead of being on the periphery. You see, it was a mistake in my opinion for nine or ten years that we didn't -- Commissioner Constantine and Mayor Lazzell have been actually sitting as shadow members on our port authority. And it's almost a shame that the way that our airport's been growing and so on that that opportunity wasn't extended years earlier, because of the potential impacts and the opportunities that come from having that dialogue at the table. We would not have been aware at all of potential impact, and even now I think we only know a little bit of what the free trade zone opportunity can become. We know about it in a bottle. We know about what our own people talk about. And I don't know if it's gonna be right that we go out to those or not because I haven't looked at the up sides, the down sides, et cetera. But I know one thing, we wouldn't be having the conversation if Commissioner Constantine hadn't brought it forward. And I think that that's the point here. We've got a university that's gonna have at least that much impact. And that impact for the most part is gonna be within -- much more within the boundaries of Southwest Florida. The airport clearly is all the way out to the world. And it would seem to me that we've got to start looking at what these possible opportunities are. And I try to warn our county -- the people in our county the university's gonna be a terrific enhancement, but especially in the short run it's gonna bring a terrific amount of impacts besides. And that means eventually those impacts will become enhancements. And I'm talking about roadways and infrastructure and growth and all the planning that has to go into it and so on where you're gonna have a whole new -- almost like a new city suddenly in an area that presently isn't one. So as a result I think it's actually very important that the surrounding counties try to see how we can try to work to see how this opportunity can be expanded. And through some of what you may actually be able to potentially offer, it may end up leading to the roadways and so on that create the opportunities, et cetera. But this is an educational opportunity. It's an economic development opportunity. It's an infrastructure opportunity. And it's also a potentially good growth opportunity. Done the right way, that growth opportunity can be magnificent. Done the wrong way, we have a checker board and we have lots of impacts that we pass on to future generations to make up in a very costly vein. So I would like to offer and extend -- and I hope I'm not stepping on Commissioner St. Cerney's toes, but if indeed when you want to have it come before you're board or Charlotte County before their board, I think it's important that we get some of the right people. I say "right people," the ones who have been very involved in the process, close to the center, so that perhaps we can try to create some understanding of what these things are about and what these opportunities are. Now obviously we've got to be careful about if there are any sensitive areas, and Commissioner St. Cerney would be better able to comment on that than I. But I think it's important that we start sharing the information and starting to understand that come August 25th, 1997, that's not the starting point of the gun. I can tell you that if you look at the newspaper at the real estate transactions, that gun's already gone off. And we're struggling right now with what type of an entranceway we want to see to Florida Gulf Coast University. And we're struggling with that in our board right now. Because in our opinion -- at least in my opinion I can certainly say out of the nine other state universities there is none that I would put up to equal to a lot of those gorgeous northern universities and the entranceways they've created. We can do that with Florida Gulf Coast University. And in my opinion that has an impact to people coming from Collier and Charlotte and Hendry and all over the state. So I think that it's important that we try to see what we can all do to work together to try to make this wonderful jewel of an opportunity become a reality. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll just -- I'll reiterate our commitment to explore that. And I understand your point that you all need to be in on that. And who's the appropriate point person? Would Doug be the appropriate person to talk to? And I can get a hold of you and let you know when we're gonna discuss it, and you can probably help us set the agenda for that. COHMISSIONER ALBION: Be glad to come down. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you for that. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Mr. Chairman, a few issues, if I could. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A few? COHMISSIONER JUDAH: First of all, for Commissioner Fartell, I think he's right on target with the need to take some action with regards to the wastewater tense. And it's too bad that this issue wasn't raised during the past Florida Association of Counties legislative session. It's not to say it still couldn't be raised this coming state legislation session, but I would suspect that you're better off getting the full weight of the Florida Association of Counties behind you. And my suggestion would be definitely to coordinate with the Florida Association of Counties. COHMISSIONER FARRELL: We'll try that. I think there's all kinds of -- if we could get a bill put together even in a draft form that would have the essentials in it, I haven't talked -- I've talked to Charlie Richards. And I haven't found anybody that would oppose this, yet I'm not even sure the private companies would. I think that maybe they would like to know what the rules are instead of having to litigate every -- COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Right. COHMISSIONER FARRELL: -- step of the way. So I don't know that there's any opposition to it. I think it is a little late. A lot of times you don't get things done the first session of legislature anyhow. I hope that -- I'll underline "hope .... that we will have some kind of a bill that we will present to our legislative delegation and at least get it introduced. That's what I'm aiming for. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: And certainly should you need a joint resolution I would suspect from neighboring counties would be supportive of such a resolution. Mr. Chairman, there's a couple of staff people here today I would just like to hear from. One has to do with an update on Lover's Key, if we could have Bill Hammond, Deputy County Administrator, just give us a brief update on where we are with the joint agreement with the state. MR. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, Bill Hammond. We have in this past couple weeks been negotiating with the State. Our staff has been working with Fran Mannella from the State. In this past week we met with our TDC. We have asked that the TDC appropriate 1.5 million to be coupled with the dollars that the state has. We think we have really a good agreement with them. We can see some long-term kinds of things happening with the additional dollars that the State will be allocating, some $4 million to finish our phase 2, phase 3. These dollars that we're talking about would give us at least phase 1 with some infrastructures, some walkways and the transition of staff and that type of thing. We're working on the legal agreement right now. And by the end of this month we'll have something to send to Tallahassee, have them take a look at it. And it's really been a real partnership between Lee County and the State of Florida. So we're very happy with the progress that we've made. We think it's a jewel in the rough out there. The potential is endless as far as a recreational destination on this side of the state. And we're looking very much forward to seeing something happen in the way of construction by the summer. And that's where the State is coming from. So we're very excited about that, Mr. Chairman. And of course the chairman has been a part of some of the goings on that we have. And he's helped us with the TDC, and he's been a part of that too. And maybe he wants to explain a little bit more about what we've done and where we're going. COHMISSIONER ALBION: If I may, just -- just by way of a quick history, of course the property was actually purchased some 15 years ago or so. We've been waiting and waiting and waiting because the State's had troubles funding the money, and seemingly this kept going front burner back burner and so on. And Commissioner Judah as a district commissioner and also certainly as I agree with him as being a recreational enthusiast, seeing that opportunity can potentially bring is really very exciting now, because eventually you have a state park and Johnson Park, and it seemed ridiculous that these two abutting property, waterfront, gorgeous opportunity for all of our citizens that somehow we weren't finding a way to bridge the gap, if you'll excuse the pun, as far as making this thing happen. I had the privilege of speaking with Fran Mannella who is the head of the parks service for the State of Florida, the director, and they're very excited about it. And this is the number one priority on their list. And the beauty of this opportunity is that they've already realized where the actual dollars are going to potentially come from, which is the trust fund up in Tallahassee, unlike the old fighting for dollars of the general -- their so-called general fund up there that the legislature has to decide how to make $10 equal $100. The dollars have actually been identified. So we think that -- and wewre hoping that the governor will have it in his budget. Keith Arnold has already stated that, you know, he is going to be certainly a strong advocate, and hews gonna work hard to get it, our state representative and the House majority leader, as well as Ralph Livingston, who is also on the culture affairs and tourism, I believe is what it is called, department -- or subcommittee, so hewll also be pushing for it. But this is a neat opportunity for especially Collier and Lee County, and it is really anticipated as being a jewel not just to Southwest Florida but actually in the crown of the State, and we think itws gonna actually potentially bring people from national and international destinations. So wewre very excited about the opportunity. This is one of our blockbusters, we consider this. We had two of them over a 30-day period. Wewre thrilled. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: John, have you dropped a suggestion to make Loverws Key a nudist beach? COMMISSIONER ALBION: Actually -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was that your suggestion, by the way? COMMISSIONER ALBION: No. Iim sorry. However, I will say that I was rather surprised to learn on Monday that I guess therels a new term for it. Itls now called a relaxed dress code zone. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It should be called the apparelly challenged. We have a member of the public that would like to comment on this. Ms. Ward. MS. WARD: Good morning, Commissioners. Iim Marjorie Ward, representing CABB, Citizenls Association of Bonita Beach, as its president. On behalf of the local residents, we welcome all of you commissioners. Welre just delighted that youlre working in unison, because no one realizes the importance of this more than those of us who live in a bi-county community with mutual border town problems and projects. We -- on the subject which has been brought up, weld appreciate each of the respective commissions to prepare resolutions and send them to each of the state representatives and senators who have any authority over Southwest Florida. And welre referring to Loverls Key state recreation area and our need to have appropriated and passed this upcoming session the moneys that are long overdue and needed for the improvements, destined for a regional beach front park land which we started in and coined long ago the phrase of "the jewel of the Florida beach front parks," which seems to have been picked up by everybody else. Weld also appreciate your using your influence with other representatives and senators, the governor, and the cabinet to assure that the moneys remain in the budget for the improvements on a low key basis. Our associationls been working for approximately eight years volunteering our time to put in a roadway, a parking lot, cutting and clearing the exotics with our own equipment, blaze a trail, help with the toll booth, and in any other way that we could, including every year going before the Southwest Florida delegations in both Lee and Collier County asking for their financial support. Welre now at a stage where for us to volunteer much further without financial assistance becomes very difficult. We are not asking for financial support from many of the counties, but we surely do appreciate very much the proposed agreement between the State and Lee County. But to assure that the State does not cut the appropriations, as occurred last year, we feel your participation in what we propose is very necessary as well. For the Collier Commission, I'd like to point out that this park is but about three or four miles from the county line. And it's used by the people of Collier County just as the people from Lee County use Barefoot Preserve, which is 1.7 miles from the county line, and that these facilities are state facilities and they have county property that adjoins them. For those of you from Charlotte County, you can and do use the facilities not only from the point of your residents but your tourists which flock to Southwest Florida. And we need to provide this park for all of the people because, just what you've been talking about this morning, it's on direct line with a new university, and hence its need will continue to grow. And as has already been mentioned, comments for these appropriations have been received from some of our Florida representatives. But we need as much state-wide support as we can muster. And your respective commissions, as well as you as individual commissioners, are needed to have this become a reality. The State Parks Department has yes, this is number one on their budget, but we still don't believe anything until we have it. So your backing is very imperative as well. And we thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Ms. Ward. I see Commissioner Judah has left the room -- had to make a call. I think he had another item to discuss. Does anyone else have an item? You have an item? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have one just briefly. Our board made an informal decision to pursue -- we're looking at pursuing the intervention with the Florida Association of Counties regarding the Public Service Commission's ability to set rates for private utilities throughout the state. Through the Florida Association of Counties, Commissioner Matthews and I were made aware of a unique determination in a suit filed -- I believe it was filed by SSU -- that at one point if you ran transmission lines across county lines and municipality lines, you then were considered one entity in both of those counties and could set a joint rate structure for that entire area for all those areas you served. In other words, the county line no longer was the divider. In an unusual decision by the courts, SSU argued successfully that not just transmission lines but by sharing personnel across county lines, that by locating a field office in a county even though they may not have even had transmission lines crossing into that area, it was considered a general service area and, again, part of all of one rate structure. If this argument is carried to the nth degree, they then have rate setting powers throughout the entire state and anywhere they place any form of an office. In other words, it seemed a move that was potentially volatile to the county's ability to take back their opportunity to set rates for public utilities. We have our county attorney looking at intervening on behalf of FAC and a clarification of this matter to try to protect the county's right and ability to return the control of rate setting to the counties themselves. Whether you partake of it or not, it's important to all counties of the State of Florida that option is available. If SSU is successful and this intervention is not successful, we may not have that ability much longer. I mention it only to ask for your county attorneys to either contact ours, Mr. Ken Cuyler, or the Lee County in Sarasota is handling this for FAC to get more information. And hopefully we can get a majority of the State's intervening on this to show a gross amount of support to our legislative delegation in Tallahassee. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: This is a top priority, I know, with Florida Association of Counties. I apologize for interjecting just a second. You would ask that our county attorney then get a hold of FAC? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, to get the information and determine for yourself whether or not you feel intervention is an appropriate measure for your county. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One item Tim didn't mention on it, the other part other than the fact -- you made a very strong case against it -- other than the fact of maintaining control and so on, right now when private utilities want to raise rates in an individual area, by PSC requirements they have to have public hearings in that area. If they go to state-wide rates, all those hearings will be in Tallahassee. The individual rate payer in Ft. Myers or in Naples or in Port Charlotte will have no opportunity unless they travel eight hours to the north to participate in that. And right now at the very least our citizens deserve the opportunity to participate and have some input in the process. And I think this takes a step backwards with that. It makes it more difficult for them to participate in the process. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I thank you, Mr. Constantine, for that addition. There are about a dozen more pitfalls I could list. But I think in the interest of time, I think you'll see those and they'll be obvious. I would welcome your calls to my office and we can, you know, travel up or you can travel down and we'll sit down and talk about it if you like. Commissioner Matthews and I both took this issue on as something that was very important to the county's ultimate control of rate setting abilities. And there are a lot of other areas to look at here. And I'll be happy to discuss those with you, but we can certainly waste our own time in doing that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Judah, I think you had another item? COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Yes. If I could have Larry Johnson step forward. Mr. Chairman, since that Supreme Court decision last year regarding flood control, it's really -- the potential is devastating to the counties with regards to both economic and environmental impacts. The board agreed yesterday to go ahead and send a resolution to Connie Mack to sponsor legislation to rectify the problem that the Carbone decision is causing. And I know we could use the support of Charlotte as well as Collier County, and perhaps have Larry explain. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, good morning. Basically, the flow control legislation that was proposed in the last federal congress would have provided for at least some local county control over the waste flow going into their -- or going into their counties. The particular reason why we're concerned -- and this is something that has been covered by both Florida Association of Counties, Solid Waste Association of America and the League of Cities, so it has wide local support in terms of the discussion. But it involves counties that either if you're considering expansion of your solid waste disposal facilities or also as it regards to recycling efforts, many of those recycling efforts -- and in our case, a portion of that is paid through the tipping fees that we charge at our facilities. And the potential is that if flow control legislation is not passed, that the -- those recycling efforts would have to be reduced due to budget constraints that the local governments might face. So we see it as a very critical method for the local governments being able to control their own destiny. And again, similar to the issue that was mentioned with the utilities that it -- we need this type of flow control legislation so that the local governments have control over their own destiny. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Couldn't agree with that more. The mood of the country seems to be to decentralize and put the power back into the local areas. So that certainly would be appropriate for these times. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Could Mr. Johnson get a copy of that resolution that Lee County will be sending to Senator Mack to get him to sponsor the legislation -- send copies to Charlotte and Collier, hopefully for your -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please do, yes. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: -- signatures? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just two other issues. As you know, real property's assessed January 1st of each year. There's a lot of new construction that goes on after January 1st. They get their certification and completion of occupancy and they're not assessed. They don't have to immediately compensate for the impact that they create to the community. We have Senator Dudley sponsoring legislation this coming session. We're looking for a House sponsor, it will probably be Greg Allen Gay, to provide for a proportional year or fractional year assessment. It's a great way to bring several million into the county coffers without increasing taxes to the existing taxpayers other than those that aren't paying their proportionate share as well as they should be. So what I'm hopeful of is if we can get your support to your own legislative delegation, helping to emphasize the importance of the proportional year assessment and to support Senator Dudley and hopefuly Greg Allen Gay's efforts this coming session. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is actually something again at FAC, the legislative conference we had at Tallahassee, it was another hotly debated topic as FAC adopted as a policy or as, if you will, a legislative intent. The conflict in this is gonna come from the smaller counties in the state that currently do not have what you consider -- what they consider a sophisticated appraisal program and what I consider minimal appraisal program which involves computers. Many of the smaller counties don't even have a computerized system in their appraisal mode. It's all done manually. Their complaint is that going to this would cause them to have to go expend dollars and to create a new department, if you will, or to add staff to actually comply with this. I offered at that time one of about twelve things that were offered, and none of them were actually picked up and run with, that we put a limit of -- of a population limit on this particular bill that would allow the smaller counties to opt out if they so choose. In other words, if we have the ability to move ahead with this and it provides a greater source of revenue and a fairness element to our individual counties, we should be able to do it, but we shouldn't penalize smaller counties for their existing process and their inability to perform that. I have had discussions with Mr. Gay on other items. And if he does in fact take this on, I would look forward to that. I think he would be a fine person to help with this. And we can certainly pursue our delegation, our representatives in Collier County. I would offer as one potential amendment to that putting in a limit for smaller and larger counties, the opt out may save us a lot of headache on the floor in Tallahassee. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think it only makes sense also that we can't -- if we didn't put the opt out provision in, to me that would be something akin to an unfunded mandate from the prospective of the smaller counties that don't have the funding or infrastructure in their own systems to do that. So the last time this discussion came through -- I'm certainly supportive of the idea, but the opt out to me is a critical portion. Commissioner Albion. COMHISSIONER ALBION: I would just simply ask that instead of having a population number, why can't it just be an option county by county specifically? I mean if the remainder of the citizenry wants to pick up the difference of not having the proportionate share, then so be it. If they decide otherwise or if they decide it would be worth the investment towards the computers, then so be that. But instead of trying to draw a line, it's not only the county just above that line that's gonna feel they're being treated unfairly, or you start getting into negotiations that are gonna be leading to exchange of chips that maybe don't need to be exchanged. I would just think why not just make it an option county by county? They do it with sales taxes and gas taxes. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Evidently legal counsel's indicated you can't opt out specific counties. It has to be implemented state-wide. And although I appreciate the concern there, because the smaller counties and the financial strains that they're under, I know the Florida Association of Counties is even looking at perhaps finding moneys from reserves to help them get started with putting together their own computer system, their own network to get this moving. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was one suggestion. And the proposed start-up cost for this, what was suggested by smaller counties -- I find it ironic that the break even point fell exactly at a population of 50,000. All those counties that fell under 50,000 population would have been hurt by this, so to speak. And all those in excess of 50,000 would benefit financially. So it was a very convenient break point. And I was told that legislatively that -- that breaking it down to smaller and larger counties may be a possibility. But the suggestion you made was made on the floor also, whether or not it was just an absolute option whether you can or can't, and we were told at that point that that was not a possibility for legal reasons. And I don't -- I don't pretend to understand those. COMMISSIONER ALBION: We're, I don't think, the right forum to debate it. But I find it amazing that with AG exemptions, impact fee waivers county by county and so on that -- why logically this could not be an option is a total mystery to me overall, unless there's a lobbying group or a solid core of legislators that perhaps are trying to promote the other agenda. So I don't know the answer, but it seems to me to be really illogical and perhaps changes be made so it -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would just suggest asking the question again and again. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: Attorneys work in mystical ways. And speaking of which, if I could, Mr. Chairman, one last issue just to apprise both commissions. Ben Watts, the Secretary of Florida Department of Transportation a couple of years ago set up a task force, imminent domain statutory task force review committee composed of private sectors, attorneys, trial attorneys, and also representatives of government. And fortunately it worked out extremely well with the ultimate result being revisions to the imminent domain statutes last year, went into effect actually October 1st, I believe, of '94. Miraculously, our board yesterday actually turned down two offers to settle for a purchase of property that we otherwise under the previous statute would have just gone ahead and paid the property owners, basically because of the situation of the imminent domain statutes that the counties really had no leverage. You were having to pay for the full cost of whatever imminent domain proceedings were to take place. We now, of course, with the revisions are in a situation where the attorney awarded fees are based on the benefits they bring to their clients. So we now have a better understanding what it would cost us if we do go to imminent domain. For the first time in my memory we actually turned down two offers yesterday. But the point I wanted to bring up today is we tried to continue to work with the task force. And unfortunately, the opinion on the representatives of the government side is we really don't need to revise the imminent domain statutes any further at this time and its primary defensive position because the private sector attorneys would like to provide for business damages; not only that, even though the constitution doesn't provide for it, to have attorney awarded fees under business damages. And of course we try to minimize our cost under business damages with whole takes. And their feeling is that not only should we -- if you're going to pursue whole takes you also should have to pay business damages. So obviously the position we'd like to take right now, and that's as the Florida Association of Counties, is not have any revisions to the statute, just leave it alone and let's monitor it for awhile. It appears that the attorneys are gonna break rank and through the property rights initiative. Once again, this coming session they're gonna try to fold in the business damages, the attorney awarded fees. So they're gonna make an end run. I just wanted to alert you so that we may need to call on you to emphasize to your legislative delegation not to make any revisions this coming session with regards to the imminent domain statutes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just gonna ask you if we are gonna set tentatively -- I know we'll have to get with our appropriate staffs on this, but tentatively setting the next one for the second Thursday in April? Is that what we're shooting for? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Someone have a date on that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any objection to setting the next one for the second Thursday in April, tentatively? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Albion. COMHISSIONER ALBION: Two points. One, to just kind of piggyback. Commissioner Judah's done an awful lot of legwork on the imminent domain -- and I'm wondering, Commissioner Judah, if perhaps there might be someone perhaps that he could deal with on your board and Charlotte County's board so that there could start be more of a flow as to the imminent domain situation. It's a long-term problem. We're all in growth counties. And certainly what would seems to be coming down the shoot. Charlotte's going to be very affected. Collier County's already being affected. And maybe a commissioner from each board might be willing to -- or might be able to sit down and make a lot more progress and at least a free flow of information. I mean this is one issue that quarterly updates help and some of what Commissioner Judah can provide, but may be something you might want to pursue much farther because it's gonna really affect your pocketbook on any key roadways. And I look especially again at the University and the airport, and roadways are gonna have to be developed to do so. And we're all gonna feel the pinch on it. So that would be a recommendation. One other item, if I may bring up -- and I have to apologize because I'll have to leave right after. I just wanted to first of all say thank you and perhaps some degree of congratulations to the Bonita Springs Community, the Bonita Springs Chamber, the Lions Club, thank them especially for this hall, because from these meetings we talked so much about roadways in the past. And the other blockbuster announcement we talked about was the fact that operating outside the usual way of doing business, we've been able to swap conceptually with the State Lee Boulevard, which was the main artery in the Lehigh Acres, and responsibility, which will now become a county road, with US 41 South, which is going to be the State's responsibility to get done. But both roadways are gonna get done a year sooner. And although US 41 South is not gonna be any cheaper to do, Lee Boulevard's gonna be done at a savings to the taxpayer of approximately -- anticipated savings to the taxpayer of approximately 15 to $15.5 million. And that's the difference when we talk about imminent domain right there, because the standards and what's expected and then the costs that come with it. But I just want to say that part of that came out of, I think, the discussions that we've had at these joint meetings. And that's why it's important that we keep talking so we get the emphasis where it needs to be. We all have a plate full of topics that we have to keep going through, and sometimes we just need a little bit of a push to know where we need to get a little bit more of our emphasis. And this is one of the, I think, victories that have come about from these meetings. And we'll continue to operate outside the envelope and look forward to working with you. I apologize. I need to go. There's another meeting I need to get to. But I really appreciate the opportunity. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine. Thank you very much. Commissioner Coy. COHMISSIONER COY: Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman. Just real quickly, as everyone realizes and we talked about already for about an hour and a half, the three counties working together is so crucial. And we've talked about it. If -- and you mentioned before the mood in American and what's going on in Washington. And if the folks in Washington are committed to some of the contracts that they have with America, I don't think there's any doubt that less federal dollars will be coming down our way. I don't think there's any question. Therefore, it's -- it's so crucial that we work together in a tri-county arrangement with a lot of our issues, if we can pool our resources, pool our skills, because if everyone is serious about Washington doing less, which I think is a good idea, I think it's crucial that we work together on some of the things that we can do that mutually benefit all three counties. And we've been talking about it, but I just wanted to add emphasis to that, that we'll find out what happens over the next two years from Washington. And I think it's so good the cordial relationship we have now. I think it will pay off for us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I couldn't agree with you more. These meetings have been the start of something that looks like it's gonna help us all in the end. Did you have one last thing, Commissioner Judah? You're done? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll take comments from the general public on associated topics. Please limit your comments to five seconds or less. MR. SPEAR: In that mystical way that attorneys operate, right? My name is John Spear. I'm cochairman of the Chamber's governmental affairs committee. And as most of you know, we're very active in getting these meetings commenced. The local impetus for these meetings originally was local issues that cried out for regional solutions. And we can see that these meetings are evolving into what we hope is an additional not a new strain, which is regional issues that demand regional solutions. The reason we didn't make a formal presentation today is the local issues that demand these regional solutions are being handled pretty well. West Beach Road is on track, delayed only with some sensitivity toward business interruption and that sort of thing. Commissioner Albion indicated U.S. 41 between Naples and Ft. Myers has been accelerated over the last year. Lover's Key State Park, you heard presentation on that. And for that we'd like to thank you. And we will also warn you that to the extent things start to slip, we'll be back with more formal presentations. So thanks for coming. We'll look forward to you in April. Let us know as a chamber, as a community, when it's our turn to do our part in terms of working at solving these problems. Thanks. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'd like to thank you from our perspective. The Bonita Springs Chamber was the one that got this organized and got us started meeting together here a couple years back. So we really appreciate your efforts. And we want to thank the Lions also for allowing us to use their wonderful facility again. If there's no further comment, we want to thank everyone for your attendance. And this meeting is adjourned. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 11:15 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, VICE-CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Anjonette K. Baum, CSR