Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/21/1995 RREGULAR HEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, 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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Bettye J. Hatthews Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Hanager Ken Cuyler, County Attorney Item #2 & 2A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order. The February 21st meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County. Mr. Dotrill, will you lead us in an invocation. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you as always this morning. We praise your name for the wonder and grace that you have bestowed on Collier County. Father, it's our prayer here this morning that you would bless all of the people of our community, in particular, to bless and direct and guide the County Commissioners as they make the important business decisions this morning for Collier County. Father, we're so thankful for the people of this County and, in particular, our staff of County employees that provide the many services that benefit all the residents. And, as always, it's our prayer this morning that you would bless our time here together today, and we pray these things in your Son's holy name. Amen. (The audience invoked the Pledge of Allegiance in unison.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, it's looks like you have a fairly short change of script here today. MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Good morning. Commissioners, I have just one add-on item today, and it will be under the County Hanager's regular course of the agenda. It will be 8(H)(2), and that is going to be an update and I'm going to request some specific authority as it pertains to Clam Pass which filled in over the course of last weekend and did not reopen last week. I'm specifically going to be requesting of the Board for you to declare a state of emergency as it pertains to Clam Pass for public works and public recreation and natural resource reasons. We'll brief you on that when we come to that. 8(H)(2). The following three changes are all a request for a continuance of items, the first two on the regular agenda. The one is 8(A)(3) under Community Development as it pertains to reinstating building permits. The request there is that that be continued for one month until the meeting of March the 21st. The second one is under 8(G)(2), which is Environmental Services. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Listen, might I ask, Mr. Dorrill, if I could ask the Commissioners the purpose for pulling that from today's agenda. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had a meeting with residents at their request from Seagate, Pelican Bay, the Park Shore area, three groups who are vitally interested in that, and they specifically asked if I would have that continued until after the emergency issue was dealt with. Hopefully what we're going to do today is approve sending a group to Tallahassee on Thursday, and they want to wait until they get back from Tallahassee on Thursday to find out what the State's general response is to the emergency issues before we start looking at the big picture. So it was at their request. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My understanding is that NRPA is more or less confined to the area north of Seagate Drive. It doesn't extend south beyond Seagate Drive; is that correct? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I believe so, yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Of course I'll honor the request. I don't know that I fully understand it, but that's fine. I just know there's a lot of folks in Pelican Bay very interested in this also and I have been working very long and hard on this and I would just like to see it come to pass as soon as possible. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. The only motivation in postponing it, Commissioner Hancock, is in an attempt to be as productive as possible and as efficient as possible so that after having received some information from Tallahassee hopefully on Thursday, we can move forward with a better proposal, a bigger picture proposal, perhaps something that will accomplish the goal more efficiently. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is it the opinion of this Board that we continue this item one week? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Certainly. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That will be fine. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I concur. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We'll continue that one. MR. DORRILL: To continue, Madam Chairman, there's an item on the consent agenda. It's 16(K)(1) as it pertains to a satisfaction of lien, a request to continue for one week at the County Attorney's request. I have two notes for purposes of our recording secretary this morning. First is that Item 8(G)(1), which was previously prepared to be continued, should be continued into the meeting on the 28th and correctly states that it's requested to be continued until today. I also have a note, apparently at the request of the Commissioners' schedules, that we will be taking a lunch break today from noon until 1:30. And that's all that I have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there further changes? Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nothing. I did have one thing on the Board of Communications, just an update on my meeting with the School Board last Thursday. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a question on the lunch break. I understand that's for pictures with the Sheriff's Department and so on. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. This may be very short. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I heard you mention with that item, a couple of big items taken off, we may have a short meeting. If we're right on the -- possibly finishing the meeting at 12:05, then We Can '- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I'm sure it's a little -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Twelve o'clock. Is the time certain? Are we a little bit flexible? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a little bit flexible, yes. The Sheriff is having his photographer to come over to take mug shots supposedly. Hopefully they won't be real mug shots, though. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The fingerprinting will be next Tuesday? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I hope not but we'll find out. I did have one item that was on the consent agenda. That was Item 16(E)(2). I'm not sure that we necessarily need to remove it but I would like approval of this item in the consent agenda contingent on approval of the DOR, and that's the recommendation to establish pay titles. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There are problems with that, the failure to approve the other will result in that item not being approved. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So with that, no further changes -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hove to approve the agenda and the consent agenda, as amended. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seconded. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion and a second to approve the agenda and consent agenda, as amended. No further discussion? I'll poll the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5/0. Item #3 MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 1995 REGULAR MEETING; JANUARY 25, 1995 WORKSHOP; AND JANUARY 31, 1995 WORKSHOP - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the minutes of January 24th Regular Meeting, Workshop and the January 31st Workshop. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seconded. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the three minutes of meetings appropriately listed in the agenda. Any further discussion? I'll poll the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5/0. Item #4A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 19 - FEBRUARY 25, 1995 AS ENGINEERS WEEK - ADOPTED Next item is the proclamations. Commissioner Hancock, Engineers Week. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I'm very happy to have the honor of reading this proclamation into the record. I understand Mr. Steve Kempton is here to accept the proclamation. Steve, if you could come up and stand just here to my left and get a few minutes of fame as you face the camera. I'd like to go ahead and read the proclamation. "Whereas engineers help to design, construct and maintain the infrastructure and facilities that contribute to a high quality of life for all residents of Florida; and, whereas, Florida's future growth depends on engineers executing innovative, creative, high quality solutions to technical problem; and "Whereas, the stated purposes of the Florida Engineering Society shall be to advance the public welfare and to promote the professional, social and economic interest of the engineering profession and to stimulate and develop professional concepts among all engineers through education and in practice; and "Whereas, the current members of the Florida Engineering Society and the Florida Institute of Consulting Engineers are making strides to interact with the engineering education sector to prepare future engineers to maintain our economic leadership and quality of life; and "Whereas, it is fitting that we recognize and honor the continuing contribution of America's engineers by observing Engineers Week with the motto 'Engineering the Future.' "Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of February 19 through the 25th, 1995, be designated as Engineers Week. "Done and ordered this 21st day of February, 1995. Signed, Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman." I'd like to make a motion that we accept the proclamation designating February 19th through 25th as Engineers Week. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I second that motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to accept the proclamation for Engineers Week. No further discussion? I'll poll the question. All in favor, please say aye. All opposed? There being none, we accept the proclamation. MR. KEMPTON: Thank you very much. (Applause) I really don't have any other comments but to thank the County and the Commissioners on behalf of all the engineers of this county. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're quite welcome. Item #4B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED The next item on the agenda are Service Awards. We have two today. The first one is a five-year pin for Zebedee Harris. he here? (Applause) Here's your pin, Zebedee, and your certificate, and I want to thank you very much for five years of effort. MR. HARRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the next one is for ten years of service to Ann Harie Saylot, Utilities Division. (Applause) Thank you very much. MS. SAYLOR: Thank you. Is Item #5 BUDGET AMENDMENT 95-172 - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda are Budget Amendments. MR. SYHKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Michael Smykowski, Acting Budget Director. There is one budget amendment that is on the report this morning that requires your approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seconded. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion and a second to approve the budget amendment. No further discussion? I'll poll the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion carries 5/0. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #7A JOHN T. CONROY, JR. OF JOHN R. WOOD, INC., REALTORS, REGARDING A UTILITY SEWER ASSESSMENT - NOT HEARD The next item on the agenda is in Public Petition, Mr. John T. Conroy of John R. Wood, Incorporated. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He's not here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's not here? MR. DORRILL: I don't see Mr. Conroy. You may recall, this item was previously requested to be continued by him until today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Continue on, and we'll see if he shows up here in a minute and I'll advise you of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We'll let this one pass for a couple of minutes. Item #SA1 DEVELOPHENT ORDER 95-2 AND RESOLUTION 95-143 RE PETITION DOA-94-5, WILLIAM R. VINES, REPRESENTING RICHARD K. BENNETT, TRUSTEE, NATIONSBANK LANE TRUST #5360 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITYGATE COHMERCE PARK DRI, DEVELOPMENT ORDER 88-02, AS AMENDED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING THE DATE BY WHICH TIME SIGNIFICANT PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT IS TO BEGIN BY FIVE YEARS LESS ONE DAY; AMENDING PROJECT PHASING; DEVELOPMENT ORDER TERMINATION DATE AND NUMBER OF YEARS EXEMPT FROM DOWN ZONING ALL BY TIME PERIODS OF FIVE YEARS LESS ONE DAY FOR THE CITYGATE COHMERCE PARK PUD ON THE EAST SIDE OF CR-951 - ADOPTED The next item on the agenda is the County Manager's report. The first item under Community Development, 8(A)(1): Petition DOA-94-5. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Good morning. For the record, my name is Ron Nino. I'm amending Petition DOA-94-5, which is the Citygate development of regional impact iljustrated on the map on the wall. I think most of you know where it is. This petition seeks to have the time frame for beginning initial development of Citygate extended by a period of five years and subsequently have each development date extended in the time at which time the development order was ceased to be effective equally all by periods of five years. The Regional Planning Council and DCA have indicated that they consider this a substantial change and have expressed no interest in the petition. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse my interruption, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But one of the things this Board has talked about and indeed as the Council of Economic Advisors is working on is economic development, I see this property and I think the community sees this property as key to the economic development of the Golden Gate area. I don't see any benefit to denying this petition, to making someone start from scratch unless there is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I -- MR. DORRILL: No one registered. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't see any problem with it either. And if we were to press the issue, assuming that they actually put something there that's not as attractive, to keep it there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With that in mind, I'll make a notion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seconded. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve Petition DOA-94-5. Is there any further discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll poll the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5/0. Item #8A2 DEVELOPHENT ORDER 95-3 AND RESOLUTION 95-144 RE PETITION DOA-94-6 WILLIAM R. VINEST, REPRESENTED RICHARD K. BENNETT, TRUSTEE, NATIONSBANK LAND TRUST #5222, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TWELVE LAKES DRIVE, DEVELOPMENT ORDER 87-01 AS AMENDED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING THE DATE BY WHICH TIME SIGNIFICANT PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT IS TO BEGIN BY TWO YEARS LESS ONE DAY; AMENDING PROJECT PHASING; DEVELOPMENT ORDER TERMINATION DATE AND NUMBER OF YEARS EXEMPT FROM DOWN ZONING ALL BY TIME PERIODS OF TWO YEARS LESS ONE DAY FOR THE TWELVE LAKES PUD LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CR-951 - ADOPTED Next item is 8(A)(2): Petition DOA-94-6. Hr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes. Again, Ron Nino, for the record. This petition is similar to the one you just heard. It has to do with the Twelve Lakes development regional impact which, again, is iljustrated on the wall behind me, the line between Davis Boulevard and Radio Road. This request is to extend the development period another two years, having received the three-year extension about a year and a half ago. This petition probably more unlike the first one, for all intents and purposes, is really academic. But the petitioner is in our office seeking a final site development plan approval of a condominium project. And as a matter of fact, there is a sales trailer out on the property currently. Nevertheless, I guess Mr. Vines is covering his bridges in case something occurs to delay that construction activity and, therefore, the request for an additional two-year extension. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, if I could quickly just ask Hr. Vines just for an affirmation. Is the project moving ahead and do you anticipate construction in the very near future? MR. VINES: So far as we know. The property is -- The northern portion of the property is under contract, as Ron indicates. The purchaser is doing everything that you normally do in connection with construction beginning. Anything can happen but what we expect to happen is development in the normal manner. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, is there any detriment in your opinion to granting this? MR. NINO: No, we don't believe there is. The Planning Commissioner is petitioning that and we recommended this extension. MR. DORRILL: And I have no one registered, Madam Chairman. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seconded. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve DOA-94-6. Is further discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll poll the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5/0. Thank you, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Thank you, Commissioner. Item #8C1 REQUEST BY EVERGLADES CITY FOR ASSISTANCE WITH AN INTERIOR BUILDING REMODELING THAT WOULD PROVIDE EXPANDED LIBRARY SERVICES AND SPACE FOR THE CLERK OF COURTS IN EVERGLADES CITY - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The next item has been continued. We'll move on to 8(C)(1), the recommendation that the Board of County -- That's where we are, right? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before Mr. Jones gets into too much of a discussion here, I just want to point out: under Fiscal Impact, it says this is not a budgeted project. There are no funds budgeted for this project and neither the Library nor the Clerk's Agency have unbudgeted cash reserves on hand. It talks about impact fee, carry forward, but those funds currently are set aside for debt service on the new library in the Estates or to accelerate the design of the Marco Island. We can have a discussion but if we don't have any money, I'm not sure what that discussion will be about. MR. DORRILL: And I understand that. You may, just as a courtesy, I see the Mayor of Everglades is here today and they initiated a request in conjunction and through Ms. Hankins' office. You may recall that the County Commission doesn't provide an employee who is a multi-trained employee. She is on the Clerk's payroll. She is also your satellite librarian there in Everglades, and you may want to have an idea of what the nature of what their request is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. John Jones is here? MR. JONES: Yes, I'm John Jones, Public Library. MS. HANKINS: I'm Kathy Hankins, Finance Director. MR. JONES: Apparently this has been going on sometime prior to my arrival here last March. The Everglades City facility was interested in just remodeling and updating what they did have. In September -- On August, they contacted my office. I went down and talked with some people at Everglades City, advised them that they needed to come through the County Commission. If this was their desire, I advised them that they needed to advise the Public Service Department. On September the 20th, they communicated with Commissioner Constantine, and on the 23rd, he issued a letter to Public Service asking us to investigate this. Ms. Jones assigned it to me and we began to investigate it. When I went down to Everglades City, what we have now is a 300-square-foot room that is in considerable disrepair. If considered, it's suffered considerable damage during the storms and water leakage, and it's -- I don't think it's the type of place that brings much honor to us. It's functional as it were. There is county employee there. She is an employee of the BCC. She serves as really a three -- She wears three hats. She work for the Finance Departments. She does represent the County and she does work as a librarian. At the same time, the shop next to the library became available, 600 square feet. So we looked at the possibility of the taking the wall, dividing the wall out, and providing the people of Everglades just about 900 square feet of a multipurpose type facility. In looking back over the records, and like I said, I don't understand the history of Collier County that well, but not a great deal of money has been spent in Everglades City for a library service. That may or may not be a priority to them, to the Board of County Commissioners. I am just simply representing the citizens of Everglades at this moment. We began to look for sources of funds. At first, we looked to the general funds. Then we discovered some of the problems you folks were having. We do have -- I hate to use the word "Oakridge" but we have collected more impact fees this past year than was anticipated. The funds that we're obligated to return for the money borrowed for the Estates Branch are in place. The money we're talking about was funds over and above the monies that were required to meet our present obligations. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And this is impact fees? MR. JONES: This is impact fees; yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And, Mr. Cuyler, will this expansion meet the qualifications for impact fees? MR. CUYLER: I had one of the assistants check into this as part of our agenda review and she's indicated to me that from what she understands, the expansion -- the impact fees would be okay for the expansion if there was a replacement of the existing 300 feet, 300 square feet. That would have to come from some source other, but that is growth related, as I understand it, is the expansion would be okay for impact fees. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the 600 yes but the 300 no? MR. CUYLER: If they -- I'm not sure that they're building a new facility. I think they're just going to spend some money to renovate the 300. MR. JONES: What we're talking about is taking a wall down between the two. We're talking about dropping the ceilings, patching up where the water damage is, dropping the ceilings, getting some light down onto a table top area. We're talking about going around the walls, and there is damage. You can push your whole finger in some of where the plasters went. We're talking about replacing that, repainting that. We're talking about putting carpet on the floor, and we are talking about air conditioning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the problem, as I understand it, is you can -- it can only be for new growth-related items? It can't be for a repair or maintenance? MR. CUYLER: Probably everything from taking the wall down through the other 600 feet you could use the library impact fees for, if you were turning that into a library facility, but you'd have to use general revenue funds for the existing three other things. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Jones, assuming that we could use our impact fees funds for this purpose, would that in the future require us to replace some other expenditure that's in the revenue funds? MR. JONES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, this would not impact general revenue at all? MR. JONES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. JONES: At the present moment, this particular portion of impact fee is unbudgeted. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, to follow-up on that, Mr. Cuyler has indicated that only for the 600-foot expansion area could you use impact fees. So what portion or what dollar amount would you anticipate using on the present 300 square feet? MR. JONES: It's a fairly small amount, the amount of paint it would take and some carpet. And, of course, by taking down the wall, the air conditioning unit would service both sides. I think it's fairly minor. I can assure the Board that I will approach the friends of the library and also looking in regular library operational monies, because I think it's going to be very small. I also think that the City of Everglades, if we got into a problem, their interest is high enough, I think they may be interested in participating. But I think most of it can be handled through the impact fees without ever coming back to this Board. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commission Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned more impact fees came in than expected last year. How much of those impact fees came in from Everglades City? MR. JONES: Sir, that I don't know. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You also mentioned maybe this isn't a priority, and I look at the January 1995. It also has on here January 1994, circulation statistics for our library service. Close to 50,000 pieces circulated at the headquarters; Marco Island, 15,000; Golden Gate, 17,300; Immokalee, 3100; North Collier, 17,500 almost; East Naples, 13,006. The Estates Branch was open one week, 4100. It's almost 4200. Everglades City, 467 pieces circulated. So when we talk about priorities, I think that's probably why is everyone else has 15,000 plus, with the exception of Immokalee, and we've got 400. The jail library circulates double as many pieces as this. MR. JONES: I understand, sir, and that's why I'm standing in front of you this morning. You set priorities. I carry them out. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the concern I have is, impact fees: people in general don't trust government whenever we have a tax, a fee or what have you, and impact fees are supposed to be growth paying for growth. The growth, realistically, is not occurring in Everglades City, and so I'm not sure that we can use impact fees. I mean, maybe legally we can but I'm not sure if we should be using if their intention and if what we've told the public is they are growth paying for growth. It seems inappropriate to use them in an area where actually the numbers have gone down since last year at this time on circulation. I don't doubt that perhaps this needs some repair but I don't think impact fees is a way to do it, and I don't know -- You know, no offense, Mayor, but when we talk about the priorities, then everyone else has 15,000 books plus and we're talking less than 500 books circulated in a month, that is going to be a lower priority for me. If there are other areas in the county that suddenly have a population of a few hundred pop up, are we going to create our own library there? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a small rebuttal to that, Commissioner Constantine, is that we could be talking chicken and egg here. I mean, who goes to a library that you can plug your finger through the wall? So maybe if we approve the facility, the circulation might also improve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a suspicion also that 500 books a month may be 70 or 80 percent of the books available. And if 70 or 80 percent of the books available in the libraries were rotating each and each every month, we'd be in great shape. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For those of you who haven't had the joy of taking a visit down to Everglades City and looking at the library, you can walk in the front door and touch both walls with one hand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we have a person working there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have somebody in there. And one thing I wanted to point as we talked about the interior damage: the roof has been repaired there so that the damage -- in other words, anything we do inside there is not going to be damaged again. So the water problem is pretty much gone away. The person that works in there, you said she wears three hats. I'd say it's more like a dozen: hunting licenses, fishing licenses, checking out books, you name it. Everything goes on down there. I understand Commissioner Constantine's argument. Unfortunately, it's a valid one. But after stepping foot in there, if I were an Everglades City resident, I don't know that I'd have a lot of incentive to use that particular facility. Something needs to be done down there, whether an expansion is adequate. I guess I'm going to look at the population that that library branch serves, and the square footage allocated is 300 feet proportional to what we have in the Golden Gate Estates Branch or what we have at the main branch; in other words, the actual area of the collection. I mean, are we talking a proportional size per population there or are we still below that? Any idea, Mr. Jones? MR. JONES: No, sir, not the way you're phrasing the question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd say the population this library services is close to 2500 because it's not just Everglades City. It's Chokoloskee -- MR. JONES: There are five communities there. When they presented this to me, there were five communities represented. To be honest with you, I've lived here a year and some of them I've never visited. I have no idea of what's there in some of them. It is just a small facility that is in need of some type of repair and that is your decision to make. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there further questions? MR. DORRILL: The only reason that I'm sure the Mayor has cancelled what we would have otherwise been a very lucrative fishing guide trip today, you may want to give him a chance to stand on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Mayor Butler, do you want to add to this? MR. DORRILL: Although it is a little windy today, Mayor, I don't know whether you would have gone fishing with your party or not. The winds up here -- MAYOR BUTLER: It's not near as windy as it was yesterday. I was out there. I was supposed to have went today and I conned it off on my son. But anyway, my name is Snapper Butler. Bettye, how do you say it? Bettye Person or Bettye Lady or Bettye Chairman or what? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Whatever. MAYOR BUTLER: Whatever. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I answer to a lot of names. MAYOR BUTLER: The worst thing about the Everglades facility is you're talking, you know, you walk up to a pump, if there's no water in it, you don't get no well -- You try to get water out of a pump that ain't got no water in it, you don't get it. We don't have nothing in Everglades. We don't have -- If you call what we have a library, then I've got that many books in my library at the house. I mean, you know, so to speak, we just don't have no facility. You go in there and it's a little room, possibly, like he says, you could almost touch -- I could almost touch both walls. Evelyn is sitting at the other end of it, and there's about ten or fifteen people between you and Evelyn and you can't get in there to check a book out. Now, I've stood in chow lines in the army for a long time and I'm not standing in there to get something I got, you know, to get a book to read. This is a facility that we've got in Everglades. We don't have no library in Everglades so to speak. And I just feel like if this wall that Mr. Jones was talking about removing is a wall that has formerly been moved when that used to be this Clerk of the Court's Office and all of that when this facility was in Everglades. It's nothing to move that wall. All it is is just some plywood, you know, put in there with some trim on both sides of it. It's nothing to move that wall. As far as the other part of it, we have, since Mr. Jones -- Well, I guess we done it before you got there, Mr. Jones. You just hadn't maybe tried it out yet, but we have reroofed it, and we've done a whole bunch of stuff and I am renovating the City Hall now, and the outer walls and everything will be finished before the library probably is in there because we working on it now, and, in fact, it's under construction while I'm speaking but -- or being done while I'm talking. It's just a fact that I think if you want to service the area -- And, Bettye, there's about -- when we was getting the bank to come in, there's about 3500 normal residents in Everglades City and the surrounding area. We're not talking about -- We keep saying Everglades City. We're talking about Chokoloskee, Plantation, Copeland and Big Cypress and all the other surrounding area, the people that lives out on Turner's River. And we're not just talking about the Everglades City itself. We're talking about the surrounding area, which it serves the surrounding area. I won't take up more of your time, but we do need a library in Everglades and I think this is the place to put in. We can put it in there real cheap. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Jones, how much did we anticipate bringing in on impact fees last year for a library? MR. JONES: It was revised twice. I believe the final figure is about 520,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how much did we bring in? MR. JONES: About 740,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what are impact fees normally set aside for? MR. JONES: Expansion of the library to meet the growth needs of the County as per the elements of the growth management plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Such as the Estates Library? MR. JONES: Such as the Estates Library; yes, sir. MR. DORRILL: We have one additional speaker now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Jones. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Gil Erlichman, speaking for myself. I'm amazed at this discussion. You know, all I've been hearing for the past six years since I've been down here is the growth of Collier County and growth management, et cetera. I've lived in a few large metropolitan areas in the suburban areas which the population could equate to Collier County. In all these areas, they had traveling libraries. All it takes is a remodeled bus or a vehicle large enough to hold some books and a person to drive it who is also a librarian or acting librarian and that bus visits each community, area, maybe once in two weeks or every week or depending upon the schedule that you want to establish one. This would eliminate building a library, say, out in Everglades City. And according to what I hear about our population increasing, I think we should consider a traveling library -- a traveling library or buses to distribute books into the outlying areas: Golden Gate, North Naples, whatever. And this, to me, would eliminate the necessity of building a structure to house the books and it would also serve the community, the areas, very, very nicely by going right to the people. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I have a couple of further questions for Mayor Butler. How long has this 300 square feet served as a library since the county buildings were moved to East Naples? MAYOR BUTLER: Twenty-five or twenty-six years, I don't know. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Almost twenty-five, twenty-six years. MAYOR BUTLER: Something like that. Bettye, it's over twenty years. Let me put it that way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Library impact fees have been in place for, at most, six years? MAYOR BUTLER: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Five years? MR. DORRILL: I'll say six. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the population in the plantation, Chokoloskee, Ochopee or Copeland area, certainly they have been pulling building permits and so forth down there for the last twenty-five years or so or certainly for the last six years, but impact fees have been collected. And that money has been collected and not redistributed to the people who are paying it. And mind you, this 300 square feet is also served by the Clerk's Office. To answer Commissioner Hancock's question, the Executive Summary says that our growth management plan dedicates .33 square feet per capita to libraries. Well, when I work out the 3500 populations by the 300 square feet that's shared, it turns out to .085. I don't think there's a lot of argument here myself. MAYOR BUTLER: Miss Hathews, if I could comment on that, too. See, I'm talking about people, when we done a study on to bring the bank in, you know, and we tried to get -- we tried to open up our own bank to start off with, a local revenue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I realize that. MAYOR BUTLER: You're aware of that. And this is what we come up with and took to Tallahassee and had some of the other banks come in. So we dropped out. We wasn't interested in running banks. But anyway you're not talking about -- Right now, there's 700 people in outdoor resorts. You know where that is and anybody that's been there knows what it is. There's 700 people in outdoor resorts alone. That's just one RV park. There's -- I don't know how many others is in there. At this time, you're probably expanding that 3500 up if you took the whole area where these people stay and who is our friends and visitors from the North that stay four to six months, you're probably expanding that population somewhere up around seven or eight, maybe nine thousand, somewhere in that area, if you take the whole area that it serves out there, you know, the rangers and all that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Probably so. MAYOR BUTLER: And I think -- And another thing is, just as you brought out, you're not just expanding a library. You're expanding our ability to get car tags, our ability to get fishing licenses. And believe me, about November, you can't even get close to the City Hall, because these people come from the North and they want a fishing license yesterday. They want to go fishing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, they do. That's why they come here. I would like to -- Oh, we have -- Any further questions? Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, Mr. Jones referenced the use of impact fees according to Growth Management Plan as laid out by the Board of County Commissioners. Do you happen to have a copy of the Growth Management Plan anywhere handy? MR. CUYLER: Not handy. We've got one. It's pursuant to the impact fee ordinances probably more specifically than it is the Plan as well. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think I'm going to have a majority agreeing with me on this, but can you give me a copy of that anyway of everything referencing specifically this proposal? MR. CUYLER: Right now or ASAP? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you can get it now, that would be great, but I suspect it'll take more than five minutes, so. MR. CUYLER: It's going to take me longer than the vote, I think. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before the day's out then. MR. CUYLER: Sure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: it's appropriate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Mac'Kie. I wanted to make a motion, if Yes, it is. I'd like to move approval of the item subject to the limitations described by the County Attorney, that the impact fees can only be used on the 600 feet of new expansion but move approval of the item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to -- On the motion, could we ask that we -- in order to keep the costs down if it runs into operating costs. And I'd like to say, this is one area also where we have the opportunity to spend some capital expenditure but there's no operating expenses associated to it. The City is going to pick up those expenses. So we have no additional operating expenses which have caused the budget crunch that we've been looking at. I would like to ask our staff that in the motion may entertain taking a real hard look at the central air conditioner as opposed to the window unit, because there's a notation here that we can save four or five thousand dollars by eliminating the central air. And I don't think that building has got central air at all. MR. DORRILL: We do. HAYOR BUTLER: Yes, ma'am. Our city -- We have central air and so does the bank, both of them. And I just put central air in part of the community center, Bettye. Do you remember the cost on that? About five thousand dollars and as we air conditioned a lot bigger area than what you're talking about; in fact, we put in a five-ton unit. And so it was about five thousand dollars for that. So you're not talking about a lot of -- I think you should central air because any time in air conditioning, you have a window unit now and it's been -- and where it's at, any time air has to turn a corner and, you know, Neil, it's like water. It don't like to turn, you know. In fact, if it wants to keep going straight, you have to -- I've entertained the idea of putting in central air. You put in one like the bank and that'll be all that you need to do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I hadn't realized that there was central air existing in them. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I noticed something when we got a memo sometime ago, and, Miss Hankins, this may be a question appropriate for you. There was an item in this 39,000, almost twelve thousand dollars for basically what appeared to me to be site management or something along that line. When I look at the actual item by item, line item bid on this, I was uncomfortable with the end amount because of that twelve-thousand-dollar line item. I guess I'd like just a clear explanation on that. MR. JONES: Okay. What they called it was general conditions, and I'd like to ask what general conditions was. It is the transportation, the movement of the work force back and forth to Everglades City, the dumpsters, the ripping out, the tearing out. The packaging is a whole process. That figure can be considerably reduced. We know we're now less than 10,000 with that figure right now. CONNISSIONER HANCOCK: So if we approve this today, are we in effect approving that vendor and that work or are going to have __ MR. JONES: No, sir. What we have right now are preliminary estimates. What will happen is it will go out albeit with some specs written to control some of those costs. Also, Gordon at Facilities Management will help me prepare that to make sure that we receive fair treatment. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any further questions on the motion? There being none, I'll poll the question. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Opposed? MR. CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes 4 to 1. Commissioner Constantine being in the opposition. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Matthews, one of the things I had discussed with the attorney: for twenty or thirty years, the County has not had any type of lease. The space was always provided to us, and I think it would just be good business practice if we had some type of lease now as it pertains to your investment in the building. And I've been told that they don't intend to charge any rent, and I think it would otherwise be good business to explain the terms and conditions before we commence any construction or renovation down there. So we'll undertake that through the Attorney's Office and bring some type of lease agreement back to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #8C2 REJECTION OF ALL BIDS IN RESPONSE TO BID #94-2300 AND DIRECTION FOR STAFF TO WORK WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY VETERINARY SOCIETY TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE METHODS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS THAT ARE ADOPTED FROM THE ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER THAT ARE NEUTERED OR SPAYED - CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 28, 1995 The next item on the agenda: 8(C)(2). Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reject all bids dealing with the animal shelter. Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. Good morning. For the record, I'm Tom Olliff and I'm your Public Services Administrator. This item was continued from last week's agenda, and this is an issue that we would really like to resolve for several reasons. And one in particular is that, as the Board will recall, this issue is one that relates to the number of animals that are adopted out of the Animal Control Department that are neutered and spayed. Animals that are not neutered and spayed, particularly with the clientele or the people who are actually adopting from Animal Control compounds a problem. It creates more and more stray animals and I think it compounds the number of animals that simply are running feral out there and it creates work for our Animal Control Department. So from a selfish standpoint, we would like to see a compliance rate better than what currently exists. And I think the Board as well, as we went through last summer's budget process, suggested to us that they would like to see that neuter/spay rate somewhere around 100 percent; they would like to see it as close to 100 percent as we possibly can get it. In response to that, what we did was we prepared a bid specification package to try and develop a single contract with a local clinic who would neuter and spay the animals for the Animal Control Department just prior to them leaving the facility. That was the only way that we knew of or at least one of the few ways to insure 100 percent compliance. When the bid specifications were out on the street, the Veterinary Society asked the department if they would attend their monthly meeting. When we did, frankly, we received a response that was not all that supportive of the idea of the single contract notion. The Veterinary Society was suggesting at that time that they create a subcommittee to work with the Animal Control Department to try and develop other methods of reaching that 100 percent compliance rate. Frankly, it becomes a business issue at some point for the local veterinarians. I think it is a business issue. The number of animals that get adopted and get sent to a veterinarian for neuter/spay, they will tell you that 75 to 80 percent of those will become reoccurring clients before then in the long run. So there is a business aspect to them. In order to pick a single vendor and send all of the County's business to that vendor then precludes all of those other vets in town in having an opportunity for that work. However, in order get 100 percent, there are few options in order to get there. The Veterinary Society and Animal Control have shared a mutually beneficial relationship for a number of years, and we try to put some dollar value on that: What does the County receive from the local vet society? And generally, the estimate is anywhere from 61,000 to as high as $95,000 from the area vets, and that comes in the form -- In fact, let me give you this. This is a handout. It's easier. What you'll see on the handout at the top, above the line, is the current situation. We adopt approximately a thousand animals a year. Right now our compliance rate -- Last month it was high. It was about 80 percent, which was a very good month for us. But overall, we're averaging probably about 70 percent of those animals being neutered and spayed. Our revenue from those thousand animals is, on average, twenty-three dollars per animal. It's lower for cats, higher for dogs. So it averages out to about twenty-three dollars. The avoided cost from area vets is where we try to estimate what it is that the local veterinarians provide to the Animal Control Department: heartworm checks, fecal exams. Emergency medical services for the animals: that is not a free service. In most cases, it's 50 percent of what they would normally charge. In some cases it is free. And then a licensing service. The vets are basically the backbone of the County's Licensing Department. Without those vets, it would take one person pretty much full-time to try and sell and track all of the licenses that are provided. In addition, if I can go through, I'd like you all to note down at the bottom just so that you understand what the licensing program is. We issue about 16,000 licenses a year. Only three to five hundred of those are sold out of the Animal Control Department on North Airport Road. So the vast, vast majority of those are being sold through the area community vets. Revenue from those licenses amounts to $80,000 a year for the department, so it's a major revenue for that department. Expenses under our current situation, again assuming 70 percent compliance at fifty-three dollars on average: if we do 70 percent, you'll see we lose money because we only collect about half of what it costs us to do a neuter/spay operation. Anything over 50 percent compliance, the department actually loses money. To tell you how badly we've done historically, the account has actually grown. that tells you that our compliance rate has been below 50 percent for a number of years so that we've actually accumulated a trust fund reserve there, this year, probably around $80,000. So there is a large amount of money there which can help offset and has last year and will continue to offset any loss that we have until -- in fact, we mapped out current rates. It's about six years we can live off that trust fund down. There's a worse case scenario painted there if the Humane Society were awarded a contract as the low bidder. And these are things that I can't tell you for a fact will happen, so there is a worse case and a best case. If the local veterinarians continue to do things as they always have, the County doesn't lose money at all. The County would continue to have revenues and expenses pretty much as they are. But there is a worse case scenario out there. If for business reasons the local vets have been providing these services and they don't or aren't inclined to do continue to do that, the County stands to lose some $78,000 that's there. In addition, I can't tell you what would happen to the licensing program. I would just personally assume that a great many vets will continue to sell licenses, but I will tell you that there are some that probably wouldn't. I can't tell you what those numbers are. There is no Society position on that, but I think that there would be a negative impact on our licensing program. The bids that were received in response to the actual specifications that were sent out, the low bid was the Humane Society. And the Humane Society bid a package that would cost us approximately forty dollars on average for every neuter and spay or $40,000 a year to achieve 100 percent compliance. The issue of transportation to and from the Humane Society was something left to be negotiated at a later date. So a decision that we were faced with was to award a contract to the Humane Society. If we were to reach 100 percent compliance with today's rates, it would save us $13,000. The risk side of that for that thirteen-thousand-dollar gain was somewhere between $78,000 and an entire licensing program here of $80,000 annual revenue and it stayed status quo, and I can't tell you exactly where that would fall. Given that situation, looking at the options that we had, we felt the best recommendation to make to you today was that you direct your staff to take the Veterinary Society up on their offer, to at least try and negotiate some system that would achieve that 100 percent compliance and still maintain some relationship with the fifty-plus vets that are in the community. If we can do that and still provide 100 percent compliance for a reasonable rate or even a better rate than what we have today, then that's the best of all worlds. If we can't, then we simply can either ask the Humane Society in the meantime to extend their bid that's out there today or rebid the project. If we rebid it, the only thing that can happen, in our opinion, is that we get a better price or at least the same price. So we were trying to make a recommendation to you that we would at least try and keep the vets, the Animal Control Society and the Humane Society because their vet is a member of that Society as well, on a good working relationship and keep things as they are for a period of 30 days to 90 days, something like that, to see if we couldn't work something out. And that's our recommendation to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, help me here. If we were to award this bid to the Humane Society, walk me through. What would happen? I go to Animal Control. I find a kitten I want to adopt. What happens? MR. OLLIFF: The way we had envisioned the program was you would adopt the animal, and the animal would then be transported to the Humane Society for the neuter and spay. Hopefully the exam -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not transported by me, the adopter of the cat. MR. OLLIFF: It doesn't get into the adopter's hands until the neuter/spay operation has been performed. You can return in two days to pick up your cat and it would have been neutered/spayed and hopefully a physical done on that animal so that you have a healthy neutered/spayed animal to take with you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What happens in the case of an animal fee for that? MR. OLLIFF: We would have to make a decision that either we're not going to adopt animals that are too young, or, there are a lot of vets who will do them, and, in fact, I think the current veterinarian's professional stance is that animals can't be neutered and spayed at the same age that we actually adopt them. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So no animal, no cat, no dog will go out without being neutered or spayed so we are assured 100 percent compliance -- MR. OLLIFF: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- which I'm going to guess, in the long run, saves us from having other cats or dogs come to Animal Control and eat our food, drink our water and we eventually or hopefully not would have to be either adopted out or put to sleep. MR. OLLIFF: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would be -- What would prohibit us from having the Humane Society as part of this, or Animal Control ourselves as part of this, license the animals and sell that license back? MR. OLLIFF: We do. We sell licenses today. But then you've got, today, over 20 clinics that sell licenses, and basically what you could do is limit that down from 23 or 24 down to two locations, assuming you give -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I'm not suggesting that. I'm just saying as far as each one of these animals that goes out, my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the discussion is all the animals that come out of Animal Control, the local vets are concerned that they may lose some of the business because we adopt out so many animals. And I don't argue with their concern. But the animals we're talking about aren't the ones that are being purchased at the pet store. They're the ones that we are adopting out. MR. OLLIFF: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we can get 100 percent neuter/spay. MR. OLLIFF: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we can get, in effect, if we ourselves and/or if the Humane Society sells licenses, we can get 100 percent licenses. I'm going to assume we don't give away an animal without licensing? MR. OLLIFF: Correct. We license 100 percent of what goes out today. So there's not a real license compliance on our adoptions. It's more of those animals that are out there from the pet stores. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we are talking about the other animals? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I've got to assume that the people who take the time to license those right now are the ones who are establishing some sort of relationship with a veterinarian, take their and pick up their new puppy in from Pets Plus for a physical or what have you? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I guess I'm not sure -- I know what the discussion has been. You and I talked about this. I know that the discussion has been that some vets are concerned, but I guess I'm hearing two sides to the argument. If their concern is whether or not the other animals, other than Animal Control, are going to make their way to them, this issue doesn't touch on that. MR. OLLIFF: Their concern, the way I understand it -- and I hope there is someone here to speak for the Society. I always speak for myself standing here at the podium. So in speaking for the Society, that puts me in an awkward spot. But my understanding of their position is that if there are a thousand animals that are adopted out today, when you adopt an animal, we give you a list of all the vets in town and a certificate that says you can go get that animal neutered and spayed at anybody on that list. So of those thousand animals that go out, they will be dispersed amongst every vet in town and then 75 to 80 percent of those will become return clients for those vets. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Other than neuter/spay and/or the initial physical, is there anything you'd have a reason to take a pet to a vet for? MR. OLLIFF: Initially? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MR. OLLIFF: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Feline leukemia shots, those type things? MR. OLLIFF: No, I don't think so. Not initially. What we do generally is try and make sure that there's a physical exam. On a cat, you don't do heartworm; but on a dog, you would. So it's just the very basic things to make sure that they're trying to at least walk out of there as inexpensively but with a relative assurance that that animal is healthy. Our adoption rates are so low. They're thirty-five dollars generally for a dog. And, you know, if you've been to a pet shop, you know how low that is and that's the incentive that we have in place to try and get those adoptions up. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess, again, maybe that's a question better to all the veterinarians, if they're here. MR. OLLIFF: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I'm just wondering if there are other things that will bring those pets, the people who are currently taking their pets to a veterinarian early on. I'm wondering if there is any other reason for them too early on, if we take care of that up front, and maybe you can't answer that but -- MR. OLLIFF: Well, the other idea is that once you as an adopter go to pick up your animal once it's been neutered/spayed, you don't know where that animal has been to have its neuter/spay operation. All you know is you have an animal to be adopted that's had an operation. We, at that point, can still give you that animal and a list of all the local area vets and say for your ongoing care, you know, we suggest you do that on an annual basis and you take it to one of these vets. So there's still that possibility of keeping that business further. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. We have three. I have Hiss Cart. Following her, if I could have Mr. Tobias, if you would please stand by near the podium. MS. TOBIAS: Mrs. Tobias, sir. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Tobias. MS. CARR: Commissioners, the real question today is do you want to award the contract to the low bidder who's ready, willing and able to perform, and not only were we the short-term low bidder, we can do the services shortly. I mean, as you all know, we're in our new facility. We couldn't do it before but we can do it now, and we can provide more services for less money, which Mr. Olliff acknowledges. And long term, just like Mr. Olliff acknowledges, too, we're talking 100 percent compliance here. Even at his best figures, you've got 30 to 40 percent of those animals out there reproducing and more of a burden on taxpayers in the future. Or, there was, according to one of the county employees -- I was not at this meeting -- there was a couple of the local veterinarians that gave these threats and were doing their best to intimidate. It was our veterinarian as well as Mr. Olliff and the county people by not collecting the licensing fees. And number one, it's the law. They're supposed to collect the licensing fees. And number two, they're not doing their clients any favors. And I think if their clients know what they're threatening: if you have a dog and you're going to a veterinarian, he's not collecting licensing fees, you're on vacation, a neighbor is watching, a neighbor can't find it, you come back, you can find your dog destroyed. So I don't think that the public is aware that these threats are really going to be followed through. Now, our bid did include some of the free services that Mr. Olliff is alluding to: the fecal checks and the heartworm. That was included in our bid. So as far as the free services, that's kind of a nonexistent issue. We do sell licenses. We've offered to work with the local veterinarians where we'd be happy to go ahead and put up a map of Collier County in our office with guides of whoever is in whose area. We'd be happy to put cards of one of the local veterinarians. The Humane Society is basically doing this at cost because we want the problem addressed. We understand the County is not willing to provide a veterinarian, which is fine, but we feel like we can do 100 percent of the service for less money to the taxpayers. Does anybody have any questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mentioned that you included costs that under the County plan were -- like the heartworm check, the fecal exam. MS. CARR: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That one says free under County. But in yours, it says twelve dollars heartworm, eight dollars fecal. MS. CARR: That was included in that fifteen-dollar examination fee that we did. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: you had that -- MS. CARR: Right. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: fifteen- dollar -- MS. CARR: Right. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That was a line item that -- others didn't. That was a Okay. MS. CARR: We're basically doing those at cost as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, Hiss Cart mentioned a meeting where there was some concern expressed by veterinarians as to whether or not they would participate in the future with licensing. MS. CARR: I understand there were two of them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many veterinarians were present at that? Balipark. MR. OLLIFF: Oh, twenty-three, twenty-four probably. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many of those vets expressed that concern? MR. OLLIFF: In terms of the licensing program? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. In your estimation, are we going to have thirty out of the fifty vets locally saying, Ah, the hell with the County or are we going to have a couple of people who are angry or somewhere in between? MR. OLLIFF: I honestly don't know. I mean, I can tell you that in a meeting like that, someone may say something that they don't intend to do and some people who are sitting there silent may full well intend to not do, and I just -- I don't want to be put in a position in speaking for what they will or won't do. As a society either, they didn't want to publicly take a stand on that either. I think that that's sort of an individual decision for vets to make. My only gut feeling is that there will be some, and I just don't know what level that would be. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How does the law currently read as far as requiring them to work -- or requiring licenses? MR. OLLIFF: It requires licenses of pet owners. It does not require that the local veterinarians sell them. MR. CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Cart, under the Humane Society, you have an alternate transportation. I believe that was truly negotiable. MS. CARR: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There wasn't no costs factored into it? MS. CARR: Right. We're willing to work with the County on that. I mean, we didn't want to say it was free or we didn't want to say that we'd charge anything. I mean, that really is totally subject to negotiation. I mean, we might not charge anything. We might charge, you know, a nominal fee. We're not really sure yet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wondered how that figures into the whole scope and what fiscal impact that had '- MS. CARR: I think it would be nominal. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- trying to put things on an even field. MS. CARR: If there were any fee, from what I understand, I think it would be nominal. I don't really think that's going to, you know, make it go up drastically. As a matter of fact, I'm fairly confident in that. What we want to do -- and Ms. Tobias, the president of the Humane Society, is going to talk next -- we want to work with Animal Control, like you saw in today's paper, I'm sure, with the cock fighting. The Humane Society has offered to go ahead and to underwrite the veterinary fees for the County so the County doesn't have to pay a veterinarian or have to impose on the other veterinarians in cruelty cases. There was a case last year that the State Attorney's Office had to fold up on because there was no autopsy on this dog that starved to death in Golden Gate Estates. What we have offered to do, and this is to the County Animal Control and to the Sheriff's Department is we'll provide the veterinarian services for the autopsies as well as paying the vet to go to court to testify for nothing. And that's because that's -- we feel very strongly about this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. CARR: Anymore questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think so. Ms. Tobias. MS. TOBIAS: Yes. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Who was on the list to speak first, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: The only other speaker we have is Dr. Johnson. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Go ahead, ma'am. MS. TOBIAS: Good morning. I'm Lee Tobias, newly elected President of the Humane Society of Collier County. Stephanie has gone over facts and figures, and what I wanted to talk to you today about is approaching this at a little bit of a different angle. I just want to say that the Humane Society has been involved for many years in this issue of trying to educate the public as to spaying and neutering. This is not new to us. And so it makes perfect sense that the Humane Society would be deeply involved in this cause and get in there with all we can to try and prevent the needless killing of animals. We go forward every day. We go into the schools to educate children on spay and neuter. We educate our people who come into the shelter to adopt. We support the Spay Day America Program where we honor certificates for spaying. There are many ways that we're out there every day doing besides what we're doing here in trying to obtain this contract. The other thing we're responsible to is we have 2,000 members in the Humane Society, and everyone of them, I'm sure, would expect that we would be here today speaking on behalf of the animals. They donate funds to us because they believe in our mission, and our mission is to get out there, to provide care and love and housing for animals that are unwanted, and to educate the public as to spay and neuter. There's only so much people can take when they're working in a Humane Society and you see what our shelter people have to go through every day, and I've seen it and I hate it. It's terrible when you see a puppy or a kitten put down because of lack of a good home, because of people's ignorance or arrogance regarding spay and neuter. We have to talk to the people that come in and say I want my dog to have one litter before he gets spayed. We need to talk to these people that come in with trunks full of animals, and it's tough and we're sick of it. So that's why we're here. We want to stop the 14 million dogs and 17 million cats that are destroyed every year. Because it's a people problem, it's not their problem. I don't know what more I can say at this point. We're sad to think that there is all this animosity going on. We are willing to work with people but the name of the game is let's look at those little eyes behind the cages and let's act responsibly and get the job done efficiently to spay and neuter. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? Dr. Johnson. DR. JOHNSON: For the record, my name is Dr. Keith Johnson. I'm a veterinarian at Eastside Animal Clinic. It's my clinic. Pardon my casual attire. I didn't know I was going to be here till about an hour ago. First, let me say that there is -- our goals, really, and the Humane Society and the County's goals are essentially the same. It's how we get there. There are several things that bothered me about the way this has occurred, this bidding process. And let me start off with the whole desire for this to happen has been to increase the compliance rate, and apparently it's about 70 percent now. In our meeting, we asked a simple question: Where are the other 30 percent? And we don't know. We don't know if those animals have been moved out of the County. We don't know if they've died from natural causes. We don't know if they're too sick to do the surgery. We don't know why the compliance rate is that low. Probably the reason is that people just don't take the time to get it done and there's not the enforcement there to drive them to get it done. It is County law. It is a County ordinance. They're supposed to get it done. We just don't have the staff from the County Animal Control, to see to it that it gets done. So that's the main reason this all came about. It's really a lack of enforcement and not by lack of willingness on the part of Animal Control, Humane Society or the local veterinarians. So it's a problem, I think, mostly of manpower more than anything else. And no matter what we do, this is going to come down to: it's going to cost you more money to get that compliance rate up. And I think the best thing to do is probably increase our manpower as far as Animal Control is concerned, get more people out there enforcing the existing codes, okay. The other thing is the taxpayer. Personally, it bothers me that this bidding process kind of came about in the first place. The reason is it's not really fair competition when you look at the Humane Society versus the other veterinarians. The group of veterinarians, we formed a group, kept our price down for years. And we are on that mental state really to keep the price down, keep it as a group. We've settled on that. We don't change prices very often. They're very difficult to increase from the County. So we've had that mindset for a long time. And now comes a low ball bid out of nowhere to us, and it's from a veterinary hospital that is on County property and does not have near the overhead or tax burden that we do. So it's not exactly a fair bidding process when you look at it, when you have a government agency giving a grant to another business that has obviously tax benefits versus the other businesses in town. So it's not really fair competition. The other thing the bothered me is that the agreement that we have, the working agreement between Collier County Animal Control and the Veterinary Group has been in existence for years. I've been in the county almost eight years now and I've been doing these spays and low cost neuters for years. And our only benefit out of this whole thing basically is to get new clients and to educate them. And every time that you get a client in for surgery, it allows you to talk to them both before and after the surgery, to take out the sutures, to educate the client. That's not going to exist in this kind of spay/neuter operation, and that's our problem, because we're not going to get new clients educated. The goals. We have to look at our goals. Are the goals to adopt more? Are the goals to neuter them or are the goals to make them a healthier and happier pet the entire life? That's what's going to keep them out of Animal Control centers is education of the client. And the spay/neuter operation both before, during and after the suture removal, all those things, give us a chance to educate the people on how to take care of their pets, to keep them home, to train them and keep them from jumping the fence and getting picked by Animal Control officers. It's not always the spay/neuter that gets them back into -- gets them back in the Animal Control center. If they have behavior problems, health problems, if they're unwanted, they're not cared for, they run loose. So it's part of the education that's important, and we're going to lose that in this kind of system. The other thing is the existing ordinance and the Animal Control agreements has been in existence for years, and it bothers me that all of a sudden it no longer exists. What happened to this contract or this agreement that's we've had for so long? It no longer exists. That kind of bothers me. It was just wiped clean by a low bidder. The last thing is, again, on bidding, is somewhat of a -- it's not apples to apples. I use surgery with state-of-the-art isoflurane. I use a pulse oximeter. We do preoperative exams. We do preoperative consultations. We do all those things with all of the animals that are spayed or neutered in my clinic, and that's not going to happen in all these other places. It's not apples to apples. You can't compare. That's why I didn't submit a bid, because it's not a fair way to do it. Again, I mentioned, the real problem is lack of enforcement more than anything. We can get the numbers up. We were willing to do it. But really, the only thing the veterinarians have been getting out of this over time has been educating and getting new clients, and we're going to lose that here and it's not really a fair way, you know, to compare. The last thing really to mention is that Tom -- Can I finish? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you wrap up? DR. JOHNSON: Okay. Tom told us in one meeting that Collier County is the only county in Florida that has 100 percent compliance of the veterinarians working with the County, and the relation that we've had has been long-standing. And this kind of undercutting and bid warring is only going to damage that relationship and it's not going to be helpful in the long haul. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A couple of quick questions. On the spay/neuter, once the procedure is done and the animal is released to the owner, for what time frame is that animal released before it has to come back for the sutures to be removed? DR. JOHNSON: They can use sutures underneath the skin and not have to come back. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So if you -- DR. JOHNSON: But usually if I put them in the skin, they come back in 10 to 14 days. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. DR. JOHNSON: And they're seen by me again. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The next question -- and this isn't for you, sir. It's maybe a logistics question of Miss Motlock (phonetic). This is very timely because I had a workday where I spent a half day out at the Animal Control center cleaning cat cages and watching what everyone did and riding with Animal Control officers. So one thing I realized when I was out there was that the decisions to put an animal down many times are spay related. In other words, you don't have enough kennels. You don't have enough cages to handle what comes in. So the number that you have to put down is due to the influx of animals coming in. Let's assume that we have a contract where we take the animal out to the Humane Society. They do the spay or neuter. Where is the animal picked up by the person who has adopted it? Would it be at the Humane Society? Would it come back to Animal Control and take up kennel space again a second time? And you've got to worry about the logistics in the fact that if that animal takes kennel space, it's going to cause another animal to be put down. And I'm a little concerned about the logistics on that because the idea here is yes, you're having them spayed and neutered, but it's equal important to find as many homes for as many animals as possible. And I do want to commend the staff over there for making very real world decisions on what animals have to be put down and what don't. And I -- it's -- Anyone who has not had their animal spayed or neutered ought to go have to watch it, because it would wake you up. But I'm concerned about the logistics and how that affects future adoption. MS. MORLOCK: I don't believe that that had been discussed as to what -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have to identify yourself, Ms. Motlock. MS. MORLOCK: I'm sorry. I'm Joni Motlock. I'm the director of Animal Control. We hadn't discussed how they were going to pick the -- if the animals would be picked up from Animal Control or if they would be picked up from the Humane Society. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because if it comes it back to you and it's just had surgery, you're not going to be able to put it in a kennel or a cage with another animal. Even though they may be compatible, it's going to have to isolated. If so, that's a full kennel space that could be to an animal to be adopted. So I'm -- MS. CARR: Can I address that, Mr. Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you let me know at least where the Humane Society fits on that. MS. CARR: The Humane Society would like to have -- It's a waste of money to go ahead and to transport it back. Plus as you said, the kennel space is -- Oh, I'm Stephanie Cart. What we would like to see is have the new owner adopt it, or at Animal Control it's transported to the Humane Society where it's fixed. Then the owner come to the Humane Society to pick it up. That's why when I talked about, you know, the map and all that, to explain that to them, we would also like to use that opportunity as a way to train the new owner as to responsible pet care, because that's another -- like education is one of our goals in our charter, and that's one thing that -- and that's the way we envision. And Ms. Motlock is right. We haven't actually sat down and negotiated this. But we were thinking that would be a very logical, real world way of handling this, plus -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. There's an emotional part of adoption, that the person comes and they pick out the animal and they are very happy to have that animal in their hands walking out the door. MS. CARR: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Once they take it out, to then take it back and say, You can pick this up in four days at the Humane Society, I'm concerned about '- MS. CARR: The turnaround time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- how that's affected adoption. MS. CARR: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, someone who goes home -- and obviously we don't want people adopting animals who aren't going to take care of them. MS. CARR: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you have to put the emotional element in there. MS. CARR: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And people do consider that. MS. CARR: Sure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And they do adopt out of emotions sometimes, and that doesn't mean they aren't good keepers of the animal. MS. CARR: Sure. You're right. And it would be our goal, to get the turnaround time down as much as humanly possible. I mean, ideally it would be within a day. I don't know if that's always going to be possible or realistic but definitely within two days. You know, it depends. If they come in late on a Saturday, it's going to take a lot longer than if they come in for something Monday morning. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In fact, more than anything, I just wanted to put those concerns out there because they hadn't been talked about. MS. CARR: You're right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If few animals are adopted, the problem gets worse, in my opinion. MS. CARR: Well, along those lines, Commissioner Hancock, one thing on the Humane Society -- and we've discussed this a little bit with Mr. Olliff and Miss Hotlock -- one of our goals is to have what's called a pet wagon; you know, like wagon tail, ha, ha. But what we would like to do is use that. They have one in Orange County right now. And that is -- We were just talking about the mobile library. This would be a mobile adoption van which can be used for the adopting out of animals. One of our goals is to work closer with Animal Control, to try to go ahead and to see more of these animals adopted out. If people in different neighborhoods, Naples Park or whatever, are having little meetings, then we would hopefully be invited to these -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, but I'd like to confine this discussion to the spay/neuter program. MS. CARR: Okay, that's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, do you have a question? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, taking the licenses out of the picture for a minute. That's the question mark as far as money. Taking those out for a minute, this will actually cost us less; is that correct? MR. OLLIFF: No. It will actually cost the County more because your compliance rate will pick up an extra two to three hundred animals. So the net cost to the County will actually increase. Just on average, neuter/spays is about three thousand dollars over the course of a year. And I didn't read their bid this way but they're indicating the general physical charge is going to be fifteen dollars. Currently that's within the cost, and that would be another $15,000 on top of that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, when we bid out any service or product, we need a bid for any service or product to the County, do we generally differentiate who we're receiving that from, whether it's a for-profit or a not-for-profit or do we simply look for the best service or products at the best price? MR. DORRILL: We will typically look for the best service at the best price and allow any of the competing vendors to add exceptions or deletions from the bid as part of that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dr. Johnson, I appreciate your concern in your not wanting to interrupt what I assume right now is a client flow. However, to say the bidding process is unfair, it's no different than the bid we do for anything. What we try to do is get the best product at the best price. And there are times when there are not-for-profits who can do it cheaper or there are -- small companies can do it better than big companies or vice versa, and we're just trying to get the best service for the best price. DR. JOHNSON: Hay I respond? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Certainly. Then I have one more question for you as well. DR. JOHNSON: My response to that is, yeah, I understand that. Yeah. It does give them an advantage obviously, the Humane Society. But the other thing is it still bothers me that the Animal Control ordinance was re-passed and amended, I guess, about a year ago in October and it mentioned nothing that our agreement was going to come to an end at any particular time. It was open ended. And so get a bid out of nowhere and all of a sudden everything that we have down in the past is just thrown out the window. And it seems like the contract had no end. Maybe it should have had an annual renewal or biannual or whatever. But, to me, that I've been doing this for eight years now and all of a sudden all that I've done and all the relationship that I've done with the County officers and everything, that's all kind of thrown out the window and it counts for nothing. And we get a low ball bid that's, again, not apples to apples, let alone having the unfair advantage. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you have a follow-up? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two more questions for you. Is there any other reason why I as an adopter would come to my veterinarian other than neuter/spay in my initial -- DR. JOHNSON: No. Most of the animals that come out of Collier County Animal Control have some type of health problem, whether it's internal or external parasites, whether it's malnutrition, you name it. Almost all of them need some type of medical help when they get adopted. That's why they're, because they're not wanted and not cared for. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my point in asking that question is simply: I would still have a need to come to you with that pet even if it was neutered or spayed. The second question is: would you, personally, would you still participate with the County as far as the licensing program? DR. JOHNSON: I haven't made up my mind yet. My initial reaction is if the County -- if our agreement is off, there's nothing to force me to sell licenses anymore. MR. CONSTANTINE: No, there isn't. But it is -- DR. JOHNSON: But it is a convenience to my clients. Those are the two things I'd have to weigh. Most of my clients would probably still expect me to sell a tag, and it would be inconvenient for them to go anywhere else. But if it hurt my business and if I had enough clients complaining, especially since a lot of the people that adopt pets and bring them to me through the Animal Control program are my clients already that have adopted another animal. They want me to do that surgery. If they're forced to have that animal to go to another doctor, they may be upset by that. MR. CONSTANTINE: I would assume, though -- DR. JOHNSON: If I get complaints, I would probably not sell the tags. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would assume the tags would be one more way to get people into your office. DR. JOHNSON: In most -- In a lot of counties throughout the state, they can get them at the, you know, the Government Centers, so. And most people, a lot of them, especially when they move down here, that's where they expect to go get them, not at their veterinarian. Most counties don't have the compliance and the veterinarians selling the tags, I believe. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, let me clarify one more time. This general physical that the Humane Society bid is fifteen bucks. That goes on top of the neuter/spay fee? MR. OLLIFF: Apparently so. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then how is that bid any cheaper than the ones we already have? MR. OLLIFF: Actually, if you look at it that way, it's not. The Humane Society bid then comes out to about fifty -- on average, fifty-three dollars -- or fifty-five dollars. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, let me clarify again over here, the avoided costs on your handout sheet that you gave us. MR. OLLIFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The avoided costs of free heartworm checks and the free fecal exams; is that what we're calling back there on the bid sheet the general physical? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, the emergency medical. Has the Humane Society offered to do any of that? MR. OLLIFF: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What happens to that? MR. OLLIFF: We'll continue to call it that and hope that they continue to treat us the way they have, but I don't know what will happen. They may; may not. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Explain to me, Dr. Johnson mentioned something about an agreement or a contract that they have had long-standing. What is the -- MR. OLLIFF: It's actually a county resolution. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a resolution. Okay. MR. OLLIFF: And by that resolution, it establishes the fees that we will be charged on each of the participating vets in the County. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And what we anticipate doing here is entering into a contract? And what's the life of that contract? MR. OLLIFF: It hasn't been negotiated. That would be up to the Board. We would go negotiate a contract and bring it back for final approval. I would expect, because of the nature of this, we would look at a one-year term initially with some renewal clauses to make sure that it works. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Going back to one of my earlier questions, I think you were telling me that you were not aware that we had to put the fifteen bucks on top of the neuter/spay fee. So, therefore, does that change who won the bid? Did that change the outcome of the bidding process? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need a little help with that because I thought I understood Miss Cart to say that was inclusive and now -- I'm glad you asked that question because if it's not inclusive, then it does make a difference. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not to mention the general physical says fifteen, but the heartworm at twelve and the fecal at eight, and that equals twenty. MS. CARR: May I add something? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, please, if you can keep it short. We just want to know -- MS. CARR: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We also want to know if the fifteen dollars is inclusive? Is that included in the forty dollars? MS. CARR: Fifteen dollars would be including the fecal check and the heartworm check. What happens now, I know because I've adopted animals from the County, is the new owner actually pays for that. And that's why we went ahead and put it down there, because it was requested. And we want to go ahead and handle it the way that it's handled now, which is actually the new owner pays for it, then that's the way that we'll handle it and the County won't be responsible for that either. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That looks like an add-on. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you're adding -- you're suggesting that this is an add alternate, that when the new owner comes to pick the animal up, they would be expected to pay the fifteen dollars? MS. CARR: That's the way it's done under the current contract; and from my experience, yes, it is. If the County doesn't want to pay for that, then fine. We can have the new owner do that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can someone address that? That's a critical point here. ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER: Under the current agreement that we have, each animal adopted from Animal Control receives a free physical, also a free heartworm check and fecal check by the veterinarian that they choose to take their animal to. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does the adopter pay anything for those services? ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER: Not for the physical, the fecal and the heartworm. They do pay for their shots, any type of treatment that the animal has to have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to interrupt this discussion because it's obvious now that we have some confusion about what's included and what's not included, and I'd like to entertain a motion to continue this for at least another week. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make that motion, because what I understood -- And I'm really glad you asked that question because the direction I understood we were headed and where I think we're headed now are two different things. So I'll make a motion to continue this item for one week. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, excuse me. I think we've discussed this in detail, extensively, and we have brought out a few critical points here. I think we're ready to make that determination today. And personally, I'm not sure that a week -- What do you intend to accomplish by waiting a week? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm a little confused, to tell you the truth. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm confused. MR. CONSTANTINE: I don't know if I'm ready to make it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not sure what's included and what's not now. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I have to agree with Commissioner Norris because -- and, Dr. Johnson, maybe you can answer this. When you get a slip from the County, do you charge for heartworm and fecal? DR. JOHNSON: No, we do not. It's says free. Our heartworm, fecal, physical exam are free. It's charged to no one, the County or the owner. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So if we add that fifteen onto a forty-dollar base, I'm coming up with fifty-five as opposed to the County fifty-three, not to mention the licensing program will continue as is. So again, the low bidder now becomes the County. DR. JOHNSON: The Veterinary Society. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, the Veterinary Society. I guess I don't see any -- DR. JOHNSON: It does. My understanding from meetings before is that that general physical portion was included in the other bid, I believe. If it's not, then that does affect dramatically. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we understand now that it's not. MS. CARR: It's been my experience that it depends upon who the veterinarian is. I mean, we're willing to work with the County again to do this, the Humane Society will be. If the County wants us to go ahead and waive that, to do just the spay/neuter, we'd be willing to do that as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: See, we're winding up negotiating something that we don't even have yet, seriously. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, we can't just negotiate this today. DR. JOHNSON: Just to clarify that one thing -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We can't simply renegotiate right here in public. DR. JOHNSON: -- to an adopter. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. DR. JOHNSON: It's printed on there that the fecal and the heartworm is free. It's on the certificate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? A third? I'm going to second it because I think we need to vote on it. So we have a motion and a second to continue one week? Is there discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand a couple of you said you'd just soon move on, but I have -- and I apologize. Maybe I'm just simple today but I seem to be confused. I seem to have got conflicting stories in my head and I'd appreciate if we could just sort that out. And I don't know that we need to have a 35-minute discussion again next week but I'd feel more comfortable voting on it when it was clear in my head. So I'd ask you to continue it for the week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion, I'll poll the question. All those in favor of continuing this item in one week, please say aye. All those opposed? Motion passes 5/0. We'll address this again next week. MR. DORRILL: Is there any direction in the ensuing week because -- MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Well, I think from what we were hearing, we need some definitives as to precisely what's included in each bid. I mean, I don't think we want to rebid it but we got some conflicting information right at the end. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, if I might, whether it's appropriate in a motion or whether it's a consensus for direction, I would like to ask that we get a line item. It's important that the heartworm check and the fecal exam be done on each animal, and I don't think we want to waiver from that. There's a reason it's listed as free in what we give the pet owner, because that fecal exam is a great indicator of potential problems to the animal and the animal's general health. So anything we get on a bid from someone else needs to show, line item, the fecal exam and the heartworm check, and it needs to be a part of this Board's consideration so that we can compare apples to apples exactly. MR. DORRILL: My only concern being that no one think that you have an opportunity to change your bid through the clarification process. And I understood Miss Cart to say that their base bid was not inclusive of those other two mandatory elements, and her combined bid then is fifty-five dollars, and she testified to that effect. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: She did and that's why I said -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's why I'm confused, too. Further direction, Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's find out during the week and not have a full discussion now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Further direction, Commissioner Norris? Just a moment, Dr. Johnson. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I want to make sure that we have all of our questions -- MR. OLLIFF: What I will bring back for you is, there was actually in the bid specification package a weighted formula based on the amount of animals we adopt out of each category. And we will take those numbers and we will just stick them in there and run those for you so that you could see on each and every one of those line-outs how the average comes out and how each bid stacks to each bid based on the information we were provided this morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Is that satisfactory? You want further included, Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We need to know, also, under the Humane Society's proposal who would pay the fifteen dollars. Would that be left to the County to pay that or is that for the client to pay? Who is going the pay the fifteen dollars? Because that's makes a tremendous difference. MR. OLLIFF: It does. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, there's an emergency medical being provided to the County at no charge right now but under the Humane Society that may not be the case. I think that needs to be a part of the consideration and possibly if that can be factored in for an animal adopted. That, to me, is very important. That's 25,000 dollars' worth of care that we're not paying for due to a relationship we have with veterinarian societies. So I would like to see that somehow pointed out in the comparison. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, I know we're not -- Well, never mind. We'll discuss that next week. DR. JOHNSON: Just a brief point. I would like to make sure that the County Commissioners make sure that none of -- if a lower bid is offered, make sure that they don't increase the cost to the adopting person. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what we're trying to make sure of. DR. JOHNSON: That could really affect your adoption rates, and you're spending here maybe 100 percent of five animals and that could be a real problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Let's take a 10-minute break. We'll be back at five minutes to eleven. (A short break was taken.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We reconvene the Board of County Commissioners for the February 21st meeting. Those of you who are here for a discussion of the Clam Bay NRPA, that has been continued one week. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not the Clam Pass issue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not the dredging issue. The NRPA. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I saw plenty of faces drop. That's better. Item #SH1 REVIEW OF COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEPARTHENT OF REVENUE, THE CUSTOMER SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS TO BE GAINED, THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, AND DIRECTION TO THE MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT THE DEPARTMENT - CONFIRMATION OF DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; AND STAFF TO ALLOW CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 60-90 DAYS TO BID FOR SERVICES THEY NOW PROVIDE CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move forward with -- We're still on the County Hanager's report: Item 8(H)(1), the discussion of the Department of Revenue. MR. DORRILL: Madam Chairman, this has been previously workshopped and, I think, appeared before the Commission on two occasions. In order to at least accelerate our presentation, I'm going to ask that you turn your attention to the page that's stamped, page 7. It's part of the backup. There is a spreadsheet there. And specifically, the concerns that you expressed to me at the workshop the other day had to do with our savings and our specific cost analysis. You had some organizational questions as well. I believe Mr. Hancock and Mr. Constantine raised a question about how many supervisors should there be, and as part of that in terms of how many people should they be then supervising. We have responded to both of your concerns. The sheet that is in front of you now, if you'll look at the third to the last column, you will see what your total current costs are as incurred and budgeted for the various billing and cash receipting functions that are under the County Manager. Next to that and next to the last column, you see what the proposed cost and budget to be. And for those things that are under my direct control and responsibility and, frankly, for which I don't need the Board's decision or approval, we are proposing to move forward and reduce by three the number of positions that are currently there. And in fact, I've been advised -- and Mr. Yonkosky can correct me -- we've actually reduced the number of supervisors. We previously had five supervisors. We've reduced that now to four and we combined the assessments and the fees and charges section, if you remember that organizational chart. We now have a single supervisor who is responsible for four fiscal clerks or billing technicians. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a new organizational chart in there somewhere? MR. DORRILL: Yeah, I believe we have them or I can get you one as part of the discussion. MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I don't see one. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't either. MR. DORRILL: We'll supply them. I've got one. We'll make copies so that you can see it. As part -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, there is. It's way back. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is the only one. MR. DORRILL: Is that the old one? How many supervisors are there? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Five. MR. DORRILL: Okay. That is now four and I'll make you a revised copy afterwards. That was revised after a discussion that I had with Mr. Constantine last week. The second half to this chart, back on page 7, the stamped page 7, that is shown as additional savings, these are those other services or programs that you have in place or need to be incorporated through some mechanism, either to allow the Department of Revenue to do it or to allow one of the other constitutional agencies to do it. And I've taken a real open position with respect to the second half of this. I think that it's unfortunate that perhaps some of this was attributed to be in any way a criticism of current agreements of the processes that you have in place. That was not intended and I would certainly apologize for that if it has been inferred that way by any constitutional officer. What I have attempted to do here is to show you the cost and budget breakdown for the major billing and cash receipting proposals that are on the table. And my proposal to the County Commission this morning is to be for you to pick and choose as you see fit for those additional savings that are there. There are $209,000 potentially in additional savings. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Additional savings over the infamous 300,000? MS. CHAIRMAN: No, no. MR. DORRILL: No. No, as a part. And my proposal to you in fairness to those other constitutional officers, either individually or collectively, if they want to bid or compete or propose costs lower than these, I think that they ought to have the opportunity to do that. And I think that we ought to give them between now and, I would say, whenever in our implementation plan and we can spell that out. If they can do it for anywhere near the cost that we can or less costs than what we can, I think we ought to let them do it. It's just as pure and simple as that. Now, the one thing I want to clarify. We need to have some time limit on that because at some point I will need to incur costs, and let me give you an example. Under the Solid Waste billing program, at some point I need to buy that software system in order to run the duplicate role which is what we had originally set is what I currently have approval to do. I don't want to go out and spend, and I don't know what the number is, I'll say $15,000 for a billing software program and then a week later or two months later, the constitutional officers give us a better price. I think if we can just put some dates on our implementation plans, and if they can do it for any cost near ours at all or at less cost, then I think we ought to let them do it. This is not intended in any way to block or prevent them from giving us as good or a better deal. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Mr. Dotrill, I see is this as -- and I'm sure Mr. Yonkosky has a very concise 30-minute presentation to do with a ton of information, but I see this in two parts. What I'm seeing from the packet and from speaking to Mr. Yonkosky is that a simple consolidation of the existing services that we did under bill collection in all the different areas is a ninety-thousand or an eighty-eight-thousand-dollar net savings. MR. DORRILL: It's going to be 88,000 plus whatever the additional reduction in that one supervisor is, and I'll say that that's probably an additional $20,000. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So upwards of $100,000 can be saved by a simple consolidation without even assuming the roles that the clerk or that the tax collector currently have? MR. DORRILL: And in fact -- The answer to your question is yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The second part of this is do we want to take over those operations to the benefit of the taxpayer and can we do it cheaper than they can? So if I understand correctly, those are really the two separate issues we're dealing with today. MR. DORRILL: That's what I want to boil this down to. There's this third thing that's been floating around out there about who can do it better or the ultimate customer satisfaction, and I just don't think we ought to debate that here today. If anyone else wants to propose on these billing programs, let's give them the opportunity to do that so that we don't have that dispute because -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And let me just wrap up real quick. MR. DORRILL: These are the best numbers that I can do it for. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DORRILL: I can't give you a better number. I don't intend to give you a cheaper number, because then I can't deliver on the service aspect of if. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So today, if we approve the DOR, we're looking at plus or minus $100,000 in our pocket and then we can make decisions on what areas we wish to cover the DOR at a later date. Okay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: With some indication as to some time frame for the reason that I mentioned. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The clarification for me is the DOR has already -- This Board, before I was on it, determined that we were going to have a Department of Revenue and it was within your jurisdiction already. You don't need us with regard to the hundred- thousand-dollar savings consolidation. MR. DORRILL: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'm not exactly sure what I'm even voting on today, because the DOR already exists and you already have the authority to do the hundred-thousand-dollar savings, which I absolutely commend, and we're in the process now of -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We were on that last week. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- asking constitutionals if they can match the other cost savings proposals that you have made. What would I be voting on today? MR. DORRILL: It's kind of Phase II, which is what Mr. Hancock said. You need to give me some indication as to whether you're willing to allow other people to propose or bid on these other -- one, two, three, four -- five major functions that are there. We are anxious to move ahead to save the eighty-eight to one hundred thousand dollars that I previously alluded to. I'm not in as big a hurry on the remaining 200,000. This is my best number to do that. I'm not going to lower these numbers any further. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: $88,809 will be saved in personal services is what this chart says? MR. DORRILL: It's like 90 percent personal services. There are may be a minor -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that the three positions you mentioned? MR. DORRILL: Four. MR. CONSTANTINE: Four positions? MR. DORRILL: It will be four because of the change that I made late last week in the organizational chart. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are those positions? What are they currently? MR. DORRILL: They are currently -- and I'm going to need some help here because I'm not going to get them all right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're vacant right now. MR. DORRILL: There was one billing supervisor. There was also previously a senior accountant. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have any idea of which departments or where these exist? MR. DORRILL: No, I'll need some help with that. I don't have that detailed. MR. YONKOSKY: John Yonkosky. They exist. One is in Utilities and two is the EHS budgets right now. MR. CONSTANTINE: One in Utility, two in EHS. And where is the fourth one? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a supervisor? MR. YONKOSKY: The fourth one is in Utilities also. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many of those positions are filled right now? MR. YONKOSKY: I believe that two or three of them are filled right now. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what will happen to those people? MR. YONKOSKY: Through attrition is the way that we had planned on approaching it. As people move or go through attrition and leave the department, they will not be -- MR. DORRILL: My policy has been attrition or to transfer. I have the ability to transfer people to other similar vacancies. And if it's my intent to save money, I'm not going to let them sit there until the end of the fiscal year. I'm going to move them as quick as I can. So it would be that the normal attrition or some transfer process to a similar position vacancy. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how many of those are filled? You said two or three. We don't know how many there are? MR. YONKOSKY: I don't know whether the last one has been filled but I do believe that two of them -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So up until recently it was vacant then, right? MR. YONKOSKY: Correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So at least two of them, we think, are vacant. MR. YONKOSKY: Right. MR. CONSTANTINE: And two are filled. So the actual savings there is a paper savings. We're not saving any money in those two positions, because they're not filled anyway. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Budget-wise we are. MR. DORRILL: Budget-wise, you are because that money is going to be taken out of those budgets and then you will save it beginning next year because you won't see that money in the next budget. That money is going to go back into the cash account -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A smaller budget but with those two we're not spending any less if we weren't spending it anyway. MR. DORRILL: At the current moment. But I mean I could be spending that but my intent is to eliminate those positions, whether filled or not, and return that money to reserve for whatever fund, whether it's the Utility fund or EHS fund. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Help explain to me just quickly: what do you mean by -- and I know what the word means -- but what do you mean by attrition? If we've got two people and you're going to consolidate, what do those two people do in the meantime? If we don't have an opening somewhere in the County right now that they are qualified for, what do we do with them? Where do they show up every day at eight o'clock? MR. DORRILL: They would continue to show up at their current place of work, depending on where that is, until we can move them. But that's why I said it's my intent to move them as quick as possible. That may be hard to do. It may have to cross agency lines. For example, you know, we don't have a lot of, for example, fiscal clerks. And if we're proposing to eliminate one fiscal clerk position, unless the individual also has secretarial or other clerical skills, it may be difficult for us to place them, and at some point we might just have to furlough or to lay off that individual. My number one priority, though, is to move them to other comparable positions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What, I guess, I'd like to know: at what point does that happen? How long do we carry somebody in a position that we've said is unnecessary? MR. DORRILL: Typically, not more than several months. Now, in the just completed case of Solid Waste, we said that we would carry those individuals indefinitely until I could find a permanent position for them but that you didn't want to create any new positions, and so I agreed with that. But I would like to think that, you know, within three months we're going to find -- in less than three months we're going to either find a comparable position or we're going to initiate some type of furlough or layoff then. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So come October 1, the beginning of next fiscal year -- MR. DORRILL: You're not going to see any of them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have two questions. One is on our new organizational chart that we've just been handed. I see that we have four supervisors down in the lower tiers there: billing supervisor, customer service supervisor, meter reading supervisor, and another billing supervisor. And we have those in two different branches here and we have a revenue manager for each of those branches, so we have two revenue managers. That's looks a little horizontal to me. Could not one revenue manager manage four supervisors? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you're going to do that, why not cut them both out and have the revenue director oversee it. MR. DORRILL: That's why we don't usually allow the Board to make administrative calls on this type of thing. We could bring my organizational charts up here every Tuesday and let you all review them. I guess the answer is yes. There is a difference in function here. You've got one revenue manager who's going to be dealing almost exclusively with the Utility account, because we still got sixty some odd thousand bills we have to get out. The other revenue manager and those other fiscal clerks are going to be dealing with like the other major programs: EHS, Special Assessments, Solid Waste. One of them gets assigned a responsibility for cash receipting and that type of thing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The other question goes to something that's been the subject of discussion many times in the past, and what I want to how our non Ad Valorem assessments should enter this picture and where are we on our software changes that we need. Is there any progress on anybody's front to handle more non Ad Valorem assessments? MR. DORRILL: Non Ad Valorem assessments I would define as the currents Solid Waste billing program. The Solid Waste bill is a second bill, if you will. It's not on the tax bill. Now, we have some special assessments that are on the tax bill, and I'll say that those are specifically things like the east and south county water -- or sewer special assessments. We have other minor special assessments that are not on the tax bill. The one that comes immediately to mind is the old Ridge Road special assessment where we went in and we built and paved a road, Ridge Road, and people live on there. And those are going to be handled under the special assessment software billing program that we have classified to cost $62,118 on sort of part B of my chart here. We are currently spending directly or indirectly $111,000. The software that is in place can handle, whether it's my software or the clerks or the tax collectors, can handle the current load. The discussion that we have had over the last couple of years, and the thing that Mr. Carlton has been gearing up to do, is more Ad Valorem special assessments and the hardware and software associated with that, for example, if you wanted to put garbage bills on the tax bill. And that's why we didn't do that the first time around. He wasn't proposing to do that. I'm not now proposing to do that. The knowledge that I have is that the additional need -- and I remember Mr. Saunders asked both he and Mr. Skinner to come up here a year ago and he expressed concern that we not add any additional assessments on the tax bill for that reason. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Using advanced mathematical techniques such as counting, I found out that the number of people on this chart and the number of people on the new chart are exactly the same. We took a billing supervisor from this chart and made him a senior fiscal clerk on this chart and we have the exact same number of people. Where are we saving a supervisor's salary? If we made him a senior fiscal clerk, aren't we substituting their salary with a senior fiscal clerk's salary? MR. DORRILL: My understanding is that we're at 28 positions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I count thirty. Well, no, I'm sorry. No. MR. DORRILL: And my understanding was that formally there -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had twenty-six. MR. DORRILL: -- there were 31 positions. MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct. Commissioner Hancock, what is not showing on there -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's only three, Mr. Dorrill. MR. YONKOSKY: -- is the existing structure of people. That chart, organization chart, is what would happen if you merely combined the existing billing units that you have out there in each separate division. When you combine that, you would only need 28 individuals to run that process. And so the chart that you're seeing is not the -- does not include those positions that were in there originally. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I understand. I heard that we're going from -- this chart meant 88,000 and this chart meant over 100,000 because we're moving a supervisor's position. Was I erred in -- MR. DORRILL: No, I may have misspoke that. I had sent that chart to go get Xeroxed and so I didn't have it in front of me. My understanding is we're going to 28 from 31; that's three. MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct. MR. DORRILL: We're down-grading that one supervisor's position to be a senior fiscal clerk who would be a lead worker. MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct. MR. DORRILL: There are additional cost savings above the 88,000 to do that because I'm down-grading that position. I gave you an additional number of 100,000, which would be 12,000 more. That's a rough number. The number that I can assure you of 88,000. It's going to be slightly more than that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And because of the down-grading of that position from a billing supervisor to senior fiscal clerk. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is whether or not we have any indications of interest from the constitutionals or others in bidding, you know, competing for these to match your bids on the alternative services. MR. DORRILL: They have said that. They have said that privately to County Commissioners in your meetings with them that they wished that they had had a bid since we workshopped this. I did not go out and officially ask them to take a position since your workshop. So I didn't go out and ask them would you prefer to bid, would you like to bid. I'm just indicating a willingness that if you want them to, I want them to. I just want to assign a time to that because otherwise at some point you're going to expect the Solid Waste bills to be mailed. And if it's going to be me, I need to buy that software system. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, just one. I guess I'm not comfortable with -- I think Commissioner Hancock brought up the point that he has simply down-graded that position to senior fiscal clerk. If it took two weeks ago, three weeks ago, if it took four people to do that, why does it take five now? MR. DORRILL: The rationale that we gave you today at the workshop was that the one billing supervisor that is being down-graded is not actually a managerial position in the sense that other ones are. That's on the special assessment side of our proposal. That is a working level supervisor. And so just as opposed to eliminating a managerial position because that's a working supervisor's position, we chose to down-grade it and show it as a senior but working fiscal clerk or fiscal -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why a senior fiscal clerk as opposed to just another fiscal clerk? MR. DORRILL: Because of the skill and the fact that someone is still going to be responsible for those special assessment programs when those other individuals are doing fees and charges. They can be community development fees. They could do EMS bills, those types of things. Again, that's just kind of an organizational call that I had to make. And in terms of whether it was a fiscal clerk or a senior fiscal clerk, I tended to want to play that one safe, because special assessments can be a little problematic. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other additional questions? Mr. Yonkosky, it sounds like you gave a great presentation. Do we have a motion? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to -- Actually, we don't we need a motion for the DOR to move ahead. I don't know if that's appropriate to make that a part of a motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's already been done. me. position on DOR, I think. Excuse Do we have public comment, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: We have three. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Four now. MR. DORRILL: Four. Dr. Biles. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like us to take some The County Manager can sit and say legally it doesn't require our opinion but I think if we say we don't want the DOR and the manager makes it, it probably won't make him popular among the Commissioners. So it would probably make it nice to ratify or deny the idea. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree. MR. DORRILL: I would appreciate it. Dr. Biles. And following her, I have Mr. Kennedy, if you would stand by, please, sir. DR. BILES: Fay Biles, President of the MArco Island Taxpayers Association. And I'm here today to say it's very refreshing to hear and approach and address tax cutting, I mean instead of always going up. The recent information in the papers leaves us all kind of like this, a 29 increase and now, today, the health department wants another Ad Valorem tax. So this is refreshing. We have conducted a thorough review of the DOR proposal. We did call Mr. Yonkosky. We asked him for the whole presentation. We took it back. We spent a lot of time looking over every single item on it. We've done charts that I'm going to give to you in just a minute, because we have some people in MArco that are very talented along these lines, I found out. And so we, without reservation, we highly recommend full implementation of the Department of Revenue reorganizational proposal. We are very much concerned with the tax situation today, so we need these tax cuttings. As you know, management authorities all agree that mission of an organization is never complete and never must be permitted to become sedentary or static. It is indeed the responsibility of management to anticipate the changing requirements of administration with proper organizational restructuring. In fact, the book "Reengineering the Oil Corporation", I use in my consulting firm constantly in strategic planning. We know that there's always an element of proprietary bureaucratic resistance to change, and such resistance often assumes -- takes on a political dimension but should not be permitted to impact the merits of sound, necessary reorganizational change. The Department of Revenue proposal, in our estimation, does project a savings of some $300,000 the first year. While we agree that this figure is conservative, we do not feel that it probably will be realized in the very first year. The implementation we think should be evolutionary rather than revolutionary in order to preclude any period of a functional vulnerability. Nonetheless, when the plan is fully implemented, the savings projected may well exceed the figures that we have been presented. In addition to the savings, realize, the plan is justified for two other very good reasons. One, it will certainly enhance customer service and satisfactions as billings and collections are professionalized and available at a single point of contact. This running to different departments and waiting days and weeks is absolutely unsatisfactory. Second, it facilitates, simplifies and enhances the manager's ability to administer this very sensitive function through a unified, centralized program to save money. For the taxpayers, that is always welcome news. We have prepared some charts that I'd like to share with you if I could have you or someone give them out, please. And I could put them on a transparency here, too, so that other people can see them. If I may take just a moment, please. Would you put that first one on, please. Maybe it's that we are more attuned to charts and graphs and visuals than we are to listening to auditory presentations. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need to reduce the lights. MS. BILES: We need the lights, I guess. This one we put together to show and reveal what the proposal shows, and we've done a pie chart to show the places where the savings are going to be realized. And as you see the different colored areas, you can see the utility lockbox, which is a good concept that almost all businesses use, special assessment billing and so forth. So that chart, I think, shows in a pie chart where the savings can be realized. The other chart is -- and if I can -- is what we refer to as a regression analysis chart, taking validity and the risk factor being the independent variable and then just charting on a graph to show that even if it comes in 90 percent to save that much, even that is a savings. Then if you look at that chart, if it should go to 100 percent, we're talking about over $300,000 savings. If it goes up even to 110 percent, we're talking about almost 600,000. If it goes up all the way to 120 percent, which I think is possible as far as how we're looking at this and showing in the future what could happen, you're talking well up to $800,000. Even if there is a risk factor involved and it goes down, then your risk factor goes up but your -- but that's not as likely as saving some money. So HITA, after looking at all of this, feels very comfortable that we need this type of a department. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Dr. Biles. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kennedy. And then following Mr. Kennedy, I've got a Ms. Slebodnik. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Kennedy. MR. KENNEDY: Michael Kennedy, Waste Management. I'd like to speak in favor of the Department of Revenue specifically for the software package for the increased customer service level that we will be able to provide and also for the flexibility it will give the Commission for future unknown enhancements, both the recycling and solid waste. I think that this is something that the County needs from somebody is to have a software package that can track the people as customers rather than just taxpayers, because we do have problems with that. And I thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Slebodnik. And then Mr. Olds. MS. SLEBODNIK: Kathleen Slebodnik, League of Women Voters of Collier County. We, too, have looked at the proposal and are heartily endorsing. We feel that there will be cost savings involved and also efficiency. As the County grows, I think a Department of Revenue is something that we will need, because consolidation of revenue is certainly important to this county. So we endorse this proposal. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Olds is your final speaker. MR. OLDS: Stanley Olds, speaking as a person, citizen and taxpayer. Are you people going to vote on it today, on this department? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We think so. MR. OLDS: You are. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We think so. MR. OLDS: Well, then I should be -- very important here because I've got something really important. I have gone over the data presented by Mr. Yonkosky and I'm very much in favor of the Department of Revenue because his figures and charts are very clear and persuasive. And whenever government can trim expenses and show a saving for the suffering taxpayers, I'm all for it. And the Department of Revenue cuts expenses through consolidation, which is a very important factor in government as far as I'm concerned. The only other point was that on page 37 of that review, I guess this new chart you have is a little bit better, but there are five billing supervisors. And I was wondering if you could save that 300,000 by having this, would it be possible to cut out all those billing supervisors and use just the revenue manager, because as a sales manager -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The span of control is difficult. MR. OLDS: What? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's me. I'm sorry. MR. OLDS: Oh, I thought it was somebody back there (indicating). CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The span of control for one person handling ten or twelve individuals gets a little difficult. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm with you on that one, Stanley. MR. OLDS: Well, it was just, you know, a good thought, because if you could save 300,000, why not 600,000. MR. DORRILL: And that's why I said I think that you could. But then when it doesn't work well, who are you going to blame? Are you going to blame yourself or are you going to blame the County Manager? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's an easy one. Would you agree, Mr. Dotrill? That would be you, sir. MR. OLDS: Well, that's about it. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Olds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Olds. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just have one question. Mr. Dotrill, space seems to be at our premium. Where will this new department of 28 to 30 people go and will it cost us anything to move or create that space and how much? MR. DORRILL: The answer is yes. I haven't made that final decision. I've got two potential places where I would like to consider putting them. The first place would be in some space that is finished but would need to be reconfigured that is on the third floor of the public services building, which is the Health and Public Service building. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're not going to displace George Archibald again, are you? MR. DORRILL: No. I only do that annually. The other place would be to reconfigure some existing finished space at the complex on Horseshoe Drive. My other plan for that is -- and I don't want to prejudge the Board -- in the event that we are going to contract, potentially, certain aspects of Utilities, Utilities is currently in some leased space and I would like to get them out of that rented space and into County owned and occupied, and I haven't made that final decision yet. And I'm trying to combine the DOR departments in existing finished space. There will be some costs. And if we're to do Solid Waste billing, then we're going to need to get a stuffing machine and that type of thing. There will be some cost for that. The fixed operating and fixed operating capital costs are in our numbers. The office relocation numbers are not. It depends on the final say and the final go-ahead. And my other desire, to get the Utilities Division out of rented space and into County owned space. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have a range, an estimate for what that would cost? MR. DORRILL: Maybe Mr. Yonkosky can help you with that. MR. CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. YONKOSKY: The total move and cost would be less than $25,000. If we do it in stages, it's going to be in the middle-class -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It will save the rent fairly quickly. Commissioner Norris. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, I like your suggestion of requesting that the constitutional officers go ahead and bid for the services that they now provide if it's their desire to do so. What do you think would be an appropriate time period? Ninety days? Sixty days? MR. DORRILL: I think that would not affect our implementation plan, but that's why I don't want to go to the eleventh hour and then have them say, Nope, we don't want to do it, and then have me have to run out and buy that software system. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm getting ready to make a motion, so I'd like to -- MR. DORRILL: I can live with 90 days. And if I can give them more time than that, I'll specify that in writing to you and them within the next week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I suggest this, that the County Manager publish a time schedule for the implementation and at each process along -- MR. DORRILL: We'd get one rather than get into the details of that. I can establish all of that in writing for all of these areas that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- that each process along the way, that he cut the bid process off. I don't know whether it should be 45 or 60 days prior to when you have to implement specific steps but certainly we've got to examine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's not a chance in me looking at this in detail in the next five minutes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not much chance. If we could have included in the motion some published time frame. It's look like you have it here. MR. NORRIS: Okay. I'll handle that, then, differently. If I could make a motion that the County Commission affirm the creation of the Department of Revenue and, further, that we direct staff to allow the constitutional officers a minimum of 60 days to bid for those services that they now provide, assuming that they want to bid for those. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion with the statement that I would also encourage constitutional officers to be creative in their approach of joining, of how to place these on tax rules and other creative measures that are out there, to look at a total comprehensive package on how to get the bills out. So I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one comment. Mr. Carlton walked in the room a few moments ago. Do you have any comment on this, Mr. Carlton? MR. CARLTON: Funny you should mention that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Somehow I knew. MR. DORRILL: As he's coming forward, I want to just qualify the one thing that I said was if we're going to accept other proposals, they need and should be complete. And one of the speakers today said one of the problems with our Solid Waste billing program is depending on where you're at in the time line, you can deal with one of five different departments. We want to try and consolidate billing and cash receipting activity under someone so that there is that single point of customer service as opposed to somebody saying, Well, I only want to bid on a portion of EHS bills or I only want to bid on a portion of Solid Waste bills. We want it to be complete. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. CARLTON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Guy Carlton, and I am your friendly tax collector. And I welcome the opportunity to bid on these services. From my point of view, it's never been a matter of inefficiency. It's been a matter of concept of realignment of personnel on you-all side. I'm telling you that there's no one in the United States, in the state of Florida, in Collier County -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are all of which are in the United States. MR. CARLTON: I don't go outside the United States. -- can collect your mandatory government billing any more efficient than your tax collector if you request me to put it on a tax bill. We were unable to meet your request in 1990 because non Ad Valorem was a new concept; the software was not in place. I'm happy to report that software is now in place. If you put it on your tax bill, A, your legal counsel will not be involved; the State of Florida takes care of that through the statutes. Two, there's no separate bill. There's no mailing. It goes out on your tax bill along with 70 other taxing districts. But we look forward to bidding on the billing, not only on Solid Waste but on Utilities and other functions. Thank you. If there's a question I might answer, I'd be happy to do so. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just for the sake of clarification, I want to make sure that no one is under any impression that you haven't -- that we're suggesting you have not done an efficient job, because I, for one, want to compliment you on the job you have done. MR. CARLTON: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've done a wonderful job for us. I think this is, as you said, a realignment of our own personnel in trying to -- our utilities people and so on are not the ones -- in the past they have done the job but are not the ones who are trained for this, and we can have one place, that's great. No reflection on either/or of what you're doing. MR. CARLTON: Thank you. I appreciate the kind words. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Carlton, something Mr. Dotrill mentioned is a good point and, that is, something that although it doesn't come down to the numbers in a proposal but how we address when the complaints come in, who handles them and so forth. I just got off the phone in our last break with someone who got bounced from A to B on the Solid Waste billing issue. So, again, I want to make sure that that portion is addressed in some manner. As a part of the physical look, let's also provide that customer element in and how your department addresses that, too. I know no one does everything perfect all the time and some people are unhappy no matter what you do and so forth and so on. MR. CARLTON: Well, someone can get bumped from an installment for lack of payment. Then it's always somebody else's problem. I'm telling you, that if you want to eliminate all of those complaints, put it on a tax bill. No one has ever lost their property for not paying East Naples Sewer because they didn't pay it. They lost their property because they didn't pay their property taxes. That's an established procedure. If that's the way you wish to go, we'd be happy to accommodate you. But the way you eliminate that is to put it on a tax bill. Some people have said you can deduct that from your income tax. The non Ad Valorem portion, and she knows quite well, is nondeductible but it has full force and effect of taxes. So having that advantage, we look eager to bid. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. CARLTON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Carlton, have you decided what you're going to do with all your fighting roosters now? MR. CARLTON: All my what? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: All your fighting roosters, now that the story is in the newspaper. MR. CARLTON: Yeah. Well, I'm sure Colonel Sanders has some use for them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Carlton, is the 60 to 90 days a reasonable time frame for you? MR. CARLTON: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to be sure. MR. CARLTON: Now, you want that in per item or percentage of cost? That would help. But that would be in the specs, I'm sure, he sent to us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We want a bottom line that's lower than what's here. MR. CARLTON: Okay. And we can do that. But understand, every penny that was in excess of what it cost us to do the job, we faithfully returned to you in unused fees every year, and I don't want to sound like I'm bragging now, but 2.3 million wasn't all bad. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know but we've got to find ways to get operating costs down before 1977. MR. CARLTON: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And this is one of them. MR. CARLTON: We're working on it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. CARLTON: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That concludes the Guy Carlton show portion of our program. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioner Matthews? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Yonkosky. MR. YONKOSKY: The counties where the software that we're recommending to you, those mandatory assessments are collected on the tax roll. They still bought the software because of the complaint tracking. When we're talking about the economies and efficiencies of putting it on the tax roll, absolutely. That's a 97 percent winner for you. But that does not begin to address all of the other functions of that mandatory Solid Waste program that this Board and prior Boards have put into place. It doesn't address refunds or changes of addresses throughout the year. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Yonkosky, Doc Brown told me a long, long time ago to shut up when it looks like you got a winner. MR. YONKOSKY: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think you might have a winner. Let's not kill it. MR. YONKOSKY: Okay. All right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to endorse the program presented by County Manager Dotrill to institute and implement the DOR and to allow 60 to 90 days' bid process for our constitutional officers. With that in mind, if there's no further discussion, I will -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And a thank-you for Mr. Dorrill. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion, I'll poll the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5/0. MR. DORRILL: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Yonkosky and Mr. Dorrill. Item #8H2 CLAM PASS INLET UPDATE - CLASS "B" EHERGENCY DECLARED AND STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED The next item on the agenda is a discussion of the Clam Pass dredging. MR. DORRILL: This is a very important issue. We're going to ask you today to recognize an emergency, and that's why we have added it to the agenda today. In the time that I've been your County Manager, Clam Pass has actually filled in twice, and it filled in again last Saturday as a result of a storm event. It's going to be important to distinguish what the nature of the problem is so that I can explain it to you fully. Clam Pass, as you know, is an environmentally very sensitive area to the Pelican Bay community that for all practical purposes is not navigable for the sense of boating and recreation. It is very important, though, from the sense of an estuarine back bay system. It is recreational for purposes of canoeing, fishing. It is very important as it pertains to storm water retention, tidal flushing in that whole north end of the county. The system is prone to fill in over time, and I have asked the staff, especially for the new commissioners, to bring some slides to show you the nature of what has occurred in the past, what the actual pass resembles when it works and is functioning well, and what has happened over the course of the last weekend. I will tell you that preliminarily we have also asked the secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Miss Wetheral (phonetic), we advised her of this situation over the weekend. I have reason to believe that there may be an opportunity for a waiver of what it is that I would like to do, and I will explain that in just a minute. If we're not successful in accommodating the waiver, then what we're going to ask for is an emergency dredge and fill permit that is allowable based on our interpretation under the Florida Administrative Regulations. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I just ask some questions while they're setting up? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The basis of my request to remove the NRPA Class Pass issue was, as I said, a meeting among the Naples Bay, Seagate, and Pelican Bay, and Pelican Bay Foundation people. And one of the things that I got at that meeting was a memo, February 16th, from Jerry Neal to Tom Conrecode, saying that the state will not issue an emergency permit, that the State has already told us. DEP has said no to an emergency permit. And I've analogized the situation from Midnight Pass -- MR. DORRILL: That was a little different situation, and I'm very familiar with Midnight Pass because it's in Sarasota and that occurred when I was a child growing up there in high school. There is a specific mechanism under the Florida Administrative Code that allows county commissions to declare a localized state of emergency and apply for what is called a Class B emergency permit, and it is under that mechanism to take temporary steps to protect life, health, property, animal and plant species. And that's the interpretation that we're relying on. Now, I'll also have Mr. Hargett speak to the specific individual in Fort Myers who has permitting authority, and the section chief's name is Gordon Rameese (phonetic). Gordon Rameese said that before we declare a state of emergency and get Tallahassee involved, that he wants an opportunity to work with us to pursue a waiver of the normal permitting requirements. And I think that anytime you have someone from the state initiating a willingness to otherwise save you time and effort, you need to explore that. Mr. Rameese is the type of individual I would recommend that. Failure to do this, though, it's my intent to ask you for authority today to declare a localized state of emergency and make application and put DEP on notice that we're proceeding under those Class B guidelines that I alluded to. And I hope I answered your question. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess one of the things I'm going to want to know from you, Mr. Cuyler, is it's my understanding that the penalty -- somebody can go to jail for six months and we could have a ten-thousand-dollar-a-day fine if we proceed without a permit. Does that apply in this situation if we inappropriately designate a localized emergency? MR. CONRECODE: Commissioner, if I could, and I was hoping to frame all of this so that it would -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Then I'll wait. MR. CONRECODE: -- sort of lead into Ken addressing some of the other regulatory issues. It would give some historical perspective to the project in the past and the differences, for instance, the February 16th memo that you referred to. First of all, the pass has been in existence -- and we'll show you photographs dating back to the 1950s of different events that have opened and closed the pass and how the configuration of the pass has changed over the years. The most recent permits that we're applicable to the pass include a Core of Engineers permit from 1981 to 1991 that prohibited dredging within the Clam Bay system but specifically addressed and set the precedent for the need to maintain the opening of Clam Pass. The second permit that applies was a permit that expired in February of 1994 and had been opened since 1989 the last time the pass closed. That permit was granted with specific language that said you need to complete a new management plan to really study the hydraulics and the dynamics of the entire pass system before we want to give you a permit to maintain this pass open for some period of time. That work is underway. It will be completed on our side in '96. DEP normally takes a six-month period to review it and we expect their approval in early 1997, about two years from now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask you a sensitive question about that? MR. CONRECODE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One of the things that came up at this meeting was that the County had approved the contract for that review that you just described but, in effect, it only funded a portion of it so that the process was not proceeding improperly? MR. CONRECODE: It's fully funded. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's fully funded. MR. CONRECODE: Fully funded, yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it's about a four-hundred-thousand- dollar or three-hundred-thousand-dollar contract? MR. CONRECODE: I don't have that on my fingertips to really tell you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. CONRECODE: I'm sorry, ninety-seven-thousand-dollar contract (perusing). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that was my point. What I thought, that full funding of the project was about a three-hundred-thousand-dollar job and that it had only been funded as to 97,000. MR. CONRECODE: And that's the important element to separate. The work that we are required by the state to do for the inlet management plan is the $97,000. That deals only with the inlet. You could draw a very small circle around that inlet. There's another element of work that your National Resources Department has undertaken called The Natural Resource Protection Area for Clam Pass -- or for Clam Bay. That includes the whole system. There was some additional work proposed by the consultant, several hundred thousand dollars' worth of additional work that he would still very much like to have to do the additional study that might go further and beyond and talked about things like opening the channel between -- at Seagate Drive between the Outer Clam Bay and Doctor's Bay. And so I don't want to get into those issues but there was another proposal that's not required by the state, it's not by the NRPA, and it would be nice to have if somebody had several hundred thousand dollars they didn't know what to do with. That's a separate element. I'd like to keep that separate for the purposes of this discussion. Now, in terms of the pass, the precedent under the Core of Engineers is there; the precedent under the DEP there. And we have asked and the February 16th memo speaks to the fact that can we get a waiver of this condition that's going to require the completion of the inlet management plan in order for us to dredge? The answer to that is no. However, we think that the Board has the authority under Florida Administrative Code, and I gave you a cite, 312-090, that allows you to declare an emergency condition, a Class B emergency, which specifically threatens plant and animal life within that system to allow us to take temporary measures. Now, it's important and I'll emphasize temporary measures, because we don't plan to go in there and dredge and to create some sort of an opening that will be open forever. We know that the dynamics of that system are such that it's going to open and close in transition and change. The last time it was opened, it lasted for five-plus years. We think that this will last, these temporary measures will last barring any unusual storm or hurricane and that until which time we have the inlet management plan completed, we've completed all the engineering work that goes along with this that will allow us to maintain this pass. Now -- MR. DORRILL: Can we in just a moment, just because I promised the Commissioners this wouldn't take that long, can I get you to move on to your slides and show us what the preexisting conditions were and that type of thing, because I'd like for our part of the presentation to be done in about five or ten minutes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: While that's being handed out, I would like to point out that what we're dealing with here are the specifics of a Clam Bay system, although there are waterways connected to the south and waterways connected to the north. This is a system that the Board has previously recognized as a study area and that I agree with Mr. Conrecode for this particular point. We have one issue: Clam Pass open or shut and what does it do to the system and what do we do to get it open? I think there are other things we could look at but right now that is the single issue that I think is most important to this system and to the residents of Pelican Bay and to the Clam Bay NRPA itself. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And just while you guys are still doing this, what I think is that, yes, that is a critical emergency issue for today but the emergency is going to continue to occur until we address the big picture issue. And so we need to look at the whole problem. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm sure we'll have time to do that. MR. CONRECODE: The slides aren't very good. They've been produced rather hurriedly. Today is Friday. And we're going to try and do the best we can to walk you through this. This is February 14th aerial photography that shows the entire system. And on the west or on the left-hand side of the photo is the Gulf. On the east side is the Pelican Bay development. Jerry is pointing to the actual Clam Pass inlet that was closed on February 14th -- or actually, it closed the weekend before that. To the south is the Lower -- or Outer Clam Bay, and Upper Clam Bay at the north, and the Inner Clam Bay in the center portion of that. Okay. As Jerry walks through the photographs, he'll be referring to things such as mangrove die-offs, and there's some changes in the configuration of the pass as he kind of marches down through these. MR. NEAL: This is just to show you a view looking south. This is inlet. All this is just to orient you. This is the Lower Bay. This is looking at the central section. And this here you can see the Inner and the Outer. And up here, it would be the Ritz coming right through here. This is what it looks like today. You can see the difference in the color of the sand. This area here just attached a couple of weeks ago, this dark area, totally plugging up the only exit out of this area. This is a shot that we're doing the monitoring right now, the inlet management plan. This shot from the inlet looking north, and you can see that the system pretty well goes dry. This is the bottom. This is our monitoring area. And this is another monitoring area monitoring the sea grass that's existing in that area. This photo here is 1944. This is '51, and you can see right here it's pretty well closed off through here, here. Here is where the inlet would be right through here. You can see this show offshore. I think this is '73, and you can see that it has opened up again on its own. In '75, you can see it blew through. It has a different configuration now. The sand is built up on the sides and a little bit of a show out front. Tom, can you hand me my date thing? MR. CONRECODE: You're on fifteen. MR. NEAL: Fifteen. That's '85. And this one here should be '89, April. And you can see it again. It's just a little bit of channel through there. This should be in '91, July. You can see that it has changed direction. Before it's gone out and it's gone up. This time it's here. This is because of the sand that is moving down. This here is the photo where it closed up again. You can see the shore is continuous here where the sand is totally filled in. This one here is July of '91. This here should have a date. August '93. This is December '93 that you can see over the period of that one year there's a tremendous difference. February '94. In February, you can see that it is now coming back down, building up on the up-drift, ready to go to the down-drift to get a little bit over. This is in again February. June of '94 is this one. You can see most of the sand has now past by. It's a timing period when the sand is going to past by when a storm is going to hit. So you drive it into the inlet to close at this -- this period here did not have enough storm to drive it into the inlet. It went on past. This is what it looks like today if you're standing in the condo looking out. You can see the closure here. This is closer up where you see the actual sand here. This is looking from the water in. Okay. All right. One more, Tom. And you can see the difference in the color of the bands through here. This is what would maybe go by, except we had a storm when we was out here and it totally went into shore and it blocked it off. The temporary measures which I have given you on the handout, there's two. In 1989, they did six-foot deep, 30-foot wide and came straight out to here and stopped and let it cave in. It took them three tries to get it to stay open. The discussions we've been having with Natural Resources in Tallahassee, they're recommending we do a little wider channel, and deeper, possibly picking it up here. And you can see where this band comes around here color-wise, that this is also -- sand has filled in. Take it from here with the same section and take it out to here. In 1989, it was 550 yards. Today, we're talking about maybe 1500 yards if we do the recommendations of Beaches and Shores, which is to take this straight out. This is looking at the mangrove die-off area, more into the center of it. This is on the north end. This is the south end of the die-off area. This is a bend on the north, looking south. This is a close-up in the middle. This is a close-up on the very south end. And this here is actually inside the forest itself. All right. Okay, Tom, if you could back up about ten slides. So what we have in front of you is where you have the big view of the inlet right here. So what you have before you is a proposal. One is to go before the state and ask for a permit through the different agencies. And what you have, you have State Lands. You have the Department of Beaches and Coastal Systems. You have what was called the Environmental Regulation Department. You have the Protected Species because of sea turtles and bird nesting. And you have the Core of Engineers. All of these agencies will have to either give us a waiver, an exemption or a permit if we go through the regular permitting. We did make a request to go in here immediately and to remove the sand, but we were denied that without further information and we are scheduled to meet with them on Thursday coming up in Tallahassee to further our negotiations with them to start immediate repair. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Their request to us, then, is twofold; one, to declare a Class B emergency and -- MR. CONRECODE: Yeah. We feel that there's sufficient evidence to justify the Class B emergency, that being the mangrove die-offs and the documentation of that has occurred in 1988 and '89 resulting in what we have today. In addition to that, your Natural Resources Department has been monitoring the water quality and the dissolved oxygen content up there and it is, in fact, dropping, which is indicative of a future fish kill within that area. We would like to prevent that from occurring if at all possible. We've benefitted from some cooler weather which has maintained the dissolved oxygen content. It's somewhat stable. But as it warms up and we go through some cycles of not flushing that bay area, it's likely that we'll have a fish kill. And as a result of that, I think the Board can have the finding that it is a Class B emergency and direct us to proceed under 17-3-19 as I heard -- or 3-12-09. MR. DORRILL: Two-phase. We will need a regular dredge and fill permit to do a broader and deeper channel that Mr. Neal alluded to. Specifically, though, I'd like to dispatch some people at Fort Myers this afternoon to meet with Mr. Rameese and he is available to outline the provisions under the emergency and temporary permit. We'd like to try and get some saltwater back into the bay system even if it's apt to fill in again under whatever definition we use of temporary. And that's the primary intent. The last time that we went through the full process, you'll recall, it took eight months to get the permit and the ensuing die-off of the sea grass bed, the mangrove forest. And I think all of us realize that that is not acceptable, and that was the reason for us even alerting Secretary Wetheral over the weekend that we had a situation here that was going to warrant someone's attention, that we might need help. So we've got a temporary emergency permit and then we've got the little longer term, what is a little better hydraulic fix to what is a very sensitive pass. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This just appears pretty straightforward. What is the approximate cost of opening the pass, assuming we declare it a Class B and we're able to go in and do it, what is the potential fiscal impact to the County? MR. DORRILL: I don't know what the actual permit cost itself is, whether there's actually an application fee. When we opened the pass in 1989, we did it ourselves with a front-end loader that was from the Transportation Department, and I'll say it took the better part of a day and a half to do that. So we're going to have the equipment time. And that machine and an operator may cost somewhere around seventy-five dollars an hour. So let's say less than a thousand dollars. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CONRECODE: In addition that, we'd recommend proceeding parallel to that with the normal dredging permitting process, and we're going to do the engineering work and we've already authorized some survey to go ahead and do some of the preparatory work. So my estimate of the overall measures at this stage of the game is about $30,000, and that's going to include the emergency measures that we need to take, but all the survey work, the engineering work, going through the permitting application process and our time that's involved. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we would not be authorizing that today. MR. CONRECODE: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'd be authorizing simply a Class B emergency and an emergency opening of the pass or trying to authorize it. MR. CONRECODE: And we would only spend within the limits you've already given us. We'll bring back to the Board if we need some additional approval. MR. DORRILL: We have two speakers as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll wait till after the speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let's here from the speakers. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Helmsderfer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: She's waving. MR. DORRILL: Okay. And then I have Dr. Stallings. And I think I'm about to have another one. MR. STALLINGS: Fran Stallings with the Florida Wildlife Federation. I don't think anybody questions that we need to get this thing opened as quickly as possible. I think staff is proceeding in the proper way of doing this, and I just want to offer the full support and cooperation of both the Naples and the Tallahassee office of the Florida Wildlife Federation to expedite the matter. So we'll do anything we can to help out. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Nichols-Lucy. MS. NICHOLS-LUCY: Good morning. Sue Nichols-Lucy from the Conservancy. I would like to echo that. I think we have an emergency situation. We've been swamped with phone calls. We're very concerned about the water quality in that area. And so if we can vote on the emergency situation today and then discuss the ongoing dredge and fill next week with NRPA, that would be great. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: I only wanted to thank Mr. Conrecode and Mr. Neal, because I gave them real fast direction on Friday and it was obvious that somebody worked over the weekend or yesterday to help prepare what we've done thus from in getting a land surveyor out there, and I just want the Board to know that I appreciate their efforts. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We do, too. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we declare a Class B emergency and follow staff recommendation for action. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seconded. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? There being none, I'll poll the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5/0. We have a Class B emergency. MR. CUYLER: Madame Chairman, I know you're going to break -- I think you're going to break for lunch. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we have two items or three items left. We're going to try to work on through. Item #10A RESOLUTION 95-145 APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND TRANSFER OF DEED AGREEMENT FOR THE MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT AND THE FAKAHATCHEE STRAND - ADOPTED AND AGREEMENT APPROVED AS AMENDED The next item on the agenda is a recommendation to approve the memorandum of understanding with DEP regarding the transfer of the Marco Island Airport deed. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask you a question CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that hopefully you can answer and hopefully will stem any long debate on it? This outlines the items with which we need to, in the future, have formally written down and agreed to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in legalese by Mr. Cuyler. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We will in the future be entering into probably three additional agreements, and this is an outline of what will be contained in those agreements. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But this allows us to have the deed in the meantime? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We do acquire the deed and -- MR. CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Seconded. MR. CUYLER: Madame Chairperson? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler needs to put something on the record. MR. CUYLER: This is real quick. You should have a couple of items in front of you somewhere up on the dais, one of which I need to speak to briefly. We got a very minor clarification. I had it faxed to me yesterday when I was up here. In item number three, on page 2 of 3, that deals with the Sheriff's Office agreement between the County and the Sheriff's Office, I put a little check mark if you can find the single page. It has 10(A) right up at the top of it. The current proposed agreement that was handed out to you says, there's a clause: ", with a monthly average of twenty-one of the patrols occurring dusk to dawn." And the clarification is that that would be ", of which a monthly average of twenty-one of the patrols per week will occur dusk to dawn." And that clarification is to make it clear that that's a weekly average taken out over the month. The only other item that I have is that I prepared a resolution that you should also find in front of you. So your motion approving -- If you want me to, I'll go through the resolution but it's just you find that the conveyance is in the best interest of the County. You authorize it. And this will also approve the agreement. So if your motion could include approval of the resolution and approval of the agreement with that change, that will take care of everything. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: floor already. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: amend? So moved. Well, we have a motion on the Oh, we do? Does the motion maker want to COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't we include that in the motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I amend and second it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One thing I just wanted to mention, too, one of the things I'd like to see when you go back and do your thing them: due to the nature of the business on the airport with fuel and so on, there may be some sort of contamination. When we had our almost-agreement last of October or November, it included that any damage that had taken place while the state was there, they'd be responsible and so on. I'd hate to have us fix up the airport, have the State DEP come to us six months later and say, Oop, now you've got to clean that property up for something that happens when they actually held the property. MR. CUYLER: We will try to do that. The way it is right now we are making no guarantees for the property that we're giving with regard to environmental contamination. They're making no -- and obviously there's difference in uses between those two properties, but we are making no assurances. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That could be a huge cost, though. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the 1950's use of the Fakahatchee Strand area, too, could have a huge cost attached to it, too. MR. CUYLER: Yes, that's something, you know, that's a part of the arrangement that we need to get rid of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, you had something to say. MR. DORRILL: I was just going to say that we were made aware of a spill at Marco and that was investigated. There was some analysis done and there was some abatement work in soils contamination. And so to the extent that we were aware of it, it was very small in scope, and that has been fully abated. The contaminated soil was removed, and that was done between Pollution Control and the Airport Authority but, obviously, the ongoing exploration of that. And as Mr. Cuyler said, I think both of us going into this with our eyes open. We're not warranting that there's no presoak contamination along the old tramways through the Fakahatchee. We're not asking them for -- you know, that somebody didn't put solvents or parts cleaner fluid or something like that on the Marco facility as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? There being none, I'll poll the question. All those in favor of the resolution and the memorandum of agreement, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5/0. Thank you. The next item on the agenda, as we move forward. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A little side note that's on that airport thing. That means we get -- how many dollars we're going to be able to accept on the grant for Marco? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: $300,000 and the DEP has promised to have the deed in our hands in five days. So we'll have it before March 1st. And I'd like to thank a multitude of people that worked on this project, not to mention Valetie Boyd who made her personal presence and her corporate assets available last Monday to get this finished up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not to prolong it any, but I want to also thank Senator Dudley who had some influence on the deal as well. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's send the senator a nice letter from the County Commission as a whole an official thank-you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have no problem with doing that. I had asked Mrs. Filson to send faxes to all of our legislative delegation last Monday morning before the plane took off, to intercede in our behalf on this. And I'm must say, when we got there, it was smooth sailing. So I don't know who interceded. I think a lot of them did but certainly Mr. Dudley did, too. MR. CUYLER: And I'd like from my office, too, even though I went to a trip to Tallahassee, Mr. Wydel (phonetic) has done a great majority of the work on this, and I'd like to thank him just from my office, too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we'll stop short of thanking everyone's mother and move on now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We could say it. A multitude of people. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to thank the academy. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A multitude of people have been involved. It feels very good. Item #13B1 RESOLUTION 95-146 RELATING TO PETITION CU=93=21 FORAN EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE OF PROPERTY BY THE IHMOKALEE CHILD CARE CENTER, INC., FOR PROPERTY BOUNDED BY BOSTON AVENUE, 4TH STREET SOUTH, COLORADO AVENUE AND 7TH STREET SOUTH IN IHMOKALEE - ADOPTED Moving forward into the afternoon agenda, we only have one item to address and that is Petition CU-93-21, an extension of conditional use. MR. DORRILL: Okay. No one registered. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No one's registered. Okay. I'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the Petition CU-93-21. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion a couple of seconds. If there's no further discussion, I'll poll the question. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Nino. Item #15A BCC VACATION SCHEDULE - WEEK OF JUNE 27, JULY 4, JULY 11, AUGUST 29, AND DECEMBER 26 - APPROVED MR. DORRILL: Communication items. Mr. Dorrill, you have the discussion of our vacation schedule? MR. DORRILL: Only because someone -- I believe in either Miss Filson or someone in the Budget Office wanted us to just disclose what the proposal was in terms of those actual times and either get your acknowledgment of that or comment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those are the dates we discussed on March 17 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. These are the dates that we discussed where we are going to take advantage of the Fourth of July falling on a Tuesday and take the week prior and the week subsequent to the Fourth of the July off and then August the 29th and December the 26th. So those are the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As far as the 26th, Christmas will be over by then. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, you know it absolutely will, but we normally take off the Tuesday between the Christmas holiday and New Year. I don't think we need anything except to have said that this is what the schedule is this year. MR. DORRILL: As long as you acknowledge that. And I have nothing further today. Item #15B UPDATE ON TOURIST TAX CASE - U.S. SUPREHE COURT DECLINED JURISDICTION OF THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hr. Cuyler, do you have anything? MR. CUYLER: I do. I have -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good news. MR. CUYLER: I have an announcement of some good news. We have received an oral communication. I don't have it in writing but we have received an oral communication that the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to accept jurisdiction of the plaintiffs, the tourist tax case appeal. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the end of that. MR. CUYLER: We need to go back to Circuit Court and take the mandate back and say we'd like a court order but, yeah, that should be the end of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, do you have anything? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Where do we go to get our photos? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right here. He'll be back about 12:30 to set up and do it. Item #14A UPDATE REGARDING HEETING WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD - SCHOOL BOARD TO WORK MORE CREATIVELY ON REEF PROJECT Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A member of the School Board on Thursday brought the issue of the reef to them. They directed their staff to work a little more creatively with us in getting those materials taken care of. And with Mr. Dorrill's help, we'll stay on top of that. If nothing happens, I'll be back to them. MR. DORRILL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? MR. CONSTANTINE: Nothing. Item #14B DISCUSSION REGARDING ART WORK IN CORRIDORS - CHAIRMAN MATTHEWS TO COHMUNICATE WITH SCHOOL BOARD TO INQUIRE WHETHER ART DEPARTMENTS ARE INTERESTED IN PROVIDING ART WORK OF HISTORIC IMPORTANT SITES FOR CORRIDORS CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one thing, and that is that I circulated a memo amongst the Board a couple of weeks ago regarding artwork along our hallways and so forth. Responses were favorable. And whether we should ask Commissioner Hancock to ask the School Board to proceed or whether you want me to write a letter to them and ask them to get their art departments involved to see if we can get some artwork of historic and important sites. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Was that the artwork for the hallway among the offices? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's also someone that has -- I think Commissioner Norris circulated a memo to make that the Hall of Fame of a panel of commissioners. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think it's Rose Gallery. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, the Rose Gallery. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Can those work in conjunction or is it one or the other? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought there was further discussion to put the pictures in the conference room. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To tell you the truth, I'd rather have the gallery than the -- it's a personal preference -- than the high school museum. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I myself prefer to involve the students of Collier County in giving us some artwork of -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just think a more public display out there would be more beneficial. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Both. Well, we need more pictures in the hallway, too. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, for what it's worth, I've got an art class that's going to be doing this for my personal office. They're going to rotate artwork there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I thought you were taking an art class or going to present something to us. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, but I could do that. I could do a few sketches. No. But I think that we need to -- I think the idea of rotating the art of the schools is a great idea. I want to do that. And surely we can have the Rose Gallery out in the hall or something. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Now, the question before us is should Mr. Hancock bring this up at the next Board meeting or do you want me to write a letter to the School Board? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion for Bettye to write a letter. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I've got no problem in doing that. It's just a question of how we want to do it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd be happy to do a public presentation but I -- I mean, I can -- you know, why don't we just write a letter and I'm sure we'll get support. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll write a letter to the School Board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is not worth arguing about but do we have general agreement to that, that that's what -- I just didn't hear everybody say that. That's all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I always liked the pictures being in here. Now I guess it's not part of the decor anymore. And, you know, I just liked, you know, seeing the pictures of the commissioners from the 1950s and realizing that we're still wearing the same glasses, you know. I mean, just little -- I like looking at that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But we still don't see very well, do we? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I would like for us to find a place for that that's prominent and public and to put those back up. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The bad news is that ours will eventually follow, so, you know, please -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- do we really want it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Anyway, I will write a letter to the School Board Chairman seeing if they can have our art departments in the high schools do some artwork for the hallways out in the main hallway and the Commission offices and so forth of historic sites. And we'll get the former commissioners' pictures back up. And with all that, I believe we are -- You have one more question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One other one. Does anybody mind if I have our little photograph first? I have a 12:30 lunch and I'd like to get the picture done and get out of here as soon as possible. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have any problem with that at all. You have a comment? MS. FILSON: I didn't understand where we're going to have the photographs hung. In the conference room or back in here? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think we decided that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're talking about the student artwork right now and we do want the commissioner pictures back up. We'll have to all get you a memo. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to talk about spaying and neutering for a minute. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You want to go to lunch? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As long as we're on the subject, why don't we tell Miss Filson where we want those photos. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have no complaint as to whether they're in here or in the conference room. There are boxes of pictures. So we can probably put them all over. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like the conference room idea just because it kind of created a little history and created a presence, I guess, when we have the different meetings we have in there. MR. NORRIS: That's fine. Let's just make a decision so '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it really? I mean we can't delegate the authority on this to somebody on the staff just -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, we can't. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to hang pictures where they look best or something? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-uh. No. MR. DORRILL: I'm not touching the point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Smart man. MR. DORRILL: I would be concerned about hanging them in here just because some of the frames and mats are in pretty bad shape if we keep the frames we've got. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, some of them need to be replaced, yeah. Conference room? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fine. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Conference is fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Done. Conference room. MR. DORRILL: We will cheerfully hang them in the conference room. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We're adjourned. Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT SEVEN" See Pages Item #16A2 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT EIGHT" See Pages Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 95-140, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "HERITAGE PINES" See Pages Item #16A4 RESOLUTION 95-141, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "BERKSHIRE LAKES UNIT SEVEN" Item #16A5 See Pages RECOHMENDATION TO APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "HUNTINGTON LAKES, UNIT ONE" See Pages Item #16D1 RECOHMENDATION TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE CORRECTIVE NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN See Pages Item #16D2 RECOHMENDATION TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE THE NOTICE OF PROHISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR DEL H. ACKERHAN See Pages Item #16El TWO LETTER AGREEMENTS TO AUTHORIZE LIMITED PUBLICATION OF COLLIER COUNTY'S "TURKEY" EMBLEM AND FLAG Item #16E2 RESOLUTION 95-142, ESTABLISHING NEW PAY TITLES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE See Pages Item #16E3 RECOHMENDATION TO AWARD BID #95-2318 FOR JANITORIAL SUPPLES - TO VARIOUS VENDORS Item #16F1 RENEWAL OF MAINTENANCE CONTRACT WITH EVERGLADES COHMUNICATIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE 800 HHZ RADIO SYSTEM Item #16G1 BID #95-2314 FOR SINGLE FAMILY CURBSIDE RECYCLING CONTAINERS - AWARDED TO LEWIS SYSTEM @ $4.99 PER CONTAINER Item #16H1 WORK ORDER UNDER THE CURRENT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL AERIAL AND GROUND SURVEYING SERVICES (RFP #94-2252) FOR THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF LIVINGSTON ROAD FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD TO IHMOKALEE ROAD - WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK IN THE AMOUNT OF $86,085.00 See Pages Item #16H2 FUNDING SOURCE FOR RAW WATER SURGE CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS Itemm #16J MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16J1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1993 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY No's. Dated 180 2/07/95 1994 REAL PROPERTY 122/123 2/08/95 115/116 Item #16K1 - Continued to 2/28/95 Item #16K2 1994 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY 2/07 & 2/08/95 AMENDHENT TO RECOGNIZE EHERGENCY HEDICAL SERVICES HATCHING GRANT FUNDS AWARDED FOR DISPATCHER TRAINING - IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,673.75 There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 1:00 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON 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: Sharon A. Sullivan, CSR, RPR