Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/01/1995 W (w/Lee BCC and Charlotte BCC) WORKSHOP MEETING OF JUNE 1, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS WITH CHARLOTTE AND LEE COUNTIES 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 1:00 p.m. in special session at the Lee County Commission Chambers, 2120 Main Street, Fort Myers, Florida, with the following members present: COLLIER COUNTY: Bettye J. Matthews John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Timothy L. Hancock CHARLOTTE COUNTY: Matt DeBoer Adam Cummings LEE COUNTY: Andrew W. Coy Ray Judah John E. Manning Douglas R. St. Cerny W. Neil Dotrill, County Manager, Collier Jan Winters, County Administrator, Charlotte Donald D. Stilwell, County Manager, Lee Acting Chairman: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: We'll call this joint workshop. Today's June 1, 1995, and I'd like to welcome the Commissioners of Collier County, Charlotte County. Matt, you're down there all by yourself, but that's okay. COHMISSIONER DEBOER: I'm used to being alone. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: We all know the feeling. We want to start with our invocation, and Bill Hammond is going to give that. If you'll stay standing for the pledge, please. MR. HAMMOND: Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day, and we ask your blessing on all who are present. We ask for your guidance in the deliberations and the issues that will be discussed here today. Please give us the wisdom to make wise decisions. Lord, keep this nation and our beautiful state under your care. In your name we ask kindly. Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: This meeting was advertised to have public comment, and we will do so. I'd like to move to the first item on the agenda which is the discussion regarding regional jail and the stockade facilities. We'll go through the staff presentations and board discussions, and then we will take public comment. Don. MR. STILWELL: Mr. Chairman and the many board members, I think this is the most number of board members I have ever sat before in my life at one time at one table, and it is kind of nice to see you all here. I heard a comment from one of my compadres who decided he was scared a little bit at having this many board members in one room, but I won't get into that. What we are doing, we being the tri-counties, right now -- we don't want to leave out the other two counties because certainly they might be interested. What we've done just in Collier, Charlotte, Lee County at this time, we've had informal meetings at the administrative level to see if there might be some potential for savings in jails if we were to approach our jail problem on a regional basis in Southwest Florida. So that's where we are. You'll note that as of this moment we have not contacted the judges; we've not contacted the sheriffs. We've not contacted anyone other than this group as of this moment. There has been some very informal dialogue because -- but what we're looking for today is a consensus from you all that this is an option you'd like to see us explore to come back with some recommendations as to what the next step would be. If you concur with the approach today, what we, of course, would be doing is checking with the judges and sheriffs and the jail commanders, et cetera, to fold everyone in together so we are addressing the problem on a regional basis. So with that, maybe I can turn it over to Mr. Dotrill and then after him our friend from Charlotte County. MR. DORRILL: Commissioners, good afternoon. I think that the extent to which Collier County can be a participant is going to be subject to the concurrence here this afternoon with our respective interests. We are slightly behind the other two counties with respect to jail expansions. We do have contemplated in our growth management plan a general obligation bond referendum that was tentatively scheduled for March of 1996 to undertake a jail expansion to Collier County jail in East Naples and to add approximately 150 additional cells that can be double bunked. We already have 322 cells, and the current capacity is around 700. I think every county in the region has some type of jail dilemma. In our current budget we have approximately $150,000 that was earmarked to do some very preliminary architectural programing leading up to additional schematic designs. Those funds are of yet unencumbered. So to the extent that we have any money in our budget, it is only preliminary designs associated with the jail expansion. And if we're going to pursue some type of change to that, we would need to hear that today. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Mr. Winters. MR. WINTERS: The timing could not be better for Charlotte County because we recently approved a sales tax for new courts and jails, and we're about to select an architect for the jails. I have formally discussed this with the county commission and also with the sheriff. The sheriff's major concern, of course, is that the pretrial not be included in this, the inmates held for a pretrial. I think that the attitude has been -- we wish to proceed as far as we can see, there being a mutual cost benefit to us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Mr. Stilwill. MR. STILWELL: Mr. Chairman, if I could -- what we would like to do now -- Hr. Desjarlais is speaking on behalf of the tri-county step, if you will, from the three administrative offices. He is wanting to speak on exactly where we are, what we are thinking about doing and how we might go about doing that. So Roger Desjarlais, the assistant county manager in Lee County. MR. DESJARLAIS: Thank you, Commissioners. Sounds right. This is a little intimidating, this many. We -- we're terribly pleased at the opportunity to talk about this today. But where we are today has been quite well explained by the three county administrators. More specifically, Charlotte County has already gone to RFP and is ready to rank three consultants for their project. That was to have been done on the 30th of this month -- or last month, but they have held off in order that we might put together a larger scope of services in order to piggyback onto that potential contract. The court administration in Lee County has been working with Dan Wiley and Associates on a study in our own county. And what we would like to be able to do is have Dan Wiley and his company work with the number one ranked firm picked by Charlotte County, and that will help reduce in a very expedient way, since we already have contracts or pending contracts with the ability to negotiate a contract with one of the larger companies, to do a complete assessment of the system. And what we're really talking about -- and hopefully if we can get concurrence by the three boards, we'll then get by with all the agencies associated with the process. And that is a study that will take a look at how we deal with arrested persons from the minute they hit the booking area of the jail through final disposition and take a look at the entire system in context, not just shall we go build a jail. But what we want to find out is how shall we deal with these people in a system-wide matter and what kind of economies can we get by doing that so that ultimately we'll get to the bottom line, which is how many jails there do we need, what kind, and where shall they go. There are so many considerations, and one that we just mentioned a minute ago is the non-sentenced people who probably need to be close to where they are going to go to court. There's a big transportation issue that the sheriffs have to deal with. Then we have the sentence population. Within the sentence population there are many categories; male, female, juvenile, misdemeanors, felons. So there are tons of considerations. And our problem, I think, has been in deciding how to build a jail and what kind and how many is that. Thatws a very, very dynamic system, and it changes on a daily basis. So we have to have the ability to change with it. And by doing a system-wide study and a system-wide approach, that will then give us enough information to make some pretty good decisions, I think, about where, what kind, and what kind of programs we might want to look at that we donwt have today and what programs that we have today that are working very well and perhaps what programs that we have that donwt work well at all. So we will be looking for a study that will accomplish all of those things and that ultimately what kind of economies can be had by combining at least the three counties and perhaps even the entire circuit. Mr. Lionel Beatty is here from Hendry County today. He is the county administrator. And Hendry County has an interest administratively in participating with us at least. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you, Roger. Lionel -- give you an opportunity to speak with us today. MR. BEATTY: Thank you, Chairman St. Cerny. My motion is very simple here today. In fact, I didnwt hear about this. I was out on a road project. And at eleven olclock I got a fax, and they called. So I was told by our Chairman Joe Spratt to please come over and express our interest to all three counties. Welre definitely interested in this concept and would like to work with you on it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you, Lionel. Tom Reese, Chief Judge of the 20th Judicial Circuit. JUDGE REESE: Thank you, Commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I received a copy of the agenda yesterday because one was sent to the court administrator. I was not included on the list of constitutional officers. That aside, what I saw in the proposal -- the concept and suggested approach was something that troubled me a great deal. And I would like to start out by saying I applaud the efforts of these three counties of the 20th Circuit. The 20th -- let me remind everyone -- is comprised of five counties. But these three counties to really address the issue of jail space -- what do we need, what types do we need and can we buy, and somewhat consolidating our resources, make the most effective use of that. That deserves only the greatest praise. However, there were some things in there that troubled me greatly. One -- and I refer to the suggested approach which was provided yesterday, that it is likely that by assessing the 20th Circuit in context there will be opportunities more cost effective in managing the judicial system as well as in the way in which we punish those convicted. In the letter that I have provided to you I have stated I was appalled and astonished that such a suggestion would be made. And by that I donlt mean to indicate that the courts are not willing as a coequal branch of government -- that is the judicial branch -- to sit down with the legislative -- that is the county commissions and the executive departments and work on ways in which we can, indeed, reengineer. Weill look at the way we all do business; is there a better, more effective way that we can do it. Our history has been in the public safety coordinating councils, that welve not been reluctant to look at the court processes to manage them, to revise them, to find a more effective use of our resources. So therels no historical precedent for assuming that the legislative branch must intrude itself into the judicial branch to tell us how to manage it. It would not be welcomed and would not be appropriate. However, if you will draw together now, not at some ultimate stage as referred to in this memorandum, the sheriffs representing the law enforcement of the executive branch and the courts as the judicial branch, we will all be happy to sit down and look at this assessment to assess the way we do business and to look at these problems and see if we can find a solution. The suggestion in here of managing the court system, anyone that entertains that, I must respectfully suggest, is mistaken. I would hope that it is only a zeal towards solving the problem which clouds their view of the constitutional mandates and provisions and not a disregard for constitutional requirements as Section 3 of Article 2, the powers of the state government, shall be divided into a legislative, executive, and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any power pertaining to the other. We have an opportunity before us to create a -- I don't know. What would you call it -- a commission which would have representation from the courts, from the sheriffs, from the commissions with the help of these trained individuals who are management specialists in helping us evaluate our situation, where we are today, how we do business, and these other requirements. Such a commission, I would think, would be well advised and would save a great deal of taxpayer money ultimately. However, I would caution, as I mentioned in the last paragraph of my letter, that to do so without the inclusion of the third branch of government, the judiciary, and without the inclusion of the sheriffs would not be a wise expenditure of public funds, because this group would be studying the possibilities of managing a branch of government over which they have no authority. And tangentially I would like to say that through the work of the public service coordinating council, we have averted problems, and we reduced jail population growth through management, through exactly this sort of reengineering concept. But one of the keys to this was everybody came to the table equally. There was no protection of particular turf. The county commissioners that participated in this knew that they had a specific function, as did the judges, as did the sheriffs. And I would suggest that same spirit for this group or commission that would study these things, that everybody comes to the table without a particular turf to protect, but a constitutional function and interest and that this can be a very productive exercise. I urge your consideration of the issues I've raised in my letter. Are there any questions that I now may be able to answer? CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: I would like to make a comment, first of all. I don't think any of the Lee County commissioners were privileged to the letter that you received. So we don't know what you're talking about. JUDGE REESE: I believe the copy was distributed just before the hearing. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Well, we got your letter -- JUDGE REESE: Yes. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: -- but we didn't get the original that you are referencing with -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This was with our agenda (Indicating), that two-page summary. JUDGE REESE: It's entitled suggested approach for regional judicial incarceration system study. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Okay. In any event, I think that in defense of whatever it was that was written and that appears to have offended you -- the point of the matter is that all we are trying to do is move off the dime and try to build a consensus among our fellow counties and try to solve the problem. I don't think it was ever intended, whoever put that together, to alienate anyone. And we know from our side of the table that the judiciary and the law enforcement and legislative branches are going to have to work together in tandem on this, and we don't need to reinvent the wheel if you have already done a lot of the leg work that needs to be done. All we are trying to do is address a serious problem. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I comment on that? CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Yeah. And I think that's the direction that we're trying to take and -- JUDGE REESE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: -- with the outpouring of support we see here today, with all three of the sheriffs here, and you being here, I think we're all on the same track, that we're just trying to, the most efficient way possible, address a serious problem and make the best of a bad situation. JUDGE REESE: Absolutely, Commissioner. I agree. But I refer to the language -- you recognize the importance of ultimately including the judicial system participants and sheriffs' offices. However, since it will be the responsibility of the Charlotte, Collier, and Lee County Boards of County Commissioners to fund the ensuing initiatives, it is important that they take the lead in the study and planning effort. Study and planning is certainly a laudable purpose. The evaluation, reengineering, they are all very valid, and we wish to join in and participate in that. We don't want to be brought in ultimately at some other stage in the proceeding as this document indicates. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have to say I echo so many of your comments, Judge Reese. I mean I read this -- couldn't resist writing a big no at the bottom of this. I think it's wholly inappropriate for the county commissions to take the lead in that this is one of those circumstances where government is doing the worst possible job, where those of us with the least possible knowledge are taking the lead in the circumstance where we have law enforcement and correction and legal experts who should lead us. I guess the other side of that coin is I wish that those experts were already -- had organized and were making this proposal, and that would be better. But I am troubled by the whole -- I don't see how we got to the point where three county commissions are sitting here with all of their staffs proposing to go forward. And I said this at the last meeting. I'm going to wait to hear from my sheriff, from my judiciary. I am not the expert, and I want those recommendations. And I don't think the county commissions ought to be taking the lead. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Mr. Constantine has the floor next. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Commissioner St. Cerny. Mr. Stilwell, when you started your comments, you said you were looking for some concurrence from these boards to move forward. And perhaps there's been some misunderstanding by any or all of us at this point. But my understanding is that all you are asking for is some concurrence to go ahead and explore this idea. If I have misread this, I apologize. I understand this to indicate that if you got a go-ahead from the legislative end funding bodies of the counties, then we would include everyone as part of that. Because, I, like Commissioner Mac'Kie, think obviously you all work with this on a day-to-day basis, and we don't. So you need to be a part of the process. My hope is that the comments I read here, or that the commission should take the lead, were solely meant -- if I am in error, please correct me, but were solely meant that we should get the ball rolling and then, yes, let's discuss it. Let's explore it and move forward. But by exploring and discussing, that included the judiciary and the sheriffs' departments. Surely no harm can come from exploring this. Hopefully some benefit can come. JUDGE REESE: Definitely will. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I think hopefully everyone is saying the same thing there, that we need to include everyone in the process. JUDGE REESE: Yes, sir. And certainly I have no problem with -- and I applaud you all for taking this initiative. I think -- I'm behind it a hundred percent. But as part of this initiative there should be recognition of the judicial branch as well as the sheriffs in the process. Getting it started -- absolutely, I applaud the efforts. We need to do the best we can. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To establish some concern, is there anyone here who indicated or believed or thought or still think that we should not be including that at the very beginning of the process? CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Commissioner Manning, I think, was next and then -- COMMISSIONER MANNING: Well, first of all, as a member of the public safety coordinating group, I guess it was my verbiage at the meeting -- two previous meetings ago that I broached the subject about a multi-county effort. And I agree with Commissioner Mac'Kie and Commissioner Constantine when we say that we are here to gain consensus from the appropriating body that will ultimately fund this effort on a regional basis. And I'm glad Lionel is here, and hopefully we can make some overtures to Glades County to get them in the loop and work with us as well. It was never my vision to exclude the sheriffs or the judiciary; that would be insanity. They are the experts. Commissioner Mac'Kie said it best. And we're here merely to give the nod or the go-ahead, if you will, and hopefully by consensus that, number one, we recognize that each of the counties individually have a problem primarily in the area of the overcrowding; Number two, that it makes fiscal sense for all of us to be together with respect to building a facility. I don't want to manage the judiciary. I don't want to manage the jail system. We have gone through a look-see of privatization of the jail, and the numbers didn't compute, and so be it. I think this is a fairly historic moment in this region's history for the reason that everyone in local government, not only in the State of Florida, but across the country talk about shared resources and seamless government. Yet we're sitting near the ones who have taken time out of their schedule to be here wanting to do something about it. So I don't claim any authorship of the memo that you received, Tom, but I can tell you that my philosophy was merely to ask the Charlotte County delegation, as well as the Collier County delegation, and whoever else wants to join in the effort, to look at a system-wide situation that would bring us some positive resolutions. And then if that motion or whatever -- a nod of approval was to take place, then we get the hell out of the way and let the experts who are sitting in this room do it, including yourself. And I would hope that whatever body that does set up, we specifically name someone from the judiciary, someone from law enforcement, and one of us or two of us, whatever the number is going to be, to be able to be a liaison in those positions and follow the progress and report back to our respective bodies. So please rest assured that my philosophy is inclusive rather than exclusive, and your comments are well-taken. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner DeBoer, followed by Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER DEBOER: I'm sorry to see this get started -- started off on this foot. Quite honestly, the process that we have been through to this point, Judge, includes Judge Pellecchia and Sheriff Worch. And we were invited here -- and this particular letter or suggested approach that you were talking about, I honestly looked at it as a suggested approach. It has not passed the scrutiny of our Board of County Commissioners. It has not been adopted by us. And, quite honestly, I'm just looking at this as the first step in the process to look for a better alternative that might be out there. So I would hope that we could all drop the sensitivities that I'm hearing here right now and, you know, take a step forward just to see if the concept is possible. I have not even heard that discussed before. That was my entire intent. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think, for one, we have heard enough position statements to realize where we are, and it's not an exclusive process. It will be an inclusive one if we do move ahead. My questions are more operational and whether they're appropriate for one of the team of county managers or one of our sheriffs here. I'll let that be answered somewhere in this discussion. I'm worried about whether or not we can proceed without compromising minimum standards set forth for the inmate population. Charlotte is moving ahead or trying to move ahead with the expansion. The time frame of jeopardizing one county's ability to provide the minimum necessary standards for their inmates is a question that I think needs to be answered and one that you alluded to in your letter, Judge Reese. The second element in my concern has centered on logistics and operation of the facility that is a tri-county or four-county operation. Cautionary transportation of inmates, that's where -- that's where I see the direction going in this multi-team effort, one which I think the sheriff of at least our county or his representative and the judicial chairs will be the ones to provide those answers. But I think we need to come up today with the exact committee on how to move forward and address all of those issues. But today I would like to know if your deciding to move ahead on this will, in fact, delay any one of the counties' ability to provide for the minimum standards set forth for inmates in the State of Florida. MR. WINTERS: I don't believe it would because Charlotte County intends upon going ahead with this selection of the architect at the next meeting. We suspended the decision for one meeting only. We are not going to stop the process. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was just a singular concern. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: If any other commissioners have a comment -- if not, I would like to give our three sheriffs an opportunity to address this. Did you still want to speak, Tom? MR. STILWELL: I think it has been pretty well said, but -- I think it was apparent that we were going -- that we haven't -- the world is changing, and we can't go on doing things the way we've always done them in the past. And if what this was -- that was said very well -- what this was was an effort to try to get us all looking together to just explore. And I stress explore. I said that -- well, I think my comments -- all we're doing is looking, and we are certainly including everyone. I would never be so naive to think that the judges and sheriffs and the jail commanders and everyone else should not be included. Obviously, they are all an integral part of that. How could we possibly think about planning a jail system without those folks, without all of us being involved? I have to say just one point in all, and this is negative, and I'll make this point, and then I will go on. But, darn it, if we hadn't had the meeting today, all three counties were planning on doing our own separate but equal thing the way we have always done it in the past. And it is very costly doing things that way. And all we are suggesting, the three majors here, actually the four majors now, is that we look at it and see if it's a better way to do it. We just want to have an open mind. We want to include everyone. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you. Did any other commissioners have a comment that they want to make? COHMISSIONER JUDAH: If I could real quickly. I'm just sorry about all the fuss that's being brought to light today because it's clearly undercutting -- the measures are still the same in that we need to take a regional approach. I was so thankful that Lee County worked jointly with Hendry County in taking a regional approach to managing solid waste. It's a big issue that affects all counties. Quite frankly, I think we can hopefully set all egos aside and recognize that we do need to take a regional approach. This commission -- one member of this commission is certainly not going to say that law enforcement and the judiciary take over, and we're backing out. We're going to have to pay the bill. We're going to have to make the decisions, unless you go out to the jail bond to allocate the dollars for operating and maintaining such a facility. But quite clearly, as County Manager Stilwell indicated, it's much too expensive to go it alone as individual counties. We need to take a regional approach. I'm hoping that we can do the spreadsheets, take care of some of the outstanding questions with regard to transportation costs to individual facilities versus a regional facility that accommodates all three or all four counties, that we can do spreadsheets on what it would actually cost to physically build separate facilities versus one facility. And that can easily be done. I think that's the kind of plan that needs to be done at the forefront. And, yes, we need to call in the judiciary and call in law enforcement with regards to putting together such a facility and hoping to best manage it. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you. Any other Commissioners? Would any one of the three sheriffs care to address this? Sheriff Worch. JUDGE REESE: Commissioner, if I might just be permitted one additional comment. As I said at the outset, I applaud the effort, and we support it wholeheartedly toward the regional concept and making the best use of resources. We are not opposed to that at all. We want to be included in the process, of course, in order to be a favorable and effective result. What I mentioned here today is not a matter of egos nor a matter of feelings. It's a matter of constitutional law that controls the activities of all government entities in the State of Florida. And I wanted to make certain that the court's position was well-stated and also to make certain that everybody understands it. We want to come to the table, and we want to look at the picture, as well to add to the process and be included. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you very much. Sheriff Worch. And for those of you who don't know, Commissioner Cummings has just joined us from Charlotte County. Welcome. (Commissioner Cummings entered the room at 1:38 p.m.) SHERIFF WORCH: Thank you very much, Commissioners, and thank you for the opportunity to address this issue. For the record, Sheriff Worch from Charlotte County, Florida. I believe that one of the issues that may have gotten us off on the wrong foot is perhaps we have a very good idea, and certainly it deserves exploration. And I think any of us that are responsible public administrators and elected officials would, indeed, be willing to save the public's tax dollars. But, perhaps, by getting off on the wrong foot, it may be we have a good idea, and we're in the wrong court. The legislature has already addressed this issue of regional jails and has addressed this idea of what we are going to do as far as making plans for jails by establishing under Chapter 951.26 the county public safety coordinating councils, of which the chairman of each county commission chairs that public safety coordinating council, and in doing so, can call a meeting of the county. So they're willing to participate in a regional concept through the coordination of those three individual public safety coordinating councils. And they would be the ones required by statute, as I read it right here, to explore that idea of that very issue of prison overcrowding, of alternatives to sentencing, of where prisoners would be housed. The combination of that board is made up by all elected officials. And I think when that is done, there is a sensitivity to public policy, and it wouldn't be tainted by appointed officials or county administrators -- and that's with all respect to them -- but it is a board established by law, and it's for the very purpose of which were meant here. Commissioner Judah, I certainly can empathize with your comments, especially when it comes to state mandates upon sheriffs and jails. But it would be a very nice world if all of us that had to make the decision on funding could do exactly that. Sometimes the funding that we have to fund we don't have a decision in. That is an unfortunate way the government does operate. But it, indeed, does certainly do that. My recommendation to the three chairmen of the Board of County Commissioners that are here, that all serve as chairmen of those planning committees, is to call a joint meeting of all three planning committees or the one for Glades County or Hendry County -- I'm not sure. Hendry or Glades? CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Hendry. SHERIFF WORCH: Hendry, I'm sorry. Or maybe all five from the 20th Judicial Circuit and let those individuals that represent those -- you'll find that the state attorney and public defender for the 20th Judicial Circuit sits on all five, so I think they'll be -- and the chief judge. So there will certainly be an opinion given consistent amongst those. Then the only differing bodies will be the sheriffs of each five counties and the chairman of each of five counties. So I think that it will be pretty consistent, and I think they can bring back to your joint session of county commissioners a very good approach to this problem. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you. Sheriff McDougall, Sheriff Hunter, do you care to speak? SHERIFF MCDOUGALL: Thank you, Commissioner St. Cerny. Sheriff McDougall, Lee County, Florida. As always, it's a pleasure to be here among my distinguished colleagues and friends. And I just wanted to say that on a personal note, I have worked very hard with the Board of County Commissioners here in Lee County and also with Don Stilwell and Roger Desjarlais, to build a bulk consensus in the law enforcement arena of Lee County and getting our new building set up down there, the Six Mile Cypress. We've had some situations where there has been a little bit of friction from time to time. But I don't think it has gotten into a personal arena where we're attacking each other personally. I do think that as a commissioner over here pointed out earlier, that this is a laudable effort and that all of the best intentions of the world were put into bringing us here today. Nobody wants to come before any of these respective boards and say we need a new jail or we need a regional jail, because it's going to cost money. Nobody wants to be the messenger that's going to be killed. But the reality is that we're all looking at potential litigation, lawsuits from the Department of Corrections as a result of the fact that our jails are overcrowded. The situation is almost at a crisis stage. So we really do need to meet and sit down and set aside the egos, set aside personality conflicts, and work together cohesively to build a consensus. We were not invited here. At least I wasn't invited, and I know that Sheriff Hunter wasn't invited to this meeting. And I think that's where this thing got off on the wrong foot, because we weren't invited. It was like we were being excluded. And we really have both a moral obligation and a judiciary responsibility to our constituents to voice our professional opinions to anything that is going to affect the housing and transportation, the care -- the medical care and the cost of housing prisoners in any of our jails, whether it is regional or whether the local jail, because it's all going to affect the taxpayer dollars. And I think when you look at all these areas -- we went to Colorado not too long ago, myself, Roger Desjarlais, my jail commander, several members from my staff. And we hit the books for a long time studying the problem of building a new jail and what it is going to cost us, a major, major cost situation that's going to affect all of the people, not only here in Lee County, but Collier and Charlotte as well. We are a burgeoning community. We are the metropolis of southwest Florida. We're growing by leaps and bounds. You could look at the school system alone. Every year they're building a new high school or new middle school. And yet we haven't built any real addition -- sizable addition to our jail for the last 12 years. And it is getting to the point now that the courts are going to step in and take over the management of these institutions if we don't deal with that ourselves. I applaud the efforts of the county administrator and Roger Desjarlais for bringing this together. There may have been a little glitch in beginning as far as organizing it, but -- and I can understand why you wanted to at least try to get a feel from the commissioners. But certainly I think Sheriff Worch's recommendation for the CPC to meet is a very laudable suggestion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you, Sheriff. Sheriff Hunter, did you want to say anything? SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. Good afternoon. I'll just echo what my colleagues are saying, and I would say that we have a very progressive board. We're teetering on the threshold of committing ourselves to an expansion program at both jail and administrative space. Certainly we need to explore all of the benefits of any cost savings that might be enjoyed by a mutual effort. I would like to buttress some comments that Sheriff Worch made, which is that under a statute we do have the public safety coordinated councils or committees of each county. We enjoy some circuit-wide representation in the public defender and the state attorneys who seem to move about each of the groups and have a flavor for what's happening in each of the counties represented in the circuit. If we can build on that idea of using those -- the experts, the ones who are looking at the job tasks and charting those job tasks in the logical order and sequencing and looking for the savings, for instance. In Collier we've been able to avert the expansion for about three years now by adding various programs and looking at the way we do business on a daily basis in the jail environment. And as chief correctional officer for the county, I feel that the responsibilities have been squarely placed on my shoulders to report on those activities and work with the judicial branch to make certain that we're moving as quickly as possible. We don't have people sitting in cells that don't need to be there. But we would certainly participate. I'll direct staff to provide whatever expert assistance we can provide to this effort and look at numbers. Again, I think time is of the essence. We've postponed for as long as we can the expansion of the local jail, and we know that a construction project of the magnitude we are considering, which is roughly 250 beds, plus or minus, is going to take us anywhere from two to four years. Our last construction effort, which began in 1981, was supposed to be complete in 1983, and we actually opened in August of 1985. We won't be able to suffer that once more. So without some confusion of federal courts involvement most likely, we just recommend strongly that whatever action this combined group takes, that we move smartly and expedite the process of our inquiry and make some decisions quickly so that we can get on about our decision. Our county manager, Mr. Dotrill, referred to a potential referendum in '96. We have a few months in between to make some decisions here. I certainly wouldn't want the study group, whether it be the public safety commissions or councils of each of the individual counties or this group, to muddy up a very difficult situation. As you all know, referendums are no easy animal to deal with. So I would just ask that we move as quickly as possible and use the summer to a maximum benefit. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you. Commissioner Norris followed by Wayne Daltry of the Regional Planning Council. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sheriff Hunter, before you walk away, could I ask you a question? I'd like to see if you would share your view with us on the subject of allocation of beds in a regional jail. How would you envision the proportioning of the jail beds? Would that be per dollar contributed? Would that be per capita of counties, or how do you see that? SHERIFF HUNTER: Commissioner Norris, we haven't really addressed -- not knowing where this board wanted to go, we haven't really addressed the specifics pertaining to any kind of proration of beds. We're not even certain whether the boards here today are looking at a -- all beds being consolidated into a regional facility including presentence inmates or whether we are only talking about sentenced inmates and then whether that would be on a per diem basis where we would pay out back to the regional sponsoring facilities some number for an inmate. We know that we have a problem with the Lee County detention facility for juveniles, in the sense that we don't believe that we are currently able to accommodate all of those juveniles who need to be accommodated at the regional facility. And that is the only example that we could point to today as to how that might work. But that is a state-sponsored activity, and the states cares for them with their own numbers and their own dollars. I would not deny that it is going to require a lot of work, and we're certainly willing to work through the whole process. I think the sheriffs have some operational expertise we can lend in terms of what a booking process is constituted of and how long that normally takes and how we share information on a regular basis with booking and record keeping, according to the division of archives and all the things that we suffer from. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you. Wayne Daltry, executive director of the Regional Planning Council. MR. DALTRY: Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I, too, was on the road, came home and saw a fax and dashed over here. This discussion is very important because it is going to lead to the point where individual counties can have the will to commit to each other some really substantial dollars and knowing that the arrangement will cause pain along through time. But it is becoming more evident as our urban areas merge. There is the fact that the sheriffs had to develop extremely extensive communications systems to deal with the subject of crime and that of our judicial circuit, of course, in costs with the many counties. There are times when a regional approach is the most cost effective and most overall efficient way to deal with the issues, and there are times when it's the local approach. Clearly this can be the first step to find out which is most appropriate each time. In this region before, by the way -- a piece of history. There was a five-, in fact, six-county criminal justice program that worked together on a number of issues but basically atrophied about the mid-1980s because of a lack of state and federal support. At that time there was enough local issues causing problems. But now you're all having the same problems again. They're occurring at the same time. The Regional Planning Council had put on its particular list of things to do to get -- to direct me to get with the different county public safety programs to see if it is appropriate again to come to a regional responsive occasion, and here is where circumstances are dictated in the agenda. I just want to point out that the council has directed staff to be available for these types of discussions. They involve all the parties. The council is a party of the Juvenile Justice Committee. Clearly it is meant that each of the counties are represented on that committee. You do have the infrastructure to make this thing work if you wish. And every day we add about another three to four hundred people in this region, and we'll put one or two of them in jail before the end of the year. So this is not an issue that is going to get less through time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thanks, Wayne. Any last-minute comments from any of the Commissioners? Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, first let me say if the sheriffs and judiciary were not invited, clearly an error was made. I don't know with whom that responsibility lies. It doesn't really matter at this point. I think I speak for all of us. We apologize that you were not included initially. I'd just suggest, as far as the Collier board is concerned, that we go ahead and endorse the exploration idea, obviously, including everyone as a part of that. I'd also suggest that our county attorney look and tell us what is the most appropriate vehicle for that, whether it's public safety or statutorily, what we are required to do there. But I think it is appropriate for us to move ahead, and I just ask our board, anyway, to endorse that concept and give direction to our county attorney to tell us in what venue is the best format. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: If that was a motion, I'll second it for you. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: We've got a motion by Commissioner Constantine and a second by Commissioner Norris. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is this a workshop? CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Is this strictly a workshop? Is that how it is advertised? MR. STILWELL: It was advertised on the agenda. I don't believe it's a workshop. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: According to what I have, it's stated just as a joint meeting and an agenda. There's no mention of a workshop. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Okay. Then I think it would be appropriate -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is it a workshop, Mr. Dorrill? MR. STILWELL: A meeting. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It is a meeting. Okay. I just wanted to be sure whether we could even entertain motions or not. If it is a meeting, we can. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: I think we can due to the fact that we did take public input. It was a duly advertised meeting, so I think that a motion for your board is in order. Whether I should call that motion or your own chairman should entertain your board's motion, I think I should step aside and let Chairman Matthews handle it. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to have a clarification here. I know that the Charlotte County board is going to -- is very close to an RFP process. Are we suggesting that we want them to continue to hold, and we're going to piggyback on to their existing RFP, or are we saying we endorse a more general concept where our sheriff, our judiciary -- the five counties -- I'm not sure I understand the motion. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The motion is that Collier participate in the exploration of this regional idea. I think Charlotte needs to deal with their own issues, and I think they have indicated they do intend to move ahead and award that RFP and so on. But that certainly is their decision to make. I am not suggesting that we tell them how to do that. MR. DORRILL: I can at least tell you how this would probably manifest itself. We would want to develop a supplemental agreement to that contract in order to take advantage of the architectural and whatever correctional sub-consultants may be part of that or current Lee County contracts. And we would have to bring those back to each individual county, because you're the ones who are going to have to appropriate the funds for those agreements and have those separately approved. It can be under whatever contract administrative authority. And if the correctional planning councils are the most efficient vehicle, that is the way that I would see this moving forward along the lines that Commissioner Constantine has mentioned. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The motion requests, as our county attorney has determined, the best avenue -- Sheriff Worch from Charlotte identified something that exists in the statutes and the makeup of which sounded to be very logical to me -- that is that one member of each board, the chairman, one chair from each county and so forth. I would like to suggest that that be the starting point of the makeup of that committee since it already exists in statute. I just wanted to make sure the motion incorporated Mr. Worch's comments. It should appear to be a logical vehicle to me. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While the motion took into account his comments, I haven't seen a statute. I'm not familiar with the statute, and I'm asking our county attorney to review that and tell us -- assuming that is the most logical and is our statutory requirement and, obviously, we can move ahead with that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. I would just like to avoid a situation -- I know this is hard to believe that sometimes two different attorneys can have different opinions, and I would like to avoid the different county attorneys coming to different conclusions. So maybe we can direct the county attorneys to work together. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: I hate to put a damper on the motion, because I certainly support what you're looking to approve here. But I well remember, and so does Sheriff McDougall, we had a quorum of Lee County commissioners in Tallahassee on a minor dispute over a budget, and we were advised by our own legal council that a governmental body can't make and carry a motion outside their jurisdiction. So you may wish to get a ruling on that. MR. GRAY: Robert W. Gray, deputy county attorney. Commissioner, this has come up a number of times in Lee County where we have been summoned in federal court outside the jurisdiction. I think the research that was done by the trial attorneys indicated that, in all likelihood, you cannot take formal action binding on the board outside your own jurisdiction. You can, however, have meetings like this which are essentially -- whether you call them commission meetings, management and planning meetings, whatever you want to name it. In my opinion, it is really an informal meeting where you can take directive action. You can direct staff at any time, really, any place to undertake what it is the board wishes to pursue. And so the motion is really -- whether you want to call it a formal motion or an informal motion is really a direction to staff or the county attorney and essentially to our office to cooperate on this thing, and it gives us direction. I don't think you can actually take formal action, though, outside -- binding formal action outside your own jurisdiction. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: They can put on the record to the staff what direction they want to go as a board -- MR. GRAY: They sure can. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: -- as long as it is a quorum, and it is an advertised meeting. MR. GRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, let me clarify the motion. My motion was very simple, and that was for the Collier commission to endorse Collier County's participation in the exploration of this idea and to direct our county attorney to render an opinion and share that with the board as to what is the best statutory way or requirement for us to more forward in that process. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Does the second still hold? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you have more? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- I'm sorry to be difficult, but if what I hear is you're suggesting we endorse a review of it with our sheriff and with the judiciary's involvement from the outset, that's critical to my support. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was part of the initial motion, yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have some questions about this plan and study. I mean, myself, I think the motion is premature because we haven't gone far enough down this road. But I want to try to get a little farther down the road before I vote on it. The plan in the study proposed, is that going to examine the jail operations as they coordinate with the court dockets? It's come to my attention in the last month to six weeks that the amount of time that jail inmates spend in Collier County jails with pretrial incarceration is three to four times longer than that period of time on the east coast. And the same is true with presentencing incarceration. And the same is also true, though not quite three to four times as long, with the period of time between sentencing and transfer to the state prison system. I would like to know more about coordinating those efforts. I'm questioning -- is our jail population as high as it is because we may not have the appropriate staff doing the paperwork to move them through the system faster? I don't know that. But I think before I would want to spend $20 million for a jail, I'd want some answers to those questions. MR. STILWELL: In general the answer to your question today is that the study would be comprehensive enough in nature to provide you with those answers. It is generally the job of the local public safety coordinating council, and there is one in each of the three counties, who would take a look at those issues on an ongoing basis anyway. But we would anticipate that the design of this study would be such that it would be comprehensive enough to provide those kinds of answers, which would ultimately lead to how many jail beds, what kind and so on. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: So they would look at efficiency of the operation and that we're minimizing the jail time spent. MR. MANNING: The study has not yet been designed, but we would anticipate that, yes. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With the last sentence you said, it gives support for me to support the motion. If, in fact, the study hasn't yet been designed, then that's the appropriate time for somebody who is more of an expert than any of us to design the study. I don't know what questions to ask. This is one that you happen to have many -- may be informed about. But if what we're talking about is conceptually starting from scratch with the appropriate involvement with the sheriffs and the judiciary and these state mandated committees, whatever they are, if we're then to design the questions and to start from scratch to examine the concept of a regional jail, then I can support that, but nothing more specific. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that is all I am suggesting. I think Wayne Daltry said it best. There are some regional things that work very effectively and are cost effective, and there are some that are not. All I am suggesting is we as a group should look at whether this is one of those things. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm going to call the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you. Matt, do you have any discussion that you wanted to participate in in representing Charlotte County? COHMISSIONER DEBOER: About six weeks ago I brought the idea of it to our Charlotte County Board of Commissioners under discussion on whether or not they would like me to look into the fact that -- even not just regionalizing, but also privatizing jails. So as part of the discovery process for our legislative body, we are -- we're moving ahead. If this is something that we can do together, we are all in favor of it. When we move ahead with our RFP process, we will also make sure that we have the proper language in our motion and within our documentation to allow piggybacking. That way, whatever time you all decide you want to look at that, it will be available. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you. Commissioner Manning. MR. MANNING: I would just, Mr. Chairman, ask a consensus of our board to join in the effort here that has been mentioned by Collier County. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Commissioner Coy. COHMISSIONER COY: Yes, sir. Thank you. I have no problem agreeing with moving on in concept. But, as always, the devil's in the detail. And I would certainly want to look at it again. You know, there are a lot of questions and a lot of concerns, but as far as moving on to concept, just to have staff continue on in looking at the process, I think that is good. But it's not a -- to me it's not a firm commitment, but we're definitely going to do it right now. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: No, I think -- I think the whole intent of today's meeting was -- the purpose was for the administrations of -- COHMISSIONER COY: Okay. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: -- of the counties to come together and get some type of a feel and direction from the boards that, you know, you're walking down the right path, but is this something we should abandon at this point. And I think they have seen clear direction today that we are willing to go forward and work with the judiciary and the law enforcement, and let's do something that is going to be best for the taxpayer, and if we can do it more efficiently one time. Let's have that one stick. So to everyone -- Don. MR. STILWELL: Mr. Chairman, it might be helpful from a staff's standpoint if you all decided who you would want in your area to take the lead on it. Someone needs to take the lead to keep this moving so we can coordinate it with the judicial council and the sheriffs, et cetera. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Unless any of the boards have a problem with that, I would follow suit with what Judge Reese said, and the way the system is set up is through the three chairmen and the three boards or four boards, five boards would be the people who go forward with this. And if Glades County wants to get involved, Lionel -- if Joe wants to get involved as chairman of the Hendry County Board, I would think the natural people to do this would be the chairmen of the boards working with their administrators and staffs and judiciary and law enforcement. MR. STILWELL: I'd like to see if we could, though, get you to designate someone today to take the lead on this because time is of the essence. I know all three counties have problems. We've got to keep this moving. If we let it wait, it is going to die. We need someone to spearhead it from -- maybe a board member up here and working with the judges, the sheriffs, et cetera, to keep it moving. But we need someone to push this thing. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Is that what you mean, because the chairman is on the administration? MR. STILWELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Commissioner Manning, you have been involved in this up to this point. I would think you are the logical choice from our board. COMMISSIONER MANNING: I supported the motion. MR. STILWELL: I'm not lobbying for the commissioner from Lee County, but that might be well to have a commissioner coordinate the thing. I think that makes a lot of sense. MR. MANNING: I'd like, Mr. Chairman, if I could, to have a representative from all the counties who want to get involved from the political side, from the elected side, representatives or your designees from the county manager/administrator, depending if you have a home rule charter, no home rule charter, or one that is in limbo, and certainly from the judiciary from the 20th circuit. If that is not exclusive of the state's statutes that's on the books right now, I would suggest that's the easiest way to do it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are -- each county will have a sheriff -- MR. MANNING: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- participate. But you're looking for -- MR. MANNING: I would like one of you and one of you (Indicating) to help me as well as one of the Hendry and Glades County commissioners as well to be involved in this thing. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As the chairman for the Collier County Commission I would be glad to interface on this. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Commissioner Judah, and then we need to move on. We have another item on the agenda. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: According to the council, you're going to have chairmen of each of the commissions. That's good. What I was going to suggest is, to assure accountability, because we've got Collier that's looking at the jail bond potential and also Charlotte with pulling an RFP process, that we have some type of date certain. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: For -- COMMISSIONER JUDAH: For these three bodies to get back together with a recommendation within a reasonable period of time so that we can proceed. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Roger. MR. DESJARLAIS: Thirty Days. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Thirty days. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me just understand. In 30 days this committee will come back to us with a recommendation that it will try to study. What are we asking them to do in 30 days? COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Recommendations on a procedure, whether we take a regional approach or each county goes it alone individually or the members of the facilities. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Answer the question. Thirty days? COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Yes, that is what I am saying. If I'm misunderstanding this interpretation, I certainly stand to be corrected. MR. DESJARLAIS: Commissioner, what we would recommend to come back to within 30 days is a methodology for a regional study. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. DESJARLAIS: With that we would bring you some cost numbers and, you know, all the normal things. COMHISSIONER DEBOER: Rather than calling a joint meeting again, isn't that something respectively among each board? If you're serving on a committee, there's no reason to call all of us together again. Each board is going to have its own designee to bring back information to that board room to get a consensus on what that individual board wants to do; so I think that's fair. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would like to comment that this board will be taking a summer break from June the 20th to July the 18th. And if we can have our meeting on this prior to June the 20th, I would appreciate it. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: Well. COMHISSIONER MANNING: Do we get to take our vacations now? CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Take that up with Albion. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: We tend to conserve our vacations to a specified period in time, and that period of time is the end of June to the middle of July this year. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So for us to take -- for us to make a decision -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It would be after July. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: So you're talking about six weeks from now before -- I think that's fine. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Either we do it within the next three weeks or six weeks. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Six weeks would be better. John, if you have one more thing to say, and then we will move on to the next item. SHERIFF HCDOUGALL: I would be happy to host the meeting at our new facility at six miles west of the interstate so it would be handy for a lot of the respective counties. We have plenty of free parking spaces, so we have plenty of parking that you don't have downtown here. But I would be happy to host that and provide a copy of directions to our facilities. COHMISSIONER MANNING: Do we have to eat the jail food if we show up, John? CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: We'll leave this item. Sheriff Worch, do you have one last item? SHERIFF WORCH: I can speak from here. Okay? CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Sure. SHERIFF WORCH: Hay I ask if the decision that the three boards made, one in which the initial item stands upon jail edification is the one in which the three or four or five Public Safety Coordinating Councils will be studying this issue under the directorship of each chairman of the board, is that what you have all agreed to? Because if there are new panels established to study this issue, then the planning and coordinating councils will be studying the issue, another group will be studying the issue, and you may very well be presenting yourselves with a conflict instead of resolving the recommendations. And it is already legislatively established that they are not to be redundant before a board, a panel, a council. The legislature in its wisdom said in each county that it had a purpose, and it is 951.26. These are the issues to be discussed. I think the coordination between these three or four or five counties would go well to serve that. That was the recommendation, as I understand it, and I would just like to say there is a potential for conflict. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sheriff, assuming the -- our county attorney comes back and confirms that -- I have no reason to doubt that he will, but confirms -- I think that was the intent of our motion, was that we just needed confirmation on that state statute, not being familiar with it. But I think that was our intent. SHERIFF WORCH: So who would take the vote? Who would need it? It was one of the chairmen of the planning -- one of the five chairmen of the planning council called me to plan that. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Roger, do you want to address that? MR. DESJARLAIS: You know this started out so simple. I would expect that -- we're going to have to give a little bit of thought logistically how to make this work. But I don't think there is much doubt that the Public Safety Coordinating Council is going to be part of the planning of the effort and devising the methodology for the study. I think that what we will probably recommend -- that we have Dan Wiley and Associates, who is under contract to the Lee County court administrator, come in and give us a hand with planning the logistics. That's not a big deal. That will take one afternoon. And then we will get that information to all of the participants including the sheriffs and the judiciary and board members and administrators, and that should pretty well drive the machine. But I would suspect that Commissioner Manning will probably do that, coordinated through your office, if you're going to be kind of a point person on this. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Roger -- I apologize, Mr. Chairman -- we need an answer to the question, though. I think your answer was the Public Safety Coordinating Councils get together. MR. DESJARLAIS: We're going to wait on some response from the Charlotte County attorney, where they are concerned, but I would expect that the answer will come back to us. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So what I intended to support was that the five that are invited, three have said they're interested in the Public Safety Coordinating Council which includes the chairs of each of the county commissions and others as mandated by statute. There is going to be a coordination of those five councils. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: That's correct. Very well put. Thank you. COHMISSIONER COY: Roger, real quickly, if everybody would come back to us, it would be to look at this area. It wouldn't necessarily be an up or down vote at that time, or it would be an up or down at that time? MR. DESJARLAIS: It may be a yes or no vote at that time. But what we would hope would come back to at that time would be a recommendation on the scope of service contracts, a description of the methodology, and cost associated with all of that. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you. Thank you, everyone who participated in this discussion. We'll move on to the second item on the agenda; that is a summary and review of the 1995 legislative session. I have a backup, so I don't want that on the agenda. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the sheriffs to stick around just a few minutes? If I could have the floor while you're on the legislative agenda, if I could. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Sure. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: And I know certainly Bettye Matthews is very familiar with this issue. I believe, as a matter of fact, all the commissioners are. The reason I asked the sheriffs to stick around for a second -- Sheriff Hunter, if you don't mind -- and I apologize, but the reason I am asking you is I really need your assistance. We tried, as you know, to get parts of your assessment bill passed this past legislative session. We had no help from the legislature. It was an opportunity to bring a conservative $80 million to the State of Florida, $4 million to Lee County without raising taxes. A lot of it along the lines, of course, were funneled into the constitutional offices. There's some sheriffs. What we are going to need to do is to sponsor and promote a constitutional amendment to get it accomplished. We're going to need assistance to help the counties, the league of cities, the Florida Library Association, the School Board association, that will recognize the need for loan dollars. We're going to need to collect a bundle of signatures. I'm hoping we can call on you to assist us with your statewide organization to move forward with a constitutional amendment on a partial year. That is why I wanted to bring it up with you presently. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SHERIFF MCDOUGALL: Will you get a copy of it to us? COMHISSIONER JUDAH: I sure will. Well, I am going to -- we're going to have to initiate that process in order to start with a closed association county's meeting at the end of June. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you. On the second item, I don't know if anyone wants to open up the discussion. I have -- there's been no backup prepared. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: Mr. Chair, if I could just take a step through -- well, just with the commissioners here, and I didn't mean to -- I thought it was important to bring it up at this time with the sheriffs here for obvious reasons, because we have loan dollars that we could benefit in receiving without raising taxes. But quite clearly the legislature was of no help. It would appear that in the future we're not going to receive any help because of this perception that it's an increase in taxes, because of what is going on between the House and the Senate, daring the other to make the move to sponsor bills before they take action. It's just been a game as far as I've been concerned. It astounds me that given the budgetary crunch as we're all experiencing, the schools are experiencing, the problem in dealing with this right now to operate the jails, that we couldn't get the legislature to act responsibly and pass the parts of your assessment bill this session. Quite clearly it's going to take a constitutional amendment. I'm going to be bringing that issue up at the Florida Associations Counties' Conference in June on Marco Island. And I'm hoping that we're going to be able to get support of it if it appears -- we certainly have the support of it administratively, but we're going to need a vote by the majority of the counties to move forward in that regard. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was equally upset at the inaction this year on that, and the support from the counties was immense. The support from the school board was immense. Each time I was up in Tallahassee I was running into meetings of members of the school board that were organized and pushing on this same item. My only caution, I guess, that will come out as we look at this a little bit further is there have been recent amendments to the constitution that, in my opinion, do not qualify as what should have been an amendment to the constitution of this state. So the language and whether we begin amending the constitution every time we don't like something is a little bit of a sore point for me. And I'm not saying this isn't appropriate, but I really want to look at that carefully and make sure that there are no avenues left. And you may very well be right, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: I'm very sensitive to that. I look at this as tax equity, tax reform. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Hopefully, it would qualify as something that would be worthy of a constitutional amendment. The legislature is not going to help us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have my commitment to work very hard next year trying to get this through in whatever is the proper manner to do so. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Any other legislative items that anyone cares to discuss that went on in sessions this term? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would just like to comment that I know that the next item deals with the lobby effort. But I feel this year that in our being present at Tallahassee more often than we've been in the past helped a great deal. It helped us all. I think we learned a lot more about how the system works or doesn't. What I also found really beneficial was working and meeting with the Florida government staff as well, having names to put with the faces. And when I make a phone call now, I feel a little bit better. I feel like I know this person instead of it just being somebody at the other end of the phone. I found that what our accomplishments were this year may be frustrating. We learned to deal with the frustration and that it does exist and finding a way of getting around it. But other than that, I thought our effort this year was very good, in that it was what I thought it would be the first year, a learning tool, that we're all going through a learning curve, I thought, was fairly high, and we held to it. I want to thank you each and everyone of you who attended. I think many of us here did. It was an exercise in a good learning effort. I would like to see it continue. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: We'll combine B and C as far as lobbying and legislative session. Are there any other comments from any of the commissioners in regards to this item? COMMISSIONER DEBOER: Mr. Chairman, if I might. I was the one that asked that the C be put on there because I was not sure if we were going to get into the discussion of the lobbying effort. In Charlotte County we have a board of first-time elected officials. It's kind of been our history now for I think about the past 12 years as no one gets reelected. So we're novices at this. And what I was hoping is that, so that we don't get off to a late start next year, that we can get together and maybe workshop this. And I'm not sure exactly how long each of you have been in office. I would even suggest that we try to get some of the members of our individual legislative delegations possibly to speak to us. Something, at least, that we need is to kind of hone our skills that we have learned this year so that we become more effective at lobbying. We would also like to maybe establish some guidelines as to what we are going to lobby for. We recently were also -- had an editorial in the newspaper as to why we had the apartment, why we just didn't have a room at the Motel 6 or something like that. You know, it would have saved however many dollars. So I guess what I'm asking -- I don't know how all of you feel about the effort, but would you be amenable to having a workshop like that? We really need it. And I don't know if all of you -- CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: From our point of view that would be essential. I think you need to bring in your legislative delegation. I think there is strength in numbers. And certainly I think three, four, five county commissions coming together and telling your legislative delegation how you feel and what responses you expect from this year's session -- we've said it repeatedly in Lee County, and all too often our representatives go off to Tallahassee, and the minute they leave the highway they forget who put them there. And whether it's the emphasis that we are trying to carry forward from our constituents, because we work so much closer with our citizens than statewide elected officials, I think it's ultimately more important this next session -- it was this session -- but next session to make sure that there's unanimity among the counties, number one, and that we are speaking from a force of how many people represented in the three-, four-, or five-county area And to make sure that message does, in fact, get carried to Tallahassee. A personal opinion of mine -- those people should be lobbying on our behalf. I mean, they represent us. They represent local constituents. That's what the power in Tallahassee should be for us. We shouldn't have to go to Tallahassee to lobby our own legislative delegation. I think we need to sit down with them, with all of us in tandem and make sure they understand where we are coming if, in fact, we're all coming from the same place. COMMISSIONER DEBOER: Let me throw this out there because I know Commissioner Matthews knows this for sure. I was the one commissioner who was originally opposed to the lobbying effort, and you helped changed my mind. Definitely. There was comment made earlier about how things in Tallahassee don't work, and I had been amazed -- being the chairman, the board has sent me both to Tallahassee and also to Washington on a number of occasions, and go beyond Tallahassee. But Washington, it's amazing. I don't know how anything gets done. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It doesn't. COMMISSIONER DEBOER: It doesn't. I realize the value of that now. You've changed my opinion on this completely, and I would like to see us structure this thing so that we are better at it this coming year. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: I don't think the boards would have a problem with sitting down prior to the session and giving us enough lead time to make some effective time. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I had kind of envisioned when we finished with the work that we were doing this year at the legislature, to get together like we are now and talk about what we did accomplish and what we didn't accomplish, to kind of mull over what we might do better. Then we could get together in the fall with the legislative delegation either in a meeting or a reception of some kind or what have you and get their feedback of how we can help them. My idea of what we were trying to accomplish was not to lobby our delegation, but to help them accomplish what it is we want them to do. If they need people and information brought forward at different committees that we, as a county commission, can do, then that is what we need to do and that's what was behind it, not so much to lobby our own people. My gosh, if we have to do that, we ought not vote for them again. But to help them accomplish what they're after and what we need done from here. So that is what the goal was. I think we did some of that this year. I think we'll do a lot more of it next year. But I also think we need to get the delegation together with us in the fall before the legislative calendar is set so that we can again work towards the same goals. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Commissioner Hancock and then Commissioner Judah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might I suggest -- and to be honest, I didn't expect this first year to have any significant results. Just our presence, I think, is all that we could reasonably achieve this year because there is a learning curve, and there is a way of getting around Tallahassee that I, for one, had to learn and was grateful for the opportunity. What I would like to suggest is possibly a two-tier approach. I felt comfortable going into the delegates that I knew that covered areas within Collier County. However, I didn't feel like I had a comprehensive format to walk into a delegate that may be in Charlotte County but doesn't cover any of Collier and lobby on behalf of all of us. That was the little piece that was missing for me. And I felt I was working on behalf of Collier County and maybe a portion of Lee, but not really going very far beyond that. What I would like to suggest is maybe a two-tier approach. After the FAC conference at the latter part of this month, which tends to set the stage for what may or may not be discussed in Tallahassee during the next session, at least on behalf of the counties, we may need to come together as has been suggested and develop an agenda of positions that we all agree upon. And then at any one time when one of us is in Tallahassee, we do have a program which we can go to each of the representatives that cover any portion of all three counties, and we could fill those days with those appointments to get in and see them and all be working on the same thing. That means once a week or twice a week even any representative is going to have one of us in their office beating them on the head about the same subject time and time again. So that's the first step. I would like to see us put that together. The second step is to let them know, through a similar meeting, that we're coming. And that is to get everybody in one room, our representatives, our senators. Give them one room and tell them what we are going to come beat on them about. I think we can just have a little more comprehensive approach, a little more structured approach, and get a lot more done next year now that we know some of the ropes. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Commissioner Judah. Thank you. Then Commissioner Constantine and then Commissioner Cummings. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Okay. First of all, I appreciate this discussion. And let me applaud Bettye Matthews particularly for promoting the lobbying -- the tri-county lobbying effort. And I agree that it's more of a learning experience and just an opportunity to start to get to know our way around Tallahassee. But I think it will pay even greater dividends in the future. What I certainly learned is -- and I have been very pleased with colleagues in both counties as far as the intellect and sophistications and sincerity. And I mean that with regards as to how you're carrying out your job duties. What frustrates me is recognizing that no matter how genuine your efforts with regards to speaking to and meeting with our own delegation, and they are certainly receptive and sensitive to our needs, but it seems that there is a different way of doing things in Tallahassee. Even though we follow the process, it doesn't get it accomplished. Quite clearly, you have to be in the inner circles, whether it's the lobbyists that provide the funding for the campaigns for those that eventually get elected to the legislature in Tallahassee, that serves on those powerful committees that can hold up bills from getting on the main floor for a vote. Quite clearly, Senator Dudley is a powerful individual in his own right. Yet, he was unable to get a bill heard in the Ways and Means Committee in the Senate. There is an individual who I have talked to this board about who is willing at no cost to meet with the three counties, if they're willing to get together; and I think we should. They can help explain another way of getting things accomplished in Tallahassee, a proper way, a legal way, but yet a different angle. I want to make that perfectly clear. But there are other buttons to touch. I think it would probably help all three counties to meet with this person, who has a heavy-duty lobbying group up in Tallahassee but, quite clearly, were out-gunned because of certain lobbyists up in Tallahassee. And if the commissioners are interested, I think that we could meet -- not maybe in the fall, even later this summer -- perhaps after you get back from your leave -- to meet with this individual, and maybe she can give us a heads up on how best we can, perhaps, even be more assertive and aggressive in our efforts next legislative session. If you all agree, I would be happy to set up that meeting for the three counties late summer, early fall. It's Anita Mitchell for those of you who might know her. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've talked with her. COMMISSIONER DEBOER: I was going to suggest the same person. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Really. Great. Then you know her and how she knows her way around. Okay. Well, what seems to be a good period of time? August or September? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, when do we finish the budget hearings in September? MR. DORRILL: I think your final hearing is scheduled for the 18th. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The 18th? MR. DORRILL: I believe so. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we have our first one in early September. MR. DORRILL: The first and third week in September. COHHISSIONER JUDAH: Is early August better? COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Early August would be fine. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Wherever you all would like to meet. Do you want to meet here in Lee County? Charlotte? Collier? Wherever? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think somewhere easy for all of us to get to. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is very convenient. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Is this okay? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It is very difficult for us to go all the way to Charlotte and they to come all the way to Collier. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: logical place to do it. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: August? CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: COMHISSIONER JUDAH: be happy to set it up. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Well, Lee County might be the Right here in these chambers, early Yeah. You would allow me to do that, I'll And if there is anything else in regards to the first agenda item, it might be a good time to piggyback that too, if there is anything else to report. Tim. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Regardless of the direction we had as far as taking on the efforts or taking advantage of the efforts of a lobbyist on behalf of southwest Florida, I hope we continue with our own efforts. Matt suggested a workshop. We are meeting quarterly now anyway as a region and taking whatever issues are of interest at that time. So we're doing late summer, early fall -- so I think regardless of what happens first of August, we need to take advantage at that workshop to set, as Commissioner Hancock suggested, our agenda, define what our priorities are. And that may also be the appropriate time to meet with our local delegation before they get into a heavy swing in November trying to put together the local bills. Then I think in winter, when we have the next quarterly meeting just before the session begins in Tallahassee, we can sit down again at our workshop and solidify not only what those priorities are, but what our approach will be as each of us go to Tallahassee, and if we have someone professional there working for us, what comprehensive and detailed approach will we take when we are there. I think we can do that, set a broad agenda in the fall and in the wintertime before we all go up and set some details to it. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Commissioner Cummings. COHMISSIONER CUHMINGS: I think we naturally want to pursue every avenue available to increase our influence in the legislature. That was shown to me resoundingly during this last session. I think a lot of the benefits that we have received from this effort have not been some of the biggest benefits that Charlotte County received, were not necessarily through the legislature as much as in meeting with staff and getting to know them as well. I had a couple of different opportunities just fall in my lap by the very fact that I was standing there. Nevertheless, I think I would probably suggest going one step further than what our chairman suggested. I don't think you are going to work out an agenda in one workshop. I think it's going to require a series of them and possibly even piggybacking it onto this meeting, have a section of it, you know, however often you're going to have the meeting, that you're going to work on your agenda. Individual commissioners are going to try to do a little background and hopefully bring to the board an item to add to or additional information to contribute to whatever agenda you may be establishing. Hopefully we can formalize some of the procedures that we're using while you are up there, keeping in mind that we have to maintain a certain amount of flexibility. Things are changing so fast when you get up there, and the agenda that you set up in December isn't going to necessarily be applicable in even the first week of the session. I am not even sure what the major issues are with you, with the other counties right now. I know for Charlotte County the water policy next year is supposed to be a real big year, and we're going, hopefully, to be in the thick of that. We've got some really serious issues facing us. And with those are going to be interim meetings of the House Select Committee on water policy across the state. So this is something that isn't necessarily applicable only in one session. Also, I think that, at least from my perspective, I want to learn how to be a better lobbyist and learn it fast. I don't just want to learn by trial and error. And if you all have suggestions for who may be better able to offer that training, I am open to it. What I have pursued up to this point -- I was talking to Mr. Ken David with the Florida Association of Counties, and I suggested to him that one of the services they may consider offering is training on how to be an effective lobbyist and, hopefully, the possibility of them offering this type of thing to us gratis. What they would receive in return is that if they needed a commissioner to help them on a given issue while we're up there, they at least insisted to me that it was absolutely invaluable to them to have a commissioner ready in hand for something on short notice. And if they happened to have a commissioner that they've trained how to lobby, they would get something back in return. He said he was willing to use me as something of a guinea pig to find out what kinds of things we need to learn and try to establish a training program. Those are some of the directions that I am interested in pursuing. If anyone else has any input as far as that is concerned, I'm willing to pursue some type of training program even if I had to be the only one attending. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Comment well taken. Any other comments from any other commissioners? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The only other comment that I had, when we meet with the lobbyists, the professional lobbyists in August, one of the things we may want to find out from this person is whether we should try to be present during the committee meetings in the month prior to the start of the session and not make any presentations that we need to before those committees. I think this person can help us decide also whether we should do that and what the presentation should be like, how hard hitting and how brief, because brevity is always appreciated in Tallahassee. So we need to be brief, and we need to make a point. COMMISSIONER DEBOER: Mr. Chairman, if I can -- that was one of the reasons I was kind of anxious to bring this up, because that's one of the things we need to do. We need to have this in motion before the convention starts. We definitely do need to do that. Mr. Judah, you also know Anita Mitchell, so be prepared. She's about as straight a shooter as you're ever going to meet. She calls them just like she sees them. She will be a very interesting person if we can get her. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Are there any other items to come before us this afternoon? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. I just wanted to mention something briefly. We've had before us -- I mentioned to one of the commissioners -- I talked to Mr. Stilwell, and that is Collier is exploring the possibility of a film commission right now. And it seems to me -- I know Lee has one. It seems to me that this is something where Just Cause was a good example; it took advantage of all of southwest Florida. I know the services guide that your film commission provides right now includes all of southwest Florida, not strictly Lee. I know in the reel -- in the sample reel that you have sent out, that includes footage from all of southwest Florida. It seems like a logical fit in order to attract people from far way to come to southwest Florida or to compete with the bigger markets like a Miami or like an Orlando. If we work together, we can draw those people here. I'm sure once they get here we can nitpick over which side of the line they set up camp in their hotel or which sites they use. But I think we can appeal and make that initial hook of interest among the movie industry and among the commercial industry together more effectively. So that is something we are going to be talking about again in the next few days. I have talked to one of you about it. But it's something we may want to pursue doing some of that jointly. I understand there are some things that we are going to naturally have separate. But I think as long as we are both doing it, both targeting the same group and have some of the similar things to offer, we ought to get some economy of scale. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: It may help to have Beverly make a presentation to the county commissions. MR. STILWELL: Yes. Mr. Commissioner, we are very intrigued with the concept. I think the concept is excellent. Any way they want to do it -- we could have our film commissioner come down there, and everybody could have some very informal discussions, if you want to pursue that position. We can work it out any way they want to do it to make it work for the region. We don't have any real strong biases going. I think the approach is a very logical one, and it's one we want to make successful. I am sure that you all would like to get involved in that too, if you'd like to be. COMMISSIONER COY: I, as one commissioner, would at least be interested in seeing it. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Can we set a time for that for the commissions? MR. STILWELL: We'd be happy to do that if you would like. We could call you; you could call us. That could include your manager or however you would like to do that. If you would like to put it to your manager and would give a name and a telephone number, we can have her go up and make a presentation to your board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know there is some interest at our level in moving ahead in some direction fairly soon. I don't know how quickly we can get Beverly. But as soon as we can have some presentation, we'd love to have her. MR. STILWELL: Without tooting her horn, maybe she is modest and won't say this, but she is a former anchor here in the community with one of the major stations, and she does a good job. She's very professional. She's very well contacted throughout the State of Florida and also on -- particularly on the east coast where she has spent a lot of time out there working with people. COMHISSIONER CUMHINGS: Just briefly, I think I wanted to make my point a little bit stronger before we step out about the lobbying issue. I guess I would ask that that become -- that be placed on the agenda for each of these meetings, you know, so it is at least open and available. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: I think that was pretty much the consensus. Anything more from any of the county administrators? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final comment. I think this is very encouraging. We started these meetings maybe two years ago between us, and last year all three of us met together. The last couple of meetings -- last two or three meetings seemed to have a little more meat, a little more substance to them. It is kind of encouraging to see whether it's on transportation or on the jails or on the film commission, whatever it happens to be. But everyone is making an effort anyway to work together. And I'm sure on some of those we'll find it is not appropriate. But it's kind of nice. I don't know that that has always been the case. It is nice to have everyone making it work together. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one final comment that I would like to make at this time. Commissioner DeBoer, you commented there was some concern in newspaper articles and so forth about an apartment versus hotel or motel rooms. And I guess if we're going to continue with the lobby effort, the place that we used on our last trip -- I presume we are going to have to reserve it fairly soon in order to guarantee that we do have it for the coming year. The cost of that worked out to just under $50 a day. In view of having the ability to fix your own breakfast and lunch and/or dinner or just kick back and do nothing if you want, I guess I need some consensus on whether you want to continue with the apartment or whether you do want to go over to a hotel, keeping in mind that keeping a fax machine and so forth in a hotel room will not be as easy as a fixed apartment. I'm just throwing that out. COMMISSIONER DEBOER: Rather than getting too far into this discussion, I'll call Commissioner MAtthews and talk about it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ST. CERNY: Is there anything else to come before? If not, we're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the counties, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:57 p.m. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Catherine Hoffman