Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/20/1995 J (w/Lee BCC and Charlotte BCC)WORKSHOP MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS WITH LEE AND CHARLOTTE COUNTIES LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Commissioners in and for the Counties of Lee, Collier, and Charlotte met on this date at 9:15 a.m., in Chambers, at 2120 Main Street, Fort Myers, Florida, with the following members present: LEE COUNTY: COLLIER COUNTY: CHARLOTTE COUNTY: Commissioner John Albion Commissioner Douglas St. Cerny Commissioner John Manning Commissioner Ray Judah Commissioner Andrew Coy Donald Stillwell, County Manager Commissioner Bettye J. Matthews Commissioner John C. Norris Commissioner Timothy J. Constantine Commissioner Pamela S. Mac'Kie W. Neil Dotrill, County Manager Commissioner Matthew D. DeBoer Commissioner Max Fartell Commissioner Sue Dudley Commissioner Adam S. Cummings CHAIRMAN ALBION: If we could get started with the tri-county meeting of the Lee, Charlotte, and Collier Counties. Good morning. First I'd like to welcome everybody. This is really to me a very important meeting, especially looking at Florida Association of Counties meeting that's going to be coming up in about a week and really what's going on in Washington and how that's going to eventually fill down in Tallahassee and where we kind of fit into these equations. So I think these tri-county meetings are a great deal of benefit. I also like the fact that we have our counties really speaking much more about cooperation and trying to problem solve rather than all of us individually trying to problem solve, which tends to be much more expensive and questionable about how efficient it really is. So if we can, perhaps we can start into the discussion items. The first item we have is discussion of the regional approach to the jail system. Dan Wiley, who is involved in court operation of facility planning is here, and we have an update here of a revised conceptual overview. Dan, I'll let you start this morning. Good morning. Please state your name for the record. MR. WILEY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Dan Wiley. I'm delighted to be here to be present with all of you. Some of you I already know. Most of you I met before. Thank you for the opportunity to update you this morning on the regional jail planning. Several months ago the commissions will remember that in a meeting they asked that a conceptual approach be developed for a regional jail planning effort, and we were asked to coordinate that. Let me just tell you what's happened since then. We developed an initial proposal and took it back to the respective public safety coordinating councils and county administrators and commissions of the various counties. The initial proposal was expansive and expensive, and there was a request that it be reduced considerably and sharpened and focused considerably and to really zero in on the initial stages of the process and develop a preliminary cost benefit analysis that would give the county some guidance in advance here on whether or not there were actually savings that could be anticipated and efficiencies that could be realized from the development of a regional jail plan. So we revised the conceptual overview. You -- I believe you each have a copy of that overview before you. The tasks that are intended are laid out before you. Since this has been developed, it has been sent back to all of the public safety coordinating councils where they are active. I have met with the public safety coordinating council in Charlotte County and received -- I think it's fair to say -- approval from that group, with the Lee County Public Safety Coordinating Council and received their approval. The Public Safety Coordinating Council in Collier County was not as committed to it at this time. The belief down there is that there is no immediate crisis, and so they were more reserved on the subject. The -- I have -- Mr. Lionel Beattie, who is the county administrator from Hendry County, is with us this morning, and I have a letter from their board from him on behalf of their board indicating their willingness to participate, and I talked to Mr. Cotely (phonetic), the county manager in -- in Glades County, and that county is ready to proceed. In addition to this, since you last talked about this subject, Sarasota County has indicated a desire to participate in this, has made some overtures. I've talked to John Wesley White, the county administrator up there. Mr. Walt Smith, the criminal justice coordinating -- coordinator for Sarasota County is in the audience this morning. And we would -- if Sarasota County were to be included in this, we would append some additional amount on the fee here to cover Sarasota County. Where we are is that we're prepared to go forward whenever the board's prepared to have this done. We can begin the preliminary work immediately. We would expect that all the basic data needed to provide this preliminary study will be in place by January and that we would be able to report back at the end of January or early February to the board -- to the boards regarding the feasibility or the potential advantages and disadvantages of a regional jail approach. So that's it in a nutshell. We have a work plan. We have a work plan generally approved. We're ready to start, and if there are any questions from any members of the board, I'd be happy to entertain them. CHAIRMAN ALBION: One quick question, you said that if Sarasota were added on here you -- the fee would go up or -- MR. WILEY: Yes. We would add approximately $8,000 to the total calculated, especially for Sarasota County. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner Judah. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Excuse my ignorance here, because I just received this this morning. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: On the second page you have this -- this pertaining to the work the second, third -- third paragraph from the bottom, talking about this work, I guess, could be -- the work is what you're referring -- could be expected to occur by the end of October 1995. MR. WILEY: Yes. I had actually written this a couple months ago -- several months ago when things were proceeding at a little more rapid pace. And there have been some delays, and the contract in Charlotte County wasn't actually signed with the consultants there until just recently. And so, you know, I failed to update that language. It would be done by the end of January 1996. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Okay. One other quick question, if I could. It's so important that obviously we move forward in a regional approach and expand the necessary jails to accommodate hardened criminals. What I wanted to know, though, is what effort would possibly be made with this joint agreement to look into an assessment center? The Juvenile Justice Council has made that a top priority, but we can't seem to get focused on recognition that we've got to get off this treadmill and that the assessment center approach is the way to proceed. Is this part of this contract at all? MR. WILEY: It had not been to this point. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: You know, it wouldn't matter to me if it was Charlotte, Collier, Lee, Hendry, wherever, but we absolutely need an assessment center, ideally in each county. It's so much more cost effective and so much more efficient to find the appropriate resolution to a lot of the problems that we're having with our youth. MR. WILEY: Yeah. This -- this approach was really focused on adult corrections. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: I apologize. You know, we've been focusing on adult corrections for years, and we can't build jails and bring ourselves out of this problem. We got to deal with the youth. And I was hoping somewhere along the line we're going to recognize that we've got to start earlier, although recognizing the importance of adult corrections too. Goodness, if we have an opportunity to work on a regional basis, that the assessment centers issue is something that should be incorporated in this contract. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER DeBOER: Chairman, when we discussed this on Thursday at our Justice Planning Council meeting, there were two things that were brought out as to caveats to our being involved in this. One was that it include only members -- member counties of the 20th Judicial Circuit and not go beyond that. And the other thing was that this was only for sentenced prisoners. We were not going to get into juvenile offender programs or anything like that in this particular regional approach. We were going to maintain that at a local level, and that was what came out of our council meeting. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Well, in respect to that I think perhaps maybe you ought to have broader approach in recognizing that role -- the problems that we're having in intervention and prevention programs that are necessary to keep us from having to continually build adult correctional facilities. But I understand and respect your decision. COMMISSIONER DeBOER: If I can, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Sure. COMMISSIONER DeBOER: I think going back and remembering the first time this was brought up here, what transpired at that particular meeting, I think that -- I'm trying to be sensitive to the fact that we're dealing with some very strong personalities within the system. And I'm trying to keep things together here and more or less go with them. In my own personal point of view, I would probably lean a little bit more the way you would, Commissioner, but I'm trying to deal with people that are in the justice system itself in our community and more bend toward their wishes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, the results of my understanding when we first talked about this in the early summer that we were talking about post sentence, and it was my feeling that's -- that's where we're headed for. Our commission as a whole has not really discussed this. I think we have the study coming up soon, don't we, Mr. Dotrill? Mr. Dotrill, we have the study coming before the BCC soon, don't we? MR. DORRILL: Our study concerning the -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, the regional jail as to whether we're going to participate in this or not. MR. DORRILL: As -- as part of either -- we either needed a decision to proceed to go to a general obligation bond referendum to expand our jail or to participate in this project. I anticipate that's the first or second Tuesday in December. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what I thought it was. We will be discussing it. As for an assessment center, our board agreed two weeks ago to an offer from the Juvenile Justice Department to build a detention center on our government campus, and due to shared laundry and kitchen facilities with our current jail, we're going to use that square footage for an assessment center. So we're -- we've worked in agreement for Collier County where we will have both a detention center, a 30-bed unit, and an assessment center funded by the Juvenile Justice Department. The county's going to fund the assessment center. The operations of the detention center will be funded by the state. But that's -- that's where -- where we have gone. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: I wish we could get there. That's extremely commendable for Collier County. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we -- we're working hard at it. MR. WILEY: For the -- for the -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER DUDLEY: I was just going to comment on Commissioner DeBoer's comments that -- his personal feelings, and express my personal feelings on the issue. I very strongly support the assessment center idea's concerned and would request from Lee County some of the work that you have done. Do you have any reports or anyone who can come, perhaps speak to our county commission and get -- flow through some of your information to the county commissioners, and let's see what we can do. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: I appreciate the request. Mr. Chairman, if you'll allow me, I'd be happy to put that report together with the assistance of our own Lee County Sheriff's Department. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Mr. Wiley. MR. WILEY: Just for the board's information, our official concepts of regional prototype focus principally on sentenced prisoners. I think everyone involved with a criminal justice system and with the detaining of prisoners believes that a pretrial detention -- a regional pretrial detention facility would probably pose more problems in cost than it would possibly be worth in the transportation of prisoners and timely delivery to court and a host of other operational issues. But in -- with respect to sentenced prisoners, there are some possibilities that we intend to explore. And I would add this one other caveat, too, that when we talk about a potential regional plan, we're thinking programmatically as well as facility-wise. There may be some programs, some pretrial programs, some intervention programs that might be better applied on a regional basis than on a county-by-county basis. And so we're going to look at that both pretrial and post trial as well. But with respect to facilities, our focus is on sentenced prisoners. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Let me just add if I can, as far as -- we really have two tracks here. I mean, one is we have to take care of our jail situations. If from nothing else it's coming from the Department of Corrections out of Tallahassee. That's clearly one issue, and we're not going to escape it. As far as the assessment center goes, while I can appreciate the merits of doing it, I guess I'm looking at from just a cost standpoint. I'm only speaking of general now. We'll probably end up starting out, I'm guessing -- if Collier County is a leg up -- on still having county-by-county offices even if they're branches in some form. I guess one of the more appealing points of the regional jail concept, which some people talk about the cost would soar, is the fact that logically we'd be sticking our long-term prisoners in the regional facility. And more shorter-term prisoners would, therefore, probably still remain in our localized jails is how I always perceived it would go conceptually. So, therefore, the assessment center, I guess if we're going to end up -- I'm -- I guess what I'm envisioning is probably the reality. And as much as we want to try to not duplicate costs and so on, I'm just fearful that the transportation-type costs might eat us up, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done or we shouldn't be trying to work with each other to try to make it happen. Maybe two counties -- if the assessment center is close to a county line, perhaps that would be more feasible. But I guess that would be my concern. The only other thing I would pass on to you, Commissioner Judah, specifically because I know that you're very concerned about this issue in particular, is that we need to make sure that we get off the dime. And if we start out too big, I think we may end up literally deflating, just like punching a hole in a balloon, and I think that's what Collier County is doing, for one. And I do think it's very commendable, and we certainly hope to steal some of your ideas, by the way. But I really think that in Lee County we need to have a discussion. I think in Charlotte they need to have a discussion. And I think we need to be talking about what everybody's doing so that where there are points of intersection for coordination, that's what we're going to have to jump on and take advantage of. The concept itself, also, has got to start receiving more air time. And the reason why is because everyone has to really be comfortable with the idea, et cetera. And with all due respect, I'm talking mostly about our sheriffs, about our judges, as well as our own situation legislatively. I know there's been some concern expressed by the sheriff's departments about how's this regional jail going to work, who's going to have control, and so on. And we have to make sure this process is very inclusive, for one. For two, I agree we have to start looking at the preventative approach such as an assessment center is going to help us do. They just need to get off the treadmill, and I think you're right, because the reason we're building more jails is because we haven't gotten off the treadmill. But I really think we have to locally maybe go out here and try to see if we can have a merging, et cetera. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, thank you. It seems to me that really that the -- while the juvenile assessment center is a very important subject, it's really not what we have been discussing up to this point on this issue. And it appears to be almost a completely separate subject, because up to now the discussions, at least that I've been involved in regionally, it's always been a post-sentencing facility that we've been talking about. And the other unfortunate problem that we have in Collier County is that we have not -- as you heard a minute ago, we have not heard this at the commission level. And it's almost premature for us to come up here and try and make a decision on this today in the meantime without hearing it first at the county commission level and hearing what our committee has to offer for us. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Let me ask, if I could -- I'd like to hear -- Don -- Don, if I could -- yeah, we just got this this morning, all right. You're kind of the one that started this discussion about regional jails. I mean, how do you -- I'm curious as to your opinion. How do you -- and perhaps, Neil, are the staffs going to be moving in this direction at this point at the staff level? What are we envisioning here? What needs to be done? And what kind of time frame are we looking at is the other issue. MR. STILWELL: I think the thing we'd like to see -- and I can't speak for Neil, of course, but the thing I would like to see is concurrence from all the counties that this is the approach that we want to follow. We're talking about a very nominal amount of money here. The impact -- the payback on it is unbelievable. I mean, I can't -- I'm sorry. I don't want to put you in a politically bad position, but I can't imagine why you'd hesitate for an instant. We're talking about millions of dollars, literally millions of dollars that we can save through this joint process here. I'd just like to see us -- see our boards regionally buy into the concept, tell us get going on it, and quit meeting on it. We've been meeting a long time now, too long, and it's time to start doing something. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Does anybody have any discussions at all with the Department of Corrections as far as trying to work with MR. STILWELL: Yeah, we've started some preliminary discussions that way and also at the federal level, the state level. But the important thing is we get our act together here, and this is the first giant step getting our act together and getting the boards to concur that, yeah, we want to look at it from a regional standpoint and go forward. And we'll do that currently with the fed -- with federal people and with the state people. But what we need is these boards to buy into this, to say, yes, this is what we want you to do. You've given us your tacit approval in the past, but we've never really come out and said, yes, we're willing to spend the money on it. We're talking about very nominal sums of dollars. MR. WILEY: If I might, I would like to just add to that that a commitment to the study process does not at this moment commit you to a long-range regional facility, all right. It commits you to study it, to identify the advantages and disadvantages, and identify that the sorts of requirements that would be made of you over the long term and put you in a position to make the appropriate decision about regionalization. And everyone believes that there will be some significant advantages, but I -- I will tell you that there will certainly be some disadvantages as well, and I think the board should be informed of those right at the outset so that you can make an informed decision. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner Coy. COMMISSIONER COY: Yes, just two things, very quickly. If we are confined to this process, which I think is probably a pretty good idea, I would like to make sure that there is extra capacity when it opens. Being in the school system for 12 years, as soon as we open a building, it's full and overcrowded as soon as it's open. So I don't want us to get into a situation where five years down the road we're going to divide it up and somebody else is going to build it. I would like for it to be built way into the next 20 years. We -- and, of course, would like crime to stop, but it's not going to. So we need extra capacity. The second thing, maybe Charlotte could help me with this or you. What would be the difference between this regional jail compared to the facility in Charlotte County? Is one state and one county? Is it that simple, or is it more than that? MR. WILEY: No. Just -- just a moment or two of background. The folks in Collier County had a recent long-term jail master plan done. And so they have some projections out for 15 or 20 years about what their needs are going to be. A study like that is underway here in Lee County. I'm privileged to participate with you in that, and we should have some long-term forecasts for Lee County needs in place here later this month or very early next month. Charlotte County has a similar study underway. Some very preliminary numbers are available there, and early in January they should have long-term forecasts as well. Now, Hendry and Glades have a slightly different problem. The dimension of their problem is a little different than the three coastal counties here. But what is emerging here is a combined picture of a long-term detention populations of these five counties, and wewre going to be in a position in January to put them all together and see what the total demand for resources in this five-county area is going to be for the next 20 years. All right. Now, each one of the counties presently has a detention facility that houses both pretrial detainees and sentenced prisoners of a certain kind, all right. Therews no doubt in my mind, and Iwm -- Iwm not the jail consultant in -- in Charlotte County. But therews no question in my mind that theywre going to need a new jail up there for pretrial detainees regardless. MR. DORRILL: I think in addition to that, just because I was talking to staff, I think Commissionerls question -- Commissioner, you tell me if Iim mistaken -- he may also be referring to CCI, which is the state-operated penitentiary, and I think hels trying to get you to distinguish between those. MR. WILEY: Yes. Well, the -- therels an element of the state prison system up in Charlotte County. COMMISSIONER COY: So thatls just state compared to county? MR. WILEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COY: Thanks. MR. WILEY: County -- county jails house pretrial detainees and misdemeanants, basically misdemeanants. And nowadays, though, therels a new wrinkle that allows judges to sentence felons to a certain amount of county time, to about two years as distinguished from going off into the state prison system. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Yeah, let me just make myself clear. Maybe I havenlt been. Iim not taking issue with the importance of all of us going -- holding hands together and working towards a regional approach in an adult corrections facility. We need to do that. What Iim trying to make is we always seem to be in a situation when we discuss corrections, and we discuss crime. We seem to discuss it separately from the root of the problems. And -- and when you talk to the professionals and social agencies -- social service agencies, law enforcement, education, theylre targeting kids now in first grade in terms of -- of, you know, truant behavior. And -- and, you know, the kids that we warehouse yesterday, welre now paying $30,000 a year to keep them up in prisons today. Whatls it going to cost us in the future? All Iim suggesting is we need to understand that we need to really get involved with regards to preventative intervention-type programs. And I had thought that this assessment center, to be perfectly honest with you -- in fact, Iim going talking to Roger DeJalere -- that this was an issue that was going to be looked into. Iim not going to in any way try to oppose or resist what is being approached today. We need to go forward. All Iim asking for is some consideration to discuss an assessment center, prevention intervention programs in the same breath when we talk about adult correction facilities. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner Fartell. COMMISSIONER FARRELL: Wouldnlt there be a certain logic to starting out with adult correction? Thatls the one thatls pressing us. Get it on a big site someplace where we have room to grow, and Iid -- I donlt know that we can put adult correction together. Welve got to prove that. I see that everything we start and everybody else starts lacks real interest somehow. It will take over the process if not. If we could take the adult correction and make it work, we -- and had a big enough site to expand on, we would have set a model that we might be able to then work cooperatively on a whole series of things. I think that boot camps, for instance, is a good idea. I don't know whether there's a county here big enough to really support a boot camp and the training that ought to go with it. Collectively several counties probably could put one together and make it work, so would it not be a good idea to start out with one that's pressing. We could probably do -- see if we could make that one work, and if we did, I would think that would open up all kinds of possibilities for the future. And paramount to doing that consideration would be a site big enough to grow for the next 50 years or so maybe. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Let me ask, if I may -- again, we're on two tracks here. The first one is as far as the study goes, is there really any concerns about moving forward with that at this point? Do we intend to go back to our boards and get this issue resolved? COMHISSIONER JUDAH: Go forward. CHAIRMAN ALBION: All right. Because I really agree. We personally imagine we could go forward with it, and we need to bring in whoever is going to be involved with this discussion. I mean, we really need to have pretty much a drop-dead date and say, look, if you want in, we need it on the table because we don't need to be doing addendums to your study and then instead of having a study taking 60 days, taking 90 or 120 days overall. And one of the reasons why is that I want to make sure that we show the Department of Corrections that we're really moving towards resolution of this issue, because if there are going to be certain required flexibilities down the road saying, hey, bear with us, we're going in the direction, they'll note we've done so at a somewhat expedited pace and that we're doing our job. I think that's really important, because Tallahassee is a long way away from here. So at least as far as that part of the discussion, is there any other discussion or comments on this? MR. DeBOER: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner DeBoer. COMMISSIONER DeBOER: Just one thing. I was not disagreeing with Commissioner Judah. As a matter of fact, I invite you to come to our next council meeting and help us make that presentation to the sheriff and the chief judge that we have there, and that would help a lot. The diplomacy side is what I'm trying to address here. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: I'm all for diplomacy. MR. DeBOER: Well, I'm known for not only being the size of a football player, but also smashing through issues that way. So, you know, I try very hard to not do that. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, at least from Collier's perspective, it's our intent to sort of get off the dime. I mean, at this point -- it would be my intention to do that by the first or second meeting in December, and I've been coordinating that with our chairman who also sits as the chairman of our planning council. THE COURT: Chairman Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. Mr. Wiley was at our last public safety committee meeting, and the public safety committee as a whole has not embraced the study he's proposing. Mr. Dotrill and I have discussed how -- how best to continue with this, and the decision was to bring it to the board for -- for a full discussion first or second Tuesday in December. Hopefully, we'll have it resolved then. MR. WILEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN ALBION: As a recommendation perhaps, if we could pretty much try to work to get our answers complete by the middle of December for one and whoever is going to be in, they really need to be in by then, I would expect. Therefore, you probably would start the study at the beginning of the year. We would logically have an answer in about the first week in March -- MR. WILEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN ALBION: -- depending what happens in Sarasota, et cetera. MR. WILEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN ALBION: I would also recommend then, therefore, if we could get that part going, that perhaps maybe our boards can work towards having their individual discussions about an assessment center approach. And we do have certain opportunities, like the Regional Planning Council, for one, where that discussion could be fielded. But we also would have, I would hope, more -- try to have more tri-county meetings or either meetings jointly between two counties both to try to maybe make sure this is a commission item. As you know -- well, I should say discussion. As we all know, if you don't start talking about it, keep talking about it, usually it ends up on the shelf, and that's what we want to try to avoid. So I wouldn't have a problem with trying to go that route, and that way we're moving in two parallel tracts that can hopefully reach a long-term resolution that maybe some day we wouldn't need all those beds for the long haul in a jail that we're probably going to have to build to a pretty significant size. So if that's okay with everybody, that's what I would recommend, that our boards go forward to try to have those discussions, and let's also make a commitment on any of these agenda items that if there's a commissioner that has really dug deep in certain subjects and it would be helpful to go before other boards, to try to get some of the discussion going in other counties, we should certainly all be willing to do that, and that will help all of us. Thank you, Mr. Wiley. MR. WILEY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, could I ask also that our respective administrators develop pros and cons as to why we should expand or would want to expand this study outside of the judicial circuit that we're in, because I'm -- I'm a little bit concerned that this may get too big. (Commissioner Constantine entered the room.) COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A small 20th Circuit problem, we -- we may wind up with a south Florida jail as opposed to a southwest Florida regional jail. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner. MR. DeBOER: Mr. Chairman, if I might, our Chief Judge Pellechia and our sheriff both made it perfectly clear that they are not interested in going outside of the circuit, that they want it to only be the 20th Judicial Circuit, and that's it. And Mr. Wiley was there for that one, so -- MR. WILEY: I heard it. MR. DeBOER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN ALBION: All right. Well, I would recommend that -- we're not going to get all this resolved at this moment -- our county managers need to turn around perhaps and have those discussions with Sarasota, et cetera. You're going obviously to have to include the chief judges and the sheriffs that need to be involved in that conversation. If it can be done right, great. But we don't want to end up injecting the very poison into the stew we need to try to eat. MR. STILWELL: Mr. Chairman, I think that Mr. Wiley said it best. I think all that we're trying to do today is trying to put you in the position to make an informed decision, so I would hope you would not go with any preconceived notions about lines or anything else and just go out and get the information, and come back and give you some recommendations and put it in context so you can make a good decision. CHAIRMAN ALBION: I couldn't have said it better. All right, if we can move on then. MR. WILEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Thank you, Mr. Wiley. Costos Run (phonetic) and Park Shore assessment proposal, Hr. -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. I had received a letter from Representative Livingston which I shared with Mr. Albion and our fellow commissioners. And he was questioning one of the problems of the partial-year assessments that we've all worked for a number of years on. One of the problems that it's having is its constitutionality, something to do with the tangible personal property tax rate, constitutional being required to be the same as real property. And I just wanted to bring that up. I know Commissioner Judah's worked on this extensively, and -- and I just wanted to open the discussion, if this is one of the problems, how can we get around it and where are we -- where are we with relationship on the partial-year assessment. What do we need to do this year to try to get this thing passed? COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Mr. Commissioner, while Jim Yeaget steps forward, let me just say that Senator Dudley was the sponsor in the first and then this year, and I appreciate his support -- has a provision within the bill to exempt tangible property. If anyone challenges it -- and I can't believe the utilities would challenge it, because they clearly prefer it being exempt. But if anyone does challenge it and it's successful, then obviously tangible property would have to be inclusive within the partial-year assessment. But at this point in time, it's -- it's a provision that's in the bill to exempt tangible property. Jim, if you can lend -- MR. YEAGER: I think you said it very well, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Thank you. MR. YEAGER: We're aware of the problem. We're working with the Neighbor, Giblin law firm that's done some -- for the record, Jim Yeaget, county attorney for Lee County. We're working with the Neighbors, Giblin law firm, which as my board knows, has done a lot of background work on the partial-year assessment and the interim service fee-type issues. And they're aware of it, and I believe they're coordinating it with legislative council and trying to resolve these outstanding issues. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: The Dudley approach seemed to be the way he felt was most effective trying to get passage of the partial-year assessment bill. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess I'm just -- just questioning it. If -- if there's a constitutional requirement for the grades for the two types of properties to be equal, then perhaps what we ought to be seeking is a constitutional amendment. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: I don't know if we'd ever get that passed. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Not with the utilities as a formidable opposing force. I would certainly -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, a constitutional amendment to -- to change the structure of the current requirement. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: I don't know if you'd get legislative support for that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not sure we would either. I'm also a little bit concerned about spending a lot of time on something that's going to get challenged and eventually fail because of that challenge. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: The idea -- and I respect that -- and the idea was, though, that those that would seek to challenge partial year would be the very ones that would be hurt if they did so, not to exempt tangible property. So the feeling was there will not be a challenge. But, again, you have to look at, gosh, trying to get a constitutional amendment to require tangible property prorated would probably be even more difficult. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, you know I fully support partial year. I mean, I'm not having a problem with that. I just want to try to get some sort of assurance that when we're successful, that we're truly successful and -- and not have to worry about -- about challenges coming from out of left field even from the property appraiser's association. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: That's a tough request requesting assurance from the state legislature. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know. CHAIRMAN ALBION: I don't know if John -- John, you are the second vice president of the Florida Association of Counties. Do you have any insight as to how FAC is going to go about this issue? COHMISSIONER MANNING: We support it. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Well, I mean the real question goes down, there's going to be a meeting with the legislature, as many members as they get to show up next week in Tallahassee. Is there a marketing end? Is there some kind of coordination? Is there going to be a way to try to -- any effort to try to pinpoint those counties that we really need to concentrate on, make sure those commissioners get the help they need to try to turn the tide? COHMISSIONER MANNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN ALBION: I really appreciate your brevity. COHMISSIONER COY: Mr. Chairman -- COHMISSIONER MANNING: If I can, you know, the constitutionality is not really a question. If it was unconstitutional or if it was deemed to be potentially unconstitutional, the legislative staffs of the sponsoring members would have brought that on the table. I think the problem that Commissioner Judah alluded to and you've talked about was the removal of tangible if we can get that done. FAC is also looking at different ways to fund those -- those gaps in lieu of partial year if that doesn't go. So we're looking at a menu of things, and we're -- we're going to have a contact program with those legislators that are waffling. We don't need to go back and beat up the ones that have been supportive of it, but we want to target those who may be on the fence or against it and show them why it's the best thing for everybody concerned. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner Judah. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Will there be representatives from Charlotte and Collier and the -- it's the finance administration committee on the 20 -- on the 30th -- on the 30th of November, the Florida Association of Counties Committee's finance administration talking about partial year? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's my understanding Commissioner Hancock intends to attend the entire legislative session. I was hoping to attend the Thursday and Friday part of the session, but I'm not going to be able to be there until probably Friday morning at the earliest. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: But Commissioner Hancock will be there? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Anyone from Charlotte? COMMISSIONER FARRELL: On this issue, when there's all types of legal questions and other questions, I think the best way to sort those out probably is to get a bill introduced in the legislature to start through the process. If there's anything that's wrong with it, though, is who don't like it will sure make an issue of that. I think it would have to go through that process. I think that's the way you get it sorted out. I think you have to try. And in the process all those things will be debated over and over again. If there's anything wrong with it, why, somebody will surely tell you. But that's going to be necessary in any case. Everybody won't like it. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: We're just trying to continue in that process that we embarked on eight years ago. We were hoping that perhaps a Charlotte County commissioner might be in attendance. MR. DeBOER: I will not -- excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I will not be in attendance. I'm not sure if any of the other board members will or not. I think the day of this meeting conflicts with our legislative delegation meeting. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: You already passed resolutions for partial year? MR. DeBOER: No. I'm usually the kind of person that's very much appreciative of brevity also, but a little more information is needed. We did not get our resolution passed. Our property appraiser does oppose it. He has told this board that it will cost them money if they do this. The issues that you just talked about about the personal property came up, also how he was going to apply the homestead exemption. So, I mean, we need some more information -- COMMISSIONER MANNING: We'll get you the information. MR. DeBOER: Okay. You know, we were dealing on this thing trying to support it from -- COMMISSIONER MANNING: Tell your property appraiser that the Florida Association's Foundation will be happy to financially support an increase in costs. We'll send him a few hundred dollars to reprogram the computer. MR. DeBOER: Seriously, I would appreciate some information. COMMISSIONER MANNING: Will do. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: Let me ask if from the Advisory Council of Human Relation it means without raising taxes to Lee County four million dollars. I'm certain that Charlotte County we're talking about seven million. Maybe -- I don't know who your property appraiser is, but I don't know if there is one that would except less pay for less work. In any event, yes, I'd be happy to get that information to you, sir. COHMISSIONER MANNING: It's Monday, isn't it. MR. DeBOER: I appreciate all these diplomatic comments I'm hearing, but in all -- in all earnest, I would really appreciate some assistance on this. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Absolutely. MR. DeBOER: If you would accept an invitation to come down and work with me with my property appraiser, I would appreciate that. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Yes. MR. DeBOER: Once again, I would much rather conquer something like this by sitting down diplomatically and coming to an agreeable solution. I don't -- you know, I tried very hard -- I said this earlier, and I don't think quite -- maybe you didn't grasp this. I try not to go into everything like a bull in a china closet. A guy my size has a tendency to do that, so I'm trying to be careful. COHMISSIONER COY: Let -- COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Did we ever think about a new title to this bill? Anti-freeloaders act? So, yeah, I'll be happy to. I appreciate it. MR. DeBOER: Thanks. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Okay. Well, maybe you can do it all in one trip, Commissioner Judah. Is there any other discussion as far as partial-year assessments go? This is obviously going to be important at the legislature otherwise things end up in the wastebasket. That's the problem. Legislative issues regarding solid waste. Our solid waste director -- this is Larry Johnson who is our solid waste director and golfer in his free time. MR. JOHNSON: Hopefully a better director than a golfer. Good morning, Commissioners. We just wanted to advise you of some issues that are affecting all three counties, particularly on the recycling front. Over the last few years we've developed a good collective approach on recycling in a number of areas, probably the best one being our tri-county recycling advertising that we continue to do and which really helps all three counties. A couple of other things that have come up, though, that particularly affect recycling is we have heard through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection that there is a serious challenge to the recycling grants this year in the Florida legislature and that there is a real possibility that those grants would be removed as part of legislation this year. What -- we understand the recycling grants were intended to be phased out at some point in time when all of the counties had gotten to a position of having their programs implemented. We questioned whether that time is quite yet here and think that having a situation where we had a couple more years of the recycling grants and a -- more of a phased approach as far as phasing that out would allow the -- the various counties to respond better and maintain their recycling programs. So we basically wanted to bring that to your attention and to ask for basically -- as you meet with your legislative -- and establish your priorities, to include that one as far as maintaining that recycling grant. Just for information, it is an important part of recycling budgets for all three counties. Charlotte County had $222,000 last year. Lee County received about $597,000, which was distributed to our cities as well as to the county. And Collier County received $289,000. COMMISSIONER MANNING: Where did that come from? The ADF, the advanced disposal fee, most of it? MR. JOHNSON: Most of it did come from the ADF funds which are gradually decreasing. COMHISSIONER MANNING: Well, The legislature has repealed it. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MANNING: So you've got a tough fight on your hands. Matter of fact, this is the last year for the ADF, my understanding is. MR. JOHNSON: I think -- I think that's correct. As I say, again, we're basically looking at a way of providing for that recycling funds to be made available, if not through ADF, then possibly as a mechanism would be to allow the use of the tar grant funds, not only for tar disposal but also for recycling which would allow us more flexibility. So that might be another approach on that. The other thing that I just wanted to mention, and it is a potential regional recycling effort, is that the Lee County board has been pursuing an increase in our recycling processing facility with our MERF that is located in north Fort Myers. We've recently established a change order basically to increase our capacity of that processing facility by almost a hundred percent. And as part of that we have provided the flexibility of potentially allow -- you know, having other people join into that. So that is a possibility. I know Collier County is considering that, and I just wanted to -- you know, certainly I think that's an issue that all three boards are facing, and it's a -- it's an option that you might want to consider. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner Judah. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: While you're still there, as you remember, Mr. Chairman, I met with Lee County Commissioners at our met. planning organization meeting. We were advised that congress was looking at repealing the use of rubber from -- from used tires as part of the mix in asphalt for -- for construction of roads throughout the country. I can't think of a worse decision when you consider what occurs throughout this country with the infernos that are a by-product of the burning of tires. Totally it's going to make a lot of sense to use recycled tire products in the asphalt for construction of roads, and I know if you have your own respective MPOs, you likewise hopefully can do what we did and draft a resolution to send to congress opposing the repeal of the use of tire products in asphalt mix for roads construction. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Anything further? COMHISSIONER JUDAH: My comments, but hopefully you can follow through on them. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Next one is flooding, emergency housing for flood events. Commissioner Judah -- and also I'll point out Chip Merriam is here from South Florida Water Management District. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Mr. Chairman, this issue may already be resolved. I just wanted -- since we have an opportunity with all three counties. Obviously Lee County sustained a lot of damage in the southern end of the county, Bonita Springs in particular. A lot of people were evacuated from their homes. I just wanted to make certain, since we read on a continuing basis the problems that FEMA had with regards to finding suitable sites for locating trailers for evacuees to occupy, I don't know to what extent we coordinated with Collier County in looking for potential sites. Likewise in Charlotte, if anything happens up in the northern end of Lee or southern end of Charlotte, we have some kind of program in place to provide housing for events like the flooding. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Maybe if I could, John Wilson is also here from emergency operations. John, you may want to address it as to where we are and how you perhaps coordinated briefly with the surrounding counties. MR. WILSON: For the record, John Wilson, public safety director. We did work with our emergency management director with Collier County on a number of sites in the Collier County area that were bordering on the northern edge of the county. Unfortunately, none of them were suitable as far as the criteria that was set down by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I guess that's something that we can improve upon in the future, assuming even if FEMA stays in the travel trailer mobile home business. There is an effort at the federal level as part of its downsizing effort to get out of the travel trailer/mobile home business, which would put even more effort on the local level to replace that program should it ever occur. Some of the things that we can look at also I think on a regional basis is better using the re -- the existing resources we have in our travel trailer sites. We have a lot of units that were reserved for the seasonal visitors. And they've got something that we can look at under emergency situations and disaster situations and -- and rethinking whether or not who gets priority, the seasonal visitor or the disaster victim. So it's -- the other issue, of course, in the Bonita area anyway, is affordable housing. Of course, that plays out of some options and zone issues. I don't know if you want to delve into that at this point or not or just stay with the emergency housing side of it. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask why it wouldn't be cheaper for FEMA to -- maybe they can't do this, but why can't they just get a block of rooms at one of the local lower-priced hotels rather than go through all the machinations of trying to get trailers down there and going through sites and screwing around for six months while people are out of homes? I mean, why couldn't they just do that? MR. WILSON: That was an option that they eventually went to, and it may be one that they perhaps receive more in the future, especially if they do decide at the federal level to get out of the travel trailer or temporary housing business as a -- as a official entity. Certainly that's something to look at. Again, you still have an issue, though, of if you have a certain number of people that need housing versus the supply, certainly you have to look at some other options. But certainly hotels is an option you can look at. THE COURT: Commissioner Judah. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Mr. Chairman and John, the meeting I was hoping with commissioners of Charlotte and Collier is recognizing that we did not in any way, nor I think could we have realized the extent of the magnitude of the problem and the long duration of many these evacuees and what they were subjected to. All I'm hopeful is that you coordinate, John, your public safety staff with Collier and Charlotte to come up with identifiable sites and a program that's in place in preparation for next year. We can't get caught flat-footed again. We shouldn't, and that's why I'm hopeful we'll have a permanent place where we can have mutual sites. MR. DORRILL: Commissioner, the short answer to your question, from Collier's perspective we did assist in evaluating three north county TTRV sites with FEMA, and one of the more ludicrous problems that they ran across was a problem of transporting Lee County school children to school on buses that would have to come into Collier County, some inane liability associated with the Lee County school bus coming to North Naples to pick a child up to take them back to Bonita Springs. And they just, frankly, never satisfied our curiosity about why that was, quote, a problem. But towards the end of that dilemma, we also evaluated assisting to build a campground at the north county wastewater treatment plant, which is adjacent to the Veteran's Community Park site on Immokalee Road, where we were going to assist in running the wastewater lines across the top of the ground to be able to tie in the trailers. I think between Mr. Wilson and his counterpart in our county, who's Mr. Pineau, the coordination was excellent. I think we just saw very slow response on the part of not necessarily FEMA, but some of the people they were having us work with, both the corps and perhaps DEP. And it just -- it seemed to be a real mess, but it was not flagged by the cooperation between Mr. Wilson and Mr. Pineau. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Mr. Chairman, Neil, I appreciate that, I really do. All I'm saying is we did have problems and despite, you know, tremendous cooperation between both counties in this particular instance. And I think the insurance issue you referred to, perhaps we may now want to be in touch with FEMA, the criteria with the guidelines to resolve issues like insurance to make sure we're better prepared for next season. That's really what I'm asking. MR. WILSON: That's one of the things that we're going to be working with the folks that have been in FEMA for the past couple months with us in identifying a checklist, so to speak, and we'll pass that lessons learned and checklist along to our counterparts in both Charlotte and Collier Counties as part of a learning process and knowledge-building process. But we can at least look at starting the -- starting from scratch a travel trailer site. Also taking more -- making more use of what we have may be also a way to go. CHAIRMAN ALBION: I'd like to say, John, what I want -- I want to thank you publicly because I have a disagreement with the idea that you were flat-footed on this or caught flat-footed. Let me finish because I really feel that a lot of our problems got into some of the bureaucratic nonsense that came down as far as FEMA went, et cetera, and what it was going to take. Now, I don't know how -- there is no textbook of when there's a disaster really. I mean, we got first wave, and then we got second wave. And nobody anticipated, because traditionally one wave is what you get, all right. It's almost like if we got -- Thankfully this didn't happen. It's almost like we got hit by one hurricane and said, okay, we met our quota for the decade, and then you get a second one the same season. And even with the results that come out of this, I mean, the best we can do is learn from these disasters and try to figure out where the more common problems are such as busing of children between county lines, et cetera. And I would hope that as you get that checklist prepared, and we can solve those. But, I mean, I can tell you -- God forbid we have another disaster, but it's very likely at some point, well, whether it's tornado, flooding, hurricane, whatever. But, you know, we'll be looking again and said, gee, I wish we'd done this or that. It's the type of thing you don't want to become old hands at. So there are going to be some of those problems. I think you've handled that quite well. The other problem with FEMA is, let's face it, I mean, some of the people, the key decision makers, they may be here now but, you know, let's say you don't have a disaster for five years. There will be different decision makers. So I think the best you can try to do is try to keep it in line with what they're looking to do. If they get out of the trailer business, shall we say, which might create some economic hardship for the State of Kentucky, I guess but, nevertheless, we need to -- we need to carry on and make sure that we can pick up the pieces overall. And, you know, one of the decisions that that's going to have to be made is if we're going to get into the trailer park business, and if they're getting out of the trailer business, then that means we're also going to be in the trailer business, or else we're going to be wearing egg on our face about why did you spend all this money on building that. So I really think it's the type of subject we can't let go at least for a little while. Let me also express to you something that I've been working on. Our board's aware of it, and it's something that I think surrounding counties might want to think about. I've been working closely with John Wilson and some of the folks in Bonita, et cetera, Dan Gorley, who's fire chief out of Bonita, et cetera, working -- and working with the banking consortium in our area trying to come up with a type of a loan program that can do two things. One is try to fill some of the gaps that FEMA and SBA do not cover in their loan programs. And the second is if there should be a future disaster, that, indeed, there may be some type of a bridge program until whatever those opportunities are kick in. Because by the time FEMA or SBA finally get set up down here, a good period of time can pass. Once a tornado, for example, has hit, it isn't coming back. I mean, the damage is the damage, and whatever you can do to try to get in and get certain things cleaned up, you actually mitigate what some of those losses are. So what we're looking at is finding if there aren't some ways that we can try to create a pile of old money, if you will, so that when a disaster should occur, you already can inject that in before you start looking to find all these other funding sources that may or may not exist. It's like a rainy day type of fund and something so far the bank consortium -- the reason we chose the banking consortium, by the way, was because that's what they do for a living. What better group to try to implement such a program. So I really think that what we're seeing now is the trend that's going to continue, which is local government is going to have to learn to solve these problems more and more as the feds and states are taken out of it. The other area that we looked at I'm sure -- I believe your Charlotte County have a Habitat for Humanities chapter in it, but we're looking to try and for those people who, you know, would have problems financially getting back into their homes, that, indeed, maybe Habitat could help them out. Maybe there could be some swapping to help people get back in their homes; then they can help build somebody else's home. So, you know, we have some of these opportunities within our counties, but we have to try to perhaps figure out how to best coordinate it. And that's something that we've learned, and some of those gaps exist. By the way, FEMA and SBA programs, they only are for primary residents, which means if somebody is living up north with their kids or even paying rent up north but their primary residence for voting reasons or even -- I guess there really aren't tax reasons. They want to keep that up north. If they came down and their home was destroyed, they're not eligible for a FEMA or SBA loan. And that's one of the gaps that exists. And, you know, just some word of caution, and this may be an approach we're trying to do to solve a problem more on a long-term basis. And the board's been so far further up on the floor with it. One other thing surrounding counties has an MSTU fund. We found that to be extremely productive in this latest crisis, so to make sure that we have funds available to try to handle these types of disasters. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I agree that it's probably a very -- the right thing to do is look at this on a bilateral or trilateral basis and try to come up with plans that we can implement in a hurry. But working with the agencies that we do work with and trying to set up these trailers, the bureaucratic nonsense that we ran into was just -- we couldn't overcome it in too many cases. I'm sure we're all aware of situations like we had very close to our courthouse. We had a travel trailer park with a number of empty spaces but people that still live there. And while we suggested for that to be used, the -- there was always an excuse why it didn't fit the criteria, and we're left with the situation that a park is okay to live in year-round, but it's not okay to set up for a few weeks on an emergency basis. What is that? So how are you going to overcome that sort of thing? It seemed like every time we suggested a site, find a site, the people that were involved were more interested in trying to tell us why we could not do that than to help us get it done. So, you know, while we may be able to do something on the local and bi-, tri-county level to -- to try to work, outside agencies was just not functioning. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner Matthews. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. Thank you, Chairman. What I'd like to see the three counties do -- what we experienced this summer we may experience again, the next time 50 inches of rain falls in a single six-week period. And, frankly, water does what it's going to do. It floods. But I think Mr. Dotrill pointed out a very good example of one reason we were having difficulty locating trailers in one county to handle residents of another county. And those are things that at this point we can work on those things, get them resolved, look at the problems that were experienced during the flooding between the counties and FEMA and so forth, and look at whatever plan of action we need. Do we need to adjust our emergency resolutions to deal with the trailer parks, TTRV places so that we can use those empty spots? Can -- do we need to have interlocal agreements in place with the different governments and the school boards to handle the school busing problem? I think those are things we can do now and not have to deal with them on an individual basis next time because, number one, we know there will be a next time. We just don't know when. And, number two, we already know those problems exist, and let's take care of them now with the plan. Let's not just say, well, it was insurmountable because all of it was not -- was with the time span we had it was. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Right. Let me -- Commissioner Dudley. COMMISSIONER DUDLEY: Yes, a comment. I'm on the citizens advisory committee in Florida's coastal management program. And if someone would get me a one- or two-page document on your problems as to FEMA and your trailers, I will be glad to take it into the next board meeting which is next week. And, by the way, I will also send back to your chairman the agenda of this meeting. So if you want to come up and make a presentation to this committee -- this is under DCA, and this is a voice for you in this issue to bring it before this board -- they will support you. CHAIRMAN ALBION: That would certainly help. And maybe, John, maybe -- in the future I don't know if there's a way to have some preapproved sites, you know what I mean, based on different parts of the county, I mean, that would logically -- so FEMA doesn't have to come down and go through all of their processes that slows everything up. We could already perhaps have some preapproved areas. And that's one of the things that hopefully we learned from this, as well as the school board situation being resolved. It would be similar to the day-to-day life-style activities of these people to try to make sure you get over a crisis. Part of the delay, again, is the fact of the second wave. I know that also, but there's -- there's a better way to do it. So is there anything further on the subject? Okay. We'll move on. Drainage issues and transportation issues in Collier County. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I'll be at least introducing this. One of them has fairly hot implications, and the other one is intended to be an informational item that we're pursuing at staff level. I just wanted to report to the Lee County board that Chairman Albion and I had initially been asked to participate in the study group from Bonita Springs to explore the mechanics and working aspects of the Big Cypress Basin Board, which is a subdivision of the South Florida Water Management District, and have had subsequent meetings with Chairman Matthews as people from Bonita continue to explore the issues between the Imperial River watershed and basin and the Cocohatchee River and watershed basin that are in Collier County but are parallel to one another and most people seem to feel that are synonymous with flooding problems in Bonita, southeastern Lee, and northwestern Collier County. Those issues appear to be developing on their own, appear to be driven by the Chamber of Commerce in Bonita Springs. We're there to provide information and, frankly, an example of what we feel is a good working relationship with the Big Cypress Basin Board, not the least of which is the initial indication that the millage that residents of Collier County pay, from my understanding, is about two-tenths or a quarter of a mil less than all the other counties within the South Florida Water Management District, which was a mechanism that was created by the legislature when they approved the initial water management district. So we're paying a reduced millage, but we seem to think that getting a better level of service as and through the Big Cypress Basin Board. But they're -- they're exploring both developing works on the basin that would actually be in southern Lee County or potentially expanding the district boundaries of the Big Cypress Basin Board to include portions of Lee County as a way to address flood control projects in Bonita Springs and throughout the Imperial Riverbed. That's just intended to update you, at least from our perspective, from the level of support that our board has given us. The other one is purely a staff issue to advise you of an interest that we have to explore through Lee Tran, possible regionalization of Lee Tran into Collier County. At this time our board does not seem to have an interest in trying to get into the bus business, and that's one thing, frankly, I support. But increasingly we're having problems with our transportation for the disadvantaged program, keeping it afloat and operating it at a level that meets the community's needs. We also see an affinity between Bonita Springs and Collier County perhaps up to Estero and San Carlos Park, which we seem to feel are major living opportunities for many of the service workers in Collier County, and potentially longer term, a Lee Tran link between Collier County and Southwest International Airport and then longer term, the university. You have the expertise, frankly; we don't. I don't have any expertise within public transit systems. And I have looked to Don and his staff to help us explore those in lieu of a $300,000 consultant study which was soundly and rightfully defeated at an HPO meeting last spring. So we're exploring those and doing what I like to think is good staff work. I want to thank George Gates for some support and what appears to be a fine job that Lee Tran does without a tremendous amount of subsidy. And we're looking at it for the reasons that I alluded to, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN ALBION: It is my understanding Don offered you that expertise for $150,0007 MR. DORRILL: We're in the position to arm twist him on the right side. CHAIRMAN ALBION: So -- but any comments on this? We need to sit in the back of buses to really get everybody's attention, Don. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: What -- CHAIRMAN ALBION: Go ahead. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: I was just going to ask with regards to Big Cypress basin expanding its boundaries, where are we with any meaningful discussion? I mean, I have some -- MR. DORRILL: I can tell you that I think this strikes fear into the hearts of people in West Palm Beach if for no other reason than the concern that a portion of their tax base may be lost through a lower millage service area through expanding the Big Cypress Basin Board. But from my perspective, the folks in Bonita Springs are the driving force through their chamber down there to try and explore jointly having some flood control projects in conjunction with -- the CREW Trust be developed and as part of an extension of County Road 951, which appears to be the project that would manifest itself, and have our Big Cypress Basin Board explore opportunities to adopt Lee County projects as works of the basin as they are defined under the statute. Whether they can be successful in expanding the district boundaries of the basin is probably going to be something, frankly, that's a little more difficult to do at least in the upcoming session. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALBION: It would seem like part of this is going to come down to this is a timing issue today, because I know that Chip Merriam and -- well, Neil, you were over there. I was over there, along with the Bonita Spring folks in West Palm Beach. And really Chip's office is trying to jump on what are some of the real possible solutions in the drainage matters and what it's going to take and at least get that script with what he feels they feel should be done and go from there. And actually I think they're ahead of schedule trying to get that information prepared and move forward. So really I think we're going to be in a position we're just going to have to hear more about it. And as a member of the Regional Planning Council, I was very thankful that the administrators -- county administrators and city at the meeting in that new process to really be discussing some of these issues. It's my understanding that flooding -- or drainage now, at least, one of the key issues that you are trying to attack. My understanding that the water does not understand jurisdictional boundaries, so hopefully over these next couple of three months we're going to have a lot more information what needs to be done, what needs to be promoted. And there could very well be, you know, a type of a confrontation with West Palm Beach if there are certain issues they're not as comfortable with that need to happen overall. So I would hope our boards would come together to make sure that happens. It's a little ironic in this case versus the next item, the Peace River. The transportation issues, that as well as the whole right-of-way situation is going to have to try to be continued to be addressed. I know that's going to be difficult. Collier County may be interested in knowing that we are advancing the monies -- plan -- looking to advance the monies of the PED study for U.S. 41 heading to the Collier County line. So we're trying to get that project moving a little bit faster and swap out -- we just did a rebuild out in the last couple of years where we'll take Lee Boulevard responsibility, and F-DOT's doing south 41. It's my understanding that that's moved up just a little bit quicker also. But we're still trying to find what some of those connections are that's going to be with Collier County. Anything further on drainage issues or transportation issues? Okay. Then we'll move on to the Peace River water use permit. COMMISSIONER JUDAH: Mr. Chairman, I asked this to be included on the agenda today really to hear from Charlotte County. You know, we have a situation here where Charlotte Harbor is extremely important to Lee County, both from an economic and environmental standpoint, and the Peace River is one of the main tributaries that feeds into Charlotte Harbor. And there is a tremendous and significant proposed impact with regards to the Peace River plan. We have not been, as a Lee County Board of Commissioners, really been sufficiently briefed on the impact that this proposed withdrawal of some 32 million gallons per day, considerably more in the future, could have on the marine aquatic system of Charlotte Harbor. I think it's important we hear from Charlotte County. If we can lend them assistance, we need to recognize this project has tremendous ramifications to Lee County also and maybe find out how we can best coordinate our efforts to find a joint resolution. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Go ahead. COHMISSIONER FARRELL: Mr. Chairman, I'll give a minority report, and you'll hear -- you'll hear from the majority before we leave. CHAIRMAN ALBION: It's two to one. COHMISSIONER FARRELL: But I think this is an issue that before you get involved in it that you would study it very closely. We're -- our county now is involved in three separate cases of litigation. We're litigating the water glut, the water use permit, Peace River option. The Peace River is our only water supply for Charlotte County utilities which serves a big part of Charlotte County. And it is my opinion, and this is a "may-or-may-not" opinion, we could not win those cases. If we win them, I don't know what that leaves us with. But that's our only water supply. The best information I have is if we would lose that one or could not expand that one, that it would take eight to ten years to develop another water supply. We don't have eight to ten years to do that. The proposed water use permit, my opinion, has everything in it that everybody's thought of. It has protections that have gone beyond any other water use permit that I am aware of. It -- the plant is set up for 6 million gallon-a-day increments. The permit calls -- and I don't know if it's in contest over this. Every additional increment of water out of the Peace River would have to go through a very extensive approval process again. But if we would lose that as a water supply, I don't know where we would be. I think it's acknowledged that there's times when you don't take water out of the Peace River. That's been there ever since the plant was built. Before the plant was built, there was a lot of study went into that three to four years that the key to taking water -- any more water out of the Peace River is storage. I don't think there's any contest over -- it's been that way ever since the plant was there, as a matter of fact. And the key to taking any more water out is either surface storage or underground storage, which is being done, no contest, to the best of my knowledge. The normal operation out there is 90 to 120 days a year that the -- we're off the river. That's always been a part of the plant. I think we understand that and the need for it. But this is a very, very dangerous area for Charlotte County. It's our only water supply as of now, and developing any other water supply is very lengthy, very difficult, very expensive. Right now we have the most expensive water and sewer rates maybe in the country, and they're going to get another substantial hit from every direction. This is a very sensitive area, and I hope that you will study all of the elements that are involved in this before you get involved in the Peace River option. Thank you for the opportunity. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Okay. Commissioner Dudley. COHMISSIONER DUDLEY: Yes, this is a -- that's a utility voice, and it's -- it is an important voice. But the one that I am concerned about in Charlotte County is concerned about also is an issue of the estuary. And it's one of the ones where you will take the impacts. Lee County will take those impacts with Charlotte County. We pay for the impacts for a bay. But this time we will take the impacts of the harbor if it collapses. We're very concerned about this. This permit is being given on -- on a 10 percent rule presumption, which is at this point in time under litigation. We're in an administrative hearing. I think it was over Friday. And there has been expert testimony that this 10 percent rule presumption is not an appropriate approach for managing that resource, because it does not take into consideration the cumulative groundwater withdrawals in the system. That's a fault that needs to be mended in the way the water management district looks at things. We have these presumptions; a one-foot drawdown is presumed to not cause impact in the groundwater supply or surface. But they do not add the two together. And I think Lee County needs to get involved enough in their water supply that you know if the groundwater and the surface water is connected, especially in -- in the river situations. You know, there's also some thought that our groundwater withdrawal will cross that divide and it may impact you, so it's something that you should pay attention to. This is an enormous permit. I will tell you it's only one. There are other permits. You know, again, we go back to the cumulative impact to the estuary of all this effect, and you have a river that is in 30 percent decline and a river that has disappeared four times since 1990 down a crack, flat disappeared. So, you know, it's an important issue. If you are interested in the estuary and if you're interested in the estuary, we're talking about the fishery. So if the fishery is important to Lee County, you need to pay attention to what's going on. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner Judah. COMHISSIONER JUDAH: You're the commission from Charlotte County. It's my understanding actually that the reason for the permit request for this type of consumptive use of a large amount of water is not just from Charlotte County but also for Sarasota County. And -- and obviously all I'm hopeful of is; one, we don't even have an established acceptance of -- of net flow out of Peace River into Charlotte Harbor. We don't know really what would be appropriate to withdraw from the Peace River that would have an impact on the estuaries, yet the permit process seems to be marching along. I can understand why there is litigation. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner Cummings. COMHISSIONER CUMHINGS: Well, having a background as a ship's officer, you're normally going to find me in the middle of a channel, so I'm going to give you something a little in between the other two commissioners. There is a potential here for this to be a very positive program. With the circumstances that it is being approved under currently, I don't believe that is the case. This is not a case permit, not in the sense of you are going to improve 6-MGD expansion, and another 6, and another 6, and then another 6. The program is currently designed to be phased in that fashion, but the permit requires a five-year review. The phasing is at the discretion of the authorities. Naturally the district would participate, but the district up to this point is an advocate of the program. The regulator is an advocate. This program was identified by the Southwest Florida Water Management District in their 1991 needs and sources plan. The peer review that is being conducted by their -- four out of five other reviewers are appointed by advocates of the program; two by the district, two by the water authority, one by the DEP. The permit is for 32.7 million gallons a day. It's currently an 8.6 MGD permit. I think some of the concern comes from the -- the way that the program is being presented and so forth. Right now we are undergoing -- looking at undergoing some really extensive legislative changes. I believe that we're going to get those minimum flows and levels. That's my personal opinion. And when you -- a lot of what this comes down to is that -- the way that -- the way that they are going to handle the impacts with this is all the wording. Wording has been weakened down to "may do this" rather than "shall." The way it's been presented has been deceptive. How could I -- what would be an example of that? I'm not doing this very well. I sat here going through this permit, had everything collected in my head, and now it's all gone. COHMISSIONER DUDLEY: If I may -- COHMISSIONER CUHMINGS: Go ahead, because I'm losing my train of thought. COHMISSIONER DUDLEY: You asked about was the fact that the first 6-million-gallon-a-day increment is going at this point in time mostly to Sarasota County in a pipeline to supply an area outside of it -- outside of the basin, so the water will not return to the estuary in any way. Over and over and over again we find out that there are some flaws in the way we look at things. And most of those flaws involve the cumulative impact, the groundwater and surface water together withdrawals. And, again, over and over and over again we have to look at the estuary as the loser of the system of the drainage basin. And that estuary is the one that's going to be taking the impacts of this withdrawal. If there are impacts, it will be very difficult, in my mind. And we're very concerned about the fact that there is a forty -- about a 45 million dollar investment in this movement of water and a building. It's going to be very difficult politically and for anyone to back off of that water transfer if there's a problem with the estuary. Charlotte County has simply asked for assurances that there will not be a problem before we proceed. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner Judah. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: Mr. Chairman, I haven't seen -- you know, we've got a multimillion dollar sporting and commercial fishing industry here in Lee County, and our tourism is largely dependent on a viable and productive and marketable ecosystem. Charlotte Harbor is a big waterway that helps to nourish our marine fisheries resource. I guess what I need to know is -- our Lee County commission hasn't even been briefed on the impact that this project will have to Lee County. And I don't know if I need to call on, you know, Bill Hammond or Roger DeJalere or Chip Herriam. I understand the South Florida Water Management District has been asked to review and analyze the Southwest Florida Water Management District's data. We have yet to receive any kind of report, yet this has tremendous ramifications to Lee County. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner Manning. COHMISSIONER MANNING: Mr. Chairman, I early on offered to mediate the acrimonious dispute, I think, between Sarasota County and Charlotte County in my -- my role of FAC executive committee and kept in touch with Commissioner DeBoer and with Commissioner Richards. If you know the personalities of some of the Sarasota County commissioners, it's appropriate to say sometimes they're rather excitable. And there -- there are two sides to this story that you need to understand. DeSoto County is involved in this process to a lesser extent; is that correct -- COHMISSIONER DUDLEY: (Nodded head.) COHMISSIONER MANNING: -- but still a player? And I would suggest that before we go marching in to try to understand the situation from every aspect that would impact Lee County, we wait until some of the issues that were discussed by my colleagues to the left come to the forefront. I think the water management district is staying on top of this situation. I think there has been some misinformation unfortunately in the press, because they don't quite understand the situation. I think all of us on the Lee County Commission are very interested to understand the impacts to the aquatic preserve and what that would mean to us. But before we enter -- enter the fray from a -- well, from the standpoint that we want to control some of that discussion -- I don't know, Ray, if that's the direction that you're going into. Believe me, I've been briefed on the issue from both sides very thoroughly, and there's a disagreement. And that's the nature of the beast. And until the disagreement is settled, there won't be any movement on the permit situation itself. So I -- I -- I agree with you raising the issue. It's very important for us to understand that, but we're not quite in the home stretch yet. And so what I would suggest is that the staff people here in Lee County who are involved in aquatics and marine situations be impound to consult with the people in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties and the water management district just to get some information and present it or -- or get it to us in the form of that scope where it would potentially have some impact. I don't have a problem with that. I just don't want to ride a white horse on the front and a black horse on the back and try to -- you know, I tried that once, and you know when to stay off -- back off from the fight, okay. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner Dudley. COMMISSIONER DUDLEY: Yeah, a comment to that because -- thank you very much for offering to mediate between Charlotte County and Sarasota County, but that's not the issue. You're good at it, but that's not our problem, even though it is a side problem. COMMISSIONER MANNING: I'm talking about early -- COMMISSIONER DUDLEY: Yeah. The problem is the water management district. It's a consumptive use permit. It's -- and we are in litigation over the consumptive use permit. We were going to litigation over it. We are in litigation over the swap of rules (phonetic) presumptions, because they're a serious problem. COMMISSIONER DUDLEY: So that's the issue at this point. Now, the issue is the estuary. And I would think it would be very good for maybe your staff to sit down with Charlotte County staff and talk to them and hear our concerns about that estuary. We need to hear -- the administrative hearing was through Friday on this -- on the presumptions. It will a be very interesting document that will come out perhaps in March, February or March on this issue from the administrative hearing officers that's extremely important because some of the testimony that has come out in that hearing is interesting. Again, looking over and over and over again at groundwater quality -- now, you people use groundwater, don't you, as your water supply? MALE VOICE: Uh-huh, sometimes. COMMISSIONER DUDLEY: In our area because of the water use caution areas, we're being moved to surface water. Utilities are being moved to surface water. Agriculture has been left to groundwater in most places. And we have a -- we have an awesome situation of permits out there for resources been overpermitted in the groundwater situation. I don't know -- I don't know how it's managed down here, but we've overpermitted in the -- in the Southwest Florida Regional Management District to twice what we have. And the mechanisms to handle that problem are, in my mind as one person, simply a matter of moving the problem from the most impacted areas up in the northern area to the least impacted areas, which happens to be Charlotte, Hatdee, and DeSoto County on to your board in Naples. One of the things that just blows my mind, to give you some idea of what our size concerns are, you have all these permits that deal with groundwater's concerned, and that river is fed by groundwater. It's a -- the major flow aquifer coming out of there is -- for Charlotte County, some of DeSoto County, feeds the river big time. That's why the river goes down in the hole and disappears at certain times. It drops down into an aquifer that's been pumped. So -- this issue in -- in the permits that are out there, there's a -- we give -- a pasture irrigation pump -- and I don't know anybody that irrigates their pastures, but we give a pasture irrigation permit. That's not your citrus. That's not your tomato farm, your agriculture. That's not your utility. That's not your phosphate permit. It's a pasture irrigation permit. And in DeSoto and Hatdee Counties -- and they're not used -- they're there. It's a form of water right. In DeSoto and Hatdee Counties, there's 40 million gallons a day of pasture irrigation permits sitting out there that can be sold. You know, it's -- it's an awesome situation. You will -- you do need to pay attention to not only your estuary but most likely your groundwater also. COMMISSIONER FARRELL: There's no question a lot of mistakes have been made in the past, but nobody can fix that. There's been about twice the sustainable yield permitted. The whole swab (phonetic) rule-making procedure is to address that. And it is set up to affect everybody; agriculture, public supply, industry. It's an attempt to get permitting back in line with sustainable yield. Is that going to be quick and easy? It certainly is not. And usually -- I think there was 24 entities who litigated that. I think it's down to four or five now, Charlotte County being one of them. But it is an attempt to get this thing back under control. In my opinion, we ought to be helping with that rather than litigating. If you look at the overall picture of what it's trying to do, it's what we said we would like to have done. Other permits on the Peace River, for all practical purposes there are none to take water out of the Peace River. I think there's two ag permits that sometime during the year some conditions they could take water out. For all practical purposes, the Peace River plant is the only place where water is taken out of the Peace River. Now, there is a lot of things affect the flow of the Peace River certainly. But there's only one of any consequence that takes water out of the Peace River; that's the Peace River plant. Now, there's three other counties in the authority. And I'm a minority on my own commission. I am not an only authority. The three counties are very solid supporters of the Peace River plant. Now, I don't think they want to destroy the river or the estuary. They're responsible people just as we are. We have the -- we're litigating with our own partnership again. We entered into that authority as a regional authority. It's not the Charlotte County authority. It's not the DeSoto County authority. The water plant, as a matter of fact, is in DeSoto County. If you really get territorial and draw boundaries around county lines, that plant is not even in our county. I wish you would get into this deep. And this is a question you're going to have, though; who do you trust. And if you're going to have somebody come down to talk to you about this and give you the background on it and the best information available, you know, who can do that that you trust? And I -- I think that's the problem in Charlotte County. If you don't trust anybody, I don't know what you're going to do. And typically the water management districts are the people that are charged with these responsibilities. They have a lot of good people, I think. I don't know why they want to destroy a river or an estuary. I don't think they do. Are there absolutes in these things? No, there are not. But when you get into this, you've got to find some entity that you would think is relatively impartial and has good people that you would trust after you listen to them. I don't know who that is. If you know who that is, I wish you'd talk to them and listen to them. Now, the thing that's -- you know, a lot of people have bought into and a lot of people in Charlotte County have not, but the legislature in 1972 declared water a public resource. You know, Charlotte County does not own that water in the river. Neither does Sarasota County or anyone else. And the water management districts were set up to manage and out-take the resource. And Charlotte County doesn't -- that. We're in a water authority that was set up as a regional authority to supply water to that region. I think it's a splendid idea if we would just try to live with the spirit of it. I suspect you're in a comparable situation. I wish that before you go very far with this that you get a copy of the proposed water use permit and look at all the safety and monitoring that are in that permit and that -- I think that would be very enlightening if you have not seen that. But two things I would hope you'd do before you, you know, get too involved in this; look at the water use permit, the proposal; and try to find somebody who you would trust and get as accurate a story as you can find. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner Judah. COHMISSIONER JUDAH: I'll be real quick, Mr. Chairman, then move on. I wanted to mention that we have 11 marine science staff serving in conjunction with South Florida Water Management District representatives. They could at least put together a report and present it back to the Lee County Commission hopefully in the near future as to regards to the implications this proposed permit would have in Charlotte County and ultimately in Lee County. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner Cummings. COHMISSIONER CUHMINGS: If any of you would like a copy of the water use permit -- I have a biological monitoring program -- I got them right here. I think I figured out where I was stumbling before. I broke my rule in trying to remember who my audience was and what your concern was in this. And I didn't think about that ahead of time. As near as I can tell, since this is not a water supply issue to you, you have one concern, and that's whether or not the -- the needs of the estuary are met and whether it would, in fact, lower qualities. The idea of minimum codes being established I would think would address that concern. Anything else isn't -- isn't necessarily relevant to you. The limit has not been established the district is going to maintain. They set them by permit and for 10 percent presumption. That's been decided currently in a administrative hearing, and I have my opinions about that. I think you can watch and see the results for yourself on whether or not that's sustained. Now, mind you that the 10 percent presumption is using largely similar information as the permit, so one is probably likely to follow suit with the other. The notion, though, however, that the success or failure of this estuary is going to be based on one permit is probably not an accurate one. And that's where it comes down to this could possibly -- this program could possibly be a benefit in the long run if it is enacted under many of the principles that are being proposed to the legislature this year such as minimum flows, such as ecosystem management that's going to have to be a part of the solution and that the groundwater withdrawals and recharge areas of the basin stormwater runoff and upstream areas and indirect withdrawals all would be part of maintaining those minimum flows. The problem comes in in that those kinds of notions may or may not be a part of this program. We don't know that for sure at this stage of the game. And that was all that Charlotte County -- our contention primarily has centered around the notion that the way the permit is established it is right now you are pretty much buying into the whole program under the current conditions, and maybe you'll get your needs met, and maybe you won't. And what we had been negotiating for is that it be a more phased approach and that they could do this next 6-MGD expansion with no presumption that the following ones are going to occur until better information and better conditions have been met. An example of that is through our memorandum of intent that apparently has -- has gone out the window because people got their feelings hurt, is if SWFWMD fails to set minimum flows and levels for the Peace River or the recommendations of the review panel are not implemented, then we would negotiate an independent review panel. During the first 6-MGD expansion, the authority agrees that no further increments in expansion beyond 6-MGD shall be implemented unless the authority has completed the Section 403.412 action that mandates what members set minimum flows and levels to the Peace River. The authority or any of its participating members shall be entitled to pursue remedies, reword remedies, dot, dot, dot, the idea being that either you are going to set minimum flows and levels and -- and use the best available data through the review panel, or you're not going to get any further extensions. And that would be agreed to within the authority so that -- to take the district out of it, because the district took an attitude of we have already issued our -- granted our intent to issue the permit, and to change the permit at this point in the game would be basically to amend it. But we didn't know what we were doing in the first place, so we're not going to change anything, so we had to make the agreements within the authority. And the idea here comes back to if the potential gains that you could have under the scenario of the negotiations that we were working through is you would have a better likelihood of having your minimum flows. You would have continued studies that quite likely would not have otherwise occurred in the estuary, and you would -- you would also be more apt to have some kind of ecosystem management approach. Now, all of those things you may get legislatively this year anyhow except for the studies. But it comes down to whether or not those issues are being handed to you as a part of the program now. Now, they are going to tell you -- that staff will tell you that all of those needs are met. I will tell you that what you're -- what you will be by told -- told by the people who are briefing you, be they from the district, be they from the water management authority, that is not the same thing as what is being written down. An example of -- I'm the representative on the water management -- or on the water authority. An example of this is we were discussing a special condition of the permit, and the -- to cook it down what they said was that if any significant adverse impact is detected, the district may take some corrective action. And then they proceeded to go into a five-minute spiel of why the procedures, in fact, require them to take this action, and it's totally nondiscretionary. And my question became if that is, in fact, the case, why would you not put "shall" in that special condition and everyone goes home happy and it costs you nothing. The response to that was that is our standard nomenclature. And I've gotten repeatedly stonewalled to the extent willingness to go to administrative hearing over this matter. I've gotten stonewalled to the -- over those types of wording issues. Now, when someone takes that strong of a stance on something that they're maintaining doesn't really matter anyhow, I have a breach of trust. You know, I don't -- I have a hard time accepting it. And I would also suggest that if you do have an interest, that you actually read what is -- what is presented in the monitoring program in the permit, because what I'm being told, what I see is written and, therefore, what I'm afraid may actually occur are two totally different things. And we believe that strong enough that we -- you know, we're going to two administrative hearings over it. And I would say that we do have a lot to lose in this and that we definitely do need an increase in our water supply at some point in time. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Commissioner, I believe what we need to do is what both commissioners said. We need our marine sciences staff to look into this and -- and dig in. I'll be honest with you; I'm no water expert, and realistically this is what we have our staff for and make sure they point to become any type of water supply in any form. We also have regional water authority besides clearly our fishing industry, which is a multimillion-dollar-a-year industry, is very important to our area. So, you know, that's really the direction that I think we need to perhaps leave with here today and make sure that we don't take a lackadaisical approach to it. COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS: I'm sorry to be so wordy, but there was one additional item in that I would concur that regionally Charlotte County has been -- we've let ourselves be permitted -- or permitted into a corner on this issue, but I go to the water conferences. I go to the water conferences at Tallahassee. I just spoke before the house select committee on water policy. I got to participate on the FAC select committee on water policy. And I am here to tell you that the very things that Charlotte County is speaking about on the state level are accepted as good, sound policy and is the direction that I believe the state is moving in. And it is only within the realm of this one regional water supply authority that we are considered to be odd man out and so that we are -- you may want to consider, you know, discussing this also with individuals setting policy on the state level. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Marine sciences staff can jump right into it. Thank you. The next item is free trade zone. I just recommended this be put on here. Basically the representative from Charlotte County is actually from the City of Port Charlotte. Her name is Gizelle (phonetic). I basically wanted to just make sure that we had this subject introduced. We're very close to finally getting this to issue, getting this resolved as far as actually having the full status and implementing it. I know Commissioner Constantine has been a strong advocate. Perhaps I can turn the floor over to you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to repeat my comments to the Lee Port Authority and to their staff. Where we started out with this when discussions first began had the potential to go down a bad road, but everyone pulled together and worked very hard. And I think we all see the benefits. We're here today talking about a number of regional issues, and I think there is a clear benefit to any successful use of the foreign trade zone, whether that's specific business sites in Lee or Charlotte or Collier or the other couple of counties that are going to have agreements on this. I've excitedly gone to our board with good news during the last couple of meetings that the special management committee and the current port authority did approve what is a very good agreement, and we're going to run it past our airport authority, and I expect it will be in front of the commission by the first week of December at the latest, and hopefully we can put that to bed. Many thanks for you all making that happen. As I said, it started off a little off kilter and with your help, threw that back in line, and I think we've got a very, very good agreement. CHAIRMAN ALBION: One of the interesting parts of this, as well as the shadow memberships of Commissioner Constantine and Councilman Youssef (phonetic) is we've gone through a pretty arduous and difficult discussions about Page Field commuter airport and something that was very helpful, I know, especially to our commission. They did go around commuter airfields, and one that they particularly noted was the one in Collier County in Naples. there's some great reciprocity going on as far as airports go recognizing that this is going to be a terrific opportunity. I do not know to what extent or perhaps if Charlotte County -- how involved they want to get in some of these conversations. But it's reasonable to assume that, you know, at least by the direction that Lee County's going with its growth and how it's going to affect Collier and Charlotte County, that this airport and things like a free trade zone status are potentially going to be some solid players and some very positive opportunities for economic development, which we're also trying to take a more regional approach on and certainly assist. the reason we have the free trade zone on here again is that this is going to become, I think, a much greater part of the conversation as we go along. I certainly hope it does, because we're the ones that are talking about and that it seems like a very exciting opportunity. So unless there's further discussion on the free trade zone, I would COHMISSIONER FARRELL: There are -- we have it on the agenda tomorrow to discuss this. It's our first go-around. I for one -- it hasn't been discussed with the commission directly. I for one just don't know enough about to be dangerous probably. I hope to know more when we get into that discussion tomorrow. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Okay, super. I would strongly recommend and urge that Charlotte County Commission really stay on top of what's going on here. It's not a new concept nationally, but it is for southwest Florida. And this gives us a terrific opportunity. No one wants to have to play catchup. Film commission. COHMISSIONER CUHMINGS: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN ALBION: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CUHMINGS: I met with our development authority and I had discussions with Councilman Lazzell as well. But they have been in addition to becoming a sub-zone of the regional free trade zone for our -- for our airport. CHAIRMAN ALBION: We also have at least the framework for an agreement set up, and hopefully that will proceed forward. It's in everybody's best interest that we can all take advantage of these so that the attraction is to southwest Florida, not Lee versus Charlotte versus Collier versus Hendry and so on, because it's a much bigger playing field out there that if we're going to truly try to handle -- at least in Lee County there is an underemployment problem. We all want to try to attract the type of companies that will help us try to offset that coming, and this is one way to do it. Is there anything further on the free trade zone issue? Film commission. Let me just introduce this. I think it's very exciting, and first I want to, again, thank the Collier County Commission. We have a cooperative agreement where essentially we have one film commission working between the two counties. Beverly Fox and -- I was asked by I believe your vice president of the state association so, you know, what we're seeing is the amount of advertising possibilities coming into our area for those films used as well as movies. I know Gone Fishing is shooting right now. We had Just Cause. There's terrific opportunity here, and I can still remember year before last going to a Florida Association of Counties conference, and everybody went over to talk about -- learn more about some issues in Florida statutes. And I was one of the handful that ended up going to the one about film commission. And I was rather surprised because I thought the film commission would certainly be a lot more enjoyable. Florida Statutes is a lot like chewing on wood. But what ended up happening was -- COMMISSIONER MANNING: When you have false teeth? CHAIRMAN ALBION: Is that the George Washington thing? Anyway, what happened was every one -- every member of -- or I should say every one of the counties that was in film business that was represented there, every one of them said that the return on the dollar was unbelievable. They couldn't believe why the counties weren't funding this more because the return on the investment was huge. Not only is it a clean industry, they leave the place as they found it. They drop millions of dollars in the community. I just think it may be important, again, for Charlotte County. Maybe we can try to see how we can really particularly try to create more cooperative opportunities here, because our counties -- even within our own counties we offer such diversity. I mean, we have tourism in the coastline. And than in the middle we've got a good amount of agricultural. Well, just that alone creates a lot of filming opportunities, the Everglades being close by and the whole -- all the opportunities in Collier as well as Charlotte County. It seems to me that it would be very, very smart that we try to continue to aggressively pursue it and to stop the conversation that may take place amongst people, gee, California has, you know, the lock on it. All everyone keeps saying in this film commission that I've run into in this state is that is a fallacy. They're looking strong at Florida, and you need to really try to gear up. So I think it's exciting. This county went berserk when Sean Connery and Just Cause was coming. So if that creates that type of excitement in our community, just having it and dropping millions of dollars besides, I think we need to do more of that here. Diana Ross even did a video here, and there was a lot of shoots, shoots for cars and clothing. I don't know if anyone wants to try to comment on what direction we continue. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. Many thanks to Beverly. This seems to be perhaps one of our best examples of successful regionalization, and we're only a few steps into it at this point. When we first introduced the concept to the folks in the Collier office, they were a little skeptical, but literally from the first 15 minutes we sat down with Beverly and the folks from Lee, the ideas started to come forward, everyone got comfortable. And the idea of a community of 750,000 competing against the Orlandos and the Hiamis and the Tampas is a lot better than two small communities competing against each other and trying to compete against the Hiamis and the Orlandos. And the fact is when -- as you said, when the industry comes, they come to southwest Florida, and they may pick sites. The Sean Connery film is the best example. They shot some of that down in Everglades, which is in Collier County. They shot much of it in downtown Fort Myers. They're going to pick and choose their own sites where they want to be. And much of the water, as we spoke of earlier, that's not necessarily going to follow jurisdictional lines. So I think us working together to draw them here and let them pick their own exact locations is very beneficial. But Beverly has been absolutely fantastic, and thank you for everything. COHMISSIONER CUHMINGS: Actually they shot in Charlotte too. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They shot in Hendry County too, LaBelle. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Well, I'd just like to recognize that those who continue to advance that conversation, I think it would be really in your best interest to do so. It's exciting. The next we have as far as the agenda goes, of course, in honor of Chairman Matthews, you may want to comment about the apartment in Tallahassee. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The apartment in Tallahassee, we are making arrangements to lease the same apartment that we were using last year or in that same -- what was it? Eight -- eight-apartment complex. I believe we've already sent the security deposit in, and we're -- we're ready to move forward. There's some discussion as to whether we really need to rent a computer or not. I don't think very many of us used it last time, and we can save three or four hundred dollars not doing that, but I did suggest to Miss Filson that in addition to the fax machine, that we get a fax machine that has an answering machine mechanism on it, too. Last year we did not have -- have that, and it was difficult to be in touch with people. So it's my understanding she's making arrangements for a fax machine with an answering machine mechanism on it for incoming and outgoing messages. CHAIRMAN ALBION: I don't know if we want a fax machine. Most of my faxes when I was up there was coming from the media. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Thank you, Chairman Matthews, and thank you for sharing that. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a brief comment or a heads-up for Lee County. Tomorrow the board of county commissioners in Collier will be discussing the treeline act and financial sharing arrangement that I had talked with some of you about. Commissioner St. Cerny will be making an appearance, and John looks worried when I say that. COHMISSIONER MANNING: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner St. Cerny will make an appearance explaining some of where you all are at and some of the thoughts -- you can leverage state funds and so on. And that will be around 11:30, I think, we've set for tomorrow morning. hopefully that will be one more step we can do regionally. CHAIRMAN ALBION: That's great. COHHISSIONER COY: We as a board appreciate our beloved neighbors down south. COHMISSIONER ST. CERNY: With open hands and open wallets as well. CHAIRMAN ALBION: There you go. Just don't bet him in golf. He's got quite a drive. Let me also say that the university as you read in the newspaper is coming along. Dean Pegnetter, business school, he has had responsibility. We're trying to work with the state. As you know they're changing the economic development approach and our horizon counselors, which is a public-private partnership in Lee County, is also working with Dean Pegnetter really trying to help with the program. It's going to be more of a grass-roots approach rather than Tallahassee trying to tell everybody how they want it done, a one size fits all and, which is really getting ridiculous when you look at our state. We think that can happen, but hopefully it won't, probably explains why it hasn't to this date. But I think everyone needs to make sure they also take part in some of those conversations. He is the dean of the business school of the university coming to our area. And the approach that he has is actually very creative, innovative, and it looks like it's going to be very positive. It also even incorporates elements of Enterprise Florida which, therefore, will make that more inclusive. One of our state representatives is also the house majority leader. At the last meeting he seemed to be very positive about it also, so there's going to be a push, and we've got to make sure it's grass roots, because I really don't think we want Tallahassee trying to tell us how we want to do our economic development overall but instead try to help us in certain ways that would be beneficial for economic development opportunities. And the university is the logical point where we can try to all work together to muster that, so if that helps. Is there any other items to bring up? COHMISSIONER FARRELL: We're just closing here, are we not? CHAIRMAN ALBION: Yes. COHMISSIONER FARRELL: Just a piece of thought. I've been up to presidency (phonetic) three -- last three days over this weekend -- up there for the last three days. And at least this is republican philosophy that, you know, people want less government. They want less regulations, and they want government out of their personal lives. All the candidates are saying that. You know, and I suppose they sense the mood of the country. I buy into that personally. I think we need to do fewer things better. There's nothing that we do that we can't do better. We do not need more programs. We've got so many programs now we don't know what to do with them, and we can't handle them. County government or no other government can, you know, solve everyone's personal problems. And I hope that we here would concentrate on those basic issues. The jail is an example. That's a basic function of the government. Certainly we each find ways to do it better and more economic. But my personal opinion, I think the mood of the country is that we don't need more programs. We need to do those things that we're doing better, and there's great opportunity to do that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Thank you. Commissioner Cummings. COHMISSIONER CUHMINGS: Just in regards to lobbying this session, I had to -- as I was driving back from Tallahassee the last time, I was thinking about our adventures last year and trying to think of how we may be able to do it a little better. And I know we're wanting to try to coordinate with one another better. The one -- the one thing that occurred to me, however, is the notion of trying to have -- these are our set issues, and each commissioner up there is going to try to follow up on the last commissioner and present these issues as best we can. I don't know that that's necessarily going to work, because the one thing that occurred to me is you've got to specialize. And -- and that's -- I -- the area that I've selected is -- is water policy right now, and I think that's going to be a big subject this session, and it's a very important one in my county. And I've found that already I am able to get to where people are recognizing me and I recognize them, and I know the issue. And so I can be effective in that. Now, if at the same time I take my time rather than devoting it to what I'm good at and I'm devoted to another issue that I'm not nearly so familiar with, I'm not going to be very effective. But I think that we need to maybe for our next meeting focus our efforts on just exactly technically how are we going to handle lobbying this session. And one of the things that occurs to me was we each obviously are going to have our areas of specialty, and maybe we probably do need to focus on those and maybe make sure the ball isn't dropped. A commissioner that is trying to cover a certain item may use -- may send up a fax saying would you please take this around to these individuals or something very specific, and you may make the showing, but you're not stumbling trying to carry forward on issues that you may not be prepared to handle. I agree; there has to be some kind of continuity, but we also have to respect our strengths. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Okay. Thank you. Are there any -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to comment on that in that over the course of the summer we've been having -- having various people tell us the best way to -- to try to effectuate some impact, whatever minor amount that might be. But it's -- it's come to me loud and clear that we as a group need to select no more than four items, preferably one or two primary items that we want to go after. And I think I'm hearing the three counties say that partial-year assessment is probably at the top of the list. Water management and water policy we're all very -- very interested in. And if we can help you put those forward, we'd certainly be glad to. As far as I know at this point, other than partial-year assessment and possibly water policy, we -- we have no other items on the agenda at this point. But I'm sure there are going to be many of them, especially Medicaid block grants when -- when they start coming through. COMMISSIONER MANNING: Don't forget Article 5 costs. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, Article 5 costs, we've been arguing that one for a number of years, and we all need an update on that, yes. COMMISSIONER MANNING: It is moving on it. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we've got three big items right now. Thank you very much, though. COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if next meeting might not be devoted to making technical decisions on how we're going to conduct our lobbying efforts next session. CHAIRMAN ALBION: It really doesn't -- obviously March and April is going to be session so, therefore, you'd be looking at meeting probably what? In February? COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS: I figure we want to be prepared for the committee meetings as well. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Well, more in January. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, the committee meetings begin in February, and we had decided over the summer to try to be in attendance during those as well. So I would think we would want to meet in early January to discuss what we want to work on and what the methodology is going to be. February may be a little too late. CHAIRMAN ALBION: Yeah, okay. Well, if everyone is comfortable with that approach and maybe if the county administrators can help facilitate that and time and a place to be announced. So -- is there any further issues? Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I just want to, once again, extend our thanks for having -- proposing this meeting. It's always a pleasure to come up here in these comfortable surroundings. However, if we're going to have a meeting in January, I would suggest that we hold it down south where the weather might be better that time of year. COHMISSIONER MANNING: Mr. Chairman, you know, one thing about golfers is they don't say much on the course, but when the game is over they yack all over the place, John, making excuses mostly. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I would not know. CHAIRMAN ALBION: So if there are no further items, I, again, want to thank everyone for making the effort to be here today. I think it's important, and anyway everybody have a happy Thanksgiving. There being no further business for the good of the counties, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 11:24 a.m. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRMAN FOR COLLIER COUNTY COHMISSION These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan