Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/31/1995 W (Legislative Issues)WORKSHOP MEETING OF JANUARY 31, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:14 a.m. in the Collier County Museum at the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Bettye J. Hatthews Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Hanager Ken Cuyler, County Attorney CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's -- I want to call to order the workshop for the Board of County Commissioners for Tuesday, January the 31st, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in the invocation? MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, as always, we give thanks this morning for the wonderful quality of life. We give thanks for the weather that we've enjoyed the past week or so in our community. Father, on this fifth Tuesday we give thanks for a time to stop and reflect on other issues that are of importance to Collier County outside of our normal meeting process. We'd ask that you bless our time here together this morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's no flag, so I guess we won't be able to say the pledge. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's one on -- one on his tie there. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, Hancock, where are the doughnuts? MR. DORRILL: We have dispatched a staffer to get some doughnuts from Doughnutland. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Why don't we move forward. The first item on the agenda is a report of what's going on with the legislative process, and Representative Butt Saunders will give us an update. For the people who don't know yet, he's a new father. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: So if I fall asleep sitting here, it's because I haven't had much sleep here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the commission concerning some things that are happening in Tallahassee. This is really, I guess, a two-way communication. I'd like to go through a couple of items that I think are of some significance to the county that will happen during the legislative session, but I'd also like to see if there are anything -- if there are any items that the commissioners would like to discuss. The deadline for proposing bills is February 10th. So if there's any area of special legislation, not -- not special bills, but areas of -- of general legislation that the commission is interested in, keep that deadline in mind. We have a very short time clock at this point in order to get bills submitted. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Winter is getting to me here. What -- maybe -- you may not be able to answer this one right off the top of your head, but what would be the process for combining some of the state agencies in the interest of -- of consolidating and making the government run more efficiently? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I think -- I think the good news is that the governor has promulgated a policy of reducing the number of rules and regulations by 50 percent. The legislature has jumped on that bandwagon rather quickly. We've endorsed that, and I think over the next couple of years what you're going to see is each of the agencies going through a self evaluation and determining what rules are simply just not necessary or ineffective in -- in eliminating a lot of that type of regulation. In terms of combining agencies, there is an effort to streamline government. There are going to be some of the environmental agencies that will likely be combined. Matter of fact, one of them I was going to mention, two of them, involve the Fish and Game Commission and the Marine Fisheries Commission. Those two state agencies will likely be combined. It's one of those things where the environmentalists are supportive of it as well as the industries that are in support of it. I think you will see more of an effort as time goes on. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you saying that those two particular agencies would be combined into one rather than the proposal that was -- was bandied about a couple of years back was to roll both of those into the DEP? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I think they would be -- a new agency would be created to include those two as opposed to rolling them into the DEP. But I guess the point is that what you're saying is well taken. There will be an effort to streamline state government, reduce the cost, reduce the number of regulations, reduce the amount of agencies. Now, on top of that, though, there's -- one of the other things I want to talk about is a proposal to create a new agency, so there may be some -- I guess it's reminiscent of when we tried to reduce the number of advisory boards. While we're talking about that, the one agency that may very well be created is a department of -- of health. There are 37 states that have separate departments of health. Florida has all of its health-related issues involved in HRS along with other nonhealth related matters. And the idea is to carve out of HRS all of those health-related issues, public health, licensing of physicians, everything -- certificate of need, everything dealing with public health, and health will be part of the new agency. I've asked -- I have a letter going out to Dr. Polkowski to get her view on that proposal. The Florida Medical Association is supportive of it. Most people that I've spoken to are supportive of it. There is likely to be a new agency created. But at the same time there is an effort to streamline government. The belief is that that would make the delivery of public health and the regulation of health care more efficient by creating a separate agency outside of HRS. Just going through a short list here, the special bill for the vote on incorporation of Pelican Bay has been filed in the House and in the Senate. The proponents of the special bill have retained a lobbyist, and the lobbyist is making his rounds, and it's anticipated that that bill will be approved. So I think the commission just needs to be aware that there is likely to be approval of that bill in the special election in September and make whatever plans or arrangements you need to do in reference to that. But I would be at this point surprised if that bill did not pass. In reference to some of the criminal justice issues, there are three bills that I think are of critical importance to the citizens of Collier County. That will be coming out of the corrections committee and the criminal justice committee. Those are two of the committees that I sit on. One of them is a bill that would increase the unlawful occupancy of our state penitentiary system to 150 percent of stated capacity. There are some exceptions to that. The medical bill -- beds, the drug rehab beds would not be increased because it's difficult to put more people in the same bed. But the occupancy overall will be increased to 150 percent of stated occupancy. That gives the state penitentiary system several thousands of more beds available to house some people that we need to get off the street. In addition to that, there is a policy of significant jail bed construction that will be kicked off towards the end of this year. And by 1996 the projections are that we will actually have a surplus for a very short period of time. We'll actually have a surplus of prison beds. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: By when? Sorry. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: By 1996. Assuming that the legislature funds this year and next year that construction. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. One question that I was hearing about and within the last, I guess, 18 months or so is -- is that the State of Florida wasn't having too terribly much difficulty building the prison beds but operating -- REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That's obviously -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and operational funds was a real problem. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Obviously the legislature is going to have to appropriate significant funds for that facility, but that commitment is there to do that. As the capacity -- as the number of prisoners increases, as we approach 150 percent of -- of capacity and as we get more and more dangerous people behind bars, we're going to have to recognize the need to protect the corrections officers and provide funding for them, so that's part of the solution. There's a separate other bill that requires that all inmates serve a minimum of 85 percent of their sentence behind bars. And you recall the STOP petition, Stop Turning Out Prisoners petition. This is the equivalent of that. That petition was taken off the ballot by the supreme court in 1994. This will in effect by state law implement the STOP program. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that taken into effect in the computation that tells us about 1996; we'll have more beds than we need? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That requires a massive construction program that is underway and will have to be maintained. The other part of the solution or puzzle here is we have a bill that eliminates all types of early release programs. There is no early release in Florida any longer. You do have the ability for prisoners to get up to 15 percent of their sentence off in terms of good time. If they are performing work in the facilities, if they are model prisoners, they can get up to 15 percent. That's why we have a minimum of 85 percent served. If those prisoners aren't doing what they're supposed to do behind bars, they're going to stay there a hundred percent of their sentence. They're not going to get that 15 percent off. Interestingly enough, we had a presentation from the director of corrections, and he emphasized the importance of having some incentive for these people behind bars to do -- to cook, to clean, to do the things that they do, to do the road -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How about survival? Isn't that enough? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Well, survival is enough to perhaps keep them there, but it's not enough to get them to stop spitting on the guards. It's not enough to get them to stop beating each other up. It's not enough to get them to mop the floors, wash the dishes, to do a lot of the things that if the prisoners didn't do, the cost of running the prisons would be significantly more. So the director of corrections is telling us he needs that 15 percent as an incentive. Host of the prisoners won't get that 15 percent, but he needs to give them something. But still if we have prisoners serving an average -- a minimum of 85 percent of their sentence, I think that is -- that's gone a long way when you consider that just two years ago the average was around 30 percent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Question. When I was talking with Judge Brousseau about something similar to this a couple years ago, the -- the judges up until the new sentencing guidelines came -- came along were looking at what the sentencing guidelines were and sentencing according to what the judge felt was a reasonable punishment for what was done. And then suddenly they changed the sentencing guidelines to something less than what they used to be. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: We have a new bill that re -- recreates the entire program for sentencing guidelines. And I've sent that off to our state attorney's office for their review to make sure that these are reasonable guidelines. But the idea is to -- we need judges to have some discretion to be able to determine how much time an individual should serve. But at the same time we have to recognize that we have to have some consistency in the way prisoners are sentenced, and this bill attempts to create both some discretion but at the same time create some consistency. And the way that's done is that for certain classes of crimes the judge can provide up to 25 percent more of the minimum sentence or up to 25 percent below the minimum sentence, and that gives them a range there to deal with a particular inmate, but it sets a floor on how long a prisoner will stay behind bars. For crimes above a certain category, more violent offenses, there is no discretion. Once there is a conviction for discharge of a firearm in the commission of a felony, there's a minimum sentence that that person is going to serve once he's convicted. So I guess the good news is that there is certainly the will to solve the crime problem in Florida, and that is if there -- I would say that that is probably the number-one objective of the legislature this year, the number-one issue in Tallahassee. And I think that -- what I hope to see over the next two to three years the crime statistics bearing out that we are getting a handle on it. Part of that is dealing with making sure these people stay behind bars. Also dealing with juvenile crime and the boot camp facilities, those programs will be accelerated over the next couple years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question dealing with violent criminals. We're spending basically on the program you've laid out an awful lot of money to protect us from crime, but many of the criminals that are in prison are nonviolent, and they really don't need this maximum security stuff, and is the state going to work at work release programs and so forth? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: There's a major effort to deal with other types of incarceration rather than putting people in prisons and other types of punishment. And so that certainly is -- that's part of the sentencing guidelines proposal, and I will get you a copy of the sentencing guidelines bill that has the different categories of crimes. There -- there is an effort to distinguish between the violent offender and the one who perhaps is not a violent offender. There's -- there's an attempt to provide different facilities and means of incarcerations for those. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was in the leadership -- we just had our meeting. The topic for the weekend was education. And many of the people, with 50 people in our class, were from all over the state. Many of the people feel that education should be a priority, a deep priority. They feel that education should be a priority. I realize this is not one of your committees, but do you have any idea what's going on, if there are any big plans out of the ordinary for plans of education this year? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I think really the only thing -- I have not seen any specific proposals coming out of those committees yet. We have committee meetings next week, and there may very well be something that's distributed then. The new Secretary of Education is committed to reducing the strangle hold that Tallahassee bureaucrats put on local school boards. And I think the emphasis is going to be to try to free up funds for local school boards, free up the discretion of local school boards to determine what they're going to teach and how they're going to teach as opposed to someone in Tallahassee making those decisions on a statewide basis. So I think you're going to see some attempts in that regard, but that's going to be a very difficult nut to crack. As you can all imagine, a lot of representatives have special projects, and that's how you get some of these mandates from Tallahassee. Someone will come up with a good idea that's good for their district. They'll get it implemented, and it becomes a statewide mandate for the whole school boards. We're going to eliminate that. But as I get more information on that, I'll get that to you. But I have not seen it specifically. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So so far do you have any definitive plans for the -- for the state to make a concerted effort to get our student SAT scores and so forth to a better level than 49th in the nation? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: No, I said that crime is perhaps the big issue. Education is certainly a close second. It's not tied. And, you know, everyone wants to get the SAT scores up. Everyone wants to improve the school system. The question becomes how does that happen. In my view and the programs that I would support are those that give back to the local school districts more autonomy because I think that school districts are better able to determine how to spend dollars than someone in Tallahassee. I do think that the legislature needs to establish minimum standards throughout the state so that each child in the State of Florida has access to a quality education. But once those standards are met by multiple school boards, if they want to exceed those standards, then I think the school boards should be given the ability to tax and those things to improve their school system, and I think you're going to see that type of proposal coming out. I hope so. Partial year ad valorem assessments, there's a move to do that. I am philosophically supported by it. I think the tax collectors and the property appraisers are likely to oppose that. I don't know what position the county commission has on that. That seems to be not a good revenue source but a reasonable revenue source where a certificate of occupancy may be ready to be delivered on December 26 or 27th and the occupant says, well, wait a week, and they get their C.O. on January 2nd, and they have a free ride for an entire year. And there's really no logic behind that. So I'm hopeful that we'll see a partial ad valorem assessment that will pass. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Based on my meetings with the FAC in order to get the legislative agenda, it's the small things that are really -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That are opposing it? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we found that it was interesting at the legislative congress that we found that breakdown to be almost at a 50,000 population of each county. Those below 50,000 population may not make money the first year. They may even lose money. Those over 50,000 stood a substantial amount to gain. So there was a monetary break point based on population that conveniently fell at 50,000. So, you know, you look at the number of small counties under 50,000. I bet those are the voices that you'll hear that say we don't want this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So our consensus was at the meeting it may be better for the legislative to offer the large counties the ability to do that as opposed to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whether that can or can't be done was really the question, and the FAC couldn't answer it. It would take the argument away from the smaller counties if it became optional. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I can't think of any reason why it couldn't be optional for counties below a certain population. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a lot of small county legislation where -- where smaller counties are exempted -- REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- from certain pieces of state legislature. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: To me the important thing is not necessarily that we're going to have increased revenue from that so much as it is that it's just not fair to have someone getting a free ride on their taxes when everybody else is having to pay. To me that's the issue. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sure. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I don't know how much revenue is available, but you can use that to reduce your millage rate a little bit so there is no impact in terms of revenue to the commissions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock and I, we had some numbers, and the numbers are for Collier County Board of County Commissioners about five million dollars a year. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Five million dollars? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, and for the school board, about seven million, so it is significant for us. It's significant. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll defer to your memory. I do remember the number was significant. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: You can automatically have a five million dollar tax cut -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Something like that. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: -- the next year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would get a lot of letters generated to Tallahassee with that statement. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Two others. In reference to the beach renourishment funding, it is going to be a difficult task. I realize that the Department of Environmental Protection has moved that up in their priority, and they're recommending it for funding. There are two problems. Number one, the governor has not recommended funding for any beach projects. Now, that's not going to be the final say on the issue, but it's a hurdle that we have to get over. The second hurdle is that the position of the projects that have been funded are those that have received federal funding. It hasn't been a written regulation, but it's been a policy. And there's really no logic behind that policy. If the local government is willing to pay -- spend local funds for beach renourishment projects, that should help to be more effective than a local government getting federal funds for the same project. So I think we can get over that hurdle, but I just want you to know that it's not a given that we're going to get funding for this project from the state. Anything that the county commission is willing to do to -- I guess the right word is to lobby on that issue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: You're going to have opportunities to come up to Tallahassee because of the lobbying effort that you're engaged in. So when you're there, remember to talk up beach renourishment, and when you talk to Virginia Weatherall or anybody that might have input under that, let them know how important it is. But it's going to be a tough hurdle for us to get over. The other issue that -- issue that's not a -- I guess not of any great consequence, but it's the implementation of the net ban amendment is going to be interesting. The big issue is going to be are we going to be compensating the fishermen that have lost their livelihoods in some way. And we have a lot of fishermen here in Collier County that are affected by that. So I'll let you know how that is moving along, because I'm sure that you're going to be hearing from them as we get close to the cutoff, which I think is June of this year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: June 30th. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: After June 30th there's no net fishing in the territorial waters of the United States, and that's when I think you're really going to hear the human cry for people that are out of work. Those are the issues that I wanted to just kind of touch on with you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: On the net ban thing, when -- when Commissioner Hancock and I were, again, with the legislative session with the FSC, there was an effort by, again, the coastal counties to try to defeat the effect of the net ban or to stave it off for another year or even get it repealed. And one of the arguments that came up in opposition to moving in that direction was that there -- there is a fund of money available to the fishermen. And so you may want to make -- make note that there is some money available. We just need to make sure that it's properly applied. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I think that there is no potential at all -- I don't think there's any legal mechanism at all for delaying the limitation of the net ban as part of the Florida constitution. And to change that would require amendment to the constitution again. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: So there -- you know, I don't think anyone should hold out any hope that there's going to be a change in that. The question is how are we going to implement that. How are we going to compensate those that are -- that are injured by it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we know anything about how many people will be out of jobs as a result of that? Any numbers? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know. I know Everglades City is going to be hurt by it and probably Goodland hurt by it considerably, wouldn't you think? But I don't have any definitive numbers. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Uh-huh. Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: These commercial fishermen, there's -- there's a number of them that fish out of those areas that don't necessarily live in those areas too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, it affects the fish houses and so forth. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Of course. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's going to have an impact on them certainly. Have you finished? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yeah, that was my short list of things. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We made it kind of long. Commission -- excuse me, Representative Saunders, you -- you know that this board adopted a coalition with two other counties to go to Tallahassee during the legislative season. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Is that Charlotte and Lee? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Charlotte and Lee, yeah. We have all three counties signed on to this, and I understand Mr. Dorrill has already reserved an apartment. He's reserved it for the month of March and April and potentially May if -- if you go and the clock stops running, so to speak. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: All right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But you were alluding to committee meetings next week and two weeks -- REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: There are committee meetings next week, and then we skip a week, and then we have another week of committee meetings. So those are good opportunities to talk to representatives or the opportunity to attend committees that may need special legislation that may be of consequence to you. I have all the schedules, so you can stop by the office and get the schedule of what's going to be debated at each committee. For example, last week at criminal justice we proposed nudity ordinances for the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Barring nudity in whole communities? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I presume that's to ban it? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yeah. But there is a schedule, and there will be a list of bills that will be debated. And if you want information on the bills or copies of the bills, I have all of that available to you. And it's -- that's one of the benefits of -- and I also want to thank you. It's one of the benefits of having an office there. I want to thank you publicly for permitting me to do that because if there is something coming up, you've got it right there at your fingertips. Take advantage of it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you say our place with the other counties isn't until March, because I've got a particular bill -- you just said February is perhaps going to be the most effective time. MR. DORRILL: There's a mechanism -- this facility that we've leased is what I would say is an efficiency apartment-type facility, and we're guaranteed that during the session. They also offer the same unit on a weekly basis. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hot dog. MR. DORRILL: So if we have an interest upon the part of the commissioners or the staff, we can rent the same facility on a weekly basis. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: You can get also when the facility is not available or is already occupied -- government rate in Tallahassee typically is like $45 a night, so it's not too costly to come up there anyway. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: You're probably I suspect paying almost that much in the efficiency that you've rented. MR. DORRILL: About. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Twelve hundred dollars a month or something so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think it's going to run around 50, $55 a night anyway. Got some room to move away from the four walls that might come upon you. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I'm looking forward to seeing you in Tallahassee, and I'm starting to learn my way around a little bit. I found the mail room last week, found two stacks of mail there. I can certainly direct you to where you need to be and look forward to working with you. And I'd like to -- you know, during the session there are going to be opportunities when I can come back, and I'll be talking to each of you on things that are happening in Tallahassee. I, you know, feel that it would be advisable to come back to another workshop session during the year, anytime that you want me to be here. I'd like to have an open dialogue with the county commission. I'm doing the same thing with the city council, making sure that everyone knows what's happening and if there's any specific issues you want me to address. MR. DORRILL: If the commissioners are done, could you give us a little insight on what is happening with proposed changes to HRS and things we read in the paper about 25 percent budget cuts and that type of thing? REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yeah. The -- first of all, in terms of the 25 percent budget cut, that was really perhaps the -- not a very well worded request from the Senate Ways and Means Committee. There was not an effort to cut programs. It was just a request of all state agencies across the board to find ways to cut, and they used the 25 percent number as sort of a goal. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A headline grabber. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Yeah, headline grabber. But the senate committee has publicly stated that there is not an effort to cut HRS programs. And it looks like the cut that HRS may experience may be in the nature of 5 percent, somewhere in that balipark. The other big issue for HRS is the creation of a Department of Health which will take a substantial part of HRS away from HRS and put it in a new department. Those are really the two issues. But in terms of their mental health programs and their lunch programs and all of their social programs, if they can justify the need for those programs, and I'm sure they can, then there won't be cuts in those programs. But there will be an effort to cut some of their administrative costs, and it might be as much as 5 percent. That's almost a 5 million dollar agency, so a 5 percent cut is a big number. MR. DORRILL: As that issue comes forward, we've had one recent problem with HRS that I want to share with you just because they're -- they're telling us that they're going to be seeking broadened authority, and it's in the environmental health side. And this is an area where I think HRS needs to just butt out and redirect its mission. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Well, environmental health will go to that new department. MR. DORRILL: As part of that they have begun inspecting county community park sites and trying to apply the same requirements for childcare facilities, and the reason is because we're now offering an after-school program for children that don't have anywhere to go at community park sites. And we hold the children there anywhere from two to three and a half hours until their parents get home from work. We're not a childcare provider or a childcare facility, but they're trying to apply the same rules to us. We're getting inspectors showing up, and they're writing us up all kinds of rules. And we're told that they're getting ready to make another round of inspections as it relates to on-site concession stands. And we're told that they're going to apply restaurant level environmental health requirements for concession stands. And as silly as it sounds, they're telling us that unless the county provides direct assistance with concession stands, you're not going to be able to buy a hot dog at a little league ballgame unless they're prepared somewhere else and brought back in. And that's just an example of the idiocy I think that comes to force in terms of people well intentioned get so far off their (inaudible). REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That's part of the reason why the senate committee was talking in terms of a 25 percent cut because there are a lot of things like that that just don't make any sense. I'd appreciate it if you could get me some information on that. MR. DORRILL: Those two instances in the last 60 days or so, we're told this is their interpretation. They're going to be seeking legislative authority to go beyond that. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: If you can get that to me there's an effort to eliminate or to stop unfunded mandates from the legislature down to the local governments. I'm fully supportive of that. There's an effort to do that at the national level, and that's a -- an example of a mandate that is perhaps created out of thin air that will have significant costs to local governments and with no benefit, and that's why HRS is in trouble right now. They're going to need to get more realistic about what they do, so I'd appreciate getting some information from you. That would be helpful. MR. DORRILL: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In addition to that I received a fax yesterday from the FAC. Each commissioner received it as well, but I was going to forward it on to Margaret Skinner to fill out the form attached. But it has to do with the health care costs, and the FAC is looking roughly what our costs are so that they know what -- where we're spending money and in what direction. So when the HRS comes back with its cuts, that we're going to be able to in the end fund the programs that are important to us and not fund the programs that are not important to us. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So anyway, this form does exist. So if there's nothing else, then I want to thank you for coming. REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I'm sure we'll see you in Tallahassee. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And again congratulations, Butt. (Applause) Item #2A PRESENTATION OF THE COUNTY HANAGER'S 1995 WORK PLAN CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As we -- we move on to -- the next item on the agenda is the presentation of the county manager's work plan. MR. DORRILL: Miss Matthews and Commissioners, this was an effort to try and bring a little more focus to what your staff was intending to accomplish this year but -- but also get the board to give us some input in terms of the priorities or omissions that -- that you may see. And a good example of that, we were changing our proposed work plan as late as the day that we sent it to you on the 20th to include and plug in dates for alternative landfill site selection and criteria, and we've plugged those into the summer. But this is an effort, I think, to do two things; one, to bring some objective goal setting at the staff level as a result of your strategic planning efforts over the past year, but to do so in a measurable way with specific milestone dates so that we can show performance, but also show the division in the five major areas that we've selected. And in looking at the work plan, we wanted it to be more than just capital project driven, and I think in the past in terms of the staff's activity it sort of was all capital project driven. And I think during the early stages of growth management that was fine. I think as a result of the creation of the office of capital project management we've got a much better handle on capital projects. So we wanted to broaden the staff's proposed work plan beyond just the one management of assets area because, frankly, I think that all the staff areas are more important than just getting things built on time and under budget. With that in mind, we've got -- the categories include management of the organization and things specifically that we're doing to improve on administrative procedures, our total quality management program. Things like that you'll find in that category, improving on and doing things a little smarter from a staff perspective. The next area has to do with program development and follow-through, and that is perhaps one of the items that will be most important to you as commissioners because that's where we tell you when it is we're going to do what you've asked us to do. A good example on something that I've highlighted in my plan -- the things I considered perhaps the most important by month -- appears in February, which is a follow-up to board direction on what has been very controversial in our P.A. issue is part of your environmental element in the comp. plan. And our proposed presentation of the first NRPA as it pertains to Clam Pass at Pelican Bay. That's a program follow-up as a result of specific board direction to accomplish something. Community relations and communications is admittedly a first-step area for us, but I think that's something that we have not necessarily done a good job at in terms of organizing. But then, frankly, marketing, because throughout the year we provide a wide variety of public opportunities and services in order to improve on the relations of county government. Specifically, though, we have formalized something that we started last year with Commissioner Constantine when he was chairman was setting standard meetings with the editorial board at the newspaper. We broadened on that this year to have what we're calling the County's Corner on Carl Loveday's radio talk show every month. We will have our own specific show to highlight or promote a particular department or division that's outside of any request that you might have to appear on that show or that he might request me to appear on that show. That's a new program area as it pertains to community relations. Fiscal management, of all the things that I chose, is perhaps the one that I enjoy the most which is perhaps a business side of government. And so we have identified those separate issues that relate to budgeting fiscal cash management policies for the county and highlighted those. And then finally is management of assets because, frankly, it's so important that we deliver to you those capital projects on schedule and within the budget that you have originally approved. And even though we're three or four years now into the growth management plan, you'll recall that the peak year actually begins the end of this year and will carry forward into next year as being the most capital construction intensive period of the county, probably the next ten years or so. I thought, just in summary, I wanted to at least put on the record some of the areas that I felt were most important for the months that we've chosen, and I'll move very quickly on these. The issue of 800 megahertz financing and landfill privatization resolution from my perspective were very important in January. February we need to make a final decision on the selection of the information technology, our data processing director. I think the Clam Bay NRPA is important because of the level of -- of discussion that the board has had and the amount of controversy associated with that. Under fiscal management I've shared with you earlier that we're going to present a three-year analysis of operating budgets and the impact that that's going to have in particular on the general fund, and my concern about getting the board to acknowledge necessary ad valorem millage increases in the event we don't make some changes. And we need to look out, especially the year that the number of you are going to be running for reelection. In March we have proposed to complete the selection of our utilities division administrator. We want to present the staff's proposed landfill alternatives to the county commission. And it's shown as kind of a small area in community relations but increasingly an important one is we cosponsor and host an annual recognition luncheon for the RSVP program in town which is the largest volunteer agency short of the hospital's program for retired community service volunteers. And we employ or utilize more of those individuals now than any other agency in the county. And this year we're cosponsoring their annual awards luncheon. It's sort of small in the total scope of things, but it's important because of the commitment that we've made to use more volunteers in county government. April will have another area which is controversial which is the proposed backflow ordinance and it's from the land development code. From a personnel perspective we're going to complete an evaluation and analysis of various leaves, annual leaves, sick leave, comp. leave, and propose some improvements to that area. We need to complete the expansion in the county emergency operations center in the month of April because I've directed the staff to get that finished and all the technological in place before the start of the hurricane season before May 19st. In the month of May the area that I highlighted under program development was to present to the board an access management plan ordinance that will deal specifically with the technical aspects of your secondary road system and how we're going to allow people to make curb cuts, median openings, review the policy that pertains to how we will signalize intersections and how we will allow signals, turn lanes, and decel lanes to be built. Traffic patterns and flow will increasingly become important towards the end of the year, and a review of that policy in May I think is very prudent. June will -- will see an evaluation of privatization opportunities, and the staff response coming out of board -- the board's privatization task force, and I think that's a very important area for us, not only from an efficiency standpoint but, frankly, from a political and community relations standpoint that the community see that we're exploring further opportunities for privatization. Also to finalize the route alignment for the Gordon River bridge will occur in June. July sees the completion of a sidewalk and bicycle path improvement and perpetual maintenance plan. Again, this was something that was discussed late last year. We also have the completion of the utility rate study for your water, sewer, and refuge program. August will unveil the completion of the urban area build-out study as part of your long-range planning initiatives. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What month is that? MR. DORRILL: That's in August. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: August? MR. DORRILL: September will show a proposed preliminary design and development of a combined fleet maintenance facility, and as part of that, alternatives for the sheriff's department which was something that this board dealt with, I think, the first Tuesday that this board began its new operations. October shows the preliminary completion and the analysis on the part of the Council of Economic Advisors for the very important economic development plan for the community. November is the programmed start of construction for the beach renourishment project and will in part hinge on some of the financing issues and the availability of state funding in the final receipted permits associated with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question on that one, Mr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The last discussion that we had on the -- on the beach project was about a year ago, and I believe we were entering into the phase two portion. And at that time the Clerk of Courts, Mr. Brock, gave us warning that we were having some contractual problems in meeting a state statute for the CCNA. And I -- I believe at that time Mr. Stevens -- Dr. Stevens (phonetic) said that he was agreeable to RFP for the third phase, which is the construction phase. I don't see anything in here up to the start of the construction phase about the RFP and qualifications, selection, and so forth. MR. DORRILL: That's a good point. I would need to check with Mr. Conrecode to see. Your recollection is the same as mine, though, that to resolve that issue that we would -- decided that we would go back out and solicit proposals before we went into construction document level engineering. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It seems to me we're already ten months away from construction, and historically we're going to have to commit six of that ten months to an RFP process. MR. DORRILL: I'll verify that. The final month in December I show the -- again, what I think could be very important from my perspective is the preliminary report on the future land use element and proposed changes in the comp. plan as shown under program follow-through. That in anticipation of the build-out study will have pretty far-reaching impacts on your growth management plan from a land use perspective. And then the only other one again, that these are things that are important to me, is the successful undertaking of your annual snowfest program if for no other reason than good work upon the part of the park staff. That's now your number one community outreach of anything that you do and I would say also the most successful, the most positive county government outreach that you undertake through the whole year. We probably have over a hundred specific major projects, but I wanted to give you a little snapshot of the ones that I think are important from a month-to-month basis. But as we move forward on this I'm, frankly, more interested in comments like Ms. MAtthews where you think that we may have overlooked something or we may need to broaden on a particular area or, frankly, you're not happy with the schedule we proposed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other comments? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My comments, it's a great idea for this to be incorporated into the evaluation process. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I like the concept too because now we have some benchmarks now we're keeping. And whether we're in agreement with the schedule and the way it's going to come forward or not, that's something I guess we each need to talk to you individually, see if there's any -- Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since Commissioner Hac'Kie brought up the issue of evaluation, and this is something Mr. Dotrill was concerned about, we seem to have a different evaluation every year we have a different chairman. They kind of take their own twist on the evaluation, and you get a moving target every year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I -- let me answer that because I happen to be married to a guy who does these forms for a living, and I was going to have him prepare it this year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would just like to see this board consider adopting a standard review form for the county manager so that we all know what's expected, we know the performance data, and we have some level of consistency from year to year for the simple reason that, you know, I know Warren, and I trust him, but I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's fine. We can -- what we can ask him to do is -- is if this board wants to do that is to -- I can ask him to prepare a draft form, and then we'll -- we'll circulate it around and come up with a final form. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll address the rest of the board whether they think that's a good idea, but I think it provides some consistency, not that past reviews weren't sufficient, but it could be a little bit different. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It has been a little different, but in fairness we didn't have anything up until about three years ago. So I think we took a giant step forward having a form. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. The one suggestion I'd like to make if we adopt a form that we're going to use continually is that each year I'd like to change the numerical rating system on it so that we can continue to drive Carl Loveday crazy. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a good point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The last year we had to multiply by a point eight to compare it to the year before and, you know, it became -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, because last year we were graded on a scale of five and the year before on a scale of four. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to see -- I'd like -- support what Commissioner Hancock was saying. I'd like to see that we tell the people who respond directly to us or these two guys what we expect of them at the beginning of the year, and that's where we could -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good start. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- but not wait until the end of the year, we didn't tell them at the beginning of the year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, by the way, I didn't mention -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does that mean the sledgehammer now is going to start at the beginning of the year? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the carrot and stick. MR. DORRILL: We have the same obligation, and in conclusion what I -- what I would add is if there is an area or a project that you think has been omitted, please let me know so that I can incorporate it in here. You're going to receive a monthly status report in writing at the end of every month telling you where we're at in terms of where we propose to be, and it's my intent to give you a quarterly oral presentation at a board meeting. So four times throughout the year you'll actually see me give you a quarterly analysis of the staff work plan and let you know we're on schedule, if we've developed problems, what our response and recovery schedule to that is -- is going to be. Again, if you think that some of the -- I happen to think that this is an overly aggressive effort in our first year. It's going to be very difficult for us to maintain the schedule that we have proposed, but I think staff is equal to the task, and in turn, the evaluations for the division administrators are going to be based primarily in part to -- to what they have proposed to me that they will be able to accomplish on your behalf. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So your approach -- you're telling us then that the benchmarks that you have addressed in your work plan -- MR. DORRILL: -- will be reflected in what we call key result areas for the division administrators in each of the five categories that I've alluded. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And with respect to the evaluation forms, if this board would like me to do so, I'd like to take the three years of forms and consolidate them and come up with what seems to be a trend of the questions that we want to work on and then circulate a form. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And circulate it? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. Okay. We'll do that. Is that all from you today? MR. DORRILL: That's all that I had intended to share with you. Item #2B PRESENTATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As we move on, item 2-B presentation of the Department of Revenue implementation plan. MR. DORRILL: Towards the end of -- of last year we had proposed a reorganization of certain departments in the county manager's agency under the board that deals with revenue issues. As part of that the board approved the recommendations but asked us to come back with the implementation plan and a time schedule for those transitional elements that involved not only those departments within our watch but also the policies and programs that may also affect other agency managers and constitutional officers in particular. This is the presentation of that this morning. There is this side issue as it pertains to the Board of County Commissioners' investment policy and activities and desires on my part to make that a little more open and in the sunshine and at some point contemplate some proposed amendments to your investment policy and the management of the investment policy. That, frankly, to me is a separate issue. At some point it may become part of the implementation plan of the Department of Revenue. The Department of Revenue is primarily intended to be a single point of billing and collection activity for those departments that are under your responsibility. They are primarily utilities, but increasingly they will also become community development and parks and recreation and EHS and other fee related accounts receivable functions of county government. Over the longer term they will also at some point include as part of the transition solid waste and mandatory billing and the proposal that we have to run a dual bill beginning this summer but to continue under our contractual arrangement with the tax collector until 1996. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just have a general question. I obviously missed the decision, wasn't here when the decision was made to create the Department of Revenue, but -- and I have some questions about that decision and the efficacy of it, but to what extent, if any, are we duplicating service -- are we duplicating software, computers, efforts of the clerk and/or the tax collector and even with a Department of Revenue since that decision is made already, is there some way to merge the efforts so that we're not doing the same thing twice? MR. DORRILL: Good question. I'm going to let John help answer some of the specifics associated with that. The original desire on my part was to consolidate those departments that we're responsible for and to undertake budget savings as part of the county manager's budget. We projected annual savings of $300,000 by consolidating our departments that are already involved in revenue collection activities. As part of that, though, we are proposing to undertake in particular some special assessment responsibilities for old outstanding utility assessments, water and sewer assessments in particular. And over time also we're proposing to undertake special assessments that manifest themselves in garbage, solid waste collection programs. That would occur in 1996. Those are changes to what other arrangements and/or agreements are already there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You need to help me a little bit. One of the selling points for us was the saving of money. You mentioned saving $300 thousand as we go through here; that's not happening from payroll anyway. We're actually spending a little more on payroll. What's -- where -- where are we coming up with that 300,000? MR. DORRILL: I'm going to let John come up and sit across from me. John, it might help, rather than just jumping into the implementation plan, to go back and maybe take five minutes because we've got two commissioners who weren't here during the original proposal of this. You need to outline specifically where the dollar reductions were within the current department structure that we had, where the actual savings occurred. MR. YONKOSKY: Good morning, Commissioners. The original conceptual plan that was presented to the board at that time from the Department of Revenue identified at a point in time because, as you all know that sometimes conceptual plans seem to be a moving target that's very hard and embarrassing at any point in time unless you take into consideration the entire range of changes that's being proposed. The Department of Revenue presentation, the conceptual plans that were presented to you included a comparison between the method that was being used for mandatory solid waste special assessment, utility billing, and EHS billing. And at that time the EHS billing was being performed on a dual process that was being used through the clerk's office. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Solid waste, utilities, and EHS? MR. YONKOSKY: Those were the three areas that were being compared, and those three areas was where the projected $300,000 savings would come from. The largest one of those three areas was utility billing. There's a separate software for utility billing that had been acquired by the Board of County Commissioners a year or so before. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: John, can I ask you questions as you're going along? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The tax collector has some separate software for some -- it's not for utility collections also? Are we buying the same thing also? MR. YONKOSKY: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is his new system? MR. YONKOSKY: I'm not familiar with what his system is. He projected at -- when they were looking for that software, I think he'd actually proposed on that software also. The -- as did the clerk's operations proposed on that software. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What do you mean by proposed on? MR. YONKOSKY: When they were looking for a change to wire a new utility billing software, and this was -- I believe it was probably two or three years ago. The hardware itself was -- the Board of County Commissioners had acquired. It runs not only utility billing, but it runs several other types of billing. The -- I don't recall the exact amounts of the proposed bids, but I do believe that the tax collector recommended -- made a proposal for that also. But, nevertheless, the Board of County Commissioners ended up buying a separate utility billing software system that would accommodate the utility billing needs of the county for a period of years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And presently utility bills are collected by whom? MR. YONKOSKY: By utility -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: By the utility department as are solid waste and EMS? MR. YONKOSKY: Of the three areas -- you know, probably we should look at each one of them separately -- the EMS billing was being performed on a system that -- through the clerk's office, and the hospital -- the problem with that system -- there wasn't really a major problem with it. One of the areas that created a problem was the inputting of demographic data for the billing. If you take someone that's being picked up by an ambulance and carry him to the hospital, quite often he does not have the time to load the demographical information; the insurance, the name, social security number. The hospital would end up receiving this individual, and within a matter of days they would have the demographical information necessary to bill in a timely manner. We recognized that there was sometimes as much as a two- or three-month period before a bill could actually be processed and sent to an individual. With the hospital that's down to within seven days. Therefore, the demographic information, you having access to it was a tremendous change in the billing process for EMS. In conjunction with Physician's billing, which is a billing organization for the hospital and for the emergency room and several other areas at the hospital, we were able to for a very small, insignificant amount of money piggyback onto their system for $20,000 a year. The demographic information is, therefore, in the hospital system already, and we could provide a timely billing. And then in addition to that, we could actually speed the process up somewhat, the cash flow, by going to a lock-box concept, and eventually what we hope to do is that the insurance providers will actually provide the money electronically and the account information electronically. For example, let's just say for the sake of discussion that there was a bill going out to Prudential, and it had 15 different individuals on it. It would go electronically through the hospital's system. You could transmit it to them electronically rather than going through the mail. They would have the information, and they turn it around very quickly. When the information comes back, they will be able to pass the cash back directly into the board's operating account -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I try to get my clients to do that. MR. YONKOSKY: -- and at the same time they would provide a string of electronic information that would come over the telephone and go right into the -- the computer system and update the account ledgers for the individuals. So there is a very significant savings there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, could I interrupt and ask that the rest of us seem -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was just going to say that same thing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would seem to behoove this workshop, and we would move along faster if you and Mr. Yonkosky would have this discussion in your office one day before we finalize so we can move forward. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. I just realized the same thing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If -- if you don't mind, I would appreciate that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't mind. I was about to make the same comment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a lot of detail that has sort of -- I appreciate it. It's -- it's educational. Could you -- MR. YONKOSKY: Well, that's basically the EHS system. The second system is that we needed to look at special assessments, and special assessments from mandatory solid waste. There's a tremendous amount of savings in the system that we're proposing, and we will be bringing that back to the board shortly. It's a system that was specifically designed to handle mandatory trash collections. And, yes, it is being billed right now by the tax collector. The tax collector's system will not tolerate the ability to handle complaints. The complaint tracking is approximately 600 or so a month, and that's one of the major benefits. And another major benefit is providing bills cumulatively. For example, if a person hasn't paid their mandatory solid waste bill for two or three years the billing system brings that together in one bill that -- with the tax collector's bill, it only has the current year's bill on it. And the clerk's system has been maintained in the prior years. And that system is proposed to be expanded further in phase two of the special assessment system wherein all of the special assessments that the Board of County Commissioners is responsible for will be included on that system and -- and if I could just take a minute to explain one of the significant savings that deals with that is the fact that a lot of bills are actually going on the tax roll right now, and the conceptual plan is to take as many of them off the tax bill as can be taken off because if they're on the tax bill, the tax collector is required to take his fee from it. And, therefore, the annual assessments are increased to accommodate his fee and the administration charge. Now, when you say 2 percent, that may not be a significant amount of money. Some of those assessments that this board levied on the Pine Ridge Industrial Park and the Naples Production Park, hundreds of thousands of dollars. And what you do, because of state law, is that you -- principal has to be evenly paid over the life of the assessment. Every year the interest is paid on the unpaid balance. So on a hundred thousand dollar assessment -- if the rate on that assessment is 6 percent and then the administrative charges and the discount that is required for -- for ad valorem taxes, all of this is taken into consideration, the people in the Pine Ridge Industrial Park and the Naples Production Park, their annual rate is not 6 percent which is the bonded rate, but it's 12 percent. And on an assessment that has several hundred thousand dollars, it's a significant amount of money. On some of the smaller assessments -- when I say small, they're really not small in the east and south -- those assessments are on the tax bill also may be bond so they're required to be on the tax bill. Those assessments have been -- and they were a large amount. The bond issue was about nineteen million, but the assessments covered not only bonds, it covered the loan from the state. It covered some money that the county put into it. So those assessments are out there for 19 years, or I guess about 17 years from now they're still out there. And those are the people in the east and south area of the county. They -- those assessments -- there's only a little bit over three million dollars left on the bond issue. Those three million dollars can be paid off or escrowed, and those savings then can be passed on to those people who are in that economic sector of the county and are paying that. That can be done this year and come off the tax bill and be billed through the Department of Revenue for approximately one-half of a percent as opposed to the amount of money that you're paying right now. You can pass those savings on immediately. That's not the part of the savings, the $300,000 savings, but those are real savings that you can pass on immediately and annually to all those people. And the third one just real quick is Pelican Bay. Their assessments -- their operating costs on an annual basis are billed to the individuals through the tax roll through assessments for operations that are on the tax roll. These assessments can come off, and for a half a percent or even smaller the administration cost of that -- those assessments can be passed on immediately to the individuals. So there are -- all I'm saying is that there's -- that there's some savings above and beyond the $300,000 that we've projected that are significant savings. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, I -- I think we're kind of interested in moving on to the structuring of the budget, and the question Commissioner Constantine asked is dealing with the $300,000 savings, and it's -- I am not sure -- the savings that you're talking about are probably real because the tax collector, while he charges 2 percent, if he has money at the end of the year in excess of his budget, it comes back to the general fund. Now, I -- I can see where you're converting assessment money into general fund money, and that's an argument that's valid, but I'm not sure that we have any real large savings here. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems to me that it's a question of whose budget it's in. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But as far as the taxpayer, it's not -- it would still come out of their pocket. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, there -- there may be a problem say of converting assessments via the tax collector and the money that he gives back to the general fund that we're converting at -- you know, assessments for utilities and such into general fund money, and that's -- that's a whole different argument, but -- but anyway, why don't we move on and look at the structure and -- and the budget. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one last thing on that whole different argument that's the one that is on my mind. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Has the time passed? Is it too late to talk about those? Did I miss that because I wasn't on the board at the right time? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I wouldn't think that you missed it, no. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So there will be an opportunity to bring those issues back up perhaps if I wanted to? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't you -- I -- I would think the best thing to do would be to discuss that with Mr. Yonkosky and let him explain it to you and discuss it with Mr. Carlton and let him explain it. If you have questions, you can bring it before the board. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay? Start with that structure. MR. YONKOSKY: Shall we start with the organization chart? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: (Nodded head.) MR. YONKOSKY: The organization chart was part of the package that was given to you is a vertical as opposed to horizontal structure, and utilities is the major section of that. Therefore, one of the groups that will be performing specific functions of work is utilities. And under the utilities side that's broken down into three categories; customer service, utility billing, and meter reading. And under meter reading is a utility technician two. That individual will be able to respond -- is put in here so that that individual can respond very rapidly to broken meters, meters that are reported as having a problem by the meter reader itself. And then under the utility billing there is not a significant amount of change that's being recommended under the utility billing. As we move through this process, and I'll discuss with you in a minute the changes in the software, you will see that there is no need to have any additional implementation of personnel inutility billing. Matter of fact, once those changes are made -- you're currently getting approximately 30,000 customers. We anticipate that this will be able to move up considerably before any new staff is required. Now, I do want to go back under the meter reading. We have just undergone a review in the meter reading area by a firm called HRB, which is a subsidiary of Florida Power and Light. They approached us a couple months ago about the possibility of performing meter reading at a price that would be less expensive than what we actually charge. That particular study is being completed and reported back to us. Happily for us and not so happily for their process that the charge for meters read by county staff is 58 cents, and that's what the -- as of today that's probably going to go down just slightly. The national norm has a range of 50 cents to $2.50. This is according to them, so I think that says something, that the meter reading is very, very efficient. The City of Naples right now is going out to see if they can competitively bid meter readers. They asked us to -- if we were willing to participate with them after this review. There's just -- and part of that is 6 thousand of those meters that we read every month are under a contractual process with the City of Naples where we read their meters for them too, and their neighbor -- and their meters are in the backyard, so the actual cost is driven up by the fact that we're -- all of the county's meters are in the front yard easily accessible. The meters for the City of Naples they have to climb a fence, fight dogs, being accused of -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had a long discussion with a meter reader who reads that section of the city, and they're not real excited about the dogs either. MR. YONKOSKY: But then on the customer service side under the contemplated change that we're recommending, you can see that there's two spots down there that are now vacant. We need -- because of the collapse of the cashiering section that's contemplated in this plan from the clerk's office at Horseshoe, we're looking at going back to that one-stop concept. I don't know whether any of you had the opportunity to go up there or not, but you go first to a utility window and talk to the people there, and you talk to the people about your problems and concerns and what needs to take place, and then you go out of that and go into another line. And that's the qua lane for the cashiers. And this -- it's not often, but quite often people get very frustrated when they're being required to write checks for money, and then they have to get the information about the check in one line and a another line to actually write the check. What we're contemplating doing is making the people that are customer service representatives also cashiers so when a person goes into the qua and comes up and talks to the individual about what needs to be done, they can write the check right there. We are also planning, as you will see in a little while, in the PERT charts that I want to give you is that we've addressed several other major complaints that -- coming out of community development, and one of those is that you can't use a credit card; you can't use a debit card. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We get different numbers on the impact fee assessments. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, that's one of the other -- that's -- that's another area altogether, but we -- we planned, and it's part of the savings to take advantage of modern techniques. These people that are sitting up there aren't going to be scanning for hours bills that come in; that's where we're contracting under the lockbox. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In looking at governmental services side, I see something that reminds me of my coast guard days where you had two seamen supervised by a third-class petty officer who was supervised by a second-class petty officer. You know, you had two people doing work and two supervising. Looking under the impact fee and the assessment area, we have a place for a billing supervisor over two fiscal clerks. Under assessment billing supervisor we have a supervisor over three fiscal clerks. Is there something in the structure that justifies that to me, because a supervisor over two clerks doesn't make a lot of sense to me? I'm wondering if -- I'm wondering if there is some consolidation in those two areas that could realize a personnel savings, or is there something about the function of those supervisors that I clearly don't understand that makes sense? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To add to that, my question is related -- is under utilities where we expect there will be insignificant changes. It says, like, we're overstaffed now. If we can do with the number of rate payers right now, we can be expected that can quadruple before we get to hire another person. What's wrong with that picture? MR. YONKOSKY: Well, let me address that one first. The -- they are not overstaffed in utility billing at all, but they are busy. They are completely busy. The -- there's 30,000 customers that are billed every month. They also put all of the data input into the system for customers and for customers that are making changes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you think we can service a great many more customers with the same number of people? What am I missing, and what's wrong -- MR. YONKOSKY: What we're going to do is shift some of their work load through the -- through the change in the system. We're taking some of the responsibilities that they're currently performing and moving them over to the customer service area. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So once we do that, now won't there be too many employees if those same number of employees can service 100,000 rate payers? MR. YONKOSKY: Some of the individuals that work there are going to move laterally to take care of peak periods which do not hit at the same time. That's one of the major benefits in the savings. Under the current system the way that it works, you have peaks and valleys and work loads, especially in billing. As you know in October, special assessment billing, the activity is way up because it's all billed in October. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. YONKOSKY: And with EMS billing it's a six-month cycle, and then it's down, then another six-month cycle. With utility billing there is the least amount of changes. It's like this every month. The -- one of the major components of the savings is the ability to move staff laterally from one section to another. So I guess if you were to look at the utility billing supervisor or -- and the fiscal clerks from a isolated perspective and look at them individually and not take into consideration the ability to move laterally, it could very well be that there's -- over a period of time that there may be too much in the way of staff there. We don't think that there is. However, we'd like to come back and revisit that with you at a later date. As to the -- question from Commissioner Hancock on the impact fee billing supervisor, impact fee billing is one of the areas in the county that -- that from my perspective from what I've been able to learn in going through this process is that that -- there's a lot of concern, and there's a lot of questions. I don't know whether you've seen any of the -- the traffic impact statements come back to you where when they were calculated -- and this is not something that is very easy to do, the traffic impact fees when -- or transportation fees when they're calculated, they're very sophisticated, have many levels in them, and requires a particular kind of expertise. The individual that we're looking at here has a background in transportation planning. The -- and from our review of it, even though he's only going to be supervising two people under the contemplated plan, it needs to be a highly concentrated area just because we're looking at the collection of not only six or seven impact fees; we're looking at collecting the radon gas fees for the state. We're looking to collect several other fees that we're required to collect for the state and pass that money on to the state. But as it's currently structured, impact fees are calculated with a different individual who is assigned a permanent task, and as a secondary task that individual is calculating impact fees and passing it around. There's several different people involved. We want to concentrate the calculation of all impact fees under one small group of people, and that people's primary mission will be the calculation of impact fees. As part of that process, they need to be able to interact with people in the various divisions. For example, we're recommending that a key individual be established in each division so that the impact fee calculations, specifically the -- the more sophisticated ones, are actually passed by that individual in the division. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In a nutshell you're telling me the reason we have a supervisor over two people is because his duties are going to be, I would assume, to -- first of all, you're saying to calculate the impact fees. But what you're telling me now is we're going to have a person in each division to calculate the impact fees and forward them to this department? MR. DORRILL: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This person is actually going to be calculating all the impact fees themself? MR. YONKOSKY: That person is going to do all the calculations. Bill. MR. HARGETT: The discussions that I had with John on the impact fees is this position that Jack Wampler will be in. Someone needed to be in charge of the impact fees, and it's not a one-on-one or one-on-two reporting relationship that one certainly can come to the conclusion from looking at the chart. Jack is a working supervisor, and he has two people who perhaps crunch the numbers. He will also be doing the impact fee work, and this designation is somebody's in charge. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And you will know about -- MR. HARGETT: If you want to know of impact fees and who's in charge and those calculations, then Jack, the supervisor, will be the One '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I understand. My understanding and past experience with impact fees -- I'm going to just spend another minute on this and get off because I don't want to eat up everyone's time and continue the workshop on one question, but impact fee were based on either square footage or acreage or transportation. I mean, you know, 90 percent of the calculations are pretty straightforward. You're -- your fire impact fees, I mean there's a formula that was presented. And when I calculated impact fees for a client, I got what the county said these are what your impact fees are per X. I took -- I plugged X in, whether it's acreage or square footage, and told them what their impact fees are. Now, you know, are you telling me these formulas are going to change or they're going to be extremely variable from now on, they're different than we have been doing them? I mean is there any change that's going on in impact fee calculations that I don't understand? MR. HARGETT: There is -- the board asked that the staff review and update all the impact fees. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. MR. HARGETT: That's currently in progress and you'll note from the county manager's work plan that something should be delivered to you next month, at least partially. Three of them have been completed, three of the different impact fees. I think the methodology you will see will be basically the same, but the fees and the methods of calculation do change. We -- we have not reinvented the wheel, as you directed, but there are some changes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll -- for the sake of time, I'll kind of get off of it. I'm running out on a tangent here, but we'll have an opportunity to discuss that particular -- MR. HARGETT: As you look at this real quickly -- Mr. Wampler -- if you look at the salary sheet, this is a lateral move for him. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm not trying to insert Mr. Wampler personally at all. I'm just looking at the organizational chart and had some questions. And again, we can discuss -- I understand this is a presentation for workshop purposes and know the opportunity -- MR. DORRILL: As I understand your primary interest is to evaluate whether or not that individual who admittedly is a working supervisor, whether his span of control could be increased theoretically to also include being responsible for the three fiscal clerks under special assessment. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Basically. It looks like it would make sense. If the job duties don't allow for it, then I would just like to know that. It's just an appearance to me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm kind of agreeing with what you're saying, Commissioner Hancock, because it seems to me that these impact fee calculations -- we ought to be able to put a formula in the computer, and, as you say, plug in whatever the variable is, and the computer does the calculation. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And they have to be updated annually. I understand that, and we change now and then. Once that figure is known, we have a formula to work with until we decide to figure it again. So I understand the time intensiveness of refiguring the formulas. However, once they're in place, the operation becomes a mathematical one. MR. HARGETT: Well -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're getting back on something I said I would get off of. MR. HARGETT: The particular land use, what your facility is, there's a whole list of them. There must be 10 to 15 different EMS impact fees based on the category of your land use and -- so it's not a matter of saying EMS is $20 a square foot or $40 a resident; it's significantly more complicated than that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I know. I used to figure them. That's what I did. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems fairly simple to me. We have 15 fiscal clerks and two billing technicians. I'm not quite sure what the difference between a billing technician and a fiscal clerk is, but -- and we have five people overseeing that -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's 19. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's 17. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 17, excuse me. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't understand -- I don't know perhaps why -- plain and simple, I don't understand why you have that many people supervising regardless of whether I'm billing for -- whether I'm utilities billing, fiscal clerk, or a customer service billing fiscal clerk, my duties -- I may be billing from -- within a different area or a different service, but my basic duties are the same. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my comment on that too -- and, again, this is back to my original one, so just make it short -- it seems like -- it seems like not only are we duplicating from one agency of government to another service in making it more complicated than it has to be than even in the department that we're creating. It's all inefficient it appears to me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the appealing things of this -- was we're going to save money. I raise the question today whether we really are or not. And we were going to streamline, and this would cut back on because we had duplication in various departments. This would cut back to have essentially the same number of people. It almost looks like -- I hate the thought of laying off anybody as much as you do, but the fact is it looks like we've just taken them from somewhere else and plugged them into here. MR. YONKOSKY: And I hear what -- what the commissioners are saying. As you will notice, a few of those positions are -- are vacant, so the type of consolidation that you're talking about can be revisited, and we'll certainly do that. I'll bring you another plan taking your comments and considerations -- MR. DORRILL: That's why I said I agree with Commissioner Hancock's observations. I could not disagree more with the concept, though, that because a constitutional officer might give us our money back at the end of the year that there's no savings there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Neil, I don't get that. I mean he's required to give us the money back at the end -- MR. DORRILL: But you don't have any earthly idea, Commissioner, what he spends that money on through the balance of the year. And if I understood you -- if I misunderstood you, please tell me. What you were saying was it would be okay for us to budget -- to overbudget on the county commissioners' side of the ledger because ultimately a constitutional officer is going to give us the money back at the end of the year. You don't have any control over how constitutional officers spend their money. And in -- and in particular as it relates to the tax collector. He charges a fee for everything that he does. And he's not obligated to even get his budget approved by the county commission. As long as the Florida Department of Revenue says that he is charging fees associated with activities that he's performing either statutorial obligations or other contractual obligations, I just -- I don't agree that somehow if we overbudget and we get some of it or all of it back from a constitutional officer, that it's all the same. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. If you -- if you heard me say that we overbudgeted and cross our fingers that we're getting our money back from a constitutional officer, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying was I think it's important for us, instead of looking at the separate agencies and whose budget a particular dollar goes into and through and out of, that our obligation is to look at -- after it comes out of the pocket of the taxpayer where is it ultimately spent, and I know that this is -- the concept has already been decided by the board, the Department of Revenue where it's going to go, but I'm troubled by it, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. MR. DORRILL: Keep in mind the first thing that I said was that aside from the political appearances of us taking things away from constitutional officers, the first goal of this was to consolidate our departments under the board and under the county manager that are involved in billing related activity and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What was wrong with contracting with them instead of creating a new agency? MR. DORRILL: Well, I'm not creating a new agency. I'm consolidating one of four different agencies that are already out there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my point was not one of -- I didn't want to get off into the -- whether we were saving dollars via the tax collector or not. My point is you've got 5 people supervising over 17 people which seems pretty goofy. MR. DORRILL: That's why I said 15 minutes ago I understood exactly what Commissioner Hancock was suggesting and whether or not we could combine some supervisory responsibilities over fiscal clerks or billing technicians even if they're engaged in different line related functions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Cross training. MR. DORRILL: I think that's something -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, those types of things -- MR. DORRILL: Easier said than done. But I think we need to show you where it can be done, and if it can be done, then can we do it with one supervisor as opposed to two or three. And I think that's what both you and Commissioner Constantine were saying. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. I see that there's some question about whether we're going to save the $300,000 that was originally spoken about, and we perhaps need you to give us a better explanation than we've heard today about whether we are or are not going to save $300,000. But I think we also need to keep in mind what you were talking about earlier when you said that because of the deficiencies in the billing and the fees related thereto, that we would be saving in a number of instances, particularly in the special assessment area. We would be saving taxpayers, our assessment payers, a significant amount of money. And if -- whether or not we save $300,000 through efficiencies of the general operation, it certainly would be worthwhile to go forward if we're going to save the assessment payers a significant amount of money. MR. YONKOSKY: And that's true. And that $300,000, the money -- the savings will be passed on to the individual assessment payers is not part of that because that's not -- doesn't drop through to the bottom line to the Board of County Commissioners. What the commissioners -- one of the things that we need to look at is where the savings are actually involved in. The tax collector has provided a letter to the county attorney's office. We're told right now in special assessments that it showed that it actually cost him more money to produce the special assessments for that year than he received. So one of the things that I anticipate happening in this process is that the amount of excess fees that are returned to the Board of County Commissioners will increase if that's a characteristic that follows on through. When you look at the money that's being returned to you, how about breaking that down and looking at how much of it was returned to the Board of County Commissioners and to the taxpayers from each of the component areas? The majority of that money that's returned to the Board of County Commissioners, substantial, significant majority is because the commissions that the tax collector is required statutorily to charge are too high. That's something that you may want to take up with your legislative delegation and have those fees and commissions that are charged statutorily reduced. And the taxpayers -- that's a direct savings to the taxpayers too. Instead of 2 percent of the 15 billion dollars worth of assessed value that's taxed when we're looking at the tax collector being able to return to you in excess of 2 billion dollars a year, the reason for that is because the fees are too high. So if you reduce the fees -- anyway, that's -- that's part of that. I think that we have looked at individually what the excess fees are. As far as part of the savings itself we talked about in the $300,000. Briefly we'll -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think before we get into that we're going to take a short break. Why don't we just take a ten-minute break, and we'll try to finish up. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we come back to order? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I don't have a gavel, so let's go. MR. DORRILL: Miss Matthews, I understood that you had one more area that you all wanted us to research. I think what we need to do is go back and respond to a couple of these two or three major areas as part of the proposal and -- and I don't think we need to try and do that as part of a workshop session. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. DORRILL: You just told me during the break that you had one additional question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had one additional question that came up in response to Mr. Yonkosky's information, and that was your talking about the possibility of using debit and credit cards for the payment of monthly bills and/or assessments. And early -- early on in the discussion you were expressing concern about the tax collector assessing a 2 percent fee for what he collects, and at the same time debit and credit cards have -- have a fee attached to them of somewhere between 2 and 7 percent. And I would like you to include in your next overview of this how you anticipate the use or -- of paying for using a credit card. I don't think the taxpayers at large in Collier County should be underwriting that fee. MR. YONKOSKY: I agree, and it's not intended for the taxpayers at large to do that. You have many people in the development community, and that's exactly where that's going to go that would like to have that available to them, and it's not the taxpayer at large or the people in the special section. That would be only an incidental. That's specifically geared for the building community and community development where the developers come in, and they want to do several things. Part of them want to provide deposit accounts. They just don't want the hassle of coming in and writing a check or writing two or three checks. We'll give you a deposit account. But if you have the ability to do debit or credit or pay for it with a credit card, and that's what that's designed for, and I will include that in -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think deposit accounts are a good idea, but I'm -- I'm concerned that if -- if John Doe comes in with his MAstercard to pay his water bill and it costs the county 4 or 5 percent a month to address that bill, we should be talking about adding a fee on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like a credit card rate and the noncredit card rate? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, exactly. So I'd like you to handle that. MR. YONKOSKY: I'll address that. All right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: With -- with that I think Mr. Dorrill's rates -- raised the issue that he realizes that he's got some homework to do on this yet before it comes back for a final digestion. And most of us have read through this. If we have additional concerns that we haven't covered this morning, I'd trust that each of us will talk to Mr. Dotrill. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have a time frame in which we can expect this to come back to us? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's probably a good idea. MR. DORRILL: We had proposed for it to come back on February the 7th. I think we probably need to continue that for probably two weeks, a week or two. I don't think we'll be ready to go on the 7th. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you looking at the 14th or the 21st then? MR. DORRILL: One of the two. Let me go back and sort of rethink my three areas here. If we can do it on the 14th, we will. If not, we'll do it on the 21st. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I suggest that when it comes back, that the 21st is a nonuse -- non-landuse day and that we may want to look at it when we have more time. MR. DORRILL: That's fine. Item #3A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' ADVISORY BOARDS CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Why don't we -- why don't we move on. I know that Miss Filson is here to give us some information on the advisory boards, and then after that I have handed out a worksheet -- workshop prioritization sheet that we need to discuss and a couple of other minor things. So, Miss Filson, are you going to tell us about the advisory boards, which ones are active? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will Miss Filson be telling us which ones to get rid of? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I hope so. MS. FILSON: I'm just here simply to answer questions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Be done by a vote of one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe what she's done is gathered for us information on the advisory boards, which ones are meeting on a regular basis, which ones are meeting the requirements, so forth, so we can take a better look at what's happening. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, might I suggest that -- Miss Filson has compiled a good amount of information. I appreciate it. I don't know if the balance of the board has had an opportunity to go through each one, and we may have questions and so forth on particular ones and other ones it may be best to continue. Would it be appropriate that we just go down the list, and if anyone has a question on a particular committee, that we discuss it, determine whether or not we want to take a further look it, if not, move on to the next one? Would that be appropriate? MR. DORRILL: Excuse me just one second. The staff's going -- Bill, keep the noise down. The reporter's having a hard time hearing today, and it's just distracting when you all make noise back there. I'm sorry, Commissioner Hancock. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, I think if the rest of the board agrees to that, I don't see any problems with it at all. It will help us move along faster. So I guess that's what we'll do is go down each one as we go along. The first one -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I did have one overall question. How do these committees come to have such long terms, three and four years for an appointment? It would be difficult for me in my private citizen days to have accepted a four-year term. Is four sort of standard? Do you know? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think for some of them it is -- you take the code enforcement board or the planning commission, some of those should have some continuity. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That makes sense. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At least you can maintain some continuity. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not some requirement that just happens to be -- okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what the resolutions say and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Some are less than that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think also, Commissioner Mac'Kie, what you're alluding to is probably some of the reasons why we're always appointing people to unfilled terms. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, they burn out. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They burn out, bog down, and situations change. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, when I say there's no requirement, the ordinance sets requirement, but that's your legislation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one final thought before we start looking at whether or what to cut, obviously if some board or committee hasn't been active along the way, then there's question of need there. But many of these have quite a few citizens who have good input along the way, and I don't want us to minimize -- I certainly don't want them to think that we are minimizing the input they have in the process. Two things I'd like to see us do with any boards that we still have, we're concerned about the amount of money we spend on the staff and the attorney's time. We've already talked some with Mr. Cuyler about reviewing which boards his staff attends because right now you spent close to a hundred thousand this year? MR. CUYLER: Yeah. I've got most of that information together. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think perhaps we can look at ways to trim that down so we could spend a little less money there, staff time there. But also I'd like to see us set up a formal mechanism with most of these boards, a more formal mechanism than we currently have, to take advantage of the input. It's too often we get a brief written paragraph of recommendation from them, and that's all we have. I'd like to open that line. We have slacked off now on our quarterly meetings. We had two for the productivity last year but have not had one since. I think in order to fully take advantage of these we need to make sure we have an open line of communication with them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's absolutely true. These boards serve to supplement the information to the Board of County Commissioners, and I know -- my attending on this board I have asked EPTAB on innumberable occasions to give me a white paper report on the environmental issue that's coming forward. And to my knowledge, that has happened once or twice on any environmental issues that we discuss. Yeah, I would like to see our boards participate more in issues that -- that come forward and give us some idea of what the citizenry is saying about what we're doing. But with that in mind, we'll move forward. The first one is affordable housing. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I noted that they met six times last year out of only -- all but one of those meetings they had a quorum. I really don't have any desire to change their operation, but it would appear that they do have some consistent absences, and I wonder what the board's past policy is on that. If you notice that there's a committee with somebody that's consistently absent, what's the policy? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, you just issued a memo to me on that. Perhaps you could give us a brief verbal. MR. CUYLER: That one didn't really address what you have in place. Most of the ordinances have -- a couple years ago the commission put in place an attendance policy of some findings about we want to promote full attendance at these boards, and it gives you the ability to declare a seat vacant or the chairman of that committee to declare a seat vacant under certain circumstances if they fail to meet -- if they fail to attend half the meetings or if they miss two meetings in a row without an excuse from the chairman of that committee. I'll take a look. Now, that language is in some of the ordinances and not in the others. When we redraft them or redo them, we'll include it in that. But it's in the master ordinance. I can provide that language to you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Somebody track that down. MS. FILSON: Yeah, it's ordinances 86-41 as amended. MR. CUYLER: Right. MS. FILSON: And I'll provide copies of that for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not sure anybody tracked any monthly, quarterly, what -- you know, if we're having multiple absences or not. MR. CUYLER: I think that some of the cases may be the member calls up to the chairman, says, I have a family engagement, and that's an excused absence. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Leave it to them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, just asking what past board policy is. I just want to be consistent with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Generally the chairman of a committee will either write a memo or make a phone call saying we have somebody that's not attending and declare it vacant. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have any problem with affordable housing commission. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Airport authority? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a newly created one. I wouldn't think we'd have any problem. Black affairs advisory board? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We do -- my -- I looked at it, and they have nine members. Last year, although they met twice a month for the better part of the year, they only had three meetings with a quorum. My concern is not that -- that there's a problem with their performance, but it's twofold. One is apparently we have a lot of absences on that committee. It may be one in which instead of having nine members, maybe reducing the total number of members, or changing the format of the committee would allow them to have a quorum on a more consistent basis. And I'm, again, just throwing that out. The second is that after the human rights commission argument dwindled away, that I don't know if the board has given any further direction to this particular committee as to a work scope, if you will. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, we haven't. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that may be part of an absence problem. I'll just put that on the table for discussion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I don't think lowering the number so they can have a quorum because just fewer people are showing up -- at the risk of raising a hubbub after our activity a week ago, if only on average three people are showing up, my question is how much of a demand or how much of a need there is. We talked two years ago, close to two years ago, about having a minority affairs board in lieu of having two or three separate, black, Hispanic, so on. Perhaps the time has come again for that one, main project that each of them have worked on has been the human rights commission which failed. However, they did work together on that; that's one -- the greatest turnout, the greatest participation was. So maybe it would be appropriate to urge the black affairs -- I mean Hispanic affairs advisory boards, and we have any others, and create a minority affairs advisory board. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My comment about that would be that -- that I would -- I think that the lack of participation in some of these boards might not be so much tied to the need for the -- for the service or the need for the -- the committee but the responsiveness or the access to the county commissioners. It seems to me at the most we would ask them if they're interested in merging, that we wouldn't do it, and that a more global comment that I have is what -- what extent, Neil, are there -- or who's the staff liaison, or is there such a person? MR. DORRILL: There's one each. On the Hispanic affairs it's Ramiro Hanalich, and for the black affairs it's Tom Whitecotton who is the county human resource director. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it seems like that it should be part of the responsibility -- in my mind it seems like the staff liaison's responsibility should be to -- to create these lines of communication between that committee and the board and to help them know how to access and get information to and from the board and then maybe, Tim, they might feel like showing up for a meeting if they feel they're accomplishing anything. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do note that the Hispanic affairs advisory board, although they've had a greater attendance, they did have meetings without a quorum also. So there's obviously a problem either that they're -- that we have not given sufficient direction for programs to work on or that there's a lack of interest, and I don't know which. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think it's a lack of interest. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. And I'm not -- I'm not saying it's one or the other. I'm just saying that there's obviously a problem there that they don't have a quorum there half the time of the year, and what is it that we can do -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, again, realizing I'm probably not being politically correct, but these boards were created at the request of the black community and of the Hispanic community, and so I don't know that we need to or that it's our place or that it was our original intent to give them direction on what to do. This was created at their request for them to deal with the issues that are unique within their community and bring those to the attention of the board. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But do they have enough duty to do that, Tim? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They certainly do. I think if there was some discouragement after the human rights commission -- there are other groups, other boards that obviously bring things to us that still get turned down, but they still go to their meetings, and they start again on projects. You know, they don't throw in the towel. Just -- you know, we can sit and try to come up with reasons or excuses or try to blame ourselves or whatever, but that does not appear to be the case with other boards which have suffered similar results when they have brought things to us that have not passed. And so I don't want to pretend -- if -- I mean it says an awful lot. The purpose of us going through this exercise is to see what the attendance is, what the interest is, and then when we come across a board that has limited attendance, we immediately start making excuses or trying to come up with reasons why. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got to say -- I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What might be appropriate is for us to contact them and ask what their thoughts are just -- and any -- and any of these boards what their thoughts are as to why attendance is down, why participation is down, and on -- particularly on any of these boards where we've had either a low turnout or few meetings, we may want to get a complete analysis of what they've done in the past 12 months or 24 months. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree. I think that's the way we want to go is today to identify those in which we find there is a problem and find out where the problem lies. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ask them to talk to us about it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I was going to suggest that maybe what we should do with these boards that we identify are not as active as we would like to see them is that we get a memo off to the chairman of the board and ask them in their next upcoming board meeting to call within 30 days of when one is scheduled, that they investigate restructuring the committee and to give us some plans and ideas of what it is they intend to do. And if -- if they feel the board is too -- too large and they want to make it smaller because they're not able to -- to get the work done that they need to, let them tell us so. And then we can address that as well as them giving us a list of the pertinent issues that they feel are -- need to be addressed, and at the same time if we see shortages on that list, we can tell them also on -- in feedback what we would like them to do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, what I don't want it to turn into, though, is EPTAB, for example, has nine members. If they can't gather up nine people out of a county of 185,000 every now and again to discuss the issues that are important in the environmental areas, I don't want to scale that down to fit five people because the same five people can show up, because it turns them into those five people's special agenda board instead of a true representative board of the community. So I don't want to start making things fit to those individual people. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying some of these boards have been in existence for some time, and if their needs they have changed in such a way too that -- that they need to restructure, maybe they need to expand membership in order to create subcommittees. We don't have that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to suggest the following as part of it. I'd like any of these boards that we identify today -- I'd like to see us ask reasons why attendance -- their thoughts why reasons -- the reasons for attendance being down, their thoughts if any of these boards have had very few meetings, their reasons why, and then kind of a synopsis of where they've been, what they have been doing for the last 12 months in a nutshell. We read the monthly -- month-to-month minutes when it comes to us, but we can get that in a nutshell. And then from there what are the steps that they think may be necessary, and maybe the board can -- this board can discuss it at that time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what we're all saying. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're in full agreement there. There are two differences. You pointed out something that is of importance to me. Some of these committees were requested by sectors of our community, you know, whether it be the Golden Gate beautification or, in other words, someone came forward and asked for an advisory committee, and there are others that we as a board said, hey, we need to create a committee. And I think there is two different approaches, and I agree with what you are saying is completely appropriate for the group that came forward and said we'd like to be an advisory committee. As we come into those that we formed, I think we could make a harder look at whether we need the input or lack of input that's occurred from that group. And so I think there are two approaches. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have a consensus there? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we do. I would like to -- since we're going in alphabetical order, the first one falls in that group appears to be the black affairs advisory board. Since they only had 3 meetings of 14 or 15 that had a quorums -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They did? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They had a quorum in only 3 meetings of 15 so -- so maybe start the list with them. Is that agreeable? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's agreeable. I -- I -- I want to say, though, and I agree with everything that Tim said. I want to be sure that the tenor that comes out of this board is one that says we want to encourage your participation, and we see that there hasn't -- you know, there have been problems. Is there something we have done; is there something we can do to make your job more effective instead of -- frankly, from the minority issues and from EPTAB, those are two that would be at the top of my list of -- of committees that probably don't do much because they don't see much response to their efforts so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're all seeking a valuable level of input, and I am confident that if an advisory committee feels that this board has done something that has deterred its efforts, we'll hear about it. MR. KELLER: You'll hear about it. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm confident in that. I just want to put some -- some on the table to say, look, you know, we form committees to have input, to move ahead. It doesn't seem to be happening. What are we going to do to make it happen and go from there? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I agree, but I would like to see the tenor of the memorandum going out to be one that is constructive and encouraging to the future existence of the committee. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Based on Commissioner Constantine's input, is it appropriate that Chairman MAtthews author that letter? Is that acceptable to everyone? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We'll go from there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you copy me with that letter? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Next. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next one is the board of building adjustments and appeals. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This one seems to be inactive. Do we need this anymore? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No meetings in 1994. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. Mr. Cuyler is shaking his head yes. I think it's -- MR. CUYLER: You need it as an appeal mechanism under your building code -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CUYLER: -- in case there -- it only comes up when somebody who wants to construct something has another mechanism. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that takes care of that one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The good one is there have been no meetings. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The citizens' advisory task force. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This was one that I had some communication on. They met one time last year. I had a constituent that called and applied for a member of that board, called some people. They didn't even know who their chairman was. This was something that was formed under a certain staff members' request, is that correct, Mr. Dotrill, and that staff member is no longer with us? MR. DORRILL: That's correct. It had to do originally with the creation of a block grant. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is one that I definitely think is eating up Hiss Filson's time unnecessarily. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Filson, do you ever have anything to do with this committee other than the membership, maintaining the membership? MS. FILSON: I have to keep track of when the terms expire, send out letters. Send out -- MR. DORRILL: This is not an area, though, where there is a requirement here because you, as you're aware, certainly sponsor a TVP rehab at Copeland, and we did not use this mechanism. We responded to a petition from that community in that case. So, you know, you can go either way on this one. You need to have staff people who can be a liaison to the Copeland -- or certain segments of Immokalee, and there are other -- there's a staff role there. Whether you think there is a citizen advisory board is up to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was just going to say on this one we write and say it does appear that we need for you to continue to be -- exist. Do you know something we don't know? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we just propose to sunset it. We had no activity from the committee. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it's nothing personal. MS. FILSON: Who do I write to? They don't have a chairman. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it needs to be put in -- if it's the consensus of this board, we need to put it on an agenda that we sunset this committee or terminate it, whichever the board's direction is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, this is a resolution 90-60 that established this, or is that an ordinance? MR. CUYLER: It appears to be an ordinance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need to repeal it then. MS. FILSON: Was it an ordinance -- if it's a resolution, it would have an R in front of it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Oh, gosh it may cost us more money to repeal the thing because we've got to go through advertisements and all of that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it will be a one-time cost as opposed to leaving it on the books for Hiss Filson to spend taxpayer dollars on the stamps. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agree. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Agreed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would say on any of these that we repeal that we send letters to the members encouraging them to apply for other vacancies and cite those vacancies. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, can I ask you a question? On these ordinances that we conduct today to reappeal, can we do them all at one time and do the advertising all at one time and -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- put it on the consent agenda? MR. CUYLER: No to that question. Yeah, we probably could -- we could probably do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That would keep the advertising cost to a minimum. Okay. Fine, let's move forward. The City/County beach renourishment advisory committee. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Keep it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Keep it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Keep it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that a subcommittee to the CBC? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The next item, the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, I think -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Committee. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Keep it. Collier County Planning Commission. Keep it. Yeah, we'll hang on to them. Collier County Public Health Unit Advisory Keep it. This is the one that was just established. Yes. Keep that one. The contractors' licensing board. Keep it. Council of economic advisors. Keep it. Keep it. Oh, I got -- this is probably an inappropriate time, but, hey -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're getting used to it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It has come to my attention that Greg Mihalic has mega qualifications to consult with this committee. How's -- Greg Mihalic is with economic advisors. He's got a degree in economics. He is an economist. It seems like he would be -- I don't know what John does, but it seems like he would be a great staff liaison with the council meeting on the advisory committee. I just thought I would tell you. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The only difference with that is that if John is to head up the Department of Revenue for the county, and John certainly has a fiscal background, that it may be more relevant to his job description to be a liaison to the economic advisory, just as a observation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the Department of Revenue is going to be collecting money, and Mihalic has the ability to do economic forecasting and -- MR. DORRILL: The only opposition I would have is a historical one. The only reason that we have a department of housing is because of prior board action and huge uproar within the community that the county commission was doing nothing within the housing area. And between the two, frankly, economic development is the sexier issue, and it would be difficult for me to keep Greg in his department focused on housing issues if he's out going to this CBC meeting and he's doing this for the movie liaison thing. And it's a struggle to keep them focused on housing as their primary activity. I'm not opposed, you know, to considering that, but that whole department, I think, consists of like two or three people, and so I -- I am a little judicious in terms of sending him to economic development activities when he's otherwise supposed to be -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Moving right along. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, moving right along. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Productivity committee. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Keep it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Keep it. I went to the last meeting just to attend it and see what's going on. We do have at least one member running amuck with his own interpretation of the sunshine law which I've requested a clarification from the county attorney's office. MR. CUYLER: It's already gone down. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I figured. This is a committee that can be vitally useful if we can avoid a couple of their members from being renegades, so let's -- let's focus on that and do get something set up with them. They're going to request it also. MR. DORRILL: Only for what it's worth, you're -- you're on the verge. I don't interfere. In fact, I only go to one of their meetings a year, but you're on the verge of having four or five of the people on this committee resign because of this individual, and that's something that you may need to look into. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, let's -- let's -- I'll -- maybe I'll discuss this with you later, but I would like to know the mechanism for removing someone from a committee for the simple reason -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've done that once. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- for the simple reason that this person is counterproductive to this committee, and he's chased off a few people. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There are seven vacancies. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. To be honest with you, I just about pulled my hair out at the meeting. So I'd like to review that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tim, perhaps you should put that on the agenda, upcoming agenda. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I certainly will, and I won't even mention who appointed him. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move on. Okay. So you'll -- you will meet with Mr. Dotrill and get that -- get an executive summary. MR. DORRILL: We'll handle that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Development services advisory committee. Keep it. Keep it. Keep it. Disaster recovery task force. Keep it. I hope we don't use it. Yeah. MS. FILSON: They need to put new members on that because a lot of the members that are currently on there are no longer with the county. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They are no longer with the county? MS. FILSON: No. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Shouldn't it run with the job instead of the individual? MR. CUYLER: I think it was -- I don't know. I thought it was voluntary, but there are certain people in the county -- MR. DORRILL: There is a requirement, so I'll make a note to follow up with Mr. Pino (phonetic) on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to say, should we look at -- should we relook at the ordinance and have that run with particular jobs, so whoever fills it -- MR. CUYLER: Neil and I will -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: council. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At least those that are under our control. The emergency medical services advisory Keep it. Think they're doing some good work. Environmental advisory board. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just wonder if we may not want to combine EAB and EPTAB. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've had that discussion before. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've had that discussion before, and I was in favor of it the last time we had this discussion because the -- really the main impetus of establishing the EPTAB board was to integrate environmental concerns into the growth management plan. The bulk of that work's been done, although there is some ongoing work from time to time. But to have them as a stand-alone committee doesn't make as much sense as it used to. The discussions, of course, centered around on whether they couldn't function just as well as a subcommittee of EAB and then, therefore, cutting down Miss Filson's work a little bit. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that part of -- part of the difficulty in doing that is the makeup of the committee members for these two boards. The EAB appears to be and, based on what -- based on what my understanding of what was told me, is that the EAB has a greater tendency to review the site plans and so forth from a construction, development, contractual point of view where EPTAB does the same thing from a policy point of view to whether adjust our policy. They -- they serve two distinct functions. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, they -- they're supposed to, but at times they're -- they seem to cross their missions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me if we combine the two, we have the authority certainly to give that single entity both tasks to do instead of saying, well, gosh, there are two different tasks here, let's put them all under one umbrella. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But they are two tasks that are -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My vote is to combine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I read the membership here, there's amazing similarities. Matter of fact, it's word for word except for seven members and eleven members. Everything else is -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that the difference in -- it has been mentioned. If they can be combined -- yet the EPTAB mission, which I'm referring specifically to Wiggins Pass -- I've been reading the minutes of their meetings -- it's been of help to me to see that their committee has brought forth ideas on that particular plan. I don't want to lose that. I don't want to lose that. If we can combine them and not lose their ability to go after those types of pertinent environmental issues in the community, I would favor combining them, but, again, not at the risk of losing -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think you'll lose it if you combine them because you have people with different interests. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think we will. I think we can -- I mean the makeup -- as I said, the requirement for membership is exactly the same when we say, well, we have people with different interests, and that may be the way it's panned out from when it was appointed, but the requirements are identical. So I think we can combine this and come up with a membership that serves the needs of both. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I need to understand. EAB is a part of the review process for land development, but EPTAB is more a policy advisory board is what I thought. They seem to be separate. We need a policy advisory board, and we need -- and maybe -- maybe the EAB ought to be reviewing petitions from a different perspective. Maybe they ought to be reviewing them from the perspective of environmental policy instead of construction or whatever it is that you were saying. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wouldn't it make sense to have in the spirit of consolidation and less government to have one board doing both. You could even increase the size of the one board if you want. EAB is seven members. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're going to see -- I'm in favor of keeping them separate for the simple reason that I've come before the EAB, and coming before the EAB with a petition is very different than then reviewing it in the management plan and giving a recommendation to the board. The two are not the same. So if, you know, the duties of the EAB were to change where they would be parallel that would make sense. But the duties right now are vastly different from the two, and I can't see combining them and getting the same result. And there has been some value to EPTAB, and I would like to keep them separate. I'm going to say that we keep them separate for now, and, you know, let's -- let's see if -- if a year from we feel the same. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we move on, let me try one last __ COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mutation of idea. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When we say, gosh, the duties are different, yet we have the ability to make any board perform any duties we want. So if we combine the boards, we can pick and choose those duties from each that we want them to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would be concerned about the time consideration there because the EAB from a similar review standpoint there's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're the one that wanted to consolidate boards. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- myself I agree with Commissioner Hancock and Commissioner Hac'Kie. The advise -- the EAB to me works more as a sub -- subadvisory board to the planning commission, not necessarily to the county commission, even though their purpose is almost identical. But EPTAB works or should work more with the BCC as __ COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, I'd like to make a suggestion that we don't spend any more time on this sort of thing. We've gone through this advisory board consolidation exercise a few times. It's a fairly simple and reasonable request to combine the very similar duties of these two boards and make them into one board, one a subcommittee of the other. If we're not going to do that, why -- why are we wasting time even thinking of this issue at all? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tim, is there anything else in here that you think we should be dumping? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I think there are other matters that may have put aside Mr. Hancock's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Let's go through the 30-minute exercise. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I don't want to send the wrong message to anyone here. If -- if we can combine the two and one is a subcommittee of the other and the duties -- you know, they continue to work as they are and it saves Miss Filson time and it saves taxpayer dollars to combine them, yes. But I -- again, I have to be assured that EPTAB will continue to function in the past as they have. If it can be done by combining them making one a subcommittee of the other, fine. And if you can show me how that will work, I'll take a look at it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree with that, but I -- let's move on down instead of getting hung up on these two. The next one is the fire district consolidation advisory committee. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We don't need that one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't need that one. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What do we do with this, Mr. Cuyler? Do we have to appeal the resolution? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is a resolution. MR. DORRILL: This is a resolution, and they are inactive and have been for some time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: advisory committee. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Forest Lakes roadway and drainage Keep it. It's part of an MSTU that advises Golden Gate Community Center. I'm going to defer on Commissioner Constantine on this. There's a couple of Golden Gate committees out there. The community center advisory committee is different than the estates citizen advisory committee, but is there a combination of the two? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. The community center advisory committee is a taxing district that pays for the community center as they exist now, and they've just been overseeing -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No room for accommodation there? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: None whatsoever. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The Golden Gate estates citizens advisory committee is the -- that name has now been changed to the Golden Gate estates land trust committee. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That one came out of the settlement agreements with GAC. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My concern, the Community Center advisory committee, four meetings last year, no quorum. Two meetings had no people at them at all. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which one, Tim? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure that's true because I was actually at a couple where they did have quorums. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Really? Because I'm just looking at what we have here. We have four -- I'm sorry. There are only September through December, and there was one person at one, two at another, and zero at the last two. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that's not accurate. I've been at some of those since September so -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Good enough. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Huh. Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we ask them to keep better records? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. The citizens advisory committee for Golden Gate estates, we've noted that the name change on it, and I presume that we will be keeping that one. Golden Gate Parkway beautification advisory committee, that answers to you, doesn't it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hispanic affairs advisory board, we've already discussed that one. It seems to have similar problems -- problems as the black affairs. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would suggest correspondence. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Letter? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I would suggest correspondence. They had half of the meetings that did not reach quorum. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Historical/archaeological preservation board. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They have good attendance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Very interested people. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually they're fairly active with any number of things to us this past year I think all of which have been approved. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, they've asked us to make the post office down in Ochopee a historical -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The homeless advisory committee. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know they only had three meetings they were short just one. John, did they play any part in helping with the homeless camp issue and that kind of thing? Was there any assistance in that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They -- at one meeting we went to their meeting and discussed in concept what -- what we were going to do, and they agreed with it and sent us a letter. That was about a year ago I think. Beyond that they have not been directly involved. And we don't seem to get the reports from them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- that we used to. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They meet a lot, and they have people attending the meetings, but we don't seem to get their reports. I think we need to send them a letter and tell them we'd like to see a little more about what they're doing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: more timely, I think. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: on. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We want -- we want their minutes a little Yeah. And reports of their tasks they're working Maybe have them -- ask them if they wouldn't mind keeping us a little better informed on what's going on from their perspective, but they meet a lot. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And they manage to have a quorum every time. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The Immokalee lighting beautification advisory committee, again, that's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Keep it. I will point out that we do have a problem there that we have five meetings with nobody at, so my point, find out -- MR. DORRILL: We may want to reevaluate their meeting schedule. Their meeting schedule gets very intensive as we go on to the budget process because they're the ones that have recommended a lot of the median and lighting budget improvements for that district. But they don't need to be meeting monthly or even quarterly, frankly, through the rest of the year unless they want to evaluate the progress of construction. But they usually get busy in the summer and they recommend budget improvements in accordance with what the millage rate is. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. It looks like they chose not to meet in July, August, September, and October. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So this may be merely a function that the ordinance is requiring meetings more often than needed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Once a month -- yeah, why don't we ask them for a revised meeting schedule they feel would be more appropriate to meet the needs of the committee so at least we can evaluate it fairly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. The Isles of Capri fire control district advisory committee, I don't understand this one. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't either. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a volunteer fire district, and they have some citizen input on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a little different than any of our other districts. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They don't have a fire commission? MR. DORRILL: No. Nor does -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ochopee. MR. DORRILL: -- Ochopee, for that -- for that matter. They are a dependent county fire district. They're not an independent district. They're dependent, but their taxing district's similar to the Immokalee beautification district advisory board. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I say continue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: beautification. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: committee. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: active. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They had a quorum 10 out of 12 meetings, so They seem to be active. Lely golf estates That's an active board. Yeah. MSTU. Library advisory board. Keep it. MArco Island beach renourishment advisory All three of those MArco boards are very In light of their last letter -- Ochopee fire control district, that seems to fall in the same area as the past two. Parks and recreation advisory board. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: committee. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: that one out. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Young -- I'm just kidding. That's a very active board. Very active. Pelican Bay MSTU advisory Is Bernie here? I think he wanted us to cut Bernie? Bernie left. He's out of here. He's already gone? Bernie left? I wanted to show for the record that Mr. MR. DORRILL: Can I say something there because you may be hearing from them with respect to the incorporation and annexation issue. The two ongoing interests within that community are law enforcement, and they're a private beach access. And you may need to develop a strategy to help respond to that to at least show a willingness to consider alternatives short of incorporation or annexation, because I'm just giving you a little heads up, and I'll be talking to Mr. Hancock about that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to commend Mr. Dotrill for the work he did at the forum that was held at the Ritz on Pelican Bay. Neil represented the county very well, and I think the key element here is not to try and push. I think we see the City of Naples making a little bit of a mistake in pushing for annexation. As a county we will and can do -- and I'll continue to meet with them and -- and advise them of that, but I don't see any reason for us to make a concentrated effort. I mean -- but we can pay more attention to these issues and let them know when you're done with what you want to do, we'll still be here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's in keeping with the position this board has taken on the city in various areas of the county. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DORRILL: I might add that the sheriff has shown a willingness to reconsider the concept of providing increased law enforcement for those planning communities or districts that are -- that are inclined to want to do that. The sheriff has shared some of that with me recently as well. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Neil. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Public vehicle advisory committee. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What does it do? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is it? MR. DORRILL: They are a committee that reviews your taxicab and vehicles for hire ordinance, as I recall. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They meet more or less on demand. MR. DORRILL: I know they met recently. I saw them meeting. But you have an ordinance that controls and regulates to a certain extent vehicles for hire, airport shuttles, limousines, taxicabs, and this is an industry association to review those activities. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They seem to have a quorum every meeting that they've had. MR. DORRILL: They do a fairly good job at self-policing themselves as an industry. There have been times here in the past where the commission received lots and lots of complaints about taxi and airport shuttles, and I bet we don't get two complaints a year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: that particular committee? MS. FILSON: No. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: district citizens ad hoc -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any problem in your area, Miss Filson, with Fair enough. Tourist development council. Keep it. Ad hoc committee, the architectural overlay Huh? -- advisory committee. MR. DORRILL: I'd love to see their letterhead. MS. FILSON: That one was created by ordinance as an ad hoc committee for one year. They've extended it twice. This was an ad hoc committee which was created for one year. They've extended the one year by resolution like two times, and it needs to be extended again if they want to stay in existence. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The -- I'm sorry. It appears to me the goal is to have an overlay district on Golden Gate Parkway for a professional office. I thought some of those had been incorporated into our code already. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They have -- they've met, and they're not meeting with any regularity now. I think their only purpose at this point is as people begin to build on the parkway, property that is zoned commercial, they want to make sure they're meeting with those codes or the architectural information to input into our general code. But it is in there and I don't think from a legal standpoint, I mean -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- it seems to me that it's in the code, and they have to comply with the code. That's our staff's job. MS. FILSON: They haven't extended the resolution since 1993. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they have not met at this point -- I don't want to offend anybody. MS. FILSON: I called them, and they said that they had completed the work, but I don't have an updated resolution. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So technically it's expired. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Get it off the list. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Huh? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they've already expired, then allow the sunset. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they may expire. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not talking about the individual members of the committee. But, anyway, so bottom line is it's expired? Is that '- MS. FILSON: Does that have to be done by resolution? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's an ad hoc. MR. CUYLER: Let me check. Is that what you want to do? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. I'll talk with them. But I know I've spoken with -- two of the members on there are friends of mine. They were under the impression the work is done so -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let it expire then. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let it expire. The privatization plus task force is alive and well. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: got to go -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: meeting at six o'clock. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I have a -- before we leave -- I've Yeah. -- but I've got a comment on Tuesday night's Uh-huh. I had previously accepted a speaking engagement at around seven, so I'm -- I expect probably we'll have another six- or -- eight hour -- meeting Tuesday night. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I hope not. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh. In any case, I -- I will not be in attendance from about seven till probably a quarter till eight so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. It will be noted. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So if we come into a vote at that point, I just want to alert you to that so that you might want to take a 15-minute recess while I get back or something like that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one comment on this workshop sheet. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And with that, I've got to go. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The water issues I think we talked about having a workshop on anyway. As I look down the list, beach renourishment, we usually have a workshop -- I mean a joint meeting with the city anyway. We've had Dr. Stevens come a couple of occasions. I think that would probably be the appropriate forum -- MS. FILSON: Commissioner Constantine, that meeting has been canceled. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not going to have any meetings with the city? MR. DORRILL: We are. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm talking in general. We don't need to have a special workshop on that. Solid waste seems like it's a little after the fact, but we can still do that. Buildout, we have done that regularly and they have gone through their buildout study with us, which we can do that again. But the land development code and it's criteria, growth management, it seems like when we have our regular LDC hearings would be the appropriate time for that as an add-on at another meeting. Traffic patterns, particularly public transportation, we go through -- I would think the HPO would be the appropriate time for that. When we have other things that are already scheduled we can handle some of these. PVC handles the tourism. I think that would be the appropriate place to send that through. Economics strategies, we've appointed our council of economic advisors. I think what might be good is to have a joint meeting with them. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I think we want to be sure and take advantage. A couple areas we don't have anything going on right now, agriculture. And I think that is important that each of us realize what's going on, you're familiar with that. I assume the others have or are scheduled for the ag tour I think each of us got when we started. Also affordable housing, we've talked about our priority this year for changing and trying to get very low income in there. So I see those two as a couple of priorities and water issues at the top as priorities. It seems as though many of these others we have other formats or other meetings scheduled anyway, which would be appropriate. So I just throw that out as my priorities of the ag and affordable housing as number one or two. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In my ranking, I didn't rank a lot of those that you mentioned to buildout or LDC or growth management. We're going to get to do that. I don't want to be meeting with tourism and economic strategies. I think a joint meeting with economic advisory committee is a great idea. So what I did is just rank those as zero and with that will be taken into account when the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, this is put together here for the perusal of all of us. Many -- many times when we've had our LDC hearings we're very caught up in the changes suggested by staff and not necessarily in what our LDC is going to take us to in another 10 or 15 years. That's the idea here, is not -- not to educate us on what we're doing right now, our staff is doing that, but to take a look at is it going to take us to where we want to go. And as for the buildout study, we've all been hearing words of like 550,000 people in the next 20 or 30 years. I've recently done some calculations, and that's coming up with something like twenty -- 2,700 people -- is that what Bill Hargett came up with -- per square mile? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Neil, you don't have that on the tip of your tongue? I'm shocked. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we -- Bill Hargett and I have been conferring back and forth. It's a large number per square mile. We're looking for -- MR. KELLER: What about the alligators? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, this is the, quote, unquote, 17 percent of Collier County that will be left after the federal and state level. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a C-shaped thing that we -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The part that hasn't vanished. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It does not include everything that -- so we're -- we're looking at something that's a little over 2,000 people per square mile, and I'm -- we're searching for another city that's got that kind of density. And I think the place we're coming up with is St. Petersburg, so that's why buildout is on this list. Do -- do we have a land development code that's going to make us look like that, and do we want it? Okay, that's -- that's the reason. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do want -- I do want to add to that. I agree with you, the specifics are -- there's a more appropriate time for specifics. However, apparently Commissioner Matthews and I run parallel courses. I'm doing studies of cities all over the U.S., what their per capita entry for developable area is, what -- which are models, which aren't. I think there's a lot of discussion that we could -- we could have that basically says where do you want to go, and how we get there. And the visioning that's currently going on is going to be a part of that. So we may fold into that, what we're talking about here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's the idea of being -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. It may be a little premature to have a workshop, you know, in the next six months. But I think it is important, not to mention -- and it's kind of an area I'm a little interested in. And I think I can have some valuable input if I can get my ducks in a row, so I wouldn't want to rule it out. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to get into a debate on it today. Obviously it's not the time, but to only count certain parts of the county and then say, gosh, that density is going to be equal to -- to get into a scenario of a city where it is not desirable is in my mind misleading at best, because we -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Per square mile is -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we've set it aside or what have you, it is still part of Collier County. So the true density is still considerably smaller than virtually -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's not workshop it right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. The idea behind this is to give us some idea of the -- of the priority of workshops that we -- that we as a board feel we need to address first, and that's what this is for. if you complete those and get them back in to me or Mr. Dotrill, then we can begin scheduling the workshops that we are going to be needing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Messy but complete. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll give you mine later. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: And just to help me, the next month that has five Tuesdays in it is -- does anybody know off -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not until late, is it? MR. DORRILL: It's either going to be April or Hay it looks like. So our next meeting at which we will workshop these issues would -- would -- looks like Hay to me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. If we can take what -- it's probably 5 more seconds. I have a letter from Florida Gulf Coast University. They're seeking some grant funds and have asked us to issue a letter in support of their grant funds. I have two letters here. One's a letter from the board, and one's a letter from me. I'm just asking the board if you want to support or -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What grant funds are they pursuing? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're grant funds for what's called direct education -- distant education, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that a federal grant? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They are -- yeah, Department of Commerce. Uh-huh. If you want -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: MAkes sense to me if you've looked at it, and I trust your judgment on it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The U.S. Department of Commerce, and it's a grant, you know, distant education. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't you send a letter out on our behalf and copy us, and we'll probably all send individual letters in support. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to ask -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That sounds good. I'll get this out today and then get you the information that was faxed to me. We're adjourned. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 12:04 p.m. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan