WAKULLA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONER BRIAN LANGSTON, CHAIRMAN

 Tuesday, January 16, 2007

MEETING WRAP-UP

1.  APPROVAL OF AGENDA

County Attorney Ron Mowrey noted that he would like to discuss a workshop with the Code Enforcement Board.  He noted that he would also like to consider moving to advertise the Fair Share ordinance.  County Administrator Ben Pingree asked to continue item 2.3,  the ordinance regarding the additional homestead exemption for homeowners, to the next regular meeting.  "There is a fiscal impact that will be associated with that," said Pingree.  "I would like some time to do some research on it."

2.  PUBLIC HEARING

2.1  AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WAKULLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPACT FEES, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR FINDINGS; DEFINITIONS; PURPOSES; IMPOSITION OF FEES, APPLICABILITY AND EXEMPTIONS; COMPUTATION OF FEES THROUGH A FEE SCHEDULE; PERIODIC REVIEW OF FEE SCHEDULE; PAYMENT OF FEES; PENALTIES, INTEREST AND LIENS RELATING TO UNPAID FEES; CREDITS; IMPACT FEE SPECIAL FUNDS; USE OF FUNDS; REFUND OF FEES; ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEE STUDY SUPPORTING FEES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Wakulla County resident Chuck Hess stated that he had spoken on this the last time it was brought up.  "I think we need to make sure we get our impact fees," said Hess.  "Our schools are one of the most important things in this county.  Getting our fees in place is very important."

Wakulla County resident Randy Nelson said he agreed with Hess.  "I think education is the most important thing in this county," said Nelson,  "I have a kindergartrner who attends Crawfordville Elementary School, and I fully support education.  But I think you need to look at the total ramifications of it.  If you add an additional $15,000 to the cost of new homes, young families will not be able to come in.  We don’t want Wakulla County to be a place you can only move into if you can pay.  What are you going to do about single parent families that live here?  I’ve been renting mobile homes and we’ve had some single parent families move out of the trailers and get a home.  These are tax paying citizens.  Let’s do our due diligence.  If the school board says $6000, look over it and make sure that’s what it will take.  If you have done your due diligence and feel that that is what it is, then that’s what it is.  Everybody agrees that we need a higher impact fee, but what’s that number, and who decides that number, and have you considered all the ramifications of that number?  That’s why I would suggest that we do our due diligence."

Wakulla County citizen Larry Roberts noted that he has often stated that the cost of development should be paid by the developers rather than the tax payers.  "Mr. Jimmy Dugger has stated that there is a source of funds that make up the difference," said Roberts.  "These funds are also tax dollars but from a broader tax base and we are also part of that tax base.  The County Commission has not updated this impact fee ordinance and it presently collects about 20% of what the consulting firms found to be the cost of the impact of development  on everything other than the School Board.  If the school impact fee ordinance is adopted at 60%, the School Board will collect about 30% of the total cost caused by development and with the present ordinance the County Commission will  collect about 10%.  We the people will continue to subsidize the rest.  But what happens if  you don’t adopt it?  Will the School Board readdress the issue or is it a dead issue?  If another ordinance is presented to you, will it be the same ordinance, will it be better, or whill it be worse?  Will you approve that ordinance?  Considering workshops, advertisements and public hearings, are we talking about months or years before an ordinance materializes?  Even though this ordinane does not do all it should, I can’t see where voting it down is a reasonable option.  I suggest that you vote yes on this ordinance."

Wakulla County resident Jimmy Dugger noted that he was representing the School Board and the Superintendent at tonight's meeting.  "I would recommend that you adopt the ordinance that the Board has put forth to you," said Dugger. "We think this ordinance will allow us to continue to provide the high quality education that we have provided for many, many years."

Commissioner Maxie Lawhon motion to adopt the school impact fees ordinance; second Commissioner Kessler for discussion.

Commissioner Ed Brimner noted that he had been thinking mostly about the county impact fees, but the same thing holds true for the school impact fees.  "Mr. Nelson talked about increasing the price of a home for a first time home buyer who can barely get into a home," said Brimner.  "Increasing it by $12,000 or $13,000 over the next three years is going to be a huge hurdle that we are going to have to get over.  I have asked a couple of folks to look at how we could help our most needy neighbors buy a new home by financing this for them so that they don’t have to get a loan for $120,000 plus $12,000.  If the county could finance it for them over 10 or 15 or 20 years at either zero or one percent,  that might help, and there is a way to do that.  That is the only thing missing in my view from this ordinance.  If we pass this and then we come up with some way to provide this financing, can we amend this ordinance at that time?"

Mowrey noted that it is a county law that has to be enforced, so the ordinance can be amended.

Commissioner Lawhon commented that it would not be right to amend the ordinance without the School Board's approval.

Commissioner Brimner agreed, saying it would not be right to jam changes down their throats.  "But we don’t know what the future holds and this is something I’m very concerned about," said Brimner.

Commissioner Howard Kessler noted that he had seconded the motion because he felt it was something that needed to get done.  "This is not 100% of the impact fees," said Kessler.  "100% is a number we will get to in our third year.  In the meantime, other entities are going to have to pick up the difference.  When this study was done, the people who did this study knew there were other funding sources so they took that into consideration.  So we are not approving 100% of this impact right now.  We are approving 60%  if this passes, and then 80% the next year after that, and then finally 100%.  We are still going to be behind the 8 ball.  Growth is not going to be paying for itself.  As far as models that allow people to come into your community and buy a home and qualify for a deferral of the impact fee, they are out there.  It can be a deferral  when a person is of a certain socioeconomic impact, such as if we are having trouble getting teachers to move into the county because they can’t afford a home.  But then when the house gets sold, that impact fee is recaptured.  There are ways of doing that and not putting the burden on the person who doesn’t have the resources.  I will be voting on this because I think the Board has spoken in a previous meeting that it didn’t want 100% of the impact fees right off the bat.  I will support the 60-20-20.”

Commission Chairman Brian Langston noted that he had a lot of concern with the impact going from $1000 to $12,000.  "I have a ten year old and I am thinking about building a house for him next year before it just costs too much," quipped Langston.  "In five years, you go back and you do another study and then you increase it another $10,000, and by the time he is a grown man, then what wil it be?  That is my biggest concern.  I will abide by what the School Board has recommended.  They are elected officials and I am very respectful of the work and the thought that they put into their work, and so I will also be voting for it.  However, I hope we take into consideration the future generations who want to stay in this county and who want to build homes in this county."

Commissioner George Green noted that he would also support the impact fee study figures.  "We are not asking for the total amount up front; if we were I would be voting against the motion," said Green.  "Hopefully we can come up with some kind of way of helping those parents who are not able to pay that fee."

Passed 5 – 0.

2.2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WAKULLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF LAWS OF WAKULLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY CREATING “PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION FOR CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION OF HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TO HOUSE ELDERLY PARENT(S) OR GRANDPARENT(S) OF OWNER OR OWNER’S SPOUSE”; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR REDUCTION; PROVIDING FOR THE AMOUNT OF REDUCTION; PROVIDING FOR THE PROCESS FOR PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR DISQUALIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Motion to adopt ordinance by Commissioner Brimner; second Commissioner Green.

Commissioner Kessler noted that he had some concern as to the ability of the county to oversee this ordinance and the ability of the county to make sure this ordinance is being used as it is intended to be.  "I don’t think we have the manpower right now," said Kessler.

Commissioner Brimner noted that monitoring of this ordinance would be the Property Appraiser’s responsibility.  "The way that it’s done is much like the homestead exemption," said Brimner.  "Let’s say that  I build onto my house for my inlaws to live with me.  I would have to go to the Property Appraiser's office every year and reapply and verify that the property was still being used the way it was supposed to be used.  And that is pretty much like homestead.  They don’t come out and make sure you are living in your house; you tell them you are and until there is some reason not to believe you, you are homesteaded."

Commissioner Kessler commented that he was afraid people would abuse the system.  "That's my concern," said Kessler.

Commissioner Brimner noted that there are always people who abuse the system.  "But this is a good thing in my view," said Brimner.  "There would be no cost to the county.  If  I don’t expand my house my inlaws can still ive with me, but if I need to expand my house I can.  When they move out, at that point it becomes fully taxable.  It's a good deal to me.  I would like to see it pass."

Commissioner Kessler noted that he was simply asking for a control system.  "I just want to make sure there is a way that we can know that it is going to be used properly," said Kessler.  "I am concerned with passing the ordinance without having a control in place.  I consider the Property Appraiser a part of our county; we have staff all over with all the building and everything else that has been going on now, and I think they are stressed.  I just want an accountability; a  process to make sure that this will be reasonably applied."

County Administrator Ben Pingree noted that it would be the Property Appraiser's responsibility to make sure it is implemented effectively.  "We have not heard from the Property Appraiser at this point whether he has a concern that his staff cannot accommodate it," said Pingree.  "The fiscal impact to the county will be miminal during the period of time an elderly grandparent or inlaw is in the house.  When that time period ceases the tax revenue will flow in.  I have not heard from the Property Appraiser that he has a concern with handling this at this point in time."

Commissioner Kessler commented that  with our parents living longer and dealing with illnesses that last much longer, this is a much better system .  "It's better to have them at home rather than in a nursing home," said Kessler.  "I will be voiting for this; I just wanted to express my concerns about implementation."

Attorney Ron Mowrey noted that if passed, this ordinance will be effective January 1, 2008.

Passed 5 – 0.

2.3  AN ORDINANCE OF WAKULLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 03-10, REGARDING THE ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR HOMEOWNERS WITH TITLE TO REAL ESTATE WHICH IS THE PERMANENT RESIDENCE OF SUCH OWNER WHO HAS ATTAINED AGE 65 YEARS AND WHOSE HOUSEHOLD INCOME DOES NOT EXCEED $20,000; AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 03-10 TO PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION TOTALING $50,000; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Continued until next regular Board meeting.

2.4  AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WAKULLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 6-31 OF THE WAKULLA COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONCERNING TREE AND LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR PURPOSE AND INTENT; APPLICABILITY; EXEMPTIONS; ADMINISTRATION; DEFINITIONS; REQUIRED LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS; LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND MATERIAL STANDARDS; IRRIGATION; MAINTENANCE; INCENTIVES; PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT;  PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS AND SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Motion to adopt by Commissioner Lawhon; second by Commissioner Green.

Tree and Landscape Ordinance Committee member Cathy Shirah noted that she served as the secretary of the committee that drafted the ordinance.  "I am probably the most familiar with the specific language and will be happy to answer any questions," said Shirah.  "I have sent each of you a letter to try to address the concerns of the community.  I won’t belabor that but I will, for the public, address two of those specific concerns."

"I saw CCOW's concern about the front landscape incentive," continued Shirah.  "We did acknowledge their concern over this; we understand that CCOW does not want to provide any undue benefit to larger developers.  I can tell you from the developer's standpoint that this  will not be an attractive incentive to a big box development.  The front 10 feet of their property is particularly precious to them.  However, from the standpoint of the community, we do feel that anything we can do to beautify the appearance of a commercial development as we are running down the roadway would be a great benefit.   If we can double the amount of landscaping in front of a commercial enterprise, then we have done an enormous amount to beautify the community.  And that’s just one of the issues that we balanced with tree preservation; community beautification and availability of incentives for commercial enterprises.   To my knowledge, the only commercial site in Crawfordville that would meet this criteria is the Wakulla News in their new building, but they did leave a large buffer out front and it does provide an extremely attractive entrance." 

"The other issue that has brought some community concern is the 40% minimum landscape area," continued Shirah.  "Right now the minimum landscape area requirement is at 25% and I think each and everyone of you can point out and name the sites in and around Crawfordville that have done only 25%.  They do not represent the community that we would like to be proud of.   A 40% miminum is not unreasonable; most of our new and better designed developments in the area meet or exceed the 40% landscaping.  And there are some provisions to go to as low as 25% by increasing the number of trees saved or by increasing the amount of landscaping planted.  I would be happy to answer any other questions the commission or audience might have."

Wakulla County resident Chuck Hess spoke on behalf of CCOW.   "Our position on the land ordinance is that it is a good step, except we have a problem with the 10 foot buffer; the extra 10 feet up front," said Hess.  "For the small land holder it is a very valuable area of  their property, and sacrificing that extra 10% or that extra 10 feet up front to get that incentive of 10% less open space is a real good tradeoff  for them.  But for a large development like Wal-Mart, their footprint on the area is huge, and the extra 10 feet up front; they will give that away in a hurry just so they can have that extra 10% of their land space.  This will give them a lot less open space in their overall development just by leaving a small extra border up front.  I really think that for the larger land, big box developers, that needs to be exempted and they don’t get that incentive.  They can still get all the other incentives and they can still get down to that level if they preserve enough trees and enough structure out there in the area, but it’s just that extra 10% for the 10 feet up front for the large areas that will not create the developments we want.  For example, Wal-Mart already saved that 40% and so I just don’t see that they need that incentive."

Hess also noted that CCOW would like to make sure that exotic plants are removed and native species are planted in their place.  CCOW also recommended that a residential tree and landscape ordinance be developed and adopted as well.

Wakulla County resident Ron Piasecki noted that Tree and Landscape Ordinance Committee Chairman David Damon and his group should be highly congratulated for their efforts they put forth.  "I think they’ve done an excellent job," said Piasecki.  "No ordinance is perfect, but I think this is a good start.  All ordinances can be modified if needed; I think  it should be passed."

Marcia Beauregard of Shell Point noted that she had just read that the ice shelf in Greenland is melting much faster than was originally thought.  "There are now islands that no one knew about that are miles off shore," said Beauregard.  "The most scarey statistic is that at the end of this century the oceans worldwide will be 23 feet higher than they are now..  This ordinance is just a tiny, tiny bit of a way of helping to combat that change.  It is encumbant upon everyone in this world to do what they can to make sure we have something to leave for our children; that there is a Wakulla County left south of 98."

David Damon, Chairman of the Committee, noted that in March of 2006 he brought before the Board a list  of  individuals willing to work together to draft a tree ordinance for Wakulla County. "In an effort to protect property values as well as to minimize the negative impact growth has had on our wildlife and our quality of life we can and must have a workable tree ordinance," said Damon.  "Planning Wakulla’s growth should be a joint effort between the various fractions of our community.  The Tree and Landscape Ordinance Committee is made up of concerned citizens as well as professionals in various fields who have shared their expertise with this group."

"On this Board we have a member of the Wakulla County Planning and Zoning Department, a developer , a builder, an engineer, a realtor, several local business owners, and tree and landscape experts as well as concerned citizens," continued Damon.  "I want to read to you who was on this Board.  They spent 10 months working on this.  It was a dedicated group, and I’m just proud to have been a part of it.  Lynn Artz, Audrey Alessi, Glen Campbell, Melissa Corbett, myself, Ted Gilbert, Julia Hanway, Tim Jordan, Bob Kerns, Nancy Myers, Cathy Shirah, and John Shuff.   I want to also mention the two consultants to the committee:  Tamika Bailey who is a senior forestor, and Curtis Weekly, an arborist.  It’s time to move foward and adopt this ordinance as it is before you tonight.  Thank you."

Commissioner Birmner asked Cathy Shirah to come back up to the podium.  "I didn’t understand the first part of what you said," said Brimner.  "You said that on a development of 5 acres or more, that the 20 feet is not a big deal to the developers.  Then as you kept talking, it sounded like it was a big deal to them."

Shirah noted that an additional 10 feet of frontage obviously has a lesser percentage impact on 20 acres than it would on one acre.  "However, I have worked for many, many big box developers and I can tell you that the extra 10 feet in the front is jealously guarded," said Shirah.  "And this is not an incentive that would appeal to a big box developer.  I wish it were, but it is not.  This is something that  would be of an advantage to a small business like the Wakulla news, locally owned and operated,  who would do this because they wanted to present a more attractive face to the community."

"So you are saying that big box developers would leave 20 feet unless you leave so many trees?" asked Brimner.

Shirah answered that the minimum requirement is 10 feet now.  "If you voluntarily choose to leave 20 feet then you may increase your density," said Shirah.  "You can decrease the overall amount of landscaping."

Brimner noted that Shirah had cleared up what he did not understand.  "I appreciate that," said Brimner.  "But what then greatly concerns me is that I think 10 feet is not very much property between the edge of the road and a parking lot the size of a Wal-mart or a Home Depot or some other large box store.  Ten feet is not from here to that podium there, and 20 feet is about from here to those front chairs.  That miuch difference driving down the road makes a lot of difference as far as the quality of your drive.  Instead of seeing a sea of cars or a sea of black asphalt, if you’ve got that much space I think it makes a difference.   And  I would like to see us maybe exempt developments that are 5 acres or more so that they have to leave 20 feet unless they meet some sort of other requirement.  I can’t make an amendment to the motion, but I could ask the maker of the motion to accept it as an amendment."

Commissioner Kessler asked if someone could make a motion to amend the motion.

Mowrey noted that for discussion that could certainly be done.  "If you want to adopt it, we would have to look at what you are proposing to change and see if it’s substantial," said Mowrey.  "If it is it would require readvertising."

Commissioner Kessler noted that he thought Brimner was suggesting that the incentive given to the small 5 acres and under not be given to the larger than 5 acres or greater development to allow them to reduce it to 30% instead of the 40%.

Brimner answered that no, his concern was more with the 20 feet.  "If I understand correctly right now there is a minimum of 10 and we will allow them to use up more of their space instead of keeping 40%," said Brimner.  "We’ll give them 30% if they’ll keep 20 feet instead of 10 feet; in other words if they will give us 20 feet then with the rest of their lot they can make more parking lots or whatever they want to do.  With a big lot that’s important to a small place because they need every square inch they can get for parking lots and buildings.  But when you are talking about a 20 acre or a 5 acre piece, as Cathy said, they are not going to want to give us that extra 10 feet along the 600 feet of the highway for statistically a very small amount of return out there."

Commissioner Kessler asked what the statistics were.  "What do the numbers look like?" asked Kessler.  "If you take a square 10 acre piece and you take that additional 10 feet off the front, how much more are they getting to develop if they back down to 30%?"

Shirah noted that a 10 acre square (650 feet by 650 feet) with a 10 foot strip across the front is 6,600 square feet.  "We are talking about somewhere near not quite ¼ of an acre; somewhere between a 10th and ¼ of an acre," said Shirah.  "It’s not significant in the overall percentage.  But every retailer I have ever worked with wants to be seen; wants to be visible; everything is up front.  So for a total percentage-wise we are talking about requiring them to give up on a 10 acre parcel less than ½ acre and in exchange we give them the use of an additional 10 percent, which would be an extra acre."

"I think Mr. Brimner’s concern is the way the ordinance is written now concerning perimeter landscaping, all commercial developments will have a 10 foot buffer that can only be crossed by a driveway," said Shirah.  "They cannot have any parking spaces or buildings within  that front 10 feet.  If you would like to say developments greater than 5 acres must be set back 20 feet that’s certainly your prerogative."

Shirah noted that it would be a one sentence change to the ordinance.  Commissioner Kessler asked if that would be considered a substantial change.

Attorney Ron Mowrey noted that he was not sure what Shirah, Brimner andKessler were even talking about.  "We are dealing with the incentives as well," said Mowrey.

Commissioner Lawhon stated that he did not think this was a good time to be making these types of ordinances.  "We have a lot that is going to be happening here in the future that we know is going to have a very dramatic impact on development of any kind, whether it be commercial or residential," said Lawhon.  "I’m not going to amend my motion to require somebody to put in 20 feet when the land value is the highway frontage.  I’m not going to to do anything else at this point to cause a business not to come here.  This may not be a big deal, but this committee has worked for 10 months and has made this recommendation and my motion is going to stand as such."

Commissioner Brimner agreed that he should not be giving David Damon a hard time about the ordinance.  "I care about it," said Brimner.  "This is not a perfect ordinance and it goes back to what I asked our attorney earlier.  There may be some additional changes we will need to make in the future.  The Chamber has come out in support of this with the caviat that if we see it’s just not working, we may need to readdress this in the future."

Commissioner Lawhon agreed that the Board could make changes if needed at a later point in time.

Commissioner Kessler commented that he thought there was concern about the amount of open space that will be reduced in large areas greater than 5 acres and the concern of of the visual effect from the roadway.  "I think that if someone on the Board wants to make a motion to amend and it’s seconded and is voted on and if it passes it gets amended.  I’m asking for help on that."

Mowrey noted that the Board could certainly accomplish that.

Chairman Langston commented that he thought a substitute motion could be made, but was not sure what would happen if somebody objected to it.

Mowrey noted that the Board would still have to vote on it.

Chairman Langston commented that the committee had worked on the ordinance for 10 months.  "I would like to go ahead and move on and pass this and if something does not work out or if it needs to be tweaked later  then we can do just that," said Langston.  "I’m voting for it as it is."

Passed 5 -0

3.  WAKULLA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

No items. 

4.  CLERK OF COURTS

No items. 

5.  CONSENT AGENDA

5.1  Bills and Vouchers

5.2  Mansfield Oil Company                   $23,050.52       Diesel

5.3  Delong & Son Trucking                    $20,591.80       Cooperwood Road Paving

Commissioner Kessler motion to approve; second Commissioner Brimner.

Passed 5 - 0.

6.  CITIZENS TO BE HEARD

Wakulla County citizen Shannon Harvey commented that she had recently noticed the FOR SALE sign on the rezoned parcel of land that was rezoned a couple of months ago just north of Amerifirst Mortgage.  "At that rezoning meeting the owner noted that he was going to build an office on that site," said Harvey.  "At that time I was neither for nor against the rezoning.  But tonight I want to talk about it for other reasons because I believe it is unwise to approve the rezoning to commercial just for the purpose of increasing the sale value, and this is strictly in regards to Highway 319.  We need to have a plan for the stripmalling on 319 and the impact that it brings without a plan, and I'm sure that the Board took the word of the owner when he said he was going to build an office on that particular site.  But what recourse do we have when that landowner changes their mind?  Was it the intent all along to resell the property once it was rezoned for a higher value?  I know at the last meeting I found out that when this particular parcel came up for rezoning that it’s part of a platted subdivision.  And that particular subdivision was having some heartburn over the request of Happy Time to have their next door neighbors rezoned commercial.  So if that was part of a platted subdivision I am wondering if this particular owner told those property owners that he was going to build an office or did he tell them he was going to resell that property?  I have some concerns there."

"I am also personally disappointed in the word of that landowner and feel that there was misrepresentation only for profit when he requested rezoning for commercial to build an office," continued Harvey.  "I am hoping that in the future, and I don’t nkow what the answer is, but  what recourse do we have to make the landowners keep their word if they say that they are going to build an office and you guys approve it, and two months later he sticks a FOR SALE sign on it.  The property directly across the street did that same thing.  They had their FOR SALE signs on it; they came and asked the Board for rezoning to commercial and the Board at that time asked them what were their plans and because they had no plans the Board voted 'No' to rezone to commercial.  Directly across the street from this other.  I just wanted to bring this to your attention if you guys haven’t noticed that there is a FOR SALE sign on it."

Wakulla County citizen Ron Piasecki spoke for the Citizens Advisory Committee on Infrastructure.  "I talked for the past few months and said we expected reports from the DEP FSU study," said Piasecki.  "I am glad to say we have two reports in and they are also working on the scope of work for a follow up to come down and do a lot of forums and education and help us with an ordinance.  We have scheduled a meeting for next Wednesday, the 24th, at 6:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers.  We would like to invite all the Commissioners to come to it.  I will be  sending out a transmittal tomorrow of the two reports for you to look at.  Melissa has agreed to print out all of the reports and those will be available to all Commissioners and staff over the next couple of days.  I think we are making progress and I think the end result will be an ordinance that implements a comp plan amendment on water quality which will take into consideration location, type of soil, and through scientific support help us in the county determine the specific type of septic system related to that particular type of property."

County Administrator Pingree commented that if more than one Commissioner was planning on attending the meeting it would have to be advertised in advance.

7.  PLANNING AND ZONING

No items. 

8.  GENERAL BUSINESS

8.1  Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems – The Wakulla County Board of County Commissioners have received a no match grant funding source to perform feasibility studies for beach re-nourishment projects at Mashes Sands and Shell Point beaches.  The estimated price for the Shell Point Beach study is $100,000.  The estimated price for the Mashes Sands study is $75,000.  Also included in the agreement is approximately $88,000 for removal of undesirable beach soils landward of the mean high water line, and replacement of these undesirable soils with clean, white beach sand.  Staff recommends acceptance of grant funds.

Interim County Administrator Joe Blanchard noted that a little over a year ago the DEP awarded Wakulla County $66,000 to place sand on both Shell Point and Mashes Sands beaches.  "Just before Christmas they came back to us and said we have $200,000 that we need to spend and that we could have it if we had a project," said Blanchard.  "It just happened that in the storms we’ve had, we were in the process of gradually losing Mashes Sands.  What we are asking tonight is that we accept this $200,000 to go with the $66,000 that we already have.  This is a no-match grant.  We will do our studies on both Shell Point Beach and Mashes Sands and provide $88,000 worth of nourishment in the way of sands for both those locations.  We would ask that you approve the acceptance of that money."

Commissioner Lawhon motion to accept the grant funds; second Commissioner Kessler.

Chairman Langston noted that these funds were for feasilbity studies only.

Passed 5 – 0. 

8.2  Request to Update the Agenda Process – On January 1, 2007, the tenure of the current county administrator began.  One of the issues raised repeatedly by a series of commissioners since that time is the need to update the Board’s agenda process, including improvements to the quality of staff review and how it is conveyed to the Board.

County Administrator Pingree noted that this item was something that had been individually discussed repeatedly over time. "Through this upgrade we are continuing to improve our service to you," said Pingree.  "Essentially we will bring you additional information, options, and due diligence prior to the meetings so that you can focus on passing policies during the meetings.  Not to say that due diligence has not been done historically, but the manner in which it has been presented to you has been more informal.  In many cases it’s presented orally here at the meeting and there is not enough time in my opinion for you to consider it.  You need time in advance to develop your questions, etc."

"There are two main things," continued Pingree.  "One is the agenda itself.  You would start off with the invocation and pledge; then presentations  would follow if there are any.  Those presenters would be people you have directed to come here.  Consent items; every item that comes before you will have an item number above it.  You will have a statement of issue up front; it will say what we are seeking you to look at .  You will be given some history leading up to why we are here today.  A thorough analysis that  will lay out some options for you if there are any; then staff recommendation for what it is worth.  Then you can act on that issue."

"General business," continued Pingree, "the only thing I think is different about that section to a certain extent is the discussion items by commissioners.  Here you have actually raised agenda items but what I would like to work towards is where, let's say, maybe one of you have agreed with something that has been said during Citizens to be Heard.  During your time, you can direct staff to prepare an agenda item on that topic mentioned by the citizen.  Or maybe you will have a series of issues you want us to look at.  If the majority of you agree that we should pursue it, I will.  If a majority of you does not think we should pursue it, I won’t.  This way you will get additional staff work leading into your meetings and a little tighter process and that’s the recommendation from staff."

Langston asked Pingree to move the public hearings to the top of the agenda.  Commissioner Kessler commented that he was not sure he understood the changes to the Commissioner's Items.

Pingree clarified that this would be the time for the commissioners to bring up issues that are important to them.  "Usually it would be something you would want staff to act on," said Pingree.  "For example; placement of the flags on the dias.  If one of you want that changed, you could say 'This is an issue to me; I’ve looked into it; I want staff to prepare an agenda item to alter the placement of flags on the dias.'  If a majority of the Board agrees, then I will look into it.  If the majority of you does not, then this just may remain your issue. The other way is the way you do it now; you just bring an item before us."

Commissioner Lawhon asked Pingree if the commissioners would still do their regular agended items.  Pingree answered yes, and clarified that if something of interest to the commissioners came up in the meeting, they could also bring that before the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Brimner to accept the County Administrator's new format for the agenda; second Commissioner Lawhon.

Wakulla County citizen Chuck Hess noted that the commissioners often discuss maps and other documents that they have, but that are not available to the audience.  "With today’s technology you could put that on a Power Point and project them so that we can see what you are looking at and can follow your discussion," suggested Hess.  "I think that would be a nice addition to your meetings."

Commissioner Kessler asked Pingree if he could still put Commissioner's Items on the agenda.  "Does that require a vote from the Board?"

PIngree replied with no, but added that if a commissioner directed staff to come back before the Board on an issue, it would require an affirmative vote of the Board.  "It’s a good opportunity for you since you have no discussion during Citizens to be Heard," said Pingree. 

Passed 5 – 0.

Pingree noted that he had a staff promotion he wanted to mention.  "I would like to congratulate Pam Albritton as the Board's new Agenda and Policy  Coordinator," said Pingree.  "As we ramp up our sophistication on how we serve you, she will be riding herd on all of us."

Commissioner Kessler asked if Albritton had received a raise. 

"A very most deserved and far too little one," said Pingree. 

Commissioner Langston congratulated Pam on doing a good job.

8.3  Board Retreat  - On January 4, 2007, the Board directed staff to purse the scheduling of a first annual retreat for the purpose of establishing the Board’s top priorities for the current year.  Staff has identified Monday, February 12, 2007 as the date for the retreat and several location are offered for the site of this retreat.

Pingree noted that staff had identified a date per the commissioner's request for a Board Retreat.  "Monday, February 12 is the optimal day," said Pingree.  "As we discussed, this is something that many government jurisdictions do to get away and brainstorm and prioritize their focus for the year ahead."

Pingree noted that three locations had been identified for the retreat and that all were a short drive away.  He asked commissioners to select one of them and noted that they were all cost comparable.  "I believe the Cannery in Havana is gratis except for the food," said Pingree.  "They will provide the meeting space at the Cannery in Havana for free; we would just be picking up the cost of the food.  The others are very affordable as well."

Commissioner Green asked if the meeting was open to the public.  "I wonder how the public will feel about driving over to one of these places?" asked Green.

Pingree noted that the members of the public who had attended the retreats he had been a part of in the past always seemed to enjoy getting away as much as the commissioners, as long as the commute was reasonable.  Pingree noted that the department heads will be asked to attend the retreat, as well.

Commissioner Lawhon asked if the citizens would have to pay for their lunch, etc.

Pingree answered "Yes."

Commissioner Brimner motion to approve the date and go with the Cannery since it is the least expensive of the options; second Commissioner Kessler.

The Board Retreat will be February 12, 9:00 a.m. in Gadsden County at the Cannery.

Passed 5 - 0. 

8.4  Pre-Event Debris Removal and Disposal Contract - The objective of this contract is to secure the services of an experienced contractor who is capable of efficiently removing large volumes of disaster-generated debris from a large area in a timely and cost-effective manner and lawfully disposing of all debris. This is a piggy-back contract on the contract that has been lawfully bid by the City of Tallahassee and Leon County collectively.

Interim County Administrator Joe Blanchard reminded the commissioners of the day Hurricane Dennis came through and flooded many parts of the coastal areas of Wakulla County.  "If the commissioners remember, when Dennis came ashore and we woke up early one morning and found we had more water than we knew what to do with, we had to scramble around to get a debris removal company," said Blanchard.  "They were in here within a day and a half."  He noted that Emergency Management Director Scott Nelson had worked on putting together a contract ahead of time so that the county would not have to scramble again.

Blanchard introduced Ashley Ramsey, a member of the firm of Crowder Gulf.  "It  was her firm that did such a good job of picking up here in the county after Dennis," said Blanchard.

Nelson stated that what his office is trying to do is to enter into a pre-event contract for debris removal and debris removal monitoring instead of waiting to enter into a contract during an actual disaster event.  Nelson noted that monitoring of the debris removal process is required in order to make sure the county gets reimbursement from FEMA.  "In a very large event you need the expertise to ramp up and do those things," said Nelson.  "What we are suggesting we do is piggy back on Leon County.  They went through the RFP process and have completed it; these two companies, Effective Disaster Recovery and Crowder Gulf, were the primary winners.  I would like to recommend that we follow through with that piggy back on the Leon County contract."

Commissioner Lawhon motion to piggy back on the contract with the City of Tallahassee and Leon County; second Commissioner Kessler.

Chairman Langston noted that the motion needed to be amended to include "per review of the County Attorney".

Commissioner Brimner stated that he hoped this would be the first of many things where the county starts planning ahead.  "I think in the long run you get a much better deal when you plan ahead instead of just reacting," said Brimner.  "Kudos to you Scott, Ben and Jennifer."

Commissioner Kessler noted that the job Crowder did during the Hurricane Dennis aftermath was incredible.

Passed 5 – 0.

9.  COUNTY ATTORNEY

9.1  Request to schedule confidential meeting with Board regarding settlement of Colleen Skipper v. Anne Ahrendt, et al; Case # 4:06cv103-MP/WCS

Mowrey asked to schedule a confidential attorney client meeting between himself and the Board at his request at the next meeting to discuss a settlement and expenditure regarding same for 30 minutes in the case of Colleen Skipper, Plaintiff vs. Anne Ahrendt as the Property Appraiser of Wakulla County and Ahrendt in her individual capacity.  "This is a settlement and we need to discuss that confidentially," said Mowrey.  "I ask that you advertise that meeting for the next regular Board meeting. The settlement agreement is contingent upon us meeting by the date of Febuary 5th, 2007." 

Commissioner Brimner asked if the meeting could be held at 5:30 p.m. so as not to disrupt the regularly scheduled Board meeting.

Mowrey answered with 'No'.  "We have to be in a public meeting," said Mowrey.  "We must go out of that meeting and into this meeting."  Mowrey added that it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes for the confidential meeting.

Commissioner Brimner motion to schedule the meeting from 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and that the regular meeting will not start before 6:30 p.m. so that the public won’t miss any of the regular meeting; second Commissioner Lawhon.

Passed 5 - 0.

9.2  Commissioner Seminar update (request for date to conduct seminar)

Mowrey noted that he had discussed scheduling a workshop for new commissioners, department heads and others.  He suggested holding the meeting on February 21 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Dale Bennett's office.  The meeting will be for new commissioners, the new county administrator, department heads, and current employees.  "We are going to upgrade and change our presentation a little bit," said Mowrey.  "It will be a little different direction so I would like to encourage all the department heads and constitutional officers to come."

Commissioner Kessler asked what the seminar would deal with.

Mowrey answered that he would cover what all the different departments do; the zoning process; procurement issues; personnel issues; and bidding issues as well as many issues dealing with code enforcement and comprehensive planning.  "Ethics are also on the agenda," noted Mowrey.

Commissioner Kessler commented that he was still confused as to conflicts of interest regarding the county administrator, the commissioners, and the county attorney.  "Will you address all that?" asked Kessler.

Mowrey answered that it was on the agenda and would be covered.  He also noted that the seminar was open to the public.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Green; second Commissioner Brimner.

Passed 5 - 0.

9.3  Request to set workshop for the Code Enforcement Board

Mowrey noted that the Board needed to advertise a Public Hearing for the Fair Share Ordinance.

Commissioner Kessler motion to advertise; second Commissioner Green.

Passed 5 - 0.

10.  COMMISSIONER’S ITEMS

Commissioner Kessler

10.1     Controls and Oversight of County Expenditures -The BOCC has the responsibility and duty to safeguard the taxpayer’s money.  Questionable expenditures will be discussed.

Commissioner Kessler noted that at at the last BOCC meeting he was cautioned not to discuss some documents.  "I researched that and after reading Florida Statutes 445.225 and .232, and consulting with legal from the Department of Professional Regulation, there is no problem with going ahead at this point in time," said Kessler.  "What I am looking for is better ways to protect the money of the taxpayers.  We as a Board have had documents that show some things that have occurred that I think the Board would agree is not a good example of how we are protecting the citizens money."

"During the past two years our accounting firm noted that there was a lack of records in the Property Appraiser's office," said Kessler.  "For the last month and a half  we’ve been exposed to information in the form of public documents; salary invoices prepared by our accounting firm James Moore and Co. that apparently show huge discrepancies.  What I am stating is directed to the auditing work and accountability and not to any  employee."

"For example," continued Kessler, "their document shows check number 61 of one hours' work for just about $3,000, and for another hours' work, check 109, for about $2,000.  Check 95 shows one hours' work for $5,000 per hour.  And another check, 3168, for 64 hours at $21.01 per hour for about $1,800.  These four payments went through senior management.  I am concerned that when our accounting firm is looking at things like this or balancing our audit by saying one hour equals x thousands of dollars, I am very concerned about how that appears.  I’m not sure if we even can give overtime to senior management but we as a Board by law are the caretakers of the people's money and I don’t think any homeowner out there who has paid their property taxes would say we are doing a good job when we have examples like this and I’m concerned that when it’s placed in front of us, there is no reaction by the Board to it.  I’m upset by it and don’t know how the rest of the Board feels."

Commissioner Langston noted that he didn't know if there were other investigations or other complaints being reviewed now.  "I can’t give comments on that," said Langston.  "I know there are processes in place that people go through and they have an opportunity to either be proved or disproved; I don’t really know how to comment on that."

Commissioner Brimner noted that he had read the same background documents that Kessler had.  "I’m not sure who you are complaining about," said Brimner.

Commissioner Kessler replied that he was complaining about the County's accounting firm.  "I’m concerned that if we are looking at the balanced books, the accountant, I think, is supposed to take red flags and show them to us," said Kessler.  "If we are balancing books by saying 'Here’s one hour that’s equal to $5,000', I have some major concerns with that.  What kind of accounting are we accepting as a county?"

Commissioner Brimner replied that it depends on what we are asking for and what we are paying for.  "From my understanding, what we are paying James Moore for is not a detective kind of accounting," said Brimner.  "It’s not there place to say whether we are spending our money wisely; it’s their job to say that our books are balanced.  That’s what I saw  there.  I am not even going to suggest for a second that what you read there does not raise a red flag with Ed Brimner personally, but our firm is not hired to say, 'Gosh, County Administrator, you guys sure are spending a lot of money here and we think you are paying this guy too much', etc.  Their job is just to balance the books.  It is encumbant upon us and our staff to look at things.  And this is the Property Appraiser's books that you are looking at.  I personally don’t go look at the Property Appraiser's accounts; maybe I should, but I don’t."

Commissioner Kessler noted that the accounting firm created a document that says one hour of work equals $5,000.  "They are saying one person worked one hour of overtime and that is worth $5,000," said Kessler.

Commissioner Brimner answered that the accounting firm said that given the figures they were given, it equates.  "They did not go in and say “Let’s pay that person that much'," said Brimner.  "They were just inserting what they were told, and our accounting firm is not payed to come in and do diagnostic accounting; they are paid to come in and say these are the facts, and that’s what they did.  Which is  how you got what you got there, from what I understand."

Commissioner Kessler commented that if that was what the accounting firm in actuality did, then when these documents are placed in front of the Board's noses, how should they react?  "There is obviously something wrong here," said Kessler.  "For me it does not appear to be acceptable accounting."

Commissioner Langston commented that he was not going to throw his hat in the ring about discussing that particular situation at this point in time.

Commissioner Brimner noted that he thought the Board needed to be careful when using the word 'accounting', because that implies that the accounting firm did something wrong.  "Expenditures is a whole different ball of wax," said Brimner.  "Somebody authorized that to happen, and that’s the person we should have the red flag about; the person who authorized that to happen.  I think that that does require us to look at it and when you look at something like that next year whoever had that budget, that is when it would be encumbant upon us as a Board to act upon it, which is what the accounting is all about, to give us an overview of what is happening in the county."

Commissioner Kessler commented that he did not think the Board would be able to get resolution on this issue tonight.  "However, I would like to hear from the Board that we as a Board need to look into this," said Kessler.  "It’s part of our county government and we are responsible for the money.  I think that the Board has a responsibility to do something."

Attorney Mowrey noted that at the last meeting he made a statement and he believed it to be an accurate representation of the law where this issue was concerned.  Mowrey then reread his statement on the issue for the record.  "I would advise this Board  to not talk about this," said Mowrey.  "You run the risk of being sued for perjury."

Commissioner Kessler commented that he just hoped the Board would take a look at it again.

11.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES

11.1     Proportionate Fair Share Ordinance Workshop – January 4, 2007

11.2     Regular BOCC Meeting – January 4, 2007

Motion to approve by Commissioner Green; second Commissioner Kessler.

Passed 5 – 0. 

Commissioner Brimner publicly recognized Jim Tartt, Sopchoppy native and #63 for the Florida Gators National Championship team. 

12.  ADJOURN

This wrap-up originally published on January 17, 2007.

Written by :

mkwestmark

 

Comments (1)

Public School Impact Fees, I am not sure how to respond

January 19, 2007     

I am not sure how to respond to this. $15,000 - $6,000 added to a new home purchase for rthe schools? Does that mean the taxes I see on my property tax statement will no longer be charged to me? I have no problem helping the school system. God knows we need every thing these days to keep the children out of trouble but I don't feel this fee is fair. First of all I don't have children in school( all grown and gone) so why do I have to pay a fee..tax for the school system. I will have to give this some thought. :? :?

meanstreak1126 | 216.77.3.4 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

You must be logged in to post a comment.