Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOCC Minutes 01-04-2005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING Date: January 4, 2005 Convened: 9:00 a.m. Tape: 1-2 Adjourned: 11:30 a.m. Commissioners Present: Chairperson, Frannie Hutchinson, Doug Coward, Paula A. Lewis, Chris Craft, Joseph Smith Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Ray Wazny, Asst. County Administrator, Faye Outlaw, Asst. County Administrator, Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Pete Keogh, Parks & Recreation Director, Don West, Public Works Director, Mike Bowers, Utilities Director, Beth Ryder, Community Services Director, Marie Gouin, Management/Budget Director, Ed Parker, Purchasing Director, Ed Cox, Growth Management Director, David Kelly, Planning Manage, Millie Delgado-Feliciano, Deputy Clerk 1. MINUTES (1-029) It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve the minutes of the meeting held December 21, 2004, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 2. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS A. A presentation was made by Ken Gioeli and Bill Overholt on the Biological Control for the Brazilian Pepper Trees. B. The County Administrator read upcoming events. 3. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS (1-364) Mr. Chris Humphreys, Sandlewood Estates addressed the Board regarding the vibrating noise from the neighboring skating rink. He requested the Board require volume control of the music being played past midnight. Com Hutchinson stated she would investigate the complaint further with the Code Enforcement Board. Ms. Melissa Litsky, area resident, addressed the Board regarding the County’s Comp Plan and requested clarification of the plan. The Planning Manager gave a history on how the County’s Comp Plan was written and stated the plan had been constructed with various residents input throughout the process. Mr. Jim Piowaty, resident, Indian River Drive, addressed the Board and stated he appreciated the funds provided by the State, however, he still had some concerns regarding the wash outs of the road in some areas should it rain for any length of time. There have been some improvements since he wrote his last letter. He also advised the Board of 23 new washouts that occurred since yesterday. Mr. Bob Bangert, Holiday Pines, addressed the Board and commented on Ms. Litsky’s complaints regarding density in St. Lucie County and the Comp Plan. He requested the Plan be placed on the County’s Web Site for the general public to educate themselves on the Plan and any updates. Ms. Arlene Goodman, White City resident, addressed the Board regarding items C-7. Ms. Goodman advised the Board of her opposition to request a 32% above the minimum for pay grade 15. She requested this item be re-evaluated. 1 Ms. Pam Hammer, Reserve resident, addressed Ms. Goodman’s comments and supported the increase. Ms. Hammer stated quality applicants should be paid accordingly. Com. Lewis expressed her concern with this request and stated it may cause compression by those who hold a similar position in pay grade 15 and have held this position for sometime not being paid the equivalent of this applicant. Com. Hutchinson concurred with Com. Lewis’ concerns and stated she preferred to wait until the New Pay Plan has been completed before considering any applicant being brought in above the salary range. Com. Coward stated he concurred with both Commissioners comments and felt it was an equality and fairness issue. He stated, “ If salaries are not in line, then the entire slate should be reviewed. Com. Smith stated he appreciated everyone’s comments but, felt his candidate was worth the amount he had chosen for his aide. Com. Smith requested the Human Resources Director advise the Board of the salary range for this position. The Human Resources Director stated pay grade 15 starting salary is $27,829.78, mid point $35,320.18 max $42,826.58. Com. Smith stated 32% above the starting salary for the credentials the applicant has is worth it. Com. Lewis stated her comments were not directed at Com. Smith’s choice. She had spoken to Ms. Smith in her current capacity. It is not the qualifications. It would be inappropriate for her to second guess his choice. Com. Lewis stated she is simply looking at the hiring process and felt this was an organization and the hiring is within the organization. Com. Hutchinson reviewed the salary survey results and how the employees received increases due to their job titles. The County Administrator advised those present how the plan was initiated throughout the year. Com. Coward stated he agreed with Com. Lewis’ comments and agrees this person is very qualified however, it is an issue of the salary and the impact on the other employees and this is something they must consider. Com. Coward stated he would like to discuss a possible compromise. If there is a way to bring this person in at a comparable level of the other employees, in fairness to them, then everyone would be happy. Possibly bringing the person in at the mid level. It is exceeding the salary of the present aides who have comparable education and more experience, he believes this is where the issue lies. Com. Coward stated he would support a salary up to and comparable to the minimum salary that is in place for someone at this time, he would have a problem exceeding it. The County Administrator advised the Board that a 5% increase would be added after a 6 month introductory period. Com. Smith stated he did homework on this issue utilizing Monster .com and came up with the following salary structures at our zip code area of 34982. He looked at the titles of Executive Assistant and Administrative Assistant, and came up with the following: Medium range in St. Lucie County for the position of Executive Assistant is $39,541, 2 25 percentile is $35,455 and the 75 percentile is $ 44,019 and for an Administrative Assistant low end $32,657, medium $35,842 and 75 percentile is $39,687. The County Administrator advised Com. Smith he was able to authorize 10% over the starting range. He stated, “the mid range is $35,000 unless the Commission wishes to change it however, this will affect many people”. He suggested the Board wait until the pay plan has been completed. Com. Smith stated his option would be to speak with the applicant and the Human Resources Department however, he is looking for direction from the Board members at this point so they he can take an offer to the applicant. The County Attorney stated what he understood Com. Coward’s comments were that he is willing to support a budget of the mid range or slightly above the lowest existing salary so that that amount would be approved and Com. Smith can hire anyone he would like to consider rather it be the applicant or a new applicant. The County Administrator recommended 19% over the salary would be $33,117 and at the end of the 6 months, 5% increase it would be $34,773 this is slightly less than the most recent hire at $35,010.00. Com. Coward concurred with this recommendation. Com. Smith stated he looked forward to going back to the applicant with a new number should the Board be inclined to approve it and see if she is comfortable with the figure. Com. Hutchinson requested the applicant be informed of the pay study currently in the RFP process. Com. Hutchinson stated, “If the numbers Com. Smith read off are true numbers for the salaries with regard to the Monster .com site within St. Lucie County and we are that far behind it will show in the pay study and she will fight very hard because there is not a price she can place for her aide. Com. Lewis stated, “ We need to pay for good people if we intend to keep them”. If there are salary adjustments needed to be made, she certainly will be behind anyone who felt the changes were warranted. Her concern at this time was the process at this point and time and felt it would be too premature to make a change right now. It was moved by Com. Coward, seconded by Com. Lewis, to approve the pay grade as recommended by the County Administrator of 19% over the base with a potential 5% which would bring the applicant in below the mid grade and below the minimum amount if of an existing aide with experience, and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 4. CONSENT AGENDA (1-1778) It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve the Consent Agenda to include CA-1 and CA2; and, upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 1. WARRANT LIST The Board approved Warrant List No. 13 and 14. 2. COUNTY ATTORNEY Resolution No. 05-001- Extending the State of Emergency for Hurricane Frances and Resolution No. 05-002 Extending the State of Emergency for Hurricane Jeanne- The Board approved Resolution No. 05-001 and 05-002. 3 3. PARKS AND RECREATION Work Authorization No. 4- Contract C03-05-235 with Hazen & Sawyer P.C. Environmental Consulting for the Golf Course- The Board approved Work Authorization No. 4 in the amount of $6,800.00 . 4. Solid Waste Division- Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $20,475.50 making the total contract price $1,558,480.45 and Pay Request No. 7 to Urban Building Systems Inc., in the amount of $198,042.29.- The Board approved Change Order No. 2 and Pay Request No. 7. 5. MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Permission to Advertise Public Hearing- The Board authorized the office of Management and Budget to schedule and advertise a public hearing to amend the budget. 6. ADMINISTRATION/MEDIA Revision to Fleet Replacement Program- The Board approved not pursuing the purchase of a “live” broadcast van due to the overwhelming cost of $250,000 . The Board approved the revision of the Fleet Replacement Plan to change the Cargo Van for Media Relations to a Ford Expedition SUV at a cost of $21,720.00to be purchased through the Florida Sheriff’s Association. 7. HUMAN RESOURCES Salary Adjustment- This item was pulled for separate vote. ADDITIONS CA-1 COMMUNITY SERVICES The Board authorized the signature of the transmittal letter/title page by the Chair and to allow staff to submit one grant to the Florida Department of Community Affairs Emergency Management Residential Construction Mitigation Program. CA-2 MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET – The Board approved the Sheriff’s request of one-sixth of his total budget for January . REGUAL AGENDA 5. No Public Hearings Scheduled 6. ADMINISTRATION/GRANTS (1-3410) Consider the acceptance of an Emergency Watershed Protection Program grant from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service for funding in an amount not to exceed $3,375,000 for the benefit of landowners along Indian River Drive and to be used for the provision and installation of native vegetation to establish cover, slow run-off, prevent erosion and protect the river bank. It was moved by Com. Craft, seconded by Com. Coward, to approve the acceptance of the Emergency Watershed Protection Program grant, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. 4 7. COUNTY ATTORNEY (2-087) Resolution No. 05-008- Consider staff recommendation to adopt the attached Resolution as drafted urging the Army Corps of Engineers to fund the Biological Preservation component and not defer the Natural Storage and Muck Removal component of the Indian River Lagoon and direct the County Administrator to send a copy of this resolution to Mr. Joseph Redican of the Army Corps of Engineers, and Mr. Juan Diaz Carreras of the South Florida Water Management District. It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Craft to approve Resolution No. 05- 008, and; upon roll call, motion carried unanimously. ADDITIONS RA-1 Discussion of Ft. Pierce Annexation Issues- Staff Direction has been requested. The County Administrator advised the Board of the result of the public hearing held at the City of Ft. Pierce Chambers on December 20, 2004. The Growth Management Director and the Asst. County Attorney represented the County and requested the City delay annexations for future discussion at the joint County/City meeting scheduled for January 14, 2005. The City chose to move forward with the annexations approving the Ordinances. In the newspaper there were several areas within the unincorporated area advertised, where the city indicated their intention to take action. The first public hearing was held last night to annex these additional areas. A map was presented to the County by the City, where by the City is asking for legislative approval to annex a certain area of the unincorporated area of the County. These are the issues. The County Attorney gave what he thought was the City’s perspective for consideration by the Board. The County and the City of Ft. Pierce and the Ft. Pierce Utility Authority, had enterd into an interlocal agreement early last year, 2004. It identified a service area for the FPUA, it set out some agreements related to the purchase of bulk water and sewer outside the service areas. It talked about a joint planning agreement that we unfortunately have yet to obtain, it talked about a vote in Indian River Estates which we have done which resulted in a vote where the County will be purchasing bulk water from the FPUA and providing retail to the Indian River Estates. The City’s perspective is how they annex property is through their utility services. In order to get utility services from the city, you must sign an annexation agreement other wise you will not get the service. They use these agreements when the people become contiguous to the boundaries and then adopt ordinances, which ultimately result in the annexation of those properties. The County Attorney gave an overview of the city’s attempt to annex the Airport property. The City at this point has adopted all the ordinances. The re-zonings are effective as well as the annexation ordinances. The County had requested they defer action until the meeting scheduled for January 14, 2005. The Growth Management Director, Ed Cox presented three maps depicting the areas under consideration to be annexed in December, 2004. He also noted the area being forwarded to the legislative for consideration. Com. Hutchinson stated she had received phone calls from residents in the proposed annexed area and they want answers to what the future intentions are of the city . The County Attorney stated he felt it was made clear by the Board when they adopted the interlocal agreement that there was no waiver on the part of the Board as to future 5 annexations. The Board would still have the ability to look at those annexations on a case by case basis. Com. Hutchinson stated she questioned the sincerity of this agreement. She sees absolutely nothing getting accomplished. Com. Craft stated he was at the meeting in a different capacity and as he recalls, the city could continue to go about their annexations the way they have been and the county would not interfere, this was his understanding. In looking at the map, contiguous maybe, compact no, on all the properties of annexations because this is the way the city has always done it and at this point, he felt they are continuing to do their business the way the always have by continuing to use the water and sewer as leverage for annexation. They have always done it this way and this is why they have the mess they have at the moment and this was the agreement that was struck in City Hall. Com. Hutchinson stated there were three Commissioners at the meeting the other two were not invited. Com. Coward stated that clearly their ongoing process is not what the Board considers the letter of the law and he agrees that the agreement reached with the city and the FPUA dealt primarily with the service area which is the utility component which has a direct tie with their annexation procedure and this is why they had to address the issue. What he understood the agreement to be and what he voted for was that they told the city was they would not get in the way of their annexations within that service area unless we felt there were close violations of law. The one issue in the agreement that he is very disappointed about is they have not achieved the Joint Participation Agreement originally proposed. Com . Lewis stated she recalled the Board strongly indicated they wanted the language in which stated the Board was not giving up their rights with regard to contesting future annexations, they wanted the language to remain and since it has been removed, and the Board has not received the letter they were promised that would guarantee them the rights separately from the agreement. She feels it places her in a bad position with the residents in not being able to answer their questions and concerns. She felt the compactness issue and the fact that there are service delivery issues it creates concern and confusion for the residents. She stated, “These are the issues which need to be addressed and if a JPA is going to fix this fine, but this has not been taken care of either”. Com. Lewis stated she supported Com. Hutchinson ‘s direction. Com. Hutchinson stated if there was another alternative she would be opened to it, however, she does not see one short of going into Conflict Resolution once again and th hopefully it can be worked out at the meeting scheduled for the 14 of January. It was moved by Com. Lewis, seconded by Com. Coward for discussion, based on the circumstances presented, in view of the annexations and the unfortunate failure to reach agreement on a Joint Planning Agreement and in view of the city’s action in not honoring th the Board’s request to defer action on these issues until the 14, the Board would initiate Conflict Resolution through Resolution, waive the return of the Resolution and directed staff to immediately send out the Resolution to the City staff; Com. Coward stated he was more concerned with the JPA. Com. Hutchinson stated she is a sworn officer of the State and will follow the letter of the law. Com. Craft stated he does not see a reason to contest the annexation. His issue is he would like to move forward with the JPA and if they move forward with the Resolution it th may draw people away from the table. He would like to go into the meeting on the 14 with a positive attitude. th Com. Coward stated they could discuss this issue again on the 18 of January after their th meeting on the 14; and still meet the deadline to file the Resolution. 6 Com .Lewis stated she had concerns with waiting for the Resolution to be filed on the th 18 of January. Com. Hutchinson stated they could drop the Conflict Resolution after the meeting on the th 14 should they not come to some conclusion. Com. Coward stated, although he seconded the motion for discussion, he will not be voting in favor of it . He would like to wait until they have the face to face meeting with th the City Commission and make a decision on 18. Com. Smith stated his issue is the City of Ft. Pierce has not kept their word and have not sent us the letter. He hopes they understand the Board is serious about discussing these th issues on the 14. He suggested the County Attorney work on the drafting the Resolution to be prepared in case they do not come to a conclusion. Clarification of the motion: To initiate Conflict Resolution and, upon roll call, the vote was as follows: Nay’s Coward, Craft, Smith; Aye’s: Lewis, Hutchinson, motion denied by a vote of 3 to 2. LEGISLATIVE ISSUE The City of Ft Pierce is requesting Legislative Delegation approval for their annexation boundaries. The County Attorney stated if special act was adopted, on the effective date, the properties noted would become part of the city . Com . Lewis stated she would object to involuntary annexations. It was moved by Com.Lewis, seconded by Com. Coward, to object to the proposed special act being sent to the Legislative for approval of their annexation boundaries, and upon roll call the vote was as follows: Nay: Craft; Aye’s: Coward, Smith, Lewis, Hutchinson; motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1. There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. __________________________ Chairman ___________________________ Clerk of the Circuit Court 7