INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  Chair called meeting to order at 6:01 p.m., asked for moment of silence and then led in Pledge

Amendments and Approval of Agenda

V/Nesmith

5-0

CONSENT

V/Holt 5-0

1.

Big Bend Jobs & Education Council, Inc. d/b/a CareerSource Capital Region, Gadsden County BOCC, Leon County BOCC and Wakulla County BOCC Inter-Local Agreement

ITEMS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION

CITIZENS REQUESTING TO BE HEARD (3-Minute Limit)

 Chair Holt read aloud the COVID statement.

Due to COVID-19 and the efforts of the Gadsden County Board of County Commissioners to continue the practice of social distancing, Commissioners want to continue to hear from citizens under the Citizens Requesting to be Heard section of the agenda.

If citizens have any questions, comments, or concerns, please email CitizensToBeHeard@gadsdencountyfl.gov and anticipate receiving a response within 48 hours.

The Board of County Commissioners would like to thank everyone for their patience and flexibility during this time.

   Bishop Willie Green, 296 Bradwell Road, appeared before the Board.  Encouraged them to share the information regarding broadband.

Also concerned about language between commissioners when things get heated.  May be someone listening that might be offended.

  Mark Glover

Chair Holt read aloud the email.

PUBLIC HEARING

GENERAL BUSINESS

2.

Broadband Contract

  Dr. Grant introduced the above item.   

   Dr. V had comment and asked attorney if had only one applicant, proposal must address who would be responsible for ongoing costs associated with device rental and proposal should provide impact analysis.  Why in meeting of October 20^th, Holt said concerns should be addressed.  Asked attorney if questions been addressed.

  Knowles said one issue addressed in contract he proposed.  County purchases each device and then that becomes property of qualified resident.

2^nd-have not personally received-attorney on line and prepared to address.

  FCI Attorney, Joycelynn Brown, appeared remotely and asked questions be repeated.

1^st-who retains control of devices

2^nd-any impact analysis done

3^rd- in October 14^th meeting, 3 questions not addressed by service provider, did not address how device would be returned to FCI and proposal did not address who responsible for ongoing costs associated with device rental and wireless services

  COO Germain Bebe appeared remotely

1^st-based on agreement sent over in negotiations, decided hotspots remain under care of who distributed to;

2^nd-who responsible for ongoing costs of device rental and service-He said what done and submitted, each hotspot given 3 months of service at time of activation.  If want to continue, will be responsible to renew with FCI-County not responsible outside of contract terms.  V said his concern is CARES Act ends December 30, who responsible after.  Then FCI will collect rental fee for device

Bebe said understood number of concerns were made to them recently, if had more time or adequate time to put together reports, would have; communication with County has been spotty, had great amount of delays in speaking with anyone and addressing concerns.

V said requests were actually part of RFP, were requirements that must be met and was provided in the packet and was specified that should be met. 

Bebe said believed that response to RFP addressed all concerns that were asked.  Was recently made known to him they were not.

V said concerns were from committee or group that evaluated the proposal-just happened that FCI was only one that submitted bid and was a concern.

Holt asked for the conversations between Knowles and FCI. 

  Knowles stated original Board voted on October 20^th, next day spoke with FCI and asked for contract; was provided following Friday after emergency meeting; informed Bebe that day that per Board instructions during meeting on 20^th, was concerns he had with regard to contract and was directed by Board to ask Bebe to send contract; received it after next emergency meeting.  Bebe told Grant wanted to call special meeting; was relayed to Board; Board decided via Chair or Board members, to not have additional meeting until November 17^th.  Prior to that on November 10^th, sent Bebe email with revised contract.  Holt asked if revised contract included these things-yes, included everything but study, which was listed in RFP.  Received revised contract from Brown on 24^th in advance of meeting.  Contract attached in book and contract originally received from FCI is attached.  After that this morning received another amended contract, had not had chance to review in full.  Have done his due diligence, addressed concerns as directed by Board.  Last week directed to call FCI.  Someone from his office spoke directly with Figgers and he told Board would contact them in writing to make sure all concerns for today’s meeting was addressed.  Did that.  Received revised contract this morning.

  Bebe said been stumped with communication he’s had since October.  A lot of what Knowles stated was correct, few issues want to address.  October 21^st or day after reached out, called Grant and received call from Knowles.  Asked that they provide their contract, did that.  Was told had concerns and he would need to address concerns on 17^th.  Asked if concerns, to let him know right away.

  Knowles stated he worked for Board, his duty was to them.

  Green said his concern was wanted to make sure questions V asked were answered.  At this point, need to move forward with item and not the back and forth on communication.

  Holt asked and he thought had addressed it.  Once they get device, they keep it, after 3 months, up to them to continue service. 

  NeSmith said read over contract the weekend, made notes, contacted Knowles with questions, while meeting this afternoon, was given new contract.  Based on motion made last Thursday regarding drawing down rest of CARES funds, are they still under deadline to have done by December 3^rd? Is there additional time or still under deadline?

Holt asked Grant when money drawn down, is that the last that can be drawn down?  Grant stated yes.  Holt asked if money included to be used by December 31^st?  Grant said not is drawn all down, can go ahead into next year.

Knowles stated he reviewed it and encouraged Board to go with contract they presented. 

  Green said NeSmith asked one of his questions, do need to move forward and come to a conclusion.  In Section1.1.1. (2) stated that “individual does not presently have access to any high-speed internet service “.

  V said his position and concern-presented very detailed position as to why he would not support this as provided on October 20^th meeting, listing a violation he saw would take place if they moved forward.  Said have never met Mr. Figgers, so his position in opposition has to do with the integrity of this body in using federal funds.  Humbly and sincerely begged them to not approve this contract as presented today.  Dealing with spending Corona virus aid relief and a federal grant fund.  As he saw it, approving this contract as presented would be fraudulent and mis-management of funds 200.323 and 200.326 of Federal Code.  Current federal procurement standard stated must perform analysis and calls for including contract modifications that exceed.  Board has been in a hurry to award contract.  Have heartburn and serious concerns of contract as violation of sections to Code of Federal Regulations Single Audit Procurement Act, specifically part 200.323.  Asked the contract not be approved.  Also asked for roll call vote so no confusion who voted in support or opposition.  Not going to vote for this particular item as currently presented if not modified to meet code he just gave.

  Bebe said on page 4 addressed    Reminded board they were only bidder.  Not unusual agreement. 

  Holt asked attorney if he had a chance to review amended contract.  He said significant different, i.e., payment terms were different; 50% of funds to be delivered upfront and remaining 50% on or before December 30^th.  Spoke with Ms. Brown today and informed might be little hard for County to make payment in 10 days, getting invoice, sending to Clerk and Clerk sending back and would like that pushed out to net 30 (Standard).  Discussed only 50GB of data cap, but wanted for record will only get 50GB will get for each hotspot.  Has concern about FCI charging $10/per device for each additional 50GB of data consumed by qualified residents in single 30-day period.  Surety bond-Bebe said they would provide bond but contract states County shall furnish payment bond at least equal to contract price.

Holt asked if Bebe heard concerns about device.  Bebe said no device had that issue.  With surety bond, prepared to provide bond.  Knowles stated contract said County would provide-Bebe stated must be clerical issue; FCI to provide.

Bebe wanted everyone to understand, looking to provide service to thousands of people in County. 

Knowles said his question, why pay for ½ upfront-heard no definitive answer as to why County to pay ½ upfront. 

  Hinson said received info from school board about access to internet.  Hinson asked if Integrity said this process was legal.  Hinson said Integrity and the attorney said was ok to bid out for broadband and was in line with COVID-19. 

  Holt asked how much was set aside for broadband - $450,000

Said assuming get $450,000 and did not need 25,000 only need 10,000-surety bond covers that.  Have no problem with going ahead with contract as long as knows will get money back. 

  V said his comments already made.  Responding to Hinson’s comment-yes Integrity said readvertising single source provider-his concern was 200.232 and 200.326-yes Integrity said readvertising would take care of first part.

  Green asked FCI where their towers were and was it working properly and could they identify spots where towers were located.  Bebe said 2 towers around Quincy and can bounce off other towers.  Can make data available if there are concerns with issues. 

  Knowles asked if surety bond procured before payment-yes; and asked what number using for ½ of amount paid.  Contract for $1.765 Million; which would be $882,000

  NeSmith asked if payment turnaround was extended to 30 days.

  Frederica Hamilton, Integrity, responded to deliverables regarding CARES Act.  Anything purchased with CARES Act funds, has to be received in-house by December 30^th, if after that, funds are voided and cannot be used. 

  NeSmith asked if this was considered a deliverable-yes.

  V said his question-what hearing, is County about to go into telecommunication business with regards to providing broadband services and equipment to citizens, and to do that, have to have permission of license from Public Service Commission to do that.

Holt asked Bebe if paying him for service after through.  Bebe said only if choose to, once contract up, it’s up.

Holt stated again, Gadsden County not paying internet bill, citizens will have device and if want to continue service, they can. 

  Green said for clarity, heard V said he would not support, has the previous Board already voted on to do?  If don’t approve-what is repercussions?

  Knowles said way worked, awarded bid but have to negotiate terms, if can’t reach terms, don’t have offer and acceptance, don’t have contract.  Recommended Board take action on item, FCI can provide amended contract based on what discussed tonight.

  Bebe said concern of payments, one reason they asked for it that way, already taken on the expense, have to move quickly

  Hinson called the question – no motion made yet.

Hinson motion to approve item with all necessary changes

  Knowles recapped-said FCI contract with exception of surety bond language changed to indicate FCI will provide bond in amount of $1.765 with ½ payable within 32 days of $882,500 under condition all CARES Act money received prior to payment; 3 months’ worth of service; FCI wanted attestation and application all on-line.  Brown said not necessarily-was trying to think a better means to streamline the information and said attestation could be made on paper or on-line.

  Hinson said along with 30 days attorney stated.

Holt made second.

  Frederica said correction on date is December 30^th.

Chair called for vote.  

Hinson                                  y

NeSmith                               y

Green                                   yes and said was now more comfortable with surety bond in place

V                                             n

Holt                                       y

Passed 4-1

3.

County Administrator Position Discussion and Action

  Grant introduced above item.

  Knowles said original contract in packet that was presented previously as well as Dixon’s proposed amendments.  Statute only provided for 20 weeks’ severance pay.  Dixon requesting car allowance of $600/month; health insurance with family coverage; FRS (providing that); vacation/sick max time allowed; roll-over from employer; bringing over time from employer; termination without cause-60 days’ notice with severance beginning after notice completed-all benefits continue thru severance period; termination with cause-allegations outside scope of work to be proven in Court of competent jurisdiction; paid professional development memberships and fees to be determined by Manager.  Wanted little clarity on how to deal with termination with and without cause for Board protection and Dixon’s protection.  If convicted or pled guilty to felony or in violation of County rule, Board has discretion to terminate for cause; if Board didn’t like how he doing, would be a determination without cause and would be entitled to severance.  Said Dixon accepted salary, ok with $105,000.

  Green said change would like to see is terms in reference to 5 years.  Don’t want to be stuck with 5-year contract and have to make changes and take precautions.  Would like to shorten time to 3 years.  Knowles said also talked about non-renewal.  If fail to renew contract at end of term, automatically renews.  Suggested give at least 60-90 days’ notice of that intent and if non-renewal takes place, no severance.

  Holt said wanted to give same contract offer. 

  NeSmith said was in agreement with shorter term.  Wanted to add additional discussion he had with attorney and asked for clarification from Board.  Under Section 2, what was his duties?

  Holt said have developed goals and objectives, have not been followed.  NeSmith asked if could incorporate those into employment agreement.  NeSmith said need to provide him with as much guidance as possible. 

Holt said did not think that would work with legislative session. 

  Green said his question was answered.

  V said there were 2 things, one of which NeSmith alluded to-developed mission statement, did not develop performance evaluation; if Dixon asking for car allowance, does he not have access to car.  Suggested what all other administrators have done, use County car.  Termination with cause, need performance evaluation if that going to be one of cause for termination

  Holt said voted on objectives and goals and need to pull up for Board

  Knowles said could execute contract tonight and made amendments later.

  Dixon appeared before the Board.  Have no problem with 3 years, serves at the pleasure; 2^nd committed to stability, personal preference to use own car-insist on that because would have to explain family riding in car; will develop work plan for goals of county. 

  Knowles asked for vacation and sick time.

  Green make motion

  V said hand was up

  Green made motion accept agreement based on changes /Holt second

  NeSmith asked if Green would accept friendly amendment-is there a succession plan.  Dixon said could start Monday. 

  V said other item suggested was succession plan, if had developed, this would not be issue. 

Chair called for vote.

5-0         

  V said have known Dixon for while; appealed to him since was Commissioner, have multiple years of ethics and hope he puts into place his knowledge of separation of power.  Commissioners cannot tell him who to hire and who to fire. 

  Dixon said made his business to not enter and promised them had greatest belief in system.  It could be a problem but would not be a problem for them. 

  Grant thanked them for opportunity to serve Gadsden County. 

  Holt said did not discuss starting date.  Did not discuss overlap of Grant and Dixon.  Dixon said could start Monday.  Grant said was available as long as Dixon needed him

Holt asked length of time

V said when are Chair, become more aware of goings-on.  Lot of t’s to cross and I’s to dot.  Don’t think need to rush.  Have in budget money for Assistant-if can carry for 30 days.

  Hinson said concurred needed to give time.  Grant brings wealth of knowledge.  Suggested until Dixon finds Assistant Administrator – 2-3 months.  Then said 3-4 months.

  Green agreed with V, know his salary more than assistant would make.  Think need to cap at 30 days.

Nesmith concurred-30 days.

  Hinson said former Assistant County Administrator was making $96,000 and was about same Grant making.

V asked Dr. Grant if he would allow HR manager-understand already application for Assistant Manager.  Grant said Dixon could look at the applications and see if they fit for him. 

  N

Green motion 30 days/Holt

NeSmith asked if attorney would make contract that starts on Monday; Dr. Grant will stay in employ for 30 days from Monday-yes

5-0       

Green asked-had citizen make 100 years – motion Edna Lee Robinson/V second 5-0

Email is rgreen@gadsdencountyfl.gov for constituents.

  Hinson said had phone calls about Waste Pro-things out there that needs to be addressed.

Holt asked he call Dr. Grant

V said to add for discussion with Waste Pro-need to agenda them coming before them.

  Holt asked why CBOR pulled-had not gone before P & Z

MOTION TO ADJOURN

  Adjourned at 8:19 p.m.