HNS REPORTS---WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2010
JARDIN JURY RECOMMENDS LIFE IN PRISON
The jury that convicted Robert Jardin for first degree murder returned Wednesday and recommended a sentence of life in prison without parole.
Judge Jack Springstead will consider the advisory sentence and hear more argument from lawyers at another hearing later before handing down a final sentence. The judge is not bound by the jury's recommendation and could sentence Jardin to the death penalty.
The panel had returned Wednesday morning to hear testimony and render the advisory sentence, based on evidence of "aggravating" and "mitigating" factors from penalty phase witnesses.
Two of the grandchildren of victims Patrick and Evelyn DePalma, Sonsee Sanders and Kyle DePalma read victim impact statements over what the loss of their grandparents meant to them and their families.
Prosecutor Pete Magrino also called Dr. Kyle Shaw from the medical examiner's office, who described the pain suffered by the victims when they were each stabbed multiple times.
Jardin's mother, Janice Link, and an aunt both testified about abuse and lack of parental caring and affection when Jardin was a child.
And a clinical psychologist, Dr. Peter Bursten, said he found a history of hyper-activity, substance dependence and "anti-social personality disorder" in his evaluation of Jardin and interviews with family members. Bursten also said Jardin's age suggested that he would adjust to life in prison without risk of anti-social behavior.
In his closing argument, prosecutor Pete Magrino again made use of a portrait of the victims as he asked the jury to find enough aggravating factors to sentence "this defendant" to the death penalty.
Assistant Public Defender Devon Sharkey countered with the evidence of Jardin's upbringing as a mitigating factor, but he also said the jury should consider the lack of any direct evidence that the defendant took part in the killings of the DePalmas.
Add Comment
MIXED COMMISSION VERDICT FOR HAMILTON PLAN
County commissioners weren't overly enthused about Administrator David Hamilton's re-organization plan at Tuesday's County Board meeting. After hearing public opposition to some targeted jobs cuts, three commissioners told Hamilton they could support his plan for downsizing the administrator's leadership team while a pay study is done to decide on salary levels for directors who would find themselves managers instead. Two commissioners voted against even that watered-down plan. The board would not approve the targeted job cuts, and Hamilton said he would make some further changes before the first of two budget hearings on September 14. Without those cuts, the general fund budget deficit goes back up from a little over $300,000 to the $600,000 level, meaning more work for budget chief George Zoettlein over the next two weeks.
Add Comment
UTILITIES DIRECTOR SAYS HE CAN HANDLE NEW ROLES
Utilities Director Joe Stapf, who becomes chief of "Environmental Services" as part of a re-organization, says the move of the stormwater management job to his office fits into the traditional water, sewer and solid waste activities at Utilities. Stapf says transfer of Mosquito Control is really more a public health issue, but he vowed to work with whatever the County Board approves. The county Health Department, as a quasi-state agency, can't be ordered to take over the bug-spraying program.
Stapf says concerns about water and sewer rate-payers subsidizing his time with new programs aren't valid, given the cost allocation formula that already applies to his salary. He noted that funding for his pay is already divided between the water/sewer and solid waste enterprise funds, which are kept separate, and that he expects the same can be done with the general fund Mosquito Control and special tax unit stormwater changes.
Add Comment
ORION, COUNTY OFFICIALS MEET THURSDAY ON "CHANGE ORDER"
Officials from Orion Dredging Services will sit down with top county staff on Thursday to talk about how to finish the problem-plagued Hernando Beach channnel dredge. Orion told the county in a letter ten days ago that it needed $7.8 million more, on top of its $5 million low bid contract, to finish the project under the requirements of a modified state permit. They say additional settling ponds and de-watering equipment went far beyond the original contract scope. Orion has blamed the county's $2 million dredge consultant Halcrow for the failure of the original de-watering equipment, which didn't remove enough silt from the dredge discharge and led state officials to halt the project last January.
County officials ordered Orion back to work when the modified permit was issued, and some equipment and workers were returned to the site. Now that the modified permit has become final without challenge, county officials say Orion should be moving forward with new construction at the spoil site. And early indications are that work is going forward while talks to resolve the $7.8 million "change order" are ongoing. In a letter to Orion requesting the meeting, county staff said they wanted to negotiate a "mutually agreeable" resolution to the cost issue. They're working with a budget of $9 million, but Orion's "change order" would bring the contract cost alone to almost $13 million.
Add Comment
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO BE REVIEWED BY FLORIDA BAR GROUP
County commissioners voted Tuesday to have the County Attorney's Office analyzed by a Florida Bar group that specializes in advising private lawyers on how to be efficient. County Attorney Garth Coller made the recommendation. He said the Bar group would have more expertise than having a local Chamber of Commerce focus group conduct a recommended time study. The County Board took no action on a set of sample proposals. Two weeks ago the board talked about putting out proposals for private law firms to represent the county, but board consensus in approving the Bar analysis was that the office review was needed first before determining what would go into a request for proposals.
Add Comment
The county fired the head of purchasing for failing to maintain repair of the jail. Remember we had to give the sheriff extra millions to cover costs of repairs, etc. So now, according to today's action, CCA was responsible for repair all along and we're going to violate the contract we had with a company we employed for 22 years that probably even has more lawyers, and probably better lawyers. You talk about stupid!
Reply to this
The commissioners by approving every development that crosses their desks are working against the residential property owners here. Every time the developers pay their little fees the electric companies are required to run infrastructure to the project at their cost, not the developers. That cost gets passed on to each customer in higher electric bills. So look at all the empty development lots with their electric boxes and cracking pavement and remember you paid for it. The developers didn't.
Reply to this
Once again you didn't bother to verify your facts prior to engaging mouth (typing fingers).A simple phone call to W.R.E.C. or Progress Energy would have cleared up your misconception. I can assure you both charge a considerable fee payable prior to the installation of developmental infrastructure and I have close to 30 years of experience in this field. In addition each require various contracts/surety-performance bonds ,deposits etc.. Please get your facts straight before making accusations that are unwarranted. The average consumer is NOT paying the tab for new construction as you incorrectly stated............
Reply to this
Once again? You got me confused with someone else. I always check my facts. I did talk to the WREC about this. And they assured me that the fee paid by the developer does not cover a majority of the cost of the infrastructure. The majority of the cost is paid by the electric company. I don't post unless I know what I'm talking about. I would suggest that you get it figured out who it is you are replying to before you accuse me of anything again.
Reply to this
Ok, just for the record here is the contract language concerning repairs at the Jail - can anybody at the County read:
SECTION 4
DETENTION FACILITY
4.1 FACILITY USE AND MAINTENANCE The COUNTY shall grant CCA, upon execution of this Contract, exclusive use and possession, subject to the terms of this Contract, of the Detention Facility. CCA takes possession of the Detention Facility in an “as-is” condition, and CCA shall be liable for all costs of repairs, improvements and maintenance, including appropriate preventative maintenance, of the Detention Facility. The COUNTY shall not be obligated to make any repairs whatsoever to the Detention Facility or Movable Equipment except for major repairs or replacements of major components of the Detention Facility, except where necessitated as a result of CCA’s negligence or lack of preventative maintenance, including, but not limited to, HVAC equipment/components; roof systems; elevators; fire detection and suppression systems; security control systems, excluding normal maintenance and repair of position control switches, locks, and sensors, indicator bulbs and any other non-concealed security control systems; plumbing systems, excluding normal repair and replacement of non-permanent items, i.e., washers, shower heads, faucets, toilet flushing mechanisms and parts, exposed drains and piping and any other non-concealed plumbing apparatus; power generation equipment; refrigeration systems, to the extent that they are an inherent component of the structure of the facility; and stationary mechanical systems which are an inherent component of the structure of the facility.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, CCA shall not be liable for any repairs of the Detention Facility and/or its associated systems and components for which the related work was contracted directly by the COUNTY and is under warranty. The COUNTY shall provide CCA documentation of such warranties and CCA shall assist the COUNTY in pursuing claims for warranty repairs where applicable.
CCA shall maintain a log of all maintenance activities performed at the Detention Facility, including maintenance performed on COUNTY owned Moveable Equipment, and shall provide a copy of said log to the COUNTY on a monthly basis."
So what is the problem - oh that's right - all the people that could read a contract let go - and the taxpayers will pay and pay and pay.
Reply to this
And your point is? Sounds like the county can go for no preventive maintenance.
Reply to this
Thanks for providing a story detailing the Utilities Dept taking in Tax Payer depts. At least its out in the open now.
Reply to this