BCC Minutes 09/26/2000 RSeptember 26~ 2000
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, September 26, 2000
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting
as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of
such special districts as have been created according to law and
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m.
in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government
Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN:
NOT PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
Timothy J. Constantine
David E. Brandt
James D. Carter
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Barbara B. Berry
Tom Olliff, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
Tuesday, September 26, 2000
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER
PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER
PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99.22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL,
BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS
AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY
MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE
HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY
NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE,
WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS
PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN
ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO
YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE
COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING
DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 3:00 P.M. FOR THE DEDICATION OF THE DR. REVEREND
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS BUILDING
l
September 26, 2000
INVOCATION - Reverend Robert Jacobs, Messiah Lutheran Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDAS
A. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.
B. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA.
C, APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
A. PROCLAMATIONS
1) Proclamation recognizing the Department of Public Information on
receiving awards in the National Association of County Information
Officers "2000 Awards of Excellence". To be accepted by Jean Merritt,
Department of Public Information Director and Kady Arnold, Video
Production Specialist.
2) Proclamation proclaiming October 1-7, 2000 as "National 4-H Week". To
be accepted by Sarah Riger, President of the 4-H County Council.
3) Proclamation proclaiming October, 2000 as "National Domestic Violence
Awareness Month, 2000" to be accepted by Sheriff Don Hunter and Kathy
Herrmann.
4) Proclamation proclaiming October 2, 2000 through October 8, 2000 as
United Way of Collier County Campaign Kick-Off Week. To be accepted
by Mr. Jerry Thirion, Campaign Chairman of United Way and Ms.
Shannon Anderson, Campaign Development Director of United Way.
5) Proclamation proclaiming October 1 through October 8, 200 as "Mental
Illness Awareness Week in Naples" to be accepted by Kathryn Leib-
Hunter, Executive Director of NAMI of Collier County.
B. SERVICE AWARDS
1) Denise Blanton, Extension Services - 25 yrs
C. PRESENTATIONS
2
September 26, 2000
Recommendation to recognize Peggy Forsythe, Secretary I, South
Wastewater Department, as Employee of the Month for September 2000.
APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Request for Public Petition to Code Enforcement Case No. 1999061061 -
Removal of Java Plum Trees. Dale L. and Cheryl A. Horbal.
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) To provide the Board with information on efforts taken in the Code
Enforcement Department to enhance department efficiency and increase
proactive patrolling for violations.
2) This item has been deleted.
3) A resolution authorizing submission of an application to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Urban County
Qualification for participation in the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program for fiscal years 2001-2003.
4) Response to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (CORPS)
Environmental impact Statement (ELS) Final Report (July 2000 Draft).
5) Approval of an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Marco Island enabling
the County to provide regulatory oversight, permitting, and inspection
services for explosives, excavation, well construction, and groundwater
protection permitting.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Amend Professional Services Agreement with Hole, Montes & Associates,
Inc, for engineering services to expand capacity at the South County
Water Reclamation Facility, RFP 93-2121, Project 73949.
2) Approve Purchase and Sale Agreement for Transfer of the Marco Water
and Sewer District Assets to the City of Marco Island, adopt a Resolution
3
September 26, 2000
10.
11.
approving the findings and facts relating to the Marco Island Water and
Sewer District, and approve Interim Maintenance and Billing Service
Agreements.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
E. SUPPORT SERVICES
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
G. COUNTY MANAGER
Recommendation to approve James V. Mudd to the position of Public
Utilities Administrator.
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners give direction to the
Office of the County Attorney and Risk Management Department responding to
proposal for settlement from Jeffrey Popp in Poppv. Collier County, Case No.
99-3286-CA, pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County,
Florida.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Citizens Advisory Task Force,
B. Appointment of members to the Collier County Planning Commission.
C. Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory
Committee.
OTHER ITEMS
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
4
September 26, 2000
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
1)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
resolution to approve the proposed Growth Management Plan
Amendment to the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the Immokalee
Future Land Use Map to delineate an Urban Infill and Redevelopment
Area for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs.
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
C. OTHER
1)
Approve the rate Resolution to adjust landfill tipping fees, residential
annual assessments and commercial waste collection fees for FY
2000/2001.
2)
Approve and adopt the Collier County Water Irrigation Ordinance
regulating the hours of irrigation.
3)
Review Hearing to consider an alternative road impact fee calculation for
the golf course at The Strand.
4)
Review Hearing to consider an alternative road impact fee calculation for
Naples Grande Golf Course.
5)
Review Hearing to consider an alternative road impact fee calculation for
Golf Club of the Everglades.
6)
Review Hearing to consider an alternative road impact fee calculation for
Naples Lakes Country Club.
7)
Review Hearing to consider an alternative road impact fee calculation for
Cedar Hammock Country Club.
8)
Review Hearing to consider an alternative road impact fee calculation for
Old Collier Golf Club.
13. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
5
September 26, 2000
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. OTHER
14. STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
15. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine
and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. if
discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the
Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) This item has been deleted.
2) This item has been deleted.
3)
Approve an Urban County Cooperation Agreement between Collier
County and the City of Marco island for federal fiscal years 2001-2003.
4)
Approve an agreement with the Economic Development Council of Collier
County, Inc. (EDC) to execute continuation of the Economic
Diversification Program and provide a contribution to the EDC of up to
$400,000 for fiscal year 2000-2001.
5)
Lien Resolutions-Code Enforcement Case Numbers: 81016-110/Baron,
Mimon, 810006-060/Moses,A. Joseph, 81113-004/Yeager, Jr. John C.,
81230-054/Johnson, Mary, 81230-047 Lee, Albert & Margaret Lee.
6)
Lien Resolutions-Code Enforcement Case Numbers: 81027-018/Ramirez,
Alfredo L. & Anne C., 80914~083/Coleman, Beverly Ann, ET AL, 80817-
080/Perez, Mirna A., 80903-035/RSG Family LTD Partnership.
7)
Lien Resolutions-Code Enforcement Case Numbers:
2000010008/Postelle; 2000010488/Legrand; 1999110881/Saintilien &
Estiverne; 2000010722/Andujar.
8)
Lien Resolutions-Code Enforcement Case Numbers;
1999051517/Johnson; 1999120519/Lewis TR; 1999071082/Gomez;
1999070958/Goodman,
6
September 26, 2000
9) Lien Resolution-Code Enforcement case numbers: 2000010055/LaRue;
1999101089/Sams; 2000010024/Lerch; 1999120531/Holy Trinity.
Lien Resolutions-Code Enforcement Case Numbers 1999091648/Trevino;
1999100438/Obergon; 1999100437/Obergon.
Lien Resolutions-Code Enforcement case numbers 2000060813/Simon &
Pikul; 2000060808/Cambruzzi; 2000060610/Sheehan.
12)
Request to enter into an Indemnification Agreement for privacy wall
improvements within Galleria Drive (Pelican March Unit Twenty Two)
Request to approve the recording of the final plat of "Fiddler's Creek
Phase 2A, Unit One", and approval of the Standard Form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
14) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "O'Hara's Addition".
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve Amendment No. 1 to Work Order CDM-FT-99-12 with Camp,
Dresser and McKee, Inc., for additional engineering analysis for the North
Livingston Road Basin Study - Phase II (Project No. 31014).
2)
To enter into a Facilities Relocation Agreement for the Relocation of
Sprint-Florida Incorporated, Telephone Switching Facilities in conflict with
the proposed Four-Lane Improvements to Golden Gate Boulevard.
3)
Approve Bid/¢00-3140, "Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Roadway
Grounds Maintenance."
4)
Approve List of Qualified Engineering Firms for RFP #00-3115, Annual
Contract for Traffic Engineering Consulting Services.
5)
Approve Petition TM00-02 for the Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program Project (NTMP) on Cypress Woods Drive between 14th Street
and U.S. 41.
6)
Reimbursement to Checker Cab for the expense of repairs to a County
vehicle used for the Immokalee Circulator Public Transportation System.
7)
Contract with Intelitran for the provision of Transportation Disadvantaged
Management Services.
7
September 26, 2000
8)
9)
10)
Award Bid #00-3134, Bucket Truck for the Traffic Operations Section.
Approve Petition TM 95-09 for the Neighborhood Traffic Management
Project (NTMP) on Broward Street from FIoridian Avenue to Carolina
Avenue.
Approve Change Order No. 2 to the Construction Contract #00-3054 Pine
Ridge Road Six Lane Improvements (C.R. 31 to Logan Boulevard),
Project No. 60111, CIE 41
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
2)
3)
4)
$)
6)
7)
S)
9)
10)
Award a construction contract to Beach Construction Company, Inc. for
the NoAh County Regional Water Treatment Plant Odor Control
Modifications, Bid 00-3139, Projects 70057, 70073, and 70890.
Award a construction contract to Mitchell & Stark Construction Company,
Inc. for the NoAh County Regional Water Treatment Plant Chemical Feed
Piping Replacement, Bid 00-3135, Project 70890.
This item has been deleted.
Recommendation to award Bid #00-3133 - "Chemicals for Utilities."
Recommendation to award Bid #00-3136 - "Annual Contract for Sodium
Hypochlorite Solution."
Approve standardization of chemical scrubbers and purchase of an
upgrade for NoAh Regional County Wastewater Treatment Facility
Chemical Scrubber.
Select engineering consultant for new County Barn Site Development,
RFP 00-3114, Project 70059 and 73072.
Amend Work Order CDM-FT-99-6 for engineering services related to
Effluent Resource Planning, Project 74029.
Approve a Change Order to a construction contract with Project
Integration, Inc. for the NoAh County Water Reclamation Facility 5-MGD
Expansion Project, Bid 99-2908, Project 73031.
Approval of the installation of telemetry at three wastewater lift stations
and purchase of maintenance parts for existing telemetry from sole
source.
8
September 26, 2000
Authorization to use a sole-source software vendor for the Utility Billing
and Account Receivable Management Software System.
Approve Amendment to Work Order CDM-FT-98-11, to provide
engineering services for the Manatee Pump Station upgrades, Contract
95-2422, Project 70052.
13)
Approve Work Order PUED-14 to D.N. Higgins, Inc. for electric-actuated
valves at the South County Regional Water Reclamation Facility, Contract
00-3087, Project 73916.
14)
Approve a budget amendment for payments to Waste Management, Inc.
and Immokalee Disposal for Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
Services.
15)
Authorize the Chairman to accept the Year 2000/2001 Recycling &
Education, Waste Tire, and Litter Control and Prevention Grant
Agreements and authorize the Solid Waste Director to sign the
Agreements.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approval of Agreement for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Funding Contribution to
the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc.
2)
Approval of the Annual Contract Between Collier County and the State of
Florida Department of Health for Operation of the Collier County Health
Department.
3)
Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Expenditure of Funds for the United
Way of Collier County Campaign Activities.
4)
Approval of a Professional Services Contract with Ms. Maggie McCarty for
the Operation of the Collier County Film Commission.
s)
Approve a Budget Amendment for the Increase in Medicaid Waiver
Revenue and Program Costs
6)
Approve a Budget Amendment to Authorize an Increase in Fiscal Year
1999-2000 Expenditures for the Payment of Mandated Client Assistance
Programs.
7)
Approve Grant Application for Clam Pass Park to Restore Nature Trails,
Improve Walkovers, and Install Interpretive Signs.
9
September 26, 2000
8)
Adopt a Resolution to Amend the Collier County Parks and Recreation
Facilities License and Fee Policy and Superseding County Resolution No.
99-375.
SUPPORT SERVICES
1)
Award RFP #00-3107 for Cellular Communication Services and
Equipment to Alltel and Nextel.
2)
Award Bid No. 00-3095, Herbicides/Pesticides/Fungicides to a Variety of
Bidders.
3)
Approve a Budget Amendment to Appropriate the Maintenance Service
Revenues for Reimbursement of Operating Expenses.
4)
Adopt a Resolution to Correct a Scrivener's Error in Resolution No. 2000-
243, Which Authorized the Exchange of Property.
s)
Approve a Three-Year Lease Agreement with Ford Motor Company for
Two Alternative Fuel Vehicles.
6)
Approve a Budget Amendment for the Repair and relocation of Ice
Storage Tanks Used at the Main Campus Chiller Plant (air conditioning
system).
7)
Approval of a Limited Use License Agreement with the Golden Gate Area
Chamber of Commerce, Incorporated, in Order to Hold Activities for the
Golden Gate Festival.
8)
Award of RFP #00-3108, "Group Benefits Consulting Services", to Willis
Corporation.
9) This item has been deleted.
10)
Approval of the Purchase of Property and Casualty Insurance and Related
Services.
11) Approval of Changes to the Collier County Group Benefit Plan.
12)
Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $1,129 that will recognize
additional grant proceeds received from the Corporation for National
Service for the purpose of funding the RSVP Director's attendance at the
National Senior Service and National Community Service Conference.
1o
September 26, 2000
13) Approval for award of RFP 00-3112 for communications services to Aztek
Communications, Kent Technologies and Black Box Network Services.
14) Approval of budget amendments in the amount of $1,050,000 that will
transfer funds from the Workers' Compensation Fund to the Group Health
Fund for payment of employee claims through September 30, 2000.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
1) Approval of a contract between Collier County and Dr. Marta U. Coburn,
M.D., Florida District Twenty Medical Examiner for Collier County, Florida
doing business as District Twenty Medical Examiner.
COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #00-478;
#00-480; #00-481; #00-488; #00-497; #00-498; #00-499; #00-502; #00-
503.
2) Approval of Budget Amendment in the County Manager's Office.
3) Approval of Tourist Development Fund Budget Amendments.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Immokalee Regional Airport - extension of temporary use permit for
Immokalee Regional Raceway.
2) Transfer Marco Island Airport waterline to Florida Water Services
Corporation.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Approve a Fund 199 reserves budget amendment for 911 expenses
related to system upgrades for mapping and 911 database.
2) Approval of Budget Amendment in Court Administration.
3) Accept a Civil Traffic Hearing Officer Grant-In Aid of $10,856.43 from the
Office of the State Court Administrator and authorize Chairman to sign the
1!
September 26, 2000
Agreement.
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
l)
Approval of the Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel Nos. 135 and 935 in
the eminent domain lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Radio Road Joint
Venture, et al., Case No. 98-1396-CA (Livingston Road Extension -
Golden Gate Boulevard to Radio Road) Project.
17.
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: '1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR
APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL
BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR
ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD,
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS
ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED
TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM.
Adopt a Resolution approving amendments to the Fiscal Year 1999-00 Adopted
Budget.
Petition SNR-2000-05, Roger G. Carter, representing RWA, Incorporated,
requesting a street name change from Castello Way to Savona Way, located in
Mediterra Parcel 102, in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
Adopt Ordinance 2000- , a scrivener's ordinance correcting errors in Collier
County Ordinance No. 97-10, "Collier County Water Safety and Vessel Control
Ordinance".
18. ADJOURN
iNQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO
THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
12
September 26, 2000
September 26, 2000
Item #3
Item #3A, B, & C
CONSENT AGENDA, SUMMARY AGENDA AND REGULAR AGENDA
- APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning. Welcome to the
September 26th meeting of the Board of County Commissioners.
If you'd stand and join me, we have the Reverend Robert Jacobs
from Messiah Lutheran Church will lead us in a prayer, and then
we'll also have pledge to the flag.
REVEREND JACOBS: We make our beginnings in the name
of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Oh, our gracious God, you've always been a God of love and
care and compassion as you look at your people in peace and
harmony. As you came to give your laws and to give those
directions, you reminded them again and again that you are the
God's of their fathers, of Abraham, of Isaac and Jacob. And
those laws were instituted for a particular purpose, that they live
with you, but always in harmony with one another.
Today as this county Board of County Commissioners'
meeting, Rather, they need that outpouring of your guidance and
spirit as they deliberate on many of the issues on the agenda
that come before them. May they open with understanding. May
they realize and see how these particular items all affect the
lives of the people of our county. And we pray that you will give
them that spirit of discernment, that they can decide and make
judgments which will be in the best interest of your people.
What a joy to know that you are in control and that you
guide and direct all the affairs on behalf of your people.
Especially as we consider the United Way again, we think of how
important it is for the support of that, because it reaches out
through the many different agencies to bring hope and comfort
and healing to people who have dire needs.
We also rejoice that on this day we have this privilege of
dedicating this afternoon that supervisor of elections building in
memory of Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. We pray your
blessings upon all the aspects of this county, and may we as a
people live together in harmony and joy looking to you for all the
Page 2
September 26, 2000
grace and mercy you supply. It's in His name that we pray,
Amen.
(Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Reverend.
That will take us to the agenda, which appears to have a
number of changes to it.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi there.
MR. OLLIFF.' On your change list, I'll walk you through some
of the changes from this morning's agenda.
The first item is an addition. We'd like to add Item
16(A)(15). It's approval of an urban county cooperation
agreement between Collier County and the City of Naples for
federal fiscal years 2001 and 2003.
Second item is an addition as well. It's Item 10(D). It's a
letter of agreement with the Southwest Florida Crime Stoppers,
Inc. That's at the Chair's request.
Third item is also an addition. It's Item 5(B)(2). And how we
missed this one, I don't know. But Murdo Smith of the parks and
recreation department is scheduled to receive his 25-year
service award this morning.
The next two are continuances. Item 16(A)(12) is being
requested to be continued indefinitely as a request to enter into
an indemnification agreement with Galleria Drive, Pelican Marsh,
Unit 22. That's at staff's request.
The next continuance is Item 16(E)(7), and that's being
requested to be continued to the meeting of October 10th. And
it's approval for a limited use license agreement with the Golden
Gate Area Chamber of Commerce for their annual Golden Gate
Festival.
The next item, even though it shows on your agenda
changes as a deletion, we're requesting that Item 16(E)(5) be
moved to Item 8(E)(1). It is a three-year lease agreement with
Ford Motor Company for two alternative fuel vehicles. We --
inadvertently, somehow that contract did not end up getting
copied into your backup package. But we found out that due to
timing, if we don't at least have the board discuss it and approve
it today, we may end up losing that deal. And I think for some
alternative fuel vehicles, it's worth us discussing today.
There are two notes. One, today we're fortunate we're going
Page 3
September 26, 2000
to have a dedication. The supervisor of elections building. The
Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Building. And we'd like to
set a time certain for that, 3:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just so we don't sound quite so
silly, it's the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King.
MR. OLLIFF: Dr. Reverend Martin.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Saying it backwards.
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah.
And the last note is that g(G}(1), which is a recommendation
to approve James Mudd as the county's public utilities
administrator, I'd like to request that we hear that immediately
following proclamations, service awards and presentations,
simply because Mr. Mudd is from out of town, and in order to get
him back on the road and back home.
Mr. Chairman, with that, that's all the changes I have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
Mr. Weigel, anything?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. In conjunction with discussion with
Commissioner Carter, there is an agenda item today, it's agenda
Item 9(A} under county attorney. It is the discussion of
settlement proposal with the case of Jeffrey Popp versus Collier
County.
Mr. Carter, do you wish to address this, or shall I?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. Thank you, David.
I wish to address this issue because over time I've always
watched what's happened in our conflicts from the Gulf War,
which I always got the impression that all Saddham Hussein had
to do was watch CNN and hey guys, this is where we're going to
be tomorrow.
We have the right, under the Sunshine Law, to take legal
issues into the shade so that we may have an opportunity to
discuss our strategies prior to those cases going through the
system. And I am going to request that the board do this, as
much as the city council has done this. Because I think we have
an obligation to the taxpayers of Collier County that when these
cases are settled, it is their money that pays for these cases,
and we have the right to develop our strategies in dealing with
these cases.
Now, when a case is resolved, it is all public record, and
anyone can go back and take a look at what we've done and how
Page 4
September 26, 2000
we did it and how we addressed those issues. So it's not a
secretive kind of thing where the public never knows what we
did.
What we're asking to do is exercise our rights so that we
can develop effective strategies in dealing with those who sue
Collier County. And therefore, I am requesting that this be
continued for two weeks where we can then announce that we
will go into executive session after our board meeting so that we
can deal with these legal issues.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've had that same concern,
Commissioner Carter. You know, I know that we have the right
to do it and we hesitate to do it. And, you know, there's some --
we worry about the public perception that we're doing something
in the shade instead of in the sunshine.
If this is a case where you think that could in any way be
useful, Mr. Weigel, I'm going to support that.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, thank you. I think it's useful in this case,
potentially, and it's useful in other case. I know that in recent
history the City of Naples has used the procedure several times,
and it goes forward, and the public learns about it through the
newspaper, and then life continues pretty much the same.
! would suggest, just as an addition to the board's potential
movement of this as an executive session item for October 10th,
that I'll mention that under the Sunshine Law, to add to Mr.
Carter's statements, the board in executive session does not
make any final decisions. Under Sunshine Law, final
decision-making is always made in the Sunshine.
And so any alternate decision that may appear to be
appropriate coming from a negotiation session discussing
settlement issues would come back in a regular meet,
notwithstanding that the case is still in progress, and that the
transcript of the executive session meeting would not be public
until later on in the case.
Additionally, I would mention, aside from this agenda, a
potential change for October 10th, that I would look to bring
forward another case also during that period of executive
session. I think that it would be appropriate and timely for the
board to have executive session discussion concerning the
Collier County versus Coastal Engineering and T.L. James, et al,
rocks on the beach case. And I think we could achieve some
Page 5
September 26, 2000
efficiencies if we were to have that one, too.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So specifically the request,
Commissioner Carter, is what?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is to continue this for two weeks,
and then as our County Attorney David Weigel has said, he has
the other one about Collier versus T.L. James and Coastal
Engineering.
And again, we never address anything but the specific items
that are listed for that executive session. So if I'm correct, we
have two cases to discuss in that session, and that will be the
only thing that the Board of County Commissioners discusses in
an executive session in the shade.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay, enough discussion about
executive session. We're just working on the agenda today.
Hopefully our friends in the media will actually understand what
executive session is at this point.
Any other changes to the agenda down here?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any changes to the agenda?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I have an item to add
under 10(E), which will -- unless you have some announcement
today, Commissioner Constantine, is a resolution urging the
state attorney's office to hurry and complete their investigation
of your loan; just to put a little additional pressure on them to
complete that process.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'd all like that.
Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm going to ask that 16(D)(4) be
continued, unless I have some new information right now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is it?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's the agreement for the
Film Commission. It does not appear -- first of all~ it hasn't been
through the TDC, but it also doesn't appear to be exactly what
we requested happen. And Mr. Olliff and I spoke briefly about
that this morning, just a couple of questions.
Only question is, that contract was scheduled to start
October 2rid. We don't meet again till the next week, so we may
lose six days of service of Film Commission while we settle that
out,
Page 6
September 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That worries me a little bit. Can
you -- I mean, I looked at it and didn't see anything shocking.
What did I miss?
MR. OLLIFF: There was a question about whether the
board's direction was actually to have that contract with Ms.
McCarty through the balance of this fiscal year, or was it for
fiscal year '01 for the full term of '01. So until we can go back
and actually check the record and ensure that the agreement
matches the board's direction, it's been requested that the item
be continued.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's also a question of
whether or not that's appropriate to go through the TDC, since it
is TDC dollars.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only worry is, you know,
we've already lost some credibility in this area by virtue of some
other problems that we had.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Exactly. That's why I think we
want to be careful and follow the exact detail that we suggested
earlier. And if we make an error today, it only further damages
our credibility.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, the credibility that I was
worried about was in the film industry, that, you know, her office
shut down because of some confusion before. It could hurt us. I
-- you know, this is right off the top of my head, Tim. I don't have
any -- nobody's talked to me about this. But I am genuinely
concerned about--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, I'll tell you what, let's poll
the board. We can pull the item from the agenda or not. That's --
we're not going to discuss the item at 9:18 this morning.
16(D}(4), any objection to continuing that so that we actually
have full information on which to vote?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I understand it's only a few
days. And it would not interfere with the continuation of the
operation of that department during this waiting period, so I
think we ought to pull it and make sure we got it right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that the case, it will not
interfere with the operation?
MR. OLLIFF: You'll end up not having her under contract for
a period of eight days by waiting until the 10th.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have any idea if she's
Page 7
September 26, 2000
willing to work for those eight days, or what will be the
consequence of that eight days shutdown?
MR. OLLIFF: I don't know. But I do know that in the past
when we didn't have an agreement in place, that she was more
than willing to continue working over that week to 10-day period.
And I would imagine that she would do the same, knowing that
the contract was on the agenda to be discussed on the 10th.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And if the contract is due back
and is appropriate, there's no reason we can't make it still
effective October 2nd the way it was --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we could retroactively pay
her. Okay.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay, I agree.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If there are no other changes,
we need a motion for approval on consent agenda, summary
agenda and regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, all those in favor --
I mean, seeing none, motion carries 5-0. COMMISSIONER CARTER: 4-0.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 4-0. Habit, habit. Commissioner
Berry is absent.
Page 8
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
ADD: ITEM 16(A)15: Approve an Urban County Cooperation Agreement
between Collier County and the City of Naples for federal fiscal years 2001-
2003.
ADD: ITEM 10 D: Letter of Agreement with Southwest Florida Crime
Stoppers, Inc. (Commissioner Constantine's request.)
ADD: ITEM 5(B)2: Murdo Smith, Parks and Recreation - 25 years
CONTINUE: ITEM 16(A)12 Indefinitely - Request to enter into an
Indemnification Agreement for privacy wall improvements within Galleria
Drive (Pelican Marsh Unit Twenty-Two) (Staff's Request)
CONTINUE: ITEM 16(E)7 to the meeting of October 10 - Approval of a
Limited Use License Agreement with the Golden Gate Area Chamber of
Commerce, Incorporated, in Order to Hold Activities for the Golden Gate
Festival. (Commissioner Constantine's Request.)
DELETE: ITEM 16(E)5 -Approve A Three-Year Lease Agreement with Ford
Motor Company for Two Alternative Fuel Vehicles. (Staff Request.)
NOTE: The dedication for the Supervisor of Elections/Dr. Reverend Martin
Luther King Jr. Building has a time certain for 3:00 p.m.
NOTE: Hear item 8(G)1 regarding "Recommendation to approve James V.
Mudd to the position of Public Utilities Administrator" immediately
following Proclamations, Service Awards and Presentations.
September 26, 2000
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
INFORMATION ON RECEIVING AWARDS IN THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY INFORMATION OFFICERS "2000
AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE" - ADOPTED
Proclamation, 5(A), is a proclamation recognizing the
Department of Public Information on receiving awards in the
National Association of County Information Officers, 2000 Award
of Excellence. Jean Merritt, Kady Arnold, come on down.
And I know we had some debate initially over how effective
our Channel 54 and being able to use that would be. And this is
proof positive -- please, look that way -- proof positive that not
only is it very effective locally, but this is an example for
communities nationwide.
WHEREAS, the Collier County Department of Public
Information won four awards in the National Association of
County Information Officers 2000 Awards of Excellence
competition for programs produced for county government's
Channel 54 station; and,
WHEREAS, the Department of Public Information received
the top excellent award in the audio/visual productions class for
counties with populations under 500,000 for its monthly County
Highlights program, which featured EMS, and is a collaborative
effort with MediaOne, and broadcast on Channel t0 as well as
Channel 54; and,
WHEREAS, in the same category, the department was one of
three counties that received a meritorious award, also for County
Highlights; and,
WHEREAS, the department's Social Security and Other Good
Things, with Jack Fordham, and Employee of the Month piece on
a county librarian each received meritorious awards in another
audio/visual productions category; and,
WHEREAS, the Department of Information Director, Jean
Merritt and Video Production Specialist, Kady Arnold, traveled to
Charlotte, North Carolina in July to accept their awards; and,
WHEREAS, the department presented Jack Fordham with
the award received for the program he hosts, which is now
hanging in the Social Security Office; and,
Page 9
September 26, 2000
WHEREAS, County Manager Tom Olliff has extended his
congratulations to the Department of Public Information on
behalf of the county manager's office.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the Department of
Public Information Director Jean Merritt and Video Production
Specialist Kady Arnold are being recognized here today for the
four awards the department received in the National Association
of County Information Officers 2000 Awards of Excellence.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 26th day of September, 2000,
Timothy J. Constantine, Chairman, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
I'll entertain a motion to approve that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. All in
favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
in to Channel 54, you should. They're very good.
MS. MERRITT: Thank you very much. Thank you, because
my staff really deserves these awards. And thank you to the
county manager and the administration that have given us so
much support. Thank you, Tom.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We appreciate your great work.
Motion carries 4-0.
And if you haven't already tuned
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING OCTOBER 1-7, 2000 AS
"NATIONAL 4-H WEEK" - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next up is a proclamation
proclaiming National 4-H week. Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT.' If I could go down below, if you
don't mind.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: This is a proclamation that will
Page 10
September 26, 2000
be accepted by Sarah Riger, if I pronounced that correctly, and
Chad Morrow, who is vice president of the 4-H county council.
And Sarah Riger is the president of the 4-H Club, if I've done that
correctly.
And the proclamation -- and I will come over in a minute,
unaccustomed as I am.
The proclamation says:
WHEREAS, the goal of the 4-H is to provide educational
opportunities for the youth and adult volunteers in Collier County
in the areas of leadership, citizenship, personal development and
practical skills; and,
WHEREAS, these activities have resulted in learning
experiences and accomplishments that have received state and
national recognition; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County feels this 4-H program contributes to the overall
development of our youth and strengthens our communities; and,
WHEREAS, the 4-H members receive inspiration and
guidance from interested parents, Cooperative Extension Service
workers and staff volunteers, adult and team leaders, and
support from many community organizations and businesses;
and,
WHEREAS, 4-H performs (sic) partnerships and collaborates
with other youth-serving agencies to reach a wide and diverse
audience.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of
October I through 7, 2000, be designated as 4-H -- National 4-H
Week, and all citizens of Collier County are urged to join this
board in giving appropriate recognition to the achievements of
the 4-H clubs of Collier County.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 26th day of September, 2000,
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy
J. Constantine, Chairman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll move acceptance of this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
objection?
(No response.)
Page
September 26, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If not, motion carries 4-0.
(Applause.)
MS. RIGER: Good morning. As somebody already said, my
name is Sarah Riger. I've been a member of the Collier County
4-H program for 10 years. During those years, 4oH has provided
me with several wonderful experiences, including sewing a quilt,
speaking in front of a room full of people, running business
meetings and raising seeing eye dogs for the blind.
4-H enriches the lives of children, aged five through 18,
every year, in clubs and classrooms and short-term special
interest programs. These programs provide children with healthy
friendships and learning environments. These children are
becoming healthy, educated and responsible citizens of
tomorrow.
From 4-Hers all over Collier County, we thank the
Commission, our 4-H leaders and parents, the county officials,
extension agents and individuals for their long-going interest and
support.
As a young child, 4-H gave me confidence. Over the years I
enjoyed a variety of fun activities. Our club did many community
service projects, including visiting nursing homes with baby
animals and participating in county-wide beach cleanups.
As a young adult, I've had the privilege of attending the
Know Your County Government program. Learning more about
how our government operates has made me more interested in
government. 4-H legislature gave me a deeper look in state
government and law making.
At the State Capitol I attended mock legislative sessions
and served as a Page. My work as a lobbyist won me an award
for the year 2000's best lobbyist. Next year I look forward to
returning as a legislature and even helping to plan this event,
which is run entirely by teenagers.
Because of my positive expenses in government through
4-H, I'm considering studying law and government after
graduating from high school.
In my club, I am a junior leader, teaching younger members
basic parliamentary procedure and sewing skills.
I will continue to develop my abilities in sewing, performing,
government studies, public speaking and leadership.
I also have the privilege of serving as Collier County
Page 12
September 26, 2000
council's 4-H president.
We're proud of the accomplishments of our fellow 4-Hers as
well. One Collier County teen earned the opportunity to
represent Florida at the National 4-H Congress. Another placed
first in state competition in petroleum power and is representing
Florida at the National 4-H engineering event in Indiana as we
speak. We also had a teen represent Florida at the regional
horse show in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Collier teens received state-wide recognition this summer in
health, consumer education, animal science and media arts. 4-H
has taught us teamwork, decision-making, how to fulfill our
dreams and responsibilities and -- I'm sorry, thank you again for
your wonderful support.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're welcome.
(Applause.}
MR. MORROW: Hi. I'm Chad Morrow. I'm in the Discoverers
4-H club. This is my fourth year in 4-H.
When my mom told me four years ago that we were going to
get involved in 4-H, I wasn't all that excited about it. To tell you
the truth, I didn't know that much about 4-H. I had been to the
fair a few times and seen the animals, the swines, the steer, the
lamb, all the other exhibits that we had. But that's all I knew. I
was like in no way am I doing this 4-H thing.
But then we got involved in the club, and I found out all the
different projects that were available for me to do. And now I
love 4-H and I wish I had gotten in sooner.
I have done many different projects while being in 4-H,
including photography, units one, two and three, the swine
project, life under the sea, plant propagation, recreation,
rocketry and public speaking.
In spite of my initial reaction, I raised a swine for the Collier
County fair. I had a blast with this project. I made new friends
and it helped me strengthen the character quality of
responsibility in me. I had to feed my hog twice a day, clean the
pen, make sure he had plenty of exercise.
4-H also allowed me to enhance my leadership capabilities
by becoming an officer at the club, county and district levels.
As president of my club, I learned how to run business
meetings. We also have a vice-president, secretary, recorder
and treasurer of our club.
Page t3
September 26, 2000
This is my second year as a junior leader. A junior leader is
a 4-Her that teaches a specific project to club members. I teach
photography to other members of my club. We do neat things
like learning how to take trick pictures and learning how to make
pin-hole cameras. I have had to plan, organize and prepare to do
this project effectively.
There are more than 20 4-H clubs in Collier County, and
more are forming. This fall we will be reorganizing and 4-H
projects are also being conducted in classrooms in collaboration
with other service agencies, such as the Boys and Girls Club.
Next Monday the Outback Neighbors 4-H club will have their
animals at the Estates library, and on Thursday there will be a
4-H information night at Manatee School.
WE welcome new members, new adult volunteers and
anyone who would want to find out more about 4-H. We invite
the citizens of Collier County to join us in making a positive
difference. Thank you again for your support. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You know, Mr. Chairman, it is
unfortunate that the really great young people in all communities
don't get recognized enough. But this morning this audience and
our listening audience had a peek at tomorrow's future the
leadership that's coming forward.
So again, let's applaud this group for the young people that
know the right way, and are going to take us into the future.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Dr. Carter.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING OCTOBER, 2000 AS "NATIONAL
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH~ 2000" - ADOPTED
I understand you have a proclamation for us for National
Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, I do. And if Ms. Kathy
Herrmann will step forward this morning. And the Sheriff. I see
him back there. Don Hunter, if you all will come up here, turn
around and face not only the TV cameras, but our photographer
wants to capture your smiling face one more time.
Page 14
September 26, 2000
It's my pleasure this morning to read this proclamation.
WHEREAS, domestic violence is of major public concern for
county, state and nation and is now the single most frequent
cause of injury to women; and,
WHEREAS, all persons have a basic right to feel safe from
harm at all times, especially in their homes, schools,
communities, and during the conduct of business in the
workplace; and,
WHEREAS, domestic violence is a universal societal problem
with consequences reaching far beyond the realm of the family,
and the domestic violence is not a private family matter but is a
crime that has devastating effects on the victims, their children,
communities, and the workplace; and,
WHEREAS, domestic violence violates an individual's
privacy, dignity, security and humanity; and,
WHEREAS, there is an increased need for public awareness,
education and uniform efforts of government, community
associations, health professionals, law enforcement,
prosecutors, businesses, educators and religious organizations
to address domestic violence and successful methods of
prevention, intervention and treatment for victims and
perpetrators of domestic violence; and,
WHEREAS, many Collier County policy makers, agencies and
institutions recognize our responsibility as a society to help our
duty -- help and our duty as a society to protect the right of every
person to be free from bodily harm, have joined forces to address
these issues; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners declares
that Collier County adopts zero tolerance concerning domestic
violence in our community, and with a commitment to protect
our citizens in their homes as aggressively as in our street.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the month of
October, 2000 be designated as National Domestic Violence
Awareness Month, 2000.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 26th day of September, 2000,
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy
J. Constantine, Chairman.
I hereby move that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
Page 15
September 26, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
All those in favor, state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
(Applause.)
Motion and a second.
Motion carries 4-0.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I really do think that it's a heads
up to people in the community that our Sheriff is here and that
the proclamation reads that this is a -o we're going to fight this
crime in the homes, just like we fight crime on the streets. I
really do appreciate you being here, Sheriff Hunter.
MS. HERRMANN: Thank you very much. Domestic violence
is a terrible crime in Collier County. It's one that involves a large
percentage of our violent crime. And thousands of women,
children, men and animals are impacted by domestic violence.
Every year right here in Collier County our incidents of
domestic violence is no worse but no better than it is in some of
the major metropolitan areas.
One of the things that I'm very encouraged about is the
strong support that we have from the Collier County Sheriff's
Office and the leadership from Sheriff Hunter. The community
needs to be aware that the -- Collier County has the signs that
we see on the street that says domestic violence won't be
tolerated in Collier County. We're one of the only communities
that have those signs, and I think that it's a tribute to the
leadership of Sheriff Hunter, who's also established a domestic
violence unit to investigate and hold perpetrators of domestic
violence accountable, so I think we're very fortunate in our
community.
SHERIFF HUNTER: First of all, I apologize, but I've got a
little case of the bronchitis. Commissioner Carter, while you
were reading our proclamation, I was coughing all the way
through it. I apologize for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the campaign flu.
SHERIFF HUNTER: One day. Don't get this. It's been about
five weeks.
First I'd like to say thank you on behalf of the Collier County
Sheriff's Office and the Shelter for your support in recognizing
October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Let's stop
that.
I'd like to also say, as a matter of public education, that
Page 16
September 26, 2000
domestic violence can be anything literally from words of threat
to death. And the Collier County Sheriff's Office this year was
touched by domestic violence, as many families have been, in
the loss of Jeff Klein.
I'd like to ask and suggest to the public that simply we
believe that human life is far more important than these human
relationships that may fail or a struggling human relationship,
and that we ask people to stop and think before they visit
domestic violence on their household. Because it literally can be
more than just something that tears a household apart. It can
end a life. And we believe that that's far too grave of a
consequence.
We'd like to recognize the Shelter for its work. This has
been many, many years of work that the Shelter has invested.
Kathy Herrmann has professionally and personally invested
herself in trying to prevent domestic violence, and we appreciate
the board's recognition of her efforts. And we'd like to thank
both Kathy and her board for what they have done in this
community to help protect us from domestic violence and raising
the awareness of this community as to what domestic violence
I'd like to thank our judges, because I know that they have a
very difficult job in trying to discern the fact after the fact what
has happened in a household and how to try to best put that
household back together with the aid of the Shelter, if in fact
that household should be put back together. Sometimes it is in
the best interest of the community in that household that
individuals will go their separate ways. But I'd like to thank the
judges.
And finally again, I'd like to thank the members of the Collier
County Sheriff's Office and all law enforcement, because this is
one of the most serious situations a law enforcement officer can
find themselves involved in, in trying to separate spouses or
people sharing a household together. When one has to be
arrested~ we many times find that the other will come to the
rescue, and sometimes that will also result in a death or serious
injury to a law enforcement officer.
I thank our law enforcement officer and jail deputies for the
work that they do in helping to ensure a safe community.
And again, thank you to the board for recognizing October as
Page 17
September 26, 2000
Domestic Violence Awareness Month. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Sheriff, for his words.
I don't think -- you know, you can listen to all this, but until it
happens close to you -- I lost a niece a few years ago, who was
shot to death in her front yard by an ex-boyfriend as she was
pleading with him to go away. Fortunately, the Tampa Police did
arrive, too late to save her, but they didn't have to take him to
trial.
So it's just a tragic thing that happens in communities. And
anything that we can do to prevent that from happening is
certainly -- I support that 100 percent. And I think all of us,
everything that we read this morning, says people have a right to
be safe.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING OCTOBER 2, 2000 THROUGH
OCTOBER 8, 2000 AS UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY
CAMPAIGN KICK-OFF WEEK - ADOPTED
Commissioner Carter, I understand you also have a
proclamation --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- for the United Way.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: For the United Way. If Jerry
Thirion, the campaign chairman of the United Way, and Ms.
Shannon Anderson, the campaign development director, would
come forward this morning, it would be my pleasure to read this
proclamation.
Now, we're going to have you turn around here, face the
cameras and to -- we want to get all these great pictures. Okay,
we've been duly instructed by Ms. Filson to make sure you face
the cameras.
WHEREAS, since 1957 the United Way of Collier County has
sponsored and funded qualified nonprofit community agencies
which provide essential social and health services to our
citizens; and,
WHEREAS, throughout the 44-year history of the United Way
Page 18
September 26, 2000
of Collier County, the organization has demonstrated continued
growth and is currently funding 23 community agencies providing
services to all areas of our county; and,
WHEREAS, the 2000/2001 community campaign officially
begins on October 2, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners gratefully
acknowledges and supports the fine work of the United Way of
Collier County and its member agencies.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of
October 2 through October 8, 2000, be designated as United Way
of Collier County Campaign Kick-Off Week.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 26th day of September, 2000,
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy
J. Constantine, Chairman.
I hereby move that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Discussion? Objection?
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, motion carries 4-0.
(Applause.}
MS. ANDERSON: What I'm about to say will shock everyone
who knows me: I will be brief.
Most everyone is familiar with what we do at the United
Way, and so what I would like to tell you is what is new. One of
the first things I'd like to do is to recognize our executive on
loan, Honeray Jakobis (phonetic). Publix supermarkets has
basically provided us with an employee for three months at their
cost, and it's a wonderful addition. And talking about the
agencies that we -- Honeray, stand up.
One of the other things I'd like to bring to your attention is
that as we have grown with Collier County, we have added four
new agencies this year. We -- to join our many agencies, such as
the Shelter for Abused Women, which is also a United Way
agency.
Those of you who haven't heard, however, the new agencies
that are participating with the United Way this year are the
Children's Home Society, the Legal Aid Society and the
Equestrian Challenge. And last, but hardly least, the Collier
Page 19
September 26, 2000
County 4-H Foundation. And we're very pleased to have them as
part of our United Way family.
I can't say enough about the assistance, the generosity of
the Collier County employees. We thank you, as we do all the
rest of the county, and appreciate your continued support. Thank
you very much.
(Applause.}
MR. THIRION: That's what happens when you go second,
she steals the speech.
But anyway, I'd just like to add my thank you for the
proclamation. As we kick off our campaign next week, I want to
thank the commissioners, the county manager for your support.
Yes, we do have a very aggressive goal. It's one million,
seven. We know we're going to surpass it. And all the agencies
will really look forward to the support.
I want to thank the county for their past support and all the
great citizens of Naples, and we know it will be another rousing
campaign. Thank you again.
(Applause.)
Item #5A5
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING OCTOBER I THROUGH OCTOBER
8, 2000 AS "MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK IN NAPLES" -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you
have a proclamation for us as well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do. Is Kathryn Leib-Hunter--
there she is. I didn't see you, Kathryn.
If you'll come up, Kathryn. Kathryn is the executive director
of NAMI of Collier County. You'll find out what that is as I read
the proclamation.
And I'd like to move acceptance of the following
proclamation:
WHEREAS, severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia,
bipolar disorder -- which is also known as manic depressive
illness -- major depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, and
severe anxiety disorders affect one in every five families
annually; and,
Page 20
September 26, 2000
WHEREAS, severe mental illnesses are more common than
cancer, diabetes and heart disease, and are the number one
reason for hospital admissions nationwide, and that on any given
day 21 percent of all hospital beds are filled by people with
severe mental illness; and,
WHEREAS, severe mental illnesses have been scientifically
proven to be highly treatable biomedical disorders of the brain;
and,
WHEREAS, the treatment success rate for schizophrenia is
60 percent, 65 percent for major depression, and 80 percent for
bipolar disorder, compared to only 50 percent for chronic
physical disorders such as heart disease, diabetes or cancer;
and,
WHEREAS, scientific research is producing tremendous
breakthroughs in the understanding of these brain disorders,
resulting in more effective treatments that allow people to
reclaim full and productive lives; and,
WHEREAS, brain disorders continue to remain shrouded in
stigma and discrimination from societal prejudice, causing those
who are affected by severe mental illnesses to be east as second
Glass citizens who unfairly receive far less insurance protection
and employment opportunities than others suffering from equally
debilitating physical diseases.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of Gounty
Gommissioners of Gollier Gounty, Florida, that October t through
October 8, 2000 be designated as Mental Illness Awareness
Week in Gollier County, to increase public awareness of severe
mental illness and to promote greater understanding for those
who suffer from the potentially disabling symptoms of these
disorders.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 26th day of September, 2000.
Board of Gounty Gommissioners, Timothy J. Constantine,
Ghairman.
COMMISSIONER GARTER: Second the motion.
GHAIRMAN GONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Any
objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, passes 4-0.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: While she's going to the podium, I
Page 21
September 26, 2000
might mention that I attended the Governor's healthcare
conference Thursday and Friday in Miami, and I will tell you, any
program to come forth in this state and at the county level are
going to address this issue. It was a major point of the
discussion.
MS. LEIB-HUNTER: Thank you, and thank you for attending
that conference.
I want to thank the commission for this proclamation and
your continued support of NAMI, which is the National Alliance
for the Mentally III.
We are facing a mental health crisis here in southwest
Florida. And at NAMI we will continue to reach out to the more
and more families affected by serious and persistent mental
illness.
One in four families are affected by these disorders, and we
look forward to continuing to serve them and provide more
programs. We have educated over 100 people now in our family
to family education program. We are helping them access
medications. We have set up some funding for that as well.
I also want to share with you that certain times throughout
the year I've had a volunteer come and speak here, and he
wanted me to tell you, with his permission, he is now at G. Pierce
Wood (phonetic). He is not doing well, but he's getting better.
And he would like the opportunity to speak with you when he
comes back. And again, thank you for your support.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please give him our best.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And now we're on to service
awards. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' I'm going to call them both up at
the same time today. Because these are incredible awards, and
you guys are about to see two of the very finest employees
Collier County has. One is Murdo Smith, one is Denise Blanton. If
you'll both come forward.
Page 22
September 26, 2000
Murdo has 25 years of continuous service in parks and
recreation. Denise Blanton has 25 years of continuous service in
extension services, and we are very, very lucky to have both of
them.
(Applause.}
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You wouldn't call these folks job
hoppers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No kidding.
Item #5C
PEGGY FORSYTHE, SECRETARY I, SOUTH WASTEWATER
DEPARTMENT, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR
SEPTEMBER~ 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And if we could have Peggy
Forsythe come up, please.
Hi there. Turn around --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Face that camera so they can
take your picture.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Face the world.
Peggy's a secretary with the south wastewater plant. And
they had a resignation down there in the public utilities operation
finance staff, and they ended up a little short and everybody was
going bananas, frankly. Peggy stepped forward, volunteered to
assist in whatever way she could, and working with the
department director and fellow employees, as a team player, she
made it hard for some people to even realize they were short
staffed, because she picked up all the slack there.
Peggy should be commended for her dedication and for her
attitude. Her extra efforts in the south wastewater plant have
earned her the title of September's Employee of the Month.
Peggy, we have a little letter here for you, we have a plaque
that says Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida
Employee of the Month, September, 2000, and we also have a
little $50 check here for you. So congratulations very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 25 years with Peggy is what
we're looking for.
Page 23
September 26~ 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's right.
Item #8Gt
JAMES MUDD APPOINTED TO THE POSITION OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES ADMINISTRATOR - APPROVED
Petitions next. Do we want to do the 8(G)(1) item next?
MR. OLLIFF: If we could, thank you.
It's my honor this morning --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For the record, who are you?
MR. OLLIFF: For the record, I am Tom Olliff, county
manager. I always do that.
It is my honor this morning to provide for you for your
approval this morning the last of the division administrator
recommendations that I have to make.
And in sitting here, and I've had the chance to introduce him
to several of you, but is James Mudd, who is a PE and has an
extensive background that I hope you've had a chance to review
as part of your agenda backup material.
Mr. Mudd has been with the Army Corps of Engineers for the
last 26 years, and I think if you'll look at some of the specific
background issues that he's had, he's frankly managed capital
construction programs that have exceeded 150 million dollars,
generally has managed numbers of employees in excess of 1,000
employees; has done pretty much everything that you can do I
think in the engineering field, and as well in the management and
leadership field.
And I think we were very, very fortunate and able to be able
to have him here and recommend him for your approval this
morning.
I think Mr. Mudd, frankly, we were fortunate in timing as
well, because I have just recently learned that I think since we
actually came to terms with Mr. Mudd, subject to your final
approval, that I think he's been offered at least four other jobs
from neighboring counties in the State of Florida. So I think it
was a fortunate thing for us to be able to catch him first after his
Army Corps experience and be able to recommend Mr. Mudd to
you for final approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.- So moved.
Page 24
September 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any questions for Mr. Mudd?
Mr. Mudd, you want to say anything before we make it official?
MR. MUDD: I thank you for your vote of confidence. I look
forward to the challenge of helping Collier County move into the
next century, next millennium. And I'm prepared as a public
servant -- I've been a public servant for 26 years -- to continue
that service here. I look forward to it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll call the question. All
those in favor, please state aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0.
Congratulations.
(Applause.}
Item #7A
REMOVAL OF JAVA PLUM TREES REGARDING DALE L. AND
CHERYL A. HORBAL, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO.
1999061081 - NO ACTION TAKEN
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That takes us to public
petitions. Request for public petition to code enforcement case
number something. Removal of Java plum trees. Mr. and Mrs.
John Horbal.
As public petitions work, you have about a 10-minute
window in which to plead your case. We're unlikely to make a
final decision today~ other than to decide whether or not to put it
on a regular agenda for a full-blown public hearing.
MS. HORBAL: For the record, my name is Mrs. Horbal,
Cheryl Horbal, and I appreciate you all letting me come and
speak to you today.
Through an appeal process, based on the fact that my case
was slightly misrepresented by the county at a May 2nd, 2000
Collier County Commissioners meeting, I'm here today to present
to you my case regarding the removal of two Java plum trees in a
fair and realistic manner.
We started building our home in Long Shore Lakes in July of
1997. We moved in in March of 1998. During the week of April
Page 25
September 26, 2000
26th, t999, almost over a year later, we were visited by a Collier
County code enforcement agent, informing us that there were
two Java plums that had to be removed or we would be facing
fines. The two Java plums are approximately 20 to 25 years old,
according to Davey Tree Service, and they're over 50 feet tall.
The Java plums existed obviously on the property at the time the
building began, and our builder followed the Long Shore Lakes
Foundation Landscaping guide, which was current as of
November 25th, 1996.
We received a clean CO from the county as to the exotics on
the property on January 28th, 1998. And we proceeded with the
completion of the home and went to settlement in March of '98.
We have been put in a situation of great stress and anxiety
because of no doing on our part. We are innocent victims caught
between the county and the builder. We do not want to remove
the trees for several reasons: One, this is why we purchased the
property, because of the trees.
Two, they provide abundant shade and cooling for our home,
which is a two-story home and has a west exposure.
Three, they do help reduce the traffic noise on Valewood
Drive, which exceeds 7,300 cars a day passing on that road.
This is the road that goes into Quail Creek and Quail Village.
The removal would cause depreciation of our property.
And number five, the removal and the replacement would
create an unnecessary and financial burden on us.
We are asking that the Collier County Commissioners make
a fair and compassionate decision in allowing us to keep the
trees, based on the above facts. Had the county inspector done
his job properly, the builder would have been responsible for
removing the trees and replacing them per our contract.
However, the builder followed the PUD and depended on the
county to correct any situation that was incorrect through the
CO process.
Now we have contacted the builder and they are not
financially or contractually responsible to correct the situation
because of being granted the CO and because the home was out
of warranty at the time I was contacted by the Collier County
inspectors.
Therefore, it falls back to us to assume a financial burden
that we are unprepared for. It would cost us in excess of $5,000
Page 26
September 26, 2000
to remove the trees and replace them at this time.
Also, we would have never gone to settlement on this home
if the trees could not remain on the property for the above
mentioned reasons.
I've been doing research on the situation since July of 1999,
and I have found an equitable solution to the problem, and that is
through chemical spraying of the trees, an approved chemical
here in the State of Florida, that is currently being used. And it
prevents the fruitation of the trees. It would abort the fruit
before it would fall to the ground, which is why the tree is put on
the exotic list per the Collier County enforcement division.
There are hundreds of these trees in Collier County.
Probably closer to thousands. Right along Horseshoe Drive, as I
know you are aware now, there are over 100 female producing
fruit trees on Collier County property. They exist also in my
neighborhood, the Lely area, and hundreds of other places in
Collier County.
It is fair and equitable that I be allowed to keep my trees,
and I will take financial responsibility for spraying them, if that
would be agreeable to the county.
Again, this is no -- a situation that we had no control over.
We were not aware that these trees were exotics, and
unfortunately, I think you all were presented with some
information that really did not clarify that situation.
And therefore, I'm respectfully submitting that we be
granted a variance, and that the fines of $50 a day, which was
imposed on us as of September 28th, be dismissed.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. The only question
for the board today is whether or not we want to put this on an
agenda for a full-blown public hearing. We don't need to dig into
all the details of it right now.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have some
questions about our own properties, and I would like to know
how long the Java palm (sic) has been on the exotics list.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code
enforcement director.
The property that was made reference to by Mrs. Horbal is
not county property, it is the Collier PUD, in which the county
owns a lot -- or several lots in that development. And that
particular buffer was planted as a part of the landscaping
Page 27
September 26, 2000
requirements at the time prior to the Java plum being placed on
the county's list.
This information has been presented to the board at a prior
hearing, and we at that time explained that upon any -- any time
that those trees are destroyed, they cannot be replaced. And
that's how we would resolve that particular situation, unless, of
course, developer wants to be proactive and remove them on his
own.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we holding this property
owner to a standard different from the standard we're holding the
Collier property you just described?
MS. ARNOLD: No, we're not. This property owner, at the
time of CO, should have had the Java plums removed, and that is
how we are addressing exotics. When a development occurs, if
the exotics is on our list, it should be removed at the time of the
development.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, one question, and
that is probably something that environmental staff would have
to answer and that is, would this deflowering chemical have the
same affect to eliminate the proliferation of this exotic?
MS. ARNOLD: My staff has done extensive research. We are
prepared to give you information on that at this time if you'd like,
and our research has concluded that it would not be effective.
There's no guarantee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I've got no interest in
talking about this anymore. I'm sorry.
MS. HORBAL: I just have one --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
MS. HORBAL: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: With regard to the comment
about Java trees being on Horseshoe Drive, are there trees
there?
MS. ARNOLD: There are Java plums along --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And what are we doing about
those?
MS. ARNOLD: It's not the county's property. As I explained,
those trees were planted as part of the landscape buffer prior to
the Java plums being put on the county's list.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay.
Page 28
September 26, 2000
MS. ARNOLD: And at the time that any -- the time that
they're destroyed, they cannot be replaced.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is what the ordinance
provides for any tree that is grandfathered in by virtue of having
been planted -- by virtue of the CO having been issued before the
tree made the list. This CO was issued after the tree made the
list.
Everybody hates having to take them down. It's a shame,
but it's got to be done.
MS. HORBAL: Well, this is -- why -- wasn't it the county's
responsibility to tell us those trees had to be taken down? I
don't know what's on the exotics --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you know what?
MS. HORBAL: -- list as a citizen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Respectfully, your builder should.
And it's so familiar to us after our last meeting where we had big
time developers come up here and say shouldn't the county have
told us we owed impact fees for golf courses? The answer is we
can't take on that responsibility. It's your builder. Make them -- I
question whether or not they can walk away from this and leave
you holding the bag. It depends on what your contract was with
your builder. But we can't make exceptions.
MS. HORBAL: Well, if we had been contacted by the county
within the first year, the builder would have been responsible.
But because the county came to us after the first year, the
warranty on the landscaping had expired.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Depending on your contract,
that may be debatable, but that's neither here nor there to us.
We're just trying to be helpful to you. You may -- it may be worth
your while, if you're looking at a $5,000 renewal, to spend 100
bucks to have an attorney.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm going to give you a tip to
ask the attorney this question: Did your contract require your
builder to comply with all applicable codes? If it did, then he
breached it and he owes you this correction.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Regardless of warranty.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Regardless of landscape
warranty.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And the other thing is, I suspect
he's probably still building in Collier County?
Page 29
September 26, 2000
MS. HORBAL: I don't believe they are. I think they have --
they're solely based in the Tampa area now. They're not building
in Collier County anymore.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think your advice is well taken,
Commissioner Mac'Kie. I think that's where you have to go on
this, for us to be consistent.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there any interest in hearing
this as a full-blown regular item?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Sorry we can't do
more. But I do think you probably have legal recourse there.
MS. HORBAL: And in regards to the fines that are being
imposed on me?
MS. ARNOLD: That issue cannot be addressed by this board.
The appeal process is to the circuit court. And this -- that's not
something that this board can address.
MS. HORBAL: So I am faced with the fact that the county
made a mistake and I now have to take --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, you're faced with the fact
that a builder that you hired made a mistake.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: The builder made a mistake.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm building a house with my
wife right now. If my builder messes up, I'm responsible for that.
He works for me. I am ultimately responsible for that. And you
are ultimately responsible for what your builder did. It's your
property, it was your builder. It's not because the county messes
Up.
The county doesn't have to go to 230,000 people in Collier
County and hold their hand and tell them what every rule of
everything they're doing is. There's a responsibility for you and
me and anybody else who builds a home to know. And if there's
something wrong when my wife and I build our home, either us or
the builder are responsible for that.
MS. HORBAL: And the average citizen is expected to know
and understand --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, your builder is.
MS. HORBAL: -- all the ordinances?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's why you hire a contractor
is, there's a packet about this thick that builders -- that's why
you pay somebody to do it, because they know what the rules
Page 30
September 26, 2000
are. They should, anyway. And that's why you have a contract
with them.
MS. HORBAL: All right, thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I had to pay to have one taken
out of my yard, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you, really?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's right. And I didn't know
what it was. But when I was advised what it was, I had to take it
down.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Frustrating, but --
Item #8A1
REPORT GIVEN REGARDING INFORMATION ON EFFORTS TAKEN
IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT TO ENHANCE
DEPARTMENT EFFICIENCY AND INCREASE PROACTIVE
PATROLLING FOR VIOLATIONS
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 8(A}(1}, as long as we've got
code enforcement at the podium, to provide the board with
information on efforts taken in Code Enforcement Department to
enhance sufficiency.
MS. ARNOLD: Good morning again. Michelle Arnold for the
record.
I provided you with an executive summary to identify some
of the efforts that we've taken in our department to respond to
direction from the board back in January, to look into ways to
make the department more proactive -- more responsive to the
public.
What we did was we sat down as a department and
identified our processes. And what we found in some cases, our
local ordinances were restricting us from enforcing things more
expediently.
And we've since made those identification and attempted to
make some changes, one of which was with the weed and litter
ordinance. We've got -- it took us essentially 45 days to address
a particular violation as simple as cutting a yard. And we've tried
to condense that down to no more than seven days to two
weeks.
Page 31
September 26, 2000
We're still actually working with the county attorney's office
to make sure that what we have amended the ordinance to read
is legally sufficient. So we may be coming back to you in the
future to correct some things that we've identified in that
amendment that took place last summer.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Michelle, do you have a time line
on that with the county attorney's office?
MS. ARNOLD: I'm hoping that we can come to you as early
as November with that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
MS. ARNOLD: We've done some other things internally in
the department in addition to looking at some of our local
ordinances, and those things are coming up with standardized
notices that were issued. It takes the investigator quite some
time to write out everything and describe all of the ordinances
and codes that are being required of the citizens to comply with.
And we've come up with some standard notices so that it's more
of a checking off of a box.
And the only detail information is the property owner's
information. We're asking the investigator to research and make
sure he's correct on those notices of violations. So it's cutting
down on the time spent writing out those notices.
We've also come up with some standardized time frames for
corrective actions. And rather than being inconsistent with how
we address it in one part of the community, we came up with
some standards, and those are distributed to the investigators so
that we can find some consistency within the department.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I -- I have a question on
some of those time frames. Commercial vehicles is one that
we've had a lot of problems with that, you know, they move it for
an hour or something and then it's back. Is that -- if repeat -- we
then issue citation, what you're saying there is if you've warned
them already, they get a citation, if the commercial vehicle is
parked where it was previously parked, they're in violation.
MS. ARNOLD: Right. And we in all these cases have to
issue them a notice of violation and give them those time frames
to correct them. And if they then abate the violation and it
occurs again, then we can cite them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And there won't be another
corrective time frame.
Page 32
September 26, 2000
MS. ARNOLD: No, we -- well, we ask them to correct it again
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please move your vehicle now.
MS. ANDERSON: -- but we issue a citation with an
immediate fine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Perfect.
MS. ARNOLD: The department's also done some other
proactive measures, and those are identified in there.
One of the things are community sweeps. We go out -- most
of the department goes out into a particular neighborhood and
addresses a violation that is of concern to that particular
community.
We're also -- I've instituted what I'm calling a flex day. Each
investigator is required to do at least one flex day -- of course
they can do more than one flex day -- and that's where they come
in early to address a particular violation, and then leave early or
consequently come in later and then leave later in the evening to
-- it's either to address violations that are occurring on those
office hours, or also to make contact with the public. Because a
big part of our job is to contact the violator so that they're aware
of what the violation is and how they can correct it.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: What determines whether you
make a sweep or not? What criteria do you use?
MS. ARNOLD: Mostly historical information based on a
particular problem, or the concern expressed from the
community itself. We -- we've been trying to go and attend
association meetings on a regular basis, so when they voice to
us a particular concern, we can then address it through one of
these sweeps. And they occur in the evening.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And when you do a sweep like
that, over what period of time you -- only on in the evening or do
you do it on weekends or during the week or what?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, our departmental wide sweeps are
occurring in the evenings. However, recently, within the last few
months, we've had some information related to us from one of
the associations where they expressed there's a need for us to
do some sweeps on a Sunday.
I have weekend patrol officers that work, and they generally
take care of the main corridors on the weekends and then
address any health safety issues. But I've modified that
Page 33
September 26, 2000
schedule somewhat so that both investigators that work on the
weekend will go to a particular neighborhood, and we're rotating
through the area, and address those violations that are occurring
on a Sunday.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the signs, prohibited signs on
the right-of-way immediately. Those are the signs that you guys
just pull up because they don't have a permit. MS. ANDERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But signs -- what's a TU sign?
MS. ARNOLD: Temporary use.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Next business day is when
they have to have those down. What about the -- I guess the
signs that violate the current ordinances? The ordinance
provides the amount of time they have for corrective action
there?
MS. ARNOLD: No, each situation probably would warrant,
you know, looking into to determine what would be a reasonable
amount of time. In some cases, you may have a violation that
the business owner's working on getting corrective action, and
the sign contractor has it on their schedule. So if we see that
particular situation, we wouldn't necessarily require them to
remove it sooner than the contractor can actually do that work.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just so that I don't forget
this, we we're talking about having a meeting about
Gateway/Bayshore. I would really love to have sign people there,
see if we can't do a sweep of that area and get some of that
prettied up.
MS. ARNOLD: In addition to the things that are identified on
your executive summary, I just wanted to mention that we are
looking into other proactive efforts to educate the community.
We -- in addition to going to associations and just becoming
more familiar with them and them with us, we are going out to
civic associations and other entities to educate -- provide them
with education.
We have identified that there are calls that come into our
department or letters that are written, and the complaint is not
actually a violation. So what we've shown that is we need to
educate the public so that they know what a violation is as
Page 34
September 26, 2000
opposed to what they may not particularly like.
For example, our -- we have certain locations where a boat
can be parked on your property. On a corner lot, however,
because we are dealing with two fronts and no real rear, and --
we have people that park their boats with what would be
considered the rear, and it's very visible by the general public.
And in a lot of those cases, we get calls and boats in the front
yard. And it really isn't. It's in their -- it's in what's considered
the rear yard.
So we've developed slides and we've got a comparison so
that they can actually see what is a violation as opposed to
what's not a violation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And as appropriate as that is, I
also hope that you keep records of those and bring to us glitches
in the ordinances, like that sounds like it might be. It might be
that that's something that the ordinance currently doesn't
provide as a violation, but if you brought that to the board, we
might want to amend the ordinance to correct that.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, and that's as tough situation, just
because people with corner lots have a unique situation. You
know, the person with an internal lot has a little bit more
shielding capability than that individual on the corner. So -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But let the board have an
opportunity to make those -- MS. ARNOLD: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- policy choices, if you see
patterns developing there where the community has complaints
that aren't addressed.
MS. ARNOLD: And we are doing more of a cooperative effort
with the different departments, like the planning department and
the building department. And they're working greatly with us to
identify the different changes so that we're aware of what those
changes are, so that we're familiar with what the intent of those
changes are, so that when we're out there enforcing those
codes, we have a better understanding.
With the education of the public, it would make -- free up
some time for us to investigate actual violations to the code. So
I think that's a major effort on our side that we've been taking.
Another effort that we are going to be working on is that
cooperative effort with the planning department and other
Page 35
September 26, 2000
departments so that we can come up with more procedural
manuals for the public so that they can identify better what
steps they need to go through.
Quite often when I sit in that chair for the Code Enforcement
Board meeting, the respondent is confused as to the process.
And it is a very complicated process, especially for the lay
person out there. So if we develop those types of procedures, I
think it would be easier for them to correct the violation and, you
know, we're reaching our ultimate goal. And that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a commendation and thank
you, especially for that -- those form violations. That's an
excellent idea. And you're doing -- you're right on track,
Michelle, you're doing great work. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Michelle.
I would encourage you to work with the governance groups,
the EDC, the Chamber and the CBIA, because many of those
groups then can affect a very wide base of businesses in this
community so they have a good understanding of what they need
do, particularly at sign control.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
Item #8A3
RESOLUTION 2000-339 AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF AN
APPLICATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR URBAN COUNTY
QUALIFICATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2001-2003 - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That takes to us Item 8(A)(3).
The Chair will entertain a motion to authorize submission of an
application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development for Urban County Qualifications for participation in
the Community Development Block Grant Program.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we do that the additional
money coming into this county will be?
Page 36
September 26, 2000
MR. MIHALIC: About 1.9 million dollars a year every year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As long as we spend it properly.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second?
Discussion?
Do we have speakers on the item? Seeing none of either,
we'll call the question.
All those in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great work, Greg.
Item #8A4
RESPONSE TO THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS (CORPS) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(ELS} FINAL REPORT (JULY 2000 DRAFT) . STAFF DIRECTED TO
FORWARD COMMENTS TO THE JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS
AS OUTLINED BY STAFF
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Item 8(A)(4), response to the
Army Corps of Engineer ElS. Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: Good morning. Bob Mulhere, planning
director.
In July the Army Corps of Engineers released another draft,
final draft -- a second final draft of the ElS and opened up the
comment period, which remains open until October the 5th.
The board had submitted a response previously to the Corps,
and I reviewed the recent, the most recent ElS draft with --
looking at the issues raised by the board's previous response.
And I think the draft does address some of those issues, but not
all of them.
And the executive summary raises what I think are the
outstanding issues, and included in your packet is a draft letter.
Predominantly it would be staff's opinion that the ElS should
more specifically identify the need to create general permits in
urban and platted subdivisions; for example, North Golden Gate
Estates.
Page 37
September 26, 2000
And that general permit process would provide for criteria
that a homeowner would have to meet. And if they met that
criteria, they would be issued a general permit. Would be a much
easier process, but also fit in line with recently approved DEP
reviewer that will be housed within our building for those types
of permits.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because currently, they -- an
individual home builder in the northern Estates has to go through
the Corps permit process, and you're wishing that we could
streamline that.
MR. MUI. HERE: Correct. And that was originally one of the
issues that the Corps raised and made a commitment to prior to
commencing the ElS, during the ADG process.
Now, they have referenced that that is their desire in the
summary of the draft ElS, but there's nothing specific. So again,
it's staff's opinion that they should be more specific in time
frames and in locations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I concur.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, the unfortunate thing is,
you get the little guy with an acre and a quarter, a two and a half
acre lot. Particularly those that as you go further may have only
been a five or $10,000 lot. Now they're being asked to spend
that same amount to go get somebody to qualify them through
the permitting process. Unless we go back to -- across the board
here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the point being that a
general permit would identify developable -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- portions of the lots and identify
portions that can't be impacted. And then -- is that right?
MR, MULHERE: That's correct. in fact, we formerly had a
general permit for North Golden Gate Estates, which --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, then I've got no problem
with that one.
MR. MULHERE: -- subsequently expired.
The second issue that staff feels is of concern is that the
ElS was intended to allow the Corps the opportunity to review
cumulative and secondary impacts. And I think to a large degree
it does do that.
Page 38
September 26, 2000
One of the other issues that staff feels would be appropriate
would be to better identify in the ElS opportunities for off-site
mitigation. Where, for example, do we think that if someone has
to mitigate impacts to wetlands, off-site mitigation would be
most appropriate. And of course relationship to Collier County
might be, for example, the creation of coming -- final creation in
the next year and a half, two years on national resource
protection areas, major flowways. And if those became the
primary focus of off-site mitigation, we would be able to generate
greater acquisition of those currently private properties that
have valuable natural resource issues associated with it.
So I think that would be helpful to the property owners as
well.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And that all triggers, doesn't it,
Bob, from the Clean Water Act of t972, that that was a -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- triggering force in all of this?
And I concur with where you're going, I'm just trying to
make it easier for everybody to understand and to get through
the process.
MR. MULHERE: I think there's no question that in many
cases the process will be longer, and that that may be
appropriate. But where we can expedite the process or where
we can direct property owners to solutions that, you know, will
more comprehensively benefit everyone, I think that's what the
ElS should do.
The third thing is that there's been some concern all along
about the data that was used for the water quality. And I'm not a
scientist, I can only rely on the information that's been given me.
And so I raise the issue -- the board raised the issue in the letter
that was sent; so too did Lee County in the letter that they sent
to the Corps, indicating that the water quality monitoring data
should be the best available date, and there was some question
as to whether that was used. And the court really didn't respond
in the second draft to that initial question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had a question on that one,
because I didn't understand that one the first time through, is do
we know what data they used and do we suggest what data they
should use?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think -- I'm not sure that I'm capable
Page 39
September 26, 2000
of answering very specifically, but generally there was
information available both from the South Florida Water
Management District and from, for example, Lee County was
doing some water quality monitoring that was not used in their
analysis which arguably was more pertinent, more up to date.
And a standard methodology for that modeling should have
been used. I think they used data from a bunch of different
sources, rather than creating a standardized methodology so
that you would be comparing apples to apples and oranges to
oranges.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the Corps has not responded
or explained why they used the data that they did.
MR. MULHERE: I saw no explanation in the summary report,
and that's what we're really asking for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to know why.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like -- didn't the EPA come in
and get involved in this --
MR. MULHERE: They offered technical assistance.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- not too long ago, same issues?
Coming up about water quality and, you know, what -- you know,
what do they play in this?
MR. MULHERE: My recollection is that the EPA both offered
technical assistance to the Corps and to the county to establish
a water quality monitoring -.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other questions for the staff?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just I wanted him to go ahead
and address that fourth point.
MR. MULHERE: Well, the fourth one is that from my review
of the summary, the Corps response to a question regarding
economic impacts was really a generalized response, one which
said sure, there may be some economic impacts; however, this is
what we are charged with, and there is no guarantee that a
person, even pre 1972, I believe, or .- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is.
MR. MULHERE: -- can develop property that contains
jurisdictional wetlands.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So why do we continue to ask
them? I mean, it seems kind of silly to me to continue to ask
them to do an economic impact statement when it's not within
Page 40
September 26, 2000
their jurisdiction.
MR. MULHERE: Well, interestingly enough, by the same
token, their own criteria requires them to analyze the economic
impacts and at least try to make some analysis of what those
impacts might be.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I want to hold them to their
standard.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, and Bob, the important
thing here is not that it's not within the jurisdiction. It's not
required. They're not prohibited from doing that, it's not
required. And so they say -- and we actually -- we had a forum
maybe six weeks ago, eight weeks ago, the Chair of the Lee
County Commission and myself and some industry folks and a
number of -- and people from the environmental community. But
John Hall there was, and this was the week this was coming out,
and he essentially said exactly what Bob just did is, you know,
well, we took a very, very base look. We didn't really have to,
we're not required to dig into that, so we didn't.
And I think that's -- when you take on something as large as
this, the responsible thing to do, and really the necessary thing
to do, is recognize it will have an economic impact. What's that
going to be?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got no problem with that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The Corps should be doing that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do they have the authority to do
that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They do. They don't have the
requirement to do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then let's ask them to do it.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I agree with that.
And if I've -- maybe I've read this a little wrongly, but help
me if I have. As I read the ElS input that we have here, it sounds
to me like the Corps of Engineers has much the same attitude as
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission has.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which is really a cover for the
CIA, by the way.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And that is we'll do whatever we
want to do. And it doesn't make any difference what you have in
your comprehensive plan, we'll look at it, but we'll also ignore it
if we choose to. Did I read that wrong?
Page 41
September 26, 2000
MR. MULHERE: Not entirely. I think that the Corps has
always said that the existing comprehensive plans for both
counties would be the baseline or the basis from which they
would start this process. But they have also always said to the
extent that those comprehensive plans would interfere with their
charged duty, obviously that they are not bound by that conflict
because it's a federal issue and not a --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And sometimes their
interpretation of their charged duty can be challenged, can it
not?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, it can.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And you know, I'd look to our new
public works director, Mr. Mudd, that might give us some insight
into that, since he's spent so much time with the Corps. He
might find some ways to tweak that to get them to respond more
positively.
MR. MULHERE: I do note that there's one minor
typographical error in the letter, which I will correct for the
chairman's signature.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything else for staff?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move acceptance of staff's
report.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. All those
in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0.
Item #8A5
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND
ENABLING THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE REGULATORY
OVERSIGHT, PERMITTING, AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR
EXPLOSIVES, EXCAVATION, WELL CONSTRUCTION, AND
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PERMITTING - APPROVED
Let's do the next item before we take our 10:30 break, and
that is approval of interlocal agreement with the City of Marco
Island.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The cost being paid by the City of
Page 42
September 26, 2000
Marco Island?
MR. CAUTERO'. Vince Cautero, for the record.
The interlocal agreement calls for permit fees to cover the
cost for those items that we've identified: Excavation,
permitting explosives and groundwater and wellfield protection.
We anticipate collecting less than $2,000 a year to defray
the costs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But not cost to Collier County.
MR. CAUTERO: No, no, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, any objection?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Seeing none, motion carries 4-0.
Let's take a 10-minute break and we'll come right back.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi, we're back.
Item #8Cl
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOLE, MONTES &
ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES TO EXPAND
CAPACITY AT THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY, RFP 93-2t21~ PROJECT 73949 - APPROVED
Next item is 8(C)(1), amend professional services agreement
with Hole, Montes & Associates for engineering services to
expand capacity at the South County Water Reclamation Facility.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had just a quick question, if I
could, because this probably doesn't take a lot of staff
discussion.
Why isn't this on the consent agenda? Is there something
unusual about this?
MR. CHEATHAM: I was told --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Joe Cheatham.
MR. FINN: Edward Finn, interim public utilities
administrator.
Page 43
September 26, 2000
Simply because this is a fairly high profile project, certainly
in that community, we feel that in the long run it's better to have
on the record that this did go to the board, the board did have an
opportunity to exercise their right to ask questions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So without further ado, are
there any public speakers? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Chair will entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. All those
in favor, please state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0.
Item #8C2
RESOLUTION 2000-338 APPROVING PURCHASE AND SALE
AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE MARCO WATER AND
SEWER DISTRICT ASSETS TO THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND
APPROVING THE FINDINGS AND FACTS RELATING TO THE
MARCO ISLAND WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, AND APPROVING
INTERIM MAINTENANCE AND BILLING SERVICE - ADOPTED
Item 8(C)(2), approve purchase and sale agreement for the
transfer of the Marco Water and Sewer district to the City of
Marco Island.
MR. FINN: Yes, sir--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We've been through this before.
MR. FINN: -- for the record, Edward Finn, interim public
utilities administrator. This is fairly routine, given the number of
times we've spoke. I was --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: They're quick.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: In your approval, if you should, I would
appreciate if the county attorney, working with the Marco Island
Page 44
September 26, 2000
city attorney, may potentially make adjustments for legal
sufficiency, but not in substance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
contingency.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
contingency.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
okay with this item?
aye.
My motion incorporates that
My second incorporates that
Mr. Olliff, speakers on this item?
Commissioner Brandt, you're
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
All those in favor, please state
Motion carries 4-0.
Item #8E1
THREE YEAR LEASE AGREEMETN WITH FORD MOTOR COMPANY
FOR TWO ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND WITH FLORIDA
POWER AND LIGHT - APPROVED
Item 8(E)(1), the Ford alternative motor vehicles.
MR. ZACHARY: Good morning, Robert Zachary, county
attorney's office.
We wanted to pull this item off and try to get it -- put it on
this agenda to get a conceptual approval of this lease. Ford had
a simple one-page lease when we started negotiations. Ford
Motor -- well, it's Ford Motor Company Credit. Now they have
revised their lease and it's a t 0-page, fairly complex document,
so there --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Eliminating Bridgestone and
Firestone tires, right?
MR. ZACHARY: Exactly. Goodyear only.
We wanted a chance to negotiate that they're amenable to
certain negotiations. There are certain things that were in the
prior lease, such as maintenance, an indemnity clause that we
needed to get out of there, an early out provision in case things
don't work out.
Page 45
September 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question?
MR. ZACHARY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm willing to support this and to
give the county attorney's office discretion to negotiate
appropriate terms. I just was a little curious about, is this some
exceptionally good deal for the county? That's the reason why
we're going to do this alternate fuel vehicle lease?
MR. ZACHARY: The original terms, I think Mr. Rodriguez
could speak to some of the technical terms. But I think that's
what Ford wanted as a conceptual approval of the price term
that will stay the same. Then we'll work out the details.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is why are we
getting in the business of alternate fuel vehicles?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, commissioners. Daniel
Rodriguez~ facilities management.
Actually, the reason we're getting involved is to take a
positive and proactive approach for bringing alternative fuel
vehicles into our fleet.
Currently we don't have any mandates by the state or
federal level, but continually they keep coming up annually,
saying well, we're going to postpone it another year.
And what we'd like to do, because this is such a good deal,
we're getting two Ford Ranger trucks. They were sitting on the
other coast. Somebody from Ford gave our organization a call
and said look, we'll cut you a great deal on these vehicles. So
we thought we'd take the opportunity.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is it going to cost us any more
to operate these vehicles than if we had standard vehicles?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, actually we're going to save about 40
percent.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I make a motion to approve
entering into the leasing on the financial terms that we have in
our packet, and giving the county attorney's office discretion to
negotiate the balance of the terms in accordance with our usual
procedures.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Second by Commissioner
Brandt. Any speakers on that item?
Page 46
September 26, 2000
MR. OLLIFF-' No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Proactive move on our part.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It could happen.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Even California hasn't mandated
this yet.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2000-340 APPOINTING ALBERT DORIA, JR. TO THE
CITIZENS ADVISORY TASK FORCE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 10(A), appointment of member
of the citizens advisory task force.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One member, one applicant.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the applicant.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
aye.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Discussion?
Any speakers on the item?
MR. OLLIFF: No.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Motion and a second.
All those in favor, please state
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2000-341 REAPPOINTING JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO
FOR DISTRICT 2 GARY WRAGE FOR DISTRICT 5 - ADOPTED
Appointment of members of the Collier County Planning
Commission.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question for the county
Page 47
September 26, 2000
attorney's office. Is it required that the commissioners reside in
the districts which they represent? In other words, we have two
applicants here, but only one of them resides in -- what is it,
district --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: District 2. And the other one
resides in 5. Let the county attorney answer your question, but
it's my understanding they must reside in the district for which
they serve.
MR. WEIGEI.: I think that's the plan. I cannot recall off the
top of my head if it's absolutely required. I can tell you that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: -- if you'd like to come back to that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a requirement --
MR. WEIGEL.' Ms. Filson is nodding.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' -- not a suggestion?
MS. FILSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Then we don't have any
discretion.
MR. WEIGEL.' I believe her.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
MS. FILSON: And then I have one comment, if I may.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: My point was going to be, and
maybe it's moot now, that if it isn't a requirement, it would seem
to me that this board should establish a policy that it is a
requirement. Otherwise, I don't see how the individual can
properly represent that district and the needs of it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But Ms. Filson has made the
ruling on the field and she says it is required.
MS. FILSON: It is required. And also, the LDC indicates that
the term for both districts should not expire in the same year,
and it currently does for District 2.
And I believe about eight years ago one member moved from
one district to another, and they transferred him and that's how
that came about.
I'm currently advertising for the second member for District
2 right now, because I didn't receive any. So would the board
suggest that I -- that we appoint that person for a three-year term
and then four years thereafter to get them out of sync?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: It makes sense.
Page 48
September 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Makes sense to me, Counselor
Filson. I think that would work for District 2.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So we'll entertain a motion then
from Commissioner Carter on your District 2 appointment.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That the -- as you stated, you
wanted the next appointment to be for three years, and
subsequently followed by a four-year term. MS. FILSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And do you endorse Ms. Rautio
for-- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, and I endorse Ms. Rautio to
be reappointed for District 2.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Then you've got -- I'll stop it at
that, because the other one's District 5.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we want to appointment the
District 5 commissioner? There's only one name there.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, I'll do that, if I may do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second both of those.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Perhaps we could get
Commissioner Carter to clean it up and put it all in one motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move that the appointment for
District 2 be a three-year period, subsequently followed by a
four-year reappointment, if I understand Ms. Filson correctly. And
at this time to reappointment J.A. Rautio for District 2 and Mr.
Gary Wrage for District 5, which is also a reappointment.
MS. FILSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have speakers on that, Mr.
OIIJff?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
All those in favor of the motion,
Motion carries 4-0.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2000-342 APPOINTING WILLIAM E. ARTHUR AND
Page 49
September 26, 2000
JAMES J. HENNICK - ADOPTED
Takes us to appointment of members to the Golden Gate
Community Center Advisory Committee. It's to appoint two
members to fulfill vacant partially done terms and also an
additional person for a two-year -- for a full two-year term? We're
looking for three bodies here; is that right?
MS. FILSON: No, we're only looking for two.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have committee
recommendation. I don't know any of the --
MS. FILSON: Because they're expiring in September, that's
less than six months, and normally when we appoint someone for
six months, we appoint them for an additional full term, because
I'm going to have to send them a letter -- two letters.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'll make a
recommendation -- I'll make a motion that we appointment the
committee recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Discussion?
Any speakers?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Motion carries 4-0.
Item #10D
LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST FLORIDA CRIME
STOPPERS~ INC. - APPROVED
Item 10(D) is a letter of agreement. This is about as
cut-and-dry as it gets. Southwest Florida Crime Stoppers, Inc.
gets a bunch of grant money. In order for any of it to come to
Collier County, we have to accept it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you proposing we do that?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And their letter would
just say -- I asked to copy the Lee County version and it says --
it's a letter from me and it says, this serves as certification of
the Lee County Board of Commissioners -- we'll change that to
Page 50
September 26, 2000
Collier -- hereby authorizes Crime Stoppers to act as its
permanent agent for applying and receiving monies by Crime
Stoppers.
That part of the money, by the way, can only be spent in
Collier County. So it's a very beneficial program. We can get
money put into our own community. All we have to do is accept
it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
Motion to approveit.
Second.
Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a pair of seconds.
Discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2000-343 URGING STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO
EXPEDITE INVESTIGATION OF EDUCORP LOAN - ADOPTED
Commissioner Mac'Kie, 10(E)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like just to read a resolution
that I hope we can have the unanimous support of the board to
urge -- well, I'll just read it, it speaks for itself. Resolution
requesting prompt completion of loan investigation and
publication of results.
WHEREAS, the Collier County Commission has been plagued
with ethical and legal concerns over the past several years; and,
WHEREAS, those ethical and legal problems have resulted in
public distress of local elected officials; and,
WHEREAS, this cloud of distress and cynicism has damaged
the community of Collier County; and,
WHEREAS, questions arising regarding a loan made to
Commissioner Constantine's business interests have
perpetuated this distrust and cynicism; and,
WHEREAS, Commissioner Constantine has referred the
documentation of said load to the state attorney's office for
investigation; and,
WHEREAS, pending the outcome of the state attorney's
Page 51
September 26, 2000
investigation, the relevant documents are not being made
available for public review; and,
WHEREAS, there is a genuine public interest in resolving the
questions associated with the loan because of the impact to the
public trust in local elected officials; and,
WHEREAS, the Collier County Commission supports open,
honest government and is committed to restoring the public trust
in its local elected officials.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that it is hereby
respectfully requested that the state attorney for the 20th
Judicial Circuit promptly complete its review of the Constantine
loan documentation and with all deliberate speed make public
the results of any ongoing investigation in this regard.
And I move this resolution be adopted today and forwarded
to the state attorney by hand delivery today. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me make a couple of
suggestions. One, I'm not going to vote on it for obvious reasons,
but I do support it in completion. The one thing ! would suggest
is we put the Educorp loan, instead of the Constantine loan,
because there is no loan to Constantine.
The only other thing I'd suggest is put Commissioner
Carter's name and sign that as vice chair. ! probably shouldn't
be signing that, sending it off, telling them to hurry up my
investigation.
Just by way of comment, when the Naples Daily News first
raised questions about this, knowing that the story was out there
and that it was partial information that they had written that on,
knowing exactly, as you have written here, that we have had a
series of ethical and legal questions and concerns raised in
Collier County, and also knowing that in the world of politics
speculation and innuendo is unfortunately the norm rather than
the exception, then I did a couple of things.
The very next day had a press conference where one, I
outlined almost word for word what you've laid out here about
ethical and legal problems and public distrust and cynicism and
so on, and recognized that concern, assured the public, and I do
again today, that there's been no wrongdoing.
But most importantly, I requested the state attorney do this
Page 52
September 26, 2000
investigation. And I think sometimes that has gotten -- is
forgotten in the stow. That request came from me. I have
obviously an interest in clearing my own name, but also, as an
eight-year public servant, I want all this nonsense to stop, too. I
want this commission to just be able to do its business without
all these questions.
So while that investigation that I requested continues,
unfortunately, so does speculation. And nobody would love to
see this concluded any sooner than I would. Gina Edwards
asked me during the break, do you support this. And I said boy, if
you had a measuring stick and you could measure desire in
people and you measured each of the four of us, I guarantee you,
riobody's desire to have this thing concluded is any higher than
mine.
So I support this. I'm not going to vote on it, just for the
apparent conflict, but I support it completely. I think it's a great
idea, God bless, and while I want the state attorney to do a
thorough job, the sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned.
Any other comments before we call the question?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. I'm just asking
Commissioner Mac'Kie if the amendments are acceptable to her.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Then they're acceptable to the
second, and it will be my pleasure to sign this in hopes that we
can expedite and get this resolved.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor, please state
aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 3-0, one
abstention and one absentee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you get that changed, Sue,
so we could get that hand delivered today?
Item #1 lcl
KEN THOMPSON REGARDING SHERIFF HUNTER AND VARIOUS
OTHER ISSUES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which takes us to public
comment on general topics.
Page 53
September 26, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: You have one, Mr. Chairman. Kenneth
Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm Ken Thompson. I live at 2831 Becca
Avenue. And I'm -- I come over here today to talk to Don Hunter.
I know he'd be here. And I want to know why a man can't
protect his house with an alarm. And rather having the sheriff
department, he's a saying he's got too -- getting too many calls,
you know, taking up too much of the sheriff's time.
Well, I didn't know he had any time, because every time you
call him, it takes him two and a half hours to get from my -- this
building here to my house. And that's the honest to God truths,
and everybody else on Bayshore Drive will tell you so.
You either need a machine gun or an alarm system to live on
Bayshore Drive. And believe you me, you go around to where I
go, at places, and you find out.
Michelle Arnold, she's a saying that you can drive your car
to work and put a for sale sign on it in the parking lot. Well, all
you're doing is just having another one come along with you
whether he works there or not and he'll stick one on it. The
Golden Gate parking lot is just full of them.
But it's not fair that a man can't protect his house. Now, if
this alarm of mine -- it went off yesterday because I bumped it
with a chair. And I haven't -- that's the first time it's went off
since January the 1st. If it goes off again in four months, he
wants to fine me $75. Well, he better fine me 150, because I
won't pay it.
He's just a -- he's gold digger, he will be a gold digger until
you get him out of office. Believe you me, and I tried hard.
But it's not fair, it's not fair to the people, it's not fair to
anybody.
Mr. Carter, you saying that you can't have a pole sign. Well, I
wish you would take down the one across the bridge from me.
You do a heck of a good job. And everybody in Naples has
lowered their signs down like you asked them to, all but
McDonald's. Why are they sticking up like a sore thumb? And
I'm telling you, it's sticking up like a sore thumb. It's not even a
beautiful sign. It's a terrible looking sign. If you had something
on it that meant anything, that would be all right. I don't see
nothing on it that means anything. What's two golden arches
mean? I got arches in my shoes, but it don't mean nothing to me.
Page 54
September 26~ 2000
And I've been ripped apart by airplanes, and I'm a telling
you~ I've had enough of these people. You should go see, I have
chain link fence behind me that's four foot. And the guy built
behind me -- this is nothing but a conspiracy from this zoning
board to come there and put all this dirt here, two foot higher
than a four-foot chain link fence and then put a slab on it on top
of it. And when you get through with the house, I don't know
where this guy's going with his house. And the poor people on
lot one and two, you can't even see the house. And this past rain
that come here the other day, you won't believe it. It's terrible.
It's just terrible.
You can't run people out of their houses. And the guy west
of me, when he built, tried the same thing. But then they
wouldn't let him do it. They told him he had to go and dig all the
roots out, all the mud, and get a test and then put clean fill back.
This guy, he put thumps and boulders, and I never seen such a
mess. But he got away with it.
And he's working right now under a red tag. Two, as a
matter of fact. Two red tags. And I don't understand it. He
come out there last week, instead of putting a block on the slab,
he took 'em right off and put it right in the middle of Weeks
Avenue. He dumped the trusses on Weeks Avenue. He dumped
the dirt on Weeks Avenue.
Well~ I just don't understand how you let things go like this.
When I was trying to build my wife's beauty parlor, all I put was
32 inches on the back of it. Closed in a screened in porch. I got
2t permits. And I don't know what else do you want me to have.
I get called for a pole light and I'm finding out the people
that's a calling me, they don't have pole light permits. That cost
me another $80.
So I'm living with lawyers and county people. Damn, I wish
it would stop. And you got a deputy sheriff that wrote this up
right here for me yesterday, and if he knowed the real fact about
him -- and if I really wanted to tell you about it, you wouldn't
believe it. And he's on that sheriff's department.
I tried to explain that to Don Hunter and this gentleman here
come out. Well, I guess he's protecting his boss, and I don't
really blame him.
But that domestic violence thing is strong enough, because
I'm a man that's under it right now. I'm not under it, I had a man
Page 55
September 26, 2000
put under it, and it's just not strong enough.
If it hadn't been for Perry Mates of the Sheriff's Department,
this man would actually kill me. And if you know what it's about,
I know what it's about. I know what it's about now. I can't call
him names, and he's not -- he's at this time under a lifetime -- you
know what I mean? He's under a lifetime peace bond.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. THOMPSON: It's the worst thing I've ever seen. I wish
you'd get Don Hunter straightened about this, because everybody
like me don't have $75. And my wife and I both are victims of the
sheriff's department.
But I don't know where to take this. And I'll tell you, I've
had enough of Don Hunter. You people that voted him in, I
swear, I don't understand it.
Item #t2A1
RESOLUTION 2000-344 APPROVING THE PROPOSED GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE IMMOKALEE AREA
MASTER PLAN AND THE IMMOKALEE FUTURE LAND USE MAP
TO DELINEATE AN URBAN INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT AREA
FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That takes us to the afternoon
agenda, Item 12(A)(1) is recommendation the BCC adopt a
resolution to approve the proposed Growth Management Plan
Amendment to the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
commissioners. Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning
manager.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm ready to make a motion in
support of this, unless we need to have a discussion about it.
MR. OLLIFF: No speakers.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have only one question. On
page -- if I may?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: On Page 2 it says the DCA is fast
tracking these amendments in order for municipalities and
counties to qualify for this program. The request of the DCA will
Page 56
September 26, 2000
be to review the amendment without an objections review and
comment report. What does that mean?
MR. LITSINGER: Generally under normal plan amendment
process, which has not been expedited, due to the time frames
that we need to meet, both the DCA and ourselves -- and this is
primarily a procedural matter, with no issues relative to internal
consistency and things of that nature, since we're only
designating an area for grant applications -- several things will
be taking place at the same time.
The DCA has opposed to issuing a formal report on any
comments or objections -- which we would not expect any on
this, since we're following their instructions -o which takes 45
days, and we need to in the meantime be processing a grant
application to have in by November the 12th.
They are going to go directly to a notice of intent to find our
amendment in compliance; in the meantime, as we're preparing
the ordinance for adoption. In other words, a procedural matter
as opposed to the more complex amendments that we generally
do. It's not included in their two-a-year amendment cycles. In
fact, it's a designation of an overlay which has no regulatory
impact and that is not changing any of the standing zoning on the
properties, just making it eligible for some available grants.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion and
Commissioner Carter snuck in there with a second.
All those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0. Thanks,
Stan.
Item #12Cl
RESOLTUION 2000-345 ADJUSTING LANDFILL TIPPING FEES,
RESIDENTIAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS AND COMMERCIAL
WASTE COLLECTION FEES FOR FY 2000/2001 - ADOPTED AS
AMENDED
Page 57
September 26, 2000
Item 12(C)(1) I have some questions on, if we could get a
presentation, Mr. Finn.
MR. FINN: Yes, sir, Edward Finn, interim public utilities
administrator.
This is actually a fairly routine item, and I'd be happy to
entertain any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, let me run through a
couple. General tipping fee for waste disposal and line cells
increased by consumer price index of just over one percent.
MR. FINN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Increasing the rate from 27.07
to 28.03. I'm trying to figure out how one percent of 27 bucks is
a dollar. Or is 96 cents.
MR. FINN: That's a good question.
The rate also includes -- that is the rate for tipping. We also
have within there the increase in the amount of garbage
generated on a per household basis. There's two components to
it. There's an increase in the generation rate per household, as
well as the increase in the per ton rate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that's the net, including both
of those.
MR. FINN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's not the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It has left -- you have merely
mistakenly left out a partial explanation for the increase, as
opposed to a mathematical error; is that correct? MR. FINN: I beg your pardon even? Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Your favorite color is blue; is
that correct?
MR. FINN: Yes, you are correct. That's a partially worded
explanation for the increase.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And then down below it says
the next paragraph, bottom of the next paragraph, a $3.50
increase from 31.67 to 35.17 is due to a 1.5 percent CPI increase
and a 9.41 percent increase in the per ton generation rate for
residential units. That would appear to be what you just -- you
still with me?
MR. FINN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That would appear to be what
Page 58
September 26, 2000
you just described, which is being accounted for separately.
When you talk about the increase of per ton generation for
residential units, I understand that, if we're down below. But
from what you've just said, I fear now it's being double dipped,
using that reasoning in two places.
MR. FINN: Let me start by saying the consumer price index
for that month was -- it's 3.54 percent.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For the record, you are?
MR. FINN: I will attempt to answer this. The consumer
price index for the month of May, which is the number we're
talking about, was 3.54 percent. What you're actually seeing
there is a typo. That should say t.035 is the multiplier. The
index was 3.54 percent. The math does work.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll be checking that shortly.
MR. FINN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So that is no -- so that --
MR. FINN: That is not double dipping.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Down below where it says a
nine-and-a-half percent increase in the per household, we're all
generating more trash --
MR. FINN: On average, yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- theoretically. Is -- doesn't
have anything to do with the 27.07 to the 28.03? MR. FINN: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You're sure?
MR. FINN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. That concludes my
questions on this topic.
Commissioner Mac'Kie.
MR. FINN: I apologize for the incorrect answer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My questions have to do with the
other item, and I guess Mr. Weigel's question for you. Does the
contract require that we -- I understand we're required to give
CPI, and the math just has to be right and you guys -- I'm not
doing the math, so I'm counting on you to do the math and to tell
me the math's right.
CPI is something that the contract prescribes. Is this $1.00
charge for broken driveways and $t.00 charge for stolen carts
something that the contract requires? I don't want to pay for
somebody else stealing carts, and I think that Waste
Page 59
September 26, 2000
Management should have to pay for busting driveways.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, in part the question is to what extent
does Waste Management have to continue to resupply carts that
are missing. And the contract, and correct me, Robert, if I'm
wrong, the contract does not provide for them to have to
consistently resupply and resupply households that have lost
that particular container.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, then what is the alternative
for them? They also have a truck that only picks up with those
specific containers, so if we want to have their guy get out of the
truck and dump garbage by hand, then that is also their option
under the contract; am I right?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Or the household missing the cart
pays for the replacement of the cart.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Part of the problem and I think
part of what led -- and I'm sorry Commissioner Berry isn't here,
but I think part of what led to this is particularly in Estates zoned
area where you may have 180 feet or 360 feet between
driveways. There has been vandalism or theft of these in certain
areas, with some repetition and so on. And we don't want to end
up penalizing someone for being a victim. And that I think is
where a lot of this has come from, and not a matter as much of
people being irresponsible and just losing them or using them for
other --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. But my problem is I don't
want to penalize the victim, so I don't want the individual to have
to pay who has had their cart stolen. But likewise, I don't want
to penalize the rest of us if Waste Management can be required
to bear that expense or to bear the consequences.
MR. OLLIFF: And I'm not sure that I understand why it would
be the private contractor's responsibility. In the case of general
store theft, it's a built-in price. I promise you pay in any grocery
store or anyplace else for the amount of pilferage that goes on in
terms of the general inventory. And it's the same concept here.
We're talking about some of the containers that are being stolen,
destroyed or damaged beyond use. Generally the full customer
base is going to end up bearing the cost for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And broken driveways, likewise,
why wouldn't their contract require them, if they're damaging
driveways, to bear the cost of the repair?
Page 60
September 26, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That I tend to agree with. If
they caused it, they need to repair it. Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's the focus of my question,
and I asked that question yesterday. The answer I got, and I
would like to hear it for the public to have the benefit of it, is that
apparently in some areas where there aren't sufficient
right-of-way privileges or accommodations, the trucks cannot
turn around properly and are damaging private driveways.
My reaction was the same as yours. And I said why should
not a truck driver who is not careful create a problem and cause
a person to have to repair his own driveway? And it's my
understanding, and I'd like an expansion of that discussion that I
had with Mr. McNees yesterday so that I can better understand
why we do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I have that experience. As a
matter of fact, right now we just -- if Leo Ochs were here, he
could tell you we've been meeting with people around Sugden
Park, where we're fencing off the back side of Sugden Park, and
as a result of that, some garbage trucks, for example, won't be
able to turn around where they have historically turned. They'll
be required to back down the roads and back up and drive out.
Say my parents street is exactly the same, the trucks have to
back down and pull out.
But that doesn't mean it's not a wide enough road for the
truck to physically meander. So I don't know why we should pay
for those broken driveways.
And I'm still looking for a way not to pay for the stolen carts,
because we're doing it, we're using these carts because Waste
Management came in and asked us to. MR. OLLIFF: We did.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We asked them? I mean, is that
what you're telling me, we asked them to go with this process
instead of--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's two questions on the
floor. Commissioner Brandt's question, subject to a little more
implication on the driveway issue. The contract says the county
will provide appropriate accessibility to the areas to be picked
up.
The fact is that in the Estates where you have very, very
Page 61
September 26, 2000
long roads that terminate in a dead end, there is not enough
public road right-of-way for those trucks to turn around. The
length of those roads likewise make it unsafe for the truck to
back down miles and miles at a time. The drivers are forced at
times to use part of private property and at times damage private
driveways.
The proposal here is in lieu of creating hundreds of
thousands of dollars, millions of dollars in improvements to
create appropriate turnarounds at those street ends, to simply
reinforce and repair some private driveways to allow operations
to continue efficiently. There are --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much money will be
generated by this $1.00 fee over 10 years?
MR. FINN: It would be $70,000 a year this year. There's
about 70,000 customers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we're only going to do it for
one year? It's not going to be perpetual?
MR. FINN: These funds will be done one year. The program
will be evaluated, we will evaluate how it's going, we will plan,
we will do, we will check, and then we will act if it needs to be
changed in the upcoming years.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So maybe it's cheaper than --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I would --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on, hang on.
Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: One of the inputs I had yesterday
was that currently Waste Management does repair the driveways
they damage, but it takes a long time for them to do that. With
this program, we would expect to be more expeditious in getting
the --
MR. FINN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: -- the customer's driveway
repaired.
MR. FINN: A big part of this is if we have the funding, we
will be more responsive to those customers. It's difficult to go
from the customer complaint, work with Waste Management, get
them to coordinate a contractor; we'll be able to facilitate that
quite a bit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's hard for me to imagine that
Waste Management hadn't been able to afford to do that
Page 62
September 26, 2000
promptly, and now with this dollar they'll be able to do it. I'd like
to hear from Waste Management on that point.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And is the county going to
manage this or is Waste Management going to manage it?
MR. FINN: We're going to manage this.
Part of this money is not just to repair driveways but to
actually reinforce them so that they can handle the weight of the
trucks so there won't be any damage. It is essentially a
permanent solution for lack of --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Because you have specific
places. This isn't randomly at any place. There are specific
places where this is likely to occur. MR. FINN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the county is going to be in
charge of making these repairs? We're not going to tell Waste
Management to hire a contractor, we're going to hire a
contractor?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That would seem --
MR. FINN: Yes, we will be doing the contracting and have
those repairs done.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Before we go to speakers, I had
one other question on here, and I apologize.
3.54 percent CPI. That says July CPI. How did we arrive at
that? Because certainly the annual CPI is lower than three and a
half right now.
MR. FINN: That was actually the May CPI, the 3.54 percent.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, it says July.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is July.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Who put this together anyway.
MR. FINN: The July is the 3.01 percent that applies to
commercial.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Olliff, somebody, while we're
doing this, needs to check the math, because there are enough
concerns being raised here, because this 103.54 that now we are
supposed to think is supposed to be 354 is repeated throughout
this. It says July, it doesn't say May.
MR. FINN: I have checked the math. I have my calculator.
That is a multiplier that shouldn't have a percentage on the end.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Again, if it's 3.54, it's 3.54. I'm
Page 63
September 26~ 2000
asking, how is it we arrived at the annual CPI? I may be
mistaken, but I don't believe right now is three and a half. MR. FINN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's for different things.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right, I mean they're different.
Where do we get this number to plug in?
MR. FINN: 3.54 was the CPI number in May.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right. And how did we pick
May?
MR. FINN: That is by contract.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's always May~ or is it
whenever Waste Management wants it, or how did they select
May?
MR. FINN: Yes, those are by contract.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The contract says May --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The contract says May of every
year?
MR. FINN: Contract and what we do every year is May and
July for the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May and what?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: July.
MR. FINN: July.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So why are we using May instead
of July? This isn't making sense. I really want this to make
sense. Why is that?
MR. FINN: We have stood before the board and we have said
that these contracts needs certain administrative improvements.
The coordination of the CPI dates, with the budget, are among
those improvements that we will be recommending.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're doing a request for bid,
request for proposals right now for -- effective the end of next
year anyway, September 30th of next year; is that correct?
MR. FINN: We will be coming to the board with --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So this would be the final time
we'd see adjustments done in this way, unless the next contract
were to mimic this contract. There's an opportunity to correct
that.
MR. FINN: There are always opportunities to make
improvements, and this is certainly among that group.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Fair enough.
Page 64
September 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I concur with the chairperson,
that we have -- this is only one year. We have an opportunity in a
new contract to correct the deficiencies that we see here, and
therefore, you know, I can support this because it's a temporary
situation.
Number two, I think in the limited areas, essentially we
created the problem in terms of trucks being able to do what
they need to do. And I think it is a reasonable solution to use a
small fee for us to then take control of that to make sure that
those driveways are fixed on a permanent basis.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've just got to say, on the $2.00,
I think that if Waste Management failed to incorporate in their
pricing, in their bid, they knew -- they looked at this county, they
saw what the roads looked like, they saw that there were long
roads without turnarounds. Surely they factored that in in their
bid when they got this contract. And likewise, they priced the
container program. Surely they factored in some loss of
equipment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I've told you before, don't call
me Shirley.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You don't want to know what I
want to call you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, I know.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, you know.
But I think that both of those two things should have been
factored into their original bids. I don't know why we should add
them later. And that's what I'm waiting to hear still.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Again, those type things
obviously we need to be addressing. We are currently
assembling -- am I not mistaken, Mr. Finn, we're currently
assembling the RFP so that we'll be taking bids in the coming
months and the future board will have an opportunity to review
every single detail of that?
MR. FINN: We are assembling a decision package for the
board to consider whether they're going to go out to bid or use
other alternatives regarding the collection.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But for today we're setting a
price for a year, and I need to understand about those two $1.00
charges, and I need to be sure that the math works. And I'm just
trusting you, Mr. Finn, because I know you're the numbers man.
Page 65
September 26, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: I will tell you, the math works. I will also tell
that you perhaps they should have anticipated some of this. But
I think in a lot of cases, these are reasonable recommendations
to make in terms of contract amendments. I think these are not
business expenses that you could have anticipated and known,
based on looking at Golden Gate Estates roadways, that you are
going to break "X" number of driveways and that cost would be
I think, you know, it may be -- one of the things that I think
clearly we'll want to anticipate in part of the RFP process that
we look at in new collections contract. But I do think frankly
these are reasonable expenses for the contractor that we're
looking at today.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I would further add, no one
has ever written a perfect contract, so when you learn from this
experience, when you go to the next one, you incorporate that
which you have learned.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't -- I was hoping we would
hear from Waste Management on the question of why those two
costs weren't incorporated in the original bid. Because
otherwise, I don't think I can support those two $1.00 charges.
MR. STEWART: Tim Stewart, from Waste Management, for
the record.
In reference to the stolen cart, that is addressed in our
contract with the county. That is the responsibility of the
residents for that stolen cart for replace -- for paying that.
The county is -- has asked to take that over from a customer
service standpoint so that the resident, being the victim for most
of the cases, would not have to incur that cost.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That makes more sense to me.
What you're telling me is you've already contracted -- in the cart
program it says if your cart is stolen, you have to replace it. This
is more fair than making the victim pay.
MR. STEWART: That is acc -- that's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now help me with the driveway
question.
MR, STEWART: The driveway question is something that's
been around for a long time, and it's become more apparent with
Page 66
September 26, 2000
the type of trucks that we're using with the side letters. They
can only pick up on one side of the street, so they must go up
and down the street.
And this problem is all in Golden Gate City. And I think
Commissioner Carter said, these are long, narrow roads that do
not have turnarounds that we cannot back up two miles down a
road with a garbage truck that's very dangerous from all
perspectives.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But when you put forth this cart
program, you knew that that's the way the roads were configured
in that portion of the county and you should have anticipated
that. And I think that dollar is going to have to be some lost
profit instead of--
MR. STEWART: We have absorbed all those costs going
forward, and we have replaced in a timely manner -- I don't know
where Commissioner Brandt got that information -- but in a
timely manner those driveways. But the contract does specify, I
think as Mr. Finn said, that we will have access to turnaround on
streets, and we don't have that right now.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'd like to -- like a little further
explanation. Did this problem arise before you did the change in
the method of picking up the trash?
MR. STEWART: The problem in Golden Gate Estates has
always been there, no matter what type of truck we use.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: What I thought I heard earlier
was that this problem was exacerbated by the side pickup
approach that you're taking.
MR. STEWART: That has increased it correctly, right.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That sounds to me like you
helped create the problem.
MR. STEWART: It doesn't matter what type of vehicle.
These vehicles are 35 feet long, and the roads do not -- the roads
aren't even that long to begin with at the end of these streets,
and we do not have the capability of turning around in them. We
must back up to the first driveway to turn around. It's always
been like that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And bas -- that is frankly the
point. Just like there are factors -- there are elements of this
contract that we would like to correct and that cost the county
Page 67
September 26, 2000
and that we want to see changed, there are likewise elements
that don't work in your favor. And I think that the driveway
cracking cost is your problem. And I'm just going to stick with
that. I haven't heard anything --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I would support that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any other speakers?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the pleasure of the
board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make a motion to approve the
increase in cost with the exception of the $1.00 charge for the
driveways.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I would second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Finn, there is a result of
that. It may not be what the intention of the board is. MR. FINN: If I may, there's a couple of results.
Our program proposes to reinforce those driveways so that
the problem is solved. Waste Management in the past has
repaired the driveways, but not reinforced them to avoid future
problems.
In the event that the we're going to attempt to force them to
make those repairs, we need to look to them to make permanent
solution.
Additionally, through the budget process, the board has
seen these programs on a couple of different occasions. The
board approved them in the adopted budget, and most recently
approved the resolution to set the assessment rolls to include
these costs in those assessments rolls.
The impact of changing them here is a little bit uncertain.
The attorney's office was unable to advise us prior to this
meeting on exactly how that would go.
I will continue~ if Mr. Weigel is unable to help me, and say if
the board is directing us to do that, we will endeavor to do as
much as possible to make sure that those do not appear on the
tax roll. But I am uncertain as to whether we can actually
accomplish that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that would sure be a major
staff gaff if you've had us approve something before -- I mean,
you had us approve a roll with the number before you gave us the
number to consider.
Page 68
September 26, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: That's the issue that Mr. Finn brought up
originally about the contract timings and how they just don't fit
with the budget process, and how as part of that RFP process,
we need to make those revisions in the new contract.
MR. FINN: In staff's defense, I am going to say that these
were included in the budget at the budget hearing. When our
budget was reviewed, I specifically stood at the podium and
indicated clearly that these were in here, indicated clearly that
these programs were included. They were expanded programs,
and they were fairly fully described in the documents provide to
the board, as was the executive summary.
It was also clear last week on these resolutions, indicating
these programs were in there. I'm hesitant to apologize for the
staff work. I think it was adequate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could just say, I appreciate
that, Ed, and you're right.
MR. FINN: Thank you, I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I remember seeing it in the
budget that we had, and I remember reviewing it, and as I further
reviewed it, sometimes I asked questions that I didn't ask the
first time.
MR. FINN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And so it doesn't mean that I'm
done with it until I'm done with it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think the most important
question here is not whether there's some bureaucratic snafu,
that's really no offense intended, and this is going to sound flip,
but that's staff's problem. The policy is --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I would propose, Mr.
Chairman --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If I could just finish with my
comment --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- Commissioner Carter, that's
staff's concern. And the policy decision, how you comply with
the policy decision of this board is you do whatever you've got to
do.
MR. FINN: You're absolutely right.
Page 69
September 26, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The stronger concern is just
making sure that the people who are getting the service, the
people who are living in the Estates on the end of those streets
don't come home once every four months or six months and have
their driveway crumbled.
And I understand the concern, I think it's a valid one. I do
think it needs to be addressed in the long term. But I think the
most effective way for us, when we talk about health, safety and
welfare and just basic private property rights, I think we probably
need to bite the bullet on that one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let me make one comment. I
apologize for the interruption, Mr. Chairman.
I agree with you, and I also would say I would swear on my
life that it would cost more to change this than improve it in for
one year in the whole regulatory administrative process. So I'm
going to support this, that we do it and look to the next contract
negotiation to correct the inaccuracies.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One other question. It's this one
$1.00 charge on driveways is for District 1. But that's actually
county-wide?
MR. FINN: With the exception of the Immokalee area, yes,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With the exception of
Immokalee.
I iust don't understand why that -- my question was going to
be what's the amount of capital reserves you have available in
the solid waste fund, and couldn't that the be the source for
these driveway improvements. Haven't we already collected
enough.
MR. FINN: The answer to that is there certainly are $75,000
in reserves to support this program in reserves.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then Mr. Weigel, how difficult
would it be to get this off the roll? Is it possible at this point?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's the question. The only question
that comes up rather quickly at this moment is if a dollar is
removed from the roll, can we certify a new roll to the tax
collector and it works for him. And I would tend to think if we
can submit something today, based on if there were to be a
change, they can still do it. But without speaking to the tax
Page 70
September 26, 2000
collector, that's why we can't given instant response to that
question if this comes up at the meeting this morning.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Clarification, Mr. Finn. You said
there are adequate funds in reserve. Is that the landfill capital
fund, or is that just the standard reserves that we assign to each
MR. FINN: The mandatory collection program is in a
separate fund that has separate reserves.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. And that's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's what I --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- different from what you had
inquired of.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, my intention was in the
landfill reserves, in the mandatory collection. I said that wrong -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, because there are
two separate --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- and I wanted to make sure --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, and the mandatory
collection reserves.
MR. FINN: The roll actually has to be certified on October
10th, I'm told, David, so --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have any idea how much
how much is in that reserve and how much annually is budgeted
in that reserve?
MR. FINN: Off the top of my head, I do not. But I am certain,
given the magnitude of the program, our normal policies, five
percent is well, well in excess of $70,000.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you think it's a one-time
correction, as you said earlier --
MR. FINN: I think that --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- that may be long term.
MR. FINN: -- it may well be one time, we may well be able to
make the majority of the improvements. I suspect that there will
be continuing problems as this program continues, and we will
be back here at some point asking for adjustments. That is the
very nature of being proactive.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I -- looking at the possibility that
Commissioner Mac'Kie raised about an alternative approach,
rather than changing all of this now, but somehow dipping into
Page 71
September 26, 2000
the reserve fund that is available, that might be the easiest way
to do it and it doesn't present a problem to the tax collector
either, so I don't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, it would. It would.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: -- I don't know how you balance
all of that.
MR, OLLIFF.' If it continues to cause a problem for the tax
collector, we'll have to just go work with his office and see
whether or not we can adjust the roll at this point or not. So
perhaps your motion could just be for us to go work with that,
and if that's possible, do it. And if not, then go ahead and
continue to take that out of reserve, but hold that money so
when we have that rate discussion next year, we will have that
$70,000 still sitting in reserve and we can either adjust rates
down or make the change accordingly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state
aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0. Thank you.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE 2000-61, THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER
IRRIGATION ORDINANCE REGULATING THE HOURS OR
IRRIGATION - ADOPTED
Next item is 12(C)(2). The Chair will entertain a motion to
approve and adopt the Collier County water irrigation ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I want to talk about it. I'm
just so glad we're doing it. And we probably ought to have a --
use this opportunity for a little bit of public education.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what, I'll make you a
promise that our Channel 54 crew -- award winning Channel 54
crew will do that repeatedly, if we can move this along fairly
rapidly. Unless there's an objection from anybody here.
Page 72
September 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second.
Discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, state aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Great presentation, Paul.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great program, Paul.
Item #12C3
REVIEW HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE ROAD
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION FOR THE GOLF COURSE AT THE
STRAND - PETITIONER TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE
CALCULATION METHOD
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 12(C)(3), review hearing to
consider an alternative road impact fee calculation 'for golf
course at The Strand.
We actually have one, two, three, four, five, six of these.
You'll kind of set us up like you did last week for the -- MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- background? And I assume
some of these may be different than others again this week?
Thank you.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record.
Actually, no. There are some circumstances that you may
hear about from speakers, but the charts that we gave you, one
is a time line, the longer one on legal size paper. And we also
gave you a chart from the golf course impact fees that were
discussed at the last meeting on September 12th.
Today the six before you are on one chart dated September
26th, the date of today's meeting.
The common thread throughout -. and I can probably make
my presentation very brief and tell you that all of them, in every
case the impact fee was paid, or a partial impact fee was paid
after the first building permit for the particular golf course was
issued. That would have been required for certain development,
whether it be a cart barn, a maintenance building, a shelter or a
Page 73
September 26, 2000
clubhouse. That's the common thread.
And as you heard at the last meeting, that you will hear
today, consistent with staff's opinion, collectively and in unison
with the clerk of the court, that if a building permit was pulled
after the -- if a building permit was pulled and an impact fee was
not paid and if the fee was paid later, that the board does not
have the ability to hear an alternative calculation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that applies to every single
one of these?
MR. CAUTERO: That is the common thread for all six that
are before you today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: In any of those on either one of
these, so we have six on the front page, but then we have --
MS. FILSON: No, that's last week's.
MR. CAUTERO: I gave you a chart from September 12th for
reference purposes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right. We have six on the front
page, and then we have those from last week -- or two weeks
ago as well. Those that say -- just for clarification, those that
say not approved by the Board of County Commissioners do not
mean denied, they mean they never came before --
MR. CAUTERO: That's correct. And that's the case with the
first one that you just called on the agenda for today, The Strand.
An alternative calculation was submitted. The staff did not
bring that forth to the Board of County Commissioners; approved
it administratively in error. It should have been approved by the
Board of County Commissioners. And that's what I meant by
partial payment when I said that a few moments ago.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay, let's go to that one
specifically.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question of staff on
that one?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The alternate application was
made to the staff.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we all understand it was
inappropriately decided by staff instead of coming to the board.
But was it timely made?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
Page 74
September 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was made within -- I think it's
three months from the date of --
MR. CAUTERO: Yeah, it was made prior to the first building
permit being pulled. Exactly one week prior. One week later
they came in and pulled the permit, and that's where the error
occurred. The staff did not either bring the alternative
calculations to the board for the board's resolution or did not
collect a fee in accordance with the schedule.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So in this case the petitioner
jumped through the hoops, just --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Staff dropped the ball.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- the county was holding the
hoops in the wrong place.
MR. CAUTERO: You might say that, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Because if they applied timely,
and the error here was that the staff did not bring the application
to the board, then that's one circumstance that I'm willing to
listen to, if it's entirely our fault, entirely our staff's fault. Is that
the circumstance we have here?
MR. CAUTERO: That is one circumstance. I'm sure you may
hear others in that regard. And in this case, there were two
issues: The impact fee handled by the alternative calculation did
not go to the board, as well as the staff did not act when the
clubhouse permit came forward a week later.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But when they submitted an
alternate application, did it comply with the ordinance
requirements?
MR. CAUTERO: No, it did not, in our opinion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And yet you approved it anyway.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, and that's where the disconnect
between my division and transportation came in. Because the
alternative calculations submitted to us, in some cases it
submitted -- was previously, until the hiring of an impact fee
coordinator, submitted to the transportation division.
I don't know for a fact, and I can find out in a moment, if this
calculation was submitted to the transportation department first
or not. But there was definitely a miscommunication among staff
members. My staff believes that the alternative calculations did
not meet the provisions of the ordinance, in retrospect, in
looking at it.
Page 75
September 26~ 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm trying to separate two things,
though. One is whose fault -- where was the system broken. And
for right this minute my question is, I'm trying to find out, did the
applicant do their job? And their job would be to submit an
alternate application to staff in accordance with the ordinance
and under the timing requirements of the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And they are -- you're right,
there are two issues there. The only link is if staff had done its
job properly and they had submitted some incomplete
information, would staff have then said boy, we need more
information, or would it have been turned down? That's the only
link between the two.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. CAUTERO: But there's one other factor that I want you
to be aware of, and it affects staff's actions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can we get an answer to our
question first?
MR. CAUTERO: Well, I think the answer to the question is
yes. I'm sorry, Commissioner. I believe the answer is yes, that
the staff would have taken that action in a pure world.
My staff, when the clubhouse permit came in, should not
have approved it. It should have consulted with transportation
and asked where the alternative calculation was and what the
status of it was. However, it was -- Phil just reminded me, it was
accepted by transportation and approved by transportation.
And in looking at the calculations after the fact -- because
Phil has been working with these 14 files at great length, as I'm
sure you're aware -- opined that the calculation did not meet the
terms of the ordinance.
However, there's linkage between transportation and
community development. And I don't mean to confuse the issue.
I just want to make sure the board has all the information. When
they came in on March 13th of 1997, community development
staff should not have issued the permit for the clubhouse until
the final disposition of the alternative calculation was made by
the board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we appreciate the mea
culpas here, but what I'm trying to get at this point is a simple
answer -- okay~ Tom, you --
MR. OLLIFF: Let me try to make this real easy. I think the
Page 76
September 26, 2000
opinion between the clerk of courts and your county attorney is
that payment for the impact fees due, regardless of what that
calculation was, the payment has to be made prior to the
issuance of a building permit in order for this board to have an
ability within the ordinance to grant an alternative calculation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: In this case.
MR. OLLIFF: And in this case there was an application that
was made prior to the issuance of the permit, but the actual
payment wasn't made.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. But if the actual payment
wasn't made and that is 100 percent Collier County's fault, then
I'm more interested in trying to get to an equitable result than if
-- like last week, when we had developers standing up here
telling us they didn't know they owed an impact fee. David.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, David was going to try to
answer,
MR. WEIGEL: At the board meeting two weeks ago where
we talked about the very same issues, Ms. Mac'Kie spoke in part
about it's not just county staff, but it's the development
community, the engineers, the applicants, the agents for the
property owners that are supposed to know the law also. And
specifically, the ordinance provides -- this is the road impact fee
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The old one that was in effect at
this time.
MR. WEIGEL: The old one that was in effect.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: And this has really not changed now. Any
applicant or owner who has submitted a proposed alternative
road impact fee pursuant to this section and desires the
immediate issuance of a building permit shall pay prior to or at
the time the proposed alternative road impact fee is submitted.
The applicable road impact fee pursuant to such and such
section. It's 2.02.
The distinctions we're looking to draw here, factual
distinctions, are that yes, an applicant can in fact submit an
alternative impact fee application, and it under the ordinance
Page 77
September 26, 2000
fairly clearly states should come to the Board of County
Commissioners. And during that time they don't have to pay, but
the permits don't issue.
The cases that will be before you again today, similar to last
week, in most respects, are that they may or may not have in a
timely way prior to or at the issuance of a building permit
submitted an alternative impact fee request, but also received
the permits and to some degree building permits, and to some
degree, even went or possibly always went operational before
the full payment was made or a payment under protest was
made.
And those facts can be distinguished as you go through
each individual agenda item that you have here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So what you're -- what I'm
gleaning from the information you just gave me, David, is that it
would be -- I would be going too far if I said that this is 100
percent staff and that these operators or applicants didn't have
some responsibility, didn't at least know that they should have
paid something before they started running their golf courses.
MR. WEIGEL: In fact, the record reflects both you and I had
that discussion two weeks ago.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm getting it again, thanks.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: One of the things with regard to
this that keeps bothering me is that a statement is made in
several of these, and a sentence under the first paragraph under
consideration says in addition to not having been presented or
approved by the board, the alternative calculation was not
prepared compliant with the ordinance.
And in others there's a similar statement. It says the trip
generation data did not come from a generally accepted
standard source of transportation engineering or planning
information, or from a transportation impact study.
I'd like to understand what those standards are, and I'm
having trouble getting that information.
MR. OLLIFF: Those are the standards that --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Maybe I should say it differently.
I'm having trouble understanding what those standards are and
how they should be applied.
MR. OLLIFF: I can't tell you exactly what those standards
Page 78
September 26, 2000
are, but I can tell you those are the standards that were required
by the ordinance for an alternative impact fee calculation
submittal. The information that was submitted on the part of the
developer had to be based on one of those three things, and in
most cases, they weren't.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I think that's a very
significant factor in this whole issue.
MR. TINDALL: I can explain the standards in a nutshell.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay.
MR. TINDALL: For the record, Phil Tindall, impact fee
coordinator.
When -- the group of alternative fee calculations that we're
talking about today, when these were initially submitted, we had
advised them that they were not in compliance with the
standards of the ordinance. And what these standards are has to
do with the data that is used, the variable data that is used, for
calculating the alternative fee.
What the ordinance requires, if you're going to be using site
specific local data, you have to conduct a transportation impact
study, which means having personnel going out to the sites and
throwing down the machine counters and counting axles coming
in and out of the facility, and to actually conduct interviews with
motorists coming in and out of the facility to come up with
variable data having to do with the length of -- average length of
trips and all that.
For years, since we implemented the road impact fee for
golf courses back in '92, when alternative fee calculations were
submitted, that was not the type of local data that was used.
The type of local data that was used were things that were
provided by the golf course operator, which were things that
pertained to estimated numbers of tee times, estimated numbers
of employee and vendor trips.
Those kinds of informations were crunched into a worksheet
that was used to calculate an alternative fee. Which in and of
itself is perhaps reasonable, but the ordinance does say the data
has to be the result of a transportation impact study. And that
was the problem we had with it. Not so much that the data that
was used in and of itself would not work, but the ordinance says
it has to come from a transportation impact study, and it did not.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Tindall, then that would be
Page 79
September 26, 2000
outlined in the Publication Trip Generation, Sixth Addition is the
proper manual to use for that criteria?
MR. TINDALL: Only for part of it. If you're going to be
challenging the variables in the ordinance having to do with the
trip length, then you actually have to take that information from
a local study. Trip generation it -- that document itself really
only gives you a trip generation rate, which is one of the main
variables that are to be studied.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But that document was never
used by the developers, and that was part of the issue that you
had with their alternative fee?
MR. TINDALL: Well, if they were going to do a complete and
proper calculation using local data, they wouldn't even have to
take the trip generation data itself from the local study. But they
really were looking to supplant the data provided in the trip
generation.
The data from trip generation was actually used in the
development of the original fee schedule. So what they're
actually trying to accomplish with an alternative fee calculation
is to supplant the fee from the fee schedule with local data. And
that includes trip generation data, as well as the trip length and
percentage of new trips. And they didn't do in any of those cases
a full-fledged transportation impact study.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A couple of just questions so I
can understand the chart. MR. TINDALL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I started -- I actually had gone
down to ask, and I was distracting people, so I stopped that and
I'll come back and ask, on the six that we have here, I'm
interested to know -- I know these are the names of the projects,
but because I'm interested to know -- if these developers should
have known that they were liable for a golf course impact fee,
I'm interested in knowing who the developers were behind these
particular projects.
I'm familiar with The Strand and I would say that the
developer there is the Hardy Group, in general. I realize that all
of these are different and all of them have multiple partners. But
at the time of this golf course construction, was the Hardy Group
still the developer behind The Strand, or --
Page 80
September 26, 2000
MR. TINDALL: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. The Naples Grande Golf
Club, that's the Registry, Hyzinga.
MR. TINDALL: That's correct.
Old Collier is Collier
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Development.
MR. TINDALL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Everglades?
Who's Golf Club of the
MR. TINDALL: I'll have to check on that one really quickly.
What I'd like to do is go through the others and then get back to
you in just a second on that one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Cedar Hammock is whom?
MR. TINDALL: Cedar Hammock would be U.S. Home
Corporation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Naples Lakes Country Club
is?
MR. TINDALL: Toll Brothers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Toll Brothers.
Another question I have is under the chart from two weeks
ago, under impact fees paid, you had -- in addition to dates, you
had information there that said things like paid in full under
protest, or based on alternate calculation, or -- so in this we just
have dates, and I'm having trouble understanding.
I understand on The Strand. I'd like to know how much they
paid, but that's not as important as knowing did they pay the full
fee at The Strand or did they pay a reduced amount based on this
flawed alternate?
MR. TINDALL: The latter. The --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They didn't pay anything until
the staff came back with accepting an alternative, right?
MR. TINDALL: Tom Kuck sent them a letter in May of 1998,
and their response to that was to check the records. And they
came back and said yes, you're right, due to an oversight, we did
not pay the fee.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And just to cal --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So somebody actually responded
to Mr. Kuck's letter by sending a check?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And just to capsulize and be
clear, that they should have paid in full before that permit was
Page 81
September 26, 2000
pulled on the building in 1997. They did not. The alternative
impact fee should have gone to the board. It did not. No
payment was made until a letter went out in mid 1998.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: About a year after.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They did respond. They did
send a check in for the partial amount.
MR. TINDALL: All those things are correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then on the Naples Grande,
it just says impact fee paid 1-24-2000. In full? Under protest?
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I hate to interrupt, but we have
always consistently said that for due process reasons, we
probably ought to hear each individual one, so -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
MR. OLLIFF: -- perhaps as we go through --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to get the chart
straight. I just want to know what staff meant when they did the
chart.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's try to do each agenda
item. I understand your point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, let me go ask --
MR. TINDALL: We will be able to answer those with the
individual speakers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's hear from the
representative of The Strand. MR. OLLIFF: Neil Dorrill.
MR. DORRILL: Good morning, commissioners. For the
record, my name is Nell Dorrill. I am an agent this morning on
behalf of The Club at The Strand, and I guess I would submit to
you, at least preliminarily, as confused as perhaps you are, as a
result of having voluntarily complied with the request for
voluntarily coming in, because the chronology on this one
actually goes back to about six months prior to the
commencement of any construction or the filing of any building
permit fee.
I don't have knowledge as to whether the Hardys have
previously or ever submitted alternative impact fee calculations,
but we have retained a consultant who was recommended to us
to process the alternative impact fee calculation. At that time
did so voluntarily in advance of the commencement of
construction, and complied with the instructions in the formr in
Page 82
September 26, 2000
the manner that was required of us.
And I think at least as it pertains to the ordinance, the
information that I was given prior to today was that that
information and the process for that information should be
submitted in substantially the manner in which it is required of
this section.
So having hired a consultant six months prior to the
commencement of filing for a building permit, and it not being
clear as to whether there was any correlation between the
building permit for the country club and the alternative study for
the golf course, the consultant came back and we subsequently
did file the information in the manner in which it was required,
only to receive a letter some two or three years later saying that
the alternative was not valid.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You understand that same
ordinance you reference requires payment up front prior to the
building permit being pulled.
MR, DORRILL: And I think--
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So when you say you completed
everything the way it requires, that isn't entirely accurate.
MR. DORRILL.' As it exists today, that's my understanding,
yes.
The situation, I guess the dilemma that we have now, was
that as a result of received correspondence at the beginning of
the summer, and my being contacted to assist in this particular
effort that's being driven by Mr. Tindall and the audit that was
performed, we met with the staff and the -- our understanding of
what the request was, was that we would now be required to
submit a revised or a new alternative impact fee calculation that
we would receive a certified demand letter and would need to
make petition of the county manager to appear here today to
request of you the opportunity to submit a revised alternative
calculation.
I think in the case of this particular petition, the staff is
relying on the fact that our consultant was not a registered civil
engineer. The consultant in this case has indicated to us that
the calculation was performed by the county staff, and in
particular, a county staff registered engineer.
So I don't know whether I am now appearing before you
today to request an opportunity to do what we were compelled to
Page 83
September 26, 2000
do, or based on the information Mr. Cautero provided you at the
beginning today --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, Mr. Dor --
MR. DORRILL: -- I guess I'm a little perplexed as to whether
we should proceed or what my druthers would be.
As I understand it, which is now a revised staff
recommendation, it would be to ask you for a two-week
continuance so that we could determine and see if our -- the
consultant that we used to process this fee originally would be
available to come back and provide a better --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Excuse me just a minute, and
that is, Mr. Cautero, is that accurate? Was our staff doing the
math for people to have alternative impact fees?
MR. CAUTERO: In this case, yes.
MR. DORRILL: In this case, they did.
MR. CAUTERO-' Transportation department did, yes.
MR. DORRILL: And if there's now a question in terms of the
calculations, I -- or if we're not now going to be given an
opportunity to make a request of you to resubmit -- and I will tell
you that Mr. Hardy indicated prior to our receiving the demand
letter that if it was your contention that a revised alternative
study needed to be performed and it needed to be done by a civil
engineer, peak season, peak day for a comparable club --
because our facility is still not complete, and we're not at the
600 resident golf memberships that we would have -- that we
would consent to do all of that. And if additional fees were due
as a result of resubmitting, that we would pay whatever
additional fee was determined necessary in good faith.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nell, do you have any idea just
generally how many golf courses the Hardys have developed in
Collier County? Two, three, four, anyway?
MR. DORRILL.' I'd say five, between the various members of
the families.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Do you know if they --
MR. DORRILL: My understanding is this was the first
alternative study that was ever conducted.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' So in the past on the other four
or so golf courses that the Hardys have been involved in, have
they paid the full impact fee? Have they paid an impact fee?
Page 84
September 26, 2000
MR. CAUTERO: I don't know, I'd have to look at the file.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there other -- is this the only
Hardy golf course with an unpaid golf course impact fee
pending?
MR. TINDALL: Any previous golf courses built by the Hardys
that -- for which they paid a fee would have been based on an
alternative fee calculation that was submitted to the board and
approved. This is the only one in which there was one not
submitted to the board.
MR. OLLIFF: The answer is yes, that's the only one that's
outstanding.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. But they paid them on all
the others.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they paid it based on an
alternate that came to the board.
MR. OLLIFF: If they paid it based on an alternate. They may
have paid --
MR. DORRILL: I don't even know that.
MR. OLLIFF: -- the rate charged.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This appears to be a county --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If they've done it right every time
except for this one time and what they did was submit it to the
staff timely --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And staff told them you've got
to pay "X" amount and they actually paid "X" amount, there is a --
the problem is that -- the only problem in the whole process, it
appears, is you all should have put your money up at the
beginning. But the end result of that, according to what appears
to have happened, they would have got credited back, and we'd
still be in this same spot, questioning whether or not it was done
appropriately.
But if staff did the math for them, told them what it was they
owed and they paid the check, I have a hard time placing the
blame then on the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes,
MR. DORRILL: Or if for some reason we're not now going to
be able to conduct a revised study with our own registered
engineer, I think we would still like to have the opportunity to do
that and do it in exactly and compliant with whatever your
Page 85
September 26, 2000
current --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I don't want to lose track of
this, too. I mean, if you did it right four other times, why did you
do it wrong this time?
MR. DORRILL: I would need to research that, Commissioner.
I don't know that -- when the original Quail Creek Country Club
and Golf Course was built, probably 20 years ago, we probably
didn't even collect impact fees. I don't know frankly whether at
the time the Quail Village or the Quail West Golf and Country
Club -- I don't even know whether we collected golf course
impact fees. I just don't have the answer to that today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' Well, my --
MR. DORRILL: I will tell you that this was the first time that
the Hardys filed for an alternative impact fee calculation, they
retained a consultant to do it, the consultant met with the county
staff, and all good intentions were made prior to even filing for
the application. And they did it in substantially the form that
was required, with the one exception, that our consultant was
not the engineer that ran the calculation and developed the data
that resulted in the invoice fee of $32,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And with the exception that
you're supposed to submit a check for the full fee.
MR. DORRILL: I will tell you, it was not clear at what point
the fee was due. But when we received the letter from the
county staff person responsible for that, we then immediately
paid the 32,000, when we verified that it had not previously been
paid.
We asked to research our records, and I will say that within
30 days from receipt of the letter, we paid the fee that was
invoiced to us.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Now, the calculation, am I
hearing correctly that our staff did the calculation, did the
numbers?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Based on the consultant's data of
probable net trip generation that was -- that we paid the
consultant.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is this the normal procedure?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hell no. Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It may sound like a stupid
Page 86
September 26, 2000
question, I just want it on the record. Thank you.
MR. TINDALL: No, it's not a stupid question at all. That is
not the normal procedure. That was not the way the majority of
our golf courses -- though we didn't use the -- allow the -- you
know, we didn't require the appropriate data in the past, it still
wasn't done that way. We were still requiring the --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The question as far as
discrepancy between what we say versus what you paid is
$184,570. Now, I'm not sure I trust either one of the numbers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me either.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: And our position at this point, based on your
authorization today, would be to do a peak season, peak day
demand with a consultant and to pay whatever fee is obligated
or required of us to pay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So the question is you would
like the opportunity to go through the process properly this time,
and it's simply yes or no. We're not looking at granting any sort
of alternative today --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just so you understand.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- we're allowing o- we're
deciding whether or not to allow that process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two questions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One is for Mr. Weigel, because I
think he's previously told us we don't have the legal authority to
do that.
But setting that one aside for a second, for Mr. Olliff, are you
telling us that this applicant did everything right and the staff
made -- every mistake that was made here was a Collier County
staff mistake?
MR. OLLIFF: With the exception of when the payment was
made, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that brings me then to the
legal question, do we have the authority? And I don't know how
we could not have the authority if we made every stinking
mistake here, how we could not give them a chance to prove
their case.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, are we prohibited
from doing that?
Page 87
September 26, 2000
MR. WEIGEL.: Well, all I can tell you, as I said two weeks
ago, is the law sets out the parameters. The parameters do not
provide for these kind of judgments or fairness or equitable
issues to come into it.
I also stated two weeks ago, you will do what you choose to
do. I can only advise you legally. And if we have anything to
defend from whatever source, we will defend it to the best of our
ability, based upon the record that's created and the decision
you make upon that record.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But this is basically the same
situation where you gave us the advice two weeks ago that they
have a remedy, but it's in circuit court. MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's what I think I heard.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's what I heard.
MR. DORRILL: My confusion, though, being, Commissioner,
that we were compelled to be here today to request your
permission to conduct a new alternative impact fee study.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Who compelled that?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: What do you mean you
compelled?
MR. DORRILL-' We received a demand letter and said that
our recourse was to write a letter to the county manager and to
appear within 30 days from receipt of the demand letter, which
all is spelled out in the ordinance. And that is the only reason
that I'm standing here before you today.
And if for some reason now I'm being told that we're not
entitled to the reason that we were compelled to be here today, I
would request a continuance to your next meeting so that I can
at least have the developer's legal resources here to better
advise me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And Mr. Weigel, in this
individual case, while they have paid, they paid what appears to
be an inappropriate alternative. What is our course of action?
Whether they're asking or not, I assume we don't want to let this
go away and if they have underpaid. MR. WEIGEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What I see here is a -- is them
offering to say look, we'll go through the process, we'll jump
through every hoop, we'll follow every rule, we'll actually apply
Page 88
September 26, 2000
the formula the way it was intended to be applied, and we'll pay
whatever that comes out to be. MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Tim, how does that differ --
MR. DORRILL: That's what I have been authorized to tell you
today.
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How does that differ from what
WCI said to us and every -- whoever else was on this list from
two weeks ago, they all said oh, please, let us do a real
alternative.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Because I think in these folks'
case, it's going to cost -- they aren't going to save any money by
doing it. In WCI's, for example, they didn't pay anything until this
year. They paid in May when this whole issue broke, but they
didn't pay anything, they didn't make any request when they
went to pull their permits for the buildings.
How does this differ?. It differs completely. These guys
actually tried to go through the process, and our staff messed it
up. WCI at no point tried to make those payments, at no point
tried to go through the process or tried to get alternatives. They
just tried to slide through, and that's the difference.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's a good one.
But -- so how do we distinguish this from Naples Heritage? I
just want to be --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- across the board fair.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You want to make sure we're
consistent.
Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Mr. Weigel, with regard to the
discussion we had just a moment ago about us not having the
authority to even allow an alternative fee calculation to be done
at this point because the building permits were not paid at the
time -- that the fee was not paid prior to the issuance of a
building permit, if I heard that correctly, then if we're not legally
authorized to allow an alternative calculation, how can we even
consider the request that is being made of us?
MR. WEIGEL: With difficulty. But the fact is, I can think
back over the years -- I can't think of any one specific item, but I
Page 89
September 26, 2000
expect there are times that the board has taken an action, either
upon or without legal advice, and the authority has not been
underwritten in the statute or ordinance that you're dealing with.
And that's why I said two weeks ago, you may do what you
will do on a particular item, but I can only advise you what the
law tells you you have the authority to do or what parameters are
there, and that's all I'm doing now.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And you will defend our position
to the degree you can if somebody challenges our decision.
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just by way of reviewing, Mr.
Cautero, last week the fifth one we heard was Naples Heritage.
What was the -- refresh my memory on the situation with Naples
Heritage and what our decision was. We did not --
MR. CAUTERO: Naples Heritage --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- how is that similar and how is
that different than this one? Because I do want to make sure
we're consistent.
MR. CAUTERO: Naples Heritage applied for what is called
the revised acreage calculation, which is done administratively.
And we asked you to sanction that calculation. And Mr.
Varnadoe and I believe some engineers were present to show
you the documentation on how the acreage was changed in order
to come up with a revised calculation. It's an item that is done
administratively.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: In other words, not a traffic
impact study.
MR. CAUTERO: No, it was not. It was not a traffic impact
study.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we did give them the
opportunity to prove the actual facts and pay a fee that was a
reduced fee --
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- based on their actual acreage,
instead of saying pay the whole fee and duke it out in court.
MR. CAUTERO: That's correct.
We gave them some other
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
alternative.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
board meeting.
And they gave us a check at the
Page 90
September 26, 2000
MR. CAUTERO: Yes. The staff had done a calculation
previously and we asked you to sanction that calculation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that one and this one sound
alike to me. It sounds to me like this one is going to need to
have the opportunity to prove its alternate. Just like Naples
Heritage proved its alternate based on acreage, this one -- okay,
tell me if I'm getting this right, because the facts are critical
here. And Naples Heritage, they paid a reduced fee well before
the audit. True or false?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And in The Strand, they paid a
reduced fee before the audit.
MR. CAUTERO: I don't -- yes, they paid before the audit,
correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And in Naples Heritage and in
The Strand, both developers submitted an attempt at an
alternate fee calculation.
MR. CAUTERO: No, that is not correct. Only Naples
Heritage did. The Strand submitted documentation and the
transportation and planning department, the transportation
services department at that time, performed the calculation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The Strand applied for an
alternative impact fee.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, yes. Yes, but the circumstances under
which they submitted --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand,
MR. CAUTERO: -- the documentation was different.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, but -- I understand that.
But I hear that as both developers made an effort to determine
what was the appropriate fee and to pay it. MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What if--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What if, from a legal standpoint,
The Strand brought up the difference of 184,570 during this
discussion and deposited it with the county until that's resolved.
Now, if it's a different number, we have to reimburse. Does that
put us in a better legal position?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't think that changes the legal position at
all. If you want to have some considerations on the floor, you
might want to talk about the dates and timing of when road
Page 91
September 26, 2000
impact fees were otherwise due some time ago, and contemplate
any interest and/or penalties that might have naturally accrued
with a nonpayment from that certain point in time a long time
ago. Whatever the appropriate fee may be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm willing to, in this matter, give
the same kind of consideration as we gave to Naples Heritage
two weeks ago, and that is since they made a good faith effort to
pay the fee and didn't ignore that a fee was actually due, they
made an effort to pay, they submitted documentation in
discussion with staff to determine an appropriate amount to pay,
and then they paid that amount. And now they're willing to do --
just like in Naples Heritage, they were willing to submit the
actual acreage for computation of the fee. In this case they're
willing to submit actual traffic data to support the computation
of a fee. It seems --
MR. DORRILL: Or acreage. We're just --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' But actual data, whatever's
appropriate.
I think based on the fact that they made a good faith effort
that they're entitled to make their case.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I agree. I think what's going to
happen is when they go through all their hoops, they're probably
going to end up with a number that's higher than what they have
already paid. But I bet it will be lower than 100 percent. And it
will avoid -- everybody will avoid a bunch of attorney costs.
MR. OLLIFF: And it will hopefully be the appropriate fee.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Most importantly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Mr. Weigel?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would like to apply interest and
penalties during this period, just for the record, on whatever the
difference is.
MR. WEIGEL: And I'll explain why I mention that. If we look
at the short sheet here, it shows clubhouse permit issued in
September, '97. Well, that's a building permit. It doesn't mean a
CO, but it means that it went operational sometime probably
shortly thereafter. Those are the facts that both the applicant
and the development services staff have. I don't have that with
me at the moment.
Page 92
September 26, 2000
But part of the impact fee ordinance is to pay for the
impacts -- to pay for those impacts certainly under the ordinance
prior to actual impacts being felt. Impacts have been felt,
whatever they may be, based upon the appropriate figures, for a
significant period of time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thus interest is --
MR. WEIGEL: And potentially --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- appropriate.
MR. INEIGEL: -- penalties. I'm not saying anything further
than what the clerk would look to apply, and we've been working
with the clerk very closely on these things.
MR. DORRILL: I guess I would say in response, I don't want
to argue legal points here, but you cannot receive a building
permit in March and open a 50,000 square foot country club
shortly thereafter.
My recollection, and I'd be happy to substantiate this, is that
it took somewhere between 14 and 16 months to construct the
building. And I will tell you the day that you open the building
with a zero membership base, you're not causing a substantial
net trip generation into this community.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But those factors could all be
considered if we leave the door open.
And so my question, Mr. Weigel, is I want to make a motion
and I want it to be as legally defensible as possible, versus
developments that are not similarly situated. And so I want you
to help me with that. But here's where I'm going to start.
I'm going to move that we --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Considering the unique
circumstances.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That considering the unique
circumstances, those circumstances being that this developer
paid what it believed to be, based on staff consultation, the -- an
impact fee for its golf course, that they paid that impact fee well
before the audit by the Clerk of Courts, and that based on the
equity of their having sought payment, attempted to make an
accurate payment.
Based on the equity of their actions by attempting to pay an
accurate amount, that we give them the opportunity to submit an
alternate calculation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the
Page 93
September 26, 2000
motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like first before I complete my
motion to be sure Mr. Weigel doesn't have something to add to it
that can make it better.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you can also just say -- it's fine what
you've stated. And based upon the facts concerning staff
administration, particular to this item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I will add that as a reason.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I will second that then.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Further discussion?
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I still would like the interest
and penalties included in that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I assume that will be included in
the alternate discussion, if we leave that open.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Make sure it's there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's there in my motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If there's no further discussion,
all those in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0.
MR. DORRILL: Just for one indication, to let you know in
advance what we have been told is that because we are still not
at our full membership base, which would be 600 resident
members, we will either need to do a peak season, peak day
study at The Strand from those individuals who are going to play
golf and who are not going to the public supermarket or some
other reason that they're turning in to The Strand, or we will
need to find a comparable club, which is a resident-based club.
And the one that has been recommended to us is Quail Creek.
And then have our civil engineer extrapolate from peak season
and peak day.
And I just want you to know that it may be February the 1st
before the actual traffic counts can be made as part of that, or
we'll subscribe to whatever it is that you require of us. But I
appreciate your willingness to be fair today.
Item #12C4
Page 94
September 26, 2000
REVIEW HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE ROAD
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION FOR NAPLES GRANDE GOLF COURSE
- STAFF RECOMMENDATION
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That takes us to 12(C)(4},
review hearing to consider an alternate impact fee calculation
for Naples Grande Golf Course.
THE COURT REPORTER: Could we take a brief recess?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure, we'll take a three-minute
break. We'll be right back. (Recess.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi, we're back.
Next item up is 12(C)(4), Naples Grande.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero.
Mr. Chairman, again, the issue that we spoke about
previously, the fact the first permit was pulled in September,
1999, impact fees paid in January of 2000 for this particular golf
course.
Staff's position would be the same, that the ordinance does
not allow for an alternative calculation to be heard.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry?
MR. CAUTERO: Position would be the same as the previous
ones, that the ordinance does not provide for the alternative
calculation to be heard at this time, since a permit was pulled
prior to the impact fees being paid.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Am I missing something? It
says impact fees paid this year.
MR. CAUTERO: After the first building permit was pulled in
column four on September 23rd of 1999. When the ordinance
stated that the impact fees should be paid. Each one of these is
in the same category --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Site development plan was
obviously in 19987
MR. CAUTERO: Right. September 23rd of 1999 the golf
shelter permit was pulled, and no impact fee was paid until
January 24th of '99.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right, let's hear from the
petitioner.
MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, my name is Jeff Perry with
WilsonMiller, representing the petitioner.
Page 95
September 26, 2000
I'd like to just mention a few things, that -- because of the
discussions that have been going on for the last couple of
minutes about the process and everything else.
The Naples Grande permits for the temporary clubhouse
were issued in January. That is when our fee was paid. We
issued the -- excuse me, we were told about the fee after the
permit was issued, that the fee had not been charged. The
check was paid in full.
At that time, on January 24th, 10 days after the -- after the
fee was paid and the permit was taken out, we paid the fee in full
and filed a letter indicating that we would be submitting an
alternate fee calculation.
That alternate fee calculation was submitted within 30 days
following that particular filing deadline. The --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Wait a minute. Just~ Mr. Weigel,
to be clear, the filing deadline requires 30 days from when?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the filing for what, the alternative fee
calculation? That's supposed to be provided at or -- at or before
the issuance of a building permit. Now, it takes us back to our
discussion of two weeks ago, of course, is that golf courses don't
get a building permit per se. But in reading the ordinance, all the
sections together, you look to either some building permits for
the -- related to the course or ultimately the clubhouse permit,
which is absolutely connected with the course and maybe
arguably closer to its operational phase.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: When we say within 30 days,
though, we mean within 30 days of when they pay the full
amount? Is that -- when we say they have 30 days, that's 30 days
from when?
MR. WEIGEL.' I'm not sure I understand the question. Pardon
me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Intent to file for an alternative
impact fee.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. Okay, you're supposed to pay the fee in
full under protest, if you want your permits first. If you want to
go for an alternative impact fee hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners and not pay anything, you can do that,
but you don't pull any permits.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So when did --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: When you pay your fee in full, is
Page 96
September 26, 2000
it from that point forward that you have 30 days to declare -- or
am ! making up 30 days? Have I imagined that?
MR. WEIGEL: What, to submit the data?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To request.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- declare that you're paying
under protest and that you intend to file for alternative impact
fees.
MR. WEIGEL: I think that -- I think you have that. But also,
the ordinance talks about making the request earlier than that.
And I think that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there's a deadline, is what
he's trying to get to.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, there is a deadline.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that deadline is what? And
it runs from what date? That deadline is how many days, weeks,
months? And it runs -- it is measured from what?
MR. PERRY: Can I read --
MR. WEIGEL: You make the appli --
Mr. Perry, you have it in front of
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
you, why don't you read it --
MR. PERRY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
be able to tell us.
-- since nobody else seems to
MR. PERRY: The point is that the alternative fee --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't want the point. Just
read it to me.
MR. PERRY: It says, "Upon request of an alternative road
impact fee, the county administrator shall schedule a hearing
before the board at a regular scheduled meeting or special
meeting called for the purposes of reviewing proposed road
impact fee and shall provide the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's not the part I'm looking
for.
MR. PERRY: That's the only part there is, Mr. Chairman.
There is no --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have a letter directed to Mr.
Perry from Mr. Tindall, and it says the calculation reflected a net
fee of $38,041.25, based on a transportation study conducted by
Page 97
September 26, 2000
WilsonMiller. Section 2.03 of the ordinance requires that a
hearing be held within 30 days of the date the petitioner submits
the request.
MR. PERRY: That's correct. It is not a filing deadline for the
alternative fee request by the applicant, it is a hearing deadline
imposed on your staff to hold a hearing within 30 days -- MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So theoretically --
MR. PERRY: -- once the application has been submitted.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Theoretically the petitioner
could ask any time.
MR. PERRY: If you pay your fee in protest, there is no time
limit as to when you have to file your study. Once it is filed, the
hearing has to be held. It's supposed to be held within 30 days.
And when you paid January
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
24th, you filed the --
MR. PERRY: We filed the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
you're filing under protest.
-- paperwork there that said
MR. PERRY: That's correct. And within 30 days we did file
our study, according to the guidelines that we were provided
with by the county staff.
We later learned, through Mr. Tindall, that the county was no
longer accepting those guidelines and that we had to follow the
guidelines that were very specific in the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a different question.
MR, PERRY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mine is in the same theme of the
questions I've had previously, and that is how much -- when you
applied for your golf course permit -- and I'm not going to get
caught up in the semantics of building permit versus some other
type of development approval. When you applied for approval to
build a golf course, did you pay your impact fee?
MR. PERRY: We paid our impact fees for our golf course at
the time of the temporary clubhouse. We did not pay at the time
of the SDP, we did not pay at the time of a cart barn structure. It
was when the temporary clubhouse was issued -- permit was
issued, we paid the impact fees, excluding the road impact fee.
We were not charged a road impact fee at that time. In a couple
of days we were told that we had to pay it and we paid it.
Page 98
September 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Jeff, my question is, I am
assuming, and I refuse not to assume, that if you were their
consultant, you didn't know, and I don't know who was their
consultant. I refuse to consider that the developer didn't know
or should not have known that he owed a road impact fee for golf
course. I refuse to accept that as a possibility. So I am
assuming here that your client knew or should have known that
he owed a fee for road impacts when he built his golf course.
My question is, did he come to the county and say here's my
check, or did he wait for this audit or some other trigger to make
the payment in full under protest?
MR. PERRY: Our client paid a portion of their impact fee
total.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On roads. I'm talking roads here.
MR. PERRY: They're all linked together. Because when you
pay your fees, you pay them at different times. A month earlier
in all this we had paid over $160,000 in water and sewer impact
fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm asking about roads.
MR. PERRY: When we took out -- when they took out the
building permit for the cart barn, I don't believe there were any
impact fees paid. There were no impact fees charged. Let's be
clear about when they're charged and when you're asked to pay
them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Jeff, that --
MR. PERRY: There's some reliance on the county's staff to
tell you when to plop down your money. When we go to the
county staff and the county staff says you owe us "X" dollars --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Jeff, we had a lady up here today
who said nobody told me to take the trees out of my yard. I got a
lot more sympathy for her and her trees than I do for The
Registry or whoever else that was the developer here that they
didn't know they owed the money. And I --
MR. PERRY: It's not a question of whether or not they knew
or didn't know they owed the money.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, the --
MR. PERRY: They of course knew they were paying impact
fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm starting to infer from your
reticence to answer my question directly that I'm not gonna -
Page 99
September 26, 2000
you don't think it's the answer I want, so I'm going to ask this
way: Did they pay their fee after this whole debacle, or did they
pay their fee in the normal process of their business? MR. CAUTERO: The former.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They paid it after the trouble
started, they didn't come in and ask --
MR. PERRY: That's not true.
MR. OLLIFF: No.
MR. PERRY: That's not true.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. Somebody--
MR. OLLIFF-' You look at date. They paid prior to the audit.
MR, PERRY: We paid prior to the audit. We paid when we
were asked to pay, when we had our building permit for our
temporary clubhouse. We plopped down a payment in full and a
letter that we were paying under protest.
MR, CAUTERO.' But I have to make a statement --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm going to interrupt just for a
minute. I am this close to leaving. Because the information we
have continually gotten from that podium -- and Vince, you've
been with us for years, I've known you to do nothing but good
work in those years, but two weeks ago and today the
information you have -- if you don't know, just say I don't know.
Don't give me an answer if you're not sure. Because it is
making this process infinitely more difficult by getting faulty
information on top of faulty information on top of faulty
information.
And if you don't know and if we don't have the information
on which to make these decisions today, I'm not going to sit here
for another hour and run round and round and round. I'm going to
leave. So if you have the information, give it to us. And if you
don't have the information, sit down.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tom wants to tell you something.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Never mind. Go right ahead.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's let Mr. Perry make his
presentation, and as best we can, go without interrupting and
then save our questions. But please, can we only have
information we know to be factually accurate.
MR. PERRY: I don't know where to begin. I'll begin at the
beginning.
Page 100
September 26, 2000
I feel compelled, at least for the moment, to defend our
actions, as well as the actions of the board. The -- we're not
asking for discounts, as has been alleged in the newspapers over
and over again. We're asking for fairness.
The road impact fees that are assessed to golf courses are
assessed upon rates that have no business being in there. Your
consultant tried to correct those rates with this last update. It
helped, but it didn't solve the problem. And I'm prepared to tell
you -- show you why it doesn't work.
But ! think it's first very important to recognize that golf
courses are not big generators of traffic. 140-acre golf course
like Naples Grande generates about, according to your
ordinance, 640 trips a day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, could I ask that
the speaker stay on the point of whether or not he should be
entitled to make this particular case. And that's the question
before us today. Am I right, that's the question?
MR. PERRY: I'm sorry, I thought I was giving my
presentation on the impact fee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think first we're going to decide
whether or not you make your -- you're allowed to make that
case. That's how we've done on every other one.
MR. PERRY: I'm sorry, I apologize.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I might be wrong.
MR. PERRY: I'll back up, rewind here.
Our position is that we paid our fee in a timely manner, we
paid at the time of the temporary clubhouse. Traffic impact,
aside from construction vehicles, had not yet occurred. We paid
in full. We paid in protest. We filed our application -- or the study
in a timely manner, based on the guidance we have been given
by staff. We were told that that wasn't up to par. No pun
intended.
We met with staff again. We reftled our application. We
reftled the application three times trying to comply with every
minute detail that the staff keeps throwing up saying this is --
you know, this is not right, you've got to do this, you've got to do
that. Every step of the way we have tried to accommodate this.
We've been at this since January trying to comply with this
very, very complex ordinance. And we believe we paid in full.
You have the money. We just want an opportunity to be able to
Page 101
September 26, 2000
demonstrate to you how badly we were overcharged, that we
believe almost every golf course in the community, if they have
to come in under even the current ordinance is being
overcharged. And we believe we filed in a timely manner. There
was no clear distinction in the ordinance, aside from building
permit, as to when the golf course road impact fee had to be
paid.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You would get -- just so I
understand clearly, you mentioned other impact fees. And you
would get notification from the county that impact fee A was
due, and you would write a check. MR. PERRY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A month later you might get
impact fee B is due and you would pay that. MR. PERRY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As soon as you received
notification from the county that this impact fee was due, you
paid in full and under protest.
MR. PERRY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I suggest, though,
Commissioner Constantine, that the problem is that if we go with
-- if we go with the theory that they -- that the developer's
innocent because they didn't receive notice from the county that
a fee was due, then everybody gets to come back. And that's --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You're correct. The only thing --
the only difference here is it appears as though it may actually
have been during construction, as opposed to after completion.
And you look at some of these, particularly those we went
through a couple weeks ago, I mean, they're three and four years
later.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to go back, I mean, if I can,
we have some from a couple of weeks ago that started their
construction in '93 and paid their permit -- paid their impact fee
in full under protest in 2000.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And that's the only difference --
you are absolutely correct, though. I mean, if we just start down
that road, we've got to be very clear where we're headed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But this one, they paid in full
under protest 10 days after they pulled their temporary
clubhouse permit.
Page 102
September 26, 2000
MR. PERRY: That's correct. We were charged a group of
impact fees for the permit, and then some several days later we
were notified by the county staff that road impact fee was not
charged and needed to be paid. And it was paid in full within a
day or two, or as soon as the check was cut and delivered.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And subsequently, immediately
subsequent, since that point in time, you have continued to try to
complete your application for an alternate calculation.
MR. PERRY: We received -- on the day we paid the check,
we received a letter, a memo from the county staff saying these
are the things you have to do. You're filing under protest, these
are the things you have to do to file your request for an alternate
fee calculation. And we have been plugging away at this since
February to try to get in front of you to have a hearing. And in
fact --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And just to be clear that I'm
correct factually, at the time you made that payment, the course
was still under construction.
MR. PERRY: I believe so. I have not been involved in the
construction of that course. But I would assume the temporary
clubhouse wasn't build yet, so I would assume that there was
nobody out there hitting the golf balls yet. But I --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And it seems to me that it was
May or June or something that there was an invitation -- which I
did not attend, by the way, but -- for a grand opening out there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. PERRY: I didn't attend it either, so --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But my point being, when you
say, you know, are all these the same, if you have a golf course
open in 1996 or 7 or 8 and as you open it have not paid that
impact fee, you're right, these developers are certainly
sophisticated enough to know, should be, that they're not doing
that. If you're still in the middle of your construction, that may
not have been due yet.
The only difference -- and I don't know those dates, and
that's why I'm asking the question. If you were still in the
middle, that may be a legitimate concern. If you had already
opened, then Commissioner Mac'Kie is absolutely right, you're no
different than the others.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my -- then -- this is leading
Page 103
September 26, 2000
me to this question for Mr. Olliff, is it makes me wonder why this
golf course is even on the list. It sounds like what they did is
comply with the old ordinance and continue to try to meet the --
it's okay, so you're shaking your head no. Tell me what they
didn't do in compliance with the old ordinance.
MR. OLLIFF: Again, the interpretation and -- the technical
interpretation of this ordinance is that they have to pay their fee,
whether it's the full fee or the alternative fee or a fee in protest,
prior to a permit being issued for any structure out there.
And if you'll look at -- the date of the golf shelter structure
was issued in September of '99, the fee was paid in January of
2000. So while there's a brief period of time, that's the technical
issue why they're on this list.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'm going to make a motion
that based on the equities of this case, that this developer,
within 10 days of pulling his temporary clubhouse permit, paid
his full impact fee under protest and has thereafter been
continuing to submit data as requested by staff to comply with
the technical requirements for supporting an alternate impact
fee calculation; that we allow that process to continue, and as
we have their money, and when they complete their application
in accordance with the rigors of the ordinance for an alternate
impact fee calculation, that we hear it.
MR. PERRY: It's in your agenda package.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And we're toward do that today.
MR. PERRY: I'm ready, willing and able.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So the only difference here is
instead of doing it in a 30-day window, they did it in a what, 60,
90-day window of actually writing the check?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They wrote the check 10 days
from when they got the temporary clubhouse.
COMMISSIONER CARTER= But the other shelter thing. There
was a period of time there on a technicality they didn't apply. Is
that what I'm understanding?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. OLLIFF: Correct. And I'm not going to tell you that that
ordinance makes sense, because the impact of any of those
developments, you know, doesn't occur until they get a CO. But
the way the ordinance reads, they have to pay their fee before
they get the permit.
Page t04
September 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the equities go with this
developer, again, that he's been trying to comply, as opposed to
somebody who tried to get away with it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. And today's ordinance
states the same process, if I'm correct.
MR. OLLIFF: Today's ordinance, we have clarified that --
we've specifically indicated that any vertical construction permit
is the point in time for golf course development when they're
going to have to pay their fee.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So technically under today's
ordinance, they would have been penalized what, interest and
penalties for 60 days by not complying?
MR. OLLIFF: Under today's ordinance they wouldn't have
gotten the permit for their golf course shelter, had they not paid
their impact fees in full or under protest or had an alternative
calculation done in advance.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Good answer.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE-' So --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brantit?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have a conceptual thing that I
need to pursue. And it goes back to some of the comments that
Commissioner Mac'Kie has been talking about. And this has to
do with who knows when what should be paid.
Mr. Perry, earlier on in his discussion here, said the fee had
not been charged. And that has a different kind of a connotation
and meaning to me than the developer has the responsibility to
come forward and do what he or she is supposed to do in a
timely fashion.
And with a statement that says the fee had not been
charged has the implication that the onus is on the county to
make sure we present somebody with a bill. And I have trouble
with that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I guess the only difference here
is when I go to a gas station, some of them require me to pay
before I fuel up, some of them require me to pay after. Either
way, before I drive away I have to pay.
But during this, the developer should know that sometime
during construction he's going to pay. If he's still in the middle of
construction, hasn't paid yet, that may not be unusual. But when
he gets to completion, and if he's filled up his gas tank, he can't
Page 105
September 26, 2000
just drive away.
And that's the only difference -- when you talk about this one
being unique, if this was still under construction and they're
trying to comply, that is very different than someone who has
closed the books, completed their project, moved on and not
paid a penny.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: But my point here is they're
waiting to be charged, instead of taking the action that sounds
like they're supposed to take. So if they wait to be charged, then
we the county are supposed to take the action.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: How much -- do you know how
much you have to write the check for until somebody tells you
what it is? I mean, that could be --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: They had the ordinance
information that would allow them to do that calculation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'm not sure if there is an
alternative fee calculation going on here. I don't know, it's a
technicality.
And also, I'd say the difference between the -- if you want to
go back to the tree issue this morning, that builder was held
accountable here. That builder knew what we had to do. So if
there's a discrepancy between the customers and the builder,
it's a different situation than we're dealing with here, because
this is right to the county to the developer. There isn't a third
party.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I just don't want everybody to get
to a point where they're saying we don't have to do anything
because we haven't been charged.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, I agree with you. Right, I
agree with you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here -- this is --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we want to hear any of this?
Let's get back to the question. Do we want to hear -- yes or no,
do we want to hear the request for an alternative today?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I can say, I want to hear it. I
don't want to hear it today, because I didn't think this was what
the agenda item was. And I don't think staff has yet opined that
they have completely submitted their data in full.
Are you completely satisfied with the data?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, we are.
Page 106
September 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You are.
MR. OLLIFF: This is the one development that we are
completely satisfied that they have met the criteria of the
ordinance, in terms of your alternative calculation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems to me that they are --
they're in better shape than the one we just gave the right to
apply. You know, The Strand paid theirs several months after
they pulled their permit, but they've been trying to get an
accurate alternate calculation. These guys are -- their hands are
cleaner than those, it looks to me, on the equities.
MR. OLLIFF: The question before the board is really do you
want to hear it and do you want to hear it today. That's really
the only question.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd prefer to hear it and dispose of
it. Because it seems to me like they have done everything and
are ready to present.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I concur.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I concur.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Sounds good.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Perry?
MR. PERRY: Thank you. I appreciate it.
As I started to say a few moments ago, the golf courses are
very low generators of traffic. The 140-acre golf course
generates about, according to your own ordinance, about 640
trips per day. If the same 140 acres were developed as
residential, single-family residential, urban at, say, three units
per acre, we'd be dealing with about 4,200 trips per day.
Multi-family, at seven units per acre, about 5,600 trips per day.
If that same acreage were developed as commercial, 140
acres, or 1.4 million square feet of retail space, we'd be dealing
with over 37,000 vehicle trips per day, 57 times what a golf
course generates.
Golf courses are good land uses within the urban area.
They're very low generators. They often include a lot of open
space. In fact, our particular project has 30 acres of natural
vegetation that we were required to preserve, and we paid
$1,066 of road impact fees for every acre. $32,000 we paid for
road impact fees to preserve native vegetation on our golf
course.
Now, I understand from the calculations that were approved
Page 107
September 26, 2000
by the board two weeks ago that we probably at least deserve a
refund for that portion of the golf course that's not really part of
the golf course. But the problem --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And how much is that, Jeff?
MR. PERRY: I beg your pardon? About $32,000. There's
about 30 acres of native vegetation that we were required to
preserve by the ordinance -- by your land development code, on
the golf course that had to be preserved that we ended up in our
original calculations that we paid for included $1,066 per acre.
So about $32,000 for that acreage. Now -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's try to let him get through.
Just jot it down and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it's a -- I need to ask this
one question. And I can go ask staff privately. If you guys
already know the answer to this, so be it. This is the first
alternate calculation that we've heard. I need to know, what are
the elements? So I can go through it.
MR. PERRY: I'm going to go through all of that for you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right.
MR. CAUTERO: Okay? And I'll -- and staff can add in or
chime in whenever they feel it's appropriate.
You probably should be wondering why you're getting all of
these things. It's a very simple question, it's a very simple
answer.
The impact fee rate, the trip generation rate, in your
ordinance is wrong. It is a bad rate. It was developed from the
ITE rates, the fifth generation ITE. It was bad in the sixth
generation. It's bad. It is not applicable to Collier County.
I've given to each of you a little chart that looks like this in
front of you there. And they have a larger version on the wall
here. I'm going to show you why it's bad.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe you could put one on the
visualizer.
MR. PERRY: There's one right there by you, right there on
the table.
The chart on the left, on this side here, which should be the
first chart that you have here, is what was in effect when the --
our client paid his fee. Has an average rate of 8.33 trips per
acre.
Page 108
September 26, 2000
Now, there's absolutely no relationship between trip
generation and acreage, golf course acreage. Up in the upper
right-hand corner you see a couple of little "X'"s. Corresponds to
about 6,700 trips per day; 6,700 trips per day for a 250-acre golf
course.
The bottom left-hand corner, a little tiny "X" in the bottom
left-hand corner, about 25 acres, 26-acre golf course with about
150 trips. There's absolutely no relationship between the range
of 150 trips per day and 6,700 trips per day, based on acreage.
Now, you throw enough data points at one of these things
and you begin to see a cjuster that represents somewhat of a
reasonable expectation. And you see that cjuster down here by
the round circle, which is where my golf course is. Right above
that there are two lines. There's a dotted line, which is the
average, which is the 8.33, and there's a solid black line below it.
The dotted line is 60 percent higher than the solid line.
The problem is the average, as an arithmetic mean, is
skewed by these large numbers up here. And the 8.33 is not a
realistic number of trips, based on acreage, when you look at
this fitted curve which says it really should have been about five
trips per acre. Now, if you calculate five trips per acre, you
come up with about 500 on my golf course without the preserve
area, which is a lot closer to the 400 that we have calculated
with our study. Our study indicates that we have about 396 trips
per day.
If the consultant had included the correct number in your
ordinance to begin with, I probably wouldn't even be standing
here, because we would have paid a fee that would have been a
heck of a lot closer to what we're asking. They certainly
wouldn't have paid me to try to come up with something lower,
starting from this point here.
This average 8.33 is almost 60 percent higher than what this
fitted curve line would indicate is the appropriate. This is the
number -- the line here is the number that we have to use, that
you require us to use, in traffic impact statements.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The fitted curve?
MR. PERRY: The fitted curve line. What it means is, is that
as things change, the rates go up and down. In shopping centers
and office buildings and things like that, as things get bigger, the
trip generation rate per square foot may go up or down. So
Page 109
September 26, 2000
analysts always use this curve that is sort of identified by the
kind of data points that you have.
Going back to my original point, it really doesn't make any
difference in this particular -- there's really not a good correlation
with acreage anyway.
Now, in the new ordinance, the second page you have here,
took a different tact and said well, we're going to charge fees
based upon an 18-hole golf course. 643 trips per day for the
average 18-hole golf course. Unfortunately, that again is also
based on a range of golf courses, in this case, 18 studies. And
the range is 261 to 960. And you can see the data points. There
is no curve here, because the data points are stacked on top of
each other. You can't fit a curve through this kind of data.
You see, out of the t8 studies, nine are below the average,
nine are above the average, and only one is really anywhere
close to the average. And ours is below average, but still well
within the range of 261 to 980 trips per day.
Now, there's no disagreement between our analysis and the
staff. The difference of opinion we're having is that the
ordinance requires you to do a study, and there are three
different variables that are within the study parameters that you
can really tinker with: Trip generation, which is what we've
talked about here; trip length, which is how far people come or
go to get to your facility; and the percentage of new trips.
Our contention is, is that the ordinance specifically says
Section 203, which is alternate fee calculations, the alternative
road impact fee calculations shall be based on the data,
information, assumptions and methodology contained in this
article, and the impact fee study, which is your study, not mine,
that's attached -- that's your backup to this thing. Or an
independent source.
Now, that tells me that I'm required to use that data, those
variables, unless I come up with an independent source. We have
gone through the exercise of coming up with an independent
source for the trip generation data. We originally, some months
ago, were told no, you have to do the origin destination. We said
we don't agree with that, but we're going to do it anyway.
We came, we did that before -- we actually submitted two
reports to you and there were two different fees resulting.
Because when we looked at the trip generation data, we used
Page 110
September 26, 2000
our course. We also used another course. Well, that other
course has no bearing -- the trip length of that travel to and from
that course has really no bearing on my course. Why should I be
required to use traffic data from another course when I have my
own course that is -- traffic is coming to and from? That's my
impact. It's not Tiburon or some other course that we may have
used.
You have to keep in mind that the guidelines within the
ordinance are intended to apply to facilities that are not yet
operating, they're not yet built. So you have to go someplace
else. And in those instances, you're required to find three similar
establishments.
In our case, by the time we got done calculating all these
numbers, we actually had a course that was operating. So we
were actually able to go out and ask people, where did you come
from, how many miles did you drive and this type of thing. And
we would -- you know, we were glad to concede to the ordinance
numbers when we were asked to supply the other.
That's the only difference of opinion between what we've
come up with and what staff has come up with. And it's fairly
substantial as far as the impact fee reduction goes. We're saying
that our appropriate fee is about $50,000. They're saying it's
more in the order of $70,000. Regardless, it's a heck of a lot less
than the $148,000 we were charged. Because the numbers
within the ordinance do not really relate to golf course activity in
this county.
And quite frankly, until those things are changed, you're
going to see a parade of golf courses up here, because the rates
are just wrong.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for Mr. Perry?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a staff --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Tindall.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to know what the
requirements are. Can you lay out for me one, two, three, four,
five, whatever they are, what the requirements are for the
alternate calculation? Can you tell me what he's required to
produce?
MR. TINDALL: If you're going to do a transportation impact
study, our staff's interpretation of the ordinance is that you're
required to study a minimum of three courses to come up with
Page 111
September 26, 2000
basically data based on averages. Not just a site specific
tailored fee for your course, but a number that's based on
averages, based on a minimum of three sites.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So can you tell me, it says that in
the ordinance?
MR. TINDALL: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Mr. Perry questions whether
or not it says that in the ordinance.
MR. PERRY: It doesn't say that in the ordinance specifically.
It says that in the guidelines for preparing a study which is
adopted as an appendix or as an attachment to the ordinance.
The ordinance specifically says that you have to use the
data in your ordinance, unless you produce an alternative source
of data. And we have done that in the case of trip generation.
MR. TINDALL: The ordinance adopts the study to which the
guidelines are an attachment as part of the ordinance by
reference. That's why we're saying --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it also says, because he read
it to us, or alternate data source. So why aren't actual numbers
the very best source, instead of average of three courses?
MR. TINDALL: Okay, the actual numbers actually come from
the local study. What he has wanted to use for the trip length
data is actually the data in our impact study upon which the fee
from the ordinance is based.
And we're -- we have a problem with that for two reasons:
First of all, the ordinance says your -- we interpret the ordinance
to mean you cannot pick and choose which of those three
variables you're going to study. If you're going to study them,
you have to study all three.
And the other reason is because in the actual study that
was done back in 1992, the trip length data actually came from a
model and wasn't based upon actual field studies. So we think
any data that's taken from actual studies in the field is better
than model-based data.
So there are actually two reasons why we think they should
be using the trip length data, origin destination data from a local
study, as opposed to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I thought you said you were
using it from your local study, from your actual course. You
asked people how far did you drive.
Page 112
September 26, 2000
MR. PERRY: We did. We provided that data at the request of
the staff. We collected that additional data. But we would like
to continue to argue that we shouldn't have to provide that data,
because the ordinance specifically says that we can use the
data that the ordinance uses. What is good for the ordinance is
good for our application. It's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. PERRY: -- a data source that is accepted by the county
in its own impact fee ordinance. And yet we're told that we have
to go out and collect it.
Now, we didn't have to go out and collect the percent new
trip data, because we conceded that it was 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. PERRY: Now, I could have asked everybody that
question and provided data, but I didn't have to because we
conceded the fact that it was 100 percent.
Other courses will probably argue vehemently that, well, our
course is associated with residential and all of our people come
from the community, so therefore we have no external trips or
we have very few external trips. So that 100 percent calculation
is not applicable in other courses. But it was certainly in ours,
and we agreed to it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let's -- why can't I assume
then that you did supply that data, and the answer was t00
percent. And you did supply length data and you don't
particularly like it, you'd rather use what the standard length is.
And you did supply generation numbers. Then you will have
complied with all three of those variables. And I would like Mr.
Tindall to tell me what the fee is, based on all three of those.
MR. TINDALL: All three of those variables, being part of the
study?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. TINDALL: I don't have the number in front of me, but I
will get it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why wouldn't that be the staff's
recommendation?
MR. TINDALL: It is the staff's recommendation.
MR. PERRY: That is the staff recommendation.
MR. TINDALL: $71,668.45 would be the staff's
recommendation for approval.
Page t13
September 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That sounds like the right way to
go to me.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any other speakers on this
item?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I'm going to make a motion
that we approve the staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Discussion? Seeing none, all
those in favor of the motion, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0. Thank you,
Mr. Perry.
Old Collier Golf Club. I don't know, I'm reading. I'm sorry,
they're not in the same order on here. You're right, George.
Item #12C5
REVIEW HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE ROAD
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION FOR GOLF CLUB OF THE
EVERGLADES - CONTINUED UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING
Golf Club of the Everglades.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is one where we wanted to
know who the developer was.
MR. VARNADOE: If you want to let the staff make their
presentation, I'll address that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to know now.
MR. VARNADOE: Okay. I can't give you all the names. It's
Golf Club of the Everglades, Ltd., a limited partnership. Most if
not all of the -- it's a limited partnership and there's 21, I think,
are members or were founding members of Old Florida Golf Club.
And I think the local -- the people that you might recognize,
the ones that I know from locally is Tom Kukk, not your Tom
Kuck, even though it's spelled the same. Marty Shottenheimer
(phonetic) -- Coach Shottenheimer, Mike Ditka, Clyde Quimby and
Bill Barton. And I don't think -- and Dr. Vining. I don't think there
are any other local -- if you're looking for --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you know on that, George?
Page 114
September 26, 2000
Because, I mean, if you don't, we really can't hear the item
today. We need to have the names for obvious reasons. We've
done this before when Commissioner Volpe was on the board,
we've delayed items when we didn't know who was involved. I
don't want to do that, but if we don't know all the names --
MR. VARNADOE: If I could get you the names and we hear
the item and then by the end of the item I think I could have the
names for you?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't want to hear the item if I
don't know that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't want to waste the time. I
mean, if you can get them and we'll sit here and go through the
other three and you can get them while we go to the next agenda
item, but I'm not going to hear it if we may or may not have a
conflict.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I make a comment on that?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is -- this development has
been in front of this county before. Because I've had to make
this analysis before, haven't I, whether or not I had a conflict,
when you were here for a rezone?
MR. VARNADOE: I did not handle the conditional use. I
can't tell you whether you did or you did not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we get the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why don't we table that one,
and George, if you can get those names for us, we'll come back
to you.
MR. VARNADOE: I'll do my best.
Item #12C6
REVIEW HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE ROAD
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION FOR NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB
- DENIED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go to Naples Lakes
Country Club.
MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Vince Cautero
again.
Page 115
September 26, 2000
Naples Lakes is similar to the balance of the agenda items
that you have today in that site development plan approved in
1998, and impact fees were paid in May of this year.
Again, the technical reading of the ordinance after October
26th, 1999~ the first building permit pulled. Clubhouse permit
pulled on April 10th of this year.
Staff was in coordination with them in two areas: One,
seeking payment while the impact fee audit was under way by
the clerk of the court and released on April tlth of this year. So
they were working with us. Letters went out. And the
alternative calculation was submitted in late 1999.
Again, the technical reading of the ordinance that the permit
was pulled prior to the impact fee being paid. The position would
be consistent with all of them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: According to the executive
summary, is was not in compliance with the ordinance and did
not -- the trip generation data didn't come from the appropriate
sources?
MR. CAUTERO: Correct.
I will tell you also that in all of these, where we have made
that opinion that the data was not acceptable to us, we have had
ongoing discussions with the developers.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Did anybody inform them when
they submitted their alternative fee calculation in November of
'99 that they owed some money that they didn't pay until almost
exactly six months late~
MR. CAUTERO: At some point there was a notification. I
don't know exactly when.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The developer here is Toll
Brothers?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there anybody here from Toll
Brothers?
MR. OLLIFF: I don't have any registered speakers on this
item. The petitioner may be here, but I don't have a speaker slip.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is the petitioner here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Apparently not that important
an item.
Page 1t 6
September 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- conclude this then, they pulled
their first permit in '98, and then they pulled their maintenance
building in '99, and then they pulled their clubhouse in 2000, but
they didn't pay any fees whatsoever until the problem arose.
MR. CAUTERO: Transportation impact fees, correct. And
the audit was released approximately a month prior to the fees
being paid.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, they applied for an
alternative, but not -- they didn't pay anything under protest.
MR. CAUTERO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm far less sympathetic to that
than --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, then I guess they're not
interested. They must really like the number we gave them, so I
suggest we give it to them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So the answer here would be
no,
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If there's no objection, we'll
move on to the next item, which is --
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate that you
take action on this, either to deny or approve the staff
recommendation, which I don't think is what you're going to do,
or put something on the record as to a disposition of this matter.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. What is the
basis for the recommendation from staff that the board approve
their request to present an alternate calculation?
MR. OLLIFF: Again, that's based on that due process
argument that we had made before that you have -- give them an
opportunity, but legally and technically we're telling you that you
don't have the option to approve that, even once you hear it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Chair will entertain a motion to
deny staff request.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. All those
in favor, please state aye.
Anybody opposed?
Page 117
September 26, 2000
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0.
Item #12C7
REVIEW HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE ROAD
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION FOR CEDAR HAMMOCK COUNTRY
CLUB - PETITIONER TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE FEE
CALCULATION
Cedar Hammock.
MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Vince Cautero.
Developers representatives are here.
Cedar Hammock is a little bit different from the one we
talked about only in one instance that we could determine from
the chart that we have given you. Impact fees were paid for
transportation on the golf course at Cedar Hammock on February
4th of this year, prior to the clubhouse building being -- receiving
its permit and then undergoing construction.
However, the first permit of record that we're finding is
November t6th of last year for the maintenance building. This
particular golf course was approved for initial construction under
a preliminary work authorization, which is a precursor to a site
development plan. It allows the developer to do some work in
advance, and that was approved in May of 1999. And an
alternative calculation was submitted in March of 19 -- excuse
me, March 28th of this year, just before the audit was released
again.
We were in discussions with these representatives of the
developer while the impact fee audit was being prepared, and
information was going back and forth regarding the alternative
calculation, as well as securing payment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So this one sounds similar to The
Strand.
MR. CAUTERO: In some ways it is similar to The Strand. I
would not argue that point. An alternative calculation did come
in after staff notified them.
In most of these cases -- and it's something that I wanted to
say earlier, and I apologize -- you have heard people make
reference to letters that we have sent them saying that you need
Page 118
September 26, 2000
to do X, Y, Z for the alternative calculation, and you need to pay
by this date. This was long before the joint opinion was rendered
by my office, the county manager, the county attorney and the
clerk saying what Mr. Olliff said a few minutes ago, technically
after a re-review of the ordinance and a strict legal reading, you
don't have the ability to come in.
We were not under that impression about -- definitely a year
ago, and probably not even four or five months ago. That's why
you're hearing this from the developer saying well, your staff told
me this but now you're saying something different today. That's
the reason.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Understood.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's hear from the petitioner.
MR. KEESEY: Thank you. Larry Keesey, with Young, Van
Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson for U.S. Home, which is the
developer of this course.
And as Mr. Cautero indicated, back in November of last year,
the golf course itself was under construction, dirt was being
moved, and they were preparing the golf course. And they did
pull a maintenance building permit on November 16th of last
year.
In this instance, U.S. Home did realize that there is a golf
course impact fee ordinance, and U.S. Home took the initiative of
calling when it realized that it had not been charged -- again, the
emphasis on the word not been charged -- for the impact fee for
the golf course. It did know that there was an impact fee,
required -- it did initiate contact with the county in very late
t999, after the November permit for the maintenance building
was issued.
And in early January of this year, it continued those
contacts, mainly by phone, through its consultants, Banks
Engineering and Metro Transportation.
And the first part of the record that we have -- that has been
given by either Banks or by Metro is a letter from Mr. Tindall,
actually, dated January 31st of this year, 2000, in response to
those inquiries. And his letter states, in pertinent part, pursuant
to your request -- that is, the request of U.S. Home -- this is to
advise you of the road impact fee associated with Cedar
Hammock Golf Course. So on January 31st, he told us in a letter
that the fee for a 97-acre golf course would be $103,402.
Page 119
September 26, 2000
And within three days of that notice from the county of that
being the amount due for the golf course, a check was cut by
U.S. Home. And on the morning of the 4th, a cover letter was
taken to the county and the impact fee was paid for the exact
amount referenced by Mr. Tindall in his letter of January 31st.
So on February 4th, we did pay the full amount. This was, A,
before the golf course was open for business so that there was
no impact on the roads at this time. And it was, as indicated by
Mr. Cautero, well before the June of this year period or date on
which the building permit for the golf club -- clubhouse was
issued.
So we feel we are certainly within our right to request an
alternate fee calculation. There was an alternative fee
calculation submitted to the county on March 28th of this year.
And that followed by exactly two weeks a meeting with Mr. Kant,
other members of the transportation people here in the county.
They gave them a worksheet, they explained to them how to fill
it out. And on the basis of what the county staff and Mr. Kant
advised, they did file on March 28th an alternate fee calculation
in the amount of $3t,618.
And we then after March 28th waited and never heard any
reaction from the county to the submittal. It was not submitted
to the board. And the next thing we heard was in September,
roughly five months after submitting our alternative fee
calculation, that it was then being rejected. And I think you can
see where we are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And meanwhile, we had your
money in full or we didn't have your money?
MR. KEESEY: You had the 90 -- $t03,402. And we believe,
at least based on the alternative fee calculation, what the county
staff advised us in March should be done, that it should be
roughly $31,618.
So we are here today to ask to be allowed to submit a true
alternative fee calculation. The staff does not agree that the
original fee calculation, alternative fee calculation, submitted in
March was based on enough studies, even though we thought we
were complying with the instructions of Mr. Kant at the time.
And we do want to go forward and prepare a fully compliant
alternative fee calculation and have it done correctly under the
ordinance as it's drafted today, and come back to you at a future
Page 120
September 26, 2000
time with that study and with the accurate amount and pay it.
And hopefully we might get a little of our money back.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: With regard to the September
2nd letter to Mr. Campbell, sent by Mr. Tindall. In the first
paragraph it says the calculation reflected a net fee of
$31,618.88. Section 203 -- and you've heard me read this before
-- of the ordinance requires that a hearing be held within 30
calendar days of the date the petitioner submits a request.
However, after reviewing the submitted materials, we advise the
project manager that the date upon which the fee was based did
not meet the standards of the road impact fee ordinance.
Then it goes on to be another sentence, it says since the
staff would not have been able to recommend approval, the
hearing was not scheduled.
The only issue I have here is, is it a requirement somewhere
that says the staff has to be in the position to recommend
approval before a hearing is scheduled?
MR. KEESEY: It's not part of the ordinance. If you're asking
me, the attorney can answer that, but it is not part of the
ordinance that staff has to be able to recommend approval
before there is a scheduled hearing before this board.
But in -- also, if I can make comment further, the advice of
staff to us that it was not appropriate followed a phone
conversation in August of this year. It was not soon after the
March submittal of the report and the alternative fee calculation.
It was in August in response to our concern that we hadn't
heard anything that Mr. Treesh of Metro called Mr. Tindall in
August and was told at that time that he didn't -- that it was not
going to be found sufficient. And then of course the September
2nd letter followed within a week or two of that date.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Again, looking to determine good
faith, trying to find out what was the extent of this developer's
effort to comply with the confusing situation, did you -- what was
submitted in an effort to comply with the requirements for an
alternate calculation? What we saw today is what we got from
Mr. Perry and it's really clear and it's got a chart and we
understand it and there's -- did you submit a letter that says we
Page 121
September 26, 2000
don't think we should have to pay because, or did you submit an
engineering study? What did you submit?
MR. KEESEY: There was reference earlier today,
Commissioner Mac'Kie, to a worksheet that I think Mr. Tindall
can probably explain better than I, that the county sort of came
up with. And I don't think that was made clear when he
mentioned the worksheet.
But in March, specifically on March 14th of this year, a
meeting was scheduled with the transportation people and the
Metro consultants hired by U.S. Home, and they got together and
worked through the worksheet that staff gave to our consultant.
It was a trip based calculation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe -- I'm sorry, maybe I didn't
ask my question very clearly. When you submitted, when you
first said here is our submission --
MR. KEESEY: On March 28th.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was the date? And it was
based --
MR. KEESEY: We submitted it on March 28th.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And was it prepared by an
engineer?
MR. KEESEY: It was a transportation consultant, Metro, and
the person who signed it, Ted Treesh signs his name senior
transportation consultant. Whether he is actually a
transportation engineer, I'm not aware. But it was a
transportation consultant office that met with the county staff,
worked with them.
And again, the impact fees on this course - I want you to
understand, at the time of build-out of this development, the only
members of that course will be residents living -.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand.
MR. KEESEY: -- in Cedar Hammock. These are not people --
it's not a public course. Only impacts from maybe a few guests
every day and employees. But basically it's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How close, Mr. Tindall, did they
come to complying with the ordinance? Are they halfway there,
20 percent?
MR. TINDALL: It was exactly the same problem that we saw
with the first submittal from Naples Grande in that they didn't --
their variable data did not come from a transportation impact
Page 122
September 26, 2000
study, it came from the golf course operator with information
having to do with things that they consider might have an impact
on transportation. But it wasn't actually going out and counting
vehicles and doing interviews.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But did it appear to be an
attempt to comply with the ordinance or --
MR. TINDALL: Oh, certainly. Certainly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And do they have natural
vegetation areas set aside on this?
MR. TINDALL: They have not provided us any
documentation of such.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. So we're really dealing
with a total acreage situation.
MR. TINDALL: At this point in time, unless they want to
come forward with --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The question is will we allow --
MR. TINDALL: Will we allow--
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, one at a time, please.
MR. TINDALL: That's the point, yes. We submitted our
payment based on a 97-acre golf course, but we at that time
protested and said we wanted the right, and the letter in fact
dated January 31st promised us the right to submit an
alternative fee calculation which would be heard eventually by
the board, and to request a hearing, and that's what we did. So
we're here to request the right to go forward with our alternative
fee.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Oilill, I'm starting to get,
frankly, nervous about the fact that I've being persuaded by so
many of these developers, that they have been trying to comply.
Am I missing something?
MR. OLLIFF: No, ma'am. I believe that they have been
trying to comply since they were made aware of. But it goes
back to the original argument about whether or not it was our
obligation to make them aware or whether they should have
been aware as part of the ordinance being in existence in the
first place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And in this case you paid the fee
-- let's see, I'm getting mixed up again. You paid in February 4th
of this year.
Page t23
September 26, 2000
MR. KEESEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Having pulled your very earliest
permit, being the preliminary work, but your first vertical
construction you pulled was the end of '99. Within three months
you paid in full, and you paid that before you sought your
clubhouse permit.
MR. KEESEY: That's correct. We initiated again the inquiry
with the county. Mr. Tindall sent us back a letter advising us it
was 97,000. We paid it within four days of that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The biggest difference appears
to be they actually initiated the discussion; whereas, the others
were in response to communication.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to make a motion
based on those record (sic) with all of those things that we've
just discussed.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And the unique nature of this?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The unique nature of this
situation being that they have made the initial inquiry, that
within a short period of time of pulling their initial permits, they
paid in full, and based on the fact that subsequent to that
payment, they have continually made a good faith effort to
comply with the ordinance requirements to submit an alternate
calculation.
Based on that information, I'm going to make a motion that
we allow them to submit an alternate fee calculation.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Further
discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, state aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.}
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-0. Thank you.
MR. KEESEY: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You know, one of my greatest
concerns here is turnaround time. And I think that really has to
be addressed. And maybe the new ordinance is doing that. But I
think when somebody comes in with an alternative fee and we
are months getting back to them and saying whoops, we don't
like this, that's not a good process. We need to have a
turnaround time that says either it's yes or no, and it needs to
get to this board in a timely basis. This is totally unacceptable
Page 124
September 26, 2000
as far as process, to me.
MR. OLLIFF: I won't argue with that at all. In fact, the
ordinance requires 30 days. And I think we're either going to
have sufficient information -- we will either have sufficient
information for the board to make a decision, or we'll submit the
application to you insufficient information and our
recommendation will have to be for denial.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's good.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
Item #12C5
REVIEW HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE ROAD
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION FOR GOLF CLUB OF THE
EVERGLADES - PETITIONER TO PROVIDE ALTERNATE FEE
CALCULATION SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF AFFIDAVIT
CLARIFYING AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO PAY SAID IMPACT
FEES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which takes us back to Golf
Club of the Everglades.
MR. VARNADOE: George Varnadoe, for the record. I'll give
you the list of names. Paul Tamarez, T-A-M-A-R-E-Z. John
Blickle, B-L-I-C-K-L-E. Vincent Johnson. Joseph Pablancto,
P-A-B-L-A-N-C-A-T-O.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: George, could you just hand a
copy of that up here and we'll --
MR. VARNADOE: No, because I didn't -- I got this over the
telephone and it's handwritten. But I thought you wanted to hear
them so you knew if you had a conflict or not.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, we do. I could probably
read it faster than you could spell every one of them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or put it on the visualizer, even if
it's handwritten.
MR. VARNADOE: You can't --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right, go ahead. I'm not
going to argue with it.
MR. VARNADOE: I'm sorry, this was just over the telephone.
Edward Cherney, C-H-E-R-N-E-Y. William Castellano,
C-A-S-T-E-L-L-A-N-O. Michael Ditka. Tom Ferguson. Zophi
Page 125
September 26, 2000
(phonetic) Gamlieli, G-A-M-L-I-E-L-I. John Heimbaugh,
H-E-I-M-B-A-U-G-H. Edward Howard. Jim Janosek, J-A-N-O-S-E-K.
Lynn Josephson. Tom Kukk, K-U-K-K. Steve Lockwood. Jim
Lytel, L-Y-T-E-L. William Noyes, N-O-Y-E-S. Marty Shottenheimer,
I won't attempt it. Don Vining. Nick Pontikes, P-O-N-T-I-K-E-S.
And William Porttikes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't hear the one, Bining or
Vining.
MR. VARNADOE: Don Vining.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don.
MR. VARNADOE: Donald Vining. He's a thank you card
position.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And for the record, I will say to
the best of my knowledge I don't know any of these gentlemen,
but I may have met them at the Chamber of Commerce, the EDC,
a rotary club or some other organization in this community. But
to my knowledge, I have never had any interaction with them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto.
MR. VARNADOE: I don't think we've had staff presentation.
If we did, I missed it.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record.
This case is similar to what you just discussed with Naples
Lakes, with one exception. When the developer was notified on
what the impact fee was that was due, staff engaged in a revised
acreage calculation, which again takes out preserve areas and
lakes and so forth, and that is explained in your executive
summary. The number went from 261.8 acres to 92 acres.
if your decision is not to proceed with an alternative
calculation similar to what you did to Naples Lakes, at the very
least staff would ask you to sanction that number that was used
for the calculation of the impact fee. If you should not use that
number, the actual fee that they would owe would be higher and
it would have to be recalculated.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you know if any of those
lakes were used in -- for engineering purposes that meet the
requirements of drainage and so on from a golf course? Because
it seems to me --
MR. CAUTERO: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course they were.
Page 126
September 26, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I mean, it just seems to
me they are part of the course. And we had a little bit of that
discussion last week. And what goes with the residen -- just
when we get that far, be prepared to respond.
MR. VARNADOE: We're not -- I'm not here on behalf of
acreage, I'm here to ask for an alternative impact fee analysis.
But I do think those comments show you what Jeff Perry
explained to you and that's the legal flaws in your old ordinance.
Because in this case you had 261. some odd acres that were
acquired by the owner. It was in the ag. area. So they came in
and got a conditional use for golf courses. So you had 26t acres
that golf course was to be built on.
As your staff has acknowledged, it was somewhat much
less than that, probably close to 100, 110 acres. Yet when the
assessment comes down for -- when you start looking at it, you
look at your chart, they say we owe $297,000 based on 261
acres. Well, that has no rational relationship or rational nexus to
the impacts of this golf course.
Now, Mr. Weigel sits here and tells you you can't hear these
because the people haven't followed every little rule and
regulation, even though the county hasn't either. I think he's -- I
would pick an issue with him. Because when you apply the --
your ordinance to this factual situation, you are in effect making
an unconstitutional assessment of impact fees.
So I would ask you in this case -- that there really is
compelling, both legal and factual circumstances now, which I
think will lead you to the same conclusion you've made in other
cases.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I don't think that's what Mr.
Weigel said.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It doesn't --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Would you repeat --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And at this particular instant in
time --
MR. VARNADOE: You'd rather hear the facts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. I would.
MR. VARNADOE: Well~ I'm making a legal record here, and I
will tell you I think in my opinion that applying the ordinance on
its face to this factual situation becomes an unconstitutional
application of impact fees, because there's no relationship of the
Page 127
September 26, 2000
impacts to this golf course and the amount of acreage that have
a conditional use for golf course on them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I think based on the facts
that have been presented to us, we've been making exceptions.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am. Let me get to the facts. And I
don't want to bore you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Before you do, let me just make
sure I understand with Vince a couple of very basic facts.
Site development plan pulled late '99.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: In February, a request for
alternative impact fees was there. So clearly they knew impact
fees were due at some point, but no payment was made. MR. CAUTERO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Even though that's required.
MR. CAUTERO: Before the permit is pulled, correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And then that was eventually
paid April 28th of 2000.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir.
MR. VARNADOE: And the golf course opened on May I of
2000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And as opposed to the one that
we just heard, for example -- no, that's the same.
MR. VARNADOE: Well~ let me go through the facts very
quickly, because I think that -- I think I can clear a lot of this up.
And you've got a copy attached to affidavits from the contractor
who built the clubhouse, the engineer for the golf course, and
Clyde Quimby is the managing partner for the limited partnership.
Beginning in late 1999, as Mr. Constantine has said, the SDP
was approved. And about that time there were discussions on
the amount of impact fees, because we had this 261 acres of
conditional use. The golf course wasn't going to occupy that
much acreage.
As a result of those discussions, there was a letter from
Tom Kuck on January 27th of 2000 saying the impact fees need
to be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit for the
clubhouse.
On February 28th, 2000 there was a submittal of an
alternate impact fee analysis by the project engineer, using the
form or worksheet provided by the county. And you've heard Phil
Page 128
September 26, 2000
Tindall talk about this worksheet. The county has this one-page
worksheet that says how do you figure your alternate impact fee
calculations. And I won't try to get into it, but that was utilized
in this instance.
The -- Phil Tindall sometime later, I don't have a date, was
telephone called, notified the engineer that in staff's opinion that
was not sufficient. It wasn't done correctly, it didn't have all
these calculations you heard about earlier.
The engineer then computed the actual golf course acreage
that you've heard about, commissioners, and transmitted that to
the owner, along with a computation of what he thought all the
impact fees due and payables work would be.
On March 8th, the golf club owner actually wrote a letter to
Phil Tindall saying we are paying impact fees in the amount of
$98,072, and we're paying them under protest attached to the
check.
At that same day -- or actually a day earlier, on March 7th, a
check was cut in the amount of $t72,000 and some change that
would have paid all the impact fees, the golf course clubhouse,
the water permit and all the other fees that were pulled. A copy
of that voided check's attached to the affidavit from Mr. Quimby.
In -- the check was given to the contractor, Boran, Craig,
Barber, to deliver to the county. And this is when -- kind of follow
me, this is when things get a little bit confusing. On March 8th
the contractor and Bill Barton went out to the county to pull,
they thought, the permit for the clubhouse. When they got there
they said that permit is not ready to be pulled, there's still a
couple of issues, but we do have ready your water meter permit,
and -- in this instance it's not a sewer, but water meter permit --
and that can be pulled tomorrow.
So the contractors got this $172,000 check, this letter of
protest, he goes back tomorrow and the guy says you owe
$63,000 -- $63,926 for your water permit and whatever other
permits you need to pull. So he says well, that doesn't match
what I've got. He gives him the letter, he writes the Borah-Craig
check for $63,000, submits it, gets his water meter permit. So the letter was given to him, but no check.
On or about March 21, the contractor received a call from
the county stating the building permit for the clubhouse is now
ready. And they -- in that phone call, they said fees in the
Page 129
September 26, 2000
amount of $17,410.29 are due and payable.
And I didn't realize this, Ms. Mac'Kie, because you keep
asking about how come, you know, these things are -- a lot times
when you're called your permit's ready, they tell you what the
fees are so that you are ready to pay them when you get there.
Then when you walk in to the development services, if you
go off to the left, what they call the planning department, you go
over to whoever's got your -- in this case the building permit, and
they say here is your statement for the fees due. You take that,
you then go over to the cashier, you give them that document,
they collect that money, they give you a receipt, you go back to
the planning department and they give you a building permit.
So in this case what happened was the road impact fee, the
check had been cut for them. They weren't delivered, although a
letter in protest was. In talking to the contractor, and as you can
see from his affidavit, he was under the assumption that was
being handled separately by the engineer because of the
controversy about how much the fees were to be because the -- a
road analysis had not been accepted and this discussion
between the 261 acres and the 98 acres or 100 acres or
whatever it was supposed to be.
Approximately three weeks later the project engineer gets a
call from Phil Tindale who says I got your letter but we don't
have the check. And the engineer says that can't be, I was
there, I saw the check. Look in the county records, you got it.
And he says we've looked everywhere, we don't have the check.
So he calls the owner, the owner says no, that check was
returned to me. He says, well, we owe the county -- or you owe
the county, based on what we now calculate, 90,000 and some
odd dollars. That was paid on April 27th, 2000.
The clubhouse is still not done, but the golf course was
officially opened for play on May 1, 2000. And I would submit to
you that in this case we all knew the impact fees were payable.
There was discussion before any permits were pulled, other than
the SDP. It was just through I'll say a mutual confusion that they
weren't paid. But it was a willingness and intent to pay at all
times. And prior to any impacts being realized from this project,
they were paid. Under protest, of course, pending an alternate
impact fee analysis.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for the petitioner?
Page t30
September 26, 2000
MR. VARNADOE: The petitioner has one question.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have none.
MR. VARNADOE: I have one question. Under Mr. Carter's
analysis, when we come back in and our impact fees are less
than $98,000 that we paid under protest, are we going to get
interest and penalties?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No comment.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the pleasure of the
board?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I would make a motion that we
allow them to come in with an alternative fee calculation
approach.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I've got to tell you, I don't see it
as cut and dried as the others.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't like this one, too.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Somebody wandering around
with $170,000 check in their pocket and forgetting to drop it off
or deciding not to pay that day and writing a handwritten check
for -- I don't know, just something seems out of the ordinary
there.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay. I guess it dies because of
no second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I haven't seconded it yet. I'm
trying to get the -- okay, here -- you gave me a lot of information
there, George, and it's --
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- it's hard to absorb it all.
And I've made myself a little chart here that I'm trying to
compare. One factor is the equities of how close in relation to
when the initial permit was pulled, how soon did your client
make a payment or apply for an alternate or take some action.
And I'm looking. The Strand, for example, in March, '97 --
they got a permit, and in March of '97, they submitted a faulty but
an attempt at an alternate calculation.
Naples Grande, theirs is the longest stretch of time I can
see, that in September of '99 they submitted permits and in
January of 2000, they made a payment. And so what is that 9,
10, 11, 12, three, four months after.
Old Collier we're going to get to, but they submitted in
Page t31
September 26, 2000
December of '99. They got permits. And in February of 2000 they
submitted an alternate.
Your guys, have I got this right, got a permit in November of
'99 and made a payment in February of 2000.
MR. VARNADOE: I think it was actually --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, April 28th.
MR. VARNADOE: I think it was actually April.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: April 26th.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They requested their alternative
impact fee February 6th, but they didn't pay a penny until --
MR. VARNADOE: And we also, in the interim, and I think it's
important, is that there were discussions going on. We had a
letter from county staff saying the impact fees need to be paid at
the time you pull your clubhouse permit. And that was what
everybody --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you have a copy of that
letter, George?
MR. VARNADOE: Your -- that letter is attached to McAnley's
affidavit. It's dated January 27th, 2000, signed by Tom Kuck,
hearing review manager. And I can --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They need to be paid prior to the
-- okay, permit for the clubhouse.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This is dated in January of
2000.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
As a result of that letter, on February 8th, we submitted an
alternative impact fee --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But why wasn't the -- why wasn't
the protested fee paid in February?
MR. VARNADOE: Because we did not pull the clubhouse
building permit--
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Until March.
MR. VARNADOE: -- until March.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then why wasn't it paid in
protest in March?
MR. VARNADOE: Because of the confusion with the checks
where we -- where the owner actually sent the check and the
letter of protest, but because the clubhouse building permit was
not ready that day, only the permit for the water, the fees were
$6:3,000.
Page 132
September 26, 2000
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But if you go on in this letter,
depending on the timing on the issuance of the building permit,
your client may elect to pay the road impact fee under protest,
subject to a refund, based on action taken by the board.
MR. VARNADOE: And that's what we attempted to do, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So you attempted to pay
February 8th.
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. On February 8th we filed --
because we hadn't pulled the permit, we went ahead and filed
the alternative impact fee analysis to determine what the fee
would be.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right, and that's not how that
letter reads.
MR. VARNADOE: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And so if you read this letter,
what you should have done was pay the full fee and then --
MR. VARNADOE: And that's what we attempted to do. When
the impact fee -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
attempted to do that.
MR. VARNADOE: All right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
question before you answer it.
Explain to me how you
Because -- let me finish my
Explain to me how you attempted to do that if February 8th
you requested your alternative impact fee and you hadn't paid
one penny, nor did you have a check with you at that time to pay
one penny. Clearly you were not attempting to comply with what
that letter said.
MR. VARNADOE: Have you finished your question now, sir?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. VARNADOE: Okay. Because we --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And George, while you're here,
with all due respect, I'm chairing this meeting, you're not. You'll
have every opportunity. But please be respectful to the board
members.
MR. VARNADOE: I'm trying to, sir. I wanted to make sure
you were finished with your question.
Submitted the alternative impact fee analysis before we
pulled the building permit. We were told it was insufficient. So
when we went to pull the building permit, we were trying to pay
Page 133
September 26, 2000
the $98,000, which we and the staff had agreed would be the full
impact fee under protest. And that's why I was telling you we
tried to do it when we pulled the building permit.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which was how long after
February 8th?
MR. VARNADOE: March.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two months and 20 days. March
28th.
MR. VARNADOE: March.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: March 8th.
MR. VARNADOE: Actually, no, it was March 8th. The check
was dated March 8th.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So a month later, which is still
contrary to the letter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, on 3-7~ though, you wrote a
check for $172,4t0.29, which was later voided. So I don't
understand why that never got deposited.
MR. VARNADOE: That was the check that was given to the
contractor with the letter of protest. But when he went down to
pull the permit -- that would have been fees for the clubhouse,
water, the impact fees for the road, everything. When he got
down there, the clubhouse permit was not ready. So they said --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So the county did not accept it.
MR. VARNADOE: -- only thing that you can pull today is your
water permit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So here's the money for the
water.
MR. VARNADOE: And the water permit was 63,000. You
have a receipt for that and a Boran-Craig check for that attached
to the contract.
That check was then at some point in time, and we can't tell
when it returned, obviously to the developer. And then later they
got a call and said the building permit is ready and your fees for
that are 17,000.
The contractor -- because you had the contractor working on
this and the engineer -- the contractor thought that the engineer
had handled the impact fees because of the discussion about
how much they were supposed to be.
But all I'm telling you is in this instance, I think before any
permits were pulled, there was an attempt to cooperate. There
Page 134
September 26, 2000
were actually checks cut before the clubhouse, before the
course was open, it was actually paid. I think you see a good
faith attempt to pay.
Plus, in this instance you've got -- if you look at your chart --
and Vince, would you throw that chart up there for a minute? I
need to make this point, Mr. Chairman, and I won't take up much
more time, but I do want to -o this is the chart the county -- the
city -- the county staff passed that last time showing you who
has paid impact fees and who has not and how much they were.
If you'll look at the impact fees on this chart, they range
from a low of 1 t,000 for Heritage Greens to a high of 304,000 for
Tiburon. Golf Course of the Everglades being the second highest
at 279,000. And if you'll look right above that, you'll see the
Hideout Golf Club, which I would submit to you is a private club
with private members only, as Golf Club of the Everglades is very
similar. The fees for that were 38,248, approved by this board
last June.
And I would submit to you that no one on your staff would
try to convince you that Golf Club of the Everglades is having
more than seven times, more than seven times the impact of
Hideout.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the question --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's not the question today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Not at all.
MR. VARNADOE: Well, in my opinion, it is. Because the fair
application of these fees is always a question for this board.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll be sure and cast your vote
that way, George.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The question here is whether or
not we're going to have alternative impact fees. And I'll tell you,
each of these has been unique, and we've pointed that out.
To me, some of these clearly have been staff error, repeated
staff error. But what I hear George saying there is well, the
contractor didn't know that so and so did this and so and so had
a check and somebody else did something else, and it sounds as
though certainly the vast majority of the error appears to be on
the petitioner's part. And while that's unfortunate, it does make
a big difference, I think, in how we interpret this.
Page 135
September 26, 2000
And had those errors not been made, I don't think they'd find
themselves in this position today, I think they'd be -- they could
have been -- opportunity arose for them to be in a situation at the
very worst similar to those that we've already heard. I don't
think that's the case. I think they missed their opportunity here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The only thing that troubles me
on this is if someone brings me a check for 172,410 and I say I'm
sorry, I can't take that today because part of it isn't ready, where
in the system could I have accepted the check, checked off o-
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That's --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- this is ready, this is being paid
under protest. Because I understand the number was right, but
we didn't have the permit right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The story changed --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm a little troubled we didn't do --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The story changed a couple of
times, though. Because the first time it was the petitioner
decided not to present that because the amount was 60 some
odd thousand and so he wrote a check.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's -- no, the second time it
came back was -- so I want to know, who turned it down? Who
turned down the check?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not the way I heard it.
MR. VARNADOE: I wasn't there, but I do have an affidavit
from the contractor who was there. And what he was told is that
check is in the wrong amount. The amount you owe today is
6:3,000 some odd dollars. So what happened was it wasn't a
developer's check for 6:3,000, Commissioner Constantine, it was
a Boran, Craig, Barber check for 63,000. Because the only check
he had from the developer was the 172,000. Just so we all
understand the facts.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And that's the clincher for
me, that this was all a continuing good faith effort to comply.
Because otherwise, they -- the county could have accepted that
check that day, but instead, because we were all confused about
when it was due in association with what permit was it due, and
we were waiting for the clubhouse permit for the road impact fee
to be paid.
And again, Naples Grande has a four-month gap between
Page t 36
September 26, 2000
when it pulled its permit and when it sought an alternate
calculation. In this case it's a five-month gap, as best I can tell,
November of '99 to April of 2000. Yet we have these affidavits
that show good faith continuing efforts to try to comply. Based
on those, I'm going to second the motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to support it. I
don't buy it for a minute, and I think that there were a number of
errors made on the part of whether it's the petitioner or the
contractor or whomever representing the petitioner.
And the irony I guess is in part of George's explanation. He
said traditionally what people do is call ahead and they find out
what the amount is due so that they can be prepared to pay
when they get there. And yet later in the story it changes and
we get there with the wrong amount and so we had to take that
back. And it doesn't fit. Something here does not fit. So I'm not
going to support the motion.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay, this is the uniqueness of
my motion then. There is a uniqueness here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Commissioner Constantine, I
don't want to vote for this if I'm giving something away, so help
me understand why you disagree.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I guess each of the others has
been pretty cut-and-dried. We've been able to see who made
what error when. Most of those that we have -- all of those that
we have agreed to hear have clearly been a staff error on at least
95 percent. I think one of them we had one error, minor error, on
the part of the petitioner.
But this appears to have been not necessarily staff's fault.
And to hear someone say well, normally you call ahead and find
out what the amount is and another minute later -- that not in the
form of a question, by the way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I --
MR. VARNADOE: Well, I need to clear up what I said, Mr.
Constantine. And I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You said that.
MR. VARNADOE.' No, sir, what I said was the staff called
and said what the fees are due. And that is one of the things
that happens when you have fees due. In this instance, that
wasn't what happened. Just so you understand what I said.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah, okay. I'll go back and
Page 137
September 26, 2000
play the tape later for you, George. It doesn't add up. Because
where would you write a check? Where would you -- why and
from what source would you write a check for $172,610 and
some change, or whatever it was, if you didn't have any idea
what the number was, if you hadn't had a conversation with
someone to find out what the number would be? Why would you
pick a number and have a check printed in that amount and bring
it down, only to find you were off by $110,0007 That simply
doesn't make sense.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the answer to that
question, Mr. Varnadoe?
MR. VARNADOE: If you'll look at the affidavit from the
project engineer, you will find in there --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that Mitch Brown?
MR. VARNADOE: No, I'm sorry, that's Bill McAnley.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Trying to get the right --
MR. VARNADOE: And I'll try to get you something.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought I had that. Okay, tell us
what happened --
MR. VARNADOE: Well, what I got -- I may not have given you
-- have I given you all the affidavits? I don't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, we got McAnley's.
MR. VARNADOE: Somewhere in McAnley's affidavit is a
letter -- excuse me, a fax from Bill McAnley to Mitch Brown dated
3-7-2000. It's a handwritten note that shows his calculation of
what the impact fees would be. And it looks -- I'm sorry, I don't
know where it's attached. It looks like this.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's Exhibit No. :3. It's about three
or four pages from the end of what you handed out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. It says 172,410. And that
was calculated by McAnley, or it was --
MR. VARNADOE: That was his calculation of all the impact
fees due. If you'll look, you'll see fire, EMS, jail, water. And then
at the top, the 96,000 for the road. And if you look under water,
you'll see 63,000 -- I think it says 750.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, okay.
MR. VARNADOE: So when they -- so this, based on this
letter -- I mean this fax on March 7th, the March 7th check was
cut. But when they got there on March 8th -- excuse me, March
9th, the fees that were due for the water meter were 63,000
Page 138
September 26, 2000
some odd.
And you have a receipt for that in there, which is probably
attached to Mitch Brown's affidavit. And it's an official receipt
form. It looks sort of like this, dated March 9th, and it shows
63,928 being the number for the -- so the reason for the check
was --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the payor on here was
Boran-Craig?
MR. VARNADOE: Exactly. Because when he got there with
the developer's check for 172,000, that wasn't the right amount,
so Boran-Craig wrote their own check for 63,000.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because they were afraid that
they may be giving away their client's money before it was due.
MR. VARNADOE: I can't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why?
MR. VARNADOE: I can't answer why they did that, other
than that was not -- the 172,000 wasn't due and payable
according to the clerk, it was 63,000. So they cut the check to
get the water permit so they could hook up water to the cart
barn and go forward with their other work out there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have a question for staff. Do in
fact we have a record anywhere where someone on the staff said
we can't take this check for 172,410, which is for everything, and
credit the water application to this?
MR. CAUTERO: I have no record of that, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It just doesn't seem customary
to me that an engineer would work up a handwritten, undated
estimate and then cut a check off that, without touching base
with somebody at the county. That seems very strange to me.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I have to agree there. I do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you help clear that
conception up? If I understand the facts here, McAnley
Engineering worked up that $172,610 was the total impact fees
due for this project, and they faxed that over to the developer,
and the developer wrote a check.
Then the developer gave the check to their contractor,
Boran-Craig. Boran-Craig went to the county to pick up permits.
When they got there, instead of being able to pick up all the
permits, they picked up only -- they picked up everything except
the clubhouse permit.
Page 139
September 26, 2000
When they couldn't get the clubhouse permit, they said then
we're not going to give you the money for the road impact fee, so
I'm going to cut my company's check for the net amount. And
they submitted that to the county. And then I assume they were
reimbursed at some point by the developer.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Call me crazy, but I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Did I
just say that straight?
MR. VARNADOE: Ms. Mac'Kie, I don't know. I wasn't there.
So all I can rely on what is Mitch Brown told me and what the
affidavit says, that when he went with the check for 172, and the
letter of protest for the 98,000, that was all based on what
McAnley had figured the impact fees were going to be.
When he got there, the actual -- obviously the golf course
clubhouse permit was not issued on that date. What was
allowed to be issued on March 9th was the water permits. And
the fees were 63,900 and some odd dollars, which was paid by
check by Boran and Craig.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask
staff a question. Isn't it customary that the road impact fees
would be paid by a separate check to the county by the other
developers? Road impact fees. Or do they give us lump checks
and it includes several --
MR. CAUTERO: Usually lump checks, from what I've been
told by my staff. And then each item is itemized when they get
their receipt. There really wouldn't be a reason to give separate
checks, unless there was a contractual arrangement.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It just seems to me, you know,
as a tiny example, but my wife and I are building a house right
now. If my contractor goes down to pay the little impact fee,
some of those are going to be standard, but some may alter,
according to certain criteria; that he will not simply write a
check and go down there, he will probably touch base with
somebody, if there is any variables whatsoever, to make sure he
has his number right before he cuts a check and goes down, in
order to save everybody money and be efficient.
So surely if you do that on a tiny little project, you would do
that on a great big project for a couple hundred thousand dollars.
It just -- it seems highly unusual that someone would cut a
check for $172,410.29 without having checked with the county
Page 140
September 26, 2000
on it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' See, that part doesn't trouble me
as much, because we have consistently taken the position that
it's not the county's job to tell you what you owe. And so good
for them if they calculated it and determined the amount that
they owed. I don't have that problem.
I have one little question, and that is I wish Mitch Brown
were here so that I could ask him, what happened when he
showed up with that check for 1727 Because in his affidavit it
says that we was informed that the clubhouse permit was not
ready to be issued, but that the water connection permit was
ready to be issued and the fees for that permit were about
64,000; that he paid those drawn on a check of his own company.
And then when the clubhouse permit was ready, they paid
17,000.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Also drawn on -- by Boran-Craig
and then charged back to the developer?
MR. VARNADOE: Yeah. No, I take that back, I think that
may have been a developer check. I'll need to look in my file. I
don't know what date that was on.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. This says
official receipt, 17,589. The other one tells us applicant Borah
and Craig, payor.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Golf Club of the Everglades.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. So the other one is drawn
on a developer check.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. The first one was the
contractor, the second one was the developer.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you for clarifying that.
Let me just -- I want to wind up because I don't want to take
any more time. I think in response to the unusual nature of the
impact fee as being done by the engineer in this case, I don't
think there's any question that the county accepted the $98,072,
which is part of the 172,000, being the -- being the right amount.
And if you have been looking at -- on other cases, you must
acknowledge in this case that the impact fees were paid prior to
any impacts from this golf course being realized from county
transportation system. I appreciate --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: There's another interesting note
Page 14t
September 26, 2000
on this thing from the engineering company. They star roads,
and they say here at the bottom, our request is for $26,733.17.
Wait a minute, they've got to pay this? This looks like something
that somebody is supposed to be paying something under protest
here or what? Because there's a notation here that they are
questioning that road impact fee -- or this engineer is questioning
it. Whether it's right or not, it's still a notation. So there's more
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Except there hadn't been a
conversation with staff. If McAnley thought that the appropriate
fee was 26,000, where did the 98 come from?
MR. VARNADOE.' 26,000 was the number that was arrived at
as a result of the alternative impact fee analysis done by
McAnley, which was rejected by Phil Tindall prior to the March
8th date.
98,000 is based on the acreage calculation of the golf
course by McAnley at that time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because this says that you
submitted an alternate calculation February 8th of 2000.
MR. VARNADOE.' That's correct. And that was the one that
showed this $26,733.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the date of this payment was
March something?
MR. VARNADOE: The attempted payment was on March 8th.
I shouldn't say the payment -- the check was cut on March 7th,
attempted to be delivered on March 8th.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to let my second stand.
I'm convinced that this is just continuing more Keystone Cops
for both on the staff's part and the developer's part.
I'm going to tell you that this is the only presumption I'm
making, and the presumption that I'm making is that the
contractor showed up at development services with the
developer's check for $172,000. And I am presuming that the
reason he didn't hand that check to development services is
because the clubhouse permit wasn't ready. And that as soon as
the clubhouse permit was ready~ the full fee was paid.
Based on that understanding, I'm going to second the
motion and support it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cautero, do you have a way
of finding out when the clubhouse permit was applied for?
Page 142
September 26, 2000
MR. CAUTERO: Yes, I do have a way to find out. I don't
know, but I could find that out.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think that'd be pretty
interesting. I wonder how far in advance of March 8th it was
applied for, since it wasn't issued for a couple of months after
that.
MR. CAUTERO: I can find out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because? I'm just not -- I'm dull
headed, I --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Because if it either hadn't been
applied for yet or had only been applied for a few days or a
couple weeks before, you wouldn't expect that to be done
anyway. There is a time frame from the time you apply for a
permit till when you would reasonably expect to it be ready.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And since it wasn't issued for a
couple of months after this, one has to wonder if it had even
been applied for at that point. And if it hadn't been, one has to
wonder why they would have showed up with a check expecting
it to be prepared that day.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Tim, I swear --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'm missing something.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm missing something, too. I fail
to understand what it is you don't trust about this $172,000
check. What do you think is Machiavellian behind the scenes
here? I can't see it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A handwritten, undated
estimate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they did that -- using the
conspiracy theory here, this was produced for the purpose of
what?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Perhaps today's hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that -- and these people
swore out affidavits?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't know. I'm not going to
make that accusation. Something is not okay about this
application. The others have been very cut-and-dried. We could
see where our errors were on the county's part. It is simply not
that cut-and-dried on this case.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, the thing is, though, just a
Page 143
September 26, 2000
few moments ago staff told me it was not unusual to get a check
that was inclusive of several fees. So I'm back to if I get the
check and these numbers didn't come out of thin air, because if
you correlate with the permitting and what we were going to
charge for the road impact fees, that I believe we should have
accepted the $172,410 and change and done the credits,
because if I'm hearing correctly, we have done that in the past.
MR. OLLIFF.' Mr. Commissioner, it's not even clear whether
the check was ever presented in this particular case. You know,
it may have been when -- because they were looking at strictly a
water tap and a water meter issue. And so when they were
presented with that bill and the check -- the amount of that bill
was different, the petitioner in this case just simply went and got
the check for the correct amount and then paid it. So we don't
know --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll tell you --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I mean, in theory an employee
shows up and has a check for $172,000 and walks up to the
counter and somebody says that will be $63,000, please. If I was
that employee I might balk, too. Oh, wait a minute, what's this?
Wait, don't you want this amount? You know?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Tim, that's what makes me
think --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They may never have --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that this is all good faith.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, my point is that they may
never have presented that check to begin with.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
the answer to that.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Well, I don't know the answer --
I would like the answer to it.
-- to that. I would like to know
I don't know the answer.
Don't we have a sworn affidavit
that says he presented the check?
MR. VARNADOE: Just for the record, I'd like you to note that
the official receipt for the building permit for the clubhouse was
March 31, approximately whatever day it is, two weeks later, not
two months later.
MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman, the question you asked a
moment ago about the clubhouse application, it was applied for
Page 144
September 26, 2000
on November 4th, 1999.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it would be reasonable to
think it might be ready.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm amazed that it
wasn't.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to call the question and
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You're going to call the
question?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to ask you to call the
question. It's parliamentary procedure. I ask you to call the
question.
And the bottom line is I have been in a position of paying
building permit fees for developers in my former life, and if I was
given a check for $100,000 and when I showed up at the county
they said I know you were expecting two permits, we only have
one ready, I would not have given them my client's $100,000. I
would have given them $50,000 for the one permit that was
ready. And that's what I think probably happened here. So I would ask you to call the question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Question is? What's the
motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion is to -- as I understand,
Commissioner Brantit made a motion, based on --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Brandt, what's
your motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the special circumstances.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: It's been so long ago. Maybe I
could have it read back.
(Requested information was read back by the court
reporter.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would like to make an addition
to that -- to this, the amendment to this -- I lost the word.
Anyhow, I want to make an amendment.
The amendment is that I would like sworn testimony from
Mitch Brown that he attempted to present the full check at the
time that he went to the building permits division.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For the purpose of?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: For the purpose of clarification
Page 145
September 26, 2000
for the record that they tried.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, let me just ask this: Would
it satisfy your concern if -- because I'm worried about proof
questions now. Would it satisfy your concern if he gets an
affidavit that says when he went to development services, he
had that check with him, or that he tried to get staff to take it
and -- I mean, did they have to have --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If he had it with him, if there's
some proof that it was in his pocket, in his hand prepared to do it
but didn't for a very obvious reason, he was only asked for one
permit fee.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So we could modify the motion to
include subject to receipt of an affidavit. With that kind of
clarification. Is that where you're suggesting?
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
they tried to present it.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Well, it was my understanding
Yeah.
That's what Commissioner
Constantine's been saying, too, and I didn't really get that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What if you ask for sworn
testimony that is consistent with the claims made by Mr.
Varnadoe here today, and leave it at that. And the record will
speak --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, God.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- for itself.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, guys, this is going to be so
hard.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, it's not. If the guy tells the
truth and George is telling the truth, then it's not hard at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we're going to ask somebody
to sign a transcript of today's --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No. We'll have an affidavit, and
we can look at it and see whether or not it's consistent with
what George said today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What point are we trying to
prove?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yeah, what -- I don't understand
what we're after here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, your point was that there
Page 146
September 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
happened that day --
was a good faith effort made to pay this, consistent with what
everyone else had done. Mr. Varnadoe indicated to some extent
earlier that an attempt was made to pay this. That doesn't mean
carry a check in your pocket and find out it's something different
and never bring that check out of your pocket.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: So you want --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That means an attempt made
and you were turned away.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And you want proof of that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I thought that was what
Commissioner Carter was asking for.
Well, I'm asking --
That sounds like --
-- I would really like to know what
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sounds reasonable to me.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: That sounds like --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- so that we have some
understanding. I mean, I see the check was drawn. What I'm
hearing is the check was taken down there. I'm understanding
that they were told that the only thing you owe today is for this
water permit. And did that person say well, okay, I'm going to
write a personal check from Boran and Craig to pay for that, or
did Mitch Brown say well, wait, I've got a check for this and this
and this, what's the situation here?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got an idea.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the official receipt from
Collier County, if I understand it correctly, it says cashier
location, Garrett, S. Does that mean that the cashier, the person
who received the check, was somebody on our staff named
Garrett?
MR. CAUTERO: Yes. Cashier.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that person available to tell us
whether or not they were offered a check in the amount
$172,000?
MR. CAUTERO: The person is not available now, but we
could certainly question that employee, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe that's the affidavit we
want.
Page 147
September 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: The number of checks that they
receive in a day, I suspect it would be a difficulty getting that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Wouldn't the logical person be
the one who --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- did or didn't offer the check?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why is that a problem,
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm willing to go with that. I'm
just going to say this: If the concern here is that somebody has
lied to you already, and now you're saying if you will tell me A, B,
C, then we will save you a hundred grand, if you think people are
liars, they're sure going to lie on that one, so I don't know what
you've accomplished. I'm happy to do it, but I -- my --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Does the motion maker amend
his motion?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I would amend the motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And second accepts that
amendment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll call the question. All
those in favor, state aye.
Anybody opposed? Aye.
Motion carries 3-1.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, just so that I can get some
clarification here, I think I -- just so that I understand, we are
looking for an affidavit from the petitioner, from --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mitch Brown.
MR. OLLIFF: -- Mr. Mitch Brown that indicates that not only
did he have the check in his possession, but he actually made
some attempt to --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: To offer it and was refused.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Correct.
Item #12C8
REVIEW HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE ROAD
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION FOR OLD COLLIER GOLF CLUB -
PETITIONER TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE FEE CALCULATION
Page 148
September 26, 2000
Next item up is 12 -- whatever it is (8). 12(C)(8).
Old Collier Golf Club.
MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman, last one on the agenda today.
Similar to the others that we've talked about again, the building
-- the first building permit for this golf course was for the
maintenance building on March 1st of this year. Impact fees
were paid on June 19th of this year. Alternative calculation was
submitted before the permit was issued.
Again, negotiations with staff back and forth working on
documentation as to whether or not the alternative calculation
was acceptable, was not brought forward to the board. No
resolution was made to that.
Again, the strict technical reading was that the building
permit was issued prior to the impact fee being paid; therefore,
the ruling or the staff opinion would be consistent with what we
have said to you earlier today and two weeks ago, that the
alternative calculation could not be entertained.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Same question I had on the last
one, and that's -- I think you and me and Mr. Olliff or maybe you
and me and Mr. McNees, depending on what the timing was, sat
down sometime prior to June 19th, and I would get updates on
where we were. As this whole impact fee issue unfolded, you
would come over and give us updates on where we were and
we'd find out who had paid and who hadn't.
And shortly sometime between February 21 and June 19th --
and maybe this is a question for the petitioner as well -- but some
request was made or it was made clear to the petitioner that
they were required to pay in full and then request their
alternative impact fee calculation, but they didn't get to wait
until after to find out how much. Am ! mistaken in that?
MR. CAUTERO: I don't believe you are. Mr. Tindall can give
me -- give us better documentation on when the letters went out
and exactly what was said. He sent these letters out, and many
of the petitioners have referenced those letters. I can search the
file.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bruet.
MR. BRUET: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Mike Bruet, I'm with Collier
Enterprises, here on behalf of the Old Collier Golf Club. I have
with me Dominic Amico, professional engineer with Agnoli,
Page 149
September 26, 2000
Barber and Brundage, and George Varnadoe as counsel. I'll try to
make this short and sweet. It's been a long morning.
The -- as you know, back in 1998, early '99, we came to you
and talked about rezoning Section 21 from 800 single-family units
to develop a very high-end golf course, 250 single-family
memberships, expected rounds of golf in the area of 12 to 14,000
rounds per year.
With that in mind, in November of '99, prior to the SDP even
being approved, we met with staff and talked about impact fees
and what we needed to do to prepare ourselves to make the
proper payments.
We left that meeting with the standard alternate impact fee
worksheet that everyone had been using up to that time.
We then had a follow-up meeting January 24th with Mr.
Tindall and discussed the possibility of -- not the possibility, but
actually the acreage calculation for golf courses at that time.
We feel because the ordinance is a little unclear on how to
calculate golf course acreage, we were waiting for his response
so we could nail down the proper number of acres that we should
-- our fees should be based on.
We waited about 30 days, and due to Mr. Tindall's schedule,
we had not heard from him just yet, so on the 21st of February
we went ahead and submitted our alternate fee calculation,
using the standard worksheet that we had received. We didn't
want to be tardy any further.
While that was being reviewed and processed, we indeed
did receive a building permit for the maintenance building. We
were notified May 15th that our calculations that we had sent in,
our alternate impact fee calcs, were insufficient in that the staff
didn't think the trip generation data we used was acceptable and
we needed to do a different calculation. Again, that was on the
15th.
On the 20th we had a third meeting with the staff to discuss
the acreage calculations. We defined ourselves at that time a
turf acreage being the entire PUD, less the commercial site, less
lakes, less preserves and the like, and wound up with a
calculation of 101 acres.
On May 25th, we wrote a letter to the county saying we
would pay that amount, please confirm, and we paid that amount
on June 19th of this year.
Page 150
September 26, 2000
That in a nutshell is about where we are. We were moving
forward for seven months with the staff, trying to get through
this issue, thought we were well on our way. And the staff's
executive summary that staff has prepared I thought got us there
in that they were recommending that the board accept our
101-acre calculation, along with the board approving our request
to do a revised alternate fee impact fee calculation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
MR. BRUET: And by the way, excuse me, we are still under
construction. We have not pulled any permits for the clubhouse.
We are only talking a golf maintenance building and the golf
course development itself.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here's the problem that I'm
having, Mike, and that is we turned down Toll Brothers at Naples
Lake -- yeah, Naples Lakes. And the facts of their circumstances
were these: They pulled their permit in late -- in November of '98,
and they sought an alternative calculation in November of '99,
and they paid under protest in May of 2000.
Your case seems to me to be identical to that one that we
turned down, in that you got your permit and it's identical except
for it falls one month later on the calendar. But the amount of
time that passed between is the same and that is you got your
permit, you started your work in December of '99, you rather
quickly, you know, within three months of that you sought an
alternative calculation, but you didn't pay until June. It's hard for
me to see why your case is different from Naples Lakes.
MR. BRUET: We didn't hear from staff till May 15th as to
what the acreage was to be that we could use for our -- for
paying our fees.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Mike, again, with all respect,
because you know I have the highest respect for you and for your
company, but you should have known. You should have known
that the ordinance said pay now, argue later. Why isn't that
applicable to you? I don't see a distinction.
MR. BRUET: Again, we had been working with the staff for
nine -- seven months. I would have thought if that was a major
issue at the time, we would have been -- I think the staff would
have said something to us that we need to file by that time,
here's the reminder, fellows. You know, we're working with them
in advance, throwing all the cards on the table, trying to get
Page 15t
September 26, 2000
through the issue. And if that catches there, ! guess, you know,
my response would be I would have hoped that I would have
been warned, let's say.
I know it's in the ordinance, but, you know, we met and that
was never discussed, never brought up. As I don't think it was
with many of the other developers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know.
MR. BRUET: I mean, how am ! any different than most of the
other ones? I mean, we have been trying to bring this to a close,
and obviously we're willing to do it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mike, when did you think that --
before all this, before Dwight Brock's audit, when did you think
you were going to owe the road impact fee for your golf club?
MR. BRUET: When we filed our -- obtained an approved
building permit for the clubhouse. That's how we have done it in
the past.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You have done that in the past.
MR. BRUET: At Collier's Reserve. It was done that way in
the past. And our engineering firm had mentioned that their
clients that they represent, it's been done in the same fashion. I
hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but Dominic acknowledges
that.
I mean, that's been standard procedure for years. I mean,
maybe no one wants to admit it, but it has been. George talked
about a letter from Mr. Kuck that said the same thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And now I'm going to look back
on the two weeks ago list, and we had -- for example, WCI pulled
clubhouse permits in '96 but didn't pay its fee until 2000. We
have Naples Heritage -- I don't have information about when they
pulled a clubhouse permit. Likewise, I don't have that
information on Valencia. On Vanderbilt, I can see that they
pulled a clubhouse permit in '98 and paid in '98 when they pulled
their clubhouse.
MR. BRUET: Please remember, we haven't filed our
clubhouse permit yet. Nor has -- well, we're in the process of
trying to get an SDP approval.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So when I --
MR. BRUET: Our design for the club is about 80 percent
complete. We're probably two months away from filing for that
permit.
Page 152
September 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So Naples Lakes that we turned
down, they pulled their clubhouse permit in April of this year, but
didn't pay until May of this year. You haven't pulled your
clubhouse permit yet.
MR. BRUET: That's correct. We have not even filed for it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You haven't submitted your
application for it.
MR. BRUET: No, we have not. All that we're just working on
are SDP.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT:
than Naples Lakes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.'
different. I'm really struggling with trying to see the pattern here
and look over two weeks ago and today and see if we're
consistently applying a fair policy. And I'd like somebody on
staff who can look at it and see.
I mean, Mr. Weigel, it's more a legal question than anything
else. Do you see a consistency in our pattern here, or are we
just getting tired?
MR. WEIGEL: All of the above. No, I see consistency. And I
see, as I look at the facts here with this applicant before you
now, a factual distinction from the others that you've previously
opined upon. And part of my discussion with you has been when
we look at these things, there is the maintenance shed, the golf
course -- golf cart shed type of thing. But what we look at
ultimately with the ordinance is when all the building permits
have issued and even in some cases all the CO's have issued,
and even in some cases the courses have gone operational, and
even in some cases for years. And so those are the distinctions
that we've talked about, and I think those distinctions are
applicable here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Is this golf course operating? I
think you said --
MR. BRUET: No, it is not completed. It's going to be done in
early 2001. It's still under construction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to make a motion that
we allow an alternative calculation on Old Collier Golf Club --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- based upon on the unique
circumstances that are that it appears they have continuously
Sounds somewhat different to me
It does sound somewhat
Page 153
September 26, 2000
attempted in good faith to pay the fee when it was due.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Further discussion? All those in
favor, state aye.
All those opposed? Aye.
Motion carries 3-1.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And that concludes the regular
agenda.
Item #15
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Olliff, anything today?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Just to mention that with the executive
session that may come up two weeks from now, we'll be
providing public notice pursuant to the Sunshine Law, the people
that will attend. It's the board -- it's rather circumscribed. It's
the board members, the county administrator and counsel to the
Board of County Commissioners, which may in each
circumstance may or may not involve outside counsel.
It will not in regard to the Jeff Popp case. If we do go
forward on the rocks of the beach matter, which is Collier County
versus Coastal Engineering and T.L. James, et al. We may have
our outside counsel participate, either in person or
telephonically. That's all.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Commissioner Brandt?
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Yes, I have one. Since we've had
a lot of discussion about impact fees for golf courses, I have a
question of staff.
You may not have the answer right now, but since January 1
of this year, have there been site development plans approved
for golf courses or communities with golf courses? And have we
collected those impact fees religiously?
MR. CAUTERO: To my knowledge, there's only one site
development plan that's been approved for a golf course since
January 1st of this year. They have not applied, to my
Page 154
September 26, 2000
knowledge, for a building permit -- for the first building permit,
which would trigger the new ordinance.
I have personally spoken to the building director and the
planning director about this. And the building director has made
a site visit and has assured me that all the work that they're
doing is in accordance with the SDP only, and no building permit
has been pulled yet.
All golf courses have been placed on hold and permits
cannot be issued for golf courses unless myself, the planning
director or the building director personally signs off on it.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Very good.
MR. OLLIFF: And remember, Commissioner, the trigger for
the payment of the impact fees is not the SDP or their
preliminary work --
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Right.
MR. OLLIFF: -- authorization, it is the first vertical building
permit.
COMMISSIONER BRANDT: Right.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just a couple of comments on
the Governor's health conference.
As you know, this legislative year, the focus will be on
health. And Governor Jeb Bush called a conference in Miami last
Thursday and Friday for the purpose of getting wide and
broad-based input from everyone in the State of Florida. I mean,
we heard everything from the financial, from liberal socialists
who think the great pharmacy in Washington or Tallahassee or
national healthcare are the only issues.
The Governor is to be commended for the diversity of the
people he brought to that conference and all of the presentations
that were made.
I'm particularly proud that two members of our health
committee on their own, paid their own expenses, went there to
absorb all that information to give us a jump start in Collier
County when we move forward on this, so we don't spin our
wheels, would incorporate everything that is already known and
look at those models, and also make this a very inclusive
program that would also include mental health, which was a
subject of discussion here this morning.
The good news already that's come forward. I want to
Page 155
September 26, 2000
mention this, I think it ought to go on Channel 54 because we
have a CHIP program. Which is a Children's Insurance Program,
more commonly known as Healthy Kids. There has been
movements where we have a lot more money to deal with here,
and that's through Medicare.
But Healthy Kids will cost $t5 a month for a family of four
making less than $2,784 monthly, or translated to $33,408
annually. So that's 200 percent, which is 200 percent of the
poverty level. And it covers from ages zero to 19 years of age,
and if anyone in this county needs help, here's a great
opportunity to know get your kids insured, and all you have to do
is call our Department of Health and ask for Beth Bark, 732-2674.
I would hope we would put that up on Channel 54 so that we
can make sure that our kids get covered and there's great
opportunity to do it.
The Governor was great at the final closing conference. I
think Jeb probably said more in 15 minutes than most people
have said in two days. But Jeb made these comments, and I
think it's worthwhile for us to take into consideration.
He said number one, no matter what we do, there's some
people who will never take out health insurance. We could give
you the best programs in the State of Florida and they won't do
it. So we cannot lose sight, there will always be a few that don't
want to participate.
He says do no harm. There are consequences to whatever
we do. And that means that if there's people who have struggled
to really pay for health insurance, we don't want to see them
suddenly say why did we bother to do this, but we don't want to
be a dumping ground for companies, small companies, that say
well, we have an excuse not to ensure people. So those
considerations will be taken into place.
The other thing is that probably the greatest obstacle we
have in the State of Florida is through the insurance division, Bill
Nelson's division, where there are so many you must put this into
the policy, that it drives the cost of policies up and has literally
driven insurers out of the State of Florida.
8o we have been doing self-defeating behavior here in not
looking at the basic health care policy is better than none at all
and one size doesn't fit all, and that we should have options, the
family - a young family may want different things than seasoned
Page 156
September 26, 2000
seniors. So he was trying to say that those are the kinds of
things you need to take into consideration.
And the last point he made is encourage and reward through
incentives for healthy lifestyles. Let's quit supporting those
people who decided to smoke, to drink excessively, and then
we're supposed to take care of them at the end of the road. He
is saying that there might be a t 5 or 20 percent incentive in
there for living a healthy lifestyle.
So all of that will be coming to us. All counties are going to
be dealing with this because it's going to be a state initiative.
We're going to be hearing about it.
The big thing to watch for is let's not have any mandates
about funding. So I'm an advocate that the private public
partnerships will do the best jobs, whether it's the county or the
state, and we in Florida will be further ahead. By the time
Washington gets done fooling around with this stuff, we will
already be taking care of the citizens of the Florida, particularly
the citizens of Collier County.
And we do have a number of people in this county that are
uninsured or under-insured. In Collier County, we have some
29,000 people who are uninsured in this county, and that is under
the age of 65. So we need to deal with that. And Collier County
rates number 34 against 67 counties in the state as to where we
currently are situated.
But having said all that, I will tell you, ! am really, really
impressed with the makeup of the committee that will be
working for us and the quality of people that are there, and what
we can expect in the next year or so, that they will come back to
us and say this is what we think we need to do. And they're
already making plans and we'll have all -- we'll follow all the rules
on what they have to do to get maximum input from everybody in
this community on what we think is needed in Collier County.
So I will provide you more information through a paper to the
commissioners. it will be available to everyone. But that's kind
of the highlights of what took place in that conference.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question on the 30-day
outside review of staff and impact fees. What's the deadline on
that? When will we get a report? When did it start and when will
it end?
Page t57
September 26, 2000
MR. OLLIFF: 30 days from about mid last week, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's not --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mid-October.
MR. OLLIFF: Mid-October. And that's when he's supposed to
conclude -- you know, the county attorney and the clerk will
conclude their report. They may take some time in order to write
something up for everyone, but generally their review process is
going to take 30 days.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There was one item stated I
think twice today that was kind of disturbing and that was that
staff was doing calculations for the alternative impact fees. A
couple -- that's just wrong on many, many different levels.
I think, Tom, as a manager, you need to find out who that
was and what's going on there.
One perception, you know, are they trying to aid the big guy,
but two, surely any employee understands they're here to work
for the taxpayer and not for individual folks coming in looking to
save a buck that way. And while there's a difference between
being helpful and doing their work for them. And we want to be
very customer friendly and be very helpful.
And particularly for the woman this morning who was here
and said, you know, can every citizen -- no, no. But if a developer
is developing a multi million dollar place, probably we don't need
to be doing the math for them. And just find out who was doing
that sort of thing or who was recommending --
MR. OLLIFF: It was our transportation staff. And --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- and then perhaps counsel
them accordingly.
MR. OLLIFF: You don't have to worry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there anything else, Ms.
Filson? May we be excused?
***** Commissioner Mac'kie moved, seconded by Commissioner
Carter and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Berry absent), that the
following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be
approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1 - Deleted
Page 158
September 26, 2000
Item #16A2 - Deleted
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2000-305, RE THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND'S
PARTICIPATION IN COLLIER COUNTY'S URBAN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND HOME
PROGRAMS FOR FY 2001-2003 AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT
Item #t 6A4
AGREEMENT WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (EDC) TO EXECUTE CONTINUATION OF
THE ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION PROGRAM AND PROVIDE A
CONTRIBUTION TO THE EDC OF UP TO $400,000 FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2000-2001
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2000-306, RE CASE NO. 81016-110, MIMON BARON;
RESOLUTION 2000-307, RE CASE NO. 81006-060, JOSEPH A
MOSES; RESOLUTION 2000-308, RE CASE NO. 81113-004, JOHN
C. YEAGER, JR.; RESOLUTION 2000-309, RE CASE NO. 81230-
054, MARY JOHNSON; RESOLUTION 2000-310, RE CASE NO.
81230-047, ALBERT & MARGARET LEE, FOR THE ABATEMENT OF
PUBLIC NUISANCES
Item #t 6A6
RESOLUTION 2000-311, RE CASE NO. 81027-018, ALFREDO L. &
ANNE C. RAMIREZ; RESOLUTION 2000-312, RE CASE NO. 80914-
083, BEVERLY ANN COLEMAN, ALLEN RICHARD COLEMAN,
EUGENE HARVEY COLEMAN, JR., GRACE LOUISE COLEMAN AND
THOMAS COLEMAN; RESOLUTION 2000-3t3, RE CASE NO. 80817.
080, MIRNA A. PEREZ; RESOLUTION 2000-314, RE CASE NO.
80903-035, RSG FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP, FOR THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES
Item #16A7
Page 159
September 26, 2000
RESOLUTION 2000-315, RE CASE NO. 2000010008, WILLIE MAE
POSTELLE; RESOLUTION 2000-316, RE CASE NO. 2000010488,
EDLYNE LEGRAND; RESOLUTION 2000-317, RE CASE NO.
1999110881, OCCEUS SAI NTILIEN AND ESTIVERNE
MALVEILLEAS; RESOLUTION 2000-318, RE CASE NO.
2000010722, NELSON AND ROSEMARY ANDUJAR, FOR THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 2000-319, RE CASE NO. 1999051517, JAMES W.
JOHNSON; RESOLUTION 2000-320, RE CASE NO. 1999120519,
EVELYN G. LEWIS TRUST; RESOLUTION 2000-321, RE CASE NO.
1999071082, JESUS GOMEZ; AND RESOLUTION 2000-322, RE
CASE NO. 1999070958, SAM GOODMAN, FOR THE ABATEMENT
OF PUBLIC NUISANCES
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 2000-323, RE CASE NO. 2000010055, CLAUDE
LARUE; RESOLUTION 2000-324, RE CASE NO. 1999101089, DEAN
MORRIS SARNS; RESOLUTION 2000-325, RE CASE NO.
2000010024, FELIX LERCH FAMILY TRUST; RESOLUTION 2000-
326, RE CASE NO. 1999120531, HOLY TRINITY CHURCH OF THE
LIVING GOD, FOR THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 2000-327, RE CASE NO. 1999091648, ALFONSO
TREVINO; RESOLUTION 2000-328, RE CASE NO. 1999100438,
PAULA C. OBERGON & FRANCISCO DAVID OBERGON; AND
RESOLUTION 2000-329, RE CASE NO. 1999100437, PAULA C.
OBERGON 8, FRANCISCO DAVID OBERGON, FOR THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES
Item #16A11
RESOLUTION 2000-330, RE CASE NO. 2000060813, CONNIE
SIMON AND MARLO PIKUL; RESOLUTION 2000-331, RE CASE NO.
2000060808, LOUIS AND LORETTA CAMBRUZZI; AND
Page 160
September 26, 2000
RESOLUTION 2000-332, RE CASE NO. 2000060610, LLOYD G.
SHEEHAN~ FOR THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES
Item #16A12 - Continued Indefinitely
Item #16A13
FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 2A~ UNIT ONE" - WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
SECURITY
Item #t6A14
FINAL PLAT OF "O'HARA'S ADDITION"
Added - Item #16A15
RESOLUTION 2000-333, AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE AN
URBAN COUNTY COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR FEDERAL
FISCAL YEARS 2001-2003
Item #t6B1
AMENDMENT NO. I TO WORK ORDER CDM-FT-99-12 WITH CAMP,
DRESSER AND MCKEE, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING
ANALYSIS FOR THE NORTH LIVINGSTON ROAD BASIN STUDY -
PHASE II (PROJECT NO. 31014) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,430
Item #t 6B2
FACILITIES RELOCATION AGREEMENT AND REPLACEMENT
UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE RELOCATION OF SPRINT-
FLORIDA, INCORPORATED, TELEPHONE SWITCHING FACILITIES
IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED FOUR-LANE IMPROVEMENTS
TO GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD - SPRINT-FLORIDA, INC. TO BE
REIMBURSED IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $59,997
Item #16B3
Page 161
September 26, 2000
BID #00-3140, "LELY GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE" - AWARDED TO
COMMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$58,000
Item #16B4
RFP #00-3115, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
CONSULTING SERVICES - AWARDED TO THE ELEVEN FIRMS AS
LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B5
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PETITION TM-00-02,
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES ON
CYPRESS WOODS DRIVE BETWEEN 14TH STREET AND U.S. 41 -
FOR THE ESTIMATED COST OF $5,500
Item #16B6
REIMBURSEMENT TO CHECKER CAB FOR THE EXPENSE OF
REPAIRS TO A COUNTY VEHICLE USED FOR THE IMMOKALEE
CIRCULATOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,478.49
Item #16B7
CONTRACT WITH INTELITRAN FOR THE PROVISION OF
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED MANAGEMENT SERVICES
FOR THREE YEARS, RETROACTIVE TO JULY 1, 1999
Item #16B8
BID #00-3134, FOR THE PURCHASE OF A BUCKET TRUCK FOR
THE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SECTION - AWARDED TO ALTEC
INDUSTRIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $124,511
Item #16B9
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PETITION TM-
Page t62
September 26, 2000
95-09 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES
ON BROWARD STREET FROM FLORIDIAN AVENUE TO CAROLINA
AVENUE - IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $5,500
Item #16B10
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT #00-
3054, PINE RIDGE ROAD SIX LANE IMPROVEMENTS (C.R. 31 TO
LOGAN BLVD.) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $t,t06,180.78
Item #16Cl
BID NO. 00-3139, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE NORTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT ODOR CONTROL
MODIFICATIONS - AWARDED TO BEACH CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC.~ IN THE AMOUNT OF $993~700
Item #16C2
BID NO. 00-3t35, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE NORTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICAL
FEED PIPING REPLACEMENT, AWARDED TO MITCHELL & STARK
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $199~940
Item #16C3 - Deleted
Item #16C4
BID #00-3133 "CHEMICALS FOR UTILITIES" - BIDS FOR QUICK
LIME AND MEMBRANE SCALE INHIBITOR REJECTED; BALANCE
OF BID #00-3133 AWARDED TO THE VENDORS AS LISTED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$656,251.50
Item #16C5
BID #00-3136, "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR SODIUM
HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION" - AWARDED TO ALLIED UNIVERSAL
CORP. IN THE AMOUNT OF $226,560
Page 163
September 26, 2000
Item #16C6
STANDARDIZATION OF CHEMICAL SCRUBBERS AND PURCHASE
OF AN UPGRADE FOR THE NORTH REGIONAL COUNTY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY CHEMICAL SCRUBBER
FROM U.S. FILTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $29~200
Item #t6C7
RFP 00-3114, ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR DESIGN AND
PERMITTING FOR DEVELOPING THE SITE FOR A NEW COLLIER
COUNTY MAINTENANCE FACILITY - STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILSONMILLER
Item #16C8
AMENDMENT NO. I TO WORK ORDER CDM-FT-99-6, WITH CAMP
DRESSER & MCKEE, INC. (CDM) FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
RELATED TO EFFLUENT RESOURCE PLANNING - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $32~010
Item #16C9
CHANGE ORDER TO A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH
PROJECT INTEGRATION, INC., FOR THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY 5-MGD EXPANSION PROJECT, BID 99-
2908, PROJECT 73031 IN THE AMOUNT OF $363,133.32
Item #16C10
AUTHORIZATION OF SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE FROM DATA
FLOW INC. FOR TELEMETRY EQUIPMENT TO MONITOR THE TWO
MASTER LIFT STATIONS AND ONE LIFT STATION AT ROOKERY
BAY - IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $68~608.50
Item #16C11
COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS WAIVED; AUTHORIZATION TO
UTILIZE SOLE SOURCE SOFTWARE VENDOR, SOURCE
COMPUTING, INC. FOR PROGRAMMING SERVICES IN FISCAL
Page t 64
September 26, 2000
YEARS 2000 AND 2001 FOR THE WATER AND SEWER BILLING
AND ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE - IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $55~000 IN EITHER FISCAL YEAR
Item #16C12
AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO WORK ORDER CDM-FT-98-11, WITH CAMP
DRESSER & MCKEE~ INC.~ TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR THE MANATEE PUMP STATION UPGRADES, CONTRACT 95-
2422~ PROJECT 70052 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $30~870
Item #16C13
WORK ORDER PUED-14 TO D.N. HIGGINS, INC. FOR ELECTRIC-
ACTUATED VALVES AT THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY~ CONTRACT 00-3087, PROJECT 73916 -
IN THE AMOUNT OF $176,000
Item #16C14
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PAYMENTS TO WASTE
MANAGEMENT, INC. AND IMMOKALEE DISPOSAL FOR SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
Item #16Ct5
2000-2001 RECYCLING & EDUCATION, WASTE TIRE, AND LITTER
CONTROL AND PREVENTION GRANT AGREEMENTS AND
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT FINAL
AGREEMENT AMOUNTS
Item #16D1
AGREEMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 FUNDING
CONTRIBUTION TO DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH
CENTER, INC. - IN THE AMOUNT OF $900~000
Item #16D2
ANNUAL CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
Page 165
September 26, 2000
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR OPERATION
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT - CASH
CONTRIBUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $654,900 AND OPERATING
EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,600 FOR THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $905~500
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 2000-334, AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS FOR ACTIVITIES AND INCENTIVE PRIZES ASSOCIATED
WITH COUNTY STAFF PARTICIPATION IN THE UNITED WAY
CAMPAIGN AS SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE- IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,500
Item #16D4 - Continued to October 10, 2000
Item #16D5
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE INCREASE IN MEDICAID WAIVER
REVENUE AND PROGRAM COSTS FOR SERVICES FOR SENIORS
Item #16D6
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZE AN INCREASE IN FISCAL
YEAR 1999-2000 EXPENDITURES FOR THE PAYMENT OF
MANDATED CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN THE SOCIAL
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Item #16D7
GRANT APPLICATION TO FLORIDA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 FOR CLAM PASS PARK
TO RESTORE NATURE TRAILS, IMPROVE WALKOVER~ AND
INSTALL INTERPRETIVE SIGNS
Item #16D8
RESOLUTION 2000.335, SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 99-375,
AMENDING THE PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES LICENSE
AND FEE POLICY
Page t66
September 26, 2000
Item #16E1
RFP #00-3107, FOR CELLULAR COMMUNICATION SERVICES AND
EQUIPMENT - AWARDED TO ALLTEL AND NEXTEL
Item #16E2
BID NO. 00-3095 FOR HERBICIDES/PESTICIDES/FUNGICIDES -
AWARDED TO VARIOUS VENDORS AS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY; AND THE PURCHASE OF REWARD FROM HELENA
CHEMICAL AND UNITED HORTICULTURE
Item #16E3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE THE MAINTENANCE
SERVICE REVENUES FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF OPERATING
EXPENSES
Item #16E4
RESOLUTION 2000-336, CORRECTING A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN
RESOLUTION 2000-243, WHICH AUTHORIZED THE EXCHANGE OF
PROPERTY (WHITE LAKE BOULEVARD RIGHT-OF-WAY)
Item #16E5 - Moved to Item #8E1
Item #16E6
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE REPAIR AND RELOCATION OF
ICE STORAGE TANKS USED AT THE MAIN CAMPUS CHILLER
PLANT (AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM)
Item #16E7 - Continued to October 10, 2000
APPROVAL OF A LIMITED USE AGREEMENT WITH THE GOLDEN
GATE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INCORPORTED, IN
ORDER TO HOLD ACTIVITIES FOR THE GOLDEN GATE FESTIVAL
Item #16E8
Page 167
September 26, 2000
RFP #00-3108 FOR GROUP BENEFITS CONSULTING SERVICES
AWARDED TO WILLIS CORPORATION
Item #16E9 - Deleted
Item #16E10
PURCHASE OF PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE AND THIRD
PARTY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E11
CHANGES TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROUP BENEFIT PLAN - AS
OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WITH AN EFFECTIVE
DATE OF JANUARY 1, 2001
Item #16E12
BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT WILL RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL
GRANT PROCEEDS RECEIVED FROM THE CORPORATION FOR
NATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING THE RSVP
DIRECTOR'S ATTENDANCE AT THE NATIONAL SENIOR SERVICE
AND NATIONAL COMMUNITY SERVICE CONFERENCE
Item #16E13
RFP 00-3112, FOR COMMUNICATION SERVICES (TELEPHONE
AND NETWORK WIRING, AND RELATED HARDWARE) - AWARDED
TO AZTEK COMMUNICATIONS, KENT TECHNOLOGIES AND
BLACK BOX NETWORK SERVICES
Item #t6E14
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND TO THE GROUP
HEALTH INSURANCE FUND FOR PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEE
CLAIMS THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2000
Page 168
September 26, 2000
Item #16F1
ANNUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND DR.
MARTA U. COBURN, M.D., FLORIDA DISTRICT TWENTY MEDICAL
EXAMINER FOR COLLIER COUNTY BEGINNING ON OCTOBER 1,
2000 IN THE AMOUNT OF $27,495.83 SEMIMONTHLY THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 30, 2001
Item #16G1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 00-478; 00-480/481; 00-488; 00-
497/498/499; 00-502/503
Item #16G2
BUDGET AMENDMENT FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR
THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Item #16G3
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUND BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16H1
EXTENSION OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL RACEWAY TO OPERATE AN
AUTOMOBILE DRAG-RACING FACILITY THROUGH FEBRUARY 28,
2001
Item #16H2
MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT WATERLINE TRANSFERRED TO
FLORIDA WATER SERVICES CORPORATION
Item #16K1
FUND 199 RESERVES BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR ELIGIBLE
EXPENSES RELATED TO SYSTEM UPGRADES FOR MAPPING AND
911 DATABASE
Page 169
September 26, 2000
Item #16K2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RE-ALLOCATE BUDGETARY
APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN COURTS ADMINISTRATION FUND 681
TO REFLECT ACTUAL PROJECTED EXPENDITURE LEVELS
THROUGH THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 2000
Item #16K3
ACCEPTANCE OF CIVIL TRAFFIC INFRACTION HEARING OFFICER
GRANT-IN-AID OF $10,856.43 FROM THE FLORIDA OFFICE OF
THE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR AND CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
AGREEMENT
Item #16L1
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NOS. 135 AND 935
IN THE EMINENT DOMAIN LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY
V. RADIO ROAD JOINT VENTURE, ET AL., CASE NO. 98-1396-CA
(LIVINGSTON ROAD EXTENSION - GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
TO RADIO ROAD} PROJECT - STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF
$15,808.50 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT; AND STAFF TO
PAY THE ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,256
Item #17A
BUDGET AMENDMENT RESOLUTION 2000-03, AMENDING THE
FISCAL YEAR 1999-00 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2000-337, RE PETITION SNR-2000-05, ROGER G.
CARTER, REPRESENTING RWA, INCORPORATED, REQUESTING A
STREET NAME CHANGE FROM CASTELLO WAY TO SAVONA WAY,
LOCATED IN MEDITERRA PARCEL 102
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2000-60, CORRECTING A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN
FORMER EXHIBIT "F" TO ORDINANCE 97-10, "THE COLLIER
Page 170
September 26, 2000
COUNTY WATER SAFETY AND VESSEL CONTROL ORDINANCE"
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:38 p.m.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DiSTR~~_DER ITS CONTROL
J-~--~-$ . CA~,, VI-~--G~-~IR~--~
presented
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY
PUBLIC
Page 171