BCC Minutes 03/07/1995 R REGULAR MEETING MARCH 7, 1995,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, 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 9:09 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRPERSON:
Bettye J. Hatthews
Timothy J. Constantine
John C. Norris
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Ken Cuyler, County Attorney
Item #2 & #2A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll call to order the Hatch 7th
meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Dotrill, will you
lead us in an invocation and pledge.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this morning
for another beautiful late winter day in Collier County. Father, this
morning we're especially thankful to recognize colleagues and former
professional managers of Collier County and the importance and the
impact that they have had on this community in order to make it the
type of place that we work and and raise a family and enjoy our
retirement years.
Father, as always, it's our prayer that you bless the
deliberations and the important business decisions of this commission
today throughout the meeting. We ask that you bless the people of
this county and that we pray all these things in your son's holy name.
Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I see we have some --
just a couple changes to the agenda.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Commissioners, good morning.
We have just two changes to the agenda this morning. I have one
add-on item. It will be under the county manager's executive report,
8-H-l, which is a request to approve a work order under our current
annual engineering professional agreements for some structural repairs
for reaction basin tanks at the south county regional water treatment
plant in Golden Gate. That would be 8-H-1.
And the only other change that I have this morning is a
request to continue item 16-A-3-C, which was on the consent agenda
under community development, which is a resolution of compliance for a
code related case which is number 30712-014. Staff is requesting to
continue that for one week until your regular meeting March 14th, and
that's all that I have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Norris,
do you have any changes?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Under 14, BCC communications, I'll
have a very brief update on our Marco Island beach management plan.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I have
nothing this morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nothing?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let the record reflect.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have two items for -- somebody
is even applauding. I have two communication items. One is
correspondence we've all received from Anna Rodriguez, the chairman of
the Hispanic Advisory Board, and the other is a suggestion that we may
want to do a resolution regarding House bill 5 and 438, Senate bill
438, which is the partial year ad valorem. No, it's not, partial year
ad valorem doesn't have bill numbers yet. That's the -- that's the
local officers, local elected officials access.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay.
MR. DORRILL: Those will be under item 10, so they'll be
10-E and F.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, these are communication items
to discuss whether we want to bring items forward. Okay. I believe
that is all the changes. Could I have a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we accept
the agenda and the consent agenda.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Call the question. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, the motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #4B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Today we have some service awards, and, Commissioner
Norris, are you going to present those?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. Today we have two
five-year pins. We have Margaret Bowles from planning services.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And we also have Kevin Rafferty
from -- let's see, Kevin is in the wastewater south plant.
(Applause)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Commissioner Norris.
Item #4C1
ROBERT LASALA PRESENTING THE FLORIDA CITY AND COUNTY MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION PRESENTING A PLAQUE AND CERTIFICATE RECOGNIZING COLLIER
COUNTY'S ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS - COUNTY
MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT TO FORMER COUNTY MANAGERS DONALD LUSK, DALE
CUNNINGHAM (NOT PRESENT), WILLIAM NORMAN, REPRESENTATIVE OF HARMON
TURNER AND PRESENT COUNTY MANAGER NEIL DORRILL
Next item on the agenda is a presentation from Robert
LaSala who is representing the Florida City and County Management
Association. Mr. LaSala.
MR. LASALA: Good morning, Commissioners, Madam
Chairman. It's a real privilege and pleasure for me to be here this
morning. On the behalf of the board of directors of the Florida City
and County Management Association, we would like to acknowledge and
recognize Collier County, you as -- as the representatives of the
stockholders of this corporation and your current manager and past
managers for the 25th anniversary of the council/manager form of
government in Collier County. I'm going to just take a minute and
read a resolution that has been prepared and adopted.
Whereas, local governments are very complex and are
faced with dealing with a number of issues including labor relations,
unemployment, revitalizing neighborhoods, environmental protection,
economic development, discrimination, water distribution,
transportation, sewage treatment, public safety, recreation, federal
grants, federal and state regulations, and many other areas;
Whereas, the council/manager form of government was
created to combine the political leadership of the community with the
professional local government manager who is educated and experienced
in administering the programs described above.
Whereas, in the council/manager form of government the
council is the legislative body of the local government, and the
manager administers the policies adopted by the council in an unbiased
manner.
Whereas, the council/manager form of government provides
for government with professional management without political
motivation; and
Whereas the council/manager form of government offers
consistency in a community that provides for long-range planning that
could otherwise be interrupted by term limitations and turnover
because of unsuccessful campaigns of elected officials; and,
Whereas, the council/manager form of government provides
economy plus efficiency and accomplishments to a local government;
and,
Whereas, the council/manager form of government is the
most popular form of government throughout Florida and the nation;
and,
Whereas, Collier County has retained the council/manager
form of government for 25 years.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Florida City and
County Management Association recognizes and applauds the anniversary
of the council/manager form of government in Collier County.
And be it further resolved that the Florida City and
County Management Association extends their best wishes to Collier
County for many years of continued success under the council/manager
form of government.
Presented on behalf of the board of directors and
membership of the Florida City and County Management Association this
7th day of March, 1995.
I want to thank you and commend you for your commitment
to professional management and those who have preceded you as well. I
think it has served this county as it has served many other counties
in Florida well and provides the stability and support that you need
in setting policy and direction for your constituents.
Thank you for the opportunity to recognize you and your
-- and your colleagues and your -- and your community for its wisdom
and commitment to professional management. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. LaSala, we thank you very
much.
(Applause)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, we do get a copy of the
list?
MR. LASALA: And a plaque.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. The plague is quite
nice. It's framed and so forth, and it says Florida City and County
Management Association celebrating the 25th anniversary of the
council/manager form of government in Collier County, Florida,
presented this 7th day of March, 1995. Randall Reed, is that his
name?
MR. LASALA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.
MR. LASALA: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In recognition of --
MR. DORRILL: Bob, if you will remain standing, we're
going to get one picture, and I would like for you to be in the
picture.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In recognition of the 25 years
that we've had a council/manager form of government, I have some
certificates of appreciation for our former managers and our current
managers. Would Mr. Donald Lusk come forward.
(Applause)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
We have frames for those.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
MR. LUSK: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Dale Cunningham.
MR. DORRILL:
Thank you very much, Hr. Lusk.
Hr. Lusk, do you want to --
Join us right up here.
Just join us right up here. Hr.
Mr. Cunningham is retired and living in
South Carolina, could not be here today, but if you'll hold his off to
the side, he asked me to express his appreciation. He was the manager
in between Harmon Turner and Bill Norman, and he called last Friday to
say that he could not be here but is now retired and living in South
Carolina.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we wish him a good
retirement and wish that he could be here.
Mr. William Norman.
(Applause)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.
MR. NORMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Harmon Turner.
MR. DORRILL: Who is represented today by his son who is
county judge Gene Turner, and Harmon Turner was the county's first
county manager ever, previous to that was county engineer, and will
always be Mr. Manager in my book.
(Applause)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And our current manager, Mr.
Dotrill.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The trend here with our
county managers using first initial middle name as opposed to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three of the five.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know what that means.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three of the five do that. And,
Judge Turner, are you going to run for county commission now?
JUDGE TURNER: No, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to thank Bob for
coming down too. He's in my Leadership Florida class, had about a
two-hour drive this morning to do this, so he was up in the wee hours
of the morning and hit some of the heavy traffic I'm sure, so thanks
for coming down.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Thank you all.
Item #7A
JACK CONTROY OF JOHN R. WOOD, INC. REALTY, REGARDING A SEWER ASSESSHENT
- NO COUNTY. COUNTY ATTORNEY TO DEVELOP POLICY
Next item on the agenda are public petitions. Hr. Jack
Conroy of John R. Wood Realty. Mr. Conroy, you know that we limit our
public petitions to 10 minutes.
MR. CONROY: I'll be done much quicker than that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We don't take any action
on them.
MR. CONROY: I understand that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Normally. If we do anything,
direct staff to report back.
MR. CONROY: I know that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. CONROY: My name is Jack Conroy. And while I'm
affiliated with John R. Wood, I'm here on behalf of my best friend
whose name is Joan Conroy. Joan Conroy purchased a parcel of real
property at the end of Estey Avenue.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Conroy, you have to use the
hand-held mike.
MR. CONROY: Sorry. -- at the end of Estey Avenue
directly adjacent to Foxfire subdivision in 1973. In about 1985 we
entered into an agreement with Foxfire to provide sewer to the
property. It was installed at our expense adjacent to our property
line on Foxfire's land subject, however, to the provision that in the
event the county ever provided sewer to the line -- to the land, we
would tie in with the sewer of the county. The principle idea,
however, is that the value of the property, the value of the land, was
established by our efforts of bringing sewer to the land.
In -- sometime in the 1990s the county sewer was
extended to that parcel of real property. We brought this property to
the county commission, had a preliminary plat approved, and prior to
the time we could commence construction the State of Florida advises
they were going to condemn the land. They did, in fact, proceed.
They served us with the appropriate documents, and rather than go
through the long court procedure, my wife elected to settle with the
state and walk away from the whole situation, which we, in fact, did.
A week prior to our closing the county -- or the State
of Florida advised that it was our obligation to deliver the land free
and clear of any and all assessments including the sewer assessment.
The principle of users paying for utilities is, in my opinion, totally
appropriate. I have no problem whatsoever with the theory that for
any public service it should be shared by any and all users.
When the State of Florida purchased the property, they
purchased the property for use for a retention facility -- water --
storm water retention facility. They will never develop the
property. They'll never use it. At the time of closing they required
that I pay the sewer assessment in full, even though there will be no
benefit that will accrue to myself, my wife, or the State of Florida
for the sewer assessment. As a consequence, it appears to violate the
principle that users pay for the sewer assessment.
My petition is going to be to recover the amount of the
sewer assessment that was attributed to that piece of real property
because the state will never ever, ever use the sewer.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Conroy, might I ask what is
the sewer assessment? The dollar value?
MR. CONROY: About eight thousand dollars, between seven
and eight thousand dollars.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I think you're going to
have some legal considerations that are involved in this, and I think
it's going to boil down to the fact that you can't do this unless
you're going to use general taxpayer money to reimburse Mr. Conroy. I
agree with Mr. Conroy on the general premise of users pay, but with
assessments of this type, the user is, first of all, defined at the
time that the assessment is made, and the property is liened as
opposed to sometime further down the line. And also a user in this
case is the fact that it's available. It's not an actual user.
You're required to spend your own money to hook up to the lines. The
availability of the lines is what the various potential users are
assessed for. I mean I won't go into the market price and effect that
the market price should have absorbed this and the state's price
should have absorbed this, but those considerations really don't make
any difference because you just really -- you've got bonds out. These
assessment monies pay for the debt that was incurred in constructing
the system, and you really don't have the option to do this unless
you're going to use some other source of funds like general taxpayer
funds, and even that's questionable.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thanks. Mr. Conroy, let me make
sure I understand the timing. You said that -- that originally when
you developed the property that you put in sewers and hooked up with
Foxfire; is that correct? Did I understand that correctly?
MR. CONROY: We extended Foxfire's sewer adjacent to our
property line directly on the east, installed a manhole and had an
agreement with Foxfire that we could tie into their sewer system.
Subsequently that system was absorbed by the county.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Then the county came along
about three years ago and hooked up and put the assessments on at that
time; is that correct?
MR. CONROY: Correct. Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Then it was subsequent to that
that the state condemned the land?
MR. CONROY: Yes. That's precisely correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This appears -- I understand
your concern, Mr. Cuyler, but this appears to be somewhat of a unique
situation. I don't think we're going to run into this in a whole pile
of lots.
MR. CUYLER: You're running into it in your next public
petition.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm aware. But, again, I
mean this isn't like every -- every parcel owner over there. These
are unique situations. It's out of the ordinary.
MR. CUYLER: If you'd like -- I mean you don't need to
decide today. Your normal situation on a public petition is to set it
for two weeks. If you want me to provide an analysis in writing, give
you a chance to look at that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I was going to
suggest. My comment was just -- it seems like common sense should
prevail over legal wrangling, and obviously we need to do that
legally. But we can hear, well, gosh, you might have this, you might
have that, but Mr. Conroy's point that growth should pay for growth,
and the system is assessed for those who will use it -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- there's no way you're
going to use it ever. It doesn't make much sense to be assessed. MR. CUYLER: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hopefully there's a way. And
you need to research that, but hopefully there's a way for common
sense to prevail here.
MR. CUYLER: I will tell you that I'm not sure there's a
way --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think there is either.
MR. CUYLER: -- for common sense to prevail, but I will
research it. And I will provide in writing, give you a chance to look
through it and discuss it with you individually if you'd like to do
that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just with all due respect to Mr.
Conroy, I wish that there were a way to do this. I think there should
be a way, but I hate to spend taxpayer dollars by having the staff
spend time on an issue that I'm afraid is pretty clear. There is one
way to do it. We can pay it out of general revenues, or Mr. Conroy
can pay it. And that's not fair, and it's not right, and it shouldn't
be that way, and it is that way. I -- I hate for us to spend any more
time on it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd even like to carry it one
step further than that even, Commissioner Hac'Kie. Mrs. Conroy knew
the property had a sewer assessment coming to it, and she elected to
enter into an agreement without consideration of what that -- what
that assessment was going to be and did not include it in the
agreement. But I mean these -- the sewer didn't get put in
overnight.
MR. CONROY: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And she had to know a sewer
assessment was coming. And I -- I just feel that maybe she acted a
little too swiftly, and I'm not sure that the citizens of Collier
County should have to bear that burden. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. HcNees, do we have some
sort of reserve funds? Do we have -- surely we have money somewhere
in our utilities? It just seems to me it seems premature to say
ad valorem or general fund is the only source, and we know that for a
fact.
MR. CUYLER: The reason I say that is -- and I'll let
Hike answer as to the practical side of whether you have cash
available. But the reason I say that is more from a legal perspective
than the cash perspective, and that is that if you use other funds,
other assessment funds, you will run into the argument that people are
getting assessed twice for -- you know, for the one benefit as opposed
to using the general revenues, which the board can do in a lot of
cases, to say this is a public benefit, we think that this is a reason
why we should use general revenue funds.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a minute. I think
Commissioner Hancock has a question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if Mr. HcNees
answers my question first?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and do that first,
and then I'll --
MR. HcNEES: I would answer that in two ways. One, yes,
utilities division has $8,000 in its reserves. When we talk about the
practical or the, quote, common-sense issue, what you're saying is if
the seller did not negotiate into the purchase price for this property
the market value increase, which is what Ken talked about, due to the
fact that this property is on the county central sewer system, then
what we would be saying is the people who should then pick it up are
the other people in that area who are also paying for their
assessments. And that's what Ken's talking about in terms of a double
assessment. It's not utilities division money. It's the other
customers' money, and so the question is if these folks didn't get
full value for that lot, should the other utility customers have to
pick up that burden or the other taxpayers. When you talk about the
common sense, that really is the -- sort of the common sense question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just briefly.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand Commissioner
Constantine's efforts, and I think we're going to see more of this.
I'm concerned about this board setting a precedent that when the use
of a piece of property changes that sewer is not required, that the
county then have to pick up the tab of an assessment that was done
years prior. That is something that would be revisited time and time
again by this board, and I have a concern of setting that stage for
those requests to -- to become numerous. And this is -- again, this
is a little piece of that pie, but I -- I certainly figure that being
the outcome.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
MR. CUYLER: I appreciate Commissioner Hac'Kie's
indication about spending staff time. I mean I don't mind if
Commissioner Constantine or if any of the board members want a written
analysis. I don't mind putting the time in to doing that to set out
what some of the considerations are if you're interested in doing
that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does anyone else have any
questions?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to say I didn't
really mean as much as I want to have a deference to your schedule.
God bless your schedule. But we're talking about spending taxpayer
money when we spend your time, and that's my concern.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think in view of what
Commissioner Hancock has said, and I agree with him that as our
regional county water system and wastewater system grows, that we're
going to have more and more requests in this area. And I think it may
be good if Mr. Cuyler did spend that time and the board adopt a policy
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- that this is the way we're
going to go.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agree.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But anyway does this board want
to give direction to address Mr. Conroy's concern any further, and do
we want to give Mr. Cuyler direction to spend the time doing the
research to set a policy?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's give Mr. Cuyler that
direction, and then I think Mr. Conroy will get his answer from our
response from Mr. Cuyler.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- of what that response is.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's fair.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe there's enough votes to
bring it forward. I'm not in favor of going forward with the petition
at this time. I'm convinced by the argument that because of the
answer that I got to the question of the timing of this that the sewer
had been assessed before the property was condemned by the state, and
that's critical in my decision making because at that point any
settlement with the state should have --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Should have included it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- reflected the price of the
sewer assessment, so I really -- that's where I am, Mr. Conroy, on
this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree with that. My concern,
though, is that it may be a good idea to get the research done to set
a policy by this board so that other petitioners coming forward with
the same concept understand that we've already adopted a policy that's
not going to support it, so does -- does this board want to address
Mr. Cuyler spending the time to do the research?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: For a policy?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For a policy.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: For a policy, yes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was my suggestion.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll support the direction in
that regard.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Okay.
MR. CONROY: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Conroy. Mr.
Cuyler, you have the direction then to do the research and bring it
back to us for the purpose of establishing a policy.
MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. If you want this petition on
in two weeks, I'll get that back to you within the two weeks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not sure we want the petition
on. I think we've got consensus on this board that we don't want --
we don't want to grant the petition. MR. CUYLER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe that's what I heard.
But our concern is that we're going to have more of this in the
future, and we'd like to get the information to establish a policy.
Is that correct, what I've -- okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If whatever policy we establish
allows that petitioner back, then so be it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then he can bring it back.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree.
Item #7B
ALEX RAIMONDI, GENERAL MANAGER OF FOXFIRE COMHUNITY ASSOCIATION
REGARDING AN OUTSTANDING SEWER ASSESSMENT - NO ACTION. COUNTY ATTORNEY
TO DEVELOP POLICY
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next we have another public
petition from Mr. Alex Raimondi, the general manager of Foxfire.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before Mr. Raimondi comes up,
again, Mr. Cuyler, I was the agent on the fezone for the parcel in
question some years ago. Again, I want to state for the record I have
no current ties to my previous employer, nor do I have ties to
Foxfire. But I want to state that for the record so it gives me a
little knowledge on the project that the other commissioners don't
have. But, again, I have no financial ties to this, so I -- under our
previous discussions I assume I am required to vote if a vote should
be taken on this.
MR. CUYLER: Correct, that's no legal conflict.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. RAIMONDI: Well, the future is here, I guess,
regarding sewer system. Ours is similar but different from Mr.
Conroy's, and I'll try to be as brief as I can, but basically Foxfire
Community Association is -- of Collier County is a PUD, and we had
purchased some property, the Old Naples Groves and Truck Company's
little farms number two along Davis. That's the Lakewood 67-acre
plot. And at the time that we purchased this, the sole purpose of
this was to build a golf course and solely for that purpose and
nothing else. We were going to use this as a conditional use
property, but at that particular time Bob Lord from the PUD planning
suggested that Foxfire incorporate this into our existing PUD from
1981. And then Ken Bazinski (phonetic) also said a conditional use
would not be permitted on this particular residential zoning district,
and, therefore, it'd probably be necessary to include the Fleischmann
land, who was the owner of that Naples Grove property, in our PUD
amendment process. And we went to the planning board. They're the
ones that affirmed it was mandatory we were to include that property
in our PUD and not have it used for conditional use because we were
using it solely for a golf course since the -- you know, since we are
not using it for the residential portion.
So the zone -- the land at that time was zoned
residential multifamily number six, and we were required to change the
PUD, which we did in June of 1993, and it was unanimously approved by
your board. So this process that was done prohibited Foxfire from
ever building homes and utilize this land as anything other than a
golf course is what the sole purpose was that we wanted.
At that time there would be approximately 450 units to
500 units that could have been built on that property. So we rezoned,
and the cost of this rezoning to Foxfire was in excess of $80,000 in
permits and fees to Collier County. The land --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much?
MR. RAIMONDI: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much was the cost?
MR. RAIMONDI: In excess of $80,000. The land
originally bought by us was woods under the Florida Land Use
Department. There were no wetlands there or whatever.
The enclosed parcel we did, as far our specifications no
ingress or egress. Under our STP 937 of July of '93 it was mandatory
that we connect to the existing water and sewer facilities within the
Estey roadway which we did. We built the restroom facility on there
for the golfers' use. We have connected to the Naples city water. We
do not have any need for any other services. Naples city water
district approved that. Sewer facilities were approved and comply
with ordinance number 8876 amended. The sewer light on -- sewer site
on-line is privately owned by us and maintained by us.
So basically the area of the land and how it was amended
-- and, again, Mr. Hancock is familiar because he worked for Wilson,
Miller at that time, and he knows our objection of what the reason we
purchased the land for, so we did not add any impact. In fact, we
reduced the impact to Collier County. There's no growth management
impact, no burden added to the county. We, Foxfire, cannot and will
not derive any benefit from this sewer assessment. We have already
paid -- in 1993 $14,991.96 was paid. This year is the first year we
were aware of the assessment. Because of the purchase of the property
the past powers to be in Foxfire were not aware of this, and I've been
at Foxfire approximately two years. And when this came to be it was
something that was unknown to us at that time. That's why I'm here
petitioning.
This year we paid our amount that was due of $13,187, so
there's been approximately $44,000 paid on this already, which I feel
is more than sufficient to pay for whatever the cost of the line was
to go past our property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One more time. The amount paid?
MR. RAIMONDI: Approximately $44,000 has been paid.
We're not seeking past monies we've paid. There's an outstanding
assessment balance of $105,000. We're seeking to have this
eliminated. We don't feel it's legal. I'm sure you're going to delve
into that, which I just heard, which is fine. Because of the way the
property is zoned, our use, we derive no benefit. We are an
equity-owned property. All common property is reflected in the tax
bills of the individual homeowners. So the homeowners are also paying
their taxes and their share of 925 units. So based on how it came
about, how the property was rezoned, how the original assessment was
-- came about on the property before we purchased, and that's
basically what we're here for.
So, like I said, we're not asking for a refund. We're
not asking for Collier County to give us any money back. We've paid a
considerable amount of money into the county. If you take the amount
of money we've paid into the assessment, the amount of fees we were
required to fezone the property, we've paid a timely sum of money,
approximately $125,000. What we're doing hopefully is to petition you
in a positive manner that we can get reduced or eliminated the
$105,000 balance that's due.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. HcNees, if I've done my
math right, there's roughly $150,000 total assessment for this. MR. RAIHONDI: Originally, probably yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How was that figured, and did
it take into consideration -- did it assume the old zoning?
MR. HcNEES: Zoning would have been irrelevant. It
would have been calculated based on the front footage of that
particular property, what frontage of the sewer main and a per foot
calculation of the total cost versus the total footage in that
district, wherever that assessment was.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When the number for that --
assigned to each foot for total footage was assigned, did that take
into consideration -- I assume we picked that number somehow. We had
some formula by which we derived that.
MR. HcNEES: All costs.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm wondering if that
took into consideration the old zoning for the property which would
have more of an impact.
MR. HcNEES: Zoning would not have been a factor in the
assessment.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. So if I'm going to
expand a sewer system, and it's going to run by a vacant lot or it's
going to run by a lot that has a hundred homes on it, it doesn't
matter?
MR. HcNEES: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as long as the main goes
by --
MR. HcNEES: The cost is the same.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we don't worry about the
hookups or any of that?
MR. CUYLER: It's the cost of the pipe as opposed to the
capacity of the pipe.
MR. RAIHONDI: Originally it was zoned on -- there's
seven lots. It was based on lots 147 through 153. That's how it was
-- the sewer assessment came about, the amounts they did. But like I
said, our biggest thing is we were required, which we did at our cost,
which we would have anyways if we were to build 450 units there, and
the use that we have now we cannot utilize, and certainly we did -- it
did help Collier County. I certainly think they would rather have
what we have there than 450 more units in that particular area. And
also at that time the neighbors, East Naples Civic Association,
everybody in that particular area, you know, were positive to us and
gave us letters saying yes, we'd much rather have that there because
of the traffic and the impacts of that nature. So ours is a little
bit different situation than there. We're just seeking to have your
legality to look at it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one from Mr. Raimondi and
one for Mr. HcNees. On the timing, once again, was the sewer put in
place before you rezoned for the golf course?
MR. RAIHONDI: The sewer assessment was in place before
we rezoned, yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Mr. HcNees, in expansion of
the sewer system when we ran past other golf courses, did they get
assessed per frontage foot also?
MR. HcNEES: I can't think of where there would have
been a golf course. We would, yes, assess, as I said. Zoning is
irrelevant in this particular situation. There's no guarantee that
that will be a golf course forever and the availability of the sewer
services there, that property would be assessed. The only property we
don't assess, I believe, are school properties, and they're exempted
by state statute.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, thank you.
MR. RAIHONDI: I can answer it would be there forever
because of the requirement, our PUD runs with the land. We're an
equity-owned club, so for that to change for rezoning would mean that
Foxfire would have to be abolished, which takes 100 percent from 925
units. So the land based on how we were rezoned cannot be built
upon. Our units have been maxed out. We do not have the availability
or the ability to add any more property, so it is a permanent
situation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hike, you said schools are
exempt. I don't suppose a golf school would do --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think he means public schools.
MR. HcNEES: County golf school.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just that I think both of these
are examples of how imprecise the whole impact fee assessment process
is. It is imprecise, and there are problems with it, and this is a
very good example of the problems. But in accordance with the
ordinance that we have, I don't think we have a choice. I think if we
do anything else, we're going -- other than what we presently have
done, we're going to be violating our own ordinances and probably
state law.
MR. RAIHONDI: That's why I'm asking you to look into it
because of the fact that we also are different from the Conroy
incident because our equity owned members do pay these fees.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. RAIHONDI: We are charged tabs on our common
properties. It is divided amongst the 925 units, so in essence we are
paying twice. And in essence the impact fees we paid to do this plus
the impact fees we have paid pretty much to do anything, we've paid
hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years for impact fees for
different things.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the paying twice? I want
to get that one straight.
MR. RAIHONDI: We are taxed for our common grounds
per se.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Your regular property taxes.
MR. RAIHONDI: That is divided amongst the property
owners, and they, 925 units, pay for those taxes, impact fees,
et cetera.
MR. CUYLER: Which is the ad valorem are different --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- than the assessments.
MR. RAIHONDI: Exactly. So we're in a little different
unique situation. We'd like you to look into that and see if it's
actually legal. If it's legal, it's legal. If it's not, it's not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cuyler, in typical real
estate closings, are all assessments divulged at that time? In other
words, any assessment on the property would be clearly stated to the
potential purchaser at the time of closing?
MR. CUYLER: They're supposed to be. The backup I read
I think the assessment was intentionally passed on, if I'm not
mistaken, for the purchaser to take care of in this case.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just -- again, Mr.
Raimondi, I think what Mr. Cuyler is going to prepare is going to tell
us what we can or can't do in a gross application throughout the
county. Believe, me, I understand. If this was a benefit unit
question where the sewer was set up for a benefit to the properties,
and you had your zoning in place prior to that benefit, you have an
excellent example of the application of that. Unfortunately, the
method was not benefit unit, it was per linear foot. And, again, our
hands may be somewhat tied, but I think what Mr. Cuyler is going to
prepare will help us make that decision.
MR. RAIHONDI: That's all we can ask.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just ask Mr. HcNees to
quickly outline for us the difference between impact fees and in this
case assessment. I think there may have been a little bit of
confusion from some of the questions that I heard.
MR. HcNEES: Essentially it's -- the question is what
does the money pay for. An impact fee can be used to pay for plant
capacity and what we would call major transmission facilities, in
other words, taking either the wastewater or bringing the water from
where it's generated to a local area and taking it from that area to
the plant.
The assessment is a per-foot cost for putting the local
collection system in to take the sewage from a particular home or
particular property to that transmission system. So they are
completely separate fees to pay for completely separate parts of the
-- of the sewer system.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One way to iljustrate the
distinction is that you weigh the sewer assessment on a vacant lot
because you calculate the front footage so that it went past your
house, but then if you built the house on that lot, you would then pay
the impact fee to hook up to that line that you've already paid for.
MR. HcNEES: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. RAIHONDI: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess we'll depend on whatever
Mr. Cuyler develops to -- and you can read what he develops and decide
whether to pursue it or not.
Item #SD1
CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS FOR PINE RIDGE ROAD WASTEWATER FORCE MAIN -
STAFF TO HOVE FORWARD WITH CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND DEMAND FOR 16" FORCE
MAIN
Next item on the agenda, moving to the regular agenda,
item 8-D-l, utilities. A consideration of request for Pine Ridge Road
wastewater force main. Mr. McNees.
MR. McNEES: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike McNees
from your utilities division. This is somewhat of an unusual item,
and it doesn't necessarily require that you make a decision today, but
given some of the circumstances, it's not something staff wanted to do
without informing you of kind of what our thinking was. In
approximately 1990 the firm of Hole, Montes did a hydraulic analysis
of what we call our north wastewater service area and a comparison to
the existing conditions and development patterns in that area versus
what the assumption had been when our adopted north county wastewater
master plan was put into place.
What that master plan does is outline where the major
components -- as I just discussed, what we call the transmission
components of that wastewater system should be. And we don't as a
rule construct major capital facilities that aren't included as a part
of one of our master plans.
In this particular case in 1990 Hole, Montes identified
one of the areas where the development pattern had been considerably
different than it was -- than when it was predicted to be when the
master plan was completed was the Pine Ridge Road corridor. And there
was a recommendation made at that time that I don't believe was ever
brought to the board that some master plan adjustments be made and
that some additional force mains or some different force mains be
constructed than had been originally considered in that master plan.
We have gotten a considerable amount of correspondence
from property owners who have either approved PUDs or would like to
seek approvals in this Pine Ridge corridor area and have reviewed not
only the Hole, Montes hydraulic analysis but the original assumptions
of the master plan, and what staff would be recommending to you is
that we make a -- in this case call it amendment to the master plan
and that we bring to you with your fiscal '96 budget this force main
from what would be from Airport Road to the 1-75 interchange along the
Pine Ridge corridor and that we bring that to you as part of the
fiscal '96 budget.
The reason I'm bringing this item to you today is staff
doesn't want to create the impression that we are deciding where
development should be or that we are deciding where a force main
should be budgeted separate from what you have adopted as a master
plan consideration. So I thought I'd bring this item in for
discussion today, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you
have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Hr. HcNees, obviously I -- the
current traffic situation at that particular interchange, I wouldn't
advocate extreme building at this point.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Maybe in July.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't want to appear to be
doing that. However, we do have users already at that activity
center, correct, so any extension that goes down there is not a line
that sits idle but one that has paying customers waiting for it;
correct.
MR. HcNEES: That is absolutely correct. The
Southerland (phonetic) Center would be the buyer.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second question is we just
heard about individual property owners that paid assessment per foot.
What is the funding mechanism for the construction of this line?
MR. HcNEES: For this, what we -- this would be a 16-
and 12-inch force main. This would be paid for out of utility capital
reserve, essentially impact fees. So these folks as they connected
would pay impact fees that would go to contribute to this and to
whatever plant capacity they would use.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So please explain for me the
difference between this particular force main and what just went
across Foxfire's property and why there is a difference in the funding
mechanism.
MR. HcNEES: The difference is which part of the
component of the system. You might consider this the backbone or what
would be the spinal cord say if you want to talk about the nervous
system. Now, we've had property owners who have requested that we put
in the backbone down Pine Ridge Road and also what they've called the
spurs up Whippoorwill Road, and there are some other side streets. We
would not recommend that the county out of its impact fee revenues pay
for those side streets. That would be what we call -- the collection
system would be assessable, or the developer himself would pay for
that if he wants to get to this major transmission system.
Now, the people who happen to front Pine Ridge Road
would have obviously a low expense to run their connection to that
force main, and then they would be responsible for providing the
pumping pressure to get into the force main. We would not pay for
that. So it's a question of --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Accident of geography.
MR. HcNEES: Yes, and this would be if you're closer to
the force main, you pay less. But this would be what we call the
backbone or the major component of the system. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously this will pay for
itself and I think in a fairly short period of time. Not only are
there a number of existing businesses, there are a number of
businesses in the waiting, and as soon as it's there, they will
build. So I think not only from a good planning and good utility
standpoint, I commend Mr. HcNees, but also from an economic
development standpoint this is going to benefit us. I understand we
have one speaker, but after that I would like to make a motion.
MR. CUYLER: You do have one public speaker, Bruce
Anderson.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record I represent the owner of the Southerland Center PUD and the
Naples Gateway PUD. Both are 10-year-old commercial interstate
planned unit developments. Southerland Center is 50 percent
developed. They recently had a motel that contacted them that would
like to build their 180-unit motel. The site is presently served by a
small package plant that has reached capacity and cannot be expanded
because of new environmental constraints.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Anderson, no doubt you have a
fine presentation in store and --
MR. ANDERSON: We rise in support of utilities. Thank
you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If there's no other speakers,
I'll be happy to make a motion in favor of moving forward with this.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a couple of
seconds on it, motion from Commissioner Constantine, and a second from
Commissioner Hancock.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion,
I'll call the question. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes.
MR. HcNEES: Thank you. You'll see that as part of our
capital budget in just a couple months.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't wait.
Item #8D2
DISUCSSION OF SOUNTY COUNTY EFFLUENT STORAGE SITE - STAFF TO NEGOTIATE
WITH HUBSCHHAN'S AND BRING BACK ANALYSIS
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is still
in utilities, item 8-D-2, a discussion of south county effluent
storage site. Mr. HcNees.
MR. HcNEES: Good morning. Again we're back with one of
our favorite subjects, which is effluence in the south county
wastewater service area. I'll try to kind of cut to the relevant
facts and what we're here to talk about today. You'll recall we
talked a few weeks ago and you agreed to allow us to proceed with the
construction of injection wells for effluent disposal in the south
county, that we talked about the concept of establishing formally for
permitting purposes that our primary disposal option would be spray
irrigation. And in order to do that we would need to develop an
appropriate quantity of wet weather storage so we have something to do
with the effluent when it's raining and no one wants to use the
effluent for irrigation.
At the same time we talked about an offer to sell has
been made by the Hubschman family for a 140-acre piece of property
that fronts U. S. 41 across the street from the Hitching Post Mobile
Home Park. What we've done is consider if we were to purchase this
site how much storage would we get, would that be enough to satisfy
the DEP in terms of a permitting requirement for wet weather storage.
And if so, then -- and we were to proceed in that direction, what
would our other alternatives be and how much of -- essentially it
comes down to how much of a premium would we be paying for the
Hubschman site. And as you know, there are a number of legal issues
currently outstanding that they have agreed to settle as a part of a
purchase agreement for this site. And if I leave anything out, I'll
be happy to answer your questions. I'm just trying to get to the
bottom of this because you've all had this discussion two or three
times.
The first question, does this site make sense from a
storage standpoint, I'm going to answer, yes, it would. The engineers
for the Hubschmans are estimating that we could store approximately
122 million gallons on this site. Now, we feel -- and that is
assuming a 90-acre storage pond with 50 acres then left for a
community park in east Naples, which is something that I haven't
mentioned yet.
But this is another part of this consideration. There
are community park impact fees available to the tune of about a
million dollars, and this would be an available site then, a piece of
it, for a community park in east Naples.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many gallons?
MR. HcNEES: 122 million gallons.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. HcNEES: Now that is in excess of what we would
need. The DEP is talking if we can provide seven to ten days of wet
weather storage, and we're talking an eight million gallon per day
plant, worst case, that would be 80 million gallons. They would be,
as I understand it, extremely pleased. That would be plenty of
storage. We don't think we're going to get a full 90-acre pond on
that site. Wetlands would have to be replaced. But we believe that
from a planning or from a mechanical standpoint, if I may, that it
does make sense. This is a reasonable site. It's relatively close,
and the costs to get the piping there are relatively reasonable.
the question becomes is the land premium worth settling the lawsuit
issues. And what I've provided to you yesterday, you'll recall we did
some effluent percolation pond analysis on alternative sites, and we
provided using those sites and scaling back the amount that we would
need to purchase, sort of some relative cost numbers, and these are
very rough. And what they assume is that if we could buy 240 acres at
a given price, we could buy 90 acres at the same per acre price. And
I don't think that's necessarily a good assumption, but what it does
is understate -- in other words, it's a more conservative assumption.
It forces us -- this has to really be a good deal to go for the
Hubschman site given these assumptions, or we would not recommend it.
So we're down to -- what it comes down to is the
premium, so to speak, on this site versus the next or the cheapest
alternative that we've been able to identify would be about a million
and a half dollars. That is given a 50-acre park and a 90-acre pond
site, the premium then becomes about a million and a half dollars.
The other gap there, that leaves 50 acres for a park at 40,000 an
acre, which is our working number. That's two million dollars. We
only have a million. So our gap then becomes the million and a half
premium plus the million dollars that we're apart for being able to
fund the park.
Now, the $40,000 an acre is a working number, and we've
talked only really in rough terms with the Hubschmans at this point in
terms of appraised value of that property. And we believe that value
to be thirty-five to forty thousand dollars an acre. From a staff
point of view it all kind of shakes out like this. If we're at
$40,000 an acre, we are at what I would call the farthest outside
reaches of a settlement that probably makes sense.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: By that you mean the highest
dollar value that we should pay? What do you mean by the farthest
outside?
MR. HcNEES: I mean that would be the absolute most we
would consider even thinking about recommending to you based on a lot
more pencil sharpening and finalizing details.
Mr. Bryant is here from the attorney's office, and he'll
tell you that we're already in to the tune of $800,000 costs that we
know we're going to have to pay to resolve the legal issues, and
that's not considering some considerable attorney's fees that will
have yet to be calculated and some -- if we don't do this, some
additional trials that will need to proceed or legal action. So what
it comes down to from a staff point of view is it's sort of on the
hazy very far edge of making any sense given the $40,000 an acre
number. The more we bring that down, the more it begins to look like
a very good recommendation in terms of giving everyone what they want,
giving us a storage site, settling the legal issues, and bringing that
park to the east Naples community. At $35,000 an acre it begins to
look like a very reasonable settlement. At $30,000 an acre it looks
great, but I can't stand here and negotiate for the property owner,
and I know the property owner is not in town. His representative is
here today, Mr. Siesky.
So I guess what I would be recommending to you from a
staff point of view is this does make some sense in terms of being
able to resolve all the issues we have on the table. It would allow
us to not construct at this time the second injection well, and
there's a considerable savings there, as you know. We would only have
to construct the first injection well. We would still have that for
emergency disposal needs. We would not then have to construct that
backup well, and that's a three to four, five million dollar savings
depending on how the design -- exactly how it comes out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That situation exists. It's just
a question of which piece of property. It's not particular to the
Hubschman.
MR. McNEES: Absolutely, that's correct. So those are
the issues. I'll be happy to answer any questions. I -- Mr. Siesky
may have a comment or two to make, but that's where we stand on this,
and you asked us to get it back to you in a couple weeks, so we're
bringing the results of our analysis today to you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. HcNees, would this storage
area with 122 million gallons, would that obviate the need to ever use
the deep well injection program?
MR. HcNEES: No. I wouldn't say ever. It would
certainly --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It would relegate it to an
emergency only --
MR. HcNEES: It would certainly limit its use. That
would give us quite a bit of storage. In long term rainy conditions
or probably most in cold weather conditions where particularly in the
weather when our flows are very high nobody irrigates. In those
conditions we would still --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are we anticipating to build this
up above ground level with the use of berms? Is that the idea?
MR. HcNEES: The original assumptions that the Hubschman
engineers used talked about, I believe, a 5-foot berm, and there would
be some berming required for this to make any sense.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So we would expect from that some
degree of percolation?
MR. HcNEES: I would expect for storage purposes these
would have to be lined. But I'm going to go to my sewer expert for
that there.
MR. CLEHONS: I'm Tim Clemons, wastewater director.
There would be a minimal amount of percolation. They would not have
to be built as high as if you were building just a percolation pond,
which is 3 feet above the water table today. We'd actually be able to
berm up a lesser amount and build the ponds.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Would we -- would our intent be to
line these ponds?
MR. CLEHONS: They are not required to be lined by the
state.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is it our intent to line them
whether it's required or not?
MR. CLEHONS: I would not recommend lining them.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So there would be at least
some measure of percolation so -- MR. CLEHONS: Perhaps. More in the way of evaporation
probably over the surface of the pond than you would in percolation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: When you factor in evaporation and
some degree of percolation, the capacity would actually be a little
bit more than just the raw capacity figures I would assume, or does
that 122 million gallons already factor in those two?
MR. CLEHONS: I think when their engineer did his
calculations, that 122 may have factored that in.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's our current storage
capacity?
MR. CLEHONS: The current storage capacity between the
ponds on Davis Boulevard and the ponds on the Lely Resort property is
about 60 million gallons.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much acreage are those
two?
MR. CLEHONS: The Davis ponds are about 30 acres, and
the Lely ponds, I believe, are about 30 to 40 acres.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that gives us 60 million
gallons storage?
MR. CLEHONS: Just in raw storage volume, yes, ma'am,
approximately.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question for Mr. Olliff.
Using part of the property as a park was mentioned. How, if at all,
does this fit into the county's park plans?
MR. OLLIFF: The county's next location for a community
park is located in what they call the south Naples planning
community. And as you know, we've been looking for property that is
near the Naples Manor subdivision so that those children can go to a
park without having to cross four or six lanes of 41, and that's that
general location we've been looking at. So that property fits in with
the county's plans. We've had budgeted for the last year and a half
now a million dollars in our budget to try and find some property.
It's just been very, very difficult.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's also been some
discussion of Lake Avalon property. Does this impact that at all, and
if we have the Lake Avalon property and the Hubschman sewage park
property, how many regional parks do we need in the area, or do those
two impact each other at all?
MR. OLLIFF: No, they don't. They're two different
types of parks. The one that you would be talking about would be a
community park, and the Avalon park fits into a regional park
definition.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you through, Commissioner
Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually I was until he said
the last sentence. Did you say the Hubschman sewage park would be a
community park?
MR. OLLIFF: The Hubschman sewage park would be --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You are tagging this with a
name. You realize that.
MR. OLLIFF: The general plan was to build a community
park like other community parks in our inventory today. The Lake
Avalon would be a regional park and have regional park impact fees to
support that kind of a project.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock is next.
I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You somewhat answered my
question, Mr. Olliff. I just want to clarify for my purposes, this
item is getting a little confused in that we're throwing two or three
elements into one single approval. If we do approve this or approve
to inhibit this, it in no way affects our pursuit of a regional park
somewhere in the county, whether it be Lake Avalon or somewhere else.
That is a whole separate issue. Is that what you --
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Funding.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Funding wise. And the
money set aside, the million dollars you're talking about, could not
be used for a regional park; is that correct, sir?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir. Those monies are community park
impact fees, and we could not use those for a regional park.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My next question, I guess
-- and it's not for you, Mr. Olliff -- do we have -- I understand
that -- that basically the park purchase is more or less an effort to
compensate for other legal activities. I'm not so naive as to believe
that this is just a good deal for everyone, that we are more or less
saying let's cut our losses on another deal and purchase this
property, therefore, Mr. Hubschman can realize some gains, and we get
out of the litigation scenario. I guess I need to see a comparison of
the difference between what we are actually paying to handle the
storage pond issue and what the balance acreage costs versus what our
potential litigation costs are in order to make an accurate decision
here. Those are two issues that I would like to see separated
dollar-wise so that I -- I know what it is we're getting into and what
we're paying to get out of the litigation situation.
MR. McNEES: What I would propose would be -- the only
direction we would ask from you today is that we get into some
specific purchase negotiations on the price on this site, that we
bring back to you then a more specific settlement agreement, and that
we outline for you all of the definable legal costs, and then for the
ones that are still variable that we tell you what they depend upon.
And then we bring all that back to you as a decision package if you
believe this looks like it makes some sense and you want us to go
ahead and enter into that negotiation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- I'd like to pursue that,
Mr. McNees. I'd like to -- and I don't want to negotiate the price in
a public forum, and I'd like for you and our attorneys to go and
negotiate that with the Hubschmans. I'd like for us to be careful,
however, that excited as we all get about the idea, that if we do
something like this, then the deep well injection becomes backup and
not something we expect to use often, that we realize that that
situation exists for any perc ponds that we would buy, and don't give
the Hubschman deal a premium because of that and that -- that, you
know, we make a good fiscal analysis of if we're going to pay more for
this piece of land, that the amount we pay more is equal to the
settlement value of the lawsuit that would be settled. That would be
the direction from me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dittos.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds fair.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that a motion?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds like it.
MR. DORRILL: You have a couple speakers too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's hear from the public then
before we make a motion.
MR. SIESKY: Jim Siesky representing the Hubschman
family. Just -- Commissioner Hancock, I wanted you to know that
approximately a year and a half ago the parks department approached
the Hubschmans to purchase 50 acres on this site. This is not
something that is thrown in at this point to reach a resolution. It
was an ongoing attempt by the parks department at that time.
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Siesky, I have to believe that the
price set per acre by your client takes into account his litigation
situation and what he plans to recoup. I think that's a fair
assessment.
MR. SIESKY: Oh, absolutely. There's no doubt about
it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's what the statement
was intended to say, and that's all, not --
MR. SIESKY: My only point was that the county desired
to purchase an area of this land before for a park purpose and made an
offer.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: We have two additional. Mr. Bramberg
representing College Properties and Mr. Perkins. Mr. Bramberg.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Bramberg.
MR. BRAMBERG: Good morning. I'm Bill Bramberg with
College Properties. I'm here, I guess, to confuse the issue. I
wanted to remind you that if you don't know, that we are hopefully a
landfill candidate for you all. But I want to combine the fact that
should you consider us, we would also like to be -- in as much as we
have a thousand acres we offered the county at $4,000 an acre, we
would also like you to consider our property for an effluent storage
area, because as I understand it, you may not use the whole thousand
acres.
I brought a sheet down here that might relate to -- to
benefit the commissioners. It kind of has a Neapolitan wastewater --
it's a cartoon from St. Petersburg that you might enjoy. But the
point being, again, that should things not work out with this other
candidate, we would like to be considered as an effluent storage area,
and that's why I drove down today.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
I think you know about our property.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This says using reclaimed
Pettier.
MR. BRAMBERG: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one question, Mr. HcNees.
How far removed from our force mains, I guess we could say, is the
property Mr. Bramberg is talking about? MR. DORRILL: Two miles.
MR. HcNEES: I'm not exactly familiar. I think that's
probably one of our alternative sites. I can't tell you which one it
is, though. As part of our identification of what this, quote,
premium is --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's property located in the Bell
Heade off of Sabal Palm.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Looks like number nine. Look at
number nine.
MR. HcNEES: We'll be happy to include that as one of
our alternative -- MR. DORRILL: Three and a half miles east of 951 is the
site.
MR. HcNEES: Four to five miles.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just think that if we're going
to consider various sites, even we need to consider also the costs of
getting the lines there.
MR. HcNEES: And you'll see that the analysis we gave
you does consider the higher pipeline costs for the more remote
sites.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. A1 Perkins,
Bell Heade groups, Citizens For Constitutional Property Rights. I've
heard a whole bunch of stuff about this effluent. I want to go on
record and say that the Bell Heade people want the effluent, and they
want the garbage. And the reason why we want it, because it happens
to be a source of energy that we can certainly use instead of just
throwing the stuff away. We're also totally against deep well
injection anyplace in this world because when you put it down there,
it's liable to pop up on top of a volcanic ash someplace in the rest
of the world.
I heard $800,000 in legal fees to the Hubschmans, and
they're willing to take and negotiate that down. That's called
extortion, if I'm not sure. We're talking about a band-aid on the
amount of effluent because as this county grows, you're going to need
a necessary room for percolation to take and handle the -- just
permitting things that you have underway at the moment.
Now, earlier Commissioner Norris referred to common
sense several times, and I'm sure the rest of the board did too. It's
very important that we do use some common sense for the future, not
just for today. Percolation ponds were recommended, and as far as
College Properties when they took and came forward for waste recovery
and recycling, composting, they also took and mentioned a joint
venture, participation, and resources. Now, if I'm going to have
anybody backing me up, I would sure like to have a college who has the
resources and the knowledge to put me in the proper perspective of how
to handle our future trash, garbage, and sewage, because these
problems are never going to go away.
Now, as far as permitting goes, you're going to have
problems with permitting no matter where you go, no matter what you
do, because the environmentalists -- as I said before, communism and
socialism is alive and well, and our people are trying to stop the
university from going through. Now, that means that your kids and my
kids and everybody else's kids are going to be deprived of a decedent
education within a realm of short distance.
Okay. Now, I need to take and jump on Mr. Dotrill for
just a second. Now, he always hears me talking about them using
sewage and sewage water to manufacture diesel fuel. Now I want to add
another one to it. They are now using vegetable oil to manufacture
diesel fuel. Do your homework, and you'll find out I'm not lying.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Come on back, A1. We're on
effluent.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. Well, the effluent is a very
important part because if we actually take and use some smarts, don't
move the problem, don't put a band-aid on the problem, get a site on
this thing so we can fix this problem. It's not going to go away.
The bottom line is if we take and totally recycle, which
the Department of Environmental Protection are going to force us to
it, the next thing is what do we do with the rest of it, and that
comes down to composting. Composting is required effluent and sewage
to take and make a decent compost similar to milorganite which we can
put back on the land.
Now, as far as the College Properties, we have -- it's
right adjacent to farmland which can use the effluent. The pasture
land out there certainly can use the effluent to take and grow decent
grass for our cattle. With that I think I've just about covered
everything. Don't throw the water away. It's a precious item.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think we're talking about
throwing it away. Commissioner Constantine.
MR. PERKINS: Any questions?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, thanks.
MR. PERKINS: Thank you very much.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hr. HcNees, just to follow up
on Commissioner Mac'Kie's point, this may, indeed, particularly with
the lawsuit and so on, be the best deal for us, but are there other
alternatives? I assume there are other alternatives we are looking at
or have looked at similar or -- help me here.
HR. HcNEES: There are, certainly, other effluent
storage sites available. Some of the numbers we brought you are some
rough idea of what those would cost us, if you would like to refine
those a little bit and bring them back as a part of the final
recommendation, final package. The one clarification I'd like to
make, when we talk about the lawsuit and the settlement costs, we're
not talking just about legal fees here. In fact, the single biggest
piece of that is lease payments that we owe, one way or the other, for
land that we are currently occupying. So it's not just that the
attorneys are going to extort or make a windfall out of this. There's
a lot of this that we legitimately own. We're going to have to pay no
matter what. I would like to make that clear.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood, Hr. HcNees.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to make a motion
that we move forward.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a minute. Hr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: I was just going to clarify the same thing
Mr. McNees just said. We're not talking about fees on this sale.
We're talking about a whole array of things.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
a motion? If he did --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
Okay. Do you have a question,
Did Commissioner Constantine make
He's getting ready to.
He's getting ready to? Well, I'm
getting ready to second it because I think --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hake your motion.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- if we go with one of the
options, we're going to have an effluent storage area. If we go with
this option, we're going to have an effluent storage area; we're going
to have a park site; and we're going to put to bed some of our legal
hassles that we've had for a while. So we have some benefit here even
though it seems like we're spending more money, actually we're getting
more value too, so I'm certainly going to second it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go ahead and make the motion,
John.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make the motion then that we
direct staff to go forward with negotiations with the Hubschmans to
try to acquire their property and bring those -- the results of those
negotiations back to us at a future date.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would the motion maker amend to
include comparisons with other properties --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think he already said that he
was going to do that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and a portion of the
litigation expenses and anticipated expenses as a part of that
report?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll amend the motion then to
direct staff to bring back those analyses.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are you going to include
funding sources with those, Mr. HcNees?
MR. HcNEES: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Is there any further
discussion?
We have a motion by Commissioner Norris and a second by
Commissioner Hancock. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the
question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
MR. HcNEES: Thank you. And we'll be happy to leave the
sewer out of the park name if Mr. Hubschman will give us a great deal
for leaving the Hubschman on.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. HcNees.
Item #SH1
WORK ORDER UNDER THE CURRENT ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
STRUCTURAL REPAIR CRACKS IN CONCRETE PROCESS TANKS AT THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT - APPROVED
Let's move on with 8-H-l, a professional agreement for
the work plan.
MR. BOYER: Yes, Commissioners, my name is Karl Boyer.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Boyer, this is a routine item,
is it not?
MR. BOYER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Would this otherwise be on the
consent agenda?
MR. DORRILL: It would. There's some cracks in some of
the reaction basins that are probably 10 years old at the south county
water treatment plant in Golden Gate. We'd like to use one of your
annual engineering services to have those evaluated and get them
posted.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the professional agreement. If there's no further discussion,
I'll call the question.
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0. The motion was
made by --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Norris.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Commissioner Norris, seconded
by Commissioner Hancock.
Item #9A1
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD FORWARD NOTICE TO PROCEED TO THE TAX
COLLECTOR FOR TAX DEED APPLICATIONS ON THE 1992 COUNTY TAX CERTIFICATES
- APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is -- again, should be pretty
quick, item 9-A-l, a recommendation by the board to forward notice to
proceed to the tax collector.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the
recommendation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
second?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
We have a motion. Is there a
Second.
Second.
A couple of seconds.
Hotion by
Commissioner Constantine, second by Commissioner Hac'Kie to -- just
trying to spread it out --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm trying to get Commissioner
Hac'Kie involved. I didn't want to second hastily.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's important to me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to give the tax collector
notice to proceed. If there's no further -- you have one question?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One question. Why is this not a
consent agenda item?
MR. CUYLER: Why is this not a consent agenda item?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we going to spend more time
answering that?
MR. CUYLER: I'll tell you why, because 206 are required
by law. The other 32 are being recommended, but you don't have to do
those. If you'd like in the future I'll put those on consent agenda,
and say if you want to pull it off --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not that important.
MR. DORRILL: I thought he was going to say if you'd
give him a couple of weeks, he'd get back with you. No offense.
MR. CUYLER: In terms of good news, the title reports
have been reduced by $10, so your fiscal impact will be about $3,000
less than it shows there too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good news. We have a motion and
a second. Any further discussion?
There being none, I'll call the question. All those in
favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
Let's take a quick break for about 10 minutes.
back at 20 minutes of.
(A short break was held.)
We'll be
Item #10A
APPOINTHENT OF HEHBERS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEHENT BOARD -
TO BE READVERTISED
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: We'll reconvene the meeting this
morning, and we're down to item -- where are we? We're down to item
10, the Board of County Commissioners' appointment to the Collier
County Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I need to raise
a question on this. We have been very careful over the last two years
to try to stick to the rules on these things. We have out of these
four people one who's withdrawn, we're told, one who has already
served two full terms, which we've tried to avoid if there were other
applicants, and two who turned their thing in tardy. So really none
of the four names we have here -- they're all good names. I don't
have any question with that, but if we try and stick to our rules, I
wonder if it might benefit us to readvertise.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
just one?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
one of these individuals.
for this particular one.
Do we have two that were late or
Looks like two.
Two.
Two.
I had discussions with at least
There was not an advertisement in the paper
For some reason it did not get in. Miss
Filson says it was sent to the paper, not pointing any fingers, but it
didn't get in the paper. I know Mr. McCormick individually was trying
to follow this and actually turned in an application without ever
seeing an advertisement. And I would hate to penalize it for being on
this board. I haven't spoken to the other lady who was late also, so
I don't have a problem with readvertising, but I certainly at least
impress that two people sent in resumes and requests without it being
advertised. That certainly shows an aggressiveness that I support.
So I'll -- whatever the board's discretion is. I'm comfortable at
this point with -- with Mr. McCormick, and I don't know if anybody has
anybody else on this list that they have met with or discussed or have
feelings about.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize Mr. Clark's going
to have a thing, but I'm -- if we don't have speakers, I'm going to
make a motion, and you can still do your thing. I'm going to make a
motion we readvertise, only as you said it didn't appear in the
paper. It's not -- it's no reflection on these people. It's just
trying to stay consistent with what we've done in the past. This of
all boards usually has a pretty high number of returns for people
interested in it. I think just the fact that we only had two on time
and then two who had to follow up on their own shows -- without even
appearing in the paper shows the interest. So I'm going to make a
motion that we readvertise just to stay consistent with our own
rules.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Clark, you had something to
say?
MR. CLARK: If I may, Dick Clark, community
development. I'd just like to express a concern. We're having a
difficult time getting a quorum, and so the less people we have could
make it does present a problem. However we do it, I would just like
to have as many possible applicants or as many possible members
available to show up as quickly as possible.
MR. DORRILL: We have one speaker as well.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's hear our public speaker.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. McCormick.
MR. MCCORMICK: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Richard McCormick. I am on the Code Enforcement Board. I'm a
resident of north Naples district 2, and have been in Collier County
for over three years following my service in the United States Army as
a lieutenant in the Corps of Engineers. I currently work for
Wilkinson and Associates, which is a design engineering firm providing
civil, environmental, and surveying services to the local community.
And I want you to know that I want to be selected for a position on
the Code Enforcement Board.
As Commissioner Constan -- excuse me, Commissioner
Hancock alluded to, I have been following --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to vote against
you just because of that.
MR. MCCORMICK: I think I need to clarify that. I have
been following the availability of positions on this board for over a
year, and I did by a day miss the deadline, and I think I tried to
explain that in the letter that I wrote to you, and I can answer any
other questions you have about that. But I want to reinforce my
position in our community as somebody who is involved in the
community, not just in social and charitable organizations, but also
in governmental affairs, and that's why I've applied for this board.
I think that the person who gets selected for this board are persons
who need to be committed to put in the time, and I think through my
efforts and being here today I'm showing that I have a commitment that
I'll make to be on the board to be there month in and month out, do
the extra work and the research to do a good job for you and for the
other citizens of the county. I think the person you choose should
also have skills in judgment, communication, leadership, be able to
form a consensus among the other members of the board. The person
should also be familiar with compliance services, code enforcement
development services community. They should have a working knowledge
of the land development code, and I want you to know that I have and
meet all those criteria.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you asking for code
enforcement, or are you running for the county commission?
MR. MCCORMICK: I want to be selected for the Code
Enforcement Board. That's all I want. And I want to make it clear, I
don't want to do anything else.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was getting nervous, which is
why I had to ask.
MR. MCCORMICK: I haven't been up here before. I wanted
to let you know my sincere desire to be on it, and I don't want this
to be delayed again. I tried to follow it for a year, and I tried to
jump in and be selected. If you have any other questions of me, I'd
be happy to answer them. I know I can do a good job for you, and I
hope that you select me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion on the floor?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have -- particularly after
this conversation, but after looking at your background, I have no
absolutely no doubt that you will be an excellent member of the
Collier County Code Enforcement Board. However, just because again
we've tried to keep these very black and white, if we make an
exception to our own rules now, we start making exceptions. Because
of that reason I'll reiterate my motion to readvertise. I would
absolutely urge you to make sure that if we don't -- maybe we can just
continue these applications as part of that to simplify it. And I
have no doubt that you'll make a wonderful member, but just in the
issue of fairness and trying to stick with our own rules, I think we
need to readvertise.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to ask you if you
would amend the motion to include the two that were late received,
that they simply be continued over and included. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition to Mr. Lazarus's
request for reappointment after two terms, those three will be
automatically accepted.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make that part of the
motion.
MR. MCCORMICK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
There being none, I'll call the question. All those in
favor, please say aye.
Motion passes 5 to 0. That motion was made by
Commissioner Constantine and seconded by Commissioner Hancock.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 95-198, DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PRODUCTIVITY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED; STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR REPLACEMENT
Next item on the agenda is 10-B, consideration to
declare a vacancy on the county government productivity committee.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I placed this
item on the agenda, and I'd like to basically open it up. I
understand Mr. Rankin is here to make some comments. As you know, I
chaired the productivity committee just prior to my campaign for this
seat. I had to leave it for that reason. During that time I worked
with Mr. Rankin on the committee. Subsequent to that I've received
several requests from what has now become offgoing board members in
addition to current board members regarding Mr. Rankin's conduct on
the committee. For that reason and in fairness to the balance of the
individuals on the committee I felt it was appropriate that the board
entertain the discussion to declare his seat vacant on the committee.
Without going further, I'm sure Mr. Rankin has some comments. If it's
the board's pleasure to hear those at this time, I think we can then
have discussion afterwards.
MR. DORRILL: He is registered.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He is registered?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
MR. RANKIN: I'm kind of wondering first off why I'm
here because I picked up the phone last night when I was made aware of
this, a rather strangely worded item on the agenda, with our current
chairman, Jack McKenna, who also happened to work with me on this
matter and is eminently familiar with how I handled myself in my last
and most controversial assignment. He didn't even know this was
coming up today, and right now he's sitting back in his office
watching this on TV because he's got to earn a living like I should
be. I was up to three o'clock this morning working in my office, as I
have been often in order to allow me to do this work on this
committee.
I asked to get on this committee, and I was appointed on
this committee way back in October of '93 for the sole purpose of
trying to do some good in this community. I am fully aware of my
former partner's admission that politics and the profitable practice
don't go together. We've had a recent example of that. I'm just here
to do some good.
While I'm on this committee I make sure I get assigned
to things in which I have no professional business or other
interests. Utilities is such a matter. Utilities is not something I
dream't up one afternoon that we should do like the pre -- like the
committee had while I was on there on the helicopter which they got
whopped a little for at the workshop. I was specifically assigned
that duty at a workshop session. At that workshop session there were
three duties specifically assigned. One was utilities. The other one
was environmental, and the third one was one the committee chose not
to honor, which was state mandates; funded, unfunded, whether --
because a lot of concern for commission every time they asked why we
are doing this, the state makes us, and the question, of course, is
unfunded mandates in the state are not lawful. We're set for certain
grandfather provisions.
I -- since we didn't take up that one and since I may
have some professional interests in the environmental, I chose
utilities. I am not even hooked into the utilities system because I
-- all the property I and my family own is either in the estates or
in the City of Naples. I got on to this because I was concerned about
the rate payers, because except for this board, what we're dealing
with here is an unregulated monopoly. Therefore, it's not subject to
PFC regulation at all. This board is all that stands between them and
whatever utilities wants to charge.
I read very carefully the ordinances that created this
board, and here's the objective. The objective is to ensure the
county taxpayers that their tax dollars are being used in an
appropriate manner and that the Board of County Commissioners is
taking all reasonable steps to avoid the waste of tax dollars. And
while utilities, of course, is not tax dollars, it's still dollars out
of public and a monopoly where the people don't have any choice.
I originally was assigned two other people to work with
me on this committee. One of them is Jack HcKenna. Now, Jack happens
to do work for this county, especially with utilities. And him being
a very ethical person, anything that concerned items in which he had
worked with utilities on he did not want to be a part of those for
obvious ethical problem -- considerations. That's never been a rule
on our committee. Often members of the committee work for agencies
that do business with the county or even the items that they're
looking into. But that's the way Jack chose to pursue it.
The other member of the committee had actually resigned
from the committee before he was appointed. We just didn't know it.
He was an attorney -- I don't recall his name -- way back when.
We have a rule on the committee. Actually we have a
couple rules. One of them is you don't go off on your own. Well, I
was kind of on my own. Several other members, I understand, on the
committee turned down being on this committee because they also had
professional interests, and there were a couple who didn't want to
work with me on this committee, and I could understand that because
this was not going to be an easy job as we saw by that $50 letter, two
million dollar price tag that you just dealt with and all the others.
If you'll recall the situation at the time we were
assigned this back at the workshop, this particular department was in
the newspaper every couple of weeks with some kind of problem or
another. Nonetheless, I met -- I undertook, and I spent about 120,
150 hours working on this matter, which caused me to have to spend a
lot of time away from my family and a lot of time working late at
night so my clients did not get ignored. I visited with all their top
management. I visited with all the other departments they worked
with. I made on-site visits to all their plants, and I reviewed reams
of documents which I obtained. I was also given access to a number of
persons. I imagine --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you -- can you wrap it up as
quickly as you can?
MR. RANKIN: I'm on trial here. I don't know if I can
wrap it up in a few minutes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This isn't really a trial, but as
quickly as you can.
MR. RANKIN: There were basically three things that
caused contention on the committee when I was there, all of which have
been dealt with. As Commissioner Hancock well knows in the letter I
sent him, this utilities matter is no longer a function either. This
utilities matter is over. A -- they're reviewing my report doing
what they may with it. Doesn't really concern me. I've done my job.
The other matter that concerned this was the sunshine
law. Early on in this one of the other department heads I met with
warned me that it was a possibility that the way the committee had
been functioning up to that time was possibly a violation of the
sunshine law. He turned out to be very much correct. As soon as that
was brought to my attention I immediately, one, called the committee
chairman, and two, called the county attorney. I was given a verbal
opinion by one of the county attorneys that, indeed, it was. Because
of staff it was more than eight months before we had a written opinion
and all the county attorney's fault. Staff didn't actually file the
request, even though the chairman and I and several people had
requested it, until November. It was done back in July, August.
Somewhere in that neighborhood we requested it.
The other item I already mentioned was the little
helicopter thing. I suggested to the committee members that while I
might have personally been in favor of a helicopter, I didn't know
whether we had been assigned to look at it, and we ought to maybe ask
before we went into things of that nature. And there was one other
little matter which was the unfunded state mandates that we were
supposed to be looking at. I did make a couple of comments that we
should, in fact, do what the commission directed us to do.
The current committee is basically at this point -- you
know, we've -- we've gotten through all these matters now that we've
finally gotten a written opinion in February of this year. We've
reevaluated how we functioned. Some of the controversy was caused --
of course, a couple people realized that they had inadvertently --
they weren't experts on it, as I'm not -- I don't do government law --
that they had inadvertently been violating this, and they didn't
believe my rendition of the verbal opinion which turned out to be more
liberal then the final written opinion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Rankin --
MR. RANKIN: That's all -- that's all over now --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- can you finish up, please?
MR. RANKIN: Yes. I'm now looking for an assignment on
the committee far less controversial than the last one I was handed,
and I intend to be a quiet and productive member of the committee.
But I was raised that when I'm given a job, I do it. And when
somebody tries to stop me and stand in my way or berate me in the
press, I -- as was done twice previously in this matter, which first
time Mr. Lunsford didn't take the bait that you've been handed today,
that I don't just sit back and take it. And the one thing about that
Lunsford column, of course, is he indicated --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Doug, please, please.
MR. RANKIN: -- that I was interfering with the staff's
committee which, of course, as we know, is exactly backwards.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Rankin, are you
finished?
MR. RANKIN: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Cuyler, Mr.
Rankin's raised a sunshine violation issue.
MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. And we have -- we've issued an
opinion. Some of the things that he indicated he -- the committee did
would not -- would be under an exception to the sunshine. If you go
in, for example, to a department, and you're culling through the
files, you're gathering paper, you don't need to -- you don't need to
notice that I'm going to be in the utilities department, even if there
are two or more members of the committee. You don't need to notice
that even though you have to be careful about that. But if you're
just going through -- but if you're sitting down to make a
recommendation to the committee as a whole, then at that point --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To write a report even?
MR. CUYLER: Well, if you're combining members of a --
of a subcommittee to talk about things and make a recommendation at
that point, yes, it becomes subject to the sunshine law.
MR. RANKIN: That was the question. I never said the
other. The question was -- by luck, the only other committee I've
been on -- human resources had done it that way by accident -- had not
been done that way. You get together, and the subcommittee got
together, put together the report and brought --.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a explanation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me put my thoughts in a
nutshell, if I can. I nominated Doug to the productivity committee,
and I've known Doug for a long time. I like Doug very much. The
question boils down to what is his impact on the rest of the
committee. As with any committee or board, if one member is
disruptive or perceived as disruptive, then it becomes
counterproductive. There appears to be some question at this point
who's -- who's doing what. You've heard from a couple board members.
You've served on that board, so there is obviously a question. If Mr.
HcKenna wasn't aware of today, that raises another question.
What I think might be appropriate is, Mr. Cuyler, being
probably the most impartial person in the room, I hope, perhaps can
put together a little summary, a background of the resignations that
have occurred, if we have written resignations, what purpose, if they
were stated, why. Maybe even go so far as to talk with the current
members. I don't know what our board thinks, but talk with the
current members. Talk with the old members. If there is a perceived
problem there, then I think we do need to declare a vacancy. I know
Doug, and I know you do a lot of hard work, and you and I have had
this conversation. But regardless of that, if the perception becomes
disruptive to the productivity, then we defeat our own purpose.
So if Mr. Cuyler can perhaps do some of that homework --
and, Tim, you already know a lot of that anyway. Maybe you can help
me today. But if there's a problem, we need to fix it, and it may
serve that purpose.
MR. RANKIN: Commissioner --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment, Mr. Rankin.
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A lot of that has been done.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Obviously this is not -- as much
as Mr. Rankin would like to believe, this is not a personal vendetta.
I have nothing against Doug. I worked with you several months. I
personally experienced individual difficulties chairing that committee
with you on it. But when I resigned, that was done. That was
somebody else's situation to handle.
I received several comments and phone calls over the
past months regarding your activities, regarding the manner in which
you conduct yourself. I attended another meeting in which things not
only had not changed but, in my opinion, had gotten worse to the point
that meetings were being dominated by one individual, and as a result
of that, for putting this on the agenda in which I called your office
a total of three times over the past week, Mr. Rankin. MR. RANKIN: I've been out of the state.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the idea the contact was not
attempted is incorrect and inappropriate. I have talked to all of the
members who have gone off the committee, the majority of which cited
Mr. Rankin as a portion of the reason for that. I am not going to
name names. I'm not going to lay this on anyone else's shoulders.
I brought this on the agenda today I felt with the
reason being we have 12 other members. We have a responsibility to
make sure their time is used in the most productive means possible. I
feel that as much as your intentions are well thought of and well
intentioned, your actions, however, are disruptive to the majority of
the members on -- on the productivity committee.
So I brought it today. I don't see that changing. I
don't hear anything from you that indicates that that will change.
And for that reason I'm going to make a motion that we declare a
vacancy for Mr. Rankin's seat on the productivity committee and
advertise for a replacement as soon as possible. MR. RANKIN: I just --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You seem to have said -- you seem
to have told us that -- that this was not a snap decision, that you
went through a long, arduous decision-making process to get to this
point, and I can understand that, so I will second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me say this --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- this is an awkward
situation because, as I've said, I've known Doug for a long time.
I've known Tim for a long time. And just to throw in something else
to the mixer, I've served on the productivity committee, so I'm
familiar with the frustrations that can occur. I don't think either
one of you are going to purposely mislead anybody here, and I think as
much it concerns me -- again, I was the one that nominated Doug, and
as much as it concerns me, I think, Tim, if you have spoken with that
many people, maybe you can help me here. I don't know how many of
those folks you spoke with.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Six of seven.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you've spoken with that
many people and there is that perception, then we do have a problem.
If that's the case, I'm going to very reluctantly support the motion,
but I want to kind of put an asterisk in there if I can and personally
anyway commend Doug. He's helped me with some things and done some
work along the lines of many of the questions that I've raised both
while I was on the productivity committee and on the commission, just
stressing the point this doesn't have anything to do with you. If
there is a perceived problem, we need to correct that.
MR. RANKIN: Well, the problem we have here,
Commissioner, is that, first of all, no one resigned. In fact, under
the old rules they would have been prohibited from running again if
you'll review the ordinances you have with you. Several of them have
served two or more terms under the old rules until recently. They
wouldn't have renewed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is a total of two people,
Mr. Rankin, two.
MR. RANKIN: Second of all, we've had several meetings
since you've been there, Commissioner Hancock. And that has all been
cleared up because now we have the written opinion that we didn't have
the day that you were there, the written opinion that you said you
would make more liberal, and they got more stringent.
As far as getting along with people, I belong to more
than a dozen organizations. If I didn't get along with people, then
how come I have been elected the head of every one of them?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Rankin, we're not going to
get into any sort of personalities and trade-offs here.
MR. RANKIN: That's basically what we're talking about
here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is not the place for that to
happen. And we do have a motion on the floor. It has been seconded,
and I think that if there is not further discussion from this board,
I'm going to call the question.
I am not going to support the motion, and the reason is
primarily we have only removed one member from a board that I'm aware
of ever, and that was a situation that occurred a year and a half ago
where a board member was specifically and particularly abusive to
staff. And I felt that that one was really a necessary item.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, if I may, Commissioner
Matthews, just briefly, I have done my best not to make this a -- you
know, I have reams of paper and reams of discussions, and I do not
want to make this an attack on Mr. Rankin. I tried very hard not to
do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I don't want that to
happen.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I don't want to go pulling
out things and saying things that are damaging to you, sir. I have no
desire to make that happen.
MR. RANKIN: I don't have the desire to do that either,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are a tremendous number of
things that are going unsaid today, but I'll let the motion stand.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a comment, I guess.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Out of deference to Commissioner
Hancock's particular experience with this and not having any more
information on the record, I find myself having to defer to your
judgment since you have had experience with it. I have to say it's
extremely troubling to me, and it's a great leap of faith to take that
-- to make that deference in assumption. And I'm sure it's not your
intention to give the impression that if you're a bulldog you don't
belong on the committee, because that's the kind of person we do want
on committees. And that's -- out of respect for your desire not to
impugn Mr. Rankin's reputation, then I don't want you to put things on
the record if -- you know, if you --
MR. RANKIN: I'd like to hear something --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's troubling.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to call the question.
I've had a request to call the question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All those in favor, please say
aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 4 to 1, Commissioner Matthews in the
opposition, as I previously stated.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final note on that. I
do want to thank Doug for the work he's done, particularly in the
utilities area, and it's been a pet peeve of mine.
MR. RANKIN: Well, the message has been sent that not to
look seriously at anything in the commission. It's not been sent by
you or Commissioner Matthews, but the message has been sent, and I'm
sure further reports to this committee will reflect it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Rankin.
Commissioner Hancock, I want to thank you for the diligent work you've
done on this. I'm just concerned that by taking the action that this
board's taken today that we're going to invite other advisory boards
to bring forward personality difficulties. I hope that doesn't
happen, and we'll have to deal with them individually.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if it were a personality
difficulty, I would not have moved forward. It was an operational
difficulty, and believe me, this has not been easy.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I trust that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't enjoy this at all, but
the decision has been made, and we'll move on.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We surely will.
Item #10C
REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER THE
PRIVATIZATION OF THE OPERATIONS OF OUR UTILITY DIVISION - TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATION APPROVED; STAFF TO REPORT BACK IN TWO WEEKS; AND STAFF
TO CONTACT OTHER ENTITIES AND REQUEST COPIES OF THEIR RFP'S
Next item on the agenda, item 10-C, a request from the
board of county commissioners to consider privatization of the
operations of our county utility division. The vice-chairman for the
privatization plus task force, Ramona McNicholas, is here to tell us
what the committee has been doing.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: While she's coming up, this
proposal is for the operation only?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Only the operation, yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And there would be a -- an upper
level management left in place from the county to oversee the
operation of a private contractor, is that correct, similar to what we
do at the landfill?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Similar to what we've done with
the landfill is what we've investigated.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But it would in no way affect the
capital structure of our ownership of utility system?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would not affect the
ownership. It would not affect the rate structure or the rate
making.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There was some -- the reason I
bring that up is because there was some concern in the public's mind
that we were getting rid of our total utilities system -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, no.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- which is certainly not the
case. I just wanted to point out that what we're discussing is
privatization of the operations only.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We are not selling the
utilities system, just contracting out the operations. Miss
McNicholas.
MISS McNICHOLAS: Good morning. I'm Ramona McNicholas,
and as vice-chair of the privatization task force I'm here to make two
recommendations today that the group has developed. On February 6th
Professional Services Group, PSG, made a presentation to our task
force detailing the decreased costs and increased quality which they
believe would result from their proposal to run the waste -- the water
and wastewater operation of the utilities division. PSG estimated a
cost savings to Collier County -- to the Collier County utilities
budget of approximately 10 percent. Now, as Commissioner Norris
pointed out, we are talking about the operations budget, which is
approximately 19 million. We're not talking about the -- the total 49
million of the utilities. So that 10 percent savings would be
substantial. It would be in the neighborhood of 1.9 million.
Subsequent to that provision by PSG the task group
selected and contacted five representatives of governmental entities
throughout the country who have dealt with PSG for -- from 1984 in
some cases up to a new contract in 1993. Those entities were Sioux
City, Iowa; New Orleans, Louisiana; Brockton, Massachusetts; Oklahoma
City and Moore, Oklahoma. The focus of our interviews was not only
PSG performance in the realized savings but also their general
satisfaction with the privatization effort, peripheral benefits,
impact on rates, regulatory compliance, and employee relations. All
of them were very satisfied with the privatization of their utilities
operations. Access to new technologies increased quality, and the
promised cost reductions were realized. These savings ranged from
$700,000 the first year in Moore, a small city of 44,000, through one
million annually in New Orleans, to 4.5 million per year in Oklahoma
City.
The task group believes that privatizing the utilities
operations should be pursued by Collier County, and we would recommend
that this board take the steps necessary to accept bids for the water
-- wastewater operations.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Only one concern. PSG, this kind
of came about because Representative Saunders as a representative of
PSG came in and suggested it, and I'm glad we're taking a look at it.
As we take further steps, will the potential providers be involved in
those? And if so, how do we make sure that this doesn't become
something that PSG drives?
MS. HcNICHOLAS: We are aware that there will be many
bidders, many people interested in this. When we spoke with the other
cities, they had four to five bids on their contracts. We have
subsequently been contacted by others who wish to make presentations
to us. We have not heard their presentations. We don't believe
that's in our purview. We are not singling out PSG. We are looking
at the concept, and we are presenting that to the board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seems fairly simple. If we
can run our department equally as well or better and do it at a
cheaper price, that certainly benefits all of us. The only thing I
would suggest is that we have in here our RFP. I hope we end up with
an RFB so that we can actually be comparing apples to apples from all
of these groups. Some of the confusion during the landfill operation
was each people -- each group was coming in with their own proposal,
which many of them were very, very different from one another. So if
we have some basic things we need, the basic structure we're looking
at for the management and can get bids on that from all these
companies, I think that would work great.
MR. DORRILL: I have some comments, and I'll hold them
for the board, see if the board has any other questions for this
lady.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, my question is not for her.
My question is for Mr. Dotrill. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, fine.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What do you think it would cost
the county to go through the RFP process for this? What's a good
guess?
MR. DORRILL: In terms of direct and indirect costs, and
I'm going to relate it to what we did on solid waste, and this is a
more complicated issue than solid waste, I would say that it may cost
$20,000 to $30,000 to be able to develop and have the staff time
and/or some combination of consultant time to review the specifics.
This is something playing off what Commissioner Constantine said. You
can't take just proposals here, because the issue on the one hand,
burying garbage every day when it comes in, and the other issue of a
very detailed performance specification. Because if you wanted to
give me direction today to cut the cost of the utility division, I
could do that probably in 30 days and come back and show you a utility
budget to cut cost in the utility division by 10 percent, 15 percent,
pick a number. You're going to need a performance spec with technical
expectations in it because otherwise the easiest way to cut cost is to
cut maintenance, cut chemical costs, cut electric consumption by using
pump motors differently and that type of thing. So you're going to
need a performance specification and then receive bids based on that,
and you're going to have to have contract compliance people if you
privatize checking the checkers to make sure that you're getting what
you're paying for. So the procurement concept of this is going to be
totally different than just taking proposals.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine, but what I wanted to
know is -- you answered my question -- is we're putting twenty to
thirty thousand dollars at risk to find out if we can save a couple of
million dollars a year, and that's certainly worth that to me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, and I believe the concept
of the privatization effort that's -- that's going on throughout the
country is not primarily to cut costs as much as it is to reduce our
expenditures, but maintain the service or improve it. And I would
think that if we can have the same operational services, at least the
same level that we're currently at and do it at 10 percent less, it's
certainly worthwhile. And I would agree. Some sort of a performance
method is needed. And the reason that the task force did not specify
whether they wanted an RFQ, RFP, or RFB is because they simply didn't
know which is the best, so we would rely on staff to develop the one
that will give us the best opportunity.
MR. DORRILL: Having said that, I'll tell you we're
excited about the opportunity to bid.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would expect them to.
MR. DORRILL: We intend to bid if the board gives us the
opportunity to do that. There -- there's one issue that I -- that I
have, and I'm going to need to pursue with Dr. Woodruff, because I
don't believe he's aware of it. It was reported to me Monday or last
Friday that the city is already soliciting some of our best employees
in the hunch that you're going to lose your jobs or you're going to be
working for a service management company whose contract may only be
five to seven years. And so there are a lot of concerns. And if, in
fact, the city is already soliciting some of our employees, I'm going
to make a personal request to Dr. Woodruff that they not do that until
we conclude our efforts here. It's difficult, especially if we end up
running the system yourself, but we have a wholesale rate on our staff
at the end.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I would also expect the
successful bidder in this, be it our department or an outside company,
that we would take measures to protect our current employee staff as
-- as we've done in the past. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd make a motion to approve
the task force recommendation.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
MR. DORRILL: We have speakers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Rankin, if he's still with us.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, he left.
MR. DORRILL: I'm not surprised. Ms. Fitch. Following
Ms. Fitch, I've got Mr. HcGilvra. The other thing I would tell you
too is that we'll need to come back with a time frame. This is not
part of our current staff work plan, and we're going to have to juggle
the staff work plan. This is not a bid spec that you can put out on
the street and have back within 30 or 60 days. We'll need to evaluate
what type of time period is --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quickly on that point, Mr.
Dotrill. I believe Lee County just went through this.
MR. DORRILL: They have, and I've already spoken to
their administrator about it. It's a different firm from this one
which will help me --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It shouldn't matter. But we can
glean some of what they have done for ourselves I would hope.
MR. DORRILL: We -- in anticipation of your vote today,
we've already done some of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good.
MS. FITCH: Dorothy Fitch representing the League of
Women Voters of Collier County. Just some thoughts on this subject,
no solutions. We need to decide if privatization is always
necessarily, quote, good government, unquote, which is the least main
concern. Regretfully the league has not sat in on the privatization
committee meetings. However, we have some concerns especially in
regard to the utilities division. You've already answered one
question about the fee collections and the financial aspect of the
effort.
We have heard complaints from various and sundry people,
but we've never heard anything really specific, and I was pleased to
hear that the productivity committee had completed their survey of the
utilities division satisfactorily, so that's a step in the right
direction.
Some arguments could apply regarding privatization as
were reiterated when we were discussing the dependent authority.
Another layer of government or jurisdiction, is it really necessary?
How open would a private company be to the citizens' complaints or
input? Have we had an evaluation of the utilities division since the
interim manager has been in charge and personnel changes made? We
read in the newspaper that this is what has perhaps created some of
the problems in the division. Do we know -- are we assured that those
have been corrected? And if so, perhaps that's one step to say that
they are still operating effectively.
Another thought is that we have two private companies in
the county now, and from what one reads and hears, it's a terribly
complex and unsatisfactory arrangement. I know that the county
commissioners feel that they would continue to have jurisdiction, but
the arguments will be getting -- will become more and more difficult
with a private company to deal with.
Should the county commissioners feel inclined to
privatize, it would be in the county's interest to try this on a
short-term contract, but would a company agree to this? That's
probably not going to happen.
One reads of other local governments trying
privatization only to find that it backfires. And, finally, this is a
big step, and the commissioners have turned down the dependent
authority philosophy, and they should give this idea as much
consideration. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. HcGilvra, is he
next?
MR. DORRILL: Then Mr. Keller.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: While he's coming up,
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While he's coming up, I just
wanted to hit real quickly a couple of things Dorothy said. That is
what we're looking at is privatizing the day-to-day management, not
privatizing the utilities. So a comparison to other cities or
southern states is not an accurate comparison. We would control
rates. We would control capital projects. We would control capital
plans. We would control everything. It's the day-to-day management,
what Mr. HcNees and his people do right now, and the decisions they
make day to day without coming to the board is what would be
privatized. So it would not impact big decisions the board makes over
utilities anyway.
So it's not a matter of losing control. This is nothing
like the authority that was proposed a year ago. And as far as
backfiring, I was particularly impressed by the work the task force
had done looking at some of the other cities that this is being done
in. It's nice to get a good report out of them. So I agree some
privatization can -- but it appears this particular type has a good
track record. I don't think privatization is always the answer
either, but this may be.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, it's not. Mr. HcGilvra.
MR. HcGILVRA: Doug HcGilvra, Naples Park. I kind of
feel like I'm in front of a whole slew of mirrors here like Alice in
the looking glass, for Pete sake, talking about this business -- what
do you call it? Privatization. A while back -- Taxpayers' Action
Group, and I represent Taxpayers' Action Group, and we're completely
for what I'm about to say.
We went over and sent out to all of you individuals kind
of a paper regarding what we had discovered making some -- some
research on the Collier County utilities versus your proposed
ordinance at that time creating a Collier County water/sewer
authority. Okay. Well, let's just take it and look at it and strike
off the Collier County water authority. And let me read from this. A
study has been made of the utility department for the last five years
as well as a comparison of the Collier County utility division to the
utility departments of Naples, Fort Myers, Lee County, Sarasota
County, Hanatee County, for the year 1993.
Collier County utilities has returned retained earnings
each year from 1989 to 1993. The retained earnings at the end of 1993
were 41 million. Going to the bottom of the -- then you've got a
graph there that shows you the various aspects of that. Dropping down
the graph, it says for the five-year period assets have increased by
130 percent, operating revenues by 110 percent, operating expenses by
90 percent, operating income by 140 percent, net income by 130
percent, and retained earnings by 160 percent. The cumulative
retained earnings increased each year from 11 million in 1989 to 41
million in 1993. Now, that's an equivalent of 6 million dollars per
year increase in retained earnings.
The operating revenues per dwelling unit, cost per
employee, is lower in Collier County than the City of Naples, Fort
Myers, Lee County, Sarasota, and Hanatee Counties. The operating
expenses per dwelling unit are lower for Collier County also.
Going to the next page, page 6, two graphs there showing
the relationship of costs for dwelling units and the costs returned
through utilities working for our utility department. A comparison of
Collier County to the other counties and the cities on the basis of
returns and costs per utility employee shows that Collier County is
the leader in employee performance as well. Collier County has a
greater return per employee than any other county or city. Collier
County has less per employee expense than all but Naples and Manatee
County. Collier County has a greater net and operating income per
employee than all others.
There appears to be no justification for any
organizational change at this time. The Collier County utility
division is in good shape. The Board of County Commissioners should
take all necessary action to obtain an effective computer software
system for the utility division. This appears to be a problem and can
be fixed without resorting to -- and I crossed out organizational
changes, but in privatization.
Now, I -- a couple of rough questions I've just asked,
and I've been informed that we have approximately 30,000 homes that we
as Collier County supply with these services. Not counting Naples,
not counting the other ones, but counting these 30,000 homes, let's
take an average cost of about $50 per home for sewer and water, 10
percent savings, 5 bucks. 5 bucks times 30,000 homes is 150,000
bucks. 150,000 bucks savings, and yet we're retaining six million a
year on retained savings. That's one point. The lady came up with
some other points. And quite frankly, that's why I feel like I'm in a
world of looking glasses. I didn't understand where they came from.
This is an outside company that we're talking about
going to here. It's a subsidiary of a French company in effect.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's one of many, many.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not talking about that
specific company.
MR. McGILVRA: Someone mentioned the French company.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's because that's the one
that made the presentation, but we're talking only about a concept
right now.
MR. McGILVRA: In any case, if they are out of Collier
County, according to our -- our department of -- not community
affairs. What do you call it? The Chamber of Commerce -- every
dollar that we make in Collier County, if it's retained in Collier
County, has a turnover effect of about 7 times. Tax-wise,
et cetera-wise, we gain more by keeping it in here. The people gain
more.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you wrap it up?
MR. HcGILVRA: I'll shut up in a second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We limit to 5 minutes, please.
Can you wrap it up, Mr. HcGilvra?
MR. HcGILVRA: What I'm just pointing out is the money
goes out of the payment, that is kind of like we had back in the early
days in Pittsburgh and in Massachusetts when a lot of places said,
well, we can get it done cheaper overseas. We're gonna save money.
Unfortunately, a lot of those places went down the tubes. People got
out of work. The whole communities ran down, so forth. I'd hate to
have that happen here for a small percent savings that you're talking
about, 5 or 10 percent.
Any manager knows that a 5 or 10 percent savings can be
made in any organization real easily. There's always that much built
in. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just quickly, Doug. I want to
thank you and TAG for all the information you put together. It's very
valuable. And I sincerely hope that if we look at privatization, it
comes back that we're doing it the best way that can be done as is.
And I imagine there's a couple of people in this room that think that
might be the case. So I thank you for all your time, and it's then a
question of do we want to know, or don't we want to know? And I think
we'd rather know.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller, then Mr. Olds.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. I've
been attending these county meetings for some 16 years. I've gone
through a lot of county commissioners, and I probably will go through
a few more before I die. Let's not do anything too hurriedly. Now,
the League of Women Voters pretty much put it right on the line, and
Doug gave you figures. Because a company comes in here and says they
saved money in Oklahoma City -- did any of you ever live in Oklahoma
City? (Commissioner Norris raised his hand.) Great, then you know
what it's all about, because in the first place -- in the first place,
what they saved in another city depends upon the efficiency of the
operation before they took over. Now we have had no -- we've had
audits; we've had engineers; and we've had everybody studying this
thing for the last three or four years; and we've tried to go and make
changes. And except for the fact that they come up with the fact that
our computer system or some of our business procedures haven't been up
to snuff, which change every day anyway, they -- I've never heard in
all of the -- all of the discussions that have been made here, that
are -- our plant has not been run efficiently.
In the first place, when you go back to why do we have
this county system? We have this county system because we bought up
the private utilities that were in existence because we needed a base
in order to have customers, in order to finance a complete utility
system for the county, and that's the only reason why we bought up any
of these systems. We didn't buy them up because they were
inefficient. We bought them up because in order to bond the kind of
money, we needed to go and put our county and water/sewer system on an
overall basis so it would be compatible and usable for the next 20 or
30 or 40 years that we had to buy up these systems. And we paid a big
price for them, believe me. We paid premiums in order to get
customers.
Now, the point is very simple. If anybody can prove to
me and the public that this system is not being run efficiently,
that's one thing. But to open it up for bids, somebody is going to
come in here with a bid, and you're going to be stuck with a contract
for five years. It will be about 50 or 60 or 70 pages subject to all
kinds of litigation if you want to make changes. Please, if we've got
a system and there's something broken, let's fix our system and forget
about privatizing. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Olds.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Keller.
MR. DORRILL: He is your final speaker.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. OLDS: Good afternoon. The name is Stanley Olds.
The first thing I want to say is that I would be in favor of
privatization providing you have a contract that clearly covers
everything. I think this waste management contract never was really
presented to the public because on the last night when you signed it
there was a new contract put out, and we didn't even know what was in
it. And as a matter of fact, I even think now there are some things
that haven't been covered and maybe will never be covered, so that's
just one sort. But the other factors too is that bidding by other
companies is a very important thing. I think bidding by our own staff
is very important. And -- but the other factor is that if staff
wanted to cut costs, they could eliminate quite a number of the staff
people thereby eliminating pensions, perks, and so forth. So in that
respect they could easily come under anybody. But --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The key there, Mr. Olds, is to
maintain the operational service as well. Anybody can go cut costs --
MR. OLDS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and reduce the service.
MR. OLDS: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're looking at maintaining the
service.
MR. OLDS: We don't know they would reduce the service
even if they cut staff. I mean theoretically you might say so.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe that's what we're
talking about doing, though, is establishing in the RFB process, I
guess, is what we're talking, is a performance level that would have
to be met.
MR. OLDS: Yeah, it would have to be because
privatization is good, and I've always thought it was, but we have to
be sure that it is going to do just what we want, because saving
Collier County taxpayers' money is the important thing that you people
have to think about, especially with the budget coming up. And having
more consultant fees -- and I hope we don't have to go through another
consultant fee of forty or fifty or five hundred thousand. Then if
the bidding does go to this private outfit, will the staff that's now
here as Mr. Dotrill pointed out, will they be hired by this new
company? And I don't know -- like with Waste MAnagement, they only
took about half of the people. That's a consideration too that I
think you ought to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But we kept the other half.
MR. OLDS: Yeah, whatever happened to the other half?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, Waste MAnagement took half,
and we took half. That's the whole.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nobody is out of a job.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nobody is out of a job.
MR. OLDS: Okay. I hate to see that. For example, now
if something happens, if this contract goes into effect, if a pump
breaks or some equipment breaks, who pays for it? The county does?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The capital expenditures, I
anticipate, will remain with the county just as they are today. We're
talking about the privatization of the -- if you will, the personnel
that operate these facilities and manage.
MR. OLDS: In other words, if a pump breaks --
MR. DORRILL: That would need to be in the performance
spec. You're going to have to define the difference between fixed and
operating --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're looking at a big picture
today, not the minutia, but the big picture. MR. OLDS: Oh, all right. Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The minutia, we hope, would be in
the performance part of the bid.
MR. OLDS: Well, I hope that's considered --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It certainly will be.
MR. OLDS: -- because that's very important. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Is that our final
speaker?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm -- I'm convinced that we ought
to at least take a look, and I certainly encourage our utilities
department to bid along with us, and I'll second Commissioner
Constantine's motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner
Constantine, a second by Commissioner Norris. Is there further
discussion on the motion?
MR. DORRILL: Just one point I would like you to
consider here conceptually told. You may want to give yourself the
maximum flexibility to take some add alternates, and I don't know
enough -- in a way we are responding to an offer that a salesman gave
us. And I've sat here for 16 years and listened to salesmen say
everything short of the moon is made out of green cheese. I'd like
for you to contemplate having some add alternates. I understand
Constantine saying he wants to privatize the whole thing, but until we
can determine what the service levels have been in other communities,
you may want to keep, for example, the crews that will fix the main
breaks so that if you have what amounts to a public works emergency,
that you're directing the resources to fix the emergency. I'm not
saying that you have to judge that today, but you ought to take a
comprehensive bid, and then maybe you ought to take a series of add
alternates and let the county commission pick and choose what suits
you at the time that you see everybody's bid proposal.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long will it take for you
to return to us with the bid?
MR. DORRILL: I don't want to give you an answer today.
What I would like to do is maybe report back to you when I see the
total procurement and contract negotiation schedule to be, and I think
I can do that within two or three weeks.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't we do that, and
then as part of the process, obviously before we issue anything, we'll
go through it. And if add alternates are appropriate, then we can
decide that at that time. I think that's a good idea, and this board
can consider which of those is appropriate.
MR. DORRILL: That way you come down on the side of
flexibility, and you get -- like a Chinese menu, you pick and choose
what you want to contract or reserve the right to.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make as part of the
motion then the report back within two weeks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Could -- could I ask the motion
maker to consider directing our staff to procure from many of the
cities that we've talked about today and not necessarily from PSG, but
to contact cities at random or counties at random and procure from
them a copy of their proposals and -- or requests for -- for service
so that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend the motion to
reflect that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- we'll have a good idea of what
concerns they had, and maybe we should have concerns that we're not
even aware of.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. The motion maker amended,
the second accepted. No further discussion, I'll call the question.
All in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one last question for Mr.
Dotrill. Isn't -- isn't your utilities department proposed budget in
effect your bid?
MR. DORRILL: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No? Well, why would you submit us
a budget inflated and at the same time tell us you can cut it by 10
percent? Why would you do that?
MR. DORRILL: Because competition is a wonderful thing.
I've already assembled the management team down there and said you
have an opportunity to bid as though you and everyone's job were --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Have we just heard that we can
make a slash on the utility budget?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like it to me.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that every year, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Not in utilities because, you know, how
you define efficiency and performance can be a wide variety of
things. And how many times you maintain lift stations if you've got
to own it and operate it every day versus whether you're -- you're
trying to get the lowest or the best cost I think is something
entirely different.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Every year we're going to try and
privatize every single thing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just before budget time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand what you're saying.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. McNees, do you have a quick
comment?
MR. McNEES: Yes, very quickly on that. My department
heads will beat me up if I don't throw in there we can do a lot less a
lot cheaper. The level playing fields is what they're concerned about
and that it's understood what level service we are providing, and if
something changes we can sure -- we're happy to bid. And as Neil
said, we're excited about the opportunity.
MR. DORRILL: The only thing we haven't determined as a
strategy is what we think happened to us on solid waste. You'll
recall we came in second, but we don't know how to bid at a loss in
the early years anticipating larger profits in the out years because
typically we don't have the luxury of using other corporate assets to
bid something in loss in the early years.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We understand that.
MR. DORRILL: And until we come up with a strategy on
that, we may not always be the lowest bid, but we fully intend to go
bid.
Item #10D
REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER THE
PRIVATIZATION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE GOLDEN GATE AQUATIC CENTER AND
THE SOON TO OPERN IMMOKALEE AQUATIC/RECREATION CENTER - TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATION APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, on this next
item it seems somewhat similar in that if we can get equal or better
level of service than we currently have and do it at a better price, I
think probably all of us are all for that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion in favor
of the recommendation -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've got a second before the
motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make the motion,
assuming -- let me just finish. I'll make a motion we approve the
recommendation assuming that we can, indeed, maintain the program's
level of service, and perhaps I think you and I have talked in the
past about stepping up some of those levels over time and include
those as part of the proposal.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Madam Chairman, if Mr.
Olliff can be brief, I would like to hear from him on this. I'm very
involved with the YHCA and with the American Red Cross and their
lifeguard program and certification. So I have some background here,
and if -- if the motion maker doesn't mind, I would like to hear from
Mr. Olliff.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Just real quickly, I'm not here to try to
convince you either way, but there are some practical implications of
a decision about privatizing pools, in particular Immokalee. And I
need to make mention that that is scheduled to open Easter. And we're
about one week behind schedule at this point, so we're talking about
the third week of April or about five weeks from today.
We've already hired two of the staff people for that
location. We're currently in the process of doing interviews over the
next 30 days for those other lifeguard positions at that particular
location. And if we make a decision today to go out and privatize
that facility, then there is a certain time period that I've
calculated to be about 135 days if we decide today to privatize for us
to bid specs, advertise it, or if you would get it back here, do a
contract and have that awarded and then have that contractor hire the
staff at that facility. And that will have an impact on that pool's
opening because I would assume that you don't want us to go out and
hire staff today under the uncertainty of a contract or some three
months from now. And I dare say we'd probably have a very difficult
time trying to hire anyone under those conditions anyway, so there's
that practical consideration on the Immokalee side to consider.
The other is that -- and all the information I've got on
this is, frankly, from this executive summary. It indicates that the
YHCA proposal was that the savings are realized from part-time versus
full-time staff and the overhead cost. At our Golden Gate pool we
only have four full-time people in the entire operation there. In
fact, one of those is a maintenance position that does maintenance at
the pools split with the park when he is not doing maintenance there.
So I've really only got three and a half full-time type positions
there that have any overhead associated with them. All the other
positions -- we have 15 part-time positions that have no benefits, so
the situation at our pool is the same as what was being proposed to
you by the Y. And, in fact, for all of our full-time lifeguard
positions, our pay scale is lower than that of the YHCA. So those
positions were actually paying less than those, so I'm -- the only
savings that could be realized are for those three and a half
positions, that overhead figure that's there, and that's really in my
-- my calculations, somewhere between thirty and thirty-three
thousand dollars, and we still have then the obligation of monitoring
that contractor's performance, and that's a cost we don't have today.
So that's the only comments I've got.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, it may very well
prove that it can't be done less expensively than what we're doing if
what you've just described is accurate. However, to paraphrase
Commissioner Hancock a few moments ago, it's a question of do we want
to know, or do we not want to know? And I don't think, other than the
staff time required -- and I suspect it would be considerably less to
put together an RFB for this than it would for our utilities system.
MR. OLLIFF: I agree.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In my note staff time, the
answer we get back may well be served, and at least we'll have the
question answered once and for all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In addition to that, I would
think if you're going to be looking to hire mostly part-time people
for the Immokalee pool and recreation center, that if the Y's proposal
comes in, and certainly I would want to see our aquatic management
people enter into the bid process as well, you know, I mean that's the
idea here. We want to make sure that our system, our own employees,
are -- can bid against the process as well. But, anyway, what you're
saying is that the part-time people you're looking at hiring will be
earning less than if the Y were to win this contract?
MR. OLLIFF: I don't know what our part-time pay scales
are. All I know is we compared that -- when we were doing budgets a
year and a half ago, we compared our full-time lifeguard salary scales
to those on the outside, and ours were actually less. Part times I
don't know.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: You have one speaker before you conclude.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, are lifeguards required to
be certified by the American Red Cross lifeguard or the YHCA, either
one?
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does the YHCA accept American Red
Cross lifeguard certification?
MR. OLLIFF: My understanding is yes. I think they do.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
that people would be transitional. If people aren't transitional,
then we're '-
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then we have a problem.
MR. OLLIFF: In most privatization efforts I understand
the rationale for the private company wanting to privatize. It's
generally a profit issue. In this case when our pool -- and we had
this discussion at budget time. When the pool costs somewhere -- in
fact, actual numbers from last year, our pool cost us 368,000 to run,
and we realized a hundred thousand dollars in revenue. It's not a
revenue issue then, and I'm not sure what the rationale is to
privatize this particular facility if it's not profit. Right now we
have an inter-local agreement, the YHCA and the school board and the
city, so that facilities we can all use each other's facilities
whenever we want to for programs.
All that aside, we'll be more than happy to go out and
look at a bid. My only question this morning is how do you want to
handle the Immokalee facility if we do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would prefer to continue on
this same process because if we were to elect to enter into a
contract, we would again expect the contractor as much as possible to
absorb the people hired.
Hiss HcNicholas, do you want to comment as to why the
task force elected to move forward with the pool privatization?
MS. HcNICHOLAS: Right. Well, as Mr. Olliff mentioned,
it's -- we're talking with a nonprofit operation rather than a
profit-making operation. So what we're hoping to do is find some
community organization that will be able to operate it at less cost to
us since they wouldn't be looking for profit as well. We did speak to
some others in the private sector, and they were not interested in
it. When we spoke with YHCA, they had an interest because again
they're not looking at a bottom line profit operation. They would be
able to reduce costs, as we said, using part-time help. They do not
at any time use any overtime. They would be able to share their --
their help back and forth from their own YHCA facility, and they have
a history of doing this in other cities and municipalities around the
country where they've been in partnership with local government to
operate their pools and recreation facilities, so we think it's worth
a look.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have one speaker. Mr.
Keller.
MR. KELLER: George Keller again. I hope we're not
going overboard on this privatization deal. Really it looks to me
like you're ready to privatize everything, and I've got to the point
where I think we ought to privatize the county commission. I think
we'd save a lot of money. We'd save a half a million dollars right
now if we privatized the county commission and we changed our charter
to have a county executive --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't have a charter.
MR. KELLER: -- that would do the job.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't have a charter.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we privatize the citizens
also, Mr. Keller?
MR. KELLER: Well, I'll tell you, the citizens are
getting hooked already.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the way it should be then,
privatize everyone.
MR. KELLER: The point is this on the pool. Why did we
build a pool in Immokalee? We built a pool because there's a lot of
poor children over there. They can't come over to the gulf, and we
did it -- it's part of the service of government. Now, there's some
parts of government -- and I'm against a lot of things that government
does, believe me, because I'm a conservative. But the point is there
is some things that government does they can't make a profit on. It's
service. And if we think that we're going to go and take the pools
and charge these children enough money so that we come out with a
profit --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what we suggested.
MR. KELLER: -- then we've got holes in our head. Let's
be honest about it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're not looking for a profit on
this. Based on -- based on the reading in the newspaper just a short
time ago, Mr. Dotrill is planning to bring a proposal to the county
commission to close the pools in the wintertime, and that's part of
what's driving this, is to reduce the cost so that we can keep them
open year-round for less costs.
MR. KELLER: Well, maybe -- maybe when the weather gets
down to 55 in the daytime, maybe it isn't going to be practical to
keep the pools open anyway. I don't know -- I don't know many people
who are going to swim. You're going to keep enough heat in that pool
and heat around the pool so kids can jump in that water when it's down
to 55 degrees.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Keller, these are all things
that we're going to look at in this process. I will say this. Of all
the privatization, this is my least favorite area, parks and pools, to
privatize because I really like the job we're doing in this area, so
I'm a skeptic more than anyone. But I'm going to support the motion
for the simple reason that if we don't look at it, I think we're
accused of not really doing our job of most efficient use of taxpayer
dollars. So I think we need to look at it, and I hope we come out on
top, Mr. Olliff.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you,
Commissioner Hancock. I'm the one that made the motion but --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's called the question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- on this particular one I'm
skeptical as well, but I want to know the answer to the question.
MR. OLLIFF: Just for the record so my staff realizes as
well, we went through this closing the pool in the winter, and it
caused me a lot of grief with my staff, and we have no intention of
bringing -- I got killed on that --
MR. DORRILL: If the newspaper said that, that is
incorrect.
MR. OLLIFF: That is incorrect information.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Because that was one of
the budget lists I had read.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. It said something about
the Y when they operate close at certain degrees and certain
temperatures.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They do. They close at 50. We
have a motion --
MR. DORRILL: On the motion --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you have a question,
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry, in a hurry today.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Mr. Olliff just addressed
it. I wanted to know about the pools. Do you have a comment, Mr.
Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: There again before we go tearing off here,
and then we have to correct these things two months from now, there is
a major bid issue here with respect to revenues and/or whose agent is
going to have opportunities to program the use of the pool for
revenues. The Y does make money off of their pool for certain
revenues and classes and instructional issues. You already have
people that teach learn to swim or senior citizen aerobics and/or
scuba diving lessons at your aquatic facilities. The question is, do
you want to continue to have your agents operating recreational
programs at your pool, or are you going to turn this into a cost
center for the YHCA unless revenues are the bid, or whomever else
wants to bid. That's a major issue that's going to have to go into
the bid spec, because you've already privatized the recreational
aspects of the pool with people that work under contract for you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would expect that to be part of
the bid process that that decision is made along there. MR. DORRILL: Again as an add alternate?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would assume that we want to
keep as much flexibility as we can and continue to move forward to
look at these different issues.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see Mr. Dorrill's position
here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I do too.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the same thought I had is
that summer programs that combine parks and pools and so forth, how do
we go about doing that? How do we mandate additional -- how do we put
additional people in the pool when the YHCA has to then -- has to
increase staffing? There's some problems there potentially, and I
don't know if this process is going to answer those satisfactorily or
whether we need to set the standard in the process.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, maybe as part of my
motion Mr. Dotrill can come back in three weeks and explain to us each
and every one of those as they go along rather than continually debate
what we don't know what we're talking about.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What I had just shared with Mr.
Hancock is the Y has the same ratios of increased use in the
summertime with their day camp and so forth, so I'm sure that if
they're going to respond to this, they know what to expect.
MR. DORRILL: And I just want to make the point before
we waive our magic wand and think we're going to rush out and do this,
because programming and program fees --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, I heard you the
first time, thanks. I don't need to hear it again, okay. Let's just
-- let's either vote the motion up or down --
MR. DORRILL: I'm just trying to get you not to be in
such a hurry that you're not happy three months from now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not in a hurry to
privatize. We're in a hurry to answer the question is it worth it or
not. And I think those are all valid questions that you've raised as
part of that process.
MR. DORRILL: Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Another testosterone shower.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I will call the question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: These gender comments are getting
a little tiring, Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hope the newspaper will
note which gender made the gender comment. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll call the question, thank
If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please say
yogi.
aye.
Opposed?
Hotion passes, 5-0. That concludes -- we had a public
comment, but I think he's gone.
HR. DORRILL: He's indicated that he may come back
another day, but we're going to try and solve this problem in the
interim.
Item #14A
MARCO ISLAND BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN - COHMISSIONER NORRIS TO CONTINUE
WITH EFFORTS
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. That concludes the agenda
for this meeting with the exception of communications, and I believe,
Commissioner Norris, you had something.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mrs. Chairman. As you
will recall, a few weeks back the board appointed me to kind of guide
our Marco Island beach management plan along through the state
agencies. And we have -- a complicating factor has arisen that I
think we've all been furnished with information about. The game and
fish department has requested a hearing before the governor and
cabinet to expand their critical wildlife to the beach proper. We
kind of feel that that may interfere with our beach management plan if
we don't have our beach management plan in place beforehand. So what
we're going to ask the DEP to do is to simply delay that hearing
before the governor and cabinet until such time as we have our beach
management plan in place. And they seem to have been pretty
cooperative so far. But, Mr. Dotrill, do you have any late-breaking
information on that that we -- we want to send them a letter? Do you
have that ready for us?
MR. DORRILL: I have drafted a letter today that we're
going to pass out and let the board look at. Our only concern is I'm
not familiar with their agenda's middle process, and in this case the
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission is petitioning the
secretary of DEP to put this on an upcoming agenda for the governor
and cabinet. And they seem to be in a hurry to try and expand the
area for the CWA, and we prepared a letter that I'd like for the board
to look at because we probably need some type of direction on this
today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm seriously tiring of the
state's inability to recognize the fact that we have a community asset
down there that is being wasted every day that has got muck and slime
on the beach. It's ridiculous. If you visit Tiger Tail, it no longer
looks like a beach. It looks like a bit of a mud pit. And to use the
hammer of environment to create that, it's getting old and tired to
me.
Whatever direction you feel is appropriate, Commissioner
Norris, on this, I will back fully. And if we need to take
preventative action to secure that asset for long term, I think we
need to consider that because before long if they take the action that
they're proposing, we're no longer going to have a county park down
there or a place for people to even park their cars and go to the
beach. So whatever aggressive stance we need to take at this point to
preserve our beach for us --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I am 100 percent in support
of.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: At this point we're simply asking
them to help us with our beach management plan before we have the
request heard to expand the critical wildlife area. It's a very
simple request.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I don't -- I don't have
any objection at all to Commissioner Norris continuing with the
efforts here. I presume that's the consensus. Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. Commissioner Hancock, did
you have anything to add to the communication? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, nothing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm proud to say I don't.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Still don't. Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, real quickly, so the board
isn't surprised, under the DEP agreement that we just signed, we are
to give them the deed to the Fakahatchee property. We will be
releasing that. We have a signed deed in our records.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We were to release that within 30
days of the signing of the agreement.
MR. CUYLER: Correct. So we're going to go ahead, make
sure everything is set, and we're going to release that. That won't
take any further board action. And also you've indicated -- I told
Commissioner Constantine this -- you indicated last week to resolve
the tax collector newspaper advertisement as to the delinquent taxes.
We took care of that. That did not need to come back to you, so you
won't be seeing that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. What is the time frame on
completing the lease for Jane Scenic Drive Park?
MR. CUYLER: We've got a draft right now. There is no
time frame under the agreement. I expect you'll see that in two or
three weeks or so. And you'll have -- you'll have a chance to go
through that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And what about the management
agreement for the mangroves? Certainly -- certainly Mr. Drury is not
going to be able to move forward on trimming those too quickly if we
don't have a management agreement.
MR. CUYLER: Right, that's in the mix. We also have to
get the sheriff's agreement ready as well, so we're working on that
now.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess what I'm looking for, are
you looking to have these completed and in place in 90 days or
thereabouts?
MR. CUYLER: We're looking to have the lease in probably
less than 30 days and send that up to the state. The other ones I'm
going to have to get with staff, but we will give you a memo as to
what time frames are.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Good, because certainly --
we've made a commitment to follow through, and I want to make sure
that we do.
Commissioner Hac'Kie, did you have anything for
communications?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
Item #14B
CORRESPONDENCE FROH HISPANIC ADVISORY BOARD - BROWN BAG LUNCH TO BE
SCHEDULED DURING REGULAR BCC MEETING
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have two -- two quick items.
We received a letter from Anna Rodriguez, the chairman of the Hispanic
Advisory Board, and I have written her a letter. I drafted it over
the weekend. I've not signed it and mailed it yet. But essentially
what I am asking in that letter is if we could schedule what I refer
to as a brown bag lunch one Tuesday, we'd take an hour break for lunch
and meet with members of the committee. She has expressed concern in
her letter that direction is what they need and what they're looking
for and that they would like to discuss what their proposals are, what
they would like to accomplish, and then us help them prioritize what
needs to be worked on.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I would also like to ask
the county attorney on that --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's got to be advertised.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if it's got to be advertised,
got to be in a public place where people can attend, so forth and so
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we would need to have ample
time -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: B.Y.O.B., bring your own
bag.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're just including this on the
agenda. Would a week be appropriate and enough advertisement? MR. CUYLER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, it would.
MR. CUYLER: Part of your regular agenda. So if we were
to schedule it on our regular agenda and published in the Sunday
paper, that's ample time?
MR. CUYLER: Correct. It is due public notice, and
that's the due public notice.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had done a memo for -- this
would be a workshop, but that would certainly suffice.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's certainly very similar to a
workshop. Miss Rodriguez, I see you in the audience. When you get my
letter, give me a call, and we'll get something scheduled.
Item #14C
ACCESS TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS BILL - RESOLUTION TO BE PREPARED AND BROUGHT
BACK
The last item that I have deals with the access to
public officials bill that's before the legislature. And I wanted to
ask this board if they wanted to bring a resolution.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we do
afford a resolution.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, this is communication, and
we don't take votes, but if you will prepare one --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We can if we want.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll give him direction to
prepare one, and can we get it in a week or two?
Item #14D
PARTIAL YEAR AD VALOREH BILL - RESOLUTION TO BE PREPARED URGING
EXEMPTION OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY FROM THE BILL
And the last item deals with the partial year
ad valorem. It was coming out of bill drafting today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion in support of.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But there's a problem with this
bill.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-oh.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And this bill has an inclusion in
it I'm told for tangible personal property and that it will get much,
much opposition from the utility companies. And based on that, if
that phrasing stays intact, it -- it may very well fail. So I would
like this board to consider -- and I'll pass the bill around. I'm
expecting it by fax later today. I'm -- would like this board to
consider a resolution urging the exception of tangible personal
property on this bill.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, do you want to
put that together for us to vote on it next week?
MR. CUYLER: If we don't get it on the regular agenda,
I'll get it as add-ons.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If that tangible personal
property phrasing is in there, but it's my understanding that it is.
Item #15A
UPCOMING JOINT CITY/COUNTY MEETING - MEETING TO BE HELD APRIL 6, 1995,
AT 9:00 A.H.
MR. DORRILL: April the 6th, you asked me to remind you
of that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, I had conversation this
morning -- thank you -- with Dr. Woodruff at the city. They are
moving quickly with the finalization of the alignments for the second
Gordon River bridge. There was discussion of a public meeting for
staff and public purposes on March the 23rd. Our attendance is not
necessary, but certainly we can go. And they're requesting a joint
city-county meeting for April the 6th, 9 a.m.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a conflict April the
6th.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What about the rest --
MR. DORRILL: That's Thursday, I believe.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As far as I know, I'm fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As far as I know, I'm fine.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You can't alter your conflict, or
you're caught in it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm afraid I'm caught.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, they seem to want to move
ahead with that date.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We'll just do the best we can.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll do the best we can.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks, John.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They prefer to meet here, Mr.
Dotrill, but I'm not sure whether that's a planning commission morning
or not. If it is, then we'll meet --
MR. DORRILL: Planning commission is Friday morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Planning commission is Fridays
now or Thursday?
MR. DORRILL: Is it Thursday? We'll check and see.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Whichever date it is,
we'll meet either here or at the city.
MS. FILSON: Did you say 9 p.m.?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 9 a.m.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I can be here 9 p.m.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're not going to be.
With all that, are we finished? Miss Filson, you don't
have anything to add?
MS. FILSON: Nothing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner and carried
unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be
approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 95-160 AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF STONEBRIDGE UNIT TWO A
REPLAT OF A PORTION OF A PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PLAT KNOWN AS SOUTHAMPTON
UNIT ONE, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND -
SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See Pages
Item #16A2
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR SHADOWOOD VILLAS AND LETTER OF
CREDIT - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
See Pages
Item #16A3a
RESOLUTION 95-161 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: ALFONSO CAMPBELL
See Pages
Item #16A3b
RESOLUTION 95-162 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: JAMES GADSEN
See Pages
Item #16A3c - Continued to 3/14/94
Item #16A3d
RESOLUTION 95-163 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: MICHAEL J. FUGLE
See Pages
Item #16A3e
RESOLUTION 95-164 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: EDWARD J. PELC &
LAVERDA PELC
See Pages
Item #16A3f
RESOLUTION 95-165 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: LARRY SKELSON INC.
See Pages
Item #16A3g
RESOLUTION 95-166 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: EDNA H. MITCHELL
See Pages
Item #16A3h
RESOLUTION 95-167 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: H. JOHN PFEIFFER &
JOANN H. PFEIFFER
See Pages
Item #16A3i
RESOLUTION 95-168 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: JACQUELINE ANNE EICHEN
See Pages
Item #16A3j
RESOLUTION 95-169 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: MICHAEL BIBBO & NINA
BIBBO
See Pages
Item #16A3k
RESOLUTION 95-170 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: HIDDEN HARBOUR AT
VICTORIA PARK INC.
See Pages
Item #16A31
RESOLUTION 95-171 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: RONALD E. KELLY & ARDYS
E. KELLY
See Pages
Item #16A3m
RESOLUTION 95-172 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEHENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: FLOREAL DE LA GARZA
See Pages
Item #16A3n
RESOLUTION 95-173 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: LAWRENCE K. JOYCE
ESTATE
See Pages
Item #16A3o
RESOLUTION 95-174 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: LLOYD G. SHEEHAN
See Pages
Item #16A3p
RESOLUTION 95-175 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: PAUL D. KESSELRING &
BARBARA A. KESSELRING
See Pages
Item #16A3q
RESOLUTION 95-176 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: LEON BLAIWEISS & DEBRA
BLAIWEISS
See Pages
Item #16A3r
RESOLUTION 95-177 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: LEON W. IVENS &
HENRIETTE V. IVENS
See Pages
Item #16A3s
RESOLUTION 95-178 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: DOUGLAS H. KELLY
See Pages
Item #16A3t
RESOLUTION 95-179 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: ROBERT S. STEFFEY
See Pages
Item #16A3u
RESOLUTION 95-180 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: ROBERT S. STEFFEY
See Pages
Item #16A3v
RESOLUTION 95-181 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: DOYLE F. ROOT & SHARON
K. ROOT
See Pages
Item #16A3w
RESOLUTION 95-182 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: PATRICK S. VIGUIE &
HARTINE VIGUIE
Item #16A3x
See Pages
RESOLUTION 95-183 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, OWNER OF RECORD: PATRICIA E. REUTHER
See Pages
Item #16A4
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR TIERRA LAGO AT THE
VINEYARDS - WITH STIPULATIONS AS INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
O. R. Book Pages
Item #16A5
AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLANT OF "VILLAGE WALK PHASE TWO"
- SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS, LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16B1
ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT RE PARCELS 112 AND 712 FOR THE
SIX-LANING OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY ROAD PROJECT (FROM GOODLETTE-FRANK
ROAD TO AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD)
See Pages
Item #16C1
AMENDMENT #001 TO THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT GRANT CONTRACT
See Pages
Item #16C2
AMENDMENT #003 TO THE COHMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY CONTRACT
See Pages
Item #16C3
RESOLUTION 95-184, SETTING TERMS OF OFFICE FOR JAMES THORSEN AND
CLEMENT HC HAHON RECENTLY APPOINTED MEMBERS TO THE HOMELESS ADVISORY
COHMITTEE
See Pages
Item #16D1
AUTHORIZATION TO SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE AERATION DISCS FOR THE AERATION
BASIN AT COLLIER COUNTY'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES - FORMAL BID
PROCESS WAIVED; AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE FROM HEYWARD, INC.
Item #16D2
CONSENT TO USE EASEMENT AREAS WITH WCN COHMUNITIES, INC.
See Pages
Item #16El
RECOHMENDATION TO AWARD BID #95-2325 FOR FILM AND FILM PROCESSING - TO
THE PHOTO LAB
Item #16E2
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE BIG CORKSCREW FIRE AND RESCUE
DISTRICT WHICH PROVIDES FOR A HAXIHUH EXPENDITURE OF $20,000 FROM THE
GAC LAND TRUST ALLOWING THE DISTRICT TO PURCHASE MISCELLANEOUS FIRE
PROTECTION EQUIPMENT
See Pages
Item #16E3
AGREEMENT FOR PURPOSES OF PROVIDING A HAXIHUH EXPENDITURE OF $30,000
FROM THE GAC LAND TRUST TO PURCHASE A CHILDREN'S REFERENCE COLLECTION
TO BE HOUSED AT THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LIBRARY
See Pages
Item #16E4
INVOICE FOR LEASE IMPROVEMENTS AT COURT PLAZA III FOR THE FINANCE
DEPARTMENT MOVE - TO CROWN CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,467.00
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 95-185, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS
AND COLLIER COUNTY RE CERTAIN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT RELATED ACTIVITIES
See Pages
Item #16G1
ACCEPTANCE OF DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS IN SECTIONS 11
AND 14 OF TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST NEAR NEW HANATEE SCHOOL
SITES
Item #1662
PAYMENT FOR 2,000 RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING BINS PURCHASED IN
DECEMBER OF 1994 - TO LEWIS SYSTEMS
Item #1663
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS WITH HRS COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT
(CCPHU) AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP)
See Pages
Item #1664
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE 1992, 1993, 1994, AND 1995 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR REFUND
See Pages
Item #16H1
ACCEPTANCE OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM KREHLING INDUSTRIES, INC., A
FLORIDA CORPORATION WHICH WILL ALLOW THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT THE AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A DRAINAGE OUTFALL
TO DIRECT THE FLOW OF STORMWATER FROM THE ROYAL COVE II SUBDIVISION
See Pages
Item #16H2
WORK ORDER UNDER THE CURRENT ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PER
RFP 94-2191 DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO
THE VETERAN'S COHMUNITY PARK COVERED MULTI-USE FACILITY - TO WILSON,
MILLER, BARTON & PEEK IN THE A_MT. OF $11,750
See Pages
Item #16H3
WORK ORDER UNDER THE CURRENT ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PER
RFP 2191 DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO
THE EAST NAPLES COHMUNITY PARK, ROLLER HOCKEY RINK - TO WILSON, MILLER,
BARTON & PEEK IN THE A_MT. OF $12,700
See Pages
Item #16H4
TERMINATE CONTRACT WITH DELOACH INDUSTRIES, INC. TO PERFORM AN ODOR
CONTROL PILOT TEST AT THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ON C.R. 951
Item #16H5 - Deleted
Item #16H6
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN OF UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD CORRIDOR BETWEEN GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD AND
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD - WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK
See Pages
Item #16H7
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL REVENUE IN FUND 132, PINE
RIDGE INDUSTRIAL PARK H.S.T.U.
See Pages
Itemm #16H8
RESOLUTION 95-186, AND DECLARATION OF EASEMENT CONCERNING THE COLLIER
NORTH BRANCH LIBRARY LOCATED ON VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
See Pages
Item #16H9
CONVEANCE OF UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD TO UNITED
TELEPHONE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
See Pages
Item #16H10 - Deleted
Item #16Hll
FUNDING FOR LELY STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS AT TANGLEWOOD POOL - INCREASE
OF $2,010 TO THE D. N. HIGGINS CONTRACT
See Pages
Item #16H12
CHNAGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR THE NORTH COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND CLOSE
OUT THE CONTRACT - TO GREAT MONUMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $242,629.93
See Pages
Item #16H13
EMERGENCY DECLARED FOR ADDING SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CONTRACT WORK
AND TO APPROVE A SUPPLEHENTAL AGREEHENT TO CONTRACT NO. 94-2176 WITH
BETTER ROADS, INC. IN THE A_MOUNT OF $225,001.80 FOR THE PROPOSED
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD (C.R. 31) BETWEEN
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY (C.R. 886) AND PINE RIDGE ROAD (C.R. 896)
See Pages
Item #16H14
HODIFICATION OF EXISTINNG WORK ORDER JE-3 WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING,
INC. FOR ADDITIONAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING SERVICES FOR THE PROPOSED
IMPERIAL WEST/FPL DITCH ENCLOSURE PROJECT
See Pages
Item #16J
HISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16J1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1990
No. Dated
358 02/16/95
1991
274 02/16/95
1992
189 02/16/95
1993
207 02/16/95
1994
126 02/16/95
Item #16J2
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #16L1
RESOLUTION 95-187 RE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO. 77606 FOR THE
1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
LIEN THAT WAS PLACED AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L2
RESOLUTION 95-188 RE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO. 152848 FOR
THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACED AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L3
RESOLUTION 95-189 RE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO. 2286 FOR THE
1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
LIEN THAT WAS PLACED AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L4
RESOLUTION 95-190 RE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO 15723 FOR THE
1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
LIEN THAT WAS PLACED AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L5
RESOLUTION 95-191 RE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO 306128 FOR
THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACED AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L6
RESOLUTION 95-192 RE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO 4323 FOR THE
1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
LIEN THAT WAS PLACED AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L7
RESOLUTION 95-193 RE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO 15710 FOR THE
1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
LIEN THAT WAS PLACED AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L8
RESOLUTION 95-194 RE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO 4242 FOR THE
1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
LIEN THAT WAS PLACED AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L9
RESOLUTION 95-195 RE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO 2927 FOR THE
1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
LIEN THAT WAS PLACED AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L10
RESOLUTION 95-196 RE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO 1300 FOR THE
1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
LIEN THAT WAS PLACED AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16Lll
RESOLUTION 95-197 RE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO. 152851 SINCE
THE PROPERTY WAS LINED IN ERROR AND THE PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE COHMERCIAL
BILLING SINCE THE PROPERTY IS OCCUPIED BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONAND
SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES ASSESSMENT
See Pages
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 12:10 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan