BCC Minutes 05/16/1995 R REGULAR MEETING OF HAY 16, 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 9:00 a.m. IN REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRPERSON:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Bettye J. HAtthews
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Timothy L. Hancock
W. Neil Dotrill, County HAnager
Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney
David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney
Kristie Miller, Guest Commissioner
Item #2 & 2A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to call to order the
Board of County Commission meeting for Collier County for Hay 16,
1995.
Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and
pledge?
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, as always, we give
thanks for the wonder and beauty and majesty of your power and of our
life here in Collier County. Father, we give thanks for this great
nation of ours and our Commander in Chief and our elected officials at
both the nation and state and in particular on a local level. We give
thanks for our commissioners and the effort that they've put into
their jobs to make this a better place to live for all of us.
Father, we ask, as always, that you bless our time here
together this morning, that you bless these people that will be
specially recognized today under presentations, and we thank you for
the hard work of our support and professional staff. And we would ask
that you bless our time together here today and that this would be a
reflection of your will for our community. And we pray these things
in your son's holy name. Araen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, are there any
changes to the agenda?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, Ha'am. Good morning, commissioners.
We have several changes this morning. I have three add-on items.
The first of those will be Item 9 (A), which is a resolution
establishing the Citizens Advisory Committee as it pertains to the
review of the county's growth management plan.
Item 9 (B) also under the county attorney's report will
be a discussion and proposed settlement relating to the issue
otherwise known as the Gibson residence at Hideaway Beach, which is
Lot 14, Block 1. And there are associated petitions with that as part
of the regular agenda today. They pertain to Petition A-95-3, which
is agenda item 13 (A) (3).
Madam Chairman, before everybody that is watching
television starts scurrying around, I do intend to have that heard at
the same time. I'm not having that heard under -- it's listed under 9
(B). I wanted it listed as a separate agenda item. In fact, it will
be heard after lunch whenever you hear the motion to dismiss these
other items.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So we're going to delay 9
(B) until we hear the motion to dismiss.
MR. DORRILL: Correct. It's associated with 13 (A)
(3), and that settlement proposal will be right after lunch, to
dismiss after lunch.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: The final add-on item is 10 (C) as it
pertains to ratifying the resolution to enable the creation of the
landfill siting committee. It's on the Board of County Commissioners.
We have two requests for continuances this morning.
The first one is Item 7 (C) as it pertains to a special request for
security in conjunction with a potential traveling exhibit from the
Smithsonian Institution. It's been withdrawn or continued, rather, to
your first meeting in June with a request of petitioner.
The other item is a request from the clerk that Item 16
(K) (1), which is on the consent agenda, be continued for one week.
It will be your regular meeting of the 23rd of May. That was the
proposed contractual agreement with your new independent auditor,
Arthur Andersen.
There is one agenda note that we discussed briefly last
week in communications, that today in addition to that special portion
of the agenda following your lunch recess, you had committed to having
a working lunch during your recess today with the Black Affairs
Advisory Committee.
That's all that I have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I think regarding
the working lunch for the benefit of the members of the Black Affairs
Advisory Committee, we probably should try to set that lunch for one
hour, our normal lunch period, and try to have that as close to noon
as we can for the benefit of those people on the committee who do work
so that they know what the parameters are going to be. Let's try to
set that lunch for noon until one o'clock in the conference room for
the BCC, I believe. Is that what we were talking about, Mr. Dotrill?
Is that what we are scheduled for?
MR. DORRILL: That will be fine. We do need to make
arrangements to have the court reporter there, because that will be a
public meeting and will be open to all the people who are interested
in attending.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So noontime in our
conference room. Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: My guess is that you would start your
agenda again about 1:15 or so, and then anybody who is interested in
the Hideaway Beach matter would be here at 1:15 or so.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would say 1:15 would be fair.
Okay? Everybody in agreement? Do we have a motion for the agenda?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll make the
motion that we approve the agenda and consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. All those in
favor, please say aye. Opposed?
The motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #3
MINUTES OF BCC APRIL 20, 1995 WORKSHOP AND APRIL 25, 1993 REGULAR
MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
A motion on the minutes?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A motion to approve the
minutes of the workshop of April 20th, 1995, and the regular meeting
of April 25, 1995.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve
the minutes of a workshop at a regular meeting. All those in favor,
please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #4A1
PROCLAMATION COHHENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN
SERVICES FOR 50 YEARS OF DISTINGUISHED SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY AND ITS
VETERANS - ADOPTED
Next on our agenda is proclamations and service awards.
Commissioner Constantine, I believe you have the first one.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I do. Before I get
into that, I want to introduce -- some of you may have noticed we have
a sixth commissioner with us today. Kristie Miller is in Girls, Inc.
And participation in the program, not unlike Take Your Daughter to
Work Day, only Kristie -- if you listen to the Rich King show or any
of those, you may have heard her. She follows local issues more
closely than many of the adults I know. She is with us today as a
workday. And her mom, Gail Stance (phonetic), is back in the room as
well. So, Kristie, thanks for coming.
We have a proclamation for the Department of Veteran
Services. I see Herb Luntz in the room, and I'm not sure, Lou Schulz.
Okay, I didn't see you. You're tucked behind there. If you would
come on up and spin around and let me read the following proclamation.
"Whereas, millions of Americans have served our nation
and have defended our freedoms and liberties by wearing the uniforms
of the Armed Services; and
"Whereas, it is appropriate for those brave, patriotic
citizens that are deserving, not only of moral recognition, but of
benefits provided by all levels of government; and
"Whereas, Collier County established a Department of
Veteran Services in June of 1945 to assist all former members of the
Armed Forces as well as present and future members and their families
in the preparation of claims for compensation, hospitalization,
vocational training and other benefits and privileges to which they
are entitled under federal and state laws and regulations; and
"Whereas, the professionally trained and compassionate
staff at Collier County's Department of Veteran Services offers such
services to more than 400,000 veterans.
"Now therefore, be it proclaimed that the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, does hereby commend
the Collier County Department of Veteran Services for 50 years of
distinguished service to our community and its veterans.
"Done and ordered this 16th day of Hay, 1995, Board of
County Commissioners, Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman."
Chairman Matthews, I would like to make a motion that
we approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a couple of seconds
to approve the proclamation. All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Being none, motion passes.
Item #4A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING HAY 14-20, 1995 AS COLLIER COUNTY LAW
ENFORCEMENT MEMORIAL WEEK AND HAY 15, 1995 AS COLLIER COUNTY LAW
ENFORCHENT MEMORIAL DAY - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is another proclamation, the
Collier County Law Enforcement Memorial Week. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. I would like to ask
Sheriff Hunter to come forward to accept this proclamation.
Good morning, Sheriff. The cameras are right over
there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's camera shy.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
"Whereas, the 15th day of HAy of each year has been
designated by the State of Florida as Law Enforcement Memorial Day;
and
"Whereas, the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th of HAy
have been designated by the sheriff of Collier County as Law
Enforcement Memorial Week in Collier County; and
"Whereas, this is a time to remember all law
enforcement officers who gave their lives to serve and protect the
safety of the public; and
"Whereas, the Collier County Sheriff supports
recognition of Law Enforcement Memorial Week; and
"Whereas, it is fitting that we recognize and honor the
Collier County Sheriff's Deputies and all other law enforcement
officers who serve in Collier County;
"Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of HAy
14 to 20, 1995, be designated as Collier County Law Enforcement
Memorial Week; and HAy 15, 1995, be designated as Collier County Law
Enforcement Memorial Day in honor of those who gave their lives to
serve and protect the safety of the public.
"Done and ordered this 16th day of HAy 1995 by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida."
Madam Chairman, I move that we accept this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to accept
the proclamation. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
You don't have anything more to tell us about the week?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you for all of the -- all of law
enforcement. I appreciate that, the recognition.
Item #4A3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING HAY 20 - HAY 26, 1995, AS NATIONAL SAFE
BOATING WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is
National Safe Boating Week. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is Mr. John Hudson here? John,
if I could ask you to come up and just stand here to my left. It's
your moment in the sun, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hope this isn't your
moment. I hope there are bigger and better things than this.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My pleasure to read the
proclamation for National Safe Boating Week.
"Whereas, each year more Americans are choosing
recreational boating as an ideal way to relax with their families and
friends. However, what starts out as a pleasant cruise often ends in
tragedy because boaters fail to teach their families to swim, fail to
properly equip their craft with personal flotation devices and other
protective equipment, or fail to instruct their passengers in the use
of such devices prior to a boating cruise; and
"Whereas, every year hundreds of lives are lost in
boating accidents. These fatalities can be reduced and boating made
more pleasurable if those who engage in it will emphasize knowledge,
care, and the courtesy necessary for safe boating; and
"Whereas, the Congress of the United States, having
recognized the need for such emphasis has by a joint resolution of 4
June, 1958, requested the President to annually proclaim one week as
National Safe Boating Week.
"Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of HAy 20 to
26, 1995, be designated as National Safe Boating Week.
"Done and ordered this 16th day of HAy, 1995, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida."
Madam Chairman, I would like to make a motion to
accept this proclamation designating HAy 20 to 26 National Safe
Boating Week here in Collier County.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a couple of
seconds to accept the proclamation. All those in favor, please say
aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Hudson has passed on his
comments. But I will say for somebody who has spent eight years in
the Coast Guard, he had the unfortunate duty of cleaning up after a
lot of boating accidents. And I encourage you to take it seriously --
to enroll in the safe boating courses if you are using the waterways
at all. And I take this as an opportunity to remind you that boating
is fun, but it can cause injury and death. So please be careful out
there.
Item #4A4
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING HAY 14 - HAY 20, 1995 AS NATIONAL NURSING HOME
WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda, National Nursing Home Week. Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. Is Debra Haddox and Bonnie
Kolling here?
MS. HADDOX: Bonnie was unable to make it today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Would you come, forward
Ms. Haddox. We would appreciate it. If you'll just face the
audience, I'll read this proclamation.
"Whereas, in observance of National Nursing Home Week,
Aristocrat Naples is proud to honor the families, volunteers, friends,
staff, and physicians that provide loving and generous care to our
seniors; and
"Whereas, in honoring the residents in all nursing
homes, Aristocrat joins in all facilities in recognizing care
providing -- provided outside the home or following hospitalization.
This care involves all disciplines in the provision of skilled,
subacute, or assisted living needs for the residents that cannot be
cared for in the home or hospital; and
"Whereas, in recognizing the need for subacute care,
Aristocrat pledges to provide the comprehensive inpatient care to
residents that have suffered an acute event as a result of illness,
injury, or exacerbation of a disease process and have a determined
plan of treatment. The subacute medical and rehabilitative care
program in a nursing facility may include programs for post-operative
recovery, extensive wound care, ventilator support, respiratory or
pulmonary management, complex medical rehabilitation, and Hospice
care. Aristocrat Naples recognizes placement in a subacute nursing
facility as an alternative to high cost hospital care as the goal of
all nursing homes; and
"Whereas, Aristocrat Naples recognizes the support of
the entire medical community in the care needs of the elderly. This
consortium of care and management of care is the basis for each
admission; and
"Whereas, Aristocrat Naples works in close relationship
with the physicians of Collier and Lee County in making an effective
plan of care for each resident; and
"Whereas, Collier County joins in the honoring of our
nursing residents, families, friends, staff, and physicians that
provide this care.
"Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of HAy
14 to 20, 1995, be designated as National Nursing Home Week.
"Done and ordered this 16th day of HAy 1995, by the
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida."
Madam Chairman, I move we approve this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the proclamation. All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, the motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #4A5
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF HAY 14-20, 1995 AS EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is a proclamation for the
Emergency Medical Services Week. Is Diane Flagg here? Diane, you
want to look out to -- so the TV can see what you look like. We all
know, don't we?
A Proclamation: "Whereas, the emergency medical services
is a vital and irreplaceable public safety service; and
"Whereas, the paramedics of Collier County Emergency
Medical Services Department are ready to provide lifesaving care to
those in need 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; and
"Whereas, access to quality emergency medical care
dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of those who
experienced sudden illness or injury; and
"Whereas, the emergency medical services providers have
traditionally served as the safety net of America's health-care
system; and
"Whereas, the paramedics of the Collier County
Emergency Medical Services Department engage in thousands of hours of
specialized training and continuing education to enhance their
lifesaving skills; and
"Whereas, members of this community benefit daily from
the knowledge and skills of these highly trained individuals; and
"Whereas, it is appropriate to recognize the value and
accomplishments of the Collier County Emergency Medical Services
Department by designating Emergency Medical Services Week.
"Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of HAy
14 to the 20th, 1995, be designated as Emergency Medical Services
Week.
"Done and ordered this 16th day of HAy, 1995, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Bettye J. Matthews,
Chairman."
Commissioners, I'd like to move that we approve this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to
approve. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, it passes 5 to 0.
MS. FLAGG: Thank you, Commissioners. I'd just like to
say on behalf of my colleagues of the Emergency Medical Services
Department, we would like to thank you and the community for the honor
and the trust given to us in providing paramedic emergency medical
care to Collier County. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Item #4B
EMPLOYEE SERVICES AWARDS - PRESENTED
Next item on the agenda are service awards.
Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. Our first award this
morning is for Gregory Trees of Water Distribution for five years'
service.
MR. TREES: Thank you, sir. It is a pleasure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Next for five-year service we
have Dewey Anderson from Building Review and Permitting. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It should be a ten-year pin.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Our next award is a little bit
unusual. We have Candice Franco from Social Services here to accept
her 20-year pin.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Twenty years. Congratulations.
MS. FRANCO: Thank you so much.
Item #4C1
PARAMEDIC OF THE YEAR PRESENTED TO PARAMEDIC ERIC WATSON
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next on the agenda are
presentations, and it's indeed my pleasure to make these. For each
year the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department
recognizes a colleague for their commitment and dedication to serving
their community. Paramedic Eric Watson has been selected by his
colleagues. Eric, are you here? I'll continue to read this as he is
coming up.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Doesn't he look like he is
from central casting at Warner Brothers? Call Warner Brothers and say
send us a paramedic of the year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'd better be careful. He may
not be here much longer.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Turn the TVs off.
Paramedic Eric Watson has been selected by his
colleagues to serve as a Collier County EMS Department paramedic of
the year in recognition of his medical expertise and commitment to a
world-class patient care and service to our community. In addition,
Paramedic Eric Watson has recently achieved the honor of being
recognized as the State of Florida outstanding paramedic of the year
by the Veterans of Foreign Wars Council. We are very proud and
honored to present these awards to Paramedic Eric Watson. My
congratulations. This one is for Paramedic of the Year.
Then we have a letter from the Veterans of the Foreign
Wars addressed to Eric Watson, and it says, "By direction of the State
Commander, Lawrence J. Martell, I am pleased to inform you that you
have been selected as the Department of Florida Veterans of Foreign
Wars outstanding paramedic for 1994-1995 year. In making the
announcement, the Veterans of Foreign Wars is indeed honored to advise
you that you will be presented a plaque indicating your selection, and
we would appreciate it if you would attend our department's convention
being held at the Sheraton World Resort, International Drive, Orlando,
Florida. Your attendance at the Thursday morning session of June 22
at approximately 9 a.m. Would allow us to present the award and to
make the announcement to the delegation attending the convention. We
would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience and,
again, congratulations. We look forward to meeting you." It's certainly congratulations, Eric.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Diane, are we giving him the
day off in June?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now all we need to do is build
him a wall to hang those on.
MR. WATSON: Can I say a few words?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You sure can, Eric.
MR. WATSON: I'd just like to thank the good Lord above
for giving me the ability and the knowledge to do the things that I
do; the County Commission; Diane Flagg; Dr. Bob Tober, whose visionary
approach to pre-hospital medicine probably makes us one of the best
systems in the entire country; my mom and grandmother for their
support throughout the years.
And I don't do this job alone. It's an individual
achievement, but it's a team effort saving lives. Thank you to the law
enforcement officers and professional fire fighters, and more
importantly, the partners that I have had over the years. I couldn't
do this alone. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A great honor.
Item #4C2
PRESENTATION OF PHOENIX AWARDS
As we continue with recognition of the EHS paramedic
group in Collier County, once each year we give these awards. And the
Phoenix is a mythological bird who died and rose renewed from his
ashes. The symbol of the Phoenix has been adopted by the Emergency
Medical Services Department of Collier County to recognize EMS
paramedics who through their skills and knowledge have successfully
brought back to life an individual who died.
On April 7th, 1995, Mr. Infanti (phonetic) was
attending a function at the Naples Philharmonic when suddenly he fell
victim to sudden death; his heart and breathing stopped. Quickly Kim
Maloney, who is an employee of the Philharmonic, recognized there was
a problem. She -- utilizing knowledge she acquired from a CPR course
-- immediately began CPR. Within minutes EMS department paramedics
arrived working quickly and diligently with the skills and expertise
they have achieved. The EMS paramedics had Mr. Infanti's heart
beating again. He was released from the Naples Community Hospital
four days later.
We would like to acknowledge Kim Maloney for her
lifesaving actions of initiating CPR. Will Ms. Maloney please come
forward to receive her award. The certificate of appreciation, Ms.
Maloney, in recognition of outstanding civic service of a successful
resuscitation of a cardiac arrest victim. MS. MALONEY: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now, is Mr. Infanti here?
MR. INFANTI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would you come forward?
MR. INFANTI: I surely will.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Infanti, I would like to
present the three EMS paramedics who responded to your call for help
and brought you back to life; senior medic Helen Ortega, paramedic Eva
Weeks, and EHS supervisor Steve Rockey. Mr. Infanti, do you have a
few words?
MR. INFANTI: I just want to say that my being here
this morning is proof positive of the wonderful job these three people
did and also the young lady from the Philharmonic. I personally want
to thank each and every one of you for the opportunity of being here
this morning to see you and get this award. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For each of the paramedics I
have a Phoenix award certificate recognizing the fact that they have
resuscitated an individual from death; Eva Weeks, Helen Ortega and
Steve Rockey. Thank you.
I would also like to present the Phoenix award to the
following EHS department paramedics who also responded to a call for
help and brought back to life many other members of our community.
And I'll just call them off, and if you'll come forward to receive it.
Eric Watson.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Superstar Eric Watson.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Superstar, yes.
Sandy Renne.
MS. RENNE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Rich Dorazio. I'm sure I I
didn't say that right. I hope I was close enough. While he is coming
up, Dave Joseph; Michael Goguen; Jackie Loy; Paul Passaretti; Naomi
Fraguella; and Walter Kopka.
MR. AGUILERA: Madam Chairman, Walter Kopka is on a
flight, so he won't be able to be here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is he saving somebody else?
MR. AGUILERA: He's saving somebody else's life, that's
right. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll see that he gets this.
I really want to thank all of the paramedics who have just done an
outstanding job again this year and received the Phoenix award. Thank
you very much.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that offer still good for the
Immokalee 24-hour ride up there? Sandy, is that offer still good for
the 24-hour shift in Immokalee?
MS. RENNE: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If you folks want an
experience, ride with these people. It's amazing. They do a terrific
job.
Item #5A
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-260; 95-280/282 - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Next item on the agenda
are budget amendments. Mr. Smykowski.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski, acting budget director. There are four
budget amendments that require your approval this morning.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion and a second to
approve the four budget amendments. All those in favor, please say
aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes. Thank you.
Item #7A
WILLIAM E. DULIN REGARDING SHARPS COMHITTEE REQUEST FOR FUNDING -
REPORT TO BE BROUGHT BACK ON AGENDA UNDER DR. POLKOWSKI'S DIRECTION
Next on the agenda are public petitions. Our first one
is Item 7 (A), William E. Dulin regarding the SHARPS Committee request
for funding. Mr. Dulin, we limit our public petitions to ten minutes.
The board does not take any action on your proposal other than to
direct staff to bring it back to us at a later date if we wish to do
so.
MR. DULIN: Okay. Thank you. I want to thank the
county manager's office people and the County Commission for allowing
us to present this petition. What we're trying to do is preventive
action to keep people that might be accidentally stuck with discarded
syringes and needles and lancets from having diseases such as AIDS or
Hepatitis B transmitted to them. We have formed a committee which is
represented by public health people, the county hospital, the Diabetes
Foundation and others that put together this program. And without all
of their help it wouldn't have been possible.
Used needles and syringes are now disposed of primarily
through curbside waste and through disposing into plastic bags into
wooded areas or along the roads and other places. So, fortunately, we
have not had a problem on county beaches as they have had in Michigan
and New Jersey which could close those beaches down.
The program consists of five separate types of parts.
The first part is to provide individual containers that are lockable
and safe for disposing of needles and syringes for the individual that
uses them. And these are then taken to a central collection site
where they are deposited into a larger container. A contract service
then picks up these containers and then disposes of them in a
licensed, safe manner. We also need to have state permits for the
central collection sites, and also we need to educate the public in
how this program will work so that they will do things that need to be
done.
The cost for these -- the sum of these different
activities and sundries in the written public petition turns out to be
about $6,249 per year. We've done some interesting calculations.
If
you distribute this type of budget through the 95,000 housing units in
the county, it comes out per unit per thousand or six and a half cents
per year, which is not very much.
We know there that there are about 12,000 or more
diagnosed diabetics in this county. And we also know that there are
other people that use needles and syringes. And if we calculate that
they use two a day, we end up with 1.6 million of these sharps, as we
call them, being distributed through waste systems and disposed of
through wooded areas and things like that.
It is obvious that not all people that use sharps will
transmit diseases because they won't have those diseases. The two
major diseases we're concerned about are AIDS and Hepatitis B. The
probability of getting these diseases through this type of situation
is fairly remote. However, the consequences obviously everyone knows
this would be disastrous. AIDS and Hepatitis B are lethal viruses.
If you look at other areas of health concerns, we know
that this same rationale holds for people who are dentists. They use
gloves as a preventive measure. The odds of them getting AIDS or
Hepatitis B from their patients is very low. However, again, the
consequences are very severe. Surgeons, of course, take every
precaution to keep from being in contact with the body fluids of the
patients. Again, the probabilities are very low, but the consequences
are serious. Also we all know that athletes that bleed during a
contest are removed from the contest until the bleeding is stopped.
This is a problem that we have had. It is all prevented. And if we
don't take steps to prevent this type of problem, some day, you know,
we're going to have a serious disease.
I think -- I summarize the oral -- written petition,
and I think that if there are any questions concerning that, we can
take those questions and try to answer them in the best manner we know
how. I would also like to acknowledge several groups that have helped
us considerably in bringing this particular proposal to fruition, and
that is the Lee County people that put the program in up there about
three or four years ago, Susan Gottlieb and Joe Barker. They have
been extremely cooperative in helping us out and putting this thing
together.
Our program is pretty much modeled after theirs because
it has been very successful. They used the fire station as central
collection sites which are widely distributed throughout the county.
That is what we propose. I visited all the fire stations in Collier
County and talked to the fire chiefs to assess the usability of their
physical facilities so that we would know pretty well that they could
handle them in a safe manner.
The other acknowledgements would be the fire chiefs
association of Collier County, which I met with a couple of times; and
the pharmacist association, who were very cooperative and helpful in
evaluating what we are doing and helping us in operating the thing;
plus all the members of the committee which are listed on the front
page, which represents a variety of the people with a variety of
backgrounds.
So I think I will just let that go and see if you have
any questions that you would like to ask, and I'll try to answer them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of questions. You
mentioned that these would be taken to a central collection site.
They would be taken by whom? The user of the needles themselves?
MR. DULIN: Yes. The individual would put their used
needles and syringes in the individual container which is lockable,
and they will hold about three months' worth of needles. They would
take them to the central collection site and deposit them in a
relatively secure area where they would have a large container, and
then that container would be picked up by contract service and
disposed of in an acceptable way. So that's the general outline.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I applaud the idea. I
wonder if it's necessary or if there is a simpler way to do it. I
probably -- 15 years ago or so my brother had occasion to use needles
with some frequency at home. When he would use them -- when he got
them there was a cap. He used the needle, and when he was done with
it he'd snap the cap back on, and he threw it away. Then there was no
way to puncture. I'm going to assume that there is something similar
or probably safer 15 years after that now.
MR. DULIN: That is right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I am wondering if then
you're sealing the needle back up -- what that necessity is.
MR. DULIN: Those have to -- they become dislodged with
shaking and fairly rough handling. They don't stay on. They do snap
on. They are still the same thing. All these people use the disposal
syringes now and needles instead of, you know, sterilizing them
themselves, which is apparently as cheap as buying a good needle and
syringe. But they do come apart. There are a lot of needles
available if you look into these bags sometimes. They do come apart.
That is a good question.
There is no question that -- we look at other things,
you know, have the curbside recycling pick them up, but then you leave
them outside and heaven knows who might walk by and pick them up, you
know, a lot of drug people -- people using drugs around, and we
certainly don't want to expose --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The final question is how do
we assure a reasonable level of compliance among those people who have
the need to use them? How do we assure that?
MR. DULIN: I might have forgotten to mention that we
would have a public education program which would consist of brochures
that would go out to the pharmacists' areas, doctors' offices, health
fairs, any other area where we might expect people to go if they are
using needles and syringes. This would be the first step. We would
obviously have to -- the public should see this brochure in both
Spanish and English for at least some parts of the county which would
be done. And then we would have posters also distributed through the
pharmacists' areas and other areas where people that might use needles
and syringes would see these, and also we hope the public media would
participate to some degree without charge in this education program.
Lee County experienced -- experiences indicate that
about 30 percent of the sharps would be collected the first year and
then increased 10 to 15 percent a year thereafter through continuing
public education. So that's the general way that Lee County has done
it and fairly successful. It's a difficult job to educate the public,
you know. It's an unpleasant thing for them to have to do is buy the
needles and use them and then go to some trouble to distribute them in
a safe manner.
The Diabetes Foundation does get a lot of calls from
people who arrive in Collier County from different areas about their
use -- they are diabetics, and on how to get rid of needles and
syringes. But those are very good questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hay I ask, how was your ad hoc
SHARPS committee -- how was it formed?
MR. DULIN: Well, I guess as a result of the state
code. There was a person in a public health group that got together
in the summer of nineteen -- I guess '93 and had a meeting and
published minutes. And then that particular individual retired. I
belong to the Diabetes Foundation here in Collier County, and the
executive director nominated me and said that I should do that and be
chairperson of that particular committee. So in 1994 I started
meeting with these people.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If these funds were allocated
and they have to be doled out, handled somewhere, would that be
handled by a not-for-profit company? Help me understand this.
MR. DULIN: You mean the management of it?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I want to know that if
we're funding -- if we look at this -- if we are funding a program
that benefits the general public, and we're not funding a private
company where someone makes any money or a salary is made, I want to
understand the financial backing of this.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I make a suggestion?
The public petition is whether or not we want to put this on the
agenda to discuss all of the details more fully and then decide
whether we are going to have a program or not today.
MR. DORRILL: Another member of the committee had asked
to speak, and if you wouldn't mind, it -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't ordinarily allow that
in the past.
MR. DORRILL: I understand that. I'll withdraw the
question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In the past we have not allowed
that, and I certainly don't want to get it started that we allow
speakers on a public petition. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to suggest -- I
don't have the expertise to judge this particular proposal, and I
would have to agree that's not what we are here to do today anyway.
But it seems to me that this is something that I would like to see
referred to our health department or to environmental services, but to
the appropriate staff level to come back with a recommendation because
the proposal sounds worthwhile. I think we ought to investigate it
and get our staff to get us some recommendations.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. It certainly is,
and I will make a motion that we do something about that.
MR. CUYLER: One modification? I don't want to reopen
an old wound, but the way that this is proposed it would otherwise be
a contract agency-type request, and maybe we can see this come back
through Dr. Polkowski's line item budget under the health department,
and you can evaluate it as an expanded service and whether you want it
in or out. Otherwise we don't want to create a new -- what is it -- a
new contract agency because your policy this year has already been
determined concerning it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend my motion to
reflect that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
direct this issue to the appropriate staff level and to bring back a
report on the feasibility of accomplishing what you are trying to
accomplish. All those if favor of that motion, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
Mr. Dulin, we'll be talking about it again.
MR. DULIN: Thank you very much. I appreciate your
attention. Thank you.
Item #7B
LINDA LAWSON REGARDING THE CONSOLIDATION OF FIRE CONTROL DISTRICTS,
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES - STAFF TO DEVELOP
SCOPE AND BRING BACK RESOLUTION
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the petition or on
the agenda is a petition. Linda A. Lawson regarding consolidation of
the fire control district. Ms. Lawson, you know we limit our public
petitions to ten minutes.
MS. LAWSON: Yes, I do, Chairman Matthews, and I think
my remarks will be less than that and so reserve the remainder of my
time for questions.
Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Linda Lawson.
I am an elector of District 2 and a former North Naples fire
commissioner. I am here today on behalf of a group of your
constituents requesting a straw ballot on the issue of consolidation
of emergency medical and fire services into a single public safety
agency for unincorporated Collier County.
Our group is composed of individuals who have
voluntarily met to discuss their ideas for improving emergency
services. The individuals who have participated are listed in your
agenda materials. You have the authority to allow the voters of
Collier County to express their opinion on this issue. We believe the
March 1996 presidential preference primary provides an excellent and
cost-effective opportunity for this straw ballot.
There is general acknowledgement that consolidation
will improve the delivery of emergency services. In fact, 42 percent
of the persons surveyed in the 1991 fire chief's report to this board
agree that a single unified fire service can provide better overall
countywide fire service at a lower cost than separate agencies. This
is in comparison to 25 percent who disagree and 9 percent who had no
opinion. Other surveys including those of the county manager also
support consolidation.
Some of the anticipated benefits of consolidation are
as follows: One, increasing the number of line personnel and
eliminating duplicative administrative positions. We currently have
18 elected fire commissioners for approximately several thousand fire
calls a year; two, eliminating redundant programs, streamlining
service delivery, and reducing overhead cost.
(3) Countywide planning for future expansion of
emergency services. The taxpayers can simply not afford annexation
turf battles between fire districts, which are inevitable as our
county continues to grow.
Voters in North Naples have already expressed their
unwillingness to promote expansion of the current system. Some 18
months ago a planning effort was undertaken by the North Naples Fire
District. This exercise revealed that over the next five years of
rapid growth revenues would not keep up with the level of service
required by projected population increases. The district will suffer a
budget shortfall in that time period.
Despite a thorough educational effort, the voters in
North Naples rejected a quarter million, increase that would have
sunsetted in five years. This recent experience should give some
valid indication of voter sentiment. Most North Naples taxpayers are
daily reminded of the use of their tax dollars for expensive fire
trucks that perhaps, like me, they just don't see many fires, serious
or otherwise.
What we all know, as we witnessed this morning's moving
proceedings, sooner or later most of us and our families will have
experienced the need for emergency medical services. I would like to
quote, again, from the 1991 fire chief's report which strongly
recommended consolidation. "Collier County has a unique opportunity
to design a future emergency response system that will be a model in
the U.S. The most interesting aspect of this whole process is that if
they fail in the attempt to design their future, it will not be for
lack of citizen support, budget, or lack of vision. It will be
because those in the fire service are reluctant to place the needs of
the citizens before their desire to maintain the existing system."
In closing we are asking you to give our county the
chance to move forward. Please ask your staff to prepare a straw
ballot question for inclusion on the March 1996 ballot. Let the people
of this county decide what kind of emergency service system they want.
Newt Gingrich is talking about totally remaking the federal
government on every level, and he has enormous popular support. If
that unimaginably large task can be tackled in Washington, can't we at
least let the voters in Collier County tell us if they want the reform
that experts have already recommended?
Thank you, and I'd be glad to respond to questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioner
Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a comment in
particular. I hardly call 42 percent general acknowledgment of
something except, of course, in the last presidential election. I
guess 42 percent was enough to prevail.
The cost question you mentioned is certainly valid.
However, about a year ago when Mr. Ijams was before us, we couldn't
seem to answer that question. It didn't seem to appear that we could
indeed do it less expensively and still maintain the same
effectiveness.
Some of the points you've made -- you said
approximately several thousand; that is pretty vague at best. I
appreciate the effort, and as I look at the list of ten people listed
here, obviously, are very well-versed in public policy in fire
protection and what have you. But I'm concerned, I guess, on a couple
of fronts. One in particular is -- it is not a legal precedent but
the practical precedent we set. If ten people get together on a
issue, and we put that on a ballot, does that mean when ten other
people get together on some other issue then, we have some
responsibility to put that on a ballot merely because they bring it
before us?
We talked about how long ago -- six weeks or two months
ago or something like that -- I brought up the point that we don't
have a formula right now. Statewide you have a formula. You need to
have X number of signatures to get something on a statewide ballot.
We don't have any formula right now. And I mentioned at the time that
someone from the Kansas City Royals had called and had been interested
in the baseball incident. Unless there is a hue and cry from the
public, I suspected this board probably was not interested in
exploring baseball again right now. But the point made at the time
was there is no formula for them to go and get 10,000 signatures or
how many ever locally. And this board, I think, needs to explore
that. This repeats or this just reiterates that concern is that ten
well-educated, well-meaning people getting together, is that enough to
warrant the need to put something on a ballot, and what's the result
of that? Does that mean ten people are going to get together over and
over and over, and we're going to have a ballot that's 17 pages long
with a hundred different questions on it?
My understanding is that North Naples Fire District and
East Naples Fire District are looking right now at consolidating some
of their administrative things on a long-term basis, and maybe one of
the chiefs can help you with that. But my understanding is they're
looking and exploring some of that on their own, sharing some
administrative costs and other expenses that might be similar. So I
guess it seems premature to me to put something on the ballot. I
don't see a large hue and cry.
Obviously if you can deliver -- this is exactly what I
said a year ago when this drawing was brought before us. If you can
deliver -- we can deliver an equal or superior product at a lesser
cost, everybody is going to be interested in that. But this report
alone doesn't show me that's the case. I think we need to have a
compelling argument that that's the case before we go ahead and put
anything on the ballot. I think we need to have a compelling argument
that the majority of the public wants something before we put it on
the ballot.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is an issue like the bridge
which has been going on for 20 years, and the public has always been
denied the opportunity to enter into this discussion. It's always
been a discussion between the fire districts and the county, and the
public just sits by the wayside hoping we'll make the right decision.
And, heretofore, we've never really made a decision. We just kind of
threw up our hands and say, oh, well, I guess there's no way to fix
it. I think the public at large has said in many, many different ways
that the system is broke. We all know when you have something that is
broken, we ought to find a way to fix it.
Commissioner Hancock, comments? No? Commissioner
Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I need -- let me clarify
something for Mr. Cuyler. These independent districts were set up by
referendum in the first place; is that correct? MR. CUYLER: They're by special act.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Special act, okay. To dissolve
those and consolidate would require them -- MR. CUYLER: There would have to be some sort of
legislation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. Does that require a
vote of the people in each case?
MR. CUYLER: It does not require a vote of the people.
I guess Ms. Lawson is talking about a straw vote in order to determine
public sentiments and then go to legislation with that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Suppose that some of the
districts vote yes, some of them vote no. Then what? You're left
with a situation of imposing it on some people who don't want to do
it.
MR. CUYLER: I assume that you would have -- Ms.
Lawson, are you proposing -- you're proposing a county-wide vote, I
assume?
MS. LAWSON: Yes. That is exactly what we are
proposing.
MR. CUYLER: You would have a county-wide preference or
nonpreference of some sort.
MS. LAWSON: These districts, if I might interject,
Commissioner Norris, I did not do exhaustive research. But these
districts have been created over a period of years since the mid-60s
with different numbers of voters obviously voting to create them when
they were created than what we have today. So the argument that those
districts would be disenfranchised, all we are talking about is the
people that voted initially perhaps back in 1966 to establish North
Naples. Many of us weren't even here then. So I think the fairest
way to look at this now is a county-wide vote instead of a
district-by-district vote.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I don't agree with that,
and I'll tell you why. Looking at it from the perspective of the East
Naples Fire Control District, we have spent years taxing ourselves to
build up our district to get it just the way we wanted, funding new
buildings, new equipment, staffing it the way we want to. The
likelihood of this -- the people in the East Naples Fire Control
District voting to turn that over to some sort of consolidated county
control at this point is fairly unlikely. And I would assume that the
same thing is going to hold true for North Naples, because they have
done the same amount of work up there. So if it's not done control
district by control district, then you have the likelihood of perhaps
some of the weaker fire control districts who would love to have their
burden shifted to someone else, impose their will on the districts who
don't want it. I don't see that's in the best public interest at all.
So I don't agree with you at all.
MS. LAWSON: We feel strongly that a straw ballot is in
the public interest here. To deny the voters an opportunity, by
whatever means that occurs of expressing their opinion on this point,
I think, as Commissioner Matthews has pointed out, is to leave the
ball in the court of the vested interest -- the employees of these
organizations, which was the experience which occurred a couple of
years ago. The public needs to be heard on this. And with all due
respect, Commissioner Constantine, if you want to put another hurdle
for us to jump over where we have to have X number of signatures
before you'll even put it on the ballot, I guess we'll go out and get
those signatures.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Again, keeping in mind the
purpose of a public petition, I have -- I support the concept of the
straw ballot. I'm not sure if the ballot question ought to be
analyzed after the vote has come in. The ballot question -- the
response can be analyzed on a district-by-district basis. This ballot
is merely an opinion. It isn't binding. I don't see the harm. It
seems to me -- well, if people have political courage, it won't be
binding. It will only be an indication of what the opinion was of the
voters at the time. Nevertheless, it will give us some indication of
what people want. Then we can going forward and make a decision. But
what is wrong with using the straw ballot perhaps as the petition
process that you were contemplating, Commissioner Constantine? Why
not let this be the opportunity for the public to be given some
indication of what they would like, and then we have to go on and make
the decisions that are appropriate and not binding. It would give us
some indication of what the constituents of Collier County want.
So I think it's a good idea. I think that the purpose
of a public petition is to give some indication to our staff if we
think this is something we'd like for them to pursue and come back
with recommendations to us on. I don't think this is an appropriate
venue for us to say, you know, we've decided there will be a straw
ballot. But I think it's necessary -- it's appropriate for us to
direct the staff to come back and make some recommendations, also not
to let this die at this point. The bottom line is we shouldn't cut
off this opportunity for public input.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you know, the problem with
it and the problem with Commissioner Matthew's statement is that,
first of all, the thing we ought to do is identify what problem that
it is we are trying to fix. A lot of people will disagree with you
that there's any problem at all. There are certainly a lot of fire
districts that are very, very happy with the services they are
receiving. I don't see that they are going to tell you that there s
a problem at all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then they'll vote.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, if there is no problem,
what are you trying to accomplish? And another point as far as taking
a straw ballot and then not doing what the citizens say, I think is
very unrealistic.
MS. LAWSON: With all due respect, Commissioner Norris,
I'm in North Naples District 2, Commissioner Hancock's district, and I
was out on a stump for that tax increase. There wasn't support. The
people in North Naples aren't happy generally.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But you can't assume that's to
say they want to give up their fire district altogether.
MS. LAWSON: No, I can't.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You can't meet that logical step
for not one wanting to increase their taxes to say let's just give it
up to someone else's control. You can't make that decision.
MS. LAWSON: Commissioner Norris, perhaps you miss our
point. I am not asking to impose a solution today. I am asking that
this board allow the voters to tell us all what their solution is. I
am not asking to impose a solution today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, first of all, you
mention hurdles, and if we're trying to put another hurdle -- I'm not.
I'm trying to have some rational step in the process. I'm not trying
to set up hurdles or make it difficult for anyone. MS. LAWSON: But --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I finish
my comments, do you? You will have an opportunity to respond. I'm in
mid-sentence.
The problem with this isn't hurdles. It's not only to
know there is some hope out there, some request out there for this,
but there are no details. You're asking us to put something on the
ballot. I don't know what boundaries you're talking about. I don't
know who's included, who's excluded. I don't know what millage you're
talking about. I don't know what the government structure would be.
I don't know what the administrative structure would be. We're
talking about some vague concept that nobody has said any specifics
about. And so to do that -- that would be an effective part of what
you refer to as a hurdle or I'm calling a common-sense step is let's
see if there is some push in the public to have one particular thing
in mind instead of just having a vague concept.
As far as the comments that the public has been denied
a voice in this, that's preposterous. We had several public meetings
last year when Mr. Ijams brought this forward. The newspaper covered
the stories. It was on the front cover of the Naples Daily News, so
people were surely aware that it what was going. Yet the turnout here
during those public hearings was practically nil. I did not see a
large hue and cry for that.
And finally, Commissioner Matthews, you said well, if
the system is broken, we need to fix it. Well, yeah, I agree with
that saying; however, just as Commissioner Norris pointed out, I don't
think that most people think it is broken. As a matter of fact, if you
look at the county's public opinions polls that we do every year, for
the past several years it's somewhere in the 90 percent ratio that
people are happy with their fire protection. So -- and you can look
at -- I know they've done those in separate communities. In the
Golden Gate community the Chamber has done polls, and the fire
protection is consistently what they think is best out of all the
services they kept.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I disagree with that. They say
their EMS service is best in the 90 percent percentile. They have
consistently, every time the question has been on the survey, said
consolidation was the way to go. They consistently said that last
year. That question was not included. And whether we should
reinclude it, perhaps we should. But it was dropped last year, and I
don't know why it was dropped, but it was. But I must say that every
year for the six prior years the question was asked, and it was agreed
consolidation is what we needed to do. Now, Commissioner Mac'Kie.
MS. LAWSON: Excuse me. Could I respond to
Commissioner Constantine before we go further because he did cut me
off, and I did want to respond. And I just wanted to clarify that we
are not coming to you with a finished product and saying, here, ask
the voters to vote on this new system and throw away the old system.
All we are asking you to do is authorize a straw ballot to determine
voter sentiment.
It is right in the statute that allows you to hold a
straw ballot, and just ask the voters if they want consolidation, much
as you ask in the county manager's survey from time to time, are you
in favor of consolidation. If the answer comes back yes, then we sit
down and design the system, but not before that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if you poll the voters
and say do you like the idea of having the same or better service at
less price, of course they're going to say yes. But unless you spell
out for them how you can do that, it's a meaningless exercise.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess my thought on this is
that, broadly stated, it is a shame that we have to have a public
petition to bring this question before us when we already have had
surveys that indicate there is public support for consolidation of the
fire district. This to me is an indication of frustration on the
level of the public and the lack of response to what is an already
espoused position that they wish we do something about consolidating
the fire districts.
Since we have so far done nothing, and since the basis
for that is that some people are of the opinion that there is not
public support for consolidation, let's stop assuming, and let's stop
wondering and being unsure and give the public an opportunity to make
clear for us what they would like for us to do. Then at that point we
have to evaluate and propose that -- that becomes our job. Frankly,
it's already our job to propose a solution, in my judgment. But we
don't think -- we're not sure there is a problem. So let's ask the
public if there is problem. If they tell us yes, there is a problem,
then we can propose a solution which is our job.
So I'd like to move that we direct staff to act on Ms.
Lawson's proposal by including a straw ballot to get the public
opinion on whether or not consolidation of the fire district is a
concept that the public supports.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, what are the steps
that we would need to take in order to include this on the March
ballot?
MR. CUYLER: You would need to take a vote, direct us
to do that. We'd need to set up a timetable. There would be
resolution with a ballot question. You'd approve that, and it would
be able to go on the ballot as a straw ballot question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As a straw ballot question, is
there an ordinance of public hearings and so forth that we need to
address?
MR. CUYLER: You don't -- I don't believe there is an
ordinance for that. We might have that, but I don't think there is
anything required. It can be done in resolution form.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make sure I
understand the motion is to put this on a straw ballot. The motion
isn't to have a public hearing, have an open discussion whether or not
it needs to be --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no. I'm sorry if I
misstated that. I apologize. But my intention -- I don't think it's
appropriate in a public petition to make a decision. My response to
the public petition is in the affirmative, and I'm moving that we
direct staff to bring before us whatever is the appropriate step to
respond positively to the request in the public petition.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And Mr. Cuyler says for a straw
ballot, that is a resolution at some point in the future.
MR. CUYLER: Correct. And you would have a public
hearing to adopt that resolution. Everybody would have a chance.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So as prevails in a public
petition situation, we are not making any decision other than to
direct staff to formulate the resolution that's needed and to bring it
back to us.
MR. CUYLER: If the board passed the motion, we would
provide the steps and the timetable that would result in some future
public hearing at which time a resolution would be presented to you,
and you would either adopt that or not, the resolution being the
ballot.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So in keeping with the direction
we just gave staff regarding the SHARPS program, and that it is not
our purview at a public petition to look at the entire process or to
try to find a solution, that is to be done at some later date. MR. CUYLER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we have a motion directing
staff to bring back a resolution? Is there a second to that motion?
Comments?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem I am having is not
whether or not the public should be given a choice. I think anyone in
their right mind is going to argue that that is a good idea. The
problem I am having in making that choice -- an individual needs to
know if the solution to the problem, if you will, is better or worse
for me. We generally don't go out and vote for or against something
unless we know what its impact, you know, to me is going to be. And
where we have differing levels of fire protection and service based on
people who either approve or don't approve a set level of funding in
their district, we have the admission by people in certain areas that
they don't want to pay more and admissions by others, you know, that
the service needs to be better.
I'm just concerned that by putting a straw ballot out
there saying do you want to consolidate without having the
information, the specifics of the fiscal impact of that consolidation
to each person who is going to make that decision is an error. If I'm
going to vote for consolidation or against it, I need to have a
reason, and the reason can't be a gut feeling that I think it will be
better if I then find that the result is worse for me. I'll go back
and change my mind. I'm just -- I'm a little uncomfortable that
asking do you want to consolidate is like asking do you want a bridge.
The question is where. The question for consolidation is how much.
So what I would like, rather than making a decision
today -- but we do, in fact, want to place this on the ballot as a
referendum -- I think we need to determine the scope and the context
of what needs to be brought to the voters in the way of information so
that they can make a decision of either choice A or choice B and not
remain a nebulous question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that's the direction
that Commissioner MAc'kie has offered, is that staff bring this back
to us for a full-fledged debate of trying to get it flushed out and
which, unlike public petitions, we do not allow public input other
than the person bringing up the petition there, and that motion that
she has made will do that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize. Concerning
Commissioner MAc'Kie's motion and approval of a ballot referendum,
that was not a part of your motion?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We can't do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can't do that in a public
petition. My motion is that we respond favorably to the request of
the public petition which is to consider the question of a straw
ballot. I would like to consider the question in a public hearing.
MS. LAWSON: Can I respond to Commissioner Hancock real
briefly?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Real brief.
MS. LAWSON: If we don't go forward, what are we
telling the taxpayers of Collier County that their recourse is if they
want to consider this issue?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Lawson, I'm saying if we go
forward, let's know what we are going forward with. I think that is
logical.
MS. LAWSON: I don't disagree. And the contemplation
in the group that has met to discuss it is that once we are able to go
forward at this stage, then the debate will ensue. I'm sure it will
be heated. But just allow us to go forward and have that debate.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have enough heated debates in
this job. I'm not looking for another one. But I have no problem
looking deeper at the issue. I just do not want to approve the idea
of a referendum at this point because the information simply isn't
there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait. Let me ask Ms. Lawson,
what would be different in this debate? What has changed since last
year when we went through this process and there was almost no public
interest as Commissioner Constantine reminded you? What has changed
that all of a sudden that would make the public come forward with a
burning desire to make some change? Burning not being any pun
intended, of course.
MS. LAWSON: I participated in some of the discussions
and meetings in that last year. And having spent ten years of public
service in this state, I am sorry to say that I saw some of the worst
involvement of public agencies on an issue they were supposed to
tackle in my entire career in those meetings. This is a petition by
the citizens who are after all the ones holding the pocketbook and are
going to pay the bill, however it's paid. That's what is different.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is a petition by one, two,
three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten citizens. Not "the"
citizens; ten citizens.
MS. LAWSON: That's correct. If you want us to get
more, we'll go out and get them. We'll be glad to. They're waiting.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I question the motion maker
of which I understand we still don't have a second. You had indicated
you wanted staff to bring back a resolution. That resolution will
indicate what? Will it indicate what the problem is? Will it
indicate what we mean by consolidation? Will it indicate any proposed
solutions? What will the subjects be?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My whole intention here is to
acknowledge that I recognize there is a problem. I realize that there
was some discussion of it prior to my sitting on the board. I'm sorry
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What is the problem? No one has
ever identified the problem. We could not identify it last year when
we went through this discussion. What is the problem?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The problem is that people
believe their fire districts, the operation of them, to be
inefficient, simply stated.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think so. I see heads
shaking in the negative.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask -- and that may
be -- on what are you basing that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On communications that people
have with me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to second the motion,
put it on the table so we at least have a vote on it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And may I make one more comment
on it before we go past it? I would be more than happy -- I think
it's a darn shame that we have to have a public petition to bring this
issue before us. We already -- if political will exists on this board
already to address the question, then we don't need a straw ballot,
and we don't need another discussion. But either -- all I would like,
for this question not to die today, not to make a decision, but just
let's keep the question alive and have debate. That is all I am
asking.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any further comment?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just going to say one
final thought before we vote. There seems to be some question at
either end of the board whether or not there is a problem. And I just
don't want this debate to simply die. I just think saying let's just
put it on a straw ballot is premature at best. I suspect after
today's discussion, compliments of Mr. Hart and Rich King and others,
there will be a public debate. I think we can begin looking. Is
there a problem; what is that problem and so on? And we'll likely
hear some public input. But I think to simply have -- and again I'm
not criticizing the ten people. I'm just saying to have any ten
people pick any issue and come forward and say you've got to put this
on the ballot I think is a giant leap. And I think it's -- you've
hopefully started a discussion, and that's good. But I'm not sure that
particular course right now is the appropriate first step.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One last -- Commissioner
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to support the motion
for the simple reason that I'm one of two rookies up here, and we
weren't here when this whole thing played out last time. I do feel I
need the benefit of the public input. As much respect as I have for
the people I know on this committee, there's a lot -- if we took a
poll here today, you may find yourself in a minority, Ms. Lawson, just
from the comments I heard. So I do think we need -- I personally need
the benefit of the public reaction to this and what their thoughts
about their fire districts are and where they want to go with it. If
this motion is simply to put it on the table so that I can hear that,
I will support it. But in no way am I supporting it at this point or
am I saying that I feel there is enough public sentiment out there to
go ahead with a straw ballot.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, what is the
timeframe that we could look to to have this resolution back allowing
for ample public comment before we bring it back so that we have ample
discussion? Are we talking about after the break or --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler has suggested
next year.
MR. CUYLER: My timetable depends on your timetable.
The resolution and the ballot question formation is not that
difficult. The difficult part will be your discussion and the
conclusion you come to. So you can set that when you come back from
your vacations.
David, do we have an outside date on the straw ballot?
MR. WEIGEL: David Weigel, assistant county attorney.
Part of the outside dates that we have are always in consideration of
supervised elections, and there are necessities for ordering in a
consolidated manner -- not to use a pun there -- the other supplies
that she has for -- to take care of before that particular March
election.
MR. CUYLER: We don't have that date in discussions
either on these other ballot questions?
MR. WEIGEL: We would have to check with her.
MR. CUYLER: We would need to check and find out what
her timeframe is. That was your point?
MR. WEIGEL: It would be, I think, a relatively late
timeframe in the sense that it would be -- it could still be after
your break. She would not be ordering for the March election prior to
the June, early July hiatus.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just need to clarify what
the motion is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to restate the
motion before we vote.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to say, as
Commissioner Hancock said, I don't support to put it on a ballot or
anything yet, but I do want to have a public hearing. My
understanding of the motion is let's bring back a resolution to put it
on the ballot.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what the debate would be.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't understand why this is
so complicated, because we all know what we can do in public
petitions. We can't take action in a public petition. We can only
say, staff, this is an idea with merit. Please bring us back some
recommendations. Or we can say, staff, we're not interested in this.
Let's not talk about this anymore.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That is what we said last year.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that's -- God bless you,
but this year what I'd like to say is, staff, this is an idea with
merit. Please bring us back some recommendations. That's my motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that's what the second
seconded.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm really sorry to drag
this out any longer, but again what are we asking staff to include in
that resolution?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please feel free to add whatever
you would like. I would like to get a general discussion on the issue
and ask our staff to bring us back whatever recommendations they have.
General discussion is my proposal.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your motion was not to -- and I
took your quotes -- support the petition. Your motion is to promote
general discussion and direct staff to bring it back to us in some
form that allows that discussion to occur. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No further discussion or
questions? All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Motions passes 3 to 2.
MR. DORRILL: Could I have two points of clarification?
This is one of those where we are going to have to go back and watch
the tape three or four times. Part of their request includes not only
fire district consolidation, but EHS and emergency management. By
virtue of including emergency management, there are two functions
under the Florida statutes that are at the sole discretion of the
County Commission. One of those is the office of the medical
examiner, and the other is the office of --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, may I interrupt
you? If your motion is to include emergency management, I will bring
the question up again. I don't want emergency management touched.
MR. DORRILL: Well, I'm saying it's part of my list of
options and issues if it's going to include certain other aspects of
the public petition letter. I'm going to have to tell you that
general law under the State of Florida requires those to be at your
discretion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The motion is not to support the
petition as presented, but to bring it before us regarding
consolidation of fire districts.
MR. DORRILL: Then I can provide you with a long list
of qualifying conditions that you would have to adhere to in a Chinese
menu-type fashion of what the logistics of that would be.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The motion was to bring back
information so we can have a public debate. And I'm sure that as of
10:25 this morning the public debate began.
MS. LAWSON: Thank you for that, Commissioners.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. But Commissioner
Hac'kie's motion was to support this petition?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As I clarify it for the final
time, my motion was to direct staff to bring back information to allow
the debate of these issues to continue.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Nonetheless, your original motion
was to support this petition. Clarifications did not include an
amendment deleting the emergency management portion of this or
anything to that effect.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm going to rely on the Chair
to better advise me on whether or not I need to.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We will be discussing it when it
comes back to us. If we, this board, chooses to eliminate or include
any piece or part of it, that will be part of the debate.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My point is that one of the votes
on this board was contingent on not including emergency management,
but the original motion did, in fact, include emergency management as
part of this discussion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, I would ask a
question, Commissioner Hac'Kie, clarifying -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, she did.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and so do we have a conflict
there, Madam Chairman, that we have a motion that supports the
petition, yet the clarification said, no, this is not to support the
petition but to bring the opportunity for discussion back?
Commissioner Norris does have a valid point. We do have two different
things on the record there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie clarified
her motion just before the vote, and I as the second of that motion
said yes, that is what the second is intended for. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is she finished? Let's take a
break.
(A recess was held from 10:30 a.m. until 10:55 a.m.)
Item #BE1
BID 95-2344 FOR A COURTHOUSE SECURITY WALL - AWARDED TO GULF COAST
CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County
Commission meeting for Hay 16, 1995. The next item on the agenda is
the county manager's report. The first item is 8 (E) (1), a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award bid
95-2344.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've approved the
construction before. This is strictly for awarding the bid itself?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: More money.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But I think it's more money than
what we anticipated.
MR. DORRILL: Actually it will come in under budget.
We want $4,000 for unanticipated underground utilities. This site has
been a utility intensive site for probably about 40 years, and we just
anticipated finding some problems underneath it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there further questions? Do
we have a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A couple of motions to approve
and a second. There being no further discussion, I'll call the
question. All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, the motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #SG1
REPORT ON RESULTS OF NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE AND
REQUEST FOR BOARD DIRECTION ON PLAN-OF-ACTION TO PROCEED INTO THE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT - STAFF TO PROCEED WITH PLAN "A" WITH
MODIFICATION OF FUNDING AND TO EXPLORE WHAT AVENUES ARE AVAILABLE
REGARDING CLEANING THE WATER BEFORE IT REACHES VANDERBILT LAGOON AND A
REPORT REGARDING FLUSHING OF VANDERBILT LAGOON
Next item on the agenda is 8 (G) (1), report on the
results on the Naples Park drainage project questionnaire. Mr. Boldt.
MR. BOLDT: Good morning. I'm John Boldt, your
homeowner management director. On April 20th we held a workshop at
Naples Park Elementary School. We had some 230 people there in
attendance, and the result was a questionnaire. A nonbinding straw
vote questionnaire was passed out, and we had 313 responses. When you
inspect the table summary of the table that summarizes the
questionnaire results, it also totals at the bottom. Whether it's
proposal plan A or B, it looks like 61 percent. 45 percent of the
people endorsed the plan A versus the enclosure project proposal for
the 91st, 92nd, Eighth Street ditches. Plan B has 16 percent, which
was a project of lesser cost to replace some culverts and do the
riprap project. And there was 39 percent to do nothing.
The results questionnaire are self-explanatory, but we
think that it tends to indicate a strong preference for plan A, which
is the $3.8 million ditch enclosure proposal for the existing ditch
between 91st and 92nd and along the Eighth Street ditches.
If you were to decide today to proceed with plan A,
I've outlined some of the steps necessary to implement that. If you
would just give me a couple of minutes, I would like to highlight some
of those steps, one of which would be to amend the ordinance, the
original Ordinance 86-37 which set up the MSTU for the Naples Park
drainage project. And there must also be created a special assessment
unit.
We look ahead at the calendar, and in order to do a
timely implementation to meet the winter of '96 dry season
construction period, which is going to be vital because of the
conditions there that we construct this in the middle of the dry
season, we would have to start this process on July 18 in order to get
the process going to the first public hearing. There will be other
public hearings to adopt a unit resolution, and then sometime in the
fall of '95 there would be approval or tenant assessment roll.
On the matter of a swale moratorium there's a number of
steps that needs to be taken in order to meet the special conditions
that need to be put out and prevent -- and we can talk about that in
more detail if you you would like.
Our construction plans that have been prepared for this
project are in hand. There needs to be some modifications to the plan
to deal with north basin, north of lllth. We need to get a temporary
easement there until that project develops to modify the permits that
we have, and we do have all the other easements that we need for this
project. We do have in hand a South Florida Water Management District
permit and Florida Department of Environmental permits to construct
this project. Both of those permits expire this August, and we have
in process requests to extend those permits for an extended period of
time. This would all lead up to a proposed construction starting in
January of '96.
The biggest problem we have at this point is the
financing. We need to go through the whole process in trying to
arrange to have the cost methodology that you've reviewed, and I've
reviewed with you a number times particularly scenario 1 (B). We're
suggesting that be looked at by an outside consultant, and then they
have also -- give the assignment a tentative assessment role. And
that would be brought back before you at the first time in August,
August 22nd of '95.
We need to also investigate and report back to you on
the advantages and disadvantages of the various financing options that
are available to pay for a project of this magnitude. And there is a
number of options that I have outlined here. In the fiscal impact,
again, scenario 1 (B) that we have selected and talked about before,
it talks about a county cost of roughly $398,000 of which the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, John. I'm sorry. I
don't mean to rudely interrupt you. But there are probably going to
be some changes in -- I'm sure significant discussion. Just about
everyone in Naples Park is going to come up, is going to say they
should pay less. Everyone in Pavilion is going to say they should pay
less, and everyone in Beach Walk is going to say they should pay
nothing. So I'm anticipating that to happen. MR. BOLDT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's probably going to be
some discussion, and if we were to move ahead with plan A, I think
there are some reasonable reductions to certain elements of scenario 1
(B), which if I have been hearing the talk shows correctly, my
colleagues are reading the results as I am, and if there is a
solution, it needs to be a complete one and not a band-aid solution.
So I think we are going to have some discussions, and I would like to
put on the table what I have proposed if we were to proceed with plan
A in the way of benefit factor reductions for certain parties.
The Pavilion Club -- I feel those units paying an
assessment roughly equal to a Naples Park lot. They have a
significantly reduced benefit factor, in my opinion, and I believe
that this is all opinion. I have taken their benefit factor from 1.0
to .7. That results in an average cost reduction of $250 per unit.
For the lots abutting 91st, 92nd Avenue, and Eighth
Street ditches, as you know, that benefit factor is 3.0 was derived at
arbitrarily by me. And in talking again to a lot of folks, we have
both sides of the spectrum. We have those people who live on the
ditch saying we should pay the same as everyone else and those people
living in other places in the park saying they should pay for it all.
I think the benefit factor of 3.0 is little high, and I have brought
that down to 2.2 resulting in a reduction of approximately $450.
Beach Walk, additionally, I have received a lot of
input from the folks in there. A lot of it makes a tremendous amount
of sense, although their last communication was $11 a unit. I thought
that was a little low. In looking at some overall costs, I have in my
proposal brought their benefit factor down to .15 which results in a
$22 or $23 reduction in their assessment.
Before we get into all of those numbers and finalizing
it -- I said this for the reason there is a lot of people here.
They're going to speak today asking for -- if you go with this plan,
we think we should pay less or someone else should pay more. So I
wanted you to know if we were to proceed with plan A where my
direction is, that is the first part of the discussion today.
The second, probably what I am assuming will be the
dominate part of the discussion, is the impact to the adjacent
communities and in particular Vanderbilt Beach and the Vanderbilt
Lagoon. And what I am going to need from you, Mr. Boldt, and what
this board will probably need from you, is there is going to be a lot
of statements regarding why don't you do this? Why don't you pump?
Why don't you leave it open? We're going to need the engineering
perspective on what truly is or is not an option.
Although we all would like to arrive at a decision
today, if we simply don't have enough information to answer
everything, to not make a decision today and err on the side of being
conservative so that we can do it right in two weeks or four weeks is
an option. But we are going to need your input from an engineering
standpoint. And is someone here from Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage?
MR. BOLDT: There's a representative.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good, Laurie is here. Because we
are going to need some input on what are not options, probably things
that you have told me. I've met with Ms. Swanson extensively. She
drew a lot on the board for me to make me understand -- I got a crash
course in water management 101, and it's very beneficial. And I would
appreciate your input today where you feel it is necessary. So that's
kind of how I wanted to set the stage for what we are about to go
through. I know we have 22 speakers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That is what my understanding
is, 24 now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that I'll turn the floor
back over to the chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had one question, Commissioner
Hancock. You've gone through an analysis and reduced the benefit
factor for the Pavilion Club, the residents along 91st, 92nd, and
Eighth Street and Beach Walk. I presume that leaves the remainder of
Naples Park at a benefit factor of 1.0.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What effect do these reductions
have on their dollars?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Based on scenario 1 (B)
that was revised in April 19, 1995, if you're looking at one -- it's
in the upper right-hand corner -- it would be that date. The result
is -- and we'll just go down the list. In column number 10 for
average cost for typical lot or unit, Pavilion Club would be reduced
from $558 to $395; Naples Park Commercial is increased from $1,086 to
$1,126, an increase of $40; Naples Park lots directly abutting 91st,
92nd, and Eighth Street ditch is reduced from $1,797 to $1,366; the
balance in Naples Park went from $660 to $685, an increase of $25.
And that makes -- the lots directly on the ditch are paying almost
exactly twice what the other -- the balance of lots are. Beach Walk
is reduced from a proposed $90 to $67.81.
I know that no matter what is reduced or raised, it's
either too much or not enough to just about everyone here. But I felt
in the numerous discussions I have had with the people in Beach Walk,
Pavilion Club, and the Park itself, that those adjustments at a
minimum needed to be made. That is why I have kind of proposed them
on the forefront. It may have an impact on the discussion; it may
not. But I thought it was important to have that at least as a
starting point.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, you
had some comments?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a question for Mr.
Boldt. I was speaking with the Naples Park folks a week or two ago.
The question had came up in regards to Willoughby Acres, good enough
to put together a little report on that, and I suspect that issue may
come up today, and perhaps we can preempt some of that or at least
explain some of that ahead of time based upon some of the differences
contrasted between the two issues -- between the two projections.
MR. BOLDT: Willoughby Acres is similar in some regards
to the enclosure of roadside ditches. The pipe sizes are considerably
smaller. They're paid for by special assessments. There's county
participation in that project, and there's in-kind services for
engineering, and there's fill that's part of the project. When I
analyzed all those figures, it totalled out -- the county contribution
came out to 10.4 percent.
The dissimilarities are that the outlets are quite
different. Willoughby Acres has an outlet directly along Immokalee
Road that they can directly connect to or creating, I guess, an outlet
by installation of the pipes through Naples Park by enclosure of those
ditches. It is somewhat hard to compare the two projects. There are
little apples and bananas involved. The reason for more than anything
else, Willoughby Acres was more aesthetic. In Naples Park we're
talking about flood protection. It has severe erosion, and there's
some health and safety issues also. So they're similar in some
regards but quite different. The board previously had said there was
precedents set at Willoughby Acres at 10.4 percent, and that's what
we've used in our scenario chart 1 (B). COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there further
questions? All right. We'll move on to the public speakers.
Mr. Boldt, did you need to get more of the discussion
-- more of your discussion than what had been -- we've had a couple
of hearings on this.
MR. BOLDT: No, I think that's about it. I just--
Commissioner Hancock's point is well taken about the cost. I need to
point out again that we're dealing with engineering estimates, the
costs. We won't know what the exact costs are until the project is
actually bid. We need to get all the bids in. We know what it is
going to cost, what the construction costs, because there are change
orders. You set the final role. We have to know exactly.
As we go through this process there is going to be
plenty of opportunity for public input. There's going to be public
hearings. There's going to be first-class mailings. There's going to
be an appeals process. This only starts the process today. We are
dealing with the conceptual things. My suggestion is that the concept
-- my methodology be reviewed by another on-site consultant in case
it is attacked in the court, and we've got the methodology approved.
Today would just be the start of that process.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, the speakers?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I make one suggestion
that the board tries to discipline ourselves and in between if we have
questions for each individual, let's try -- if they trigger thoughts
that we feel a need to ask Mr. Boldt, perhaps we could jot ourselves a
note and ask all those together at the end. Since we have 22 or 24, I
think we are going to spend a lot of time there.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree. And where that might
have some difficulties, there are some people here that represent
organizations, and they have some technical input. They would be happy
maybe being the latter speakers because I think we have more questions
for those individuals than we may for someone who is expressing their
opinion, a resident that is going to be subject to this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd also like to -- perhaps this
board, before we get to the public speakers, should have some small
debate amongst itself as to what our considerations are. We've been
listening to the item now for several years and that if we were to
have some debate amongst ourselves as to what our preferences are
pending hearing, something to dissuade us from that, perhaps that
might speed the public comment.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've been debating within myself
now on a daily basis for the past two months on this, and I'll go
ahead and set the stage. It has become very apparent with my
discussion with Ms. Swanson regarding system design, what is possible,
what is not. I've tried to take the comments as to approaching and
designing or looking at designing alternate systems that doesn't
result in a water quality degradation to Vanderbilt Lagoon but
provides increased water flow and increased water management
opportunities for Naples Park. The result was dismal on that effort,
everything from the riprap idea, which did not fair well technically,
to the obvious solution to just clean out the ditches. That also does
not provide an increase of significant or noticeable increase in water
management. I looked at partial closure. Can we close Eighth and not
close 91st, 92nd? That also has its technical difficulties that does
not allow for it to happen in any way that it creates or alleviates
some water management concerns.
So if we're to move ahead on a system for Naples Park,
rather than assess a cost or to put a benefit cost that is one-third
of plan A and provides one-tenth of the relief, I think we need to
look at comments, a solution, something that is designed to a ten-year
storm situation which is today's standard as opposed to a two- or
three-year storm for which that system doesn't currently handle. If
we go with an open system, that heavy rainfall that you get every
other year, there will be flooding in the streets. It's just a
situation that there isn't a solution or a less costly solution that I
have seen. And I've asked all the questions that I could ask that the
constituents have brought to me and those I could think of.
So I'm going very much in the direction that if we move
ahead for a solution for water management, that we need to go for
something that provides a ten-year minimum and gets it done instead of
piecemealing this and having it come back in five years after people
scream and yell about we paid money, and it's no better than it ever
was. That's just not the position I think this board wants to be in,
nor do I think it is a correct position for the citizens that are
subject to the assessments.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Further comments?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- I have to say this. I
will try to exercise some discipline, but I do think as somebody who
used to come up here and talk to the board, if there's absolutely no
response and somebody asks a question or brings up a point I think
sometimes people feel like their input is, you know, perfunctory.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Talking to a wall.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know that isn't the intention
that anyone on this board really wants to communicate. So sometimes
discipline works, but I just want to apologize ahead of time if I
don't discipline myself in the way that you would like.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think any of us wants
that perception that citizens could ask a question and reach no
response at all.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think anyone, including
mine -- my mind is in no ways made up. I have some assumptions that I
have made in the direction I'm looking at, but I hope no one appears
to close their ideas or minds to the input we are about to receive.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not at all. Mr. Dorrill.
MR. DORRILL: The first speaker is Mr. Krupa and then
Mr. Davis. If I could have you come forward and just stand by please,
sir.
MR. KRUPA: I'm A1 Krupa. I live at 893 Pavilion Club,
and I have two questions I would like to ask. The first one is I took
a ride up along the canal just here in a recent few days, and I see
that most of the water is gone. And in certain areas there is quite a
bit of water, which this tells me that this is a very low tide right
now. The water is down; we have no rain, but there is still water in
the ditch.
At our last meting it was discussed that they're going
to put a ten-foot drain pipe in there, and at the top of the drain
pipe would be at the surface of the drain ditch. So if you put a
ten-foot pipe in that drain lower than the surface is now, you're not
going to get no drainage because you're going to have that pipe full
of tide at all times because that is below the tide level. And no one
is ever going to tell me that this gravity flow of water coming out of
the north central part of Naples Park is going to have the pressure to
push the tide into the lagoon. This is impossible. That lagoon has a
lot more water pressure than this drainage does. So, therefore, if
you force that into a ten-foot pipe, you're going to get more flooding
in the northern part of the park than you ever had, because this is
going to back up through that pipe and flood those people more than
they ever have.
And another thing that I wanted to bring up was at the last
meeting they came up with a small device made out of plastic to put
over the swales in front of the houses and then cover it with dirt so
that you can get the front ends level with the street. At the bottom
of this device it has no bottom, and its left open so that water can
drain through this and back into the source of water. So I'm in favor
of that. That is good. By why would you go right back to the same
thing and put a mile and half of pipe in there that has no opportunity
at all to drain back into the source? That is going directly into the
lagoon.
And then I've been seeing in the paper quite often here
in the recent year or so that the lagoon was being polluted. If this
water drains directly through this solid pipe for a mile and a half,
none of the pollution is going to be lost. The entire amount of
pollution is going into the lagoon. As it is now when the water sits
in that ditch, I would say 50 -- 50 percent of the pollutants drain
back through, purify themselves, and go back down into the water
source which we're doing away with totally by putting in this big
pipe.
Thank you. That's all I had to say.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Krupa asked some questions
that are very basic to understanding why the system even makes sense.
Ms. Swanson, could you come on up? I wish all of you
had a half hour to sit down with Laurie, but I don't think her company
would let that happen. A lot of your questions were the same
questions I had. And, Laurie, without giving us an engineering
education -- I doubt whether we're all going to be receiving degrees
as we leave today. First of all, pipe elevation. The outflow of this
system is no lower than it is now; is that correct?
MS. SWANSON: I'm Laurie Swanson. I'm a project
manager and a professional engineer with Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage.
The invert of the pipes are lower than the existing ditch bottoms
are. However, that will not keep the water from draining out because
what drives the flow on those pipes is what we call the differential.
So out at the lagoon you have a water elevation at high
tide that on an average is 1.4 elevation. The elevations along a
Street are on the order of 10 or 11. So when water builds up out on
the street to an elevation to 10 or 11, it creates an 8-1/2 foot --
what we call a head differential, and that is the energy that drives
the water out into the lagoon. So the fact that there is water in the
pipe, the fact that the pipes are lower than the ditch, has no
influence, you know. The hydraulics still work even though you have
that condition.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tough conflict to understand if
you don't have a base level of engineering. But she explained it to
me, and it worked.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It worked. Next speaker.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Davis. And, Dr. Gore, if I could
have you stand by, please.
MR. DAVIS: Good morning. My name is Steve Davis,
members of the Commission. I reside at 673 95th Avenue North. I have
resided there since the fall of '89. This also happens to be the
first time I have been at a County Commissioner's meeting in Collier
County.
First of all, I want to thank our professional staff of
Collier County that I met with prior to being here today and also the
property owners of Naples Park as far as the work they have done to
this point. I don't apologize, quite frankly, for not attending any
of those meetings, because as I look back on my calendar I've been
involved in other volunteer-type activities that I think dovetail with
the quality of life of the citizens of Naples Park.
As far as this particular project and the ditches and
the drains are concerned, I'm glad that you're not assuming anything
because you know what happens when you circle the first three letters
and the fourth letter --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My eighth grade band
director went through that.
MR. DAVIS: And this book which this gentlemen sounds
like he might have written, The Death of Common Sense, I think has a
lot to do with the problem and why it continues to come up over and
over again. I've got a feeling that you and I could get together and
maybe save the county manager 10 million bucks rather quick.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: After the meeting you guys
can talk about that.
MR. DAVIS: We'll talk about that after the meeting.
Number 1, when I mentioned the quality of life within
Naples Park, one of the important things to me and other people that
reside in the area that I visited with is, for example, I think is
kind of neat when I have visitors from up north, and we can drive down
to that Eighth Street ditch, and there are wood storks in there
feeding. There are also herons and egrets, and to me that is an
important part of quality of life, especially if we think about
changing the name to Pelican Park.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Davis. Excuse me, Mr.
Davis, you have to speak into the microphone because we are recording
this.
MR. DAVIS: Okay. Excuse me. So that is important.
As far as plan B -- Iwve already perceived from my past experience of
serving on a board similar to yours, but not a county commission board
-- it was an appointed board -- we had all the powers like police
powers. I might add I have a business in the old North Naples
sheriffws substation office on 93rd, so I am affected by two of these
breakouts on cost. There are ways to alleviate the problem, which I
donwt think is nearly as significant, especially when I read the
changes into the water flow that are going to take place on 41 when
that design change is made and how that will affect Eighth there
because of the way the water will flow differently. I think you have
to look at it as a big picture and not isolate this particular
situation.
When I break out things like how do you -- if you have
to put in culverts to change the existing flows, if you bid that in
smaller bid packages, I think that will cut a considerable amount of
the cost. When I look at the riprap of the rock that may have to be
put in the Eighth Street ditch or in the big canal, I bet this
afternoon I could go out to Immokalee and get a hundred people that
would come in on a Saturday morning and work with some dump trucks and
pay them contract labor. Since I worked with the criminal
investigation unit of the IRS in the past, I know there is criteria
that you have to meet as far as contract labor and save a ton of money
that way from the costs that are considered in here.
My point is, to sum it up and not go over the clock, I
think when you really break this thing down, you can see that therews
lots of ways to simplify the problem. I think the problem has been
overreacted to. Somebody mentioned that they thought that the most
recent extreme water situation we have was more of a 25-year flood
problem than a 10-year problem. So even under the criteria youwre
going by, youwre not going to solve that sort of a water situation
problem. And I think -- as I look at the common-sense approach which
would be a modified B, more of a plan C, you could do what B entails
but break it down into smaller segments to reduce the cost as you go
along. And from the figures that I put together on pallets of grass
just last night as far as the cost of employees to do the work, I mean
you can cut that 900,000 figure considerably. Thatls all. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: While Mr. Davisls suggestion
might be supported by a lot of people that we line these ditches with
riffraff, Iim going to make it clear that the county would use rock,
riprap.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Riprap, not riffraff.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, Mr. Davis, I
wouldnlt make any lunch appointments in Immokalee for a while. I
talked to Mr. Davis at length, and he is right. On the surface he
expressed some of the same ideas that I tried to come out with in plan
B. I wish I had a better answer other than there are basic
engineering principles that show that itls not even an improvement,
that welre not even going to better the situation. The bettering is
minimalist at best.
I tried the common-sense approach the best I could -- I
want you to know that -- it just dead-ended. So I appreciated your
comments, and I don't want you to think I ignored them at all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gore and then Mr. MAiale, if I could
ask you to stand by.
MR. GORE: For the record my name is Jim Gore. I
represent the Conservancy. I'm an aquatic ecologist and a service
water hydrologist, and I've been studying systems like this for about
20 years. The concern of the Conservancy has to do, as has been
indicated earlier, about water quality in Vanderbilt Lagoon. We
suggest that before you make a final decision there needs to be a
further investigation of some other alternatives. The Conservancy and
the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association are beginning a water
quality monitoring program in Vanderbilt Lagoon. And just in our
examination of the historical records that are available, and they are
not entirely complete, we can see evidence that water quality has
deteriorated considerably over the last two decades. Our concern is
shunting water more rapidly into Vanderbilt Lagoon, particularly
service water runoff which is likely to be contaminated with nutrients
like phosphorus and nitrogen and things like that is going to further
exacerbate the situation. It's going to deteriorate water quality in
Vanderbilt Lagoon further.
Service water runoff needs to be controlled. The storm
water runoff needs to be controlled. And there are other alternatives
than just diluting it with Vanderbilt Beach or Vanderbilt Lagoon
water. That is usually not an effective solution. We suggest that
there are some other ideas, perhaps nontraditional ideas. But
anything which will impede the flow and allow biological or chemical
systems to pretreat that water before it goes into the lagoon is a
more effective application of the system, something like artificial
wetlands systems or biological treatment systems very similar to the
living machine that is being employed quite effectively at the
Corkscrew Swamp. Those kinds of things very effectively pretreat that
water before it goes into Vanderbilt Lagoon. We suggest then that
that kind of a system needs to be examined.
Right now in our water quality analysis we find nitrate
levels and at times choleriform levels which indicate contamination by
human and/or animal waste to be at certain times of the year to be
high enough so that the water in Vanderbilt Lagoon would not even be
classified as class-3 waters. Additional runoff is going to cause a
problem, at least untreated runoff. So we suggest before you make the
final decision that you look at some other alternatives or at least as
many alternatives as possible to treat that water before it goes into
the lagoon.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? I believe,
Mr. Hancock, you have questions for Mr. Gore.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You talk about a living system
-- are you familiar with the proposed improvements, where they are --
the houses on either side of them, the roadway and so forth? MR. GORE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are these alternatives you're
talking about -- how many of them do you feel are viable, and can you
give me an idea what they are?
MR. GORE: Some of the -- which alternatives?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you mention -- I don't
know. You mention there are other alternatives.
MR. GORE: Well, artificial wetlands have been used
quite frequently. Both urban artificial wetlands and rural artificial
wetlands have been used. One- and two-acre wetlands can treat a
considerable amount of runoff and hold the water back. It essentially
reenters the embayment system at about the rate it should through
natural runoff.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No question, Mr. Gore. I agree
with that 100 percent. The problem is whose homes do we buy to do
that?
MR. GORE: There are some --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm looking for a viable
alternative.
MR. GORE: Yeah, I understand that. There are some
open sites there now where those could be created.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Roughly 1/8 of an acre lots --
MR. GORE: Yes, that's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- here and there.
MR. GORE: That's correct. I don't have an
alternative to which lots you purchase. I certainly don't.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So one- and two-acre sites,
we're talking about 16.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. They don't exist in Naples
Park in any aggregate size. The only idea I have is retention,
detention, but we couldn't find aggregate lots -- MR. GORE: Right --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that were close enough to the
water.
MR. GORE: You could put together some of these-- you
can put together living machine sites, very self-contained units on
1/8 acre site and shunt water through them quite effectively.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would there be grant money
available, you think, to pursue projects like that?
MR. GORE: I know that at times the U.S. Department of
Agriculture has provided funding, and the EPA does as well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Any other alternatives come to
mind?
MR. GORE: Not initially, no, other than some kind of
biological treatment in the canal system itself that impedes water and
enhances flooding, which is something we don't want to consider.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Enhanced flooding is not what we
are here for today.
MR. GORE: No, obviously not. But that is another
biological treatment. That is an alternative, but that's not
something you want to consider.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a minute. Commissioner
Constantine is next.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mention the living
machine and the fact that it can treat a considerable amount. What is
a considerable amount, because we have a -- coincidentally a
considerable amount of water draining out of this system.
MR. GORE: Right. Well, the living machine up at
Corkscrew obviously would not fit or treat residential waters --
runoff waters from residential areas. However, I examined the system
at the University of Mississippi about four weeks ago, and it's a
system about four times the size of the one at Corkscrew, and it
treats surface water runoff from the city of Oxford, which is a city
of 10,000 people.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Four times the size -- give me
an idea how big that is.
MR. GORE: That would be an area of maybe 500 feet by
500 feet, 2,500 -- 25,000 square feet.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Half an acre.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to be sure -- you are
clearly an expert in this field, and what I am hearing is that the
only proposal that you could reasonably make for this would be some
kind of -- something similar to what we have at Corkscrew, the living
machine. For this population it would have to be a quarter of an
acre; did I hear you say that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're having some math problems
down here. You said 500 feet by 500 feet?
MR. GORE: Approximately six acres.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Six acres, oh, my. So
realistically unless we're going to buy six acres -- MR. GORE: It doesn't have to be in one place. You can
build a series of these and move water through these things.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For example, if there are
quarter acre -- no -- 1/8 of an acre, is that what you said, the size
of the lot?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Host lots are 50 by 100 -- about
1/8 of an acre.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if we have some vacant lots
that are 1/8 of an acre, and assuming we could interconnect enough of
these living machines, can you tell us anything about how many lots we
would need to buy, and what does one of these living machines cost?
MR. GORE: Well, I don't know. I haven't looked into
cost. That's not my area of expertise.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you have no familiarity with
the Corkscrew one?
MR. GORE: Yeah, the Corkscrew system was subsidized by
a lot of in-kind labor and things like that. And it ran around, as I
recall, about $100,000.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And any guesses on how
many Corkscrew-size -- MR. GORE: That's including the in-kind in the county.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't need to add to that, in
other words.
MR. GORE: Right.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So how many Corkscrew-size
machines?
MR. GORE: Four.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'd need four -- $400,000 in
addition to purchasing a lot of property.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Land acquisition, probably
pumping would be required because you have to take the water from the
drainage elevation into the system. You can't just route it in.
MR. GORE: Yes. Well, you can route it in if you have
a retention area.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds like this is the right
idea, and that is, however, going to be a situation where retrofitting
is too expensive to consider.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we have not spent a
great deal of time looking at what kinds of treatment needs to be
done. But we are concerned about the fact that we think that the
treatment needs to be done on the water before it enters Vanderbilt
Lagoon. And what we are suggesting is that that be accomplished
before a decision is made on alternatives.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Also understand -- I'm sorry --
Mr. Gore, that this plan has been around since 1988. MR. GORE: Right.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So the folks in Naples Park here
today -- well, we haven't looked at it, and they are reasonably
frustrated at this point by something like that. So please understand
that.
MR. GORE: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess, Mr. Gore, one question
that I have -- and I'd like to move on with this because we're going
to be awhile -- is it possible that even if we were to enclose the
ditches and pipes and do whatever it is that plan A calls for or plan
B, can retrofit that type of system with living machines, and we could
do that further down the road. I mean these people have been very
patient in waiting to get the overall problem --
MR. GORE: Well, further down the road is that in the
interim all of that contaminated water continues to go into Vanderbilt
Lagoon?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we do nothing, it will
continue.
MR. GORE: That is correct. But it's entering
currently under the current system at a slower rate than it would in
an enclosed system.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: With the oil slick and bottles
and trash and all that goes with it. MR. GORE: Indeed it does.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At least the pipe would get rid
of that part.
MR. GORE: But that is usually the least of the
problems when it comes to contaminating water.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Including the sediments that are
carried currently, you don't consider that -- MR. GORE: Sediments will be transported down the pipe
too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, but from an open ditch
there is obvious erosion and sedimentation that is carried with the
water --
MR. GORE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that continually hurts
Vanderbilt Lagoon obviously.
MR. GORE: Probably, but the greater problem is what
dissolves in the surface runoff itself, nutrients and bacteria.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Gore.
Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Maiale and then Ms. Maiale will
follow him.
MR. MAIALE: Commissioners and former Commissioners, my
name is Anthony Maiale. I'm a Fellow of the American Society of Civil
Engineers. I'm a registered professional engineer, and I moved into
Naples Park in 1978. Now, in 1979 and again in 1980 there were heavy
rains, no storms, no hurricanes, just heavy rains, So much so that my
backyard on a hundred and -- 102nd Avenue --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You lived there so long you
forgot the address, didn't you.
MR. MAIALE: The address I remember. But, anyway, I
wanted to tell you the rains were so heavy that the water backed up
from the lagoon, up the swales, and we had an infestation of walking
catfish in front of my house. They came up my driveway, and this
lasted for three or four hours. The catfish disappeared when the
water drained away.
So at that time I decide to explore a bit, and I drove
down around the park, and the worst spot I found was on 98th Avenue
and Eighth Street. The water was over 12 inches deep in the middle of
the street. The Eighth Street ditch was over its banks, and water was
running south on Eighth Street in the middle of the road. However,
when I got down to 92nd Avenue, we still had a flooded condition on
the east side because the water couldn't get through the culverts.
The stream on the other side, on the east side, was flowing very
nicely, a lot of water in it.
So what I want to point out is that the trouble has
always been that water that falls -- the rainfall that falls cannot
get to Eighth Street; Eighth Street can't handle it. The big trouble
is the swales on the avenues, and the trouble is not with the ancient
waterway between 92nd and 91st Avenue. That has always been able to
carry all the water that has been delivered to it.
If flooding of the park is to be eliminated, the major
benefactors are going to be the people whose properties now are under
water at every heavy rain. In all fairness, I'm glad Mr. Hancock has
reduced the three times cost of the people who live on the waterway on
91st and 92nd Avenue. And if this is a drainage project, and if the
purpose is accomplished, then those who now flood will be the big
gainers, and there is little justification of mine for the three times
charged that was on the plan A originally.
Now I want to say this, that we may have been here many
times to discuss the same subject as Mr. Hoss will probably remember,
and I don't want to come again. I'm glad that Mr. Hancock is making a
decision, and what we want most is a decision that's followed. I
don't care what plan you follow really. Just get it done.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Maiale and then Mr. Wood.
MS. MAIALE: Good morning, Collier County Commissioners
and all the staff. My name is Jeannette Maiale, and I live on the
ditch on 92nd Avenue North. I'm not here because of the money, and
I'm not an engineer. I appreciate all the help that you're giving
Naples Park drainage and to make it aesthetically beautiful. I
believe the Eighth Street ditch needs pipe installed and covered over,
but I prefer not to have the runoff easement between 91st and 92nd
pipe covered. I've lived there in the 600 block since 1970, 25 years.
Our property has never flooded even during the no-name storm which
we all had. You know that's a ten-year storm, and the reason for that
is -- I'd like to have you look at these pictures. As you can see,
I'm standing --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have to use the microphone
-- if you just want to drop these off.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is a wonderful picture of
Jeannette if anyone wants to see that.
MS. MAIALE: I'm standing on the water's edge. As you
can see, it's covered with many banana trees. The bank is completely
covered with plummeria (phonetic), tea plants (phonetic), poinsettia,
large and small ferns, and many different kinds of ground cover and
trees and plants too numerous to mention. Now if you look at the one
picture where you see that wonderful picture of me, you can see the
bank across. It's ten-foot high and it's perpendicular. Now when you
have a large storm the water undermines that across from me, not where
I live. Because the water comes up to the banana trees, and when the
storm stops, the water recedes. And it's as simple as that.
So whatever you're going to do, I guess we have to go
along with the major portion. I just want you to know my views,
because as far as I am concerned, that is all right. Dr. Gore of the
Conservancy has spoken to me at length about this saving of the
environment which I am doing. He said the banana trees cleanses the
runoff water. Their leaves give oxygen to the air more than any other
plant. Then for an extra bonus we get bananas. And you can check
this out for yourself with Dr. Gore.
In addition, this waterway has many beautiful birds;
great white herons, great blue herons, and the white ibis, to name a
few. I'll miss them. At the mouth of this stream the water flows
into the Vanderbilt Lagoon. And Mr. Davis -- I guess it was somebody
said -- the water -- he says that water is polluted. I just looked at
it yesterday. It looks clean to me. It looks very pure. By the time
it gets to that mouth it is clear. And I don't go along with the
theory that you cannot pipe Eighth Street and leave our 92nd Avenue
runoff stream alone. This old stream is an old stream, has many
natural springs in it, and -- well, at any rate, that is all I can say
on that.
In conclusion, I want to give you a copy of the Block
46, 47, and 51 from our abstract with the surveyor's notes and a
letter from the vice president of Schwab, Shisken and Associates,
Incorporated. They were the surveyors who did the engineering for
Naples Park in 1953. And the surveyor's note says, "There's an
easement for public utilities of 5 foot on the rear of each lot except
for Blocks 46, 47, and 51 which has an easement for drainage purposes
and public utilities across the rear 10 feet." So water that flows
into our drainage street come from other places in the park. It comes
by way of the Eighth Street man-made ditch and the Pavilion and the
Beach Walk.
We're using that stream to drain off other waters; and,
therefore, I think we should be recompensed for it. But as I said
this is not a matter of money. It doesn't really matter. The ground
slopes to the water. The water comes up during storms and recedes
when it stops raining, and it is as simple as that. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Ms. Haiale.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Wood and then Mr. Bass.
MR. WOOD: My name is Richard Wood. I live on 92nd
Avenue abutting the ditch. It's been eight years since we started
this, as Mr. Hoss here in the audience can verify. I thought I was
coming here today to hear the final answer, but it sounds like it's
beginning all over again. We that live on the ditch can't stand for
that. We're losing our land, and we're not going to stand for
starting eight more years of trying to get our problems solved.
Naples Park was a community before any development in
the Vanderbilt Lagoons, before any canals were dug, and before
interference with the natural flow of water occurred. I contend that
the retention swales of Naples Park provide enough purification to the
water before it flows into the lagoons, much more than the properties
lining the lagoons which have no retention area and results in direct
runoff from their own property. In other words, Naples Park -- we're
not polluting our good neighbors to the west.
Allowing the closing of the lagoon's outflow by the
development of the Ritz Carlton and other properties has resulted in
the interference with the flushing of all of the lagoons, not Naples
Park's little bit of runoff. Very little, if any, difference will be
noted by the piping and covering the ditches in Naples Park. The
damage was done to the lagoon long ago and not by us. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Who's next?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Bass and then Mr. Foresman.
MR. BASS: My name is Ray Bass. I'm a lawyer in
Naples. I'm here on behalf of an ad hoc group of property owners on
91st and 92nd Avenue North. And I want to address the issue that
really -- the worst of all the issues, and that's the cost
distribution upon behalf of my clients. I have been involved in this
matter with them for over a year looking at it from their standpoint
to what can be done, what is the prospective of what is going to be
done, things like that. And as I said, what I want to address is the
cost distribution problem. I can't give you an engineering
perspective because the engineers have to do that. What I want is to
go back into the history a little bit, though.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Bass, you only have five
minutes.
MR. BASS: Right. And it's going to be a very little
history. The drainage easement when it was originally dedicated with
the plat was intended for a very small use. The history has been
given to the staff by the other people of it being a very small use.
It was for the use of the people there in Naples Park. And about a
third -- as I understand it, about a third of the park has -- their
flow comes into the drainage easement. The problem is -- from my
client's perspective -- is that the drainage easements are now
overburdened. It's greater -- the use of it is greater than ever
intended or even allowed. It is consistent with the easement as it
exists today. And that's why they have been asking for this problem
to be fixed.
Whether you go with plan A or plan B, that is up to the
Commission's good judgment. But that's the problem. With that in mind
-- that is why I want to address some of Mr. Hancock's sentiments.
The problem here and the benefit of plan A -- the problem has grown.
It has not always existed. The problem has grown because of other
waters being channeled into the easement and the actual -- the ditch,
if you will, widening out.
An informal topographical survey has been done by some
of the property owners. It is wider -- the backs of the ditch are now
wider in many locations than the 15-foot easement that was dedicated
for drainage purposes. Again, the problem has grown. It has not
always been this way. Mr. Maiale had a point when he said that the
flooding over the 91st, 93nd Avenue lot owners -- that is not the
problem, the ones that are on the ditch. That is not the problem. So
going back to cost distribution using his rationale, you've got people
who are complaining about the flooding -- well, they are getting the
benefit of going into the drainage easement and the water being
discharged.
Here it's proposed, as Mr. Hancock said, a 2.2 factor
-- benefit factor. I'll tell you -- I'll submit to you my clients
believe that is unfair. And the reason why they believe it is unfair
is that the rationale has been explained to them that their property
values are going to increase as a result of having the ditch covered
and so on; their property value will increase. Now, it may or may
not; I don't know. But the situation that exists today is not the
situation the way it was originally. It was never intended to be that
way. It is a problem that has grown with development.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Bass, the red light is
flashing. Your time has expired. Can you wrap it up?
MR. BASS: Yes, I can. So when you're considering the
cost benefit, analysis, and the distribution of cost, we're asking
that you simply look at, you know, who is being impacted here and
distribute it accordingly. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Foresman and then Mr. Newman.
MR. FORESHAN: Thank you. My name is Bill Foresman.
My parents are Jeannette and Tony Haiale. I own a house on --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The whole family is here today.
MR. FORESHAN: Yeah, we're here. I own a house on 98th
Avenue. It doesn't really impact one way or the other on this. The
reason I am here is because regardless of what you decide today, I
don't think we should be polluting someone else's property or the Gulf
of Mexico. I think there is a higher calling here than what we are
addressing. People have a tendency to be a little bit selfish when it
impacts upon their own house. I guess I can't blame them for that.
Hopefully you will consider the impact on the Gulf of
Mexico. I think you are going to do that. I would like to say I am
very impressed with -- this is my first time here. I am very
impressed with the Commissioners. So --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can change.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Don't burst his bubble.
MR. FORESHAN: You're probably right. I think it's
important to note my family has lived in Naples Park for 25 years, and
that area along Eighth Street has flooded for the entire 25 years
we've lived there, and it's going to flood for the next 25 years too.
I'm sure of that regardless of what you do in this thing. And I
realize that the good people of Naples Park are interested in getting
it done. I'm not so sure it's going to be that easy, particularly
when getting it done means -- and I think Mr. Hancock has already
indicated that getting it done means shoving more water into the
Vanderbilt Lagoon. And I think you understand that. It's a tough
call. You have a very tough decision to make here.
So, anyway -- so getting back to the areas flooded
along Eighth Street that is true. Now between 91st and 92nd Avenue,
that canal there -- like I've said, we've lived there for a long time.
And what my folks did is they graded down to the water's edge. In
other words, they didn't let it go straight up vertically. So when
you have a velocity of water shooting through there as we do during
heavy rains, it just simply undercuts that vertical wall of dirt, and
it falls in. And then, therefore, you're adding sediment into the
lagoon. I'd like to see you do something, maybe make a grade for
everybody, and we did it ourselves.
My mother mentioned about the planting opportunity
that's there, the banana trees, photosynthesis, changing carbon
dioxide and water, and releasing oxygen into the air. That's a good
thing. The vegetation, which has a tendency to filter the water as it
is going down there, I think that is good too. So your decision is
hard. Hopefully you don't make it too quickly in an effort to get it
done.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Newman and then Mr. Keller.
MR. NEWMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
A1 Newman. I live on 94th Avenue in the 600 block.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can the public please be quiet
and give Mr. Newman the courtesy that you have had when you spoke?
MR. NEWMAN: I live on the 600 block of Naples Park. I
had a nice little thing all laid out for you, congratulating you on
your decision and the tremendous vote of the straw vote at the town
hall meeting where in my estimating 54 percent of the vote went for
plan A. And I thought, well, we'll work off the financing and get out
of here this morning real fast. Evidently there's -- we can't attack
this too fast. Let's put if off another 8 years, 10 years, 20 years.
Don't put no more water in the Vanderbilt Lagoons. Put
an umbrella over the lagoons, and protect it because that is part of
our heritage. We don't want to lose it. What are we going to do with
the water? We'll call God up and have him not rain on Naples Park
anymore. I don't know what to do. I don't know what to say. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Somebody who didn't know what to
say did a very good job.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller and Mr. Spearin.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to interrupt just
before Mr. Keller starts. We have a previously committed lunch at
noon, and we are going to break at noon. So Mr. Keller and then one
more, and then we will be back at 1:15.
MR. KELLER: I'm George Keller, and I've been living in
Collier County for 26 years. I'm heavily involved in civic affairs.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, folks. Could I
ask for your quiet for just a few more minutes, please?
MR. KELLER: I have lived in Collier County for 26
years and been heavily involved in civic affairs. And these people in
North Naples -- eight years ago when I was president of the Collier
County Civic Federation, we got involved in this thing. And I'm
really surprised. I thought it was all settled. I thought what you
were doing here today was how much the county was going to share in
the expense because some of these problems were definitely part of the
planning that has gone on, not in Naples Park alone, but around the
perimeters of Naples Park. And basically speaking, if you wanted to go
and keep the Vanderbilt Lagoon in good shape, you should have never
built anything around it.
Over the 26 years I've been here I have seen big
apartment houses and everything else going over there. In fact, one
time people were willing to put docks over there. They almost crossed
one another and so they could put more boats in there. So the county
has some responsibility here, and I believe it does, because Naples
Park is one of the oldest developments in Collier County. There were
very little any other places in Collier County when I moved here 26
years ago where you could buy a house for a reasonable price. Naples
Park was it. And I didn't buy there for the simple reason that there
was a water problem.
But let's face it. The problem has been exaggerated by
building around it, not only by -- the problem was there originally,
but it's been exaggerated by building around it, putting more problems
there. So now I think that these people, what they want really is how
much the county is willing to bear. It's the county's burden to
correct this problem, and then they are willing to build and make
concessions and willing to pay the rest in the taxing district. So I
don't know why we should be going back over processes. I thought the
process was already solved. You would go by plan A, and you would
distribute the cost between the county as a whole and the people of
Naples Park. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's my thought that -- at least
when I came to this meeting this morning -- that we were going to make
a decision on plan A or plan B. Mr. Boldt has told us we don't know
the precise cost yet because we haven't let the bids. Yes, sir.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Spearin will be your final speaker.
MR. SPEARIN: My name is Wayne Spearin. I live at 767
92nd Avenue. I think that the county is responsible in a big way for
the situation that we have. I think that to try to get away and not
pay more than 10 percent is just an example of the neglect that the
county has shown Naples Park. It's obvious that they don't spend any
time there. If they maintain the ditches and the swales -- I mean,
you know, they worked on the swales a year ago; they just chopped up
the lawns. I'm just having a problem with the county not taking more
responsibility for that stuff.
I'm also having a problem with -- you know, the people
on the ditches are required to pay almost three times as much. Now
you have lowered that. We'll, that's not confirmed yet. I just think
if it is going to be done at all that way, it should be equal. I
mean, we're carrying their water. They're flooding. We're carrying
their water in our backyards. We still are going to have the easement
there. There are still restrictions there for building or adding onto
an existing building. I just think -- and not to rush into this, I
know that everybody is on a hot seat. It's been going on for eight
years. I just don't think that because now that we have a couple of
new commissioners, you want to flex your muscles and get some respect
and say let's get something done. I think we have to think about the
ramifications to Vanderbilt, those people over there. I don't know
how much it's polluting, how much it's not.
I just think -- as far as I am concerned, I live on the
92nd ditch. I think it should be maintained. It looks fine to me if
you cover it up, fine. But, I mean, we have wildlife down there. I
mean, this county is growing so fast, where are you going to see
wildlife? I mean, they live right in my backyard. I mean, it's not
my fault that somebody didn't buy my piece of property, and I have to
live on 95th and not have that little bonus to my lifestyle. Thank
you very much.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, did you say that was
the last public speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Prior to the recess.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, prior to the recess.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Prior to the recess for lunch.
I want to say that earlier we had discussed hearing the
settlement on the Gibson property, for lack of a better term, at 1:15.
There are 13 additional speakers on this issue when we return from
lunch. I would presume that we will not get to the Gibson issue until
no sooner than 2:15. So those of you who are waiting for that, you
will probably not be heard prior to that time. Let's break for lunch.
(A recess was held from 12:03 p.m. until 1:15 p.m.)
WORKING LUNCH WITH MEMBERS OF THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD
The Board of County Commissioners recessed to reconvene at 12:10
in open session in the Board of County Commissioners' Conference Room
with the Black Affairs Advisory Board, the following members present:
CHAIRPERSON:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Bettye J. Matthews
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Timothy L. Hancock
BAAB MEMBERS:
Hal Robinson
Lorenzo Williams
Bob Bennett
Henry Tribbel
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to call this to order. So for
the benefit of us who don't know the people here, let's go around the
room with introductions, and we start with Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm Tim Constantine, Commissioner from
District 3.
MR. ROBINSON: I'm Hal Robinson. I'm a dentist here in Naples.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm Lorenzo Williams, manager with Barnett Banks
here representing NAACP.
MR. BENNETT: I'm Bob Bennett, management consultant.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: John Norris, Commissioner from District 1.
MR. TRIBBEL: Henry Tribbel.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pam Mac'Kie.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Bettye Matthews.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tim Hancock, Commissioner from District 2.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We've done the introductions. The
purpose for this meeting, and we're going to move along fairly quick
because we are going to have to call this meeting at one o'clock to go
back to our public meeting. But on January 31st this board reviewed
our advisory boards, and it was seen that the Black Affairs Advisory
Board had difficulty meeting quorums. A letter was sent to the Board
to find out what we could do to help you. The letter that came back
said that you were essentially looking for direction.
So since we only have an hour, I would like to try to
confine the discussion today to what the issues are as the Black
Affairs Board sees them. Let's discuss them, and let us help give you
the direction you are looking for and help you prioritize what your
input -- what the more important issues are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just sort of jump in there
with something I want to talk about? If it's something that is not on
your agenda, then I will -- I don't know if you guys are here with a
list of issues you wanted to discuss. But one of the things that came
out as a result of the development services review, you know, staff
review thing that I just went through was that I think you need some
sort of an ombudsman, or I don't know what the appropriate label would
be. That's something that I think would be great if we could get a
review of maybe -- I don't know if you guys think this is appropriate
for your committee or not. That's what I am asking you.
I think we need, both from a personnel perspective and
from outside people who work with the county staff perspective, a
troubleshooter for gender discrimination, for racial discrimination,
for just if -- you know, if -- I bring it up because it does relate
perhaps to this human rights commission idea. What I have going
around in my head is that we need an ombudsman who reports to some
sort of a committee similar to a code enforcement committee, only it's
a human rights enforcement committee or something similar to that.
And that is something I was hoping we could talk about today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is a workshop so --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're kind of setting a table,
not necessarily relating to what Commissioner MAc'Kie said. My
concern has been that it seems the Black Affairs Advisory Board and
the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board have solely been centered around
the human rights commission. That's the only issue of which this
board has had involvement and had input on, and that has become the
characteristic or the identifying factor, and the failure of that has
become the identifying factor.
I am looking at a broader scope than a single human
rights commission. In Hillsborough County we had a task force in the
Hispanic community who felt it was their role to promote the Hispanic
culture in Tampa to the rest of the community, to make the rest of the
community aware of the involvement, the participation, the
contribution from that community. And we had annual events. We had
lecture series. We had a lot of things that brought a diversity out
to the general population of the county and I think what -- eventually
an appreciation to a greater degree.
I think it is an injustice to center our efforts solely
around a human rights commission when, in fact, what we may be looking
for is a greater level of community integration and I think some
special events and some activities that promote that. Something I
would like to see -- and I would look to you to bring those events to
us and those activities to us so that we can schedule them, so that we
can advertise them, in other words, work more towards community
integration. The -- what was it -- the name is slipping me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The ombudsman?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, the human rights discussions
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sounds like -- two
syllables.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The forum. I thought that was
terrific. I meant that put on the floor so many issues and items that
people might not have been even aware of. And I just thought that was
terrific. And to have those scheduled regularly, to me, would be a
tremendous help and, to me, increases awareness. I think that those
are the things I would like to focus on. And, again, I'm only one of
five. But if we're -- but if the commission is kind of setting a
table, I wanted to put my fork down and say, okay, that is one piece
of input I have.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The lunch cliche. How
appropriate. I am going to agree, and I couldn't have worded it any
clearer than you did. As far as the human rights commission has come
forth -- has appeared to come forth as the sole issue -- talking about
conversations with you because you and I have had these conversations
several times. But, for example, say -- Henry Tribbel and I have
talked about that, and we went through the discussion last year -- we
went through discussions before that too -- but went through
discussion last year and decided not to move forward with a human
rights commission. But that is, as Commissioner Hancock said, but one
issue. It troubles me when we keep returning to that sole issue
because then we seem to be stuck. And I think to have a number of
things and to open a dialogue and have those things going on is a
great idea.
I have one suggestion in mind, and I've talked briefly
with Henry about this a couple of months ago, but -- as a matter of
fact, this is -- Kevin Lockett has talked about doing some stuff with
this, and let us have a job fair type thing within some of the
minority communities, some of the areas either in the 5th Avenue North
area or Naples Manor or some of the areas that are the depressed areas
in the community and/or some of the areas that have traditionally been
homes to some of the minorities in our areas. It seems like that
would be one logical way to open a dialogue between employers, between
community groups and so on. But rather than having something here at
the Commission offices or having something at the mall or wherever and
saying come to us, let's take it to them, let's take it to their
community, and have an ongoing series of events, but have them, you
know, in those locales, in those neighborhoods instead. And I think
that is going to open a dialogue as you suggested and I think is going
to make -- once you open that dialogue -- if anybody sits down -- I'll
give you a great example. Beth, sitting right there, politically we
probably think very, very differently. We're at opposite ends of the
spectrum. But a month ago we sat down, and when we sat down face to
face and had lunch and actually had a great time -- a very personable
person -- and political issues aside, almost anytime -- or
occasionally you will run into someone you just plain don't like. But
almost anytime you sit down with people, and I think our example is
good, is most people -- you may disagree on this. You may agree on
that, but most people are likable people, and I think the most
important thing is to get that dialogue going. And we'll find that
whether it's government and the black community or the commercial
community, the minority community, or the disadvantaged community, all
you have to do is open the dialogue, and most people's eyes open at
the same time. So I think if we can do that in those communities,
it's going to be very important.
I have already spoken with the Chamber, the Naples Area
Chamber on that. And there is some excitement, some interest in doing
job fair type activities in those communities from them. So I think
government can play a role in facilitating that, but we can also rope
in the private industry.
MR. TRIBBEL: The Chamber is having a series of
workshops next week which are for small and minority businesses with
federal agencies, etc. Again, they just schedule all the meetings
during the daytime which means most minority business owners are not
going to be able to take advantage of it. In addition to that, many
small white-owned businesses are not going to take advantage of it.
You know, and what we need to have -- I agree with everything that has
been said in terms of activities that are as important, but it should
be done by professionals who know what they're doing and not by lay
people who can get to it when they have the time because, you see, the
same people, whether it is a banking partnership or it's black
affairs, you know, blacklist the same people, and we're all
overworked. And they're the people who are involved. You know, their
hearts are fine, but they really don't understand the dynamics of what
it requires to get these things done like when you schedule it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That is a good point. So let's
talk about -- yes, let's do it, and let's talk about how to do it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think that that's
where that communication comes in because obviously it didn't happen
or didn't happen effectively in the series of workshops, that's if
they lined it up, and many people can't go. Somebody missed out on
communication there. So --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think Mr. Tribbel has
something there.
Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I just have to say I am in
general agreement of what I've heard here today. I don't want to be
repetitive or voice the same opinions. But I'm really here to listen,
not to tell you what I think you ought to do. So I want to hear from
the members of the committee and see what their concerns are.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That is what my purpose is too.
The committee knows the pulse, the thoughts of the community, and I'm
here to listen to what that pulse says and to help you decide what the
more important issues are and try to prioritize it and hopefully walk
away from this today with what you need, what you say you need,
direction.
Mr. Bennett.
MR. BENNETT: I would put on the agenda, the table, the
question of recruiting and hiring practices in the county itself, the
school board. As to minorities and females, I have had a great deal
of experience in that field, being an executive searcher for the last
23 years. We have solved the diversity problems of many many large
corporation and banks throughout the country and also one governmental
situation. I think that as a subject it has to be -- it should be
addressed. But it just doesn't work to say we'll take one if we can
get one. We've got to do something about it, and I have suggestions
on how that can be done.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this ombudsman idea anything
that we can work with that?
MR. BENNETT: Yeah, I think that is an excellent
thought. I think it is very, very good and very helpful.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we had somebody whose
professional obligation was to look for problems and propose solutions
and then that they were somehow supported by -- my only analogy -- I
guess it is my only frame of reference is something like a code
enforcement board that we have for zoning codes and building codes.
That's volunteer, you know, so we're not going to get into spending
more money and creating a lot of bureaucracy. That is just an idea I
want to throw out onto the table.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's a wonderful idea.
MR. ROBINSON: Well, I think it's agreeing with what
everybody's saying here. I look at -- I've been on this committee now
just about six months, so I'm relatively new. I'm originally from
Rochester, New York, so it's a bit different down here, you know, and
that's understandable.
I think that the purpose of this committee, based on
what I read on the original charter, is that we're here to help advise
you on the situations that are in the community that we think needs to
be looked at. Now, as Henry said, we can advise, and you can take up
those issues, but I don't think the purpose of this committee will be
to make sure that we get those things done. So, I mean, if we see
that there are hiring practices in the county, or if we see that there
is a need for minorities higher up in the system, we can't go out and
recruit. Neither can you in the sense -- you know, your day-to-day
business is not to be out there recruiting either. So I think what
Ms. Mac'Kie was saying about having someone that we can direct these
issues to and look into, that's where I think the direction of the
board or this group should be.
And I agree with you, looking at the past history of
the human rights commission development, a lot of time was spent on
that. I think, though, at the last couple of meetings we also agreed
that there are other issues that we're planning to take a look at and
want to advise you. That is one -- one of the first things we wanted
to do was do what we are doing today, sit down and meet with you, you
know, because obviously you must have some expectations of what our
job is supposed to be. You know, I mean, it might be nice to say,
well, here we have a group of minorities; you tell us everything that
is going on. But, obviously, you may have some questions that can help
us in directing and maybe getting in touch with people and getting
things done. So that's what I look at our role as.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me ask -- I heard a
couple of you mention that you may want to do something different with
the county's hiring procedures, recruiting procedures. Do you
perceive that there is problem?
MR. ROBINSON: Well, I guess -- what is it -- Tom
Whitecotten brought us? He's been supplying us with a list of a
number of jobs that are available in the county -- county government
jobs. If the applicants have been minorities, how many of those have
been hired? I think there is a certain level of which you really do
not see too many minorities at all.
Now, whether that has been from county neglect, you
know, I can't say. If it's been because -- as we were saying before
-- well, you know, we put out the information to recruit people, but
sometimes you have to go out and get them.
People need to be aware of Naples and the Naples area.
You know, they may hear about it, that it's someplace down in Florida,
but may not know what is really involved. A perfect example is
myself, you know. Someone asked me to come down and take a look and
find out what the opportunities are, and you go from there. You know,
sometimes I would not necessarily pick Naples off the map, you know,
sitting in Rochester, New York.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell me what your professional
perspective is. Can you tell us anything about your practices or
policies that you see deficiencies?
MR. BENNETT: Yes. I've talked to several county
managers over my 18 years here and have had pretty much the same
conversation, and I've talked to personnel people. I think that truly
they have an open mind on doing the job. It doesn't get done unless
you do something about it. By that I mean the -- you talk about
management positions, which is in great great scarcity of minorities
in those positions here.
The community -- the minority community -- let's talk
black community in Collier County has very few people who are
qualified in these areas as compared to larger cities. So what do you
do? Well, put an ad in the paper. Go ahead and put an ad out, and
somebody in Chicago reads it or Miami, and nothing happens. At the
risk of sounding self-serving, I think -- I felt right along to solve
this problem you need to -- well, when you have no opinion of
management position, you say -- if you can assess what kind of
participation you have there in diversity, and if you need a female or
if you need a minority to round these things out, you do whatever
professionally is needed to go find them.
Again, at the risk of sounding self-serving, whether
it's me or someone else, you get a recruiter to go find that
individual who is qualified and who will fit -- imminently qualified,
will fit, and you try to recruit them and get them to come here. With
that you have problems. It could be a comparative pay scale, it could
be a perception of this community. I'm not a minority, but I
sympathize with the minorities who are here to the extent that we are
talking about the management minorities, people like in this room who
have -- don't have a large community of people who have had the same
backgrounds they do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got a question, and
maybe -- hopefully you can help me. If it's perceived -- if there is
a problem -- and I don't know what the numbers are apparently as far
as what the makes of women are or what the makes of minorities are,
but if there is a problem, let's say -- what's the black population
percentage-wise in Collier County?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's 5,000?
MR. TRIBBEL: It's about 5 percent.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's about 5 percent?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 5,000 on 180.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 180 is somewhat less than 5
percent.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anyway, it's not that
important. But let's say it's 5 percent, and let's say that we find
the county only employs -- 3 percent of our employees are black.
we perceive --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like for us to look at
not just across the board county employees but managerial and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay, fine. This is -- I
mean I am just trying to set up a question. That's not the substance
of the question. Let's assume we perceive there is a problem that we
are not serving the black community in Collier County appropriately,
whatever level of employment that is on. How then do we better serve
the existing black community by bringing in someone from Chicago,
because we are still neglecting existing community, or do they then --
and I see you shaking your head, and I'm going to get an answer.
That's why I am asking is is it because there is an example then that
they are active as part of the community and so on?
MR. BENNETT: Can I take a crack at that? In the
affirmative action program in the major corporations -- and one that I
have worked for in particular was Xerox out of Rochester, and they
probably had the best in the country. And the numbers were important,
or the levels were important, so you had to have levels, and you had
to have numbers. I also worked for a bank -- a major bank in Chicago,
and they kept saying I wonder why we don't have minorities that stick
around and so on. Well, they didn't have -- a lot of the people don't
like the word role model, but they didn't have people above a certain
level who were producing and were in the job -- or in the job first
and then produced to give the encouragement to the young HBAs coming
out of Chicago and so on. They got big. They stopped at -- level 4
had the same problem. It was support. The people just get stuck at a
certain level, and they didn't have a role model. Role model, I don't
like that word myself. But they didn't have people who had progressed
further up and -- or the opportunity had been -- they plucked them out
for somebody there.
So I think that once you have the pyramid working, the
management pyramid working, then the people who are up there, the ones
that you are talking about who are here, that gives them some
inspiration maybe to get better educated. A whole lot of things can
happen. I think that's what is needed in the whole country. Right
here, you know, it needs some work.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think if we were to look at
the minority population in the county work force, you would probably
find 5, possibly even 10 percent of the county work force is minority.
When we look at our intermediate supervisory positions and above, I
don't know that there are any minorities.
MR. TRIBBEL: The second part of what you are saying is
definitely right. I was saying I don't think the overall population,
I mean, in terms of -- is 5 or 6 percent of all employees. I don't
think so.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: My point is that we hire
minorities, but we hire them for the lower paying jobs that don't
require a lot of qualifications. As we move into the supervisory
position, we may find some but not much higher than that. And therein
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is the suggestion that we
seek out the best black candidate for the job as opposed to the best
candidate or the best female candidate for the job?
MR. ROBINSON: No, I think the suggestion --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't like affirmative action
programs, but I think that we do need -- and I'm not going to use the
word role model, because I think it works. But we do -- we might want
to make a more extraordinary effort to locate minorities that are
qualified.
MR. ROBINSON: Or expand the base meaning, you know, I
don't know where you look for middle management or management
positions, but perhaps with usage of things like Bob was talking
about, you expand the base so that those persons who might be
interested in it first of all know about it, have an opportunity to
come down and actually see the county. Then, you know, you make your
decision who is the most qualified candidate.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like this discussion, because
what Bob was talking about a little bit earlier, and may be the way
that Ford did it, is that they identified positions. Say that we need
a Hispanic or black female in this position. They go out and find a
Hispanic or black female. I personally don't think much of that
approach. And, again, we're talking about, you know -- I think what
you need to do is if you recognize that you are not getting the
sufficient number of applicants from the minority community in a
certain level of job, you take an approach to increase the number of
applicants.
We have in the State of Florida institutions such as
Florida A&H and Bethune-Cookman that tend to have a much higher
minority population in their student body, quality education, you
know. These are good schools. If we are not drawing entry-level
professionals in that community, then we need to go to the source and
draw from that to increase the pool of applicants. We then still
choose the best candidate for the job.
MR. BENNETT: That I understand. I agree with you.
But if I am that young kid just coming out of Bethune and see an
advertisement or somebody does some college recruiting from the
county, I understand there is an opportunity there. I either have to
be a pioneer in my instincts or -- I have to be a pioneer, or I have
to see somebody up the line who is succeeding. So I think you need to
be jump-started. I think it's perfect what you said about it, but you
need a jump-start here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What do you mean by
jump-start?
MR. BENNETT: Jump-start -- you have to stay on a
specific job. This job we will go out and seek that highly
professional qualified minority, whether black or black female or
white or black. You've got to do that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have trouble agreeing with
that. I know what you are saying. I do believe -- MR. BENNETT: Corporate America has not had that
problem. They've done it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it's a fundamental premise.
What has to happen is that what I see as the first step that we
haven't taken is we first have to recognize diversity as a value. You
know, women and minorities have a contribution to make that is
different from a white male contribution in that -- I don't think we
have made that first step of recognizing the value of diversity so
that then we go out and try to make a few jump-starts and then, more
important, recruit.
MR. BENNETT: I'm working for the Bank of Boston now on
a number of search assignments which are not minority. They're
whatever you find. And they're in Palm Beach and over in Sarasota,
Boston. And I found -- in my search I found some very highly
qualified white females and very highly qualified white males who will
get the jobs. But I've also been contacted by Boston to find a person
in the private banking business who is black for the east coast of
Florida, and that is circled black male or female for that specific
job. Hard to find. There aren't many of them out there in the
private banking.
MR. ROBINSON: The problem that I think I am hearing
from you --
MR. BENNETT: Excuse me. They're doing that because
there is no one over there, and they see the need to have this
diversity on a management level.
MR. ROBINSON: What I was going to say is the problem
you might have as a government who is trying to do that is if you're
pegging a position, you know that that opens up all kinds of
possibilities. I realize that -- I don't know if we are talking about
quotas and things like that. But even forgetting that level, I'm just
saying by opening up -- by going to places where you're going to find
minorities, you know, find qualified people, that's what I think the
county may need to do.
MR. TRIBBEL: I doubt if you are going historically to
black colleges. I doubt if they are going to the National Bar
Association as opposed to the American Bar Association. I doubt that
they're going to the Hispanic Bar Association. They're probably in
the fields of engineering and other areas. Minorities have felt that
they were not being accepted appropriately in these professional
organizations, and they branched off and had their own. So those
kinds of things can be done.
Also in terms of recruiting, Tom did have some people
working in the area of some specialized recruiting. And when his
staff was cut, those people were cut. So what was being done two
years ago is not being done now.
I'd like to also offer -- and I agree with Commissioner
Hac'Kie. Let's talk about diversity, not blacks, not Hispanics.
Let's talk about -- in that respect I think we all can agree that if
all the people who were in the decision making were refugees from Cuba
and didn't speak English well, that they couldn't as effectively serve
this community as a diverse group of people. I went to the extremes to
make the point. It is not anti-white male, you know. It is talking
about --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Henry, it is if you exclude
them from the recruitment process.
MR. TRIBBEL: Well, no. We're talking about this --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Attitude, attitude --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's what he is
proposing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One at a time. We've got a
court reporter -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, this ain't corporate
America.
MR. TRIBBEL: But that's not what I am saying.
MR. BENNETT: I don't represent --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Excuse me. The court
reporter. One at a time.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me -- are we saying that --
are we even implying that minorities are not willing to compete in the
marketplace? Are we even implying that?
MR. TRIBBEL: Are we implying that? No.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then what is wrong with a county
policy that will advertise nationally for positions and make a special
effort to advertise in some of the places that you mentioned just to
make sure that they are reaching into the community that you pointed
out for us? And when people apply, no matter where they come from, at
that point they get equal opportunity and equal access to the job
position. What is wrong with that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you suggesting that is our
policy? I don't think it is.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I don't know that -- I
don't think we take a lot of special effort to reach some of the
communities. And I am saying I don't have a problem with that, but
I'm saying once all the applicants come in that all bets are off.
Everybody competes on equal footing at that point. I have real
problems with giving preferential treatment to anybody for any reason
out of race or gender.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me say a couple of
things. Pam, when you talked about diversity and how that is
beneficial, I couldn't agree with you more. But to peg specific
places, well, you say that is not quotas. Well, yes, it is. If you
say we're going to fill this particular one with a Hispanic female,
and we're going to fill this particular one with a black person, and
we're going to fill this one with a Chinese-American --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the Lithuanians.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- then that is in effect a
quota. I don't know what your definition is, but under my definition
that is saying quota. What I want to do is get the most qualified
human being to do that. That may be a woman, it may be black, it may
Hispanic, it may be whatever. But let me finish my thought. If we
are not recruiting, as John just said, not letting any of those
different areas know that these jobs are available, then, perhaps, we
are failing in that. They should be -- have equal competition and
equal access to our jobs as everyone else. But to suggest that we
need to specifically give a job to them is going to the next step.
Secondarily, if -- and, Pam, you asked, I think -- you
asked John how are we doing that now. I don't know if we are or
not.
If when all those applications come in right now, if we are not
giving fair consideration to everybody, then we have a problem. Then
maybe Tom Whitecotton and his department need to be slapped silly.
Not for quote.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Too late.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Too late.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, you know what I mean.
If we're failing in that endeavor, then we need to correct that. But
my hope is right now -- if there is a failure, it's failure to reach
out to those different communities.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean there's two possibilities
for failure here. One would be in the reaching out, and that's where
I think we aren't doing an adequate job. I can't judge. I don't have
enough information to judge if we're doing a fair job once the
applicants are on the table.
And just so everybody knows, I would go either as far
as Bob has suggested, that we identify, okay, this is going to be a
black-woman job no matter what. But what I would like to do is that
we are competent that we are recruiting adequately. And I think if we
are doing that, then we are going to get qualified -- equally
qualified black man, white woman, black -- you know. So at that point
when we have white male, black woman equally qualified, the job goes
to the black woman to encourage diversity. That's what I would
support.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's one person we haven't
heard from. I met you at Joe Gantly's (phonetic) party, and I
remember talking to you. And you have been sitting here being very,
very polite, and I'm sure you have something to say --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That will never work.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so I wanted to recognize --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not in this group. You're not
going to get a word in edgewise.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're not going to get a word
in edgewise, so I wanted to recognize you and just ask you if you had
anything.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thanks, Tim. Yes. My viewpoint is a
little different in the fact that I'm a native of Naples, born and
practically raised out of the River Park community. But I think a lot
of the employees that the county have are local employees, and number
one, they will always be loyal employees. My question was -- I know
Bob brought up the idea of going out and searching in other
communities, but my question to the commissioners, do you have
anything internally to where when you have that employee that becomes
a crew chief or a crew member that is a minority, that we can get them
up to --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Train them up.
MR. WILLIAMS: Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, that is something that I
have been talking to Mr. Dotrill now at least two and a half years.
We do not have an internal management training program.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we do something such as an
ombudsman could help you out?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or anybody, not just for
minorities.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For anyone. We don't have a
program.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: In essence we have capped them
by not having that, whomever.
MR. TRIBBEL: I think Commissioner Mac'Kie's idea is on
the head. We are only touching today -- we're just talking about
employment and a couple of things. There are a lot of socioeconomic
and legal issues involved across the board. And we could start with an
ombudsman to help train us all about -- to help evaluate the county
and the community and to provide a professional focus for dealing with
the problems. I have problems when I hear, like, if we have a problem
in Collier County. We do have problems in terms of diversity. But I
think that's a good point to start.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Henry, I appreciate your
comments. I do want to point out that the Black Affairs Advisory
Board is an advisory to the County Commission on county
business-related items. We're not going to deal with socioeconomic
issues at large in the community at the County Commission level.
We're not going to start to do that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we do that every day, every
day. It's impossible to side -- that God-bless-it drainage thing is a
socioeconomic issue.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Explain that to me. I'm missing
it. What does that have to do with diversity or minorities? What
does that have to do?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. The drainage thing,
I was thinking. It may have to do with economic diversity, maybe.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oops, called that bluff.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's socioeconomic. It isn't
racial diversity.
MR. TRIBBEL: This county -- because of the history of
this county, there may be things that happen or don't happen that the
communities feel it's discriminatory. And this county doesn't have
the personnel to effectively evaluate it -- has the kind of ability to
communicate or have --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Henry, I'm not following you, I
guess, because I don't agree with your original statement. So you're
going to have to give me a little bit of a specific of what you are
talking about when you mean a socioeconomic issue.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I want to try because --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's make it quick because I
think there's other issues beside employment that we need to discuss
somewhat. So let's try to close this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can do it in a sentence.
Maria Cruz had nowhere to go.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What do you mean by that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maria Cruz felt that she had
nobody to -- this was a gender discrimination issue where she had
nowhere to go.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Time out. My statement was that
this committee is empowered to advise us on County Commission type
business. What you're describing to me is. What he was describing to
me was not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What if, for example, her
problem had been -- she was being racially discriminated against? I
suggest she also --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Excuse me. She is a
county employee. Obviously that is County Commission business.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that is what I am suggesting
for an ombudsman.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What Henry is talking about is
not. At least the way I understood what he is saying was not. We're
not going to get into community-wide socioeconomic issues. We're not
going to do that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Only to the extent that they
touch County Commission business.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's fine.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If the cause -- the ombudsman
proposal I was making would be -- primarily from my point of view,
would be to help existing county employees and then also tangentially
to help people as they deal with the county find that they need
somebody that would report a problem to.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the ombudsman proposal
sounds like a warmed over human rights commission to me. What
concerns me is -- and I think some of the things you reported in your
report on community development was -- you just mentioned that Ms.
Cruz felt she didn't have anywhere to go. Apparently a lot of other
employees, if they would talk to personnel, that information went back
to their supervisor and all. That's a problem in our personnel
department, that you don't invent a new department or a new position
to fix that. We've got something wrong in personnel. And so I hear
this as kind of another way or another name for the human rights
position.
MR. TRIBBEL: Well, I can tell you that whether it was
this one or another one, the personnel department works for the
county. That's the county's personnel department. And it is going to
work over and over again as long as that is the only vehicle that some
individuals, some groups, have to complain about their problems.
That's the fact.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm actually suggesting -- my
ombudsman idea is as an arm or something of the human resources
department and that the only other -- I'm talking about a position in
human resources, perhaps, but who has some other authority, some
outside loop by virtue of this code enforcement board type volunteer
board that -- so that the line for complaints doesn't run straight to
Neil, because that seems to interfere with people's --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if they work for human
resources, they work for Tom Whitecotton, who in turn works for Neil,
who we have been told is that -- you know, that was the line of the
problem, that community development. And I have heard the same thing
in utilities and elsewhere. You are still in that same line, and
you're still in that same management team. So while the concept is
great, you're going to run into that same problem. That problem isn't
that one position off to the side. The problem is the way it is
currently being run, the system.
MR. BENNETT: And, again, I hate to keep talking about
corporate America, but, yes, it does. In corporate America there are
positions created and have been created over the last 25 years of a
person who does not report to the personnel person, they will find a
proper reporting place. That individual is one who addresses
themselves to these very problems, and the young person or the person
who has a problem can come.
I can give you one example. If I can take a minute, an
example -- I put a very -- at the beginning of this 23 years ago a
very bright young man in a position there -- he's as bright as they
came -- he was just a financial analyst. Now he is an executive vice
president. He called me up a couple of months later and said, I'm
having a problem. I said, What's your problem? He said, Well, my
boss doesn't know what he is doing. He will throw me some change and
say, hey, boy, go get me some cigarettes. And that's really grabbing
me. This guy is a Princeton graduate, Chicago Business School
graduate, Number one in his class and been with HcKinsey and Company
and Quaker Oats. And so he didn't like it. He said, What will I do?
I said, Go see Ted Payne (phonetic). Ted Payne was the type of
individual I was just telling you about who was created in the
position at Xerox. Maybe you knew Ted Payne. And it was solved. The
manager was given some sensitivity training -- they had a sensitivity
training group there anyway. And the problem was solved, and the guy
didn't leave the company.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So maybe my chain of command is
wrong, and that's what I'm looking for advice on.
MR. BENNETT: You need a position, but where you put it
that's another question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, because we are kind of
approaching a time certain here, there have been some ideas that have
been put on the table that I think are worth pursuing, and let's try
to summarize those as, if you will, a plan of action. The first one
-- and we need to find a word easier to pronounce than ombudsman.
That is Number one, ombudsman -- how about just that person? But I
think the first goal -- and I'll just throw this out for discussion.
Let's see how we massage them -- is to review the structure within
human resources to determine if a situation such as the Maria Cruz
situation arises again that that person has an outlet that doesn't go
through the normal chain of command. That's what I am hearing. Is
that chain really the problem and someone having a sufficient outlet
for a difficulty --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me explain something. The
Maria Cruz thing was a symptom of another problem, and the other
problem was another 150 people who had the same problem. It just
wasn't sexual; it was work.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question,
though. I mean if -- whatever the problem is, if it's somebody
telling somebody in community development to go and get them some
cigarettes, why shouldn't they be able to go to Tom Whitecotton and
say this is happening? And I mean -- they're not able apparently?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Apparently they are not able to.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the correction then
isn't that, well, let's just let Tom keep doing his thing even though
he isn't doing it right and put another person in. Let's correct what
is wrong with the way it's being run.
MR. TRIBBEL: The human resource -- I'm having some
problems with this. The human resource position is not a power
position. It is a powerless position. It is the hub.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It should be powerless.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's why you need an outside --
MR. TRIBBEL: To say that the problem is human
resources, no. Someone comes to human resources -- human resources
works for management. It never was -- you should not expect human
resources to be --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So there was no problem
there when people would go and complain and get no response. I mean,
you can't argue both sides of the coin. Either they have some
authority and should use it, or they don't.
HR. TRIBBEL: To complicate that situation is you had a
person who was more powerful than even the county manager in the eyes
of the people.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
MR. TRIBBEL: I'm just being very candid with you. You
have to look at the factual situation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not going to fix that
situation at this table today. But what I am looking for are the
parameters to proceed in, to ask for your assistance in giving the
board some direction and input. I was just trying to encapsulate it a
little bit.
The structure within the human resources department --
and maybe the personnel involved in the human resources department are
the root of the problem. But I do agree. There is a structure
problem when that person has to go through the county manager that,
you know, their job then becomes part of the equation of what they
bring to the county manager. There may be a structure problem there.
There may be a way to shift resources and make the reportability
different in such a way that we have an outlet there as opposed to
something that has to go through Neil Dotrill.
MR. BENNETT: I don't know if you can do it, but I
think this advocate or whatever you might call it, if you choose to
have one, could very well report directly to the County Commission.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that may be a possibility,
but that's all a part of an overall discussion.
MR. BENNETT: It has to have some weight to it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, you'd have to change
the county manager's ordinance and the way we operate right now
because that puts us directly involved in county personnel procedures.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is why I had that code
enforcement -- the board kind of idea, that this person would --
here's the way I saw it. I got a problem. I go to the advocate. The
advocate doesn't work it out to my satisfaction. Then I appeal to this
code enforcement or whatever board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Human rights commission.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Human rights. All volunteers.
All volunteers. You guys when you voted on it before said you know
this idea is good. It's the spending of the money that's bad. So if
we are talking about volunteer human rights commission, surely we can
talk about it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, thanks for
paraphrasing me, but I didn't say the whole idea was good. The money
was a concern, but there were certainly other problems with it as
well.
MR. ROBINSON: All I was going to say, to get back to
what I think you were talking about earlier, number one is I think the
county needs to look at where they stand above -- in terms of middle
management above -- in terms of where they stand in terms of minority
hiring. There may not be a policy to exclude, but there may not be a
policy to include.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So how can you help us with
that?
MR. BENNETT: Well, I --
MR. ROBINSON: Let me just finish. That's only one
part of the thing. The second part is if you are not including, or if
there is a problem that someone is actually excluding people, then you
need to address that. Whether it's recruitment or -- and then the
third thing is not just recruiting people and say well, we got them
here. You need to retain them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is an important point that
I don't want to lose today.
MR. ROBINSON: You need to allow them to grow within
the organization.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: John.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me say that there has been a
couple of suggestions here today that are very helpful, and we need to
consider acting on, and I think it is the role of your board, your
advisory board, to put it down on paper. The two suggestions that I
think are very good that we need to consider putting into county
policy are making sure that we advertise in the right places to get
our advertisements out into minority communities. We would make that
official policy. I think that certainly has some merit. And the
other thing is that we need to institute management training policies
and procedures, and that would apply to everyone, but I think it would
specifically help some of the minority members of our staff in
elevating themselves up.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would help all levels.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It will help everyone, but I
think in particular it will help minorities, and it's just good
business. It's good for everyone. It's certainly better for the
county to take our own local people and keep trying them to advance.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill is going to tell you
what little bit of management training that we had several years ago
was dropped because of budgetary cuts. Programs like that cost money.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we need to bring it back
for discussion, and it's, I think, up to the board to write it down as
a recommendation that you send to the County Commission and bring it
back for discussion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because it is not as costly --
you can get people who are trained to do it in-house. In the military
we did it. You know, we had people that traveled, you know,
throughout regions that were trained to teach the sensitivity courses,
the sensitivity training. I received more than eight years as a
reservist than most people in this county have ever received in 20
years of service. I mean that's crazy. I don't think it has to be as
costly as bringing an outside person in every time you have a new
hire. It can be done -- it can be done with people. And I think
there is a combination of resources within human resources that we can
use to do that.
The one thing I don't want to lose, and I know there is
a lot of disagreement here on whether the ombudsman idea is a human
rights commission approach or not, but that one, I just don't think we
can let it die here today. I have some possible points of contention
that maybe there needs to be another open, frank discussion about that
particular element. But if it comes back in the form of another human
rights commission, we're probably going to be back at square one
again. So I think what we are looking at is a way to initiate an idea
but to do in a more palatable format, and I'm not intuitive enough to
sit here and tell you what that is. I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I suggest this, that the
advisory board may want to take a real hard look at the Alachua County
program that is being used right now for handling personnel problems,
and they do call it a human rights commission. They handle
essentially interpersonal things that go on, and it's purely -- they
handle the situation more of businesses and the community as a whole,
but we can certainly get employees mixed into it. And that is a
volunteer-appointed board, and it works similar to, for lack of a
better definition, code enforcement board that we have. I've talked
to people who have lived in Alachua County, Gainesville, and they say
that this system that they have there works very well in mediating
these problems that do exist where -- human beings living in the same
environment, and there are problems.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what is a
little frustrating. At the very beginning of this meeting
Commissioner Hancock and myself both said, you know, all we've done
for the past two years is talk about a human rights commission, and we
haven't talked about any of the other issues that are affecting the
minority communities. And then we sat here for an hour and quickly
got ourselves right back on track talking about what effect -- what
equals a human rights commission. And we said, gosh, we can do job
fairs. We started to touch on recruiting elsewhere, but the thing
that we dove back into in detail is the human rights commission, and
we can sit and talk about that and probably will by the sound of
things. But we can go on and do that for another year, and all these
other things are being neglected in the process. And we spent the
last two or three years talking about that as well.
MR. TRIBBEL: Well, it's like it doesn't do me any good
to have trash collectors if you don't have people to professionally
dispose of it. And that is what we found out as a committee. Early
on we had all of these --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm missing that analogy.
I'm really sorry.
MR. TRIBBEL: No, it's not a strange analogy because --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's like collecting trash
without a landfill to put it in.
MR. TRIBBEL: Right, or to dispose of. We have to deal
with education, law enforcement across the board. And we realized
that we couldn't do nothing with the problems that were brought to us,
and there was no one in the county to deal with the problems. So
that's how we got to the human rights commission.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we have talked about
today -- unfortunately, this lunch has to come to an end. But I think
we have talked about some ideas for policies internal in the county
that will promote the increased pooling of minority resources for jobs
that come available. And those are the kinds of things that we would
like specific recommendations. Those are policy matters that the
board should routinely handle. I do think we need to change policy to
effect a couple of things we've talked about today. And I have
noticed you were making notes, so I hope that's on there.
As far as the ombudsman idea or human rights
commissioner or whatever tag you want to put on it, again, I think we
need a policy in place that helps us. And if it requires a person, so
be it. I don't want to start with that assumption. But I think we
need a policy in place to alleviate, to relieve the problems that
occurred, for lack of a better word, the Maria Cruz situation. We
need an outlet. If it's a structural change, if it's a policy change,
if it's a programmatic change, I don't know that. But I don't want to
start with the idea that it has to be programmatic in the form of a
human rights commission. I want to start with a clean slate and
address that problem. That's simply my preference, but I'm just
trying to bring a closure to this so that we have a program of work
and feel like we did something other than discuss human rights
commission for an hour.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we do one more thing too?
We opened the hour fairly clear about job fairs, and there was some
discussion about a Chamber of Commerce program or thing that is going
on in the weekday, daytime. Have you contacted the Chamber to let
them know that weekdays, daytime doesn't really work for a minority
business and ask them to reschedule in the evening or weekends?
MR. TRIBBEL: Two of us were involved in the activity
event of March 9th at NABOR, all right. And we -- this all came up
then, and we had it in the evening. Now these same people get
together -- not everybody, but the Chamber people who put on the one
next week were involved in that, and they go back to the business as
usual. Now, you read the newspaper accounts of what happened in
NABOR. We were hoping to get, hopefully, 50 people. Maybe we can get
75. We had 200 people there. So, yes, they knew up front when we
were involved. The next thing, see, is I get a copy of a notice in
the paper -- I mean in the mail, we're going to have it the 26th -- I
mean the 23rd through the 26th in the daytime.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Help them fix it for next time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, let me throw something
out. So I mean it is next week. There is nothing we can do about
that. They made a mistake, and we need to correct that in the future.
But, listen, today is the second day I have offered, and if someone
wants to take the ball with it and run, I will be happy to. Again,
this is a formal offer to help put together that job fair that will go
into the various communities. I offered that once before and never
heard a word back. I've contacted the Chamber; they're interested.
I've -- this is the second time I have let your committee know, and
I've talked to someone who is willing to head up and oversee the
entire project. So it seems to me that is something that opens the
lines of communication, it's beneficial, you can do it at night, you
can do it in the neighborhoods, you can't get any more convenient for
the people that are looking for that type of thing. And if somebody
wants to run with that, great. The offer is out there. If you don't,
then you don't have --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, don't let it be true
-- this is like my little sermonette to the board, the advisory
board. Don't let it be true that all you do is talk about the human
rights commission, and if you can't get that, you just won't do
anything. Don't let that be true. Go do something else, and get us
educated, and get us started. Don't wait. You know, if I can't have
it all, I won't do anything, because --
MR. BENNETT: I'm kind of ignorant. I've only been on
this board a short -- this committee a short time. And I didn't
really think I was hearing a demand for a human rights commission in
the conversation today. I thought I was hearing some alternatives and
possibilities that could address some of the problems, but not human
rights commission.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what we're looking for.
And I hope that we have some ideas of direction and that we'll be
hearing from some of you folks real soon. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you:
(The BAAB workshop concluded at 1:12 p.m. and
reconvened in regular session of the board meeting at 1:15 p.m.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of
County Commission meeting for MAy the 16th. We've had a request and
Mr. Constantine is going to repeat the information.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. For those of you that
were not with us this morning or missed the very beginning of our
meeting, if you've been wondering who our sixth commissioner is today,
a little smaller than the rest of us, her name is Kristie Miller. She
is -- disappeared.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here she comes. Here she comes.
She needed to tell Mom something.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The Girls Incorporated
program does something similar to the "Take Your Daughter to Work,"
and she's not my daughter, but her mom is in the back of the room.
Gail stand. And Kristie follows local issues more so than even some
of the groups like TAG do, and so she wanted for her work day to be
here with the commission and to see it first-hand. So she is one of
us today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm voting however she tells me.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to point out she's not
much smaller than all of the commissioners. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are in the midst of the public
comment on the Naples Park drainage question that we are considering
today. I believe we have 13 or so speakers remaining. So let's
continue with that, Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: Our next speaker will be Gene Pistori.
UNKNOWN VOICE: She's left.
MR. DORRILL: Not here. Betty MAthys.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not me.
MR. DORRILL: Betty MAthys. Mr. Johnstone, Inge
Johnstone. Following Mr. Johnstone, we'll have Dr. Stallings.
MR. JOHNSTONE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My first
question is, can the little one vote?
All right. My name is Inge Johnstone. I'm president of
the Wiggins Pass Conservancy. I'm also speaking as a member of the
Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association, and I'm also speaking as
a private individual who has a house right on the Vanderbilt catch
basin as it's been so nicely called. A little earlier just before
lunch, I mentioned to Commissioner MAc'Kie with reference to this --
with the water pump, the life-for-water or water-for-life or whatever
it is in needing acreage. Please each of you recall that you own two
or three acres on Bluebill Avenue already between Vanderbilt Drive and
the bridge. You own that land right now. You don't have to buy it.
As you know, from -- I've written each of you or we have
written each of you. You know that we are quite concerned with this
-- with this plan. We're concerned with adding -- I know that we
already have rainwater runoff in the Vanderbilt Lagoon. In fact, it's
75 yards from my house. The conduits are already there. But we're
concerned about adding more water to that by the channeling north and
south with the Eighth Street pipe. We're very concerned and -- number
one, as an emotional thing to us, this is no more than transferring a
problem from one neighborhood to another. There is no systems
approach. I'm not aware that anybody has looked at the overall
picture, and that is bothersome.
With all respect to the young lady who spoke earlier
about the water that comes out of those pipes into south Vanderbilt
Lagoon being clear and pretty-looking to her, I'll tell you that when
I moved here in 1987, off the dock in front of my house, the water
more than half the time was clear, and I caught ladyfish, jackfish,
trout, and other kinds of interesting things, and we had blue crabs on
the bottom. The next year they put in those two water pipes
underneath Vanderbilt Drive. Since then, the water is seldom clear,
and we have only catfish and mullet these days. So something has
happened.
You have to remember that the Vanderbilt Lagoon system
is a closed dead-end system. It's something that's happened. It
would never happen today. But it's happened and it's there, and we're
worried about it.
A couple of quick things, and I'm going to read from the
letter I sent you just to refresh our memories. As you are aware, the
Naples Conservancy and Dr. -- The Naples Conservancy people were here
earlier -- about two years ago proposed that the state designate the
Wiggins Pass and area waterways as Outstanding Florida Waters. Since
the outset, the Wiggins Pass Conservancy and lately the Vanderbilt
Beach Property Owners Association have been working diligently with
the Naples Conservancy to come up with an overall plan which, one,
allows the OFW to come into being on a balanced sensible basis; two,
preserves a reasonable ability to dredge for navigational safety and
to promote tidal flushing of the Vanderbilt lagoons. This concept has
been backed by the Wildlife Federation, by the Naples Conservancy, and
by the Audubon Society. They all know that we need to flush those
lagoons. And, finally, number three, initiate a joint effort to test,
analyze, and clean up the lagoon waters.
In a historic accomplishment, the three groups, the
Naples Conservancy, the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association,
and the Wiggins Pass Conservancy have agreed, and the Department of
Environmental Protection is writing up an ordinance right now.
Commissioner Hancock mentioned a little while ago he
thought that possibly with this rainwater runoff plan, that there
would be enough additional volume to possibly help flush the lagoons.
Well, that may or may not be. I know very little about hydrology, but
we don't need those lagoons flushed with fresh water. That's most of
the problem.
I'm down three, two, one. The Wiggins Pass Conservancy
asks you to really think about this with a systems approach. The
Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association is not in favor of doing
this without thinking about it. And if you -- as you've seen from
letters and from speakers here today, the Audubon Society, the Naples
Conservancy, and the -- and the Wildlife Federation all want you to
think three times before we do something that's going to impact this
whole area. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question for Inge.
First, I want to mention that Inge is probably the foremost authority
at any point of water depth and quality in Vanderbilt Lagoon. I've
seen many pictures of him knee deep in the middle of the channel. So
I appreciate your input today, Inge.
The question I have is, the OFW, if it's successful,
does -- does it really do anything to increase flushing action in the
south end of the lagoon? Is -- I mean, is it really going to have any
-- any positive impact on the south end of the lagoon other than
maybe decreasing nutrients that are up river that carry in?
MR. JOHNSTONE: That's a very good question. There are
two parts to the answer. The first part is the OFW itself will not,
because man-made areas are not available for OFW designations. But it
will help in that the agreement that we've reached with the Naples
Conservancy and the Audubon Society and the Florida Wildlife
Federation all, all together we're going to do more testing, and we
are going to be in front of you more often seeing what we can do to
clean up those waters. It's a man-made problem. It's going to have
to be man-solved.
The second part to the answer is, is there will be a
very big effect on the plan that you have in mind. And that is, the
OFW rule says that while an area may not be an OFW, that no adjacent
area to an OFW will be allowed to degrade the system within the OFW,
which means that if the OFW takes place all the way down to Bluebill
bridge, I think it is -- through Turkey Bay into Bluebill bridge, if
that is all OFW, then anything that further contaminates the waters of
the Vanderbilt lagoons will not be proper and will not be allowed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know Dr. Stallings is probably
going to hit on this because it's something that is important.
There's a two-part problem here. Part of it is -- yes, the runoff
from Naples Park. That's part of the problem for Vanderbilt Lagoon.
The other part Naples Park had nothing to do with and can't fix, and
that's the closing of that lagoon when it used to be an open system.
So although, yes, Naples Park will contribute to the
problem, I hate for them to shoulder 100 percent of the responsibility
for the water conditions in that lagoon when, in fact, it was some
other action that played at least a 50 percent part of the degradation
of that water quality, and I just wanted to mention that as an
important point because folks in Naples Park are now getting targeted
as the reason why, you know, hell is breaking loose -- MR. JOHNSTONE: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and that isn't all of it.
MR. JOHNSTONE: I totally agree with you. It's -- It's
terrible that we weren't this -- that we didn't think far ahead back
when Vanderbilt Drive closed off that end. We don't want something
like that to happen again. That's why I'm asking for a systems
approach. I beg you people to look at the whole problem. I ask you
to look at Vanderbilt Lagoon and the effects on it. I ask you to look
at Naples Park and how we can help them. I even ask you to look at
Collier Reserve and what the result on them may be. We're all
neighbors, but we want to be treated as one whole. We don't want to
band-aid a cut and leave the rest of us limping around bleeding.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Stallings. Chris Straton has left,
but she's left the first page of a letter that she's asked me to
distribute to her. And following Dr. Stallings, we'll have Hiss
Wiegold.
DR. STALLINGS: I'm Fran Stallings representing the
Florida Wildlife Federation. I have a letter which I would like to
read into the record, and I have copies for you.
"We have been following with much interest the attempts
to solve the flooding and other problems in the Naples Park area
associated with surface water runoff. Unfortunately this project has
incorporated within it one of the major failings of many such projects
-- namely, that consideration is given only to the site having the
problem, and adjacent areas are ignored. This omission can be
especially serious in situations where the site under consideration is
an interconnected part of a larger system as is the case here.
"Time and distance are two important considerations in
the treatment of stormwater runoff. If the recommended option is
approved, the time for runoff water to move from its point of origin
into Vanderbilt Lagoon will be significantly shortened and the
opportunities for improvement along the way reduced. The result will
be to increase the pollutant loading in Vanderbilt Lagoon which is
already polluted to the extent that serious water quality degradation
has occurred. In essence, you're being asked to take a problem found
in Naples Park and transfer it into Vanderbilt Lagoon.
"We have a great deal of sympathy and concern for the
Naples Park residents; however, we cannot support the dumping of this
problem onto their neighbors. On this basis, we ask that you take a
systems approach and develop a plan that both addresses the problems
of Naples Park and Vanderbilt Lagoon at the same time.
"I especially urge you to consider connecting
Vanderbilt Lagoon to the Gulf of Mexico through an underground pipe
that would run beneath Vanderbilt Beach Road. In this way, a solution
could be implemented that would be minimally disruptive to nearby
homes and businesses. The design and construction techniques required
are easily within current engineering and construction capabilities.
It should be possible to significantly improve the water quality in
Vanderbilt Lagoon, bring back much of the marine productivity and
recreational value and increase the property values of the adjacent
areas.
"I have discussed this idea with other
environmentalists as well as individuals in the regulatory agencies,
and it is my belief that such a scheme is permitable. It is also my
belief that you're likely to have some considerable problems if you
proceed forward with the current recommended alternative. We'll be
very pleased to assist you in any way possible to alleviate the
problems on an area-wide basis but cannot support a solution that
simply transfers the problem one from neighborhood to another."
In suggesting the underground pipe, I don't really know
of any other easy practical way to solve the problem because if you
want to have detention, retention treatment or whatever, you need
space to do it, and this area is just too built out. You just don't
have the space to do it. So somehow or other we've got to some way
solve the problem otherwise.
But reopening a connection with the Gulf of Mexico I
think is a very practical kind of thing. I understand you're going to
four-lane Vanderbilt Beach Road, and at that time it would be a
relatively simple matter, from the construction perspective anyhow, to
put such a culvert or a pipe underneath the road that would
re-establish this particular connection and help solve the problem. I
don't like the idea of seeing the pollutants sent out into the Gulf of
Mexico untreated, but I don't know any other practical way at this
point in time to somehow or other try to solve the difficulties.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dr. Stallings, you mentioned two
things in your letter, one of which is, in order to achieve any better
stormwater treatment or any stormwater runoff, the time has got to be
shortened. I mean, to move it quicker and the time shortened, I mean,
that's just a necessary evil.
DR. STALLINGS: I understand.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the point being, this system
is without detention or retention which I think is the significant
difference in nutrient loading because you don't have the ability to
store the water for the nutrients to fall out, to settle out so the
water is cleaner. So I understand that difference. It's just that we
can't find that ten acres we need to do the retention. DR. STALLINGS: There just isn't room.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whether we approve Plan A or Plan
B or go ahead today or not, eventually it's your opinion that for
Vanderbilt Lagoon to improve, a reconnection has to occur; is that
correct?
DR. STALLINGS: I don't know of any other practical way
under the circumstances when you have to go back and retrofit and you
already have a highly developed area, the prices both in human terms
and monetary terms just become extremely prohibitive; realizing, of
course, that a pipe out into the Gulf isn't too cheap either, but at
least it doesn't disrupt as many people as some of the other potential
solutions would.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, are you proposing a pipe
we're talking westward into the Gulf, or are you talking about a
re-connection underneath Vanderbilt Drive?
DR. STALLINGS: It would be westward into the Gulf, and
the easiest way to get it there would be to run it under the street as
opposed to through people's homes, businesses or whatever.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is just -- does
anybody have a guess on the cost of such an idea?
DR. STALLINGS: I don't have a good handle on it. I'm
sure it would be a million or two dollars at least. You know, there
is no cheap solution to this problem unfortunately.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So have you -- have you looked at
the property or have you considered the possibility of some retention
in this property that was just discussed by the previous speaker?
DR. STALLINGS: I'm not familiar with that possibility.
At least I haven't thought carefully about it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Drive and Bluebill Avenue.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Do you know where that is, Miss
Uh-huh.
It's at the corner of Vanderbilt
It's faced on --
It's parking.
It's not parking, no. But it's
faced on two sides by roads and the back by a canal, and it's not
terribly thick -- I mean, wide.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, with the gravity of
stormwater management system, it is the furthest point in Naples Park
from where the majority of water that will enter the lagoon is. I
mean, it's the opposite corner from Eighth and 91st or 92nd. So what
happens is you're now talking about pumps, force mains to get it there
because it naturally isn't going to flow in that direction.
DR. STALLINGS: Yeah. That option, I think, would cost
a lot of money, and it still would not solve the problems in
Vanderbilt Lagoon.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It still isn't enough retention
or detention to make a significant impact. DR. STALLINGS: Right.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So is the pipe proposal something
-- Please don't lynch me. I'm asking a question -- the cost of which
would be added to the overall --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. It's something --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think Mary is going to come
tell us that Vanderbilt Beach will pay for that pipe; right, Mary?
MS. WIEGOLD: We'll do anything to protect our water.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So we're talking about a
couple million dollars now, that if we want to try to do something to
protect the water, so far the best idea we have is a couple million
dollars worth of pipe?
DR. STALLINGS: To some extent. And I think there's a
flip side of it too in the sense that a much cleaner Vanderbilt
Lagoon, I'm sure, would elevate the property values considerably in
there and would have a payback in that sense.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Dr. Stallings.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
DR. STALLINGS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Wiegold and then Mr. Jacob. We
alerted the security people earlier that if she made a move for the
bag, not to jump on her.
MS. WIEGOLD: I'm not saying that this wouldn't be
harmful to you because it might have an effect on you if you swam in
it or drank it.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. I speak to you as a
member of the Water Quality Task Force of Vanderbilt Beach Property
Owners Association and as a resident of Vanderbilt Beach. As I was
preparing myself to speak to you today, I asked myself what and how
would I best be able to get my point across to you. I know some of
the buzz words such as surface water runoff, protection of our
estuaries, salt water intrusion, but words do not seem enough. So I
decided that I would show you.
I do not have a degree in engineering nor environmental
law. I do not consider myself truly a conservationalist, but my
friends say that I do have a degree in common sense. I do try to
conduct myself personally in a way that would help to protect our
environment. So approximately five hours ago I waded out into the
waters of our area and I started collecting samples. If I may
approach, Chairman Matthews?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: (Nodding head)
MS. WIEGOLD: The first collection that I made was at
Wiggins Pass. (Ms. Wiegold places a jar of water in front of
Chairperson Matthews.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's in it?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Absolutely nothing.
MS. WIEGOLD: When I went out to Wiggins Pass, the first
thing that I noticed were a lot of birds, fish jumping, sea gulls,
pelicans, terns, egrets, all of them swimming and fishing.
The second sample that I took was at my back yard on Sea
Gull Avenue. I live approximately ten blocks south of the Bluebill
bridge which is then another ten blocks away from the lagoon area.
(Ms. Wiegold places a jar of water in front of Chairperson Matthews.)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Still looking pretty good.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Still looking pretty good.
MS. WIEGOLD: Still looking pretty good. Right. The
water is cloudy, but I want to tell you something. I saw no birds on
my street, and my eyesight is not that good, but birds have much
better eyesight than I do, and they weren't diving for fish. So I saw
no fish either.
The next sample was at 92nd Avenue in the lagoon where I
bent over by the culvert and got the next sample. (Ms. Wiegold places
a jar of water in front of Chairperson Matthews.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Cloudy. Oh, it's turning yellow.
MS. WIEGOLD: Now, this is in the lagoon area. Then be
aware too that we're not quite in our rainy season, right, so we don't
have our daily monsoon, so I knew that I was getting basically a
dry-time weather sample.
The next sample that I took was on the east side of the
lagoon over Vanderbilt Drive where the ditch goes into the lagoon
area. (Ms. Wiegold places a jar of water in front of Chairperson
Matthews.)
UNKNOWN VOICE: Don't shake it.
MS. WIEGOLD: Why not? This is the way it comes to us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You have such an advocate on my
left. She keeps telling me, "Wait till she gets to the one on so and
SO."
MS. WIEGOLD: That's the last one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mary, you have a -- you have a
fish or a tadpole in here or something.
MS. WIEGOLD: Probably do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have this woman arrested for
killing wildlife, please.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. It's alive. It's alive.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's alive.
MS. WIEGOLD: Now, the very last sample '-
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I wonder for how long.
MS. WIEGOLD: I know. For how long. Right.
The very last sample that I collected was up at 92nd
Avenue and Eighth Street in Naples Park, and this one I've got to tell
you a story because this really happened. This location is also a bus
stop for our middle school. As I approached the ditch to collect my
sample, two young boys called out to me, "Hey, lady, I wouldn't go
near that water. You'll never know what you'll find in there. I see
oil and other junk floating in there."
My response, "I'm going to collect a water sample to
show our county commissioners what will flow into Vanderbilt Lagoon,
what currently flows into Vanderbilt Lagoon if they approve a certain
plan that they've presented for Naples Park drainage situation." They asked me if this was my job.
My response, I said, no, but I felt it was my
responsibility to help provide an area that was safe to swim in and to
fish in when they grew up.
Please do not approve a band-aid approach. There's been
many, many mistakes made by developers, by previous commissioners.
Naples Park has a serious problem, yes, but you can't neglect what the
impact would have and be to the surrounding areas.
As the bus pulled away, one of the boys yelled out of
the window, "Hey, lady, you crazy?" Am I?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know you too well to answer
that, Mary.
MS. WIEGOLD: That's it. (Ms. Wiegold places a jar of
water in front of Chairperson Matthews.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's nice is this one is wet so
you get a real feel for the situation.
MS. WIEGOLD: That's right. Sorry about that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's towels there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't feel a need to pass
that one down.
MS. WIEGOLD: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
you so much.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
though, Mary.
MS. WIEGOLD: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
We can see it from here. Thank
You get an "A" on your project
I hope so.
Thank you, Mary.
MS. WIEGOLD: I'll go wash my hands now.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Jacob and then Ms. Sourbeer.
MR. JACOB: Why do I always have to follow somebody like
Mary Wiegold? I don't have any water samples. My name is Art Jacob,
and I'm representing Kim Kobza, the president of Vanderbilt Beach
Property Owners Association who couldn't be here. He did write you a
letter, and he's much more articulate than I am. So I hope you've
read the letter and have paid attention to it.
I used to be the president of Vanderbilt Beach Property
Owners for five years, and during my tenure I spoke with everybody who
would listen to me about the problem we have.
Is that better, Bettye? Oh. I thought you were trying
to hear me. I speak softly.
I attended meetings. I talked to county people. I've
talked to Bill Lorenz. I talked to George Archibald who justified the
ditch after we put the culvert in, and he said,"Well, what's in the
bottom of that is going to wash your water and make it better." I
talked to the Audubon Society. I talked to the Conservancy of Naples
and anyone who would listen, but they didn't listen. We now are
paying the price of artificially blocking the flowing action which
could have saved our lagoon, and probably we could have accommodated
Naples Park because I don't think that Naples Park contributed 50
percent of our problem. I think there would be no problem with Naples
Park if that had not been artificially stopped. It's affected our way
of life.
I lived in Vanderbilt Beach for eight years. We had
birds. We had Stanley who was a great blue who lived on my lawn. I
also had mangroves next to the lawn, and he'd squawk all night long
and we loved it. Charlie's gone and so are the egrets and so are all
of the other birds, the sea birds that used to be there because there
are no fish. I don't know how they get birds up in the ditch but I
don't -- I didn't have them.
But poor design planning and greed resulted in the no
birds and no fish and a smelly lagoon, and that stuff smells. You have
and will hear water quality experts and other experts who are going to
tell you how to do it. There are going to be some good points. One
point Inge made was that fresh water pollutes salt water, and we have
to be careful about just treating the fresh water that's coming
through.
Bluebill Avenue is in your inventory incidentally,
ladies and gentlemen, and Bluebill Avenue can probably be swapped for
something else. I don't know. We do not -- and this is -- I'm
quoting Mr. Kobza right now. We do not want to defeat what Naples
Park needs and has worked so hard to accomplish, but their cure should
not make our situation worse. So before making a final decision, every
avenue should be explored to make sure that the Vanderbilt Lagoon is
protected from further degradation. We must be assured that a final
decision is right for Naples Park and Vanderbilt Beach.
You know, I listen -- every time a road is projected,
they say, gee whiz, we've got to worry about the wetlands, mud puddles
I call them, and then we're not worried about Vanderbilt Lagoon on
which over 500 families are living right now and who pay a lot of
taxes. All I can add to that is, please help us. This could be our
last chance. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Sourbeer and then Mr. McGuire.
MS. SOURBEER: Good afternoon. I'm Marie Sourbeer,
Naples Park Area Association president and Naples Park resident,
taxpayer of 25 years. I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask
the commissioners. First of all, this project first was reviewed by
Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage way back in'86. Now, this is '95. We're
talking nine years ago. We aren't any further along than we have been
before. At that time, I stood before the county commissioners, and I
told them I didn't think we had a real flooding problem in the park.
I thought we had more of an aesthetic problem. It has become worse
because of neglect. When you let something fester and you don't treat
it, it festers worse, and that's exactly what's happened along Eighth
Street.
I don't know why we're not trying to retain the water
right in Naples Park. We went to that meeting at the town hall
meeting and Mr. Boldt showed us something that could be used on the
avenues. Now, they're talking 500 families on the lagoon. We're
talking 3,000-some families on the avenues.
And that dirty water they showed you is what's standing
in a lot of those so-called swales on the avenues that have been
ignored for the last four years. People who wanted to fix them and do
something about them have been refused because of your moratorium.
Can't we do something to retain this water on our own
property? I think you could if you really looked and tried to do it.
I don't see why -- The water in my yard goes nowhere. It seeps into
the ground. I have to look at a little bit of water maybe if we have
a heavy downpour for a few hours, but it slowly, slowly seeps into the
ground.
The other thing that I wanted to question was, are we
really being realistic about the price? I'm not too worried about
that. I'd like to see something done.
Where does this information come from that says that the
lagoon ever was connected with the Clam Pass waters? I have never
known that to be, and I've been here for 40 more -- more than 40 years
as a visitor that long. We brought children over here from Miami, and
I don't know where that information came from, that that ever was
connected. Not to my knowledge. We used to keep a boat at Trader
Zeeks (phonetic) if you know where I'm talking about. And maybe if
there's any of the people from the Zanes Marina (phonetic) still
around, they could probably confirm that. I don't think that ever was
opened. What happened with that water on the other side of Vanderbilt
Beach was when they did all the construction from the Pelican Bay.
Loss of mangroves and so forth and so on I don't think had a thing to
do with the flushing action.
Is there any possible way that -- like you say, that we
could use those half-round pipes, let those people contain their water
on their own property? Those few homes that are having a problem,
like I say, are very isolated situations. That's why I couldn't get a
crowd here today because they said, well, we're beating a dead horse
because most of us don't really have a flooding problem, but I would
like to see something done about improving the conditions along there
as far as aesthetics. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. HcGuire.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. HcGuire and then Ms. Fitz-Gerald.
MR. HCGUIRE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is John HcGuire, and I represent Beachwalk Residents
Association. We want to thank Commissioner Hancock and Mr. Boldt for
spending a lot of time with our people on this subject. And in order
to clear the air, we wrote a letter to all the commissioners on Hay 5,
and that was signed by our president of our association, and I'd just
like to kind of comment on that if I may.
The only impact that Beachwalk has is the culvert under
Vanderbilt Drive between 91st and 92nd Avenue, and this is because in
the Beachwalk drainage system we have three lakes, and the east lake
drains into a pipe that's installed by the developer of Beachwalk in
accordance with the county specifications, and it's located between
Beachwalk's wall and 91st Roadway and that Beachwalk -- That's the
only water that goes into that pipe, and this pipe drains water to a
catch basin at the south corner of 91st Avenue and Vanderbilt Drive,
and this water then proceeds to a double three-foot by seven-foot
culvert between 91st and 92nd Avenues and then under Vanderbilt Drive
and into the Vanderbilt Lagoon.
Now, the Beachwalk middle lake drains into the Beachwalk
west lake, and that proceeds through what we call a swamp area which
is a mangrove area and then into that same culvert and under
Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Discussion with Mr. Boldt revealed this culvert which
collects water from Beachwalk to Naples Park drainage ditch between
91st and 92nd Avenues was rebuilt three years -- three years or so ago
when the Chateau Vanderbilt condos were built on the west side of
Vanderbilt Drive. The cost we have been told is $100,000 which the
county borrowed from another fund. No further work is required on
this culvert in connection with the present Naples Park drainage
project, and Mr. Boldt has included the previously spent 100,000 in
the current project total.
So in view of this, we're -- we say that we don't -- we
impact on this project draining water into the culvert referred to
above. Our cost involved which should be limited to a proportionate
share of the $100,000 culvert under the Vanderbilt Drive. And so we
come up with an equit -- what we thought was an equitable amount for
Beachwalk's share. It would be about 11,160 or about 30-some dollars
a unit. Now, this could be -- This is arguable, but this total is
arrived at based on calculations on the attached sheet which we gave
you, and these were utilized -- Commissioner Hancock's suggested
method based upon a per-unit formula.
And providing the county assesses all other participants
for the $100,000 culvert project, we're agreeable to pay our share,
the 11,160, but we request Beachwalk be eliminated from the proposed
Naples Park drainage project and be eliminated from any future Naples
Park drainage projects because we feel there would probably be more
coming down the line in another few years and -- and so -- because we
feel we have a self-contained system.
Now, we also submitted a letter from Bruce Green and
Associates stating location was directed by Collier County to minimize
or eliminate the impact to the Naples Park drainage system. That's
this drain.
So Naples Park has waited a long time for action
regarding drainage problems. We hope some action will be taken to
help them, but we do not feel we should take part in the decision as
to whether it should be Plan A or Plan B or whatever the plan, and so
we just think the decision should be made to help them, and we wish
them the best. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, I want to thank you
and the residents of Beachwalk. Really, in essence, you folks have
been more than understanding. For people that have a lake system on
site, that your only contribution is an outfall, and the position of
not wanting to stay in the way of something happening, I appreciate
very, very much.
We are a little apart even on my revised numbers. You're
at 11 or $12,000. I'm at 24,000. It's a difference of 30 -- $30
basically on an assessment situation.
Two things I want to say. When the developer of
Beachwalk designed their system, they utilized an existing outfall
that had been paid for by the county or someone else. Typically in a
new development when you design a water management system and you have
to build an outfall, that cost is folded into your project. So the
developers of Beachwalk, in essence, used an existing system and
didn't have to lay out those capital costs themselves which would have
been passed on to you. So to isolate it solely to the increase in
that culvert is arguable. I think it is -- the cost where you
contribute at such a late point in the system, I agree, your
contribution is so much drastically less than anyone else, that that's
why I further adjusted the numbers downward from where they were.
That's the first thing. And the second thing I have completely
forgotten, so never mind.
MR. HCGUIRE: Well, I think the cost is -- you know,
that could be negotiated, but I think the main thing is that we feel
that we shouldn't be impacted, you know, in future -- future --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the second part. Good
point. If we do this properly the way it should be done, there won't
be another assessment. There won't be another project down the road
that impacts Beachwalk or impacts this outfall, and that's why I think
you've seen such a strong indication that Plan B is a band-aid and
doesn't get us anywhere, and the last thing we want to do is take one
step forward and take three steps back.
So I think on that second point of any future
assessments, you know, we can't write it in stone and guarantee it but
I just -- I think the approach on this board is to do it right one
time and get it done, and that should be at least a positive step
towards not having a future assessment on the part of Beachwalk.
MR. HCGUIRE: Well, I guess if you -- we feel our only
involvement then would be a catch basin and the culvert under
Vanderbilt Drive. That's our outlet. That's the point -- That's the
point we're making. That should be our only involvement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I don't disagree with that
and whether or not you pay for just the increase in size or what was
there, that's, as you said, a point of negotiation. MR. HCGUIRE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. HcGuire.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Fitz-Gerald and then Mr. Fitz-Gerald.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: My name is Vera Fitz-Gerald. I've
listened to people and I've listened to you saying that we should
decrease the benefit factor of other areas. But how would you like to
live in the west basin? That's the one in the green of the little map
that I passed around to make it more obvious. We neither impact the
system nor do we benefit. We don't benefit at all, and we're far
away. You can see that. And, yet, I'm going to be asked to pay $1,400
to fix these problems and -- almost 1,400, and there is no benefit nor
do we impact it.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Vera, that's not correct. The
culverts along the Vanderbilt Lagoon are proposed all to be upsized.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Then our benefit factor is
approximately the same as that of Beachwalk. We have culverts that
are going to be repaired; right? It's no more. And, so, therefore,
the one benefit factor of one for this is just simply not fair.
Now, when first said about this drainage problem back
100 years ago, we were talking about doing a secondary system and the
primary system. They're going to improve the secondary system. Now,
there's no discussion about the secondary system at all. So that is
where we don't get any benefit.
Secondly, I object to this moratorium. Now, Naples Park
is being unfairly singled out to quote a water management -- the South
Florida Water Management official, and I promised I wouldn't use his
name. We are the only community in all of Florida to have a
moratorium inflicted on us, the only community, and I have haunted the
DEP, and I've haunted the water management and say who did this. And
they have insisted -- The DEP have told me, several people, that they
had nothing to do with it; it was only included by a request from this
county. They would never include it. They wouldn't include it in any
new permits and they -- it is not necessary for their permitting.
And, furthermore, they don't permit this sort of thing anymore. Only
the water management people. So I went to them, and they said
absolutely not. They have never required it. They would not require
it if a new permit was issued now. And so you have to ask yourself,
where did it come from. Willoughby Acres didn't have this
requirement. They don't have it. Only Naples Park has it, and this
is grossly unfair. And I'm asking this county to please write --
Madam Chairman to write and ask them to remove this moratorium so some
of us can have at least a tiny bit of benefit from all of this.
Now, we're talking about the Pavilion Lakes and we're
talking about reducing the benefit factor of the condo. I have done
an enormous amount of digging on their situation. I have got all the
permits for the Pavilion Shopping Plaza. I've got the permit for the
condo. I've got the engineering studies, and I've read them all. And
everything here, that drainage is totally inadequate. They could not
hold the drainage even from the Pavilion Shopping Center in their
detention pond. It is all based -- and it says right on the front
page. It is solely based on the stormwater runoff going through
Naples Park into the lagoon. This is the -- where the lagoon people
should be going. This is where the water is coming. And you heard
one gentleman say that the water quality went down about 1988, 1989.
Guess what just came on stream? The drainage from the Pavilion Shop
-- Pavilion condo. That's when it all started to happen, and this is
when the ditch people started to lose their property, and their
benefit factor should certainly not be reduced. If anything, it
should definitely be increased. Without our drainage system, they
can't exist. And if they think so, let's close the weir. You know,
what will happen? They'll flood.
So then not only do we get the runoff from the shopping
center, the condo, then there's runoff coming through a 30-inch pipe
from underneath the highway into the cypress head and that's adding to
it.
Now, on the cost-sharing from the county, the county
owns this ditch outright. This is nothing like Willoughby Acres
whatsoever. You cannot compare it to Willoughby Acres for your
participation purposes. The -- We're -- We're maybe six to ten times
larger. They wanted only to beautify a road allowance drainage. They
didn't flood. They don't have a shopping center or condo and other
areas draining into their system through a county-owned ditch between
privately-owned lots. The county has not maintained this ditch, and
it has a legal obligation to -- as a land owner to repair and fix this
ditch.
ABB allotted 30 percent cost-share to the county based
on all this information. The stormwater manager allotted 30 percent
cost to the county based on this information of ownership and neglect,
and it would be far cheaper for Naples Park to sue the county and
force it to live up to its obligation than to allow the county to only
pay 10.4 percent as they did.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Vera, your time has expired. You
want to wrap it up?
MS. FITZ-GERALD: I'm wrapping it up right now. Two more
lines. So the bottom line is the county should pay at least 30
percent and no less. And if I'm going to be asked to pay to improve
someone else's property, I want to see some benefit in this for me and
the rest of the 40 percent in the west basin. Just something.
So I ask you to please write and get that moratorium at
least lifted which you would do since it wasn't necessary. And if you
want to see these engineering studies, I've got them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Fitz-Gerald.
MR. DORRILL: And then Mr. McGilvra.
MR. FITZ-GERALD: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Don Fitz-Gerald, and I own a property on 107th Avenue. So
much has been said today, I'm reluctant to say anything at all. I
would, however, comment and just remind you of a few things. I'm
perfectly prepared to pay my share for any solution that is found to
the Naples Park problem, and I certainly favor a comprehensive
solution to the problem, not a patchwork solution, but I want to
remind you of a few things that I would like you to jot down.
We have concentrated here in this discussion up until
today exclusively on the Eighth Street ditch and on the 91st ditch.
If you look at that as a percentage of the people who live in Naples
Park, we're talking about less than 5 percent. Much less than 5
percent of the people live along Eighth Street and the 91st ditch.
Ninety-five percent of the people in Naples Park live elsewhere. In
the area of the west basin where I live, approximately 40 percent of
the properties are represented in that area. The solution that has
been proposed, in fact, penalize the people who live -- do not live
along the ditches, and they especially penalize the people who live in
the west basin because we do not contribute to the problem on Eighth
Street. We do not contribute to the problem along 91st. Yet we're
being asked to pay for it, and I'll pay my fair share of whatever
solution you come up with, but I want you to consider the fact that I
don't get any benefit from it on my street. I live in the highest
part of Naples Park. And, in fact, I flood. The reason I flood is
because all of the drains down or the pipes below my area, most of
them are plugged, and that's the reason I flood. In fact, the county
came along to give me some patchwork assistance and ended up making
the problem a hell of a lot worse. All I have in front of my house
now is a big slimy ditch to look at. So if we're talking about
property values and all the rest of it, you should come over and see
my place, and I have got a legitimate beef about that.
So I would say -- I don't know where the discussion is
going here because, quite frankly, I now have mixed emotions about it.
I would like to see a decision made. There is flooding in Naples
Park in spite of what some people have said, and we have gone around
and taken pictures of it, and we've got the proof. So don't pay any
attention to that. A lot of properties in Naples Park flood, but the
reason they flood is because the swales have never been properly
maintained. They are plugged. They were never graded properly in the
first place. And so we should get back to talking about a primary
system, and we should get back talking about a secondary system. Both
of those areas need to be addressed, and I haven't heard one thing
about the secondary system in this commission building during the past
year. So when you come up with a solution, make sure that you
remember that there are two parts to the problem. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. HcGilvra.
MR. DORRILL: And then Mrs. Johnstone.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is she our last speaker?
MR. DORRILL: (Shaking head.)
MR. HCGILVRA: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Doug HcGilvra. I live in Naples Park, and I'm the president of the
Property Owners of Naples Park. I would like to say at the beginning,
in the words of our immortal house philosopher, Ken Cuyler, we are
where we are and that's where we are.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was a good quote that day,
wasn't it?
MR. HCGILVRA: It certainly was.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Profound.
MR. HCGILVRA: I'd like to thank all you commissioners
and Mr. Boldt for your lengthy consideration of the Naples Park
drainage problem. Actually, it started 50 years ago and has been
brought into real context for the last ten years, particularly with
the AB and B study, and Vanderbilt Beach and their people have been
aware of it for that length of time. So I'm a little put off by all
of a sudden an llth hour concern on their part. They've known about
it for a long time. It's been talked about for a long time. It's been
in the papers. It's been brought before you for the last two years
constantly, and I know we've talked individually to them back and
forth. It concerns me.
I agree that they have a problem, but we have a problem
too. We have a problem of 6,000 people, not 3,000 as Marie said. We
have 6,000 people living in Naples Park, and we don't have a problem
particularly with only flooding. We have a problem that really breaks
out the health, safety, and welfare. That's why we started this all
off. If you take a look at the water that the lady brought up from
the ditches, you'll see what kind of a problem we've got. That's
what's in our ditches. It's not nice, clear water. It may not be
perfectly pure, but it's still clear.
We hope you'll go forward with this Naples drainage
problem and hope in your wisdom you agree with Plan A as outlined by
Mr. John Boldt. Please vote today to go ahead with Plan A for Naples
Park. This problem has to be brought to an end. It's been going on
for years and years and never bringing it to an end, and it's only
going to get worse unless we do something about it. I don't think
anybody would dispute that fact.
Concerning the secondary system, the secondary system is
going to be addressed by George Archibald and crew as we've talked
about in the months past, almost a year ago. That's been talked about
and we know about that. We're looking forward, Mr. Boldt is looking
forward to going ahead with the infiltrator-type design to fill in the
secondary swales as a possibility, and he's looking to do that with a
great deal of speed I hope, and that will help that situation out. It
doesn't solve the problem of water going into the Vanderbilt Beach.
That's true. But the kind of water that you see ahead of you, that
dirty water from 91st and 92nd that she just brought up there, that's
what's getting washed into Vanderbilt Beach right now. When it rains,
when it pours, that's what's washed in. What's washed in is herbicides
when they go to try to kill the weeds along the ditch. What's washed
in is the mosquito abatement material which is on there. If those
ditches are closed with clean aluminum pipes all the way, a lot more
water is going to go in for a fairly short period of time, but it will
be clean water, much cleaner than that.
So all I can say is let's get the ball rolling. Let's do
something about it. Let's not let it drag on any longer, and let's go
ahead with Plan A. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Miss Johnstone.
MR. DORRILL: Then Mr. Jones.
MS. JOHNSTONE: Hi. I'm Judy Johnstone. I'm also
treasurer of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association. I'm a
little confused here today. I thought this was a public hearing for
all parties involved prior to a decision being made. Since apparently
I'm totally incorrect in my assumption, I'd like to know what steps
everyone on this board has taken to study what's going to happen with
the additional runoff water in the Vanderbilt lagoons.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What could possibly make you
think after --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Eight years.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- as extensive as a debate as
we're having here today that anybody's got their mind made up?
MS. JOHNSTONE: Commissioner Matthews and Commissioner
Hancock earlier today -- chairman -- she mentioned that I thought --
and several people from Naples Park made a mention that a decision was
going to be made today. So that's why we're all confused. We thought
we came here to present -- we're nervous about -- not against what
Naples Park is doing. We want this thought through, and apparently not
all of us agree that this was quote --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, excuse me. Let me say
this. The recommendation that I read over the weekend which tells me
what we're supposed to do today says that the board approve the
implementation of Plan A with cost allocation scenario 1B. Now, that
tells me we're going to make a decision. Now, whether we've made our
mind up prior to the vote is something else.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because we haven't. We do make
decisions on the days that we have the hearings, but please don't
think that everybody has already decided how they're going to vote.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Judy, I don't think -- you know,
maybe this is a dramatic approach, but what your husband has said,
what Dr. Stallings has said, if you think for one second that that
does not become a part of today's decision, I personally am insulted.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: It does.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: You're asking what have we done
regarding -- concerning Vanderbilt Lagoon, as if I've ignored it.
Okay? That also is untrue, and I again am insulted by that
implication.
I have right here Dr. Harvey Hatper, Ph.D., University
of Central Florida. There's a similar case in the lower east coast of
Florida which is dealing with the same issue we're dealing with today,
and what I'm confused about is what I hear from folks at Vanderbilt
Beach and what I have from a Ph.D. Conflict. I have a Ph.D. Telling
me that water quality from a pipe system into a finger canal improved
as a result of the discharge, unlike what we are hearing today.
MS. JOHNSTONE: Okay. Then I think what we have here is
a definite problem of communication. Not -- Everybody, including our
president, Kim Kobza, were clueless that the board was this close to
making a decision. Almost everybody -- So obviously we're not getting
communication.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The newspapers reported it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The bottom line is -- Excuse me.
But the bottom line is that the idea that we are putting blinders on
and looking solely at Naples Park, I think I can prove to you by
showing this to you is not true. I don't want to impact Vanderbilt
Lagoon in a negative way. I'm trying to find a way to get everyone's
concerns answered, and I have information that says we might be able
to do that. Now '-
MS. JOHNSTONE: Well, on behalf of the property owners,
all we're asking for is please communicate because we -- I mean, I
wouldn't be up here asking this question if I wasn't confused.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And I appreciate that. I
just want you to know that no one is being ignored, no one is being
shut, that your concerns are more than heard. They've even -- Some
have been approached already. And if we haven't approached them all
by today, then we need to so -- you know.
MS. JOHNSTONE: Thank you. I meant no disrespect.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Hiss Johnstone.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Jones and then Ms. DePuy.
MR. JONES: My name is Red Jones. I live on 102nd
Avenue, and they tell me I'm in the highest spot in the park, 14 feet
above sea level. I don't ever think I'll flood. We've been concerned
with this problem in Naples Park for about 17 years, and I've been
right in the front line fighting. We've been promised and promised
and promised we're going to fix this -- fix the place here, and I
thought maybe today we'd get the answer and we would start to fix it.
I was hoping.
In answer to those people on the lagoons, I guess that
their lagoons measure on both sides of the -- what do they call them
-- lagoons -- you can't even make any anymore; right? They're
artificial.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The canals?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Finger canals.
MR. JONES: Yeah. The canals.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Finger canals.
MR. JONES: Up in New Jersey they call them lagoons, and
they can't make any in New Jersey either. But, anyhow, I guess
between the two sides of the lagoon there, their canals are about a
half a mile long. Now, how about them with pollution they have
running off into the lagoon? And they blame it all on us? Can't be.
Another -- Another point I want to make is when they
were building Beachwalk, they were all set to pipe their water from
lake -- each lake directly over into our canal between 91st and 92nd.
Some lucky slob discovered that they had the pipes and everything
there, without permission apparently. So we got with John Crandall, I
think at that time was the head of the -- before John, and they
stopped it. They told them they had to put three retention ponds, one
into two and two into three, and then eventually they came over in our
canal anyhow. So theywre helping to put pollution into the lagoon too,
maybe more than we do. We could have saved you nothing but a big
parking lot. The Pavilion properties and the Beachwalk, thatls all
paved. So wherels the water going to go? It runs into Naples Park
canal.
I ramble. If I start to ramble, just stop me. Neil
knows how I ramble, donlt you? Iive been here many times.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thing Iive gathered is if
therels a flooding problem, we all head to your house; is that right,
Red?
MR. JONES: I had a drunken guy put my fill in, and he
put in 18 inches more than was required. So Iim 14 feet above sea
level, and then Iive got 18 inches and 18 inches extra. So I donlt
think Iill ever flood.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Youlre high and dry.
MR. JONES: Iim high and dry Red Jones; right? I
understand that the Southwest Water Management has already given us a
permit to go ahead with this canal -- this drainage problem. I would
like to ask Lori if she could possibly explain why welre not going to
further pollute the lagoon. Can I do that?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, thatls something we
were going to talk about at the close of the public hearings. I think
there are a lot of questions that we need answers to, and Lorils going
to hopefully provide some of those. So if we can, Red, I know you
have nothing to do today, yould just love to stay here for a couple
more hours --
MR. JONES: Oh, you want to ask me questions? Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think welre going to save Lori
until the end to try and -- There may be a bunch of questions.
MR. JONES: Well, would you ask her that?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
MR. JONES: I think Lori can explain to us why we wonlt
further pollute the lagoon.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thatls number seven.
MR. JONES: And tell them to stop using fertilizer too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. DePuy and then Mr. Lugara.
MS. DEPUY: Okay. This is my first time for something
like this. Iim Debbie DePuy, and Iim on the board of the Vanderbilt
Beach Property Owners Association, and Iim also on the Water Quality
Task Force that welve set up to work with the Conservancy and check
out the water quality. I just have a couple of things. Because Iim
nervous, Iill be brief.
The problem that Naples Park is having with especially
that Eighth Street canal, the thought came to mind as I was walking up
here that since it looks so awful and it probably is awful with a lot
of the runoff or whatever, that perhaps we could do some testing of
that water along with our own water to see what type of things might
be in it. And Iim not sure, but I would assume that the county --
since that is a county-maintained -- it's supposed to be a
county-maintained canal, that they should be doing some testing. I
don't know if they have done frequent testing or anything like that to
show what's in there, but obviously someone needs to be doing that
kind of work.
And I would just ask that before you make any decisions,
that you really think about what's going to impact the whole area, not
just -- not just us, but north of here. River Chase -- well, behind
River Chase, the water that goes out of that way and flows up to the
Caloosahatchee, obviously there's going to be runoffs there, and that
needs to be checked into so that we have the cleanest water less the
nutrients. We're going to have fresh water which we can't do anything
about, but we need to get rid of some of the nutrients, not only with
our own water for Vanderbilt but Naples Park and everywhere else.
And one thing that I was told yesterday -- and I'm not
positive on this, but someone told me that the South Florida
Management District that is involved with this permitting, they
thought -- or one person at least there was under the assumption that
the Vanderbilt Lagoon was not a closed system, that it was a -- more
of a free-flowing system, and perhaps if they know that it's closed,
they might rethink some of their thoughts.
And also, Tim, the report that you were talking about
from the east coast, the free-flowing water that flowed through those
pipes, did that then go into an open system or into a closed system
like we have in the bottom of the Vanderbilt Lagoon?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It goes into finger canals which
are many times the length of the ones that are in Vanderbilt Lagoon
and then into the intercoastal waterway.
MS. DEPUY: Okay. So there's a lot more action there
than the lack of action that we have? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
MS. DEPUY: We have no action --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we can't -- Yeah. The
intercoastal waterway compared to Vanderbilt Lagoon, yes. There is
more activity.
MS. DEPUY: Okay. And even the -- if the finger --
fingers are going into a free-flowing like the intercoastal is, it's
much different than all of that south end of the Vanderbilt Lagoon
where there's almost no tidal action at all. I mean, it goes up and
down, but the water that's in there is not going in and out. It's
just sort of --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Flushing.
MS. DEPUY: If the flushing is not there --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not proposing this as a
solution to Vanderbilt Lagoon's problems.
MS. DEPUY: Well --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just saying that the idea
that every, you know, increase in water is bad for the residents in
Vanderbilt Lagoon may not be true. There's a balance there, you know.
MS. DEPUY: Right. And I think that we need to look at
it further, and we will be getting records on all of the tests that we
have to perform and very similar to Naples Bay which they have been
working with the Conservancy as well. So I think we'll have a lot
more information then.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lugara. He is your final registered
speaker.
MR. LUGARA: Yes, Commissioners. I live on 91st Avenue,
and this is going to be very short.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Could you state your name for the
record?
MR. LUGARA: Yeah. A.J. Lugara. I live on 91st Avenue.
I think this thing has been gone around for many years. I support
Plan A. I support the revisions that Commissioner Hancock has made in
Plan A. We've waited many, many years. I think the time now is to
act. Let's go forward with Plan A, and I hope you go along with that.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. That concludes the
public comment on this item. I want to open discussion amongst the
board members. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Chairman. Contrary
to what one of our earlier speakers said, we had plenty of opportunity
for public input on this subject a number of times since I've been on
the board, and I know it's been discussed over the years many, many
times. I don't know that there could possibly be much left that
hasn't been discussed. The question of the water going into Vanderbilt
Lagoon, Commissioner Hancock has evidence that -- scientific evidence
that shows that water quality improved in one situation very similar
to this. We have not seen any evidence to the contrary, only concerns
that are -- that are not supported by any information that would
support their claims.
So I'm going to make a motion that we go ahead with Plan
A with the modification in the funding structure that Commissioner
Hancock has presented and that we go forward with that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As much as I thank Commissioner
Norris, there are a lot of -- and I think the board probably feels
some loose ends out here based on some discussions we've had today,
and I know we're in our fourth hour of discussion on this today, and
if we added up the hours of discussion we've had on Naples Park in the
last three months alone, we may top the eight years prior. I don't
know.
We have two problems here. One is -- One is stormwater
drainage in Naples Park. We've been presented -- Of everything that I
have individually chased after, everything that the project engineer
has looked at, we have been provided only one viable solution to give
us a minimum drainage protection of a ten-year storm event. Any other
combination, everything we've tracked down and chased down has
dead-ended. So, on the one hand, we really only have one solution
available for drainage in Naples Park.
The second problem of water quality in Vanderbilt
Lagoon, we have one or two proposed solutions with no cost, no method,
no path. Granted, we haven't spent eight years working on it, and I
hope it doesn't take that long to get it resolved. I don't want to
leave here today -- Whether we approve or don't approve the Naples
Park system, I don't want to leave here today leaving Vanderbilt
Lagoon in the wings without some plan of action to address the
concerns we've heard today because there's no question that they're
valid. There's no question that increased nutrient loading in
Vanderbilt Lagoon without an increased outfall or the ability for that
area to flush is going to be detrimental. I -- I -- I can't find any
logic that says that is not true. It -- It simply is. So I think
we've got another project that -- that needs to be embarked upon.
By the same token, it still doesn't give me any other
options for Naples Park. As I mentioned to Mary earlier, you know,
I'm looking for a way to make everybody happy, and I can't find it.
It's not out there. I either have to personally decide that Naples
Park is just going to have to wait, or Naples Park is just going to
have to endure while we find out the answers to these other questions
and I -- I don't know that that's -- that's the route I want to take.
I guess I'm just asking my -- my colleagues where -- what their
position is now because I -- I want to address both problems, but we
only have the information today to address one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have
anything to add?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, just a -- just a question.
I -- I -- I want to do something about the Naples Park issue today and
not postpone it. So is there -- is there anything -- is there
anything that prohibits us from solving the Vanderbilt Lagoon problem
separately -- you know, move forward on Naples Park, and then direct
staff to come forward with a proposal to solve the Vanderbilt Lagoon
problem as well?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me add that to my motion, that
direction to staff to my motion.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would second that motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. Let me -- Let me clarify
the motion then. We have a motion to move forward with Plan A, and in
addition to that, to direct staff to -- is it to monitor Vanderbilt
Lagoon? Is that what --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. No. Let me restate it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The motion is to proceed with Plan
A with the modifications to the funding scenario as proposed by
Commissioner Hancock and to further direct staff to explore what --
what avenues may be available to us to retain and detain and clean --
otherwise clean the water before it reaches Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Okay. We have a motion
and a second. Is there further discussion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question for Miss
Swanson if I could ask quickly. One of the proposals by Mr. Gore of
the Conservancy, whether it's possible or not, may require
modification to the system such as catch basins and pumping and so
forth. How does that type of modification affect the permitting of
the system as it's designed? Will it require a permit modification
through South Florida?
MS. SWANSON: Yes, it would.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're going to have to go back
and request an extension anyway; is that correct? MS. SWANSON: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Would a modification be a
significant amount of work in addition to the extension request? MS. SWANSON: Yes, it would.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Red, I forgot your
question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: His question was, why won't we
further pollute Vanderbilt Lagoon if we pipe 91st/92nd ditch.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, you and I talked at
break about the existing secondary system and how it reacts and
cleanses. Maybe a brief synopsis on that would help us out.
MS. SWANSON: The existing South Florida Water
Management district permit was granted because the district believed
that there would be sufficient scrubbing of the stormwater in the
swales along the avenues prior to it reaching the pipe system along
Eighth Street, and that was essentially the water quality treatment
that is being provided. And also the fact that the ditch between 91st
and 92nd and the Eighth Street ditch will be enclosed will eliminate a
source of sediments that since the 91st/92nd ditch is eroding in many
different places, that carries a lot of sediments out with it, and
with the elimination of those ditches, that problem should be
eliminated, and the muddy water there I believe would be improved in
terms of the quality of it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So if what we're doing is asking
-- we're saying go forward with this Naples Park project as described
and as already -- you know, that the scrubbing is in place, go forward
with Plan A, but at the same time ask staff to investigate whether or
not we're exacerbating the problem at Vanderbilt Lagoon; and, if so,
to propose solutions. Does that do something to slow down or diminish
the process at Naples Park? I mean, is there a potential problem I'm
missing?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think there's -- I think there
are two approaches we can take in addressing Vanderbilt Lagoon. The
first is to try and find some way to clean the water before it exits
Naples Park. As we've heard today, that's not easy nor does it really
look feasible based on the required acreage. And, Lori, I think you
and I talked about you would need 10 to 15 percent of the total
acreage of Naples Park in order to sufficiently clean or cleanse; is
that correct?
MS. SWANSON: State-of-the-art water management
typically is -- 15 percent of the area contributing is required to
perform to be able to manage it correctly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that -- Now, that's not Mr.
Gore's living machine concept. But, either way, to actually do one of
those would require significant permit modification and a re-design
effort. The problem, as we've heard from Dr. Stallings, may be the
closure of Vanderbilt Lagoon in all likelihood. The fact that it was
closed, that becomes a stagnant area, that if you add nutrients to it,
the nutrients are not going to flush out unless you get a huge storm,
and that's not going to be corrected, whether we go with Plan A or
whether we leave it as is, unless we direct our staff to pursue
options in -- in my opinion, in the re-opening of Vanderbilt Lagoon in
some fashion to provide that southern-end flushing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Pipe or otherwise.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pipe or otherwise. And, as I
understand Commissioner Norris' motion, it was directed more at the
cleansing aspect of the water pre-discharge. I think the opening of
Vanderbilt Lagoon is a primary focus, and the cleansing of the water
pre-discharge would be a secondary focus. I just don't see another
solution to the Vanderbilt Lagoon problem.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My motion really envisions looking
at all aspects of Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon and giving us a report on it
to see if there's anything reasonable and feasible that we can do in
the future.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Even unreasonable and not
apparently feasible would be fine. At least it gives us a starting
point.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Mr. Norris, are you
going to amend your motion then to direct staff to look into methods
that may be available to increase or cause whatever flushing action
may be available at Vanderbilt Lagoon?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, as I just stated, I
envisioned that as a part of my motion. I will restate it to say that
I would like to have the staff report to us on -- on, first of all,
whether the water quality is going to be diminished or has been
diminished after this project is completed, and is there anything
feasible and reasonable that we can do to improve the water before it
goes out into the lagoon, and also I will clarify it to include the
same type of report on whether there's any feasible and reasonable way
to reopen Vanderbilt Lagoon for flushing action. Does that --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
concern?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
today.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
staff?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
that need to go out.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Does the second accept?
Does that satisfy everybody's
Yeah. Does the second accept --
Absolutely.
-- that as a second?
Yes.
Okay.
As close as we're going to get
Do we want to give a deadline to
Well, we've got bids and stuff
Yeah. I do want to make sure
that staff knows that Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners has a Water
Quality Task Force that will be intimately involved and on your
doorstep at my urging regarding this issue. So you'll be working
closely with them and with me so -- just as you understand that to be
a part of this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Any further discussion?
Call the vote. All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The phone is ringing in my office
as we speak.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's take a ten-minute break.
(A short break was held.)
Item #SH1
AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S BUDGET TO BE AMENDED AND CONTRACT APPROVED WITH
DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,333 FOR THE DESIGN OF
T-HANGARS UNDER PROJECT I-AIP-94-4A AND AIRPORT GRANT W.P.I. 1823206
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County
Commission meeting for Hay 16, 1995. The next item on the agenda is a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners amend the
Airport Authority's budget and approve a contract. Mr. Drury.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, at some point we will want
to take -- It could be after this item. But at some point we're going
to want to take the item that I told everyone would be about 2:15 or
so dealing with the Gibson property.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have two what look like real
quick items.
MR. CUYLER: That's fine. You're the chair.
MR. DRURY: Commissioners, for the record, John Drury,
executive director for the Collier County Airport Authority. I wanted
to first share with you the Business Aviation Intelligence Report
because I believe it is fitting for the agenda that is before you, and
that is the first thing. Cessna Aircraft, the country's largest
manufacturer of aircraft, general aviation aircraft, have not made
airplanes, general aviation airplanes, for the past ten years. They
have looked at the market and they see general aviation coming back,
and they have now opened up a very large plant, and they just did
their groundbreaking ceremonies to start manufacturing 2,000 general
aviation airplanes per year.
The reason I wanted to bring this to your attention is
for two reasons. One is they are holding their groundbreaking
ceremonies the same week that we held ours. We held ours yesterday,
and I appreciate those of you whose calendars allowed you to attend,
and we held our groundbreaking ceremonies and we're moving forward.
The other reason is these general aviation aircraft need
a home, and that is the item that's before you today, and that is to
build more hangars and take advantage of a grant that was previously
obtained, and I'll summarize it very quickly.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Drury, excuse me. This is
something that we've previously authorized in the past, is it not? MR. DRURY: The grant is, yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And this is just awarding
contracts?
MR. DRURY: This is amending our budget to match the
grant that you previously accepted by taking --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve
the recommendation. I presume there aren't any changes with the
recommendation on the executive summary; is that correct?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why are you disappointed, John?
MR. DRURY: I'm not. I'm very happy.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion,
all in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes 5-0.
MR. DRURY: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Drury.
Item #8H2
BID #95-2362 FOR LANDSCAPING PLANTING MATERIALS FOR PELICAN BAY -
AWARDED TO BROWNINGS NURSERY & LANDSCAPE IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,260
And if the board thinks we can finish this up real
quick, why not. Recommendation to award bid 95-2362.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to
approve staff recommendation on the item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
award bid 95-2362. Is there further discussion?
Call the question. All in favor say aye.
Motion passes 5-0.
Item #13A2
PETITION A-95-2, KIH PATRICK KOBZA OF TREISER, KOBZA & VOLPE, CHTD.,
REPRESENTING MR. AND MRS. ROGER VASEY REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION 1-94-4 RENDERED BY THE PLANNING
SERVICES DIRECTOR ON 2/23/95 REGARDING BUILDING AND DUNE VEGETATION
STANDARDS FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 14, BLOCK 1, HIDEAWAY BEACH,
MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA - DISMISSED
Now, Mr. Cuyler, I think we probably will have to jump
that other item ahead because we did try to give it a time certain and
we're already an hour and a half late on that.
MR. CUYLER: Although I did call counsel and told them
2:15, and I believe everybody is here now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. CUYLER: We're dealing with items 13A(2) and 13A(3)
and also 9B which I added to the agenda which is the settlement
proposal. I wanted that as a specific agenda item that can be heard
as part of this process. What I would suggest to you is there is a
pending motion to dismiss filed by the Gibson attorneys with regard to
the appeal listed as 13A(2). I would suggest to you that you go ahead
and take that first. And by "take that," I mean hear legal argument
from, first of all, the moving party, Mr. Gibson's attorneys, then Mr.
Kobza representing the next door neighbor who has filed an appeal as
well of an interpretation of the Planning Services director. We've
also reviewed the issue and are prepared to make a recommendation or
give you legal advice at such time as you request that. Subsequent to
that, there is a settlement proposal that has been proposed by the
Gibson attorneys. Mr. Dotrill, I believe, will discuss that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we're going to handle the
motion to dismiss first?
MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. My understanding is that
neither of the actual appeals will take place. I think that there is
agreement on that. In the event that you grant the motion to dismiss
and the appeal is dismissed, that will go away. If you deny the
motion to dismiss, the appeal still will be on the books, still needs
to be heard, and we will set a subsequent date to do that. We did
this to make sure that the room was not full of experts that were
being paid a lot of money and that counsels' clients were not paying a
lot of money if we were not going to go forward.
My understanding is that the second appeal, which is
Gibson's appeal of the interpretation of the Planning Services
director, will not be heard. Those experts have been released. If
the agreement is considered favorably by the board, then the agreement
tells you what will happen, and Mr. Dotrill will go through that. If
you do not enter into the agreement, that appeal also will still be on
the books -- and will be either way, but there will be a pending
appeal that needs to be heard. We'll set a subsequent date for that
as well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. CUYLER: If everybody is in agreement with that,
then at this point I'd ask Mr. Anderson to argue the motion to
dismiss.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bruce Anderson from Young, van Assenderp, and
Varnadoe. I'm here with co-counsel from Quarles and Brady on behalf
of the property owner, Mr. And Mrs. William Gibson.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Anderson, if I could interrupt you --
the motion to dismiss has been handed out and is in front of you if
you're interested in looking at the actual document.
MR. ANDERSON: The --
MR. KOBZA: The response too?
MR. CUYLER: Do you have copies of that with you?
MR. KOBZA: You've got the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. We've got a
technical matter going on. Do we need to get the response down?
MR. CUYLER: Why don't we go ahead and have that handed
out. Why don't you give it to me and let me run and get some copies.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Anderson, do you want
to start while they're sorting that out?
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Our motion to dismiss is
directed at the Vaseys' attempt to appeal the original decision of the
county as reaffirmed in Mr. Arnold's interpretation 94-4 to approve
the Gibsons' construction plans as meeting the technical requirements
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency related to the type of
building slab that can be constructed in a high-velocity zone.
These FEMA-related technical construction requirements
are found in several county ordinances, all of which, except one,
provide that the Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall hear
any appeals concerning compliance with FEMA construction requirements.
The one exception is the flood damage prevention
ordinance which gives the Board of Zoning Appeals authority to hear
appeals if the appeals are filed within five days of the decision
being appealed. The Vaseys missed that five-day deadline, and they
also missed the deadline under the other ordinances for filing an
appeal to the Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
Division five four of your Land Development Code
establishes the Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals as a
five-member board consisting of an architect or structural engineer, a
general contractor, a fire protective equipment contractor or a
firefighter or a fire safety inspector, an electrical contractor and a
plumbing or mechanical contractor.
The Land Development Code states that one of the powers
and duties of the Building Board is to hear and decide appeals from
decisions when it is claimed that the building and technical codes
have been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted.
This same division of the Land Development Code which
establishes the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeal requires that
a notice of appeal to this board shall be in writing on appeal forms
provided by the secretary to the Building Board, that they shall be
filed at the project review section of Development Services within 30
days after the decision to be appealed, and that the appeal must be
accompanied by the required filing fee established by the Board of
County Commissioners which in this case is $250.
The Vaseys failed to comply with any of these
requirements to file an appeal to the Building Board. They didn't use
the appeal form required by the Land Development Code. They didn't
file in the right place required by the Land Development Code and they
failed to file -- They failed to pay the appeal filing fee required by
the Land Development Code.
By failing to follow these Land Development Code
requirements to timely file an appeal, they've lost their right to an
appeal. The courts in Florida have consistently held that appeal time
filing requirements are mandatory, and that unless the requirements
are met, there's no authority to hear an appeal and the appeal must be
dismissed.
Historically the Collier County Commission has always
strictly enforced its appeal filing requirements from its ordinances A
to Z, from alternative impact fee appeals to zoning re-evaluation
appeals. We lawyers are used to having to follow prescribed time
periods and procedures.
In addition to the Vaseys' failure to file an appeal in
accord with the Land Development Code requirements, it is a matter of
public record that the Vaseys on December 9 in a letter to the county
first disputed the county's approval of the building slab as not in
compliance with FEHA requirements. On the date of their December 9
letter to the county, the county's decision to approve the slab
construction plans had already been made. And, in fact, as their
letter states, the slab had already been poured. The Vaseys were
required to file an appeal as soon as they knew that they disputed the
county's decision to approve the slab back on December 9, but,
instead, they wrote the Department of Community Affairs which has
oversight responsibility for FEHA compliance issues. They even sent
the department a copy of the Gibsons' construction plans. The
department even had someone come out and inspect the building pad.
The department since wrote Mr. Vasey's attorney a letter and told him
they had gone over the construction plans with FEHA staff and that the
structure met their requirements. How many times do the Vaseys need
to be told now there is no violation? The answer is no more times
because they've lost their right to appeal this issue any further.
Additionally, since no part of Mr. Arnold's
interpretation addressed the applicability or compliance of the
vehicle on the beach dune ordinance, that ordinance is not at issue in
the appeal of that interpretation. They are seeking to appeal a
matter that wasn't interpreted. The applicability of this ordinance
can be addressed during the PUD amendment process that is the subject
of the separate settlement agreement, but it is not a subject of
interpretation 94-4 issued by Mr. Arnold; and, therefore, it can't be
the subject of an appeal of that interpretation.
We would respectfully request that you enforce the
appeal requirements of your ordinances as you have always done, that
you follow the recommendation of your attorney, and that you dismiss
the Vaseys' untimely appeal. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Mr.
Cuyler, I have one question before we proceed with a rebuttal, I
presume. The steps that Mr. Anderson laid out, are they clearly laid
out in our code?
MR. CUYLER: What I would suggest that you do -- and
this is a little unusual compared to our normal procedures -- is go
ahead and let Mr. Kobza make his argument and then ask any questions
you want of us. That way both of them can get on the record, and we
can ask and answer questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Kobza. Do we
have his response yet?
MR. CUYLER: Wewre getting copies right now, and the
item that was handed out to you is the basis of the motion. Therews
not -- Itws not per se legal argument, I guess, but we will get you
that copy that Kim filed in response to that motion.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Which was filed when?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The response?
MR. CUYLER: The response?
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Uh-huh.
MR. CUYLER: It was --
MR. KOBZA: Filed immediately.
MR. CUYLER: -- given to my office last week.
MR. KOBZA: We -- We filed that response immediately
after receiving the motion, within several days. The fact that you
donlt have it, Commissioner MacIKie, I -- I donlt understand.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Me either.
MR. KOBZA: Itls a very thorough response, very -- All
our arguments are pretty well represented in that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Do you want to proceed
with your argument?
MR. KOBZA: Sure. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of
the board. For purposes of the record, my name is Kim Patrick Kobza.
I am a shareholder in the firm of Treiser, Kobza, and Volpe.
For one moment Iid like to introduce my co-counsel and
also the Vaseys if I might. My co-counsel is Susan Delegal. Miss
Delegal is a partner with the firm of Holland and Knight out of their
Fort Lauderdale office. Miss Delegal has had over 21 years of
experience in municipal law. She was Broward County attorney for five
years, and under her -- head of staff of over 50 attorneys in Broward
County. She is respected as one of the authorities in the area of
municipal law in the State of Florida and is very distinguished in the
practice, very well respected. Also with me today is Mr. Roger Vasey
and his wife, Sandra, in the second row. They are the applicants on
the appeals. Also assisting me is my associate, Catherine Kidon, also
from our firm, Treiser, Kobza, and Volpe.
Madam Chairman, members of the board, itls my hope that
you will recognize this procedural maneuver for just what it is, which
is a last-ditch desperate attempt to prevent you from hearing and
having the benefit of substantial expert testimony on how over 15
violations of state, federal, and county ordinances have taken place
on the Gibson property and to prevent you from having the very
substance of -- or a basis on which to make decisions regarding these
very important issues as to how your codes and your ordinances were
violated.
The fact is we did it right, and you can bet we were
painstaking in the way we filed these appeals. We were very, very
methodical and we -- we followed the procedures, the exact procedures
as we were directed to under -- by your staff under these codes, and
itls not entirely clear as to how you go about filing these types of
appeals where you have joint appeals of multiple sets of issues. I
would even submit to some extent that the county doesn't have a form,
so to speak, a one-page form which provides for that. But not
withstanding, we did it right.
This is your Land Development Code. This Land
Development Code governs your processes. (indicating)
This is the Code of Laws and Ordinances, and within this
Code of Laws and Ordinances there are two chapters. One is Chapter 22
which is your coastal zone protection ordinance, and the other is
Chapter 62 which incorporates FEMA requirements. Okay? (indicating)
This Land Development Code in division 1.18 incorporates
by reference all of the chapters in -- not all of those -- selective
chapters in the Code of Laws and Ordinances, including Chapters 22 and
Chapter 62. Okay?
Now, what we filed with the county when we first
discovered -- first discovered the multiple violations of your Land
Development Code in this Code of Laws and Ordinances was a request --
a third-party request for interpretation under division 1.66 of your
Land Development Code.
1.66 specifically provides -- After we received the
interpretations back, we filed under 1.66. That specifically provides
that within 30 days after receipt by the applicant of a written
interpretation, the applicant may appeal the interpretation to the
Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals for matters relating to the
building and technical codes as shown in division 1.18 which includes
Chapter 22 and Chapter 62 of this document, and it sets a fee for the
application processing which has to be -- has to accompany the appeal,
and then it provides whichever board shall hold the advertised public
hearings.
Either of the boards can modify either the Development
Services director or the Growth Planning director's interpretation
unless it's not supported by substantial competent evidence. So we
received the letter from Mr. Arnold which was the interpretation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that the ordinance gives you
your choice, Mr. Kobza?
MR. KOBZA: The -- The ordinance -- That's -- That's a
good question. It's our position that with respect to Chapter 62
which is the FEMA, the five-day provision is intended for that
situation where you have an owner applicant who walks in, makes a --
proposes plans, has the director review the plans, and they claim --
or the director says, look, it doesn't comply or does. And then in
that context of those two parties, the county and -- and the owner
applicant, that that five-day provision applies in that limited
circumstance. Okay?
The Land Development Code, however, anticipates that
there may be third-party appeals, and it provides a much broader
process for those third-party appeals. There was no conceivable
practical way that we could have even -- we didn't even know in five
days that there was a violation of FEMA. With respect to Mr.
Anderson's argument as to whether, in fact, a violation exists, I'd
submit he wouldn't be fighting as hard as he is if, in fact, the
violation didn't exist. Of course it does. The slab is infrangible.
It's required to be frangible. It's constructed in a coastal high
hazard area, not taking into account wave deflections. So he doesn't
want you to hear that though. Okay?
Now, we received the letter -- Mr. Arnold's letter dated
February 23, 1995, and Mr. Arnold after he -- he rules on the FEMA
requirements, does not rule on the coastal high hazard which is the
Chapter 22 requirements. It says, "Should you wish to appeal this
administrative interpretation, an appeal to the Board of Zoning
Appeals may be filed within 30 days of receipt of this interpretation
and must be accompanied by a non-refundable application fee of $200."
We filed a joint appeal in one letter citing both boards
and paying the $200, and we asked them did we do it right, and we did.
And not two weeks before a hearing after all that time -- not until
two weeks before hearing do they -- they pop and they say, "Well, now
wewve read the codes, and we donwt think youwve done it correctly."
Itws just not -- not factual.
Okay. Now, the appropriate approach here -- Okay. We
filed within 30 days, and really what theywre saying is we didnwt walk
down the hall. Thatws all theywre really saying, and a $250 filing
fee which, of course, wewd gladly pay.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Are you conceding, though, that
you should have walked down the hall -- MR. KOBZA: No.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: -- and paid the $250?
MR. KOBZA: No, welre not. No, welre not. We -- We --
We did it right. We did it exactly as we were directed to do it.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Because the process that Mr.
Anderson says you were too late for, that was the -- MR. KOBZA: Right.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: -- five-day process?
MR. KOBZA: Right. Right. And that only relates to the
one chapter, the FEMA aspect of this.
Now, the -- whatls the appropriate outcome here? This
should be fairly straightforward in one respect. Chapter 22 which is
your coastal zone and your protection provisions, we still donlt have
an answer or determination on whether those were violated from staff.
So the easy answer there is letls direct staff to give us an answer on
those provisions. We did cite them in our appeal, but we cited them
because we didnlt have an answer, and welre protecting our right to
appeal within the 30 days. But the appropriate approach there is
letls remand that down to Mr. Arnold and, say, "Mr. Arnold, are there
violations of our ordinance of vehicles on the beach in coastal zone
protection?" Let them make a determination, and we can see what the
appropriate appeal is. So that eliminates that whole set of issues.
With respect to the Chapter 62 issues, the 30-day
provision clearly applies, and we clearly followed that procedure as
we were directed to, and we deserve a hearing. If the hearing is
before the Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals, letls schedule
that hearing. Thatls as it relates to Chapter 62 because your code --
this code gave us 30 days, and there are provisions in this code --
you know, stand -- We need to stand back for a minute and look at
this. The reason that you have these third-party provisions is
exactly for this situation, which is when the county doesnlt do it
right or your staff doesnlt do it right, that therels a value in a
third party coming forward and devoting the substantial resources that
we have to uncovering these violations and bringing them before you so
that youlre aware of them. Okay?
Now, this code asks you to interpret it literally to --
or liberally to accomplish its purposes, and its purposes are to make
sure that your ordinances are enforced and that you have absolute
ability to recognize and enforce those -- any violations that
occurred.
And I'd submit this to you. If the Vaseys weren't here
sitting here before you, you as a board under Chapter 125 would still
have the power and authority to review all of these same issues, and
you'd want to take advantage of all of the tens of thousands of
dollars of resources that we've spent to establish these violations.
As to the law and whether this is jurisdictional or not,
I'd like to very briefly turn that discussion over to my co-counsel,
Sue Delegal.
MS. DELEGAL: Good afternoon. My name is Susan Delegal,
for the record. The motion to dismiss addresses three primary points,
and Mr. Kobza has reviewed those with you, but I think I want to point
particular attention to the first ground of the motion to dismiss
which cites section 22-293 and provides that an owner of a building
may appeal a decision of the building code compliance director to the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals. That's where a person has received
an adverse decision when one is going through the process on one's
own. It does not provide for an avenue for a third party that's
adversely affected. So any argument that the wrong form was selected
there does -- just does not apply because this provision simply does
not apply but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I ask to be sure I'm
following -- a common-sense question is, if that applied, then if I
lived next door to somebody who just got an approval, I would have to
apply -- I'd have to appeal that approval five days after it was
stamped by the building department before there was any activity on
the site?
MS. DELEGAL: That's a different section. That's part
of the confusion. That's the section on the FEHA regulations. Your
code is fraught with various provisions for appeals and various forums
to file these appellate -- appeals in and various times frames and
it's -- to try to wade through all these provisions is somewhat
difficult.
But in reviewing the overall situation, there is case
law in the State of Florida which I'm likening to this situation.
There's very little that covers situations such as this. You're not
going to find case law discussing appeals to boards, but you do find
situations that deal with appeals to the courts. And this issue of
filing timely and filing in the right court and filing the right sort
of documents has been addressed over and over by the courts.
The culmination of this was a Supreme Court ruling in
1993. It's cited as A1phonso versus Department of Environmental
Regulation. And the cite, just for the record, is 616 Southern
Reporter Second 44. But basically that case stands for the
proposition that if one chooses an improper remedy and files in the
wrong court, then the court is going to allow that pleading to stand
and that -- that review by an appellate court, which is the capacity
in which you all are sitting today is in an appellate capacity of a
decision made by your staff, that that -- that filing, as long as it
was timely made, is going to not be thwarted by failing to file it in
the right court. So if you have a district court where it should have
been filed and you file it in the circuit court, then the circuit
court should transfer that case. Yes?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me understand your argument.
You're saying even though a motion may be filed improperly or in the
wrong avenue -- Let's not use court because we're not really dealing
with that -- filed in the wrong avenue, the basic fact that it was
filed extends the time frame in such that it may be filed
appropriately?
MS. DELEGAL: It does not extend the time frame. What it
does is it -- it's not going to be treated as a defect for the
purposes of throwing that appeal out because it wasn't filed in the
proper forum. The courts in this state have taken a very liberal
view. If someone does file timely in the right -- even in the wrong
place and the wrong sort of pleading, then the Supreme Court has said
that it will be treated for those purposes as properly filed, and the
case will be transferred to the proper jurisdiction, and I think you
can liken that to the Board of Rules -- the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments on the one hand versus the Board of Zoning Appeals on the
other. If you take those arguments as cogent and meaningful to you,
what I'm saying is that there is the -- The Supreme Court has stated
that when it's reviewing these decisions and it's applying the rules
of procedure, that there needs to be flexibility and that's what I'm
-- that's what I'm arguing to you all, is that there should be that
flexibility if the case is timely filed, and it was filed within 30
days whether or not it was to the wrong board.
But I also want to point out, as Mr. Kobza has, that the
letter that was filed on March 22 by Mr. Kobza does indicate that --
it goes through the various procedures that -- the various issues that
are being appealed, and it says these should be addressed by the Board
of Appeals and Adjustments, and then it goes on to another series of
issues, and it says these should be appealed to the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
So in the letter he does state that they are the two
boards that should be taking jurisdiction. Whether or not this matter
was walked down the hall or filed with the proper administrative
official should not matter. Even if he did not specify the -- the
particular board, what I'm saying is that the courts have said in
Florida that as to the cases in the courts in Florida, that you're not
going to apply the strict standard as long as it was timely filed.
The only other comment I want to make is on the five
days that has been mentioned. As I said, there was a lot of --
there's a lot of provisions in your code, your Land Development Code
and your Code of Ordinances which do address any number of avenues to
appeal any number of decisions. This matter was filed under section
1.6.1, request for interpretation by a third party, Mr. Vasey, and
covered a number of issues, all of which taken together persuaded the
staff that the decision to issue the building permit was in error, and
it is from that that the appeal is taken.
So we argue that regardless of any time frames that have
-- might have been set forth in other provisions of the code as to
very, very specific items, that the overall provision which allows for
an interpretation of a decision, which clearly this falls into, should
subsume any five-day rule that may apply in some very specific portion
of the code. And we thank you for taking this argument. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Well, Madam Chairman, I -- Miss Student
researched the matter. She's prepared to go through the analysis.
What she is going to discuss are the technical matters. What Miss
Delegal has said is regardless of compliance with the provisions
specifically of the ordinance. You should have the ability, and they
would submit to you that you should overlook that and basically place
it in the right forum. If you want to go forward with Miss Student's
analysis of it, we're prepared to do that. I have the code provisions
which I'll give to counsel and you may want to refer to as well.
They're just copies. It's obviously not the whole code because it's
too large to deal with.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, you had a
comment?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cuyler, this seems to be a
very technical legal issue. I'm not sure that having Hiss Student
explain it to me is going to do as much good as it should. I don't
know about the rest of the board members. I know we do have one
attorney on the board. I --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No judges though.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Because most of us are not
attorneys, we need to rely on your legal opinion here in this case
because this is a technical matter. I think I need to have your
advice on this, what -- what you -- your opinion of what the board
should do in this case is.
MR. CUYLER: Our analysis and research indicates -- and
I am aware of the case law that Hiss Delegal is citing, but our
research indicates that the moving party has raised a good issue, an
issue that they have supported in their argument. Our advice, if
you're looking for advice, is that that is the better of the two
arguments.
I would also point out something that I have mentioned
to both counsel and that is that -- and since it was raised by Mr.
Kobza, I'm more comfortable talking about it. But that is, unlike a
court, you have an independent ability to look at issues, and I've
told both counsel, you understand if the Board of County Commissioners
wants to look at something that is a claimed violation of some sort,
they have the ability to do that, and Mr. Kobza mentioned under your
general governmental statutes that you have that ability. A court
doesn't. A court in order to take action has to take jurisdiction of
the proceedings and the people. You have the ability to -- If there's
a defect of some sort and they're saying this violation exists, if you
foreclose us from being able to present this to you, you have no
ability to look as these issues. Well, in fact, you do have an
ability to look at issues of that type. So the public cannot say if
-- if you grant the motion to dismiss and the appeal goes away, that
these things potentially are violations that are sitting out there.
You're not doing anything about them. I mean, you can look and ask
your staff to investigate whether anything really is a problem or not.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine and that's -- I think
we're all fairly aware of that, but the issue here is whether or not
to dismiss the appeal and I -- if I understood you right, you said
that your opinion is -- the best argument is to dismiss.
HR. CUYLER: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
dismiss.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Then I'll make a motion to
Commissioner Hancock.
I'll withdraw my question.
You'll withdraw your question.
We have a motion to approve the dismissal; is that
correct?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to second the motion
for the simple reason that I've heard one argument from an attorney
that says they have no right to appeal. I hear a second argument that
says even if we didn't do it by the letter of the law, the Supreme
Court case substantiates that you should hear it anyway. And then our
county attorney says go with the first guy. You know, I'm -- I'm
going to go with the first guy. Our county attorney's made a
recommendation. I know no other or no better than our county
attorney. So I'm going to support the motion.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My only comment about that is --
I am not being a lawyer on this one, but that guy who waved around
that book about the demise of common sense -- if what's happening here
is that they lose out on their right to appeal because they didn't
know five days after the application was filed -- there's no way they
could have known. How could they have known? Common sense it seems
to me is that they're entitled to have their day in this little court.
MR. CUYLER: I think Hiss Student's research indicated
-- and, again, if you don't want us to go through that, we won't but
__
MS. STUDENT: I'll be brief.
MR. CUYLER: She -- I think she has come to the
conclusion that the filing period didn't necessarily have to be five
days. It could have been 30 days, but it was still filed in the wrong
forum.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- I did want to mention
briefly that it's not as if, if we do not hear this appeal, this issue
goes away and the resolution is that the residence stays in its
existing location. I think that there is on the horizon some form of
a settlement agreement. I don't think that this board is looking at
leaving the Gibson residence at its location. So I'm not interpreting
not granting this appeal as saying everything's fine and dandy and
there's been no violation. There is a step two or a B that comes
after this, and for me that's -- that's a part of this, and maybe I'm
inappropriate in considering that.
MR. CUYLER: For purposes of this proceeding, you need
to look at this -- the two arguments of counsel and make a decision on
this, although I think the board may reach the conclusion that one way
or another something has got to happen but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If -- If we -- If we deny -- If
we dismiss, whatever is the appropriate wording here, what's their
appeal to our decision?
MR. CUYLER: They could take it to the circuit court for
a review of the decision.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and we have a
second and I believe we have -- the majority of the board would like
to hear Hiss Student's comments if you can make it as brief as you
Can.
MS. STUDENT: I'll try to be very brief. If you look at
division or section 1.66 of the Land Development Code which Mr. Kobza
did reference, it states -- and I'm just going to read it into the
record, "Within 30 days after receipt by applicant of a written
interpretation sent by certified mail return receipt requested by the
Development Services director or the Growth Planning director, the
applicant may appeal the interpretation to the Building Board of
Adjustments and Appeals for matters relating to building and technical
codes as shown in division 1.18."
If you look at division 1.18, that has the Chapter 62
which was referenced, the flood damage prevention ordinance, and it
also has criteria and code relating to the coastal zone technical
requirements. And then it goes on to say, "or to the Board of Zoning
Appeals for all other matters in this code."
So if you just look at that provision alone -- and it is
clear in my mind that for those items referenced in 1.18, it has to go
within 30 days to the Building Board of Adjustment of Appeals. For
other matters in the code, it has to go to this body, the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So you are saying that
while they may have made the time correct, the forum that they used
was incorrect?
MS. STUDENT: Incorrect body. And, also, just one other
point about any alleged misadvice of staff, I have some cases which
that would be a mistake of law, and you have no right to raise an
equitable estoppel or rely on a mistake of law. So I have copies of
those cases.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so I'm clear, is then the
advice of our county attorney that we dismiss?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Based on those arguments?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on the arguments.
MR. CUYLER: We have to give you advice on how we read
the arguments, and we read the argument the same way the moving party
reads the argument. We concur in the legal basis that they have set
forth with regard to the motion. So I don't know that I'd
characterize this advising you to dismiss it, but our advice is that
that is the correct legal argument.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- Just another factual
question if I can. When the -- When the -- When the appeal that was
filed -- I assume filed by Mr. Kobza on behalf of his client -- when
it came in, was it rejected as being to the wrong board? What
happened to it?
MR. CUYLER: I --
MR. KOBZA: In fact, they --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Kobza, you have to be on the
record.
MR. CUYLER: I think it was filed on the 29th or 30th
day. Mr. Arnold here -- is here who accepted the petition, so he
would probably be in the best position to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two questions.
MR. KOBZA: In fact, we had been noticed that it was
properly filed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You received notice that it was
properly filed?
MR. KOBZA: That the no -- the notice that it was a
hearing date set. And how they can say --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's hear from Mr. Arnold.
MR. KOBZA: They didn't even -- They didn't even answer
the first Chapter 22 --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. --
MR. KOBZA: -- and they're --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. --
MR. KOBZA: -- talking about bossing the appeal.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Our question is what happened to
the appeal. Mr. Arnold, can you fill us in on the current status?
MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold of your
Planning Services staff.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is, when the appeal
was filed -- first I thought we were talking about a five-day
deadline. Now it appears the five days is not the question. The
question is, was the -- was the appeal filed to the proper forum.
Was, in fact, their appeal -- first question, was it filed within 30
days?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second question, if it is, in
fact, our interpretation -- if our ordinance clearly says it was filed
to the wrong -- the appeal was made to the wrong board, did the staff
advise the appellant, "You have filed to the wrong board," or did the
staff say, "Thank you for your application. Your hearing is scheduled
on such and such a day"?
MR. ARNOLD: You're correct in both statements. They did
receive the letter stating that their appeal was received and
scheduled for a board. The controversy comes in in whether or not
that appeal should have been filed through me as interpreter of parts
of the zoning code, for instance, and issues related to the setback,
or should it have been filed to the Board of Building Code and
Adjustments, which that in itself is the case. We received a check
for $200 which is the filing fee for an interpretation that I would
make as the Planning Services director. There's a separate filing fee
for the Building Board of Adjustments which is a $250 filing fee. I
might explain, the other appellant here that Mr. Anderson is
representing filed two appeals, one to the Board of Adjustments, one
to the Board of Zoning Appeals. They further withdrew their appeal to
the Board of Adjustments.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess while I know that the
responsibility for filing with the -- you know, with the proper party
is the responsibility of the applicant, I'm not ready to say go away
and, you know, jump in the Gulf because if we should have -- if they
should have filed with a different application form, then I think
staff should have told them. And when we didn't and instead said,
"Okay. Here's your hearing date," I don't think it's appropriate now
from a common sense perspective. Technically, legally it probably is
correct, but I don't think it serves anybody to throw it out.
MR. KOBZA: To add to that, I was directed by Dick Clark
to deal with Wayne Arnold on any and all matters related to this issue
and to look for him -- That was the direction I was given. The proper
question to the county attorney, Ken Cuyler, is not which is the
weight of the arguments. It is Ken -- Mr. Cuyler, do we have some
discretion here to, in fact, breathe life into these appeals and
recognize them. It's not, how can we look for a way to dismiss it
because that would guarantee litigation, and it will create an
appealable issue. The -- The question should be, Mr. Arnold, answer
the question you didn't answer on Chapter 22 which is one way that
that -- that appeal should still be pending. The only reason we even
filed an appeal was because the question wasn't answered.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, thank you, Mr. Kobza, but
the fact remains is that we pay our county attorney for legal advice
to the board, and that's who we have to rely on, not -- not -- not
someone's outside representatives, so I think we're kind of stuck with
the one that we hired to do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got one more question for
Mr. Arnold. Let me correct what I think I heard you say. When an
applicant requests an interpretation from you, there's a filing fee --
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- $200. When someone appeals
that interpretation, there is a second fee, $250; is that correct?
MR. ARNOLD: Actually, the -- the interpretation request
fee is $100. The interpretations that I have the authority to render
require a filing fee of $200. Those that the building official is
involved with through the Building Board of Adjustments requires the
$250 appeal fee by code.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But what I'm asking you is,
should two fees have been paid, one for the interpretation and another
one for the appeal?
MR. ARNOLD: There were two fees paid in this case.
They did properly file the $100 interpretation fee. At the time they
filed an appeal to my interpretation, they filed a $200 filing fee.
This file was left with the departmental secretary, given to me the
following week after it was, I think, processed on a Thursday. I
received the file on Monday. The assumption being, we have a $200
fee. We also have an interpretation I rendered, but that's being
appealed. My assumption has to be that, should they have been looking
for an appeal to the Board of Building Codes, they would have filed a
separate application to appeal that through the proper secretary for
that procedure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm more confused now than I was
before.
MR. CUYLER: I think the answer was, with regard to
appeals, one fee was filed. The interpretation has a separate fee.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Asked for an interpretation from
Mr. Arnold, paid a $100 fee for that. Appealed your interpretation,
paid a $200 fee for that. If they wished to appeal to the Board of
Zoning Appeals, there would have been a third application and a
separate fee for that. Is that correct?
MR. ARNOLD: No. That -- That first appeal that was
filed --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that case I'm confused.
MR. ARNOLD: -- by Mr. Kobza, there is a $200 filing fee
for that appeal which was paid.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the $100 fee?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's for an interpretation.
MR. ARNOLD: That's for the initial interpretation of
the application of the code in this case which was the question, have
we properly permitted the structure in this location, to which I
rendered an interpretation that the actual setback should have been 50
feet, to which they filed an appeal and paid a $200 filing fee as
opposed to Mr. Anderson who filed two separate applications, one to
one appeal paying $200 for the Board of Zoning Appeals, one $250 and
an application to the Board of Building Code and Adjustments. They
filed two separate ones.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, can you
spread some clarity on this?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll try and boil it down as
simple as I can. There's been a request for us to hear an appeal of
one of Mr. Arnold's interpretations. There have been two attorneys
who stand up representing either side and argue pros and cons of that
appeal, that we should hear that appeal. Mr. Cuyler, you're telling
us based on the arguments presented to us, that, in your opinion, it's
appropriate to dismiss?
MR. CUYLER: Correct. Based on the arguments of the
moving party. Correct.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's -- that's the
key phrase is based on the arguments that are presented.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm going to call the
question if there's no further discussion. All those in favor of the
motion, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 4-1, Commissioner Mac'Kie being in the
dissent.
Item #9B
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL RELATING TO LOT 14, BLOCK 1, HIDEAWAY BEACH, MARCO
ISLAND, FLORIDA (COMPANION TO ITEM #13A3) - SETTLEMENT REJECTED BUT
STAFF DIRECTED TO CONTINUED TO WORK WITH THE PETITIONER ON THIS SUBJECT
HR. CUYLER: Hadam Chairman, at this point you would
ordinarily be dealing with Petition A-95-3, but under item 9B which is
the county attorney's report, there has been a settlement proposal,
and Mr. Dotrill is going to discuss that with you.
MR. DORRILL: As part of this issue in each of the last
two weeks, we -- I had indicated to the board that I thought that this
particular issue was very complex from a legal and Land Development
Code standpoint -- I think the preceding item just gives you a sneak
preview of that -- and also the fact that I thought that it seemed
obvious to me that there were two issues that needed an appropriate
staff response.
The first one was, in 1986 during a similar
erosion-related problem, the board had instructed the staff nine years
ago to prepare a PUD amendment to establish a revised rear yard
building control line. That was never done, and for whatever reason,
we don't know why that was never done. The individuals all in
question are no longer with the county. And, in fact, no one in the
room was probably with the county as part of that decision-making
process.
In anticipation of that, I -- when I became aware of
that situation, I had a meeting with Ms. Edwards and also Mr. Arnold
and immediately instructed them to adhere to the board's direction of
nine years ago and to prepare an amendment to the PUD and schedule
that before the Planning Commission and also the Board of County
Commissioners.
During the interim period of time, as part of the Marco
Island beach renourishment project, there was an additional rear yard
building control line, and I will tell you depending on how the issue
unfolds before you as part of the PUD amendment, there are no fewer
than four or five rear yard lines, and that's why this becomes very
complex in order to follow properly.
As part of that, I told the staff -- and the board's
original direction from 1986 was to have a 50-foot setback from the
rear control line. I told the staff, given the current situation and
the fact that we have a new erosion control line as part of the beach
renourishment project, that we needed to have an alternative line that
the board could consider as a more appropriate line given these
current state of circumstances that are affecting this portion of the
subdivision.
In addition to that, it seemed obvious to me that the
house as it exists is seaward of where everyone wants it to be. And
as a result of that -- and I believe I reported to the board last week
that I was going to enter into negotiations to attempt to reach a
compromise in order to move the house landward of its current position
to the maximum extent that we could. And at that time, I was asked
was I working on a compromise that would include a resolution of this
issue or any other unbuilt lot remaining in the subdivision that is on
the pass itself. And I indicated that I was looking for a
comprehensive solution for all unbuilt lots that proceed from the
Gibson residence east to the end of the subdivision -- I believe there
are five or six additional lots to this -- and problems of potential
non-conformity depending on where that rear control building line
might be.
As a result of that, I had one meeting with each of the
local counsels from either side, and we have proposed to you a
settlement agreement today that I feel represents the best business
proposal for the county in order to rectify the situation with respect
to the Gibson house. It was distributed this morning, and it is
outlined as follows. That the county would participate -- and we have
given notice of a potential claim to our insurance adjuster; however,
in this instance, we are going to be responsible for the first
$100,000 in any event as part of our insurance; a deductible, if you
will.
In this particular case, the maximum exposure to the
county proposed under the settlement agreement is $50,000. That
represents a partial payment of the cost to relocate that portion of
the house slab and the piling and structural support members that
support the pool. There is a pool immediately west of the principal
structure, and we're attempting to relocate both of those landward,
and the proposal is 30 feet for the principal structures from the rear
control line, 20 feet for any ancillary structure which the pool
qualifies as.
In addition to that, the Gibsons would then be
responsible for all other costs associated with moving the home
landward of its current position. It has been reported to me and we
have preliminary estimates or they have already taken bids in some
instances to rectify or make changes to their truss and roof design
system, changes to custom-made windows that will no longer be able to
be utilized within the redesign of the home. It requires extensive
landscaping modifications to rebuild a berm in native indigenous plant
species that were improperly removed as part of the initial site
clearing and construction of the foundation and the footer systems
that were there. And it also will include any and all design fees for
architects or engineers associated with moving the home. And it has
been reported to me that in addition to the county's share of $50,000,
that preliminarily their cost -- hard cost and design fees are going
to be $118,950. Those do not include any of the attorney's fees or
architectural fees that have been incurred to date, and the county is
not responsible to pay any of the attorney's fees or any of the
architectural fees associated with either today's hearing or any other
of the actions associated with this.
So aside from all the legal issues and the very complex
Land Development Code issues, we have developed what I feel to be the
very best possible and least expensive alternative for the county
commission as I have outlined to you.
We attempted to have this be a three-party agreement. I
did meet also with Mr. Kobza. It is his desire and their expressed
desire and I was -- it was indicated to me that they were not willing
to settle, if you will, for any landward move of the home less than 40
feet. That entails some additional issues, and we were not able to
have the two parties agree to a 40-foot or a 35-foot landward move of
the existing slab, and that's why I've settled on 30 feet. All of
that is subject to and contained within the agreement. The board's
hearing of the PUD amendment, that I believe is currently scheduled
for some time in June.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: June or July?
MR. CUYLER: It's -- I think the proposal shoots for
June, but I want to make a couple of things clear. First of all, the
agreement specifically provides you're under no obligation to do any
specific thing at the fezone hearing, at the PUD hearing. That would
be something that you would consider based on all the evidence
presented to you. You would make the determination as to -- as to
what the appropriate setback is. Staff, of course, will have their
recommendation. And the settlement is based on certain things
happening out of that, but that does not place an obligation on you to
do those things. It's one -- It's the type of settlement that you see
from time to time where if X, Y, Z happens, we're satisfied with that.
We take no further action. If another thing happens, we won't. We
would go back to the -- to what the status quo is right now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, you mentioned -- and
the reason I'm asking is I didn't specifically read it in the
agreement, about a dune restoration. Did I hear you say that that
would be borne by the property owner?
MR. DORRILL: Solely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Solely by the property owner. Is
it in this agreement? I did not read it specifically in the
agreement.
MR. DORRILL: If it's -- it's not specific -- I was not
responsible for the drafting in the agreement. The principal part of
the cost to be borne by the Gibsons includes substantial landscaping
provisions to re-establish that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I need to make sure that
the dune restoration is part of this.
MR. DORRILL: I'll ask either Mr. Doyle or Mr. Cuyler
who drafted the agreement to respond to that.
MR. CUYLER: I think both parties will have an
opportunity to address this. I know Mr. Kobza wants to address it as
well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. CUYLER: One other item I wanted to mention. We're
in sort of an unusual set of circumstances. I think it's probably
obvious to everybody. We have potentially a couple of quasi-judicial
proceedings coming up, potentially the appeal that we're not doing
today and a PUD hearing probably regardless of whether the settlement
goes into effect or not, some sort of PUD hearing, and obviously those
issues -- since it's quasi-judicial, you don't want to get into the
merits more than you have to. To some small extent, we have to
discuss them. I expect everybody will be discussing them to some
small extent. But, remember, you do have a quasi-judicial independent
impartial hearing coming up, and just keep that in mind. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Doyle.
MR. DOYLE: Robin Doyle, trial counsel for Mr. And Mrs.
Gibson. In response to Commissioner Hancock's question, it is our
understanding that the Gibsons would -- assuming that the commission
goes forward with the adoption of the PUD amendment, then the Gibsons
would accept that amendment with the 30-foot setback and would comply
with all other requirements of county laws whether they pertain to
construction or environmental laws for this site, so to the extent
that anything is required there, and we have included in calculating
these costs something for re-establishment of the native vegetation on
the site.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if I understand you
correctly, Mr. Cuyler, to really get into the particulars of the 30
feet, is it appropriate or not, would the PUD hearing be the more
appropriate place to discuss that item and its -- the associated
elements to it?
MR. CUYLER: It would be, although I think itls going to
be discussed to some extent and I guess --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It does seem an integral part of
this agreement.
MR. CUYLER: In terms of -- In terms of the fact that
that is already a staff recommendation and has already been proposed,
what the Gibson counsel has basically said is we understand that that
is what has already been proposed. We agree with that. If thatls
whatls happened -- you know, that is what happens at your PUD hearing,
then we enter into certain agreements to -- you know, stipulations
that will have a monetary part of it. If thatls not what happens, we
go back to where we were.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My next question is related to
the physical situation of Mr. Vaseyls structure on his property in
reference to the erosion control line. So before venturing down that
path, you issued somewhat of a warning there, and I just wanted to
make sure if that is pertinent or allowable today, in your opinion.
MR. CUYLER: I think the parties that obviously are at
interest are here. So if -- What you may want to do is talk to the
parties, let them go ahead and make their comments about the
settlement agreement, sort of let me just watch whatls going on, and
nobody can raise error if theylre the ones thatls talking about it, so
it may get discussed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Iill withhold that for the
presentation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, I just want to
make sure I understood you clearly. You said you had attempted to get
agreement with all three parties here. Mr. Kobzals clients had -- you
said -- and Iim -- Help me if Iim wrong here -- but werenlt interested
in anything less than a 40-foot --
MR. DORRILL: They were interested in participating in
part of the settlement; however, he wanted to see -- and Iill let him
speak for himself. They wanted to see a 40-foot setback as opposed to
the 30, and he has some other issues with respect to landscaping and
architectural.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And apparently there was
discussion. You mentioned 35 was discussed, but it didnlt go
anywhere.
MR. DORRILL: It went neither where with either one of
the two parties.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- And, Mr. Kobza,
Iill be interested to hear but I just -- I hate to see this -- It
sounds foolish to think that the amount of space between Commissioner
Hancock and me right now is holding up a three-way settlement. I
realize therels been a lot of time and effort and money and energy and
anxiety put forth in this, but if itls boiled down to a difference of
five feet to get everybody on board, let's try to make -- and if there
are other things, great. We need to know about that. But if that's
the main sticking point, it seems like we ought to be able to get past
that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only question is procedural.
How -- Is it the county's normal procedure for the county manager to
be the negotiator in a settlement of litigation? That seems odd to me
that it wasn't the County Attorney's Office.
MR. CUYLER: It's -- is -- I sign documents for legal
sufficiency. Your staff negotiates contracts all the time. I was --
It was discussed with me. This is not the first time I've heard about
it. It was discussed with me. I knew what was going on.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that what -- Is that how we
normally negotiate settlements of lawsuits or is this one different?
MR. CUYLER: It happens. I don't -- I wouldn't say this
one is different.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. CUYLER: It's not in litigation. I think that
that's probably the primary difference, is that this arose through
Development Services and basically has normal county procedures
involved. It hasn't gotten to litigation yet.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe, Mr. Kobza, you have
something to say on this?
MR. DORRILL: We have a number of speakers on this as
well.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. KOBZA: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and
members of the commission. Commissioner Constantine, it's not just
ten feet, and I think viewing it that way is a significant injustice
to the Vaseys. The fact is that that --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm having trouble hearing.
MR. KOBZA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Speak up.
MR. KOBZA: The fact is that that difference we have
appraised a $350,000 diminution in value to the Vasey residence.
$350,000. In 1986 this county forced Mr. Vasey to use two lots to
setback 50 feet to the mean high water mark. This agreement does not
hold the Gibsons to the same standard, and the net result is that the
real damage here is to the Vaseys a minimum of $350,000.
Now, I'm sitting here listening to this discussion, and
I'll tell you, I -- I feel like I must have been someplace else for
the last week. We did never participate in the settlement discussion.
I was asked to sit down with your county manager a week ago Friday
to share our position relative to any potential settlements. I did
not even -- I was not aware of the possible existence of this
agreement until five minutes to 5:00 last Friday afternoon. I did not
receive a copy of it until yesterday afternoon by fax at 20 minutes to
5:00, and yet the Vaseys or the principally affected parties have
spent tens of thousands of dollars to bring in some of the top experts
in the country, including Dr. Pilkey, Dr. Hottimer from University of
Florida, Tom Hissimer, to show you why that 30-foot standard or this
30-foot proposal is inappropriate.
Now, what you're doing by even considering a settlement
agreement at this point in time is not only highly inappropriate but
in our view not in accordance with the law. You have a pending
quasi-judicial hearing at which all the issues should be decided, and
we should have full and complete ability to provide all of our
information to the staff before you predispose whether it's 30/20 or
whatever it is in any document. Okay?
Mr. Dotrill has not seen our appraisal information. He
has not seen our report from Dr. Pilkey. He has not seen our report
from Dr. Hottimer. You haven't seen those things. So how can you
settle this -- settle this at 30/20 or make any representation here
when we go to a PUD hearing that your staff is supposed to be unbiased
in their consideration of whether it should be zero or 20 or 30 or 40
or 50? You can't do it. If you do it, you're -- you're just clearly
in violation of Florida law, and it's not going to resolve anything
because the next lawsuit is our lawsuit. Okay. So if we're going to
have a settlement, let's have all the affected parties.
I want to go to the business side of this for a second.
It is our viewpoint that you as a county have no liability, not one
dime, and this agreement proposes that you use county taxpayers' funds
to pay $50,000 to Mr. Gibson. Given the opportunity, we can show you
that his representatives and the way he approached the building permit
process largely resulted in the reason that permit was issued. In
order to claim any kind of damage to you as a county, you have to be
able to establish that you have clean hands as an applicant. They
have architects that are responsible for certifications. They have
surveyors that are responsible to know the law and their
certifications. So before you pay them a dime, be aware that it's our
position you do not have any liability.
Now, the Vaseys who are truly the most affected and the
victims, if you will, here have offered -- because there's such a
substantial impact to them, have offered instead of you county paying
the $50,000, we'll at least pay $50,000. We'll consider paying more,
the Vaseys will, to get this to the proper setback line. So the
county pays nothing. We'll pay to get -- for that mistake. That's --
for their mistakes, for whatever mistakes the county made, but we'll
pay to preserve the appropriate setback line. Okay?
So in terms of an economic business decision, how is
that a good business decision that you pay 50,000 when you have no
liability when we're prepared to pay 50 or more to get them to the
appropriate setback line?
Now, the whole issue here is this. They want their view
from that second-story bedroom out on the beach to the exclusion of
anybody else's interest. Okay? That in a nutshell is what they're
after. Financial doesn't make any difference to them either. Okay?
Now, they can have -- We can show you where they can
have the same slab, the same building back at 40 feet with -- the same
building they want at 40 feet simply by moving the road seven feet
which is a very low cost item, $20,000, and through the excavation of
the existing slab with re-piling. We know what the cost of that is.
It's $85,000, and we're willing to consider paying that, and yet what
this settlement agreement does -- it says we'll lock in at 30/20 feet.
Mr. Doyle's talked with all the newspapers in town and said this is
a done deal. Highly inappropriate if you consider going forward on
this basis, and there is no procedural reason why you have to do it.
Okay?
There's a PUD hearing that has been advertised. Okay?
It's been advertised -- you can ask Mr. Arnold -- with an open -- open
requirement just saying we're going to move the line. Okay? It
doesn't say 20. It doesn't say 30. It doesn't say 40. It doesn't
say 50.
So let's have that PUD hearing. Don't lock in at 20
feet, 30 feet, 40 feet. Don't lock in anything. Okay? Let's have
that PUD hearing. They get their chance to take it forward. We get
our chance to present all our evidence in an unbiased fashion. And
we'll see who's right. And we'll give the board that ability. It's
easy. They continue their -- their appeals today which they've done.
We have the PUD hearing. They don't like the result. Fine. They're
on with their appeals. And in the interim, we've got the financial --
you know, we can't be expected -- The Vaseys can't be expected to make
a financial contribution, which they are willing to do, with such an
onerous result as one that impacts them to the degree this does. It
-- And the fact that I get it 20 minutes to 5:00 yesterday is just --
you know, I haven't been -- I haven't participated in any settlement
discussions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I '-
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Kobza, I'm just trying to set
the stage for myself. What is the closest structure on Mr. Vasey's
property to the erosion control line? MR. KOBZA: 50 feet.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So he has nothing within
50 feet of the erosion control line?
MR. KOBZA: The county required him to set back 50 feet
from the then existing mean high water line in 1987.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The same as the erosion control
line?
MR. KOBZA: In that point, it is exact -- almost exactly
the same as where the ECL -- because, see, the ECL -- It's important
to understand the concept behind the erosion control line. That was
established during beach renourishment. That line is surveyed in -- By
the way, the county did it right. They did it wrong. When the county
surveyed in the ECL, it's at the -- what was the then existing mean
high water line at the time of beach renourishment which was 1989,
1990. So it was at the same point. Now, that's important because,
see, what happens is you have a sacrificial beach out there. That
means it's designed -- they know it's going away. That beach
renourishment, they know it's going away. So if you approve the
30/20, chances are that house is 30 feet, 20 feet on the pool from
what in -- current erosion rates in two years is going to be your
water line.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Basically you mentioned something
about ending up in court. If we approve this, you take us to court.
If we don't approve this, Gibson takes us to court. Either way we're
in court, and we are the ones who are paying for depositions. We are
the ones who are out of pocket also. Okay? So it's not a situation
as if we just sit on our hands, we can protect the taxpayers' funds.
We're going to get sued by somebody in this. And the reason is, as I
understand from discussions with Mr. Dorrill, is that everyone has an
argument, and there's a portion of validity in just about everyone's
argument, and no one's scott-free in this.
MR. KOBZA: Mr. -- Commissioner Hancock, big difference
here. If you follow the procedures correctly, you tremendously
improve your posture in any litigation setting, and you should do
that. That's just good common sense. You should do that. I don't
necessarily agree that litigation is inevitable. It may not be
inevitable. Litigation may not result from this if we have full and
complete and impartial hearings.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds like we haven't had a
settlement discussion yet with everybody at the table. Litigation is a
long way from inevitable if everybody hasn't had a chance to sit
around the table.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a minute.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cuyler's trying to jump in
here, but let me just say one thing first, and then you can jump in
here, Mr. Cuyler.
There are -- I understand your argument. There are
other reasons why the 30/20 line would be desirable on that block two,
and the reason is because there's some other lots involved.
MR. CUYLER: Again --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But that's not what we're talking
about here today. We're talking about this particular one and this
particular settlement agreement.
MR. KOBZA: Right.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We are not locking ourselves in.
This is all, as you pointed out, open for discussion in the PUD
hearing, but there's nothing in the world to preclude you from
negotiating with Mr. Gibson to do what you would like to do -- Just a
minute.
MR. KOBZA: I'm listening, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's nothing to preclude you
from getting what you want as a settlement between you and Mr. Gibson
no matter where this line eventually goes in the PUD hearing, and you
know that as well as I do. You can't -- You can't expect us to go
against the advice of our county attorney and settle this thing today
the way you want it done. That's not reasonable. We, once again,
have to rely on the advice of our county attorney.
MR. KOBZA: I'm saying, Commissioner, you didn't even
have this on your agenda prior to nine o'clock this morning.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But that's -- that's unimportant.
It's on the agenda now, and we are discussing it.
MR. KOBZA: Right. Right. Right. And, Commissioner,
we have tried to talk with the Gibsons. My gosh. How much more
involved -- I mean, how -- you know, we're putting money on the table
here for a problem we didn't create. It's just highly inappropriate.
Sue Delegal can give you the law. Going forward with an agreement at
this point is totally unnecessary. There's no reason that you as a
county has to do it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And here, I think, is where the
county attorney wants to jump in and clarify that.
MR. CUYLER: First of all, I agree. There is no
requirement that you do it, but let me explain how I looked at this
and why I'm in a position of support for the agreement. The Gibsons'
attorneys came in and said, we have an appeal that's going to take
place. And after three or four or five or six hours or however long
it takes, you're going to have a decision. Either you're going to
decide the staff interpretation was correct and it's 50 foot or that
it's zero foot. You didn't have anything in between those two. They
said even if it is 50 foot and Mr. Kobza is successful in convincing
you that staff interpretation is correct and staff is correct in
convincing you that, you're still left with something that's going to
probably have a PUD amendment. And, in fact, your staff has already
advertised a PUD amendment, and they've advertised it generally, and,
in my opinion, the next one will be advertised generally to give you
the ability to do what you want, but their understanding was staff
recommendation was going to be 30/20.
They said, we're willing to stay the appeal and go into
that PUD hearing, make our argument, have Mr. Vasey's attorneys make
their argument. You decide what is appropriate. If you do what the
staff is -- as their understanding was and my understanding is, was a
recommendation of 30/20, if you follow that recommendation, then we
never have the appeal, and that's your decision. If that's not what
you decide to do and you decide it's 40 feet or 50 feet, then that is
the answer. Their appeal kicks back in. You know, anybody that wants
to litigate along the process can litigate. That's aside from the
money. Now, it's difficult for me to see how a judge is going to say
you are required to have that appeal. You can't stay that appeal when
we're going to probably have -- and staff has already advertised a PUD
hearing regardless of what the answer of that interpretation is going
to be.
Then the question is, is the business decision on the
money. And I appreciate Kim's position, we have no liability, and if
we litigate the issue, I can assure you that will be my position, that
we have no liability, but I can also tell you that, you know, a judge
might not agree with us, and estoppel cases, you know, are all over
the board, and you can find what you want in estoppel cases. I don't
know what the answer to that is going to be. I know the permit was
issued. I know the slab's there. And I know money's been spent on
it.
Now, whether they came in with clean hands and they can
prove that or they didn't come in with clean hands and we can prove
that, I don't know. A court's going to decide that if we ever get
that far, but that was the rationale. I want the board to know that
we didn't take this lightly. I mean, that was the rationale we used
in processing whatever recommendation I came up with anyway.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have several questions. One,
I'm so dull that I didn't even get that. I still don't understand why
a settlement of anything is necessary today before a PUD hearing. Why
is it even appropriate or recommended? If it's not necessary, why do
you recommend it?
MR. CUYLER: It is recommended for two reasons. First of
all, it does away with the appeal hearing which is not a requirement.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which doesn't carry any weight
with me because the fact that we have to sit here six hours or
whatever many hours I don't give a hoot. That's irrelevant -- MR. CUYLER: That's fine. That's --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and shouldn't count, in my
opinion. Second reason.
MR. CUYLER: The reason that -- The reason that I
counted it is the answer was going to be the same after that six hours
regardless of what you did so -- but that's up to you. And the only
other item that's involved that is of consequence is you lock in what
your cost would be.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But he's going to sue us. So how
have we locked in what our cost is going to be? MR. CUYLER: Well, I guess --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're both -- They're both full
of holes. I think they're both full of holes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a second. Let me clarify
something that you said earlier. If we go through the appeal process,
our choice is going to be zero feet or 50 feet, and that's the end of
that. Is that what you told us?
MR. CUYLER: For the interpretation, yes. They're
arguing that they can build up to the erosion control line. Staff has
said they have to set back 50 foot from the erosion control line.
It's one or the other.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So that settles that.
MR. CUYLER: I don't think anybody's argued that it's
not one or the other.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then I have another question.
I have --
MR. CUYLER: Let me mention one more thing,
Commissioner, and that is, the other thing that I saw in this was that
the PUD hearing is going to give everybody the ability to come in and
make their arguments and present their four or five or six experts --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my --
MR. CUYLER: -- that you will be hearing at the appeal
hearing anyway. You're going to probably be seeing the same people --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So how does that answer -- How is
that a factor in the question of whether or not a settlement agreement
is appropriate? It seems to me the fact that a PUD hearing is
upcoming, this whole discussion makes me nervous in the quasi-judicial
-- You know, what we know what the rules are about quasi-judicial, I
don't see how we're even having this discussion when there's a PUD
hearing scheduled and that's -- that's just my opinion on that.
My other -- My other question is, in cases like these
when -- I realize this one's complicated, but I'm troubled by the fact
I had a million phone messages from one of the attorneys in this deal,
and I just didn't respond to any of them because it didn't seem to me
to be appropriate to talk about this outside of this forum. I want to
know if it is appropriate to talk about it outside of this forum.
MR. CUYLER: In terms of a settlement, I think you
always have the ability to discuss that in terms --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How when there's a PUD pending?
MR. CUYLER: In terms of the -- In terms of the merits
of where the setback is supposed to be, no, I don't think you're
supposed to be talking about any of those aspects.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's impossible to talk
about a settlement without talking about the merits.
MR. CUYLER: Well, I have an obligation as counsel to
also let you know about settlement proposals as well. I mean, you
know, it needs to be brought to your attention. How you decide it is
up to you.
MR. KOBZA: I've been very, very, very careful not to
call --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're not at fault.
MR. KOBZA: -- any of the commissioners, and the fact
that somebody did -- I think you might, to some extent, have a
defective proceeding just on that basis. But certainly Mr. Cuyler has
just sat here and told you that this staff was going to recommend a
30/20 before we even get into presenting our evidence, clearly in
violation of the laws of the State of Florida relating to
quasi-judicial proceedings.
MR. CUYLER: That's not a violation. The staff
recommends to you every time before you have a quasi-judicial
proceeding what the staff recommendation is going to be, and all the
parties do not have a chance to come in and argue that in front of
staff. They make up whatever their recommendations.
MR. KOBZA: After they receive all the evidence.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask this. Mr. Cuyler,
didn't you tell me that this settlement agreement that everybody is
all in a tither about here is merely contingent on having a favorable
resolution at the PUD hearing?
MR. CUYLER: Whether the remaining portions of the
settlement agreement go forward depends on whether the 30/20 is
approved by the Board of County Commissioners. If it doesn't, then it
goes back again and there is --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And we're right back to where we
are at this moment --
MR. CUYLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- which is getting ready to hear
these appeals. But the thing is we're not -- we're not setting the
settlement agreement into stone today. We're just saying we -- we --
we will agree in concept but let's see what happens at the PUD
hearing. Isn't that what we're saying?
MR. CUYLER: Well, the agreement itself is going to be
set, but it depends on what happens at the PUD hearing whether the
provisions come into effect or not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This agreement, page two, section
two says 20 feet, 30 feet from the erosion control line, and that
appears to me that we're presupposing --
MR. CUYLER: If you'll read paragraph three, that is
specifically set out to say that you have no obligation. Everybody in
the room understands that you cannot preset a zoning hearing. You
can't come up with your determination today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I realize that, but I'm not sure
item three corrects that.
MR. CUYLER: I think what item two says is, if that is
your decision, then the rest of the agreement comes into effect. If
that is not your decision, if that's not what it turns out to be, the
rest of the agreement doesn't come into effect.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. Commissioner
Constantine's been trying to say something for a while.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And he speaks so rarely.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, you said a couple
of times it's not necessary. It's potentially no need to set the
agreement today. I feel on a couple of things that we've been mislead
purposely or not mislead a bit. There was a comment that we tried to
get a three-way agreement, yet Mr. Kobza tells me he didn't see it
before 4:40 last night. That raises concern.
Mr. Dotrill, I appreciate you trying to bring the sides
together in this. I do have one concern, and that is the attorneys --
one of the attorneys involved in this was and possibly still is your
personal attorney which certainly gives the appearance of
inappropriateness. I would not question your integrity and I don't;
however, it raises the appearance question that all of us have to be
careful of.
Frankly, I have some discomfort with the county's
$50,000 portion of this as well.
Mr. Cuyler, in answer to Commissioner Mac'Kie's '-
MR. DORRILL: Let me -- Let me offer a response --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can --
MR. DORRILL: -- at some point.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- When I finish. You can
when I finish.
Mr. Cuyler, in response to Commissioner Mac'Kie's
question, you said about the PUD hearing, we'll give everyone an
opportunity to say their piece and present their case. Isn't that
good? I think perhaps we ought to hear everyone's piece and
everyone's case and everyone's side of this before we enter into
anything formal and -- and whether it's in concept or not, it seems
premature to enter into that before we've heard all sides of it.
MR. CUYLER: It is -- You don't have to enter into this
agreement. I'm not telling you that you have to enter into it. I do
not see anything wrong, and I tend to be relatively conservative and
as fair as I can be to all the parties. I don't see anything wrong
with having a settlement agreement that says, we're not requiring you
to do anything, but if certain things happens, it goes this way. If
other things happens, it goes that way. I don't know of anything
legally that precludes you from doing that. You're not prejudging it.
It's got the 30 foot/20 foot in there, but that was being discussed
by staff and part of staff's recommendation three weeks before this
agreement was put on the paper. So, you know, I'm not sure how to
respond other than to say that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I -- I don't suggest that
that -- it is wrong to enter into the settlement agreement, just that
it's unnecessary and may be inappropriate, and I wonder when is a
motion appropriate.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just about any time now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I move please -- I would like
to move that we reject this proposed settlement agreement.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We do have speakers, so we will
be hearing them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, darn. I was ready.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we do not enter into this
settlement agreement today, Mr. Gibson then can bring an appeal that
will force this board to make a decision of either, if I understood
you correctly, 50 feet or -- or where it sits now. In other words, we
would have to make a decision at that time of one or the other. Is
that a fair assumption?
MR. KOBZA: Or -- or we could go through a PUD process
with a clean slate.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not the line I'm on. I'm
asking the county attorney.
MR. CUYLER: I think that's a fair assumption. They're
claiming they -- the regulations let them stay where they sit. Staff
has said, no, that interpretation is incorrect. The correct
interpretation is 50 foot.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if they bring an appeal
forward, we're going to be forced to make the decision at that time
based on the merits of that appeal as to whether they stay where they
are or they go back to 50 feet -- MR. CUYLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is that correct?
MR. CUYLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Which we all know the
answer is, E, none of the above. You know, I mean, in other words,
there's a chance '- MR. CUYLER: The answer at that hearing is one of the
above, but ultimately I think everybody agrees that --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask that is -- is --
is this agreement the method that we need to stave off the potential
for an appeal so that we can get to the discussion Mr. Kobza is
talking about?
MR. CUYLER: I didn't think of it as staving off, but I
thought of it in terms of not going through that process and then
going through a very similar process to get to the same point that we
all knew we were going to get to which was a PUD hearing of some sort.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think anybody wants the
residence -- thinks the residence should stay necessarily where it is,
and I don't want to risk that happening, and I fear us having to make
a decision of one or the other, and I don't want to do that so --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there any reason why we -- we
can't entertain a settlement agreement with a PUD -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Simultaneously.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- amendment simultaneously?
MR. CUYLER: There may not be an offer at the time that
you -- you -- There may not be an offer after today, but I don't know.
I don't have the information. Mr. Doyle can address that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we hear from the public
speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Could I offer my response to --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm -- Certainly. I'm sorry.
MR. DORRILL: -- for both Mr. Constantine and as well
Mr. Kobza. Mr. Kobza was the first individual who indicated to me
over a week ago that they were meeting privately with attorneys for
the Gibsons to attempt to reach a settlement. Last Tuesday I told the
county commission that it certainly appeared in our best interest for
us to attempt to play a role in developing that settlement. Mr. Kobza
had the same opportunity and came to my office with his assistant, met
privately with me to lay out all of the issues associated with the
nature of their complaint which is the same opportunity that was
extended to Mr. Anderson who came into my office and met privately and
probably no fewer than two or three phone calls back and forth with
both firms. The legal parties then all met last Friday in the County
Attorney's Office to try and effectuate the nature of the settlement
as it had been outlined to me and as I had recommended and discussed
with Mr. Cuyler.
At no time did I discuss -- in the County Attorney's
Office -- and I was not present for those meetings. At no time did I
discuss settlement issues with Mr. Doyle who has represented me a
total of one occasion two years ago. And, frankly, that would be the
same as saying that the fact that Mr. Kobza is in a law firm with Mr.
Volpe, who is a former county commissioner and personal friend of
mine, would also give some appearance of impropriety for me attempting
to effectuate a settlement with -- with Mr. Kobza.
I still feel that the opportunity that was undertaken
was in the board's best interest for the reasons and the problems that
I stated. One, the staff never amended the PUD nine years ago when
the board asked them to. Two, it seems to be everyone's opinion that
the house is seaward of where it needs to be. And if I can limit the
board's exposure from the business side of it, then that's what I
intend to do as your chief executive officer. Who's got the sexiest
or best attorney is something that's not going to be resolved until we
get into June.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, none of them pass that
test. Sorry guys.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Dorrill. Let's
hear from the public speakers. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pickworth.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there anybody who's not in
this discussion, not any lawyer in town?
MR. PICKWORTH: The next I heard was sexy lawyers and
then I hear my name. I represent Mr. Starling, one of the owners of
one of the other lots along there, but our comments are really more
particularly directed towards the substance of the PUD amendment. I
signed up because I wasn't sure how this discussion would go but --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're trying to avoid the PUD
amendment discussion.
MR. PICKWORTH: Exactly. And we -- we want to address
the board at that time so I -- I'll save my comments until that time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Morris.
MR. MORRIS: For the record, I'm William Morris. I
represent the owner of lot 17 which is one of the affected lots in
Hideaway, and I will mirror Mr. Pickworth's comments and save the
board having to hear what we have to say until the PUD amendment
process. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Scuderi.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How many people we can feed with
all this money.
MR. SCUDERI: For the record, I'm Salvatore Scuderi, and
I represent the owner of lot 15 which is one of the affected lots, and
I will withhold my comments until the PUD hearing. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Glime.
MR. GLIME: Thank you. I've never seen three attorneys
with less to say. I feel like the limousine driver for O.J. Simpson.
I didn't do anything, but I'm in a terrible mess. I'm in block two,
and in block two we're not fighting over anything in Hideaway Beach.
We're very happy. We have 12 lots. Eleven of us would like to see
things just remain exactly like they are. Block one seems to be
having some problems. Block two, our lots are smaller. We don't have
the depth. We would love to have a 50-foot. We would love to have a
30-foot. Basically we can't even tolerate a 20-foot. Our lots are
that shallow. What I would like the board to do of county
commissioners is direct staff on the PUD amendment to ignore and leave
out block two of Hideaway Beach subdivision. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Doyle.
MR. DOYLE: Here or the other podium?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It doesn't matter.
MR. DOYLE: Robin Doyle for Mr. And Mrs. Gibson. What
I'd like to point out to the commission and perhaps respond to some of
the questions that have been raised by the settlement agreement is
that this is, in fact, a compromise or a settlement of what the
commission presently has pending. As you know, your staff issued an
interpretation that there was a requirement of a 50-foot setback from
the erosion control line. You are scheduled to hear today an appeal
of that decision where we were prepared to come before you with a
battery of experts and other persons who had historical knowledge
about what has been done along the Hideaway Beach for years and show
you that, in fact, there is no setback required whatsoever from the
erosion control line. There is a setback requirement from the mean
high water but not from the permanently established erosion control
line.
We entered into this compromise or this settlement
agreement with the understanding that you would consider it today and
then called off those experts and called off that hearing that was
scheduled for today. We understand that if you don't approve the
compromise, we'll have that hearing. And Commissioner Mac'Kie -- and,
quite frankly, we'll have that hearing before I think we're scheduled
to have the hearings on the PUD amendment. So we'll not only be going
through the PUD amendment but also this.
So one of the things that this compromise would have the
effect of doing is raising the possibility that it would not be
necessary to have two hearings before the commission but only have the
one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I just ask a question while
you're there because I meant to ask it before and I'd forgotten it and
you just reminded me of it. Do you mind? MR. DOYLE: I don't mind at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Procedurally do we control the
agenda? I mean, can we control whether or not these things are -- the
appeal and the PUD amendment are heard on the same day at the same
time?
MR. CUYLER: You could, although the discussion has been
that if it's not heard today, that it will be heard before the PUD
hearing for purposes of getting that issue out of the way and finding
out where we are.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Am I missing something, or
wouldn't it be more logical to have the PUD hearing first?
MR. CUYLER: Well --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wouldn't that be the way to
settle the question?
MR. CUYLER: Well, the question is, where's the setback
at this point. I think that's the first question you have to answer
is where is the setback.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then where do we want to move
it to.
MR. CUYLER: Then where do you want it to be.
MR. DOYLE: And if I might add to that, Commissioner
Mac'Kie, we already have a building permit on this property, and so we
would not be bound by any PUD amendment unless we voluntarily agree to
be so bound. What Mr. And Mrs. Gibson are saying is that they're
willing to compromise now. While we feel very strongly that there is
nothing in the code that would require them to setback at all, they're
willing to compromise and change the design of their house. They're
willing to change the location of their house. They're going to give
up their claim against the county for some substantial cost they've
already incurred and will continue to incur. And, quite frankly,
these costs are really substantial. I suspect that if we get through
the zoning hearings or through the appeal hearing on this matter, in
addition to the construction cost, the attorney's fees and other
things, we're going to have costs in excess of $300,000. Now, while
Mr. Kobza argues to the commission that you're not liable for those
and while Mr. Cuyler I'm sure correctly states that he will argue
against them, I don't mind telling you that we will ask for the county
to pay all of those in the same way that Mr. Cuyler will ask that you
not be required to pay them.
In this settlement agreement, we're not asking you to
agree and you are not agreeing to any kind of a setback today. What
we're asking you to do is to consider the PUD amendment and to
consider and to agree that should the PUD amendment be passed in the
form -- in a form that is acceptable to the Gibsons, that you pay us
something for the cost that we've incurred -- actually, a small
portion.
And if I might comment on that, the county manager
negotiated and negotiated and negotiated with us on that point. We had
asked we pay -- be paid all of the costs associated with this, and he
had come back and said, well, they would consider anything that was
reasonable, but would we consider 50 percent of the actual
construction cost. We said we would consider it. And he said, well,
they don't want to be involved in having to audit the actual
construction cost. Could we show him something that shows those costs
and then agree to a set dollar amount. And it was after that we had
indicated to him that we would accept the $50,000 that you find in the
agreement, that we determined that our substa -- our costs are going
to be substantially in excess of that.
The 30/20 setback, though, is not something you're
agreeing to today. You would only agree to that if after the PUD
hearing you find that it is appropriate. That means that we will
present witnesses and experts to you during the PUD hearing just as
any normal petitioner would and that Mr. Kobza and his client will
have the ability to do likewise.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Doyle, if that's the
case, would you be willing to just hold this agreement until we've
heard the PUD hearing then?
MR. DOYLE: What we have here is a substantial
relinquishment of rights by Mr. And Mrs. Gibson by agreeing to go
through this process, and we're saying that we will go through the
process. I've talked to Mr. Gibson as recently as Friday afternoon
and we were -- we're authorized to present this, but I'm not
authorized to present any extension of this agreement beyond today,
and I would have to talk to him, Commissioner Constantine, prior to
agreeing to any extension.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's been no drop-dead
date, but there's no authorization to go forward either? MR. DOYLE: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hasn't been discussed?
MR. DOYLE: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
MR. DOYLE: The other thing -- if I -- if I might also,
the concept of having the appeal and the PUD hearing at the same time,
the issues really are different. They really are different issues and
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Different but related. I mean,
they're clearly different, but the outcome for the -- for the
community is -- is very related. Could I -- Could I ask you a
question?
MR. DOYLE: Certainly.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was the -- How did today
become the focus of the discussions? Why today? How did it -- How
did the date get chosen?
MR. DOYLE: We were scheduled for the appeal hearing
before the county commission today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can you -- Can you reach your
client? Could you contact your client and tell them that we're
interested in postponing this discussion? And since, as you've just
described it, his position is legally the same either way because
we're bound -- you know, we're not bound. All you've done is -- is --
We take the risk that our financial exposure might go up if we don't
enter into this settlement agreement today. I don't see what the risk
to your client is if we don't enter into the settlement agreement
today, and so I wonder if it's possible to contact them and see if we
could leave the offer open.
MR. DOYLE: First I -- I don't know whether I could
contact them, but I'm not sure what I would be asking him,
Commissioner Hac'Kie, if I were to be able to do that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could we -- you -- I would like
for you to ask him whether or not his settlement offer could be
continued pending the PUD hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, excuse me, but that --
that's exactly what the document says.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So instead of -- Right. So what
I -- We're not really asking him to do anything. He's giving up
nothing. But we are avoiding tainting the PUD procedure, because if
we enter into this agreement, I think we've tainted the PUD procedure.
So since his client would be giving up nothing, let's ask him to do
that.
MR. DOYLE: Well, Commissioner Hac'Kie, I think we would
be giving up something -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What?
MR. DOYLE: -- because subsequent to that hearing, the
county would have no obligation to proceed. You know, we -- we could
then say, well, we would certainly go along with the 30/20 if that's
what the county adopted or a 20/10 if that's what the county decides
is appropriate, but we would not at that point have any -- The county
would not have any obligation to pay any of the costs associated with
that, and so we would not have an agreement.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I presume that there may
not be an obligation for us to pay, but I would also presume that
immediately upon our deciding whatever the setback is going to be,
you're going to sue for the money. So then we enter into negotiation.
I'm -- I'm --
MR. CUYLER: Well, there's one other -- one other thing
to consider, and this is in the nature of being fully informed, and
that is a permit has been issued, and there is a slab out there.
if they have to move it, they're going to sue for the money. The
first lawsuit is going to be they get to keep it where it is, just so
you know what that down side is.
And Mr. Kobza may be right. He points out that you have
to -- in an equity case, you have to come with clean hands, not have
done anything wrong. We may be able to show that was not the case.
But you need to understand that that is the down side, and estoppel
cases are tricky in the sense that I have seen them -- I've seen some
cases where they've taken two or three stories off a building. I've
seen another case where a judge wouldn't make somebody move a wall a
foot.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, I have a general
question. Each time we have a public hearing that has generated some
interest, either we've gotten petitions or phone calls or what have
you, just setting this particular issue aside, you have gotten us in
the habit of stating if there has been contact, if there has been
discussion, and whether or not that has had an impact on our
decision-making process to make it appropriate for the quasi-judicial
hearing. What is the -- either penalty or what's the appropriate
action if in any case, not simply in this one, we have had contact
before and outside of that public hearing and it has influenced how we
feel about the case?
MR. CUYLER: As a matter of fact -- I'll answer that
question. But, as a matter of fact, there's some new legislation in
that area that sets out a process to declare what you've done. But
basically originally the thing that brought all of that about was a
decision that said there is a new cause of action for a party who
claims prejudice as a result of an ex parte communication, basically
describe the board in a quasi-judicial situation. You're not supposed
to be talking to people outside of the quasi-judicial proceeding. The
cause of action was basically a new cause of action for somebody to go
into court and get past a summary judgment and file suit claiming that
they were -- they were prejudiced and then to overturn the decision if
they can show, in fact, that they were prejudiced.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So what's my responsibility
as a commissioner? If somebody wants to put an asphalt plant in the
middle of 1-75 interchange and -- and I talk to the local Chamber
about it, I talk to civic groups about it, I get hundreds of phone
calls, hundreds of letters, and I come to the meeting and say, "I'm
sorry. My mind has been tainted," what's my responsibility as a
commissioner?
MR. CUYLER: If -- If you feel that you cannot give an
impartial decision and you tell me that, I will probably tell you to
conflict out of the case. If you -- If you say, "A lot of people have
talked to me, but I can still be impartial," I would tell you that you
have to vote on that case.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because -- And where I'm
going with all of that is it seems like we are -- and I'm just
following up on what Commissioner Hac'Kie said. We're -- It seems to
me we're walking a tightrope here with talking an awful lot outside
the PUD hearing about issues relating to a specific quasi-judicial
case.
MR. CUYLER: Unfortunately I -- I didn't know how to
avoid that. I can't tell you that I am the most comfortable I have
ever been on this issue, you know, but it's complex. There's things
that need to be heard. You're the one that has to hear them and --
you know, I understand what the law is. I understand what the
potential down sides are. I thought you needed to hear a potential
settlement.
As Mr. Doyle said, one of the things they're saying is
they're fixing in if certain things happen, that they don't pursue an
argument for estoppel and whatever damages there are fixed. In my
opinion, that's a proposed settlement on a claim. So I'm trying to
keep it just to this and not get into the PUD.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The problem I'm having is that
it's next to impossible for me to make a quantitative judgment about
whether or not this is a good settlement proposal without hearing all
the facts, and we can't hear all the facts without tainting the PUD
hearing, and that is the roadblock that I have.
The other thing, just because I donwt want to stir up
more trouble than actually exists is -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Too late.
COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Too late -- is under that -- the
Snyder (phonetic) case that wewre talking about -- I mean, all that
does, Commissioner Constantine, is create a presumption -- that if you
talk to somebody outside of here, therews a presumption of prejudice,
and, you know, we have to rebut that. So it isnwt like something
horrible happens if we have, in fact, had conversations. Therews just
this presumption that you are prejudiced by it.
MR. CUYLER: Correct. And then thatws what the
legislation was supposed to address. "Yes, Iwve talked to so and so
and made public disclosure on that."
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The public speakers are finished,
Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, mawam.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If therews not any further
discussion, I think a motion would be in order.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner MacwKie, you had a
motion on the floor, I believe.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I -- I move that we reject
this proposed settlement offer and that we respectfully request Mr.
Doyle to communicate with his client and to tell him that we're
extremely interested in pursuing a settlement with his client; that,
however, because of being bound by this PUD problem and the fact that
it's inappropriate or we're concerned about the appropriateness of
discussing the PU -- the merits of the case before a PUD hearing, that
we would ask his indulgence to continue to allow us to discuss the
settlement proposal on the table but that we reject the settlement
today.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
reject the settlement offer but ask that the petitioner continue to
work with us on it. I presume that's what it is.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Nodding head)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, you had
questions?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Just a comment. Unless I
hear something in these next five minutes that changes my mind, this
settlement agreement for me, when I read through it, did a few things
that are important. One, it staved off the appeal process because I
don't want us to have to make a decision whether the setback is zero
or 50 feet. That can be a detrimental decision to Mr. Vasey and to
all of the residents of Hideaway Beach that have built out there
because it sets a precedent. This staves that off.
The second thing it does is it limits the county's
exposure. And from what I've heard today, you know, our backsides are
flapping in the wind potentially here, and I like the idea of having a
maximum of -- assigned to that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Such a man of words.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I'm --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not mine.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- real -- You know, from a
practical sense, from a guardian sense of tax dollars, I'm -- I'm not
real comfortable what our exposure may be without this agreement. And
the truth is, the final decision is still made in a PUD hearing. If
we don't want to stick with this agreement, instead of 30/20, if we
make it 31/20, this whole agreement goes away.
So I don't think it presupposes a position of the board
other than it serves to protect two of those elements, whether you
like the wording or not. And for that reason, I'm supportive of this
because it doesn't tie our hands, and it does offer us some level of
protection and staves off the appeal. For that reason, I'm not going
to support the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cuyler, obviously you're
telling us that it's in our best interest to go ahead with the
agreement today.
MR. CUYLER: Yes, I am.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, here's the thing. This
agreement, once again, as Commissioner Hancock said, does not fully
bind us today. It is still dependent on the PUD hearing. Let's --
Let's say that we -- we do decline to enter into this agreement and we
have to go with the appeal. If the Gibsons are successful in their
appeal and the lot line is zero, Mr. Vasey is not going to be happy,
and he will sue us about that. If, on the other hand, the 50-foot
setback is upheld, then Mr. Gibson is certainly going to sue and
appeal in court. The court very well, as we have seen in the past,
could overturn what we decide, and then we not only lose a lot of
money from that, but we're back to the zero -- the lot -- the zero
setback, and Mr. Vasey is once again -- after all this time and
effort, is back to being in a bad position.
So I really see very little point in not entering into
this agreement today when we still have to settle the issue through
the PUD hearing. And with all due respect to Commissioner Hac'Kie,
it's Mr. Cuyler that we pay to give us legal advice.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I -- I don't take any offense
to that at all, and I try very hard not to give legal advice so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can appreciate Judge Ito so
much more than I did.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, apparently, I'm sitting
here in the middle. So, Mr. Cuyler, I am going to -- I mean,
virtually in the middle.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We can flip a coin.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We can flip a coin? I'm going to
-- I'm going to base my opinion of this on what you tell me now. You
say that this agreement --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No pressure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- the way that it's written --
He's our attorney, and I'm going to base my opinion on what he says.
You say that this agreement as it's written with all the clauses and
sections in it does not violate our quasi-judicial responsibilities
with the PUD hearing?
MR. CUYLER: I can assure you that I cannot cite you a
case on that, and I've never heard of a situation similar to this.
I'm not personally acquainted with one. But, in my opinion, the
entering into this agreement does not violate your quasi-judicial
process because you are going to have a full-blown impartial hearing.
This doesn't require you to set it at 30/20. Certain things happen if
it goes that way. Certain things happen if it doesn't. You have total
discretion based on the evidence presented to you at that PUD hearing
to do what you feel is appropriate.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now, I'm going to ask a
furtherance of that question. By entering into this agreement with
the knowledge -- the foreknowledge that if we do anything in the PUD
hearing other than the 20/30, this agreement becomes void or it just
kind of goes away.
MR. CUYLER: They have the ability to .... they" being
the counsel and the Gibsons -- have the ability to not comply with the
other provisions. That is their out if there is not a 30/20, and you
have an out with regard to the $50,000. That does not mean they cannot
accept whatever you do, and I guess at that point we would discuss if
there was any other terms but they have -- that -- that -- that is
their out. They -- All of this -- Any requirement they have is on the
30/20 basis.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So my -- my point is, if we enter
into this agreement and then go into a PUD hearing and in the course
of that hearing this board decides that the 20/30 is not appropriate
and that we want to do something other than that, the Gibsons then
have the option to not do anything within this agreement. MR. CUYLER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm just -- My own mind
tells me that if I enter into this agreement with that foreknowledge,
when I get to the PUD, I'm going to be hard pressed not to go to the
20/30 only because we have an agreement here with a fixed exposure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you'll have a financial
disincentive because if you go 30/20, you know what the county's
exposure is. If you do something else --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's an unknown.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- you don't know.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And with that thought in
mind, it does taint the quasi-judicial process.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's where I'm trying to get
to. So do you still feel that it does not taint the quasi-judicial --
MR. CUYLER: If you tell me that -- If you tell me that
you are going to be affected, then -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just did.
MR. CUYLER: -- you know, I have to tell you that that
is what tainting of the process is about, but what I'm telling you is
there's nothing under this agreement that needs or requires you to go
to the 30/20. I mean, right now if you don't go to the 30/20, the
chips are going to fall where they fall, and anyone will litigate who
wants to litigate.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we're going to be where we
are.
MR. CUYLER: All this does is fixes --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're where we are because that's
where we are.
MR. CUYLER: This fixes your exposure -- fixes your
exposure and does the certain things that are listed. If you go
without this agreement, then, you know, there's a number of things
that can happen. They could argue successfully the estoppel argument
potentially, you know, that the slab gets to stay where it is. They
can argue damages if it's moved.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It fixes our exposure, but I
haven't lost track of what Mr. Kobza said. We may end up with no
exposure here. He has some information that he can present to us at
that time that may show us. So you know --
MR. CUYLER: Correct. And that's the difference between
an attorney standing at the podium and me. I mean, you know, when we
get a judgment against us, you don't call Mr. Kobza and say, "You gave
us bad advice." You know, you call Mr. Cuyler, and what I tell you is
I don't know the answer.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I'm still waiting. I want to
hear his information on how our exposure is zip because that's --
that's a good point. I like that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That won't come until the PUD.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pardon me? Well, I know, but
that's what I'm saying is I'm not --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm going to call the
question. All those in favor of the motion which is to reject this
agreement but ask Mr. Gibson to continue to work with us, please say
aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 3-2.
Item #13A3
PETITION A-95-3, JOHN D. HUHPHREVILLE OF QUARLES & BRADY REPRESENTING
MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM GIBSON REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETTAlON 1-94-4
REGARDING THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS FOR BEACHFRONT PROPERTIES
WITHIN THE HIDEAWAY BEACH PUD FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 14, BLOCK
1, HIDEAWAY BEACH, MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA - CONTINUED TO JUNE 13, 1995
HR. CUYLER: Hadam Chairman, I would ask you to go ahead
and set the hearings. I talked to both parties. They indicated to me
that June 13 is acceptable. I would ask you to set that. If we need
to re-advertise it, we'll re-advertise it. That would be Petition
A-95-3.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For June 137
MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does our agenda work?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does that work with our agenda,
Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: I haven't seen an index that far in
advance, but we'll have to try and make it work.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I guess we should -- Are
you asking us to fix that date now?
MR. CUYLER: I'm asking so the parties will know --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So they'll know.
MR. CUYLER: -- and we'll go ahead and advertise it for
that day because they have people they need to call and make schedules
and such.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Can't do it for the 20th,
huh?
MR. CUYLER: The 20th is your last meeting before you go
on -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I realize that, but that's when
the PUD hearing is.
MR. CUYLER: I think you'd be better off having it the
week before. Your last agenda is probably going to be a mess.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The last agenda is large as it
is?
MR. DORRILL: They usually are.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does it make -- I think that if
-- that there are more important factors here than how long our
meeting is going to be on the 20th. Are there other reasons to not
hear them together on the 20th?
MR. CUYLER: Well, one reason is that the PUD -- You may
want to talk to Mr. Doyle, what they're willing to agree to. We've
got a stop work order on a permit. I'd kind of like to get an answer
on what that is.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we hear the PUD on the 13th?
MR. CUYLER: I can't get it -- When's the PUD scheduled
for?
MR. ARNOLD: We have tentatively advertised for the June
1 Planning Commission and the June 20 Board of County Commission.
That is an off date for us, but it is prior to your vacation schedule
for June and July.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we could hear the PUD on the
13th if the Planning Commission is going to hear it on the 1st.
MR. ARNOLD: I've been advised that at least one of the
parties has a conflict with the June 1st CCPC date. I'm not sure how
critical that is or how that affects --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's already advertised though;
right?
MR. ARNOLD: It is advertised, certainly. There's been
no official request to continue at this point.
MR. DOYLE: We would --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Doyle, you need to --
MR. DOYLE: Excuse me. We would object -- If the
request is that we do the appeal and the PUD amendment together, we
would object to that because, quite frankly, if the board is concerned
about prejudice, concerned about tainting the process, I am sure that
the process would be tainted by doing that, and I believe that my
clients' rights would be prejudiced. So we would object. You set
your agenda, and so if you set both of them together, we'll be here,
but it would be over our objection.
MR. KOBZA: In response -- In response to that, the
logical way to do this is, okay, have the PUD hearing, and then
depending upon the outcome, have the appeal because it's all the same
experts. It's all the same experts, and we're flying these people in
from North Carolina and Gainesville and all over the place. So let's
-- let's have the PUD hearing, and if they like or don't like the
result, have the other hearing right behind it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that what you don't want to
have happen, Mr. Doyle?
MR. DOYLE: Our understanding is that the appeal was
going to be heard first, Commissioner Hac'Kie, and we would like to
have it heard at this point.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, is there any reason
that we can't hear the appeal after the PUD hearing?
MR. CUYLER: The only problem is, if I've made a mistake
in this thing, it was trying to coordinate things and make sure nobody
got too out of line with regard to their expert costs and that kind of
thing. I told the parties that I thought I could ask the board to
have it heard on the 13th. If one of the parties -- That is what is
scheduled now. It has been scheduled in advance of the PUD. If we
can hear it on the 13th in advance of the PUD, that would be my
preference. I think that needs to happen first.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. The 13th? Are we in
agreement with that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. CUYLER: Unless both sides agree that they want to
delay that. I'll talk to both sides. If they want to delay it, we'll
go to the PUD hearing first. But if somebody's going to object, I
think that needs -- the appeal needs to come first.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: June 13. Okay. Thank you.
MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to take a short
break, and then we'll finish our agenda. Five minutes.
(A short break was held.)
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 95-332 A_MENDING RESOLUTION 95-109 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
CITIZENS ADVISORY COHMITTEE (CAC) TO EVALUATE COLLIER COUNTY'S GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda as we
come back from a break -- This is still the MAy 16 hearing. Next item
on the agenda is a resolution number -- it's not numbered.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's unthinkable. MAdam
Chairman --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 95 dash something or other two.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 109.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: MAdam Chairman, motion to
approve the resolution creating the Collier County Landfill Citizens
Advisory Committee with the appointments as made by each of the
commissioners and previously outlined.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. That's 10C.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, sorry, sorry. I'm
reading the wrong one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. I'll withdraw
that motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll move that we approve
Resolution 95-109 which has to do with voting quorums and such for the
CAC.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For the CAC. This is --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- making the quorum 13 and the
voting 17.
Okay. We have a motion and a second to adjust the
voting and quorum requirements for the CAC. All those in favor please
say aye.
Opposed?
Being none, motion passes 5-0.
Item #10A
DISCUSSION REGARDING FORMAT OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS - LINE
NUMBERING TO BE INSTITUTED
Next item on the agenda is a discussion. It's item 10A.
Discussion regarding the format of ordinances and resolutions. What
this is is an item that I kind of initiated after having been to
Tallahassee and the orderliness of the ordinances and so forth
addressed to the House and the Senate. Each of you have a resolution
called 95 dash something or other that is for the landfill, and you
will see that it is line numbered, and that's merely all this is, is
to put line numbers to make it easier for us to address the lines and
so forth whenever we want to make changes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, great idea.
I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a --
MR. DORRILL: One comment. For those PCs that have Word
Perfect, this is a very easy thing to do. For our all-in-one system,
we have developed a new screen that will also make this easy to do.
We are trying to determine that if it's done on our all-in-one system
-- When you go to produce the original, they are not typically
numbered. They are clean copies. The numbers are during and for the
drafting stage, and we're trying to determine if the all-in-one system
has the ability to erase the numbers to produce the original once it
has been adopted by the county commission. I don't have the final
answer to that. But subject to that, we also feel that it's a good
idea during the drafting and discussion stage.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. We have a motion
and a second to approve the line numbering on our ordinances and
resolutions for drafting purposes. All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5-0.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, just so I will know,
quickly, your PUD documents that you see attached to ordinances or
documents attached to resolutions, do you want -- Other people do
those. Developers do them, turn them in. Do you want to see those in
a lined format as well?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are they usually the resolution?
MR. CUYLER: It's not the actual resolution. It's the
attached document that forms the PUD document which is the zoning.
You don't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's too much.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It may be.
MR. CUYLER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's -- Let's just go with what
we've done so far and see how it works. MR. CUYLER: Okay.
Item #10B
DISCUSSION REGARDING EXTENSION OF COUNTY MANAGER'S CONTRACT - CONTRACT
EXTENDED FOR ONE YEAR AND A ONE YEAR OPTION WITH A BONUS IN LIEU OF A
COST OF LIVING
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Item 10B, discussion regarding
extension of the county manager's contract. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Either via the media
or whatever, I think I have an impression of where the board is going
with this, but I have a number of thoughts I want to share --
actually, a great deal of thought as to what to say and what not to
say and so on into this.
There is an -- There has been an impression, I guess,
that the manager and I have not gotten along since a couple of years
ago when we renegotiated his contract. I think that impression is
incorrect. We certainly have differences, and I have at times
criticized him. At other times, I have applauded when appropriate.
And I think there's been a pretty good balance in between. Right now,
however, I have a number of concerns as we look at and decide whether
to extend the county manager's contract. I suspect, again,
referencing what I've seen in the paper or heard on the radio, that I
may be in the minority with some of these concerns; however, I want to
share them with each of you.
Developmental Services when -- when each of us have come
on board coincidentally has had problems, although different problems
when the latest two came on board. But when three of us were elected
in 1992, there were a great number of problems. Very little was done
until the manager was aggressively prodded by this board. There were
serious problems in our Utility Department, some prior to the audit,
some after the audit that Commissioner Norris had suggested. Very
little was done, again, until prodded by this board. I would have
similar comments with the Environmental Services Department and some
of the concerns that have gone on there.
More recently, we've talked about the structure of
departments, the structure of county government, and there was little
or no action, and certainly no communication anyway, in regards to
those until again aggressively prodded by the Board of County
Commissioners. There was no communication as to what plans were
ongoing. I suspect there may have been some because we finally gave a
two-week period in which to ask for a report. I suspect the work that
was done was not done in two weeks. But, again, no communication as
far as that activity going on.
Stepping back from the specifics for a minute, I think
anyone naturally, when they have a new job, not only a county manager,
but in any position there is a certain enthusiasm, a certain clear
perspective when you start a new job. Eventually as anyone grows more
comfortable in their position, whether it's boredness or whether
there's some stagnance or what have you, that leads to a loss of clear
perspective, certainly a different perspective, a loss of originality,
and that concept was I think the basis for the"Eight is Enough"
movement in 1992 with elected officials. They said after eight years
-- The majority of the public said after eight years, most elected
officials seem to lose that fresh perspective that's necessary. Every
once in a while you will hear a debate as to whether or not that same
theory should apply for bureaucrats as well, and I think that's a fair
question to ask, and we are right around seven or eight years now with
Mr. Dotrill at the helm.
Neil has been and is, indeed, a good player, a good
manager, but it seems to me that some of that energy and some of that
innovation that was evident earlier is not there, is no longer
evident, and perhaps Mr. Dotrill needs a new challenge. Each of us
does at times need a new challenge. That might explain the
Hillsborough attempt and I understand there were a couple of other
attempts or interest expressed in other areas last year. And that's
not a criticism. I don't criticize anyone for looking to better
themselves, but that might explain the looks at other counties for
other jobs.
With me personally in our week-to-week, day-to-day
workings, my feeling is that there has been increasingly some level of
non-responsiveness. We have ups and downs, and for some reason
there's not a consistency there over the last two and a half years.
Most recently Commissioner Mac'Kie unearthed some of the
specific problems at Community Development. We had problems as far as
the department prior to that, but some of the personnel problems in
particular that Commissioner Mac'Kie came across that we were before
that unaware of, I think that's the day-to-day management the county
manager needs to be aware of and, indeed, should have been aware of.
Many of those are traced back to Human Resources. We had this
discussion at our Black Affairs Advisory Board luncheon today,
problems in our Human Resources, the comfort level our employees have.
One of the things that worried me the most when
Commissioner Mac'Kie handed out her report two weeks ago and I read it
was many of the same -- and I would say almost identical -- complaints
have been made to me by Utility employees and not one or two but by
probably eight or ten or twelve different Utility employees over the
past two and a half years since I became a commissioner. Again, the
things with Human Resources, you make a complaint, your manager knows
before you get back to your job that that complaint has been made.
Just so many of the parallels are the same. Mr. Dotrill and I have
had that discussion I don't know how many times in the past two and a
half years, that there are some problems, particularly with those
personnel-related in the Utilities Department, yet we still seem to
have those.
Just this week I've heard -- and this is merely
allegation. There's no substance yet -- but that there may be some
concern along those same personnel lines, Human Resource lines in the
Library Department. If there are three departments that have this
same thing -- Maybe Human Resources is the problem. I don't know.
But if there are three departments, then it's likely that carries over
to other departments as well. Who is responsible? Ultimately the
county manager is responsible for every single department.
I think we all got letters this week. I assume each of
you has seen these. I got two yesterday and I just -- again,
referencing Human Resources, referencing the comfort of the employee.
One is signed. One is not signed but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't get --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll just read a couple of
snippets from it. It's a couple of pages, and I won't read that much,
but there's a concern here asking that -- and I don't know that we can
legally do this, but I'll read it just so you understand the concern.
"Please consider options such as having the employees
answer to the five-member board or having a representative that
answers to the board as opposed to being solely controlled by Neil
Dotrill and," quote, "'his Human Resource Department.' Please realize
that this -- that a situation set in place to assist employees cannot
occur in a dictatorship environment. I know you don't understand the
feeling that most of the county's employees have. They'll never let
you know how they feel in these circumstances."
Now, out of a thousand employees, you're going to have
disgruntled employees from time to time and I don't -- I don't doubt
that, but having heard it over and over over two and a half years,
having got it in writing -- completely unsolicited I'll add -- this
week --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I see that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And I assumed --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Might --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It says -- The little stamp
in the corner says each commissioner received, so I assumed each of
you had seen that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My box is empty, and I have never
seen this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't remember seeing this one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I look back over the last
couple of years. We've had -- or the last several years. We had four
-- Maybe I'm miscounting, but I think four reorganizations of
Community Development. We've had three computer fiascos within our
Utilities Department. Transportation has moved their offices at least
six times during the past three or four years. The one that I've said
that worries me the most is we have a Human Resource Department that
apparently our employees fear or don't have confidence in. And if
we've got a thousand employees, we darn well better have some place
that they feel that they can comfortably go, and Human Resources
should be that place.
During the unveiling three weeks ago of the
reorganization, I was fairly quiet. I was very quiet, particularly
for me. There's certainly some good things in there, and I'm pleased
to see some of what consists there. There is, however, nothing new in
there. I think we've all either heard on radio or gotten phone calls,
or what have you, how remarkably similar this looks to an old county
chart. My biggest concern is many of these problems, if you look back
and start adding them up over -- in three of our case, two and a half
years, they start adding up to a lot, and, again, I say, who is
ultimately responsible for that, and it's the county manager. It
shouldn't just be responding to a problem in a crisis -- That's
certainly part of the job -- but preventing those crises from
happening.
I don't see the same excitement or enthusiasm, or I
don't see a new vision, I guess, the way I would like to see in a
county manager. We have one of the fastest growing counties in the
country. We pride ourselves on being what's referred to as a blue
chip community. I'd argue so far as to say it's the best place on
Earth to live. I love living here. I wouldn't live anywhere else. We
pay our county manager far better than any comparably-sized community,
and I emphasize far better, and we should expect better than any
comparably-sized community. And I look at Community Development, and
I look at Utilities, and I look at Human Resources, and I say all of
those deserve better than what we're getting.
So I think in 1995 we can do better than we have. I
think Mr. Dotrill has served well in the past, but right now as we
look at reorganization or not -- I'm sorry -- renewing the contract or
not, the question simply boils down, to me, can we do better, and as I
think about all these and many others I won't go into, I think we can
do better.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there additional comment?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just sort of a brief response to
Commissioner Constantine, and then I have some comments of mine own
too.
I'm extremely troubled by what we found in looking at
Development Services, and I have heard that there are similar
complaints in other departments and other divisions, and maybe it's
because I haven't been here as long as you have, but I will say that I
have been an active observer so I don't think that I've been unaware
of how the county has been run for a long time. And my -- my
assessment of the situation is that we have serious, serious growing
pains as a result of being the largest, fastest growing county and --
and that I -- I believe that -- I believe that Mr. Dotrill responds
well to those, anticipates many of those, and just plain does a better
job than many others could, and on a fundamental level I think he is a
trustworthy, honest, you know, good person who does a good job. And,
frankly, that whole -- having a trustworthy person there in that job
has -- carries a great deal of weight for me.
My -- My proposal to deal with the concerns that you
have about maybe he's been here too long were that I wanted to propose
a change in the contract, that instead of the cost-of-living kind of
raise that we have in Mr. Dorrill's contract now, that we -- that we
follow up on the concept that Commissioner Matthews proposed that we
use for the budget process generally for different departments in the
county, that being an incentive-based kind of a bonus program. And
I'm not good enough at this to have, you know, something prepared to
pass out for you but -- you know, how exactly I think this ought to
work, but I think that there's so much more to be retained -- so much
more value in retaining Mr. Dotrill, not only because of his ability
but also because of his experience and the frame of reference that
gives you but that -- coupled with that, we've got to come up with
some sort of incentive program, and generally what I have in mind is
something where we set certain performance standards and certain
budgetary limitations and -- and challenge him to exceed those. Tell
him you earn your base pay by meeting those. If you ever want to make
another nickel, go exceed these. And by those -- The incentive would
be based not just on monetary, although certainly that would be a
strong factor in our budget situation that we're in, but also in Human
Resources, reorganization kinds of issues. So it's a rather nebulous
idea, but it's my proposal to sort of not throw the baby out with the
bath water, that I think we need to keep Mr. Dotrill and that we also
need to provide him some incentive to get creative about his job.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other comments? Commissioner
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know that I was prepared
to hear a discussion today on terminating the county manager nor did I
think that was going to be a part of this discussion. This will be
real frank and real brief.
At this point, no, I'm not going to support terminating
the county manager. I think that there are some abilities there that
I would like to see cultivated more, and I'm going to pursue those.
Mr. Dotrill knows my position. I'm very frank with him about what I
expect of him as an individual and as a county manager, and I'll
continue doing that. And if he fails to meet that standard, then I'll
have the basis for making a decision on terminating him, and that is
not a position I've reached.
In addition, the discussion today, it's my
understanding, was to regard the extension of the county manager's
contract for a period of 12 months beyond what it currently is slated
for. The purposes I had initially and conceptually for supporting
that are that his current contract will expire in an election year
prior to the general election date in November. I have some concern
that the county manager becomes a chip on the playing field of
elections. And as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to the
performance of an employee, you keep them because they're good or you
let them go because they're not. That's a definitive decision.
That's not made by allowing a contract to expire but made by an
accumulation of events that I know, Commissioner Constantine, you feel
that accumulation is there. It's not there for me. And at such time
as this board decides to change -- make a change in that office, it
will not -- it will not take six months to do it. It will happen
quickly. And I think Mr. Dotrill has seen a level of expectation that
this board as a whole has, and I just don't want to see his contract
become an election pawn in that year. And I don't mean that in an
accusing fashion to the three members that are up for election that
year, but it is going to be a major discussed item. I think that's a
reality, and I just don't want to see that contract as a pawn item.
So for that basis, I support the extension of the
contract for one year, but I don't want this to -- as was written up
in the paper in the past, to be some -- you know, some flowering
lauding of the county manager, but I have other reasons for wishing
that it be extended.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just ask a question?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. Commissioner
Norris, I believe, may have some comments.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe I got a bit confused
there. The extension by one year of the contract puts it out in that
election year.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, it does. September'96.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. No. I think he meant --
That was my question too, is I assumed you meant add another year so
that we're in '97 so that we're out of an election year and my
question --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I misunderstand the
discussion today? Is this discussion merely to keep under the current
contract and not to change it in any way, shape, or form?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just to give that one year
extension.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or could we expand that
conversation if we chose to? I mean, is this --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, you know, we can do a lot
of things, but I do have to say that in view of all the things that
Commissioner Constantine has laid out that I'm not wholly disagreeing
with, I cannot support an extension to 1997. We just have too many
problems, and I want him to clean them up before I'll even consider
that.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- My reason for considering
an extension to 1997, with all apologies, is because I want something
from the county manager. I want to see some changes in his contract
where we take out the cost-of-living raise and we put in an incentive
bonus program that's not a salary raise every year, and I don't think
that --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the chip you want to use is
an additional year? I just can't see that.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because with the additional year,
we still have the same notice in termination. I'm not suggesting that
we would give away our notice of termination provisions. That -- That
part -- The part that works in our favor I'd like to stay the same.
The part that -- The part that gives him some incentive to be more
creative I'd like to see changed. So I -- I like the idea of getting
it out of an election year if what we get in exchange for that is
deleting 3B which is the cost-of-living raise --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we're not going to
negotiate his contract here today.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I just want to -- I mean, I
have a proposal to put on the table. Whether it could be accepted or
not, I will defer but -- that instead of a cost-of-living raise, we
have an incentive bonus program. And I'd also like to suggest that I
think that our vacation and sick leave policy of your getting paid
that -- you know, that you're able to accrue that, is too generous
across the board. I realize that the county manager only has what the
department has had, but I'd like to change that. And with those two
changes, I'd support adding another year and getting it out of the
election year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to add a couple of
thoughts.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First, Commissioner Hancock,
I respect your comments as far as you have certain expectations.
Either they will be met or not, and if they're not, then you'll deal
with it appropriately. I think I said something very similar to that
about two years ago, and my expectations have not been fully met and,
thus, my comments earlier.
I do take a little offense, and I appreciate you saying
none intended, but at the suggestion that it will become a political
football, a year ago when you all were running, the contract wasn't
up, yet I recall specific incidents where y'all were asked about the
county manager, about his performance, about when his contract came
up, what would you do. So by -- by --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please allow me just to clarify
briefly --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that I wasn't placing that on
the shoulders of the three commissioners, but you don't always control
what the issues are and that's --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But we have to respond to them.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. And that's -- that's the
focus I was going from. So, please, I -- I -- you know, I knew I was
-- I was treading lightly on that, and I apologize if I offended
anyone. It certainly wasn't directed at you making an issue of it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I have just a couple
of general thoughts. I realize the majority of you -- I realized
before I said any of this, the majority of you would likely prefer to
see Mr. Dotrill stay. I realize I burn some political capital by
saying my comments. I perhaps put a strain on Mr. Dorrill's
relationship with me. I know he has friends both working for the
county and in the public that will probably take offense at what I
said. However, I don't think I said anything new that hasn't either
been said behind the scenes or to his face certainly or otherwise, and
I think it's important that those issues surface as part of this, that
everything isn't hunky-dory, and let's just move on because I don't
think that's the case.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it -- I was just going to
say it's interesting the political capital or public perception. I
think that -- My assessment anyway based on people talking to me is
that if I want to make people love me, I should say I want to fire the
county manager. I've got more of those calls and more of that contact
-- I think it goes -- it's going out on a limb to be supportive and
sort of the easy thing to do to say --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point just being, each of
us has our opinions, and I think it's important that we all say -- and
I think we're doing this -- exactly what we feel rather than worry
about what the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- repercussions may be. I
-- I would ask -- My preference was made clear before, but I would
ask that -- it is inappropriate, and I know we have the portion where
we can terminate at any time, but I think it's inappropriate to extend
that another year beyond. First and foremost, I don't have -- I do
have it in front of me, but I haven't read the wording. I don't know
if it's this time next year when we discuss that again or whether it's
just when it goes through in the third year. Neil, you probably know
better than I do whether it's in September of next year that we
discuss that or whether it's a three-month advance provision again.
Secondarily, if the true concern is politics, then let's
make it November 17 or something. Let's kick it back two months so
that we can discuss it appropriately, but let's not just draw another
year because then it turns into a two-year cycle. Anytime you do
anything, woop, you can't do it, an election year and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I don't think we should be
dictated by that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate that. I was
expressing a surficial concern and not necessarily a -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That -- That would be -- That
would be one of my concerns also of bumping it out to 1977 in that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or in '97.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I kept saying '77 --'97 in
that '96, yes, three of us are going to be running in election, and in
'98 two of you -- two of us will be running another election.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not two of us.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And if -- if we -- if we bump
this contract out to 1997 and then operate in two-year cycles, lo and
behold, the county manager will always be dealing with presumably a
new board who has never worked with him long enough to form the
opinion that you have not yet reached. Okay?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh. And when I reach it, I'll
come to your office and say, "Bettye, you were right"?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. I'm not --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not asking for that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just checking. Just checking.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm just saying that we -- we
will find ourselves in two-year cycles of '97, '99, 2001 and so forth
where we will be always having rotating county commissioners because
in this day and age I think it's going to be very difficult for people
to be re-elected. This is not the age of the incumbency anymore.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or if they choose to even run
again.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Or if they even choose to run
again. So I would be opposed to bumping it out one more year for that
reason, and I'm especially opposed to it because of the current
problems that exist in the county manager's agency. I want to see
them fixed, and I want to assess what the appropriate fixes have been
to make a decision next year.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neil, we didn't answer my
question. Is it the three months -- MR. DORRILL: This year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's three months this year.
Next year, is there a provision at any point where we could --
MR. DORRILL: No, there's not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It just goes away.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll clearly withdraw the
suggestion of the additional year to focus solely on do we extend per
the contract without renegotiation for an additional 12 months. If I
understand, that is the focus of today's discussion, and I apologize
for broadening that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Concerning the discussion about
having the contract come up during election years, I think it's only
-- it's probably in everyone's best interest to have it come due in
odd numbered years even though you may be dealing with people that are
freshly on the board. I mean, that's a fact of life you're not going
to be able to avoid if you're going to do the contract on two-year
cycles. If you want to go to four-year cycles, then you can make some
adjustment there. But my suggestion would be to reset the dates on the
contract to make them always come up in odd numbered years so that you
don't have that discussion come up ever. Whether you want to do it
this time or not, that's something we need to continue to discuss
right here. It would be a matter of either not extending this year or
extending for two additional years from this year, and that's the
discussion we need to go on from there.
I have to also agree with Commissioner Constantine that
I've had some concerns about some of the things that have gone on
recently, and it is a concern because my annual reviews of the county
manager have always indicated that sometimes problems go on
uncorrected for longer than I would like to see them, but there's been
a number of things said and I think we need to hear from the county
manager, perhaps some answers to some of the things that have been
pointed out here today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Your turn.
MR. DORRILL: First of all, I appreciate the
opportunity. The -- I think the manner in which this issue was
scheduled today is one that I've had some discussions with Ms.
Matthews. I think this board from time to time is a little prone to
forget that this is a two-party agreement. I happen to be the other
party to this agreement. And the whole way that this was scheduled
for today's meeting was done initially without any knowledge or
communication with me and so I would -- I would remind you that this
is a two-party agreement between the county commissioners and your
chief executive officer, and I think from time to time y'all -- y'all
forget that.
You are not limited in any way today, and I think for
those of who asked, I have expressed the desire that we go ahead today
and that we add an additional 12 months, a one-year extension. And I
think, frankly, that was a very reasonable and that was the least
thing that I could think of, was a one-year extension to a current
agreement that would take us until 1997.
I think for anyone to think that it would not be
difficult in the midst of an election year to try and discuss or
renegotiate a contract of your chief executive officer is a very
politically naive thought, and I say that with all due respects. It's
difficult today even for commissioners to try and discuss it here.
You can just think what it would be like when your campaign opponent
is out on the campaign stomp, and at the same time you're going to
look me in the eye and tell me that you're going to be able to make
and determine fair contract representation terms and conditions in the
midst of a re-election campaign? I doubt that. And I think that if
you -- if you thought about that long enough, you would probably reach
the same conclusion. Thus, my request -- and for those of you who
asked, my desire is to have a one-year extension to 1997. I think not
only is that reasonable, but that was the least that I could
anticipate so that I did not appear unreasonable.
Commissioner Constantine, I'm not going to take a great
deal of exception to your comments today. I fully expected them,
although your most recent public comments on radio talk shows and to
me privately have been just the opposite. In fact, what you said and
the two things that you said publically were that you sort of referred
to me within, in your own words, the Wade Boggs syndrome. A lifetime
320 hitter who may be in the midst of a 300 year from a batting
perspective. Is it a slump? No. Could you do better? The answer
was yes.
And the other thing that you mentioned to me, frankly,
sir, was that in your travels around the state, not only in leadership
Florida but in the Republican party and that you're increasingly
convinced that this is a very well managed county and a very
sophisticated county, and I would in some small way like to take my
share of the credit for that. I think that speaks very well of all of
us.
The thing I think that all of you need to remember in
terms of trying to apply term limitations to an appointed public
administrator is there's -- there's really no correlation there. I
didn't get into this for a political career. This is my chosen
livelihood, and I have spent my entire career preparing myself for the
opportunity here to serve as your county manager. This is not a
desired political effort on my part, and I think to try and apply term
limitations to public administrators is just a stretch, and I won't
say anything beyond that.
I'm not at all ashamed for having been sought out last
year and recognized as being one of the better managers in the state,
and whether it was Hillsborough County or two of the other counties
that asked for me to apply, I don't intend to apologize for that
today.
I will tell you the allegations -- and I wrote them down
-- concerning anonymous or employees that share concerns privately
with county commissioners, I think, Mr. Constantine, you may have --
have overlooked one of the driving tenets of the problems at Community
Development. Employees are increasingly concerned about political
involvement or the politicization of Collier County, and the statement
has been made to me twice in the last week that, A, that we're
concerned about us having to work for county commissioners or that our
livelihood would become a patronage system where it depends who you
support or whose campaign you work on determining whether you can keep
your job or whose political allegiance that you owe in order to keep
the job that you have.
So I take strong exception to anonymous sources of
concern, and I'm not trying to diminish any of the problems at
Community Development, but I think when I read Commissioner Mac'Kie's
report, I see a little different conclusion. In fact, we just had a
supervisor in our Utility Division quit last week, and his letter of
resignation -- and we tried to talk him out of it -- was because of
the increased political atmosphere in county government. That was his
bottom line. And the fact that increasingly it's -- it's rumor or
innuendo or conjecture that seems to be what's driving the county
commission as opposed to whether or not you can perform in the job
that you have been appointed to.
I've got six other things here, and I think it's sort of
silly, but I think I went into this today in terms of offering the
county commission the least possible extension for the most practical
reasons that I could offer. I never promised that I would be the most
popular county manager that you ever had. I never promised that we
would not make mistakes or that we would not be willing to correct our
mistakes. What I said was that I intended to be very honest, and I
think I'm extremely honest, and my reputation speaks for itself. And
I think in terms of driving this county forward, I think our
performance also speaks for itself.
I don't mind at all discussing beyond the current term
of the contract. If Commissioner Mac'Kie has some different ideas
about incentives that would not apply until the 1997 year, I'd look
forward to discussing those with you. There's some other changes that
you might propose. I'm not in a position to try and renegotiate this
contract here today. Now, you negotiated that in good faith two years
ago, and, frankly, I would expect this board to adhere to its word,
and I would hope that your word is still good. I am interested in a
12-month extension for the reasons that I outlined, and I'd be happy
to answer any other questions that you have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got one comment on that, Mr.
Dotrill. Yesterday you and I discussed the possibility of an
additional 12-month extension on the current contract, and, you know,
we talked about it for quite a bit, and I explained to you why I would
be opposed to that in lieu of the ongoing problems that exist right
now, that I just simply want to see things set right and everything
running as smoothly as is practical, and that when that is
accomplished, be it this fall or the winter of '96 or the spring of
'96, as soon as my comfort level is better -- and certainly I would
hope that the comfort level of the other members would be better also
-- I would be more than willing to begin talking about a new contract
that would extend beyond September of '96, but I just simply need to
see the current problems repaired, and as soon as that is done, I
would be more than willing to enter into whatever negotiations that we
need but I -- I just need to see those repaired, and that's my
problem.
MR. DORRILL: You and I had that conversation, and I
told you that I -- I thought that I would wait and -- for those
commissioners who did elect to talk to me about it, and there were
four of you in anticipation of today who asked me -- I don't think
that I lobbied a single commissioner. I think it would be
unprofessional. But for those of you who asked, I have provided you
with the response that I did today. I'd like to know what the board's
desires are, and that's why I said I think this board is not limited
in any way. If you want to condition your desires on some contract
amendments that would occur as part of a 1997 year, I'd be happy to
discuss those at the appropriate time but not here today. And if you
need to vote no under those circumstances, I'll understand that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to address a couple of
things you said there. You're correct. As recent as three months
ago, I was on the radio saying comments. I gave the Wade Boggs
example, but a lot has unfolded in three months. That's for sure.
Also, if you want to use another sports analogy, Joe Montana -- nobody
argues, among and possibly the greatest --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a choice? Sorry. Sports
analogies. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I finish my
comments?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or if I do? Tim, I'm sorry. It
was a joke.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I apologize.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your comments, gosh, whether
the guy's hitting 300, would you keep him, well, I'll use the Joe
Montana analogy. Great player. Possibly greatest quarterback ever,
but San Francisco let him go because he was getting old or he wasn't
doing the job as well as he used to, and Steve Young could. And
that's exactly what I said in my initial comments is, yeah, you can --
you still do some things well, but we're not getting the best we can.
And I certainly haven't -- You made some reference that should we be
handling personnel issues or something, and I certainly haven't
suggested that the BCC should be dealing with Human Resource issues.
MR. DORRILL: No. I didn't say that. Your employees
did.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- But there clearly is a
problem with Human Resources if they're discussing with bosses what
individual employees have said before that employee even gets back to
their department. Clearly a problem. And to say, "Well, you know,"
and fluff that off is inappropriate.
So, you know, you can address little individual things
here and there. I'll tell you one thing. If you want to develop a
relationship with a commissioner, probably the best way to do that is
not to cut off communication with that commissioner. You mentioned
you talked about this contract with four of us. Obviously I'm the one
you did not with. A couple of weeks ago when you did your
reorganization, it wasn't until I requested that at five o'clock on
Monday night before the meeting that you even told me anything about
that. Cutting off communication is only going to worsen your
position. So if you're trying to truly serve the five people who --
at whose pleasure you serve, I'd suggest you try to work for all five
and not only for 80 percent of them.
MR. DORRILL: Well, it's not my intent to sit here and
debate you all afternoon but what I said -- and I didn't raise
political issues. I responded to several of the issues that you used
at the start of this discussion here, sir, and frankly -- and my
second point was that for those commissioners who asked, I have
discussed this in advance of today, and I also said that your position
at the beginning of today's didn't come as any particular surprise and
I just -- you know, I think those issues speak for themselves.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I know that
Commissioner MAc'Kie has talked about something that has peaked my
interest regarding if there is to be an extension physically into
1997, there's some positive things we've talked about that may need to
be incorporated, and Commissioner MAtthews has some reservation about
extending it until things occur down the road.
What I'd like to do is make a motion to extend the
county manager's contract into 1996.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To exercise the clause.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. To exercise the contract
clause, and so the contract will be scheduled to terminate in
September of 1996.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me -- Let me comment on that a
little bit. I think the -- that there is valid points for a number of
reasons of getting these renewal dates off into odd numbered years.
We've discussed that before. I think that's a very valid point. The
-- I have no concern whatsoever about extending the contract into
1997 from here and, therefore, locking ourselves into two years of
county manager, and perhaps we will find ourselves six months from now
not satisfied with the performance, because we're really only talking
about a couple of months' severance pay in any case somewhere down the
line. I mean, it just doesn't concern me to extend two years right
now. If we're not happy, we bite the two year -- the two months' or
four months', or whatever it happens to be, severance pay, and that's
the end of that. So it's just not a concern, but I think there is
some merit to getting these renewal dates off into the odd numbered
years, and I'd like for the motion maker to consider that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have to say in my recent
campaign which, again, was not a renewal date year, you're right. We
talked a lot about, what do you think about the county manager, what
do you think about the county manager. Every time I went anywhere,
what do you think about the county manager. And -- And I -- I think
that it's a reality that it would be very difficult -- It's -- It's
hard enough to answer the question, what do you think about the county
manager. Okay. That's -- That's not always easy. But to have to
respond to a reporter, how -- what do you think about the county
manager, just sort of put yourself in the place of having that
discussion, coming in here and then -- He's never going to be perfect.
There's always going to be some serious flaws. There's always going
to be something to criticize him for. And then you go out and you get
into a debate with your opponent, and you're going to have to then,
you know, be the advocate of the county manager.
No. No. No. No. Don't you dare interrupt me after
you've just given me that speech.
You're going to have to be the advocate of the county
manager in a political debate and then come in here and have this
discussion. If we extend a year, if we add to '97, we always can tell
him, "Thank you very much. Here's your four months' pay. Please ....
And we can do that any time, at any time, any day, whether we add a
year or we don't add a year. But I think that we're asking for serious
political trouble if we allow that debate to come up. As prevalent as
it was in a non-contract year, I'm concerned about -- that it would be
very serious in a contract year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think all we're asking for
is anybody running to have a little backbone and say what they really
think.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will withdraw my motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was just going to second it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have a substitute motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The substitute motion will be to
extend the county manager's contract into 1997 with the same
termination date in September and the same parameters under the
contract. I believe we have the option of renegotiating that because
the clause will still exist in 1996 if some of the performance factors
you've talked about have become important and ironed out to the point
that we can use them.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your suggestion then is to
add an additional option year?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just can't support that, and
I've already said the reasons why. We've got serious problems in the
manager's agency right now, and I don't have any problem with entering
into negotiations with the county manager as soon as these problems
are remedied, but I just can't help but say that to extend his
contract right now in the midst of all this stuff, for lack of a
better term, that's been going on, I just -- I cannot support that. I
think it's a bad management decision, that it's our purpose to hold
his feet to the fire and get it fixed, and then once that's done,
entertain another contract, and in that new contract, incorporate
clauses and so forth that Commissioner Hac'Kie is talking about. By
just arbitrarily extending this into a new extension year, I just
can't agree with that. It's -- It's just wrong. But that's -- that's
my vote.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- My response, I would like
to second the motion. I'd like to be sure, however, that the motion
-- that the manager is indicating a willingness to negotiate this
incentive program as opposed to a cost-of-living raise in the extended
year.
MR. DORRILL: For 19977
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. DORRILL: I said I'd be happy to do that, not today.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. I understand that and
-- and --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I will amend the motion to
include the negotiation.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I also need to get the county
attorney to clarify for me that what we have done today is add -- I'm
sorry. What this motion proposes is to add an additional option year
to the county manager's contract. In other words, we can always give
him notice and pay him four months' severance pay and he goes away.
MR. CUYLER: That is correct. I assume the motion
includes what the contract requires which is -- this year is going
through, and then you're going to have a contract amendment that's
going to provide for an additional one year beyond this extension
year.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is it an -- Is it an additional
option year or an additional year?
MR. CUYLER: I guess it would be an additional year.
MR. DORRILL: That's my understanding.
MR. CUYLER: But am I to understand that you are
approving the contract amendment today, or does Neil want to sit down
with you and negotiate the provisions of that and then that comes back
to you? That's the only thing.
MR. DORRILL: My understanding is that this is an
additional year, but that beginning in 19 -- on October the 1st of
1996, for the '96/'97 fiscal year, that you want a revised salary
incentive program that would need to be developed between now and
then, and I said that I was willing to do that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, I intend it to be a
bonus program instead of a salary.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the intent of the motion
and the amendment as correctly stated. MR. DORRILL: Mr. -- I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not sure I understood the
answer, and I need to be sure I get it. That -- That if we add this,
we would amend the contract to add another year through the fiscal
year 1997, and it would include incentive-based bonuses as opposed to
-- as opposed to cost-of-living raises, and we could terminate the
manager at any time. And if we did, we would have to pay him four
months' severance.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's two months.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Actually, it's --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's two months if you allow the
contract to expire, four months if you terminate prior to the option
date is my understanding.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, at the end of the third
year there's nothing. In the third year I think it's only two months,
isn't it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the event of termination
during the extension of a third year of this agreement, an amount
equal to four months of an employee's annual base salary less normally
required deductions.
MR. DORRILL: That's what I'm assuming because otherwise
what you're saying is, "We're going to give you a fourth year, Mr.
Dotrill, but there's no severance in the event that we terminate you,"
and working here under these conditions without a severance
arrangement would be difficult.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I understood that it
includes the same severance package that you presently have.
MR. DORRILL: The fourth year would be the new final
year, and all other conditions would remain the same.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because my intention here is
twofold. One is to get this out of an election year because I just
think that that's appropriate and to add this -- to substitute this
incentive bonus program for a cost-of-living raise. But I don't
intend by this action to tell the manager,"You've been doing a great
job. Just keep doing what you've been doing, and we want to keep you
here until you die." That's not what I intend to communicate.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're telling him,"Gosh,
there's all kinds of problems. We need to have them fixed, but, hey,
here's an extra year anyway."
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there was a glitch in the
contract as negotiated before when it allowed it to come up again for
consideration in election years, and that glitch I would like to
correct if it doesn't cost us anything.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, you have two of the three
people who will be running presumably in the election campaign next
year who are saying that they're not afraid of that and that's our --
that's our judgment and I -- I don't think I particularly care for
someone else's judgment being imposed upon mine when it totally
affects me. But that's what the motion is. Mr. Dotrill, Mr. Perkins
is the only speaker we have?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. And he told me twice that he
wants to speak.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. A1
Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property
Rights but most important a plain concerned citizen. I have been
lucky in a way and unlucky in another way. I speak to everybody, I
speak to the TV camera, and I speak to the people at home;
consequently, they call me. I don't mind it. There's all kinds of
things.
The two things that I want to address today is sexual
harassment and job intimidation. Now, from the input that I've gotten
from around this community in this county --
MR. DORRILL: I'm certainly not opposed to that, but is
that the subject of the item before us?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Give us five minutes.
MR. PERKINS: Let me --
MR. DORRILL: I'm asking a question.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. Just let me rattle on here just for
a second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's part of the problems that
have been discussed that need to be repaired.
MR. PERKINS: Where I'm headed on this is -- What you do
with him is -- but what the people want me to say to you because they
won't get up here to say it because to quote, they won't talk to a
superior because they don't know who they can trust. Now, apparently
a lot of these people think that I've got a big enough mouth and that
I'm trustworthy which is one hell of an obligation for me to do this.
The comments that I've got is they can't talk to their
superiors because their superiors are the ones that are doing the
harassment. And not only that, it never gets corrected. Nothing ever
seems to get done about it except there's penalties put in place. And
over a period of time, the harassment takes place to the point whereas
the job is terminated for one reason or another. Community
Development is just one issue. That is only one speck in this big
mess. You have a mess on your hands.
Now, if it means using the broom that I gave you guys a
while back, then use it. If it doesn't, don't. But the point is,
instead of trying to disregard this, you have to fix this problem for
the simple reason that any good qualified people who would normally
make application for jobs in this community will not file for a job.
They don't want any part of it because of the political and the
involvement that goes on right smack in their own department and who
their superiors are harassing. Okay.
Now, one other thing. Along with that, two other things
were thrown at me. George Archibald, Transportation, a lot of the
people said they can't possibly understand why he was demoted in pay
when he is one of the foremost runners of this community, and he gets
blamed for everything when it comes down to anything to do with
traffic. Then Bill Lorenz, he's got demoted too. Apparently you're
doing away with -- I don't know about him. Nobody made comment about
the -- I could make comment about the landfill and what took place,
but that has nothing to do with it.
The only thing that was thrown at to me was another
statement that Mr. Dorrill made two, three years ago. And he said, "We
we-be's," and the commission said, "What the hell is a we-be," and he
said, "We be here before you got here. We be here after you leave." I
took a little bit exception to that for the same -- simple reason that
means that you're out of reach. Nobody can touch you.
Point being in all this stuff, regardless of what you do
with him, whatever you do, please try to take and get this sexual
harassment and the job intimidation thing behind us. Now, I have made
suggestions to the two females on the commission. Why the two
females? Why wasn't the other female who filed the complaint brought
up and let her explain to everybody what's going on? I mean, once you
make it public, make it public.
I almost lost my train of thought on this. Oh. I had
suggested to establish an independent hotline to one individual -- not
me, please, not me -- one individual to a given period of time that
any one of the employees or anybody that's involved in this community
in this county can call and file a complaint. Now, this complaint is
only the beginning to take and look into the problem to see whether or
not you're going to go with it from there. But the point is the one
and only individual, if there's any leaks in the community, you're
going to know exactly where they came from. The women in this
community are hot about this thing because it -- it seems like it gets
pushed under the carpet all the time, but it's gone on in this, and I
hope that you people listening at home, and especially employees, call
your commissioners or get somebody else to call. I'll be more than
willing to do your dirt, but I'll do it because I am involved with you
people.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A1, you have to wrap it up.
MR. PERKINS: I'm all done. I've said my piece. I think
I've made -- I don't think I've missed anything. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. PERKINS: It's a thing that has to be fixed. Thank
you, guys, for your indulgence in my big mouth. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Just given the nature of that and the -- I
think it deserves a brief response. Sometimes if you don't sit here
and defend yourself when your character is being assassinated, you
can't depend on anybody else to, so let me say this in response. I
think his allegation that there is widespread sexual and job
harassment taking place here is totally without merit, absolutely and
totally without merit.
And the fact that your job is terminated if you speak
out, I think our record speaks for itself. When I became county
manager, we had no fewer than two or three existing or labor unions
that were in the certification process. You are the only government
employer in this community who is currently without any collective
labor unions at all. I think the relationship between management and
the work force speaks for itself with respect to that.
We have a very good, very dedicated Employee Advisory
Council that is elected from amongst their peers to bring legitimate
issues and contentions to the county manager in a private meeting
every month. In fact, we only average seven grievances per year.
This was in the information that I supplied to Ms. Mac'Kie. We have
over 1,100 employees who work here. We get seven qualified grievance
applications over 1,000 employees every year. Only two of those on
average work their way to the county manager's office. The point
being that the rest of them are resolved to the employee's
satisfaction below the county manager's office. And so for only two
grievances to actually reach the county manager's office, I think that
speaks pretty highly of the quality of the work environment here.
And, Mr. Perkins, sir, I'd put my reputation against
yours any day of the week, and I would defy you to tell me a point in
time when I ever said publically or privately to anybody that we be
here before you got here and we be here after you go, and I don't
intend to try and debate that with you, sir, but I just -- I take
strong offense to that, and I think that speaks more to your character
than it does mine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, you know, Mr.
Dorrill's comments are exactly what I'm bringing up, and that is a
lack of awareness that there's a problem there. Gosh, I don't know.
He tells us he doesn't read the newspapers, so maybe that's why, but
the headlines for the last month and a half have been about sexual
harassment in the county. Don't have any problem. The fact that, oh,
we've only had seven grievances or only had two that ever came to the
county manager --
MR. DORRILL: That's not what I said.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm paraphrasing, that --
MR. DORRILL: Well, let's get it straight, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Why don't you clarify
it for me so I can make the point crystal clear.
MR. DORRILL: I said, on average that we only have seven
grievances per year that are brought to me either independently or by
an elected Employee Advisory Council in the absence of any union
activity at all. And, in fact, on average only two of those reach the
county manager's office because the rest of them are solved and solved
to the satisfaction of the employee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is what I was
paraphrasing, seven grievances a year or two that make it to the
county manager's office. And Commissioner Hac'Kie's report of a
couple of weeks ago said that many employees no longer dare to go
forward because the example that was made was Human Resources is
calling their boss, so, of course, it never makes it to you. Their
boss chews them out. They don't ever dare to complain again. There
is a problem, and you need to acknowledge that there may be a problem,
and we need to address that instead of just saying, "There's no
problem. Look the numbers poignant."
MR. DORRILL: I ever never said, sir, that there are no
problems here. In fact --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You just got done telling us
that there is absolutely no widespread policy --
MR. DORRILL: No. Let me -- Let me finish. You're very
big on letting people finish. I said that in the context, if we had
100 grievances a year or we had union activity that was developing out
there, you'd be leading the charge saying that this is the county
manager's fault, and I said that in the context of our overall work
environment that we have here. That was the context it was offered
in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have to say, Mr. Dorrill, that
while I respect your right to defend your character, as you saw that,
I hope that you're not saying that we don't have a sexual harassment
problem and that we don't have a work intimidation problem because I
know we do have that problem, and what I had hoped I was going to hear
you say is, God dang right we have this problem, and here's what we're
doing to fix it. We are addressing it, because --
MR. DORRILL: I -- I --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- because the very -- the very
point about seven and two, that's what's wrong because people are
afraid to file those grievances. The process is wrong. It doesn't
work. They're not using it. We do have a problem.
MR. DORRILL: Let me say that again because that's not
what I intended. I have never said that we didn't have problems here,
and I have stood and am solely responsible for the problems that we've
had at Community Development because you're sure not going to -- you
know, you're not going to blame anybody else or accept any other
responsibility aside from mine, and my shoulders are big enough to
take that. I've never said that we don't have problems here. I was
responding to Mr. Perkins' allegation that we have widespread sexual
and job harassment that is affecting the county employees, and I said
that in the context of my reply that at least if you look at the
grievances that come to me through the process that we have, and it
needs to be improved, and I said that in a memorandum to you, we don't
have hundreds and hundreds of grievances.
Let me say this because Ms. Matthews has been involved
in this on the other side. The issue with respect to this alleged
mole or spy in the Human Resources Department -- and you need to
correct me if I'm wrong -- is conjecture on the part of the two
employees who said that in interviews with us. That female employee
who is the subject of that conjecture has taken a very, very strong
reaction denying that and putting us on notice that we cannot accuse
her of that type of activity without any basis of fact. So I'm trying
to give the benefit of the doubt to all of the people who are
involved. I know that employees have gone to Human Resources think
there's a problem in the department. The conjecture that is there
points to a single individual, and I'm being very deliberate in the
way that we go about it so that we don't violate that person's civil
rights either. But I've never said -- and I don't have my head stuck
in the sand -- that we don't have problems in this county government.
I said that in the context of the policies that the board operates
under and the fact that we don't have any labor or collective activity
ongoing as a result of the perceived employee problems.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there another speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. McGilvra.
MR. MCGILVRA: I just have two things to say. I've known
Neil Dotrill for quite a few sets of commissioners. I've always found
him to be an honest and above-board-type guy. I think he's
trustworthy. I think he's honest. I don't think he's misleading. I
think there's another thing I'd like to mention, and I understand it
just happened within the last couple of years where the county
commission has changed its relationship with the county commission in
the respect that we now have effectively -- the employees having, in
effect, two people that they report to, or at least that's how they
feel. They feel that they are reporting to two bosses. And, quite
frankly, any one of you who have ever run an organization know that
that can't happen. You can't have two bosses. Cease that and a lot
of the other stuff will stop. That doesn't mean that the problems are
going to go away. There are -- There are still problems that are
going to have to go away, but I think you've got a good honest guy
here. He's smart. He's above board. But let's not try to have
people going to two bosses. That don't work.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: By two bosses, I assume the
county commission is the second boss that you're referring to? MR. HCGILVRA: Basically.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's -- That's one element
that has concerned me in a lot of these discussions about Development
Services, is there was a very strong perception that there were
minions that were protected by this board and that perception was --
whether it be rumor or truth, almost didn't matter. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this board needs to keep its
nose and its hands out of the day-to-day operations of the county
departments and deal with the chain of command that's in place. And
if we don't do that, then I think we do shoulder some of the blame for
the failure of the operational aspects of county government.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to call the question if
there's no further discussion. All those in favor of the motion '-
I'm going to restate the motion. It is that the manager's contract be
amended to terminate on -- is it September 157 September 30, 19 --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 15.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- 15, 1997, and that the manager
has agreed to enter into negotiations for a bonus program in lieu of
salary in the year -- or in the fiscal year 1997.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought the motion was to
have an additional option year, not that it would automatically --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It was changed.
MR. DORRILL: No. My -- My understanding is that the
salary increase -- we're not going to totally renegotiate salary for
'97. It's in lieu of a cost-of-living adjustment -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. DORRILL: -- that we would have to propose --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Bonus program.
MR. DORRILL: -- some type of performance bonus system
as it was explained.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- Let me clarify two
parts of that motion, and I'm glad you asked the question,
Commissioner Constantine. First of all, yes, it's -- it's the bonus
program in lieu of cost-of-living increase. That's the first part.
The second part is that the contract extends a year but has the exact
same notification and option as this one does. In other words, it's
not just cart blanche to 1997. It's the exact same date that -- and
we have to notify him by --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's an additional optional
year.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we'll be talking like this
again next year and, i.e., we're in an election year which is your
concern, and we'll be doing this conversation again next summer.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's -- That's not my --
MR. DORRILL: That wasn't my understanding.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- thought.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Because what -- because what
happens is --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the discussion will be
over long before even the primary elections come so that's a temporary
concern.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's due in June if it's the
same thing.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I -- I --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would still be in that --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- do not have a significant
problem with that is that -- is that there's a difference in
negotiating as to whether -- into entering a full-blown negotiation on
the county manager's contract and extending, because if he has met the
requirements that Commissioners Matthews has set forth, she will --
and from what she said tonight, would have no problem extending his
contract but --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to negotiate a new
contract next year.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: But I'm going on what you had
said earlier, and so the difference between a full-blown negotiation
and an extension is a big difference. The truth is it's going to take
three people on this board to fire the county manager, and I just
don't want the negotiation phase during an election year to become the
vehicle. I still want it to be a conscious decision by this board to
terminate the contract, and that's why I ask for an additional year
remaining as an option as opposed to just a blanket year.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So let me restate the
motion again then. We are granting the county manager an extension of
one year and giving him an additional option year in which we will
also be using the same terms, meaning that we have to give him a
90-day notice of either another -- 90-day notice to give that
additional option year an extension or to exercise that option; is
that correct? Is that what you're saying?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the intent of my motion,
yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And to include in that
that Mr. Dotrill enter into negotiations that in lieu of his
cost-of-living increase, there be a merit bonus something or other --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Incentive-based.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- incentive-based bonus.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is a fair synopsis, yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, as I stated before, I'm not
-- I'm not concerned with the contract extension because all we -- if
we're not satisfied with the performance, we just bite the four
months' severance pay and terminate the contract at any point in time,
so I'm not concerned about an extension. That doesn't bother me.
I -- I do want to make it clear, though, Mr. Dotrill,
frankly, you know, I think it's time that -- that we get you more
involved in the county operation directly and get some of these
problems taken care of. There are several of them that are ongoing,
and I'd like to see those cured. If not, I think we're going to be
discussing some other options here before long, but I'm going to
support the motion as it is right now.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll call the question if there's
no further discussion. All those in favor please say aye. Those opposed?
Motion passes 3-2, Commissioner Matthews and Constantine
being in the opposition.
MR. DORRILL: Just if I could and in a constructive
vein, we hear so much in terms -- and, Mr. Constantine, this is not
intended to be arrogant. Please don't take it so. If -- If the board
will be a little more specific in terms of the concerns other than
just say, "Well, we've all read the paper" or "There are widespread
concerns in the Utility Division," we're going to always have
individual problems, and we're going to have mistakes that we make
along the way. To the extent that you deal with me with actual
specific instances, because, otherwise, you -- you need to at least --
you don't have to understand but at least acknowledge that when you
sit on this side of the diose down on the floor, this is a difficult
enough job as it is. When you've got productivity committees and
you've got privatization committees and you've got a clerk who's off
doing surprise performance auditing if he thinks that he can at the
request of one or more individuals, it's easy to get overwhelmed with
negative issues or negative thoughts.
And, Commissioner Norris, in particular, I'm more than
willing to listen to your criticism, constructive or otherwise. I
need you to be specific with me either privately or publically here at
the board meetings in terms of what are the issues because I think
you'll acknowledge -- Commissioner Constantine says, well, we have to
make too big a deal out of it, you know, we have to whip the county
manager before we can get him to do anything. If you have problems,
if you'll share those with me immediately, I will promise you results
on those, but I need you to be constructive or otherwise -- and as
specific as you can be and only appreciate that we're trying to serve
you and keep you happy.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to communicate as clearly
as possible that I think that we do have two problems that we
identified in the Development Services Division and that I have not
personally investigated but I have heard are more pervasive throughout
the county manager's agency. One is that our sexual harassment, the
procedures for enforcing it at least, that the policy is inadequate
and that its implementation is inadequate and I think that that -- I
want it to be clear that I think that is a pervasive problem, and I am
going to look to you to solve it.
I think that we have a management by intimidation
problem that's exacerbated by this board's interference with your
responsibilities, and that's one of the reasons why I asked that we
bring back the enforcement mechanism in the county manager's
ordinance. But I think that Commissioner Constantine has outlined
some very specific problems in his comments today that do exist, and I
hope that if you didn't take notes today, you'll review the record and
go back and hear those because --
MR. DORRILL: I have two pages.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Because I think those were
very valid and very specific, and I don't want to communicate by
extending this contract in any way that the present level of
performance is acceptable. The present level of performance requires
improvement, and we have the same hammer we've always had.
MR. DORRILL: I understand that and I understand and --
I understand also better than anyone in this town this board
genetically have fired or forced the resignation of every manager you
ever had. And when I go to sleep at night, no one is any more aware
of that and what next Tuesday could bring than can I.
Let me ask you for a little direction since you
mentioned sexual harassment twice today. Our sexual -- The board's
sexual harassment policy was reviewed by your labor attorneys and
amended in 1992. We are proposing additional amendments to that, but
some of those are now going so far as to require other county
employees who have knowledge, specific knowledge of sexual harassment
that does not involve themselves but involves others in their
department, that they will be subject to disciplinary action if they
do not report that. That is the direction that we're pursuing with
our labor attorney. Now, if you think that's going too far, you need
to tell me that today because I will tell you that preliminarily they
have a concern about going to that extreme but that's -- The policy
that we have was adopted by this board in '92. It's going through an
amendment cycle as I reported to you and specifically to incorporate
that new language.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- I -- I'm not sure about
that. My first blush on that is that I like the idea; however, I'm
more concerned with a couple of steps back, and that is, if, in fact,
our present policy was complied with when we interviewed the male and
didn't interview the female in a situation, then that needs changing.
If there are --
MR. DORRILL: The current policy is silent to that, but
it will incorporate provisions that even if sexual harassment is
alleged --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good.
MR. DORRILL: -- then it will require as part of an
investigation phase that --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everybody --
MR. DORRILL: -- right, wrong, or indifferent, that all
parties are going to be subject to an inquiry or -- I hate to use the
word "investigation" because I don't want this place to get to where
we're all running around investigating everybody all the time, but the
new policy is going to incorporate the requirement to interview all
parties.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Moving right along.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 95-333 ESTABLISHING THE LANDFILL SITING COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move on. The next item on
the agenda is 12B(1).
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 10C.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 10C.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm sorry. 10C.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: MAdam Chairman, I'll make a
motion we approve -- This is the one I started to do earlier, was the
creation of the Collier County Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee
with the --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- people appointed by us --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- blah, blah, blah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
create the Landfill Committee and the members of it. All those in
favor please say aye. Those opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5-0.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'll be happy to know, in
an effort to be ahead of the curve, the committee we just created met
yesterday.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You didn't take any action, did
you?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 95-35 RE PETITION PUD-87-36(2) MICHAEL R. FERNANDEZ, AICP, OF
AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC. REPRESENTING NAPLES INTERSTATE
ASSOCIATES REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD FOR A PROJECT TITLED
CARLTON LAKES TO INCREASE THE DWELLING UNITS FROM 626 TO 800 AND
ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM COHMERCIAL AREA THRESHOLD OF 70,000 SQUARE FEET -
ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. Good. Next item on the
agenda is item 12B(1), Petition PUD-87-36. Right? Yeah. Mr.
Pickworth. Let me -- Let me -- If I can, this is the one that a
couple weeks ago I had asked the board to reconsider because there
were additional changes coming forward from the petitioner. I don't
know how much we need to get on the record at this point but the
additional changes and reduction of 10,000 square feet in the
commercial property from 80,000 to 70,000 which, in turn, generates a
trip savings of my calculations a little over 800 trips a day; is that
correct?
MR. PICKWORTH: My calculations are -- are about 315
trips a day. That's -- That's my calculator. That's -- That's the
calculation of our traffic people.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, I guess the way I
got to 800 trips is that our staff told us that 174 homes was
equivalent to 20,000 square feet and an additional -- I just went
through the mathematics of that.
MR. PICKWORTH: Maybe -- maybe --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bottom line, it's a decrease.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Bottom line, it's a decrease.
MR. PICKWORTH: So that I don't misspeak, I think from
where we were when we started, yes, I think 800 is about the right
number. I'm sorry if I mis -- The additional 10,000 square feet less
drops another 315. The total from where we started this process is
about 800.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: About 800.
MR. PICKWORTH: I'm sorry. I made --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine.
MR. PICKWORTH: I don't want to miss --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know what we need to go
through, if Mr. Nino wants to get what he needs on the record.
MR. NINO: My name is Ron Nino, representing Current
Planning. You have cited the substantive change of your last meeting.
The petitioner has offered an additional reduction of intensity by
10,000 square feet and the sum -- The bottom line is that the
reduction in intensity would be more than offset by the additional 174
dwelling units.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. Is there anything that
you need to get on the record, Mr. Pickworth?
MR. PICKWORTH: No, ma'am. We made our request and we'd
ask your favorable consideration.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there public speakers, Mr.
Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I will close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, seeing that
__
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. I think Mr.
Norris has -- unless -- Mr. Norris was one of the dissenters the last
time so he may have some comment.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I was one of the prevailers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dissenters prevailed.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Prevailers. I'm sorry. The
dissenters prevailed the last time, didn't we?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's getting late.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The last time we heard this
petition, I -- I stated that if the square footage of commercial was
50,000 square feet, that I would support the motion, the proposal, and
that still stands true this afternoon. Would you consider -- Would
your petitioner consider limiting the commercial to 50,000 square
feet?
MR. PICKWORTH: My -- I -- You know, I hate to come in
and here and refuse, but I can't do that unless -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead.
MR. PICKWORTH: Everybody is nodding looking behind me
saying yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A little press communication.
MR. PICKWORTH: Our -- You know, we -- I was authorized
and, you know, in good faith made an offer to reduce it to 70,000
square feet, and that's the offer we've made. I think that has to
stand. And I guess I didn't pick up your suggestion of 50,000 square
feet when I read the transcript the other day. I had in there that
you had said that all of the commercial would be eliminated, and
perhaps I missed the 50,000-square-foot reference. The only reference
I have was that we, in fact, eliminate the commercial so -- And if you
said 50,000, then I'm sorry, and I guess they missed it in the
transcript. I didn't see that but I -- I don't -- you know, we've
come down 30 percent in our commercial where we -- where we -- when we
started and 800 trips. In fact, the reduction in the commercial is
greater than the percentage of increase in the residential. I guess
we feel that is -- that's fair and, you know, I think we maybe missed
-- maybe missed it and didn't hear what the commission was saying the
last time and, you know, for that reason, we've made the request and
did it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the answer to Commissioner
Norris is no.
MR. PICKWORTH: The answer is -- Yes. The answer is
long.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was just asking the last time
for some sort of traffic impact reduction -- MR. PICKWORTH: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and this accomplishes that.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, taking into
consideration the fact that it does, indeed, lessen the burden on our
roadways and all the factors which led to my voting in favor of it
last time, I'm going to make a motion that we approve the request for
PUD amendment PUD-87-36 --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- (2).
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve PUD-87-36(2). If there's no further discussion, all those in
favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 4-1. Thank you, Mr. Pickworth.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you.
Item #12C1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RESOLUTIONS 95-6, 95-7 AND 95-8 - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is
recommendation to adopt resolutions approving amendments to the'94/'95
adopted budget.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good evening. For the record, Michael
Smykowski, acting budget director. There are 16 budget amendments
included in this package. Each of these items have been approved by
the board through individual executive summaries during the last
quarter. This is a public hearing that's required in conjunction with
Florida Statutes for approval of all budget amendments which increase
total revenues of a fund.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smykowsi, did you say
each of these has already been approved by the board at a public
hearing?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I did.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, do we have public
speakers?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm about to ask. Do we have
public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I will close the public hearing.
Is there a motion?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the various budget amendments proposed. All those in favor
please say aye.
Opposed?
There being no opposition, motion passes 5-0. Thank you.
We are at the point in our day where we are at
communications. Commissioner Norris, do you have anything?
Item #14 (1)
DISCUSSION REGARDING INVESTMENT POLICIES - TO BE BROUGHT BACK AS A
REGULAR ITEM CONCERNING UPDATING OF PROCEDURES AND THE REQUIREMENT OF A
MANAGEMENT FIRM NEED TO OPERATE A PORTFOLIO AS WELL AS SOMEONE TO
OVERSEE THE MANAGEMENT FIRM
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do. I think each of you
has received a little memo here concerning the county investment
policy, and I just want to take a second to discuss that. We went
through a week or two ago a big discussion about our investment
portfolio, and there was, in my opinion, a lot of misinformation,
misconceptions I should say, brought forth in that discussion. But
because of that, I think we were sort of enlightened to the fact that
we may -- may be time for us to update some of our procedures, and
I've outlined what I think would be the best course of action to
follow.
Number one would be to update and amend our county
investment policy because when we looked at it, there was a couple of
minor changes that could be made. And if we decide to do this, I
would be glad to point out what I think is a quirk in there or
something that needs to be changed, modified, and brought up to date.
But we want to make sure that our investment policy conforms with our
investment objectives, and there is some new legislation that went
through the legislature concerning local governments and their ability
to formulate investment policies. It's not yet signed by the
governor, but there's no indication that he won't sign it. There's no
reason that he would not. It's just that it hasn't formally been
signed into law yet. We'll need to make sure that we integrate into
that new legislation.
The second thing is I think we should stop trying to
operate our portfolio ourselves and hire an investment advisory firm,
a money management firm to operate the portfolio on an annual-fee
basis. I think the fees involved would be extremely minor compared to
the expected rate of return that we would gain over and above what we
-- what our current policy is heading towards now. And I think that
from what I gathered from the way the clerk intends to operate the
policy in the future, I would anticipate that we would be easily able
to get two, three, $4 million extra on an annual basis by having a
management firm operate our portfolio. And, of course, that -- that
is money that -- most of that is interest on the general fund money.
So that would reduce our tax obligations in the future hopefully.
The third thing I think we should do in conjunction with
those two items would be to appoint someone, and that would be either
a staff member or perhaps our outside auditor firm or someone to
oversee the money management firm to make sure that they are, indeed,
complying with the written county investment policy so that we don't
have a discussion of -- in the future or a concern that our policy is
or is not being adhered to. If it's written and the money management
firm is to operate it as it is written, then we should just check it
to make sure that they are, and then there should be no more concerns.
So I think we're doing a couple of things that would be
beneficial to the general taxpayer, the citizens. I think we would be
more responsibly handling their concerns with the investment
portfolio.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Isn't there a proposed investment
policy change that's been in the works now, Mr. Dotrill, for quite
some time?
MR. DORRILL: Not -- Not that we're participating in. I
know that the clerk has an investment committee concept that he has
put into practice since January the 1st, and I know you sit on that,
and Guy Carlton sits on that, and I don't even know who else, but
there are no other board members or -- or your staff people that are
sitting on that investments committee or policy.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Correct me because I'm -- You
know, correct me if I'm wrong, but when these derivative questions
first came up, I asked for a copy of our investment policy, and I
received a copy of what I thought was our investment policy and read
it through. And when I brought that up at the next investment
committee meeting, I was told that, no, that is not our policy, that
the policy that I was given was a recommended policy that was not yet
approved, and it was fairly comprehensive.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Our policy was last updated as I
recall in 1992. It has to be approved by the Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To my knowledge, it was not
approved.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It was in 1992, but it has not
been since then.
MR. DORRILL: I think that it was written by and
administered by the chief fiscal officer who was at that time Mr.
Yonkosky, and we don't otherwise participate. I have had some private
conversations with the commissioners along the lines that Mr. Norris
has discussed, that you, the board, ought to play a little more
visible role because you are ultimately responsible for those funds,
and I think a properly constructed agreement with a professional money
manager is something that you ought to consider, but we have not
developed any new policy along those lines. The policy is currently
administered by the clerk.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, your
suggestion then is to bring this back as a formal item sometime in the
near future along these lines?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would support that.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The staff could do that, to bring
our policy back.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I could support that. I
just -- It's just that I -- It was my understanding we were a lot
closer to having a policy that is more encompassing and closer to
what's really going on.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There may be; and, if so, let's
bring it forward and start discussing it because I think it's
important that we iron out a couple of minor quirks that are in our
present policy.
MR. DORRILL: If I could just get a copy of the memo,
we'd be glad to try and develop something.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm all for it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, did you
have anything?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quick question. I note we have a
security guard in the audience. Are you just a really interested
citizen, or are you being paid to be here?
MR. DORRILL: He's paid to be here --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Paid to be here.
MR. DORRILL: -- as a result --
SECURITY GUARD: Both.
MR. DORRILL: -- of some --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's nice.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I just --
SECURITY GUARD: Both.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- It occurred to me we've
got someone from the sheriff's office and a security guard, so I just
kind of wondered.
MR. DORRILL: That was one of those things that I --
MR. CUYLER: That kind of day.
MR. DORRILL: No. I had indicated that with --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You were looking for crowd
control?
MR. DORRILL: -- the chairman. The chairman had asked
me to speak recently to the sheriff about some additionally enhanced
things that we could do. And for the foreseeable future, unless you
tell me otherwise, we thought that from time to time on busy days, it
would be a good idea to have.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No offense to you, sir. Just a --
Just a question.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: On those larger crowds, we will
have extra people. Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one thing. I wonder if
there's any interest in the board in --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
Item #14 (2)
DISCUSSION OF LEGISLATION REGARDING CONTACT WITH LOCAL GOVERNHENT
OFFICIALS - TO BE PUT ON REGULAR AGENDA
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay -- responding to the
legislation that just passed that gives us the opportunity to adopt an
ordinance to allow contact with local government officials. Are we
proceeding to do anything or -- I'd like for us to.
MR. CUYLER: We are proceeding. I've got my hands on
the legislation. It is not in effect yet. The time period hasn't
run.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it will require us to adopt
an ordinance to rebut the presumption.
MR. CUYLER: Correct. We're looking at it, analyzing it
and get a copy to you. Ultimately you'll decide what you want to do
on it. But, yes, that's the legislation as far as I'm concerned I'm
addressing right now.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
Item #14 (3)
DISCUSSION OF TDC ISSUES AND EDC ISSUES - TO BE DISCUSSED AT 5/30
WORKSHOP
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one item. Earlier in
the year over at the museum when we were talking about upcoming
workshops throughout the year, we wanted to be able to deal with
issues as they came up, and I wondered if there would be interest --
We've got one coming up the 30th with a couple of things already
scheduled on there, but I wonder if there would be interest in
addressing, in some detail anyway, TDC issues and Economic Development
issues.
I'll give you a couple of examples real quick. Between
the -- I don't know if the Marco anniversary issue ever made it to the
board, but it came before the TDC and, of course, the Myra Festival
and the question of how to pay for the beach and now the question of
Intellinet Challenge and all of those proposing some changes to what
currently falls under the TDC.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sold.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: EDC, same idea. You've got
the Film Commission, Foreign Trade Zone. We've got our Council of
Economic Advisors who I think we've been a little short on
communicating with. And it seems like those two things keep coming to
us piecemeal, and we ought to try to address those in some
comprehensive way.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The TDC -- that was on my list
too, the category C funding for the TDC -- met last night, and I guess
as we all read in the paper, the Intellinet was voted down. It's my
understanding that the Board of County Commission will be addressing
that next Tuesday. The petitioner has asked Miss Gansel to bring it
to us. But, anyway, I guess my point with the TDC and the category C
funds is that this has been in existence now for three years, Mr.
Cuyler, that we've been collecting this money? MR. CUYLER: (Nodding head.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have yet to successfully award
a major event yet. We've yet to do that, and I would urge this board
to read the minutes from last night's TDC meeting. There was one
gentleman who said that the Intellinet challenge doesn't meet any --
doesn't meet any category of funding and, therefore, introduced a
motion to deny. And we went through the vote. It did -- It did go
down. And within five minutes after that being voted down, there was
a further discussion of moving $800,000 of the category C money into
category B.
So I think -- I think I have gotten a picture -- and I
don't know about you. You served as the chairman on -- last year with
the TDC, but I'm beginning to have the impression that we will never
fund a major event because the categories and the criteria are
possibly inappropriate.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm glad that there's an
echo in here. I've been saying that we need to do something with
category C for quite some time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I think the
workshop on the 30th would be an excellent time to discuss that, and
I'm fully in support with Commissioner Constantine on that. I think
it's a good idea.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Our workshop on the 30th agenda
is very full unless you want to go to the afternoon.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's important enough.
We need to address it. We're getting a lot of requests and a lot of
ideas for change on this and --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of two things. Either
bump it -- stay through to the afternoon or bump one of the other
items if there's anything that is not an absolute necessity now
because these seem to be things that are before us literally every
week now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's 6:45 now, so I think bumping
it back to two o'clock is not going to kill us.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: Let me just remind you that we had some
question last week as to whether or not you are required to workshop
the -- I don't want to say the annual report -- the financial
statements --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. The CAFR we're doing that
morning.
MR. DORRILL: -- and there was some debate as to whether
you really wanted to spend your time doing that. That was added to
the agenda. I guess I'd ask you the same question. Do you want to
workshop the financial statements and begin at 8:30, and then would
you like for me to at least share with the chairman throwing some
items off the agenda?
The only one that immediately comes to mind in which you
had a discussion, remember Ms. Matthews sent each one of you a survey
with a -- we're down to a discussion of the Land Development Code and
amendments to the Land Development Code. That's on the workshop now.
You could spend three hours discussing that. My point is we'll either
need to meet the balance of the afternoon, or we'll need to defer the
Land Development Code to another time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When is our next scheduled
workshop?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: August 22.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And with all due respect to the
clerk who requested this -- this audit workshop --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The CAFR. CAFR.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is there a reason why we
couldn't individually meet with a representative of the clerk's
office, those of us who perhaps -- I mean, I -- I meet with them or
offer to once a week if we have any issues, and I'm sure you guys do
too, and it seems to me I could discuss that with them in a
one-on-one.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You want to try to do that and
then maybe -- But that's only going to free a half-hour if we're
talking about cat --
MR. DORRILL: Well, my suggestion is that if you want to
add the TDC, then let's defer the LDC amendments until the August
workshop.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's do this. Let's move the
TDC up and put the LDC last and make a decision at that point as to
whether or not we want to hear the LDC on Tuesday or whether we want
to put it off. In other words, if we get lucky enough to zip through,
let's go ahead and hit it all, but if we don't, let's -- if there's
one thing that we'll defer, let's save that option for that day to
defer the LDC to the next workshop.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we need to --
MR. DORRILL: And still begin at 8:30? Because that was
the other thing you told me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That we were going to start at
8:30. Mr. Cuyler, I think we need --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll be a little late.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to rely on you also if we're
going to be discussing TDC category C funds that I -- I don't believe
-- and I'm not sure so I'm going to rely on you. This board cannot
make changes in that without the TDC having first heard them? Is that
MR. CUYLER: That's not my position.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not your position?
MR. CUYLER: I will go and double-check that, but
without having reviewed it recently -- The TDC originally does the
plan. We were told that by a court. But after that, they assure that
-- they assure that -- basically they look at the expenditures, but
there's nothing that says that you can't change the plan by a super
majority vote without them recommending. I would send it to them for
a recommendation, but you don't have to following the recommendation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we -- we are not looking at
changing the ordinance. We're looking at the criteria for the
guidelines.
MR. CUYLER: The guidelines I'm even more confident
that, you know, you can --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think we're looking at
changing the 60/40 split. I think we're just looking at trying to
find a way that we can spend this money.
MR. CUYLER: The guidelines are by resolution. I'd,
again, ask their recommendation. There's nothing to keep you from
changing this.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to phrase that
differently to find appropriate venues.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, you know -- Well, finding
an event that fits a category so that we can appropriately fund it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The one other item on the
agenda that day is the Administrative Code we talked about.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Interesting. Many
communities have -- friends on -- as to each of us, commissions around
the state and have spoken with a number of them. Many communities
have nothing, and at the other extreme we have Palm Beach County who
has --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Very extensive.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'd say pretty
comprehensive. It's about 5,000 pages. And so we're kind of fishing
through there trying to find what's most appropriate to get us started
here, but it's an interesting -- it's a mixed bag. You've got
something as wild as that and many, many with absolutely nothing.
I think we can get creative here and maybe be a leader in the state in
this.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we'll have like a first draft
or something?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We won't have a first draft.
I think we'll --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: First policy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. But I think we hit on
what are the areas in there we need to cover.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we can get first thoughts and
then maybe at the August -- at the August meeting, dress it up some
more. I guess we're finished.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, let me just mention one
quick thing. I was talking to Neil a few minutes ago about Gibson.
You've got nothing but quasi-judicial coming up on Gibson. So now
until we change the rules, no ex parte communications.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No ex parte on the Gibson PUD.
Finished?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
Agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR SUNSTONE ON THE FAIRWAY - WITH
STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A2
OR Book Pages
ACCEPTANCE OF IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT RE EXCAVATION PERMIT NO.
59.420 "L'A_MBIANCE AT PELICAN BAY"
Item #16A3
See Pages
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR HUNTINGTON (OAKS BOULEVARD
EXTENSION) - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A4
OR Book Pages
RESOLUTION 95-331, AUTHORIZING THE WAIVER OF ROAD, LIBRARY SYSTEM,
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SYSTEM,
AND EDUCATION FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR SHELDON G. POWELL AND
ELIZABETH L. POWELL IN GOLDEN GATE; IMPACT FEES TO BE PAID FROM
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND
Item #16B1
See Pages
CONTRACT PER BID #95-2365 FOR SURFACE HEATER RECYCLING OF ASPHALT
PAVEMENTS ON A PORTION OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD (POLLY AVENUE TO
C.R. 951) - AWARDED TO ANGELO BENEDETTI SOUTH, INC. IN THE A_MOUNT OF
$31,500
Item #1682
BID #95-2370 FOR THE PURCASE OF EUCALYPTUS HULCH - AWARDED TO FORESTRY
RESOURCE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY, INC. AT THE UNIT PRICE OF $1.75 PER TWO (2)
CUBIC FEET
Item #16C1
EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTHEASTERN LIBRARY NETWORK
(SOLINET) FOR THE PROVISION OF ON-LINE LIBRARY CATALOGING
See Pages
Item #16D1
SATISFACTION OF CLAIM OF LIENS FOR WILLIAM H. AND GRACE H. RENZ AND
WILLIAM F. RENZ, AND MILDRED B. SOLTES AND WILLIAM F. RENZ
See Pages
Item #16D2
AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO AGREEMENT WITH HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND RELATED SERVICES FOR "EAST AND SOUTH
NAPLES SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM" PROJECT
See Pages
Item #16F1
FORMAL BID PROCESS WAIVED; AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE ONE HELICOPTER
MAIN ROTOR BLADE FROM COHPOSITIE TECHNOLOGY, INC. FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $8,955.78
Item #16F2
COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS WAIVED; MARQUETTE ELECTRONICS RECOGNIZED AS THE
SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER OF 12 LEAD ECG MONITORS FOR COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Item #16G1
RECOHMENDATION FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA TO PROCESS WASTE
TIRES AT THE NAPLES AND IHMOKALEE LANDFILLS AND MAINTAIN THE CURRENT
TIRE DISPOSAL FEE OF $85.00 PER TON
Item #16H1
RFP #95-2331 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES - AWARDED TO AGNOLI,
BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. FOR THE REDESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE RIVIERA
COLONY SEWER SYSTEM
Item #16H2
AUTHORIZATION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION FUND
PAYMENTS TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN FULFILLMENT
OF PERMIT OBLIGATIONS FOR GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD (CIE NO. 019) AND
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (CIE NO. 023) - IN THE AMOUNT $477,750
Item #16H3 - Deleted
Item #16H4
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDHENTS TO ALLOW FOR THE
PROPER ACCOUNTING TREATHENT OF COHMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROCEEDS AND
REPAYMENTS
Item #16J
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been filed and/or referred to the
various departments as indicated:
Item #16J1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLL AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY
APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1991 REAL PROPERTY
278 4/27
1992 REAL PROPERTY
195/196 4/27
1993 REAL PROPERTY
214/215 4/27-4
156/158
Item #16J2
1994 REAL PROPERTY
4/27-4
SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #16K1 - Continued to 5/23/95
Item #16L1
95
95
28/95
28/95
Item #16L3
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PAYHENT OF $65.00 FOR THE COUNTY'S COST TO ABATE THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE AND WAIVE THE $200.00 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE AS CONTAINED
IN RESOLUTION NO. 95-260 FOR LOT 7, PLANTATION, OWNER OF RECORD
RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION
Item #16L4
QUIT CLAIH DEED FROH THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IHPROVEHENT
TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR ALL OF TRACT 91, GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES UNIT 157, CONVEYING SAID PROPERTY TO GAC PROPERTIES, INC. AND
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CLERK TO REFUND TOTAL AMOUNT OF $972.00 TO THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PAYHENT OF $65.00 FOR THE COUNTY'S COST TO ABATE THE
PUBLIC NUISANCE AND WAIVE THE $200.00 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE AS CONTAINED
IN RESOLUTION NO. 95-259 FOR LOT 4, PLANTATION, OWNER OF RECORD
RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION
Item #16L2
See Pages
AGREEHENT FOR EXTENDED PAYHENT OF TRINITY PLACE PAVING ASSESSHENT
DISTRICT FOR LOT 83, PROPERTY FOLIO NO. 00761280004, JUANITA GARCIA AND
LOURDES GARCIA
DEPARTHENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
See Pages
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 6:45 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: Catherine H. Hoffman and Christine E. Whitfield