BCC Minutes 05/23/1995 R REGULAR MEETING OF HAY 23, 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:
CHAIRPERSON:
Bettye J. Hatthews
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Timothy L. Hancock
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Hanager
Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney
Item #2A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to call to order the
Hay 23rd meeting of Board of County Commission for Collier County.
Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and
pledge.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this
morning. We thank you, as we do each time this year, for the
opportunity to recognize and remember our veterans on Memorial Day.
We thank you for the strong heritage and effort that veterans have
made on behalf of this country and the reason for us remembering them
on Memorial Day next Monday.
Father, as always, it is our prayer that this time
together be constructive and fruitful as the board makes these
important decisions that affect our community. We'd ask that you
bless our time here this morning, and we pray these things in your
son's holy name. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. We have changes to
the agenda today?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, Ha'am. We have quite a few changes
this morning. We have several add-on items. The first one is 8
(A)(2), which is a recommendation to approve for recording the final
plat of Harrington Sound, Unit 2. This was an order and request of
staff to assist the developer here, as you will not be meeting until
next Tuesday, and they need to get their plat recorded. It has been
reviewed -- approved by the county attorney's office for legal form.
That's 8 (A)(2) under community development.
8 (C)(1) is a recommendation to approve an application
to the Florida Department of State for a historic preservation grant
as it pertains to the Everglades City laundry building. That is at
staff's request in order to effectuate a grant deadline for that
submittal.
Item 10 (B) will be under the Board of County
Commissioners, and that is as a result of a meeting that Commissioner
Norris held last Thursday in conjunction with the Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission concerning an advisory posting of an
emerging shoal at Big Marco Pass. There is backup on that as well, a
letter received from the Game Commission, 10 (B) under the county
commission.
Item 11 (A) pertains to a ground and use lease between
the board and the sheriff for the D.R.I.L.L. Camp facility that's in
Immokalee. You may also note that there is a request that a
timecertain be establish for that under the constitutional officer's
portion of the agenda, item 11 (A).
We have a request from the petitioner -- that concludes
the add-on items -- for an additional continuance. It's at the request
of the petitioner. I know that they were in contact with Commissioner
Constantine. I don't know whether they had requested that continued
to a specific date or whether we are just saying indefinitely at this
point. This was the Golden Gate Inn off-site parking agreement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We didn't set any specific
date, but I assume two weeks from now is probably the logical time.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: That will make for a very busy
meeting on the 20th. We'll be hearing the Gordon River bridge ballot
question, and it's probably going to be quite lengthy.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two weeks should be the 8th
or 7th, Tuesday.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. DORRILL: 6th of June.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was thinking this was June
6th already.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Trying to get to vacation real
quick, aren't you?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: Item 13 (A)(1), which would be petition
PR-95-1, continued until your next regular meeting being on June 6th.
I have one item that was on the consent agenda that we
would like to move to the regular agenda at the request of the county
attorney's office. It was Item 16 (K)(2). It is moving and will
become 11 (B) under constitutional officers as it pertains to the
proposed new contract with Arthur Andersen to be your external
auditor. 16 (K)(2) is moving and will become 11 (B).
There was the one agenda note. There was -- there is
one request under board communications pertaining to an additional
brown bag lunch. I have two items that I want to update the board on.
Those are all the changes I had.
But I also -- Ms. Matthews, I had wanted to take this
opportunity in appreciation to the board for some of the very candid
conversations pertaining to my contract renewal last week. I
appreciated those and the direction that you gave concerning a number
of matters that were important to you individually or collectively. I
am looking forward to responding and working to solve some of those
challenges that were mentioned.
Also, the other thing that is important to me is
working with one of you to develop and bring back and propose some
management incentives and goals. And I'm looking forward to doing
that as quickly as possible. I just wanted to express my appreciation
for that opportunity. That's all that I have.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. And in follow-up on
that, as you work through the various problems as discussed last week,
if you could get to us either in our weekly meetings or at the Tuesday
communication point --
MR. DORRILL: You mentioned weekly -- I've got one that
I would like to give you today concerning where we're at with the
public works administrator's positions. I took your advice yesterday,
and it is one of the two items. I wanted to brief you all on this
late this afternoon.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there any other
changes to the agenda, Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I'd like to pull item 16
(H)(3) from the consent agenda, Lely Barefoot parking. It's not a
question regarding the bid but a general discussion item on that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's the Lely Barefoot?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. It's the approval on a bid
on that. I just have some questions for Mr. Olliff I wanted to go
through.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: That will become 8 (H)(4). 16 (H)(3)
will become 8 (H)(4).
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would like to remove 16
(B)(2) from the consent agenda. That's regarding the speed limits on
951. I also have two items under communications.
MR. DORRILL: 16 (B) --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Communication is getting long.
HR. DORRILL: 16 (B)(2) will become 8 (A)(1).
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any changes to the
agenda. I too have three items on communication today as well.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the agenda
and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve
the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. All those in favor,
please say aye.
Motion passes 4 to 0.
Item #3
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF HAY 2, 1995 - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a
motion that we approve the minutes of May 2, 1995. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second
to approve the May 2nd minutes. All those in favor, please say aye.
Motion passes 4 to 0.
Item #4A1
PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING HAY 29, 1995 AS "MEMORIAL DAY IN COLLIER
COUNTY" - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is proclamations and service
awards. Commissioner Constantine, you have a proclamation for us.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. I believe Ray -- if
you want to come up. Ray Truelove s with us to accept this
proclamation. Come on up and we'll read it.
Whereas, in 1863, long before Memorial Day became an
official holiday, the custom of paying tribute to America's war dead
was being observed by a small group of women in Mississippi. They did
so by placing flowers and wreaths on the grave sites of Civil War
soldiers; and
Whereas, today, just as much as yesterday, we need to
remember and honor all courageous veterans who struggled onward with
the reality of death always around them; and
Whereas, we should never forget the grit and
determination with which they fought sometimes in the face of
overwhelming odds. Nor should we forget the blood they shed, and/or
the pain they suffered in their quest to protect and defend our
country; and
Whereas, in that quest death has often been a constant
competitor with many, unfortunately, losing the competition. Those
who won derived an inner strength and determination from those whose
lives were lost. Their continued resolve to do their duty, in spite
of the harsh realities of war, is what has kept our nation strong and
free; and
Whereas, as we remember those who took up arms in the
defense of freedom, we recall what it must have been like for them.
Remember the lonely days and nights that stretched on and on. Recall
the unending sacrifice of those who willingly gave their lives so that
others would live; and
Whereas, let us also not forget those who did live.
Many were crippled and maimed but glad to be alive and returning home
to loved ones, their joy lessened only by the memory of those who did
not make it, many shedding tears of thankfulness along with tears of
sorrow for all they had been through.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the day of May 29,
1995, be designated as Memorial Day in Collier County and urge all
citizens to remember with a moment of silence the sacrifices endured
by this great nation's veterans.
Done and ordered this 23rd day of May, 1995, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Bettye J. Matthews,
Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we
approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to
approve the proclamation. All those in favor, please say aye.
Motion passes 4 to 0.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Keep your eye on the
newspaper. There are some activities going on this weekend, and I
hope you all will choose to participate.
Item #4B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda are
service awards. We have several today.
The first one is Ernst Augustin. He's been with the
county for five years in road & bridge. Thank you, Ernst. Here is
your certificate and your pin. Thank you. (Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks, Ernst.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Congratulations.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next is Pete Schalt with the
office of capital projects also with the county for five years. Thank
you. (Applause)
Next is Raymond Smith, who has been with pollution
control for ten years. Congratulations. (Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can put in for that transfer
now.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is one I am having
difficulty saying, Raymond Ognibene. I'm sure I said that wrong.
Thank you very much. (Applause)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is also ten years for Ray.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ten years. Kathy Nell from the
county attorney's office was also going to be with us today also. But
I understand she has some poison ivy on her hands.
MR. CUYLER: Yes. She was working in her yard. She
thought your meeting would be tough without giving you a case of
poison ivy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We didn't want to shake her
hand.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we give her two pins?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We thank her for the
consideration. She will be receiving her certificate and pin through
some other venue; right?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A plastic bag.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: At last it gives me pleasure --
10 years -- William Lorenz. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Item #5A
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-302 AND 95-309 - ADOPTED
Next on the agenda are budget amendments. Mr.
Smykowski.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski, acting budget director. There are two
budget amendments that require your approval this morning.
I do have a correction on budget amendment 95-302; the
dollar amount is incorrect. It should be 14,239 as opposed to 8,918
that is listed on the report. I apologize for that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A simple typo--, only five
numbers off.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fourteen thousand two hundred
and what?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thirty-nine.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to
approve the two budget amendments. Discussion? All those in favor,
please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #SA1
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSECTION OF BALD EAGLE DRIVE AND ELKCAM CIRCLE,
MARCO ISLAND - EMERGENCY DECLARED AND ALTERNATIVE #2 FOR A ROUNDABOUT -
APPROVED
Next item on the agenda, as we move to the manager's
report, is item 8 (A)(1), improvements to the intersection of Bald
Eagle Drive and Elkcam Circle. Ms. Cacchione.
MS. CACCHIONE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Barbara Cacchione, your long-range planning staff.
What I would like to discuss with you this morning are some
improvements to the intersection of Bald Eagle Drive and Elkcam Circle
on Marco Island. As part of your master plan for Marco Island, which
you have directed staff to prepare, we have been holding a series of
public meetings since November of last year. In those public meetings
we heard a couple of very serious concerns in regards to traffic
circulation, particularly at certain key intersections and also the
slowing and calming of traffic on Marco Island, and as you recently
discussed, with San Marco Road.
In doing that, one of the many things we did do after
the public meetings was try to provide a representation in urban
design framework for some of these proposed changes that could occur
on Marco Island that would benefit in terms of the traffic issues on
Marco. There was a design charrette and a marsh the beginning of
April where some of these designs were graphically represented. And
part of that design was a series of strategically placed roundabouts
on Marco Island.
As we look to begin a demonstration project for one of
the first roundabouts in the county, we looked at the intersection of
Bald Eagle and Elkcam which appears in this location. (Indicating)
It is kind of difficult to see some of these maps. This intersection
was chosen for a couple of reasons. One is because of the post office
located on Elkcam Drive. There is a lot of traffic coming to and from
the post office, so there are a lot of left-turn movements from Elkcam
onto Bald Eagle and from Bald Eagle onto Elkcam.
The second reason is because of the traffic accident
rate. There were 13 accidents at this location, which in looking at
one of the warrants for a traffic signal, 5 is actually the number
that would be one of the warrants for a traffic signal in one of the
criteria. In fact, a traffic signal is also planned for the '95, '96
budget year. For those reasons this intersection was chosen.
In reviewing whether a traffic signal or roundabout
should be placed at this location, we considered a number of things.
One of the problems is the capacity of the intersection is increased
by the use of a roundabout. The traffic moves continuously but at
slower speeds. Left turns occur more efficiently and easily but again
at slower speeds. Roundabouts are generally safer because you're not
dealing with head-on collisions, broadside collisions. You're dealing
with the collisions that may occur on an angle and again at a much
slower speed. Also, in addition, in roundabouts there are no annual
maintenance fees, whereas, in traffic signals they cost approximately
$3,000 per year to maintain. Of course, the aesthetics of the traffic
roundabout would be greatly enhanced than a traffic signal at this
location.
It should be noted that the roundabout will slow
traffic on Bald Eagle Drive, but this is part of the intent of the
roundabout. It is part of the traffic calming. It is, as you said,
better than a traffic signal. But recognizing that there is no
traffic signal there today, we're comparing it with something that
doesn't exist. There would be more delays with a traffic signal at
this location.
Roundabouts, modern roundabouts, are very different
than a traffic circle. Traffic circles have a wider geometry; the
design of the traffic circle is different; there's usually six -- four
to six side streets coming into a traffic circle; and the speeds are
much higher.
The recommendation for the roundabout on Marco follows
this geometry (indicating). Again you can see that we have planned
for pedestrian movements to occur on the crosswalks. We've placed
medians in the side streets, and that is to allow a crossing point and
a safe spot for the pedestrians as they cross. So this roundabout is
not similar to a traffic signal. The vision planning committee has
supported this recommendation for a roundabout at this location. They
have written you a letter, and that is found as attachment I in your
backup.
The cost of a traffic roundabout at this location as
compared to a traffic signal, the traffic signal would cost
approximately $50,000, and also $50,000 is estimated for turn lane
improvements, and also $3,000 a year to maintain. We're requesting
$100,000 in the budget code identified in your executive summary for
the construction of a roundabout. The beautification committee on
Marco Island has also agreed to assist and coordinate in the
beautification of the center of the roundabout as well.
In conclusion, there are three alternatives that can be
done at this intersection to improve traffic. One is the traffic
signal; two is the roundabout. And as part of that request, if you
were to move fairly quickly on it and to do it before the season,
because we don't want to actually put something like this that's new
in during the season -- in order to do that, you would need to do
several other things; one is to waive the RFP policy. And we've
suggested a particular engineer for the project who has expertise in
roundabout design.
The third option, basically, is to delay any
improvement and get more public input on whether a traffic signal as
opposed to a roundabout would be something that the island desires.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer
them. George Archibald is here to answer any engineering questions,
and I know the chairman of the Vision Planning Committee would like to
speak to you as well as some other members of the Vision Planning
Committee.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioner
Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I glean the information
correctly from the executive summary, it's anticipated that we would
be doing a traffic signal at this intersection anyway.
MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: And the cost of traffic signal
versus the construction of roundabout is approximately the same in the
long haul. Is that a fair assessment?
MS. CACCHIONE: In fact, the traffic signal may be a
little more with the annual maintenance cost.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Just a quick comment and
then I'll -- the discussion will continue. We've been talking about
roundabout pros and cons for some time now. And in looking at this
plan, that location appears to be ideal. It's got two of the busiest
roads on Marco Island. It seems to be a perfect test area. And if
we're going to approve or disapprove roundabouts in Collier County, I
like this as being a test area. With that, I'll give to my
colleagues, but I'm very favorable about this. I think it looks good.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the point has been
made. I don't have to say it again.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I just have one little question
-- a comment to -- there's been some criticism about roundabouts. I
think probably people are concerned that it will end up like traffic
circles up in Boston which are not good. The concern is we may put
this in and at some point in time have to take it back out.
I think from what I have learned about roundabouts over
the last year I am certainly willing to take that risk. I think the
risk is fairly small. I think personally we are going to be pleased
with this. My other question is if we approve this and get the
process, are we going to beat the city of Naples with a roundabout?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's do it.
MS. CACCHIONE: I don't know the city's schedule, but I
know the city council has approved two roundabouts on 7th.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ms. Cacchione, you said that
the president of the vision committee wanted to speak with us.
MS. CACCHIONE: I think that there are several
registered speakers. Mr. Harold Vann is the chairman of that
committee.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, registered
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: I have Mr. Vann, and then we have Dr.
Biles. We have several people.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: While Mr. Vann is coming up, if
I may, Madam Chairman -- did you say Barbara -- did I understand you
correctly that there's going to be a public/private partnership in the
landscaping?
MS. CACCHIONE: The Marco Island beautification
committee will assist in the landscaping.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it could very well become a
focal point for the south end.
MS. CACCHIONE: Well, we hope so. We think that is
very important, the aesthetics in terms of public acceptance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would ask the speakers who
are coming to speak to us that based on what I have heard, that we're
fairly well convinced. If you want to speak against it, convince us
-- not for it.
MR. VANN: I'll make my comments very brief. For the
record my name is Harold Vann. I am chairman of the Marco Island
Vision Planning Committee. I'm here, as you know, to request that the
commission approve and fund a roundabout for the intersection of Bald
Eagle Drive and Elkcam Circle on Marco Island on a schedule that will
have this in operation by November.
I'd like to take this opportunity to express my
appreciation for the opportunity to discuss this program with you
folks in detail last week. I will not repeat that type of
conversation. I have read the staff report. I think it's thorough; I
think it's fair; I think it's objective. I would like to make a few
comments on one part of that report, and that's really the alternates
that are available.
As listed there as alternate 1 we could put in a
traffic circle. I'll cut that discussion short. I don't think it
will work. I think that will back up the traffic and create a worse
situation than we currently have. Alternate number 3 is to authorize
the improvements to the intersection to seek public consensus on what
needs to be done and wait a year to get this project started. I don't
think we have a year. We're 25 years late in planning Marco already,
and another certainly won't help that situation. I believe that we
have public consensus.
Barbara gave you some idea of the meetings. We have
had many. But the most impressive meeting that I attended was the
last day of the roundabout where we had about two hundred people on
this island, and the roundabout was one of the key topics of
discussion. We had standing applause. That's my first experience
with such a meeting on Marco Island. I think, really -- first, the
public has been informed. I think we have a broad base public
support. I think we've done a lot of talking. I think we've done a
lot of listening. I think it's time we did something.
Now this roundabout prototype, if it performs as we
expect it will, we plan to use several more as you can see from these
maps (Indicating) to help us out in our road planning. If it doesn't,
we're going to have no choice except to expand roads where there is no
provision for expanding or just suffer with the traffic problem as we
approach build-out. We need to have an answer by November so that we
can continue with our planning on an orderly basis. The delay of a
year I think would kill the entire momentum that we have built up in
this project through the news media, through our discussions, with
others.
Now, this leads me to a strong recommendation of
alternate number 2. And that's, basically, let's authorize the
installation of a roundabout at this intersection. Let's waive the
RFP policy. We know who the people are that should do this. Let's
approve the Reed Jarvi contract to proceed with the design. Let's bid
the project. Let's set the schedule for November. Now if we do this
and have this in operation in November, we'll have made two
demonstrations. We'll learn very early whether this concept is going
to work or not. And I think that is important not only to Marco, but
to other places.
But I think this will also demonstrate to the residents
of Marco Island that this planning process is for real, not only talk.
And I think it will demonstrate that the residents of Marco can work
jointly with the staff to get needed things done when they need to be
done on a timely basis. I'm not sure which one of these
demonstrations is more important to the success of our program.
Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Vann.
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Biles and then Mr. Meyer.
DR. BILES: Ray Biles. I'm president of the Marco
Island Taxpayers Association. And today, even though I'm a member of
the Visions Planning Committee for Marco Island, I'm going to speak on
behalf of HITA. Usually HITA is here to ask you to stop spending
taxpayers money, and today it's kind of nice because we'd like to ask
you to approve the roundabout because HITA feels it is a good, safe
investment for Marco Island. You've heard about the speed on 92. The
traffic on the corner of the intersection of Bald Eagle and Elkcam
Circle presents probably one of our worse traffic problems on the
island, as you have heard. Traffic backs up, tempers flair, speed --
they speed up to avoid the buildup, and as a result we've had 13
accidents last year.
We studied the facts, figures, and impact of
roundabouts in Europe and other countries and in Florida. By the way,
there are many good ones in Florida. It is not a traffic circle. It
is a small roundabout circle which is entirely different. We know
that the facts show us that it reduces accidents 50 to 90 percent.
And we know that if a traffic signal goes in there, there is another
traffic signal right at Collier. So I can envision this backup all
the way up and down Bald Eagle Drive.
True, people must be educated how to use roundabouts.
If anybody can be educated, I think it is the people on Marco Island
and our tourists. And we do plan to do an educational program along
those lines. So to keep traffic moving at a slower rate, we think it
will calm traffic, we think it will cut down accidents, and there is
nothing that we can see that deters the advantage of having a
roundabout. And we'd like to see it be the first one in Collier
County to show that we'll take the risk, and we'll do it. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Meyer and Mr. Haynes.
MR. MEYER: At the suggestion of the Chairman, I'll
decline to comment because I would speak favorably for that. And
since we don't have any controversy about it, I won't take up your
time.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Haynes and then Mr. Blanchard.
MR. HAYNES: Thank you. I am with the Vision Planning
Committee also. One of my prime functions over the last year has been
to coordinate the conducting of a couple of telephone surveys along
with Mr. Meyer here of the island residents. I would just speak to
you about the results of one of the questions that was asked during
those two surveys. We conducted a survey in August of '94 and one in
February of this last year. In August we reached 1,072 single-family
residents. In February we reached 898 people who are either single
family condo or timeshare. And the commission's consultant on
telephone surveys advised us that if we had contacted 500 or so, we'd
have a statistically valid sample.
In the February survey I think it is important to note
that of the 898 residents we contacted, 667 of them were homeowners.
Of those, 82 percent said the major problem we have on this island is
the ability of Marco Island's roads to handle traffic during the peak
season. Also, interestingly, the tenters -- there were 231 tenters
that were contacted in the survey. 78 percent of them said the same
thing. So the concern is not just residents, although, for example,
in the August survey we contacted 1,072 people, and 92 percent of
those were homeowners. They had the same feelings. So of all the
questions we asked, and there were about 15, the primary concern by
far was the ability of Marco Island's roads to handle traffic. And
this, we think, is a solution for that. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Blanchard will be your final speaker.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Blanchard.
MR. BLANCHARD: Good morning. Frank Blanchard for the
record. Since I am speaking on behalf of the support for this item, I
don't need to take any more of your time. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Perfect presentation, Frank.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, I have a question.
Early on in the discussion Mr. Vann had asked us to consider waiving
of the bid process and dispense with this in recognition of the time
being of the essence. Is that an appropriate thing to do today?
MR. CUYLER: This is for construction?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, that's the engineering
contract.
MR. CUYLER: The engineering contract. Yes, you can do
that. You need to find that there is an emergency. That can be a
timing and money emergency in terms of not getting into the season.
But, yes, you can do that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's my question. If our
goal is to accomplish this by November, to have it constructed and
operating, it seems to me that it is not really feasible to go through
the engineering contract and a construction contract and have it
accomplished.
Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a
motion that we find that in order to accomplish our goal by having
this in place by the season that we declare an emergency for the
status of hiring the engineer or letting the engineering contract and
that we approve alternative number 2. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second
to approve alternative number 2. Do we need a separate motion, Mr.
Cuyler, for the emergency, or can we incorporate it in?
MR. CUYLER: You can incorporate that in.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fine.
MR. DORRILL: One question. If staff says we don't
have to come back and need additional -- have we contemplated, Mr.
Archibald, enough in advance to know whether we are going to have to
get the surface water management permit for those changes? And is
there anything problematic about accomplishing this for these folks in
needing to get a surface water management permit and also create
additional retention areas as part of the traffic?
MR. ARCHIBALD: We're assuming that we are going to
request a waiver request to DEP and South Florida so we don't perceive
having to increase the imperviousness of the surrounding area to
require or justify a permit at this time, and also we feel that the
design contract that is considered within the county manager's
authority.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For the record, that was George
Archibald from the transportation division.
We have a motion and a second to authorize alternative
number 2 and to declare an emergency as far as the engineering
contract is concerned to get the design going.
discussion, all those if favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
If there is no further
Item #8A2
RESOLUTION 95-336 RE RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF HARRINGTON SOUND, UNIT
2 - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, this seems to be
a standard plat approval. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If it is, I'll make a motion that
we approve that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second
to approve the final plat of Harrington Sound, unit two. If there's
not any further discussion, all those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #SB1
RESOLUTION 95-337 RE LOWER SPEED LIHIT ON C.R. 951 BETWEEN U.S. 41
(TAMIAMI TRAIL) AND S.R. 84 (DAVIS BLVD.) FROM 55 HPH TO 45 HPH AND TO
ESTABLISH THE SPEED LIMIT WITHIN ANY DESIGNATED WORK ZONE AT 35 HPH FOR
THE DURATION OF THE 4-LAND CONSTRUCTION - ADOPTED; CONTINGENT UPON
SPEED LIMIT STUDY WHEN PROJECT COMPLETED
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is item 8 (B)(1).
This is the 951 speed limit. And, Mr. Constantine, you can take that
from the consent agenda.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just raised the question,
and I'm looking for an explanation from Mr. Archibald. It can be slow
and tedious driving out there, and I assume this is for safety
reasons, but I just need an explanation from you why we want to slow
it down further.
MR. ARCHIBALD: We're doing two things. Resolution 1 is
reducing the speed from 55 to 45 miles per hour, and the reason for
that is the design criteria of the new roadway. So we're doing it for
safety reasons under the construction phase. But when this roadway is
built by federal mandates, so to speak, the speed limit will be posted
at 45 until such time as a traffic analysis can be done and after that
traffic has been in place and the road has been completed. So we're
complying with some federal standards in reducing the speed from 55 to
45. In addition, within the work zone we were designating by
resolution a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. That work zone may vary
depending upon the activity.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me see if I understand.
Right now we have a two-lane, each lane -- the old 10-foot lane --
that's been okay at 55. But we make it four lanes at today's
standards, we are required to lower that 10 miles an hour? MR. ARCHIBALD: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, is that because
of the clearance zone requirements and the specific requirements that
the federal -- I don't know if it is the federal highway or -- are we
changing criteria in clearance zones or safety in this roadway?
MR. ARCHIBALD: No. The requirement for that is --
keeping in mind we are going from a rural section to a curved gutter
section, and the curb is what is the concern. The curb is what drives
a lower speed limit. So by design as a result of liability, we're
required by federal directive to reduce it to 45.
In the State of Florida there is a provision that
allows us to come back after the road has been in operation, do speed
studies and determine whether or not that speed can be raised.
there will be a period in time in which that 45 will be in place, and
depending upon the driver's speed out there and the results of that,
that speed may change, but only after a study has been done. And,
again, that provision is dictated by state law.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three questions. One, what
would the penalty be if we opted not to follow that and left it at 55?
MR. ARCHIBALD: The risk is probably millions and
millions of dollars.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Liability risk.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Liability risk, not in
grants or -- that's strictly a liability issue. Speed studies take
what kind of time once that project is completed?
MR. ARCHIBALD: There should be a period of
approximately 90 days for traffic speeds to stabilize in a corridor
after completion. So it could be done as early as 90 days after
completion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Final question. Why are we
doing this at this point as opposed to when the project -- when we are
actually opening those lanes?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, I think you hit the nail on the
head when you addressed the concerns of safety. Our contractor is
going to have people out there working in adjacent and within many
segments of the roadway. So what we are trying to do is get people
into the habit of driving that corridor a little slower and being
better prepared to stop.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a
motion to approve the item contingent upon actually following through
with those speed studies once the project -- posthaste once the
project has been completed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second
to approve the recommendation for the speed limits on 951 and to
direct staff to more forward with the speed limit studies once the
four-inning project is completed.
Do we have a second for that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If there is no further
discussion, all those in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Archibald, I have another question
for you. The board's office as well as ours has been the subject of a
number of concerns recently over a similar construction zone for
Airport Road, six-laning. I think it is pretty much common knowledge
that the sheriff is aggressively enforcing that 35-mile-per-hour-zone.
The question is this, though. The road is at substantial completion
in all six finished lanes of traffic. Is there at some point prior to
final completion -- can the 35 mile-per-hour-speed limit be lifted on
Airport Road because of the problems that we are seeing with
enforcement? People think it is finished, and they are going 55, and
they are being ticketed. Some of the tickets are as high as $200.
MR. ARCHIBALD: I think in the contract the provisions
for the six-laning of Airport Road -- it dictates that at substantial
completion that, in fact, the county can accept that and reimplement
the 45-mile-per-hour zone.
MR. DORRILL: It would be my recommendation that we do
that because of the problem that it's getting to.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are we at substantial
completion?
MR. DORRILL: I believe we are. I know we have been
given some additional tests to do with respect to the Poinciana
Elementary School. But I would recommend to you that we come back to
the normal posted limit as opposed to the construction limit. And we
will do that. I don't think we need a separate action for that. It
has been a real sore spot around town.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed.
MR. DORRILL: Thank you.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Does the board want to give
direction to that without taking formal action? I don't see any
reason if we are going to substantially complete the road and that is
when we normally do it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with Mr. Dorrill's
direction. I think the staff can do it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think so to. Thank you.
We have a request from the sheriff's office now
regarding a timecertain that he had asked for earlier. He asked if we
could hear this item on the D.R.I.L.L. Camp lease at 10 a.m. Is that
in accordance with the board? If you don't have any problem with
that, we will do that at 10 a.m.
Item #8C1
APPLICATION FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR A GRANT AS IT
PERTAINS TO RESTORING EVERGLADES CITY LAUNDRY BUILDING AS A PUBLIC
HISTORY MUSEUM - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is item 8(C)(1), Florida
Department of State project regarding the Everglades City laundry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, Ron, I think we
might save you some time here. This is requesting board approval for
a grant application for the Everglades laundry.
MR. JAMRO: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Chairman.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
to approve the application.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
discussion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
Hotion to approve, Hadam
Second.
We have a motion and a second
Chairman. Does this require any matching funds from the county?
MR. JAMRO: Yes, it does. And you have already
satisfied that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've already satisfied the
requirement?
MR. JAMRO: There is a request in our fiscal budget for
additional funds to fix the floor up. That is built into the match
but could be taken out at any time. I think my comment was that today
you're only approving the concept of the grant and that the numbers
will change, more than likely, and they can be increased or decreased.
Really, in August if we are successful, August of '96, we would see
you again for the final contracts when the grant is awarded hopefully.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Motion and a second to
approve the request. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being done, motion passes 5 to 0.
Okay. I was going to ask for
Somebody put on the brakes.
Discussion, Commissioner
Just one quick question, Madam
Item #BE1
RESOLUTION 95-338 RE ADDITION OF AN ANTI-FRATERNIZATION POLICY TO THE
PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is 8 (E)(1), a recommendation
to add an anti-fraternization policy to our personnel rules. Mr.
Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Leo Ochs, your administrative services administrator. The item
before you this morning for your consideration is a proposed policy
that would prohibit romantic associations between employees in certain
situations where one of those employees works in a supervisory
capacity relationship to the other. The basic intent of the policy is
to avoid or limit potential conflicts of interest or favoritism or the
creation of a hostile working condition in the workplace based upon
these types of associations.
Your policy draft establishes a procedure whereby one
of the affected employees may transfer to another comparable position
within the agency to avoid these types of associations once they
become known. And, finally, from a practical viewpoint I must point
out that the enforcement of this type of a policy may prove to be
somewhat problematic and certainly that each instance would have to be
addressed on a case-by-case basis. The policy that you have before
you is primarily a product of the board's labor attorney working in
conjunction with the human resources staff and the county attorney's
office. At this point I would be willing to answer any questions.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Questions, Commissioner
Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, I am reminded of a
new television show on NBC called News Radio. And the general manager
on there and one of his employees are dating, and they try very hard
to keep it covered up, and, of course, everyone knows they are. It
seems to me that we are dealing with adults here. At some point they
need to take some personal responsibility.
I don't think it is appropriate that we be laying out
the rules. I think -- you make the point on how difficult it would be
to enforce, but I can think of several circumstances -- I think the
idea of moving one of them by lottery according to their social
security number is bogus. Just, gosh, luck of the draw -- we are
going to have to ship you off into a different department. If we're
dealing with an administrative person somewhat at the top of their
department or their division, then that employee is likely going to
have expertise in that area, and it's going to be tough to move them
to a completely different division or department. So I'm not sure in
a practical sense how realistic that is.
More importantly, the purpose -- I understand the
purpose here, and I don't disagree with that. We don't want --
favoritism and personal relationships can sometimes breed favoritism.
Where do we draw the line? If there is a group of ladies that have
ladies' night out, or if a bunch of guys play on a softball league,
and the supervisor plays with two of his employees, and two nights a
week he is playing softball and stops and has a couple of beers
afterwards and pals around with them, well, that's a relationship over
and above work. You can become their best friend. I mean you can
take this to several degrees. Does he then show favoritism by hanging
out with his best friend, and maybe he likes that guy a little better?
There comes some point where the manager has to look and see whether
his management team is doing a job and whether they're showing
favoritism and make that judgment. If they are, obviously it needs to
be addressed. I don't think we can start legislating people's
personal lives. I think that is just ridiculous. We need to have
some responsibility among adults themselves.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree, Commissioner
Constantine, common sense should dictate. It should rule the roost,
so to speak. But that has not been proven to be effective. You know,
I don't think we are necessarily trying to legislate a person's
personal activity outside of the office. But the fact still remains
that we do have and have had a problem with relationships,
interdepartmental relationships that have affected just not the people
involved, but all others in the department. And although I agree that
enforceability can be a sticky situation, if we do not have a policy
in place that addresses this matter, when it rears its head again, we
have no defensible position to deal with it. I think we are leaving
ourselves vulnerable and open in that respect. I think we need within
our administrative policies to say this is discouraged. And if it is
occurring, then there are some actions that may be taken. It doesn't
mean that they have to be taken; it may be taken. And that's how I
read this. To the extent to which people go out and play softball
together, I read romantic associations into that that if they are
having romantic softball games, you know, then that is going to
qualify.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I could respond to that
very briefly. My point is that favoritism does not only come from
romantic associations. You can have a friendship built upon, and
favoritism could be shown there as well.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We had that problem also, I
think we saw. Yes, I put that on the county manager's shoulders,
likewise. But as far as a direct policy regarding dating, they should
have better sense than, you know, one working for the other. I think
we do need something on the books to say that it is discouraged, and
action can be taken if that is the case. For that reason I'm
supportive of the policy. As far as the procedures go, the idea of the
employees deciding which one leaves -- I'm not sure how all of that is
going to really work, and it may be the process that has to be worked
on. But I am favorable of the policy just because of the past
problems.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner MAc'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have some specific
questions about the policy itself. I see here that we have a
recommendation from staff instead of sometimes we get recommendations
that the board consider adopting. And in this case we have a
recommendation both from the human resource director and the
administrator of administrative services, a recommendation that the
board adopt. So I assume you meant what you said. You are -- this is
your proposal to us and not something you just want us to decide if we
think it is a good idea.
MR. OCHS: Again, it's our understanding that the board
wanted the opportunity to see this type of a policy. If the board
does decide to adopt the policy like this, this would be the
recommendation from staff as how we would like the procedures
established -- what types of association we're seeking to avoid or
restrict in this type of a setting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it is real important.
Again, sort of a problem that I have had with this area of county
government is I want to see it be proactive. So if what you're
telling me is Commissioner Mac'Kie wrote this report, and she said
something about a fraternization policy. So if you want one, here is a
proposal then I don't think you are doing your job. In my judgment,
it is your job to recommend to us should we or shouldn't we have a
fraternization policy, and if we should, is this really -- Is this the best practice, state of the art, this
social security number business? I mean, I don't know.
MR. DORRILL: It isn't and let me explain to you why.
The intent behind the policy that we are recommending is to be
preemptive and proactive. This sends a stronger signal, and it
pertains to our policy that is also being revised as it pertains to
sexual harassment. This is a presexual harassment type of policy.
We have developed it in strict adherence to the
recommendations that has been given to us by our labor attorney for no
other reason than public sector employees in particular have a long
case history of protection, of what I'll call association and
assembly. There's a whole series of case law that gives the public
sector employees civil rights to assembly and association with other
people whether it is political or in this case whether it is social.
And they have given us what they believe and that they have drafted at
our request to be the proper practical policy of this type that they
could find. They found no other readily available examples in the
public sector. Most of the examples that they have cited to us are all
in the private sector.
The focus on this is preemptive as it concerns what our
very clear intent to sexual harassment is, and they do point up to two
practical problems. The first one is going to be a management problem
that determines what constitutes romance, and it's similar, you know,
to the old adage about what is pornography. You know, is it going to
happy hour romance, or is it the first date or the second date. Then,
you know, we need to be very careful.
The other thing that they point especially to that is
going to be a problem for us, it says not only is it difficult to
determine what constitutes a romantic association, further making such
a determination may force your county management into a very difficult
position of having to monitor social relationships amongst its
employees. And I don't intend to do that for the practicality issues
that Mr. Constantine mentioned. I don't want us to have to become the
love police running around after hours determining and looking over
the shoulder of people who may come and work here in association and
who may fall in love. We have had any number of cases where people
met here, subsequently they were married, and we do not have nepotism
problems within this county for that reason. But there are some
practical problems to being proactive, and as long as you understand
those and as long as we have a legally defensible policy as it relates
to the preemptive aspect, then I think it's worth your considering it
and deciding if that is what you want to do.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate hearing that we do
have a staff recommendation here and that is that we recommend that
you approve that we need a fraternization policy.
And my other question is, in your discussions with the
labor attorney, is it his recommendation -- I assume it's a his --
that we need to have a fraternization policy?
MR. DORRILL: I don't think we asked them, and I'll ask
Mr. Cuyler to help me. There is like a six-page legal opinion with
all the case cites that adhere. I think it is up to us as an employer
to make the management recommendation and a policy decision, and then
it's their job to make it legally defensible as opposed to them
writing their rules and regulations.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My thought was it seems to me
while it is a whole lot more fun to point out what is silly about this
policy in its implementation -- and I think a lot of us have been
doing that. I mean the jokes are fun -- what we're talking about is a
liability defense from a legal perspective. And I wondered if this is
a policy that is recommended from the county attorney or from our
labor attorney as important to be able to defend ourselves in the case
of lawsuits against the county.
MR. CUYLER: From the county attorney's position I also
spoke to labor counsel and specifically asked for an opinion saying
this was legally defensible because I had some concerns. Neil has
described -- as a matter of fact, he is looking at the letter that I
received, I believe, and they indicated -- they can't tell us with
absolute certainty that it's defensible because there is really not
case law out there.
As you know, you get those types of opinions sometimes.
But they said to the best of their ability to advise us, that they
thought it was legally defensible. I think the reason that they don't
absolutely say do it, and they say what you say to a client a lot of
times is that it's your decision on whether you want to do it or not
and that there are some down sides in the enforcement of it. There
are some positives, and there are some negatives, and you really need
to weigh those as a client and decide. I don't think that they always
advise their public sector clients to do this. I think it's a tool
that's available to them if they want to take advantage of it with the
concerns that Neil noted for the record. Then you need to make your
informed decision based on what they're willing to tell you that it is
legally defensible.
MR. DORRILL: And I think the key here -- this is my
last comment on this -- this is not intended for us to become big
brother or to running around after hours monitoring the personal
activities of employees. The intent behind this is for that situation
where you have a management or a supervisory employee and their
relationship with a subordinate employee. This in no way affects
coworkers or colleagues who have similar positions or have a situation
between one division or another. This is to prevent, preempt the type
of problem in advance of what your intent is for sexual harassment as
it involves the management people and how they relate to others.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Commissioner
Mac'Kie. Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Whenever we deal with policy matters like this we always want to make
sure before we enact a solution that there is a problem involved with
the solution that we're going to enact. In this case I think it is
fairly clear that the potential for a problem certainly exists, and,
in fact, a problem has existed in the past in at least one instance.
So to go ahead now and provide ourselves a mechanism whereby we have a
tool, as the county manager said, to address these problems at some
point in time should a problem arise I think is prudent to have it in
our policy.
Whether or not that is aggressively enforced is
certainly another matter, as the county manager has also pointed out.
I think it is in the best interest of our personnel policy to at least
have the mechanism if a relationship that is involved in chain of
command, chain of supervisory command, becomes problematic that we do
have the mechanism in hand to address the problem before it starts
negatively affecting job performance throughout the division.
My final comment is that there has never been any
proven correlation between the two human conditions of common sense
and romantic involvement.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're probably absolutely
correct in that. Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Ochs, in here it says,
"An employee affected by this policy will be permitted to transfer to
another county position to the extent such a position exists." What
if no such position exists? Are they out of a job?
MR. OCHS: Well, we would either put them on furlough
pending position opening. That would be how we would typically handle
that situation. Based on our turnover rates, historically in the 10
to 12 percent range, I find it from a practical standpoint to think
that we would not be able to find an existing vacancy that would
provide a comparable level of compensation and work responsibility for
almost any position in the county. Obviously, the higher up you go
the more difficult that becomes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is possible, though. So
it's possible that if someone is dating, they fall in love with
somebody, and because of that they're going to be furloughed and at
least temporarily out of a job?
MR. OCHS: It's certainly possible.
MR. DORRILL: It's certainly possible, and that is why
in order to effectuate this policy it is going to require a lot of
management involvement without becoming overburdening to people with
personal lives, which is not my intent, as I have stated.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't disagree at all that
we need a policy to deal with sexual harassment issues. We've had
that discussion prior to today. But when we start tinkering in
people's personal lives, I think you go step a beyond. Again,
Commissioner Norris, you're absolutely right. When people fall in
love they do silly things from time to time.
Mr. Dotrill, how many employees do you oversee?
MR. DORRILL: Eleven hundred.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how many problems have
we had with this?
MR. DORRILL: Very few.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The comment you made earlier
was interesting. You said we actually have had some people who have
had -- my words -- healthy relationships. They've ended up in
marriage.
MR. DORRILL: I would like to think we are the kind of
employer that if that happens, we don't have a problem with it. I bet
we have a dozen people who are married to one another, and both work
for the Board of County Commissioners. And I'd be willing to say that
half of them met one another while they were employed here.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I would hate to think
that we would have prohibited those people from meeting their
life-long mate by having a policy. There are problems related --
there have been apparently on occasion problems related to romance.
Commissioner Hancock, you pointed that out. You also pointed out there
have been problems through friendships that are not romantic. So this
in effect addresses only part of it. Apparently, favoritism is okay
if it is not romance related is what we are saying. I don't think
that's our intent.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We already have a policy about
favoritism.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we have a policy with
favoritism, and we set a policy for sexual harassment, then this
becomes moot, in my opinion. Again, it appears that four of you are
in favor of this. But I think we're tinkering where some adults need
to take personal responsibility.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With all due respect, we can sit
here and poke holes at this. But the truth is if you are an employee
of this county, and you get involved with your boss, that shows poor
discretion. If you are a supervisor in this county, and you get
involved with one of your employees, that shows poor discretion. And
if you are going to exercise that kind of poor discretion, maybe your
job needs to be in jeopardy. I don't want to encourage people to make
the wrong decision. I think we need a policy in place that if they
make those decisions, they know the repercussions when they make them.
This is all I see this doing, and, you know, we have probably talked
about this twice as long as we need to.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got two comments that I
would like to make. Mr. Dotrill, this is essentially nothing more
than an extension of the current nepotism rules between married
couples. You're extending it into a romantic relationship as opposed
to marriage?
MR. DORRILL: That's essentially correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's essentially correct.
But that's what I read as I went through it is that if we have a
couple who are serious about one another and involved, they should not
be in a supervisory relationship with one another they just shouldn't
be.
MR. DORRILL: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How is romance defined in
this thing?
MR. DORRILL: It's not.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is one date serious?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. But that's his decision,
and I don't want to be sitting here arguing whether one date is
serious or not. We're talking about a romantic involvement, whatever
that is.
MR. OCHS: The other objective that may be accomplished
as noted earlier was that through our new employee orientation process
we will obviously -- as part of our employee handbook -- point out
this policy as well as others including our standard of conduct and
other high-profile policies to new employees so that they have
advanced knowledge coming in the door that this is the policy of the
board, and they can at least, if nothing else, keep that in
consideration as they work through their career with the county.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I believe that's what
Commissioner Hancock has suggested, that we have it on the book as a
policy if our employees choose to become involved. They know what the
repercussions might be.
MR. DORRILL: The intent is to be both preventative,
proactive -- you choose the word -- and to leave little doubt that the
managerial or supervisory level -- what our expectations of them are
with respect to their personal involvement with people who may work
for them.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: My last comment deals with
procedure E, and this is more a legal question, Mr. Cuyler. Using the
last three digits of their social security number to make a
determination as to who gets transferred to me is not necessarily in
the best interest of the county. And is it legally defensible, again,
that we just have this clause say should the two people involved not
be able to resolve who get's transferred, the county will transfer the
person who has the least effect on the operations of the county?
MR. CUYLER: Let me say two things. First of all, my
understanding is the county is unaware of any situations such as this
right now. So we're not going into this with the understanding
anybody is going to move. I think it is a little different if the
relationship starts after the policy is in effect. And you know what
is going to happen, and you know how the action is going to be taken.
If you would like, you can make your motion -- if you're going approve
this, make your motion subject to approval with the alternative that
if legally defensible, then the parties have the ability to first come
to some accommodation as to who is going to be transferred. I am
going to need to clear that with labor counsel.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand.
MR. DORRILL: If it's legally defensible, we can put
that in if that is your desire. If it's not, we need to leave it like
this because this keeps you from being arbitrary and capricious in
your decision as to who moves.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that, but
Commissioner Constantine's comment is really well taken that we may
through the roll of the dice wind up moving a very well-meaning and
good administrator out of his expertise field into some other field
for which he has no expertise, and we wind up loosing him.
MR. DORRILL: It would be my strong recommendation that
you adhere to the policy, as mechanical as it may appear, at that
point because what is going to happen is that you're going to have a
female subordinate employee with a male supervisor and that someone is
going to determine that he is more important to that organization than
she is, then she is going to have a valid claim of action against this
county for indiscriminate -- discrimination, having singled her out
because of some perceived importance between the two. And then we've
created a huge problem.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Even though we've gone through
the 30-day period where they get to decide amongst themselves, we may
still --
MR. DORRILL: That is a major point. And as mechanical
as it seems at that point, that is what is being recommended under the
circumstances.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand what you are
saying.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We just can't tolerate love
in this organization.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I don't think that is
quite true.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Particularly on this board.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, are there public
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, Ha'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There are none. Is there a
motion?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hove for approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second
to approve the anti-fraternization policy as presented. If there is no
recommendation to make any changes -- no further discussion, all those
in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes 4 to 1, Commissioner Constantine being in
the opposition. Thank you, Mr. Ochs.
Item #11A
RESOLTUION 95-339 RE GROUND LEASE D.R.I.L.L. CAMP (SHERIFF'S OFFICE) -
ADOPTED
It's ten o'clock. We are going to be moving to item 11
(A), the D.R.I.L.L. Camp lease. Mr. Storrar.
MR. STORRAR: My name is Tom Storrar representing
Sheriff Don Hunter. And we appear before you this morning to
recommend the board's approval and for the board to enter into a lease
agreement with the State of Florida that will provide a site for the
Collier County Drill Academy.
Just a quick refresher, the Collier County commission
has approved the juvenile D.R.I.L.L. Academy, which is a 32-bed
facility be constructed in Collier County. The commission has funded
the academy in the amount of 400,000. The state has committed 1.17
million towards the facility construction. The selected site for the
academy is the Immokalee jail center. The State of Florida will fund
and construct the facility on land leased to the State of Florida. And
I believe the county attorney has passed out a copy of the lease
preparing for you today, like I said, to ask that you enter into that
lease agreement with the State of Florida.
We had numerous conversations with the county
attorney's office, and I think their staff is present to answer
questions that you may have reference to that lease.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Questions,
Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Please don't read me wrong
on this or anything. I just want to move ahead with this project, but
I need you to help me a little bit here. I need you to boost me up a
little. One of the projects that was heralded when we talked about
this a year ago or more was the Hanatee County project. They have
since had some questions raised at their facilities and recidivism --
can't say that word quite easily -- rate has been -- has now come
down. I know initially it was very good. It has now come down and is
very similar to the youngsters who do not go through the program. Just
help me a little bit here with how ours will differ, how ours will
shoot out and so on.
MR. STORRAR: First of all, Commissioner Constantine,
that report -- there's a lot of debate going on in that report. And I
have a representative here with me in the chambers from the Department
of Justice from Fort Myers that may be more familiar than I. But what
my familiarity is with that report -- there was a lot of controversy
and still remains some controversy as to how that recidivism rate was
derived by the person who did it.
I think if you look at the Hanatee experience, which we
have studied that, and they basically take a candidate into the
program for three to six months. He is in their facility. And he
then goes into an aftercare program that they do not have control of.
The marine institute has control of the aftercare.
Once they leave boot camp basically they are monitored
by the marine institute. What makes this program so much different
and we think unique, is we that are going to control the aftercare.
We're going to contract with the state. They are still going to be
under our care and control, and we're going to monitor them on a daily
basis. While their program may be 6 months in length, ours is going
to be 12 months in length and is going to be supervised by law
enforcement and deputies that are trained in that with constant
monitoring just as much as we need.
Our ratio of candidates to counselors is going to be
basically in the aftercare component about a one to five ratio which
means one counselor is going to monitor five academy candidates out
there in the workplace. We're going to see that they're on the job.
If they need help, we're going to get it. If they need equipment,
we're going to get it. Basically, we are going to give them a lot
more attention than the Hanatee experience has provided.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mine was just a simple question,
but I don't know who is here from the county that can answer it
because nobody is over there.
We had a problem with the dollar not getting paid or
whatever it was on a lease on some other facilities. I just wanted to
know if somebody -- if the notice in this lease is provided to real
property to bid in the department, if that is the one who doesn't make
mistakes.
MR. CUYLER: They are the one who is the designated
representative and --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they're not the one that
messed up before?
MR. CUYLER: Correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They're not the one who messed
up before. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No questions.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I have a couple of items
if there are no questions for the board.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We'll hear from Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Ms. Ashton handed out a memo to you which
you may or may not have seen. It went out yesterday. There were a
couple of things we both wanted to make you aware of. They're not
necessarily things that are going to prohibit the lease, but we did
want to make you aware of them. One of them is that the lease
provides that at the termination of the lease the property is going to
remain with the state, not the land, but the fixtures -- normally
would take the fixtures at the end of a lease. In this case it stays
with the State of Florida; correct?
The other is the lease term is for 50 years with a
nominal rent. You also have your contribution of $400,000 towards the
construction of the building. With regard to indemnification there is
not currently an indemnification. We've had some discussions with the
state, and as a matter of fact, they have a representative in Mr.
Storrar and a representative and him in my office discussed this
morning that we need to have an indemnification that we went around
and around on for a few months. That has not been approved by the
state, and we recommend that that be in there and that they be given
an opportunity to approve that.
Another item is that the lease will be null and void if
the annual appropriations is not made by the state for the juvenile
justice facility. That is not uncommon for the state to sit on. And
the only other thing is that we want to make sure at some point --
just talking with Mr. Bryant -- we need to make sure at some point
there is the appropriate insurance. My understanding is the lease is
going to be the only document that the county enters into. The
agreement will then be between the sheriff and the state. We just
need to make sure that in that agreement that there is sufficient
coverage so we don't have to take out additional liability insurance,
although we may include it anyway in our liability insurance. So if
you could just make that a condition of your approval, I don't think
Mr. Storrar would have any problem with that.
MR. STORRAR: No, we don't have any problem with that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: These are the three items that
are laid out in Ms. Ashton's memorandum?
MR. CUYLER: Correct. Those are the three items, and
the only one that is not on there is that lease will be null and void
if there's not a state appropriation. But, again, that is a fairly
common item. You just need to be aware of that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are there other questions? Is
there a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I make a motion
to approve, based on the county attorney's recommendations, the three
stipulations contained in the memo from Ms. Ashton in addition to the
language that Mr. Cuyler has proposed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion? Being none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
Thank you, Mr. Storrar.
Item #SG1
MODIFICATIONS, AGREED TO BY THE FDEP AND THE HANATEE COHMITTEE, TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY HANATEE PROTECTION PLAN - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda -- we'll move back to our
regular order. Item 8(G)(1), the manatee protection plan is before us
again. Mr. Lorenz.
MR. LORENZ: Thank you. Our staff member, Kevin Dugan,
will present the presentation. I believe we have some maps, too, that
we need to put them up.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: While they are doing that, Bill,
it would have been very useful to have had some maps in the packet
because it is really hard to visualize some of these speed zones
between marker so and so and one marker or another. I feel unprepared,
frankly, to make a decision unless we can get some more information
today than we got in our packets.
MR. LORENZ: Those are good comments. Some of the maps
are on such a small scale that it is difficult to --
MR. DORRILL: We struggled with that. And, frankly,
the best maps that I saw were prepared by the graphic section of the
Daily News. They ran a whole page, and by the time we reproduced,
them they were of very poor quality.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And they're accurate? If you
will tell me they were right, then I'll --
MR. DORRILL: I wouldn't want to say that.
MR. DUGAN: For the record, my name is Kevin Dugan.
You know, I would like to clarify something that -- the speed zones
that are being presented were presented by the state, you know,
enacted these by rule. And what we're recommending is that we support
the rule for the manatee protection plan.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In other words, I could like or
dislike the speed zones, but the state is going to adopt them?
MR. DUGAN: Basically, that is about it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. DUGAN: We could go through the speed zones first.
Again --
MR. DORRILL: Before you do, I'd actually like for you
to use the handheld mike and, frankly, to start up from Bonita Shores
and Little Hickory and then walk up south.
MR. DUGAN: Okay. I've got these set up so we can
start at the north end of the county and work our way down. I
apologize for the black and white. The color one showed up a little
bit too late. What we have up here -- this is little Hickory Bay.
(Indicating) This is the Lee/Collier line here. And, again, what
we're going to go through are the state recommended speed zones. What
these are going to be will be slow speed and 30 miles an hour within
the channel. What we currently have right now is 30 miles an hour in
a marked channel, 20 miles an hour outside of a marked channel.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we are talking about
increases? As part of our manatee protection plan, we're increasing
the speed limit in a portion of these --
MR. DUGAN: No. We're not increasing speed limits.
It's decreasing speed limits in most of these areas.
MR. DORRILL: The marked channel to be the marked
intercoastal waterway or specifically marked channels. And, quite
frankly, as you run up the back side of Lely Barefoot Beach, I'd ask
specifically, Kevin, is that considered a marked channel, or would
that be the slow speed. The slow speed is typically defined as
something less than 5 knots.
MR. DUGAN: That's right. This is not a marked
channel. You'll see as we flip through it. The marked channels have
squares and triangles. These are noted on, you know, navigation
charts as these marked channels.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Dugan, will you tell us what
the present is or what the proposed would do?
MR. DUGAN: Well, presently between Little Hickory Bay
and Wiggins Pass is 20 miles an hour right now. And, again, that comes
from the 30 miles an hour within the marked channel, 20 miles an hour
outside the channel. So since it is an unmarked channel, it's
considered to be 20 miles an hour.
Now, what the state is proposing is this top area of
Little Hickory Bay is going to be all slow speed. The wide area is
going to be 20 miles an hour. That will stay the same as it is right
now. At the top of the north end of Wiggins Bay, it's going to become
slow speed again and a slow speed all the way to Wiggins Pass. Now,
currently in Vanderbilt Lagoon we have an idle speed zone that goes
all the way from the south end all the way to Wiggins Pass. The state
is suggesting that if we have speed zones that are more restrictive
such as idle speed zones within seawalled areas of both basins, is
that we retain them. So the changes that the state is making here is
slow speed at the top (Indicating) the north end of Little Hickory
Bay, again starting at Wiggins Bay and moving up to just past the boat
basin -- the Wiggins Bay boat basin in the Cocohatchee River. The
rest of the way up the way of the Cocohatchee River is going to be 20
miles an hour as it is currently.
Moving south we have outer Clam Bay -- the Clam Bay
system that we're proposing at idle speed. That's already in the
manatee protection plan that was approved back in July. They're
showing Doctors Pass, which is within the city and is already
currently limited at idle speed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So no change there?
MR. DUGAN: No changes there. Then I've got the City
of Naples here upside down, Naples Bay. There's going to be no
changes in Naples Bay. Currently they have mixed -- we'll call them
mixed -- on weeks it's slow speed; during the week it is fast speed.
At the north of --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it's going to remain that
way.
MR. DUGAN: It's going to remain that way; that's
correct. The Gordon River, which is currently a mixed zone between
idle and regular speed, the state is proposing that we keep all that
as a slow speed. So that will be a change there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it's a reduction?
MR. DUGAN: And it is a reduction. Well, upon average
it is probably about the same because there was a stretch of idle
speed and then a stretch of regular speed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it is a blending.
MR. DUGAN: It's a blending. Beginning at Dollar Bay,
which is the marked intercoastal down to Marco Island, they're
proposing that within the channel it's 30 miles an hour. Outside the
channel it's going to be slow speed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And what is it presently?
MR. DUGAN: 30 miles in, 20 miles out.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why does that sound like an
increase to me within the channel 30, whereas presently it is 20?
MR. DUGAN: No, no, it's currently -- within marked
channels is currently 30 miles an hour. Outside of marked channels is
20.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the current.
MR. DUGAN: That's the current.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the proposed is --
MR. DUGAN: It's going to be 30 within the canal.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is the same.
MR. DUGAN: Which stays the same.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. DUGAN: And slow speed outside the channel, which
is a reduction of say about 15 miles an hour. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: That's the big change. For example, if
you were going south to Marco in the intercoastal, as long as you stay
in the intercoastal marked waterway, the speeds remain the same. If
you decide to turn up into Rookery Bay, if you know how to go up into
Rookery Bay -- when you get there off of the intercoastal waterways,
currently you can go 20 miles an hour up through there. You're no
longer going to be able to go 20 miles an hour once you get outside of
the marked channel anywhere within areas where there is marked
navigable channel.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. DUGAN: Proceeding south now we -- coming down the
backside of Keewaydin Island, again, this is the inland waterway.
Part of it was still 30 miles in the channel and slow speed outside of
the channel. Rookery Bay is going to remain at 20 miles an hour.
Henderson Creek is going to go from -- is going to be slowed down in
some portions slow speed, and some of the areas where it was idle
speed will be increased to slow speed.
Around Isle of Capri, again, with following the inland
waterway down still 30 miles in the channel, 20 miles outside of the
channel, Johnson's Bay and includes that area around Isle of Capri
also.
At Marco Island they're proposing -- we're going to
keep the existing idle speed zones that come in -- you know -- in
front of the seawalled areas, but, again, it's going to be 30 miles an
hour in the channel and slow speed outside the channel. That's going
to include areas -- Tarpon Bay. This is -- Flotilla Passage where the
boat ramp at 951 is. And it's going to include Addison Bay.
Then further down this wide area here (Indicating) is
going to stay as it is now. It is 30 miles an hour inside the channel
and 20 miles out.
And then on down at Goodland we pick up the existing
slow speed zone, idle speed zone, and then increasing. The current
idle speed ends here. (Indicating) They're proposing that we extend
it out -- it will be a couple of a hundred feet more.
At the south end of Marco Island, Caxambas Pass, this
is currently all idle speed. They are proposing the slow speed down a
little bit further south of that. And those are the changes -- speeds
on changes that the state has proposed.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Just looking at the proposed
zones, it's clear to me that one of the possibly greatest violators
will be jet ski and wave runner concessions that operate internally.
They're going to have to be instructing their people to stay in the
channel, because those things either go 1 knot or 30. I mean, no one
runs safe speeds on those. Do we have an information campaign to get
out to the concessionaires to tell them to advise the people to stay
in the channel if they are running anything other than at idle speed?
MR. DUGAN: Yes, we do. That was part of the
educational section of the plan. We're working with the Conservancy,
with Rookery Bay, and the Marine Trade Association to put together
pamphlets, and they are geared specifically for rental boaters, but
they will be available to the general public.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't see Duke Turner here,
but what is -- has his input been positive?
MR. DUGAN: Oh, yes. This is all -- you know -- we
have that committee that you had appointed. And we have, you know,
sat through several meetings with the State, DEP, and this is what
they have agreed to.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Everyone is in agreement?
MR. DUGAN: Right. We've got two members of the
committee here today; Lee Lyon, who is president of the Marine Trade
Association, and also Patrick Neale who's on that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are there questions? Mr.
Dotrill, are there other speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Only two.
MR. DUGAN: Excuse me. There was still one other
change to the plan, and that was in the marina siting criteria. The
state wanted us to include a manatee component to that, and what they
have suggested was using watercraft-related manatee mortalities within
a 5-mile area. And if -- that means as if 20 percent or more of the
watercraft-related mortalities happen within an area, that in the
criteria they would be bumped down one. We said that was okay.
And they also included a mitigation segment with that
that said if there was a speed zone in place, that would nullify that
criteria. So we felt that was reasonable, and we have or we are
requesting addition of that to the plan.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that 20 percent of the
mortality countywide that occurs within that?
MR. DUGAN: Yes. But it is only those manatees that
have been killed by watercraft. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- I'm sure I am being slow
about this, but on the bottom of page 3 on the plan there is an
underlined section which I assume means a change. This is the inland
waterway from marker 73 to marker 52 including Dollar Bay which will
be regulated at 30 miles per hour in the channel and slow speed
outside of the marked channel. What is the current status of that
section?
MR. DUGAN: Okay. Right now it's 30 miles an hour in
the channel --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. DUGAN: -- and 20 miles an hour outside the
channel.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the difference between
slow speed and 20 miles an hour?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: About 15 miles an hour. Yes.
Slow speed is generally 5 knots or less. You can push ahead, but only
about 5 knots is --
MR. DORRILL: We went through this learning curve as
part of the Naples Bay safety, and there's a difference between no
wake, slow speed, and then regulated miles per hour.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I got a lot of calls,
frankly, on this section where the people who called me anyway were
concerned that we were increasing outside the channel. So I just want
to --
MR. DORRILL: I don't believe we're increasing in any
instance outside of the channel.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For the benefit of us
nonboaters, what speed is nowake?
MR. DUGAN: Idle speed is nowake.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does that help?
MR. DUGAN: But we're using the state definitions.
Idle speed is fairly straightforward. It's enough to maintain
steerage with -- you know, without creating a wake.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nowake is tougher to enforce
because there are some vessels that nowake is near impossible, some
fishing trawlers at idle.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They are so big.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. So the slow speed is a
much easier and perceptible enforcement.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Idle, nowake, wake, and slow are
all the same?
MR. DUGAN: Close enough.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Slow is slightly faster than
MR. DUGAN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It doesn't matter. We're using
slow. Let's focus on that one.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have speakers. We have a
motion and a second on the floor, though, for those speakers who will
be coming forward. Mr. Dotrill, do you want to call the speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, Ha'am. Mr. Lyon. Following him I
have Ms. Ramsey. If you would stand by, please.
MR. LYON: Yes. I'm Lee Lyon, current president for
Marine Industry Association. I'm speaking on behalf of the committee
that was set up here by the commission and everything else. After
several trips back and forth to Tallahassee, with them coming down and
us going up there, I believe you will find that we are in total
agreement with the program as Kevin has presented it. The Federation
of Wildlife, Fran Stallings, wasn't able to be here today, but he gave
his blessing to it. The Conservancy -- we had people from Everglades
City. Everyone is in total agreement with this, and we feel that we
have finally come together with a plan that we can all live with.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Lyons. We
appreciate all the effort that your committee has put into this. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Ramsey and then Mr. Neale.
MS. RAMSEY: My name is Christine Ramsey, and I'm
representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. Dr. Fran Stallings
served on the manatee planning committee but was unable to be here, so
idle.
I would like to read into the record his comments on the revised plan.
"Please be advised that I am pleased to support the proposed manatee
protection plan as submitted to you by staff. I offer this support
both as a member of the committee that you appointed to formulate a
recommendation on this issue and in behalf of the Florida Wildlife
Federation.
It is our position that this plan will improve
protection for the manatee and at the same time recognize legitimate
and prudent use of our waterways by recreational and commercial
boating interests. I find it very gratifying that this committee was
able to meet and conduct business in a positive and constructive
manner, and they we were able to come back to you with a
recommendation that we could all support. Thank you for the
opportunity to serve on this committee both personally and in behalf
of the Florida Wildlife Federation. Sincerely, Fran Stallings."
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: And Mr. Neale.
MR. NEALE: Yeah. For the record I am Pat Neale, and I
was pleased to be able to serve on the committee. I would just like
to reiterate what Mr. Lyons and Mr. Stallings had said -- or Dr.
Stallings had said. We came up with what we feel is a really
excellent plan that serves all the interests as well as could be
served. And so we would like to recommend that you approve the plan
as we submitted it to you.
We appear to have also reached agreement with the state
that they will accept it also. So that's an important factor. We
have Mr. Furlich (phonetic) down three times, I think, to discuss this
with him in loud voices sometimes. But we had some substantial
discussions with Mr. Furlich to get this on its way. So we thank you
for having us intervene for you. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Is that the last
speaker?
We have a motion and a second. Is there further
discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All in favor,
please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
Why don't we take a break until 10 minutes of.
(A recess was held from 10:35 a.m. To 11:03 a.m.)
Item #SH1 - Continued
Item #8H2
RESOLUTION 95-340 ALLOCATE $10,000.00 OF TOURIST DEVELOPHENT TAX
REVENUES FOR A PARADE HONORING AND COHMEHORATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE SIGNING OF DOCUMENTS ENDING WORLD WAR II AROUND THE WORLD -
ADOPTED SUBJECT TO COUNTY HANAGER'S RECOHMENDATION AND LETTER OF
AGREEMENT TO BE EXECUTED BY COUNTY MANAGER
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County
Commission meeting for Hay the 23rd.
We have with the equipment that is set up before us --
there is a question whether we want to hear the Intellinet proposal
before the September 2nd parade. And I guess it's a question for the
board whether we want to hear it first and disassemble the equipment
immediately afterwards.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, if I may--, the
funds for the parade I think is a fairly straightforward item and
shouldn't take very long. So maybe we can go straight through both of
them.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fine. Let's take it in order
then. Next item on the agenda is item 8 (H)(2), an allocation of
$10,000 for a tourist development tax revenue for the parade in
September. Ms. Gansel.
MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners. Jean Gansel
from the budget office. Mr. Luntz from the county's veterans services
office has made a presentation to the TDC requesting funds to bring
the 82nd Airborne to Naples for September 2nd for a parade
commemorating the end of World War II. The TDC unanimously approved
this application.
I do want to point out that there are two items in the
application that do not comply with the guidelines. There is not a
contracting organization. Mr. Luntz has taken on this job of
coordinating the parade, so there isn't an organization per se. Also,
what would happen in this case is he is requesting that the tourist
development tax pay for housing and transportation for the 82nd
Airborne. The county would directly pay for the housing and bus
company in this case. Also, there is no cash match. There are many
organizations that are providing in-kind servicing in support of this
organization and in support of this parade. And we have identified
them. Essentially about $5,700 has been identified so far, but more
organizations have requested participation and will -- I think that
number will probably exceed 5,700 in-kind services.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is nothing I would
like better to do than find a way to do this and make this happen.
However, I do have a couple of concerns. You've stated and in our
summary it says two elements do not comply with category C guidelines.
While I want to make this happen, Mr. Cuyler, I need you to help me
here. The only thing I guess I want more is to make sure we do it
legally.
A couple of questions, if we are not dealing with a
nonprofit organization, let me try to draw a parallel. We do the --
we have given money for the last three or four years to the pro
bowlers' tour when they come to town. That is, however, for
advertising and for whatever it is for. But it meets the guidelines.
If we were to give them money to house the pro bowlers and their wives
when they came to town directly and pay that hotel bill directly, does
that meet our guidelines? And I'm just trying to draw a parallel
here. We're bringing these people and just paying the money to pay
their hotel bills. I don't know if that is legal. If it is, great,
tell me that.
MR. CUYLER: In this case the reason that you contract
-- that you have a contracting entity is to handle the project and to
make the expenditures which are then reimbursed through the county
funds. In this particular case if you find that the project itself is
worthy of the tourist tax funds, then I think what Mr. Luntz has said,
that he doesn't need to have an entity make the disbursement if the
county will be making the disbursement directly. So the money never
goes to a third party. I really don't see the necessity under those
circumstances of having a contract.
With regard to the other item -- and I guess this is
probably more general both for this item and for the next item as
well. And that is, again, the guidelines are something that you have
adopted. And what I would propose both for this item and in case
you're inclined on the next item, I'm going to make the same
recommendation. That is to pass a resolution saying that we find that
this is an appropriate event, that it's within the scope of the
statute. It's within the scope of the ordinance and at least
substantively in compliance with the guidelines, and to the extent
that it's not -- if it is not in anyway, that you're approving it
pursuant to that resolution. And you do have the ability to do that
because we're not talking about a state mandate or ordinance mandate
at this point. You're talking about guidelines that have been approved
by you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In your opinion, does this
meet the guidelines that we have set up?
MR. CUYLER: It does in terms of the contracting
matter. In terms of the match, I guess it doesn't. It does not in
terms of the match.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's my concern. Again, I
want to find a way to make this happen, but I want to do that legally,
and I want to do that under our guidelines. When we start bending and
twisting the rules a little, anytime you start getting into the gray
area, you can find yourselves a month from now, a week from now, a
year from now, getting deeper and deeper into the gray. And I think
we need to struggle as a board, particularly for the public's
confidence, to keep this as black and white.
If there are guidelines we need to maintain those
guidelines. If we think the guidelines need to be changed, then we
need to do that in a general sense, not application by application.
So I'm looking for a way to make this happen. But if it is not
meeting guidelines, we need to review our guidelines and see if we
need to update those.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've agreed to do exactly that
next week.
MR. CUYLER: The guidelines are going to be examined
because of these types of issues.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just following up on that, if
-- would it be possible -- does it interfere with this advance going
forward if we postponed approval or disapproval of this until we
review the guidelines? I have the same problem as Commissioner
Constantine. Would it be okay to do that? Mr. Olliff, for the record,
who has just said that it would probably not interfere with this
project if we addressed -- I'm troubled by saying let's approve this
even though we all acknowledge it does not meet the guidelines.
Everybody wants to do this but --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That is why there are
guidelines. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Is Mr. Luntz here?
MS. GANSEL: He is not. He is out of town.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What element -- and let me ask
this question of Mr. Cuyler first. If we find that there are
contributions that equal or surpass the funds that are being
requested, does it then meet the letter of that requirement?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, they're not cash.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's got to be cash only?
MS. GANSEL: It has to be cash.
MR. CUYLER: Yes. Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we can do -- we can go
through magic manipulations and require all of these contributing
companies to put the dollars up only to give it back to them and meet
the letter of the guideline but not necessarily the spirit of it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's an important
distinction. I didn't understand that. I'm sorry for interrupting,
but, in fact, the in-kind contributions have a value equal to the
contribution we are asking for TDC.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Equal to 50 percent of it,
yeah.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. The fifty-seven
hundred is inkind, and we could, like you said, ask them to write
checks and hand them back.
MR. DORRILL: A suggestion, but it might take a little
time to develop this. If you, in your capacity as the board of county
commissioners, agree to be the sponsor and then you showed the credit
for the cash contributions to undertake the event, I have no idea what
it takes -- how much money of type-A jet fuel it takes for a C-130 to
fly 200 paratroopers to Naples.
But if you show that as part of the project total and
show the cash value of that and had the Board of County Commissioners
being this entire entity as opposed to a single county employee who
happens to work in the veterans service department who doesn't have
the ability to show a match, that's a way to do what you want to do,
do it proper, do it legal, and show cash credit for what it is taking
to bring these people here. I think we can make that work.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is what I was asking
for, is I think we all want do it. We need to find an appropriate way
to do it, and that may be it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, public speakers,
I would like to make a motion that we direct the county manager's
office to prepare this item for our review at the next Board of County
Commissioners' meeting in line with the comments that he just made.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Discussion? Could we approve it
today with those conditions?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: With those conditions.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it necessary?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like approve it. I would
like not to postpone it. I'd like to approve it, and it sounds to me
like we have a way to do it. So let's --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have an airborne division
awaiting --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll withdraw my motion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have an airborne division
awaiting our decision to approve or not. Until we --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I will make a new motion to
approve staff's recommendation based upon the comments that the county
manager made and to -- I'm sorry, to approve in accordance with the
comments the county manager has made. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second
to approve the $10,000 grant in accordance with their recommendations
the county manager has made.
MR. DORRILL: Will it at least designate me to sign any
agreement or letter of agreement on your behalf as part of your
approval today to make this happen?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Provided that that's not part of
the Neil Dotrill enterprise fund.
MR. DORRILL: Any more than that -- that is why I said
I would like for you to be the sponsoring entity in order--
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll include that in the motion
to designate the county manager as the official signee. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second also.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a second that accepts
that amendment. So the motion entails the county manager following
through on this and designating Collier County as the sponsor for this
and recognizing the expenses incurred by the airborne division as the
cash contribution and thereby meeting the requirements for the cash
contributions.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is exactly what I meant.
MR. DORRILL: There are no registered speakers.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There are no registered
speakers. Fine. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor,
please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Dorrill.
MR. DORRILL: Madam Chairman, I would like to save a
resolution -- have the clerk save a resolution for that too.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The resolution number is being
reserved?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, Ha'am.
Item #8H3
RESOLUTION 95-341 RE FUNDING FOR THE PGA INTELLINET CHALLENGE WITH
$500,000.00 OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAXES - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fine. Thank you. Next item on
the agenda is the Intellinet funding from the tourist development
taxes as well. Ms. Gansel.
MS. GANSEL: Good morning again. The Intellinet
Corporation has presented an application to the TDC in the beginning
of Hay where application was for $500,000, and they were requesting
category B funding. The TDC had suggested to them that they revise
their application to request category C, which is the special events
funding, and that they identify a nonprofit organization to be the
contracting agency. They, in fact, did do this and came back to the
TDC on Hay 15th. They had requested $500,000 from category C, special
events for a golf -- seniors' PGA golf tournament to be held in Hay
and that the contracting agency would now be the PGA which is a
nonprofit organization.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry, you said the
tournament to be held in Hay?
MS. GANSEL: I'm sorry. In February. I should read my
notes. That was the time the meeting was. So there was no problem.
The TDC in Hay voted 5 to 2 to deny the application because of the
event being held in February. The application had requested that the
Board of County Commissioners review this application and that is what
they are doing here today. I have attached the application to the
executive summary. Would you like to hear from the applicant?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. I believe we probably
should hear from the applicant.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While he is coming up, can I
just ask, did everybody get a fax yesterday afternoon, the Quality
Inn.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. DiNunzio?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, from Mr. DiNunzio about --
I don't think that includes some elements that are very important to
this application from our perspectives. I just want to make sure
everybody has a copy.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Chairwoman, Commissioners, thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If you would like to identify
yourself at this time.
MR. RASMUSSEN: I'm Bill Rasmussen, president of
Intellinet, Inc., a business here in Naples. The request before you
is for the consideration of $500,000 to partially offset the expense
incurred or to be incurred in sustaining the Intellinet Challenge
February 5th through the llth, 1996. You have all been provided a pro
forma of anticipated revenue and expense. I am aware of and
understand the stated criteria for qualifing to receive funds.
Therefore, briefly, first it is a request for category C funds.
Although the event for which the funds are being sought occurs in
February and they therefore may be perceived as not qualified for
category C funding, this request does propose the very real fact that
the challenge can be utilized for significant national and
international promotion of the shoulder season.
Second, Intellinet, Inc., is a Florida C corporation.
The PGA tour is a 501(C)6 nonprofit organization. Finally, the event
itself, I believe, is well-known to everyone in the room. The caliber
of the event, the participants, the tournament operations, and
management are all of the highest order. The tourism promotional or
commercial message, if you will, that will be crafted around the event
and delivered worldwide will be of the same high standard. The
delivery will be by ESPN, the world's largest cable television, to
over 120 countries, 14 languages on all 7 continents on the globe. In
addition, 20 cities in the United States will be targeted for a media
blitz of 12,000 30-second promotional spots during the 90-day period
immediately following the tournament. All of the TV and ancillary
coverage will be documented by a highly reputable national research
and measurement organization as well as local 800 numbers to assess
the effectiveness of this investment.
Now, I would be remiss in discussing this issue should
I not address the economic impact of the event. There are those in
the community who sincerely believe that the loss of the tournament
wouldn't really make any difference in their businesses, while others
will argue that the tournament week will produce 10 or 15 or even $20
million dollars to the county's overall economy. I'm certainly not
qualified as an expert in the area of financial calculation of the
actual impact. But common-sense tells me there must be some impact.
Supporting the common sense theory, I do have two indications of some
credence.
First, during tournament week 1995 it's conservatively
estimated that 4,234 room nights in area hotels, motels, and
condominiums were generated directly by tournament-related guests,
people who would have been in another host city were the event not
held here. Now, presumably, at least some of those people and others
attending the tournament also bought gas, went shopping, boating,
golfing, and generally enjoyed our beaches, hospitality, and lifestyle
while all the while contributing to our economy.
Second, with regard to restaurant business during
tournament week, I have received a memorandum that I would like read.
It's to whom it may concern. Cuisine Management, Inc., CHI,
understands the position of the Tourist Development Council, the TDC,
and specifically the hotels are taking relatively -- relative to the
request for support from the Intellinet Challenge.
Our overwhelming belief is that the tournament is good
for Naples and should be supported by Naples. CHI is not prepared,
obviously, to enter into a divisive relationship with the hotels as
they are a major source of our clientele. We do wish, however, to
reiterate, one, our general support for the tournament, two, our
belief that the tournament draws visitors, and those who watch that do
return in the shoulder and summer seasons; and, three, our data shows
our sales would diminish without the tournament. CHI hopes that there
can be an amicable solution. The TDC, the hotels, and the Challenge
are all important to the general welfare of all businesses. Dated Hay
19, 1995, Tony Ridgway, CHI partner.
By now you know that clearly I am not a supporter of
any stance that says let the tournaments disappear, and you'll see it
won't make much difference to business in February. My position is
that that stance is not only economically dangerous, but it is totally
inaccurate. Do we really want to risk losing an event of this
magnitude only to find out after the fact that the nonsupporters were
wrong? By that time the tournament and its annual contribution to the
Collier County economy will be gone never to return.
Leaving the pure economic issues for financial experts
to evaluate, I do have at least some degree of expertise in media, its
evaluation, its effectiveness. And without reservation I submit to
you that granting the $500,000 request before you will conservatively
yield an amount of promotion, marketing, and advertising value that
will surpass the entire anticipated bed-tax revenue for 1995. Yes,
the entire amount.
Obviously, should the request before you be approved,
it is my assumption that the Challenge presentation will be
coordinated with, though not directed by or produced by, the many,
many groups dedicated to enhancing tourism throughout the county.
Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. We have some
questions. Somebody asked -- we have some TV cameras and stuff set
up, I presume, to show the 10-minute film.
MR. RASMUSSEN: It's your pleasure if you'd like to see
the videotape presentation that we have put together for any of you or
anyone that wants to see it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this the same tape that
was distributed to each of us?
MR. RASMUSSEN: All of the commissioners have seen the
tape, yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm asking the board if there
is a desire to see it once again.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe not for us, but I think
for the people in the audience and those who are watching at home, it
may increase an understanding.
(The audience conveyed a negative attitude.)
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: An overwhelming no.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It sounds like we have a lot of
the no's.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The answer is no.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The answer is no.
MR. RASMUSSEN: With your permission we will just take
that down. It will take one minute.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have some questions from the
board here. Mr. Hancock is first.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Rasmussen, if --
MR. RASMUSSEN: Can we hold it just one minute, Mr.
Commissioner, while --
(The equipment was disassembled.)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Rasmussen, I am sure we are
going to easily get into a discussion of the merits and possible
demerits of the event's expense, but I had one question that is of
importance to me. If the tourist tax monies are allocated in the
amount of $500,000, and in my opinion, Collier County -- in a sense
the Naples area, becomes the cosponsor of the event, would you be
willing to place in the event title that cosponsorship? I went
through many machinations, and you know Naples and Marco Island and
how it comes out. The only thing I came up with was the greater
Naples Intellinet Challenge.
MR. RASMUSSEN: That's a mouthful.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a mouthful, but if we make
it the Intellinet Challenge of Naples, that get's dropped. I'm just
saying if we are going to have the expense, I would like the exposure
in the event title.
MR. RASMUSSEN: The only reason that we came forth with
this request is for the specific purpose of promoting and
merchandising greater Naples around the world, Collier County. Now I
must confess, with all due respect to the county folks in the
neighborhood, somehow the Collier County Classic doesn't have the same
ring as greater Naples, and I know you are not suggesting that. The
purpose -- and should this go forward, we would work with anyone so
designated to not only define the title so that it is conveying the
message around the world, but also the message itself. There are
commercials to be crafted. There is collateral material to be crafted.
There are many many facets of the presentation, even signage on the
course. Even though it's here in Naples, you want the signage to
properly convey the message because that is seen on television around
the world, so yes, to answer your question. Not only would we
consider it, that is the only way we would consider it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's a lot better than
the Greater Greensborough K'Mart Open. So I think we are doing
better.
MR. RASMUSSEN: That's true.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine is
next.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- you made a couple of
comments; it is certainly good for the community, and I'm not sure who
those folks are saying that it won't make any impact if it were to
disappear. But I, like you, couldn't disagree with those people more.
I do, however, have some questions again.
Mr. Cuyler, this is not unlike my comments from the
previous item. This is something I would like to make happen. I want
to make sure we do it legally. It bothers me when I pick up the
newspaper, and the front page says commission may bend rules to make
something happen. A couple of the items that are outlined in here are
-- and I understand that it has been updated actually since we got
our packet, but it talks about money raised for charities, which while
admirable, was not the purpose of the TDC funds. It is something that
would be lost if we lose the event, and we need to consider that, put
that thought into consideration for TDC funds. Also, it talks about
creation of marketing and entertainment vacuum at the height of the
winter season. TDC funds traditionally are for the shoulder season,
not for the height of the winter season, which brings me down to the
question. Are we looking to fund the event which would be category C,
or are we looking to fund promotional items which brings us back to
category B again?
MR. RASMUSSEN: What we are -- the funding would be for
the PGA, literally charge a fee. I mean, that is what it is. It
costs money to be involved with the PGA. What I am proposing is that
although the event itself is not outside of the shoulder -- or not
outside of the high season and in the shoulder season, that the event
be structured in such -- the promotion of the event be structured in
such a way and the messages that are delivered during the event be
structured in such a way that they are promoting the shoulder season.
And as I understand, the proposed use of category C funds is an
emphasis on promoting shoulder-season tourism, et cetera.
I can't, as I am sure you will undoubtedly agree from
your comments -- it is a highly visible event at this time. It does
show off in hopefully three sunshiny days in February wonderful south
Florida to those places that are up to -- take your pick -- top of
your shoes, ankles, kneehigh or wherever in snow in places around the
world not just in the United States.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, you need to help
me here. Mr. Rasmussen has just indicated category C is to promote
off-season tourism. I was under the impression that it was category
B, and C was for a particular, special event. I just want to make
sure while we consider this, let's make sure we consider it under the
right category.
MR. CUYLER: My opinion would be category C is the
correct category. It is projects or activities. I think that
everybody is correct. It has a flavor of some category B-type items
because of the advertisement that's involved. But I think the best
place for it is the category C.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Mr. Rasmussen, in our
executive summary it says sheer economics makes the continuation of
the current arrangement impossible without some financial support from
another source. What has changed? This will be the third year that
Intellinet would have done this.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Yes. And overall expenses of the
tournament just literally grow. It is -- this year we would be moving
to a new venue as well. The pro forma that you have -- a very general
pro forma, as I am sure you have noted, is projecting $2 million. It
might be a million nine fifty or two something. I don't know. But
each year the cost of all of the ancillary events -- there are many
things that perhaps -- and I don't want to bore you with details, but
the physical presenting of the event onsite is a tremendously
expensive operation, as you can imagine. Just running electrical
cables and painting signs costs a lot of money, and there are a lot of
other things that go with it. And I'm prepared at your wish to get
into as much detail as you want. This is probably not the forum, but
we would answer any of those -- any questions that you have. It is
escalating cost, pure and simple.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When we say we must seek
some financial support from another source, have you exhausted, or
have you looked to some extent to other nonpublic sources?
MR. RASMUSSEN: Absolutely. And we have, as you are
perhaps aware. The corporation that literally owns the rights and
physically does the tournament operation seeks sponsors. That is one
of the things that they do. They have sponsors that they are talking
to--, two other ones, one of which would move the event from this
city. I don't know the status of the other one or the second sponsor.
The PGA has events 44 weeks a year just because they
let the players off before Thanksgiving, and they don't start again
until after the new year. They have six cities waiting for a senior
event at the moment. They have been generous in their time allowance
for us to go through the process that we are participating in here
today. Our original deadline was the 1st of May, coincidentally. And
until we finish our discussion, they are on hold in effect. We have
sought other -- and there is a possibility of another sponsorship.
Were that to appear, obviously, or the tournament confirmed in Naples
and another sponsorship appear, this would be a moot discussion. If
it does not and the tournament goes away, it is not so moot, I guess.
That is what it amounts to.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My understanding is one of
the financial difficulties for Intellinet in its sponsorship this past
year was the rain-out on the third day.
MR. RASMUSSEN: That's not as significant.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where I'm going with that,
is there an opportunity in a literal sense -- I don't mean in the
investment getting back through advertising, but in a literal sense is
there any opportunity for either Intellinet or Collier County to
recoup any of the money invested through whatever means in the
tournament weekend?
MR. RASMUSSEN: I would propose that the exposure that
Intellinet enjoyed during the 1995 tournament projected by those
national sources I mentioned is about $4.7 million. That was return
on our investment, if you will, from an advertising point of view. I
would propose that same kind of return will accrue to the greater --
fill in the blank, whatever we would call it.
Now, one thing that we donwt have any measurement on,
none whatsoever, is there are no rating services that tell us when the
BBC does their daily summary and shows pictures of Naples, Florida,
what kind of viewership they have, nor what kind of value you would
assign to it. When television on the continent does that, we have no
idea. Thatws not included in any of these numbers. North and south
and central America, Tokyo, Australia, and New Zealand -- this sounds
odd to say, but the rest of the world is a bonus. I canwt quantify a
number.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate that, but that
wasnwt my question. Iwll try to make it clearer. I apologize. Is
there any opportunity during the weekend? I donwt know if in past
years if Intellinet has seen -- and I donwt mean in the advertising
benefit, but in literal dollars.
MR. RASMUSSEN: I'm sorry. I misunderstood the
direction you're going with the question. Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And finally, Mr. Cuyler, are
we going to be under -- with the question of category C and category B
answered, are we where we need to be? Are we legal doing this? Again,
are we bending guidelines? Is it something we need to revisit, or do
we need to get creative, or are we okay right where we are?
MR. CUYLER: I think the only remaining question is the
language that everybody has talked about -- a little bit about the
emphasis on the shoulder season. And the way I have looked at that, I
am extremely comfortable that you are not bending that rule. The
analysis I have made is that, first of all, it uses the term emphasis.
You never defined that term, but clearly you have, I believe, over
$2 million in Category C including the recouped funds that were
involved in the lawsuit, and you're talking about five hundred
thousand. So even if you did anything else -- your emphasis, if you
spend those other monies in other ways, is clearly going to be in that
direction. I think you have a natural benefit that is often argued to
you that, yes, we have an event in the high season, but you're going
to get a natural overflow into the offseason because people know about
Collier County. And then coupled with the specific proposal that you
have for several million dollars that is specifically designed towards
the offseason, I'm extremely comfortable that you meet that criteria.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand the legal opinion
that you have just given, but I need to say from my perspective, from
what I understand at the presentation that was made to the TDC, that I
can understand why they didn't support this based on what I understand
was presented there, the rationale being that the presentation to the
TDC is -- okay, this is a high-season event, but the natural overflow
or the natural repercussions will encourage shoulder season. From my
analysis that is not enough to satisfy the guideline of shoulder
season, but I understand that subsequently, perhaps, just more detail
has come out and that, in fact, we are talking about some serious
television promotion of shoulder season specifically in Collier County
in general. And I hope that you've received a copy of the letter from
Mr. DiNunzio about production of television commercials and collateral
materials, 12 30-second spots, 4 per day during the challenge, 600
30-second promotional advertisements in 20 cities between February 15
and May 15, 1996. Coverage of all expenses incurred in the proposed
getaway week, which I understand is a promotional event planned in
conjunction -- so that if these kinds of ideas are incorporated in the
request, then I can see that, in fact, there is actual promotion of
shoulder season and actual promotion of tourism, and that coupled with
the idea Commissioner Hancock had about just including, you know, the
high profile of having the county included in the name, is it, in
fact, included in your commitment to the county that these kinds of
specific advertising dollars will be spent?
MR. RASMUSSEN: First of all, this is the exact same
presentation that was made to the TDC.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, but were these the kinds
of specific things I just outlined?
MR. RASMUSSEN: Yes, they were all outlined. We have
done a lot of work, and we have had a lot of conversations since then.
Perhaps there was some misunderstanding, but those things are in
there, the 12,000 spots and the promotion and the travel and all of
those things. Nobody is asking for any money for those. There is one
area where depending upon what your wishes are, we're going --
somebody is going to have to say, we want to call it the greater ddt
ddt ddt ddt (phonetic) open, and we want to -- we, the county,
hopefully with all of our input, want to design a logo that really
identifies us. We want to do whatever. When somebody calls as a
result of this commercial that I'm going to produce, have produced, we
want to send in something that says, yeah, man, I want to get down to
Naples, Florida, right now. Now, that kind of stuff, I don't know
what your wishes are, so I can't -- obviously, that was not in the
commitment that I'm making. I'm saying here's a vehicle. Let's
produce a commercial that satisfies your wishes of how we want to get
this done. Let's produce the material related to it. I'll take care
of the promotion for 90 days from Challenge on into May, and then
let's let the tourists begin.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- I need to follow up on
that. My understanding -- and this is just from discussions, and I
wasn't at the TDC, so I don't know what the presentation was -- is
that there has been some discussion that, frankly, based on your
connections with ESPN and your connections in the industry, that you
will be able to get advertisements placed in the market outside of the
tournament promotion.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Absolutely correct. At no charge. And
we're talking about something like 600 30-second promotional
advertisements. Actually, the statement made was a minimum guaranteed
and an affidavit of performance with a notarized affidavit of
performance delivered to you after the fact, and it is at no cost. I
can't make it any clearer than that, and that was the presentation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And for me that's what satisfies
the criteria, not just that this tournament will be in high season and
everybody will see how pretty it is and then they will want to come to
Collier in the offseason, but that satisfies my --
MR. RASMUSSEN: Excuse me, if I may, Commissioner. One
thing that I would say is that we would be remiss if we don't do the
very best job collectively to show that positive look and to kick off,
if you will, this coming to Naples during that month of February --
during the week in February.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, absolutely.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It seems to me that the reason
that we set up our guidelines as guidelines in the first place instead
of stone-cast rules and regulations was in anticipation that there was
the possibility at some point in time that there would be an event
that we may want to sponsor or to get involved in that it didn't
exactly meet the hard and fast rules if had we made them hard and
fast. So we placed the emphasis portion into the guidelines. I feel
very comfortable with going ahead with this project. It's going to be
very hard to argue that this is not a special event that draws a lot
of tourism into the county, which is exactly what we are trying to do
with this.
One other comment I might make to Mr. Rasmussen is when
we're getting together to design a new logo for the event, you may
want to think about incorporating the county turkey into that. Just
kidding.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Is it my turn to say no comment?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's your turn.
Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've talked a lot about the
specifics, and I think our county attorney has given us the basis to
understand that we do, in fact, feel comfortable that we meet the
criteria. But there is something we haven't talked about, and that is
the residents of Collier County feel the impact of tourism on a yearly
basis. We all see it coming; it gets here. In a sense we dread it.
By the same token, we don't have state taxes taken out of our checks.
We get a lot of sales tax off tourism, and it makes
things happen here that other states have to take out of paychecks and
investments and retirements and so forth. This gives us an
opportunity to pursue a hybrid, to promote an event that we as
residents of Collier County can enjoy, that we can participate in as
well as covering the tourism basis that it needs to cover. And I
think that gives us a community-wide approach, and that is why there
is such a broad base of support in the community for this. This is a
unique event, and it's something I really don't want to chance losing,
is something I value for this community. So I think it is something
that the residents win here too, not just tourism. And I like that
aspect, and I really haven't heard anyone say that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, are there any
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: There are eight.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There are eight.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A question, Commissioner
Hancock. Has your community contact been supportive? I've heard
nothing but straight "no" calls.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just say no is popular in
politics, but I've received a lot of phone calls and letters of
support for this.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've had one contact from the
applicant positive and probably a dozen calls saying what an absurd
request.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've had two negative and well
over a dozen positive.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That is good to hear.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, why don't we hear
from the public.
MR. RASMUSSEN: Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Casey. Following Ms. Casey is Mr.
Smith. If I could have you stand by, please.
MS. CASEY: Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners
Norris, Hancock, Constantine, Hac'Kie. My name is Helen Casey. I am
a full-time Naples resident. I am a mother, a grandmother, and a
member of the Golf Writers Association of America. I travel all over
the world covering major golf tournaments. And I'm really thrilled to
be part of the golfing community in a global sense. I'm married to
one of those guys the Chamber of Commerce said moved here, a former
chairman of a Fortune 500 company who came here because he thought
golf was a natural resource and that the second language of this
community was golf.
We love being in Naples. I love being part of what the
Intellinet has meant to golf throughout the world. I get hugged. I
get people coming up to me and saying, Naples, we're bringing our
family there this summer. Many foreign visitors are coming here now
because their currencies are favorable against the U.S. Dollar. They
have the charity cards from Intellinet, the Lung Association, the
Cancer Association, and they can put packages together and play
throughout our community at discount prices with their children.
When the commission was talking about our residents
here -- may I talk as a grandmother about the children, the children
who see Lee Travino, Chi Chi Rodriguez, and for the first time,
Raymond Floyd and say wow. Look at that. And they're reminded those
people that come here, these world-class players and sportsmen are
playing by rules established in 1744. That is before the Constitution
and the Declaration of Independence. These children help it to spill
over of the tradition of rules, manners, honors, etiquette.
This goes 50 and one other weeks. The competition is
just for the three days. And we have amateurs who come in who pay
$2,500 or more to play in Pro Ams. Their corporate jets filled the
ramp here at general aviation. They couldn't get more corporate jets
in here. These are the kinds of people I want spending money. These
are the kinds of people I'm thrilled to be part of, and I love being
part of golf. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Smith and then Ms. Boyd.
MR. SMITH: Good morning, Madam Chairman and
Commissioners. My name is Scott Smith. I'm president of Cable
Promark Incorporated and a resident of Naples since 1988. I would
like to thank you for the opportunity to address you today concerning
the issue of TDC funds to help support the Intellinet Challenge, a
senior PGA tour event that we all know is held here in our corner of
paradise, Naples.
As a 16-year veteran of the cable television business,
I would offer to this commission that the amount of exposure this
community gets from this senior PGA event couldn't be purchased even
if you spent your amount of available TDC funds on just one event.
ESPN, as we all know, carries the tournament for a three-day period in
February. ESPN is the most watched cable network in the world, bar
none. The exposure of Naples to the world is staggering. To those of
you who have watched Mr. Rasmussen's video presentation, you can tell
the coverage is worldwide, ranging over every continent. This event
is truly a mega event featuring the legends of golf who are household
names throughout the world. Anyone who could doubt Mr. Rasmussenls
ability to stage such a worldwide event needs to only look at his
track record.
I personally remember starting out in the cable
business in my hometown of Peoria, Illinois, in 1979 when literally
everyone was predicting that a 24-hour sports network would not last a
year. Today ESPN along with CNN are the mainstays of the cable
television industry. I would hasten to add to each and every one of
you sitting in this room and watching at home, that you have probably
watched ESPN within the last 24 hours.
In preparing the statement I would put a lot of thought
on how to describe Mr. Rasmussen as a visionary, as an asset to this
community. But far be it for me to make such statements when there
are those who are eminently more qualified to do that. Recently USA
Today called Bill the father of cable sports. ESPNIs Chris Betman, a
four-time sportscaster of the year, was recently quoted as saying Bill
is blessed with the vision and the know-how to get things done. He
never rests until he captures the brass ring. Sports Iljustrated in
their 40th anniversary issue honored Bill as one of the 40 individuals
who have had the greatest impact on the world of sports over the past
40 years. As I said of our Naples resident, Bill Rasmussen,
dramatically altered and elevated the world of sports. He saw an
opportunity and seized it. What he did forever changed the landscape
of TV sports.
In closing I would urge the commission to join Bill in
his vision for Naples and to vote unanimously to support the
Intellinet Challenge thus ensuring that the tournament stays in
paradise. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Boyd. Ms. Boyd is no longer here.
Mr. Ayres. Following Mr. Ayres we will have Mr. Agnelli.
MR. AYRES: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
John Ayres. I am the managing partner of the Edgewater Beach Hotel.
And Iim here before you today on behalf of the Naples Visitors Bureau
of which I am chairman and speaking for the Naples Area Accommodations
Association. I sat through -- I had the opportunity to sit through
the last two TDC meetings. And one of the things that caught my
attention, as I am sure it did some others, was that somewhere in Mr.
Rasmussenls book about why we all should support this event, there was
some mention of spots on the television and a date that I picked up
that said May 15th.
Mr. Rasmussen and I had an opportunity following the
close of the second TDC meeting to address the reaction that came from
the TDC and to talk about why that happened. And being in the tourism
industry and having been watching very carefully as the rules were
written and the criteria were written, and we all know that welve
gotten into a dispute factor on almost every event that has looked for
funding in the last -- what -- six months. So it didnlt surprise me
that the TDC would not support a golf tournament in February because
this conversation, in fact, before Mr. Rasmussen was involved in
Intellinet, had come up to the board of TDC, and some of us had
expressed our concerns then.
Anyway, to make a long story short, Mr. Rasmussen and I
and some others got together, and we decided that perhaps the way to
approach this was to expound on the advertising vehicle that he was
offering and down play the value of the tournament. I go to the
tournament, I enjoy it, it is wonderful. But I think the TDC is
mandated to look at this thing according to the rules. What I'm happy
to report is that on behalf of the Naples Visitors Bureau and the
Naples Area Accommodations Association and many members and the TDC
and the Chamber and what have you, we're here to support this event in
the spirit of 600 30-second TV commercials that will kick off in
February during the tournament and extend and run into May. And Mr.
Rasmussen did mention at the close of the last TDC meeting, depending
on how you want to look at this, really we're going to get at least
half a million dollars -- more like four million dollars worth of
media buy. So you can really look at our ad schedule, which we've all
heard Mr. Davis especially comment on, as being meager in comparison
to other counties, and I certainly concur.
Well, this is a 500,000 to $4 million cash transfusion
to that advertising budget. And what we talked about and have come up
with and that we would work with Mr. Rasmussen on, is an advertising
marketing vehicle that says -- and what we've come up with so far is
golf and gulf. So we would promote the fact that Naples and Marco
Island in the spring and in the fall are the most wonderful place in
the world to be with the beach and the golf and come up with 800
numbers and packages. And, in fact, I would further add that what we
would intend to do is to get together, work up this marketing plan,
and in the addition to the funds that we're talking about today, come
back to the TDC with a full-blown marketing package because this, of
course, is just the advertising TV segment.
And we want to create a golf and gulf brochure. We'd
want to come up with a golf and gulf PR campaign. We'd want to come
up with print, newspaper and magazine advertisings, so that what we do
in this community is package and advertise the fact that we've got
great golf and a great gulf and allow this infusion of cash from Mr.
Rasmussen to get that thing kicked off and to really enhance our
somewhat meager advertising program.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're talking about come to
the gulf and play 37 different golf courses.
MR. AYRES: Have a chance to play ten golf courses and
then go back to your hotel and eat in the restaurants, I mean, really
market the community the way we wish we could, but we haven't had the
money to do it. We are in support of it under those circumstances.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Agnelli and then Mr. Freni.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While he is coming I would like
to make apologies to everybody who already knows all of this. Because
we went through this process with the Philharmonic and that concert,
that the letters and phone calls that I got, and when I read the
newspaper it seemed to me that people were very confused about what
kind of tax money we are talking about. So just to take a second to
say we're talking about tourist tax money that by state and local law
can only be spent for tourism promotion and for beach renourishment.
So anybody who is watching, we're not talking about spending your
property tax money for this golf tournament for promotion of tourism.
This is money paid by tourists in the bed tax.
MR. CUYLER: The only reason it could be used for beach
renourishment is because that is classified as an appropriate tourist
promotion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you for the clarification.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Agnelli.
MR. AGNELLI: Thank you. Madam Chairperson,
Commissioners, my name is John Agnelli. I'm president of Lely
Development Corporation, the proposed host for this year's blank,
blank challenge. There has been an error that I have been listening
to and just double-checked with Mr. Rasmussen. The number of ads that
he is talking about is not 600, it's 12,000.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's 12,000.
MR. AGNELLI: It's a substantial ad. I'm one of the
developers that met with Mr. Rasmussen three years ago and agreed to
be one of the host sites for this tournament. And my comments are
based on that, not only the economic aspects for us, because we have
already spent in preparation for this tournament and will continue to
spend in preparation a great deal of money in order to prepare the
golf course and our facilities to host this challenge. This has been
done by the Vineyards in the past, by Pelican Bay before that.
And I think part of what I want to say is there is a
community spirit here. Here we have it at this point in time, because
we are not sure at one site, but we have the Vineyards and Pelican
Marsh and Lely competitors banding together to bring an event to this
community. So we're not just standing here asking the county and
Intellinet to ante up. The host courses are also willing to ante up
and participate. And to me that's what is part of the character of
Naples. That's what -- we're still a small town, and that's part of
what is good about being in Naples is the fact that ourselves and
Westinghouse and the Vineyards are willing to step up to the table and
participate in such an event in an attempt to keep the event in this
locality.
Commissioner Constantine, you mentioned about -- you
sort of said two things. I'll respond to it with one answer. You
pointed out and I agree that the TDC funds are not for charity. And
later you asked Mr. Rasmussen if, in fact, any of the funds would come
back to Intellinet or the county. Well, the answer is he said no.
However, the charities do benefit an awful lot from this tournament.
I think the amount so far is over a million four.
I'm on the board of Youth Haven. And last year because
he was in town for the challenge, Chi Chi Rodriguez hosted an event at
Wyndemere and then handed a check for 50,000 to Youth Haven which
wouldn't have occurred if the event wasn't taking place here. And it
had nothing to do with the charity dollars that the tournament itself
gives up. So I'll just wrap up. I want to add my support to the
tournament, to the kind of exposure it provides for people in Collier
County, the worldwide exposure, and just hope that you go along with
this and give him the money. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Freni and then Mr. Olds.
MR. FRENI: Good morning, Madam Chairman, and fellow
Commissioners. I felt compelled today -- my name is Joseph Freni,
Jr., vice president at Ritz Carlton Hotel Company, owner of the Ritz
Carlton Naples. I felt compelled to come today because I missed the
meeting, the special TDC meeting at which time this was -- this issue
was discussed. And I wanted to reiterate to you that following the
meeting with the help of a number of members in the hotel community
and Mr. Rasmussen, the focus of the presentation was restructured so
that the emphasis was placed on the promotion value to the off season.
And I would say to you today that if this were resubmitted to the
Tourist Development Council, I have every reason to believe that it
would pass the TDC. And clearly the hotel community has seen, since
these recent discussions, the value of this effort. And I think now,
as Mr. Ayres has indicated, that the majority of the hotel community
supports it. So I just wanted to go on record. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Olds will be your final speaker.
MR. OLDS: My name is Stanley Olds. I'm with the
Taxpayers Action Group. I realize I am in a very small minority here,
but I am going to speak, as I say, because this is the way I want to
speak it. My wife wrote this speech for me, so I'll have to read it.
Speaking for the Taxpayers Action Group, we oppose the use of tax
dollars for the Intellinet golf tournament, not the golf tournament
itself. Approval of this expenditure opens the door to endless
requests from similar groups for a piece of the tax pie, a tennis
tournament, a croquet club. There may be many circling the county's
pot of gold.
We support beach renourishment and off-season
promotions as a proper use of taxpayers' dollars. Let's keep control
by tightening the law on specific uses of these tourist funds so that
benefits accrue to all our residents, not just special interests, but,
rather, to the benefit of everyone in this county. I would like to
use up my five minutes, but my message in a nutshell is just vote no
until the law is changed without a possibility of lawsuits, or let Mr.
Rasmussen get the money from privatization people, not from the
county. We don't want our hands tied by having you people having to
worry about giving more funds out. Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Olds.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olds, just one comment.
You suggested we review and tighten this up as far as what is allowed
and what's not allowed under the TDC ordinance. You will be happy to
know we're doing exactly that next Tuesday at our regularly scheduled
workshop. We're going to review the TDC ordinance and try to decide
what is and isn't appropriate because we have had so many different
things come before us.
MR. OLDS: When you tighten it up, will it include the
Intellinet golf tournament?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. Next week when
we talk we're not talking specific projects. We're talking about the
guidelines themselves and altering those as this board sees fit.
MR. OLDS: Well, it seems to me, as I said before,
privatization has kept this thing going for a long time. And if the
county board keeps on giving out money to various special groups, it's
really going to open up a can of worms as far as I'm concerned. Thank
you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. That's the last
speaker, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there further discussion on
the board or a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion. Mr. Cuyler,
do we need a resolution along with this?
MR. CUYLER: We do. And I will place in the resolution
with your permission that this is in compliance with the statute --
your ordinance and the guidelines and put the appropriate findings
that you've discussed during the course of your meeting.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: With all due respect to Mr. Olds,
I do want to point out and reiterate what Commissioner Hac'Kie said
earlier. This is money paid by tourists for the specific purpose of
funding special events to draw more tourists. I can't think of a more
appropriate use of these funds. So I will make a motion to grant this
request contingent with the conditions put in the resolution that will
be drafted by our county attorney.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Will the motion maker accept an
amendment that in some form Collier County should share in the title
sponsorship of the event?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know if that is
appropriate to put that in the motion. We have a commitment that they
are going to do that. I don't know that it is necessary to put that
in the motion itself.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not an element of distrust.
MR. CUYLER: I assume that there is going to be some
further contact with the board in the sense of what the promotions are
going to look like and those types of things.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the words of Ronald
Reagan, trust, but verify.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Trust, but verify. It's not like
I'm asking for the Hancock Open or anything.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If the board feels more
comfortable, I'd be glad to amend the motion. I think the petitioner
is in agreement that he has committed to working out some sort of
title for the event that does stress Collier County or greater Naples
or something to that effect.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only concern would be that's
one of many commitments, and I wouldn't want to make it seem that that
was the only one that mattered to us.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There are several commitments,
one of them being as well that Intellinet will work with the hotel
industry --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't really think --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- to fashion the advertising
programs.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: These commitments are on the
record here today. I don't really think it is necessary to put them
in the motion. So let's let the motion stand as originally stated.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, you
had a question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your motion is inclusive of
those items which were discussed and confirmed during today's --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second question, Mr. Cuyler.
In the unlikely event that something should happen to Mr. Rasmussen,
heaven forbid, or Intellinet prior to this event, what is our
responsibility?
MR. CUYLER: You're going to enter into a contract, and
that contract is going to have obligations on your part which is
primarily going to be the money. It is going to have obligations on
their part. They are either going to able to keep those obligations
or not. If they're not going to be able to keep those obligations for
any reason, then they would be in default of their part of the
contract. You would not be required to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So our obligation is
contingent upon Intellinet's --
MR. CUYLER: That is correct. There will be a formal
contract between the parties setting out what everybody is supposed to
do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If there is no further
discussion, I will call the question. All those in favor, please say
aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #8H4
AWARD BID #95-2364 TO BETTER ROADS, INC., FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
THIRD PARKING LOT AT THE BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE PARK - CONTINUE TO
7/18/95 IF BID EXTENSION POSSIBLE; IF NOT, CONTINUE TO 6/6/95
We can take one or two more items, and then we'll break
for lunch.
Next item is an item that was moved from the consent
agenda, item 8 (H)(4), dealing with the Lely Barefoot parking
facility. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, if the board
will indulge me, I pulled this item off the consent agenda and
recently had a discussion with Mr. Bryant regarding a possible
resolution. And I ask that we -- or I'd like to make a motion to
continue this item to our first scheduled meeting in July to give
sufficient time to work on a possible resolution. It may be in the
wings here.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In July, not June?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, in July.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Isn't this item just
parking?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. And I -- if you will
trust me again, there are some parts of this that would be tied into a
resolution, but all parties have not been privy to the work that has
been going on, and I don't want to throw anything out there until I've
talked to everyone. But to move ahead on this may jeopardize a
resolution on the entire matter regarding Lely Barefoot. So I'm, I
guess just asking you to -- since this doesn't have to happen today --
to make a motion or agree to a motion to put it off to July.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we hear from Mr.
Conrecode whether or not this will slow anything down that needs to be
done for next season?
MR. CONRECODE: The only comment that I would like to
make is if we do postpone that award or discussion of an award to the
first meeting in July, that you'll allow me to go back to the
contractor and ask if he would give -- ask if he would give us an
additional 30 days to award the contract, because his bid requirement
was only for 90 days which expires July 10th. That would be the only
thing I would ask.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My question was not that,
though.
MR. CONRECODE: In terms of the impact on next season,
just off the top of my head I don't know the total number of days, but
I am confident that we could have this completed prior to next season.
It's a relatively simple project.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So can we ask the motion maker
then for -- if he will continue based upon Mr. Conrecode being able to
get an additional 30 days from the -- MR. CONRECODE: From the bid.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- from the bidder, and if that
is not possible, to bring it back the first week in June?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll amend the motion.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The second amends.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One more question. There
are currently how many spots -- how many parking spots there in this
construction will add how many for a total of how many?
MR. CONRECODE: This construction will add 99 regular
parking spots plus 6 handicap to the current count of 147 regular
parking spots and 2 handicap. So add about 105 to --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or roughly 250 total.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: We'll go to 250. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it can just maybe set the
board at ease a little bit, you may have met with the attorney from
the Lely Barefoot. But the reason I am hesitant about saying anything
is the other parties involved here, Kabb and Emily Maggio and those
folks, I haven't met with them, and I think they are an integral part
to any resolution, and I would not proceed without their input. So
that's the next step that I need to take, and I haven't contacted
them. So I just wanted you to know. Those are the parties that I
haven't discussed this, and I would really like their input before
giving any details.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a
second on the floor, and the motion is to continue this item until the
first Tuesday in July provided we can get an additional 30 days on the
bid, and if that is not possible, to bring it back on June the 6th.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, you have a question?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm going to support the motion
because you've asked us to. But I just need to understand that the
issue is if we went ahead and improved this parking lot with 250 more
or less parking spaces, it could interfere with the settlement?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The settlement will probably
have the total number of parking spaces. If there is to be a
settlement, it will have the total number of parking spaces folded
into it. In no way will it reduce or diminish the number of spaces
that this, you know, involves. I'm just trying to get everything on
the same timetable and not get one thing moving ahead of another, and
that's the basis for my request.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that it is
necessary, but as a courtesy to a fellow commissioner, I'll support
the motion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thank you, and I know you're
kind of eliciting a little faith in this. But what I am trying to do
is I think there is a way all parties can be happy here and to save
some tax dollars in court. Before we proceed down that path, I want
to see if we can make everyone happy and get the thing done once and
for all.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll call the question. All
those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 95-342 CONFIRMING THE REAPPOINTHENT OF HR. PFAFF TO THE
ALCOHOL, DRUG ABUSE & MENTAL HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL
HR. CONRECODE: Thank you. And just for the record,
Tom Conrecode.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Hr. Conrecode.
Next item on the agenda is the Board of County
Commissioners' reappointment of a member to the Alcohol, Drug Abuse,
and Mental Health Planning Council.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I understand
that there is one name here for that position that has been
recommended, and I make a motion that we approve that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've got a motion and a couple
of seconds. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman, you said
something about a couple of items before lunch. I wonder -- it seems
like there is a group of people that we're going to possibly let them
have their say instead of having them come back after lunch.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There is a request for public
comment from Mr. Valdes. We have one, two items that may be short
before we get to public comment, and I would like to keep it in order.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I imagine most of these folks
are for Falling Waters.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Constantine, I know that
you have a lunch appointment. Are you going to stay with us?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, let's try to move
through the next couple of items, and then the public comment is
generally limited in time.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, Mr. Weigel tells me the
auditor's contract, which is pulled off the consent agenda, will only
take about five minutes if you could slip that in. We have a member
of the clerk's office who won't be available after lunch.
Item #10B
FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COHMISSION ADVISORY POSTINGS AT BIG
MARCO PASS; CRITICAL WILDLIFE AREA - APPROVED
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're going to try to do the
next two items in short order. The next one is an update on Sand
Dollar Island. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I have a photo
here that clarifies that this is not actually Sand Dollar Island.
This is Big Marco Pass critical wildlife area. The Game and Fish has
been very cooperative with us lately since we entered into our
discussions, and this photo shows the original Sand Dollar Island and
then Tiger Tail Beach where it is washed ashore here (indicating).
What they are requesting is on this bar that has come up offshore
here, which will become some day the new Sand Dollar Island, it's
beginning to support some vegetation up in this corner of it and some
bird nesting activity.
Even though in all likelihood this does fall within the
boundaries of the current CWA, they have given us the courtesy of
communicating with us that they would like to have our cooperation in
posting this area as a bird nesting site on this offshore sandbar. I
don't have any reason to believe that anyone would object to that.
That is within the scope of their operations anyway. I think it is
very simply a courtesy on their behalf to let us know that they are
intending to do that. And I'll make a motion that we cooperate with
them on that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that motion and
particularly thank Commissioner Norris for wading through what has
been a difficult process.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No pun intended, of course.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None intended.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have just one question. I
support the motion. However, obviously since what we have seen happen
in the last three years with what used to be Sand Dollar Island and
what is an emerging Sand Dollar Island, it seems to be a repetitive
natural course of events. Are we going to be in the same discussions
10 years from now, or in our discussions with them now can we get some
agreement that we recognize these islands come ashore and new islands
emerge?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The best way I can answer that is
that if we go forward with a formal agreement based on the discussions
we had last Thursday here in the offices, that will not reoccur. They
recognize that this is going to be a continually moving and shifting
area. The recreation needs are going to be addressed by them, and we
will -- if what we tentatively agreed to last week is finally agreed
to by the governor, then that won't happen. We won't have that
problem reoccur.
MR. DORRILL: One speaker.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A speaker? Ms. Straton.
MS. STRATON: Thank you. I'm here representing Collier
County Audubon Society and would like to thank Commissioner Norris and
Mr. Dotrill. I understand it was a very good meeting last week with
the game commission, and I'm very pleased that we will be able to do
the posting and that cooperation is the word that we're hearing more
and more with respect to that issue. So thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Ms. Straton. We
have a motion and a second on the floor. Let me call the question.
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You will inform them immediately.
Item #lib
PROPOSED CONTRACT WITH ARTHUR ANDERSEN, L.L.P TO PROVIDE EXTERNAL AUDIT
SERVICES FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDING 1995, 1996 & 1997 - APPROVED AS
AMENDED
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda is the contract with Arthur Andersen, item 11 (B).
MS. LEAMER: My name is Jo-Anne Leamet. I'm the
controller for the clerk of the court's finance department. On May
2nd the Board of County Commissioners selected Arthur Andersen to
provide external audit services for fiscal years ending '95, '96, and
'97. The audit committee in conjunction with the county attorney's
office was directed by you to negotiate a contract with them. We have
done that, and we're bringing back the contract to you for your
approval.
Just to highlight some of the important areas, the
service. The auditors will be expressing an opinion on the county's
financial statements as well as the constitutional officer's
statements and some supplemental reports. The term of the agreement
will be for -- through 1997. You do have the option to terminate that
agreement 60 days after the audit is completed. Compensation for the
fiscal year 1995 audit, the fee will be a maximum not to exceed
$189,775 which is for an estimated twenty-eight hundred hours of work.
The fee will be capped at 5 percent and will increase either by the
CPI index or 5 percent. There are a few items that are still in
discussion with Arthur Andersen, and David Weigel has been working
with them.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Part of the reason that the
contract was moved to the regular agenda is because there were to be a
few changes from that which was published in the agenda, and I wanted
to get that on the record. Beyond a few mere typographical or
capitalization changes were four elements that I wanted to mention for
the record. And I will not go into detail unless asked. But under
Section 3.03 entitled timely accomplishment of services, we, the
county agreed to remove the second sentence which talked about
potential damages if the auditor did not accomplish and complete the
required services in a timely review. We agreed to that because we
feel we're already covered in the first sentence and the remainder of
that paragraph, and we had no problem with that request.
In Section 3.05 on page 4 of the draft agreement we
have added a few words of qualification in regard to the
responsibility of the correction of errors which we think in no way
reduces or eliminates their requirement of responsibility and
clarifies the county to be held to intentional misconduct, which is a
higher standard than we had in the previous agreement with Coopers and
Lybrand upon which this contract is modeled.
Additionally, again for the record in paragraph 5.03
which appears on page 8, in regard to final payment, we removed a
portion of the first sentence that says, "and upon acceptance of work
by the county," which is referring to final payment because the
agreement, in any event, provides for invoicing during the course of
performance and a 10 percent retainer as final acceptance by the
county. So in one aspect it might be considered a redundancy, and we
had materially no problem to that change that they had requested.
Additionally, on Article 8.00, conflict of interest, they have
requested and upon consideration we have recommended agreement to
inclusion of language throughout that paragraph where the auditor
represents to the best of his knowledge that it knowingly or
intentionally comes upon a conflict with its employees. This was a
standard which may be a little bit beyond their immediate ability, and
yet at the same time they are held to the standards of professionals
in the field to which they pertain. And, of course, we have
professional liability insurance requirement with them which they
have.
The last matter, just to bring it to the attention, is
our indemnification. Consistently it seems to come up with the
contract. They had concerns about the general liability of
indemnification, and they provided language indemnifying the county
for bodily injury and physical damage to the property. And my
discussion with them is that in the nature of their work, contrary to
contractors or heavy equipment operators, we're not too worried about
that. So I added a comma and the word including which would tend to
make that the indemnification for bodily injury and physical as an
inclusion to the other contract-related performance requirements that
they have.
We don't quite have the finals done on that language,
but I expect we will have it by the end of the day. And if the board
would authorize the county attorney approval of that prior to your
signature, we will endeavor to have the language that is in the
interest of the county be there. And that is the summary of my
comments.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item
__
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- amended by the county
attorney's office.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
I have one question, and that is when we didn't hear this item a
couple of weeks ago, that was because of Arthur Andersen's request for
a listing in here about controlling what items they will be able to
audit in the future, and we've solved that problem?
MS. LEAMER: Right. That was involving what we call
component units. New literature came out that requires us to look at
a lot of these other entities that aren't related to the county but
according to the state might be dependent on the county. And there
was some confusion as to how big the scope would be.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right. And who was going to
decide what components.
MS. LEAMER: Right. We have narrowed that down and it
is in -- I believe it is in Exhibit A, task 1.02. The auditors will
be responsible for looking at the literature governing component units
and determine if any should be included. Before they do include them,
they will discuss them with the project coordinator before the audit.
And there will be an adjustment in fees if the scope is extended.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So we're in agreement on
the process for that?
MS. LEAMER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there any further discussion? There being none, all those in
favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you.
PUBLIC COMMENT
That concludes the morning agenda. We have a request
for public comment. Mr. Valdes.
MR. DORRILL: Both he and Mr. Lucio are registered on
this. I presume it is the same item.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just need to preface,
Victor, I am going to have to leave for an appointment. But I want
you to know as I look at your shirt -- and I spent the last week in
Hiami during some of the traffic jams and all -- I think you and I are
probably in complete agreement on this item. I don't want you to
wonder why I am scampering off ahead. I have a previous standing
appointment, but I am in agreement with you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Enjoy your lunch.
MR. VALDES: Madam Chairman, the commission, the
commissioners, today I'm here as a Cuban-American to request a vote to
support the Cuban-American community in Collier County. For years,
Cubans are -- is and was ally of the United States of America in a
fight against the evil of the Soviet Union, Castro and Vietnam. Our
men, Cuban men, and I in Vietnam, like American people, has died, in
Vietnam.
We are proud that our men give his (sic) life for the
freedom that we have in the country. Today men that refused to fight
in Vietnam and burn American flag in England and tried to be a citizen
of Switzerland is trying to escape from the Vietnam war is going now
to the left side, going to help Castro, going to help socialists in
the world. While Soviet Union came to right side, to the right wing,
our government, not our country, our government is going to the left
side of the political spectrum. We request with respect to our
commissioners to give a vote of support of the Cuban-America people in
Collier County. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Valdes.
MR. VALDES: Here is a cartoon about Fidel Castro
conversation.
MR. LUCIO: Ms. Chairperson, Ms. Matthews,
Commissioners. I am Zac Lucio. I am a local businessman. As a
member of the Cuban-American community in Collier County, I request
from you moral support for our community, for the Cuban community here
in this county, for our fight against the enemy that are not only the
enemy of the Cuban people, because most of the American people are not
in the knowledge that Castro hates American people more than he hates
us, the Cuban-American.
Okay. You know that these people in the White House
with our money are paying to the U.S. Coast Guard and to the U.S. Navy
to be a patrolman for the Castro navy men. They are taking our people
who are trying to get out of Cuba and trying to kill them. And most
of these people are get hang out. Okay. I am -- request for you the
moral support of our fight because are fighting not only for the
freedom of Cuba, we are fighting for the freedom of the whole world.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. That concludes the
two people who had registered to speak on the public comment. Mr.
Valdes has asked us to adopt a resolution in support of the
Cuban-America opposition to President Clinton's new policy on Cuban
refugees. It's not normally the activity of this board to act
directly on public petition items; however, we are free to direct
staff to bring such a resolution at a future date if we chose to do
so. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I heard was a request for a
vote in support of the Cuban-American community. And I would like to
ask our staff to prepare a resolution for us to take a vote.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have direction. Is there
another person who wishes to direct staff as well to prepare a
resolution in support of Cuban-American activities?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, with all due
respect to the Cuban community, I don't feel that it's the county
commission's job to get involved in foreign policy matters of the
United States. That doesn't mean that at the same time that I don't
have empathy for the Cuban-American community, but simply that it's
not part of the scope of our operation to make foreign policy
decisions.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just respond to that? I
agree it is certainly not our job, but we do take positions on issues.
Maybe the way to do this is to have Cuban-American Week or some method
to support this part of our community.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That is fine, Commissioner
Mac'Kie. But that's not really the request. The request is to pass a
resolution in opposition to President Clinton's policy. If you will
recall last year we declined to even support resolutions in favor or
in opposition -- ballot questions in the State of Florida. This is
something that has to do with national business.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just think it makes a lot of
sense for us to give some moral support in whatever method anyone
thinks is appropriate. I see nothing wrong with the resolution or a
letter from the chairman. I just would like for us to respond
positively in some way to the request.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't sit here today prepared
to denounce American policy. It's a policy I haven't even read. No
one has even provided me with a copy of the policy. And I don't think
this board's position is to denounce U.S. policy on immigration. What
Commissioner Mac'Kie has said has some merit. I am fully in favor of
supporting Cuban-Americans that are pursuing a rightful and legal
ability to enter the United States and become citizens and productive
members of our society. And a resolution that supports that I think
is a good idea. But I want to stay away from taking a position
against a U.S. Immigration policy that I'm not aware of, that I have
not fully read. In addition, I don't feel that is the role of a
county commission. But we want to look at supporting the
Cuban-American people in their plight to pursue legal immigration
opportunities. I think that is fully within our realm, and I would
support that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do you want to change the
direction that you are asking for?
I support both directions. I mean I --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris was correct
in that we were being asked to -- and that is to agree with the
statements that were being made here today. And I believe those
statements go beyond what --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I want more information on what
we are being asked to agree with. I would certainly like to have more
definitive information on what the current policy is with -- as it
relates to Cuban-Americans.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that become the job of our
staff, or does it become the petitioner's request to submit a
resolution for either our approval or denial?
MR. LUCIO: What we are asking for is a moral support
for the Cuban-American here in Naples that are hard-working people,
and we have the right that any other group who has the support from
you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Lucio, I don't think we
have any problem with moral support.
MR. LUCIO: Well, this is what we are asking for.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The problem is what Mr. Valdes
asked for, and that is a resolution.
MR. LUCIO: No, no. Maybe he don't --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me see. The way I
originally said it is what I heard was a request that this board take
some vote, take some action indicating moral support for the Collier
County Cuban-American community. And, yes, we did get this cartoon
about Clinton and Castro. And, yes, they do have on T-shirts about
Clinton and Castro. But what the request was, a vote indicating moral
support for the Collier County Cuban-American community. I don't see
any controversy in that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll support any community in
Collier County.
MR. LUCIO: Thank you. Thanks to you, Ma'am. Thanks
to you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't see a problem with that.
We don't have a resolution in front of us. We don't know what --
MR. LUCIO: No, no, no. We are not talking about any
other American politics or anything else. We are talking about the
moral support for our community here, that we are hard-working people,
that we are fighting for our right to be free, and it would be a
healthy opportunity like I myself -- I hope, I pray every day I can go
and die in Cuba. And this is moral support for our people. We have
the same united thing, but we want to go back to Cuba.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner
Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If Mr. Lucio would -- what is it
you are requesting?
MR. LUCIO: It's a moral support.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, if the commission, as
Commissioner Mac'Kie has suggested, have a Cuban-American Week along
with a resolution of moral support to the Cuban-American community
that is right here in Naples, is that what you want?
MR. LUCIO: Yes. That would be perfect for us. We
appreciate.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If we had a proclamation, for
example --
MR. LUCIO: Would be perfect.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That is fine.
MR. LUCIO: That is what we are asking only. We are
asking for nothing else.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to review in advance so
you have time to plan events during that week for the community and so
forth, you know, rather than doing it for next week, and you don't
have any events planned. Give it a couple of weeks so that we can
make a proclamation designating a future week. Then you can have
planned events for the Cuban community.
MR. LUCIO: That can do. Yes, sir. We want to do.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why don't you get back to us
then with, number one, a proclamation that you would wish us to
prepare. Give us the wording for it, and give us the date framework,
the week that you want to choose so you have time to plan your events.
MR. VALDES: Okay. Thank you. And we will come back.
Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We will be looking for you.
Thank you.
MR. LUCIO: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why don't we take a break for
an hour and come back at 1:30.
(A recess was held from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 95-36 RE PETITION PUD-92-13(1), JAMES H. SIESKY OF SIESKY AND
PILON REPRESENTING HUBSCHHAN ASSOCIATES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING
THE FALLING WATERS PUD DOCUMENT AND MASTER PLAN WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF
VACATING AN ACCESS STREET (PORTION OF FALLING WATERS BOULEVARD) AND
REVISING STIPULATIONS OF APPROVAL RELATIVE TO COPE LANE - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Call to order the May 23rd
meeting of the Board of County Commission. We're into the afternoon
session. The first item on the agenda is item 12 (B)(1), petition
PUD-92-13(1), Falling Waters. Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Good afternoon. Ron Nino for the record
with development services. The substance of the petition before you
at this time -- originally it began as a petition to vacate a portion
of the platted road within the Falling Waters PUD. That portion of
Falling Waters Boulevard, which runs from this point here
(indicating), to what would have been the extension of Santa Barbara
Boulevard. Additionally, that original petition included a request
that the developer not be responsible for improvements to Cope Lane
They originally agreed to do in the initial PUD approval.
Following extensive negotiations with the developer and
interested and affected property owners in the area, the developer
agreed that they would continue with their obligation to improve Cope
Lane and would address drainage issues that have not been adequately
addressed in the first go-around in exchange for the vacation of
Falling Waters Boulevard. The planning commission recommended that
you vacate Falling Waters Boulevard, and in exchange for that vacation
the developer has made commitments that now have time frames in them
as to when the improvements to Cope Lane would be made and when the
drainage improvements would be made to the property to the west and
particularly Seacrest School and the church that is there. And all of
those commitments are represented in the ordinance that is before you.
It's been reviewed by our legal department. We're confident that it
resolves all of the issues.
As a matter of fact, I believe there aren't any people
here representing the church and the school nor Cope Lane, which only
gives testimony to the fact that they are satisfied with the --
knowledgeable about the agreement that is now embodied within the
amending documents that are before you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, they are
knowledgeable about it? It's not just that they aren't aware this is
going on?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I beg your pardon.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not just a matter of
awareness. They are aware of this process going on, and they are
happy?
MR. NINO: Yes, exactly. The planning commission
recommended approval 6 to 1. I'd be happy to answer any questions you
have.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Questions?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, outline for us the time
frame for correcting the draining problems, and give us a very brief
overview what those drainage corrections are.
MR. NINO: The drainage problems will mainly be a
24-inch line and an 18-inch line along the west property which will be
completed by June the 16th. However, I think we have it on assurances
from Mr. Siesky that, in fact, those improvements are underway and/or
likely will be completed by on or about June 1st. The improvements to
Cope Lane have been completed even though the initial drainage
requirements were not to take place until September 1, 1995. Those
improvements are in place. Mr. Kuck, Tom Kuck of our project planning
services department, has personally inspected those, and those are in
place.
So we're on a fairly good time track that will have the
drainage issues resolved, and we'll have Cope Lane resolved.
Ultimately by September 1, 1997, in other words, when they cease to
use Cope Lane as the construction road, the final half-inch of the
asphalt will be applied, and that will occur no later than September 1
of 1997.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What is our confidence level that
these proposed drainage improvements are going to, in fact, solve the
drainage problems that have gone on there for several years now?
MR. NINO: Our confidence level is backed that our
local engineering -- our engineering department has looked at them.
They have also been engineered by a professional engineering firm.
Their information -- their work has been inspected by engineers
representing the Seacrest School and the church. So there is -- there
have been people looking over everybody's shoulder. Everybody is
happy.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Everyone is in agreement at this
point.
MR. NINO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Any questions? The petitioner
is here? Do you have anything you want to add to Mr. Nino's -- MR. SIESKY: Yes, if I may. Just as rationale for the
request and the first -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Would you identify yourself for
the reporter.
MR. SIESKY: Yes, thank you. My name is Jim Siesky
representing the petitioner. The vacating of the access to future
Santa Barbara is for the purpose of installing additional resident
amenities such as trailers, landscaping, play courts, or other
activities. The initial request to avoid the paving of Cope Lane
resulted from the fact that it was designated as an access for
construction purposes so that we could minimize the traffic going
through the development. When we tried to use it for construction
access, the residents through various means blocked it off. The
sheriff's department was called because it is a public right-of-way
but would not give us -- regardless even though we gave a document
provided for it.
That leads me to the point that Falling Waters is
willing to construct a paved roadway there provided that it can use
that roadway for access. And that is significant because Falling
Waters also requests that if it is denied access, that this board
reimburse it for its construction costs. We think that is only fair
since it would be of no benefit to Falling Waters otherwise than if it
would be used for construction access.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question? Are
you saying if the county denies your access or if some people stand
out in the street, we can't be responsible for, you know, people
locking their arms in the street?
MR. SIESKY: Some agency of government should be
responsible whether it is Collier County --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The sheriff controls the people.
MR. SIESKY: The Code Enforcement Board -- it's a
public right-of-way. Access should be granted. That is a condition
upon which the state and PUD -- that we will provide this paving in
exchange for construction access.
The -- I ran up over lunchtime to inspect the work
regarding Cope Lane. There have been four driveway culverts installed
to my knowledge. I believe there is still some work to be done on the
south side of Cope Lane. The swale going north to Falling Waters to
provide for the drainage to the areas to the north has been
constructed as far as I could see to the north, although that was not
to the school's property. I had been told by our construction people
that it would be completed by June 1st, all of this drainage work,
although the PUD document provides for June 16th. I'm still telling
them June 1st because I want it done by June 1st, and I think that is
to the advantage of all the residents. June 16th is just a fallback
date.
I believe the people here in the audience are here to
support both; one, access to Falling Waters, and authorizing the
developer to use Cope Lane as a construction access. I don't believe
you have any opposition to the petition. If you have questions, I
will be happy to try to answer them for you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Any questions for the
petitioner? Mr. Dotrill, how many public comments?
MR. DORRILL: Only one.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Only one. Why don't we listen
then.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. DeMeo.
MR. DEMEO: Good afternoon. My name is Tony DeMeo, and
I represent a number of the residents of Falling Waters, and we have
to live with whatever decision is made by this board. Falling Waters
has been a haven for me. I was fortunate enough to retire early from
one of the major metropolitan cities, and I know what it is to deal
with traffic and commotion and so on and so forth, and that's why I
went to Falling Waters. We're a small private gated community. And
we have a lot of pedestrians that walk along the street there. We
have bicycle riders, we have children, we have animals, we have so and
so forth. And as a result of allowing this road to go through and
permit regular vehicular traffic, we are opposed to that. So we would
just appreciate your consideration in vacating the roadway. Also, the
builder has promised that he would supply additional recreational
facilities for us. So I thank you for the consideration you can give
us.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. That was the only
speaker.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, Ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, a couple of items. First
of all, Mr. Nino, I think you need to explain that the provision that
Mr. Siesky said was in the PUD was in the PUD at one point, but not in
the PUD right now pursuant to the planning commission's direction.
MR. NINO: Correct. There is no obligation on the part
of Collier County to assume any special posture with respect to
insuring that they're not impeded from using Cope Lane as a
construction site.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As it currently stands as a
petitioner request that was not recommended by the planning
commission, it is not included in the document. MR. NINO: Correct.
MR. CUYLER: And the only other item is, Mr. Nino --
you may need to correct me on this -- my understanding is that this is
not actually a vacation. This takes care of the PUD provisions that
may relate to the access, but if there is, in fact, a vacation, that
is to be separate.
MR. NINO: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This road has never been built,
has it, to be dedicated --
MR. CUYLER: No, but there is a plat. The issue is
whether this is vacating. My understanding is that this takes care of
the PUD requirements. There may be a separate proceeding under the
statutes for a formal vacation.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Any other comments for staff or
petitioner? I'll close -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I just want to make sure I
understand the public speaker correctly. Let me have a show of hands
of everybody who came on this item.
Let me see a show of hands of everyone who is opposed,
that does not want this item to go forward.
Okay. That's what I thought.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That is what he said.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: With that, I will close the
public hearing. Is there further discussion or a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second
to approve the item. Any further discussion? All those in favor,
please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. (Applause).
Item #12B2
ORDIANCE 95-37 RE PETITION PUD-95-2, ROBERT L. DUANE OF HOLE, MONTES &
ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING STEVE LOVELESS REQUESTING A REZONE FROM
RSF-3, RSF-4 AND A TO PUD TO BE KNOWN AS BAILEY LAND PUD FOR A HAXIHUH
OF 75 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE END AND
NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE EXISTING BAILEY LANE LYING WEST OF AIRPORT
ROAD, CONSISTING OF 25 ACRES + - ADOPTED
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is 12 (B)(2),
petition PUD-95-2. Mr. Duane of Hole, Montes, seeking a fezone. Mr.
Nino.
MR. NINO: Yes, Ron Nino for the record presenting
PUD-95-2 which is a request to fezone 25 acres of land located on the
western end of Bailey Lane and lying on either side. Ten acres of
this property is currently zoned agricultural. That's the very
western strip (indicating). We lie on either side of Bailey Lane if
it were extended. On the north side of Bailey Lane there are 5 acres
of land that is currently zoned RSF-4, and then the south side is 10
acres of land that is currently zoned RSF-3. This proposal, if
approved, would fezone those 25 acres to the PUD classification,
planning unit development district. Now the purpose for that is for a
single-family development, 75 lots and three dwellings per acre.
The major purpose for going to the PUD, however, is
that that allows the developer the flexibility to take on development
standards that are unique to that 25 acres. And, in fact, those
development standards are, for all practical purposes, commensurate
with the development standards that would be allowed under cjustered
development in that the frontages will be less than 60 feet. The lots
will be less than 6,000, which is the minimum lot size for the RSF-5,
RSF district. So the PUD can become the umbrella for a cjustered
development of single-family housing that would permit the same
standards as if this came to you as a straight fezone with a
conditional use attached to it. The PUD does both activities in one
action.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the development standards
that are included in this PUD could only be approved via conditional
use through our regular zoning process. There are exceptions to the
standard rules.
MR. NINO: Correct. Relative to the matter of
consistency with the future land use, the plan, of course -- this is
in an urban residential district -- the FLUE authorizes the three
dwelling units per acre in this area. This petition is consistent
entirely with the FLUE, with the density rating system.
The traffic analysis indicates that the policies 5.1
and 5.2 and the other transportation policies having to do with the
impact of traffic considerations have been reviewed by traffic staff,
and they have -- this development, if approved, would be consistent
with those traffic circulation element policies. It's also been
reviewed for consistency with the open space elements and building
elements, and we can assure you that those elements will be satisfied
with the PUD as structured. All of the development commitments
reflect the measures that are needed to obtain consistency provisions
of the Land Development Code. The planning commission heard this
petition on May the -- well, the planning commission recommended --
unanimously recommended approval of this petition to you. There were
no people present, or has anyone communicated in writing any level of
objection to this petition.
One issue has arisen which I need to bring to your
attention that came after the planning commission dealt with -- it was
-- that was available at the time the planning commission dealt with
it. But it came to our attention that in the Wilson Professional
Center PUD there is a rather -- what we think is a rather strange
development commitment that needs some resolution in terms of its
applicability. The last sentence of one of the stipulations reads as
follows: Future developments along Bailey Lane shall be required to
make a fair-share contribution toward the right-of-way and
construction costs of this turn lane. These contributions shall be
used to reimburse the county for right-of-way costs and this
petitioner for construction costs. That stipulation, quite frankly,
took us somewhat by surprise. It's not reflected in the current PUD
document, nor has it been implemented for other developments that have
taken place along Bailey Lane.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How did it come to your
attention, Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: It came to my attention by a telephone call
from Mr. Peek.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And as I understand it, Wilson,
Miller had to pay for a turn lane and some right-of-way improvements.
And their PUD calls for other property owners as they develop land
along Bailey Lane to pay?
MR. NINO: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To pay Wilson, Miller back?
MR. NINO: That's the way we read that issue. It has
been brought to the attention of our legal staff. Ms. Student is here
to address it. I don't know how -- quite frankly, I'm not trying to
make an excuse, but I don't know how these kinds of stipulations could
ever come to the attention of some subsequent planners down the road
in dealing with the PUD or a fezone that's half a mile away.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We just approved a PUD on
Bailey Lane several months ago, and we did not include that in the
action.
MR. NINO: Correct. It was a fezone action, not a PUD.
Nevertheless, yes, it would have.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: An office went in on the corner
of Bailey Lane and Airport Road.
MR. NINO: Correct. The expansion to the church, all
of those activities, you know, technically would have been subject to
this provision unless you in your wisdom deal with that provision at
this point in time and make it right or what have you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did Mr. Peek call you suggesting
that the county should be enforcing this, sort of like where is the
check?
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How interesting.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He is just now getting around
to it, though.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, if I may. When the --
originally the Wilson special center was called Bailey Lane PUD;
right?
MR. NINO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When that was originally
approved, it has always been my experience that a turn lane is
required when your specific project -- if there's a certain minimum
number of turning movements, you therefore have to construct a turn
lane. I assume that study was done for the Bailey Lane PUD, and the
only reason it was required is because they hit that number. Is that
a fair assessment?
MR. NINO: I would have to defer to Mr. Kant.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a tough time believing
that they went in and built a turn lane out of the goodness of their
own heart.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They didn't have to. They just
did it.
MR. NINO: This issue has been reviewed by Mr.
Archibald and Ms. Student. We are all well aware of it, and we need
-- what we're really asking for is policy --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe Ms. Student is going to
put us out of our misery. If there is no obligation here to pursue
this, then my question is a moot point.
MR. CUYLER: Marjorie has talked to me about it, and
she has indicated to me her opinion is, and my opinion is you really
can't enforce that provision. There is really no way to enforce it,
although, frankly, I had not heard anything about the county's
right-of-way costs. I had only heard about construction costs to
Wilson, Miller. I'm a little more concerned about the county's cost,
frankly. But I'm not sure you can do either one.
MR. KANT: For the record, I am Edward Kant, county
transportation services division. Based on the file that I have,
albeit an incomplete file because we just, you know, keep everything
in this file, it appears that the majority of that right-of-way isn't
all it was prior to the prior development commitment and was donated.
I can find out for your information as to exactly whether or not there
was any out of pockets for any of that right-of-way. There were two
parcels. But based on drawings that I have seen, only one -- it looks
like only one parcel was finally acquired. This was done back in
August of 1987 as the original reviews and everything. And I, as Mr.
Nino, when this came to my attention, I said I can't understand what
they might have been thinking in 1987. But there is a serious
question whether that would be enforceable today given that there was
no mechanism set up for any assessments, or there was no mechanism for
tracking. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Kant, I'm trying to remember
a number. If I'm going to build something that requires an access
driveway, my memory tells me that if more than 60 right-hand turn
movements on any peak hour are made, I then have to address the
situation of a turn lane. Is that a correct assumption? I think 60
was the number.
MR. KANT: You're referring to the original provisions
in what was Ordinance 82-91 which has since been superseded. At that
time there was a provision for a minimum warrant for right turn lanes.
I believe, again, I can double-check, but I believe that's correct.
Two numbers come to mind. One is 40 cars, and one is 60 cars. One
was for left, and one was for right. So that's why I would have to
check to really confirm that. But I believe you are in the ball park.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Even with 150 employees we're
probably going to meet that.
MR. KANT: I would say that there was little question
to whether you would meet this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Enlightening. Commissioner
Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, I may have heard you
incorrectly. I thought I heard you say that that statement is in the
original PUD document but not in the PUD document today. Is that what
you said?
MR. NINO: No. There is no commitment on the part of
the petitioner of this PUD to recognize that development.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I see.
MR. CUYLER: Well, one of the problems you have
obviously is what Commissioner Matthews mentioned. That is you would
be treating it arbitrarily if somebody came in with a development just
because they have a straight fezone. We didn't put any condition on
them. Now you have a PUD placing a condition on them. You're really
not being consistent with regard to approvals if you were to do that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Question on that. Commissioner
Hancock brought up the idea that with so many turn movements a
petitioner would be required to put in a turn lane, whatever those
turn movements are. But, obviously, the 150 employees at Wilson,
Miller, Barton and Peek, they met the requirement just by building
their building to have to put the turn lane in. And I'm just
wondering why we include a clause to refund the money if the land code
requires them to do it.
MR. CUYLER: I assume what probably happened is that
there was probably some last-minute discussions, and Wilson, Miller
probably said we really don't want to do this, but if you'll put a
provision in the PUD that says we get reimbursed later, and everybody
nodded their head, and the provision went into the PUD without much
discussion of how you do it and what the basis of how you do it and
treating everyone equally and setting up some process, making sure it
is enforced. And when you don't do those kinds of things and put them
in the PUD as to how you're going to implement what you're talking
about, then it just doesn't happen.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm going to ask the question
that may have us in ultimate difficulty. But if the land code
requires them to build the turn lane when they acquire so many turns
in a given hour, did we not give them preferential treatment by
putting into the PUD a clause like that?
MR. CUYLER: Perhaps. But if we're not going to
enforce it, I think it's the no-harm, no-foul rule.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This was 1987 when PUDs were a
lot more loosey-goosey, if you will. They weren't the specific
documents that we're striving for today. In addition, we would have
to go back if we were going to enforce this and assess the church, a
professional office. I don't believe The Cottages were built prior to
1987.
MR. NINO: They were built prior to 1987.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They were. Okay. The Cottages
would be the only ones that would be exempt. We would have to go back
and assess the church. It's a little too cumbersome to approach is my
opinion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What do we do with Wilson,
Miller though? They have to send their PUD that just now since 1987
they can come to us and ask us to enforce it seven years down the
road. What do we do?
MR. CUYLER: I think it can probably remain an
unenforced provision in the PUD. I will talk to Mr. Nino about giving
Wilson, Miller a call and talking to them about it. But I am not sure
what can be done at this point, and I don't think the PUD needs to be
amended to take it out or anything like that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Questions. Mr. Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, I have a few questions
on the petition. In approving cjustered developments is it generally
the concept of cjustered development was that it provided an external
benefit or an environmental benefit and, therefore, the reduction in
lot widths or whatever concessions you were giving to achieve
cjustered development had an additional benefit to them to the
community. I've seen four-plus acres of land that is to be set aside
as part of a buffer system and so forth. Am I on the right track in
that assumption regarding cjustered development? If so, what are the
additional concessions that are warranted.
MR. NINO: The additional concessions are the
trade-off, the trade-off from a conventional design. And my choice --
I think they could create every lot at 60 feet in here -- I mean 6,000
square feet with 60 feet of frontage. But it would be a very gritty
looking plan. It wouldn't have the flow that I think this plan has.
There are the two lakes. The two lakes, I think, are more water
amenities than they are essential for waters management purposes are.
I'm sure they could have gotten their water management in the
perimeter swale. And there is -- incidentally, I neglected to mention
that since the Land Development Code now requires a commitment up
front about amenities, this PUD is the first one to reflect those
commitments, the 3,000 square foot, so many -- so much --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To be built within 12 months of
improvements --
MR. NINO: -- to be built within a certain time frame.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm appreciative of --
MR. NINO: Those are the trade-offs.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So in your opinion, what
we're getting is a beneficial community design, you know, more of a
lake system. In other words, overall the communities are better
designed because of the cjuster.
MR. NINO: Yes. I think the intent of a cjustered
development is being achieve.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I am going to interrupt here
because we've got -- you're talking over one another and --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
bad time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
I was stepping on --
The court reporter is having a
Hy apologies.
One at a time, please.
Secondly, with the original
Bailey Lane PUD being what is now the Wilson Professional Center PUD,
are we going to have a problem in records?
MR. NINO: No. The original Bailey Lane PUD is
officially the Wilson Professional. It was amended late --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did the amendment. I remember
that well. At the entrance to the project coming down Bailey Lane, is
there a sufficient turnaround provided there for people who are not
entering the project? And this may be something that the county has
to do, but otherwise I see that road just terminating in a gate.
MR. NINO: There's a turnaround provided just in front
of the gate.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There is a little island there
for emergencies.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And it meets emergency
standard requirements and so forth? MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next question is it looks to me
like a portion of Bailey Lane extends into the project. Are we
vacating a portion of Bailey Lane, or am I mistaken in -- MR. NINO: No part of this petition will involve a
vacation of a portion of Bailey Lane.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That is all I have for
now. Thank you.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Other questions? Does the
petitioner have something that they need to add?
MR. DUANE: Just briefly for the record, Robert Duane
from Hole, Hontes and Associates. We're in agreement with the staff
recommendation and all stipulations. Ms. Student has asked me to
clarify for the record that they asked us to clarify when sidewalks
were going to be provided internally to the project in Section 6.1 on
page 6.1, and we have done that. That will be provided at the time
that other subdivisions are accepted by the county. And I can clarify
from the language on Section 4.15 pertaining to common-area
maintenance on page 4.5, none of which are substantive changes.
MR. NINO: I have those two pages in fax form. Mr.
Duane will provide the originals.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mention sidewalks being
completed prior to subdivision improvements.
MR. DUANE: Being accepted by the county.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Being accepted --
MR. DUANE: We're going to provide them at the same
time that all the other improvements are eroded and so forth.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that going to cause you a
problem in construction? You start building those and driving over
sidewalks to --
MR. DUANE: We're willing to --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're willing to do that.
Okay.
in.
HR. DUANE: We're willing up front. We're putting them
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Slow down, slow down, guys.
We're talking over again. Any other questions? Mr. Dotrill, are
there public speakers? There are none, I'll close the public hearing.
Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve staff
recommendation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second
to approve staff's recommendation. If there is no further discussion,
all those in favor, please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to O.
Item #1283 - Continued to 6/13/95
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 95-38 RE PETITION R-95-2, COHMUNITY DEVELOPHENT SERVICES
DIVISION REPRESENTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS, REQUESTING TO
CORRECT EXISTING SCRIVENER'S ERRORS ON OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAPS
NUMBERED 872930, 482728, 462930, 69345, 79025, 7903N, 79035, 8510N,
85105, 8527N, 9511N AND 95115, REFERRING TO CHANGING VARIOUS ZONING
DISTRICTS FROM I-IND TO I, I-IND TO C-5, AND A TO A-HHD FOR PROPERTIES
LOCATED THROUGHOUT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is item 12 (C)(1), petition
R-95-2, community development services correcting some scribner's
errors.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I'm Ray Bellows,
community planning and community development services department,
requesting to correct existing scribner's errors on the official
zoning map that were adopted in accordance with the wrong zoning
designations, symbols, and MHO overlay zones.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you for that presentation,
Mr. Bellows. That was great.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Very good. It's a public
hearing. Mr. Dotrill, are there speakers? MR. DORRILL: No.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion on the basis
of your great presentation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second
to approve the petition. All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes 5 to 0.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 90-105 AS AMENDED, THE
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD ORDINANCE, AMENDING PART
ONE, SECTION 1.6.3.40 REGARDING THE DEFINITION AND CONTRACTOR
QUALIFICATIONS FOR NON-ELECTRICAL SIGN CONTRACTORS; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE - FAILED
Next item is 12 (C)(2), an ordinance amending Collier
County Ordinance 90-105, the contractor licensing board.
MR. SCHULTZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Jim
Schultz with the code enforcement. What we have today is a petition
-- excuse me, not a petition, but a request to amend the ordinance,
the existing ordinance. As it stands now the nonelectrical
contractors are requesting that they be allowed to do structural signs
and freestanding signs. Back in 1992 the ordinance was amended. At
that particular time they were doing this. We've had no problems in
the past, and 1992 the previous administrator had the ordinance
appealed.
We're here today to ask that the board would consider
that they be allowed to go back to the way it used to be, and that is
that the nonelectrical sign contractors be allowed to do the
freestanding structural signs. Any wiring will still be done by the
licensed electricians and electrical contractors. The prewired signs
and the premanufactured signs -- this would be an inclusive thing
also.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are there questions?
Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I understand correctly that
when the rule was changed that there was a grandfathering clause so
that people who had the license to do -- let's see -- people were
grandfathered in so that there are people in Collier County currently
doing what we're proposing they ought to change the ordinance back to.
MR. SCHULTZ: There was no proviso in -- there was no
grandfather proviso in 1992 when the ordinance was changed.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 19927
MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, Ha'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is 90-105.
MR. SCHULTZ: Well, the ordinance back in -- I think it
was changed in '92 to reflect the way that it is now, and that's what
we're asking, that this be changed.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you try again on the
explanation, rather than tell me let's go back to what it used to be
and talk about what it is right now, what it is you would like to
change it to? I don't care what it used to be or what it might be.
Let's just talk about the substance of it, because what it was in 1990
or '92 I don't really care. I want to look at where we are at now and
what the proposed change will do to where we are at right now.
MR. SCHULTZ: Okay. What we're asking is that the
nonelectrical contractors be allowed to do the structural signs, the
freestanding structural signs, do the wiring -- not do the wiring, but
have a licensed electrical contractor do the wiring of any structural
sign, any connections that's electrical. All will done by a licensed
electrical contractor.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right now. If you -- what are
the steps right now? Before we make this change, who can't do what?
MR. SCHULTZ: The way that it is right now our
nonelectrical sign contractors, they can't do any of this. They can't
do any of this. They can't come in and pull a permit. They have to
go through a licensed electrical contractor.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So even if your signs --
MR. SCHULTZ: For a structural sign.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can be permitted to install
signs right now, and you can get an electrical contractor to do the
wiring, but unless you are an electrical contractor, you can't install
an electric sign. That is the present status?
MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, HA'am. That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what you're proposing is
that somebody that knows how to install a sign can install it if they
get an electrical contractor to help them with the wiring.
MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. In the past the nonelectrical,
they've put on a whole job -- they've done the whole job up to the
wiring. But even then they had an electrician come in and wire and do
the hookup of the electrical signs, but they erected the signs.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you tell us why it was
changed before?
MR. SCHULTZ: That was the previous administrator. I
don't have any idea why it was done.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It was obviously done for a
purpose. I have to question the nonelectrical sign installers,
whatever they are, for lack of a better term. They have the ability
today to acquire their training and education and to become licensed
to be electrical sign installers; is that correct?
MR. SCHULTZ: They have the ability. Yes, HA'am, they
have the ability to construct a freestanding structural sign. They're
not allowed to do an electrical sign.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You didn't answer my question.
They have the ability to gain the education and become licensed to do
so if they choose to.
MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, HA'am, that's correct. They do.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Rather than do that, they want
us to change the licensing requirements so they can do something other
than what they're doing right now?
MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, Ma'am. That is what is requested.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was under the impression
-- maybe I was mistaken here. I was under the impression that people
who had been doing this for years who were in some way being now
prohibited from doing it -- and this was allowing those people to --
so that while they might not have some formal piece of paper that
they've done it for 20 years -- and I thought that was what it said in
here, that we're trying to make sure that somebody has the ability and
background and can prove that, and they can go ahead and do their own
thing.
MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, sir. That's correct.
MR. CUYLER: I think the way it was is that the
previous amendment would preclude them from doing it, but I don't
think that has been strictly enforced. And they have come in and
said, you know, would you change it back to the way that it was. Mr.
Manalich has dealt with this from the beginning. He may be able to
clarify the issues. Ramiro, would you just briefly inform the
commissioners?
MR. MANALICH: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Before we get
started on this, Mr. Dotrill, you were here, unlike any of the five of
us, when this law was changed to what it is now. Do you have any
recollection?
MR. DORRILL: I don't have any recollection at all.
Mr. Davis might be able to shed some light on the history of this.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Obviously, there must have been
a reason, or it wouldn't have been done.
MR. CUYLER: What you may want to do is let Ramiro
define the legal issue and what the ordinance is about. I think a
number of your speakers are going to address what you're asking about.
MR. MANALICH: For the record, Ramiro Manalich,
assistant county attorney. In a nutshell this matter came to the
contractor's licensing board. The reason it came was because it had
no validity on its own before, which is as the history was explained
to the board and me and to others. Basically the position of
nonelectrical sign contractors is that in the past they have
traditionally for many, many years done signs and erected freestanding
and premanufactured wall signs, some of which had electrical
components. They could install those signs and put them up provided
that in the electrical wiring related to that sign they went out and
got electrical contractors to do that.
Now, there is in the ordinance as currently written two
categories of sign contractors; nonelectrical and electrical sign
contractors. The electrical sign contractor representatives raised
objections before the contract board and through the workshops on this
point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where at the present status of
the law, though, is it that you have to be an electrical sign
contractor in order to install a sign that is electrical?
MR. MANALICH: It even goes beyond that. The way the
ordinance is right now, as seen in your agenda package at page 4, that
one of the things it has struck out there -- this is -- now I'm
talking about the definition of a nonelectrical sign contractor -- and
struck through what is currently the text, which is this category does
not include the construction of a freestanding structural sign. The
position of the nonelectrical sign contractor finds himself in is that
they take the position if they're qualified to erect a structural
sign, whether or not it has electrical components under this
provision, they cannot do it even if it doesn't have electrical
components.
MR. CUYLER: And that's what we're talking about, the
change two years ago being that it precludes them from erecting these
signs if they have electrical components. Now they're requesting that
that be removed, and we go back to the way that it was before.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe I'm missing something, but
the rest of the world has a distinction between certified installers
of signs of electrical components and certified installers of
nonelectric signs, don't they? Is that a distinction that exists in
the rest of the world, or are we unique?
MR. MANALICH: Well, I believe there is that type of
distinction. My understanding was that in Lee County there is a
distinction somewhere along those lines. I'm not technically informed
as to -- with regard to just freestanding structural signs with no
electrical. Whether that distinction may be made, I doubt it. I
mean, what I am informed through the public hearing process from a
representative of the industry, that they traditionally in this county
had always constructed signs, and whether they be electrical or
nonelectrical, provided they went out and got an electrician for any
wiring.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess the reason I ask, and
we'll hear from -- and maybe that's the best way to clear this up, but
it makes sense to me if a sign has electrical components, then a
certified electrical sign installer does it. If it doesn't, then you
don't have to be certified with an electrical background. I don't
understand --
MR. MANALICH: I think that the point to understand is
that even when it is nonelectrical in some areas, that even if it had
electrical components, if they're not involved in any of the wiring of
that sign, if all it is that they receive is premanufactured, for
example, and it has electrical components and maybe simply provides
the installation of it and just plugs it in and -- but doesn't get
into working on the electrical components, then there should be no
preclusion on them from being able to install that type of sign. If
they start working on the electrical, they go out and get an
electrician.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So then there would be no need
for the designation of electrical sign installer. There is no need
for that. And under this scenario what I am hearing is who cares as
long as the electrician does it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, you care because either
you have an electrical sign contractor or a sign contractor plus an
electrician. If we make a change, then a sign contractor --
nonelectrical sign contractor with a licensed electrician can install
electrical signs or an electrical sign contractor.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that. But what you
are saying is one equals the other so, therefore -- I'm saying why do
we need -- you know, in essence you're throwing this out. You know,
if it is easier to become a sign installer and hire an electrician
than it is to get the higher qualifications to do electrical sign
installation, you know, who is going to go for this designation?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why do we care?
MR. DORRILL: You may want to hear from your speakers.
They may be able to give you some information.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, you had a
question?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just ask a question of Mr.
Hanalich. Is the requirement -- these licensing requirements, does
that come down from state authority? How did we gather our
requirements for contractor licensing?
MR. HANALICH: This was a matter of the local creation.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I mean start in general, all
of our different contractor categories.
MR. HANALICH: Chapter 489 on the statutes has a
section on electrical contracting. Now the issue came up during the
electrical contractor licensing board workshop on this issue as to
whether we would be in conflict in any way with the state through its
regulations and statutes on this. I contacted the attorney general's
office, and their counsel advised us to the state electrical
contracting board. They reviewed our ordinance's proposed amendment,
and they said that no, there was no conflict. This was purely a
matter for local policy determination.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So it's our local policy we are
dealing with if we are going to differentiate or not differentiate
between two different types of sign contractors. It's only a local
policy type.
MR. HANALICH: That is what they stated to me, yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Any other questions before we
to the public? Mr. Dotrill, do you want to call the speakers. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Harrold, and then Mr. Eagleston.
MR. HARROLD: My name is Ted Harrold. I'm the owner of
Affordable Signs, Etc. here in Naples. I come as a representative of
the sign industry, specifically the nonelectric sign contractors, and
hope that we can help to explain what this is really attempting to do
which, in our opinion, is to strive to bring some equity and fairness
to the current ordinance without undermining the current ordinance and
completely serving the concern for the public safety and welfare.
Through several hearings and workshops, the fall representation of the
local sign industry met with staff and the county attorney, Mr.
Hanalich, and went through many discussions regarding what you are
addressing today. We came up finally with this document you have in
front of you which was endorsed unanimously by the county licensing
board.
Mainly this addresses two things in this current
ordinance. One, the capabilities of the nonelectric sign contractors
to construct, erect, or alter freestanding structural signs. By their
very nature they don't have to be electric. It had been procedurally
and historically enforced by county staff as to allow nonelectric sign
contractors to build these types of things should they get a building
permit from a licensed contractor, and if they were to include
electricity in some way, to use the services to hire a licensed
electrical contractor for any electrical work. In the fall of '94 the
county had changed their enforcement procedures to preclude
nonelectric sign contractors from erecting freestanding structures and
working on electrical signs without benefit of an electrical sign
contractor.
These two changes in front of you today will allow the
nonelectric sign contractors to build a freestanding structural sign
and work on them, of course, and when contracted by the public to do
electrical work, to hire at their own expense the services of licensed
electrical contractors which by their license are allowed to work on
anything electric in the course of their work. Now, it also addresses
that signs can be purchased and which is very typical in the sign
industry to purchase completely constructed prewired manufactured
signs that companies such as ourselves will install and hire the
services of a licensed electrical contractor to do the work and pull
the permit.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask you a question on
that?
MR. HARROLD: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the ordinance says that
it exists prior to this amendment if you want to install a sign that
has to be plugged in. Can you do that?
MR. HARROLD: There is a provision in the current
ordinance that specifically designates the hookup of an electric sign
must be performed by a licensed electrical contractor. That's
included, I think, in the electrical sign contractor provision. I may
have a copy of that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the answer is if you're not
-- I assume you're not an electrical sign contractor, so you could
not plug in that sign?
MR. HARROLD: Correct. There is by historical
practice, I believe, a procedure that if it's simply a plug into an
existing circuit box, yes, you can do it. But if it requires any
wiring or establishing or constructing the circuit box then, yes, you
must use a licensed electrical contractor. And the provision for the
electrical sign contractor alludes to that, that the electrical
service to the sign disconnect must be supplied by a licensed
electrical contractor.
I think the logic behind this is very simple. First of
all, it doesn't go contrary against existing state law for licensed
electrical contractors and forbid them to work on something electric,
albeit signs; and, secondly, that it clearly differentiates that --
the designation between electric and nonelectric structural signs.
And that, according to the county's interpretation is 32 square feet
or greater and over 8 feet in height, what you see, typically hundreds
of them when you drive around in the county. So we're here to support
the adoption of this amendment in conjunction with the many workshops
and unanimous approval of the licensing board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Eagleston and then Mr. Davis.
MS. EAGLESTON: I'm Courtney Eagleston, and I'm
representing United Sign Associates of Collier County. We are what is
called now nonelectrical sign contractors, which is far from the
truth. Historically we have installed electrical signs in the county
for the past up to 30 years. The ordinance that you are looking at
now, which was passed in '90, was put through by Mr. Clark and two of
the state electrical sign contractors in the county. Now the reason
for this was there were too many small sign contractors doing
electrical signs, too much competition. So in this way they could
restrict trade by using the county, which is not fair. What we are
here today asking you to do is make these changes so that we can
continue as we have in the past to serve our customers in installing
the electrical signs with the help of the electricians.
Most of our companies are small companies, and they're
family run, family owned. And what we're asking for is nothing new
since we have been selling, servicing, and installing electrical signs
since we had our license. Prior to this ordinance in 1990, all of our
licenses that we got, and I have a copy of them here for you, it said
sign erection. In '90 Dick Clark had nonelectrical put on these
licenses to restrict our license. This law was never enforced because
they agreed not to enforce it as long as we used an electrician.
I wrote a letter to Dick Clark and asked them to see
about grandfathering our license in because this ordinance does not
contain any grandfather clause, which as far as I am concerned, is
illegal. If you have 15 companies out there doing the work, and you
pass a law to restrict the license, you should have a grandfather
clause in there.
In '91 I went before the licensing board along with Mr.
Clark, and the licensing board said they had no objection to us using
an electrician to hook up our electrical signs. So what is called a
nonelectrical license now was an electrical license back when we got
our permits and our license. And we were afforded the services of
permitting and inspections from the county up until present day on the
electrical signs.
In '92, after our meeting with the licensing board, Mr.
Clark apparently went back to his office along with some of the
electrical licensing -- state electrical licensing contractors, which
I can think of two, and they drew up an electrical license for the
county. Prior to that there was none. And we're talking '92. So
this license in 92-61 has no grandfather clause in it. As far as I am
concerned, it is illegal. This license in '92 restricts our license
even further, and that is why we are here today to ask you to right a
wrong that has been done.
We went through many workshops on this problem. I have
a letter from '93, which -- is my time up?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Could you wrap up, please?
MS. EAGLESTON: Yes. Which I was supposed to come
before this board and ask for the grandfather clause to be added into
the licenses. We never got here. Why? I don't know. I have a
letter saying that it was going to be put on the agenda. But what
we're asking you to do is to right a wrong. And one way or the other
one of these licenses should be provided so that we can continue our
work in the county. We are taxpayers, property owners, and voters in
this county. And we expect you all will do the right thing. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask a question of the
speaker? When you were around -- it sounds like you were around
when
the change was made.
MS. EAGLESTON: Yes, I was.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did your group reorganize?
MS. EAGLESTON: No, we weren't organized. In fact, we
knew nothing of these changes until after they were done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was my question.
MS. EAGLESTON: We were never notified that there would
be any hearings, any meetings, or anything else. So as far as I am
concerned, these ordinances are illegal. They should not have been
passed.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He keeps saying that. But what
is important is what the courts say is illegal.
MS. EAGLESTON: That's right. I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You might say that you feel they
are unfair, and a lot of people might agree with you. But the legal
determination needs to be made by the court system.
MR. MANALICH: Commissioner, just to add to that. I
had mentioned to Mr. Eagleston earlier this morning previous to this
-- the opinion obviously turned on the county attorneys. They are
legal because they were properly advertised as required by statute.
Whether his group in particular now was given special notice would be
another issue.
Also, just a typo that you need to be aware of which is
in your executive summary. It is correct that the contractor
licensing board did approve this amendment that is being brought to
you, but it was not on March 19th, a Sunday. It was on February 15th
of 1995.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That changes everything.
MR. CUYLER: It was approved unanimously by the
licensing board.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I have two,
hopefully, quick questions for you. First one is that your assertion
is that this was changed to benefit a handful of electrical sign
contractors --
MS. EAGLESTON: True.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- kind of a behind-closed-door
deal; that is your assertion. MS. EAGLESTON: True.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have any idea why Lee
County has the same separation? I mean -- I guess I -- we're a little
bit in a vacuum. I'm not a sign contractor. My father is an
electrician. That's the closest I can get to you. But, you know,
other counties have made the differentiation for a reason, and I
assume it is not because of Dick Clark in Lee County.
MS. EAGLESTON: Okay. Like I said, back when we got
our license we did signs of all types, and we were told that we could
do any sign in the county. And that is what we did, and that is what
we have done up to present day. And the county has granted the
permits, the inspection, and we have done it. Our license before '90,
as stated, said sign erection contractor. After '90 it said sign
erection nonelectrical. There was no class grandfathering us in, even
though we were doing the work. There should have been a clause to
grandfather us in and then there wouldn't be a problem.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But what you are asking
for here today isn't a grandfather. You're asking to change an
ordinance so that someone who starts a sign company tomorrow can do
what you have been doing for, as you said, 30 years. I have no
question that your quality work is there. I'm not questioning that.
I'm not questioning your grandfathering. What you are asking is a
change in ordinance so that, in essence, there is really no
significant differentiation between someone who erects signs and
someone who has an electrical designation. And I'm not so sure that
that is really true for a new person in the business.
MS. EAGLESTON: Okay. There is a provision. The
educational requirements and testing requirements have been changed on
this ordinance. So they are more strict for someone coming into the
business. They are just about as strict as if you had an electrical
license. Now there are two different licenses that we're talking
about. The one that we're talking about here is county. The one that
the opposition is talking about that they have are state electrical
licenses. The reason they have a state license is because they work
in other counties, so they're required to have that license. We are
not required to have that license because we work here in Collier
County.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Davis.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just have one question.
All you're asking is -- right now if you need to erect a sign, you put
a pole in the ground, you put a piece of plastic on top, that's fine.
If it is going to be lighted, you're not supposed to do that, are you
now? All you are asking is that you still be able to put the pole in
the ground, put the plastic on top, and call an electrician.
MS. EAGLESTON: True. That is exactly what we want.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is not asking for
anything out of the ordinary to me. That's why I am asking further of
your '-
MS. EAGLESTON: We'd like to say that the electric --
county electrical license Ordinance 92-61 should be revisited, and it
should have a grandfather clause put in there to make it legal.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question, Mr. Cuyler,
before Mr. Davis. Sorry. He just referred to Ordinance 92 something
or other.
MS. EAGLESTON: 61.
MR. CUYLER: We're not doing that today.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know we're not doing that
today. But if we adopt this, are we not superseding that one, yet
we're not being asked to repeal it?
MR. HANALICH: What has happened is that 90-105 is the
original contractor licensing board ordinance. There have been
several amendments to it; 92-61 is one of them. This is just
addressing a particular item of 90-105 as amended -- MR. CUYLER: And we are not.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It includes '92 '-
MR. HANALICH: Yeah.
MR. CUYLER: Correct. The base ordinance would have
been amended by the other ordinance. We're not doing anything
inconsistent with any of the other electrical codes of any sorts by
passing this. The answer is, no, we are not. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question for Mr. Cuyler
also. In the additional language there, the last sentence in the
first paragraph says after shall be responsible, it says, "under his
or her certificate of competency and this ordinance for the work done
on the entire sign." This tells me that if this gentlemen goes out
and erects a sign and hires an electrician to wire it, if the
electrician wires it and somebody gets hurt, his certificate of
competency is responsible. I mean, he is responsible. That seems
strange to me because he's not -- I don't know that he is qualified to
review the electrical work.
MR. HANALICH: This came up during the workshops, and
the analogy was that of a general contractor, subcontractor, that
basically if the industry is going to grant this privilege, that they
should remain ultimately responsible for choosing and picking an
electrical contractor that is responsible.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MANALICH: So it is a matter of their license.
They would be bought to disciplinary action.
MR. CUYLER: Although, I would guess that can be
perceived against the electrical contractor as well.
MR. MANALICH: I think against both.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're on, Mr. Davis.
MR. DAVIS: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Mike Davis, vice president of Signcraft. Getting back to the history
question, because I'm confused listening to what I have heard thus far
today. Back in late '90, early '91 there was by county staff
generated the idea of going through our contractor licensing ordinance
in general. And I, along with other people from our industry, were
contacted to participate in that process. The three classifications
that the State Department of Regulation had at that time, I believe,
have to this date; one, is nonelectrical sign contractor; a
designation as nonelectrical sign contractor with structural; and the
electrical sign contractor were the three designations.
Through a group a meetings that -- to speak to Mr.
Courtney (phonetic) is one accusation. Jim MacLane (phonetic), a
nonlicensed -- excuse me -- a nonelectrical licensed sign contractor,
was in charge of notifying all the area sign companies for this
meeting that took place over a period of months. It was decided that
in our new contractor licensing ordinance we would include two
designations as you have seen them today, nonelectrical sign
contractor and electrical sign contractor.
To the grandfathering issue at that time, Mr. Clark
stated that there would be a period of approximately six months for
the nonelectrical sign contractors who chose to upgrade their
licensing to the higher designation through taking the state tests and
applying for a higher level license. Several of them chose to do
that.
When this most recent process got started, it was my
understanding that the main concern was that a nonelectrical sign
contractor who traditionally do, say, a 4-foot by 8-foot for-sale sign
on a vacant piece of property, one that does not meet our threshold
for what we call a structural, structural meaning a licensed engineer
from the State of Florida that is required to engineer the foundation
for the structure, were no longer able to the do the larger signs
whenever they went over the 80-foot threshold or larger than 32 square
feet. Not having that desire to do that additional work but yet not
necessarily moving up to the electrical license, that makes sense.
That's an interim thing.
The Department of Regulations at the state level
provides the opportunity for that third type of license, and Block and
Associates supports that with testing for that specific type license.
I would encourage the board to consider including that third
designation so that it takes care of the situation of where -- a
nonelectrical sign contractor that may begin by lettering boats,
vehicles, these sorts of things, does a few for-sale signs on vacant
pieces of property, would like to do a larger one, a 60 square footer,
as our code allows. That, of course, requires engineering. As I stated
before, they would have the second level of licensing that they could
acquire to do that type of work.
I think that it is important that the electrical aspect
remain as it is. Working on electrical signs is a little different
than even standard electrical contracting work. There are
peculiarities to signs. There's -- a lot of the work is high in the
air and takes special equipment. I believe that the other counties --
Lee County, that Commissioner Hancock spoke to, has these two separate
distinct designations. And if you want to work -- and Mr. Courtney is
right. If you want to work in Lee County, you must have that state
license to do so.
My only parting thought is the one thing that does
trouble me is that in the event of using an electrical contractor as a
sub, we get back to the question of the license holder who has hired
the sub having ability to both supervise and check the work for its
accuracy. And I think my simple answer to the question is if one as
their business grows desires to do additional work, much as ours has
grown over the years, that the ordinance currently provides and went
with the one addition that I spoke about, would provide a third
opportunity to move up the ladder, if you will, and do increasingly
more complex work. And with that I'll close. I'll answer any
questions if you have them.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Questions?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have one if it's not too
complicated. What additional -- how difficult is it to get the second
tier license that you're talking about, the electrical sign contractor
license? What is involved in that as opposed to a regular sign
license?
MR. DAVIS: If you don't mind, Commissioner Hac'Kie,
I'll defer that question to Mike Boyd who I think is going to follow
me, who with his company is the license holder at the state level, the
qualifier. In my case I am not; my partner is. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Boyd is next, then Mr. Susa.
MR. BOYD: Good afternoon. My name is Michael Boyd.
I'm the license holder for Signs and Things. I'm the president of the
company. I hold a state registered electrical sign contractor's
license. I took the test to receive that the license in June of 1991
after being prodded by Collier County that they were changing the law,
that in order to work on electrical signs we must take the state test
and have the state license. It is a four-hour test. It's on
electrical. It's on structural signs, and it's on business law. It's
given around the state. I think it is given pretty much almost every
other month down here now. We were told by the county, by Collier
County, that if we wanted to continue doing electrical signs in
Collier County, we had to take the test. We're also told that for
about a six-month period there would be a moratorium. But we had to
take the test if we wanted to continue doing electrical signs.
Three of us went and took the test. We're licensed by
the county. We went and took the test because the county told us we
had to. We wanted to continue doing business. Now all of a sudden
we've got a number of people that, oh, they weren't told about this
back in 1991. Well, quite frankly, I wasn't even told about this
meeting today until yesterday. And I attended all the workshops.
if you have your head in the sand, you know, that's no excuse. We
were told that we had to take the test, and we took it.
This whole issue is not being brought up by a public
outcry that certain contractors aren't getting their share of the
business, nor is it being brought about by myself and another
electrical sign contractor being closeted in with Dick Clark, because
that never happened.
Adjoining counties and cities require exactly what
Collier County requires. They expect you to take a test to show that
you're qualified to do electric signs. Part of that test is not only
a credit report, which you have to provide affidavits that you have
experience in the trade. There is three different versions that I
have of the present draft of the ordinance. I've got a contractor's
licensing board version. I've got a staff version, and I have a
version with Mr. Eagelston's changes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The correct version would be the
one in the packet that's with the agenda outside.
MR. BOYD: What has been presented so far is that they
want to do structural signs. But right in here it also says they want
to do wall signs which are electrical also. So what do they really --
do they want to just do structural signs? Do they want to do electric
signs that are structural? Do they want to do wall signs that are
electric? Mr. Davis was correct. There are three different
categories if you take the state test. There is a category just
strictly for sign contractor. There is a category for structural
signs, nonelectric, and there is a test for structural signs and
electric signs.
In closing, none of the existing electrical sign
contractors have been grandfathered in. Not a single one of us has
been grandfathered in. We have taken the test. And I don't see why
you should lower the standards now and grandfather people in. They
can go and take the test. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question about
the licensing procedure? And I don't know, maybe Ramiro -- maybe it
will be that you will have part of the answer for this. It said in
this ordinance that we would -- Collier County would require a
three-hour test. You're saying there is a four-hour test at the state
level. Would the three-hour test that is composed at the county be
the same sort of test as the state? Who knows that?
MR. BOYD: I think all the tests are given by Block and
Associates. Now I know that when I took the test in '91, the sign,
electrical, and structural was a four-hour test.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This says that a nonelectrical
sign contractor with 24 months of experience that passes a two-hour
business and law test and passes a three-hour test, and it doesn't say
MR. HANALICH: It's on the subject matter.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the subject matter -- so
would the test that we are going to give Collier County be the same
test that the state gives?
MR. HANALICH: I am not informed on that administrative
question.
MR. CUYLER: I think it would be similar but, no, I
don't think they are the same.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it isn't like we're just
going to say, okay, you all come down and, you know, install electric
signs. We are going to require people to pass a county test if we
adopt this change to the ordinance.
MR. BOYD: Only those people that are not presently
licensed.
MR. HANALICH: Mr. Boyd is correct on that. There's a
grandfather provision.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Even the grandfather provision
requires the nonelectrical sign contractor to use an electrician.
MR. HANALICH: Right. That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is your opinion that a
nonelectrical sign contractor plus an electrical contractor together
don't have the expertise of an electrical sign contractor?
MR. BOYD: They don't have the same qualifications that
I do.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wasn't asking what you were
tested on in the past. I was asking you if you have an opinion on
whether or not they have the same expertise, the two of them combined?
MR. BOYD: There may be some out there that do, but
there may be some out there that don't.
MR. HANALICH: I'm not, obviously, informed on all the
trade aspects of this, but I can tell you that when this matter was
discussed before the contractor licensing board, I know that Mr.
Beaumont, an electrician, he voted in favor of the amendment, but I
don't know. As I say, me and Mr. Boyd -- he's out more in the field
than I am. It's his trade, so I can't given an opinion on that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Davis said something that
piqued my interest. To be honest, I'm kind of swimming around looking
for facts on this. You mentioned that in your certification that you
have to have -- there are several parts of it, one of which obviously
is the electrical portion so that you can correctly supervise, I
assume, a licensed electrician or someone who has passed your test
that is doing the wiring on the signs. In other words, you have to be
certified to be able to permit the job; is that correct? MR. DAVIS: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If a general contractor, which I
heard someone likened this to earlier -- if I am the general
contractor, do I have to pass a test showing minimum base knowledge of
all the elements of the subs that I hire? I mean, is this a parallel?
MR. DAVIS: I think so, but they could not do any
electrical wiring.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I don't -- I wondered if
your electrical sign in the state certification puts you in the same
role as a general contractor. In other words, do you have to know all
facets of electrical sign building whereas a nonelectrical doesn't?
MR. DAVIS: I'll be honest with you. The test barely
scratches the surface on what you should really know. It really does.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we don't know, and you don't
know, particularly if this three-hour test that we're talking about
administering is even comparable or -- we don't know what is even in
this test?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nobody can tell me.
MR. BOYD: It's a structural base test.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean it's just structural. So
it's still -- there's no emphasis on electrical so far.
MR. HANALICH: That is the so-called Block test.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A Block test for structural sign
construction.
MR. HANALICH: Right, which is the one administered
statewide.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it is not an electrical test.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have to have it on the
record, sir.
MR. DAVIS: I do not believe it would be an electrical
test, no, Commissioner.
MR. HARROLD: Ted Harrold, again, with Affordable
Signs. The testing that you are referring to are -- the business and
law tests that is proposed in this amendment is a two-hour business
test, doesn't really go into the details of sign making or anything
like that. I mean, it is a business, and law tests as per the current
ordinance for electrical sign contractors provides that they have two
years of experience and passing a three-hour test. What this current
proposed amendment does is provide for the gap and in a manner
suffices to be comparable to the three designations sign company that
Mr. Davis referred to and the fact that a person who has an existing
nonelectric sign license can choose, by providing affidavits of
experience and bringing them to the county, to be allowed to build
structural signs. If an existing contractor doesn't do that, he will
not be able to after the 45-day waiting period. But all those new
licensees will be obligated to pass the two-hour business and law test
to build -- to do a sign contracting. And if he wants to do
structural signs, then additionally he will have to take the
three-hour structural test which is limited to that. I hope I have
answered your questions.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one for you.
MR. HARROLD: Okay. Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What is your objection to simply
taking the test and becoming an electrical sign contractor?
MR. HARROLD: I have no objection at all, sir. What I
don't like about the current ordinance is that it is unfair, and it's
inequitable, and it is contrary to state code. So there are those
three problems that I have listed. Number one, it's unfair because a
structural sign is not necessarily electric. An electric contractor
may or may not possess more experience in building those type of
things, according to the county determination for structural signs.
You see, many of these signs are not very complicated in nature. It's
a concrete block wall maybe 10 feet high, a few cords of bricks,
blocks, a piece of wood, and a few posts. We're not talking
sophisticated construction here.
May I add, though, if a nonelectric sign contractor
wants to build a freestanding structural sign, he indeed is obligated
to the same rules. He has to provide field engineer drawings and have
inspections. The county has an opportunity to inspect this sign
twice. So it's not trying to circumvent any current ordinance. It's
just trying to bring equity to the ordinance. If the sign is
nonelectric, it's not electric and, secondly, that a state certified
electrical contractor can work on anything electric.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe we've gone beyond the
scope of my question.
MR. HARROLD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Simply, why would you object to
going and taking your license?
MR. HARROLD: Well, that was part of the three
objections.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I know -- I believe that our
legal counsel has pointed out that this does not conflict with state
law.
MR. HARROLD: As proposed, no.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, does our existing
electrical sign ordinance conflict with state law?
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Manalich has checked that out, and the
answer is no.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good. Okay.
MR. MANALICH: Let me clarify that. What I said, the
proposed amendment does not conflict with state law. Now, whether the
current version in prohibiting nonelectrical from doing a nonelectric
structural sign, whether that is an intrusion on them, I have not
looked completely at that issue.
MR. CUYLER: Why don't you go ahead and hear from your
next speaker. Let me talk to Ramiro. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Susa and then Mr. Seda.
MR. SUSA: Hi, my name is Nick Susa. I'm a licensed
electrical sign contractor here in Collier County. Previous to 1990 I
did have a regular sign and erector's license which was changed to
nonelectric. We were told at that time that we had about six months
to go and upgrade our licenses if we wanted to stay doing what we were
doing. I chose to stay in the electrical end of it and the structural
end of it And went and spent over a thousand dollars to go get my
license like the county required.
You're kind of getting snowballed here because there is
a couple of different things that are going on. One, you have
structural signs, which is a whole separate entity; and you've got
electric signs over here, which is a whole separate entity. I could
have upgraded my license from nonelectric sign erector, which would
have limited me to 32 square feet and 80 feet in height to a
structural sign contractor, which I could do anything up to 25 feet
tall and 250 square feet that the county allows, but I would not be
able to do electrical work. You're trying to get two licenses or
three licenses all wrapped into one license, and it's not right. I
opted to go for the sign electric because that encompassed the
electric signs, and it also encompassed the structural signs. There
was a good portion of the test on steel placement, rebar, concrete,
and as far as pouring a foundation and setting foundations as well as
steel and structural tensile strength.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That part that you just
described, the rebar and steel and concrete, that was a part of the
electrical sign contractor's test?
MR. SUSA: Right. And it also -- if you wanted it one
step below, you could also take the structural test which would give
you the same portion. They would just eliminate the electrical end of
it. But the sign electric encompasses both the electric and the
structural.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question -- Mr. Manalich is
busy, but why does all of a sudden the state's standard make sense to
me? You know, there are three steps in constructing a sign. It's
either basically plywood with lettering on a fence post --
MR. SUSA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- then you have a structural
sign, and then you have a structural with electric, and all three
require different levels of expertise to supervise properly, I am
assuming.
MR. SUSA: Lee County is the same way. You can get a
limited sign license today if you want to go up to Lee County and
work. But it's a limited sign license. Yes, you can.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I don't want to, though.
MR. SUSA: On a limited sign license you are allowed to
work on anything that's 32 square feet or less and under 10 feet high.
So even if you have vinyl letterings that you were going to stick on
an awning that's 12 feet in the air, you couldn't do it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question is, why does our
standard vary from the state significantly, and what's the benefit to
Collier County for that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I say something about that?
If -- God help us, if we're going to pattern after the state because
they just regulate something to death -- and I'm just trying to keep
something clearer here -- that what we are talking about is somebody
can construct a sign, but they don't have electrical expertise and
they can get a qualified electrician, why should it be more
complicated than that?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think you or I know
diddle about constructing electric signs. I would assume the state
has the significant amount of experience in it and the pattern
statement that we are going to pattern ourselves after. The state is
not my concern at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry if I said that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I was saying is, their
process seems to make sense because there is a difference in skill
level between these gentlemen that have been out constructing
structural signs for numbers of years, and I see no reason why they
shouldn't continue. The question today, is there a difference in
skill level required to supervise an electrical sign versus a
nonelectrical. And, you know, you can tell me yes, and you can tell
me no or vice verse.
MR. SUSA: Well, I don't think it is fair that there
was about three or four of us that did go out and get our license,
spent over a thousand dollars, spent many hours taking tests and
classes and stuff to go and pass the test. I mean, I just threw that
money away. Is the county going to reimburse me for that? I don't
think so.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Definitely, no.
MR. SUSA: You know, I mean that is not right. They
gave you the option of doing something like that, and it was our
prerogative which way to pursue this. I could have relied on maybe
getting grandfathered in, but I didn't want to do that. You know, it
helped me actually as far as qualifying and knowing a little bit more
than I actually knew.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems that we're creating our
own certification system here. I know the contractor's licensing
board has approved this, but I distinctly heard one member of that
board is an electrician. I know that's the idea, but his business
would increase, and I'm just -- you know, I'm sitting here thinking I
don't know who to believe.
MR. SUSA: One thing that kind of got thrown in this
whole deal is the prewired signs. If I make a sign at my shop and
build it and prewire it and bring it to the job site, it's already
prewired, this isn't the primary power supply. It's a prewired sign.
So it's not coming in shipped in like you'd like to believe or been
told. Channel lettering, like the lettering there on the wall that
would illuminate, that's all done at the job site, and it is not
prewired. Portions of it may be prewired, but the electrical is still
done. The thing that you're telling me about bringing an electrician
in to a job, they do the final hookup. They don't do anything to the
sign. They come in and hook up the three wires, the black, the white
and the green, and they're out of there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That makes sense to me to allow
that. But I'm not so sure that this doesn't include more than that.
MR. SUSA: It does include a lot more than that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It does include more than that
the way I read it.
MR. SUSA: The contractor's doing all the wiring that
there is to do, whether it's at his shop or it's at the job site. The
electrician is just there hooking up three wires. They never look
inside the sign. They have no idea what's going on. So, yeah, it
sounds good, but you're getting snowballed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ramiro or somebody tell me -- I
don't this ordinance says that. I think it says that to the extent
that electrical work is required, it has to be done by an electrical
contractor.
MR. HANALICH: It definitely says that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So '-
MR. SUSA: The final hookup.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, it doesn't say the final
hookup. Ramiro, does it say that?
MR. MANALICH: No, it says electrical wiring.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All the wiring work -- that
would be a travesty if we were saying you guys go, but we're not.
What we're saying --
MR. SUSA: Well, I can guarantee that is the travesty
that is going on. I can promise you that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Some people are breaking the
law.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Dorrill.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Seda.
MR. SEDA: Hi, my name is Elias Seda. I have the
Engraving Emporium in Golden Gate, and we've been doing signs since
1987. And I don't have a sign electric license, state license. And I
disagree with what the last two fellows said. I never understood from
anybody that I had to get a state license, because I am not doing
signs with the state. And I even asked the people -- the powers that
be down at the county about what if I don't get this license. Well,
then you're going to have to continue to get an electrician in order
for you to do these signs. Okay, fine. I tried to get the license
anyway because I figured, well, some day somebody is going to make an
issue out of this, and I'll try it. Like my brother-in-law has been
trying for eight years to get his license for air conditioning, I've
been trying to get my license for sign electric in order to not have
to come to these meetings like this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Try to make a living.
MR. SEDA: Right. Stay home and make a living. I've
lost money today already. But I feel that it was never stated in that
way, number one. I was not told that I had to get a state license.
For me to have a state license, that means I can go outside of the
county and work everywhere. That wasn't my intention. And I was told
directly that if you don't get a state license, you'll have to
continue to get a licensed electrician on your permits. And if you
want to check all my permits for pole signs that I have done over the
years, there will be a licensed electrician and a concrete man
licensed also on the permit. So you're going to have the best-quality
sign that you can possibly get with those three heads put together
rather than just one guy who just happened to pass the state tests.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there other
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, Ha'am.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
Do we have a motion?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make a motion that we
approve the amendment to the ordinance as recommended to us by
contractors licensing board for a couple of reasons. One is I don't
want to see us cutting the small guy out of business when we are able
to protect the county. And we can adequately protect the county if we
have two contractors. One sign contractor and one electrical
contractor, it seems to me, is equal to qualifications of an
electrical sign contractor. So I move approval.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion to approve.
Is there a second?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'll second that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Is there further discussion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm going to oppose the motion,
the reason being that I feel that for the greatest measure of
protection to the public that it's not asking too much for any
contractor to pass a licensing requirement by the county for that
endeavor which he is going to engage. We require it in all other
trades, and I don't know why would make an exception on one particular
trade.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, I don't think I can
support the motion. It goes further into the -- absolving the
existing permit holders of having to meet the requirements of this
ordinance which is less than the state requirement. It specifies two
affidavits, but doesn't say from whom or to what extent. I just feel
there is weakening here without a reason to do that. The
qualifications are out there; they're available. If you study and
obtain them you can do the work. And I see this as kind of an end
run-around that -- and I'm a little concerned about that maybe it's
because I don't have enough information. I don't know. But just in
hearing what I have heard today, I haven't heard sufficient
information to say there is no difference between the distinctions.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I concur with those remarks.
I've got considerable doubt relating to this structural part, and I'm
not sure I understand enough about what we would be allowing the
nonelectrical people to begin doing. If they're not qualified now to
do structural components that are 25, 30 -- I don't know how tall --
if they're not qualified to do it now, passing this ordinance allows
them to do it, and they may not be qualified to do that. The
electrical part doesn't bother me too badly because they would have to
hire an electrician to do the work. It's the structural part that is
giving me the headache. So with that I will call the question. Any
further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sorry, I lost my head.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're withdrawing your vote?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, that was an inadvertent
vote.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Please note that there are two
votes saying aye.
Those opposed, please say aye.
Motion fails 2 to 3, Commissioners Matthews, Hancock,
and Norris being opposed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the point you brought
up, Commissioner Matthews, is quite true to me, and that is I see no
distinction for structural. We heard that we've been doing structural
signs for years, but now we're not allowed to. If this was more
specific to address that continued amount of work, I think I could be
supportive. But I continue to have a question. I have a question on
the electrical side. But, you know, someone who has been doing
structural signs for X amount of time but now get's precluded, I don't
agree with that as fair. But this ordinance to me wasn't the way to
right that. Maybe there is another way.
If you have a brief comment, sir, I personally would
like to hear it if the board would allow it.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: The public hearing is closed.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I'm stepping out of
line here. The public hearing was closed.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: The public hearing is closed.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I might ask that if there is
some plan B, that we look at plan B. We may be revisiting this again.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would urge our staff and the
contractors, both electrical and nonelectrical, to continue working on
this. I think you heard from the board what their concerns were. And
if you can come back with something that can get you three votes, you
can have it.
Item #13A1 - Continued to 6/6/95
Item #14A
DISCUSSION RE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD LUNCH WITH BCC - COUNTY
NLA/~AGER TO ADVISE REGARDING LUNCHEON DATE
That concludes the agenda for May 23rd, 1995. We are
at communications, and we have several communications that we noted
this morning for the BCC, the first being the Hispanic Affairs
Advisory Board lunch with the board on June 6. Apparently Mr.
Whitecotton has scheduled a brown bag lunch, Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: No, I'm working with Ramiro Manalich on
that, and you're just going to decide today if June 6 is okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If June 6 is an appropriate
date. Is our June 6th noon -- that afternoon adequate to have us here
through lunch?
MR. DORRILL: I haven't seen the index for the 6th yet.
I won't see it until tomorrow morning. It would be much better than
the 13th or the 20th.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I know we're going to be
here the 13th and the 20th.
MR. MANALICH: I'm sure if any of the other assistants
-- the Hispanic board chairman has indicated to me that whatever date
the board picks in June is fine with them. They would prefer -- the
earlier the better. June 6th was fine with them. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Any comments?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of thoughts.
I'd much rather do it on a light-day agenda. I know last week when we
had a working lunch and had a 10-hour meeting, that makes for a very
long day to have no break all day long. It was a very productive
meeting, I think, helpful meeting, but I would prefer to do that when
we don't have a 10-hour day.
One thought. Hopefully we can do it June 6th. But if
for any reason we can't, we're meeting on budget hearings and
everything else about a dozen times during June, so we should have
ample opportunity between all the meetings we have.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's just that my concern is
that the agenda is very light. We've had some agendas where we've
been finished at eleven o'clock, and if we schedule a lunch at noon,
we don't want to be sitting around for an hour.
MR. DORRILL: Why don't you just leave that at my
discretion. If I need to communicate back to you and if the index is
very short, then I'll put it on. If it looks like we're going through
into the afternoon then, well, we'll need to pick another time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It works for me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that is sufficient.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It works for me. Commissioner
Norris, did you have anything?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further today.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, MA'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie.
Item #14B
DISCUSSION RE 2ND GORDON RIVER BRIDGE - STAFF TO DEVELOP PUBLIC
INFORMATION ITEM
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one thing that I bring up
with a little hesitation. But Commissioner MAtthews had at one point
raised the issue about having another hearing on the bridge. And I
don't want to have another hearing on the bridge where we vote on
anything. But I'm real concerned, as I am sure most of you are, that
we aren't winning the battle of the press when we aren't getting our
message out. So I wonder if there is any support on the board for
having a joint workshop -- a workshop, because we can't vote, and
workshop on a couple of issues on why we chose the route we did and
why the sales tax is the right way to fund it, but as a means for
explaining ourselves to the public, because I think we made the right
choice. So a joint workshop might give us an opportunity to get
information out. I just wonder if there is any support for that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would seem to me -- I
don't disagree with that at all, that we need to get information out
to make sure people make an educated decision. But it would seem to
me that some sort of the forum -- I think you are right; we need to do
at least one fairly soon. And then I think we need to continue that
throughout the summer particularly as it comes time for the ballot in
September. But I don't know, the joint workshop, if it's only for
educational purposes, is the right tool to do that particularly -- and
let me just say -- add a final thought there. Keep in mind in the
month of June we're meeting, I think, four times for the budget, four
times for this, once for regular Tuesdays, once for MPO, at least once
in a joint meeting. There aren't too many days left to actually do
what we do in real life or what we do other than Tuesday's done. So
for that reason I'm a little hesitant to schedule a workshop just to
talk it over.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that. In addition,
one of the main reasons I would want to have a joint workshop is if
the city is to find out what the progress in addressing Lake Park is.
To me that is a pivotal point, at least to many of the residents in my
district. And I know we're not there yet, and it's not going to
happen overnight. But to me that's the most critical point for what I
am hearing out of my district and my constituents, is that -- are we
destroying Lake Park. So that's the one thing that is left open for
me. The rest of it, you know, I think as I have indicated before,
hasn't really changed. So I don't think I am ready to schedule a
joint workshop, but I need some answers on that item. I don't know
the best venue to get those.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we are scheduled for a
public hearing on this subject on June 20th. We've held hundreds, it
seems, of public meetings on this subject. It just appears to me that
the news media is unwilling to somehow portray what we've done
accurately. They just don't do it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is our plan, though?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know what it will take to
have them portray to the public the accuracy that is needed to get the
information out. It appears they're not going to do that no matter
how many public hearings we hold. So my point is that, as
Commissioner Constantine said, maybe that's not the right way to get
the job done. We need to figure out another way of getting the
message out to the people that doesn't involve another joint session
or another public hearing or something like that. We've had hundreds
of them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I share that. God knows I
don't want another meeting. I'm just grasping at ideas for how to get
the message out. So maybe, Mr. Dotrill, it's appropriate to get some
-- to give some direction to staff or get some recommendations from
staff. Do we have a press campaign, a PR campaign? Do we need to
develop one? How are we going to go about this?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just throw a thought
out. I don't think we need to be selling and doing a PR campaign
either pro or against a tax because I don't think that is appropriate.
I don't. It's taxpayer dollars we would be spending. So I don't
think it is appropriate to take one side on an issue and then spend
taxpayer dollars trying to sell that side. What I do think is to have
a forum. I know the League of Women Voters in the past have put on
forums on either issues or on races that have appeared on the ballots.
Colony Cablevision has been very good about televising those in the
past. And we might be able to set up a series of those type things
where we can get that information out and educate the public on the
issue directly as opposed to waiting for interpretation through the
news and yet not expend tax dollars doing it. So I think there are
ways to do it, and we need to do it. But I just -- we need to kind of
figure what that will be.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So at what point are we going to
develop our strategy?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think that was the question
Commissioner MAc'Kie asked for August. What is our plan?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've all said that we need to
build a bridge. We disagree maybe on the funding mechanism, and some
of us may feel that the alignment may or may not have been the best
choice. But needless to say, that is the alignment that was chosen,
and that's the alignment the design and engineering is going forward
on. And there are pluses and minuses for all three alignments that
were before us, and they're all three very close together. So -- but
still we need a plan.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, it might be
appropriate if we ask the MPO, and in particular, Mr. Jeff Perry, to
put together a fact sheet. There are -- you know, all of this -- the
broad discussion can be boiled down to a few simple facts. And we can
avoid the fact in trying to establish fact and need and that kind of
thing. I think we can just get down to the basics. This is the
alignment. This is the funding mechanism the voters will be asked to
approve. These are the proposed or supposed merits of that funding
system. So these are basic facts that have been stated in the public
hearing time and time and again that are continuously omitted or
skipped over or forgotten. And I'm thinking maybe a one-page shot, a
snapshot of where we are, is an appropriate way for the MPO to answer
some of the public questions.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What about in that fact sheet
if we were to include in that fact sheet what the alternative funding
methods could be? And in light of the fact that the Florida DOT is
making considerable these days about taking funding away from Collier
County or District 1 and moving it up to central Florida to rebuild
the interstate there, that we just aren't going to have the money
available in the early part of the next century to build this bridge
if we were to wait. So there's so many facets that mix into this.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I do in real life is
marketing and communications. And I can guarantee you one thing. The
five of us are not going to put together a marketing plan in the next
five minutes for this.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I think Commissioner
Mac'Kie has raised a very valuable point. If we are going to take the
time and effort to put this on the ballot, then we need to educate the
public, and we need in the next couple of weeks at the latest to have
a plan on how we're going to do that. And it may be appropriate, Mr.
Dotrill, for you to lay out some thoughts perhaps through your public
affairs department or others and come back to us with some of those
thoughts where we can have a formal discussion.
MR. DORRILL: And there is a little history. We have
prepared and had printed pamphlets and mailed them to every registered
voter, the facts sheet. The most recent one we did involved a sales
tax -- tourist tax referendum for the baseball. The board reviewed
the facts sheet at a public meeting prior to going out to make sure
that it wasn't biased in any way, and I would think we could probably
propose something like that again.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Picking up on one of the other
suggestions, perhaps someone from the staff should contact Colony
Cablevision to see if they would be willing to air one or perhaps even
a series of the sessions sponsored by the League of Women Voters or
somebody to that effect that would be beneficial in getting out the
message directly to the people.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great idea.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That would be a good way to do
it. And one other comment I have concerning alternative sources of
funding, the decision-making process. The matrix that brought us to
the point of proposing the sales tax eliminated all other sources of
funding as being acceptable.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's true. We eliminated
them as being acceptable. However, the citizens don't necessarily
know the process that we went through to eliminate the various funding
mechanisms that we discussed, and I think that it's important to let
the citizens know that if they don't want to fund this bridge with the
sales tax, we need to let them know what the alternatives were that we
discussed and discarded.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: To me they are not as
attractive as the sales tax.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One thing we seem to be
forgetting is, well, we have access to Channel 54 all the time now.
And what might be simple is to run a series of those at regular --
some sort of series of information on there at regular intervals, and
then Colony would perhaps run some promos letting people know that
we're going to be on Channel 54 at X, Y, Z time, because that is at
the top of the dial, probably not the first thing people tune to. But
I think we need to take advantage of our own -- what we have ourselves
that is ours for the using.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bringing you with your host, Tim
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's something else
perhaps that the public affairs department -- is that the name of it
-- whatever, that maybe we should get some proposals from them, Neil,
about how to -- what we could do with Channel 54 in addition to a
brochure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're on the same track.
Use whatever venues are available to us to get the facts out, and
avoid the opinions -- the individual opinions of the individual board
members and just boil it down to the basics.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do I hear a consensus, or is it
wishful thinking here that what we're looking for is the public
affairs department to make a recommendation to us of what avenues are
available and how we might best utilize them?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My gosh, this an affair, and
it's quite public.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: An affair?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll have to transfer to
another --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Organization transfer, yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, can we ask you to
give our public affairs department direction in that?
MR. DORRILL: That would take in turn maybe also
allowing the city staff -- I don't in particular, but if it gets some
ideas or some thoughts, then we might also want to have them share in
that responsibility.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Particular input on solutions
for Lake Park would be valuable. I know it's theirs, but it affects
other --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, it does.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At least mentally.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Matthews, I have on the
board's calendar for June 7th at 1 p.m. a city-county joint meeting if
needed. So I can take that off now?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's the one that I was
previously considering calling.
MS. FILSON: I have it on the commissioners' calendar,
so I'll take it off.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It sounds like we are not going
to have that meeting. Some other method for getting this plan, as
Commissioner Hac'Kie has said we need to do, and I agree. So, Mr.
Dotrill, you're going to help us put that together?
MR. DORRILL: Several weeks.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Several weeks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A couple.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 10 days? 7 days? 5 days?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Even tomorrow at noon.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're late.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we get it down inside of two
weeks?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That would be the 6th.
MR. DORRILL: And it would be your intent to review
that then at the meeting possibly at the 6th to give you some ideas?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perfect.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You may not have an absolutely
finished product. But give us some idea of where you're headed, and
then we can all tweak it.
That all that you had, Commissioner Mac'Kie?
Commissioner Constantine.
Item #14C
DISCUSSION RE BUDGET WORKSHOP - BUDGET WORKSHOP MEETING OF 6/16/95
CHANGED TO 6/14/95
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, June 16th we have a
budget workshop scheduled. I feel kind of funny asking this because I
had initially suggested we not do them all in one week Because they
were scheduled for the following week. However, I have a conflict for
the 16th and/or 17th -- I guess 15th, sorry, 15th and 16th. I had it
scheduled for the 16th. I wondered if there would be any objection to
changing that. I don't care until when. I don't -- absolutely don't
care, but I would like very much to be able to attend.
MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry. The 15th you said?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's scheduled for the 16th.
I'm open to any date except the 15th and the 16th. And I wondered
if we could -- I don't care if we even decide that this minute. But I
just wondered if we were open to that. I have an opportunity to do
something. It's not important what, but that I'd like to participate
in, and I obviously don't want to miss a budget meeting.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have difficulty including
that one in the following week because then we go into Thursday, and
it makes a real tight week. I'm headed for a plane out of Miami at
1:30. We can look at the 14th, or we can even look at the 12th, but I
don't know what the parameters for the budget department are.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have no life outside of this
job, so I am open.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps if we could look at
the 14th, that would make a wonderful change in my life.
The other item that I had, I just wanted to make sure
-- next for our workshop we're going to look at administrative code.
We're also going to look at TDC and economic development. The big
picture is, what else are we doing at that workshop?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have decided, I believe, to
delay the land development code.
MR. DORRILL: And you had decided to delay the review
of the audit. And there may have been a third item.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm thinking there was a third
item, too.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've delayed all those because
there was something else we wanted to talk about. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The TDC.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We never lighten the agenda
without adding to it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess we'll find out
Tuesday. But I was just curious. I couldn't make what it was either.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I believe there are three
items.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bettye said TDC.
MR. DORRILL: So one second now --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I believe there are three items
on that agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you still going to begin at
8:30?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Four of us will. Commissioner
Constantine will be joining us by nine-ish.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will be there by nine
o'clock.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You had a third item?
MS. FILSON: I had one other question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, just those two. I
appreciate the change on the budget. I'm sorry to inconvenience
everybody.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry.
MS. FILSON: Do you need the deputy at the workshop?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think so. We'll be at
the museum -- I mean at the library for the workshop.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is a back door, isn't
there?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A secret stairway.
Item #14D
DISCUSSION RE 1-75 SIGNS - LETTER FROM BCC TO BE SENT TO GOVERNOR
CHILES IN SUPPORT OF KEEPING SIGNS
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have several of -- a couple
of communication items. Sorry guys.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Several.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, three.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be several.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I saw in the news last night --
now I don't know how many of you were watching the eleven o'clock
news, but the legislature apparently, unbeknownst to us, has voted not
to fund the blue informational signs on the interstate system. And
there was talk on the news last night that they're going to take those
signs down.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That came to final resolution?
Because I knew it was pending from a FAC fax I got.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. Apparently it went
through. I thought it died, but apparently it went through. I'm
questioning this board if we want to get some information out to the
governor or something to at least delay that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those things are great.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know. Not only that, but
they do sell those advertising spots.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not only that, but it was a
year ago we were very concerned about tourism and safety in Florida,
and it seems to me those are a key so you don't just get off any exits
and start wandering around. You know what you're looking for.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thing I noticed they didn't
do is that it costs $250 a year to the businesses. They didn't even
entertain raising the cost to offset the expenses. That never seemed
to be a part of it. So if they do that, I think we should get a joint
agreement with FDOT that Collier County can put them up and sell them.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: At least to our own. Anyway,
my question to this board is should we get a letter off to the
governor to at least delay it?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would support that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to approve the
chairman's suggestion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're not taking motions on
this, but I will -- we'll get a letter off.
Another point came up this morning. Ms. Filson was
talking with me about the appointment to the Council of Economic
Advisors. It seems that we have a single vacancy. We have two
resumes. She returned one resume to the applicant because it came in
late, and she received a phone call today advising her that the
Council of Economic Advisors was going to readvertise the position.
And I thought we should discuss that today, the fact that that's not
normal policy, that when we have a single vacancy and we have the
appropriate resumes that are qualified, that we consider what came in
within the time frame and not readvertise unless there's --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I would think that
decision usually rests with the board, not with the individual
committee.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It has been my experience on the
productivity committee that if the board wanted to make a
recommendation -- the council wanted to make a recommendation to the
board to readvertise, not that they thought the one person who
submitted an application was not in some way qualified, they're
welcome to do that. The board still makes that final decision.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: All right, so Ms. Filson is
looking for direction on whether to proceed with the executive
summary.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. I think it
would be an insult to that individual otherwise.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we have two resumes, not
one. We have two for one position.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One is late.
MS. FILSON: I received two. The deadline was April
28th. I received two, and then I received another one last week. I
returned it, and they called me and wanted to return it back to me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we should see the
executive summary and request that the council provide us with some
input as to the selection of those two people.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As to why they would not want
either of those two.
Item #14E
DISCUSSION RE MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT & JANES SCENIC DRIVE AGREEMENT - TO
BE HEARD AT THE BCC MEETING OF 6/20/95
And my last communication item is for Mr. Cuyler.
Where are we on the Marco Island Airport Jane Scenic Drive
tri-agreement process?
MR. CUYLER: I have talked to Mr. Steinmeyer (phonetic)
who was a gentlemen in Tallahassee I have been coordinating with.
Apparently they are putting together the lease. He talked to me about
that and said he would send me a copy of it. I haven't gotten it yet,
but he said he would send a copy. I have been on top of my staff to
get the other two parts of it done, the sheriff's part. And I have
seen the abrogation easement. So before your vacation I would hope
that we would have that to you in some form or at least arrange with
you that you know the date if it's not going to be before your
vacation. We are in contact with the state.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we're hopping to have that
before June 20.
MR. CUYLER: I don't see any reason why we can't absent
the state's wishes to keep working on their end of it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good, because I don't -- seeing
that that's a commitment that we made to doing that, I don't want it
to get lost.
MR. CUYLER: We've got it on our list. I've
particularly got it on my list.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good. Staff communications.
Mr. Cuyler, did you have anything?
MR. CUYLER: Nothing.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, I think you had a
couple of items.
MR. DORRILL: First thing to Commissioner Constantine's
question. We have four items on your agenda for next Tuesday. We
have discussion of the administrative code and options. We have a
presentation of the information technology implementation plan for
data processing that has significant budget implications. We have a
request by the productivity committee to suggest to you, I believe,
some areas for their review in their next phase and the discussion
concerning economic development issues, and I had a question there.
Did you want someone from the economic -- Council of Economic Advisors
as part of that? I'm not sure I really understood what that
discussion entailed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would like it. And my
thought when I brought it up weeks ago was that we seem to have
different things that relate both to the TDC and the economic
development like the film commissioner and others. Yet we don't have
much communication with our Council of Economic Advisors. We don't
seem to be looking at it in a big-picture manner. So if we can get a
capsule look at what they've been doing, any thoughts for them, I
think that would help.
MR. DORRILL: Remember, we'll be downtown at the
central library in our workshop session for that. I have two other
quick things.
Item #15A
MANDATORY POOL BID - DISCUSSED
As part of your direction to take bids to privatize our
pools in Immokalee and Naples, the response has been poor. And,
frankly, no one showed up at the mandatory prebid conference.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I heard that last night.
MR. DORRILL: One of the firms indicated that they were
out of town and if given another opportunity to reschedule and
readvertise at another prebid conference, that they would be
interested at that time. Frankly, a lot of work has gone into this,
and a lot of work will need to go into it, and we're getting into what
is peak pool season. My suggestion to you is to suspend or abandon it
given what appears at the moment to be very little interest unless you
tell me otherwise.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I asked Mr. Dorrill for --
through a memo a couple of weeks ago for how much we had expended in
expense as far as staff time and otherwise to try to put this
together. And I remember when we talked just a few weeks ago, maybe a
month ago, about whether or not to even look at privatizing our
utility management. One of the arguments against it from Commissioner
Norris was, gosh, it's going to cost twenty-five or thirty thousand
dollars, whatever the amount was, to put together an RFP, and that is
a multi-million dollar a year operation. Our pool costs a half a
million dollars or something a year, and for us to be spending $20,000
to look at privatizing on a ratio basis is that much greater. And,
frankly, my interest in it certainly doesn't match. I would just as
soon go ahead and abandon that effort right now.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, what the lack of interest
from the private sector tends to indicate is that there's a
perception, whether it is true or not, that the business would not be
lucrative enough to get into. That's what it says to me, because
nobody isn't even interested enough to go look at it. So I concur.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not sure I want to abandon
it. We may want to slow it down since we are moving into the peak
pool season, and I certainly wouldn't want to privatize the pools in
the middle of the summer season, but perhaps to delay it, take another
look at it next fall when we get into a less busy period, and the pool
companies -- pool management companies also would be in a less busy
mode than they are right now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It may be appropriate just to
ask the privatization committee to table this discussion for now, to
table this item. And if they wish to bring it back when an increase
in interest shows somewhere down the road, so be it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that idea.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We can do that. We talked
about it last night and tried to figure out a way to go with it.
MR. DORRILL: The pool is on schedule in Immokalee.
We're going to have a sneak preview -- free open house next Monday
during the school holiday. We're absolutely scared to death how many
kids may show up and get in the pool.
We have a little problem recruiting there in part, we
think, because we weren't sure that we would be in the pool business
for a month, and then we would have to lay people off, and a potential
private company would be operating the pool. But I think Mr. Brinkman
has a good handle on lifeguards for the pool in Immokalee, and we
intend to open full time. In fact, you approved on the agenda today a
resolution offering free access to the pool during the first month of
operations, which is the same that we did in Golden Gate. But the
pool looks great. I looked at it when we were in Immokalee last week
to break down the airport facilities. It's really a nice project for
us.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just quickly, something you may
want to tell Mr. Brinkman about. I have talked with Fred Thomas, and
he has been in contact with Immokalee High School, Jerry Primas
(phonetic) over there. Since I chair the American Red Cross, and we
have lifeguard classes, and Jerry Primas has a pool of Immokalee high
schoolers that are looking for jobs in the summer.
MR. DORRILL: I did that last Monday. And we will, in
fact, bring the children to Naples in vans. We'll bus them over here
in order to get them certified through your program, because they are
required to be certified lifeguards.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And if you run into any
problems scheduling, let me know. I'll take care of it.
MR. DORRILL: One other quick item just to let you
know. What I am considering to be four-fifths of the way through our
public works administrator interviews, we have one last interview
scheduled for next Wednesday. And I will tell you that the interviews
thus far have not really been what I wanted them to be, and if the
fifth one falls out -- we've already sent one to the annual convention
of the Florida Association of APW, which to our benefit was in Ft.
Myers last Friday. And we distributed invitations of our position
opening there. In the event our final interview does not go well,
then I'll let you know that what we're going to do.
I think in lieu of readvertising we may do a mail
campaign, which is typical of what headhunters do. They will get a
mailing list of public works officials throughout the state or
throughout the south, and it will cut almost six weeks of the
readvertising time. But I'll let you know. We have interviewed four
candidates, all of whom were qualified, but I think that we need to
wait to look at this fifth individual before making a final decision.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I almost forgot that I had
the opportunity to formally advise you of some good news, and that is
that we were successful in defending the board's position on the APAC
case. We -- one of the better law firms in town -- and the judge did
agree with us. So it's not necessarily dead and gone, but we have
been successful so far, and the court is ruling, I believe, on the
22nd.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The appeal will be filed
sometime today.
MR. CUYLER: Maybe an appeal could be another forum for
part of the argument which was basically not considered by the court
because it wasn't appropriate to have petitioner served. But so far
so good.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Based on the conversations I've
been having with our legal department, I was pleasantly surprised
yesterday.
Ms. Filson, we're finished?
MS. FILSON: We are.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're adjourned.
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 3:57 p.m.
Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items
under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR LAPLAYA BEACH & RACQUET INN - WITH
STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A2
AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "NLA/~ORS AT REGAL LAKE"
Item #16B1
REQUEST FOR REFUND OF A ROAD IMPACT FEE IN THE A_MOUNT OF $32,380.00 FOR
THE NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., IMMOKALEE URGENT CARE CENTER,
PHASE II; AUTHORIZATION OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT AND STAFF TO PROCESS THE
REFUND
Item #1682 - Moved to Item #SB1
Item #16C1
GRANT FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO PROVIDE TO PROVIDE LUNCHES FOR
IHMOKALEE, EVERGLADES AND ANPLES SUHMER RECREATION PARTICIPANTS
See Pages
Item #16C2
WAIVER OF ADMISSION FEES TO THE IHMOKALEE AQUATIC FACILITY FOR THE
FIRST MONTH OF OPERATION WHICH WOULD BE JUNE 10 THROUGH JULY 9, 1995
Item #16D1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER $50,000 FROM RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES TO
THE COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT WATER DISTRIBUTION'S INVENTORY PARTS
Item #16D2
PAYMENT TO SOUTHERN STATES UTILITIES, INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A
FLOW METER FOR THE KEY MARCO DEVELOPMENT - IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,270.00
Item #16D3
SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT FOR SHIRLEY A. WOODS
See Pages
Item #16D4
SATISFACTION OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR ROLAND H. AND NANCY H. HOLLEY
See Pages
Item #16D5
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF WATERAND/OR SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR UTE CRISTA ALBER, HENRY
ALHEN TRUSTEE, ARTHUR AND ANNE AYERS, DALE P. BEATTY, AUBREY COOPER,
FAIL AND ANNE DELVA, RICHARD AND LOUISE GEHMELL, FOREST AND SUE GETTER,
NEIL KATZ, HOISES AND GILDA LICOURT, ALICE MARIN, JOHNNY AND PAULINE
ROGERS, STEPHEN AND MARIA SCHUSTRIN, AND CHARLES AND SONIA STOCKING
See Pages
Item #16El - Deleted
Item #16E2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR A SUHMER YOUTH PROGRAM WITH THE
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL
See Pages
Item #16F1
MODIFICATION OF THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS AND ASSISTANCE
BASE GRANT CONTRACT
See Pages
Item #16G1
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR RESERVOIR STUDY BETWEEN THE DISRICT/BASIN,
COLLIER COUNTY, AND WILSON, MILLER, BARTON AND PEEK, INC.
See Pages
Item #16H1
INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT OF AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE FOR ADDITIONAL
SERVICES FOR THE CLAM PASS PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$850.00
Item #16H2 - Deleted
Item #16H3 Moved to Item #8H4
Item #16J
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Item #16J1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1990 Real Property
No. Dated
363/364 5/04-5/05/95
1991 Real Property
279/280 5/04-5/05/95
1992 Real Property
197/198 5/04-5/05/95
1993 Real Property
216/217 5/05-5/05/95
155, 159/160
1994 Real Property
4/24-5/05/95
1994 Tangible
130 4/08/95
Item #16K1
EXPENDITURE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO BE USED FOR LAW ENFORCEHENT
PURPOSES - IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,000
Item #16K2 Moved to Item #lib
Item #16L1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION NO. 89-410 FOR A WEED ABATEMENT
LIEN AGAINST LOT 8, BLOCK 194, GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6
See Pages
Item #16L2
RESOLUTION 95-334, APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS
THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16L3
RESOLUTION 95-335, APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS
THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
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