BCC Minutes 10/17/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 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 9:10 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
CHAIRPERSON:
following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Bettye J. Hatthews
Timothy J. Constantine
John C. Norris
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3 & 3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll call to order the Board of
County Commission meeting for Tuesday, October 17th, 1995. Mr.
Dotrill, will you lead us in an invocation and pledge.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this
morning. As always, we thank you for this great nation. We thank you
for our commander in chief and our elected officials. We are always
thankful, and it's our prayer this morning that you would guide the
hand and deliberations of our elected county commission as they make
important business decisions for Collier County. Father, our prayer
continues to go out to those in Bonita Springs and northern Collier
County who are experiencing this awful flooding situation. It's our
prayer that these people be uplifted and that there would be support
there from their county governments and other -- others to reach out
to them in this particular time of need. Finally, Father, this
morning we ask that you bless our time here together, that it would be
fruitful and a reflection of your will for our community. We pray
these things in Jesus's name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, we have a few
changes.
MR. DORRILL: Only two. Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good morning.
MR. DORRILL: These are requests for continuances. The
first is under public hearings. It's a continuation of item 12(B)(1)
as it pertains to the PUD amendment for Hideaway Beach, and that will
be continued until your first meeting in November, November the 7th.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question about that
item, if I could. I guess -- we have a county attorney. Is there
anything in -- I know that we agreed in concept to the proposed
settlement agreement among the parties there, and my understanding is
is that there was nothing that we agreed to in that settlement
agreement that affects our decision in the PUD amendment. Have we
bound ourselves in any way to a particular setback in the PUD
amendment by virtue of the settlement agreement?
MR. WEIGEL: It's an indirect -- it's an indirect
relationship that exists, Commissioner. In the settlement agreement
the various parties have committed to make payments to achieve a
result that all parties are agreeing to. And those -- part -- part of
the result is a -- in the PUD amendment is a reconturing of the
roadway that affects the party in chief as well as adjacent -- and the
property in chief, I should say, and the adjacent properties. And
inasmuch as one of the parties at least temporarily has decided not to
contribute the otherwise agreed to amount toward the settlement
agreement, this may affect the PUD amendment in the sense that the
right of way that may be changed and the setbacks that may be changed
will not necessarily apply to all the properties in the current PUD
draft. There may be a re -- a retooling of that language based upon
the relationship of the parties.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Basically my question is that in
the settlement agreement the parties have agreed how to resolve their
differences on the particular properties that were subject to the
lawsuit. My question is, am I bound to a 30/20, or can I do a
different setback. Can I vote for a different setback in the PUD
amendment?
MR. WEIGEL: You -- you could vote for a different
setback in the PUD amendment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to be sure of that
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- because all these continuances
keep making me nervous that people are tying the PUD amendment to the
settlement agreement. You know it's been my sermonette up here that
they have to be separate, and I just wanted to be sure.
MR. WEIGEL: Certainly. And the fact is that since we
have more property interests involved than the initial -- than the
initial lawsuit indicated, that would be several adjacent properties,
the PUD amendment affects zoning there for setback and road relocation
which is more than the Vasey or the Gibson properties. So from that
standpoint it's -- it's a larger -- it's a larger type of change,
although it's indirectly referenced in the -- in the settlement
agreement itself, because the settlement agreement provides the money
wherewithal for some of these changes to be done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MR. WEIGEL: But, yes, you are never bound in a public
hearing or ordinance adoption such as PUD or others to have a
predetermined decision. There is a public hearing and the ability to
decide as you wish.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Matthews, the other item to be
continued is 16(A)(ll) which was on your consent agenda, and that
pertains to a final plat for the Roberts Ridge PUD in Immokalee.
We're also asking that that be continued until November the 7th at the
request of the petitioner.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Weigel, do you
have additional changes?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Commissioner Norris?
Nothing today.
Thank you. Commissioner
No, ma'am.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
Nothing.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one brief item under
communication.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I, too, have a brief item
under communication.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion for the agenda?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve the agenda as
presented and with changes as noted.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. All in favor,
please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1995, BUDGET MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 20, 1995, AND VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1995 -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Motion on the minutes?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to
approve the minutes of September 19 regular meeting, September 20
budget meeting, and September 25 Value Adjustment Board all in 1995.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the minutes of three different meetings. All in favor, please
say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Next item is a proclamation. Commissioner Norris.
Item #5A1
PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 15 - 21, 1995, AS LATIN
AMERICAN HERITAGE WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have
a proclamation to read here. I'd like to ask Frank Rodriguez and
Ivette Saco to please come forward. Come up here, please, and turn
around and face the -- the people in TV-land out there so they can see
who you are. The proclamation reads:
Whereas, the American people are the recipients and
beneficiaries of the cultural diversity represented by citizens from
all over the world; and
Whereas, millions of Latin Americans have become vital
members of our nation identifying themselves with our philosophy of
liberty, justice, and equality; and
Whereas, the Latin community of Collier County,
represented by the Latin American Business and Professional
Association, is bonding with the community at large; and
Whereas, the Latin American Business and Professional
Association embraced the mission of preserving the Latin cultural
heritage and motivating the youth to become better citizens by
reaching higher levels of education and professionalism; and
Whereas, the Latin American Business and Professional
Association will commemorate the Latin heritage in the United States
of America by sponsoring a cultural event to benefit its educational
scholarship fund.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of October
15th to the 21st, 1995, be designated as Latin American Heritage Week
in Collier County.
Done and ordered this 17th day of October, 1995, by the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept
this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to accept the
proclamation. All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Please say a few words.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'd like to take the opportunity first
to say thank you and at the same time to bring -- give you a very
brief update as to the Latin American Business and Professional
Association. And in four years we have been able to positively help
and impact education in our youth by granting scholarships that -- for
which we have been able to raise funds from events similar to the one
that we will be holding on October the 21st. And we intend to expand
that. As a matter of fact, we have been able to add scholarships for
adults also going back to college to pursue a higher degree or to
maybe complete a degree. So we're looking into education very
closely, and we -- we feel, and we are convinced that that is the
foundation of good citizenship and -- and also to provide our input in
the economy.
Another thing that we would be looking for is to promote
cultural events, and the one that we have been promoting probably in
the future will be expanded to be kind of a folkloric type of cultural
event with intention of turning that into annual festivity that will
be at the same time a tourist attraction to the county. So we are
looking that way into the future.
And we also are looking to work and promote small
business entrepreneurs in the minority community by probably creating
some type of resource center where we'll be able to provide services.
And basically that's our vision and -- and that's what we are looking
forward to -- to work in the future with Collier County. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds like a good plan to me.
MS. SACO: I'd just like to thank everyone, the
commission for the proclamation. I am also very pleased that
Commissioner Norris will be joining us on Saturday night. Thank you
for accepting our invitation, and I'm sure that you'll enjoy. And
thank you again for your support.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
(Applause)
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda are
service awards. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I
have the pleasure this morning of recognizing and thanking two
employees for continued service to Collier County. The first
receiving a 15-year recognition and pin is Miss Rhonda Snell with
purchasing. Miss Snell.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second I would like to
recognize, Miss Teresa Beck with agriculture for ten years. Miss
Beck.
(Applause)
Item #5C1
VIRGINIA HILLER, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EHPLOYEE OF
THE MONTH FOR OCTOBER, 1995
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is a
presentation. Virginia Miller, are you here?
Once a month it gives me pleasure, and I'm sure it's
given every chairman pleasure to present a recommendation to recognize
an employee of Collier County as the employee of the month. This
month Virginia Miller is such an employee. Do you want to turn around
so that -- yeah, so that we can see you while I talk about what you've
been up to.
Virginia has been in the employ of Collier County since
1991, and by successive promotion she has achieved the position of
senior fiscal clerk in the department of revenue. Virginia was
instrumental in establishing the solid waste mandatory program which
is of great significance to the county and the residents. This
endeavor had involved long and hard-working hours. She was then
promoted to the department of revenue where she has gone over and
above the call of duty to help solve problems in the field. The
department director received scores of calls commending Virginia for
superior customer relations and people skills. In addition, her
immediate supervisor considers that she is doing the volume of work
properly assigned to two people.
Mr. Dotrill, can we clone her?
Virginia contributes to the morale of her department and
remains a loyal employee to the county, and it is without any
reservation that she was nominated and selected as employee of the
month for October 1995.
Virginia, I have for you a letter from the county
commission that it is, indeed, a pleasure to announce your selection
as employee of the month; a plaque that says Collier County, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, employee of the month,
official recognition and appreciation is tendered to Virginia Miller
for exceptional performance, October 1995. This is yours and the
spendable check that goes with that. And, of course, you're also
eligible for employee for the year. And I want to thank you very,
very much.
(Applause)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we have one more
presentation. We need to find more people like her.
MR. DORRILL: Trying.
Item #5C2
GUY CARLTON, TAX COLLECTOR, PRESENTED A CHECK TO THE BCC IN THE AMOUNT
OF $2,199,938.01
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know we're trying. One more
presentation. Mr. Carlton.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All gussied up today. You
look great.
MR. CARLTON: Good morning, Commissioners. In keeping
with the spirit of the approaching World Series, Yogi Berra when
ordering pizza one day was asked by his waitress if he wanted the
pizza cut in four pieces or eight, and he responded saying he couldn't
possibly eat eight pieces. I would hope -- well, it's obvious that
Yogi Berra was impressed with large numbers. I hope that you will be
equally impressed with the large numbers on this check. I would hope
you'd also be impressed with the discipline and dedication of the tax
collector staff to arrive at these numbers. I know there's -- a
demand on tax dollars is great, and I hope this check will ease that
demand. As you know, not every tax collector, but the tax collector
of Collier County is a fee officer. Those fees are set in the Florida
Statutes, and we are obligated to meet the needs of our office through
those fees. This year the tax collector's office is returning back to
the taxpayers of Collier County 2.4 million. The board's portion of
that will be $2,199,938.01. It's with great pleasure, Madam Chairman,
that I present to you this check.
(Applause)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll take it. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not made out to Bettye, is
it?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That was a good speech. Is there
an election year coming up?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Mitchell. See, Mr.
Mitchell.
MR. CARLTON: Oh, good move.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Guy.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Guy. As I turn it
over to you, I'm sure, to properly invest it.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, ma'am.
Item #SB1
CHANGE ORDER #4 FOR EFFLUENT HANAGEHENT SYSTEH IHPROVEHENTS AT THE
NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is under
the manager's report, 8(B)(1), public works, change order number 4 for
the north county regional wastewater treatment facility. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, Mr. Gonzalez. I'd
like to make a motion we approve staff recommendation on this item.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have a second before the
motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
approve the staff recommendation on this item.
discussion?
All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Another great job.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Great presentation.
Yes, ma'am.
We have a motion and a second to
Is there a
Item #8C1
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A PUBLIC GOLF
COURSE - STAFF DIRECTED TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH COLLIER COUNTY GOLF
AUTHORITY WITH NO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COUNTY
Next item on the agenda is 8(C)(1). This probably won't
go as fast, the recommendation for a public golf course. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff,
your public services administrator. This item is just that, an item
to review a proposal for a public golf course here in Collier County.
The golf course is proposed to be constructed on -- on land adjacent
to the current Collier County landfill at the intersection of 951 and
1-75. The proposed property is approximately 280 acres in size. The
proposal was originally presented to the county commission, and the
board directed the staff to work with the Collier County Golf
Authority, who is the organization who is actually making this
proposal, to the county to go back and review a little more in
detail. And that's what we've provided for you today, a little more
detail about the proposal that they're going to present to you.
In our looking at the actual information they provided,
suggested and they agreed and had a feasibility study done by a third
party, which is the National Golf Foundation, and I think copies have
been provided to each of you that was done for this proposed golf
facility. As part of that study, the study actually indicated that
there is a current undersupply of rounds of golf estimated to be
271,000 rounds per year currently. That undersupply was projected to
increase to 400,000 rounds by the year 2000. And that number,
according to the study, was put together knowing which courses were
currently under construction and were planned to be built over that
same period of time, so that took into account new golf courses coming
on line in that same period.
The study projects that the first year of operation the
course would generate 52,000 rounds of golf. And we provided in the
executive summary some comparisons to other area local golf courses,
and we tried to focus on public courses so that you would get some
sort of a -- as close to an apple-to-apple comparison as we could
provide for you. Fifty-two thousand rounds is a fairly conservative
number if you're looking at some of the other courses in the area that
range anywhere from forty-five to seventy thousand rounds a year.
In terms of the actual operational finances, the report
goes on to project that the course from an operation standpoint would
turn a profit in year one of $475,000. As the executive summary
indicates, that doesn't take into account any debt service payments
that are required for the initial construction cost. That operating
profit is expected to increase to about one and a half million dollars
in the year ten and grows from that point forward.
Those -- those projections were based on a fee schedule
of $20 during the summer. That includes cart fees, up to a seasonal
rate of $37 during the season. It also indicates that there would be
no memberships involved in this course and that there would be no
participation in summer discount cards. To compare that to other area
rates, we've provided in the executive summary, again, some
comparisons of some public golf courses and their summer and seasonal
rates. And those rates will range anywhere from $15 in the summer all
the way up to a high of $119 per round during the season at some of
the local courses.
In the -- in the fiscal impact statement, we tried to
cover what is the largest determining factor in the proposal in front
of you, and that is the cost of the initial capital construction.
Capital construction is proposed to be funded through a revenue bond
that would be issued by Collier County. And as indicated in the
fiscal impact statement, there's two ways that that bond can actually
be structured. It can be structured so that the golf authority and
the golf course are the only pledge available to make the debt service
payments annually, or Collier County can, if you will, co-sign that
bond issue and would -- and of their proposal become a third pledge on
the revenues. They're proposing that the golf course would be the
initial pledge, that they would establish a debt service reserve in an
amount equal to at least one full year's debt service payments as the
second pledge. Finally, Collier County, because it is a revenue bond,
would be in a position of having to pledge non-ad valorem revenues
should either of those first two revenue sources not meet the debt
service payments.
The land is actually proposed to be leased or purchased
by the authority and then leased back to the county which then is the
mechanism that the county can actually issue the bonds for the
project. It's our understanding that under such a proposal that the
actual bond doesn't count toward the county's total bond indebtedness
if it's done through a leaseback program as proposed.
The authority has also indicated a willingness to
provide some additional revenue, windows realized back to the county
for uses in either future golf and/or recreational avenues. But,
again, the primary issue here is if and when the course actually makes
money.
If you'll look on page 9 of your agenda package, we
provided for you from the feasibility study the actual proposed
revenue and expense estimates. If you'll look at the bottom of that
page, you'll see -- I'm sorry. It's actually page 8 in your executive
summary package. If you'll look at the net operating income line at
the bottom of that page, you will see both the net operating incomes,
and that is the amount of funding that would be available to pledge
towards debt service. So in year one there's that $474,800 number
which rises to a million dollars in year three in the projection.
Now, depending on what interest rate the actual bond
issue is issued at, the debt service payments can range anywhere from
$576,000 all the way up to somewhere in the neighborhood of $800,000,
depending on whether it's a 9 percent or a 6 percent interest rate.
That interest rate is contingent upon whether or not the county is
involved. It's projected that if the county were to, again, co-sign,
if you will, the interest rate that would be obtained would probably
be more in the neighborhood of 6 percent. If the county weren't
involved in the actual pledge, the interest rate would probably be
closer to 9 percent.
What's being proposed is a 27-hole golf course. The
reason it's being proposed that way is so that, one, you can have more
rounds, more people playing at a single time. And secondly, when you
need to do work on a golf course, you can take one 9 out of service
and continue to have 18 up and available for the general public.
We did need to point out that we did some research into
the local area municipal golf courses, and we looked at the three
courses which are our nearest neighbors, two that are operated by the
City of Fort Myers and one by Cape Coral. All three of those, the
financial statements from this most recent year indicate that they
operated at a loss. The two Fort Myers courses actually in
combination had an operational loss of $130,000, and that was before
they made their debt service payments. In addition to their
operations, they ended up paying $576,000 in public debt.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Tom. You said they
operated at a loss before they made their debt service payment? MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean just the straight
maintenance costs weren't even covered by rounds played and fees
charged?
MR. OLLIFF: Correct. And as the executive summary
indicates, the key difference between the feasibility study that was
done for this golf course and the financial statements that we
reviewed from those two courses in the City of Fort Myers were
primarily in the operating expense side. Fort Myers courses are
showing a 4 million dollar expense to operate the two 18-hole golf
courses that they have. So that averages about 2 million dollars per
golf course annual operating cost, significantly different than what
is projected in the feasibility study of 1.3 million dollars for
operating expenses of the 27-hole golf course here in Collier County.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff, what are the fees at
the public courses?
MR. OLLIFF: I'll have to look that up, and I'll get
that for you as they're making their presentation. Lastly --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One other thing maybe you
know or maybe you can check is surrounding courses and surrounded --
surrounding pricing in Fort Myers as well, because I suspect there may
be some more availability at a reasonable price in Fort Myers than
there is here. Commissioner Matthews, I just can't fathom spending
$120 on a round of golf, but obviously a lot of people here do.
MR. OLLIFF: Lastly, while we didn't get it in time for
the executive summary here, we did finally get some financial
statements for the Cape Coral golf course, and they lost money
operating as well. They lost in the neighborhood of $130,000 on their
operations last year, and I can't tell from the financial statements
whether or not they actually have bond debt as part of their expenses
or not, but I know that they did lose some money.
With that I think the Collier County Golf Authority is
here and -- and can make a presentation about the specifics of their
development and the golf course operation itself and are available to
answer some questions for you. The decision before us today is, one,
whether or not you want to direct your staff to continue to
participate in the development and operation of this public golf
course; and, two, if you do, what level of participation in the actual
bond issue do you want the county to have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, in looking at the
financial statements of the courses that you have received, are things
such as the pro shop revenue and food and beverage revenue that's
projected by the Collier County Golf Authority, are they similar? Are
they ball park? We've talked about maintenance. I'm curious if the
pro shop revenues and food and beverage revenues are in line with what
you've seen otherwise. Take a look at it. If you don't have it right
now, if you could just take a look at it.
MR. OLLIFF: I will. I don't think the financial
statement is broken down by actual segments of operation that way, so
I think I've got sort of a lump-sum operating cost number to work
from.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's fine. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one other question. In
this projection that you put together for the ten-year period, do you
have any consideration in here for the cost of the land?
MR. OLLIFF: My understanding is that the original
development bond cost is designed to include repayment to the solid
waste fund for the cost of the land. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be the 8 million
dollar figure includes land and construction of 27 holes?
MR. OLLIFF: Correct. And I'll let the authority
members tell you a little more about what the initial development
costs are and how they -- how they came about that number.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we hear from the
authority members.
MR. DORRILL: Commissioner Glass will lead. They have
approximately four or five individuals as part of their presentation.
Then you have another four or five members of the public who have
asked to speak. Good morning, Commissioner.
MR. GLASS: Good morning, Commissioners. First, I want
to thank you for even hearing us after all these years. It's a
refreshing change for a board that's kind of looking to the future for
the citizens. I want to -- I'll introduce the people who are here
today. I have David Shaw, Kemper, now Eveten as of this week when
they bought out Kemper; Jim O'Connor, raise your hand; and Jack
Breeden, the association president. I'm the chairman of the board.
We want to thank you for what you're doing at least in
reviewing us, and we're looking into -- what we're emphasizing today
is a review with an order to allow us to go on and give you the final
step where you will get all the detailed financial things from the
bond summaries and everything else if you tell us to go forward at the
next time we meet. You all have received copies of our feasibility
study. It was repaired -- it was prepared independently by the
National Golf Foundation, which is one of the most highly accredited
reviewers of golf course activities of all types in the United
States. This feasibility study is one of three that we've completed
for this area over the past couple of years, and they all indicate
that a public golf course will be a success in Collier County.
We know from the feasibility studies that have been done
for this year alone there's 217,000 more rounds needed for people --
ability for more rounds for people to play. And that -- that number
by the year 2000 will be 400,000 rounds. So we're falling faster and
faster behind.
And I have to say one thing. One of the reasons that I
devoted a lot of time to this, I made my father a promise when he was
dying that I'd go out there, and I'd work to get this public course
built so people like him and other citizens of this county can have a
place to play at a reasonable fee, particularly in the season when
they're almost a hundred percent excluded from playing golf in this
county, as most of you know that play golf.
We will be depositing upon the execution of the bond the
complete debt service for -- that maximum annual debt service that's
required for the first year. Then after we complete construction, we
will be doing a debt service reserve on a monthly basis, which means
we'll be depositing money to the trustee on a monthly basis with a
report and a report to Tom Olliff, if he's the designated one that
we'll be working with, so you'll know all the time what's going on at
that course and where the money is and where it's gone. Now, we are
doing that mainly because we don't want any pop-up surprises or
secrets, as we told you. You'll know everything we have all the time
and where everything has gone.
We're going to be working very hard to make this a
success. There's a lot of things that have gone on in the past at
different areas, and there have never been, you know, approval of a
potential for a public golf course. Mr. Breeden and his associates
originally in 1979 started this nonprofit foundation so that they
could build a course. Well, it didn't come to fruition.
Carl Loveday said yesterday that Lely donated a million
dollars for this course to be built. Well, Lely never donated a
million dollars. They did donate 500,000 in the original context
many, many years ago, which we have a substantial amount in our
reserves now. We were looking forward to -- in the feasibility study
it references to a one-year buildout. When you see this summer --
right now a one-year buildout may not be a good idea, so we're
extending our look for an 18-month period so that there's no way that
we could get crippled by not having enough time to build it. We're
hoping the weather will change. As it is right now -- like now, it
looks like Providence and E1 Nino and a few other celestial bodies are
deciding that we're going back into a geologic cycle that's going to
be more humid, more hot, more storm damaging, which is nothing unusual
because it happens periodically throughout this earth's history. I
guess we're going to be some of the observers of some of it.
Now, the question -- there's an 8 million dollar maximum
on this bond. It's not meaning that we're going to spend all that 8
million dollars. Host likely it will be a lot less. But included in
that is some county needs. One, some -- we're going to do clearing
and structuring for some park services that they want out there we'll
be able to do. Two, the road, it's required to come in by the new --
the water plant down there off of 951, because of the new exit from
1-75 has to be changed so the trash trucks and everybody else can get
into the trash dump. We have put -- that number includes an ability
to participate in that road building project, which I think is based
on a fair-share basis. And since we're going to be doing a lot down
there, I think probably we'll be told we have a pretty fair share to
do.
We're looking forward to doing this, and we know based
on the studies that we've been over and over from independent sources
that this will be a successful project. We also know there's about
75,000 people from the surveys we've had done in -- through the golf
foundation inquiries that want to go play golf in the wintertime here,
citizens that are permanent residents. And we're going to provide
something for them finally. We're working with the Conservancy to
work out some details that I mentioned, each one of you individually
so that they can have a nature trail and other things, and we're
talking about -- talking with the parks people, in particular my
friend Steve back there, that we're going to try to provide some parks
areas for the families and everything else for anywhere in Collier
County if they're out there in that area, so it will be a dual
purpose. We'll have the golf course, and we'll have some passive --
or whatever they decide you really need out there, there's room for
it. We're working very closely with the environmental people, too,
because if you know, that area has got a lot of critters that run
around that we like to take care of. Host people don't know that I'm
half Cherokee, and I know another Cherokee in this room so that are --
they're real interested in making sure that we take care of that kind
of thing.
What we're looking for is an approval to go forward with
Tom Giblin (phonetic) as the bond counsel who we've been working with
at the desire of the county and for the Collier Golf Authority and for
our bond underwriters to go forward and put this bonding thing
together so you have something to look at with all of the final
numbers and everything before you make a final decision. And I think
that you'll find once it gets all together, it's going to stand on its
Own.
We have -- we're also looking under the situation to
have authority to provide and finish the production of the bond
documents that we need. And then we are looking, and from obviously
what we believe is the best situation, approval of option two in Mr.
Olliff's report to the board. Now, if you have any questions, I'll
answer them. If I can, I'll bring the bond council -- bond
underwriters up here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This may or may not be a question
for you, Mr. Glass, but how much does the golf authority have in
reserves currently?
MR. GLASS: $340,000.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because obviously in the first
two years under the more -- the less lenient financing plan you have a
shortfall in paying the debt service. So my question is, until your
projected revenues are to a level that the debt service can be paid,
how do you plan on making up the difference?
MR. GLASS: Actually our reserve that we're depositing
on closing of the bond will cover the first whole year's debt
service.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the second year would
be the one of concern then. If I were sitting in your shoes of making
that -- that debt service payment, the second year would then be of
concern. My question is -- you know, and maybe you can answer it as
you come through and speak. I just want to register that as a -- just
a straight funding --
MR. GLASS: Better answer right now before people forget
their answer.
MR. SHAW: Hi. I'm David Shaw with Eveten Securities.
We were Kemper till a week ago when we bought ourselves out through
the ESOPs. Everybody's wondering what Eveten stands for; that's where
we're coming from. The cash flows that were used to provide debt
service payments there was with a level principal and interest payment
over 20 years. Quite obviously as we structure debt we can change and
move principal payments to positions that help those cash flows work
better. When they ran the debt service study, from my understanding,
and from the feasibility study, it was level principal and interest
payments. Traditionally as we structured that we structured the cash
flows of the entity that's paying the debt so we can move more
principal back into the transaction and lower those first year debt
payments, and that makes the cash flows work. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. GLASS: My Navy captain stuff comes out once in
awhile. Any other questions I can answer?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Glass, you and your group have
come to my office a couple of times to talk about this, and on every
occasion I have been very enthusiastic about getting a golf course --
another public golf course in town, but my one reservation has always
been that I don't want to see the Collier County taxpayer or Collier
County government end up in a position of having to help fund this.
You have always given me the -- your assurance that this was not going
to happen, and I just -- my question today is do you still give us
those same assurances.
MR. GLASS: I talked yesterday again with the vice
president of the National Golf Foundation and told him what I was
thinking about about taxpayers in some places stepping up to the
plate. And he said that in his view -- and it's not in the report,
because we told him be extremely conservative -- that we'll be making
much more money in the second year than people will believe from then
on. And it's just -- from everything they've done talking to all of
the facilities here -- and they talked to every golf facility just
about in this county and Lee County -- that they think that we have a
project that's going to be so popular that we'll be drawing people
away from them, although they're not worried about it because they
have a membership.
That's a question that came up in here, that why is
there a deficit in Lee County. Well, Lee County has a total of 1,400
members on those golf courses, which means that they pay for about $6
a round, the members. In addition to that, the rest of the course,
because of the operations that they run, including a massive
restaurant building on one of them that has no relationship to the
course, completely takes away their money. And actually the course at
Eastwood supplements the rest of the activities up there to the tune
of $150,000 a year right off -- the average off their budget each
year. They transfer funds that's not even listed as operating funds
or anything; it's just a transfer. So that goes off their thing. So
we don't have membership. We're going to be playing with citizens in
a straight -- everybody here gets a preference on time. And if you're
a Collier County citizen -- and the way we'll work it out, we're going
to have a very strong management team that we're putting together.
We're interviewing people now. It's some quite expense to bring
someone around to make sure we get the best people available in this
field for us to work with.
And we are looking forward to a very successful one, and
probably I'd mortgage my house on it. It would cover half a year's
payment on it maybe.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We might require you to do that.
MR. GLASS: No problem.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of questions in
reference to the Fort Myers comment. One, you indicated a number of
those are members --
MR. GLASS: 1400 altogether.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- so the number of people
playing per round is similar?
MR. SHAW: Yeah. 72,000 rounds they played this year,
so that's how much of a detraction there is in the cost because they
got a significant deep discount, old-timers. If we had a golf course
like that, we would phase it out with no more new membership, but
they've been selling it ever since.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How do you explain the
differential if they're paying 4 million dollars to operate 36 holes
annually? How do we operate 27 holes at 1.37
MR. GLASS: Well, economy of scale and expertise, and
we're not supporting buildings that aren't related to the golf
courses. A lot of their monies flow to pay certain things in the
city, and they use it as a cash cow when they can get it to help
offset the nonpayment of interest payments that they haven't paid for
quite some time. That's from rooting up in there in their archives
and coming with their annual reports that we couldn't get it from the
city government itself.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? I've got a
couple. How long does it take to build a course?
MR. SHAW: Normally under ideal conditions or good
conditions, you can get it done within eight to nine months to a
year. We have certain things out in this place like, in fact, our
attorney is working on it with the odor that's emitted by the
landfill. And there is a contractual obligation upon the part of
Waste Management to correct that, and the time ticker is getting
toward the end of that time ticker that they're supposed to have it
done. There's a lot of rock in that area, so we're going to be
looking at other ways, and we have a -- do we have our plan with us
this morning? Yeah, oh, Gordon Lewis, the architect for the course,
is here too if you have some courses -- questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm just asking how long it takes
to build it.
MR. GLASS: It's going to take us one year if we don't
have 90 inches of rain again. If it isn't, we're going to go to the
16 months.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, there are those who say
we're moving into a wet cycle so -- MR. GLASS: I can't hear you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are those who are saying
that we are moving into a wet cycle. With that in mind, is it two
years?
MR. GLASS: No, it's going to be 18 months.
MR. SHAW: Madam Chairman, we have asked -- as
underwriters we put our name on it as well -- is that they came back
with a projection of one year. We asked for 18 months' worth of
capitalized interest. In other words, we have 18 months to get the
course finished, which is 50 percent additional longer than normal.
Actually it's about 70 percent because it usually takes about nine
months is what our experience is. So we've taken it out to 18 months
in case we get 6 inches of rain on some Wednesday and it slows it
down. We don't -- we do not as an underwriter want this course when
Jack Breeden hits the first ball off the first tee to be in the hole
before we ever get started, and that's why we've given ourselves a
substantial amount more construction time than necessary. If those
funds aren't needed, then it will go in the reserve fund and actually
build that up additionally. So we do have precautionary areas. But
we'd let Arnold hit the first ball, but he'd probably hit somebody, so
we won't let that happen.
MR. GLASS: He's afraid I'd hurt somebody.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the projections on these
numbers indicates that at least for the first three years really,
because the first year is construction, and then we've got two years'
worth of operating in which there's not enough money to cover the debt
service. But on a 20-year level basis -- but you're willing to
structure the debt service so that this will cover --
MR. SHAW: That's correct. We can readjust the debt
service payments. We can move principal payments back. The other
thing there is they have used the maximum interest rate of 9 percent.
If we receive the covenant, we believe we can sell them for somewhere,
depending on market conditions, around 6. That makes all those
numbers flow through to the point where it works out perfectly. And
we -- we would expect a maximum coverage of somewhere around 125 to
150 a year.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that 6 percent based on the
county jumping into this?
MR. SHAW: That is as a co-sign type of situation, yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I think I've heard at least
one commissioner say that they're not in favor of the county putting
their credit behind this. I'm not in favor of the county putting the
credit -- its credit behind this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not in favor of the county
putting it's credit --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So back to 9 percent.
MR. SHAW: Well, what will happen is we will go back
with the authority. The rate -- the cost of play would obviously have
to go up to make sure that we have those coverages. It doesn't take a
lot of increase in per-round cost to drive that price up if we need
to. The projections that we've given you obviously are a pro forma.
When we get the final structure and we can work the transactions in,
we can give you final numbers. But the one effect it would have is it
would drive that cost of play up some so we would have that coverage.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would say it would do a lot. I
mean, 9 percent at 8 million dollars, it's not hard to see that on a
steady stream. And I don't care how you arrange the payments. It's
$720,000 a year in just interest. And if you're going to move that
money around so that the payments in the early years fit this, we're
going to be paying interest on the interest because that's borrowed
money too.
MR. SHAW: Well, you'd be paying -- you would not be
making principal payments. You would be paying some interest on
interest. But what you would do is obviously move the principal
payment as close to the front as you can to lower the cost. We have
not -- we have run financials at a six and six and a half percent
basis. We have not run them at a nine or nine and a half so we'd know
exactly where to place that principal, but we would have to do some
rearranges.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So these numbers in front of
us are for six?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: These numbers are what they're
saying are what it's going to cost to operate and produce whatever
revenue. The net operating income is what's available for debt
service. And when I see $474,000 in the first year knowing that the
interest is going to be $720,000, that tells me we're paying interest
on $300,000 worth of interest at least in the second year.
MR. SHAW: At least in the second year. That's
correct. But we also feel that the numbers -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you sure you're not digging a
hole that you can't get out of?
MR. SHAW: Not particularly. That happens quite a bit
in revenue -- in revenue bond issues that we structure in that
manner. The other thing that we're looking at is the numbers you're
looking at is maximum costs. Obviously the costs could be
substantially less. There are things that they're building into this
project with the idea for public service besides golf, public use
besides golf courses. And so a lot of that could be eliminated, and
the cost could be lowered. We're trying to ride the biggest bang in
this study that we can. Obviously your approval of wherever we go
today is not the final approval. You would have another review of it
when the bond documents are finished, and it can go forward.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had one other question. It
deals with the maintenance because, of course, maintenance is
something, of course, that's going to cause people to want to come
back and play again and again and again. And I don't know anything
about golf courses, but a 6 percent of capital investment annual
maintenance, is that -- is that a realistic number? I don't know.
But I need somebody to tell me whether that is.
MR. GLASS: Actually the average cost of maintenance in
Collier County varies between private clubs and some that have some
public play. It typically will be in the $450,000 a year range for
the maintenance portion of it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But is that maintenance at
private clubs that causes people to be willing to pay seventy or
eighty dollars a round?
MR. GLASS: They're not going to pay seventy or eighty
dollars a round. We're not going to build a course here that's going
to cost that, period.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, Mr. Glass, I think you just
missed my point.
MR. GLASS: I'm telling you --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's the maintenance on these
private courses that --
MR. GLASS: We have a very unique -- well, our architect
is here, and the design he's doing gives us a good maintenance
capability. But we are not going to have -- the heavy thing that you
see on the private courses is -- you're talking about, drive in. You
see main boulevards lined with all -- that's all in their budget. We
don't have a budget like that. We have a very nice golf course. It's
very pretty, and it's going to be kept up, and it's going to be kept
up on a first-class basis, and we don't have to spend a million
dollars or like Audubon, $850,000, because we don't have all those
homes that we have to take care of too.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner MAtthews, I
understand your point that often public courses are in rougher shape
then private courses and the differential in maintenance cost. I know
my dad lives in Veto Beach, and they have a public course over there,
Sand Ridge, which has 36 holes that they -- I have no idea -- we can
find out. I have no idea what the maintenance costs are, but despite
the fact it is a public course, its upkeep compares with virtually any
private course. It can be done, and they're fairly cost effective
over there too.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess my question is on an 8
million dollar construction budget is a half a million dollars a year
worth of maintenance realistic here in south -- south Florida where
things seem to blossom overnight. Why don't we hear from the other
speakers.
MR. SHAW: Jim, do you want to answer that question?
MR. DORRILL: And this should be Mr. O'Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR: My name is Jim O'Connor. With respect to
your question, Commissioner Matthews, specifically on the maintenance
cost, you'll find it will run anywhere from four hundred fifty up to
nine hundred thousand dollar maintenance on an 18-hole course. So I
would say that six hundred thousand, six fifty that we're proposing in
this area for a 27-hole course is very commensurate with a public --
rather, with a private course. I think you'll find that the results
will be very, very similar. But the cost is not out of line in any
way, shape, or form.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean, I'm just wanting to make
sure that there's enough maintenance to get players continuing to come
back, not that it's too high. I'm concerned it's too low.
MR. O'CONNOR: I don't think it's too low.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR: And we've projected in annual increases
that will provide for cost increases as they -- as they occur, both in
the ways of salaries -- and your biggest expenses are in your
chemicals and your fertilizers, et cetera, so forth. I don't think
it's too low, nor do I think it's too high. It's probably just about
right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, we have other
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, Mr. Breeden.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably be helpful to point out
that I have a feeling there are people in this community that --
MR. BREEDEN: Hi. My name is Jack Breeden. I'm the
president of the Collier Golf Authority as everybody knows. The
maintenance on a golf course is strictly -- depending on what kind of
maintenance you are having, you cannot maintain little exotic tee
houses, fancy rose gardens and expect to keep a low maintenance
figure. Now, most of your private golf courses or semiprivate golf
courses have all these fancy entities that have to be taken care of by
the golf course maintenance people. So consequently, you're going to
have a high maintenance fee on these types of golf courses. And if
you don't believe it, go and look at some of them, Worthington. Go up
to the new Stonebridge. Go over to Pelican Bay. Go to the Audubon.
Those people are not going to let you have just a plain golf course.
They've got to have little rose gardens. They've got to have little
settees where you can sit down and rest if you'd like to. We're not
going into that type of thing. We're not going into that type of
thing at all. And I will be amazed that if our maintenance even runs
close to what -- what they project it to be, because we plan on
keeping a tight dollar on this thing. We plan on watching it every
day. We're not going to let some clown go out there and do a lot of
work on -- on property that don't even have anything to do with the
golf course. Now, that's from the maintenance standpoint.
Now, the thing at Fort Myers -- I've been playing golf
for some 40 years. I've played golf when you could play for 75 cents
a round back in Washington D. C. on Hains Point (phonetic). Today --
I called the other day and asked for a starting time. Today greens
fee is $17, and you've got to get there two hours before to get a
starting time. They do not take starting times on the phone, and
you're lucky if you get off in two hours. So you'll spend eight hours
on the golf course, and you'll still pay a $17.50 green fee. Now,
this golf course is run by the federal government. Now, you take your
Lee County --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: See, that's what's wrong with
it.
MR. BREEDEN: You take your Lee County golf courses.
Now, I'm familiar with this because I've been into this every day for
the last 17 years. Lee County did a million eight hundred thousand
dollars worth of business last year. Ten percent of that went to
Richie Lamb (phonetic) who controls both golf courses. All the excess
money that they had up till this year went into the maintenance of the
Edison Home and the Naples Yacht Basin. He had $180,000. He paid
three employees out of that, a starter and two boys that worked in the
pro shop. This I know. This comes right from Richie Lamb to myself.
Back in 1968 I was one of the people that built the
Hibiscus Golf Course down there that the property was given to us by
the Vanderlely Corporation. We borrowed $225,000 from the Small
Business Administration. We borrowed an additional $125,000 from
Hamie Tooke at the Bank of Naples back in those days, back in '68,
which is quite a few years ago. We paid all that money back. We
never had a membership there. It was a public golf course, and we
never operated at a loss. This is the most -- this is the best thing
that could happen to the people of Collier County for the last 20
years.
We spent -- Collier County spent 8 million dollars for
parks, property. You will never get one dime back out of that.
You'll get a bunch of people out there clammering for more boat ramps
or more recreation areas. It's going to cost you more money.
This golf course is going to return you money and will
for the next 20, 30, 40 years. And in the near future you're going to
not only need this golf course, you're going to need another golf
course. If you'll read the feasibility studies, there you'll find out
why you're going to need it. You got people that cannot play golf
today that work here and live here and pay taxes here because of the
high fee structure in the wintertime. Go to Marriott on 951 in the
wintertime, $85. Go to the Beach Club in the City of Naples, another
$85 if you want to play again. Oh, they'll let you play 9 holes
before eight o'clock for $40. Very few golf courses today will let
you walk, very few, because you slow up play. You hold up the
rounds. I do know that at Eastwood -- I'm a personal friend of Richie
Lamb. He's run that thing for the last years. He said he wouldn't
take a job at another golf course for love nor money because he has
such a sweet deal at Eastwood. Fourteen hundred members, when is the
general public going to play there? My answer to you is to please
approve this golf course. It's not going to cost you anything. It's
not going to cost the taxpayers anything. It's going to -- it's going
to give you revenue back. You can own this thing eventually, and then
think of all the money that you're going to have coming into the
coffers for future parks and recreation problems.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Breeden, I'm going to have to
ask you to wrap it up. Your time has expired.
MR. BREEDEN: Pardon me?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Your time is expired. Can you
wrap it up?
MR. BREEDEN: Suits me.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. BREEDEN: After 20 years my time's expired for five
minutes? Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill.
MR. DORRILL: I didn't know whether the other gentleman
who arrived a little later, the architect, whether he's part of the
presentation or not. Mr. Glass?
MR. GLASS: I think we've had enough.
MR. BREEDEN: Yeah, we've had enough.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Sommer.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of thoughts
while Mr. Sommer is coming up. I think there is obviously an
undersupply. Particularly in season there is an undersupply of golf
available. There is a need in that -- that's one of the appealing
things about this is that it does feel -- as far as feeling a need
here in the county, it's right. One of the nice things, it opens the
golf game to some of those who can not -- could not otherwise play.
In season if you go to Flamingo, I think it's 105 bucks. If you go --
seventy, eighty, a hundred dollars a round of golf. I don't play
nearly good enough golf to warrant spending that kind of money but --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't play good enough golf at
all to spend that kind of money.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that per person? I mean, I've
never held a golf club. I'm just amazed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Per person. I think this is
good because it can open it up to some of those who would not
otherwise play. It will open it up to kids and so on. And I've
spoken with Mr. Breeden and Mr. Glass extensively about this and
support the concept. My -- my concern, like Commissioner Norris, is I
don't want to see the taxpayers end up holding the bag on it, caddying
on this one.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The one thing we want to make
sure, obviously whatever goes on here needs to be based on good
numbers. If there's a comparison and a quick look at the other public
courses locally and they don't match, that raises a red flag anyway.
There are any number -- I mentioned Sand Ridge in Veto Beach, which is
run very well and has been for a long time. There are any number of
public courses that we could probably compare to and do some in-depth
study and see the similarities and what the differences are. I'm not
familiar with those in Fort Myers and what the differences may be. I
know in Veto Beach it's a no-frills operation. It's a nice course,
but they don't have a big fancy clubhouse. They don't have anything
attached to it other than a little snack bar. And so I just wanted to
share that I -- this is very appealing idea, and I know there are some
people put a lot of long-time work in it, but I wonder if perhaps as
we go on there are at least three members who are uncomfortable with
the county backing the bonds, but perhaps the county can play a role
in at least doing some of the homework and helping to do some
research, in some way helping make this a reality even if we don't
back it up with taxpayer dollars. Sorry, Bob.
MR. SOHMER: Okay. For the record my name is Bob
Sommer, and I'm representing the Taxpayers' Action Group. Just for
openers, I want you to know that TAG loves golf, and TAG loves
golfers, and TAG loves the little white ball that the golfers kick
around all the time. We even love the little stick that putts the
ball when you chase it around the golf course. Make no mistake, TAG
is not anti-golf. And we think the general idea, the general proposal
-- not the proposal, the general idea is a good one, that we should
have a public course somewhere. However, the proposal before you is
so iffy that it jeopardizes our tax dollars. TAG feels you should
stop any further consideration on this proposal.
Mr. Olliff, you said the fees were going to be $177
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir, $20 projected in the summertime
and $37 in the season.
MR. SOMMER: Well, the proposed authority as -- for the
first year they show $1,593,500. There's revenue, and if you divide
that by fifty-two -- 52,000 rounds, it comes to $30.65 a round. So
for openers, when this thing first begins, it is $30.65 and not
anything less. And if you project it over a ten-year period to make
this thing really pay, the golf course would have to accommodate
92,116 rounds a year, and we think that is pretty excessive.
The problems that we -- we have been looking at -- we
only have had a day or so to work on this, so we have not been able to
have the benefit of the years of -- of listening to and considering
the authority. But the biggest problem we think that you face is
where will the dump be located, and it's going to be located -- I
mean, the golf course. It's going to be located right next to the
county dump. That's going to be a tough sell. Will the taxpayers of
Collier County want to tee off in full view of the dump? Your waste
management people are working on the odor problem, but nothing has
been accomplished as yet.
How do you get to the golf course? Well, there's a road
bordering the dump you can use, or you'd have to build an access road
which means building a bridge to get over the canal. Is that part of
the 8 million dollars, or is that an add-on that the county is going
to take care of out of the road and -- and building budget -- road and
bridge budget?
How much will the golf course cost? Your executive
summary states 8 million dollars, but it also states, and I quote,
there's nothing provided that substantiates this figure. Very iffy.
How will it be paid? Well, they would like us to float a bond issue,
and we are very nervous about floating a bond issue because if the
thing goes belly up, we're going to be responsible for that bond
issue.
Are the public golf courses money makers? Well, your
staff has already checked with Fort Myers, and it's not. They can't
-- they're not making a profit. We feel that this whole idea of
having a public golf course is a good one, but we think this
particular proposal is not, and we ask that you forget about it.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Sommer. Mr. --
Mr. Olliff, how would a 27-hole public golf course support 94,000
rounds of golf?
MR. OLLIFF: It wouldn't.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It wouldn't?
MR. OLLIFF: No. I think your annual rounds at some of
the Fort Myers courses are high, and they're probably 72,000 rounds a
year, and I think that's about as much as you could expect.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So when we get out here in year
ten at $2,844,000, we're either looking at 94,000 rounds a year, or
we're looking at more holes, or we're looking at increased prices?
MR. OLLIFF: I take that back. I was thinking 18
holes. On a 27-hole golf course you can probably do an extra fifteen,
twenty thousand rounds a year. Ninety thousand is not out of the
question with 27 holes. I think there are some projected rounds that
are also included.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Eighty-two thousand?
MR. OLLIFF: Eighty-two thousand.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then at 82,000 rounds, then we
are going to have to raise the prices to get two million eight.
MR. OLLIFF: I think some of their additional revenue
comes from pro shop sales, food and beverage sales.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It shows right here that they
projected an increase in greens and cart fees when they get to 82,000
rounds. It doesn't stay at $37 forever.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I see 41.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ten years from now it would be
$41.82, which makes sense. The cost of operation goes up; the cost of
personnel goes up; the cost of rounds go up, CPI.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Forty-one dollars ten years from
now is probably worth only thirty-four dollars today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually the cost goes down.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Who is next? Excuse me,
Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, one of the things that I
think we're losing a little bit of apples-to-apples comparison here is
that we have made a comparison of this course to some municipal
courses, and this is not to be a municipal course, but a privately
operated course. There are thousands of privately operated courses
around the country that obviously make a profit or they'd close up and
shut down. So we need to remember that a municipal course is not
driven by the profit motive and -- and some of their incentives to
hold costs down and to squeeze -- squeeze prices to make a profit are
not there.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller. Then we'll have Hiss Barsh.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. I also
represent the Golden Gate Estates Association. Here is ads for the
last 15 days which is no -- not during the summer, incidentally; we're
in the fall. Golf and lunch including cart, $14. Three different
courses within easy striking of the area: Hunters Ridge, summer rates
now in effect, $20 including green fees, carts, and tax. Summer golf
fees, Palm River Country Club before one o'clock, $10; after one
o'clock, $15. These people are making so much money, how come they're
trying to push -- get people on the golf course?
We have a surplus of golf courses in Florida -- in
Collier County, more golf courses probably than New York City has or
Chicago has or Washington D.C. Has or Los Angeles has. So my point
is very simple. If this is -- this is a private organization. I
don't know what the authority is. The authority is not
quasi-governmental, I imagine. It's a private organization. If this
is such a good deal, let them go on and do it. That's fine. But I'm
quite sure that if you ever put this up to a vote, that you wouldn't
even have 25 percent of the people in Collier County willing to spend
8 million dollars for a golf course when we're having a heck of a time
getting the money to go and refurbish our beaches for 6 or 7 million
dollars.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Keller, no one is talking
about spending tax dollars on this, nobody.
MR. KELLER: What you're doing is securing a note.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no, we're not doing that.
MR. KELLER: Well, then, if you're not securing a note,
why are we even bothering here? We have nothing to do with it. Let
them do their job. If you're not going to be involved in this thing
in any way, why is it coming before this county commission?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We own the land.
MR. KELLER: Well, you want to sell the land, all right,
fine. If they want to give us a million odd dollars for that land
which never, never, never will be odor free -- Waste Management
doesn't say it's ever going to be odor free. I went to a recent
meeting. They don't claim it's ever going to be odor free. They have
a person going around and checking five different locations each day
so to try to -- if it becomes too obnoxious they -- they will fill in
the top, put dirt over the top of the daily fill instead of using the
cover. They never contend it's going to be odor free. No dump is
ever odor free.
And, secondly, if the only reason why they're interested
in this land is because it's county land, and if they can get you to
go and guarantee a bond of some kind, they're going to use that money
to pay you back. So where is the big deal? This doesn't make any
sense at all financially or otherwise. Just remember, when you talk
about these -- these fees -- these cheap fees here, the winter season
here is not what a normal winter is. It's from about the 15th of
November until about the 15th of April. That's when we have the
biggest influx of people that got the money that are willing to spend
any kind of money to play golf. I played golf for 50 years, and I can
tell you right now I never paid $37 to chase the ball around. And
that's -- their fee is $37, and it's going to go up. So if this is
such a good deal, let them take care of it. Let them do it. We don't
want any part of it.
There's another thing I'd like to say about
authorities. We're getting so many committees and so many
authorities; where are we going? What function is government playing
here? Is government playing any function, or are we going to be
subjected to all these special interests coming before this commission
week after week and presenting cases where you have to go through a
lot of rigmarole? The staff has to spend endless amount of time. Did
anybody ever figure out what it costs the staff to go over these
committees' reviews? This government is becoming ridiculous. It's
inefficient, and it's ridiculous, and the reason why it is is because
the county commission has permitted it to be. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Keller, perhaps you would
be so kind as to submit a list of all those committees you think we
should cut.
MR. KELLER: Well, they've got 38 committees or
something or 40 committees, and I don't know where the authorities
come in because the authorities are -- are they -- are they officially
authorities? Are they quasi-governmental authorities, or are -- and
this particular authority, was this appointed by the county commission
as a -- being a part of the county?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. That's what they call
themselves.
MR. KELLER: Well, that don't mean anything, so let's be
honest about it.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Barsh and then Mr. Pointer.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While they're coming up, Mr.
Olliff, has the idea that we're discussing today gone in front of the
parks and rec advisory board at all?
MR. OLLIFF: It was, and I've got the minutes. And
unfortunately they didn't take a solid vote on the item. But they
heard a presentation, and they recommended that we go ahead and
proceed to the county commission, but I don't have a firm vote on them
as approved or disapproved.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Barsh.
MS. BARSH: Good morning. I'm Frances Barsh. I'm a
voter, resident, and taxpayer of Collier County and a member of TAG.
And as Mr. Sommers said, TAG is not against golf, nor are we against
golfers. What we are against is the irresponsible use of taxpayers'
hard-earned dollars.
The executive summary states that there are at present
five golf courses in Collier County open to the public. The executive
summary further presents the summer and seasonal rates of seven
Collier County golf courses. The existing courses represented have
summer fees ranging from $15, which is $5 below the $20 base fee
presented, to $41 compared to the said $20 summer fee rate of the
proposed golf course. There's a differential here of a negative $5 to
a positive $21. However, the existing course seasonal rate, the rate
utilized by tourists and snowbirds, range from $55 to $119 compared
with the seasonal $37 fee rate of the proposed golf course. This
differential range is a positive $18 to twenty -- to $82. Thus, it is
obvious that the weighting of cost benefit is conspicuously in favor
of the tourists and snowbirds and not in favor of the people and
taxpayers of Collier County.
The National Golf Foundation incorporated a feasibility
study, and I refer to page 9 of this agenda item, clearly shows that
from year one and all the way through year ten the peak season 18-hole
rounds far outnumber the off season 18 rounds. By year one, 19,200;
year two, 22,800; year three, 25,800; year four, 28,000; year five,
29,400; and year six, 30,100, and that remains constant through year
ten.
The NGF study -- and I quote from page 4, paragraph 2 of
this agenda item -- says, historical unemployment rates included for
Collier County show the seasonality inherent in this tourism-driven
economy with unemployment rates increasing to double digits in the
summer off-season months. The employment scenario iljustrates that
the people of Collier County are busy working in season and have
little or no time to play golf. Off-season unemployment allows time
but cuts discretionary income and money. So who benefits from the
best rates? The tourists and the snowbirds.
There are other questions. Who will pay for the access
and egress roads for this proposed golf course? How much will it
cost? Who will pay for the parking lots? How much will this cost?
Who will pay for sewage and drainage? How much will this cost? Who
will pay for electric lines? How much will this cost? These are
basic items. They cost millions of dollars. Who will be responsible
for them? The county? The taxpayer? Or this private authority?
The two Fort Myers golf courses lost in combination
$130,000 in operations last year. When the 576,000 in bond debt is
added to this, the operation loss -- loss comes to a total of
$706,000.
Cape Coral's course is also losing money. The cost
projections of this proposed golf course do not include the four
hundred to eight hundred thousand dollar debt service in any serious
way. If the county becomes involved in any way with this project, the
cost to Collier County and its people and taxpayers will be in the
multi millions of dollars and what true benefit to these people.
If this proposed golf course is so viable and so -- and
of such great market demand, the private sector will readily embrace
it. Shares in a private company of the proposed golf course should
sell like hotcakes. You are the elected representatives of the
people. You are the trustees of our hard earned tax dollars, and you
must always bear in mind that money, all government money, comes out
of the taxpayers' pockets. Government has no money.
I'll finish in a second. This project is not needed.
The people in the target market area are now isolated and devastated
by flooded land, roads, and homes. This is a no-priority project. It
is frivolous, and we ask that you totally dismiss it and ask the
authority to pursue the private sector and stay in the private
sector. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Is that our final
speaker, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pointer.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry.
MR. POINTER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Jack Pointer. I'm here representing myself. In the Collier County
area we have somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 golf courses. Most
of the golf courses, of course, are belonging to members, and they are
not available to the general public. We are always concerned with
providing recreation for our people. We've done a marvelous job of
keeping beaches, and we're continuing to keep beaches, not only for
our people, but for those people that come down here. We have built
parks for our young people and for our young adults so that they have
recreation in the hours that they're not working. We've bought --
we've built swimming pools for our young people to keep them going,
and now we have a market in the golfing area for the young adults and
some of the older adults and even some of the teenagers who need the
opportunity to have a golf course that is available to them at all
times. I urge you to accept the proposal of the Collier County Golf
Authority and then let them build the course and let them use their
funds and provide to you a source of income as well as a source of
recreation for all the people in Collier County. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Pointer. That was
our final speaker? Commissioner Hancock, do you have a question or
comment?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A quick comment before I have a
question. I keep hearing about taxpayer dollars. There's been at
least four of the five people up here that have made it very clear,
there's going to be no pledging of taxpayer dollars to back anything
in this project, period.
Mr. Keller, that's enough.
There is no pledging of taxpayer dollars from this
commissioner on this project, period.
Mr. Weigel, my concern is if this project would prove to
be feasible and moves ahead, obviously the cost of the land is a part
of a bond that -- that the organization would have to get. Does the
county have right of first payment when that -- if that bond issue
sells? In other words, there is a cost of the land that the county
has already gone through the acquisition of. The question is, are we
at the top of the list so that we get paid back first if the bond is
issued so that there is, in fact, no risk of losing the dollars that
have been spent there, or are we somewhere else down the line that we
do have a certain open risk on the land cost alone?
MR. WEIGEL: Fair question. I don't know if I can give
you a full answer right here, but it would appear, you know, it could
be structured to protect the county interest would be my -- my
response at this point. And I think that with further investigation
with our bond counsel that that could be confirmed.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, this land, this
340-plus acres, was purchased by the solid waste district for Collier
County of which we are the trustee, so to speak, for that as well. If
we were to declare that land excess inventory and either lease it or
sell it to anyone for any purpose, don't we have to advertise that and
put it to bid so that we get the best price that we can for the best
use that we dictate for that land?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. There's a statutory
provision, 125.35 of the Florida Statutes, which -- and 125.37, which
provides that real property owned by political subdivisions, such as
the county, must be advertised for lease if it is to be leased.
Again, we may have a couple wrinkles here to contend with in a
positive sense, in a sense that this property may not be actually
declared surplus, but it may be used for a county purpose, i.e.,
recreation purpose, and remain in the ownership of the county but
under the stewardship of someone else. In any event, it would
probably be appropriate for an advertised -- an advertisement for a
lease to be prepared within the framework of the kind of leasing that
would be entertained, meaning for golf course purposes, and the -- the
golf course authority before you today and any other entity or
individuals would have the opportunity to respond to that advertised
lease. The same would go for any request for proposals that might be
considered by this board. And I would recommend to the board for the
record right now that rather than go forward with the denomination of
sole source, that any request proposals could be made and tailored
with the specificity of the -- for the use of the property that the
board so desires and that this golf course authority, as well as any
other entity or individual that wishes to respond, could do so, and
the board could review those responses. There may only be one
response, but we would have met all legal obligations and avoid any
potential with regard to our involvement with the financing later on
that we had missed a step.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Follow up that question. It was
my understanding, and maybe I'm mistaken, but the county can't per se
go out and acquire land at -- you know, pay fair market value for it
and then turn around and sell it for a profit. Is that -- I mean, we
have to sell it for what our costs were to acquire it. We're not able
to, in essence, try and sell it for a profit. Is that true, Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the way it works is that -- we're
sort of in the auction -- auction or public sale process where we go
out for bids and receive bids on property that's declared a surplus.
So it's what the marketplace will pay at a particular point in time.
We do not just list it through a realtor type of arrangement for a
prefixed price ahead of time. However, when the responses come in to
the advertised sale of real property, the board always retains the
ability to approve or not approve the sale of that property.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it -- it would -- I think what
I'm hearing you say is that the golf authority is like any other
private industry that came to us today and said we have this great
idea, and -- but it's the board's responsibility to not just say,
okay, we like your idea, go do it. But it's our responsibility to put
together some sort of a RFP, RFB. I don't know what you want to call
it, but see if there are others out there willing to compete with this
group for the same -- same idea, at least.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Suggestions from the
board?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I suggest that -- that we
move forward on the basis that this -- if -- if we are to move
forward, that the arrangement be structured in such a way that it --
that there is no potential for any of the financial liability to fall
to Collier County and Collier County taxpayers.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- can I just get a
clarification, Commissioner Norris? Would that mean that what we
would be doing is selling the property to the golf authority and
allowing them to utilize our bonding authority without pledging --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't understand then. Help me
with the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The -- well, it's a
recommendation, I believe, at this point. Based on what Mr. Weigel
has said, it seems to me that what I'm hearing Mr. Norris say, and he
can help me if I'm wrong, is that the board continue to entertain the
idea and follow whatever legal channels are required. If we need to
put out a request for proposals for other golf entities to respond to,
it may be that the golf authority is the only one who does respond.
We don't know that right now.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Miss Chairman, if I might,
I'm just trying to make a motion that is broad enough to give the
staff the latitude to work with the authority, but under the -- under
the definite restriction that if there is a -- a deal, an arrangement
that goes forward out of discussions, it certainly has to include the
proviso that at no time and under no circumstances will the liability,
financial liability, fall to the county taxpayers.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you're -- you're suggesting
that we just say up front that the county is not going to put its full
faith and credit behind this bond issue; is that what you're saying?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's part of it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's part of it. What's the
rest of it?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What would staff be doing? What
are the parameters? I'm --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I make a suggestion,
Commissioner Norris? Can I take a step?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have your hand puppets?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we should explore --
maybe this is what you're saying. Maybe it's not. I think we should
explore the use of that particular property for a public golf course
of some sort, that we should offer that out, as you said, RFP, RFB,
whatever the appropriate form is, but that we should not encumber any
county funds, nor should we put up even a risk of county funds through
the bonding issue. Are we somewhere along the same lines?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Isn't that what I said?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I may, in the staff report I
saw two options on bonding. One was full faith and credit. I think
we've told them, not going to happen. Another bonding option was that
the bond be structured so that the golf course and the Collier County
Golf Authority would be the only party responsible for debt service
payments. Are you suggesting that we do that or that we consider that
option or close that door?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the reason I structured my
-- my motion a little bit open-ended is there may be more options
than that. I don't know. But if the Collier County Golf Authority is
-- is willing to go forward under the condition that -- that the
county is not going to help financially, fine. Let them come forward
with any proposal they would like, restructure a new one if they'd
like, and let's take a look at it and go forward from there. I'm just
trying to give everybody as much latitude as possible to come up with
an arrangement that's suitable to all parties.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I said earlier, I think
there is a need. Particularly in season there is a need for more
affordable -- I disagree with Hiss Barsh that when costs are lower in
season that only benefits the snowbirds. The problem right now isn't
summertime. I can afford to go play golf in the summertime. I can
get a little cancer card or any one of those cards and go play for $15
or $20 a round. The problem is for many of the year-round residents
come -- I'm not looking for a response. For many of the year-round
residents come wintertime, that fifteen or twenty dollars becomes
sixty or seventy or eighty dollars which you can't do with any
regularity. So I think there is a very apparent need, particularly in
season. And I think if we can turn around and help through a site,
have a logical site, and as Commissioner Hancock said, get the money
back into the landfill coffers that was expended on that, then
obviously, again, no taxpayer money or no waste-payer money is
expended there. But if we can help make this a reality simply by
having some real estate, we think a public golf course is the best use
of that property and put it out for RFP, and the golf authority may be
the only ones to come back. But, again, do that at no risk to the
taxpayer. I don't really see a downside to that. We have -- a great
recreational opportunity comes forth for the public. We have a
effective -- cost effective golf opportunities for kids and for people
that can't afford it in the wintertime (raised hand) and no expense to
the taxpayer. I'm not sure what the downside to that is.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are two things that I like
particularly about moving in this direction as long as, again, the
risk to any investment of tax dollars or any future tax dollars is
zero. If we can move ahead in that vein, we're not putting those
dollars at risk. Then we can look at the overall scenario. And the
overall scenario have two things in it that really haven't been
mentioned today, but briefly -- and I want to point them out. The
first is that we can walk a golf course. It's -- for him, it's his
exercise. He walks five days a week on that course. That has to be a
part of this, because it has to be recreational in nature. There's
nothing recreational, in my opinion, about jumping in a cart and
driving around 18 holes. Yeah, you get out and hit the ball every now
and then, but the concept here, that a lot of our senior citizens are
looking for ways to have recreation and exercise, at the same time can
have them in the game of golf provided they can walk. I like that
idea. That's always been a part of this.
The second thing is that golf scholarships are on the
rise all over the U.S. The youth programs that a public course can
create to get kids interested in the game at an early age that give
them the opportunity to play in high school and go on to college and
maybe get scholarships is a big program. And golf is a life sport.
It's something that someone can pick up at age ten and play the rest
of their entire lives. And those two things are big selling points
provided the first thing I mentioned occurs, and that is, again, that
the current or future risk of tax dollars is not a part of this
program. I don't think anyone up here will support this project if
that is an element. With that being said, there's been a restatement
of the motion and original motion. I'm going to second whatever is
appropriate out there. I believe Commissioner Norris's motion was on
the floor.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think Commissioner Norris's
motion is open-ended enough to give our staff whatever exploratory
options that -- that they see reasonable, but at the same time he --
he has in the motion shut down the concept that the county is going to
put its faith and credit behind this. So -- and I believe that is the
motion. Is -- yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I hear a clear
restatement on it? I'm not sure I recall --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do it again, John.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tom wants a restatement, too.
MR. OLLIFF: Please.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do it again, John.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let me restate it. I'll
make a motion that -- that we go forward with negotiations with the
Collier County Golf Authority on this project under the condition that
if any arrangement is agreed to in the future, that the primary
condition is that no Collier County pledge or use of tax dollars will
be involved.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question on the motion.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Question, Commissioner
Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume pursuant to Mr.
Weigel's comments, we'll do as part of that -- if we need to do some
sort of --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Whatever. Leave it open-ended so
they can do whatever they feel is necessary to do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The essence of the motion is
let's look at the opportunity -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of having someone build a
public golf course.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff, you have a question?
MR. OLLIFF: Just -- the only question is there are two
ways to do this in terms of whether I go out competitively through an
RFP or whether I sole source and work with the Collier County Golf
Authority. And I'm not sure whether you want me to go out and prepare
an RFP structured around no county involvement sort of bond issue, or
do you want me to just come back to you after having worked with the
golf authority and say here's what the project would look like under
that type of scenario, and then you make a decision of whether or not
you want us to go out and bid or go sole source?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like that idea because it
presents less work for you on the front end. And let's face it, if
the numbers come back and the numbers don't jive, then there's no
reason to move ahead. So rather than waste your time on the front
end, in essence, open the doors and see what's out there, you know,
numbers are numbers, and we're going to have comparisons from courses
all over the State of Florida before this is over to determine whether
these numbers are realistic or not. With that exercise, which I'm
assuming a lot of that will be performed by the authority and not by
you, I think we will at least have either a level base of information,
or we'll know that this isn't a possibility.
MR. OLLIFF: So from your motion what I will bring back
to you is, one, what the project would look like under that financing
scenario, and I will also do some research into some other comparable
types of public golf courses perhaps that aren't municipal but are
public golf courses and try to bring back those pieces of information
for you to make a decision.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a
second. Any further discussion?
There being none, all in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 95-601 SUPPORTING PARTIAL YEAR AD VALOREH ASSESSHENTS -
ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Hr. Olliff. Next item
on the agenda, all the way to 10(A), a resolution supporting partial
year ad valorem assessments.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the resolution. All those in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #14A
NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT PETITION DRIVE - DISCUSSED
We're at public comment portion of our --
MR. DORRILL: None today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are none today.
Communications then. Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Nothing today.
Commissioner Hancock?
No, ma'am.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
No, ma'am.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One brief item. I think you
all are aware, if you've read the paper or answered your phone calls,
Naples Park is -- we've got that item coming up next week. That will
be our biggest item on the agenda, I suspect. There has been -- a
pretty large group has put together a petition drive. My
understanding is there's somewhere in excess of 600 names now and
still plugging away. They've got seven more days. But just on an --
if you would anyway, keep an open mind. I know we're looking at some
different things. The cost may come lower than what Mr. Boldt had
anticipated, but I know there are some -- some serious concern there,
and they had just asked me to pass that on to the board, that to
please keep an open mind. And I have assured everyone that I've
spoken to that all of you would do that anyway. I know you always
do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I for one am going to meet with
-- talk with Steve Hart (phonetic) during the week. I think it's
important for all of us to realize what the 24th is about. It's not
about a final approval of a 4 million dollar system. I think all of
us sitting here, if we saw a price tag coming in at 4 million, would
just turn the other cheek and be done with it. The question next
Tuesday is whether or not we want to allow staff to put it out for bid
to find out what the real project cost is or whether we just want to
cut it at that point. And that's really all Tuesday is about, whether
we want to find out what the real bids are going to be or whether we
want to walk away from it, say it's just going to be too expensive
regardless. So I'm going to get with Steve and try and clarify some
of those things and see if we can get it in the paper so that everyone
-- I'm sorry, Steve Hart -- so everyone understands what Tuesday is
about and also understands that, yes, all five of us are sensitive to
the costs as well we should be.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Very sensitive to it. That the
only item you have?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only item I have.
Item #14B
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SEMINAR - DISCUSSED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have two short items; one, a
reminder of a criminal justice symposium tomorrow evening. I believe
it's at The Registry, yes, The Naples Registry Resort, 7 to 9 p.m. We
have a number of dignitaries from the state coming to speak with
residents of Collier County about criminal justice.
Item #14C
LELY BAREFOOT BEACH GUARDHOUSE - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO GIVE UPDATE ON
NOVEMBER 7, 1995
The other item that I want to bring up -- and it's
probably a little bit of a controversial issue -- I had a call again
last night from a couple of people, but one from the attorney
general's office, Mr. Weigel, wanting to know the question of Lely
Barefoot Beach. When is that coming back before us, the guardhouse?
MR. WEIGEL: The question on the guard -- well, it's in
the courts right now. So it will either be settled with a settlement
brought back to you to go to court. If your question is when that
will go forward --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When is the settlement coming to
us, or should we begin to take up the option of the code enforcement
on the guardhouse? This thing has been sitting now for almost a year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The law prohibits us from
doing it at code enforcement level concurrently with the court
system.
MR. WEIGEL: I mean, the court case itself was an
injunctive lawsuit to prevent us from doing that. It's just been
stayed in the sense of the negotiation and investigation that's been
going on along that line. So if we were to go forward from the county
administrative end, I would expect that the injunctive element of the
lawsuit would be brought to court rather quickly as far as that goes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was just saying why don't we
move forward and -- and get this thing off of the back burner? I
mean, we've got an issue that's been going on for a year now.
MR. WEIGEL: Sure. Well, with the direction of the
board, we would do that. I know that there has been some individual
commissioner participation in a sense of investigation as to the lay
of the land and -- and now with the recent state entry into the case,
it's a little curious that they would raise a question as what we're
going to do when they're working with us and entered the case so that
they could have a say within the litigation itself as to what will
happen. But I can assure you we can proceed immediately.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me share with the board what
the representative of the attorney general was asking me last night,
and that person was asking on information that they had received that
a settlement was very near and, in fact, that the board had agreed to
a settlement. And I assured him that we had not. MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So I mean that's why they're
calling. They're getting phone calls in Tallahassee. They're getting
information that something is happening when it's not. And I guess if
we're that close, then let's make it happen.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Matthews.
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I have received
copies of letters from attorneys in Tallahassee that I've never even
spoken to talking about some compromise I authored. Let's be very,
very clear right now. I have never authored a compromise. What I've
done is try and improve public access to Lely Barefoot Beach, which I
thought was the issue. As it turns out, public access is now
secondary. I'm supposed to get a bulldozer and run over a guard
gate. That's what I'm supposed to do. So I approach it from a public
access perspective and had some discussions with the homeowners in
Lely Barefoot and had some discussions with CABB and Emily Maggio
(phonetic) and everyone else and their mother. And what became very
obvious is there's no easy solution that improves public access while
maintaining the level of security for the folks in Lely Barefoot by
their zoning. Now, there is another option out there, but, you know,
the idea that -- that someone's out there working on things on a daily
basis simply isn't true. You know, I read Commissioner Mac'Kie's
comments this morning in the paper with some interest that basically
said that I should ignore the county attorney's advice and kind of
push this thing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
said.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
the opportunity --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
liked that part.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
of one or two scenarios.
Not even close to what I actually
Okay. I thought I would give you
Thank you, but not even close.
You know, because the truth is --
You mean you were misquoted?
Ahh.
By the Daily News?
She did say she liked me. I
That part was true, Tim.
The truth is here; there's kind
There's no question that gatehouse where it
sits should not have been approved. I don't think anyone up here
refutes that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No one did approve it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It wasn't approved.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It got a building permit.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't want to debate the
issue itself this morning because -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just want to know when it's
coming, that's all.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually I -- I'm not -- I don't
want to debate the issue, but I was wanting to say -- what I wanted to
say in my turn was if Mr. Weigel said he's looking for board direction
about whether or not to proceed with code enforcement action, I want
to give you my direction, proceed with code enforcement action.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd agree with that.
MR. WEIGEL: That's fine. I will just respond that it's
integrally related to the case itself. And if we go forward, it may
cause the case itself to jump forward in one of the two or three modes
that it has. One is injunctive relief to prevent us from doing what
we attempted to do in the first place with our code enforcement
action. But they work together, and we can initiate the
administrative side, and it will have the -- like the laws of physics,
a reaction into the litigation side. And, of course, we're attempting
to work with the state -- the attorney general on all regards to
this. We tried to bring them into the case a year ago, and they
wouldn't come in. And they came in about a month ago, so it's been
difficult from the county standpoint, but we're ready to go forward.
I appreciate your direction.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First of all, I think it
benefits everybody to jump this thing forward because we have been
seemingly sitting --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- idle for a long time. I
know people have been trying to accomplish different things outside
the public forum, and that's not to suggest no one has done anything
for the last year, but the result has been that we haven't achieved a
whole lot last year.
Just so the board is aware, I have spoken with the
attorney for the Lely Barefoot Beach homeowners in some detail on a
plan that right now they're actually warming up to pretty well. I
have yet to speak with CABB and some of the other folks who have been
the adversary of Lely Barefoot Beach. I'm planning on doing that this
week. If -- if both sides are fairly warm to it, I intend to bring
the idea to the board and see if the board's comfortable with it as
well within the next couple of weeks. I would not, by any means, ask
us to wait, though, if we need to move forward. And somewhere in
those proceedings we come up with an answer, great. But I -- I hope
we move forward immediately, but just be aware there is something that
both sides may be comfortable with, and obviously we'll need to make
sure the state attorney's general office is as well. But I think the
biggest hurdle is going to be getting the homeowners in there and the
-- some of the other folks all on the same page. And I think if we
are and both of those groups are, the state attorney general's office
will probably be happy to see everybody working together but --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I make a suggestion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- take that a step at a
time.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I make a suggestion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That this is October the 17th.
The 24th we have a pretty full agenda. The 31st is a workshop. Would
it be reasonable to ask Mr. Weigel to begin to move forward in
bringing this issue to closure and on November the 7th give us an
updated report on the status of it?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would love that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On that workshop on the 31st I '-
I've tried to lay out a couple of ideas, but it's very tough to float
things --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No kidding.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because of the way -- to float
them and see what people think and see what's out there. And when I
-- I drew something, the next thing you know, I'd authored a
compromise. I'm not sure how that happened. All I did was draw
something. But there are a couple of ideas that I think could be
drawn up and shown to the commission, say, at the workshop just to get
some -- I mean, ten minutes. We can put a time limit of ten minutes
on it, get some feedback, does this make sense, or does this make
sense, which one is better type of scenario. I think one of the
things that Commissioner Constantine is working on, because it's the
only other option I know of, but I'd be happy to do that, if we can
put it on the workshop agenda as a strict ten-minute item to put out a
couple of things and get comments from the board, that's my only way
of kind of floating things and finding out if they have any --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Remembering, though, that at our
workshops we do not invite public comment to any significant degree.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So while we might be discussing
these drawings, we are not particularly going to be inviting 300
people to come and give us their comment on it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the next week when it's on an
agenda item, you can be guaranteed they're going to be in the audience
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This would just be an
opportunity for us to get a heads up a week in advance.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly, and for the public to
get it because once I put it out at workshop, I'm talking about just
two drawings of what may be able to happen there and which is better.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe just in the staff report
for the agenda item.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And then if everyone gets ahold
of it, because you know on the 7th we're going to discuss it and
public comment on it. I would just like everyone to have what I've
been thinking of, that's all.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. Then, Mr. Weigel, we'll
look for an update on this on the 7th. We're in agreement?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. And just one final comment is that as
I get back and review what we can do administratively and how soon,
typically with code enforcement board we have notice and then
scheduled hearing due process requirements, and they'll be part of my
report, too, on the 7th is that how far we're into that process then.
Item #15
STAFF COMMUNICATION - FEMA GRANTS FOR FLOOD VICTIMS DISCUSSED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, fine. Thank you. Mr.
Dotrill, do you have communication items?
MR. DORRILL: Only one quick thing. As part of the
amendment to the presidential declaration that included Collier County
in a press release that we issued yesterday afternoon at 4:30,
individuals in Collier County are now eligible for direct grants from
FEMA if they have experienced flooding. This is around the SBA
process, direct grants. It also includes for individuals or groups of
individuals opportunities for what the federal government calls hazard
mitigation projects. And I've asked Mr. Pineau to explore with
Mr. Archibald whether people who live on Acremaker Road as an
association could apply for direct FEMA grants and aid for work and
assistance in that regard.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Interesting that you're saying
that. I've asked Mr. Pineau and Mr. Archibald to meet with me
immediately following this meeting to -- to explore exactly that, of
what we can ask the people who live along the private roads to do if
they need to form associations to get the grants.
MR. DORRILL: Governments are not eligible under the
modified disaster declaration, only individuals who have incurred
uninsured loss, but we are exploring that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How about a drainage system?
Would that qualify?
MR. DORRILL: We're going to explore --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. -- Mr. Weigel, do
you have anything for communication? MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Filson? We're finished.
We're adjourned. Thank you.
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner
Constantine and carried unanimously, that the following items
under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 91-55 FOR A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR LOT
34, BLOCK 197, MARCO BEACH UNIT SEVEN OWNED BY HOWARD JOHN SCHULTE
See Pages
Item #16A2
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-95 FOR A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR
TRACT 1 OF WHITEHURST'S REPLAT OWNED BY HERBERT POHLHANN
See Pages
Item #16A3
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-245 FOR A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR
LOT 10, BLOCK 189, GOLDEN GATE UNIT SIX OWNED BY ELLIOT & NAN SIEGEL
See Pages
Item #16A4
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-544 FOR A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR
LOT 26, BLOCK A, PINE VIEW VILLAS OWNED BY ALEJANDRO & CARIDAD PENA
See Pages
Item #16A5
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-316 FOR A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR
LOT 5, BLOCK J, POINCIANA VILLAGE, UNIT 1, OWNED BY JAMES & JENNIFER
HCGUIRE
See Pages
Item #16A6
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-538 FOR A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR
LOT 3, BLOCK 183, MARCO BEACH UNIT SEVEN OWNED BY ADOLFO & MARLENE
FERRO
See Pages
Item #16A7
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-477 FOR A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR
LOT 15, BLOCK C OF NAPLES VILLAS OWNED BY ERHARD & JOANN STRIETZEL
See Pages
Item #16A8
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 92-492 FOR A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR
LOT 117, PALMETTO DUNES GARDENS, LELY COUNTRY CLUB, OWNED BY TERRY &
KAREN WALSH
See Pages
Item #16A9
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 91-59 FOR A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR LOT
9. BLOCK 8, NAPLES MANNORANNEX OWNED BY JEAN & MARKENSIE PAUL
See Pages
Item #16A10
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-310 FOR A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR
LOT 10, BLOCK 173, MARCO BEACH UNIT SEVEN OWNED BY HARRY J. FRIEDMAN
See Pages
Item #16All - Continued to 11/7/95
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 95-590 AUTHORIZING A 50e WAIVER/50e DEFERRAL OF ROAD,
LIBRARY SYSTEM, PARKS & RECREATIONAL FACILITITIES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES SYSTEM, AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR A
THREE BEDROOM HOUSE TO BE BUILT BY RICHARD AND PEGGY SUE EAGLER IN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ON 8TH AVENUE N.E.
See Pages
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 95-591 AUTHORIZING A 100e WAIVER OF ROAD, LIBRARY SYSTEH,
PARKS & RECREATIONAL FACILITITIES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SYSTEM,
AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR A THREE BEDROOM HOUSE
TO BE BUILT BY CLIFFORD W. CONNOLLY IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ON 8TH
AVENUE S.E.
See Pages
Item #16A14
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LEXINGTON AT LONE OAK, UNIT TWO - WITH
STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND CASH BOND
See Pages
Item #16A15A
RESOLUTION 95-592 ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER PUBLIC FUNDS EXPENDED ON
CASE NO 50424-057 TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 28, BLOCK B, GOODLAND ISLES, OWNED BY JOHN
ROY YOUNG
Item #16A15B
See Pages
RESOLUTION 95-593 ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER PUBLIC FUNDS EXPENDED ON
CASE NO 50523-009 TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 10, BLOCK 284 OF MARCO BEACH UNIT EIGHT OWNED
BY BARBARA K. HAMORY
Item #16A15C
See Pages
RESOLUTION 95-594 ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER PUBLIC FUNDS EXPENDED ON
CASE NO 50523-088 TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 10, BLOCK 10, NAPLES MANOR ANNEX OWNED BY
LOUIS & LORETTA CAMBRUZZI
Item #16A15D
See Pages
RESOLUTION 95-595 ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER PUBLIC FUNDS EXPENDED ON
CASE NO 50608-091 TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 26, BLOCK 167 OF MARCO BEACH UNIT FIVE, OWNED
BY PATRICK AND MARTINE VIGUIE
Item #16A15E
See Pages
RESOLUTION 95-596 ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER PUBLIC FUNDS EXPENDED ON
CASE NO 50608-124 TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 4, BLOCK 406, MARCO BEACH UNIT 13, OWNED BY
EMILIO ROLAND STILLO
Item #16A15F
See Pages
RESOLUTION 95-597 ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER PUBLIC FUNDS EXPENDED ON
CASE NO 50609-031 TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 13, BLOCK 90, MARCO BEACH UNIT THREE, OWNED
BY BEVERLY STEIGERWALD
Item #16A15G
See Pages
RESOLUTION 95-598 ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER PUBLIC FUNDS EXPENDED ON
CASE NO 50612-040 TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 20 AND 21, BLOCK A, VANDERBILT BEACH CENTER,
OWNED BY EDWARD ROLQUIN
See Pages
Item #16A15H
RESOLUTION 95-599 ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER PUBLIC FUNDS EXPENDED ON
CASE NO. 50612-052 TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 13, BLOCK 294, MARCO BEACH UNIT EIGHT, OWNED
BY NIVARDO MARTINEZ & ELBA MARTINEZ
See Pages
Item #16A15I
RESOLUTION 95-600 ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER PUBLIC FUNDS EXPENDED ON
CASE NO. 41117-019 TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE ON
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, BLOCK 329, GOLDEN GATE, UNIT 7, OWNED BY
DERILIEN & ROSEHIE DORESTIN
See Pages
Item #16A16
EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.522 QUAIL WEST PHASE III GOLF COURSE - WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A17
AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF
A PROPOSED NEW PUBLIC VHICLE FOR HIRE ORDINANCE
Item #16B1
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AND THE BCC FOR WATER SERVICE TO A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE
GOODLAND AREA
See Pages
Item #1682
BID #95-2326 FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF HALON FIRE SUPPRESSION
SYSTEMS IN THE WASTEWATER MASTER PUMP STATIONS - REJECTED
Item #1683
BID #95-2421 AWARDED FOR ON-CALL ELECTRICAL REPAIRS TO VARIOUS VENDORS
Item #1684
REALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR THE WATER AND SEWER CAPITAL PORTIONS OF THE
C.R. 951 ROAD WIDENING PROJECT
Item #1685
BID #95-2416 FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SUPPLIES - AWARDED TO VARIOUS
VENDORS
Item #1686
ACCEPTANCE FOR EASEMENTS ALONG VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SIDEWALK RELCATION AND LANDSCAPING
Item #1687
APPROVAL OF PAYMENT FOR FIELD PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER 455977 FOR BUSINESS
RECYCLING AWARDS PLAQUES
Item #1688
FORMAL BID PROCESS WAIVED; RECYCLING SECTION'S ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN FOR
FY 1995/96 ON VARIOUS RADIO, TELEVISION AND LOCAL NEWSPAPERS - APPROVED
Item #16D1
SATISFACTION OF CLAIM OF LIENS FOR DEBORAH C. MANN AND EDWARD L.
ANGELL, AND ROGER AND JUDITH HCCANDLESS
See Pages
Item #16D2
CANCELLATION OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR ROBERT AND MARGARET DILBONE
See Pages
Item #16D3
SATISFACTION OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR JOHN F. BAILIE AND WILLIAM C. ENGEL,
WILLIAM AND JANE SHEEHAN, AND T.A.F.S. PARTNERSHIP
See Pages
Item #16D4
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD REVENUE FOR INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM MODERNIZATION PROJECT #80180
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-583, 96-02 AND 96-19
Item #16G
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
There being no objections, the following miscellaneous
correspondence was filed and/or referred to the various departments as
indicated:
Item #16H1
ADDITIONAL BOND PAYHENTS IN EXCESS OF THE CURRENT DEBT SERVICE AMOUNTS
FOR THE SERIES 1988 MARCO SEWER BONDS
Item #16H2
TRANSFER OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY PURCHASED BY FUND 301 DURING FY
9/30/94 FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SHERIFF TO THE SHERIFF'S CUSTODY
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 11 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented or as corrected
as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan