BCC Minutes 11/19/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 1996
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 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock
Timothy J. Constantine
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Barbara S. Berry
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
(The proceedings commenced, Commissioner Constantine not
being present.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll call the county commission meeting to order
on the 19th of November, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, could you please lead us
in a invocation and a pledge to the flag.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we -- we give thanks this
morning for the wonderful quality of life that we have there in
Collier County. Father, we give thanks for the wonder that you have
bestowed on this community. Father, this morning we are especially
thankful to welcome and to receive a -- a new county commissioner. It
is our prayer that -- that her dedication and desire would fit well
with the other commissioners as they seek to provide the highest
degree of -- of ethical and business deliberations that affect this
community and its people.
Father, this morning we lift up before you the family of
Robin Doyle in the tragedy that was exhibited on that family over the
weekend. Lift them up with their many friends in this community.
We'd ask especially that you bless our time here
together today, and we pray these things in your Son's holy name.
Araen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
SWEARING-IN CEREMONY BY HONORABLE JUDGE BRENDA WILSON - COHMISSIONERS
CONSTANTINE, BERRY AND NORRIS SWORN IN
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: First item on our agenda this
morning is the swearing in of the new commissioner, Barbara Berry, in
district 5 and swearing in of the -- the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Old.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- continuing commissioners.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Old.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Not old, continuing commissioners
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Old, old.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- one of whom has not arrived.
I'm not -- has anyone heard why Commissioner Constantine's not here?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has he decided not to join us for
the next four years?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thought it over, rejected it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In any case, we have not heard from
him as far as I know, so we'll have to go ahead and continue. We have
with us today Judge Brenda Wilson who's going to do the -- the
swearing in for us, and we'll do it right out there.
JUDGE WILSON: If I can have our new commissioner come
on up. If I could have you both raise your right hand. Commissioner
Norris is all set. If you could repeat after me, please. I do
solemnly swear.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I do solemnly swear.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I do solemnly swear.
JUDGE WILSON: That I will support, protect, and defend.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: That I will support, protect, and
defend.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That I will support, protect, and
defend.
JUDGE WILSON: The Constitution and government.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: The Constitution and government.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The Constitution and government.
JUDGE WILSON: Of the United States.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Of the United States.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Of the United States.
JUDGE WILSON: And of the state of Florida.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And of the state of Florida.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And of the state of Florida.
JUDGE WILSON: That I am duly qualified.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: That I am duly qualified.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That I am duly qualified.
JUDGE WILSON: To hold office.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: To hold office.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: To hold office.
JUDGE WILSON: Under the Constitution of the state.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Under the Constitution of the
state.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Under the Constitution of the state.
JUDGE WILSON: And that -- and that I will well and
faithfully perform.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: And that I will well and faithfully
perform.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that I will well and faithfully
perform.
JUDGE WILSON: The duties of commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The duties of commissioner.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The duties of commissioner.
JUDGE WILSON: On which I am now about to enter.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: On which I am now about to enter.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: On which I am now about to enter.
JUDGE WILSON: So help me God.
COMHISSIONER BERRY: So help me God.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So help me God.
JUDGE WILSON: Congratulations.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Brave souls.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know where we're supposed
to look.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Get used to it, Barbara.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Probably look behind me.
JUDGE WILSON: She already knows about the job.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're not holding any rabbit ears
or anything up over your head.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris and
Commissioner Berry, as is a tradition, we've had the opportunity to --
after you're being sworn in or being sworn in to make a few comments
to those that are here today and might ask both of you to do that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, board members, for this
little opportunity. I'll be very brief. I just want to thank the --
the voters of district 1 for their -- their show of support and
confidence in me for another four years. I -- it was a -- quite a --
quite an election and gives me something to shoot for to try to uphold
the confidence and faith that they have given me, and I'll try very
hard over the next four years to do that.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it's my pleasure to be here
this morning. I've been at this all year, and it's -- I'm -- I'm
relieved on one hand that it's over with, but I certainly want to
thank the voters in district 5 who supported me and also many other
community individuals as well.
(Commissioner Constantine entered the proceedings.)
COMMISSIONER BERRY: There are a few of those here this
morning that I'd like to recognize if I might. A person who's been a
great deal of support to me during this campaign is Tammy Hurley back
here who worked with me very closely. Cecil Oglesby down in
Everglades was a big help; Earl Marlin, good -- good friend for a
number of years and, of course, our family this year. This was kind
of a unique situation. My son's father-in-law also ran for a position
this year and is going to be a new circuit judge, Judge Monaco. And
his wife is here this morning as well. And we're filming this for the
new grand -- for our new grandbaby who will be five months old later
on this month. So some day she can look at this and see what -- what
her grandparents tried to do.
Anyway, we've had a lot of fun, and I'm certainly glad
that instead of having two government-type jobs I'm going to just have
one and -- and concentrate on that. It's been a long, hard-fought
battle. I had some very formidable opponents, and I'm pleased to be
able to serve Collier County and look forward in doing so and working
with the rest of the commission and -- and the staff here at the
county. Again, thank you to so many people who have been so
supportive of me. Thank you very much. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hi.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, would you like to be sworn in?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
JUDGE WILSON: Why don't you come right over here. We
were wondering if you changed your mind. If you could just stand
right there, I think they can get your --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are a few meetings where
being late is noticeable.
JUDGE WILSON: This unfortunately happened to be one of
those. And they probably are going to want a photo opportunity with
your two new commissioners after this with your hands raised. I would
think that might be appropriate but all on your own. If you'd raise
your right hand, repeat after me, please. I do solemnly swear.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do solemnly swear.
JUDGE WILSON: That I will support, protect, and defend.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That I will support, protect,
and defend.
JUDGE WILSON: The Constitution and government.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The Constitution and
government.
JUDGE WILSON: Of the United States.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of the United States.
JUDGE WILSON: And of the state of Florida.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And of the state of Florida.
JUDGE WILSON: That I am duly qualified.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That I am duly qualified.
JUDGE WILSON: To hold office.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To hold office.
JUDGE WILSON: Under the Constitution of the state.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under the Constitution of the
state.
JUDGE WILSON: And that I will well and faithfully
perform.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that I will well and
faithfully perform.
JUDGE WILSON: The duties of commissioner.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The duties of commissioner.
JUDGE WILSON: On which I am now about to enter.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On which I am now about to
enter.
JUDGE WILSON: So help me God.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So help me God.
JUDGE WILSON: Congratulations.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll only do this for the first
meeting.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: I was going to say this will be
the last time this will happen.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Congratulations.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Congratulations.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you very much.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Congratulations and welcome.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Well, I believe we're about
ready to go. Mr. Dotrill, I see we have almost no changes to our
agenda?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
commissioners. We have very few changes to your agenda this morning.
I have one item that we need to correct the title for. It's item
16(A)(2) as part of the record, and for your recording secretary this
morning, the item title should indicate that the RFP number is
94-2280, and that's the only notation on that item. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: I have one item that is being requested to
be continued this morning which is a last-minute continuance. It's
item 8(B)(2) under public works as it pertains to the Collier
Naplescape proposal. That item is being requested to be continued
until your regular meeting of December the 17th.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question on that item. Has
anyone received backup on that yet? I haven't seen any.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This right here? Is that it?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: There is a -- yes, that's it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that I've seen
that.
MR. DORRILL: And the copies were provided to each
commissioner, my office, and I believe Mr. Conrecode's office as
well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure a phone call would get
that in your office rather quickly.
MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode from
public works. In fact, one of the reasons it's continued is the
master plan isn't finalized, and so we'll have even more complete
information to you in advance of the December 17 meeting.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: They -- they do expect to have it for
the 17th?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Berry, do you have any
other changes to our agenda?
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just one item under board
communications regarding the November 18 memorandum from Bettye
Matthews.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Where will that be held?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually maybe that should fall
-- under county attorney would be more appropriate since it's based
on -- on an opinion rendered by him.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. That'll be 9(A).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have
anything further?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I need a motion, please.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a
motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 22, 1996 REGULAR MEETING AND OCTOBER 30, 1996
SPECIAL MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have some minutes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion we approve the minutes of the October 22, 1996, regular
meeting and the October 30, 1996, special meeting of the board of
commissioners.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Service awards. Commissioner Hancock,
I believe you have one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. It's my pleasure this
morning to recognize one employee for ten years of continuous service
for Ochopee Fire Control, Miss Linda Swisher. Congratulations and
thank you. As we like to say, one decade down, two to go.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Two to go.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Another 9 years, 364 days,
and Barb will have caught her.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But who's counting?
Item #7A
DEBI KAY LEE REGARDING THE BIG CYPRESS SANCTUARY PERMITTING AND
APPROVALS - TO BE BROUGHT BACKK AND SCHEDULED AS REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have now a public petition
today, Debi Kay Lee. While Miss Lee is coming forward, I'd like to
explain our public petition process. We allow ten minutes for a
public petition for the petitioner to make a case. We will be
unlikely to take any action whatsoever today but -- beyond that of
perhaps deciding to hear this at a future board meeting. We don't
allow public comment on your public comment. So take ten minutes and
tell us what you want to tell us.
MS. LEE: Okay. I'm not really quite sure, I mean, how
much time you've had to review it or how familiar you are with it,
whether you want me to outline it a little bit further or just tell
you as in the letter my concerns of why we need further --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could I ask you to state your name on
the record, please.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, my name is Debi Lee. I represent
the Big Cypress Sanctuary residents in section 16, township 49, range
34 in Big Cypress.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And you can tell us whatever
you'd like for ten minutes that you think we need to hear.
MS. LEE: I -- I -- just basically you have a situation
where people were not issued permits due to basically nonfeasance by
staff at that time. It was originally in Immokalee. It started in
1976 where due to the remoteness and the ruralness of the area they
did not want to come out and inspect. They did not feel it was cost
effective.
I've enclosed in the package a summary that I did called
Big Cypress. It was given to Dick Clark in December -- February of
'95. I started this in '94. It explains the history of the area.
He never seemed to question the validity. I've enclosed also ten
individual statements of some of my clients telling their
experiences.
The process seemed to be going real well in handling it
in the beginning. We got the septic systems taken care of. We took
care of litter and things. Just it's been like two years now, and I'm
not saying this placing blame but in the same effect that I don't feel
my clients are to blame for their situation after, you know, intensive
research. I don't feel that the present viewpoint of the present
administration of wanting them to pay permit fees and impact fees as
if they had never built and all previous negotians (sic) which are
outlined in one of the letters to Mr. Cautero state everything that I
went through with Mr. Clark and Mr. Kirby who was our direct contact,
and we've not really come to any resolution. And it's not even as
much that the people can't afford the impact fees or that they don't
get the services as these homes were built and they made every effort
to comply with building code at that time.
A few particular items and the handling of it, it was --
Mr. Kirby was an environmental specialist. He was our primary contact
to handle all -- you know, all information. And he didn't quite have
all the knowledge necessary. There was a lot of turmoil and upheaval
at that time. Mr. Clark then left in the beginning of '95. Oh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MS. LEE: Mr. Clark left, and nothing was done for
several months over the case. Mr. Kirby was acting in a different
position. When he finally got back to his desk and looked at the case
again, he deferred it to the legal department's office.
After six and a half months there, it came back with a
statement that present administration, Mr. Cautero, had some, you
know, concerns about, and so it's been revised.
I just don't think -- I think that the -- the people
have been living there. They made every honest effort. This is not
just this section, although this is the only section that's been
issued the citations. The entire rural area out in that area I've not
been able to find very few permits and nothing really reflecting
what's there.
I feel that it needs -- there seems to be a lot of
confusion within my experiences over the past two year (sic) with
development services of how it can be handled. We had been told
impact fees were not going to be charged, and now present
administration feels that they don't have the power to, you know, do
that in the same way.
So I just feel that due to interpretation that it needs
-- the board members sort of a decision that's gonna be in writing
that's not going to be changed because there's -- as there's no
accountability for what the building officials told the people in the
past, then what Mr. Clark says is not, you know -- now is being
negated and what Mr. Kirby had told us at different times. The legal
opinion's been changed, and these people, you know, they're -- they're
like -- been under anxiety for two years.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What do you have -- what's your
best piece of evidence for their having '- MS. LEE: Glades Electric -- okay. Not only is it many
people but there's --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you don't know what I'm
asking for.
MS. LEE: Oh.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's your best -- it may be
that you're answering the question I was going to ask. I just want to
be sure. The -- the best piece of evidence that you have that they
sought permits.
MS. LEE: Okay. Glades Electric -- there's a package --
now, nowhere do you usually find that electric service is provided
without a standard certificate of occupancy. And service was
started. There's a separate package in there telling you my
interviews and a letter from the Glades Electric engineer. You don't
get electricity without a certificate of occupancy. That's a standard
practice.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Unless somebody makes a mistake.
MS. LEE: Right. And Glades does not do this anywhere
else. And through -- it was started in '76. Again it was reiterated
in 1980, again in 1987 that building department officials told Glades
Electric engineers and met with them and told them that they were not
going to go out there and do inspections. And so basically Glades
constituted the only permitting entity that these people found
available.
So not only did they have their own experiences, but
they found that they were able to get electricity. And so they had no
real reason to contest the -- the present legal opinion is that
building officials don't have the authority to say these things. But
if the people -- the only people that you have to go to don't have the
authority then, you know, where are you supposed to go? You basically
go by the laws of the land, and, you know, you do the best you can
which the majority of these people did.
And I don't feel that it's a fault situation. It's just
the way it was. It's the times. I know that present administration
feels that, you know, that's what -- this is all they can do is
suggest that it goes before the board. But it's just -- it's not fair
to take people who have been living in their homes, paying taxes, you
know, for anywhere from 10 to 20 years quite comfortably and subject
them to -- as if they have never existed and that it's their fault
that they have not obtained the proper permitting.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So I've just pulled out the --
the -- the letter I think you're referring to. It's December 8, '94.
It's -- it's to you.
MS. LEE: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Am I reading the right thing?
And it says that you called about how inspections are handled on the
Loony property near Big Cypress and that several years ago somebody at
Collier County told the senior staking engineer at Glades Electric
Cooperative that -- that -- they basically told Glades Electric --
Electric Cooperative you go do the inspections?
MS. LEE: See, now this was a continuance. Mr. Taylor
only started there in 1986. Also in that package is an interview that
I did with the original engineer. They were -- the -- the Glades has
just now turned over their operation to Lee County Co-op. And their
present manager, he was very concerned about the legal aspects of if
they could get in trouble because these were verbal agreements. But
Mr. Ford, the original engineer, in the interview he gave me all the
information which I have recounted there. And he stated that should
it ever go to a court where, you know, hewd be forced, he had all of
his old records. Iwve spoke with many of the staff who were there,
and I did find out something new, that the very first ones that were
installed, they actually took the poles up by the Immokalee billing
office and let them take a look at what they were providing, and then
it continued. It was in w76, 1980, then again in w87 that this
practice was continued, that they verified it with the county. There
were several meetings that they had, and that is the greatest piece of
evidence that we have.
CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill or Mr. Weigel, my
question, first of all, is a matter of process. Is this -- is the
Board of County Commissioners going to be the proper forum to hear
this question? It seems to me wewve got code enforcement problems
that need to be decided before it ever comes to the Board of County
Commissioners if it ever should. I donwt know. Maybe you can explain
it to us.
MR. DORRILL: This is currently being worked as an
active code case, and Iwll let Mr. Cautero assist me here in terms of
some of the mechanics of this.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. Good
morning, commissioners. As -- as you know, until October 30 when the
-- the board amended the Land Development Code, code enforcement
cases could be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners prior to
them going to the Code Enforcement Board. This would have been a
holdover case which could have gone to the manager for an appeal and
then the board.
In my discussions with Miss Lee towards the very end of
this process, it became apparent that the -- in my opinion the primary
sticking point was the impact fee. Rather than have 25 to 35
individual cases go to the manager, I made the administrative decision
that it might be appropriate or that it was appropriate for her to
come to you and -- and state her case because she had been always
telling me that if it couldnwt be resolved at the staff level -- and
unfortunately, I was unable to resolve it for her to her satisfaction
and her clientsw satisfaction -- to in essence give her a day in
court if you will.
It is unorthodoxed. Yes, officially in accordance with
the code, those cases should have gone to the manager and then the
board, but you probably would have had 30 to 35 cases if we were
upheld by the manager, so I felt it would be appropriate to bring it
to you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually my -- the -- the two
questions I had built on that, Miss Lee seems to be making a case
collectively for all of the homes out there. MS. LEE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How -- okay. Just -- however, I
donwt think we can collectively look at them regarding code
enforcement or building permits because each one has its own scenario,
its own parameters, its own building time, its own manner in which it
went about things. I have seen some documentation of certain owners
that -- that tried harder to make contact and document that contact
than others.
So there are two issues here that -- that I think need
to be decided, and the forum needs to be decided rather than
discussing it in full length today and then coming back and dis --
discussing it again in full length -- MS. LEE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- another time. The first is
the building permits, and I happen to agree with Commissioner Norris
that that, in fact, is a code enforcement issue and should be dealt
with individually for each structure. At least at this point that's
the way I see it.
The second is the impact fees. Whether a home receives
a building permit or not, if they were built prior to the
implementation of our impact fee ordinance and come in later and
retroactively comply with building per -- they were here prior to the
ordinance. They should be treated the same as homes that were -- were
built prior to the ordinance.
So for impact fees it seems rather cut and dry. If we
can verify that the home existed prior to the ordinance, then whether
they have a permit or not, they wouldn't be subject to impact fees.
Now, I don't know if we can separate the two, but that seems to make
sense to me because we didn't charge other homeowners for impact fees
that were built prior to the -- the effective date of the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I can understand why staff
wouldn't be comfortable doing that administratively, but -- but I'd
support that position, that -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, our general
policy on public petitions is to decide whether or not to hear them at
a regular public hearing, and I think Commissioner Hancock's correct.
We may need to hear these individually rather than lump sum. We may
hear all them on the same time frame, but there may be some
differences between the various ones. But I'm going to take a little
convincing on some of it, but I think it certainly deserves a public
hearing. And I'll make a motion we go ahead and put it on a regular
agenda at the earliest convenient date. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Clarification if I may. Is that
to discuss the impact fee application or building permit or both? I'm
not sure if we need to make that distinction now. But if build -- if
the building permit issue is, in fact, a code enforcement issue, do we
want to direct it through that channel before coming to this board?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to say both only
because they had -- prior to October 30 they had that alternative, and
Mr. Cautero made that recommendation, so I'll say both. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a
second then to bring this back on a regular agenda. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Cautero. Thank you,
Miss Lee.
MS. LEE: Thank you.
Item #8A1
RESOLUTION 96-515, AFFECTING ORDINANCE 90-45 ALSO KNOWN AS BRENTWOOD
PUD, REQUIRING THE SUBMITTAL OF A PUD AMENDMENT - ADOPTED AS AMENDED;
APPLICANT TO COME BACK WITH PUD AMENDMENT WITHIN SIX HONTHS
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Next item, staff review and
recommendation relative to ordinance 90-36, the Brentwood PUD.
MR. HULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob
Hulhere, current planning manager. There are two of these petitions
on your agenda this morning. And in speaking with the county
attorney's office, they have some general comments relating to the
PUDs that are going to be reviewed for the sunsetting provisions of
the code. And so prior to having Mr. Bellows make his presentation,
Miss Student would like to make a few comments.
MS. STUDENT: Good morning, commissioners. For the
record, Harjorie Student, assistant county attorney. I've written a
memo to Mr. Weigel, just written it to him, that's basically a
response to Mr. Grosso's opinion which I believe Chris Straton
forwarded to the commission. I'll just make a couple general
comments, and most of this does not even affect the PUDs that you're
going to be reviewing today, but I do not agree with Mr. Grosso's
opinion.
For one thing, it fails to acknowledge that any action
the board may take on any of these PUDs, if it changes use or
intensity or density will require another ordinance, and that
ordinance will be subject to the Butt Harris Private Property Rights
Act.
It also ignores that if the property owner does not come
in with a PUD amendment pursuant to the sunset procedures, the board's
authorized to hold public hearings and fezone it to an appropriate
zoning designation consistent with the comp. plan. That ordinance
would also be subject to the private property rights act. And Mr.
Grosso's not correct in his analysis in my opinion.
Also the act covers the reasonable investment-backed
expectations that a property owner might have for the property. And
if there is a significant reduction in density or change in land use
that affects the fair market value of the property, that could trigger
the private property rights act as well.
It is our opinion that each of these PUDs needs to be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and I am doing that with staff
before they come to you. And I find no particular problems with the
PUDs that are coming to you today.
Other items that we need to be concerned with are those
that have gone through zoning teevaluation, vested rights, equal
protection, what I call large lot zoning, because there's case law out
there that states if the density's taken too far down and you're not
needing the housing needs for low and moderate income individuals,
that that ordinance is invalid because it doesn't meet the general
welfare requirement of the police power.
And another concern I have is with the nature of the
PUD, there's case law in Florida that indicates you cannot impose PUD
zoning on property without the property owner's consent. There's no
case law out there about amendments. But I just want to present to
you that it's important to work with the PUD property owners through
this process because if we impose something on them without their
consent, again, there's no case law, but there's a legal argument that
could be made that this is a cooperative process between the property
owner and the government and you've imposed this over my objection.
And I don't know what a court would do with it, but I just need to put
these items in the record and let you know what the parameters may
be. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. Miss Student, let me ask you
one question on that.
MS. STUDENT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You -- you -- I'm not sure I
understood you quite correctly. I thought I'd like to. You said if
we change -- amended a PUD and made a new PUD ordinance that the new
ordinance would be subject to the Butt Harris act -- MS. STUDENT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- but not after we had initiated it.
MS. STUDENT: I beg your pardon?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not un -- not until after we had made
an amendment and -- and approved that.
MS. STUDENT: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
MS. STUDENT: It would have to be an adopted ordinance,
and that trigger date is on or about May 12, 1995. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of current
planning staff. And I'm presenting the Brentwood PUD to determine the
course of action relative to the sunset provisions contained in
section 2.7.3.4 of the Land Development Code. This section requires
the project developer to submit an annual report on the progress of
development commencing with the fifth anniversary of the PUD approval
by the Board of County Commissioners.
The singular purpose of this report is to evaluate
whether or not the project has commenced in earnest and is in
accordance with the criteria set forth in section 2.7.3.4 of the Land
Development Code.
The PUD is located on the southeast corner of 1-75 and
Immokalee Road. It contains 18 acres and is approved for 12,000
square feet of commercial uses on a 1.4-acre tract and 95,000 square
feet of industrial uses on 10.8 acres. The PUD contains -- also
contains 5.9 acres of preservation, open space, and retention areas.
The total square -- maximum for a commercial industrial is 107,000
square feet.
The permitted uses include such things as clothing
stores, corporate headquarters, assembling, packing, and fabricating
plants operations, financial institutions, florists, research offices,
office supply, business, medical laboratories, retail uses,
restaurants, warehousing, wholesaling, and storage and distribution.
Based on staff review of the approved land uses, the --
the Collier County Growth Management Plan designates this as a
interchange activity center which permits industrial uses. The uses
contained in this PUD, therefore, are consistent with the Growth
Management Plan.
Staff has not received any letters for or against this
petition. Therefore, based on a comprehensive review of the PUD
document, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
grant a two-year extension of the Brentwood PUD. I'll be happy to
answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, anywhere in this PUD
-- and I didn't come across it -- does it require a common
architectural theme within the project?
MR. BELLOWS: At that time we were not requiring such
things.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But at this time we are and
easily could without triggering the Butt Harris Private Property
Rights Act.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As well as landscaping,
buffering, parking.
MR. HULHERE: All --
MR. BELLOWS: That is consistent.
MR. HULHERE: All of -- all of that would apply --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Who are you?
MR. HULHERE: -- including the architectural standards.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Who are you?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who are you?
MR. HULHERE: I'm sorry. For the record, Bob Hulhere,
your current planning manager. The way we wrote the architectural
standards, we wrote that to apply to all existing PUDs in Collier
County.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But would it require of
the parcels interior to the PUD a common architectural theme among
them is what I'm asking you because all the PUDs that come in now,
commercial PUDs and so forth, whether it's shopping center or what
else, we have been requiring that they have a common architectural
theme interior to the boundaries of the PUD. Our architectural
standards, as I understand it, only requires a common signage plan but
not a common architectural theme.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Bless you.
MR. HULHERE: Well, I don't think that the PUD, if it
doesn't have the language, would require a common architectural theme
internal to the PUD. However, the commercial -- the architectural
standards would apply to the commercial property.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My point is we can add that. If
we're going to extend this PUD, we can extend it with modification.
And if that's not contained, it's something we should add is my -- my
opinion.
MR. HULHERE: In the form of a PUD amendment.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The second question I have
is under principal retail uses. One of our favorites, automotive
service stations, is in there. But what brings me more concern is
liquor stores. If you look right across the street on the map, you've
got residential communities. This is not exactly a heavy commercial
area or something like -- you know, like on trail east where you've
got strip commercial and so forth. So I'm a little concerned about a
liquor store, particularly if that implies or allows for any type of
-- of adjoining club similar to what ABC typically does. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in looking at principal retail
uses, that's -- liquor stores is the one that I have a little concern
about and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course, that is a private
property rights --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, again --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- potential issue.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. They -- but they have to,
again, prove that that is -- that takes value from the land, and, you
know, I think that --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You've left a reasonable value.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- one use out of seven hundred
is not gonna hurt them. So those are the two things that come to
mind. One, I'd like to require a common architectural theme interior
to the project among all parcels; and second is the removal of
principal use under DS, liquor stores.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't have any problem with
any of the -- with the uses, although I'm interested in talking about
that -- maybe limiting that club relationship with a liquor store
unless that already would have to come in for a conditional use or
some special permit. I mean, does a liquor store include the concern
that Commissioner Hancock has? Can you tell us?
MR. BELLOWS: Basically that falls under a package
store, not a night club.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But because we're not on SIC
codes, I'm worried about a little confusion there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's just easier to
remove it all together.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The -- my concern, my -- my issue
is just if we extend this PUD for two years, do they have to upon
construction meet every single existing code right now with regard to
landscaping, parking, architectural?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The current landscaping code would
apply.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's one question.
MR. BELLOWS: The current architectural ordinance that
Bob Mulhere expressed would be applied.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Commissioner Hancock had a
question about the external instead of just internal, so -- so I don't
think the answer is everything applies, and that makes me nervous when
you're saying everything does. I want a more detailed response than
that.
MR. BELLOWS: Where -- where the Land Development Code
takes precedence over issues that are not completely addressed in the
PUD document, where the PUD document currently expresses strict
guidelines or development standards, the PUD would apply. And if you
had a problem such as one of the uses or concerns, that would have to
be addressed through a PUD amendment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- but why then, for example,
would -- have we had the problem with out parcels at -- in commercial
development if our code requires common architectural themes? Do you
understand my question? Am I not being clear?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The code doesn't.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's right. So -- so if
we want to make that change, we have to make it individually document
PUD by PUD.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Except what Mr. -- and again, I'm
not going to answer for Ray. He's a big boy. But if you look in the
PUD under signage, it says whatever's in effect at the time, under
landscaping whatever's in effect at the time, so they have to come
current by virtue of the verbiage in their PUD.
MR. BELLOWS: That's -- that's the intent of my answer.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where we need to have -- because
this is the first to really come back in front of us, where we need to
have a comfort level is that our planning staff has gone through here
and flagged everything that may not be consistent with the standards
that would be applicable today. And let me give some examples.
Setbacks, if this were to come through today in the form of a PUD,
what commercial classification would it be given, what are the
setbacks in that zoning district currently in the LDC, and does this
PUD meet those setbacks that we would require today? You know, how
fine a tooth comb have we gone through with this is probably the --
the level we're -- we're looking for.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the crux of my question.
MR. BELLOWS: Basically the setbacks and the development
standards is -- are consistent with current Land Development Code
regulations and -- for industrial and commercial.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I understand the -- I
mean, obviously we all know the purpose of this exercise is to assure
that PUDs are updated or maintained at real time standards, at current
day standards. And I understand we're also concerned about the Butt
Harris act and so on, but I just want to make sure someone who
speculated for years and years and years isn't rewarded by -- allowed
to have a higher use or given lower restrictions than someone who
happens to purchase their property and develop it promptly. And I
think that's all we're asking is make sure everything is following the
same lines anyone else would have to follow.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Based on staff's review, if this PUD
were to come in today, these uses would be consistent but per the
board to review more the specific one such as the liquor fl -- store
or automotive repair. You would discuss that during any public
hearing for any new PUD, whether those uses are deemed compatible.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you'd recommended that we
don't do anything except extend for two years. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I realize this is our first
one.
MR. BELLOWS: This is an interchange activity center, so
__
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand.
MR. BELLOWS: -- those uses are deemed compatible.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand about the uses.
MR. MULHERE: Maybe it would be helpful if I provided
you with some indication or information as to how we did review
these. And we -- we distributed all of these PUDs to all of the
normal reviewing agencies that would look at a PUD as if it was the
very first time it was being submitted. It went through environmental
review. It went through transportation review. It went through
engineering review. It went through planning review. And the
singular purpose or intent was to identify areas of inconsistency.
Now, we identified all those areas of inconsistency in
all these PUDs. We did not necessarily look at specific land uses.
If commercial zoning was consistent with the comprehensive plan, then
we indicated that this is consistent with the comprehensive plan. We
didn't -- we didn't look at whether or not a gas station was
appropriate, although we -- we understand that the board may want to
look at these issues.
So that was the purpose in this particular PUD of
recommending approval because overall the PUD is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and generally consistent with the Land Development
Code because it's silent on such issues as landscaping and
architecture, so the LDC would prevail.
Other PUDs that maybe are inconsistent in terms of
preservation or landscaping, we're going to identify those
inconsistencies for you. But generally we've looked at these and said
if they're consistent with the comprehensive plan and there are no
glaring inconsistencies, then our recommendation is a two-year
extension or has been. Obviously we're gonna, you know, take
direction from the board and go back and do what we need to do based
on your direction.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a level of comfort with
that if we want to see if there are any speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. Mr. Dotrill, is there any public
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir, there are not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: None?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, what I'd like to do
is make a motion that we approve the two-year extension of PU -- of
ordinance 90-36 with the following changes: One is to require an
internal common architectural theme throughout the project and that we
include standard language in that regarding what the architectural
theme refers to such as roof materials, exterior textures and colors,
and, if you will, the standard Chinese menu of that.
The second thing is to remove principal retail use D8
liquor stores from permitted uses in the project. Those are the two
elements of -- of my motion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second your motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss -- Miss Student has a little
conversation about that.
MS. STUDENT: If -- Mr. Chairman, if I might, you -- any
text changes to a PUD need to come back at a regularly advertised
public hearing and go through the process. I just want to make sure
in your motion that you envision that this PUD would be brought back
-- would be extended but be brought back for those changes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly do. Motion --
MR. MULHERE: And I'm sorry. I have one other
question. Would that be then brought back within that two-year
period?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It should be brought back to the
first available agenda as soon as the changes are made and advertising
is adequate.
MR. MULHERE: The sunsetting provisions provide a time
frame of within six months. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: And so the -- the options that the LDC
provides for the board are to require the applicant to amend the PUD
within six months or to extend the PUD for two years. And then, of
course, if the applicant chooses not to amend the PUD within six
months, then the board has the option of rezoning the property to what
it says -- the term that's used is an appropriate zoning district.
So if I'm understanding correctly what your intention
is, you want the applicant to come back within six months and amend
the PUD. So we would only then want to extend that PUD for that
period of time if -- if I understand your intent correctly.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's our only option.
If we have a broader option under the ordinance, I'd like to know
about it. But I think the way the ordinance is written, that's what
our authority -- those are the limits of our authority.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second
then. I think the direction is finally clear.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got one more question on it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor signify --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait. I got a question. I have
a question on the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- by -- by --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And so say.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Then I'm not voting. I
got a question. My question is are we concerned about -- we're
directing the -- the applicant -- we're directing the property owner
to come back in with a petition including those two changes to his
PUD. But today we're not voting on whether or not -- I'm not sure if
I agree with the liquor store change or not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, it'll come back on a --
MR. MULHERE: We can bring that forward to you during
the PUD amendment.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: And we'll look at all of the issues in the
PUD once it comes in for amendment. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The motion is to direct the
owner to return with those amendments to the PUD.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. Is that consistent with
the process as you see it, Mr. Mulhere?
MR. MULHERE: Within six months, yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Yes, that is the direction
contained in the motion.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- by -- by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #8A2
ANTHONY PIRES, JR., REPRESENTING DALE H. STEINBERG REQUESTING AN APPEAL
OF THE COUNTY HANAGER'S DECISION TO UPHOLD CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF'S
NOTICE OF VIOLATION CONCERNING THE DUPLEX USE OF A RENOVATED BOAT HOUSE
AT 2854 BECCA AVENUE, CASE NO. 60209-14 - TO COME BACK ON 11/26/96
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is 8(A)(2), Anthony Pires
Junior representing Dale Steinberg requesting an appeal of the county
manager's decision.
MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold, planning
services director. This issue is an appeal of a code enforcement
citation filed by Mr. Pires on behalf of Mr. Steinberg. And it's the
subject of a several-month standing issue relative to whether or not a
converted boat house structure could be utilized as a duplex.
Contention is that this was converted back in 1969 under a building
permit.
This has gone to administrative review by the county
manager as part of the appeal process that was recently removed from
our Land Development Code. I think Harjorie Student or Mr. Weigel may
have some comments relative to this appeal prior to us really getting
into the meat of that discussion if we are going to have that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this quasi-judicial?
MS. STUDENT: Yes. It's -- it would be an appeal from a
quasi-judicial ma -- hearing. The quasi-judicial hearing was before,
so I -- I -- it would be like an appeal going into the appellate
court.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we should disclose if we had
conversation, and I had some with Attorney Pires, but I'll base my
decision based on information presented to the board.
MS. STUDENT: If I might, Mr. Chairman, I have --
there's confusion, and there's confusion in the record that was made
before Mr. HcNees about what ordinance should apply to this
situation. And I have reviewed the record, and it is replete with the
confusion.
Since the hearing in June, Mr. Pires has found
additional information concerning what ordinance may have been in
effect. And also Mr. Arnold as recently as the end of last week has
also found some additional information in this regard.
I think it would be appropriate -- and Mr. Weigel and I
have discussed this -- that this body remand the case back to Mr.
HcNees for the limited purpose of making a factual finding based upon
evidence presented by Mr. Pires and his client and Mr. Arnold and
staff as to what ordinance was in effect so we can have a clean
decision to bring to you. That would be our recommendation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any objection from any
board member for following that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None from me.
COHMISSIONER BERRY: No.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Need a motion for that?
MR. DORRILL: You have one -- you have one speaker, Mr.
-- Mr. Chairman. This item was previously continued. I don't know
why it is we hadn't found this be -- before today, and that's a
question to Ms. Student or Mr. Arnold.
MR. HCNEES: Perhaps I could clarify one thing. Mike
HcNees from the county manager's office. I heard this case. I don't
think we have a case of confusion here. I think there may have been
some need for me to have referenced a specific ordinance in the
decision that I rendered which I apparently didn't do. I wasn't
confused. I understood what ordinance I was looking at and what my
ruling was. I'll be happy to clarify that. I don't know if it's
appropriate to take additional testimony or information. We had a
hearing, and I made a ruling based on the ordinances that I read.
So I just want to clarify I don't think we're talking
about a case of confusion. There is no specific procedure here, so I
didn't reference an ordinance, but I certainly can.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the only error was an
omission of mentioning the specific ordinance and you can correct that
now, I don't know that we need to go back through the process all over
again. If there's more than that, now would probably be the
appropriate time to tell us, Miss Student.
MS. STUDENT: Again, I -- I -- I was not present at the
hearing, but there was conflicting testimony about what ordinance
applied and when the new ordinance was effective, and it's my
understanding -- this has not been my case from the get-go, but it's
been my understanding that since the hearing there's been additional
evidence discovered by Mr. Pires as to what ordinance may have
applied. And also as recently as the end of last week, Mr. Arnold
discovered some additional evidence.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Miss Student, I read the record
too, and it was replete with discussions about which ordinance. But
here's a real basic question. Do Mr. HcNees and Mr. Pires agree on
which ordinance applies? Mr. Pires says no from the back of the
room. And if it's an appeal, we can't consider any new information.
We have to just consider what was presented at the hearing. And
because of that, I'm afraid it has to go back if there's something new
that's relevant.
MR. HCNEES: I guess what I'd say is there was
conflicting opinion all over the place. That's why we were having a
hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good point.
MR. MCNEES: That's why we were there. So yes, and I
don't -- I don't think probably that Mr. Pires and I agreed eventually
on -- on what the appropriate outcome was which is why we're here.
So all I'm saying I think probably is that I don't know
why -- what purpose is to be served. I agree with you completely.
The evidence was heard. If they want to appeal that before you, I
guess that's why we're here today. I don't see a lot of use to going
back through that process again and sending it back --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, quite frankly, if Mr.
Pires has discovered new evidence since that time, if he didn't have
it in time for the hearing, that was his fault. That's not Mr.
McNees's fault or the county staff's fault. And -- and if he happened
to do more research after the fact, then great. But I'm not sure why
we suddenly go back and revisit everything because Tony found
something new.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I don't necessarily
disagree except that what will happen is what we can hear today is
strictly the evidence presented at the -- the appeal hearing that Mr.
HcNees heard and only that evidence, no other information. If there
is other information that is pertinent to the case, what will happen
is we will go through a lengthy hearing today, make a decision. If
the petitioner doesn't like it, it will go back through another appeal
process again. We'll get to hear it a second time. That involves Mr.
HcNees a second time and us a second time. Is that correct
procedure?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I thought.
MR. WEIGEL: That's essentially correct. Really what
we're looking to do is have a record replete, complete that comes
before you so that there isn't an appeal issue which may go even to a
court as an appellate forum after this board to determine, in fact, or
to remand that an opinion from the appropriate reviewing forum, in
this case, Mr. HcNees, particularly specify the ordinance that
applies.
And again, Mr. HcNees is absolutely correct. He has no
confusion in his part in regard to the opinion that he rendered. But
the opinion that has been rendered does not reference the specific
ordinance which gives a linchpin for an appeal. And all this that
we're talking about today is the ability to make sure that the record
is complete so that it comes to you and that there's no issue that
would linger beyond any determination that you would make that would
be a readily appealable item to a court of law.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, Mr. Weigel, at what
point does Mr. Pires' responsibility for making sure he has all that
information begin because he had -- I would assume if there was a
hearing date set before the county manager's representative, if it
were me, I would have tried to have complete information in time for
that hearing. And to say three weeks later or whatever the time frame
is, "Oh, wait, there's more" seems like his responsibility, not
something that we need to redo the process.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. And we're certainly not talking
about redoing the process entirely by -- by any stretch. But what I
would suggest and -- and only because the question wasn't specifically
directed to me is that, as Mr. HcNees has indicated, there will be
conflict of opinion and presentation in the record as present and if
the record isn't -- if the record itself other than the opinion
rendered by Mr. HcNees is to have an opportunity to be rendered. I
particularly do not have a great problem with the limitation that no
additional -- no additional testimony be given concerning the record
but that it be remanded so that based upon the evidence previously
before Mr. HcNees he can clarify his opinion and determine what
ordinance applied.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because what I don't want to
happen is to have another hearing with new information and then
sometime between -- theoretically sometime between that hearing and
when it came to the board Mr. Pires could come up with additional
information. And, I mean, this could be a neverending process.
MR. WEIGEL: No. We're not looking for that certainly.
MR. HCNEES: I think maybe now I am confused because my
decision was in effect -- and I can't quote it directly -- was in --
was in effect that the zoning ordinance in effect at the time this
particular construction took place did not allow a square footage
usage of the type that was constructed. And now I did not probably
say this was ordinance X-X because I didn't reference the number. But
I think by referencing the zoning ordinance that was in effect on the
date that this took place is fairly specific. So I guess I don't
understand what's missing or what it is that if I go back now what I'm
going to add to that except to put the number of that ordinance on the
piece of paper.
MS. STUDENT: If I might clarify -- and I wish to
apologize. I didn't mean that your opinion --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Miss Student. I have
heard the word clarify and misunderstand from everyone who's stepped
up to a microphone. That tells me that maybe this thing needs to go
back, get a clearer picture before it comes to this board. No offense
to anyone at a microphone. But I keep hearing the words clarify and
misunderstand far too frequently for me to feel that this matter is --
is sufficient to be heard today.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Make a motion.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then what's the harm?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- I would like to see
this matter remanded back with all additional or new information for
its -- its one and final shot to Mr. HcNees for the hearing before
returning to this board under appeal.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If that's a motion, I'll second
it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So move.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to support the
motion because -- I was all set to till you said new and additional
information. And again, I go back to my question of when is it Mr.
Pires' responsibility to stop with that. He had a public hearing. He
had the opportunity to do that. If we need our staff to clarify their
position, that's great. But I don't know what would be different next
time if he had more, additional information and we were --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, that
was -- that was just a general statement. I have -- I don't know what
new or what confusion we're talking about, but I want the people at
this podium to know it before we hear it, and that's the reason for
this motion.
MR. HCNEES: Mr. Chairman, if I might respond to Ms.
Hac'Kie's question of what's the harm, there is -- another side to
this issue is there's a -- an -- essentially a code violation in
existence which has at least a small portion of a certain neighborhood
in quite an uproar. They are quite upset. They believed this appeal
was going to be heard a week ago, and then they believed it was going
to be heard today. And there is an existing code enforcement
violation that your staff's trying to enforce. They brought it to the
county manager's office, and the county manager's office upheld that
they're -- they're doing an appropriate enforcement. So the other
side of the coin is -- when you say what's the harm is there are some
neighbors all -- and I -- and I -- they are probably here to speak for
themselves who will tell you that the harm is to them and that -- and
that they would like to see the code enforcement process proceed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What would the process be -- if
-- if this appeal were -- if -- if Mr. HcNees's decision were upheld
today, then it could go to code enforcement? Can we proceed on both
fronts at the same time?
MR. ARNOLD: Staff's direction would be or staff's
recommendation was that the Board of County Commissioners uphold the
county manager's decision. Therefore, we believe the issue should be
heard before the Code Enforcement Board for final determination.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, considering the backlog on
the Code Enforcement Board hearings anyway, why can't this already --
why can't this go ahead and be put on the agenda for the next
available and let's proceed concurrently. Then nobody's held up.
We're being fair to everybody.
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. That can be
done, and I don't -- I don't believe that legal would have any
difficulty with that. And then it could always come off the -- the
agenda. I thought I heard Mr. Weigel say a minute ago, though, that
if new evidence is proposed -- I'd like to have somebody correct this
if I'm mistaken -- that if you uphold a decision today, that it could
come back to the manager since it was previously processed prior to
October 30. And that's something that I wouldn't recommend you do,
that if you uphold a decision at any point, either today or at a
future agenda, it goes to the Code Enforcement Board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What I'd like to do is to ask Mr.
Hancock to add to his motion that while it's being remanded at the
same time it simultaneously be put on the Code Enforcement Board
agenda; and whichever becomes the appropriate forum, then that's where
it will be decided. The two can happen at the same time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm kind of looking at Mr.
Weigel, you know, if that legally is an option.
MR. WEIGEL: I tell you, I -- I am not prepared to tell
you absolutely that it is legally an option at this moment. We have
not obviously in the past had two tracks going at the same time, an
appellate track as well as enforcement track.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just put it on the agenda and
pull it off if it doesn't apply.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me get the answer.
MR. WEIGEL: I am not prepared to tell you that it is
absolutely legal to go with the dual route, quite frankly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Why don't I suggest then
as a part of my motion that Mr. Weigel will get that question answered
for us for our next meeting. And if it can be done and Commissioner
Hac'Kie wishes to put it on the agenda at that time, it -- it -- it --
it can go that route, but I'll leave the motion as is.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just clarify. The
motion is to have an all new hearing as opposed to clarify the prior
meeting -- the prior hearing?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Present new evidence?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess -- I don't have a -- you
know, I don't have a firm gr -- it's not like I've heard this item
myself and I have a firm grasp what needs to be restated or stated
anew or -- I have no idea. I'm just going to send this back so we get
a clear picture before this board before we hear it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hiss Student?
MS. STUDENT: The issue would only be -- there is an
issue as to when was the later ordinance effective and applicable to a
given piece of property, and that's the issue. And Mr. Pires has some
information regarding this, and Mr. Arnold has information regarding
this that was not heard at the June 17 hearing, so far as I can tell,
before Mr. HcNees. So the question is when was one ordinance no
longer applicable and another ordinance applicable, and these
gentlemen have new information in that regard. So it would be for the
limited fact finding of based on the presentation of that evidence and
that evidence alone what -- at what time that ordinance applied.
MR. HCNEES: And -- and --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me see if I can clarify
this for the board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Everybody gets to say clarify.
That's good.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I -- I get my clarification
here. If we hear this appeal today, we can only hear the information
that was presented at June 17 and none of the new information.
Therefore, as soon as we do that, Mr. Pires is going to file for
another hearing to add his new information. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So rather than add one more step to
the process, it seems to me that we're better off to go ahead and let
him add his additional information in a -- in a limited hearing and
then bring it back if he wants to appeal the decision at that point
because otherwise we're just gonna add steps to the process.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm going to withdraw my
motion.
MR. HCNEES: The -- the one thing I'd like to make
clear, I may have been right and I may have been wrong. I was not
confused.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. HCNEES: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to -- I'm going to
withdraw my initial motion and offer a replacement that we authorize a
new hearing for the presentation of limited information regarding the
clarification of the ordinance that applied to this particular case.
Is that clear enough for everybody?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One more time.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask Mr. -- Mr. Pires and
Mr. McNees, is there any reason why you can't do that today or
tomorrow and get this back next week?
MR. MCNEES: Maybe --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Like Mr. McNees says, we got people
waiting.
MR. MCNEES: I'll be out of the state as of first thing
tomorrow morning until the end of the week, so that would probably be
the only reason.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, Mr. Pires is indicating he
can see you this afternoon.
MR. PIRES: For the record, Anthony Pires Junior.
Beginning next Monday -- I have a conflict this afternoon, but Monday
would be an excellent opportunity for this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sounds like this morning.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent example
as -- as to why the Code Enforcement Board no longer works and then
why people wear very nice dark suits and have offices in Pelican Bay
and -- and we've got three sets of lawyers trying to influence or
affect the Code Enforcement Board issue, and this -- this is exactly
what has happened to the Code Enforcement Board.
MR. PIRES: If I may I guess for the -- just a real
brief explanation of why this request is being made, there was -- and
Commissioner Constantine -- to answer possibly his question, there was
a basis that the staff had articulated was a basis for an ordinance
that existed at the time the permit was issued, and that was the basis
for the violation. During the hearing, it's evident from the
transcript the new ordinance was interjected by the testimony of staff
saying no, it's not the ordinance that we indicated before. It's this
ordinance over here, a brand new one, that is -- was the one that
operates, and that was new at that time during the course of that
hearing, and that's why it was not discovered prior to the hearing.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay.
MR. DORRILL: My common sense advice would be to send
him back downstairs and then let him offer or correct whatever portion
of -- of that record --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right now.
MR. DORRILL: -- as long as Mr. Pires is not going to
argue next week that we didn't give him proper advance notice and that
we violated his due process by not giving him notice that we were
reopening the hearing without --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let's leave it at this. We're
going to hear this appeal next week. If Mr. Pires would like to go
downstairs and talk to Mr. HcNees right now, that's fine.
MR. PIRES: The only caveat with that is that additional
information is back in my office. I didn't bring it here today. So
if I could bring it --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a fax machine.
MR. PIRES: I will have it contiered down here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great.
MR. WEIGEL: And, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest also
that this meeting, this rehearing, have the same dignity and formality
that the original hearing did which would be to have a court reporter
present and that staff do all things appropriate to get that court
reporter there to operate at the hearing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So directed. And you have a motion to
do this; right?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct, and there was a second
by Commissioner Hac'Kie.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And you seconded?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We do have a motion and a
second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed.
(No response)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, Barbara, welcome to the
board. You like it so far?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. I just hope they get it
right.
Item #8A3
RESOLUTION 96-516, AFFECTING ORDINANCE 89-95 ALSO KNOWN AS THE
BREEZEWOOD PUD - ADOPTED AS AMENDED; APPLICANT TO COME BACK WITH PUD
AMENDMENT WITHIN SIX MONTHS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 8(A)(3), staff review and
recommendation relative to ordinance 89-95.
MR. REISCHL: Morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl,
planning services. This item is a request by staff for direction
pertaining to the Breezewood PUD and the LDC sunsetting provisions. I
don't have a handheld microphone over there, so I'll examine from
here.
The Breezewood PUD is in the southwest corner of the
Immokalee Road, 1-75 intersection. It is within the interchange
activity center. It's a 7.4-acre site that, according to the approved
PUD, includes commercial uses and a hotel/motel; that the PUD caps at
26 units per acre -- excuse me, that the density is limited to 26
units per acre. However, it sets a numbers cap at 130 units. And by
doing some quick calculations, it turns out that that results in a
27-unit-per-acre density.
There are some other consistencies that are not as
intense as a density inconsistency that led staff to recommend that
this PUD be brought back within six months for an amendment. The
trustee for the property, Mr. Pauly, has requested that I state that
he would request the two-year extension as the PUD stands.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Questions from the board?
Public speakers.
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: None?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval of staff rec --
recommendation.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Second.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Second, a grudging second. We have
a motion and a second for approval of staff recommendations which is a
two-year extension of the condition --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. No, no, no, no. No.
MR. REISCHL: No. Staff recommendation was to bring the
PUD back within six months for -- with a PUD amendment. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Sorry.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: A whole new -- I just wanted to
be sure I had --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. There are things like zero
setbacks and that kind of stuff in here. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's awful.
MR. REISCHL: Zero setbacks from conservation easements,
things of that nature. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So the -- the motion is to
bring back in six months a PUD amendment with recommendations pointed
out in the material.
MR. REISCHL: And consistent with LDC.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #SB1
STAFF REPORT ON BULK WATER STORAGE AND APPROVE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
WITH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY
OF A CANAL/STORHWATER IRRIGATION SYSTEM USING AQUIFER STORAGE AND
RECOVERY - STAFF DIRECTED TO OBTAIN LONG TERM PERMITS WITHOUT
INTERVENTION FROM SFWHD
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Next one is 9 -- I mean 8(B)(1),
staff report on bulk water storage.
MR. BOYER: Good morning, commissioners. My name is
Karl Boyer. I work for your office of capital projects management.
I've prepared for you this morning a staff report in follow-up to
previous board action where back in July you heard a report from a
consulting engineering company, Wilson, Miller. And you had asked us
to compare the cost of surface water reservoirs which was presented at
that time with aquifer storage and recovery and not only that but also
to study this in conjunction with the Big Cypress Basin Board and to
compare these two alternate bulk water storage systems.
And what I've done in your packet, in your executive
summary, there's a table on the bottom of that, and it's just
basically a comparison of the available information we had at this
time to show you what the comparison is.
I'll also be presenting to you today a second part of
this -- of this package, and that is to ask you to approve a
cooperative grant funding agreement with the water management district
to further pursue a study of the economic feasibility of a countywide
irrigation system.
I'm going to back up one -- one step here and just share
with you a quick story. I had -- I had an 84-year-old man come up to
me the other day. He was a retired inventor. And he said, "Karl, I
know what kind of work you do," and asked, "Isn't anybody looking into
somehow come up with a separate irrigation system so I don't have to
pay drinking water prices to irrigate my yard?" And I said, "Well,
stay tuned because next Tuesday I'm standing in front of the board to
ask that very same thing, that we look at a study to -- to investigate
the technical feas -- economic feasibility, not -- not technical but
also the economic feasibility of such a system."
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Isn't this exactly what we talked
about in our long range planning meetings as a high -- an important
goal? I mean, this goal was high on the -- on our five-year plan.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For tense water.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For reuse.
MR. BOYER: Yes. The board in previous action has
endorsed tense as its primary means of effluent disposal. That
particular document was made part of an application that had been
submitted to the water management district to show them that the board
is committed to this.
The real key to making a reclaimed water system
effective is you have to have water available so that people will hook
up to it. What's happening now is we have water available to bulk
users and we ask them to hook it up. But then they say, "Well, can
you assure us that we'll have water all the time whenever we want
it?" Well, if we only have a few customers hooked up and we got a lot
of water, well, then the answer is yes. But as we get more and more
customers on board, the ability to deliver at peak demand seasons
becomes jeopardized.
So we have two options on how we manage our effluent
system. We either have a few customers and make sure we can get water
to them at all times and any excess effluent will be disposed of
through some other means which would be percolation ponds and deep
well injection.
The other option is to aggressively pursue more
customers and assure them that we'll have irrigation water to them at
all times during the year, but we can't do that with just -- with
effluent alone. We have to find another source. The other source
would be capturing the large volumes of water going out our canal
systems during the wet season and pumping them down into an aquifer
storage and recovery program so that we can withdraw it at -- during
the dry season, distribute it through our reclaimed water distribution
system to the end users irriga -- irrigation people.
So what we're asking you to do today is to consider
approving a cooperative grant funding agreement with the water
management district for a $50,000 study to be a 50/50 shared funding,
25,000 from the board, 25,000 from the district, and that we would
implement that study and come back to you with what is the cost of
implementing such a program.
The project does address two objectives of our Growth
Management Plan in that from the sanitary sewer subelement we're
promoting the use of treated waste water for irrigation purposes and
also through the conservation and coastal management element
conserving the county's fresh water resources by implementing such a
program.
I have one correction I need to make sure you're all
aware of, and that is on the front page of your executive summary in
the table that I referred to earlier. We compared the bulk water
storage method of lined borrow pit with ASR. If you follow those
lines across to the right under the comments column, it shows some
dollars per thousand gallons. The units on that are incorrect. It
should be 954 -- on lined borrow pit $950 per thousand gallons per day
of capacity, not per thousand gallons of volume as opposed to ASR,
650,000 -- $650 per thousand gallons per day.
Just to give you a correlation between what it costs to
build water treatment plants compared to this particular system, a
water treatment plant will typically cost somewhere between --
possibly two to three times as high as this. A water plant will
typically cost around -- well, we say around $2 per million gallons or
-- per million gallons per day; or in comparison to these same units,
it would be $2,000 per thousand gallons per day.
So we can -- if -- based on our preliminary numbers, it
looks like this type of system can produce an irrigation water at much
less cost than we're currently producing it. Keep in mind now that
when we look at our actual water production during the peak season,
which is our peak population season, and our dry season, roughly 40 to
60 percent of all of our water produced from our water plants on any
given day is used for irrigation of shrubs, yards, and that type of
thing, and that's why --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Boyer, can I -- can I ask you a
question here? You -- are you contemplating overlaying irrigation
lines all throughout the county? Is that what we're gonna study?
MR. BOYER: The -- the big picture is practically a
third utility.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But wouldn't that entail running all
new separate lines all over the service area?
MR. BOYER: Not entirely because the backbone of our
reclaimed water distribution system is already in place, and we would
use that as our irrigation system.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So in general then we're talking about
not much in the way of retrofit but -- but servicing new development
as it comes on line?
MR. BOYER: I think it can be done either way.
Retrofitting existing urban areas is always more expensive than making
it available to new development.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need a little further
explanation I guess there when you say the backbone is available. I
know we have a -- a general service to a number of golf courses and so
on. But when we talk about residential communities, I assume there
would have to be some addition or some work done in order to be able
to deliver to individual homes. And the Lely golf course I'm gonna
guess probably has availability of tense. However, the homes within
Lely probably don't have that running past their house right now. I'm
just picking that out for example. How would that be addressed? And
I think that goes to your question.
MR. BOYER: I refer to that as urban retrofit. An
existing residential area that's already built, are we going to go in
and tear up all the streets just to get irrigation water in? And
that's very expensive. We are undergoing a process to start doing
that with Lakewood as you well know, just our neighbors here to the
east. And that is a project which will require a lot of retrofit.
But they have an existing irrigation system already in line, in the
ground. They had a separate system. So in that case it was rather
unique, and the retrofit is not as expensive as saying going into one
that had no separate irrigation system.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But what would happen in the
example I cited? We would have to go in and -- and put in an
additional line?
MR. BOYER: If these people wanted to have irrigation
water made available to them, that would have to be done, yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because that's -- I mean,
your question when you started, boy, why should I have to pay the
extra money to use perfectly good water, I mean, you're going to pay
one way or the other. If you have to lay down all new lines and tear
up your front yard and tear up the sidewalk and re -- relay the
sidewalk, it doesn't sound like that's gonna be a whole lot cheaper to
me. And I heard Commissioner Hancock saying why don't they put in
Xeriscaping if the water is a concern. And -- and that may be the
cheapest alternative of all, and it also leaves some individual choice
there. I just hesitate for us to get into a situation and spend money
to study this and pursue doing exactly that bec -- tearing up
sidewalks and roads and putting those lines into neighborhoods because
there are a number of people who, A, may not want to participate with
that additional cost or, B, some who can't afford to do that. So I
worry there. I understand we want to try to preserve water and we
want to try to make the most of the -- the options we have. But when
that starts hitting the pocketbook of the homeowner and telling them
whether they want or not we're gonna do it, that concerns me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's -- there's one hurdle
that hasn't been discussed, and it concerns me a little bit. What
we're talking about here really is taking surface water in existing
canals and either pumping it into a reservoir or pumping it directly
into some type of an irrigation system. I remember shortly after
being elected the Bear's Paw community had a pump coming out of the
Golden Gate canal and -- which fed their lake system for irrigation
purposes. Now, here it is the Golden Gate canal. All we hear from
the environmental groups is how this fresh water is ruining Naples
Bay. Then South Florida Water Management District turns around and
limits Bear's Paw on the amount they can pump out of that canal for
surface water use.
You know, we have one arm of DEP telling us that that
fresh water is bad, and we have a -- then we have South Florida
telling a private community no, go use potable water instead of
pumping it out of a canal. And they would not allow an increased
capacity in the daily removal of that water from the Golden Gate
canal.
So this brings me back to the very first hurdle.
Neither of these two ideas in my opinion would be governed by Collier
County. We could build the entire system to only have the South
Florida Water Management District when the water is too far below the
crest of their weirs for them to be happy to walk through that door
and say you folks are limited. You no longer can pump the amount
you've been pumping. Here's your stop -- your -- or your desist
order.
So before we spend any money, any whatsoever, on
determining which of these two should be done, maybe we need to have
something from South Florida Water Management District talking about
the ability to remove surface water since they have shut down
individual golf courses from doing the same.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In the situation you described, that
would be exactly when the people needed it for irrigation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. At the point at which
they're concerned that the bugs and bunnies have dry feet is the time
we need it the most. So it's, you know, it's -- it's a conflict in
the outset.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hear quote there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I hear a quote.
MR. BOYER: If I can address the concern -- and it is a
valid concern -- can we take water out of the canals during the dry
season, well, no, they're not going to let us do that. The beauty of
this program is we'll take it out during the wet season when there's
an abundance of water going out and the district has no concern about
us taking the water out. And then we would store it, large
quantities, in an aquifer storage and recovery type of system. That's
the whole idea. Take large volumes when you don't need it, store it,
and then when we do need it, put it back into the system.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But, Mr. Boyer, who regulates
pumping from underground wells? South Florida Water Management
District; correct?
MR. BOYER: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So let's say we put in this --
this well for ASR and all of a sudden we want to pump it out and
someone from South Florida says no, no, no. We need that groundwater
to maintain lower tables. We would spend all this money to pump it
down there and then give the regulatory authority on whether we could
ever remove it to someone else. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Until I have a carte blanche from
them that says we can take it out because we put it there, I don't
want to spend dime one.
MR. BOYER: That's the whole intent of this particular
program.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And let's keep --
MR. BOYER: If I can --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, you know, let's keep in
mind that -- that this program is intended to answer those questions
in a cooperative effort between those who do have that authority and
we who would like to have that authority, a 50/50 split on the -- the
cost of the -- am I right? Yeah -- 50/50 in the cost of the study.
And with our not taking money out of reserves but moving it from
already-budgeted programs, frankly, I think especially this line here,
miscellaneous effluent improvements, canal/stormwater irrigation AS --
ASR, that last one there, that twelve five, I think that's clearly --
it seems to me that that ought to be something that doesn't even
require a change. I mean, that is miscellaneous effluent
improvements.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But this study isn't designed
to decide who has what authority. It's designed to look at irrigation
issues. It doesn't deal with the authority issue that Commissioner
Hancock brought up at all.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But --
MR. BOYER: Well, sir, it will. It does address the
permitability of the project.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would rather personally address
the permitability as an interior staff function before spending dollar
one on engineering fees which, as you look at our executive summary,
it has engineering fees and other things in it. So I'll just leave my
comments at that. We may have some public speakers.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No public speakers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No public speakers? Until --
until we are more comfortable with what the permitability of the
system is, I'm not -- you know, I don't want to go forward in a
comprehensive manner regarding overall system engineering so --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, can't our staff pursue the
permitability question without having to employ outside engineers? I
mean, I don't want this to die here. So can we -- if -- if we turn
this down today, where are you going to go? What are you going to do
to try to answer Commissioner Hancock and Constantine's question and
all of our question? What will you do?
MR. NEWMAN: For the record, Hike Newman, your water
director. I have some comments related to the proposal before you
this morning. There -- although this appears to be a very good
proposal and a way to provide low-cost irrigation water, I agree with
you the construction and re -- rehab costs associated with going into
existing communities could be rather high.
There is a -- a -- a negative side to this program that
you need to be aware of. The -- the systems that were built out
there, both internal distribution systems and the county's
transmission systems, were built in anticipation of a certain flow.
Host of those are governed by fire protection needs. The more water
-- when you start taking water away from these systems either for
effluent irrigation or supplemental irrigation such as this, those
systems no longer function properly. We are having an extremely
difficult time maintaining legal compliance with these systems, making
sure bacteria's not being distributed to our customers, and making
sure that legal residuals are being maintained to the ends of these
lines. The more you do this, the more problems we will have.
I am -- I am already going to be sitting in a meeting on
Thursday with the DEP. I've been called to their offices because
they're considering consent orders against us right now because we
cannot maintain residuals at the ends of our system because of the low
flows. And the more you do this, the more you rob the system of the
flow, which is -- a great portion of it is irrigation flow, the more
problems we will have with our system. That means we will not
maintain flushing velocities. That means sedimentation will settle
out in these lines. That means bacteria has the potential to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. -- Mr. Newman, thank you very much
for those comments. We're not -- I don't hear anyone on the board
opposed to having this project. The -- the concern is spending money
on engineering before we even know whether we're -- we're gonna be
allowed to do this.
MR. NEWMAN: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all our concern is.
MR. NEWMAN: I totally agree with you. I'm not here in
support of this project. I'm here to let you know there's another
problem that's associated with moving forward with a project such as
this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Conrecode, why would that
concern not be put in our staff report? That's very troubling that,
you know, we get this, oh, surprise, here's the head of the water
department who thinks it's a bad idea. We didn't know that?
MR. CONRECODE: A cup -- couple of things. Let me go
back first and answer the first question about permitability. The
water management district, the South Florida Water Management
District, in granting us the grant this summer thinks this is a
valuable opportunity for everybody to control water consumption out of
aquifers. The fact that we're injecting into a deep level aquifer,
not surface waters, to store stormwater that's going out to the Gulf
of Mexico during the wet season and then reintroduce it as as a means
of augmenting our effluent irrigation system is to them a benefit.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be putting $50,000 of their money out on the
table to say we think this is a good idea. It will be addressed and
was intended to be addressed with the engineering that's gonna be done
as a part of this study. So it's not being neglected.
If you want staff to go back, pursue the permitting
issue first, then we would do that engineering in-house as opposed to
hiring somebody else to do it. It's a matter at this point then of
evaluating what our priorities are, item number one.
Secondly, because of board direction on the use of
effluent systems throughout the county, we are now outselling our
ability to produce effluent. So in order to meet our contract needs,
we need to augment that with something.
We have a number of options. We can use, for instance,
the old Pelican Bay well field. That's currently in use. In fact,
during the dry season, we're pumping that at its maximum capacity
every single day. We can augment it with stormwater ASR, another
potential use which is what this study would do to augment that
system. So there are a number of -- of opportunities out there.
The water management district is in favor of a single
provider like the county of tense or of surficial aquifers or ASR
because right now they're permitting 50 or 60 golf courses in Collier
County for consumptive use permits. So they have less control when
they have 50 or 60 permits out there than when they have a single
permittee and can reduce the number of other surficial consumptive use
permits. And I'll give you a good example. The Vineyards is just in
the process of entering into an agreement with us, building a pipeline
to connect to them wherein they're going to disconnect and quit using
their surface water sources in favor of our effluent systems. That's
going to benefit the water management district because it removes that
and instead uses a source that would otherwise be percolated into the
surface water or have less control from any other source.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me see -- and I appreciate
your comments, Mr. Conrecode. Let me see if I can take what's been
given and craft it into a motion. I'll move that we direct staff to
determine the possibility of obtaining long-term permits for the
purpose of ASR that allow us to withdraw every drop we put into the
lower aquifer without intervention from the South Florida Water
Management District. In other words, I want a judgment. I don't want
a letter. That would be the -- I'm sorry. Do you have something to
add?
MR. CONRECODE: Every drop is a problem because we have
-- our recovery rates in these are in the 70 or 80 percent range.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Then within the acceptable
recovery rates --
MR. CONRECODE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of the -- the amount put in.
I'll -- I'll revise it to read that.
MR. CONRECODE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second thing is that we do
not spend any money on hard engineering costs till we have that first
question answered and that the focus be to supplement our existing
effluent system, not to go out and create -- and I'll use Mr. Boyer's
term -- a third utility with the focus of -- of going into existing
neighborhoods. I like the idea of augmenting existing effluent, but
I'm not real keen on the idea of starting a whole new system.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Your -- the thrust of your
motion is to get a commitment from South Florida Water Management
District.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second for that motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that their check is a
commitment, but I'll second it and see if we can't get something more
definite than cash.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You are so trusting.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second then.
All in --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one comment before. I'm
going to support the motion. I have consistently opposed ASR and
continue to. However, I realize that's the direction the board is
taking. And if the board is going to do that, the responsible thing
is to make sure that we recover everything we do there. So don't
mistake this as a support for ASR. But I do support what we're trying
to accomplish.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask are you in favor of
surface storage instead of ASR? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Even though the cost is higher?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's -- we got a couple of quick
items, and then she needs a break. You're almost out of paper?
Okay. Why don't we -- why don't we take just a very
short break and come right back. The court reporter has to change
paper.
(A short break was held.)
Item #882 - Continued to 12/17/96
Item #883
BID #96-2580 FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SUPPLIES - AWARDED TO VARIOUS
VENDORS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll reconvene our county
commission meeting. We're ready to go on to item 8(B)(3).
MR. NEWMAN: Good morning, commissioners. For the
record, Mike Newman, your county water director. What you have before
you this morning is a recommendation to award bid 96-2580 for
underground utilities supplies for the operation of water and waste
water departments.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Newman, let me ask Mr. Dorrill
if we have any public speakers on this item. MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. We have a motion and a
second to approve this item. All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #884
BID #96-2567 FOR TELEHETRY REPAIRS AND SERVICES - AWARDED TO WILKEN,
MALCOLM & ASSOCIATES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Item 8(B)(4) is to award bid 96-2567.
MR. NEWMAN: For telemetry services and repairs. These
are the services to maintain, repair, and replace your existing
telemetry systems in your water and waste water departments.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is where we send a camera
down instead of a man or woman? MR. NEWMAN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What a nice concept.
MR. DORRILL: No -- no speakers either.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No speakers?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
MR. NEWMAN: Thank you, commissioners.
Item #8C1
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE REQUEST
OF THE IMMOKALEE CHILD CARE CENTER FOR PAYMENT OF UTILITY EXPENSES -
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,000.00 FOR THIS YEAR AND AMOUNT TO BE
REDUCED BY 1/3 OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 8(C)(1) is a recommendation that the
board of county commissioners deny the request of Immokalee Child Care
Center.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. Tom Olliff for the record,
public works administrator. I think I've got two items here that
don't need to be remanded to anyone and I don't think will upset your
-- your water director either.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Jeez, that's good.
MR. OLLIFF: The first item is -- is a request that
resulted from a public petition that was held here two weeks ago. And
the petitioner was the Immokalee Child Care Center, and
representatives from the child care center were here requesting that
the county commission continue the payment of utility bills associated
with their child care facility.
And to provide you a little bit of history, in the
executive summary we indicated how long ago that the -- the original
agreement actually goes back to -- and I realized when looking at the
executive summary that I -- I actually could have been a -- a client
of the -- the child care center when it first opened. That's how long
ago this -- this agreement goes back.
The original agreement in 1964 was one where the county
was providing utility fees for the child care center because it was
located on county property in a county park in what is still a county
building. The -- the new facility which is located off of county
property is not in a county building, not on county property, and --
and forces the staff to make the recommendation that it has, that we
not provide the continuing ongoing utility expenses.
We -- we certainly believe that the Immokalee Child Care
Center provides a very needed and good service and they have in the
entire time that we've had a relationship with them there in
Immokalee. But because it is no longer on county property, no longer
in a county facility, we find it very difficult to try and distinguish
this request from any other that might be a contract agency type
request. And the board consciously made a decision to eliminate that
program three years ago.
So our recommendation at this point is that the board
not grant this request and not continue to make the utility payments
for that particular child care center. And I know the representatives
are here from the child care center and can answer questions for you
if -- if you have them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wasn't on the board when the
board made what I think was a very wise decision in the -- the
reduction and grant ap -- grant funds that were being given to
not-for-profit agencies throughout the county. And I think that was a
three-year time frame, was it, that was implemented? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As I review this, this is a
longstanding commitment the board had that had it not -- had they not
moved out of the building, I probably never would have known about
it.
I would like to see us do -- deal with this similarly in
the manner that we dealt with the other not-for-profits at that time
and do a phaseout of the funds. Mr. Olliff, your recommendation --
you took a hard line on this, and I -- I -- it's not an easy thing to
do. I appreciate that. But I think those of us up here who are
allowed the discretion, I would like to see a reduction over time.
Whether it be three or five years, I'm open for discussion on that.
But if it were a 3-year reduction, it would be 11,000 the first year,
maybe 7,000 the second year, and 3,000 the third. I think we call it
a weaning process. That -- that's kind of a starting point for
discussion for me because I think to just pay the 11,000 for 7 more
years is inconsistent with action this board has taken in the past in
a similar -- similar circumstance.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I agree. As much as I hate
to say that I don't think the funding can go on forever because I'm --
I'm a more softy than most of you guys, I think that realistically it
has to -- it has to stop out of fairness to other not-for-profit
centers. But I think pulling the rug out from under this year would
be unfair, and I'd like to talk about a phasing out and maybe hear
from the center about what -- what kind of a phasing out we could
agree on.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yeah, I --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, are you
suggesting transfer from general funds?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since we have no other budgeted
item, that would have to be the source.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we hear from the -- from
the representatives of the center?
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have how many public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: I have two, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Turner, if
you would, please.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. You can't talk unless
you're on the mike.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can he go first?
MR. DORRILL: I have two. I have both Mr. Turner and
Mr. Jordan.
Are you Mr. Jordan?
MR. JORDAN: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: If you would, please.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As a point of clarification, Mr.
Dotrill, were these funds -- these funds come out of general fund in
the past or they come out of utilities? MR. DORRILL: General fund.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: General fund, okay. So it is the
same. Thank you.
MR. JORDAN: I wasn't expected to be here today. I'm
supposed to be back -- I'm sorry. Jim Jordan. I'm the president of
the Immokalee Child Care Center.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, I didn't expect
to be here today. I expected to be back in the office working out our
budgets for next year. We -- we have beaucoup problems, and we're
trying to work something that's -- that's going to make this child
care center a success and to continue our operations. But after
seeing a -- a report in the paper that the county may halt the subsidy
of the child care center, I felt I'd better get over here real quick.
One comment in the article at the end of the article
said that the officials of the child care center could not be reached
for comment. Well, I don't -- haven't seen any kind of telephone
calls or any recorded messages in our office. We're always available,
and I think a number of the commissioners here will say that we're
always available and that -- because we do come in to see them quite
often and talk to them about our problems.
Maybe one of the problems was that most of our
volunteers, including myself and including Mr. Turner, were out at the
dedication of our new facilities last Saturday where about over 300
people showed up to show their support for our center.
We have a couple of problems, one being that we do have
a couple of classrooms that we can't fill at the -- at the moment
because we do require furnishings in there. The -- the state will not
allow us to move children into a facility until it's completely
furnished, another problem being the increase in the minimum wage.
Now, it doesn't seem like a big thing. But over the next year when
you take the minimum wage, it's going to go up 90 cents an hour. Now
this is roughly $1,800 a year.
You say why does that affect us? All of our aides who
start out as aides and they build up to be teachers are on the minimum
wage. So we have to increase each one of them by the 90 cents an
hour. Now, what does that do to the rest of our staff? The rest of
our staff, we have to give them comparable wages. So our increase
when you talk about 25 to 30 employees at another $1,800 a year, I
mean, you're talking money.
So everything that we can get and every bit of help that
we can get will certainly help to alleviate our problem and give us a
chance over the next few years to really get out there and work
because only 25 percent of our income comes from the tuition of these
parents, 25 percent. It costs roughly 80, $85 a week, and they pay
roughly $25 a week because they pay based on what their income is.
The -- we do get help from the -- from the government
for food subsidy out there. Outside of that, all the rest of our --
our income comes from volunteers, from churches, from -- from
community foundations, from the -- and from the general public.
We're not asking for you to continue our subsidy
indefinitely and if -- we're asking you, though, to consider it, give
us a chance over the next two, three, four years to just bridge this
gap. And then we'll go on from there. We'll get out there and work
and -- and -- and produce what we need to make this program work.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.
MR. JORDAN: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By the way, I hope you'll
share the minimum wage story with Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts who
keeps pushing for minimum wage increases about every three years.
MR. JORDAN; I'll be glad to share it with anyone.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Turner, if you would, please.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Turner, would you like to
speak?
MR. TURNER: Thank you and congratulations to you who
have been just reelected and to Mrs. Berry occupying a new chair in
this commission. I want to just bring up another point that I did
emphasize.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you give your name, please?
MR. TURNER: I'm sorry. My name is David Turner. I'm
on the executive board of the Immokalee Child Care Center.
One thing I think sets us apart to a degree is that we
have 27 full-time employees, and they contribute to the area,
Immokalee in particular, $375,000 a year in wages. In addition to
that, the parents for whom we service with their children, take care
of their children, nurture their children, feed their children,
educate their children -- education is one of the prime -- they too
with their wages contribute to the economy of the Immokalee area which
needs help.
And on that basis I hope you can see your way clear to
give us a chance to continue. I'm sure that we can handle it. But if
you can put it out on a -- shall we call it a sliding scale, gradual
workout, I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen, this is really what we
need, and we would appreciate it very, very much. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Dotrill, what was the -- what
was the percentage of phaseout when the board previously, you know,
cut out the -- the social services funding? How was that -- MR. DORRILL: Three years.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One-third a year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A third a year? Then I move that
we do the same process here, that we fund fully this year, reduce by
thirds for the next three years so that we phase them out just like we
did the other social service agencies.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mean do a three-year
phaseout, not a -- that sounded like a four-year.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, this year they would get
their full amount. Next year they would get one-third off.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The fourth they would get a
third and then -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The fourth year they'd get
nothing.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that.
MR. TURNER: With that may I ask a question then? Would
that be retroactive as requested last meeting to the August billing,
August, September, October billing?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's -- that's my intention
pursuant to the public petition that we had. I mean, all that does is
-- is make it end sooner, but -- but as long as you understand that,
I think it can start back --
MR. DORRILL: My -- my understanding is that he -- we
would cut him a check for $11,000. It's his responsibility to pay his
own utility bill for this fiscal year, and then beginning on October
the 1st of 1997 you would get an amount for $8,500 or whatever it is.
MR. TURNER: One-third of what the --
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
MR. TURNER: Yes. That -- that is understandable and
acceptable I'm sure. Is that right, Jim?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I did second it.
MR. TURNER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
I --
MR. TURNER: Question?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I ha -- I happened to be out at the --
at the dedication ceremonies on Saturday, and it's a fine facility.
They've -- they've generated 1.2 million dollars in private financing
to build that building, and it's a -- it's a commendable effort.
They've done a marvelous job out there in Immokalee over the years,
over the 32 years. At the same time, though, our -- to be fair with
the other local charities which are -- also do a fine job, we need to
be consistent, so I think this action is -- is certainly in the spirit
of what we've done before so --
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Hac'Kie, would your motion also
include the approval of the necessary budget amendment?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely, please.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second agrees.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
MR. TURNER: Thank you very much.
Item #8C2
CONTINUATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
(CCHD) AND COLLIER HEALTH SERVICES, INC. (CHSI) TO CONTINUE PRIVATIZING
CERTAIN CLINICAL FUNCTIONS OF PUBLIC HEALTH - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you, sir. The next item is -- is a
little unique, but it's one that you've actually seen before. This is
an agreement which the county's actually not a party to. This is an
agreement between Collier Health Services Incorporated and the Collier
County Health Department. Because of the way your contract with the
health department is structured, it indicates that any subcontract
that the health department enters into which is going to provide
greater than 10 percent of the service that the -- the health
department provides needs to come before this board in order to be
approved.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is pretty much boilerplate,
though, isn't it, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. It's exactly the same type of
agreement that was approved last year. I think it worked well, and
the -- and the health department went out earlier this year for
proposals and got one again from CHSI.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since we have no speakers, I'll
move approval.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item # 9A
DISCUSSION REGARDING MEMO FROM BETTYE MATTHEWS - 80% OF $2,500 TO BE
REFUNDED BY MRS. MATTHEWS; MEALS AND LODGING NOT BE INCLUDED; AND
SEPTEMBER EXPENSES ARE NOT TO BE PAID UNLESS SIGNIFICANT JUSTIFICATION
IS MADE
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: One quick item left it appears
before we get to the sheriff's item.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I asked that this be put on
the agenda for two reasons. We have had -- unfortunately, we've
really been forced to have public discussions regarding Commissioner
Matthews' Leadership Florida expenditure during the last fiscal year
and the fact that a portion, a great portion, of that will occur after
her term has expired effective today.
I believe the gist of what we were asking is will a
proportionate share of those funds of the program paid for the program
that are going to occur after she is no longer in office, if those
funds would be returned.
What we've received are two things: An opinion from the
county attorney that, in fact, this board does have in essence the
ability and authority to request that those funds that are no longer
being used to serve a public purpose be re -- be refunded or paid
back. And the second thing we have is a memorandum from Commissioner
Matthews stating that in some form that will occur.
The problem I have is twofold. Commissioner
Constantine, you attended Leadership Florida. How many classes or
sessions are there?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are five sessions. The
first and the last are a day longer than the others.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So -- but there are five
sessions every two months, so it lasts for a ten-month period.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And one session has occurred in
this year's class and four remain?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My understanding is that the
second session occurred this past weekend. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So Commissioner Matthews
has said she will return 60 percent of the tuition paid which seems
like a commensurate level with the classes remaining, so 60 percent of
the 2,500 will be paid back.
The part I have a problem with is she mentions in her
memorandum -- and she -- she's not here. This is all I have to go on
-- is that she would be minusing travel expenses incurred and
personally paid for September and November. November is in a new
fiscal year of which she was still in office, and I don't have as much
a problem with that. But September was in a previous fiscal year in
which she utilized 100 percent of her travel funds. There are none
available for reimbursement. Therefore, the September expenses
associated with attending that class are not in my opinion available
for -- to be exempted from repayment.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur, and -- and
Leadership Florida program pays for as part -- through the tuition
pays for your hotel and meals. So I'm not sure what those expenses
might be unless someone opted to go a day early or stay a day late,
which would be their own personal choice. But the meals and -- and
hotel are not picked up individually. That is all inclusive in the
tuition process.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I might -- sorry for
interrupting. I might could shed some light on that. Two things:
One is to let you know that $701.75 of the expenditure made by
Commissioner Matthews in this regard came as a result of my agreement
to transfer the travel budget that I knew I would not use for her
purposes of being in Leadership Florida. She knew that that was
because I saw a serious benefit of Leadership Florida but that she
could come back and make those connections and bring that information
to the county commission.
I'm -- I, frankly, have tried to be quiet about this
because I have expected that she was going to do what I would call the
right thing. The right thing would be to give all the money back in
my judgment because none of the -- none of the benefit of the program
-- even though it's technically within the days of her being a
sitting commissioner, none of the benefit will accrue to the county.
If -- if what she does in this memo -- if I can
understand it correctly, she says she's going to give back 60 percent
of $2,500. That's -- that's $1,500 less whatever it is she spent in
September and November. If that should turn out to be -- if the net
result is that the county doesn't get back at least $701.75, I'm going
to want to look at reimbursing that myself because I don't think it's
right. And since I participated in it, I'm not going to participate
in the wrong.
My concern about the -- the September and November
travel expenses is that I don't know if you guys know this but
Commissioner Matthews regularly submitted reimbursement for gas and
travel from home to the office, her cell. phone bills, those kinds of
things. So I don't know what's going to be on there. I -- I'm very
hopeful it's not $800 worth because then I'm going to be writing a
check. But --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let -- let me be --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- that's what those might be.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me be very candid because
I -- when I brought this up on the 5th, I anticipated, as -- as you
said, that she would simply do the right thing. And it was a question
mark at the time, and I thought we'd get a clear answer and we'd be
done with it. One of the reasons I brought it up the 5th instead of
the 12th was the 5th was election day and I assumed it would get no
news coverage, and that was a courtesy to Commissioner Matthews was
election day was going to get all the news, and I assumed she'd say,
no, that's fine. I'm going to reimburse them. So it's unfortunate it
went on.
I think Commissioner Hac'Kie's point is well made that
there's a cumulative effect here that the benefit is derived from.
And you can make an argument -- and I'm not going to nitpick and argue
whether or not September was a benefit. I would suggest that
Commissioner Matthews moved out of her office last week, went -- then
left and went to the Leadership Florida program and was there for this
past weekend. There was probably not a great public benefit derived
from that since yesterday was her final day of office and to the best
of my knowledge she wasn't here in the office.
And so, I mean, maybe we're nitpicking. But if we're
going to talk about a percentage and what the public benefit was and
what -- along those lines, perhaps there was in September. I think
it'd be a pretty -- pretty big stretch to say this past weekend's
program had a public benefit for the commissioner. And so I think 80
percent may seem more appropriate. And, frankly, I think if -- if
there were personal expenses incurred as part of that over and above
hotel and meals which are already paid for through the program, that's
Commissioner Matthews' responsibility.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that a motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, my question was, Mr.
Weigel, what responsibility do we have. What -- what authority do we
have if we think that -- I mean, this seems to me it's -- it's Dwight
Brock's department more than ours as much as we would like for it not
to be.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well -- and I don't want to
answer for Mr. Weigel, but I will. And I read from his memo when I
say Leadership Florida's a legally permissible public expenditure for
funds for -- and he italicizes -- members of the board of
commissioners. So that part I think we've already addressed anyway.
But it is well established within the state gen -- attorney general
opinion that public funds may be spent only for a public purpose. And
I think we can answer that question. We do have the authority to
determine what's a public purpose.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. But my question is what are
we gonna do. Sue her?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. But -- and then the
final --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where do we go?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The final paragraph from Mr.
Weigel -- and maybe he can elaborate on this -- but says -- and I
quote -- I am inclined to opine that a pro rata reimbursement of the
public funds is legally required unless this board determines that
such expenditure is of public purpose. I guess it's just a shame we
got to this point but --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Jeez, amen.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- there's not a motion on the
floor; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead and make one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move that this board
make a formal request of Commissioner Matthews to refund 80 percent of
the $2,500 tuition, that meals and lodging included with that are not
eligible for reimbursement.
Let me ask one question. Mr. Weigel, if a commissioner
incurs expenses while in office and does not submit a reimbursement
form until they are out of office, do we have to honor that
reimbursement?
MR. WEIGEL: I -- I believe the answer is yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: If it's a valid expense as incurred, then
it's a valid expense to be paid and the question of if you -- for
instance, one does not have the statements submitted prior to the end
of a budget year and those are just submitted and taken out of the
next year's budget for that particular department or office.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The second part of my
motion then will be that seeing as Commissioner Matthews utilized the
-- the extent of her individual travel budget for last fiscal year
that those September expenses be scrutinized and not paid unless --
unless there can be significant justification for them.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have a second for that
motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second the
motion. It's unfortunate we got to this point, but I think it is,
quote, the right thing to do.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I know you're about
to take a vote, but I did want to bring to the attention of the board
just a couple matters in regard to this. And that is as you read the
memo that I provided you -- and I provided it to you only today as it
became an agenda item -- I want the -- the record today to remember
that, in fact, the board has not -- had not directed me to prepare an
opinion in this regard and that this was an endeavor, in fact, a
struggle, to respond to the questions that were provided to me by
Commissioner Matthews. And the last sentence, in fact, read in its
entirety indicates as I do in the first paragraph. I was not asked to
provide an opinion about reimbursement. And hypothetically I state
that if I were to be asked, I'd be inclined to opine.
Now, the reason I state it that way is not merely for
the memo and for the individual recipient of the memo but the fact
that there are some policy implications that come from any action that
you may take today. And -- and a for instance is that I did have two
public record requests of this memo yesterday morning, yesterday
morning from the media and at the end of the day from the clerk.
The clerk took upon himself not to call me but to call
the chief assistant last evening who promptly called me to say that he
had some concerns about my opinion. Miss Mac'Kie had indicated this
would appear to maybe be a clerk's matter, and the clerk, in fact, has
gotten his opinion already. We know in the past that the clerk has
scrutinized the payment of items and made his own determinations,
sometimes incongruent with the county attorney and sometimes not.
But he had indicated to Mr. Manalich last evening that
if the board were to apparently technically embark in a policy
decision -- and I think we can distinguish whether this is merely the
board looking at this case on a case-by-case basis looking at this as
opposed to adopting general policy -- the board's -- the clerk has
indicated that he will be scrutinizing I guess the accounts going back
for a significant period of time on employees and -- and presumably
elected officials that have had expenditures that have been incurred
and then that employer, elected official has left office. And I think
the for instance that we're talking about would be professional dues,
bar requirements, local, state bar, engineering requirements, and
things of that nature.
And although this news just came to me last evening, I
would indicate that I am prepared, you know, to research further upon
direction of the board, but I believe that distinctions can be made
from expenditures of an education basis -- and I spes -- specify
education which was specifically addressed in the attorney general
opinion 8213 which back in that time was an opinion to a clerk
questioning educational expenses -- and those other expenditures that
are often incurred by employees of the county for the maintenance of a
credential that is required for them in their practice.
And the same thing goes, for instance, for the local bar
association. And this is not to filibuster on behalf of the county
attorney office, but the examples come to mind very easily. And that
is that the local bar association as opposed to the state bar
association is not required for us to be practicing attorneys here.
However, we do find that by being a member of the local bar, we have
unlimited access to continuing legal education which is required for
us to maintain our credential and practice in the office of county
attorney. And I suspect the same things exist in rather parallel
fashion for the other professions that may have some of these
credential and --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: -- and education requirements.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we're -- we're comfortable
with the distinction.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Unless some other board member feels
compelled to do so, I don't think we need to direct you to research
that -- the matter any further.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless a challenge comes from the
clerk which I would find rather incredulous that one arm of the
taxpayer would be fighting another arm of the taxpayer over such an
obvious situation.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: In any case, we have a motion and a
second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A grudging aye over on one end.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's just so sad to have reached
this point. I'm just so disappointed.
Item #11A
RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS ISSUE DIRECTION
TO STAFF CONCERNING THE EXPANSION PROJECT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY JAIL
AND OPERATIONS AREA AND FURTHER CONSIDERATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
WORK RELEASE AND RESTITUTION CENTER - STAFF TO PREPARE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY CITING MERITS OF IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AND OTHER SOURCES OF
FUNDING
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We -- we have the pleasure today of
having our esteemed local sheriff in the -- the room with us. And
he's going to give us a very brief presentation, update on the status
of the jail.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Brief, he's already set me up. Don
Hunter, sheriff of Collier County, Florida. And I appreciate you
having us here before you today. I would like to defer for a moment
if I may and ask Judge Brousseau to come forward and make a
statement. He is in the midst of a jury trial. His jury is standing
by for his return, and he doesn't want to lose anybody. So Judge
Brousseau is here as well, and this is a -- though not a singular
issue, they certainly dovetail together. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Thank you. My name's Ted Brousseau,
and I am a circuit judge. And like Mr. Jordan earlier, I didn't
expect to be here again either, and I would rather be back being a
judge than -- than standing here. And in that vein, I would like to
remind you that we were here last in June, and we asked you for -- for
your permission to put this matter on the ballot and that we would go
out and prove that the community supported the project. I'm back
here, and I'm here to say that we got overwhelming support for the
work restitution center, and I think it's been obvious from the
comments in the press and the coverage.
In light of -- we had a meeting last night of -- a
wrap-up of the campaign committee that was together for the purpose of
the jail tax this summer, and they voted unanimously to reorganize as
a focus group to see implementation of the work restitution center.
They believe in it that much.
The -- I would like to remind you that -- and I guess I
don't have to, but that's what you're gonna hear next is that you've
got a -- a choice coming up on the jail and you're gonna have an
expansion. It's debatable when and -- and all that, but you've got
it. And it would seem to me that this work restitution center which
percentagewise is so small yet impactwise could alleviate some of your
pressures on the jail expansion for some time immediately and for some
time in the future because of the curing of the defendants.
And if you have any doubt, I just did a month's worth of
work for Judge Blackwell while he was doing the Cracker Barrel trial,
and I haven't been doing criminal in three years, but all it was was
drugs, drugs, drugs, drugs, drugs, and we gotta do something to break
that cycle.
I would urge you to direct your staff to -- to go out
and find a way to implement this and report back to you with firm
plans in 30 days and do something. But, you know, I -- I think I've
done my job. I've -- I've brought this to your attention. I've
brought it to the public's attention, and I need to get back and do
judging. That's what I get paid for. I don't get paid anything for
doing what I did other than gaining a couple pounds this summer from
campaigning. I didn't get anything out of that either.
So anyway, I won't be back here on this matter. It
isn't to say the committee won't because, as I said, they reformed.
But unless you invite me back and need some additional information, I
appreciate your endurance and wish you Godspeed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sheriff Hunter, before we go
too far, Judge just indicated -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Judge?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that this -- the work
restitution center could potentially alleviate the need -- and I --
and I almost have it word for word -- alleviate the need for the jail
expansion for some time.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We're quoting from what? What was
that?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Judge Brousseau just
indicated that the work restitution center might alleviate the need
for jail expansion for some time, and I'm wondering as we struggle
with how we're going to deal with the issue of the jail expansion and
how much time can we buy, how much time would that likely buy for us?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Do you want to address that, restate
it?
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: I can address part of it. It's been
reported from Greg and the sheriff that 25 to 45 I think is the number
of beds presently in the jail could get shifted over to the work
restitution center. So, you know, do your math and just figure out
how quickly are we growing and how long would that buy. I mean, I
can't give you any better answer than that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess may -- maybe the
sheriff knows. I mean, how long -- does that buy another year's
time? Does that buy another two years' time? Does that buy --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Six months?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yeah, a few months.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Couple weeks?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Probably a few months. There is a
misconception in the public right now that we don't need a jail
expansion. What -- what we've been before you -- before on and what
we tried to state for the record is that the -- the jail expansion is
needed for the -- is needed for the future. It takes, we believe,
about three years to put one of these projects on line, actually have
the beds in a -- in a status to be occupied.
So what we're asserting and teassetting this morning is
the need has not gone away. The need will become more and more
critical as time passes, and the work release or work and restitution
center, depending upon your term for it, is a need of the county.
It's not going to relieve a lot of the overcrowding situation in the
jail. But what it will do is take people off the street that should
be in jail but cannot be housed in jail because of the overcrowding
situation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I understand the social
issue. He had just said it might relieve the need for expansion for
some time, and I wanted -- I had never heard you indicate that, and I
wanted to clarify. I mean, if we were buying an extra year's time
with that, that's a second issue in support of the restitution
center. If it's not buying any time, that needs to be clear I guess.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I would like to reassert my support for
the work and restitution center. It was part of my budget as
submitted in 1989. We asked for that to be considered by the board as
a way of keeping some of these people in jail, getting services to
them, the counseling needed to alleve (sic) and relieve the very
severe manpower drain that it represents for the sheriff's office.
When you have recurring domestic violence, recurring DUIs out on the
street not being held in secure detention or commitment facility,
you're addressing the problem with a recurring cost in the form of
actual law enforcement officers responding to those people --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sheriff Hunter?
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- and looking for them on the
streets. So we were -- we were hoping to take them off the street,
put them in work and restitution, get them services and treatment so
that we break the cycle.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand that. But, I
mean, it's a yes-no question. Does it in any way alleviate the need
for the expansion of the jail?
SHERIFF HUNTER: It does in a sense, but it doesn't have
a gross impact, no. It's a -- a small impact.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand the split issue
there.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm -- I'm as you are a strong
supporter of the work center, and -- and that's -- as far as I'm
concerned, that's the first focus. And -- and one of the things that
you alluded to there that would be really helpful is if your finance
department could -- could give us some assistance in putting a dollar
value on that recurring cost of not having the work center because as
we're searching for funds, you know, if we could see that -- that the
-- funding the work center might eliminate the need for an increase
in your budget over the next few years, that that -- we might could
see that as a -- as a -- a valid expenditure if you could help us
quantify how the work center would offset the recurring costs of the
sheriff's department.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I understand what you're saying,
Commissioner. We will try to do that. Anecdotally I can tell you we
have a number of different situations you can recall where we've had
the same DUI suspects come before the court 21, 25 times. Mr. Miller,
Steve Miller, I believe was one of those notable cases. If we save
one life because we get Mr. Miller off the street, intervene in his
situation for three to six months, break his cycle, actually give him
treatment, do something with him, that's one life saved.
Domestic violence, the same situation. We may
repeatedly go to the scene of a domestic dispute four, five times
warning the people that we don't intend to come back there without
making an arrest. But ultimately what's going to happen is a
battery's going to occur, an assault's going to occur, somebody's
going to be injured perhaps for life, if not killed. That's really
what we're trying to intervene in and break that cycle. That's what
we hope the work and restitution center would do. But we will try to
work on some numbers for you to give you an idea of how many times and
what proportion of those incidents we're making recurring call
return.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And with a dollar value if at all
possible associated with it because what I -- what I found in my
couple of years with the board so far is that everybody buys the
concept, but then you get down to the hard question of where are we
gonna get the money. And if we could see the savings in the sheriff's
department, I think that will help convince the majority of this board
that we need to fund the work center.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, it's more than just the sheriff's
office. It's also public defender's office each time they have to
represent these people coming back through the back door of the jail.
You -- every time we pay Tom -- Tom Traksinger and his group to once
again evaluate the same people about their alcohol problem, the judge
will hear the 24-hour hearing each time we arrest, an arraignment each
time we arrest. You have multiple costs involved with each one of
these situations that it's not just a law enforcement issue. This is
a whole system cost. And I won't be able to give you the whole system
cost, but we'll try to estimate for you what some of the front-end
costs would be and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That would help.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- give you an idea.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are two issues that this
board is -- is going to have to wrestle with, and we've really focused
on the work center to this point. I think if you asked across the
board you're going to get five people that say I think it's a great
idea. It comes down to can we fund it. You know, you can go through
the machinations of how much money it theoretically will save you.
But the truth is those officers are not gonna -- you know, it's not
going to defer hiring a new officer for the sheriff's department
because they already are spending too much time on calls and not
enough time on patrol.
So rather than chasing our tails on can we justify it
dollarwise, one, we know it's a good concept. We need to deal with
the issue of can we fund it individually without going on the property
tax bill or find a creative way to do that. I've suggested in the
past maybe making the daily fee slightly higher so over the long term
you reimburse the general fund on an annual basis for cost to
construct. There is ideas in dealing with that 2.5 or 2.6 million
dollar project that we can deal with individually. That does parlay
into does it buy us a little more time for jail expansion.
Let me -- let me ask the sheriff -- I have a couple of
questions. First is do you experience seasonal peaks in inmate
population?
SHERIFF HUNTER: We do both in the Naples and Immokalee
area.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- can you give me an i --
percentagewise? You -- is it a 10, 15 percent fluctuation or -- or
something to that effect?
SHERIFF HUNTER: We actually have it broken down by
month for you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We can give that to you, but I can't --
I can't give it to you this morning. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I do have it with me, but I won't be
able to give you an actual percentage.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I asked that is the
state of Florida, if they make a mandate or create a mandate for us
for jail expansion, they're probably going to look at peak periods.
If those peak periods last a short enough time frame that something
such as tents will work and buy us an additional year or two years for
those peak periods so that you can get your less -- you know, less --
I know we have house arrest and a lot of other things there but so you
can put some people in tents during peak periods to add us -- give us
another year for funding or another two years for funding, that's an
option that I'd like to see explored. And again, I don't expect an
answer to that. I'm just really putting ideas out and let's see where
they go.
We have discussed impact fees. It was -- '91 or '92 was
the last time that that came up. And at that time it was just almost
a quagmire. You know, it got bogged down in a lot of minutia and
details. And I guess the first part of this is a question for the
county attorney. If we were to enact a law enforcement impact fee
this year, we have not -- although we have begun plans for jail
expansion, the actual need to physically expand the jail has not
occurred prior to the adoption of that ordinance assumably in the next
year. Can we pledge future revenues from an impact fee if that is a
specified area in the ordinance to the building of a jail assuming the
construction occurs after and the need occurs after the adoption of
the ordinance?
MR. WEIGEL: I -- I think so. I think that, again,
methodology's important, but also I think that -- that generally that
probably is true. There would be a little -- a little tweaking that
has to be done to make that work based on the time when the ordinance
is adopted and -- and the impact study that shows when the needs are
actually there against our growth management requirements.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And within that, we would
want to look at what the impact -- what that fee comes to for -- if
we're looking at for throwing items in for looking at jail expansion
for the next 20 or 30 years and what that means and also capital
replacement cost for things such as vehicles for the sheriff's office
and so forth. I understand that's where it fell apart last time in
some of the details. Do we throw uniforms in? Do we throw leather
and -- and -- and that kind of thing? So -- gun belts is what I meant
by leather.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not gonna. Not going there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So -- okay. That answers that
question. Sheriff, do you have any philosophical problem with the
implementation of an impact fee to pledge for future funds to -- to
build a jail when it's needed? SHERIFF HUNTER: No.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. What is our time frame as
you see it right now? When will we be required to put the first
brick, the first slab in place to begin construction to meet this
future need which is how I'm going to start calling it from now on so
that we don't run afoul of the impact fee issue? This future need
will occur at what time on your best guess scenario?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Let -- in order to understand my
response, let me back up just a little bit, and -- and let me explain
a response I made to the media in conjunction with this impact fee
issue because they have asked me as well would I support it. Could it
be used to erect a facility today, expand the Naples jail? Remember
that there has al -- there has been a certified need established by a
consultant's study done in 1989 that the jail is and will be
overcrowded within essentially about a 2-year period back then.
Within -- about 1991 there was going to be the need for an expansion.
The board adopted that as its official position.
We were able to do some things to avoid the expansion.
The point is that right now according to the official public record,
there is a certification by the Board of County Commissioners that the
jail needed expanding in roughly 1991, meaning if we look at an impact
fee -- and this is what I was relying on when I was asked the question
by the media. If we look at an impact fee and whether it can be
applied to the expansion of a jail due to need, that appears to me to
be a deficit back in 1991 and -- and hasn't been erased yet by a
following consultant's study or recertification of the board or in any
way altered.
So I'm supporting the impact fee. My understanding is
that we have an existing certified need. We currently enjoy a
capacity at the jail, Naples jail facility. And remember that judges
don't sentence inmates to an overcrowded jail typically. They'll try
to find some other alternate sentencing. So you may have people who
qualify to go to jail, and it may actually impact their lives in a
positive way, and we may have deterred in effect because that -- that
sanction is imposed on those inmates or potential inmates, but perhaps
the judges are not sentencing because they're looking for alternatives
because they know what the dire consequences would be in class action
suits by inmates and by suit against the Board of County
Commissioners.
So this is a -- the other parts and other elements of
the system are not ignorant of the current situation of the Collier
County jail facilities. They are trying to work with us to keep that
population in control. So I wanted to make certain that I qualify my
answer so that you don't -- you're not misled in the future by what's
currently happening at the -- at the facilities.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, Sheriff, you made my
point. At that time that a consultant's study was done, the jail was
operated under conditions X. We have changed the operation in such a
way that we do not have a jail at capacity today. Therefore, that
study is invalid. That study was under those conditions. If we were
to perform a study today, the result of that study would say we have
capacity. Therefore, what was done in 1988 and said we had 2 years of
life, it was like the landfill study. We only had seven years of
life. All of a sudden we did a new study, found out we had 22 years,
and that study became the rule so --
SHERIFF HUNTER: We -- we don't have such a study.
That's what I'm suggesting. What you need is --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My point is you can do one
tomorrow.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- an additional follow-up study. You
-- the board is on record right now -- not this board but a previous
board is on record as having certified a deficit. We were at an
overpopulation at the time that the study was --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So a new study --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let -- let me --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- would have to be part of -- of
a proposed impact fee ordinance. A new study would be required as
part of a proposed impact fee ordinance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's exactly where I want to
go.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me too.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. That -- that's one thing.
Back to the work restitution center, we were -- I think you were
mentioning we need to come up perhaps with a creative way of doing
that, and we may have done just that. The assembly center, Pastor
Mallory, has written us a -- a letter that I received yesterday that
offers in effect a portion of his facility to be used as the work
restitution center. He's offering a 182-bed area in his facility. I
don't know if we can work out the logistics of that. But I'm sure
that Sheriff Hunter will be in contact with Pastor Mallory. And who
knows? Perhaps this might be a -- a very cost-effective way to do it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I certainly want to look into
that, Mr. Norris. Absolutely don't leave any stone unturned. But we
need to also focus on the fact that this is Pastor Hallory's proposed
facility that we've approved the existence but that still has to -- I
mean, the funds aren't there yet.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, absolutely. But -- but the offer
has been made and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we appreciate it. Hope --
and hopefully that will be the answer. The only thing is I don't want
us to defer further discussion or -- or, you know, defer looking at
other options because we are gonna count on that one because, frankly,
the work center got attached to the jail expansion sales tax and --
and kind of sank with that one when I think if it had stood on its own
it would have -- it would have gotten approved. And I don't want to
attach it to another iffy proposition.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know but I --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have public
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if I may add, I think
obviously we want to pursue that with Reverend Mallory, and that may
be a good answer. I think we need to be very careful -- and this may
not be particularly popular with this group today, but we need to be
very careful saying that we know what the voters really meant was
something different than what they said. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And yes, it was attached to
the jail, and perhaps that's why it went down. But two-thirds of the
voter -- voters voted against that. And so I want to be very careful
before I say I want to spend tax dollar money on the work restitution
center. Even though I personally like the idea, I can't ignore what
two-thirds of the voters said two weeks ago. And so if we can do
something with Pastor Mallory and his facility where it's -- we're not
hitting the public up for sev -- several million dollars that they
just rejected, that's a great idea. That's the best of both worlds.
But I think it would be a slap in the face to the voter to simply
ignore what they said two weeks ago and -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- say, well, we're going to
find a way to do it --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So what is your motion?
SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm going to have to excuse myself.
I'm due for a television program at noon -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tell Rich we said hi.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- out on the east side. But I do have
Captain Smith here. Let me -- let me summarize my position very
quickly for the board. I'm teassetting the need. We have people
sleeping on the floor at the Naples jail facility. We have -- we are
at capacity in the Naples jail facility. If we -- if we began today,
if we broke ground today, it's my belief that we will have an expanded
jail facility, 256 beds, by roughly 1999. We have neither the funds
available today nor the work crews there today. I'm teassetting the
need. I want to be on record as having asserted that need and
anything that the board can do to relieve the situation at the jail
because I'm literally on pins and needles right now. We're on a hot
box. We're in the hot seat. I may not have done my job as thoroughly
as I needed to to inform the public of this need, nor you.
I am -- I'm here today and the captain's here today to
answer any questions you may have. We're certainly available for
tours. We do public tours. We do board tours. We have footage of
the overcrowding situation that's available to the media, and the
media has used some of that already.
We've not yet been accused of anything. I'm trying to
make you aware well in advance of any problem, and I'm asking for your
support in trying to move forward on the expansion of the -- of the
facility and a certified need for almost ten years now. We've done
what we can. I've done everything that I can think of to delay and
defer and avoid the expansion. But I am -- I'm out of options at the
moment and looking for some board direction.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go, I have one
real quick question, and that is I think we all realize the jail's in
a situation where while we're not being asked right now, that may very
well happen in the next few years. I've also been through your
facilities, and I realize you've got people sitting on top of people
over there and that some of the administrative and operation space
needs to be expanded as well.
My question, however, is of that 25 million, over 16
million of that is set aside for operations expansion. And -- and
while I realize we need additional space, 16 million dollars is an
awful lot of money. And I'm wondering maybe one of the ways to answer
our need is to lower the expense on that end. I don't know how much
of an answer you can give to that today, but that might be something
we can play with as a way to make it more affordable.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We -- we'll reassert that need as
well. Operations space or administrative, criminal investigators,
criminal intelligence bureau, S.W.A.T. teams, those are the operations
elements that are currently off premises from main headquarters. It
makes it inefficient and ineffective for the sheriff of Collier County
to have to try to seek out people who are not co-located to get
answers about tactical issues that are occurring at the moment. If I
have to pick phones up or have to walk across the street or they have
to walk across the street to show me documents, it makes it very
inefficient and ineffective. It's slowing down the process of
government.
So I'm -- I'm teassetting the operations need. If
there's a way to do it cheaper, let's do so. Remember that all I've
done is reassert the adopted plan that the Board of County
Commissioners adopted in 1981 (sic) for the expansion of --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: '91.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- of that building which was supposed
to be completed by 1985 (sic). We didn't complete it. We still
haven't completed the additional three floors at building J. That's
all I'm teassetting.
If the board has a different direction you want to go
in, let's talk about it and see what can be done. There may be some
other facilities available. Maybe there's a large building you're
aware of that's available for much less. We're not married to this
site. We could certainly relocate somewhere. But the jail's right
there, and it certainly makes it convenient to be there at the jail
facility. But we'll -- we'll work with you is the bottom line. And I
have to excuse myself. Captain Smith can answer any other operational
questions.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually I'm ready to try and
propose a direction. I'm going to move that we direct staff to
prepare an impact fee ordinance addressing the issue of necessary jail
expansion in addition to phased expansion of administrative needs for
the sheriff's office. The purpose of this study is to, one, recognize
that currently today we have existing capacity to meet the needs today
of our community. However, we expect in the future that not to -- to
be the case. And in order to accomplish that, we believe impact fees
may be an appropriate source of revenue to -- to prepare that
expansion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I ask you to amend that
to simply study the issue? I asked the county manager to put together
some numbers and statistics on what a maximum allowed collection for
that type activity would be, what that would likely to garner in funds
over the next several years and so on. I'd rather see the information
and -- and then have an opportunity to discuss that with his team and
all before we say create the ordinance.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's reasonable. I'll -- I'll
amend my motion to request that staff prepare a -- an executive
summary citing the merits of impact fee ordinances and other funding
sources as may be appropriate to look at the -- at funding the future
expansion and needs of the jail facility.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, you got about a
ten-day head start on that. So do you have a idea when that may --
when you may be able to bring that back to us?
MR. DORRILL: Actually you gave it to me last Wednesday
afternoon at about 2:35.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ten days, five days.
MR. DORRILL: I would like to think that we can
accomplish that before Christmas and then have some alternatives and
-- and have a little spreadsheet prepared with a -- a matrix that can
show you how much money that -- that might raise over time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the meantime, I'd leave it to
members of this board individually to pursue the work restitution
center as they see fit. I've already asked Mr. Dotrill for some
information that may get it off center. Commissioner Norris
apparently has spoken with Reverend Mallory. So that may be up to us
individually to bring back at a later agenda as we find plausible
solutions to -- to get that off the ground if we see fit to do that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you object to -- to the
impact fee analysis including that just for information purposes?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None whatsoever. In fact, I'll
amend the motion to include that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. Was there a second,
because I'll second it if there's not one?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There was going to be until
we included that part.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Now there is.
MR. DORRILL: You have two people who had asked to speak
now. Ms. Varner and then Judge Wilson.
MS. VARNER: I'm Jane Varner. I'm speaking strictly for
myself, although I have been working with TAG on this. But I want to
make it clear I'm speaking for myself that for my part and I think for
probably a lot of other people, the reason they voted against the tax
is because -- the sales tax is because it was so wide open. I mean,
there was no possibility of input, creative input like you're doing
right now, alternative methods, looking at costs, finding less
expensive ways. And certainly I know for myself I want criminals in
jail. If the sheriff needs jail space, we need jail space. But we
want to make sure it's cost effective and that we're getting, you
know, exactly, you know, what we should have and that it's going
through you -- all of you that we feel you'll give it that kind of
oversight that's necessary. And that's the point I wanted to make,
and I congratulate you on your new ideas and ways to tackle this
problem.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Varner.
MR. DORRILL: Judge Wilson.
JUDGE WILSON: Well, when I jumped up, it was to ask if
you could add the work restitution center into the motion. And so
thank you, Commissioner Mac'Kie, for doing that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is your name?
JUDGE WILSON: My name is Brenda Wilson. Hello.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
JUDGE WILSON: I always forgot to do that when I used to
be here too.
But let me just add how -- how important the work
restitution center is to certain areas of the judicial system that I
don't -- I just think you need to be reminded and for your new
commissioner's benefit.
In the area right now that I handle, along with my other
duties I do the domestic violence court. The work restitution center
is like a shining beacon to that problem. And let me tell you that it
is the fastest growing category of cases that you have now in Collier
County, and I can tell you just by the number of hours that I'm
working. And it is a way of lessening the burden on the county for a
lot of other things.
If you have -- if I need to put somebody in jail, I'm
going to to keep them from beating up on somebody else. But that also
means that there may be kids going on AFDC and that are, you know,
going to St. Matthew's House or trying to find somewhere to live
because they got thrown out of their house because Daddy's in jail
because he was beating up on Mom.
Now, I'm putting that in very basic terms, but you gotta
understand that their -- that that is an area that is immediate. It's
right now. I could put -- as -- as Sheriff Hunter said, I could be
putting a lot more people over there, and I'm trying to be creative,
but it's not something that you want to put off.
So please do keep it in mind. Don't let it be on the
back burner. Put it in with the consideration. And if you can find
any way to do it the sooner because there are a lot of reasons why
it's important for it to be here on the government complex. We don't
want to lose the land. I understand that capital projects has said
that there is a space here within the complex. And that's a very dire
need for us to -- to have them here and close.
So there are a lot of considerations. And I -- one
thing that I'm concerned is whether you're going to have someone from
this task force that Judge Brousseau was referring to that's somehow
going to be involved. And I don't know if it will be with one of you
commissioners individually or how you want to do that. But I know
that Kathleen Passidomo is -- is here also from that task force, and
there's any number of citizens on that force that would be willing to
be the liaison. But there's a lot of concerns that that group has and
a lot of help that they have to offer.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Judge.
JUDGE WILSON: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. Commissioner
Hancock, my only worry about the amended motion is I think like most
of us part of the -- I think part of the reason the work restitution
center failed was its linkage with the jail and the confusion on the
two issues and so on. I just want to be very careful. I don't mind
if we go ahead and study it, but I want to be very careful that we
don't take a course where those two are forever linked because we may
be able to do one and not the other. We may be able to do them on
different time frames, and so I want to be very, very careful as we
look at that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's clearly understood that the
two are separate subjects all together. But if the same question can
answer both, then -- then it's reasonable to look at both.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second
actually. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Berry, do you have
anything further today?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have no public comments today, do
we?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir, not today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not a thing?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nada.
CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Welcome, Commissioner Berry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. We want to -- we want to welcome
our new commissioner to the board. Good luck. You -- you asked for
it, and now you're going to get it.
I -- I'd like to point out that -- that our board was
completely unanimous on everything that we discussed today, so we must
all be on the right track.
Mr. Dotrill, anything further?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're outta here.
***** Commissioner moved, seconded by Commissioner, and carried
unanimously, that the following items under the consent agenda be
approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER FACILITIES FOR TIMBERLAKE AT SUHMERWOOD - WITH
STIPULATIONS AND CASH BOND
O.R. Book Page
Item #16A2
APPROVE FREEMAN AND FREEMAN, INC., AS AN ADDITIONAL CONTRACTOR TO THE
LIST OF PRE-QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS PERMITTED TO WORK ON PROJECTS FUNDED
BY THE COLLIER COUNTY RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM (RFP# 94-2280)
Item #16B1 - This item has been deleted
Item #1682 - This item has been deleted
Item #1683
APPROVAL OF A LONG TERM AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR THE NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT
Item #16C1 - This item has been deleted
Item #16C2
APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH NAPLES SCOREKEEPERS ASSOCIATION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SCOREKEEPERS FOR COUNTY SPONSORED ACTIVITIES
Item #16D1
APPROVAL OF BILLING AGREEMENT WITH GRAND BAY CONDOHINIUH, INC. FOR
UTILITY CUSTOMER BILLING
Item #16D2
APPROVAL OF A PLAN DESIGN AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROUP BENEFIT
PLAN
Item #16D3
APPROVAL OF A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COHMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF NAPLES CITY COUNCIL
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT 97-034
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATE FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1995 Real Property
No. Dated
261 10-31-96
1996 Real Property
16 & 19 10-31 and 11-04-96
26 & 27 11-05-96
1996 Tangible Personal Property
3 - 15 10-15-96 - 10-25-96
17 - 27 10-29-96 - 11-06-96
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:51 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Shelly Semmler