BCC Minutes 11/05/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 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 9:04 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
Bettye J. Matthews
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRKLAN NORRIS: I'll call the county commission
meeting to order on this election day, November the 5th, 1996.
Mr. Dotrill, if you could, please, lead us in an invocation and a
pledge to the flag.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, on this election day, we
-- we do give thanks and pause for what we do consider to be the
greatest country in the world. We give thanks for our United States.
We give thanks, especially, this morning and lift up and -- and pray
for both our president and Senator Dole and their families for the
effort and the considerable sacrifice that they have made on -- on
part of our country to give us that choice that our Constitution
entitles us to.
Father, it's our prayer here each and every Tuesday that
you guide the hand of the county commission, our elected officials, as
they make the important business decisions that affect Collier County
and its people. We ask that you give us the conviction and the
courage to do what is right and what is honest in these business
endeavors and that you would bless our time here together today. And
we pray these things in Jesus's name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, it looks like we have a
-- just a few changes to our agenda this morning.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. I
have just two changes. The first is a request to continue Item
8(A)(3), which was an appeal of an administrative decision concerning
and upholding a code enforcement matter. The agent for the petitioner
has asked that that item be continued for two weeks.
(Commissioner Constantine entered the boardroom.)
MR. DORRILL: I've just been advised before the start of
the meeting there's another party here who had intended to have that
heard today, and he had indicated to me that his attorney is here or
is going to be here. I don't know whether that -- that other
gentleman -- he is not a party to the appeal. He is, apparently, a
neighbor, and I don't recall the gentleman's name. I don't know if
he's still here or not.
And I also have one additional item to continue, Item
8(B)(1), for one week, until your meeting of the 12th, which is a
recommendation to award a contract for certain improvements at the
Marco Island Racquet Center, which was the county's CIE Project
No. 729. That was a matter that was originally under a bid protest,
and I don't know what the nature of the additional continuance is.
You may want to have Mr. Olliff provide that information to you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At least on the first item,
Mr. Chairman, it has, at least in the last two years, been this
board's unwritten policy that if a petitioner requests a continuance,
unless there's outstanding reasons, that it's granted. I know someone
may be here to speak on that item, but I would just as soon that that
continuance be upheld.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree with that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I too.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Matthews, do you
have any other changes?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'd like to discuss the
possibility of -- of reconsidering the town hall project that came up
in that activity center there -- not town hall. What do they call
it?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Main Street.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Main Street. I can't ever get
the name of that. And I don't know exactly where that would be. Is
that a communications item, Mr. Dotrill, or is that under county
commission agenda? But I'd like to discuss the possibility of that.
MR. DORRILL: Probably best be 10(J). Is that the
project at Pine Ridge and Airport?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir, behind Carillon.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine, anything
else?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No other changes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion, please.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of the agenda
and the consent agenda as amended.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 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 REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 1996; SPECIAL MEETING OF
OCTOBER 9, 1996; AND REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 1996 - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have some minutes as well.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of the October
8th regular meeting minutes, the October 9th special meeting minutes,
and the October 15th regular meeting minutes, all of 1996.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF NOVEHBER 10-16, 1996 AS NATIONAL
WOMEN VETERANS WEEK - ADOPTED
Proclamations. Commissioner Matthews, I believe you
have one.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, I do, thank you. Is Kay
Flynn here in the room? And do you have others with you, ma'am? MS. FLYNN: Yes, I do.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: If you would, come up while I
read the proclamation. I have several copies; so I know there's
several with you.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds like this end of the
dais is verbally challenged today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's not the only end.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good morning. If you'd turn
around --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Face the camera.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and face the camera.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You've got to face the camera here.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: A proclamation.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is a live feed to CNN; so you're
going worldwide.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: A proclamation;
Whereas, 1.8 million women have served in the U.S. Armed
Forces, and women have served in all of America's major conflicts
beginning with the American Revolution; and
Whereas, women were hired in medical service in the wars
of the 18th and 19th centuries and during the Civil War as foragers
for supplies, cooks, and seamstresses, as well as saboteurs --
saboteurs? -- scouts, and couriers; and
Whereas, the Spanish-American War contributed to the
creation of the Army and the Navy Nurse Corps in the first decade of
the 20th century; and
Whereas, women were first recruited as members of the
armed services in World War I, in which more than 35,000 served in
roles ranging from nurses to telephone operators and was the first war
in which American women served overseas with three receiving the
Distinguished Service Cross; and
Whereas, World War II, in which more than 350,000 women
served, saw the first female officers and was also the first time a
large number of black women could serve in the American military; and
Whereas, the majority of the women sent to Korea during
the war were nurses, and again, throughout the Vietnam War, mainly
nurses were deployed; and
Whereas, the Vietnam Women's Memorial was dedicated on
November 11, 1993, honoring women's military service personnel, of
whom 14,571 live in Florida; and
Whereas, in Grenada and Panama the lines between combat
and noncombat duty became blurred as women led troops and faced enemy
fire. Operation Desert Storm, however, became the key turning point
when more than 41,000 women filled combat-support positions, the
largest single deployment of military women in American history and
7.5 percent of the total force; and
Whereas, today more than 200,000 women are on active
duty comprising 11.6 percent of the total force and approximately
150,000 women in the reserves or 13 percent; and
Whereas, November llth is designated by Congress as
Veterans Day, a day we pause to reflect on the many men and women who
fought to protect and preserve the American way of life, and this week
-- this week the women veterans deserve our deepest respect and
thanks for their many sacrifices.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of November 10
through 16 be designated as National Women Veterans Week.
Done and ordered this 5th day of November 1996, Board of
Collier County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Has anyone here been to the
Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C.?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I've been twice.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And the Nurse's Memorial?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think that was up when I
was there.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's -- it's very interesting.
They have a couple of nurses there with a -- with an injured soldier,
and there's kind of a cup in the iron between the nurses. And one of
the first things that got deposited in this little cup is a pair of
earrings and a tube of lipstick, you know, just absolutely touching.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 1996, AS COLLIER COUNTY
MANUFACTURED/MOBILE HOME OWNERS MONTH - ADOPTED
CHAIRKLAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine has
graciously allowed me to read his proclamation in his place this
morning; so if I could ask Art Longano to please come forward. Art,
if you come -- could stand here and face the camera for us, I'll read
this proclamation.
Whereas, manufactured/mobile homes have proved to be a
source of affordable housing for more than 1 million owners in
Florida; and
Whereas, the state legislature recognized the basic
property rights of mobile home owners and landowners that must be
protected, which resulted in the passage of Florida Statute 723, the
Mobile Home Statute; and
Whereas, for the past 34 years, manufactured/mobile home
owners from around the state have joined together for the purpose of
disseminating information and assisting one another to better their
lifestyle; and
Whereas, the Federation of Mobile Home Owners of
Florida, Incorporated, is sponsoring a Manufactured/Mobile Home Owners
Awareness Campaign during November 1996;
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of November
1996 be designated as Collier County Manufactured/Mobile Home Owners
Month.
Done and ordered this 5th day of November 1996 by the
Board of County Commissioners.
And I will make a motion that we accept this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Art.
(Applause)
MR. LONGANO: Thank you, Commissioners, for this
proclamation. My name is Art Longano, and I live in a manufactured
home. I am pleased to accept this proclamation on behalf of all
manufactured home owners in Collier County. If I may take a minute of
your time, I would like to put in a plug for the manufactured home
lifestyle.
We are very happy to live in our manufactured-home
communities throughout Collier County and the State of Florida. I
know there are some people who put down manufactured homes. They call
them trailers or boxes and believe our homes will be blown away, even
in a low-grade hurricane. This may have been true at -- many years
ago, but in 1976 and again in 1994 the Department of Housing and Urban
Development issued construction and installation standards for
manufactured homes so that today the modern manufactured home is
capable of withstanding winds as well as or better than most
site-built homes. I urge you to visit any of the manufactured-home
communities in Collier County and learn more about our lifestyle.
Thank you for listening.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I do that every time I visit my
SO '-
MR. LONGANO: Very good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Lunch at your mom's house today?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 3-9, 1996, AS RADIOLOGIC
TECHNOLOGY WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I believe that
you have a proclamation as well.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I do. And I'd like to ask Carla
Dean to come forward to accept it. Good morning. If you'll say hi to
Hom -- proclamation;
Whereas, the health of our citizens is a major concern
and responsibility of healthcare professionals serving the citizens of
Collier County; and
Whereas, qualified practitioners who specialize in the
use of medical radiation and imaging technology to aid in the
diagnosis and treatment of disease share a commitment to bring the
people of this community a safer, more compassionate environment now
and in the future; and
Whereas, professions in the radiologic sciences are
dedicated to the highest standard of professionalism and continually
maintain those standards through education, lifelong learning,
credentialing and personal commitment; and
Whereas, November 3rd through 9th, 1996, has been
designated as National Radiologic Technology Week to focus on the safe
medical radiation environment provided through the skilled and
conscientious efforts of radiologic technologists;
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of November
3rd through 9th, 1996, be designated as Radiologic Technology Week in
Collier County and urge all our citizens to recognize this event and
participate in its observation.
Done and ordered this 5th day of November 1996, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
I'd like to move we accept this proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Applause)
MS. DEAN: I'll be very brief, but on behalf of all of
the professionals in the radiologic sciences in Collier County, we
thank the commissioners very much for our recognition. We'll continue
to try and give our county citizens the compassionate care that they
so deserve with the knowledge and education that's required to give
them excellent care. Thank you very much.
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 4-8, 1996, AS ZONTA
INTERNATIONAL WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock, I
believe you have a proclamation now. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's a busy proclamation day.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It's proclamation central. This
morning it's my pleasure to recognize Zonta International. We have
members of the Zonta Clubs of Collier County, Naples, and Bonita
Springs here. Lisa Zeller and Elizabeth Winnie and any others you
might have brought with you. Just two of you this morning? If I
could ask you, again, to step up front and face the happy mob we have
here today.
Whereas, Collier County has approximately 100 women who
are members of the Zonta Clubs of Collier County, Naples, and Bonita
Springs; and
Whereas, these members are executives in business and
professions, conducting same in the proximity of Collier County; and
Whereas, these members give many service hours and
dollars to the community in the name of Zonta International; and
Whereas, Zonta International is a worldwide service
organization for executives in business and the professions working
together to advance the status of women; and
Whereas, Zonta International is composed of 1,176 clubs
in 67 countries with more than 36,278 members; and
Whereas, Zonta International, organized in Buffalo, New
York, on November 8, 1919, is 76 years old on November 8, 1995; and
Whereas, Zonta International, by sponsorship of the
first international summit on Violence Against Women in June 1995,
attended by 250 persons from the U.S. and eight foreign countries, and
by its inclusion both in the NGO and government portions of the recent
Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China, in August 1995;
and
Whereas, Zonta International and the aforementioned
local Zonta clubs work to improve the status of women through the
achievement of human rights for all, good health for all, and the
eradication of violence against women.
Now, therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of November
4th through 8th, 1996, be designated as Zonta International Week.
Done and ordered this 5th day of November 1996, John C.
Norris, chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move acceptance of this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Applause)
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a few service awards here for
our employees as well. First one, for five years with the planning
services department, is Stan Chrzanowski.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We also have, from long range
planning, Stanley Litsinger with 10 years.
(Applause)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And our next one is Mary Hehlmouer
from main library with 15 years.
(Applause)
Item #5C
LLOYD GIFT, ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION,
RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR NOVEMBER, 1996
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'd also like to ask Lloyd Gift to
come forward. Lloyd, if you could stand up here and face the camera
for us. Lloyd is with our road and bridge department in public works,
and he's employee of the month for November 1996.
Lloyd has been employed with Collier County for 11 years
and consistently receives excellent performance evaluations. He
arrives early for work, is productive -- which is good --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We like that, Lloyd.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- organized, very observant, and
safety-minded. Lloyd has a reputation for excellent customer service
-- we also like that -- and successfully responds to citizen
concerns. Without any reservations he was nominated and selected as
employee of the month for October (sic) 1996.
Lloyd, we have for you a letter for your personnel file
that says, "Dear Mr. Gift, it is, indeed, a pleasure for us to
announce your selection as Collier County's employee of the month for
November 1996. This well-deserved recognition is for your valuable
contributions to the county through your work in the road and bridge
department. This honor includes an exceptional performance plaque, as
well as a $50 cash award, which I am proud to present to you. On
behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, I offer our sincere
congratulations and also our gratitude for your dependability and
dedication."
(Applause)
Item #7A
DAVID TURNER OR A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE IHMOKALEE CHILD CARE CENTER
REQUESTING SUPPORT AND PAYMENT OF POWER AND SEWER/WATER CHARGES FOR THE
NEXT SEVEN YEARS AT APPROXIMATELY $11,000 ANNUALLY - TO BE PLACED ON
11/19/96 REGULAR AGENDA
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public petitions. We have two public
petitions this morning. I'll remind our petitioners that they each
have 10 minutes to present their case. The -- the board of
commissioners is not likely to make a formal decision on their
petition today, but perhaps may refer it to a regularly-scheduled
agenda item sometime in the future. The first one is David Turner.
You don't have to take your full 10 minutes, Mr. Turner, if you don't
want to.
MR. TURNER: Okay. I won't. Thank you for the
privilege, ladies and gentlemen of the board of commissioners, for the
opportunity to explain in somewhat detail our request in the form of a
petition for continued help in our expenses for the utilities we have
had over the -- over the years. For the past 32 years, you have
helped us with approximately $11,000 a year to subsidize the cost of
electricity and sewer.
With me this morning are members of the board and
staff. I'd like to introduce for just a moment Mr. James Jordan,
president of the Immokalee Child Care Center; Mrs. Donald Vining, the
background -- Mr. Jordan is a CPA; and Mrs. Vining is experienced in
nursing, the profession of nursing; and our executive director, Julia
Klarenbeek, who is the new director at the -- at the center with a
vast experience in the child care operations, and we're happy to have
her aboard.
(One person applauding)
MR. TURNER: I've got one supporter here.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One vocal supporter, anyway.
MR. TURNER: One thing I would like to point out is that
over the years you have given us a -- very substantial support, and
it's been going on -- not in the full amount, but nearly in the full
amount -- for the past 32 years. The petition we're asking you to
approve this morning is a request to continue that support for the
next seven years. And the question may arise, obviously, why seven
years? Well, we figure -- our estimate is that by that time we will
be firmly situated, stabilized, in the financial picture of the
center. As you know, we have just completed a new structure, an
ll,000-square-foot building. The children are in it. They have been
in there since July 29 of this year, and it's going along extremely
well. As some of you know, we are -- have been invited to the
dedication services -- ceremonies on November -- Saturday, November
16th, beginning at eleven o'clock.
I'd like to point out just one or two things, and that
is that we handle -- as of today we are handling approximately 86
children. That's on a daily basis, five days a week, feeding them
three meals a day: Breakfast, lunch and afternoon snacks. They are
professionally cared for with a trained staff and under the
supervision of the executive director of the overall control through
the board of directors, of which there are 24.
Our goal, of course, is to educate these children, to
care for them, and to give them a chance for a fair start in life; and
this is extremely important in this particular area, because the
children all come from low-income families. We can give them this
start with support which we have had from the -- from the -- the
county in general. And we have built this building and raised
approximately 1.2 million dollars, and this has come from -- not from
the government sources as such, the state or the federal, but from
local grants through United Way and a host of other very interested
groups who feel that the care of these children is ultimately very
important. The classrooms -- we have 11 classrooms. The classrooms
are manned by, as I mentioned, a trained staff, and we're underway in
the positive direction for the continued care of these children.
One or two points I would like to express to you so that
you understand this is not a plea for something that we do -- have no
opportunity to give something back in return. Our wages that we pay
the staff members, which amount to about 26 members of the staff, go
into the Immokalee area for the most part in the tune of $375,000 a
year through wages. In addition to that, we have the wages of the
parents who work because we are taking care of their children. I do
not have a statistical figure on that, but it's got to be sizable. So
we are returning something to the community.
We ask that the -- the board give sincere consideration
to -- to continuing the supplement of $11,000 a year. We know that
the cost is going to be more than that. We feel we can handle it, but
if you can get us down the line for approximately seven years, I feel
certain that we will be in a position to do our own work in that
reflection.
If it's possible -- and this is just a sideline on it,
but the thought has come to us. If it's possible to make this
retroactive to August -- we put the children in in the end of July.
If it's possible to do that, it would be great. It's not imperative,
but these are the little things that come down the line that we -- we
hope you can give consideration to.
So in a capsule we're asking for a continuation of your
supplement to our -- our costs. We have a budget of well over
$500,000 a year, which we have to go out and raise. Every family pays
something, but far less than 50 percent of the cost of a child per
week, which is $85. This is our story. This is where we stand, and
we thank you for the privilege of talking with you this morning. If
you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'd like to ask the board if -- if
there's consensus to bring this back on a regularly-scheduled agenda.
As you all know, we've been doing this for a number of years for the
Immokalee Child Care Center, so I think we -- we should bring it back
to -- to a decision point.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. Rather than ask the same
questions twice, let's just put this on a regular agenda item, and
that'll give us the opportunity to meet with the petitioner maybe once
more and -- and hear it in finality.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- just one question, I
guess, for Mr. Dotrill is, if we've done this for 32 years, why are
they even asking us about it this year?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Because they moved. They --
they were -- well, some background on it. The building they were
using is owned by the county, and the electricity and water and sewer
was billed to the county. They have now built their own -- own
facility --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and the water, sewer, and
electric is now in their name.
MR. DORRILL: It was not a cash payment, but we paid the
utilities on the building. This is something that Ms. Matthews
brought to my attention, gee, last spring in anticipation that -- that
I don't think they realized the benefit that -- that had been there
and the fact that we owned the building, and we always picked up the
utilities. They had not anticipated that in their budget.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I certainly want to have
the opportunity to continue that, so I -- I want to have a --
MR. DORRILL: In two weeks, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. We'll see you in two weeks.
MR. TURNER: Thank you very much, gentlemen and ladies
too.
Item #7B
WAYNE DALTRY REGARDING THE MISSION AND ACTIVITIES OF THE REGIONAL
HARBOR BOARD - TO BE PLACED ON REGULAR AGENDA
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next -- next public petition is --
is a -- is the iljustrious Wayne Daltry coming all the way down south
from North Fort Myers from the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council where he serves as executive director, and I'm sure he has
something very important that he wants to share with us; that's why
he's here on a public petition.
MR. DALTRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members
of the commission. While the information is being distributed here,
I'd just like to do a personal note to Mr. Dotrill that this election
day told me about the aging process when I went into the polls and my
son was a poll watcher and demanded to see my identification. So that
day is approaching faster than you'll believe. He also said that I
was probably too old to be allowed to vote.
But I -- I'm here with a group today: Derek Wolfe from
staff. I have the chairman of the Regional Harbor Board, Mr. Will
White. I have Kevin Dugan, Mr. -- Dr. Ed Beckhorn who are the -- the
Collier County representatives on the board. Bob Egan, the
harbormaster from Naples is also on the board. What's before you is a
-- is an effort -- the Regional Planning -- on a particular component
of the Southwest Florida living experience, which is cruising or
sailing.
Boating has been a major component of our growth and our
history. It's on the seal behind you. You have a -- the typical
reflection of the pre-20th century common form of transportation,
which was there, the paddle boat. But nowadays we have, as part of
our recreational experience, boating; and boating is something that,
hopefully, doesn't recognize a lot of borders. But in our area we've
had a lot of boating growth. We've gone from 40,000 boats in 1970 to
over 80,000 boats today. Ten thousand of them can be considered those
that are live-aboards, a phrase that has lightning strike some places
where you say it; otherwise, it's just a normal act of navigation to
spend the night anchored.
And in our area we're going to double that number of
boats in the foreseeable future just based on population growth. And
counties have been trying to protect the health, safety, and welfare
of their communities and in many cases have had to pass particular
ordinances to restrict or regulate certain activities of boating. The
State of Florida has its regulations; the national government has its
rights of navigation. And in order to try and make sure that our
current boating experience or our future boating experience remain a
component of the economy and the recreation that it is as enjoyable,
the boaters of Southwest Florida have asked that the Regional Planning
Council, DEP, that the West Coast Inland Navigation District, which
Collier County is not a member, that the Florida Sea Grant work in
partnership with them to come up with a program by which the needs of
boaters and the needs of communities could both be met.
The first effort was to create the Anchorage Guide,
which reflects -- which was developed several years ago, which
reflects many anchorages or the most popular anchorages in Southwest
Florida. That's included in a map and a handout that I used to bring
as a graphic, but it never worked well after I used it as an umbrella
one day. And you'll see for your own area -- on this particular map
it shows the south end, but you know you're the center of your own
cruising grounds. This is an effort that has never been done
elsewhere in the United States. We're trying an effort using state,
federal, local participation, and the boater participation to come up
with a regional umbrella of best boating standards or anchorages and
see if all communities can endorse that.
In your little package, you have a draft resolution
where we indicate that if this approach is agreeable, we would ask you
to suspend any boating regulations -- or anchorage regulations that
are in conflict in return for which you would have this regional
umbrella, which we hope would meet your same needs. If you have
specific anchorages where there are particular problems where
obviously this umbrella would not work, we even have an example of
what we considered a local harbor board approach.
Those five parties last year in a -- in a memorandum
agreement created the Regional Harbor Board -- which the agreement is
included in your package -- and provide for those five members a
member from each county, which you have appointed, and a member from a
boating community from each county to make up a board of 15 members.
That particular board is to serve as a technical assistance and
facilitation mediation tool for you to use should you have boating
conflicts and you want to consider seeing if mediation between boaters
or boaters and shoreline users can work as opposed to having the
effort of going through yet another -- developing a specific
regulation for a specific issue that then may not be particularly
transfertable place to place.
So this is our basic program. We're calling it the
first step in creating an aquatic equivalent of the Appalachian
Trail. The Appalachian Trial is a very well-known recreational
hiking, 2200-mile trip, if you do the whole thing, and what's not well
known is that it's not a federal program. It's an alliance of local
and regional hiking clubs. This harbor board, if it works, becomes in
part a keystone of what we hope is an alliance of local and regional
boating clubs up and down the coast to incorporate the Keys and
Southeast Florida as well as the area shown on the map to the north;
so that your boaters would be working within a program where the
common regulations expected of navigation -- boaters are applied
everywhere in communities through their own efforts and then identify
what they need in particular and the services that they provide and
this information gets out to boaters.
So this is the first step of a five-year program. If it
works, by the end of five years you'll be participating in what is a
cornerstone of what we hope is the Gulf Coast Cruising Grounds,
although we're having a name-that-cruising-ground contest. And if it
doesn't work, then it becomes something that is terminated. But this
is our first effort in coming to the communities to see if this is the
sort of thing that would interest you; and if it does, we would be
back at your request to any action item that we would ask some form of
this resolution be approved as your endorsement of the program.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I certainly think it's a great
idea. I know the City of Naples has already supported it, and -- and
I can't imagine it going forward without our participating in it, so
I'd certainly like to see it again.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have consensus to bring it back
for an action item?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We do.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Certainly makes sense to me.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Daltry. That was an
excellent presentation.
MR. DALTRY: Why, thank you, sir. I hope that was a 5.5
or so on the scale.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See you again.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That was a 5.5 on the scale of 5.6.
Item #8A2
RESOLUTION 96-495 GRANTING A REQUEST BY JOHN P. ASHER, P.E., OF COASTAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. TO PLACE FILL MATERIAL ON AGRICULTURALLY
ZONED LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 4 ACRES - ADOPTED FOR A THREE MONTH PERIOD
WITH STIPULATIONS
Okay. Our next item, then, is 8(A)(2).
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. Wayne Arnold, planning
services director. This is a request from John Asher, Coastal
Engineering, to place fill material and clear exotics from a 4-acre,
agriculturally-zoned parcel of land. The site in question is on
U.S. 41 North immediately south of the Getmain automotive facility.
There are currently -- there are eight mobile homes currently existing
on the site. There is a subject code enforcement case against those
mobile homes for minimum housing code violations. I understand the
property owner has also served eviction notices to those residences.
Staff was supportive of the request to place the fill
material on the site. There are severe drainage problems, and the
site is infested with exotics, and it is well below the grade of
U.S. 41. The one thing I would mention, we've typically asked any of
these fill requests to be completed within a certain amount of time.
We had initially thought 30 days might be a reasonable amount of --
reasonable amount of time given the size of the property; however,
given the complications with serving the eviction notices, we think
that three months would probably be a much more appropriate time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- I read in here that --
retaining existing native vegetation through establishment of terraced
areas surrounding each tree at the respective drip line. So I assume
that means that what we're not going to see is a site that gets nuked
completely and fill is covered on top of it, and we have just a barren
landscape on top. I need some -- you know, some level of comfort that
we're going to retain, particularly, the vegetation close to the
roadway as much as possible.
MR. ARNOLD: I -- I think we have done that. The
petitioner has assured us that they will create tree wells around each
of those trees, and it's primarily pines that -- that are there on the
site. A lot of the other vegetation you see is exotic vegetation that
will be removed. But we've asked them to install the landscape buffer
along the U.S. 41 property frontage as well.
One other thing that I would add is that they are
intending to put a perimeter drainage system in to contain the water
on their site. It is quite a low depression now, and -- and we were
concerned that filling it would create some impacts to the south, but
they have put in a water management system as well in their design.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The $25,000 bond will be a part of
this agreement?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions?
Public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion for approval.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And a second. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
Item #8A4
CARNIVAL PERMIT 96-5 RE PETITION C-96-5, REVEREND JOSEPH SPINELLI OF
ST. ELIZABETH SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A
CARNIVAL FROM NOVEMBER 13 THROUGH NOVEMBER 17, 1996, AT 5325 28TH
AVENUE SW, GOLDEN GATE - APPROVED
Next item, Petition C-96-5.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to make a motion we
approve Petition C-96-5.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #8A5
RESOLUTION 96-496 APPROVING A JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND FDOT FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A COHPUTERIZED
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we can make similar work
on the next item, 8(A)(5). This is something HPO discussed at length,
and I'm going to move approval of the joint participation agreement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second your motion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If Miss Jenkins has something to
say, I'd love to hear it before '-
MS. JENKINS: Yes. Anita Jenkins from your HPO staff.
Counsel has advised us to make one thing pointed out to you, and that
is on page 2 of the JPA that the reimbursement to the county is
totally subject to the legislative approval and appropriation.
there might be some slight chance that the county is not reimbursed,
but we need to bring that to your attention.
Also, we have a resolution on this item to pass out to
you, and the resolution is -- simply states that you are in agreement
with this JPA, and it authorizes the chairman to sign the JPA.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will amend my motion to include
authorizing the chairman to sign the proposed resolution with the
understanding that there's always some risk that financial funding may
not come through, but this is in the FDOT five-year plan and is to be
funded; so I think we're relatively assured that those funds will be
available.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Was there a second? I'll -- I'll
be happy to --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe Commissioner
Constantine seconded.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'll amend it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a -- an amended motion and
second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #SD1
STAFF TO CONTINUE FORWARD WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UTILITIES
INFORMATION SYSTEMS PLAN AND COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS WAIVED; HIRING OF
VACARRO CONSULTANTS - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 8(D)(1), recommendation
that the -- that the board authorize staff to continue forward with
implementation of the utilities information systems plan.
MR. YONKOSKY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good
morning. My name is John Yonkosky of your revenue services
department. Agenda Item 8(D)(1) is a request for the board to
authorize staff to continue on a -- a utility information system plan
that the board approved some three years ago. And by the way of
consideration, the current utility billing system processes
approximately 60 million dollars a year in user fees and in impact
fees. And in fiscal 1994 the Board of County Commissioners
commissioned Coopers & Lybrand to conduct a performance audit of the
utility billing process; and after that performance audit was
conducted, they came back to the Board of County Commissioners, and
the Board of County Commissioners instructed staff to hire a
consultant to put together an implementation plan to see what the
processes would be and the cost associated with implementing the
recommendations from Coopers & Lybrand.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Yonkosky, I assume the
reason you want to waive the formal competitive process is we've been
dealing with Mr. Vacarro up to this point successfully?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, Commissioner, that is accurate. The
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll move the
item.
MR. DORRILL: No speakers.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for the
item. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #8D2
INTERIM GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE FEE STUDY DRAFT REPORT PRESENTED. STAFF
TO PURSUE OPTION #3 AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND TO
ADVERTISE AN IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 8(D)(2), request for the
board to review the interim government service fee study draft report.
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, Commissioners. The -- this item,
8(D)(2), is to cover several different areas. One is to have the
board review the draft of the interim governmental services fee and
the report that is put before you and to provide any modifications as
deemed appropriate by the board and the board -- and to have the board
discuss collection options, which is -- is an issue that we need board
direction on. The -- there were actually four different options that
are in there, and I'll go over those in just a minute with you and
then to have the board establish a timeline or a timetable for a
public hearing on an implementing ordinance.
During the budget process for fiscal '97, the board
actually instructed staff to include a revenue amount of $927,000 for
the pro rata nine-month period, and that -- that is included in
there. And in board discussions that revenue was not reserved by the
board; so it's part of your adopted funding process. The first
feasibility report that went to the board showed that the fees would
start when we would begin -- we would begin collecting the fees based
on the point of collection process on January 1.
The -- there's a package of pros and cons associated
with each one of the billing collection points that are in the back of
your agenda package, and the first one was -- process that is to bill
and collect the interim governmental services fee after the
certificate of occupancy is issued. And that would mean that one of
your departments, probably revenue services, would end up trying to
bill and collect from each one of the entities, both nonresidential
and residential, that fee after the CO is issued. And the major
concern that staff has with that is that we have no enforcement
capability at all, and it would be very hard and very time consuming
to collect.
The second process was -- identified was to modify the
CO process itself, and that was to sort of extend the CO process and
put a certificate of completion before the CO, which the builder,
developer, would obtain. And then the person that actually was going
to occupy the facility would come in and present the -- to get the CO,
and we'd collect the money at that time. There's --
CHAI~ NORRIS: Excuse me. The -- the buyer of the
property would come in to get his CO separately from the builder? The
builders would not do that?
MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct. And the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Government bureaucracy.
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes. That would -- it would extend the
process. Staff is not recommending that. There's -- there's some
concern that staff and the community development division has with
that.
The third process is to collect the interim governmental
service fee as a one-time, non-ad valorem special assessment on the
next tax bill. That process can be done. The -- there's several
different issues that would be required to be addressed, and that
would be that you'd have to create a HSTU -- BU before the end of the
year; have to make arrangements to monitor, identify, and create a
separate roll that will merge with the tax roll at the next billing
process; and we would have to go through that process on an annual
basis. The county attorney's office is -- would have to verify as to
whether or not that process is legal. But it is -- it's a doable
process.
The -- what staff would like to point out to the Board
of County Commissioners is that the involvement of one or more
departments would be -- the fact that we would have to keep that
information and automate it -- we think that that may be a little bit
of an extensive process. And then the statutory requirements for the
tax collector would be that the tax collector would receive his
commissions, statutory commissions, off of it after it goes on to the
tax bill.
Thirdly, is that you would permanently set the actual
cash flow off for the first year. After that you would be receiving
the money every year, but you would actually permanently displace the
cash flow for approximately -- up to 11 months for the first year.
And finally, is the process that is to collect the
service fee at CO, and that is probably the easiest one to implement
for -- for your staff.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Collect it how?
MR. YONKOSKY: Those are your four options --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. Collect it how?
What was --
MR. YONKOSKY: At CO.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, okay.
MR. YONKOSKY: When they come in to pick up their CO,
there's generally reinspection fees, other types of items, but they're
required to come in and pick up the certificate of occupancy as the
final item in occupying the -- the residence. And as the study points
out, the occupancy is -- the demand is placed on county services.
The actual study itself is -- if the board would like, I can go over
the process involved in the study, because this is a study that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why -- why don't we see what the
public speakers have to say on this item.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I ask Mr. Weigel a
question? The -- No. 3 -- Mr. Yonkosky indicated in Option 3 we'd
have to hear from our legal staff if that was legal. He said it was
doable, but you'd have to brief us on the legality of it. I wondered
if you might give us a 60-second-or-less synopsis.
MR. WEIGEL: I can do that. Number 3, if we read this
correctly, is to collect the interim government services fee as a
one-time, non-ad valorem special assessment on the next bill. Is that
the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
MR. WEIGEL: -- one you're referring to?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I have a few -- a few comments to
make on that. In fact, rather than location, location, the word is
timing, timing. It would not be the creation of an HSTBU, but it
would be a -- a benefit unit, an HSBU, if it were to be implemented
with use of the tax bill. In the fall 1997 tax bill, it would require
the creation of the benefit unit by advertised ordinance prior to
December 31st of this year as well as the board would need to adopt a
notice of intent to use the tax bill mechanism pursuant to Chapter
197, the Uniform Method as it's called. And that would have to be
adopted prior to December 31st of this year, and by statute it
requires four weeks advance advertisement.
So it can be done, but the timing is -- is critical,
since we're in the first week of November right now, to try to
implement that for the tax bill mechanism of next fall. Additionally,
it would require an agreement with the tax collector and the property
appraiser to do the appropriate assessment roll merging and
application on the tax bill itself.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So we better get going if we're going
to do that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The second question is if the
fee -- whatever that may be, if that turns out to be higher than the
likely charge would be for an ad valorem tax -- if you have a $50,000,
$55,000 home, is there a potential penalty there for the county? Is
that an Achilles' heel to this thing?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the -- the risk to the county is the
-- the legal ethicacy of the methodology that's adopted. This is not
a tax, although arguably there -- there may be an argument that it
parallels a tax, because these are properties that are otherwise not
taxed in additional value, but would have been caught up if -- if a CO
appeared and the statutory requirements of the property appraiser
dating January 1st to a given year were in effect.
So it's similar to a -- it's similar to a tax in some
aspects, but it's not. And, therefore, the scrutiny is clearly an
issue. An Achilles' heel, I don't know. It depends on the
methodology itself. I've expressed at various times before this
board, both publicly and privately, my concerns with the methodology
and my agreement with the opinion of Nabors & Giblen that this is not
statutorily, constitutionally, or by case law, legal. From -- I
continue to work, of course, with the -- with the consultant and the
consultant's law firm in this regard, and -- and they have provided
you the package they have today.
One other consideration in regard to timing if I can
backtrack briefly and that is that I have an understanding or have
heard that the school board may be interested in a -- an interim
government services fee for the school board, although I've had -- I
am not aware of any direct requests to the board through a public
meeting such as this. If they were to come forward with -- with their
own program, they would, as Mr. Yonkosky and the report indicate,
require an ordinance of the county commission to go forward with their
program. And another question for this board is one ordinance or two
if the county goes forward with the program and also goes forward with
a -- an implementing ordinance for the school board program.
Just a -- a quick off-the-cuff thought is that timing
would be important, in any event, if you're going to implement two
interim government services fees in one or two ordinances. And the
question also in regard to defensibility, if we have one ordinance
with -- including both the school board and the -- the county's
interim government services fees, if the school board's methodology
doesn't pass muster legally but ours does, our ordinance would still
go down potentially if -- if there was a successful challenge to the
ordinance that incorporates both the school board and the county.
Likewise, the same deficiency or potential issue exists if our
methodology is incorrect and the school board's is correct and
defensible in and of itself.
But the board may well want to consider separate
ordinances, which has its own set of implementation requirements to
get it on the tax bill next -- next fall if that is the -- if that's
the mechanism that's chosen.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers, please.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. I've got three. Mr. Ward.
Following Mr. Ward I've got Mr. Rosen.
MR. WARD: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Whit
Ward, and I represent the Collier Building Industry Association.
First, let me thank you and -- for directing the staff and the staff
for working with myself and our association. I think they've been as
open as they could be with the strict time schedule that they've been
on trying to develop this fee. But I think Mr. Yonkosky has been to
our office and -- and talked to members of our association several
times, and -- and we've had very open communication, and we're
appreciative of that.
The -- as we all know, this proposed fee is a
replacement, if you will, of a partial-year assessment on our
ad valorem tax bill. The reason that we have not been able to have
partial-year assessments through our Florida Statutes from our
legislators is that a -- primary opponents have included the builders'
association -- the Florida Home Builders' Association, the Florida
Real Estate Association, and the tax collectors.
We believe that if we adopt this interim service fee, if
we use the Collection Method No. 3, that we could eliminate most of
this opposition. I think we're all aware that -- that Collier County
is going to be on the leading edge of adopting this fee. I know that
my counterparts in Lee County, Sarasota County, Charlotte County,
Hanatee County, and several other counties have told me that their
commission is looking at Collier County, tracking Collier County, and
-- and intend to adopt this fee if it is adopted here in Collier
County.
If we adopt -- if we collect -- adopt Collection Method
No. 3, we will eliminate the opposition of the builders and the
realtors, and we will accustom our tax collector to collecting the
fees, thereby eliminating the opposition from -- for partial-year
assessments on our ad valorem tax bills from tax collectors. We
believe then that our county, that you all, working with the tax
collectors, the builders, and the realtors can get what we really
need, and that's a partial-year tax assessment.
I understand that if we adopt Collection Method No. 3,
that it's going to be probably next November before we collect any
money; and we need to address that in our budget. I -- if I
understand the budget correctly in talking to Mr. Yonkosky, the amount
of money that we're talking about at -- compared to our overall budget
is maybe a little more than 1/2 of 1 percent or a little less than
1 percent, depending on how you figure it. It -- it's not a real
large amount of -- of money compared to what it would do.
And as a matter of fact, if we -- let's suppose that we
decided to collect the money at CO, at certificate of occupancy,
starting January 1. The position that -- that we would find ourselves
in with the building industry particularly is that when those
contracts were made, there was no provision for -- with their
customers in their contracts for this additional money. The fair way
to -- to do it would be to assess the fee on any building permit that
was issued after January 1, if it is imposed on January 1, and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I just ask -- the point being
if we don't do that, then the builder pays the fee instead of the
person having the impact on the system? MR. WARD: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Am I understanding you?
MR. WARD: That's correct. That -- not only that, but
the -- the builder has not built that into his -- into his expenses,
and -- and it can be a -- a serious hardship, especially if you have a
-- you know, 50 or 60 units that you're talking about. It -- it's a
serious hardship to the builder. And so the fair way to do it like we
do most other things, ordinances that we adopt -- may I continue just
for about a minute?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, sir.
MR. WARD: Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. So --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're going to continue anyway,
Mr. Ward?
MR. WARD: No, I'm not. I'm just going to tell you that
-- so in closing, I would like you to -- we would recommend that you
adopt Collection Method No. 3, and I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Rosen.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to have some questions
for Mr. Ward about -- at some point in this process. Would you like
for me to ask him now or later, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now would be a good time since he's
standing up on his two feet there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. WARD: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I know that there's been a
lot of discussion about -- I mean, this is obviously ripe for
litigation if we do it wrong. Our own attorney has given us caution.
Can you give us any kind of an indication about what the odds are that
we're going to be in litigation with the Collier building industry?
MR. WARD: If -- if we adopt Collection Method No. 3, I
-- I think the odds are slim and none. If the builders have to
collect or pay the fee, I -- I would think the odds are very high.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess that's it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. WARD: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Rosen, if you would. And then,
Mr. Nelson, if I could have you stand by.
MR. ROSEN: Good morning. Mike Rosen. I don't want to
take a lot of your time up, but we basically support -- or I support
what Mr. Ward had said. We're in favor of the fee. We think the
county should collect the fee. We think it's a -- it's a fee that is
a long time coming. The collection of the fee is the -- is the point
that we have an objection to. We would like the fee collected as
Mr. Ward said, and that's the stand we'd like to take now. Thank you
very much.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Nelson, and then, Mr. Pearson, if I
could have you up here ready to go please, sir, as well. Mr. Pearson
is your last registered speaker, Mr. Chairman.
MR. NELSON: Good morning. Doug Nelson speaking on
behalf of myself. We -- we do caution that the building industry is
very careful to not take a stand on the fee while as -- which is
really the point. There are some builders, though, that will tell you
that they are very staunchly against it for a lot of reasons. The
collection is clearly the issue. We urge you to look at
Recommendation No. 3, because the builders don't want to collect it.
I caution you against taking the easy route, which has been presented
by staff.
And second -- your -- your second option -- I might just
point out there was a suggestion made, and we've been to several
workshops with staff regarding having the fee being able to be paid by
the owner of the home separate of the contractor before CO. While I
don't want to confuse the issue, the present -- the -- the current
method suggested by staff isn't exactly what I had originally
recommended. There are ways to do that, but clearly all our research
shows Option No. 3, have a tax collector tax -- collect the tax -- or
the fee is the best way to go. I was going to say fee spelled t-a-x,
but again, that's not the issue. It's the collection. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: And Mr. Pearson.
MR. PEARSON: Bob Pearson here for Collier Building
Industry Association, also for All American Homes and myself. We
represent the -- a lot of buyers in a first-home buyer market, and we
feel that this fee, particularly collected at the time of CO,
represents a hardship to them. There are many times where the current
garbage fee represents a hard time. An extra hundred dollars is a
difficult amount for them to come up with at the time of closing when
they've already had to come up with several hundreds or thousands of
dollars. So from that standpoint we should look at this --
particularly a fixed flat fee is regressive, and it does penalize
these buyers more than others.
In addition to that, as has been said before, all of us
feel that the -- the issue, once it is passed, if passed, should only
be collected with Method No. 3. The others make it very difficult for
many of these buyers. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, for the casual
observer, I think it's important that we explain this isn't trying to
generate some great new source of revenue through a new tax or fee.
What we're trying to do is make those people who build a new home or a
new building pay their fair share, because the way our law is written
right now is, they can get a free ride for almost two years. And when
everybody else is paying for all the services in the county, if you're
in a new place, you may go as long as 20 months plus and -- and I just
think that's important to explain. This isn't some new tax just
trying to derive new revenue; it's trying to even the field for
everybody who is already paying into it. The new people should be
paying their fair share and lowering the existing people's cost.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You had asked a question earlier
that I think I may have a -- a more detailed answer for regarding what
if the tax -- or the -- the interim services fee is higher than what
they would have paid in county-wide ad valorem. Well, that first tax
bill they would receive is unimproved property plus the interim
government services fees. The improvements on the property are not
even being added as value; therefore, would not -- would not be taxed
under a partial-year ad valorem at the millage rate. So they're
receiving an -- a tax bill on unimproved property plus an interim
government services fee. So I think that keeps it well below what a
partial-year ad valorem or four-year ad valorem would have been.
The only concern I have on No. 3, obviously, is we have
a $927,000 revenue item in our budget that if we go with No. 3, we're
going to go the entire fiscal year without those funds. It, in
essence, puts us a year out in the collection of those dollars. I
like every single other thing about it. I think we can meet the time
frame. I think it opens the door to the partial-year ad valorem
argument far further than we could have otherwise. That's not the
focus of this, but if that's a -- a side note, so be it. I'm just
concerned. How are we going to make up $927,000 worth of revenue,
because we have actually budgeted it in this year, this fiscal year?
That is the big and only down side to No. 3 that I see.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you're right. It's a
down side. I think all the ups require us to move ahead. If we're
going to take this step forward, I think that's the best way to do
it. Mr. Dotrill, I know, insisted on some huge exorbitant reserve
this year anyway, so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Barring a hurricane.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- assuming that nine
twenty-seven doesn't all come due between the first three weeks of
this month, then I think we'll be fine, or the first four weeks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that a motion, then?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: You know --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll make one. I -- I move we --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to interject something
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- before you move not to go
with Option 3, and that is, we've -- we've heard the building industry
here tell us that the likelihood of their filing suit on this is very,
very high if we don't go with Option 3; and I -- I'm not sure what
would happen if they file suit. I mean, I -- I presume in January we
would begin to collect the money, but -- and, again, I'm not an
attorney, but I would think they would quickly follow suit with an
injunction to either prohibit us from collecting it or prohibit us
from spending it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My motion is for Option 3, if
you're --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- trying to persuade in that
direction.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, because I -- I think that,
yes, we're not going to get the money until next fall, $950,000, but I
think if we don't go with Option 3, you're not going to get it anyway.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I move we go forward with the
interim services fee using Collection Method No. 3 as outlined in the
staff report.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Yonkosky, you had something you
wanted to add?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Under Option 3 the
funds will not be there until starting in -- November 15th of 1997.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We just discussed that.
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, ma'am. And if the -- if that's the
direction that you're going, then you do have some other
alternatives. You know, you can have -- because what we're going to
ask for authorization to do if you choose Option 3 is to put an
interest rate on that, because the money -- you provide the services
effective when the CO is there. So what we would like to do is be
able to -- to charge interest --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's walk before we run on
this. You know, that's -- we're stretching -- we're pushing hard
enough. We're going against our own attorney's advice at this point.
I think if we --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not all of his advice, just some
of it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I think we should proceed
cautiously. I'm not interested in adding interest.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't read this as going
against our own attorney's advice here at all. That's not what I
heard Mr. Weigel say. And maybe I heard the wrong thing, but I don't
hear that at all.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I -- I'm going to second
the motion and not to -- to add interest. I think this is the first
year we're implementing this. Let's go ahead and pursue it. It's
going to require the county manager and this board to be very prudent
with our reserve use through the next fiscal year, which we are
anyway, but even with a finer-tooth comb to go through each individual
expenditure, including our fine sheriff.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we have a motion and a second
for -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Dotrill, does this -- or Mr. Weigel, either one -- is this motion
inclusive enough to get us where we want to go? I mean, we -- we need
to -- we have some time constraints on advertising and -- and doing an
ordinance and all that business, so --
MR. DORRILL: You could today authorize both the
necessary advertising to create the assessment and the required
interlocal agreement with the tax collector, because I will tell you
that Mr. Carlton hasn't -- and he doesn't like non-ad valorem special
assessments at all; and we'll need to have that resolved and --
hopefully to his satisfaction.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. But -- but this motion gets us
where we want to go, then?
MR. DORRILL: If you'll include those two additional
things.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The motion certainly contemplates
that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second amends.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion, then, amended
and second amends. And I'm certainly going to support this, but I
want to make it clear that it's not based on the threat of who may or
may not sue, but I just think that this is the -- the appropriate way
to go. I don't ever base my decisions on who might sue if we vote one
way or the other.
But we do have a motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I -- I'd like to
comment on your comment. I don't think anybody, especially I, were
saying we should base our -- our thought processes on somebody suing
or not. We were discussing the reality of $950,000. And based on the
probability of suit, we would not have that money anyway. And that's
-- that's what I base -- based my vote on.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. YONKOSKY: Mr. Chairman, I do need to get a couple
other items of direction from the board. One of them deals with --
the county attorney brought it up a little while ago about the
ordinance, whether it should be one or two ordinances should the
school board come to you, and staff's recommendation --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, let me -- let me try to
address that right away. I think the school board stands on their
own. This is one ordinance. It's our project, and I don't want their
progress or lack of to hold us up.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think -- I think, Mr. Yonkosky, that
I asked the questions that you're trying to get answered to the county
manager and the county attorney that -- was our motion inclusive
enough to get you where you wanted to go. So -- the answer came back,
yes, it was, so '-
MR. YONKOSKY: Well, there was a couple of items that I
-- I would like to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the other item?
MR. YONKOSKY: The other item was the City of Naples and
the City of Everglades City. Do you want the fees collected inside of
those cities? That would require a separate interlocal agreement for
us to get together and come back to you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly don't see why new
buildings in municipalities should be exempted.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. I think the consensus, then, is,
yes, we do.
MR. YONKOSKY: All right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would think if the school
board wants to participate in this and wants it in the same time frame
that we're doing ours, they need to do no more than notify to
advertise at the same time and simply enact two -- two separate
ordinances at the same meeting.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just didn't want to tie our
action to theirs.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I don't want to tie it to
theirs.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's up to them if they want to
do it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I would just like to say --
to tell -- to let them know that if they want to piggyback on this,
they better get started.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So please call Dr. Munz,
Mr. Dotrill, and find out if they do.
MR. DORRILL: He's ahead of us. He's hired the same
consultants you all have.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Figures.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're on their own course.
Item #8El
RESOLUTION 96-497 APPROVING A PROPOSED BILL TO BE PRESENTED TO THE
COUNTY'S LOCAL LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION TO AMEND AND CLARIFY SUBSECTION
367.171(7), FLORIDA STATUTES, TO PREVENT THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE
COHMISSION FROM TAKING AWAY FROM COLLIER COUNTY AND FROM OTHER FLORIDA
COUNTIES THEIR CHAPTER 367 JURISDICTION OVER SOME PRIVATE WATER AND
WASTEWATER UTILITY SYSTEMS - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Our next item should be an easy
one. This is a request for the board to adopt the accompanying
resolution approving a proposed bill to be presented to the local
legislative delegation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is easy.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're going to try to keep the Public
Service Commission from taking our authority to regulate local
utilities away from us.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are they -- are they really
doing that?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: I have one who probably is going to
support your motion. Dr. Biles.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you want to talk us out of
this?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you want to talk us out of this,
Dr. Biles?
DR. BILES: No, indeed. Fay Biles. I'm corporate
vice-president of the Marco Island Fair Water Rate Defense Committee,
and as you know, we were very instrumental in helping the county to
take back the reg -- as a regulatory agency. I -- I did want to
mention to you that we just got the news that SSU has now appealed the
last rate case that we won handily. Now they're appealing it; so
we're going to have to go back and do it all over again. But I think
it's very important that we support this particular action, because
SSU is not going to stop; and I think we have to verify.
Also the hearing for the -- by the SSU and the Public
Service Commission took place; and the lawyers presented their cases,
both sides. We have not had back that order yet; so we don't know how
that appeal went. But remember that if the appeal is denied, then we
go right back where we were before, and we'll report back to the
Public Service Commission. So it's very important that everybody in
Collier County, especially Marco and Golden Gate, support this
particular action.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #8E2
FUNDING FOR AN EPIC OUTDOOR DRAMA FOR $69,000 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
FUNDS, CATEGORY C - APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is funding for an epic
outdoor drama from tourist development funds, Category C.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's payback time, Mr. Compton.
MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners. Jean Gansel
from the budget office. At the October 21st TDC meeting, the council
reviewed an application from the Southwest Florida Epic Drama for
$69,000 for the development of an epic outdoor drama. The -- the TDC
is recommending funding of this event. The vote was 6 to 1. I'd be
glad to go into any more detail if you're interested, or the
applicant, Mr. Compton, is here; and I'd be glad to respond to any
questions.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ms. Gansel?
MS. GANSEL: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question. Who was the
one vote and what was the reason?
MS. GANSEL: Mr. Dougherty voted against the
application, and he felt that the -- Chairman Norris, if you -- you
can support me or change this. If I recall correctly, the reasoning
was that there was not -- there would be more people re -- seeing the
drama that would be locals as opposed to coming from outside --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, okay.
MS. GANSEL: -- the area. I'm trying to -- to recollect
his --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dougherty's objection, as I recall
it, was more directed to the use of these funds to develop a plan, a
business plan or --
MS. GANSEL: That was part of it, absolutely. I
apologize. Yep.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I have a -- a
question for the petitioner, and I -- I think it's something that we
all may be thinking about. We all read in the paper, I think, after
the TDC that the funds may be used for -- and what was quoted in the
paper, I think, was a feasibility study, where that may not exactly be
the case. I have spoke to Mr. Compton about that, and I go back to --
we approved funding for, I think, it was the Naples Institute to
advertise, you know, for future -- you know, for people to come for
meetings and so forth; and we have also funded for -- for direct
events.
This would probably be the first time we would assign
any funding in the forming stages of something, and I have two
concerns. One is, how specific a statement can we make regarding how
these funds are to be spent so that this doesn't have an application
that everyone with an idea comes to the TDC looking for a way to make
it a reality?
And the second part of that is, are we baiting the hook
and then going to have -- later going to be asked to allocate more TDC
funds either for construction or another study or lighting or whatever
else may be -- may be the case? So those are the two issues that I
would like the petitioner to -- to at least address to give me some --
some comfort level that, I guess, the TDC arrived at.
MR. COMPTON: Thank you, Commissioner. Rick Compton
with Southwest Florida Epic Drama, and I'll respond to both of those,
but you may have to remind me of what the second one is by the time --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. COHPTON: -- I finish the first. I think the first
one addresses the issue that -- is this a feasibility study, and --
and are we opening the door for other people to apply for TDC funds
for a feasibility study. I think the statement of a feasibility study
in the newspaper was a bit misleading. An outdoor drama is extremely
feasible in Southwest Florida, in Collier County specifically. We've
been working for nine months with the Institute for Outdoor Drama, a
department of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and we
are all convinced on our side and theirs that this is a very feasible
general location.
The feasibility study is actually the foundation of a
business plan, and what we're -- when we -- when the word
"feasibility" is used, I think we're talking about more in terms --
is one site more feasible than another site? Is one marketing
approach more feasible than another marketing approach? So, in fact,
what we're talking about is a -- is a high -- more highly-detailed
business plan than what you've even been presented with. I -- does
that address the first issue?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That does to -- to some extent.
The second one is, you know, I guess bluntly, will you be back asking
for more -- for more money?
MR. COHPTON: We do not foresee coming back to you and
asking for more money, coming back to the Tourist Development Council
and asking for more money. We are seeking significant grant funds
from outside Collier County, specifically from the Florida Cultural
Arts Facilities Program, the Florida Historical Facilities Program,
Florida Power & Light, HCI, and a variety of others to the tune of,
perhaps, nearly a million dollars. So in a sense not only are we --
do we not foresee coming back to the TDC for additional funds, but we
see the $69,000 that we're requesting here as being a lever which will
enable us to bring close to a million dollars into the community that
wouldn't come here otherwise.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And let me preface this -- we
sit down -- and -- and I love the idea. I think it has a great deal
of potential, and we talked all about that. I do have some concerns,
and I think they piggyback on yours in that this seems to be the very
first expenditure for a concept, and I -- I'm looking at page 13 of
our packet, "The Path From Here" timetable, and the elements include
the Institute of Outdoor Drama feasibility, which will analyze the
story line, preliminary budgets, and so on. It concerns me that --
and I've read through here. I know you have a basis for a story line,
but it concerns me we don't have a -- a story line in -- in some
concrete form.
MR. COHPTON: Excuse me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just --
MR. COHPTON: I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- run through them, and then
I'll let you tick them off.
MR. COHPTON: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Preliminary budgets is really
a -- a bigger concern for me, and if -- if we're not even into the
preliminary budget, let alone final budget stage, that concerns me a
great deal. Down on No. 3, under methodology, about three months
after the institute team visit, the study will be complete. The study
then becomes the backbone of the business plan. So it's not until
three months after -- and I think it says in here that they take six
or eight months to do that. So we're almost a year from now before
there is even a business plan, and -- and I guess it concerns me to
release $69,000 to something that doesn't yet have a business plan.
And we get down to the bottom of that page, contracts
are reviewed and developed; budgets developed; bookkeeping
established; the bylaws, charter, and 501(c)3 filings -- it just --
this seems like a -- a knockout idea that I think has the potential to
draw a pile of people, and the outline for what you have is great. It
seems as though this may be -- the request for money may be
premature. It seems like we're the first stop. And I understand what
you're saying about leveraging, but traditionally we have for
marketing and for advertising are trying to draw people to the area
with an existing program or with something that someone is creating on
their own; and then we supplement it. We don't start it.
And I guess the concern being there's no preliminary
budget, there are no bylaws yet, there are no -- so many of those
things; and I'm reading from your story line -- I mean from your
timetable. But no business plan, and -- and I'm just curious -- you
mentioned a number of other sources you either are or will be looking
for money. Have -- have you applied to anyone or requested money from
any private entities and been turned down at this point?
MR. COMPTON: In fact, we've been contacted by them.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because what I --
MR. COMPTON: You gave -- you gave me quite a long list
to respond to. Shall I start at the beginning?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. Let me just put a
final note on there. This says there is no existing sources of
revenue at this time.
MR. COMPTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm wondering what
sources we've exhausted then.
MR. COMPTON: Well, we haven't exhausted any sources of
revenue. This plan also was written prior to talking with a great
variety of landowners in the area who now are coming forward with
offers of donations of land. So it's likely that -- that that would
be the first place in which we'd begin collecting money.
If I may, I'd like to go back to the first -- the first
parts of your -- of your critique. And I can understand why, in
sitting in your position, that you may feel that some of these things
have not been done. However, there -- let's begin with -- oh, let's
say with the story line. We also gave you a package which details the
story line in -- in detail on pages 18 -- 17 and 18, I believe. The
story line is pretty well determined. We know that Act 1 is about the
Calusa. We know that its backbone is the three Spanish contacts with
the Calusa.
In terms of -- of specific characters that will be
developed or -- or emphasis that's weighted towards any one contact as
opposed to another contact, those things have not been determined and
will be determined with institute help. The second act is very
similar. It addresses the third Seminole war; so -- so to say that
there's no story line, I think, understates greatly the amount of
effort and consideration that's gone into this so far.
Second, I believe we talked about the development of a
business plan. A detailed business plan includes things like specific
media in which this will be advertised, specific media schedules for
that advertising, specific salary ranges for specific positions, and
things like that. We, in fact, have a business plan so far, and --
and you're in possession of it, I believe. It's -- it's this
30-some-page document -- document here (indicating), and it includes
things like -- like a specific budget. If you'll look on page 15,
there's a pretty traditional profit and loss statement forecasted.
And this is based upon experience at other outdoor theaters in the
area -- in the United States, rather.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm sorry to interrupt,
but let me -- let me touch -- you said final business plan would have
specific media and advertising plans and so on.
MR. COHPTON: Yeah. In other words, we'd buy so many --
so many pages, you know, on such a schedule in the St. Petersburg
Times. That would be -- that is a formal business plan.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And that's -- my
point is that I think you're shoring up -- my thought is that if the
-- the money -- the way the Tourist Development Council was created
and those monies are to be expended are to try to draw people from --
from out of the area, and it will require some advertising and some
publicity. And I know that you and I have talked about, conceptually,
how all that's going to happen, but it's conceptual, and we have in
here probable marketing tactics.
MR. COHPTON: I think that's where you and I -- you and
I deviate. The -- the marketing methods in terms of defining specific
markets, specific penetration, the types of people that will come to
there, the frequency of those populations within those markets has
been done. How we are going to talk to them specifically and the
specific words that we are going to say to them, the ad copy, for
example, has not been done. So the copy hasn't been written, but we
know very clearly where the people are going to come from.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe you can point out to
me, then, how much -- how much is going to be spent in radio in West
Palm Beach, and how much is going to be in that --
MR. COHPTON: Again, those specific media plans haven't
been -- haven't been laid; however, I can -- I can calculate that
quite quickly given the information here in front of us. If we know,
for example, that we're forecasted to do 1.9 million dollars in
overall revenue, and our advertising budget is scheduled to be
$216,000, then if you'll refer to pages --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While I'm referring, what is
the source of that $216,0007
MR. COHPTON: The source, the immediate source, is page
13, I believe, is the profit and loss statement that I was talking to
you about, and it's also --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume before you --
MR. COHPTON: -- from -- the Institute of Outdoor Drama
has provided history of other outdoor dramas as a model for this.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. I'm not asking
how you arrived at that number. I'm asking, where are you going to
get that cash in hand to spend on advertising?
MR. COHPTON: The money -- the cash in hand that will
come from advertising is going to come from a variety of locations,
none of which will be the Tourist Development Council. Some of those
locations will -- will include grants from other sources. Some of
those locations might include the collateralization of the land that
has been donated to us. You'll notice in here we also have a debt
service line laid out, and so we're anticipating some -- carrying some
debt. That's where that money --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't have the specifics
of where that two sixteen will come from at this point?
MR. COMPTON: We can tell you the general sources, but
not the specific amounts from each. And if you'll refer to page 10,
we've listed, perhaps, a dozen additional grant sources, all of which
we feel at this point we meet the parameters for which they are
currently giving grants.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many of those have been
approved?
MR. COMPTON: None have been approved. None have been
applied for.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the -- the point I'm
making is -- again, I'm not criticizing the idea, and -- and we've
talked extensively on that. But there is a possibility -- hopefully
it doesn't unfold this way, but the possibility is that with the study
and the engineering and architectural and legal and accounting and
administrative are all spent -- $69,000 is spent, and those grants
don't come through, or they only partially come through, and you end
up with $20,000 to advertise or anywhere -- zero to -- anywhere
between zero and two sixteen. I mean, we don't know is -- is the
point. And if you can't advertise elsewhere, if you don't have the
money to advertise elsewhere, it's going to be very difficult to
attract people from elsewhere without that advertising. MR. COMPTON: I would agree.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So my point is just with --
with the unknowns it seems a little premature. I would like to see
you -- and I'll use the golf thing as an example. One of the things
that we were criticized on that golf tournament, the -- how the idea
was sold to us was all the off-season advertising that would be done
for golf packages for people to come here, but there were very few
details. And then when we got the details back later, there was
Sacramento at 3 a.m. on the cable station and so on, and the board
took a great deal of criticism for that. And so I guess for my
comfort level --
MR. COMPTON: You would like to know --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that I would like to have
some idea where that's going to be and how it's going to be paid.
MR. COMPTON: -- what cities and what times our ads will
run in?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or at least some specifics
and -- and how much -- not how much you'd like to have, but how much
is readily available for -- for advertising. And, I mean, I'm an
optimist too; and I hope that all $216,000 comes through, but we don't
know that for a fact today. And I'm just -- I worry a little about
laying money out when the potential exists -- hopefully it doesn't
happen, but the potential exists -- we can't advertise it, and you
don't draw any money from outside. There are just -- those are
unknowns. I think this is a project that we could end up funding. I
just think we're premature right now, and there may be a couple other
points that you wanted to make on the questions I had raised, but --
MR. COMPTON: I'm not sure I can remember. Which ones
haven't I covered?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a couple
things that I didn't touch before. One is you -- you mentioned you've
talked with some people about the potential of donating some land. MR. COMPTON: Yes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't need the specifics of
that. You feel fairly confident, though, that you'll have -- you have
land at little or no cost?
MR. COMPTON: In fact, that confidence is growing, yes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I noticed one thing in here.
It says, "Land donation is a viable goal due to the amount of
agricultural acreage being taken out of production." What's being
taken out of production?
MR. COMPTON: Agricultural land -- well, I'm -- I don't
presume to be an expert in agricultural use or land use in Collier
County, but from -- from reading reports in newspapers and researches
for -- for other projects that I've worked on, I understand that two
factors are taking place. One, that agricultural land is, in fact,
being taken out of production in Collier County, particularly with
regards to peppers and tomatoes, and that land that is currently
farmed -- the citruses dropped last year at the rate of 19 percent.
So based upon that and the fact that we see farm land being built upon
all the time, I think it's -- it seems clear to me anyway, that it's
going out of production.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Some of the -- you're coming from
a very similar angle to the very point of discussion I had with
Mr. Compton in my office, and my primary concern, however, was to make
sure historical revisionists didn't write the script, but --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oliver Stone.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Nixon II. But as we went through
many of those things, the discussion regarding the fireworks display
that we just had at Lake Avalon, which the folks that attended -- I
was out of town -- have just raved about. I went back and looked at
what was presented to us for a $200,000 expenditure from TDC, and what
I saw was less detail than has presented -- has been presented by
Mr. Compton. Granted, it was later in the process, but many of the --
the guarantees that you are looking for, that I think we would all
rather have in any funding question whatsoever, were not present in
that proposal either. We were funding a concept. For all we knew we
were going to get five sparklers and a set of fire crackers out there
and this thing would not go on. But what we did is we invested TDC
funds in something that we felt looked feasible, because if it came
off well the first year, it would repeat year after year without TDC
funding and would become a tourism draw in the off season.
I look at this project in much the same light. The
difference is that was 200,000; this is 69,000. The total number of
people that this could potentially draw if it comes off is in
perpetuity. I did contact -- with the information you gave me, I did
contact a couple of the -- the outdoor theaters that do these types of
shows and asked them about their -- their fluctuations and season and
so forth, and it's with the weather. I mean, you know, it's -- it's
-- but the key is that they've been there for year after year after
year. And I asked them a failure rate, how many of these have failed,
and of the three I talked to, none of them could think of any that had
failed.
So you know, it's -- it's -- any time we do something
like this in the -- early in the process it's a bit of a hedge. I am
a little more comfortable with what has been presented in a $69,000
hedge than I was even in -- for the fireworks display and -- and,
again --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it's not going to answer all
your questions --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try to explain --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but that's at least my
position.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- what -- what I see as --
the difference between those two is in the firework display, there
were private funds that were committed. There was a big chunk of
money that was a known quantity that was committed. They knew where
they were going to advertise. They didn't -- and, again, I don't -- I
don't expect you to say, okay, an X inch by X inch in the Tampa Trib,
but some vague plan. And -- and we had that. We did have a layout.
We had a definite source of funds for how they were going to do it,
and the exact same company had a track record of doing this
successfully elsewhere.
So there were a couple differences, and I don't object
to the idea. I think it's a wonderful idea. I think it can and will
be very successful. I just don't know that -- if tax funds, even if
they're tourist tax funds, should be the very first stop and then try
to use that to leverage with all the other unknowns. The difference
with the fireworks is with that two hundred you knew for a fact they
had committed X number of dollars beyond that, and here we don't have
one dollar committed beyond that right now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There was some risk, you're
right, to the -- the applicant; and I guess I want to ask you,
Mr. Compton, what risk is it to you? I mean, what have you put up
personally in this project or as a group have put up to make this
board feel comfortable that you have something at risk here other
than, you know, losing face if this doesn't proceed?
MR. COMPTON: Well, that's certainly something worth --
worth protecting. However, in addition to that, we've probably logged
-- including myself, our board of directors, which includes five
community leaders, have probably invested -- I don't know, between
four and five hundred hours in gathering this information and assuring
that this is the proper market location and so on and so forth. So if
our work effort, our sweat equity, which perhaps is maybe the most
valuable thing that we could possibly donate, has -- has value, I
would offer that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to ask a question,
and I apologize in advance for asking, but of these items that are
listed in here totaling 69,000, script development and so on -- two of
you have championed this issue. Are -- are you any of those line
items?
MR. COMPTON: Not specifically, no; generally, yes.
Steve and I will be developing the script and the book that will be
going along with it, and our royalty agreements will be consistent
with -- with national royalty agreements, lower than. In other words
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the $10,000 fee listed
here isn't going to you --
MR. COMPTON: No, not all of it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or to Steve? Not all of
it?
MR. COMPTON: A great -- no. A great portion of it goes
to the Institute of Outdoor Drama, to service consulting, on the -- on
the script development.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much of the 69,000 will
go to you or -- or Steve?
MR. COHPTON: Much less than a third. I'm trying to
think of all contingencies.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So fifteen to twenty
thousand, something like that?
MR. COHPTON: It's possible, yes -- no. Excuse me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, it's not possible?
MR. COHPTON: It appears not to be.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry?
MR. COHPTON: It's -- it's not. I was calculating in my
head, and I calculated faster while I was talking than I should have.
Steve, having the advantage of not having to talk, was able to
calculate more accurately.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So is -- what is more
accurate?
MR. COHPTON: Perhaps -- yeah, 3,000.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we know which line items
those would fall under?
MR. COHPTON: Script development.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm wrestling -- sitting here
wrestling with the merits and -- and drawbacks of what's been
presented, and I'm also considering the fact that the Tourist
Development Council, who we have had a significant rift with in the
past as far as agreeing on funding ideas and approaches, did, in fact,
endorse this with one -- one member dissenting.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's unusual too.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I make a suggestion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I don't want to have to
vote against this, because I -- I like it a lot. I wonder if it might
not make any sense just to withdraw it until the time that one or two
of those grant funds that you're applying for has come through so at
least there is some other money available.
MR. COHPTON: I hear your concerns. First of all, this
grant -- other grant applications of the -- I guess there's three
things I'd like to say about that. The first thing is that those
other grant applications are invariably predicated upon community
support, and this is the opportunity to demonstrate that community
support.
Second, I'll say that of the 100 operating
not-for-profit or -- historical dramas around the country, all of them
began this way. All of them first gathered money from their community
in one source or another and -- and began developing the kinds of
things that we're talking about building here. We're fortunate in
Collier County that other places don't have -- we do, in fact, have a
tourist tax, which is -- which is developed and collected for the --
for the very reasons of -- of developing tourist attractions and
drawing tourists. So we're fortunate that we can depend upon that.
Other communities often had to dip into general treasuries or -- or
find other ways that they could support it. But this is not
atypical. As a matter of fact, this is the usual way of doing things
to develop an outdoor drama.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds like Mr. Compton is
asking for us to at least make a decision today one way or the other.
With that in mind, I'd certainly --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we have some other public
speakers.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we? Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just one?
MR. WEIGEL: There's one public speaker, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Call that speaker, please.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Stan Olds.
MR. OLDS: My name is Stanley Olds, and, I guess, in
listening to the commissioners up here, I had a lot of answers. But I
think the main thing is that the $69,000 is going to be the feed
money, and if you do it, then they can get other money. But I don't
see why they can't come forward with what money they can collect now,
and then present it to you and say, yeah, this is going to be a good
deal. But I -- I'm a little confused as to what -- what's it all
about.
Now, an epic program and that sort of thing can be very
good. It can bring more in -- a lot of tourists and so forth, but I'm
still a little bit hesitant about saying if we give you $69,000, then
we'll collect more. So I'm a little skeptical about this tourist tax
and the money that is involved here. Too often people come forward
with a lot of good ideas, but they haven't got the basis for private
people to put in other money. So I guess maybe that's my objection to
it, that they haven't come up with other funding and as
Mr. Constantine has brought forth several ideas. And on that basis I
-- I'm against this idea, and let it hold off for a while. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not going to sit here and say
I'm entirely comfortable with everything that's been presented. There
are some outstanding questions here, just as there have been on other
applications in different forms.
I'm going to move approval of the expenditure of $69,000
from Category C of tourist development funds for the purposes set
forth before us today with the understanding that no more than $3,000
of those funds can or will be allocated to the -- the presenters,
Mr. Compton and Mr. Hart. I think that's an important aspect of this,
that the funds go for true development and not for -- for personal
finances. And best wishes, because if this thing -- this thing falls
short, we and the TDC, if we approve this, are -- are going to be
scratching our heads and probably revising a lot of -- of the
standards.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think the history of other
historical outdoor drama programs throughout the nation say that
there's a high -- high probability that this will be -- be successful,
and I -- I've seen these shows. They're -- they're very successful,
and they're very well done. And with that I'll -- I'll second the
motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- before the vote I need to
state on the record that I'm advised by the county attorney due to a
friendship with Mr. Hart that I should abstain from voting.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second
for approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's approved 3 to 1.
Item #8E3
RECOHMENDED PROJECTS WITH CATEGORY A TOURIST DEVELOPHENT FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $556,050 AND CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING $502,500 FOR THE
PRODUCTION AND STOCK PILING OF SAND - APPROVED
Next item is 8(E)(3), Category A TDC funds.
HS. GANSEL: Okay. The TDC, at the same meeting,
reviewed five applications for Category A funding. I don't know if
you want me to go into detail on the projects. The first four that
are listed on your executive summary were approved unanimously by both
the City/County Beach Renourishment Committee as well as the Tourist
Development Council. The fifth project, the production and
stockpiling of beach sand, was not recommended for funding. There was
a 5 to 2 vote on that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The reason?
MS. GANSEL: The reason, the Tourist Development Council
felt that it would take as long to transport -- would take longer to
transport the sand than to produce the sand and felt as though there
was no reason for stockpiling it, since they couldn't disburse it as
quickly as it could be produced.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We do have today some people who are
going to give us some more complete information on this, and we may
want to reconsider this. I think probably what we should do is go
straight to those people who have the new information.
MS. GANSEL: That's exactly what I was going to say.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the record, I have no problem
with the first four. The one I do want to hear -- MS. GANSEL: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- some discussion on is the
production and stockpiling of beach sand.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. The -- the discussion at the
TDC went that why would we want to dig it up, put it in trucks, and go
over and pile it up somewhere; and then when we wanted to use it, put
it back in trucks and drive it to wherever we're going to use it. It
seemed like extra work, but we're going to hear today why we would
want to do that.
MS. GANSEL: I don't know if there are registered
speakers. I know Mr. Huber is here, though, to address that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Huber, then you have some
more complete information for us today?
MR. HUBER: Yes, sir. Thank you. For the record, Harry
Huber representing the office of capital projects. Yes.
Unfortunately, when this was presented to the Tourist Development
Council, we didn't have some up-to-date and accurate information,
particularly relative to those two questions: The production rate and
the delivery rate. Subsequently, I have gotten that information.
Essentially, the production rate to provide
high-quality, beach-compatible sand that will comply with the
requirements of the Florida Administrative Code would -- they can
produce about 800 cubic yards per day; and at this point, the
application is for production of 50,000 cubic yards. So that equates
to about a little bit over 60 days to produce that quantity of sand.
Then if -- and this application is for the delivery on an as-needed
basis or -- primarily on an emergency basis, although we do have
several projects that we can use this sand for routine maintenance.
For instance, we've got a project planned down on Hideaway Beach where
we're going to need about 20,000 cubic yards probably, hopefully, in
early spring.
But from an emergency standpoint, back when we were
closing down on the -- the completion of the -- the beach restoration
project, we were contemplating possibly having to haul in sand on --
to complete the project, and when we went through the calculations to
that point based on trucking at 12 hours per day, 20 trucks, the
50,000 cubic yards could be delivered to the beach in about 22 days.
So I think the information that the Tourist Development Council
considered was more or less the opposite of that scenario.
But I do have Dr. Stephens available to answer any
questions; as well as Mr. Lydon, who's the chairman of Beach
Renourishment Committee; and Mr. Blanchard, who's also chairman of the
Marco Island Beach Renourishment Committee.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I think the information that was
not presented at the TDC is that this sand needs to be processed and
cleaned before it's then loaded into trucks and hauled to the beach,
and that was the information that we didn't receive at the TDC level.
And that makes a big difference in -- in the way we need to treat
this, because if -- if we need to put some sand on in a hurry
somewhere, there's a -- there will be a substantial delay in
processing and cleaning and drying of the sand before we can put it on
down there. So that -- that's the big difference in the presentation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask you, if we were going
-- if we needed 20,000 cubic yards next week, how long would it take
to clean, dry, process, and -- and deliver that material?
MR. HUBER: Well, basically, at 800 cubic yards a day,
in excess of 20 days.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's just not
satisfactory. I agree. If you didn't have that information at TDC,
that explains why the vote went the way it did, because it seems to me
this is an appropriate expenditure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I came into this today
leaning with, you know, why are we going to pick it up, move it, set
it down, pick it up, move it again? It's not going to save us any
time. But what I'm hearing is, if we need anything of any substantive
yardage, it's going to take one, two, three additional weeks; whereas,
if we have it stockpiled, then it's as simple as a front-end loader
and some dump trucks and off we go? MR. HUBER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Plus we'll be buying it at a reduced
price --
MR. HUBER: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- to stockpile it.
MR. HUBER: And the other thing is -- and, of course,
this application is primarily for the purpose of creating a budget for
-- for this function, but we will have to come back with an actual
contract, you know, setting out all the details. But, yes, that
essentially is the case, that we'll have -- it will be sitting there
in a fenced-in area, and all we need to do is back the trucks up and
head down the road.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume that contract will also
give this board some assurance that the sand being purchased is the
best quality for the money as opposed to just single sourcing this and
saying this is the only person we're going to use. I mean, we need to
know that there's a reason for the vendor being chosen.
MR. HUBER: Right. Well, the reason primarily this is
the only approved source of upland sand that we have available to
place on the beach --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that's approved by DEP.
MR. HUBER: -- and that's already been approved by DEP.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's what I was asking
is, why -- why are we looking at one source?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I have -- I have a
question if Commissioner Hancock is finished. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When we enacted the third penny
in TDC money in order to advance the renourishment project last year,
was beach maintenance of this magnitude included in -- in the -- the
long-term budgeting that we saw?
MR. HUBER: I -- yes, I believe that it was. You know,
we've got that spreadsheet that goes out 15 years -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, that one.
MR. HUBER: -- and even at this point in considering
this application here, we still have the cumulative fund balance of
over 3 million dollars; and I don't -- I don't think this is an
adverse impact on paying off the -- the debt within the designated
time period.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, that's -- that's what my
concern is. We enacted that with -- with the idea that that third
penny would go away in four years or less, and -- and I just want to
make sure that in the spreadsheets that we examined when we did that
that this --
MR. HUBER: We certainly did have --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- million dollars --
MR. HUBER: -- that money allocated for maintenance
purposes, yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sorry.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's be -- let's be clear on
that point. That third penny is supposed to go away as soon as the
cost for renourishment that -- that single-phase cost is accrued with
that third penny or with the total taxes. As soon as that's accrued,
that penny is to go away, and that's four years -- that should be four
years or less.
MR. HUBER: And -- and that payback schedule has already
been established and is included in the spreadsheet.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And we're on track with
that spreadsheet? This does not put us outside of that curve at all?
MR. HUBER: No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, that's -- that's what --
what my question is, is that this million-dollar expenditure is not
going to slow down the process of paying off the debt.
MR. HUBER: No, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move approval of all
five recommended options. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for --
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, wait. Mr. Lydon was
registered. And in light of the motion, do you still want to speak,
Mr. Lydon?
(Hr. Lydon responded negatively.)
MR. DORRILL: I always ask.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: A wise man, that Dick Lydon.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. We'll take a very short
break and be right back
(A short break was held.)
Item #9A
RECOHMENDATION TO SETTLE COUNTY'S CLAIMS IN COLLIER COUNTY V. DESIGN
STUDIOS WEST, INC., ET AL. COLLIER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO.
96-2180-CA-01-THB FOR $43,000 - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission
meeting. Our next item is 9(A). Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Assistant county attorney Michael Pettit
will address you briefly.
MR. PETTIT: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike Pettit,
assistant county attorney for the record. I'm here to present a
recommended settlement of a lawsuit that we filed in June against
several design professionals related to Vineyards Community Park.
There was a mediation of this lawsuit in early October, and at that
time, after a number of hours of discussion, we agreed to bring back
to the board -- and by we I mean myself and Adolfo Gonzalez of the
office of capital projects management and the senior project manager
now on this project, George Parker. This settlement proposal is for
$43,000, which would be payable to the county within 30 days after
approval. Attorneys' fees and costs would be borne by the parties,
and that's pretty much it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Pettit, what's the cost for
repairs out there?
MR. PETTIT: We have estimated at -- at the -- at this
point that we have legal damages or legal damages we can argue about
somewhere in the neighborhood of ninety-eight to maybe up -- low
hundreds. My understanding is right now we have spent $16,000,
approximately, to fix drywall that was damaged. We have spent around
$9,000 to repair and actually install some drains and -- and
downspouts.
Now, that actual work order item was around twenty-four,
but the reality is we were going to have to pay for the downspouts had
it been properly recommended to be in the specs in the first place by
the design professional, which it was not. So we worked that out and
came up to a figure of around 9,000; so that gets us to 25,000. There
was recently a new work order issued to do what we hope are final
repairs of around 42,000. So my numbers are showing 67,000, plus
we've paid Law Engineering and more recently Forge Engineering about
$4,000 in fees to investigate the cause of the problems and also to
begin to prepare to act as an expert if the case were to be tried.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we have 71,000 more or less
out there. We're recouping forty-three, and this is a good deal?
MR. PETTIT: In my opinion, it is for a couple of
reasons. I do think that, obviously, we have two and possibly three
design professionals involved. There are going to be a lot of
defenses. There will be a lot of finger pointing. We think we have a
case we can win, but I think it's going to cost us $20,000 or so to
win the case; and the damages as you can see, although substantial,
are not huge. I mean, $98,000 --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if it's 20,000 to win, that
gets us -- that's sixty-three; and we still have -- I -- I mean, the
math doesn't make sense.
MR. PETTIT: Well, I also think that you need to take
into account that -- that I've identified about $71,000, I think, in
what I would call hard damages. Some of the damages we've asserted, I
think -- reasonable lawyers could argue about all day long as to
whether they're recoverable.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're saying that reasonable
lawyers is an oxymoron. I just thought I'd be the one to say it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It's --
MR. DORRILL: The other contention that he made is an
important one. Errors that are -- are made that are attributable to
omissions, even though they -- they may be legitimate omissions, my
understanding in -- in trying to deal with architects in particular is
that if -- if he forgets to do something that you would have otherwise
paid for as part of the original bid on that structure, in this case
downspouts as part of the -- an architectural-designed gutter system
that is built into this roof, is -- is not something that we can
claim. That's something that, perhaps, should have been in the
original bid, and -- and -- so I think you need to take that 9800 off
of that amount.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, what -- let's say we
have another park we're going to build and Design Studios West puts a
bid in to do the job. Based on this agreement, are they affected in
any way in bidding on future jobs in Collier County? You know,
obviously my question is, if we have to -- you know if they have a
track record, at least one time, of not doing work to a satisfactory
level, we should be able to, in my layman's opinion, preclude them
from receiving county work until the firm is dissolved, changed,
bought, everyone's fired and someone's hired.
MR. DORRILL: I don't think that you could ever preclude
them from bidding, which -- which was your first question. I think
that if we had experienced and intend to go through mediation to
resolve a -- what our perspective is -- a design error, I think that
we'd want to take that into consideration and the fact that we needed
to take it through mediation in order to get it resolved.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I just don't want to -- if
we approve this today, I don't want it to seem that everything's
peachy, and Design Studios West can pop back in and do work for the
county anytime, because obviously, we don't have a track record that
says that's a prudent thing to do with tax dollars. Mr. Weigel, does
that process -- and do we have a tracking record that allows us to do
that?
MR. WEIGEL: I missed just a little bit of Mr. Dorrill's
comment, but our purchasing policy itself has several factors that are
reviewed with submitted bids, and included is the past work history
both with the county and the community. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: So that's something to be taken into
account.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right.
MR. DORRILL: No speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No speakers?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not entirely happy about it,
but Mr. Pettit seems to feel that it's best to cut our losses at this
point, recoup what we can, and -- and move ahead and -- with the
caveat that past experiences are considered in all bidding processes.
So I'm going to move approval of the settlement. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That also includes authorizing
the chairman to -- to execute appropriate settlement documents, and it
also includes the necessary budget amendment to recognize the revenue.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's unanimous.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 96-498 APPOINTING FREDRICK D. MORGAN, II AND VIVIENNE
JOHNSON NIEHAUS TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
Next item, 10(A), appointment of members to the Black
Affairs Advisory Board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I believe we have
more than two vacancies; we have two applicants. I do understand the
Black Affairs Advisory Board has revised their -- their recommended
list; however, I'm going to move Fredrick Morgan and Vivienne Niehaus
to be appointed.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response)
Item #10AA
DISCUSSION REGARDING COHMISSION TRAVEL MONEY - DISCUSSED AND
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS TO SEEK LEGAL OPINION
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this next item
I had put on -- I've got -- had conversations with one of the taxpayer
groups and a couple of individuals and went as far as Carl Loveday
asking me about it last week; so I thought it best to put it on the
agenda. And that is Commissioner Matthews and the Leadership Florida
funding, and what I told Carl is -- was I'm not that worried about
Commissioner Matthews doing the right thing. We -- what I don't want
to see is this become the Rich King topic of the week.
The last couple of weeks I've enjoyed working with
Commissioner Matthews, and I don't need -- I don't think she needs
that nonsense on the radio and -- or anywhere else for that matter;
and I just wanted to -- I don't know how much discussion's necessary
on it, but to get some confirmation that taxpayers aren't paying for a
program through next June and -- but, however, obviously there's some
benefit on the front end and whatever that pro rata share is.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've been working with the
clerk's office on this since shortly after September the third. In
view of the rumored discussions that were going on shortly after that
period of time as well, I asked the clerk's office to obtain for me a
legal opinion, because now it became a question of precedence in
diminished office if we were going to have a Board of County
Commission retroactively decide that there was no -- no longer a
public purpose in the expenditure of money when there was a public
purpose at the time it was spent. That legal opinion I received
yesterday at 4:45 in the afternoon, and I am reading it. I'm
digesting it, and I will be talking with Mr. Weigel about the other
concern that I have on this.
I -- I regret that this has become a public issue.
Frankly, because of the public purpose of the original expenditure and
the -- what appears to be a decision that, perhaps, a public purpose
ends at a specific point in time, it just makes it very, very
difficult to quietly do what I had otherwise decided to do. And now I
need to get additional legal opinions to be certain that there's not a
precedent being set and -- and further diminishing any officeholder in
this county. So I will pursue that, and certainly as time goes on and
these -- these questions are answered, what is the right thing to do
will be done. That I can definitely assure you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess that's all I'm
looking for. And, unfortunately, in public life perception is
reality, and that's -- I don't want you getting crucified on the Rich
King Show or on any of the other programs.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've been crucified many times.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Been there, done that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Been there, done that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's legal and what's right
aren't necessarily always the same thing either, and I understand your
point in trying to have legal precedent here; and at the same time the
concern as it was expressed to me from -- particularly from the
taxpayer group was that the program goes on well into next year after
you've left office.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It -- I find it quite strange
that the taxpayer group who approached you failed over the last eight
weeks to speak with me at all about this and -- and get some
determination of what my plans were. As I said, the rumors were
going, they were coming back to me third and fourth hand, and it's at
that point that I had asked the clerk's office to get me a legal
opinion on it, because I think it's very, very important that a public
official not succumb to -- to undue pressure and somehow diminish the
office that -- that's being held.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think anybody's
talking about diminishing the office. I have a copy of the memo, and
it says -- the final line just before the conclusion says, "Obviously,
if the county has prepaid any travel expenses beyond her term of
office, these should be reimbursed." And I don't think that can be
any clearer.
I participated in the Leadership Florida program, and
the majority of the expense in the Leadership Florida program is the
hotel and food that is provided for each three- or four-day weekend.
And -- and so all I'm trying to do -- and apparently we're going to
have a debate on it. I -- I thought it was going to be a simple
answer, and -- and the question was, there's a -- a program -- next
week, I think, is the second one, and the third one's in January and
two months after that and, again, two months after that; and -- and
you're leaving office in a couple of weeks.
And as it was presented to me, the concern is, and I
share the concern, that taxpayer money be paid for a program six
months after you've left office. And -- and I think the legal opinion
is fairly clear. If you had it yesterday, I assume you've read it.
And I just -- that's why I -- I didn't assume there would be any
question after seeing that. I just would like to get some commitment
from you today.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the legal issue? I mean,
it -- it sounds like you're concerned that you -- if you refunded the
money you could be hurting us somehow?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Future precedent-type -- type
issues. That -- that to me at this point is -- is what the legal
issue is. The money in question is considered tuition, and the -- the
conclusion Mr. Pickworth reached, to me, definitely says that the
tuition should not be required to be refunded. And as I say, up -- up
until a month ago, it was quite clear in my mind, the discussions
Mr. Bright -- Mr. Brock and I were having, and then the waters became
muddied very quickly.
But with that in mind, with -- with all due respect, I
will be conferring with David Weigel about this opinion and to get
further interpretation on it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And just -- just so this doesn't
appear to be a -- if you will, a contest of two, I have been -- you
know, people have called me on this issue. I became aware of it
shortly after the primary, and in deference to you, you know, I have
-- have not taken any action whatsoever. But I find it unfortunate
that a legal opinion is required. If you, as an individual
commissioner, feel that there is a course of action that is fair and
just to the taxpayer and you take that course of action, it doesn't
set any precedent whatsoever. It's an individual decision that you
feel is -- is right and fair and is viewed as that. However, by
requesting legal opinion on this, it, to me, seems an unnecessary
step.
I personally feel that if I -- if two years from now, I
have a -- an FAC legislative conference that's scheduled after the
election and I'm not reelected, those costs need to be reimbursed if I
plan on attending that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is this your way of announcing your
campaign?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hypothetically.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's strictly hypothetical.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I just -- I think asking for
a legal opinion is -- is -- appears to be seeking backing for
something that doesn't seem to be right in the first place. So like
Commissioner Constantine, I had hoped to avoid a -- a us-and-them or
-- you know, type of discussion that we're having. But the bottom
line is, I think if you ask the average person should a partial
reimbursement be made by you for that part of the program that extends
beyond your term of office, the answer appears to be yes without
having to set legal precedent. I think that's what you had come to
originally. But by asking for the legal opinion, we're spending the
clerk's time and money on something that is just a question of doing
what, I think, most people would say is -- is the right and prudent
thing to do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And frankly, I don't think
you're going to find a lot of taxpayers argue with you if you decide
to give money back to the general fund.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sure I won't.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I would just -- I would just
ask -- so it's up to you to do one way or the other, but I -- you
know, follow your instincts.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And I would -- I would suggest,
then, that you allow -- allow me to go through the process of making
sure that the office of the County Commissioner for District 5
maintains its integrity. I would expect that won't take more than
another week.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the best way to
maintain the integrity would be to return the money to the taxpayer.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 96-499 APPOINTING HERBERT H. NOREN TO THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY
- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Next item is 10(B), appointment
of member to the Airport Authority.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if you recall,
one of these folks had some difficulty with the Airport Authority in
the past, and I'd like to go ahead and nominate Herbert Noren.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 96-500 APPOINTING GARY WRAGE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 10(C).
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, it's nice to see
that finally for the remaining part of District 5, mainly Golden Gate
Estates, North Naples, Everglades City, etc., we can finally have a
Planning Commission member that does not come from Immokalee. This is
the first time this has happened since the two Planning Commissions
were combined, and that adjustment was made in our code in 1993.
I would like at this time to make a recommendation for
Gary Wrage to be appointed to -- to the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 96-501 APPOINTING JEFF SCHOENFELD AND WILLIAM SNAPP TO THE
HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 10(D), Health Planning
Council.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
nominate Jeff Schoenfeld under the consumer. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miles Drake?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miles Drake, that's fine,
Miles Drake under the healthcare provider.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion, then, for Jeff
Schoenfeld and Miles Drake.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I'm sorry. I'm not -- I
don't have a problem with Jeff Schoenfeld. I'm -- I'm looking at
Miles Drake. I don't -- I didn't read his resume. I apologize. I
was just -- I was ready to -- to support Bill Snapp. At least until
we get another large-scale healthcare provider in town, NCH does play
a rather large role in -- in that part of the community. So I was
leaning towards Bill Snapp.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I join you in that. I would
like to see -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want to take them
separately? We'll do the consumer first and then --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Consumer first. We have a motion. Do
we have a second for Jeff Schoenfeld?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for Jeff
Schoenfeld. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's 4 to 1.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the -- the second position, I
-- someone had already intended to make a motion for Miles Drake. I
don't know Mr. Drake at all one way or another, and I've at least
listed why I think Bill Snapp would be a good appointee. If it's not
contrary, I would like to appoint Bill Snapp.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: My -- my opposition -- I'm going to
vote against this, and my opposition is that this is the -- the one
that we had the difficulty with -- the board that we had the
difficulty with, not -- not the person, but the board that we had the
difficulty with some weeks ago is -- why we readvertised to bring it
back up here was because we didn't feel it was proper to have the
council appoint its own members, which was what was happening in the
past. And, therefore, I'd like to send the message that's not what we
want to do, and we would like to pick our own; and that's why I -- I'm
going to support someone else and for no other reason.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood, understood.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It appears Mr. Hancock's own
is Bill Snapp.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We do have a motion and a
second for Mr. Snapp. All those in favor signify by saying.
Opposed?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Aye.
And that takes care of that one.
The next one -- now you guys have got me going here.
I'm starting to not be able to talk here.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The healthiest board in
America.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 96-502 APPOINTING HARK LAMOUREUX, DONALD G. ASHE AND MICHAEL
SIHONIK TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The next one is --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, there are three
vacancies and three people. I'll nominate -- or I'll make a motion
that we fulfill -- or fill those terms -- I can't quite speak -- with
each -- with all of those, Mark Lamoureux, Donald Ashe, and Michael
Simonik.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Three and three?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I -- I'm not -- I guess I'm
not going to oppose, but we have had discussions in the past about
those individuals that are strongly affiliated with organizations in
town not being able to separate themselves and their expertise from
that organization's policy and position. And I -- I think we had
actually made those decisions in the past, and Mr. Simonik appears
before this board regularly representing the Conservancy, is paid by
the Conservancy. I like his -- his technical background, but I just
question whether we should place individuals so closely affiliated
with organizations on there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do they have the independence to -- to
vote other than the --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's a genuine
concern. The only reason I'm supporting him in my nomination is we
advertised for three members, and we got three members. Unless
someone is grossly unqualified, we traditionally don't -- but I agree
with you wholeheartedly, and I think that needs to be monitored to
make sure they are separated.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we have a second for the
motion?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That one passes 3 to 2. That was
Norris and Hancock.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to reconsider.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion to reconsider.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll drop the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion withdrawn.
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 96-503 REAPPOINTING RITA AVAOS, DORCAS F. HOWARD AND
CHERRYLE THOMAS AND APPOINTING MICHAEL S. GARRETT, JR. TO THE IMHOKALEE
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMHITTEE - ADOPTED
10(F), appointment of members to the Immokalee
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're appointing three members?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have four --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have three members and four
-- we have four vacancies and four applicants. I make a motion that
we approve the applications of Rita Avalos, Dorcas Howard, Cherryle
Thomas, and Michael Garrett.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Who gets the one-year term?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why don't we just have them draw
-- draw straws?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: For the remainder of the vacant term?
MS. FILSON: The reappointments are usually done for
full terms, and then the -- the remainder is to fill the remainder of
the vacant term.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like Bettye's suggestion of
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. We've -- we've done that
on the Government Productivity Committee. Why don't we just ask that
they decide amongst themselves which one of the four will fulfill the
one-year term and communicate that back to you, Miss Filson. I think
that was the intent of the motion.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It certainly was.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second for that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought we did but I'll second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #10G
DISCUSSION REGARDING LOBBYING COALITION - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
FILSON DIRECTED TO CONTACT OTHER COUNTIES REGARDING THEIR INTEREST IN
CONTINUING HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 10(G), discussion regarding Lobbying
Coalition.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who put this on the agenda?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. Who put this on the agenda?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I didn't.
HS. FILSON: Commission Norris, you asked me to put it
on the agenda for discussion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This was at Miss Filson's request to
see if we were going to do it. I think Lee County has indicated
they're not real hot on the idea.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't know if they're going to
continue it or not. Charlotte County has not really participated in
the past, have they, to any degree?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They've -- they've gone up
there. The real question is, this board -- and I don't remember. I
-- I was in -- on the -- in the dissenting on this, but this board
put in our budget the $5,000 for the apartment, and that was this
board's statement that we would participate. Has Lee County said that
they will participate financially?
HS. FILSON: I haven't contacted them. That's usually
done through a tri-county meeting.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If any one of the other
participants choose not to do it, then, obviously, we're not going to
foot the bill.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Then obviously we can't, yeah.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So unless there is -- you know, I
still feel that on a limited basis -- we may have a tough time getting
a hotel room, but if you schedule wisely, you can get up there and
back and do most of your meetings in one day.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we do this: Why don't we
direct Hiss Filson to -- to write a letter to the other two
commissions and ask for their indication of interest for this year and
bring that back, and then we'll see how we go from there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Let's find out if they're
going to participate first.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Because like -- like you say, if any
one of them drops out, we should drop out and just do it ourselves.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the statement from Hiss
Filson based on our budget discussions are that we have budgeted those
funds for this year; so I guess we are in on the forefront.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We can always turn that back to --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Doesn't force us to spend
it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. Exactly.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And now it's only $952,000.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The next one, 10(H). This is
concerning the change in boundaries for the mosquito control.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I received a lot -- and I'll say
a lot meaning, in this case, you know, maybe 15 or 20 letters opposing
this boundary expansion. I don't know if all those letters have been
made a part of the record. If not, I'll certainly go back and -- and
pull those from, at least, my individual file to make them a part of
the record. If you'll make a note of that, Miss Filson, to do that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll -- same thing.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I have two letters in front
of me in opposition plus phone messages from one, two, three, four
other persons, which I'd be happy to make a part of the record.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Who's item is this?
MR. DORRILL: This is the Mosquito Control District's.
The statutes require that they forward a petition to you. Miss
Brooker is here, and I also see Dr. VanEssen. They'll make a
presentation and answer any questions.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 96-67 AMENDING ORDINANCE 93-39 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE
DOVE POINTE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE
NAME OF THE DOVE POINTE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO THE HERITAGE
GREENS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, it's 11:30, and I
have an 11:45 lunch -- speaking engagement; and I'm going to have to
leave within a few minutes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we need four for the
ordinance amending Dove Pointe? Maybe we could do that ahead of
time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We do need four? Why don't --
Ms. Matthews has got to go. We need four on this next one. Why don't
we just skip to that, and we'll be right back for yours.
MS. BROOKER: Oh, the next one?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
MS. BROOKER: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We'll move ahead to 12(C)(1).
This is an ordinance amending Ordinance 93-39. It has to do only with
a name change.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of the item.
MR. DORRILL: No speakers.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we have a speaker?
MR. DORRILL: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second, then,
for approval of this. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #10H
RESOLUTION REQUESTING A CHANGE IN BOUNDARIES FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT - DENIED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We may get through this.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hay I ask a question before you
call the Mosquito Control District? I don't know, Commissioner
Matthews, if you have any opinion about this reconsideration
possibility on Main Street that I wanted to bring up, but --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I voted in the
minority when it came before us the first time; so I would certainly
be in favor of reconsideration. I -- obviously, this board doesn't
want to -- want to take a lunch. So if you want to address that now
-- because I -- I'm going to be gone until one o'clock, and I'm sure
that -- that this meeting is not going to go that long.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, in fairness to the
people here for the mosquito control item, I hate to keep taking them
back behind everything else.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the motion to table or
continue is always available to you if that item comes up and you see
other avenues of support for it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually not, because we've
got a time frame for reconsideration.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Those avenues are not
available to you if you see other signs of support. Thank you. I
forgot about that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Brooker, if you would, let's go
ahead with your item. Sorry to '-
MS. BROOKER: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- make you wait there that 60
seconds.
MS. BROOKER: That's okay. Good morning. I'm Jeanne
Brooker, chair of the Collier Mosquito Control Board, which is
incorrectly listed on your -- we're not the Collier County Mosquito
Control Board. We are the Collier Mosquito Control District. And I'd
like to introduce the commissioners that are here this morning with
me: Commissioner Blanchard, Commissioner Geroy, Commissioner Page,
and our director, Dr. VanEssen.
Why we are here. We are asking your approval to expand
the district 3 miles east of the current boundary, which is 1 mile
east of 951. This action was approved by our board meeting on
September 25th, and I'd like to read the motion to you. Quote, to
expand the district boundaries further into the Golden Gate Estates
area for mosquito control services to begin in fiscal year 1997/98
excluding the CREW Trust lands and to assure residents that; one, we
will monitor mosquito population so that spray missions are made only
when vital to the health and welfare of the residents; and two,
alternative measures such as larvae sighting with Bti will always be
given first consideration. That was our motion, and that was passed
at our meeting on September 25th.
We did provide you with a packet and with a resolution,
and I'd like to call your attention to the map. There are areas --
the green areas are the areas that would be excluded. These are
excluded because they are environmentally sensitive. The
Delnor-Wiggins Pass State -- State Recreation area; the
Collier-Seminole State Park, which is not in the district; Rookery
Bay, Keewaydin Island; and in the proposed expansion area, the CREW
Trust lands. I'd like to mention in this regard we have a
state-approved management plan that excludes spraying in these areas
and that we are regulated by the Department of Agriculture and
governed by Chapter 388 of the Florida Statutes.
There has been discussion regarding the inclusion of the
area north of Immokalee Road that is currently undeveloped. You may
recall, because you've approved it, two golf courses are being
constructed there now, and a residential area is planned in the very
near future; so we thought that we should do this all at once rather
than come back later when we've got requests to expand further north.
But it is our intention to not service that area until population
figures warrant it. So we're just including it at this time, and when
the population figures warrant it, we will -- it would be in the
district.
I'd like to just briefly review the history of this
matter. We got a request from Commissioner Matthews in July of 1995
asking that we consider this. We got, in December of '95, a 17-page
petition that we consider this; and we had a presentation in November
of '95 by the Golden Gate Civic Association to our board. And after
that meeting in November of '95, it was at that time we made the
decision to proceed with the study whether expansion was feasible and
desirable. The staff analyzed data from the property appraiser's
office. They made analyses and determined that the area we are
presenting for expansion today can be serviced with our current
resources; that is, staff, planes, and helicopters. So we are not
anticipating any expansion of our own resources due to this
expansion.
The area to be included is very similar to land areas
within the existing district. We're not talking about the -- it's
just a natural continuation of that environment. We have had light
traps on the border of this area for a number of years; so the staff
has been able, on the basis of those light traps in the bordering
areas, to make some judgments regarding the nature of the kind of
control necessary.
Following that determination that it was feasible and
viable for us to expand the district, we did send a letter out -- and
this is in your packet -- on October -- August the 15th to the 1,770
voters in that -- in the proposed expansion area; and that request was
for negative comments. This letter was never intended as a straw
vote. The intent was to see what the concerns were of the residents
who might be opposed. We had -- we felt we had sufficient input from
the people who wanted it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have a copy of that
letter in front of me, but I -- it seems to me it read something '-
MS. BROOKER: It's in your packet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me it read
something to the effect of, if you don't respond, we'll assume you are
in favor.
MS. BROOKER: We were asking for negative comments.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. But that's -- that's
a little misleading to say if you don't respond, we'll assume you are
in favor. Yesterday I was on the radio, and if I had said everyone in
favor of this should show up at today's meeting, I guess there aren't
very many people in favor of it. I mean, that's -- that's not a very
fair way to -- to get a measure.
MS. BROOKER: As I say, I -- I don't think we meant to
be unfair Mr. Constantine. Our intent was to get negative comments.
It was not a straw vote in any way. We felt we had -- and let me say
this, that under the statute we have the authority with your approval
to expand our district. It does not specify how that is to be done;
so -- but we were not trying to be unfair. We really were trying to
be fair by saying if you don't like this idea, come forward, because
those people who were in favor of it had already been forward.
that was the intent of the letter.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Believe me, I understand the
dangers in floating a question for support, but where -- where I at
least would make one recommendation for any of this in the future is
not just to registered voters, because all property owners are
affected by millage increases, and at least in one unnamed
neighborhood where we were looking for a -- a poll of information, we
sent first-class mailings to all property owners, because that was a
truer, in my opinion, pool of respondents than just registered
voters. I understand you're trying to keep costs down. MS. BROOKER: Yes, indeed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I'll just put that out there
so that --
MS. BROOKER: I thank you for your suggestion.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, I just --
MS. BROOKER: You -- you're already --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got to emphasize -- excuse
me. I got to emphasize that line, though. If we do not hear from you
-- I thank you for pointing out that it's in here. If we do not hear
from you, we will assume you are in favor of being included within the
district's boundaries and receiving the services. But that's just --
that's not saying, we only want to here from those -- you're assuming
that anybody you don't hear from -- if you do a -- a mail survey, the
typical response is 3 percent at -- at best. You got 9 or 10 percent
response from those --
MS. BROOKER: We got a hundred and forty-one responses,
negative responses.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, roughly 9 percent.
And then you said you had a few in favor. It doesn't say how many. I
don't know if a few is three or four or -- but I -- I think --
MS. BROOKER: Well, we had a hundred and forty-one --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's unfair to assume that
the other 1600 are in favor of it, and that's what this letter says.
If we don't hear from you, we'll assume you're in favor. You're
assuming anybody who doesn't respond is in favor. That's just not a
good way to do it.
MS. BROOKER: I can only respond to what I said. We
were not trying to do a straw ballot, okay?
You have in your packet all of the coverage of this in
the paper, in the Golden Gate Gazette. We did try to reach as many of
the public as possible regarding our action, and we did hold our
meeting on September 25, 1996. At that meeting there were nine
members of the public who spoke at that meeting. We advertised
widely. Two of those nine were favorable. Seven were reiterated
concerns that we had already gotten in the mail response; and of those
seven, two of those were related to it not including the CREW Trust
lands, which we had already excluded.
So based on our analysis and by our request to meet the
needs of so many residents who had requested this -- and I believe,
Mr. Constantine, you had a part in sending that Golden Gate Civic
Association to see us -- that we would like to call to your attention
regarding some of those concerned to the policy on mosquito control,
which is in your packet. And I think if you read that policy, you
will see that most of the concerns that the residents raised are
really covered by our policy.
The first one is, that mosquito control measures should
be undertaken only when there is adequate justification based upon
surveillance data. So if there are no mosquitoes, we do not -- we do
not spray. So that if we -- we've had several light years of
mosquitoes, and we don't go out and spray. And we say that they
should be integrated to the requirements of the local situation.
I'd like to call your attention to No. 3, mosquito
breeding sources, whether natural or created by human activity, should
be altered in such a manner as to cause the least undesirable impact
on the environment. Some of the people who spoke with us had concerns
about the water management of that area and some of the drainage
problems, and we assured them that if the county is going to address
some of those drainage problems in that -- areas, we would like to be
helpful in that regard, because some of the breeding areas there
certainly are a concern. If we can have source reduction, then that
would certainly reduce the amount of spraying.
We also, of course, abide by all the applicable laws and
regulations, and we strongly believe in the training of our staff. We
feel that we have a -- a record of responsible stewardship of our
trust from the public and the -- and the environment, and we -- we
hold all of those dear. Our policy that we have presented to you is
something that we all believe in, the board, the staff, and the
residents, I believe. And I know our director carries out that
policy. I, therefore, ask for your favorable action on our resolution
to change our boundaries as identified in the resolution. And if you
have any questions, I have Dr. VanEssen, who knows much more about
this than I do, to answer any technical questions that you might have.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure, I have a question. I
pointed out 3 percent is normal response for a survey. We had three
times that many respond, which means they feel pretty strongly about
it. You indicated you already knew that there were a number of people
in favor of it. How -- how do you know how strong -- by what do you
measure that group of proponents?
MS. BROOKER: Well, the petition, the 17-page petition,
which was, I think -- we did have the tally on those signatures, 426
tallies on -- on the petition.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you familiar with an
article in the Golden Gate Gazette that points out how many of those
420 actually live in this district?
MS. BROOKER: Yes, I am.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many?
MS. BROOKER: Actually, you have it in your packet. We
provided it to you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it was about 39; so
there is a huge number of people. Unfortunately, 90 percent of them
don't live in the affected area, and that's -- it may be a very good
idea. And you're right. The Civic Association inquired and said,
"We'd like to explore this idea," and I said, "We don't handle that.
Your first stop needs to be mosquito control." MS. BROOKER: Right.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unfortunately, I think the
process has been flawed. There have been a number of people who
opposed it. The petition has 39 names that live in this area that are
in favor of it. You have a hundred and forty-one letters that live in
this area that are opposed to it. I'm not comfortable putting an
extra tax when I haven't had demonstrated clearly that a majority of
those people are in favor of it, and -- and you said, "Well, it wasn't
intended to be a straw poll." Obviously not -- MS. BROOKER: No, it isn't.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- when you assumed that
everyone who didn't respond was in favor. That's a horrible way to do
a poll and to do government. It's not effective at all. I guess I'd
like to see -- perhaps we do a straw poll. Perhaps we let the people
decide, but this has been flawed and not intentionally, but the
numbers have been flawed; and -- and I just -- I don't think we have
enough factual information here that supports that the majority of the
people in the affected area want to tax themselves to do this.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let me -- let me ask a
question. How many people of the 400 on the petition live in areas
east of the currently affected area?
MS. BROOKER: Could you supply that information,
Dr. VanEssen?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: How many live -- how many live
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hold on. If you -- if you're going to
say something, you need to get up here on the record and identify
yourself.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: My -- my reason for asking that
question is -- is that the mosquito control when it expands must
expand in -- in contiguous areas to the existing district, and while
at this point they, for one reason or another, choose to stop their
expansion 1 mile east of Wilson Boulevard, if you were to look at the
petition signers, a significant number of them -- I'm sorry. They
stopped the district 1 mile west of Wilson Boulevard. A significant
number of the people who signed live east of Wilson Boulevard and
would like to be included but cannot be included until the contiguous
areas are -- are added to it. So I -- I think you need to look at
more than just the area under discussion today. You need to look at
the entire Golden Gate Estates area.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I -- I'd like to hear,
what is the exact number that are east of there?
MS. BROOKER: Do you know the exact number from the
petition?
DR. VANESSEN: I'm Frank VanEssen. I'm the director.
We don't know -- I don't know the exact number without looking at it,
but a very high percentage are -- are east of the present district.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. How many live in
the City of Naples that are on that petition?
MS. BROOKER: I don't have the full petition.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many live in Golden Gate
City? The point is you don't know, and -- and I appreciate what you
were trying to do with that petition and get a feel for it, but again,
I -- I pulled one of these articles out of our -- our packet from
August of this year and Mr. -- Dr. VanEssen -- it says, "VanEssen said
the district assumes residents are in favor if they do not respond,"
and that's just a flawed way to do it.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we -- I think we have
identified --
MS. BROOKER: I think I have told you what our --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If you'll allow me for --
MS. BROOKER: Yes. Go ahead.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we have identified a
couple of areas that, certainly in retrospect, could have been done
better, and if you were going to do this process all over again, my
guess is you would have -- you would do it differently today than you
did six months ago, and that's understandable.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's my suggestion. They
should.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And I -- what I'd like to
do is kind of, in my opinion, cut to the heart of this which is,
whenever a district is expanded, the financial impact of that
expansion to the people who currently reside in the district, the
level of service, how it will be provided, will be affected
adversely. Will they pay more taxes versus what they were paying
compared to the -- the -- expanded area and so forth? All discussions
need to have -- happen in open and earnest with all affected parties.
After that some form of a straw ballot or approach needs to be taken
for this board typically to feel comfortable -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: God bless you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me. Thank God for caster
wheels -- for this board to feel comfortable with that type of an
expansion and that base hasn't been built here. With the best of
intentions, and your -- your high-paid board worked hard on this --
MS. BROOKER: Could I give you some data? I just pulled
this out because our history of the millage rate is really a
phenomenal one, and I'm only going to quote the last three years;
'94/'95, .2150; '95/'96, .2101; '96/'97, .1883; and I could go back
three more years and show you that we have reduced the millage rate
for the mosquito control beyond the rolled-back rate.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Except that your -- your letter
states that if your property were in the district boundaries from
October '96 to September '97, .2004 mills would have been added. You
just stated that your current ad -- your current millage rate is
.1883.
MS. BROOKER: Yes, that's the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So by expanding this district,
would there be an increase in millage? MS. BROOKER: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That was just at the time
that they --
MS. BROOKER: No. Actually when we wrote that letter,
we did not have our final budget figures in, and we just reduced when
we -- we thought it was going to be .200, and actually it's .1883. So
we have reduced our millage. I've indicated that it is our feeling
that we can do it with our current resources, our helicopters. There
will be some additional expenses for chemicals and -- but not to any
significant extent.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand your position. I
understand -- MS. BROOKER: And we've taken the value of that property
as well.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand your position. I do
feel that a broader base needs to be built here than -- than what is
presented, and I -- I'm inclined to agree with some of the comments
that Commissioner Constantine has made that -- I just don't feel
comfortable that the affected parties have had what they consider an
adequate voice in this. And again, it's a learning process. It's not
a -- anything directed at you or your board members, but I just don't
feel comfortable in light of -- other taxing districts that we have
proceeded with or done, at least there was a tremendous amount of
public input on those time and time and time again. And -- and I
would like to see just a stronger approach on that before feeling
comfortable with any expansion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a public speaker. Let's --
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Rankin.
MR. RANKIN: I think I can answer some of your
questions.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, wait until you get up to the
microphone, and then you --
MR. RANKIN: I'm Douglas Rankin. I live in the area,
and I'm also have -- am and have been the republican precinct chairman
for the old 651, the new 652. And unlike most precinct chairmen, I
don't just attend the Republican Executive Committee meetings. As you
all may or may not know, I've been involved in many items out there,
both before this board and otherwise. I was involved in stopping a
major expansion out there. I was involved in several of those
actually, and I communicate regularly with my precinct people, both by
letter and by conversation. In fact, I recently had a mailing not too
long ago. I do these out of my pocket. As you know, I have no budget
with the Republican Executive Committee. My precinct, 652, covers
most of the estates area that you're talking about taking in. In
fact, it starts right at the school 1 mile west of 951. The new drawn
boundaries -- the old boundaries I think I took in the entire area
you're talking about.
The reason for the signatures you got on that petition
is because that petition was only in one place because -- the trouble
about this part of the estates is there are really no public gathering
places with the exception of the library and G's General Store. And
at the time that petition was out, there was no -- the library was not
much -- up and running. That petition was only located one place: It
was located at G's General Store, which for those of you that are not
familiar, is at the corner of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard.
That's the reason why you picked up so many signatures from the people
beyond what they're seeking to expand.
I have communicated, both verbally and in writing, with
my precinct on and off for the last couple of years about this matter;
and, in fact, I'm probably -- I -- although I personally am not
involved with the board at all, and I have -- I wasn't at that meeting
they had because, unfortunately, I've got to work for a living, and I
can only take so much time off. In fact, I didn't even know this was
happening today. I was here for another matter that you put off, and
I happened to notice on the agenda that this was happening today. Had
any of the people in my district known that this was -- you had these
concerns, we could fill this room easily.
The other problem you're having is that this has been a
relatively slow year for mosquitoes. I will assure you the past four
or five years has not been slow years. In fact, last year was
terrible. You couldn't even go outside for more than a few minutes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that's what generated the
petition --
MR. RANKIN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- in December.
MR. RANKIN: That's right. '95 and '96 -- excuse me.
'94 and '95 were tremendously bad out there. This year, because of
the relatively low rainfall and relatively cold winter last year and
the relatively high water we had the year before as you know -- and
I'm not an expert on mosquitoes. When there -- we have a big flush of
water through like we did last year, it -- they all come out. They
could have been sitting there for years and, poof, they're out. We
are -- desperately want this. My mother and my sister live here.
They -- you know, I've been -- I -- I communicate widely with this
district, and they are -- you know, to have a hundred and forty-one
people voice opposition to this out of seventeen hundred is not very
high.
And the other problem with that -- and actually that
letter -- your concern actually worked against those of us that are
for it, because I know a lot of people -- I sent in a letter in -- in
-- for it and indicated that I talked to all these people, and I'm
all for it. But a lot of people who are for it did not send in a
letter because they figured it wasn't necessary. So it actually
worked worse to us.
The -- most of the persons I've seen opposing this do
not live in our area. They happen to live in areas already covered by
mosquito control. They just happen to think somehow that those of us
that live out there are supposed to live with the swamp -- the
alligators and the mosquitoes. You know, point -- you know their
millage rate is in -- is insignificant as far as most of us are
concerned for -- for millage compared to the cost of our children
getting encephalitis, malaria, and all the other good stuff they can
easily get out there. You know, we all have kids -- a lot of us do.
And as far as the voters versus residents, you're
assuming something which exists in the City of Naples that does not
exist in the estates. We have very few, if any, seasonal residents in
the estates. You do not simply have a house on 3 or 5 acres or 2
acres and shut it up for half the year, because if you did, it might
not be there when you get back. We have very few seasonal residents
in the estates. Virtually everybody out there is a registered voter
unless they're not citizens of the United States or something of that
nature. Everybody that lives out there lives there year-round or the
like except for a few rental houses, and there aren't many of those,
because, as you know, it's illegal to rent guest houses, and this area
covers the entire estates.
We are a hundred percent behind this. You know, I have
heard -- nobody has come to me in opposition despite all the letters
I've sent out and all the parties and whatever I've attended out there
and the like. And I think it's very -- it's -- we're very much in
favor of it. Anyway, do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I -- I
appreciate the fact that the people in Orangetree and the eastern
estates hope that someday it will get expanded further; however, the
City of Naples has a number of recreational areas: Cambier Park, the
pier, and so on. What they're -- what the city residents and
taxpayers want to happen to that carries more weight than what I want
to happen to that, even though I -- you know, I use it on occasion.
I'm going to assume the city council takes care of those who are
paying the bill first, and -- and I think we need to do the same
here. Orangetree and those folks, if they want to get their own, then
they need to take that step as well. But to have them decide the
issue for people who will be paying the bill is inappropriate. And --
and Mr. Rankin said a majority of the people don't even live in the
district. Well, from this letter at least a hundred and forty-one
people who live in the district, families who live in the district,
oppose it. And I think there may be a desire for it out there. I
don't think it's been proven through what's been done to this point.
And I -- I'm going to make a motion that we deny it with
a recommendation that -- as Commissioner Hancock said, maybe you go
back and do a more stepped process to get a true read, because the
letter, the petition, and each of those items has been flawed.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion to
table the motion, and the reason for that is the citizens who are in
favor of this as well as those who are not in favor of it probably
believe that this was a done deal, and that's why they're not here
today. I can -- I can assure you that if we -- if we table this and
hear it another day, this room will be full.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what could be wrong with
that, then, because if -- if what we -- if what our question is -- and
I think it's a good question, genuinely founded, that -- that perhaps
the process is flawed, and we don't know exactly how people feel about
it, I'd like not to turn it down but perhaps to come back and talk
about it when there has been more notice to the --
MR. RANKIN: I will personally pay for a letter to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Doug. You're not -- you're
out of order here. Just -- just wait.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I feel that we have a --
a Collier Mosquito Control District for the purpose of -- of putting
that information together and bringing it to this board as opposed to
this board standing as the -- the responsible one to go out and get
that information and -- and make that decision. So I -- I am more
comfortable putting this more or less back in the lap of -- of what, I
think, is a capable board that may have just gone through a learning
process.
So I -- I'm going to second Commissioner Constantine's
motion. I also feel -- and many discussions I've had with the people
that live in the affected district, and it may -- and I'm sure it's
not nearly as many as Mr. Rankin has had, but I'm sensing some
premature steps here from the people that have at least taken the time
to contact me. I have had nobody contact me in support of this; so I
just have to base it on that and some of the concerns I have over the
letter that was sent out.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I made -- I made a motion to
table.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I understand.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I believe --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And if you let me, I'm going to
service that one.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A motion to table takes precedence
over other motions. Do we have -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- a second for that?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a second for that. We have a
motion and a second to table Commissioner Constantine's motion. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Aye.
That motion fails. We're back to Commissioner
Constantine's motion --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- which I will second now since
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- which we have a second. That
motion is to deny. I -- I think the net result if this -- if this
motion is successful is the same as tabling it. I mean, it's -- it's
then the -- the responsibility of the Mosquito Control District to --
to demonstrate the support by coming back with that support at some
future date; so I think the net effect is the same thing either way.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It -- may I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I mean, this doesn't permanent -- what
I'm saying is that -- that this action, if it's successful, does not
permanently resolve the matter.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It probably puts it off another
year, though, and that's --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why would that be?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Because the district has to be
expanded to be included in the millage by December 31 of each year.
So the -- the likelihood that they'll be able to address your concerns
-- short of having this room filled with individuals who live there
-- before December 31 and get it back on the agenda and appropriately
addressed is -- is not very high.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But I don't see the difference. I
mean, if you're going to just -- if you're just going to table it and
continue it for a while, what's the difference?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The motion to table failed,
and we don't need to keep discussing the motion to table, because it
failed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I have a question on how I
might vote on the motion to deny, and that is, if we deny this -- I
don't know if this is a Mr. Weigel or a Mr. Dotrill question -- is --
does this prohibit -- is it possible for this to be brought back to us
between now and the -- you know, in time to get it on the tax roll, or
have we effectively shot it down for a year? Ms. Brooker is trying to
give us an answer to that question if you don't have it or if --
MS. BROOKER: Well, I -- I'll defer to Mr. Dotrill, but
it's our understanding that we have to act now with -- before the end
of this year to get it on the tax rolls for '97/'98.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Skinner will certify the roll on
January the 1st for the 1997 ad valorem tax year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That I'm aware of, but is it
possible for them to -- for the district to bring this question back
in time -- if we turn it down today, is it possible for them to bring
it back in time to get it on that January 1 assessment roll? Somebody
has to tell me that so I'll know how to vote on the denial.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let me tell you what I
-- what I need them to come back with, if they try to come back,
whenever that time frame is, and that is clear support from the people
who live in there. I think there should be a letter that is unbiased
and doesn't assume you're in favor unless you send it back and get an
honest-to-goodness read from them, and there should be -- to follow
that there should be a public hearing. Again, I know you've had one
with the nine speakers, but there should be a public hearing at the
Mosquito Control Board. And -- and they have to demonstrate -- other
than lining up 20 people to come in here and stand up and say we're
all for this, there has to be some demonstration that the majority of
the people in this area want that tax. And if they can accomplish
that by the end of the year, they're welcome to come back.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I agree. It -- you know,
the timing is not something that we have forced upon them but is just
a -- a fact of the situation. If it has to be delayed a year that --
the process is in such a way that this board feels confident that a
majority of the individuals being affected by this tax are desirous of
it, then that means that it costs a year for them to do that. But I
would rather see the process be -- be held constant and positive than
-- than maybe rushing to something that -- that doesn't have that
element in it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So it is delayed at least a
year, then, at this point?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not if they can --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't -- I don't think that's
necessarily the fact. But in any case, we have a motion and a second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That motion is -- to deny was
successful by a 3 to 2 vote.
Item #10I
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - STAFF
DIRECTED TO INITIATE SECOND CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AND INITIATE
ALTERNATE MEMBER
Next, 10(I), Code Enforcement Board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I brought this up and -- and
last week, as you all know, the Lely guardhouse issue was, again,
continued.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had nothing to do with it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There were some circumstances
that -- as I understand, one of the board members was sick. But the
way this has unfolded is, their first hearings on this were in July.
For whatever reason, I'm told it was because Mr. Hazzard's schedule --
Lely's attorney's schedule didn't allow a meeting until last week; and
now, because they couldn't get a quorum of those people who had heard
the first part of the hearing in July, they've put it off until
December. And, again, that's because Mr. Hazzard's schedule didn't
fit what they set.
Quite frankly, I said if Mr. Hazzard was over before
Judge Ellis or one of the others and -- and she said the hearing date
is going to be X, Y, Z date, he can either show up or he can't. But
he doesn't dictate to the judge when that hearing date will be for his
own convenience, and I don't think he should be dictating to our Code
Enforcement Board either.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Neither do I, and he's with a
large law firm that I used to be associated with, and I'm familiar
with the fact that they send other attorneys. If he personally can't
make it, then you get somebody else in the firm to go.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This -- this case has --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Outrageous.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This case has been an
embarrassment to the county. We -- and not for lack of effort on
everybody's part. And I realize our code enforcement volunteers are
exactly that; they're volunteers. However, we are woefully behind on
our public hearings. It's not very effective to cite somebody for a
violation around their home or yard and eight months later it comes --
and then they've got 60 days to comply. I mean, you're effectively
giving someone a year to correct violations, and that's just not an
effective way to do it. I'm not here to criticize the -- the
volunteers nor our staff. I'm going to suggest a couple of things to
see if the balance of the board is willing to entertain them and then,
perhaps, take some action at a near date.
We are allowed by statute to have more than one Code
Enforcement Board so that you're not burdening any one group of people
too much. You can have two or even three Code Enforcement Boards.
They could meet every other week, if you had two, particularly until
we catch up on our backlog. It's just not much of a way to do
effective enforcement if -- if they are eight and ten months behind.
So one option is to add a -- to create a second Code Enforcement
Board, and they can hear some of the cases; the first one can hear
some of the cases.
The other suggestion Mr. Weigel had was to place some
alternate members on these boards, because the problem they ran into
in July was there were only four members there to hear this fairly
complex case. They spent several hours on it, and then when they came
back in October, all of those four couldn't be there; and -- and the
attorneys agreed it wasn't appropriate that the people that had missed
the first half of the case hear the rest of it. So perhaps we could
have a couple of alternates and even rotating alternates. I'm not
sure anybody wants to go to meeting after meeting and never have a
vote, but you could rotate the alternates each meeting, and -- but at
least assure we will have a quorum.
And third, we need to give some direction to our staff
and particularly to whomever the legal person is that we've hired on
to deal with code enforcement issues -- because I know it's not our
staff -- that they set the public hearing dates. And it's up to the
defendant, for lack of a better word, to be there, and -- and it's not
up to us to work around Mr. Hazzard's schedule. If he's not --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Otherwise, it's a default.
Excuse me. It's a default judgment. That's what happens if you don't
show up in court. Show up or it's --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Completely inexcu -- I mean,
this case has gone on four years, but completely inexcusable that the
first public hearing on it was July, and the next one's going to be in
December, just unacceptable. And I want to get a feel from the board
if you're interested in any of those or other alternatives.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Both of your suggestions are fine with
me. I think we could -- we could -- it's time. We have enough
casework, I think, to go to a B board, have an A board and a B board.
And I'm -- I certainly would not be adverse to having alternates on
the board, too, and I'm certainly willing to hear this on a future
commission meeting and discuss it more in depth. But I'm -- I have no
objection to constituting a B board today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I couldn't agree with you more.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we -- since there were two
sep -- I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I like both suggestions.
The one I prefer, though, is to put alternates on the existing board,
because these boards are created by -- by ordinance, which we have a
lengthy process to go through. And I -- I would like to look at
putting alternates on, and if an alternate is sitting when a case is
heard and continued, then that alternate is included when the case
comes back.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like -- I support the idea of
alternates, but also I think the backlog is so significant that we
need --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Even if we --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- more meetings.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- review the B board a year
from now, if they're caught up and don't need the B board -- but just
something -- I mean, it's unacceptable the way it's unfolded now.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's -- let's specify a two-step
process. The first is to establish the alternates for the existing
board so that we can work with a quorum situation at least. The
second will be to establish a B board with alternates for up to one
year to resolve the backlog issue.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the third step would be
for our staff and -- and consultants to run the meeting as opposed to
defense attorneys.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. That's what I meant.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All three of those.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I like that.
MR. DORRILL: One comment. I think you ought to hear
from Mr. Cautero. The -- the current backlog is, I believe, 16 cases;
and on a good day -- and there's only been one case in the last year
to 18 months where we didn't have a quorum, and I think that part of
that is due to the unique problems with -- that somebody already
alluded to. I'm not going to repeat that. I don't know whether it
would be worth the time and the logistical effort to try and impanel a
second board now if this is a problem that the existing board can
resolve and work its way out of within two or three months. That
might be a good fall-back position, but we might be spending
additional staff effort and time to impanel a second board when
otherwise, if we can get past this Lely situation, they can resolve
their own problem in two or three meetings.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, this backlog isn't new,
though. It's -- it's gone on since at least springtime, and -- and
maybe I'm mistaken. I'm not under the impression that it's completely
due to the Lely Barefoot case.
MR. CAUTERO: It's -- Vince Cautero. It's mostly due to
Lely; but, secondly, it's due to meetings when the Seminole case was
discussed, which was never heard by the board due to the settlement.
But there were hours spent, and there were not cases put on that
docket or cases delayed because of that. So the reason for delay,
which probably extends back to the summer, is due to those two cases
and discussions on them.
In June the board had two meetings, and it was the only
month that they had two, and there was a hundred percent attendance
for both meetings as well as August and September. July has been the
only troublesome month, quite frankly, with -- with that board. The
last meeting with Lely was an anomaly because, as you know, only four
were eligible to vote based on the legal interpretation that was
rendered, and two of the four were able to attend the meeting.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, but I -- I'd like to -- to
suggest -- well, to ask you, where -- we are encouraging you at every
opportunity to step up code enforcement in -- in substandard housing
issues and in sign code enforcement issues. If you were to step up
that enforcement effort -- I mean, we recently hired somebody strictly
just for sign code enforcement inspections. Do you not anticipate
that we're going to have more continuing violations and more backlog?
MR. CAUTERO: Not necessarily, because in some of those
cases you would cite people to court. You would not necessarily bring
them to the Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MR. CAUTERO: The Code Enforcement Board is really a
last resort, or we have a major case like Lely or -- or the Seminole
case.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would -- but this isn't
new. No one probably would have assumed the Seminole case would have
come. I think of 1989. Commissioner Mac'Kie was an attorney
representing St. MAtthew's House. I was on the Code Enforcement
Board, and those went on for hours and hours and hours; and -- and so
it's not unique. It's not something new that we have unusually
high-profile, lengthy cases. And I just -- I mean, if we find a year
from now, gee, there's not enough work for two boards, we can disband
the B board. But I would rather be safe than sorry and continue to
drag on behind, behind, behind.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that where you two became such
good friends?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We disagreed then, right, in
19897
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I was going to suggest --
Mr. Dotrill has made a good point. By the time we actually get it
adopted, it may not be needed; however, we -- I think by approaching
the alternate idea, we are going to ensure that things will begin
moving. So I -- I guess if we're trying to get to a point of
direction, I'd like to see this board direct staff to develop the
alternate idea immediately. And, say, within a 60-day period, so that
we don't really make it such a priority that it pushes other things
out of the way, that we look at the necessity of a -- a second Code
Enforcement Board. We've got a pretty good group of people on our
Code Enforcement Board, and I wonder how many qualified people would
be willing to go through that for a second board.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we do have a good
group, and this is certainly not intended, but -- as a criticism of
them, but Mr. Cautero just said the only time we've had a quorum
problem was in July, and so I'm not sure the alternates are going to
fix the problem. And -- and I appreciate you not wanting more
government and more boards and so on, but I just think if -- if their
meetings end up going half as long because there are two meetings,
they probably won't object to that. And I'd like to -- and I don't
mind putting a sunset on it if -- and then have a time frame in which
we go back.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Go ahead and -- and craft
that into a direction then. I'm with you. I mean, let's -- let's go
ahead and move --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Cautero is trying to get back in.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a question. Let me ask this
-- make this suggestion. Maybe if we combine the two, we have
alternates, and then couldn't our boards meet en banc like the -- like
a -- an appeals court does? I mean, couldn't we establish -- if we've
got 12 members, 6 could meet here, and 6 could meet there with the
alternates available to -- wouldn't that be possible? MR. WEIGEL: I'm not quite --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's the same thing.
MR. WEIGEL: -- sure I understand the question. You're
saying if we have a pool of 12, potentially a pool of 12 --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm just saying couldn't -- never
mind. Go with what he said.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion
reflecting my earlier comments, because I'm too sick to repeat them.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's just direction to bring it
back.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And the motion is to immediately go
forward with constituting a second Code Enforcement Board and to go
forward with the consideration of assigning alternates to these
boards.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. And my
understanding from Mr. Weigel is that the additional board would
require no change to our codes; however, the alternates will require a
change. So part of the direction would be for him to advertise that
and bring it back.
MR. DORRILL: One speaker, Mr. Chairman, before you call
the question. Mr. Laforet.
MR. LAFORET: Thank you. Good morning -- afternoon.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Afternoon.
MR. LAFORET: My name is Louis Laforet, and I'm a member
of the code board. I'm appearing today as an individual citizen of
Collier County. I just thought I would identify myself. From what I
hear, you're putting Band-Aids on the scratches and doing nothing
about eliminating the scratches. If I could have a comment on our
community development department, that might expedite these cases.
And first is, they profess to achieve compliance
irrespective of penalties. I use the word penalty. What do you want
to use? Fees? Charges? Monetary considerations. But we don't get
notice for a year or more after they file the complaint with the
person, the violator.
Now, what are they doing during that year after they
file the complaint? When we get it, then they want to have a meeting
and compromise. So it's custom on the board that we turn around and
say, "All right. We'll continue it in two weeks, and you parties get
together." I disagree with that heartily. I think once it gets to
the board, everybody else stay out of it and let the board handle it.
Now, secondly, the -- I believe a lot of time could be
saved if you had a prehearing of the attorneys before the board meets
and hears -- and ask them how much time they're going to need, how
many witnesses they have; and that way we won't spend a half a day
standing around saying we won't have time to do it today. This has
happened just recently, and I don't think that's reasonable in the
courts, everywhere else. I've been an arbitrator for 15 years,
American Arbitration Association, and we don't permit garbage like
that. We have a prehearing discussion, and we dictate and tell them
this is what you're going to do.
Last is, I would like to see if there's some means to
dedicate the fines, the monetary considerations, of a case. I'm an
engineer, and I'm not -- profess that I have any disrespect to
attorneys. However, attorneys are not stupid people, and once they
learn that if you go before the code board and if you stall around and
fool around long enough, we'll cut down on our -- on our fines to
you. We might fine you a hundred and fifty dollars a day and give you
three months to make corrections. When the time comes, you haven't
made the corrections, and we decide to reduce the fine to $11.21. I
don't see that. I see that as not a deterrent for contractors or
violators to ignore the inspections.
And this is the dangerous part. I think the county
commissioners are not careful enough when they approve members of the
board, members of the panel. They're not careful enough. We have too
many members on the panel today who recluse (sic) themselves from
hearing cases because their employer or their concern -- might do
future business with the person. That -- that's no way to -- to run a
ship. And that's happened many times. We've had three people recluse
(sic) themselves at the same time. You know what the rule does to
us? We have to have a unanimous decision.
We have members on the current board who do a lot of
telephone calling. That's an insult to -- to the people that are
presenting their side of a case, and these members should be removed
from the board. We have habitual people who are late. We have -- we
have people who sit there and talk for three hours and then leave
before the vote.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
MR. LAFORET: I was going to get to the Code Enforcement
Board, but Iwm out of time unless you want to give me an extension.
CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: No, sir, that's not our policy. Thank
you. That was it?
MR. DORRILL: That was the only registered speaker.
MR. ANDREWS: Can I speak? I got -- I got a card. I
got a short remark.
CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. ANDREWS: Commissioners, my name is Charlie
Andrews. I've been on the code board for -- since the -- since the
very beginning, and this is the first time that we've been swamped and
-- swamped and that -- and that -- and there's a lot -- lot of
reasons that it's been swamped, but the code -- the code board is the
one that's being penalized, because there's a awful lot that you --
you guys haven't got into. And I -- I really, sincerely -- I worked
with Tim three -- three-year term? Tim?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, sir.
MR. ANDREWS: Three-year term? We didn't have any
problems. We got a lot of -- a lot of -- lot of problems that I don't
want to get into now, but I think this thing should be tabled until
you guys find out exactly what's going on that you don't know.
serious. It's -- it's not -- it's not the code board. It's not the
code board, but there's a whole -- there's a lot of other things.
That's -- that's my -- that's my suggestion.
You know, I don't see what the big rush is. We -- we're
only 16 cases behind. The thing is -- the thing that -- for instance,
we worked on the -- on the -- I'm just going to mention this one; I
don't want to get into a big conversation -- the Indians. I -- we --
we only had five members that were eligible because three were -- were
gone at the first meeting; so they couldn't -- that went on for a
year. That -- I -- I fought like heck to get that thing. All we had
to do is vote -- make our vote. Either they're guilty or not guilty,
and then if -- if -- if they want to appeal, they could go on and go
on and go on to federal court if -- if necessary. Instead we kept
putting it off, putting it off, and part of our staff wanted to start
compromising. Somebody on the board wanted to compromise. That's not
the code board. The code board don't compromise. They compromise --
they -- in other words, if there's a -- a violation, it has to be
regulated, and that's it. So really, seriously, better think this
over. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur with most of what
both speakers said, and I think it was just two or three weeks ago we
asked Mr. Cautero to come back with some information regarding code
enforcement and the job they were doing, and I don't think our action
today prohibits that. I think if -- if he needs to streamline
procedures, that's something he's doing in his everyday management.
That's not an edict from the board. And -- and if he can do that,
great, but I still think with that backlog we should have the -- both
the alternates and a second board; and I'll call the question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Unanimous.
The next one --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There -- there's some stuff
lingering in the air here, and I guess rather than just assume that's
taken care of -- we've heard from the county attorney on what could be
done to help move things along, and Commissioner Constantine, you've
framed those well. I think when this comes back in the form of an
ordinance, Mr. Cautero, from the application standpoint in your
department, if there's anything we can do to improve upon it, make it
better, I would look to you for that at that time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And the other thing, Mr. Andrews made
the comment that the code board was being somehow punished. This -- I
don't see this as punishment for anyone except violators. I -- I
don't see any harm in having two parallel boards. In fact, I think
Mr. Cautero could easily increase his production, so to speak, out of
the code enforcement department and send more cases to the code
boards, if there are two boards, and -- and actually do a lot more
enforcing than we've done before. I don't see it as -- as punishment
somehow to some board that volunteers. I think it's -- it'll be
helpful to all. You could have meetings twice a month instead of once
a month.
Item #10J
DISCUSSION REGARDING RECONSIDERATION OF PROJECT AT PINE RIDGE ROAD AND
AIRPORT ROAD AT CARILLON SHOPPING CENTER
Okay. Next item is 10(J), Main Street project
reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I brought this up at
the beginning of the meeting, and I'll tell you I am not a cheerleader
for this project. I'm not enthusiastically recommending
reconsideration. Let me tell you why I'm even talking about it.
I hear that there are significant changes proposed. I
haven't seen anything about what exactly, you know, the diminution in
the density would be, the increase in the residential, the lessening
of the commercial. I hear that that is being proposed by the property
owners, but more importantly for me, what I have also heard is that
representatives of adjacent property owners who did not participate in
the process the first time through -- we heard from World Tennis
Center the first time through. They said they loved this project. We
heard that and voted it down anyway, but Kensington is now an area
that has new lawyers, new manager, Larry Mullins (phonetic) is
managing that -- or whatever you call it, project manager out there.
They have new lawyers, and they have approached me and said, "We think
that this revised Main Street program could possibly be better for us
than what's otherwise available."
I'm not -- I voted against the project. I'm not ready
to change my vote in any way to vote for it, but I would -- but I
understand that today is a drop-dead date, that if we want to give
them another bite at this apple, we have to make that decision today.
This is a project with enough merit, and there are enough new people
involved in -- in asking for it to be reopened that I'm willing to ask
for it to be reconsidered even though -- there better be substantial
changes.
And my -- my interest in it, in reconsidering it, would
only be if we got a site-specific comp plan amendment. And I have
asked staff if that's possible, and they advised me that it is
absolutely possible. I do not have any interest in transmitting an
expansion of the activity center boundary genetically, but I do have
some interest in a site-specific change. So I'm willing to reconsider
that if there's a majority on the board who's also willing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: My vote against the project was not
because of the project. I -- I've always said that I think the
project is a great idea. I love the concept. I think it's -- it's
really attractive. All you have to do is look at the Fifth Avenue
downtown to get a -- an idea of -- of the concept, and my vote was
always negative because of the expansion of the activity center. Now,
whether you call that an expansion of the activity center or a
site-specific comp plan amendment, it's the same thing.
And, unfortunately, with this particular activity
center, all four quadrants are either totally or somewhat developed.
And to try to go in now and -- and make some change to that activity
center is something I just, frankly, can't support, period. And if it
were in some other activity center that was undeveloped and we could
shift some undeveloped quadrant into this quadrant, you know, that's a
different story. But this is not the situation here, and any -- any
kind of any attempt to expand this activity center, I just can't
support.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- my vote was against the
project.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it wasn't the concept, but
the concept and the lay of the land were different. You had a
predominant commercial development within a comm -- with a residential
afterthought. Main Street is a residential component with a
commercial afterthought, a commercial integration. I am encouraged by
what they have at least presented in things that they would like to
consider, but my concern -- and I mentioned this to the petitioners --
goes a little bit to the -- or more to the point of policy for this
board.
Reconsideration of items that are either voted up or
down by this board should be done on a basis of material changes to
what was presented. To bring in a different project and ask for
reconsideration is, in essence, asking for a consideration of a whole
new project. It's not as if information presented has changed
substantially. The project -- what they're saying is we want to
change the project. We think we can meet what the board was looking
for a little bit better. Well, that is a reapplication, in my
opinion, not a reconsideration.
And I'm afraid that if we start going down this path,
what we're going to have is every time someone comes in -- and we saw
this. I can't remember the project, but a young lady was standing
here, and we voted it down, and she said, "Well, I'd like to offer a
compromise." And everyone just kind of giggled, you know, because the
time -- you know, the time to offer what you think is acceptable to
your client and palatable to the board is in that public hearing
process. And if you don't get what you want, to then ask for a
reconsideration -- and, I mean, this isn't directed at -- at the
applicant, but it's more to the point of -- I just think it's not a
good way of doing business.
So I'm -- I'm not going to support that. I would like
to see this come back a little -- you know, with some of those things
you're talking about, but I'm afraid that's more of a new project than
a reconsideration in my book.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would you like to make a motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. I think I can already see
that there's not three votes in support for reconsideration. So, like
I said, it's not a -- not a strongly-held opinion, just something I
wanted to float for discussion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate you bringing it up,
because maybe it sends a little bit of a message that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next item.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- bring it the first time.
Item #11A
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BCC
AND ARTHUR ANDERSEN, LLP, DATED HAY 23, 1995 AS PRESCRIBED IN
RESOLUTION 96-158 - APPROVED
MR. DORRILL: Okay. You have one remaining item,
Mr. Chairman, then I do have a public comment today. You're down to
ll(A).
(Commissioner Matthews left the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Our last item is the clerk's
report.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, good
afternoon. I was going to start my presentation to you this morning
with a statement that says, "I hope today finds you well," but I can
see that's not the case. So I'll make this very short, and we can get
you home.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Those of us who were well are
going to be sick after sitting next to those of us who aren't.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm blaming Bill Barton from
that talk show last week.
MR. MITCHELL: For the record, Jim Mitchell, the
director of finance and accounting. I come before you today to put
closure to an item that was originally brought to you back in March of
this year. If you'll recall, the clerk along with myself brought to
you our concerns regarding the arbitrage calculations related to your
bond issues. Part of the solution to that issue was the adoption of
Resolution 96-158, which authorized two things.
First, it designated the responsibility to the clerk of
the circuit court as ex-officio of the clerk to the board to assure
that all requirements of all bonds issued by the Board of County
Commissioners and any other documents associated with the board's
indebtedness are in full compliance, including, but not limited to,
the filing of all appropriate Internal Revenue Service reports.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Jim.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you mind terribly after
sitting here all day if I kind of cut to the chase on this one?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes -- yes, sir. The chase is very
quick.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. The chase is simply that
you are doing what the board's policy says you should do. You have
already budgeted 65,000 in your '96/'97 budget for this purpose. This
is not a -- a reallocation of funds. You're out of reserves. You're
asking for the funds that you've budgeted to do what your job is.
MR. MITCHELL: Just asking to -- to approve the
amendment to the contract. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. DORRILL: No speakers, Mr. Chairman.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
PUBLIC COHMENT - AL PERKINS REGARDING HUNTING SEASON IN THE STATE
PRESERVE
If we have no public comment --
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, Mr. Perkins.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry.
MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. You're
having a good time. You people at home, don't forget to vote.
Nothing else.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that it?
MR. PERKINS: I had to get that in. No. That's not
quite it. I need to bring you an update on -- as of October the 26th
through January the 5th, it's hunting season in southern Golden Gate
Estates or the Picayune State Forest and also in some of the areas --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me. I hate to
interrupt you, A1. Picayune State -- does the state own that
property?
MR. PERKINS: No. The state does not own that property
and is promoting hunting on private property, trespassing, and the
discharging of firearms within a half a mile of paved roads.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To the best of your
knowledge, does the State of Florida normally name private property as
state parks?
MR. PERKINS: You -- you don't want to get me started on
the State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They didn't start --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are they -- are they hunting
homes, trailers, or residents?
MR. PERKINS: Homes and trailers.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. I just wondered. I'm
wondering --
MR. PERKINS: And stop signs that we pay for, and
according to the state forest out there, there's horseback riding,
camping, bicycling, trail --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got to tell you something
very funny. I was at -- at a meeting where Wally Hibbard brought in a
map of the state forest and the Everglades Park and everything else;
and it shows Jane's Scenic Drive go up, and then at the end -- at the
conclusion of Jane's Scenic Drive it says, "road's too rough for a
typical vehicle" or something on the map. And I thought -- and I got
a big kick out of that. If you can work your way through Jane's
Scenic Drive, once you've made it to the estates, it's smooth
sailing. But they've already marked that off. They don't want
anybody going in there.
MR. PERKINS: If you haven't been out Jane's Scenic
Drive, you'll find it's -- it's fairly decent and passable, and I
highly recommend it. Everybody, if you've never been there, take a
trip out and see what it's all about. It is beautiful out there.
The big thing that I'm irritated about is we are
assuming some of the liability by not stopping the hunting out there,
along with the Division of Forestry and the fish and game. This needs
to be addressed. This needs to be stopped, trespassing on private
property, because there's no way to distinguish which is and which
isn't part of the state preserve. And for my own benefit, again, I
have been shot up and trashed, and it's cost me at least another
$2,000 out there.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was just in this
building.
MR. PERKINS: I beg your pardon?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that was just in this
building.
MR. PERKINS: No, not in this building. That's -- yeah,
right. But the point being is the people out there who have cattle,
the people who have property out there, they're going to protect
theirself (sic). Now, when I report this to the sheriff, they say,
"Well, did you see the person?" If I saw the person, he would have
been able to see the person. Just that simple. The point being
somebody's going to get hurt, and it's going to be the unsuspecting
person who goes out there to enjoy the park and the rest of it, and
this is the worst part about it --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you for that, Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: I beg your pardon?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, I thought you were through.
MR. PERKINS: Yes. I'm just about finished. The
liability end of this thing is going to come back to boomerang against
the county. You need to do something about stopping this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: I don't have anything further.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, do you have anything?
MR. WEIGEL: Just one small note. On 16(B)(10), a
consent agenda item for a resolution that was approved. The
resolution was created. The executive summary expands on it a little
bit. It has to do with a loan to an HSTU, and we would want the
resolution that --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tim, do you have anything?
MR. WEIGEL: -- Sue Filson passes on to the chairman to
reflect the executive summary that you approved.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you
have anything else?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You need to go downstairs and have
your picture taken right now.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't wait.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As do you and I.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: As do you and I. Miss Filson, do you
have anything further?
MS. FILSON: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Varnadoe, do you have anything?
MR. VARNADOE: No.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Coady? Mr. Taylor?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then we're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner
Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items
under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 96-491 ESTABLISHING A FEE STRUCTURE FOR ANALYTICAL SERVICES
FOR PUBLIC CONCERNED WITH WATER QUALITY
Item #16A2
APPROVAL OF A RENEWAL AGREEHENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTHENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) FOR PETROLEUM CONTAMINATION SITE CLEAN
UP ACTIVITIES - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR BERKSHIRE LANDINGS A/K/A SUNSET
TRACE - WITH CASH BOND AS SURETY AND STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A4
APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$120,000.00, FROM FUND 113 RESERVES INTO THE CAPITAL OUTLAY PORTION OF
THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING BUDGET
Item #16B1
APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO THE DISTRICT TWO IHMOKALEE SOLID WASTE
SERVICE AREA YARDWASTE PROGRAM
Item #1682
APPROVAL OF A CHANGE IN FINDING TO THE BARANY, SCHHITT, WEAVER CONTRACT
FOR THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES/CORKSCREW EHS #12 SUBSTATION AND RECOGNIZE
AND APPROPRIATE CARRY FORWARD
Item #1683
RECOGNITION AND APPROPRIATION OF PRIOR YEAR CDD APPLICATION FEE REVENUE
TO FUND COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT APPLICATION PROCESSING COSTS
Item #1684
AWARD AGREEMENTS TO WILSON, MILLER, BARTON AND PEEK, INC., COASTAL
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC.,
WILKISON AND ASSOCIATES, INC., AND JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., FOR FIXED
TERM LAND SURVEYING AND PHOTOGRA_MHETIC SERVICES (RFP #96-2550)
Item #1685
APPROVAL OF A ROAD IMPACT FEE REFUND TO HERB BUCK IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,018.24 RESULTING FROM AN OVERPAYMENT
Item #1686
ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL ROADWAY SPEED LIMIT REDUCTIONS TO TWENTY-FIVE
MILES PER HOUR (25 HPH) FOR ALL ROADWAYS WITHIN VICTORIA PARK, UNITS 1
& 2, IN CONFORHANCE WITH RESOLUTION 96-340
Item #1687
WAIVE THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AND APPROVE THE RECYCLING ADVERTISING
CAMPAIGN FOR FIE 1996/97 ON VARIOUS RADIO, TELEVISION AND LOCAL
NEWSPAPERS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #1688
AWARD A CONTRACT FOR BID NO. 96-2534, IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS IN PHASE
V OF THE LELY GOLF ESTATES MEDIAN BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT, TO
AQUA-FFICIENT POROUS PIPE, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,378.75 - WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #1689
AWARD A CONTRACT FOR BID NO. 96-2535, LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS IN PHASE V
OF THE LELY GOLF ESTATES MEDIAN BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT, TO TURNER TREE
AND LANDSCAPE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,261.95 - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16B10
RESOLUTION 96-492 ESTABLISHING AN ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCE FOR PHASE V
OF THE LELY GOLF ESTATES MEDIAN BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT
Item #16Bll
APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 4 WITH GREINER, INC., FOR
ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $67,241.12, RELATING TO
THE PROPOSED UTILITY RELOCATION ON COUNTY BARN ROAD BETWEEN DAVIS
BOULEVARD AND RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD
Item #16B12 - This item has been deleted
Item #16B13
PELICAN STRAND UTILITIES FACILITIES REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
Item #16B14
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND REINSTATEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION CHANGE
ORDER AUTHORITY FOR THE RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD FOUR LANING
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Item #16B15
AWARD THE CONTRACT FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES TO COASTAL APPRAISAL SERVICES
FOR THE APPRAISAL OF EASEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE SIX-LANING OF AIRPORT
ROAD FROM NORTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD TO VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, IN THE
A_MOUNT OF $12,600.00
Item #16B16
APPROVAL OF A CHANGE ORDER TO A CONTRACT WITH KEN FITZEK EQUIPMENT,
INC., IN THE A_MOUNT OF $44,778.00, FOR THE HIDEAWAY BEACH EROSION
CONTROL PROJECT
Item #16C1
APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS, IN THE APPROXIMATE
A_MOUNT OF $50,000.00, FROM THE IMPACT FEE FUND RESERVES FOR SAND VOLLEY
BALL LIGHTING PROJECTS AT VETERANS AND VINEYARDS COHMUNITY PARK
LOCATIONS
Item #16C2
APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE A MINIMAL FIRE AND SECURITY SYSTEM
FOR THE ROBERTS' RANCH IN IHMOKALEE, IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$5,383.00, TO SAFEGUARD THE MAIN RESIDENCE AND ITS CONTENTS OF HISTORIC
ARTIFACTS
Item #16D1
AWARD THE BID FOR SURPLUS COMPUTER PARTS TO DRNJ GROUP, IN THE A_MOUNT
OF $111.05
Item #16D2
REJECT BID #96-2583 FOR PLUMBING PARTS AND SUPPLIES AND REBID THE
COHMODITY
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 96-493 AND LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
REPRESENTATIVE LUIS E. ROJAS FOR CONTINUED USE OF OFFICE SPACE WITHIN
THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AT THE GOVERNMENT COMPLEX
Item #16D4 - This item has been deleted
Item #16D5
RESOLUTION 96-494 AFFIRMING AS "OFFICIAL" ALL EXISTING AND FUTURE SIGNS
THAT REGULATE STOPPING, STANDING OR PARKING OF VEHICLES AT THE COLLIER
COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX
Item #16D6 - This item has been deleted
Item #16D7
ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLACING INTO TRUST WITH THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY SOFTWARE SOURCE CODE AND DOCUMENTATION FOR AN INTEGRATED
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Item #16D8
APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING PROJECTED CARRY FORWARD IN
FUND 301, COUNTYWIDE FACILITIES CAPITAL
Item #16D9
APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS AND
ASSISTANCE COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM FOR FUNDING OF A NOAA WEATHER
RADIO TRANSMITTER IN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16El
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA ENCOUNTER GRANT, CATEGORY C TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT FUND
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY
APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1993 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL
NO. DATE
246-93 8/30 96
1995 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL
95-253 9/11 96
1996 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL
96-001 10/22 96
005 10/22 96
007 10/22 96
Item #1662
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been filed and/or referred to the
various departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
RECOGNITION OF A CARRYFORWARD FROM FISCAL YEAR 1995 IN FUND 137 SO THAT
A BUDGET AMENDMENT CAN BE PROCESSED IN FISCAL YEAR 1996
Item #16H2
APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO CLEAN UP FISCAL YEAR 1995 DEBT
SERVICE APPROPRIATIONS
Item #16H3
ACCEPTANCE OF THE COPS (MAKING OFFICER REDEPLOYHENT EFFECTIVE) MORE 96
GRANT AWARD AND APPROVE THE RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENT
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:38 p.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: Barbara Drescher