BCC Minutes 10/01/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 1, 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 9:10 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
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the county commission meeting to
order on the 1st of October 1996. Mr. Dotrill, if you could lead
in an invocation and a pledge to the flag, please.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this
morning for our country and our state and for this county. Father,
this, another election day, we give thanks for the democratic and
the
representative process that we have in our country. It's our
prayer
today that in spite of a low turnout, that Collier Countians would
be
encouraged to go and vote. Father, we're especially thankful today
to
recognize local service organizations and law enforcement officials
in
addition to hard-working employees and dedicated members of the
public
who choose to participate in the government process.
Father, finally this morning, we -- we think about the
family of George Keller, a colleague and friend of county
government
for many years, in his passing last week. We also pray for
Commissioner Haas and a speedy recovery from his surgery in the
hospital and, finally, that you would bless our time here together
this morning. We pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see we have a couple of changes to
our agenda this morning.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, very few. I have one add-on item
under public petitions this morning. It's Ms. Jaine Carter, and
it's
a public petition pertaining to the vacation of an easement that is
in
Pelican Bay. That will be 7(A).
I have a request from HRS officials that we try and
schedule Item 8(C)(3) sometime before ten o'clock this morning, and
we've indicated to them that we did not think that that would be a
problem given the -- the length of the agenda.
(Commissioner Matthews entered the boardroom.)
MR. DORRILL: I have one item that we would like to
continue for one week, and that's Item 16(B)(2). That was a
recommendation to approve an easement for a property crossing
adjacent
to the 951 canal; that will be rescheduled for next week.
And then we're withdrawing one item, and we'll only
reschedule that if necessary. It's Item 16(D)(4), which is a
resolution to establish certain no parking and fire zones at the
county government complex, and we'll reschedule that if necessary.
And that's all that I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Weigel, do you have
anything for us?
MR. WEIGEL: No changes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a couple of items under
communications when we get there. That's it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need a motion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #4
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have minutes for September the
10th.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we
approve the regular meeting minutes of September 10, 1996.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that including the
outburst during that meeting?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've excluded that, haven't we?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, it's in there.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's in there.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 11, 1996, AS SAVE TODAY FOR
TOMORROW,
STOP AMERICA'S VIOLENCE EVERYWHERE DAY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Proclamations and service awards,
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I'm -- I have the pleasure
this morning of reading two proclamations, both of which I've
become
involved with. The first is SAVE Today for Tomorrow, Stop
America's
Violence Everywhere. And this morning this is going to be accepted
by
Representative Butt Saunders, Undersheriff Bob Burhans, and
Sergeant
Rosa White on behalf of Sheriff Don Hunter. And on behalf of Mayor
Bill Barnett we have Mrs. Dee Dee Poeltl, president of the Collier
County Medical Society Alliance. We also have Mrs. Nancy Lascheid
there she is -- past president of the Collier County Medical
Society
Alliance; and Dr. John Little, treasurer of the Collier County
Medical
Society; and last, but certainly not least, Dr. Krison Kent,
president-elect of the Collier County Medical Society.
Whereas, the Board of Commissioners, Collier County,
Florida, has on September 24th of this year proclaimed October
Crime
Prevention Month; and
Whereas, in Collier County we are committed to restoring
our first civil right, the right to freedom from fear in our own
homes
and streets; and
Whereas, the devastating effect of violence on our
families is among the leading causes of death in America and has
replaced disease as the number one killer of our children; and
Whereas, in the hope of preventing the continued
increase in violence-related tragedies and in an effort to increase
awareness, awareness and prevention being at the heart of the SAVE
Program and of its cornerstone event, SAVE Today; and
Whereas, SAVE Today, October llth, will be a day during
which physicians' spouses across the country will join efforts to
stop
America's violence everywhere; and
Whereas, we wish to explore ways that our community can
address specific programs to intervene in such areas as sexual
violence, gang and peer-related violence committed by youth of all
ages, family violence, street violence, and violence in the media;
and
Whereas, the members of the Collier County Medical
Society and Alliance, along with the Collier County Sheriff's
Office
Creme Prevention Bureau, will lead the effort to urge local
citizens
to search for ways we can all help SAVE Today for tomorrow because
we
know that violence is not going to stop until we make it stop.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October 11, 1996, be
designated as SAVE Today for Tomorrow, Stop America's Violence
Everywhere, and urge all citizens to actively support violence
prevention in our County.
Done and ordered this 1st day of October, signed John C.
Norris, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move acceptance of this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a couple of
seconds. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
(Applause)
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission, I'd like to -- with the indulgence of the commission,
there are a couple of people that would like to make a few
comments.
I would like, first, to thank the county commission for the
proclamation. I want to thank the Collier County Medical Society
and
the Collier County Medical Alliance for taking the initiative to
bring
this forward, both here at the county and at the city.
The buzz word in crime and law enforcement in the '90s
is community policing. And we all know that for community policing
to
be effective, we as a society in general must be involved with
local
law enforcement. And so I think this is an indication of
tremendous
involvement by the community, by the medical community, in law
enforcement to help make Collier County a safer place to be.
With that I'd like to introduce Mrs. Poeltl who would
like to make a few comments about the medical society and the
alliance.
MS. POELTL: Thank you, Representative Saunders. Thank
you, Commission, for letting me speak today. I am president of the
alliance. What is that? We're an organization of about 200
physicians' spouses that have been providing community service for
Collier County for 25 years. We're also part of a state and
national
organization, the Florida Medical Association Alliance and the
American Medical Association Alliance. And this campaign, to Stop
America's Violence Everywhere, is -- not only are we delighted to
be
involved on -- on a county level and with the City of Naples, but
also
state and nationally our American Medical Association Alliance is
involved in Stopping America's Violence Everywhere.
The organization of the alliance is devoted to community
service and fund-raising projects which are health related; and
domestic violence, as are all kinds of violence, are health-care
issues, and that's why we're so delighted to be a part of this.
Thank
you for letting us be here today and for taking part in this
proclamation. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 1-7, 1996, AS UNITED
WAY
OF COLLIER COUNTY CAMPAIGN KICK-OFF WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next proclamation is Commissioner
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: An unprecedented double. I've
had the good fortune the last several years of sitting on the board
of
directors of the American Red Cross. And as many people know, we
are
one of the many United Way agencies. And this morning we have some
folks here to accept a proclamation for United Way of Collier
County
Campaign Kickoff Week. We have Hiss Colleen Kvetko, the 1996
campaign
chairman. We also have Mr. Ernie Bretzmann, the Collier County
United
Way executive director. We have Bob Hubbard on here. I didn't see
Bob; he's not here this morning. And not on my list but important
to
the county is Leo Ochs, who has taken this on and sits on the board
with the county. Ms. Kvetko, is there anyone that I've missed that
you'd like to introduce today?
MS. KVETKO: Robin Jones, our other employee for United
Way.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Hiss Jones is here also.
Whereas, since 1957 the United Way of Collier County has
sponsored and funded qualified nonprofit community agencies which
provide essential social and health services to our citizens; and
Whereas, throughout the 39-year history of the United
Way of Collier County, the organization has demonstrated continued
growth and is currently funding 16 community agencies providing
service to all areas of our county; and
Whereas, the 1996 community campaign officially begins
on October 1st, and we celebrate it with a community kickoff party
at
Cambier Park on Saturday, October 5th; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners gratefully
acknowledge and support the fine work of the United Way of Collier
County and its member agencies.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of October
1st
through 7th, 1996, be designated as United Way of Collier County
Campaign Kickoff Week.
Done and ordered this 1st day of October 1996, Board of
County Commissioners, John C. Norris, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to move acceptance of this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and another pair of
seconds to accept this proclamation. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
(Applause)
MS. KVETKO: Can I say just a few words?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure, please.
MS. KVETKO: Thank you again. On behalf of the United
Way of Collier County and as the 1996 campaign chair, I would like
to
express my appreciation for officially declaring this United Way
Kickoff Week. As you know, our goal this year is to reach one
million
dollars in much-needed funds. We're spreading the good word about
the
United Way and its 16 agencies it serves through our corporate
outreach program such as this and by offering tours to local
organizations supported by United Way.
On Saturday, October 5th, from noon to three there will
be a kickoff celebration at Cambier Park with lots of food, a dunk
tank, face painting, and much more things to do. Each of our
agencies
will also be represented and on hand to answer any questions about
their contributions to this community. We welcome all Collier
County
residents to participate.
At this time I would also like to request a permit fee
waiver for the thermometer signs that you're all familiar with that
we'll be placing throughout Collier County. These signs, of
course,
are being posted only with the approval of the companies who own
the
property on that site. The thermometer will allow the residents of
Collier County to stay informed on the campaign's progress.
And speaking of progress, Fifth Third Bank of Florida,
of which I am the president and CEO of, we just completed its
United
Way fund-raising campaign; and my staff truly opened their hearts
and
their wallets to generate $17,566 in donations. That's 38 people.
This reflects a hundred percent participation and 462 per capita.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow.
MS. KVETKO: Needless to say, I'm very proud of my
employees, and I challenge all of you to meet or exceed this type
of
generosity. Now, Ernie Bretzmann, the executive director of United
Way, would like to present the county manager and commissioners
with
an official United Way T-shirt.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: While Ernie is doing that, I
would also like to -- and, Mr. Dorrill, I believe you have been
supportive of this. I'd like to challenge the other constitutional
officers. We believe that the -- the BCC and county manager's
folks
per capita can outcontribute any constitutional officer on this
campus. And we're going to do our best to make that happen, and
I'll
be starting this afternoon with a payroll deduction form that makes
it
easy and painless. That one or two dollars every paycheck or five
dollars a paycheck by the end of the year can add up. I'd
encourage
our employees and my fellow commissioners to do the same.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You are suggesting a per
employer average, aren't you?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Per capita, per employee average,
certainly.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think it would be neat if some
of the constitutional officers outcontributed the county manager's
agency totally.
MS. KVETKO: There -- I think that's a challenge.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's quite a challenge.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Consider it an official
challenge.
MS. KVETKO: All right. Thank you very much.
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is service awards.
Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, thank you. We have a
number of service awards today. The first one will be a Roger
Bass,
who has had ten years in parks and rec.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.
Our next is Anthony Duesterhoeft, five years with state
management.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's him. He's doing it.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next one is Paul Reagan, five
years, fleet management.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Between computers and cards,
that's a noisy end of the --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next is David Wheeler, five
years with fleet management.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They certainly have that
applause timed with when I say a person's name.
The next is Harold White, who unfortunately is ill today
and will not be with us.
Next, Henrietta Eimers, five years with EMS.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wonder if that's going to
become standard.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And Michael Goguen, five years,
EMS.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did we get your last name right?
MR. GOGUEN: It's Goguen, actually.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Goguen. Okay. The U threw me.
And last on the list is Douglas Roberts, who
unfortunately also is not with us today. Thank you.
Item #7A
JAINE CARTER REGARDING VACATION OF 2 FIVE FOOT UTILITY EASEMENTS,
LOT
92, UNIT 7, PELICAN BAY - TO BE BROUGHT BACK ON AGENDA WITH NO COST
TO
PETITIONER
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll move on to our add-on public
petition, petitioner Jaine Carter. We allow ten minutes for your
public petition, and the board is unlikely to make any action
today,
but we may decide to put it on a future agenda for further
discussion.
MS. CARTER: Thank you. I've already been working on
this for five months so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's about how long ago we
spoke, if I'm not mistaken.
MS. CARTER: Yes. Anyway, the bottom line is I am
petitioning the board to allow the recording of a vacation of
easement
and -- on Lots 92 and 93 in Pelican Bay Subdivision 7 that should
have
been recorded back in 1989 as all of the necessary steps were taken
to
vacate these easements by the Pelican Bay planning division and
Westinghouse Communities at the time. At the time that these --
that
the vacation of easement paperwork was generated, Pelican Bay was a
private community -- I'm looking for the exact words -- and Collier
County had no jurisdiction over this area at the time. After
Westinghouse -- apparently -- that's what all this paperwork is --
took all of the steps and got all of the letters of no objection,
and
the PBID, the Pelican Bay Improvement District, approved the
vacation. Only somehow it did not get recorded or notated -- noted
on
the proper maps or documents that needed to be done. And
subsequently
in 1991 Pelican Bay turned over Pelican Bay to the Collier County
district.
This was not caught that this vacation had not been
recorded; and, therefore, part of the house built on Lot 92
encroaches
on the -- the easements. I am the second owner. I bought the
property. The -- my attorney didn't catch it. Nobody caught it.
They said that there was an encroachment; but then Pelican Bay, by
way
of explanation, meaning Westinghouse or whoever it was at the time,
sent all these letters of no objections and all the approvals,
copies
of them, and so everybody assumed it had been done apparently.
However, I desired to build -- construct a pool on the
back of the house so that I could ensure the -- the marketability
of
this house, and then that's when it was discovered. I then
contacted
Westinghouse Community, now WCI, and they said, oh, well, it was a
mistake. We'll just record it. So all the time and -- and effort
that has happened was that everybody felt that it could be done
retroactively because it should have been done in 1989 when Pelican
Bay was not owned by Collier County.
Then they decided that they couldn't do it, etc. One of
the reasons was they said that they didn't know whether or not it
was
-- if the easement companies, the companies having the easements,
would now have an objection. So I went and got letters of no
objections from all of the utility companies again; so I have 1988
letters of no objection and 1996 letters of no objections and
approval
from the PBID. So I'm petitioning that the board allow the
recording
retroactively back when it should have been recorded.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, why is this coming to us
on a public petition process rather than --
MR. DORRILL: It's coming to us on a public petition
because -- and she indicated -- at the time Pelican Bay Improvement
District was an independent community development district at that
particular time, and they had started a petition action, as I
understand it. For whatever reason it was not complete. Other
homes
adjacent to Ms. Carter's did have that portion of the easement.
The
easement is not currently reserved, as I understand it, for any
purpose. And I might like Mr. Archibald to help just confirm that.
For her now to finish the vacation process would cost her a
thousand
dollars when it was my understanding that the easements were
supposed
to have been vacated at the time the plat was recorded or amended
at
some point in -- in the past. And she's -- because her lot and the
one immediately behind her are the only ones that were not vacated,
it
seems a little unfair for her to have to pay a thousand dollars for
an
action of a former independent government that just was not
completed. And, George, correct me if anything I just said --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does this need to come back to the
board for approval?
MR. DORRILL: There's an issue -- it will not come back
as a vacation petition if there is a mechanism to simply have us
record the fact that the easement has been vacated and -- and just
conclude the process that was begun in 1989.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question why that's not
possible.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. This in -- in -- I spoke
to Miss Carter several months ago, and she's been very
complimentary
of Sam Saadeh in your office as being very helpful. And thank you
for
taking the time to make those comments.
This is an equivalent of a scribner's error due to an
agency that is no longer in existence. In other words, the flow of
the pen should have occurred and didn't as opposed to the actions
that
lead up to that. Everything is in a row. All that happens -- all
it
needs is the official recording of this -- this element, and I
liken
it to more of a scribner's error than a reapplication. And for
that
reason whatever mechanism outside of an actual vacation of easement
that we can --
MR. DORRILL: We're -- we are prepared to do that, and I
just need some indication from Mr. Archibald that there is no
necessary reservation on the part of either the current Pelican Bay
Services Division or any of the utilities. I have not seen the
letters of no objection.
MR. ARCHIBALD: To reconfirm what Dr. Carter has
indicated to the board, all letters of no objection have, in fact,
been received. And the real decision for the board subject to
review
and approval by the attorney's office is whether we can simply
waive
any fee, since this does date back prior to 1990, and process this
as
a vacation in accordance with our current policy, just waive the
fee.
There may be a need, in fact, to go through a process to -- just to
assure there's clear title. I think if we can give board direction
to
pursue that alternative, we can pursue that very quickly, but it
will
require an agenda item.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It makes perfect sense to me just
to come back on consent, just cleaning up some old business.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It doesn't require a public
hearing. Most of the vacations that we've seen required public
hearing.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, would request the attorney's
office to have the flexibility to review and make the determination
whether it can be handled through a consent agenda item or whether
it
would be better handled through a hearing agenda item just for the
purposes of clearing title.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I think all
five members of the board have made it clear what direction we'd
like
to see this go in. Perhaps we can give Mr. Weigel direction to see
which manner it needs to come back in and bring it back, and we'll
take care of it there. Let him decide what makes it legal, and
then
we'll do our action.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
MR. DORRILL: And at no cost in this particular case
certainly because of the former action.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The fees were already paid.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We thank you, Ms. Carter.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we can bill Westinghouse,
let's try to find a way to do that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're not even there anymore,
Westinghouse -- the electric bill maybe.
Item #SA1
CP-96-3 RE PETITION C-96-3, V. CARLETON CASE OF THE KIWANIS CLUB OF
NAPLES REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CIRCUS ON NOVEMBER 23 AND
24,
1996, AT THE FLORIDA SPORTS PARK ON STATE ROAD 951 - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Next item, 8(A)(1), Petition
C-96-3 --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
to approve the item.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is our --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Item #8A2
TERRANCE L. KEPPLE, P.E., REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE COHMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADHINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO
DENY
A COLLIER COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MEDIAN
OPENING AND LEFT TURN LANE ON C.R. 951 TO SERVE THE KOUNTREE
KAMPINN
R.V. RESORT - DENIED
Next item, 8(A)(2), Terrence Kepple, appeal of the
administrator's decision to deny a Collier County right-of-way
permit.
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. Wayne Arnold
for the record. This item is brought to you as an appeal to a
denial
of a right-of-way permit.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This -- this says that it's a request
for an appeal.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are we hearing the appeal right
today?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We're not -- the way this
reads, it -- it indicates that we're -- we're deciding whether
we're
going to have an appeal at some future date.
MR. ARNOLD: I apologize for that. The intent was to --
to hear the appeal today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hear the appeal today? Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: These are a little awkward. I don't know
that you have ever heard an appeal of an administrative right-of-
way
permit. And that's sort of technically the issue. So you're going
to
actually hear the other argument today from the -- the affected
party. The decision has been made by staff to deny the right-of-
way
permit request for the median opening, and this is their
opportunity
to present you with their side of the case.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's because it does not
comply with our access management standards?
MR. ARNOLD: There are a couple of conditions. One is
that it does not comply with the county's access management plan.
The
Kountree Kampinn RV Resort's proposal would have its cut
approximately
360 feet south of Lely Cultural Boulevard. The other condition was
that Lely Cultural Boulevard is a signalized intersection, and some
of
the turning movements that they would be proposing could be in
conflict with that signalized intersection as well. And Mr.
Archibald
is here to discuss some more of the operational impacts of that if
you
wish. You may want to go ahead and hear from the petitioner as
well.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That sounds fine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd just as soon hear a
little from George only because -- I mean, I've read the packet,
but I
don't have the whole history on it. Perhaps he can do a two-minute
summary on it.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Very quickly, board members, Kountree
Kampinn has been located on 951 for many, many years. And since
the
development of the four-lane plans for 951, which started back in
1988, there's been some changes. And one change is the Cultural
Boulevard for Lely, which not only has the Lely Elementary School
on
it, but also the college. So just to the very north, 360 feet
north
of the entrance to Kountree Kampinn, has developed into a major
intersection with obviously a lot of -- of traffic and turning
movements in addition to all the buses coming and going.
Accordingly, as we go from a two-lane roadway to a
four-lane roadway, we have those access questions and access
concerns. And this is a typical one in which in a two-lane
scenario,
Kountree Kampinn has access to traffic both northbound and
southbound. Under the four-lane scenario where you have a divided
median, its location is so very close to the major intersection at
the
school entrance, that it doesn't meet not only our minimum spacing
requirement, but it conflicts with the turning movements and the
turn
lane for the school entrance itself.
I've got an exhibit that reflects it maybe as good or
maybe a little bit better than the one in the agenda package. But
we
have the conflicting safety concerns of, one, all of the traffic
going
into the school entrance versus the need for Kountree Kampinn to
have
access. And because, in fact, it doesn't meet our access
requirements
for the classification of roadway that we're building out there,
the
alternatives are: One, to, in fact, maintain full access where the
signal is today and to, in fact, constrain access to Kountree
Kampinn. And the exhibit and some handouts that I have may better
draw the picture of the concern. If I may, could I ask Wayne to
just
hand these out.
The exhibit, which is the same exhibit that Mr. Kepple
has prepared and is part of your package, shows the conflict
between
the northbound left -- and you can fully see where the storage lane
for the northbound left is and the original median opening for
Kountree Kampinn. So, again, it's a matter of the county taking a
look at whether it can physically provide access without creating a
safety concern. And not only does our access management resolution
give us direction, but also the Land Development Code gives us
direction on not only driveway spacing, but median spacing and
directional lane spacing.
And one of the concerns that we had and we expressed to
the owners, the prior owners of Kountree Kampinn, who, in fact, own
not only the property that Kountree Kampinn is located on, but also
the property to the north, that, in fact, could line up directly
and
create a four-way intersection with the entrance to the Lely school
and college.
Those are some of the issues that have been brought and
considered by the county. We feel that the safety concerns
relative
to the intersection far, far outweigh the safety concerns of
providing
a southbound left for a -- in essence, a private activity. We do
recognize the need for access to Kountree Kampinn. And at the
first
opportunity that we have, which is approximately a quarter mile
south
of this location, we are constructing a median opening. We're
maximizing the turning radius for that opening so vehicles can --
that
are able to make a U-turn within the roadway being constructed,
will
have a location to make a U-turn to come back to Kountree Kampinn.
This procedure of trying to reanalyze and realign access
following a conversion from two lane to four lane is relatively
common. We're running into these problems all over the county, and
in
most cases the best we can do is what we're recommending here; one,
to
deny a full median opening or even a directional median opening
because of the conflict with the northbound left turn lane, but
provide a median opening just to the south so that there still is
access of one kind or another for U-turn movements to return to
Kountree Kampinn.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, you said the
former owners of Kountree Kampinn. Has there been a change in
ownership recently?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, there has. The -- the current
owner can confirm when he purchased it, but when this issue was
addressed with the original owner, the direction that staff was
pushing the owner in was taking advantage of the traffic signal
that
is there right today, going ahead and creating a four-way
intersection
at that location. There were some problems relative to the cost of
of building a canal crossing, some problems relative to
environmental
permitting. But during the time between the design of the
improvements that are reflected on the sketch that was handed out
and
today, that land has been so -- has been subdivided. It's changed
hands. And now that interconnection may only be possible as a
result
of the county forcing those two property owners, which were just
those
two parcels were under one ownership, now under two ownership,
trying
to get those two property owners to work together to provide an
exchange or cross easements for access.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is the length of the
northbound to westbound left turning bay?
MR. ARCHIBALD: A little over 400 feet to include --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So this is a direct physical
conflict with that turning bay, not so much a proximity problem,
but
it physically conflicts with the design of that left turn bay?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, it does. And keep in mind, we've
attempted to constrain that, and we've got to recognize that that
northbound left handles a lot of bus traffic, so we need that
storage. Also we would expect that although the design speed or
the
posted speed is going to be 45 miles per hour, we expect a travel
speed much higher than that, and we would expect that every bit of
that storage will be needed in the future.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's hear from the petitioner.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kepple is here and registered.
MR. KEPPLE: Good morning. For the record, Tarfence
Kepple representing the owner of Kountree Kampinn this morning. I
don't know how much of this information was in your packet. Some -
_
some of this is duplicate, but I'm going to pass out some more for
all
of you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Put them up here.
MR. KEPPLE: As a little background on -- on the
permitting process and the Kountree Kampinn itself, on July 30th of
this year on behalf of Kountree Kampinn we did submit a right-of-
way
permit to Collier County to construct the median opening and left
turn
lane. The design for the project that we proposed was the design
that
was originally done by Johnson Engineering for the county for the
turn
lane -- or for the four-laning of County Road 951. There's a --
the
last copy in your packet there has a Xeroxed copy of it, and
there's
one posted on the wall here, a full copy of it. By memorandum and
__
on August 8th George Archibald recommended denial of the right-of-
way
permit, and on August 22nd we requested Mr. Dotrill schedule this
before this board to be heard on appeal.
Kountree Kampinn has been in existence for over 15
years. And at the time of con -- they constructed the RV resort,
they
did receive all development and right-of-way permits for the
project
at the time. It's what you would consider a -- a -- in my terms a
traditional RV park where people come and stay for a couple of
weeks
and leave, not like some of the newer parks where you're buying
lots
and you're parking your RV there all year and coming down and
staying
on occasion.
So there is a -- a -- quite a bit of activity as far as
larger vehicles entering and exiting the park. Conservative amount
is
about 60 RVs a week entering and exiting. These vehicles are 35 to
45
feet long, and most of them are towing a tagalong vehicle,
passenger
vehicle, which makes them longer and makes them more
unmaneuverable.
The RVs, of course, stay in the park, and the day trips
are taken with the passenger vehicle. As far as the number of
trips
per day, it's estimated that approximately 300 trips per day will
be
taken from the park, so those are entering and exiting. As --
trying
to relate this to something a little -- little more standard, it
would
equal approximately 30 to 40 single-family homes being serviced by
eight to ten, what amounts to, semi tractor trailers every day, the
RVs being almost as big as -- or as big as a small semitrailer --
truck and tractor trailer.
And there's actually three main factors that are
affecting our request for this median opening; safety, cost, and
accessibility to the project. Accessibility, this is our only
access
at this point to 951. The current owner has no legal or actual
access
across the property to the north to line up any entrance with Lely
Cultural Boulevard. That at this point is not an option for the
current owner.
As far as safety, the problem with not putting in a
median opening at this point is that all vehicles will have to make
U-turns in their trips in and/or out of the park. Most of the
traffic
is expected to and from the north either coming into the park from
1-75 for the RVs or going into Naples, and when they return they
would
be southbound on 951.
The passenger vehicles, although it's -- it's an
inconvenience to them, there are places for them to make U-turns
safely; and once they're in the park, they would know where those
places are. The one place -- approximately 500 feet south of the
entrance there is no left -- southbound left turn lane there, but
there is a median opening proposed. They would probably turn at
that
location and make a U-turn to get into the park.
The motor homes, that's the largest problem. Some of
these motor homes have turning radiuses of 50 feet. Within the
right
-- within the constructed turn -- or not turn lanes -- through
lanes
of 951 and the median opening there is not sufficient room for
these
vehicles to make a U-turn. They would have to be in the right-hand
lane southbound, make a left turn, and they would end up in the
northbound right lane also taking the entire 24-foot of pavement
north
and south as well as the 43, 46 feet of median pavement. This is
not
a safe -- safe turning movement.
The other option for them would be to travel
approximately a mile and a quarter south, turn into Lely, go into
Lely, make a U-turn within Lely itself, and come back out and then
go
northbound, a total additional trip length of about 2.6 miles.
The costs for this additional travel and travel time for
these vehicles is approximately $32,000 per year for the passenger
vehicles and motor homes to travel the additional distance to gain
entrance to the RV park. In addition, there's over 2,000 hours per
year in additional travel time for each -- for the total vehicles
accessing this park. A standard working person, you've got 2'080-
hour
work -- work year, so we're talking basically over one work year in
lost time that these people are -- are losing.
One of the additional problems is accessibility to the
campground. Most of these RV owners do not enjoy going to a place
that is difficult to get to. The additional travel distance, the
requirement to travel two -- 2 1/2 miles, make U-turns on a -- on a
busy road to gain access to this, are -- is going to force
potential
patrons, customers, away from the park.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Kepple, they drove 2,000
miles to get here. Two and a half miles?
MR. KEPPLE: Well, we're talking about people that are
driving large rigs, and they are anxious to get where they're going
without -- without going out of their way. First off, many of them
won't know where to go to make U-turns. They'll try to make a U-
turn
on 951, and I believe that's a very unsafe -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But you can certainly post
proper signage.
MR. KEPPLE: I'm not sure how you would.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask this: In season,
the height of season, how many RVs are likely to stay on any given
night?
MR. KEPPLE: The campground holds 153 -- has 153 sites.
It's full during season. The average stay is between one and three
weeks. On an average there's 60 RVs entering the park on a weekly
basis.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. On a weekly basis?
MR. KEPPLE: On a weekly basis, about ten a day, eight
to ten a day.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald, how many cars
do and are anticipated to travel daily on this segment of 9517
MR. ARCHIBALD: Between 12,000, 15,000 trips per day.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess for me the question
comes down then to do you alter the traffic patterns for 12,000
people
a day for 10 RVs.
MR. KEPPLE: I don't see it as altering the pattern for
the other traffic on 951. I see it more as protecting, not only
the
RVs, but the other traffic on 951.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- what you propose, Mr.
Kepple, is a patently unsafe design. It's done elsewhere, and what
you end up with is the nose of one vehicle sticking out into a turn
bay so a car starts to move into what they believe is a turn bay,
and
the next thing you know, they've got to stop within about, as the
diagram shows, 30 feet before slamming into the side of an RV.
There's got to be justification for that type of design,
significant
justification. And 10 RVs a day that don't want to go a couple
miles
out of their way or are so anxious to get in there that they will
not
make safe turning movements is not a reasonable or prudent approach
to
sacrifice the efficiency and the safety of that roadway. So I, for
one, don't think you have a valid argument for the proposed changes
you're -- you're showing us.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It sounds like there are three
members, because I join with that who just can't buy it.
MR. KEPPLE: What I'm proposing is that the design as
originally done by Johnson Engineering that as posted on the wall
here
and copied --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is not consistent with the
county's access management guidelines nor with our transportation
director's safety recommendation to this board, sir.
MR. KEPPLE: Well, one of the problems and the reason
for Mr. Archibald's recommendation of denial is the location of
Lely
Cultural Parkway. That, unfortunately, was permitted in deference
to
Ordinance 76-6 as amended by Ordinance 91-102. Those are the
subdivision regulations requiring minimum separation between
roadways
on major collector and arterial roadways. The minimum separation
distance that I would recommend, reading that ordinance, is 660
feet.
And I believe the county would -- would take a look at that also.
The Kountree Kampinn being more or less a minor
subdivision in traffic generation, Lely Cultural Drive being a
minor
collector coming out of a subdivision, a major subdivision, the
minimum separation is 660 feet. Probably the recommended through
those ordinances is 1.320 feet.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is the entrance driveway to
the campground a platted road?
MR. KEPPLE: It is not platted, no.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a private drive.
MR. KEPPLE: It's a private drive road, yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then that argument doesn't
work then.
MR. KEPPLE: Well, Kountree Kampinn has been there for
15 years. Lely Cultural Parkway when it was platted was platted in
'90 and approved -- accepted in 1991.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As a public road.
MR. KEPPLE: As a public road.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And so 660 feet would apply
to some other public road.
MR. KEPPLE: To public or private roads is the
subdivision regulation you had.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, Mr. Kepple, I think you've made
very good arguments here. It doesn't appear that you have a
majority
of the board that's going to agree with you, unfortunately. Do we
have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A motion to deny the appeal of
the community development and environmental services
administrator's
right-of-way permit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Kepple.
Item #8B1
RESOLUTION 96-452 AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL POWERS FOR THE FIDDLER'S
CREEK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - ADOPTED AS AMENDED
Next item is 8(B)(1), a resolution authorizing
additional powers for Fiddler's Creek CDD.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission, my name is Butt Saunders with the Woodward, Pires,
Lombardo law firm, and I'm representing the board of supervisors of
the Fiddler's Creek Community Development District. And the
district
is requesting three additional powers that are authorized in state
statute. We have also Tom Taylor to answer any technical questions
that you may have. The executive summary, I think, is -- is
self-explanatory. The powers are listed, and the recommendation is
there's no objection on the part of staff for the additional
powers.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, do we have public
speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only question I have is of
the powers you ask for, controlled elimination of mosquitos and
other
arthropods, I assume you're governed by the same regulations that
the
mosquito control district would be.
MR. SAUNDERS: That is correct, and the mosquito control
district includes that area, so it's no change in their boundaries
in
any way whatsoever. It simply gives the community development
district the ability to supplement, if they desire, any mosquito
control activities of the district.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's -- that's where my
concern is, because if you're within the district and you're
subject
to spraying an application from the district, then when you do
something on top of that, who measures the cumulative effect of
that?
Are you -- who knows when you're violating putting too much of a
certain -- you know, I don't know if it's a herbicide or pesticide
or
whatever it's called.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Pesticide.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it a pesticide? I guess herb
would be for plants, wouldn't it?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: That's a good -- a good
question, and I can't answer that. I'm not sure if Mr. Taylor can
answer that. I would presume that the Department of Environmental
Protection would -- would be the agency that would ensure that all
state and local laws are complied as they relate to the application
of
these chemicals.
I will tell you that if this particular item causes any
discomfort on the part of the board, we're prepared to delete that
from the list of additional powers. I'd like to keep it in there,
but
if it's going to create a problem, then I'm authorized to delete
that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Along the same lines on that
same particular item, does it in any way give the CDD the authority
to
restrict the activity of the existing mosquito --
MR. SAUNDERS: No, none whatsoever. This could only --
the activities in addition to those activities of the district.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know enough about it to
know if it could be problematic, but because the CDD operates, you
know, as a single entity and the district as another, the
cumulative
effect may have a problem, and until I know an answer to that --
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: Let me go ahead and withdraw
that -- that third power so that we're only going to be dealing
with
the two, the one dealing with the parks and facilities for indoor
and
outdoor recreational activities and -- and the second one dealing
with
security. And for the record I'll withdraw on behalf of the
district
the control and elimination of mosquitoes and other arthropods.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Conrecode has --
MR. CONRECODE: Tom Conrecode from public works for the
record. Before the withdrawal I will tell you the board has
established the precedent of approving that additional power for
two
other CDDs without concern, and I don't know if precedent wants to
apply here or not, and I just wanted to share that information.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think a pertinent point is that it's
not the Board of County Commissioners who has enforcement powers on
this application of pesticides in the first place. We don't do
that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What other districts have we --
have we allowed them to have this power?
MR. CONRECODE: Key Marco, and I believe the second one
is Lely.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It just seems '-
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Neither of which I was here for.
I probably would have raised the same question for them.
MR. CONRECODE: I'm not trying to steer the board.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate that.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: It's a legitimate question,
and what I will do is withdraw that request. If the district wants
to
pursue that specific additional power, then I'll advise them that
they
need to provide this board the information concerning who would
enforce that and how that -- how those activities would interface
with
the district. But I understand the commissioners' concern, and
we'll
withdraw that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question, though.
Mr. Saunders, the other CDDs that we've approved in the last couple
of
years, Pelican Marsh, Dove Pointe, and so forth, did they have all
three of these powers incorporated?
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I believe that some of them
may have asked for some of these additional powers, but I don't
know
MR. CONRECODE: Two.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Only the two?
MR. CONRECODE: Only the two that we have.
REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: And again, these are powers
that are specifically authorized in Section 190.012 of Florida
Statutes, so these are not unusual. It's just that they are in
addition to the other --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Doesn't Port of the Islands have
this power, too, because they spray, and they're outside of
mosquito
control?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It doesn't matter; they're withdrawing
it, so why don't we -- let's -- let's move on because we -- he's
withdrawn that, so we don't need to discuss it.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Which clears the way for me to
move approval of the resolution authorizing the two additional
powers
remaining for the Fiddler's Creek Community Development District.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to support it,
and I just need to explain why. These CDDs are always a hard time.
This doesn't -- the part with the incorporation has already passed,
so
that doesn't bother me because it's already there. The one concern
I
have is the hiring of general police, and that's just a -- like
Pelican Bay when they con -- contracted with the sheriff's
department. It scares me, the concept of being able to buy extra
police protection.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You are terribly consistent,
although I disagree with you. We can have that discussion
elsewhere,
but I -- I understand.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Talk about that out back.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board.
Item #8C1
CITY/COUNTY BEACH PARKING INTERLOCAL AGREEHENT TO BE RENEGOTIATED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 8(C)(1), the beach parking interlocal
agreement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't see any reason not to do
this.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, maybe.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But my colleagues may.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff,
your public services administrator.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, a quick question before
you start. In the past the city has made some -- or elements in
the
city have made some comments about excluding county people from
their
beach parking areas. Is that still an ongoing discussion, or are
we
past that now?
MR. OLLIFF: Well, it's one of the reasons we've got the
item on the agenda today. We wanted to go ahead and get the
direction
from you to renegotiate because we are in the final year and a
half,
12 months of the existing agreement. But rather than getting to
the
last three months of the agreement and then -- then realize that we
do
have some issues to deal with, we wanted to go ahead and get
direction
from the board in this final year to try and renegotiate,
basically, a
continuation of the agreement in its current form.
So I don't know that we -- he have with an issue. I
don't think we do. I have not heard anything officially from the
city
that we do, and our hope is that we can negotiate almost an exact -
_
an exact type of an agreement for three more years.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Didn't we -- we, being the
county, assist the city in the rebuilding of the pier effort?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much was our financial
contribution to that?
MR. OLLIFF: Don't hold me to this, but I know we
contributed to both the Naples pier and to the -- the city boat
ramp
park in excess of $200,000 for two --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Probably based on the fact that
there's significant usage of both of those facilities by county
residents.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sure there is, the
point just being that I thought the discussion, as I recall it when
we
agreed to do that, was both the city and the county benefit from
all
those things. We both use all those things. Let's be one big,
happy
family and continue to work together. And so hopefully that same
attitude will prevail as you go ahead and do these discussions.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think my discussions with at
least two members of the city council is that this is a very, very
minority opinion that is not going to carry the day. Mr. Olliff,
could you answer for me, the number of city -- of parking spaces
within the city limits versus parking spaces within Collier County?
I've heard so many different numbers on those, but since your
permit
is good either place -- if you have a city permit, it's good in the
county. The county permit is good in the city. What is the
breakdown
of spaces? Citywide how many do they have, and countywide how many
do
we have?
MR. OLLIFF: I don't recall. I can get you that
information. I know in the city -- because it's a little different
because they actually segregate their parking spaces into metered
and
then those that are available for permitted parking. The permit
spaces are the ones that are basically no charge for city or county
residents as long as you have a permit.
I'm not even going to give you a number. But I know we
have in excess of 1100 beach parking spaces now. We've been adding
average 150 a year with expanding what we have, and -- and
hopefully
we're working on some easement issues through Delnor Wiggins where
we
can continue that process but --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Speakers, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question for
Mr. Olliff. And with all due respect to the commissioner from the
city, I'm going to ask this question: We're -- we're paying the
city
$168,000 for the privilege of county residents to park in the city.
MR. OLLIFF: The idea is that the city bears a certain
cost for their beach maintenance program --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: -- and that the county residents, because
they use city beaches, add to that cost. And so we're, by this
agreement, picking up a -- what is a fair share.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now, my question, naturally, to
follow up on this is, since we are bearing a cost for cleaning the
county beaches, and previous to this permitted system if a city
resident wanted to use a county beach, they had to pay their $3 or
$1
way back when or what have you, the city's not helping us with our
beach cleanup.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me, but the last I
checked, the city contributes a significant portion of the county
ad valorem taxes, and we don't want to get started on that debate
about whether or not theywre getting their fair share for what
theywre
paying. But I donlt think that we want to rock this boat. This
has
been a deal that works well between the county and the city, and if
welre going to open up tax equity between city and county issues,
itls
going to be a lot broader than just beach parking.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, Commissioner MacIKie,
your suggestion is that this has worked well the way it is and we
ought to continue it?
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Thatls exactly what -- Iid like
to move approval if therels no public speakers.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. I agree the city pays
taxes to the general fund which funds our countywide beach cleanup;
so
for me that question is answered.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
Item #8C2
PROPOSED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT WOULD CREATE A JOINT YOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON YOUTH ACTIVITIES WITH PARTICIPATION BY THE COUNTY,
COUNTY
AND SCHOOL BOARD - APPROVED. RESOLUTION 96-453 APPOINTING
COMMISSIONER
HANCOCK TO SAID ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR ONE YEAR - ADOPTED
MR. OLLIFF: The next item for your consideration is --
is an agreement that has been submitted by the City of Naples. It
is
a three-party agreement that includes the city, the county, and the
school board. As -- as you are well aware, the county and the city
this summer hosted what they were calling youth night-type events,
primarily events designed for middle school, high school age --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we need to make the
appointment today, or would that be a later item, because one
commissioner is appointed to this committee?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suggest we appoint
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's deal with the first motion
first. First motion, do we have a second for the first motion?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second to approve the
agreement. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any suggestions on who to
appoint?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suggest we appoint
Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I second that nomination.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, but I also would like
to take the opportunity that with Commissioner Norris's lead in
East
Naples that affected Lake Avalon and Commissioner Constantine with
the
midnight basketball program and what our parks and recs was able to
accomplish this summer, I think this entire board has shown a
concentration on youth activities. I'd be glad to serve on this,
and
we can rotate it, because I know there's a lot of interest on the
board in the youth of this community, and I want to thank everyone
for
that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yup.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Because we had a great
opportunity a couple months ago to have a street party up at
Vanderbilt Beach Road before it opened at U.S. 41, and the next
segment of Vanderbilt Beach Road opens, I believe, in April or May,
somewhere around there. And just before we cut that ribbon, it
would
be great one Friday evening to take a whole segment of it and
create a
-- a party atmosphere for the young people, dancing, skate
boarding,
whatever.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Perfect surface.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Perfect surface for it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, a street dance so -- you
mentioned that at the opening. I thought it was a good idea.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I mean, we have this huge
six-lane something or other that, boy, in-line skating, they could
go
forever.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion to appoint
Commissioner Hancock as the first member on the committee. Do we
have
a second for that?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and second. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
Next item, 8(C)(3).
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the item just
passed, I would request that a resolution number be reserved for
the
appointment of Mr. Hancock. We do not have listed a -- a time of
service, which can be indefinite.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd suggest four years.
MR. WEIGEL: And I would suggest that for the record and
the public to know that this interlocal agreement will be a need --
will need to be in the format, in the signature format for
recording
as required by law and, further, that the meetings of the person
appointed to it would -- would appear to follow very similarly to
our
advisory board's requirements in the sunshine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we make the -- are you
referring to members in general or just from the member from the
county commission?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, for -- for our purposes our
appointment should be by resolution. I think it assists us. The
others may do as they, you know, see fit as far as that goes, the
other entities that are appointing, but that the meetings that are
be
held -- that would be held I would suggest should be held in the
sunshine, that is, with the modicum of public notice and
advertisement
and other things.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I would suggest that the commissioner
representative is rotated on an annual basis.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, that makes sense.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, that's -- that's fine.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Item #8C3
COUNTY GENERAL REVENUE DOLLARS TO FUND IHMUNIZATIONS, STD'S, AIDS,
TB,
COHMUNICABLE DISEASE AND SCHOOL HEALTH THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY
PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT PROGRAMS - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 8(C)(3).
MR. OLLIFF: The third item here is a follow-up type
item to the budget discussions we had regarding the health
department
contract and also sort of as a preliminary direction for me as we
negotiate your annual agreement with the health department so that
we
can make sure it reflects the distribution of funding as -- as this
board wants to have it. The executive summary here outlines a
series
of program areas and shows a funding distribution among those
programs
that is being recommended to you by your Public Health Unit
Advisory
Board. I think Dr. Polkowski has some additional material that she
can give you that shows you what all of the program areas within
the
public health unit are. But these are being recommended to you and
in
some distribution format that -- that shows some priorities that we
believe reflected some of at least what we heard from the board
discussions as part of the budget workshops that we held.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, you had
suggested doing this. Maybe give us a little idea where you come
from, because I think that's a good idea.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When we -- when we walked through
the budget discussions, trying to get their arms around the entire
public health unit budget and where dollars were going and how they
were allocated and for what purposes was cumbersome at -- at a
minimum. And we had discussions then about, you know, what is
appropriate expenditures of county tax dollars and what are not.
And
I felt that this board needed to make more or less a policy
decision
on where county general fund dollars should be going within the
public
health unit. What it then allows us to do is year to year to
monitor
either the growth or shrinking or needs of those individual areas,
and
it allows us to review our dollars and how they're being spent the
same way we do in every other department. What are we paying for?
What are the numbers being served? How -- you know, and it really
just kind of brings it down to a discussion level, which we were
not
afforded due to all the -- and I'll use the words of the public
health
unit -- all the complex formulas that are involved in -- in
allocating
funds.
So my purpose today was on the large scale to say what
of these functions do we feel are general revenue functions and
which
of those are not and how -- at what level do we want to fund those
that we believe are. And that's a very, very general discussion,
and
I'm not sure that we can -- other than just accepting the
recommendation we have in front of us, that we can all arrive at
the
same conclusion on that, but at least we can get a general
direction.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just sort of for information,
because this is something I hope to put on the agenda in a couple
of
weeks, I've been -- I've been discussing with various folks in the
community, both from the Chamber EDC Coalition, Dr. Polkowski,
representatives of the hospital. There are so many -- I've got a
list
-- of community health oversight kinds of groups to try to come up
with maybe one more -- apologies -- but one more task force in
Collier
County, to maybe bring these groups together to have an umbrella --
not a comprehensive plan, not something that would go in the Growth
Management Plan, but some kind of umbrella review of what are the
health care needs in Collier County as we grow so that we will have
that to measure this (indicated) against, because I don't know if
immunizations and STDs are the highest priority needs in Collier
County. And, like you say, I'm going to accept the recommendation
of
-- of the committee in my ignorance, but I -- I just want to sort
of
tip you off that I'm going to be bringing that up, and I hope that
you
will be thinking about who might be and if that might be a good
idea
so we can have that overall view.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, maybe I'm not following. But
are you saying that you want to start a new committee to do the
same
job that the Public Health Unit Advisory Board is doing?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, sir, absolutely not, because
they look only at public health. What I'm interested in looking at
is
community health overall, both private and public sector, to look
for
ways for private funding for more of the health care needs of the
community.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see. I see the distinction.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Dr. Polkowski, tell me about this line
item on the bottom there that says comprehensive adult health.
What
is that?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Comprehensive adult health is primary
health care for adults. It's a basic kind of clinical services
that
you would get at a private doctor's office.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a perfect example of where
to start the discussion, because as I look at this list, my
personal
feelings of what the public health unit is starts off with -- my
highest priority is childhood immunizations. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That to me has always been
something a county government was very involved in. And my top
three
priorities actually are the top three funding levels;
immunizations,
communicable disease, and tuberculosis, again, things that have a
countywide application for the general health, safety, and welfare.
And I think those three things are my top priorities.
I had the same question as Commissioner Norris, should
we be in the business of providing comprehensive adult health care.
And that, you know -- as -- Commissioner Hac'Kie, as you talked
about
the growing needs of the community and health care, where does this
board want to place itself in providing health care for its
citizens?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Like, what are the needs for --
what are children's needs in this community as opposed to adult
needs? How many children are going without any kind of health
care?
There are just so many things --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And is that our role to provide
it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'm not suggesting it is our
role; but, nevertheless, we need to know what the needs are of the
community and then go to the private sector to look for help if
it's
not county government's role.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might I suggest that it -- that
Dr. Polkowski can proceed with the budget year, that we look at
what
is presented to us today and if there is a line item or an amount
attached to a line item here that a majority of the board would
like
to see put into another area, that we take that approach for today.
And in a way that's kind of prioritizing what's presented to us and
allocating funds, and then we can use that as a benchmark to go
year
to year.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I ask a question, Dr.
Polkowski? Under the adult health care, exactly what kind of
health
care is -- is provided?
DR. POLKOWSKI: The patients that come to our clinic
have various conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, asthma,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; or they come in with various
acute illnesses, such as any of us would have when we go to our
doctors for. That's what the purpose is.
If you notice, it's for the first quarter only, and we
have had our state (inaudible) committee meeting interviewing the
applicants for the private-public partnership, and I will be making
the decision today and -- or tomorrow about that final -- final
choice. So this is only for the first quarter, because we'll need
to
negotiate and continue the services, otherwise the patients will be
unfortunately dropped and --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let me ask you -- let me ask you
one more question then. If I were an adult under the care of -- of
the public health service and I had an acute attack of something or
other and I were to call to get an appointment at your clinic, how
long would it take me to get an appointment?
DR. POLKOWSKI: If you are acutely ill, you may be able
to come in as a walk-in that day. Otherwise, you know, for chronic
conditions we have, of course, appointments, scheduled
appointments.
But we try to fit in walk-ins with acute illnesses as much as
possible. Otherwise, if we're not able to, they'll have to go to
the
emergency room.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. I -- I guess that's --
that's my concern, because couple -- a couple of months ago we
asked a
similar question about children with acute illnesses and -- and so
forth, and we -- we didn't get an answer of trying to fit them in
oh a
walk-in basis so, you know, I'm --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was the answer then? I
don't recall.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They don't see them.
DR. POLKOWSKI: The -- remember, we have a
private-public partnership with CHSI for the clinical aspect of
child
health. We do the field work. They do the clinical aspect of the
__
of child health and also the prenatal clinic. Remember, we had --
you
know, have this private-public partnership and that agreement,
which
was brought to you. And so they are actually providing the direct
clinical services in our building.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The -- my -- my -- as I look at
this list, the only one I have a question on is the comprehensive
adult health, whether or not we should be in that business, so to
speak.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wanted to know what is school
health.
DR. POLKOWSKI: School health, there are required
screenings of children in school at certain grade levels, certain
kinds of screenings.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My daughter is in the third
grade, and she's getting her eyes checked and her ears checked.
It's
that?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Sure. Exactly. Scoliosis, growth and
development, right, and also -- now, the program is extremely
limited
here in Collier County; and it's following up on those with
abnormalities in order that they do get referred for appropriate
evaluation.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Dr. Polkowski, if we were to take
the 20,000 in comprehensive adult health and move it to another
category in front of us, would that create a -- a significant
difficulty to you in the first quarter, or would that provide a
cost
shift ability for you so that we could -- so that area would not go
unserved as currently budgeted?
DR. POLKOWSKI: Yes. If it's agreeable with you, what
we can do then is shift state GR in place of the county GR for
there.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I personally would like to take
the comprehensive adult health line item and move it into either
immunizations or communicable disease, which are the two highest
priorities for me.
DR. POLKOWSKI: That would be excellent.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd support that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Why don't we split that 20,000 to
10,000 in immunizations and 10,000 into communicable disease, and
that
will eliminate comprehensive adult health from our -- our list of -
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let me ask one more -- did I
just hear you say, though, that if we do that under the state GR,
you're going to take $10,000 out of each one of those?
DR. POLKOWSKI: That's right. And shift it in order to
maintain the service at that level. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's just an internal shift, but
I think it --
DR. POLKOWSKI: At this time.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yet it defines a list of
responsibilities and the approach.
DR. POLKOWSKI: I want to also indicate that Dr. Denise
Heinemann, who is the chair of the Public Health Unit Advisory
Board,
is here if you would like to hear from her as the board had made
these
recommendations. And what she had planned with the group is that
just
what you had specifically talked about, and that is to have each of
the advisory board members be responsible for a certain program and
follow it closely and report back to you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that would be helpful.
I'm going to make a motion that we approve what is in our staff
summary with the following changes: immunizations is increased by
10,000; communicable disease is increased by 10,000; and
comprehensive
adult health is removed altogether. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: From the county GR.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would the -- would the advisory board
member like to give a slight presentation before we go on with the
motion?
MS. HEINEMANN: Thank you. Denise Heinemann, 745 16th
Avenue South here in Naples. I want to comment on a number of
things
that have been said. Number one, Commissioner Mac'Kie points out
that
we really need as a community to look at health care delivery in
this
community as a whole. We have a unique opportunity because we have
natural political boundaries. We have a single acute care
facility.
We have a strong school system. We have a number of good reasons
for
why we can develop a good system of health care in this county. We
don't have that completely laid out at this point.
I just want to make sure that -- that you understand my
perception of the health unit's role in primary care, particularly
for
adults. It has not been a small private business that is
profitable.
It is the role of the public health units. It's mandated by the
state
that if the needs of the people of this county are not being met,
then
the public health unit has to step in and do that. It does it
reluctantly very often because of its constraints and finances.
So that item on the budget is really a -- a last portion
of the health unit's operation in that field as it negotiates what
I
think will be a successful contract to have the needs of those
people
met over the future. If, however, CHSI or any other agency were
not
able to meet those needs, the public health unit is mandated by
state
law to step in and meet the identified needs of the community. So
I
think we have to understand that this is a mandate from the state
for
the public health unit. And I think we've had a successful
negotiation or the beginning of that, and we will see the adult
health
services transferred.
The advisory board has grown from its initial days, and
we will be taking a very active role. I've asked -- there are, in
fact, seven members on the advisory board, and I've asked each of
them
to look at the areas where county dollars will be allocated and to
become extremely familiar with the services and the staff that are
associated with each of those services so that they can become
sources
of information for you over the future. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you very much, Dr. Polkowski.
We apologize for being seven minutes late on your request.
DR. POLKOWSKI: That's all right. Thank you.
Item #9A
PROPOSED AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY FORMERLY
KNOWN
AS THE LANDFILL EXPANSION PROPERTY TO COLLIER GOLF AUTHORITY, INC.
- TO
BE BROUGHT BACK ON OCTOBER 15, 1996
CHAIPdiAiq NORRIS: Next item is 9(A), a report to the
board concerning the -- the Breeden-Glass Golf Course.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Before you today is a report with several companion exhibit
materials
to advise you of the progress made toward the proposed agreement
for
the sale of the surplus real property that's known as the landfill
expansion property. And I wanted to come before the board for --
for
several reasons: one, at the request of the, first of all,
contracting party, the Collier Golf Authority; two, events have
continued, not only beyond negotiation with the county in regard to
the agreement, but events and interaction of the Golf Authority
with
the Industrial Development Authority have been pending. Meetings
have
been held as recently as Wednesday of last week. And I think we
have
some information that will be pertinent to the board in -- in
regard
to the potential financing of the -- of the proposed purchaser
here.
And -- and, thirdly, I wanted to bring to the board, through the
agreement that's been negotiated to date, some of the issues that
are
outstanding or least bear some discussion.
And, therefore, within the rather lengthy-for-me agenda
packet that I've provided to you is some of the kind of historical
material that we've come up to bring us to the position we are
today.
You'll see in there was included the Hay 21st agenda executive sum
__
summary in which the staff came back to the board with the report
bid solicitation for the -- for the property that was determined to
be
surplused in November of 1995. And part and parcel with that
executive summary was specific language referencing the
advertisement,
which talked in terms of -- and I'll refer you to page 5 of our
packet
dated for today. And it mentioned that the advertisement terms and
conditions included 20 percent deposit required within 5 business
days
of board acceptance. The closing would occur within 60 days of the
bid acceptance, and that the property was offered in an as-is
condition and specifically and expressly without any warranties or
representations or guarantees. And in the fourth note was that the
bidders were advised of the following deed restrictions and that
the
property must be used as a public golf course with a minimum of 18
holes championship level.
So there was ultimately, as you know, one response that
came from -- happened to come from the Collier Golf Authority,
Inc.,
purported 501(c)(3) company. And in their response to the board,
both
by their letter response provided to staff, but also with the
dialogue
held at the May 21st board meeting, the board came to understand
and
be informed that their response looked toward and would require a -
_
an outside financing package with the Industrial Development
Authority.
Included in the correspondence with this executive
summary are two or three letters and exhibits from Mr. Arnold Glass
behalf of the golf -- the Collier Golf Authority, and it's noted
that
among the response they provided that not merely would it be an
18-hole championship level golf course, but that they would
construct
and operate a 21 -- it's 27 -- 27-hole championship golf course in
perpetuity, although there is a postscript to one of the -- I think
it's April 17th letter that indicates that the board understands
that
the response provided means that all the cogent or appropriate
terms
are negotiable.
So with the direction of the board on May 21st and the
board having an understanding that there was going to be an
interaction with the Industrial Development Authority toward a
financing package and the ultimate requirement, if you will, for
the
issuance of industrial revenue bonds, the county attorney office
with
the significant help of the real property department got involved
in
negotiation. And that's where we come with the packet that's
before
you today. And there are a few items that -- that need to be --
need
to be addressed so that you are -- are fully informed as to the
contract terms itself.
I would refer you to page 13 of the agenda packet, which
puts you into page 1 of the proposed agreement. And specifically
paragraph 2 addresses the down payment that would be made. And
you'll
note that the down payment is not a 20 percent down payment but, in
fact, has been modified to read as a 10 percent down payment of the
just over one million dollar sales fee.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my first question. May I
interrupt you as you go?
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did our -- is that a concern
about the bidding process? I mean, others might have bid had they
known that they didn't actually have to come up with the cash that
we
indicated was required.
MR. WEIGEL: It may be -- it may be a concern, but I'm
-- I'm not of the opinion that it's an absolute concern at this
point
in time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I make a suggestion? Can
we go --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's hard for me to continue my train
of thought if we are going to branch out during his presentation.
Could you write your questions down and then ask them all at once?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. Uh-huh.
MR. WEIGEL: I won't be long. We're midway through the
process right here, and I appreciate that. But I'll break any way
you
like.
So it provides for a -- either a 10 percent down payment
within a short period of acceptance -- well, one month as opposed
to
five days as advertised, or a pledge of a 20 percent interest of
Collier Golf Authority to the county. And, you know, in our
discussions with Collier Golf Authority representatives, we
attempted
to glean and learn what is 20 percent of the -- of the assets. And
it
-- I'm sure Mr. Glass or -- or someone else on the Golf Authority
behalf will be happy to explain that a little bit further. But it
may
be a little bit illusory to the county. The 20 percent of what is
a
little hard to tell. The 501(c)(3) company that, you know, needs
the
issuance of industrial revenue bonds to -- in a -- in a major way
obviously for a 9 million dollar project, which the bonds they are
looking for the issuance of is for the construction and completion
of
the project and not merely the 1 million dollar purchase of the
property, but that I want you to be aware at this point of -- of
that
term that is in the agreement as drafted at the present time.
Secondly, I bring to your attention that there is a --
there is a lack of a reverter clause in the agreement that exists.
Mr. Glass had indicated initially that there would be a reverter
clause. We discussed this at great length. Now, looking again
back
to the significant discussion and general direction of the board
back
on Hay 21st, I determined myself, made the executive decision, as
you
will -- if you will, that we should go forward with the negotiation
and see to what end we come to. And clearly the concept I had was
that the county may ultimately not necessarily desire for a
reversion
of the interest. The county's determination, at least, on Hay 21st
was that it wants to have a viable public golf course to be
developed
and go forward. And, therefore, the deed restrictions we would
look
for both in the contract and the deed, though issue based upon the
contract, that there would be several restrictions, and one of
which
is that it would be absolutely used in perpetuity as a public golf
course for 27 holes or 18 holes or whatever we wanted to put in
there.
And ultimately then as our discussion came back and
forth in this regard, I have included a letter from Mr. Dan Peck,
attorney for the Collier Golf Authority, on -- which is page 4 of
the
agenda packet, which provides the very -- some of the very language
that is in paragraph 6(A), page 2, of the agreement. And that is
essentially the property would be used as a golf course in
perpetuity
as long as it's economically feasible to do so during the life of
the
bonds. Now, this is proposed to provide some assurances to the
bond
holders that if the -- if it's absolutely economically impossible
for
this project to go forward as it is, that the bond holders not be
stuck to a canard that won't fly. But, in any event, it provides a
severe limitation to the county's concept of either having a
reverter
to take over the -- the premises and run it as a golf course or
that
it have an absolute deed restriction for perpetuity.
Now, the silver lining of this cloud of 6(A) is that the
county itself will choose an independent auditor to make the
determination whether it's fiscally possible for this golf course
to
be -- for this operation to be run as a public golf course. But
that's the term that's there, and I wanted you to be aware of it.
And
Mr. Glass, I think, will probably have some additional comments in
that regard.
I -- I have a call in to attorney Don Pickworth with the
IDA and haven't had the opportunity to speak with him. I read the
newspaper article on either Thursday or Friday of this past week in
the Naples Daily News that the IDA had not a least, an unfettered
fashion finished its review and decision making concerning issuance
of
industrial development bond. Again, I would mention to the board
that
I believe that the tentative approval that it gave on Hay 21st was
based upon the -- an official approval of this board issuing upon
the
bond financing being approved and, therefore, successful to go
forward. I don't think we're quite there yet. At the time I was
putting together this agenda package clear up until Wednesday
morning,
I just didn't have that information. So I had to allude to it at
that
point.
Another thing to keep in mind is that we have very few
assurances in this agreement, but there are a few. And, again,
knowing that the board had, to a certain extent, embreast --
embraced
the concept of bond financing, my experience with bond counsel and
bond financing on other projects, county projects, is that there
are
certain -- typically are certain kind of business concerns that
have
to be addressed. And I, therefore, backed away from the rather
absolute and stark agreement that we had advertised in the sense
that
we are providing a minimum of certain guarantees, and that is --
those
can be found on the top of page 2 -- I think it's paragraph 4 --
and
included in those is that certain elements of the permitting
process
go forward, that the property -- that we are conveying marketable
title, will include a review of such things as legal access to the
premises. The county and probably the real property department,
George Archibald, Tom Conrecode of public works, may need to just
be
aware of the fact that the access that's currently -- legal access
that currently exists to the property may meet the bare bones of --
of
marketable title, that is legal access, may not be the assess that
the
project warrants or should have. And so there may be some
considerations to come up even subsequent to an entering into this
agreement based upon the title report that would come back
purchased
at the expense of Collier Golf Authority.
That's the background that I'd like to provide right
now, and I apologize I didn't provide an additional memorandum as I
stated I would in my executive summary. But I found that in
briefly
stating the issues, there just wasn't a lot more to put in writing
other than what I'd tell you right now.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of thoughts.
One, I've been a very big proponent of this from day one. However,
I
feel fairly strong that we need to make sure -- I mean, we did say
it
would be 18 holes, public golf course in perpetuity, and that was
going to be a deed restriction. And I know their offer had been
27.
I don't care if all 27 are in perpetuity or not, but 18 was part of
what we put out as the request. So I feel very strongly that that
needs to be a part of this, that 18 of it, anyway, will always be
for
that purpose.
Secondly, I guess I'm a little confused, and perhaps you
don't have the answer, Mr. Weigel, if you haven't talked with Mr.
Pickworth. But I don't know exactly what happened at the IDA last
week, other than what I read in the paper, and that's usually not a
good way to make decisions, out of a newspaper clipping, so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless it's by Michael Cody.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, those are always
flawless, of course.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hip boots, please.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just looking for some
sort of substantive answer to what happens -- what was requested,
what
wasn't, what was approved, what wasn't at last week's meeting of
the
IDA.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, again, I wish I could tell you
exactly what that is, and I do not know. The agreement was
essentially coming to the board with the accessory materials that I
put in the agenda packet as an update and report to the board, as
well
as the fact that the Collier Golf Authority had determined and, in
fact, did execute on their behalf this agreement as negotiated to
this
point. Therefore, I was not endorsing to this board that the board
necessarily approve the agreement as drafted. But at the same time
I
wanted to respond to any legal concerns that you may have
concerning
some change in -- in terms or concept from the original
advertisement
and -- and look for board direction as we go from here. I would
suggest, however, that based on the board's previous tentative
approval, which had a basis of approval by the IDA, there needs to
be
a final action of the IDA or -- or certainly ought to be before the
board approves this contract.
Now, obviously the options are still yours to do
whatever you wish to do with this agreement or to go out again, but
but it seems that the previous indication you gave was that you
would
be looking to the IDA as a -- as the financing element and see what
happened. It's obviously taken a lot longer than was -- than was
projected back in Hay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So what you're telling me is,
you know for a fact the IDA has not made its final action on this?
MR. WEIGEL: I know nothing more than the newspaper
article myself.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With no -- no malice intended,
this thing has gone from wobbly legs to shaky.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To no legs.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm a little concerned when
we start making material changes such as the deposit amount
changes,
the time frame in which the deposit must be supplied changes. And
I
think Commissioner Mac'Kie said it in her early comment; when you
change the parameters, you change the number of people that may or
may
not bid on a project. And as much as we all would like to see this
fly, there are some things that bother me. You mentioned, Mr.
Weigel,
something about the board -- the county owning 20 percent?
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: In lieu of --
MR. WEIGEL: The initial executive summary and the terms
that were advertised were that there be a down payment of 20
percent,
I think, five days after approval by the board of the sale.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And there's a lot of community
chatter about, golly, if I'd have known I didn't come up with the
money, I might have bid too. I think that's a significant issue.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On the 20 percent, the reason we
put this property up for sale is because we didn't want to own or
develop a municipal course.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We wanted it to be done in the
private sector, not as a public sector project. Why there's not a
reverter clause concerns me greatly. Why 27 holes when we know for
a
fact maintenance per 9 holes is dramatic. So when you go to 27,
your
maintenance goes up. And our goal here is to keep the cost down.
That was the carrot out there. So when we go to 27 holes, you
k~ow,
the revenue doesn't offset the maintenance in the initial years.
It's
not until the outyears that 27 holes becomes profitable, assuming a
great amount of use.
It's a different animal right now, and I -- rather than
just -- just ending the process, what I'd like to see is if we're
going to accept these material changes, that we accept them in the
form of rebidding the project, and if the Golf Authority wishes to
reenter a bid based on that material, so be it. It's a level
playing
field. But making these changes afterwards, I -- I'm not
comfortable
with, and it has nothing to do with Mr. Glass or the Golf
Authority.
It's just simply a process question that I can't find a comfort
level
with.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't seem that any of
the board is comfortable with that, but what I would be comfortable
with is actually hearing from Mr. Glass and his folks, and perhaps
they will change some of these. Perhaps they won't. But at the
very
least we'll get an explanation.
MR. PECK: I think we're going to reverse our order in
view of the questions that have been asked today. My name is
Daniel
Peck. I'm the attorney for the golf authority. You've raised some
good issues, and I'll back-door everything by saying that listening
to
you, I think maybe the most practical solution would be to place it
out to bid with the conditions that we've met. That eliminates
your
concerns. We, fortunately, with the IDA have enough time probably
to
accommodate that. I do need, I think, to give you some background
on
why we're here and why those changes were made.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm glad to hear you say that you
are supporting the rebid idea, but I want to just be sure that
nobody
on the board is talking about rebidding without a reverter.
MR. PECK: Well, let me at least address that point
before you make some decisions. Several of the factors that I
think
are necessary to put the project in perspective are: One, you'll
be
receiving money for surplus landfill property; two, we were the
only
bidder before. We may possibly still be the only bidder again;
three,
we offer you 27 holes for the county rather than 18. And Mr. Glass
will be a better one to answer Mr. Hancock's question on why 27 is
appropriate. Certainly it offers more as far as public access. We
offer you the good of public golf. We do not have any cost or
obligation to the county.
Bottom line, I think where we have to be cognizant -- we
as attorneys and you as a board always like to have a perfect
contract
on each side with all the conditions just as we want, and some of
the
conditions are not as we want. Sometimes we have to face what we
lawyers don't like to face, and that's reality. Sometimes
conditions
can't be made. Sometimes we're concerned about issues that may not
happen one out of a million times, and we can blow the whole deal
because of those issues. And sometimes we have to balance the good
that's offered with the negative that we foresee could possibly
happen.
There's been an allusion to IDA, what happened at the
meeting. I was present at the meeting, and as best I can quote
what
happened, a resolution was made which was deemed for the sake of
Internal Revenue Code to be a final or binding resolution but had
Some
qualifications where we had to submit certain material and that we
would actually come back for final bond issuance approval. So it's
kind of a double-edged resolution. Yes, it was a resolution. Yes,
it
was resolution so that we could say to Internal Revenue Code, give
us
a definitive ruling. And yet we do have conditions that we do have
to
go back to them on.
Related to that we have a condition in the contract that
is before you which says it's subject to IDA approval so that that
probably is somewhat of a moot issue because if we don't get IDA
approval, the contract's subject to that contingency and,
therefore,
__
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: What does the IDA resolve? There
is an IDA resolution contingent on some things that they resolved
that
__
MR. PECK: They resolved that we could go forward to --
to Internal Revenue Code and get approval. They resolved that if
we
satisfactorily responded to their concerns, that they -- we would
have
their support, I guess, would be the way I would best -- you always
hate to speak for someone else, but the way I would have to term
what
they were doing, if they were not going to be satisfied with the
responses, that we would bring back several issues that they had.
Then obviously it wouldn't have made any sense for them to have us
go
forward at that time.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did the resolution say your
financing is approved subject to the following conditions?
MR. PECK: Correct. And it said it's deemed to be -- I
guess the word was final approval for the sake of Internal Revenue
Code, but it had a qualification that we would come back to them
before actually bond financing and confirm that they were satisfied
with the response to conditions that were issued.
Part of our underlying problem is very practically what
we need for bond financing and what we need to go out and have
funds,
approve the bond. And in that regard, one of the issues you've
raised
is a reverter clause. I played with that at some length, and you
take
several thoughts, as I see it, in mind: One, for the first three
years that's not an issue. After the bond is concluded -- and that
could be paid off as ease -- as early as 10 years if things go the
way
we hope they go. It could be as late as 20 years if things don't
go
as well as we anticipate. After that time you would have in
perpetuity a golf course.
You have a gap year where you have -- of 3 to 10 to 20
years, depending on the length of the bond, where it could revert.
You have the protection that you would have to have your own
auditor
determine it was not financially feasible to do that.
I'm informed by the bond people that that is necessary
because they cannot go out to sell without any hope of the bond
investors not being able to in some way get their money out if, in
fact, it is not feasible. I think you also have to couple that --
if
we do not go forward and you're interested in that property being
as a
-- used as a public golf course, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see a
-- an alternative there where someone else will use that property
as
a golf course. So it's perhaps less than a perfect condition; yet
it's one where to what I know, if we have those economic problems,
they would first put in a new management team and try all sorts of
things to resolve it that way. That would only be a last stopgap
situation. We wouldn't be going forward. Bond people wouldn't be
going forward. The IDA wouldn't be going forward unless there were
more than a reasonable prospect that that contingency would not be
one
that would have to be employed.
So as a practical matter, yes, you do have a narrow
window of years. Hopefully with the investment in there -- nobody
wants to see that happen. Certainly we don't. Certainly the bond
people don't. Certainly that's less than a feasible thing.
Certainly
you have control over that. Hopefully that would never come to be
a
practical event.
Bottom line is we can't go forward without it, so it's
not one of those terms that we're sitting here playing games and
saying we would like to do it that way. I even talked to them and
said, can we cut it down to 18 years rather than 20 years, and I
couldn't even get approval to go that route.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I may be the only one not
following that, but I didn't -- I don't understand. You can't get
a
bond approval if there's a reverter?
MR. PECK: We cannot sell the bond in the marketplace
without having some right for the investors if it's financially
completely not feasible, and obviously when it's not feasible, our
first step is to get new management in and try and restructure
things
and redo things. But if that still happens and it's not a feasible
project, we cannot get anybody to invest in the project. We can --
fine, we can have bonds issued, but if they don't sell and we don't
have anybody to commit to them, that's one of the necessary
conditions, according to the bond people, that we -- we cannot live
without. So that's -- that's where the concern arises.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me throw a thought in and
just in the for-discussion category. What if -- and this goes back
to
your question of doing 18 versus 27 to start. What if -- if you
have
the reverter clause for your 18 and before you do the additional 9
holes you find how economically feasible that 18 is. Hopefully we
know that to start. But if there is some question there, perhaps
there's a way to leave a gap on the additional property that that
nine
holes would be developed on. I have no idea what an appropriate
use
for that would be. But you would still have your 18 public holes
of
golf, and if an additional 9 isn't financially feasible, perhaps
something else on that property is. And you end up with your golf
and
something to lift it up economically. I don't know how you do
that,
but I'm just thinking in terms of that might be a better way than
to
try to put 27 in there and not have it work. That makes no sense
at
all.
MR. PECK: I think Arnold Glass would be the best one to
respond to you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I have a question for you, Mr.
Peck, before Mr. Glass gets started here.
MR. PECK: I've got one other --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You were mentioning a sequence of
events in case of default on the bonds or insolvency. The -- at
the
end of that sequence of events, would the -- if -- if all other
avenues had been exhausted, would the property revert to the bond
holders?
MR. PECK: Correct. In essence, it would be a bond
default. It would revert to the bond holders, and you might --
obviously it's subject to your zoning use in that very remote
contingency, and you might end up with the very same use that the
property would have been used for if we hadn't been able to go
forward.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's a major concern, though,
if we lose all control of the property at some point if the project
is
not financially feasible after it's up and running.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would a bank finance -- and I'm
asking you, because you have the investment background more than I.
But would a bank finance deal be any different? Would a bank
finance
it with a reverter clause that it goes back to the county because
then
the property can't be used as collateral?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Same.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it the same thing?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Same problem.
MR. PECK: You know, part of what we're all reaching for
is utopia, and utopia is that we would not have any type of
reverter
clause as a practical matter. We come somewhat close to utopia
because for the first 3 years and after 10 to 20 years we cannot
change it from a golf course use. And during that time you have
the
assurance that as long as it in some way is financially feasible,
we
cannot change it. So there is a very narrow erosion of that utopia
and as a --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seventeen years, you're talking
potentially seventeen years; you were describing that as narrow.
MR. PECK: Seven to seventeen and coupled with a factor
that it would have to be determined by the board that it was not
financially feasible and that it would be; so that -- that would be
the only erosion, and that, in essence, would probably end up with
the
land subject to zoning requirements being used as it would
otherwise
be used if we didn't go forward. So even though it is not a
perfect
resolution, if a one-in-a-thousand or a one-in-a-million occurrence
occurred, it may not be any worse than you would face otherwise.
And
I think that's an important point.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Using your term, "utopia",
the best-case scenario for me would be 27 holes of public golf.
MR. PECK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I just threw out, and
I'm kind of thinking out loud here, but what I would see is what I
would be willing to step back to. And I don't see -- let me
preface
it by saying I don't see your suggestion of a 17-year window where
it
might completely go away and become something totally different as
a
minor step away from that. That's a -- that's a concern for me,
and
it sounds as though it's a big concern for the board.
But what I see as a minor step away or an acceptable
step away from utopia is if we can guarantee, through the use of a
fevertar clause, that two-thirds of that -- that 18 holes would be
used as a golf course. And rather than go ahead and build that
final
third as a golf course, not knowing whether or not that's going to
work completely, I would reserve that; and that might have some
value,
again, depending on whatever this board deemed was an appropriate
use. I don't know if that's agricultural or commercial or
something
else. But if that may have some value, then if you found yourself
16
years into this and the 18 wasn't financially feasible, you could
do
something with that extra third of the property to bring the
economics
in -- into swing. And I would think a financial institution might
find that more acceptable than having 27 holes completely
revertible
or that the board's going to find acceptable that that whole thing
could end up being something else. I mean, I don't want to see an
affordable housing project out where we intended to have 27 holes
of
golf 12 years from now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And before Mr. Peck answers, what
I think we will find -- and we'll go back to your very first
statement
which I think is, you know -- should be a point of focus. If we
rabid
this with some of the changes as proposed, we may find that Mr.
Peck
is absolutely correct, that no one else is going to come in with
utopia or a better deal or something that gives us a greater level
of
comfort. We then have a -- a comparison and approaches to compare
to
each other. So, you know, there -- there may be some creativity --
room for creativity here.
What I would like to see is that a new bidding process
allow for those options to be presented as a part of a formal bid,
because if they -- if they can't do a reverter clause, you -- you
run
it as an option, reverter clause, or you know, the option's
available. And if that's possible --
MR. PECK: Yeah. I think Mr. Hancock may have a good
suggestion. I -- obviously if the issue were as simple as we could
do
it in two segments and that would solve everything, we wouldn't
have
the problem that we have. The bottom line is if you're an investor
and you're investing in not only 18 holes, but substantial
development
costs, if you get half the size of that without any development in
it
as your security, you're not going to have, probably in most
investors' minds, very good securities or a salable product or a
golf
course that can go forward. Arnold Glass, after I address the one
remaining issue, would be a better one to respond why financially
it's
much more practical to go forward with 27 holes as opposed to 18,
and
I'll leave that segment for him.
The other issue that I needed to touch on with you is
the practicality of the 20 percent down payment provision. One, we
perhaps preface that by saying in real estate deals generally in
the
State of Florida we look as -- at a customary deposit of 10 percent
rather than 20 percent. Two, again, we're faced with practicality.
We don't have 20 percent in the bank to give you as an immediate
deposit. What would practically happen -- and the reason that we
have
the time period in there -- is once the county approves it, we
would
have to go to the bonding people. They would issue a bond for the
expenses of it. It would take that long to come up with the 10
percent, and that's why we're -- we're at that level. And one
other
__
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Peck --
MR. PECK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- when you responded to the bid
that requested 20 percent, did you have the money?
MR. GLASS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because surely you wouldn't have
responded to a bid saying you had the money if you didn't. And if
you
had it then, where is it now?
MR. GLASS: We still have the $200,000, but it's
encumbered because of permitting and all the stuff that we had to
go
through to get this bond issue together. At closing on bond it's
being paid back off immediately; so that money would be back
available. That's a part of the initial part of the issue of the
bond.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would you identify yourself for the
record.
MR. GLASS: Arnold Lee Glass, chairman of the Collier
Golf Authority.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me, but it seems to me
that 20 percent was already encumbered by the terms of this bid.
MR. GLASS: No. This was prior to -- this -- this is
because --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Then you didn't have the money
when you --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. Either you had it at the
time you responded to the bid and it became immediately encumbered
by
responding to the bid, or it was already encumbered and you
shouldn't
have said you had it when you responded to the bid.
MR. GLASS: Well, we have been told now by EVEREN that
this is an issue, and it will be coming forth very quickly, I mean,
post haste quickly now.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's see if we can try to bring
this to a central focus.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Bring it to a close.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Our goal here today is to either
decide to accept what's been proposed with five additional changes,
to
accept with modification of that, or to rebid with additional
changes. I -- I -- I have to agree with Mr. Peck. I think
rebidding
is going to bring a lot of answers to questions that we may have
right
here. The question is, if we're going to rebid, how should we do
it?
What is the deposit amount? What is the payment of that deposit
period? And then there are the issues such as 18 or 27 holes. So
maybe, you know, Mr. Glass, I'm sure you have something on the 18
or
27 that we may want to hear, but the balance of these I think we
ca~
decide.
Number 2, no commercial development shall occur. Any
problem with that?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Other than that affiliated with
the golf course.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Other than that affiliated with
the golf course. That's fine. Number 3, no residential housing or
development will be established. That precludes the option
Commissioner Constantine was mentioning, that a parcel -- some of
it
will be set aside that may have residual value other than golf
course
use; that precludes that. Do we want to -- do we want that in
there
in a new bid?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe you make a step to bid
where -- I mean, where -- my preference would be not to have that.
You can have 27 holes of golf; that would be the preference. If
you
can make something with 18 that's available to the public and you
have
to make a residential component to make that a reality, that would
be
my second choice. That wouldn't be my preference, but I see that
as
better than no -- nothing at all available to the public.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The irony, I have to say, of --
of considering building houses on the landfill expansion site that
we're selling because we have houses too close to the current
landfill
is --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Exactly.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- insane.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: But let's not preclude industrial
development, which is an appropriate area. We're not -- we don't
need
to think just in residential terms.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not -- I don't have enough
information to make the decision on what the bid terms should be
today. I'm confident that for my vote I'm not going to agree to
what's in front of us. I'm confident that it requires a rebid, but
but I don't know -- I've had a lot of people talk to me about this
maintenance issue and 18 versus 27 and that the -- the golf
authority's numbers are -- that would have to have people playing
in
the dark and in the rain to get as many rounds played and that kind
of
stuff. So I have a lot of questions.
MR. GLASS: Okay. Well, we have a very good couple
feasibility studies that indicate that 27 holes is the proper thing
to
do at that golf course. It has the capacity, and it doesn't take
playing after 5:30 at night when the sun goes down according to the
National Golf Foundation, which is one of the foremost experts in
the
country on golf feasibility studies.
We are looking at the 27 holes because we want to ta --
I'll address the biggest questions, is maintenance costs, and I
know
that's what other people think and say. Number one, we're going in
there to do a complete conservation golf course. We're going to be
working with the Audubon, the national Audubon, and other things.
We're not going to be stripping the land down. It's going to be a
unique thing when people go out there, and they're going to get a
special uplifting just from being with nature plus playing golf on
a
beautiful course. We're not doing a lot of cutting in that area
with
our designs. So we've got our maintenance areas that are going to
be
roughs that are going to be maintained in the natural state, and
that
altogether is approximately a hundred acres in the 27 acres (sic).
Those will be cut and greens and things like that out of the whole
property. The rest will be natural preserves.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You say a hundred acres for 27
holes?
MR. GLASS: Uh-huh. It's laid out in the way it's very
playable, very wide, things -- and we're trying to maintain as much
as
possible of all of these natural settings that are in there, things
for red cockaded woodpeckers, the crested eagles, the bear --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I represent developers. I thought
it was a hundred and fifty acres for 18 holes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a hundred areas in turf
grass total for 18 holes typically. So if you're only maintaining
a
hundred acres for 27 holes, I assume you're not talking about turf
grass. You're talking about fairways and greens?
MR. GLASS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So you have to add at
least another 50 acres.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also, if you're talking about
the Audubon preserve style -- and that's like Collier's Reserve
which
utilized considerable less than average. Matter of fact, on -- the
Golf Channel had a -- I'm sure you were tuned in.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I was tuned in.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On -- the Golf Channel
earlier in the week had a special on a course over in the Palm
Beach
area that followed that same type, and they used -- I don't know
what
the percentage was. It was 70 percent of what most golf courses
use
or something --
MR. GLASS: That's what we're attempting to do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the idea being trying to
preserve as much of the natural area as we can.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, do we want to bid this
thing as 27 or 187 Can we just -- you know, is there a meth -- do
we
want to rebid it at 27 or 18 or leave that as an option?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Leave that as an option. My
concern is rebidding based on this 20 percent deposit. I'm -- I'm
really concerned about reducing that to 10 percent, and I'm even
more
concerned about the fact that we don't have it in hand yet.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I think we should re -- if we're
going to rebid it, the hole number should be left open as part of
the
bid to have the bidder submit whether they want --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What he thinks is reasonable.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I make a suggestion that
we bring this back? I think Commissioner Hac'Kie is right. We've
agreed we're going to bid. We don't have all the information right
now -- and maybe bring it back in a week, have our folks from
property
appraisal come in and tell us, as Commissioner Hancock said, what's
an
appropriate use out there in that area, tell us some of the
different
things affiliated. I think we can answer half these questions
we're
asking if we were prepared, and -- and maybe we can send those off
to
our staff ahead of time so they're prepared to do it but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're not going to say no to
the Golf Authority. What we're saying is that this is going to be
rebid, keep an eye on the forum, determine whether or not you can
rebid that as it's presented understanding that if it's 10 percent
or
20 percent, that money needs to be in hand, unencumbered at the
time
of the bid --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Within five days.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- within 5 days.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, again, that's another term
we'll discuss, 5 days, 30 days, what's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of my questions of our
appraisal staff will be what is standard. We've heard from Mr.
Peck,
gee, 10 percent is normal. And maybe it is; maybe it isn't. I
don't
know.
MR. GLASS: In a previous county commission meeting when
we discussed this bid issue, it was five days after the approval of
the IDA is what was on the record, and I have a copy of that
record.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I remember that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Oh, no, I'm not disputing
that.
MR. GLASS: It wasn't five days after the receipt of a
contract.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, would two weeks be
better?
MR. DORRILL: I think --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think next week's a fairly busy
agenda, isn't it?
MR. DORRILL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. GLASS: There was one other thing people had
questioned about was the 501-C-3 status of the organization. This
has
been sent out to everybody --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just give that to Mr. Weigel, and
we'll --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Give it to Mr. Weigel, please.
MR. GLASS: So you can have it for the board. That's
the confirmation of our status.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that the determination letter
from the IRS?
MR. GLASS: No. That's determination from the director
that we are a 501(c)(3), and we're eligible to collect donations
tax
free and everything else.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Does it make you eligible to
issue bonds?
MR. GLASS: That's what we're wor -- the bond councils
are between Tom Giblin and the bond council for the EVEREN
Securities
are working that situation right now. And the IRS director
happened
to tell me, said we don't issue those anymore. That's not
something
that's up to the bond council to follow the law. We're cutting
back
on all the things we're doing; so I don't think you're going to see
one. He's going to have a letter coming down, I think, instead to
the
board and to the people.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: More importantly, I don't think
your group's efforts have been lost, but it is being reshaped, and
we'll have to see in two weeks how -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Then, if I understand, in two weeks staff
will come back with some appraisal information for you and expect
then
you will give us all staff direction as to the rebid, possibly
something like a request for proposals with prices. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That sounds about right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'd like to see the -- the
request for proposal as a part of our package so we can have some
review time ahead of schedule. Also, make it available to the --
the
Golf Authority, because I am sure we're going to have some line
item
discussions on what should and shouldn't be in that RFP. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Glass.
MR. GLASS: Thank you. See you in a couple weeks.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do we have any public comments
today?
MR. DORRILL: We don't have any, no, sir.
Item #14A
DISCUSSION OF 6TH WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews, anything further?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. I have one item. I met
with Lee County administrative officers last week on a proposed
sixth
water management district. And they have asked me to request time
on
their management and planning agenda, which I have done, and I'm
hoping to be able to workshop this with the five county
commissioners
on Monday, October the 7th. And time is of the essence on this
because of the legislative delegation process, which concludes on
December the 12th, I believe, this year. So I have asked Sallie,
our
secretary, or one of our secretaries, to have this issue on our
agenda
also for next Tuesday so that we'll piggyback with the two days,
October 7th, October 8th. The whole issue should take maybe 30
minutes, 45 minutes total.
Item #14B
DISCUSSION OF AGENCIES WITHIN THE UNITED WAY
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just remind everyone to -- I'll
drop some United Way pledge cards on your desk, and you can
designate
certain agencies within the United Way for money to go to. If you
have any questions, come see me.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Look at your lapel.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That will pretty much do it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have nothing.
Item #14C
DISCUSSION OF INTELLINET CHARITIES THAT HAVE NOT RECEIVED THEIR
MONIES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I bet you have
something.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir, just a couple things.
One -- one has to do with what we've been reading in the newspaper
about the formerly Intellinet. Sort of a golf day today.
Intellinet
now; what is it? The LP or something?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: LG.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm concerned about the charities
that haven't gotten their money. I'm concerned about having spent
county tax dollars. And if, in fact -- I only read part of the
article this morning, but 87 bookings of the -- of the golf
packages
that were marketed. I'd like to ask for an audit of where the
county
money was spent. Did we get -- did we actually ever get those
advertisements? How do we know we got the advertising that we were
promised? And then I -- I'd like that tied to this current year's
commitment to the -- to the -- to the golf tournament. I'd like to
have that information before the check is written for this year's
contribution to the golf tournament.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We had asked for that information
to be brought to the TDC.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I've been meeting with
different hoteliers and groups of them. And I think, you know,
there's some valid questions out there. You know, we haven't seen
the
pro formas on the commercials, where do they run, what markets, how
many, and so forth. And that's all to be provided. I would like
to
see it before the check is written also, because I think we need to
make some decisions this year on the hundred thousand for
marketing.
If it wasn't done properly last year, let's see a true
marketing plan that is a better approach and can provide real
results
this year. And I've encouraged the hoteliers to begin working on
suggestions on how that can be done. So I think we can make a
better
animal this year. So I would like to see that it go to the TDC as
opposed to this board first.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's fine, just so long as we
can also get a report before our check is cut.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we know when that check has to
be made?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When is the next meeting for the
TDC? Is it next Monday?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Beats me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does anyone know offhand?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: First Monday of the month is
normal.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it's only a week or two, I
think that's awfully short notice to put that information together.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does anybody know when our check
has to be cut? Mr. Dotrill, do you know?
MR. DORRILL: I'm looking at a letter that was sent last
spring outlining some of the board's requests for the information.
And it seems to hinge on the completion of the promotion and an
audit
that was to be conducted on October the 27th.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
MR. DORRILL: And Miss Gansel has been doing some
follow-up to do the staff work and prepare an executive summary to
submit to the TDC. I'll say that we -- that should all be done
pending the completion of the -- the items in this letter probably
sometime in November and reported back either through -- to this
board
and/or the TDC. I don't know when the check would normally be cut,
but I can determine that and let you know later this week.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But our -- our check is already
contingent on receipt of that information ahead of time?
MR. DORRILL: I don't know. That's something I need to
check with Miss Gansel on as to whether or not the check can be cut
pending the submission of the audit records from last year and also
the breakout on the final room night tallies by -- by and through
the
end of October.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I'd like to add to that a
report on the distributions to local charities.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We did a great deal of work.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You did a lot of work. I just --
MR. DORRILL: So that you'll know the information that I
have, the former event management company, promotion company, is
separate and apart from the tournament, and they contract with
people
and properties. And --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want the information.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. I'm just saying it might be very
difficult to say that unless charities are paid from --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no.
MR. DORRILL: I think -- as I understand it people in
properties manages tournaments around the country, and I think it
would probably be incumbent on the PGA to lean on them and say,
look,
you've got some unfulfilled obligations in Collier, and we're not
going to look very favorably on that as you -- you're in the
business
to manage our tournaments around the country, and we may have to
lean
on the PGA a little bit in order to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's why the information would
be useful. I don't think that can be tied to our contribution to
the
tournament, but I think the audit can be.
MR. DORRILL: I'll let you know something before the end
of the week on that.
Item #14D
DISCUSSION OF COSTS, STANDARDS AND PERMITTING ASSOCIATED WITH NEW
LANDFILL SITE
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My only other issue is I guess
somehow related to golf, too, since it -- it has to do with the
landfill, and the -- the sale of the property relates back to that.
Okay, I won't try that sick way. Never mind. The other thing that
I
would like for the board to do has to do with the relocation of the
landfill or the new landfill site. And to try to put this as
succinctly as possible, what I did for a living is represent people
who were buying property. When people are buying property, they
look
at a couple of things. They look at the cost of the property, and
then the second thing you look at is permitability of the property
for
the intended use.
I am doing some research about cost, and I want you to
know that I'm getting some information from (inaudible) and others
about what the potential cost of the three sites that are out there
might be. I'm also -- have asked the Chamber EDC Coalition to do
in
their Sustainable Environment Committee some research about
alternate
technologies and how that might affect the need -- the turning for
the
need for a new landfill.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Currently available realistic --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- alternate technology.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In practice and associated
costs.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And, Hiss Straton, please listen
up, because she's a co-chair of that Sustainable Environment
Committee, and I'm sure that that's the kind of -- frankly, by
going
to EDC Chamber Coalition, I expect that we'll get a business view
which would have some practical application; so I expect we're
going
to get that from them. But a real important thing that you do when
you're about -- when you're considering whether or not to buy
property
is to find out about its permitablity, what are the standards of
review. And I would like to ask if this board would write a letter
to
the DEP, since they're going to be the permitting -- primary
permitting agency for the new landfill site, to not prejudge, not
to
tell us whether or not we have a permitable site, but what are the
standards. As you know, I know, Commissioner Hancock, from private
practice that when you go to DEP, the first thing they ask you
before
they'll let you have any kind of impacts is have you avoided to the
greatest extent possible, have you reduced, and then if you've done
both of those, you can talk about mitigating. I'd just like to ask
DEP are those the same standards that are going to apply in
permitting
a landfill in Collier County, because if they are, there's a cost
associated to all of those. We need to know to what extent are we
going to have to avoid and reduce before we can talk about
mitigation
for permits.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only concern I have on that
is that -- the framing of that question, because our considerations
for that were that we have had a high population move into an area
adjacent to a landfill, and I think that picture has to be drawn
clearly for them to answer in a permitting way. But I also know --
and that we need to go through that exercise before, you know,
starting any big-ticket item on this. I think it would be terribly
imprudent of us not to do that.
But, you know, if you ever ask a permitting agency is
this permitable, you never get yes or no. And they don't have
checklists. It's the most beautiful thing. It tells you, you
know,
50 things you have to address, and when you address them you get 50
more. So I think it's a good idea, but I think we need to be
careful
in how we frame the question that we don't just say, hey, we want
to
go elsewhere with our landfill, what do you think.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe I could -- maybe I could
work -- what I'm looking for is a legal analysis of what are the
permit standards, by what will we be judged -- by which the
application would be judged. So maybe what I'm looking for today
is
just is there some interest on the board. Perhaps I could work
with
the county attorney to bring something for you to review to see
whether or not the board would write such a letter to DEP.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just weigh in on
this. One of the things government has a bad habit of doing is
duplicative work. And all of the things you've suggested are good
and
prudent steps. Most, if not all, of them are being done by the
consulting team that we hired and will be part of the report that
is
coming back to us from a Dufresne-Henry team. And if -- if we want
to
have somebody go and look up in DEP standards what that is and
bring
that back so we're educated ahead of time, that's fine. I don't
think
that takes any form of letter. I think all of that is readily
available, just like all county ordinances are readily available to
any member of the public.
And -- but what I'd suggest is a little bit of patience
here. I understand it's -- we want to get going on this, but
there's
no sense to do the same thing twice. And as I said about a month
ago,
we're about 90 or 95 percent of the way through on the Dufresne-
Henry
report.
As part of that, they're also going to have some
comparative costs between other technologies that are available
that
are in practice and so on. And -- and I don't want to minimize '-
I've mentioned this before. I want to be careful that we don't
minimize. We did an RFP two years ago for every technology
available
out there, and we got the costs back from honest-to-God bidders,
people who wanted to do that in Collier County. And -- and I don't
think it's wise to simply ignore what we got back. But
Dufresne-Henry's -- is in the process of going -- they may have
completed most of this -- I don't know -- but -- of going a step
beyond that and saying, not just what you got bids on, but let's
look
all over Florida and all over the country at what's in practice and
what it's actually costing them to -- to do whatever any other
technology is. So they are, indeed, doing that work, and we'll
have
those answers.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But -- well --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I would like to ask you specifically
not to engage any agencies privately as a member of the board or
even
as a private citizen in these discussions. I don't think that's
the
right course of action.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Engage any agencies, like, ask
any questions of agencies about whether or not we might be --
here's
my fear. I'll be blunt about it. I'm afraid that we're going to
spend a great deal of time and effort seeking out an alternate
site,
going through the process, spend a great deal of government money,
and
then go to DEP, and they're going to say, excuse me, you have 20
more
years of existing capacity on your site. You don't get another
permit
until you use that up.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But that's why we're paying
Dufresne-Henry, to answer those specific questions, and I don't
think
it's -- this is my opinion. And we could ask the board to -- to
make
a determination on asking you not to do that or -- or to -- asking
you
to go ahead and do it --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And let me explain that. I'm
sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- but I just don't think it's the
right thing to do, to have a board member free-lancing with the
agencies when we have a consultant hired to do that work.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree, and both
Commissioner Norris and myself and I don't know if others have been
taken to task by the board at some time in the last four years for
the
perception that we were communicating on our own as opposed to on
behalf of the board.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the -- the thing to keep
in mind here, we're not looking to close down the existing site
tomorrow and say we're not going to use what's left there. The --
the
-- and part of the Dufresne-Henry explanation -- I'm not going to
go
into the complete explanation now, but I'd ask for a little bit of
indulgence here in that we'll explain that there is a time frame to
do
-- to get on the property to do the testing, to define its
permitability, to then do some bidding, to -- if you -- if you
choose. I mean, we may not, but if you choose to go through any
condemnation procedures, those all take time. Permitting all takes
time. And what looks like, gosh, 20 years, really if -- if we're
going to have -- and our comp plan was in here earlier today on '-
on
this. Our comp plan calls for having at least ten years of life
left.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And by the time you go
through the process of selecting a site, testing a site, permitting
a
site, buying a site, doing all that, you've more than used up your
ten-year window. And so what we're looking to do is we're
acknowledging there's life left. But we're saying at some point in
the future, regardless of what technology we have, we're going to
need
another site. And let's be proactive, and let's stay within our
own
window we have here.
And the Dufresne-Henry team will show you how we don't
have a whole lot of room. Twenty years sounds like a whole lot of
time, but when you start adding up how long it takes to do each one
of
those steps, we don't have a whole lot of time to fiddle with here
as
far as trying to be proactive and look at a long-term site for
whatever technology we use.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: May I offer a course that may
achieve all of what's being suggested? Commissioner Mac'Kie, you
and
I share a similar concern, and that is there is going to be some
point
where we've crossed that threshold and which we encumber ourselves
to
a significant expenditure. At that time the level of comfort of
this
board that what we're doing will result in the permitability of a
landfill is going to be a critical issue. It is incumbent upon the
consultant we have hired to provide this board with that level of
comfort prior to that decision being made. The exact inquiry
you're
asking about is -- is a permitability due diligence part of the
consultant, and the consultant is the one that should write that
letter and have that preapplication meeting.
So I think I am not going to move ahead without some
level of comfort in the permitability of the site. And at that
time
that that letter or that inquiry has not been made, I will join you
in
stopping the process until it's made and I can seek a level of
comfort. I just think right now Commissioner Norris is correct
that
right now to send a letter from the Board of County Commissioners
without the benefit of the consultant's input and framing that
properly would probably do us more harm than good and provide no
definitive answers.
I think you're on the right track. I just think it's a
little premature, but understand you've -- you know, you've got my
support in that when we cross that threshold before we do that, I
need
the comfort that -- that you're seeking because otherwise we're
throwing good money after bad.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, why can't we ask the
consultant to draft such a letter and ask the question now, and he
ca~
frame it in whatever way -- I mean, he's dealt with the DEP time
and
time again. And he can certainly frame the questions in such a way
that, first, do no harm and begin to answer these questions for us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we request such a letter be
drafted by the -- by Dufresne-Henry, come before the board, and
then
we'll decide if it's time to send it?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd just suggest that we wait
until they give us their report, which isn't that far away. I
mean,
we're 30 days or 45 days or something away from getting their
report
anyway. And I think some -- not all, but some of your questions
are
going to be answered then, and that's the appropriate time to say,
okay, guys, look, we don't understand this or we're not sure of
this,
do it. But I just think we're a little premature right now. I
think
all your questions are valid. They all need to be answered. We're
just one step ahead of the process.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, I
heard you also say that Dufresne-Henry was looking into alternative
technologies in this. And I don't remember this board as a group
asking them to do that and --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're not -- and I'm -- let
me clarify that. They're not looking at alternative technologies
and
what can happen. They're just putting a price tag on what's out
there, because we keep hearing this three hundred million dollar
number tossed around.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought it was three fifty
last time I heard.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I heard four hundred.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's never been four hundred,
whatever the number. Anyway, the point is, what does it cost in
real
life out there in Boise, Idaho, or in Hiami, Florida, anywhere in
the
country that these other things are in practice. What's it costing
them? And that's not something that's going to take them a
great
deal of time. It's just -- bring that back. I'm not asking them
to
go out and research and find out what's available and redraw
everything we did two years ago. I'm just saying so that you can
compare apples to apples --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me suggest we ask the
consultant to give us a time line on when these questions can be
asked
and answered of the permitting agency, because they will have to be
done. And -- and what you're saying is when; I want to know when.
Let's do it before we --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I'll be satisfied with
that. And the reality is that we're -- we're going to need the
answers very soon, because it's no surprise to the board that we're
meeting great opposition from some of the sited -- you know,
potential
sites. We're going to have to fight tooth and nail to get there.
So
I guess the appropriate thing would be to ask Mr. Dotrill to -- to
ask
the consultant to give us that time line on when we might get some
of
these answers. Could you tell us -- could you tell us that next
week?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seeking information on
permitability of the site and when can we expect some level of DEP
response initially to that permitability. I think that's a
reasonable
approach, something we need to do.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: We need to know that before we
spend a lot of money to fight to get access to property.
MR. DORRILL: Would you repeat the first sentence you
said again. When we will -- when would we normally seek?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When is it going to happen? It's
a part of the process.
MR. DORRILL: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So when are we going to have
those questions answered as to permitability of the site and -- and
that communication will have to happen with DEP. It will have to
occur with DEP. So we just want to know when the consultant is
going
to give us those answers so we can move ahead --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're looking for a time
calendar of what to expect and when.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A time frame of that process.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I promise the last thing that I
have is that in the continuing looking at this issue and the costs
associated with it, one of the things that I had done is asked the
city manager to look at what potential increases in cost he would
see
to city residents for -- associated with the -- I had said 400
million
dollars. Maybe it's three hundred and fifty. Maybe it's three
hundred, whatever the number is. And he's written a letter that
was
just faxed over this morning to -- saying that they project an
additional $10 a ton, which is a significant -- a 40 percent
increase
in tipping fees, is what they're projecting would result from the
potential move.
And interestingly -- and I'll pass this down. I have
copies for everybody. But one of the things that he -- that the
city
manager researched is if the impetus for moving the landfill is the
__
the fact that there has been this residential growth in the area,
he
points out that -- that the property appraiser reports that if we
were
to buy all of the property in all of Units 27 and 28, which are
those
residential areas adjacent to the landfill, they're currently
assessed
at 45 million dollars, which would be 10 percent of the investment
of
moving the landfill because of its impacts on these residents.
__
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unfortunately, of course, it
doesn't only affect Units 27 and 28. And it talks about 919
parcels.
If you draw a 5-mile radius around the site, it's more realistic,
and
that's about 50,000 people. So you might want to redraw your
estimates. And I'll be interested to see what the 400 million is
based on, because Dufresne-Henry hasn't even completed their
information on that; so I'll be hard-pressed to imagine that the
city
manager has all that information.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, that came from me. The 400
million came from me based on having heard -- well, based on the
preliminary information that I had so far.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the palatability of saying
there's an odor out here so we're going to buy your home and you've
got to up and move is about as palatable as saying we need more
beach
parking so 1927 Club Mar condo on the beach in the City of Naples -
why don't we just purchase that, put those people on the street,
and
provide --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's not what he said. What he
said was if it is -- if the odor is so offensive that we've got to
spend 300 million dollars to move, perhaps we should offer to buy
these people's property instead. And I think it's a good point.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And let me correct -- I have
several times, but it's still misstated. The 300 million is to not
only move it, but to operate it as well for 50 years. That's not
to
pick it up and move it and then we start operating it. That's to
operate it for 50 years ago. So you divide that by 50, and then
you
divide that by all the customers we have, and you don't come up
with a
40 percent increase in cost. And so your math is in error here.
That
is not simply to move it. That's to operate it for 50 years.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure Dr. Woodruff isn't
saying when there's a problem just buy their home but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, my point is, this
information is premature because it's not based on what we've asked
our team to come back with. Dufresne-Henry will come back with
complete information. This is incomplete, it's misleading, and
it's
in error. So --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But other than that you have no
problem with it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Other than that, it's
perfect. The public is not served by having erroneous information
distributed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You forgot egregious and insulting.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I interject one -- one
sentence on this as well, because I have received information from
alternative technology companies who did not bid two years ago, and
they did not bid because they didn't think this board was serious
about looking at alternative technologies. And they -- they,
frankly,
were not going to spend 20 or 30 hours answering a proposal that
they
felt we were not serious about.
But, anyway, the -- the information that I've received
so far -- and I need to follow up on it if this board desires me to
is that we can handle 720 tons a day on 15 acres of land -- that's
one
five acres -- at a start-up cost of 45 million dollars. And those
__
those are significant numbers that I really don't think we ought to
be
ignoring. Now, I -- I don't have all of the details at this point,
but I think they're interesting numbers that we ought to be looking
into.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioners Matthews, to ignore
them would imply that we've seen them and that they've been done in
an
adequate proposal that we've an opportunity to review.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Of course -- of course, there
hasn't been a proposal. All I'm telling you is that I sent some
letters out asking for information, and this is information that
I've
received back. It's not in adequate detail; I fully recognize
that.
But at the same time if this board is still not interested in
looking
at alternative technologies in a serious manner, I'm not -- I, too,
am
not going to ask these companies to spend a great deal of hours and
time and money. Honey is time (sic) --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it's kind of comical
that someone who wants a multi-, multi-, multimillion-dollar deal
isn't willing to spend 20 or 30 hours because we might not be
serious. That's absurd.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, it's not absurd. It's a
business decision. People make them all the time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do you have anything
else?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A bad one.
Item #15A
AGREEMENT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT - WORKSHOP TO BE HELD PRIOR TO
10/31/96
MR. DORRILL: I do, and it also -- I apologize --
pertains to landfills. There is a provision in your current
privatization agreement with Waste Management that indicates that
while there are a number of mechanisms to terminate or early
terminate
the agreement, that a particular reading of that would say that we
__
we procedurally need to have a workshop at the end of October. And
I
just want you to know that Mr. Weigel and I have just briefly
discussed it here this morning as a result of a memorandum that I
saw
at the staff level. And I think that we need to determine what
prudent requirements are there in order to have a workshop prior to
October the 31st of 1996 if we intend to exercise some of those
early-out provisions. There was an option A, an option B in the
contract.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that just this one year you're
talking about or every October we have that?
MR. DORRILL: No, it's October 31st of '96 in the event
that we're intending to exercise some of our early-out option
provisions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I raised that question a week
or two ago with Mr. Weigel, and my recollection of our discussion
is
that's not the only opportunity to exercise that option.
MR. WEIGEL: That's absolutely correct. Although it is
a provision in the agreement that the board will hold a public
workshop prior to October 31st, but that's not the -- by any means,
the sole window to make those determinations. In fact, those
determinations could be made up and through eight years.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now, are you saying that -- that we're
bound by the contract to have a public hearing?
MR. WEIGEL: It does so state, yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, schedule that sucker up.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hold the public hearing, open
it, and immediately continue it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Whatever, but if we've got to do it,
schedule it up.
MR. DORRILL: We haven't resolved that in final --
October has five Tuesdays, and that will be the fifth Tuesday and -
and we're not otherwise scheduled to have a county commission
meeting,
but I just wanted you to know that we're working that through
between
Mr. Weigel's office and mine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, do you have anything else?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hiss Filson, do you have anything
else?
MS. FILSON: No, thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I do
have one more thing, and it involves Hiss Filson. I have a letter
here from Hark Shane (phonetic) withdrawing his application for the
Planning Commission. I think we need to give direction to Hiss
Filson
to readvertise.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He was the only applicant.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He was the only one from District 57
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MS. FILSON: He was the only one from District 5.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So directed.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Adjourned.
***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hancock, and carried unanimously, that the following items under
the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 96-448 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER NLA/~AGEHENT
AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN HARSH GOLF
COURSE
PHASE ONE
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 96-449 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SABAL LAKE UNIT
ONE"
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 96-450 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "MOON LAKE, UNIT
FIVE"
Item #16B1
AWARD BID #96-2546R FOR AQUATIC CHEMICAL PURCHASES FOR THE PELICAN
BAY
SERVICES DIVISION AND COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT TO
VARIOUS VENDORS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #1682 - Continued to 10/8/96
Item #1683
CONSULTING ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
WILSON, MILLER, BARTON AND PEEK, INC. TO STUDY AND ANALYZE
ALTERNATE
ROUTES ON SANTA BARBARA EXTENSION AND EAST WEST CORRIDOR; CIE NO.
32,
PROJECT NO. 60091 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $456,613.00
Item #1684
APPROVAL OF THE ROAD IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE RATE FOR
CONDOHINIUH/TOWNHOUSES TO BOTH SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS AND
MULTI-FAMILY (1-2 STORIES) UNITS IN THE VILLAGE WALK PUD
Item #1685
APPROVAL OF SPEED LIMIT CHANGES TO THE LISTED ROADWAYS ON
ATTACHMENT
NO. 1 IN CONFORHANCE WITH BOARD ACTION ON 8/6/96 AND RESOLUTION 96-
340
ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL ROADWAY SPEED LIMIT REDUCTIONS TO TWENTY FIVE
MILES PER HOUR (25 HPH)
Item #1686
PURCHASE OF A TEHPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEHENT FOR PARCELS 39 AND 41
FOR
THE BONITA BEACH ROAD FOUR LANING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #1687
RESOLUTION 96-451/CWS 96-11 SETTING NOVEHBER 12, 1996, AT 9;00 A.H.
ON
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM AS THE DATE, TIME
AND
PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR
THE
ROYAL COVE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16C1
ACCEPTANCE OF A DONATION FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY LOAN CONSORTIUH,
INC.
TO BE USED IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURE/EXTENSION SERVICE
PROGRAMS/EQUIPMENT - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $8,000 FOR TWO LAP TOP
COMPUTERS
Item #16C2
APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM
Item #16D1
AWARD ANNUAL BID #96-2547, UNIFORM RENTAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 -
AWARDED TO ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES IN THE ANNUAL ESTIMATED A_MOUNT
OF
$90,000.00
Item #16D2
FIELD INTERNSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND EDISON COHMUNITY COLLEGE
Item #16D3
APPROVAL TO WAIVE THE SEALED BID PROCESS AND ESTABLISH PURCHASING
HVAC
PARTS AND RELATED ITEMS THROUGH THE FOUR VENDORS LISTED HEREIN
Item #16D4 - Withdrawn
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT 96-589
Item #16E2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF DELINQUENT SALES TAXES
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1993 Real Property
No. Dated
247 9/13/96
1994 Real Property
208 9/13/96
1995 Real Property
254 9/13/96
1994 Tangible
140 9/06/96
1995 Tangible
77 & 78 9/06/96
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:
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:35 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Barbara A. Donovan