BCC Minutes 09/17/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1996
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, 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 9:07 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 Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDAAND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the county commission meeting to
order on this 17th day of September, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, could you
lead us in an invocation and a pledge, please.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this morning
as always we do for the wonder and glory that you bring upon this
community. We thank you for its people. We always thank you for
the
elected officials, and it is our prayer this morning that you give
them the discernment that they need in order to make the important
business decisions for this community.
Father, this morning it is a privilege to be able to
recognize international visitors to Collier County and our -- our
respect and -- and intrigue goes out to this group from the United
Kingdom and the opportunity to recognize them this morning and what
they're doing as part of their exchange program.
We also thank you for the dedication and the hard work
of our many employees and also community officials who celebrate
the
importance of Collier County and what it means to its people. And
as
always, we pray that you bless our time here together today. And
we
pray these things in your Son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, we have a few changes to
our agenda this morning it seems.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, very few and, in fact, just
three items for change on your agenda this morning. I have one
add-on
item. This will be item 8(B)(5) under public works. This is a
request to have the board approve a resolution with the Florida
Department of Transportation for a landscape feature at the
approach
to the Marco River Bridge.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: A landscape what?
MR. DORRILL: Some landscape feature --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, okay.
MR. DORRILL: -- on the approach to the bridge is the
way it's been explained to me.
Have a request to continue -- we do not have a -- a date
specific -- item 8(E)(2) under the county manager's executive
office
report which is consideration of the proposed Treeline Boulevard
funding agreement.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm going to object to that, and
the reason for it is we've put this decision off long enough. It's
time that we move forward and do what we as a board promised to do
many, many months ago.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Accepting that there have been
significant material changes if you look at the agreement that do
not
jibe with the original intent of the board, I note that the dollars
now can be used for landscaping and utility relocation when
originally
I assume the majority of this board that voted that way was voting
to
four lane a two-lane road due to the needs of the university.
Wewre
now looking at paying for palm trees. I think that's a significant
material change and deserves a deeper look than the four pages in
front of us preceding the agreement.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I disagree. We -- we
voted to aid in the four laning of a road, not the building of a
two-lane road in the first place. And I think as we all know in
Collier County that medians and sidewalks and so forth go as part
of
building a road, but let's hear what others might have to say.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to note that Lee County
doesn't have that program except on this road.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank God for Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to discuss this issue
and get more information about what these changes are.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, rather than sitting on
center, I'm supportive of the continuation, but I guess that's --
that's up for a -- for discussion and debate or vote or motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think I'm supportive of a
continuation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry that I was tardy.
The purpose for the continuation is --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The purpose for the continuation is to
make sure that we don't act in advance of Lee County, the state,
and
the university having all their agreements signed and sealed and
delivered to our county.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure that's a
concern. I just talked with Roy McTarnaghan, president of the
university, yesterday. And we've got a letter here from him. And
I'll be happy to give a copy to each of you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Everything's done, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it reads, I'm pleased to
report the Lee board of commissioners has issued the Treeline
contract. Construction started September 3, is progressing.
Timing
is right for completing the road project by our opening date, yet
we're confident we can make the Board of Regents working through
the
university, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So there are issues
having
to do with the university and water and sewer and all kinds of
things
that Lee and university are working on. Treeline has been settled
and
is already progressing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to have the discussion.
Sounds like there are three of us who would like to do that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have three. Then we'll have
the discussion.
MR. DORRILL: And then the last item that I have, Mr.
Chairman, is a request to withdraw item 7(D) this morning which was
a
public petition, and it is being withdrawn at the request of the
petitioner which had been a waiver of some special event permit
fees.
And that's all that I have this morning.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: One note for the -- for the record. I
would request that agenda item 16(C)(2) which is appointing three
members to the interagency coordination council, if approved as
part
of the consent agenda, that the record reflect a resolution number
and
a resolution reserved for that, and we'll -- county attorney office
will provide a resolution to -- to show the appointment that's made
on
that agenda item.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Matthews?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to pull off the consent
agenda for discussion item 16(A)(2) which has to do with a plat of
a
piece of property in Hilltop Estates. I think you all have
received
some correspondence from the neighbors.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And thank you for advancing that
before this morning.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
MR. DORRILL: 8(A)(2) (sic) will become 8(A)(1).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16(B)(1).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 16(B) (1)?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16(B) as in boy (1).
MR. DORRILL: 16(B)(1) will become 8(B)(6).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That being all, we need a
motion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve the agenda and
consent agenda as amended or as altered in -- including the
reservation of a resolution number for item 16(C)(2).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 21, 1996, AS BEACH CLEAN UP DAY
_
COASTWEEK'S CELEBRATION - ADOPTED
We don't have any minutes, so we'll go to our first
proclamation. Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is
Ginger Hinchcliff -- and I have five or six copies of these, Miss
Hinchcliff, so there must be others.
MS. HINCHCLIFF: Yes. There's a few other folks who are
involved with the coastal cleanup if you can stand now, please.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why don't each of you come
forward while I read this because I've got lots of copies of them,
so
I'll hand them to you. A proclamation:
Whereas, the quality of life and ecological and economic
well being of Collier County citizens are critically dependent on
the
continual protection of the natural resources of southwest
Florida's
coastal zone; and
Whereas, Collier County's sandy beaches and estuaries
serve an essential community function by providing for fisheries
production, storm protection, and recreational opportunities while
contributing to our county's natural beauty; and
Whereas, the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve was established in 1978 for long-term environmental
monitoring
and scientific research while increasing public awareness through
educational programs, guided tours, and workshops; and
Whereas, the Center for Marine Conservation, the Collier
County Solid Waste Department, Marine Industries Association,
Rookery
Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Keep Collier Beautiful,
Outward Bound, the National Park Service, local guide fishermen,
and
the citizens of Collier County will join other citizens and
organizations around the United States and the world in this great
international effort to clean up beaches and coastal areas on
September the 21st.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that September 21, 1996,
be
designated as beach cleanup day and coast week's celebration.
Done and ordered this 17th day of September, the Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, John C. Norris,
chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we accept this
proclamation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is great. And you're going
to tell us some things that are going on?
MS. HINCHCLIFF: I have about -- about a minute's
worth. I also want to recognize that coast -- coast weeks and
coastal
cleanup is indeed a communitywide celebration. We also had the
Florida Conservation Association represented by Hark Ward and Jerry
Ellis also very much involved. This Saturday thousands of
volunteers
are going to be cleaning up the Collier County coastal waters. And
they're cleaning them up because they really value the coastal
waters. The reason they value them is because they work beside
them,
they work in them, they play in them, they live beside them, all
the
beautiful waters that surround Collier County.
And on behalf of the Florida DEP and the Rookery Bay and
the EDC chamber coalition sustainable environment committee, I'd
like
to present the board of commissioners with this art print from a
local
artist, Phil Fisher. And this art print depicts the beautiful and
the
aesthetic values of the estuaries that surround Collier County.
Along with this aesthetic benefits, we also have a lot
of economic benefits. And along that line, we're also going to be
presenting you with fact sheets that describe the economic values
for
seafood, recreation, and fishing. And these economic values are
equally as important as the aesthetic values.
These art prints and -- this is for the board room.
These art prints and these economic facts are also being
distributed
by local businesses. So as you go into seafood restaurants and as
you
go into your favorite tackle stores, you'll also see this
informational and educational being distributed there. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. COOK: I'd also like to thank the hundreds of
volunteers -- Jeremy Cook, recycling coordinator, Collier County.
I'd
like to also thank the hundreds of volunteers who have come out on
this Saturday to help clean up the beaches and the highways and
roadways of Collier County and other county agencies, professional
firefighters' association, the parks association. We also have --
this year we're going to have a thing -- a thing with Outward Bound
Friday night that will also help to clean up some of the areas in
Everglades City as well and also like to thank the school system of
Collier County too for participating with their students on this
day.
Thank you.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 15-22, 1996, AS
LEGAL
ASSISTANT AND PARALEGAL WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next one is legal assistant and
paralegal week, appropriately enough by Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am honored to get to make this
proclamation today in honor of the legal assistant and paralegal
week
and would ask Ernie Cousineau if she'd come forward to receive it.
And I have to point out to you how appropriate it is for Ernie --
Ernestine to be receiving this having recently received the award
as
the outstanding paralegal for the entire judicial circuit. And
that
is just a wonderful honor, and we are really, really privileged to
have her in Collier County.
Whereas, legal assistants and paralegals assist
attorneys in the delivery of legal services through a concept that
developed in the late 1960s to address the growing volume of work
generated by the pursuit of legal remedies; and
Whereas, in this time of escalating fees for legal
services, the employment of legal assistants and paralegals has
operated to keep these costs in check; and
Whereas, legal assistants and paralegals work to
maintain integrity and a high degree of competence through the
legal
profession while striving for professional enhancement through
education to facilitate the availability of legal services; and
Whereas, legal assistants and paralegals are encouraged
and required to commit themselves to continuing education available
through the national and state certification programs; and
Whereas, legal assistants and paralegals in Collier
County contribute time and interest with educational legal
activities
such as the annual Collier County mock trial competition and the
law
fair; and
Whereas, the number of legal assistants and paralegals
are employed in the legal profession in Collier County.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of
September
15 through 22, 1996, be designated as legal assistant and paralegal
week.
Done and ordered this 17th day of September, 1996, Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, John Norris, chairman.
I'd like to approve we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ernie, of course, is too shy to have
any parting words here on the microphone, so we'll move next to
Commissioner Constantine.
Item #5A3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 17, 1996, AS ROTARY
INTERNATIONAL
GROUP STUDY EXCHANGE TEAM DAY - ADOPTED
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mike Davis, if you'd bring
your entourage.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: He never travels alone.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
MR. DAVIS: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The following proclamation:
Whereas, we welcome the Rotary Group Study Exchange team
from Rotary International district 1270, United Kingdom, to Collier
County, Florida; and
Whereas, the Rotary Foundation of Rotary International
Group Study Exchange program has sent to us a team of five
professionals who are visiting Collier County to study our
institutions and ways of life; and
Whereas, the team members will also observe the practice
of their own professions and exchange ideas; and
Whereas, the team's able to personally experience family
lifestyles as they are hosted by Rotary clubs of Collier County and
given accommodations in local homes; and
Whereas, the Rotary Foundation is a nonprofit
corporation supported by Rotarians and other -- others worldwide.
Its
objective is the achievement of world understanding and peace
through
international humanitarian and educational programs.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Tuesday, September
17
-- coincidentally that would be today -- 1996, be designated as
Rotary International Group Study Exchange team day.
Done and ordered this 17th day of September, 1996, Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, John C. Norris,
chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a pair of
seconds. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Mr. Davis?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Davis, we have
proclamations for each -- we have proclamations for each of the
visiting members, and then I suppose you and they would both like
a~
opportunity to share some things with us.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have a translator with you?
MR. DAVIS: Yes, Commissioner Constantine. I'll be
bilingual today, the -- the Queen's English and I guess our version
of
English. We -- we communicated about 90 percent I suppose. I am
Mike
Davis representing the local Rotary clubs here in Collier County
and
want to thank the board for this honor that you bestow upon our
visiting team from Great Britain. I think this is the fifth year
in a
row that the board has seen fit to honor this program going back to
Columbia, India, Italy, the Netherlands, and now our team visiting
us
from Great Britain.
I wanted to recognize some people in county government
who participated in this program. With us today are George
Drobinski
from the probation office that had the good fortune as a Rotarian
to
lead a team to Italy a few months ago and didn't gain more than
about
50 pounds I'm told. Sam Saadeh from our county manager's office
visited Bombay, India, with one of our group study exchange teams;
and
Joe Delate from our office of capital projects who I had the good
fortune as one of my team -- team members to Columbia three years
ago.
Not able to be here today from our motor vehicle
department, Stephanie Sanset; Terry Bowley from the sheriff's
department. So the county government is rich with people who've
participated in this program.
I'd like to introduce to you the team leader who in turn
can introduce his team members to the board, and I find out
yesterday
that Martin is kind of the Don Hunter of -- being the law
enforcement
official in his area of England, although apparently his -- his
department is a little larger than our sheriff's, so he wins that
one
I guess. With that I'd like to introduce Rotarian team leader
Martin
Davies. Martin?
MR. HARTIN: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, pronounda
(phonetic). That's Welsh actually because I am a Welshman, but
I'll
speak in English today, so translation won't be required.
Can I say it's an absolute pleasure for us to be here?
We've had a fabulous welcome from Rotarians, and this morning
itself
has been quite an amazing experience for us because in the United
Kingdom, a board of commissioners like that are referred to as
counselors, and our city council are 34 people sitting trying to
make
the decisions I've seen you conduct this morning. And a slightly
different atmosphere I might tell you prevails.
I'm a chief police officer in the UK. My county is
South Yorkshire, and I have a staff of about 4,700 people and a
fairly
large budget to support that.
I've come growing as a personality I might say in my
Rotary responsibilities bringing a team of people with me but also
growing in my experience of life in another country, and I think
that
one of the great things read out in your proclamation really was
about
international relations and what it means for various people from
various count -- countries coming together.
But it has a far more significant issue than that I
think in that it's very much about the development of our young
people, the fact that they too can learn by being in another
country
the con -- conventions, the customs that drive that organization
and
take them home with them to use and to develop their own societies.
And the benefit of that must be enormous not just for our country
but
ultimately given Rotary's commitment to this kind of program to the
world. And in that regard I think this is a very significant
program
indeed.
I'd like to introduce to you starting at the front
Catherine Johnson. Catherine's 24, and she comes from Doncaster,
which is a large town in our county. And she is, in fact, an
environmental health officer, something that I'm sure you'll all
understand. And it's about making a cleaner, better environment
for
our people and certainly in terms of restaurants, hotels, issues of
that nature.
Christopher Hill is next who's 28. He's a chartered
accountant, doesn't like to describe himself as a bean counter but
is
quite prepared to admit that he does quite a lot of that. However,
his view of the world is that young chartered accounts have a great
deal to offer to our community and its -- developing its wealth and
prosperity and certainly is looking to draw a great deal from that
while he's here.
Steven Morris who's our next is a pharmacist at a
hospital, not someone who dispenses pills but someone who looks at
the
cost effectiveness of medication within the hospitals, and he's 29.
He's a very experienced young man having spent quite a number of
years
in India working with the destitute in Calcutta offering
pharmaceutical and pharmacogical (sic) -- pharmacological advice to
people there and working with a volunteer -- volunteer doctors.
Angela Surfleet who is our last member but not -- by no
means least I should say is 34, and she is quite an unusual visitor
to
your country. She's a quantity surveyor. And I know that Rotary
have
had some difficulty in actually trying to define what a quantity
surveyor is, but we're actually moving along in that regard. It is
someone who actually costs not just simply the building program but
the development of the building program from one -- from its
conception to its conclusion.
So that, Mr. Chairman, is our team. Can I say it really
is again a very great pleasure for us to be here. Thank you very
much
for your proclamation today and for your indulgence in allowing me
to
speak. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
We're -- we're glad you brought these people in here for us to
meet,
and we welcome them and wish them a -- a good successful trip and
an
enjoyable time remaining here in the U.S.
MR. DAVIS: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I might just
leave you with this thought. We were discussing in the back of the
room as I in my humble way was explaining what you all do up here
that
we've all watched their House of Commons on Sunday night C-Span. I
assured them that you have the same decorum as we've observed on
British television.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's very similar. Yes, it is.
MR. DAVIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: By the way, when you do figure out
what we do up here, please let me know.
MR. DAVIS: I just took a shot.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Davis, I've got one
question. The gentleman next to you, if you find out if his
budget's
more than 40 million dollars and let me know how he does it.
MR. DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.
MR. MARTIN: Two hundred and forty million, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don Hunter just smiled a big
smile.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Big smile.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That was a nice group of
people.
Our next item is employee of the month.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, it's not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, we have got one more.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, we've got one more.
Item #5A4
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 16-20, 1996, AS
SCHOOL-TO-CAREERS WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Our next item and I'm happy to
say our last proclamation of the day, is Dr. Fred Tuttle here?
There
you are, Dr. Tuttle, if I could ask you to come up here and stand
to
my left while I read this proclamation.
Whereas, the partnership between education and business
is important; and
Whereas, the future growth in Collier County and the
quality of life for its citizens is tied to business and education;
and
Whereas, a local partnership system entitled schools to
careers has been created to meet the needs of the 21st century; and
Whereas, public knowledge of the cooperation of local
business and education is essential to the school to careers
program.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of
September
16 through 20, 1996, be designated as schools to careers week in
Collier County.
Done and ordered this 17th -- 17th day of September,
1996, John C. Norris, chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
acceptance. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fred, if you'd be able to go to
the microphone and just kind of let everyone know a little bit
about
schools to careers and -- and how it applies in the community since
that's kind of the focus of the proclamation.
MR. TUTTLE: Thank you very much. Actually this is a --
a -- an initiative that was begun several years ago but we're
really
beginning to take off this year. It will be a major initiative
where
we will coordinate our curriculum within the school with the needs
of
businesses, particularly local businesses, and agencies outside of
the
school not only for the future employment of students but also the
education of students kindergarten through grade twelve. And it
will
be a major effort over the next five years until we get everything
in
place. And this is a good kick-off for it. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good luck.
MR. TUTTLE: Thank you.
Item #5C1
SUE BUCK RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR SEPTEMBER, 1996
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is employee of the month
for September if we could ask Miss Buck to come up, please, and
face
the camera.
As a seven-year employee of Collier County, Sue has
shown excellent customer service skills throughout her employment.
Sue is always available when anyone has a problem or question
regarding the computer systems. Sue is always receiving praise for
her patience and understanding in the classes she teaches and has
created several new classes to meet the demands of county employees
becoming familiar with the new computer technology. Without any
reservations she was nominated and selected as employee of the
month
for September 1996.
Miss Buck, I have a letter here for your file that says
it is indeed a pleasure for us to announce your selection as
Collier
County's employee of the month for September 1996. This well-
deserved
recognition is for your valuable contributions to the county
through
your work in the support services division of the information
technology department.
This honor includes an exceptional performance plaque as
well as a $50 cash award which I am proud to present to you. On
behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, I offer our sear --
sincere congratulations and also our gratitude for your
dependability
and dedication. Your nice plaque and your $50 check.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations, Sue.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Neil, does this mean as soon
as they got her out of your office she could live up to her
potential?
MR. DORRILL: Well, we -- we would like to think that
one of the reasons that Sue is your employee of the month this
month
is because she started in the Board of County Commissioners'
executive
offices and received her initial foundational training there, and
we're -- we're being able to recognize that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that why it took her seven
years to get there?
MR. DORRILL: Well, not necessarily.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Congratulations, Sue.
Item #7A
DAVID R. BALL REGARDING CONSIDTIONAL USES FOR C1-T - STAFF DIRECTED
TO
INCLUDE ON LDC AMENDMENT AGENDA OF 10/23/96
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll move now to public petitions.
As the petitioners are coming forward, we'd like to remind them
that
we allow ten minutes time limit for the petitioners to deliver
their
petitions. The Board of County Commissioners will in all
likelihood
not take any action today further than to schedule it if desired to
a
future county commission for open discussion.
Mr. Dorrill, if you would.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Our first public petition today
will be David Ball. Mr. Ball, if you would, please, sir.
MR. BALL: Good morning, commissioners, and thank you
for allowing me to speak. My name is David Ball. I'm a
veterinarian
and hospital coordinator for Gulf Shore Animal Hospital and in
nineteen eighty -- briefly, in 1988 I attended several hearings to
have veterinary clinics and no outside kennels included in the C-6
zoning which is a transitional zoning between commercial and
residential, and we were successful in doing that.
When the county land code -- and these are -- these are
things that I've been told that happened. When the county land
code
was revised several years ago, apparent -- apparently there was a -
they missed putting the clinics into the new C-1-T zoning which is
taking that place. If you read the -- and I'm hoping you all have
a
letter that I sent in. If you read the --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me. Dr. Ball?
MR. BALL: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you mind terribly if I save
you about eight minutes?
MR. BALL: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: This is clearly an oversight as
-- as admitted by our staff, and I'd like to see this on the agenda
to be included in the C-1-T zoning district. And if that's the
Crux
of Mr. Ball's request, I would like to give board direction to
staff
to place it on the next available agenda.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Arnold, is that sufficient?
MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold for the record, planning
services director. I think we can accommodate that request, and
probably the easiest way to do that is to include that in the
current
code amendments that are forthcoming, and I think we're properly
advertised to go ahead and include that if that's your direction.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll -- I think that's
sufficient. And that -- October 23 I believe is the final board
hearing on those amendments, so by that date that would be
resolved.
MR. BALL: I appreciate it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is it all --
MR. BALL: Thank you, commissioners.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is it all veterinary clinics
that were excluded from this change or just specific ones?
MR. BALL: No, it was all that were excluded from --
from C-1-T. And like I said, when I -- if I had known that the
changes were happening the way they were, I would have been there,
but
I was not.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But no outdoor kennels --
MR. BALL: No outdoor kennel is supposed to be in there,
and it -- and it was supposed to be a conditional use which allows
planning to review the scope of the clinics, you know, because it
is a
sensitive area. You've got residential people next door.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you just make sure -- work
with -- Mr. Arnold will get in touch with you and make sure that as
it
proceeds along that it follows a pattern that -- that we've
outlined
today.
MR. BALL: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
Item #7B
LAURIE L. MITCHELL REGARDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - WATER USE
STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE A MORE STRINGENT WELL PERMITTING
ENFORCEMENT
REPORT WITHIN 45 DAYS
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, your next petition today is
from Laurie Mitchell concerning a provision of water wells.
Morning.
MS. MITCHELL: Good morning. Thank you for letting me
speak. I'm Laurie Mitchell, and I reside on my small farm just
outside of Golden Gate. Collier County has a delegation to permit
wells that was given to them from South Florida Water MAnagement.
And
my request is that they craft some limitations for well permitting,
domestic or agricultural use wells through a permit commencement
notice.
Well, Collier County once made it a privilege to live in
a mobile home on five acre zoned agricultural providing that a bona
fide sustainable agricultural activity was taking place. Also
agricultural exemption is another privilege that Collier County
provides these residents.
I as well as several of my fellow farmer neighbors and
whatever were granted water use permits by South Florida Water
MAnagement, and it's up to us as the permittees to protect this
permit, our natural resource which we need to run our farms.
We need the county's support now in protecting our
existing wells by making provisions in the comprehensive plan by
establishing revisions concerning well permitting in agricultural
areas zoned agricultural five acres above. Agricultural is
agricultural. When a domestic well with a house or a mobile home
is
permitted with a domestic well on five acres, the potential is
there
for commercial or agricultural use.
I'm requesting that the county provides a form to be
signed by the permittee or the property owner that no commercial or
agricultural activity will be conducted. And what it is now, they
get
$1,000 fine if they're caught. It's kind of a slap on the wrist.
But
what I would like them to do is beef it up to about a $5,000 fine
because what they're doing or what they could potentially do is put
the surrounding wells at risk, permitted wells that need Collier
County help in protecting our wells now and in the future. It's
really pretty much out of south water management's hands.
Now, if the people do later decide to use their property
as agricultural, they should be required to use a site plan, and I
would hope that they would refer to the national resources
conservation services for the conservation practices for the
highest
and best use of the land, best farm management practices. I'm
afraid
that it's not really being used. It's a free service, and I'd like
to
see this at least be encouraged through planning procedures.
As a community we need to recognize the importance of
conservation provisions. It all falls down to the food security
act
of 1985 which somewhat protects my farm and the surrounding farms
so
we can continue to have an agricultural community. This awareness
will also help to reduce the substandard living and hodgepodge
development in our agricultural areas and keep agricultural
exemption
an honest practice so that the taxpayers don't have to pick up the
slack for people that are claiming agricultural exemption and they
are
not conducting a bona fide agricultural activity on their -- on
their
property with their mobile homes. They should be required at least
to
submit a plan where they're going to build a regular house, not to
live in a mobile home and create a junkyard atmosphere or whatever
also potentially contaminating the surrounding wells that were
given
permitting.
So that's about it basically. I'd like to see this, you
know, put into the land use code. If not -- if it's not already
there, it should be used.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Have you had any discussions with
anybody on the staff?
MS. HITCHELL: I've probably talked to everybody about
this.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What -- what kind of -- to Mr.
Arnold perhaps?
MS. HITCHELL: Some of his constituents I have.
MR. ARNOLD: Again, Wayne Arnold for the record. Hiss
Hitchell has spoken with some of our well permitting individuals
who
work in the planning department as well.
In this specific case, they have been issued a domestic
well, a domestic water well, for the mobile home that they were
permitted and is under construction, has not received a CO. At
least
it had not as of last Friday when I checked. But the domestic well
does not permit for agricultural use. And our permit currently
does
have a disclaimer that says that they are required to go through
the
South Florida Water Management District requesting the use of that
well for any purpose other than the domestic well. The Land
Development Code also contains standards, and we notify the South
Florida Water Management District of all well permits that we
issue.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the
diameter of the well is really the biggest controlling factor in
hourly consumption. So if they're permitted at a certain size and
install that with the exception of running it 24 hours a day versus
a residential need, what -- I guess the -- I'm not sure -- the
restriction that's being asked for is a -- an increased fine and
more
stringent approach to -- to permitting.
HS. MITCHELL: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know if a thousand
dollars is a slap on the wrist to those folks.
HS. MITCHELL: Six months down the road they're in
business, so I think that if they made it a stricter fine, the
people
would think twice about abusing their privilege of having a well
especially on agricultural land.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How often has the thousand
dollar fine been put into practice?
HR. ARNOLD: I can't answer that question. I'm not --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think it might be more
appropriate to ask who monitors, who checks. I don't think anybody
does.
HR. ARNOLD: Right now we through -- code enforcement is
essentially our monitoring of those wells and the uses that would
go
along with them in addition to the South Florida Water Management
District. They also have a code enforcement department that
inspects
wells.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it's essentially complaint
driven.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Yes, it is.
MS. MITCHELL: I think it would keep the property owner
more honest if he knows up front that he signed something and had
it
notarized and has given it to the county this way. When it goes
down
to agricultural exemption, Dan Eebee (phonetic) and his crew can
have
a copy of this saying that they weren't going to use their property
agriculturally. And, therefore, the county won't lose that money,
that tax money, because I get a great break on my agricultural
exemption. And I can just see in the future where it's gonna be
taken
advantage of if the county doesn't do something to work with the
agricultural wells as well as the farming community in protecting
the
wells that exist.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Arnold, are we being asked to get
into South Florida Water Management District's business?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think we are through the
delegation. They issue all water use permits formally in the
state,
and we have been delegated water management review and water use
consumptive permits.
MS. MITCHELL: Excuse me. I don't want to see the
county lose that delegation.
MR. ARNOLD: I think we all agree it's probably in the
county's best interest to be involved in that process. But again,
there is another layer there. South Florida Water Management has
the
ultimate regulatory authority on water use.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I would obviously want to
stop short of assuming any -- any delegated authority to the water
management district in using local tax dollars to perform the same
service because they're not doing their job if that's the
perception.
However, if there's a manner in which we can discourage residential
wells from being used for agricultural purposes which then they
then
turn around and get an ag. exemption on the land, if there's a way
we
can strengthen that process without creating a water squad out
there,
then -- then I think it's worth taking a look at. I'm not sure
this
has come down to a single item that -- that we need to look at, but
maybe it's sufficient to ask staff if they feel there's a valid
issue
here to make a recommendation or several recommendations on
improving
the existing permitting process.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that in addition to that
we ought to endorse to staff that we support the concerns that this
lady has brought to us today, that we don't want agriculture
exemption
abused. We don't -- you know, we -- we want to have an adequate
fine
and an adequate enforcement procedure, and so please look at ours -
_
our existing codes and come back and give us some advice on what
changes might be appropriate if you understand that we care about
those issues.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As long as those changes are
reasonably enforceable. That's --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't want to create an
unenforceable situation.
MS. MITCHELL: Well, it's a delegation. It's a matter
of Collier County losing their delegation that's been given to them
by
South Florida Water Management.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If we don't enforce.
MS. MITCHELL: You need to start enforcing this before,
you know, we don't have an agricultural community.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That may be a simple solution.
I'm going to ask staff --
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I would just like to add that I'm
not aware of any specific cases that the South Florida Water
Management District has brought to our attention where they feel
that
we have somehow violated the conditions of our delegation or
improper
permitting.
MS. MITCHELL: Well, I've had a wake-up call.
MR. ARNOLD: No, I don't disagree with that. But this
is one of those same situations that we deal with in all
enforcement
issues. We issue a permit for someone to operate a restaurant. It
doesn't mean that it doesn't over time try to become something
else,
and we have an enforcement procedure to deal with that as well.
we
obviously deal with that, but we can certainly take a look at the
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I think the board has asked you
for -- at least for a report.
MR. ARNOLD: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And I guess we'll see that at some
future time.
MS. MITCHELL: Well, we're hoping everybody can be
forthright and honest in their dealings with the county, but I'm
afraid that's not always the case.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's life.
MS. MITCHELL: Yeah. Well, when there's a mobile home
permitted in an agricultural area, shouldn't there be some kind of
stipulation that they will eventually --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're -- we're going to hear that
issue.
MS. MITCHELL: I mean, because there's people out there
now, and they start junkyards.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Mitchell, we -- we have agreed to
hear the issue.
MS. MITCHELL: Okay. Well, thank you for your time.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can we put a time frame on when
we'd like to hear that report? Thirty days? Thirty days, forty-
five
days, Mr. Arnold?
MR. ARNOLD: Sure, we can bring something back, whatever
you prefer.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, looking at the priority of
things, with the LDC changes coming up October 23, I would say more
like 45 days would be appropriate because I know our staff's going
to
be real busy between now and then.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They are, uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Next?
Item #7C
JAMES H. SIESKY REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE UTILITY RATE
REGULATION
ORDINANCE - STAFF TO PREPARE AGENDA ITEM
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, your next petition this
morning is Mr. Jim Siesky concerning an amendment to the utility
rate
regulation ordinance.
While he is coming forward, Mr. Walsh, are you still in
the audience? Okay. I just -- we have a question about the item
that
you'd like to speak on. I'll come back there and talk to you about
it.
Morning, Jim.
MR. SIESKY: Morning. Good morning, commissioners. Jim
Siesky representing Eagle Creek utility. Present with me today are
David Amico, president and CEO, and Emetic Robert who's the
accountant. If you have any questions, you can ask them technical
questions I might not -- not have the answer to.
We come to you today because of a -- I guess a quirk in
the law that was created when this board resumed regulation of
utilities in Collier County. Under the PSC regulations that Eagle
Creek was subject to until February 27, it could have applied for a
price index increase through an application process for 1995 by
March
31 of this year and for 1996 by March 31 of next year.
When this board resumed regulation on February 27, it
effectively closed that window for Eagle Creek for the 1995 year.
It
made both applications at the same time. 1996 was approved because
your ordinance addresses that. But your ordinance does not address
1995.
The best analogy I could come up with is you and I
always know that we have to submit our income tax form 1040 by
April
15 of every year. And it's like we got to April 7 this year and
sent
our form in but the government said we've changed the rules. You
now
have to have it in by April 1.
We're asking you to permit -- to modify your ordinance
to permit Eagle Creek to submit an application for price index
increase for 1995.
You might be interested that this -- to know that this
would amount to a cost to the consumer of about 50 cents per month.
It also would be income to Eagle Creek for about $150 a month.
It's
not a significant number in either direction except that if Eagle
Creek is not granted this increase or at least the opportunity to
seek
an increase, it forever loses it unless it conducts a complete
audit
which is cost prohibitive when these numbers are involved.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask you when -- when did the
application -- when was it submitted?
MR. SIESKY: My understanding, it was submitted towards
the end of March and reached the PSC before the March 31 deadline.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's fine, but isn't this
utility authority business first?
MR. SIESKY: I'm sorry. I don't understand your
question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Shouldn't you -- shouldn't you make
this presentation to the utility authority before you come here to
this board?
MR. SIESKY: Yes, sir, we did, and the board felt that
it was without authority to make any recommendation one way or the
other.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That was my question. Does our
utility authority have the right to grant this? Mr. Weigel, is --
was
the utility authority's position that they weren't sure if they had
the ability to grant it correct in your opinion?
MR. WEIGEL: That -- I think that may be correct. We're
talking specifically about the year 1995, the rate year 1995. And
that is -- my understanding is it's not provided for in the
ordinance. And, therefore, the authority felt it did not have the
ability to go forward. And I don't know if -- Mr. Wallace or Tom
Palmar of our office who have been looking at this may want to
answer
any more specific question that you have.
Mr. Siesky may have just mentioned something that --
that would assist me in responding here, and that is part of the
research we had is that, for instance, a solution to the Eagle
Creek
issue might be, might have been applying for a general rate
increase.
But, Jim, are you indicating that to incorporate the
1995 index rate adjustment into a general rate increase would
require
significant additional audit review and reporting work that you
wouldn't otherwise have to do?
MR. SIESKY: My understanding is -- I'm not really that
familiar with the ordinance or the process. But just talking to my
client, he said that would require a complete audit, and that is an
expense that they would prefer not to undergo.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, if that is -- if that is an
expense and procedure that's not required under a 1995 application
for
index rate adjustment, again, Mr. Wallace or Mr. Palmar can respond
to
me there. But I think that what the authority is looking for here
is
that they do not have the independent ability to amend an
ordinance.
It's the board that would cause the direction for an ordinance
change
to be drafted and advertised.
And -- but it's my understanding kind of through the --
through the grapevine here that the authority would be disposed to
__
through a different route, through the general rate adjustment
increase perhaps be able to provide Eagle Creek with the kind of
review and adjustment that they're looking for as opposed to going
back and creating an ordinance amendment at this point. Again,
I'll
turn to Mr. Wallace or Tom Palmet if they have any further comment
to
assist the board with here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Siesky, I'm going to ask you when
the application was submitted. I didn't get a definite answer.
That's important that -- that we do.
MR. SIESKY: Mr. Roberts said he submitted the
application on March 27 of 1996.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question that remains is if
the board were to take this step, have we completely done an end
run
around the review process that is deter -- that is set up to
determine
whether or not a rate increase is, in fact, valid and necessary or
not? And if we have, then we've got another issue to deal with
that
we would be granting based on surface rather than -- than actual
review. And you are trying to avoid the review process that will
cause the back audit.
MR. SIESKY: We're not asking you to avoid the review
process. We're asking for the right to go back to the regulation
board, present our case, and let them decide whether or not the
increase is appropriate.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sounds like we have to give
authority to our rate board to look at this. Right now they don't
have it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Wallace?
MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Dewey
Wallace, your utility regulation coordinator. Since assuming
regulation February the 27th of this year, the ordinance was passed
on
that day, and we have processed about five indexing applications
since
that date the authority has taken action.
Eagle Creek was granted the nineteen -- 1996 index
application, but there's about three reasons why staff was
precluded
from recommending approval of the 1995 index. And one of the
reasons
is that they missed the window by one month. Had the Public
Service
Commission still had jurisdiction, they -- I've spoken with them,
and
they told me that when they received it they would have processed
the
1995 index application, but that still does not help the authority.
And this question was posed by Mr. Siesky to the
utilities authority on August the 26th. And that's why he's here
today. The authority chose to take no action except to deny the
1995
application while approving the '96 application. And staff stands
ready to do whatever the board wants to do in this matter.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, my
understanding is we're just deciding whether to hear this as a
regular
item or not?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hear this on a regular agenda
or not?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Rather than discussing every
detail today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. We're not gonna -- we're not
gonna --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're not going to make a
decision today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- get into an extended discussion
today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's -- let's bring this back
and hear the -- the item in its entirety at a future agenda. I
think
there's -- there's something to discuss here, and I've got some
questions that will need to be answered in the interim, so I'd like
to
go ahead and see this as an agenda item also.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. SIESKY: Thank you, commissioners.
Item #7E
CRAIG BRADLY PATTERSON REGARDING A PROPOSED TRANSIT SYSTEM - STAFF
TO
PREPARE AGENDA ITEM
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, your final public petition
today is Mr. Craig Patterson concerning a private proposed transit
system in Collier County.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you -- tell you
what. I'm going to do something like Commissioner Hancock did on
the
first item. I know there are -- there are mixed feelings on this
and
there's different questions. But our question today is solely
whether
do we put this on a regular agenda item or not. I think
transportation has been an item that the board has reviewed from
time
to time. And without making any commitment, I think we ought to
put
it on for a regular discussion.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Patterson.
MR. PATTERSON: All right. Appreciate it. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Although I'll venture to say the
next one won't be that quick.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What we're going to do with it
we don't know yet.
Item #8A1
FINAL PLAT OF HILLTOP ESTATES - DENIED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We will move on to our regular
agenda. 16(A) (2) is now 8(A)(1).
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I asked for this to be pulled off
on the agenda, the consent agenda, because there are impacts to the
__
this is -- this is, frankly, one of my favorite neighborhoods in
Collier County. I don't know if you're familiar with it. It's a
nice
-- it's a real neighborhood. It's -- people know each other.
Well,
it is. And, frankly, I don't live in one of those. I mean, it's a
real nice neighborhood where people sit outside on their driveways
and
talk to each other. And so a change like what is proposed in this
plat is real significant to the neighbors.
And I'd like for them to have an opportunity to tell you
about what they see as issues, and also I'd like to have an
opportunity to discuss with staff some of the questions I'd raised.
Their -- this -- you're familiar with it. You've seen the plat.
But
it's -- it's basically making four lots out of what was originally
proposed to be two. Mr. Norris?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And that's -- that's -- that's
really the important point of this to me is that we're -- we're
being
asked to double the number of lots or double the number of homes
that
have been previously approved for two lots.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly. And --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all I need to know.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and in an area on a very
narrow -- a real sharp curve in the street right there which gives
me
some traffic concerns in an area that already has some significant
storm water drainage problems which I understand Mr. Archibald has
__
has spoken with Mr. Boldt and can give us a report on today, but
there
-- there are some issues that need to be discussed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know what my initial
reaction is, but I'm curious as to why it got to this point and why
it
was on consent agenda.
MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, planning services director.
This was brought to you as a typical consent agenda item for plat
approval. It had a preliminary subdivision plat reviewed by the
board
-- Collier County Planning Commission several months ago, also
staff
recommendation to planning commission. I'd just like to -- I can
give
you a brief presentation if you would care to have that. Or if
not,
that's okay as well.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Arnold --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: My comment is it causes me a little
concern that -- that something would come to the consent agenda
that
increases density.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Doubles.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The increasing of density to me is
something a little more serious than putting it on the consent
agenda. Is -- is that a typical procedure of ours or --
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I guess it typically can occur. I
guess I'm not sure that it does occur. But in this particular
instance, the zoning permits up to four dwelling units per acre
currently on the property. These were two large lots. They're
subdividing it into four lots that exceed the minimum lot size
requirement for that zoning district.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me give a correlation if I
may. If you buy a five-acre lot in the estates, it was platted as
a
single piece of property, and your neighbors may expect you to
build
one home. However, our code allows you to subdivide into two
minimum
two and a quarter-acre sizes. And that, again, would be a consent
agenda item.
So when you look at these lots, it's a platted lot in an
RSF-4 with a minimum lot size. If your lot can meet two of those
minimum sizes, then you can plat it for two homes. And the people
who
bought in that neighborhood know the minimum lot size.
So it -- it's akin to what goes on in the estates
regularly where a five-acre lot is divided into two. The neighbors
may wish that to stay a five-acre lot, but our code allows you to -
to plat it into two separate lots, and I think this is a similar
situation. It's just -- it's just in an old, established
neighborhood
with smaller lots, and we're not used to seeing this type of -- of
application I think.
MR. ARNOLD: I guess I might add that it wasn't too many
years ago -- I think back in the early 1980s -- that this was
multi-family zoned which would have permitted around six dwelling
units per acre. So it was down zoned to a single-family district
after we adopted a new zoning code in the early eighties.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask one -- and I do want to
let the neighbors speak. That's the most important thing. But the
my concern is the access to the back two lots, that it's -- it's a
20
foot -- and it says it's a drive. I guess it's being permitted as
a
driveway because it -- it doesn't meet road standards, but it must
be
the access for fire trucks and garbage trucks. How is that
permissible under the code?
MR. ARNOLD: It is actually proposed to be a separate
road tract with drainage and utility easements on either side of
that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that a standard road size, 20
feet.
MR. ARNOLD: No. The standard road width would be
closer to 40 feet or 50 feet for a roadway right-of-way which could
include utilities as well. The pavement width is standard to code.
Two -- two 10-foot travel lanes is standard, and that is to code.
The
width of the right-of-way is less, and there is administrative
discretion in our code if our engineering staff believes that is
going
to be a safe accessible situation. And in a sense it will in our
opinion function more as a driveway than it will a road of any
type.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: From a practical -- how would I
-- and I defer to your expertise. Don't get me wrong in that. But
how does a -- how is a garbage truck going to get back there and
pick
up the garbage and turn around and get back out?
MR. ARNOLD: It's my understanding from Waste Management
that there are minimum backing distances that they will --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They're going to back down
there?
MR. ARNOLD: -- they will maneuver. They will drive in,
and they can also back out.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That means at 6 a.m. they get
the beep, beep, beep.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All the way back.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: All the way back.
MR. ARNOLD: The other --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you do that again? That was
kind of fun.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Beep, beep. I listen to it
every now and then myself.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the -- but the -- there are
-- this is important to me to understand because if this -- if this
complies with code, if it's, you know, just a Golden Gate Estates
lot
division issue, then, you know, I'm not going to try to stop
something
if it absolutely complies with code. But what I heard you say
about
the driveway is that it's a staff discretion item. It's not -- it
did
involve some -- your discretion on whether or not a variance, an
administrative variance, should be granted for the width of that
road.
MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. We took that
recommendation to the planning commission that -- that this didn't
need a typical hammerhead turn, if you will, with a T-type turn at
the
end or a cul-de-sac bulb, if you will, because of the length. It's
less than 150 feet, and the last approximately 70 feet serve as
nothing more than a required access point for the 2 lots to get
their
minimum 70 feet lot width measured along a right-of-way.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, one thing that --
that as -- as I read some of the concerns from the residents, they
talked about, you know, garbage truck backing out onto the roadway.
One thing I noticed, though, is the traffic pattern by having a
private drive that extends back in there, if these were two
single-family homes, in all likelihood you would have a straight
drive
that directly connects to the road. And unless you put a circle
drive
in, which the frontage on those two lots doesn't look like it
provides
for, you're gonna have the individual homeowners every time they go
in
and out of their driveway backing into a curve.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With a private drive that goes
in, that backing will occur in the individual driveways, and the
traffic will be coming out of that road nose first instead of rear
end
first which to me appeared to be a safer situation than two
driveways
with cars always being required to back into that corner. Is that
a
fair assumption? Is that part of the decision?
MR. ARNOLD: I think that's -- I think that's a fair
assumption. I think the other -- in reading through the residents'
in
this area concerns -- I'll let Mr. Archibald address some of the
drainage issues if -- if we need to. Some of the other issues
about
fire protection, there's a fire hydrant, the septic tanks. There
are
no other utility provision there. Everyone else has a septic tank.
That is how they're going to have to treat their sewage. Those
have
been tentatively approved by environmental health through our
development review process. They were forwarded copies of this
plan,
and we've had sign-offs of approval from all review agencies on
that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The last thing I'll say about the
turnaround is that what we have in our packet is just a little --
an
excerpt of the plat that shows, you know, these two lots and a
portion
of the curve, but it's -- I'm sorry. What we have is this which
shows
just an excerpt. And when you look at the entire plat or if you
drive
out there, you can see just how sharp that curve is that we're
talking
about people backing out of this long driveway, and -- and I would
hope that staff looked at it with the whole plat and perhaps even,
you
know, a site visit when you're using your discretion on those
various
kinds of items.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Commissioner, you said
backing out. My point was that with that driveway, the individual
cars that -- that are at the homes will be pulling out front first
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as opposed to if there were
two individual driveways there, they would, in fact, be backing
into
the curve which I would deem less safe than -- than this scenario.
But what I'd like to -- to do if possible is hear from the
residents
out there and see what concerns are in the neighborhood and see if
they've been addressed or not and go from there.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Arnold, I'd -- I'd like to
-- I'd like to say one last time again -- and we've said this
plenty
of times in the last six months, especially last week with the boat
dock extensions -- the -- the planning commission seems to be
approving things that this board is having difficulty with. And --
and I -- I sure would like to see some changes soon to the land
code
so that our planning commission decisions reflect more what this
board
would like to do. Can we do that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we make them agree with us?
MR. DORRILL: Is that an --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, we can't make them agree
with us.
MR. DORRILL: Is that an editorial statement or a
question?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's a question. Can we do that
and how soon?
MR. DORRILL: Get rid of them.
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know if I'm prepared to answer
that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think maybe --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we've been talking now for
a year about densities, and here -- that we -- we want to lower
densities. And here we have something that's actually doubling the
density.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then we need to prohibit
replatting of existing residential lots.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that's just it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One of the two.
MR. ARNOLD: And we -- we do this really on a -- an
almost daily basis through the provisions of lot line adjustments.
And, you know, whether they're the same, we move lot lines around,
and
you can split the lot in half, and you can create up to three lots
without even going through the subdivision process. And we have an
agricultural exemption where you don't even have to subdivide the
property through a formal platting process in the agricultural
district. And it still has to go to the Board of County
Commissioners. The question is, I guess, on a consent item. And
it's
my understanding -- and I guess I would defer to Mr. Weigel -- but
consent items are just that unless the board decides to ask for a
separate public hearing if there's an intent not to approve the
consent item. And maybe Mr. Weigel can give us some direction
there
as well but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have a problem with being
on the consent agenda because we know it's our responsibility to
study
those carefully before we come in here because there's not going to
be
a discussion. So it doesn't bother me that it was on consent.
It's
just that it was something that I knew people wanted to talk about,
and I would like to get that opportunity.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Then let's let them talk.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I have three. One may be
sort of a designated spokesman, and I believe that's Mr. Miller.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: When the speakers are coming forward,
we'd like to remind them that we allow five minutes for -- for
comments and ask you to keep your comments within that time period,
please.
MR. MILLER: All right. Certainly. Good morning. I'm
Frank Miller, a resident of Hilltop Drive. Am I into the mike
better
now? Oh, okay. We have a letter which we sent to Commissioner
Mac'Kie and of which we recently provided copies to the rest of the
commissioners. You may not yet have had an opportunity to review
it
completely because you only got it very recently. But we'll read
from
that letter since it summarizes reasonably well the concerns and
objections of the majority of the Hilltop/Morningside community of
some 90 to 100 homes.
So it reads, the county planning commission has approved
petition PSP-96-3 requesting subdivision plat approval to change
the
existing lots 56 and 57 of Hilltop subdivision from 2 lots to 4
lots
with a central access road. We feel that the planning commission
concerned itself only with legalities and questions of code and did
not consider or respond to the effect on the residents of
Hilltop/Morningside and their strongly expressed opposition.
We ask that the board of commissioners review this
petition, and we respectfully request that approval be denied for
the
following principal reasons: First item is density. Four homes
ca~
be fitted into lots fifty-six and fifty-seven. But due to the odd
shape of the resultant four lots and the available area after
setbacks, the houses would have to be positioned very snugly along
this proposed new road with a project-like appearance, certainly
not
in keeping with the low density attractive character of the
existing
area. Regardless of the home design, this type of arrangement
gives a
negative first impression to the area -- this is right at the
entrance
as you come into the area -- and thus a negative effect on our
property values.
When Hilltop/Horningside subdivisions were originally
platted, the intention was that all of the lots, including these
two,
should contain one single-family home. Those who have purchased
homes
here with that in mind have a right to expect that arrangement to
be
maintained. We certainly don't want a precedent set that could
allow
other large lots in the area to be subdivided. And, in fact, there
is
at the other end -- there's a similar curve at the other end of
this
street, and there are a similar pair of large lots down there which
each have a single home. And we believe that that's the way it
should
be maintained. At a time when increasing density is a major
concern
in the county, this change would definitely be a step backward.
In terms of traffic, the curve of the road where a
driver enters the Hilltop area from Morningside where the two lots
are
located is already a dangerous area for drivers and pedestrians.
Cars
frequently come through there at unsafe speeds as a shortcut from
U.S.
41 to Twin Lakes. As it is, two cars going in opposite directions
on
the curve have difficulty getting by each other without driving off
the road. Adding another intersection right in the center of the
same
curve compounds the existing problem, making it much more hazardous
for all residents and the school children who pass that way and are
picked up in that area each day.
In addition, there's no turnaround provision at the dead
end of this added street. So, therefore, large delivery trucks,
garbage trucks, and the like would have to back out into Hilltop.
Next item would be environment. A concentration of four
septics and four drainfields serving eight bathrooms is not in
keeping
with the plat plan as originally laid out and may be
environmentally
dangerous. In the same curve section of Hilltop bordering these
lots,
a great deal of water collects during heavy rains sometimes
becoming
deep enough, nearly -- nearly two feet, to impede traffic.
With four homes on the two lots, there would be much
less land to absorb water and thus additional run-off to worsen the
problem.
That's my beeper?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's your beeper, sir.
MR. MILLER: Well, I got two short paragraphs. That the
Hilltop --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you wrap it up quickly then.
MR. MILLER: That the -- that the Hilltop/Horningside
area is united in opposition should be clear from the enclosed
petitions which represent those who happened to be home when we
called.
In summary, we believe that the present character of the
area should be maintained and that building on these two lots
should
consist of two single-family homes. The lots would be larger, but
many buyers look for large lot and often purchase two lots to
accomplish that. In this way the integrity of the area would be
maintained, and we look for your help in maintaining that
integrity.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Thank you. Mr. Walsh, do you still intend
or desire to speak? He's waiving.
The only other one I have, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ryan. He's
your final speaker. Morning.
MR. RYAN: Hi. Tim Ryan. My address is 1246 Hilltop.
Mr. Miller spoke pretty much to what I wanted to say. I wanted to
highlight the fact that that area's where all the school children
do
go to collect for the bus stop. And if we have a backing garbage
truck at that time, that could create more danger.
And I wanted to see a show of hands from the audience of
people from the area who have showed up this morning to express
opposition to this going forward.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Including the one lady with both
hands up.
MR. RYAN: Just -- just so you know, we do have a -- a
very strong neighborhood. Okay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, is the petitioner
here to address this at all today? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, he is.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to give him the
opportunity to do that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Because I'd -- I'd certainly --
if -- if -- if he's not here, I think we ought to reschedule it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, they're here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just while they're coming up,
Mr. Miller indicated that the planning commission dealt only with
issues of legality and questions of code. By law that's all they
ca~
deal with. We have to deal with legal issues and -- and the way
the
code is written. We can't make arbitrary decisions unfortunately
because they get overturned in Court, so I understand the
frustration
with that, but the planning commission was merely doing their job
there when they only dealt with legal issues and issues of code.
MR. NELSON: Good morning. For the record, Doug Nelson,
3-N Group. I'm the -- my company's been hired by the landowner,
James
Wiltberger, to do what we're doing here, attempt to.
Let me give you a little history. 1976, actually prior
to that, Mr. Wiltberger purchased those lots with the intent on
building a multi-family -- actually a six-unit apartment complex.
That apartment complex was under construction when for purposes to
accommodate a action before the commission with a neighboring
restaurant which is currently Carrabba's Italian restaurant put a
sewer plant, package plant needing additional parking, et cetera,
et
cetera. They encroached on those two pieces of property by about
60
feet and for parking.
He had a de -- Mr. Wiltberger had a deal with the county
that he would not do anything with those lots until he was out of
the
restaurant business which has since happened. He now since he's
owned
the land for over 20 years would like to do something with it.
That
was the charge to me.
The -- the -- to make a long story short, we have a
little over an acre's worth of land. We looked at very many
options.
When he purchased the land, he purchased an apartment zoned -- it
was
basically the equivalent of an RMF-6 which no longer exists. It
was
rezoned in the eighties zoning process to RMF-4. We're not
increasing
density. All we're asking is to use the same density that the
entire
neighborhood has.
Regarding the specific concerns, one of the things that
we did -- and -- and I've lived in Naples most of my life. I've
spent
a lot of time riding my bike back and forth in that area. I think
it's a beautiful community, and my whole intent in developing this
piece of land for Mr. Wiltberger was that we could upgrade the
neighborhood. By no means do we mean to take away anything from
the
neighborhood.
Unfortunately, in order to do that and upgrade it such
that people will actually purchase the real estate for the market
value, we need to make the land consistent with the rest of the
neighborhood. There's only about one lot in that neighborhood that
is
larger than the four lots that we're creating out of these two.
These
two lots are huge.
The other thing is that most of the neighbors don't
recognize the size of the parcel we're dealing with because there's
a
fence 60 feet into the property along the whole west side of it, so
it
looks almost half the size that it actually is. That's a big
visual
concern.
So basically Mr. Wiltberger said, "What are we gonna
do?" I met with the planning group over at development services.
We
spent a lot of time laboring at all of our options. And we chose
this
one as the best method to keep the value of the neighborhood, keep
the
character of the neighborhood and -- and -- and do what we're
trying
to do.
I remind you that the density is not increasing. It's
staying the same. We're only changing the boundaries of lots which
are on a plat.
Second of all, property value, every one of these lots
is larger than the existing lots on Hilltop Drive. The existing
lots
on Hilltop Drive are 65 by 130 coming out to about 8,700 square
feet.
The smallest of the 4 lots that we're creating is 9,400 square feet
up
to 11,000 square feet.
We're going to put a landscaping buffer. As in anything
that you do today with the county, you have to create this whole
plat. Originally we just wanted to pop four houses in there, but
we're having to literally jump through back hoops which is fine but
meeting all the criteria of today's development standards:
Drainage,
buffers, easements. It's -- it's quite exciting, and there's a lot
that's going to be added to it.
The community will be a 20-foot-wide driveway. I'll
remind you that the road we're coming off of is 20 feet. The
driveway
__
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the problem, Doug.
MR. NELSON: -- is the same as the road.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's -- that's -- that's the
most pressing issue to me is that -- the fact that it is a sharp
curve
on a narrow road with -- with this impact coming out into the --
into
the curve is the problem, and that 20-foot access road, driveway,
whatever we're calling it, is the one issue that I have the most
trouble with.
MR. NELSON: Consider this. In most of the development
that I've done in terms of I'm -- I'm primarily a single-family
residential builder, we put in a driveway for every house. Most of
the time when we put a house on a large lot, we set it back a
fairly
long way. I submit to you that a driveway on any of the -- any of
__
if this were left the same, which it'll never be probably developed
because you can't get the value out of the land if it was two
single-family houses on two lots, is that they would be a fairly
long
16-foot driveway backing out into the curve at very close proximity
to
each other.
If -- if I understand my planning right, this is about
28 trips a day per household. What we're doing is taking those 28
trips a day per household and -- and putting it into one street
which
will make them come out nose to nose, if you will, so they have a
lot
better visibility. And we do have an issue with the trucks or
whatever. But I really think that's a fairly minor concern in
terms
of the number of trips. Again, we're talking about occasional
delivery of things and we're -- and -- and trash pickup which is
twice
a week versus the average use of a household over a daily period.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have a -- I have a question, Doug.
You said that this is not going to increase density, but the way I
understand it, we're taking two lots and making four lots. How can
you say we're not increasing density?
MR. NELSON: That -- that parcel was originally zoned
for six units.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, no, no.
MR. NELSON: It's now zoned for four units.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's currently two single-family lots.
MR. NELSON: It's two lots. I agree with that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can try to answer that.
There is -- there is an answer to that question. And -- and I'll
give
you an example of increasing density, and that was when you take
urban
estates land like we did a couple of months ago that is zoned at 1
unit per 5 acres, whatever it is, and it was 23 -- that whole
parcel
was 58 acres or something and you could have had 23 lots on it, 23
homes on it. We got done that day rezoning it to multi-family, and
they had 258 or something. That's an increase in density.
This is allowed -- where -- where this is in the county
is allowed four units per acre. Right now it's platted one way,
but
he's redrawing a plat. And after he redtaws the plat, it's still
allowed four units per acre. We're not changing the acreage.
We're
changing the lines on the plat, and there is -- or changing
density.
We're changing lines on a plat, and there is a difference.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately, you're both
right. You know, we're adding homes, and we're doing what the code
allows for. But then again, the code allows for a lot of things
that
we haven't given our signature to.
My question really is -- is listening to -- to the
concerns raised by the community, the density and project-like
appearance is something that -- that I think this board is now
trying
to get a handle on. The driveway in the middle of the curve, if
you
had two homes, you have two driveways in the middle of that curve,
so
I don't see that as being a pivotal issue.
The truck not being able to turn around I think can be
solved. Maybe a T isn't required, but a soft Y that leads to the
two
homes in the corner will create the ability for the truck to make
a~
internal move and get back out without having to back into the
roadway. That can be solved.
As far as environmental considerations, drainfields and
septic tanks are what is required in that neighborhood. If I'm not
as I did my math, most of the lots in this neighborhood are less
than
9,000 square feet in size. What's being proposed, the smallest one
is
9,900 square feet. So as far as size of lot and size of home, is
this
consistent lot size and home size with what's existing in the
neighborhood?
MR. NELSON: Morningside and Hilltop are -- it's an --
it's an interesting and -- and unique community, and I'll grant you
that. Let me emphasize to the board and to the people that are
here,
we're trying to bring up the neighborhood. We've proposed a
three-bedroom, two-bath, two-car garage house which is
significantly
in excess of the standard house on Hilltop Drive. Morningside
Drive
had larger lots. It's -- it's a little bit north. And there is a
difference.
But I'll -- I'll leave you with and then we can bring up
Coast -- John Asher from Coastal Engineering to explain the
technical
sides of it. But what we're attempting to do here is -- is develop
a
significantly nicer home, number one, than we're required to do and
that we would do if those lots were left as they are today, and
that's
really the objective. How can we help the neighborhood and deal
with
Mr. Wiltberger's land? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I for one don't have any
questions for Mr. Asher. I don't think it's an engineering
question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to get to a decision
on this, though.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any questions
for him either. I guess -- I don't -- I understand there are some
concerns in the neighborhood. However, I don't understand when
every
other home is on roughly 9,000 square feet how we can say, no,
these
folks can't get any smaller than 19,000.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to ask Mr. Archibald if
he could come answer a couple questions about the drainage
problems.
What -- what do we have -- I don't know if anybody has been in that
area, but it's gonna be an impact here and the -- it floods, to say
it
bluntly. What's -- what's on the agenda for county improvements to
that -- to address that problem?
MR. ARCHIBALD: This is a recorded plat. I believe the
date of the recorded plat is 1966, in the mid sixties. So you've
got
a development of lots. This particular location has about 57 lots.
And there's really no drainage system other than a drainage outfall
at
the very east end which drains into Goodlette-Frank Road.
This particular project, though, is, in fact, providing
for a improvement in drainage, and they're providing perimeter
detention and retention of their water. But obviously the concern
is
still what kind of outfall does the street have. And right now
that
water has to build up typically more than a foot before it can
drain
to the east and have an outfall. But as far as meeting south
Florida
requirements, this project is, in fact, meeting those requirements.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that the project does, I just
wondered are there any plans in the county -- I mean, these people
are
here, and it would be a nice time to tell them if we have any plans
for improving this situation as it exists.
MR. ARCHIBALD: No, no, we don't, and the concern is
that the slope of the land is east to west. The outfall is at the
west end. So the only way the street is going to be improved would
be
a very, very expensive drainage program, one that's really not --
not
cost feasible in any sense.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can anything be done on this
property now or -- obviously if someone came in for a single-family
home permit, we could require nothing of them in the way of
drainage.
Can anything be done on this project here to help alleviate some of
the drainage problems on the street?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, they're providing for their own
so-called detention-retention of their run-off. But no, they're
not
going to be improving. But yes, they will provide some run-off to
that street. So again, whether it's two single-family homes or
four
single-family homes, the impact is going to be about the same.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I -- I might as well get
out on the floor that what I -- I'd like to make a motion to deny
this
based on the 20-foot access issue that -- which was a discretionary
variance of sort approved by staff, and I disagree with their
discretion in that having spent time in this area and being as
aware
as I am of what the -- how the street curves and what I think could
be
a real safety problem.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask the motion maker if I
may -- first of all, do we need to close the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There is no public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize. Let me ask the
motion maker, what I propose to correct the backing problem is
what's
called a soft Y. As you come in, it -- not a T but it branches off
into a Y to the two homes in the back corner. That provides the
internal area for a garbage truck to service a home, back, and come
out nose first and takes the conflict out of the street. If we had
two single-family homes here, that garbage truck would be stopping
in
the driveway of each of those two homes in the middle -- in the
middle
of this curve in the street twice a week.
With this plan, the truck would be off the street
servicing four homes and be able to turn around internal to the
project if that drive is reconfigured to a soft Y. I see that as
better than the other scenario. And if that's implemented, the
access
question to me goes away. I wanted to put that on the table,
whether
that's convincing enough for you to reconsider your motion or not.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm gonna -- I'm gonna stay with
my motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm going to second the motion
because what -- what we've been given here is just unacceptable. I
don't -- I don't think it conforms with the neighborhood. And --
and
in addition to that, while I like what Commissioner Hancock has
offered, I think it's their planner's job to decide the best way to
do
it economically for the property owner. So I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. Okay. That motion's successful 3
to 2.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask to possibly give the
property owner direction? If this were to come back in a three-lot
configuration, would that be acceptable to -- I mean, if they're to
come back in a three-lot configuration where it was more typical of
what goes on in the neighborhood and they have a shorter access
street, would that have altered the opinion of some members of the
board?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd be happy to look at that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just don't like what came
today.
Item #8B1
CHANGE ORDER FOR THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY SIX LANING PROJECT (JCT.
GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD TO JCT. C.R. 31) CIE NO. 05; BID NO. 94-2263 -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is 8(B)(1), change order on
Golden Gate Parkway six-laning project.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, commissioners. Adolfo
Gonzalez with your capital projects management office. This is a
change order request for some additional landscaping along the
Golden
Gate Parkway corridor between Goodlette-Frank Road and Airport
Road.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. -- Mr. Gonzalez. We
have a meeting going on out here in the audience. We'll have to
wait
until that -- that meeting is concluded.
MR. DORRILL: I'm not sure they realize that item's over
and that they won.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. The plat was -- was
denied.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let us know when you're -- when you're
through now so we can -- we can go ahead with our meeting. Okay,
Mr.
Gonzalez. If you'd go ahead, please.
MR. GONZALEZ: This is a change order request for the
Golden Gate Parkway project. It is for landscaping work between
Goodlette-Frank Road and Airport Road. We have already completed
Some
of the intersection beautification work at Goodlette-Frank and
Golden
Gate Parkway. This is a continuation of that same theme along the
corridor. It also involves some changes to some plan quantities
that
reconciles some end-of-the-project estimates and for a time
extension
to reconcile some rain delays.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First let me compliment
office of capital projects. I know we do 98 percent of our
projects
on time and on budget. However, this project has aggravated me
over
and over and over. First of all, Airport Road looks -- I'm sorry.
Yeah, between Airport Road and Goodlette Road looks horrible. I
assume there will be one more layer and we'll square that away. I
don't know if we've -- we're having any history of accidents. But
with the way all the white lines cross each other as you are headed
west, I'm surprised if we haven't and won't be the least surprised
if
we do.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've already met a car coming the
wrong way at nine o'clock at night on that road.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's -- it's just a mess.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I tested my Jeep's rollover
capability.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While I appreciate the --
that we want to do beautification, I hope we're not going to delay
__
I understand as I look through here there's some sort of 52-day
window
or something on completing that project. I'd like to see the
actual
road completed before we start fooling around with the landscaping
on
either side. It's a mess. It's been a mess for months. And I'd
like
to get that done.
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. Better Roads has told us that
they're going to start paving the rest of that project tomorrow,
and
they should be finished by the end of this week, and that's from
essentially the bowling alley close to Goodlette-Frank Road east to
east of Airport Road. That should take about four or five days,
and
that will be the final layer of asphalt where you have -- we also
have
many complaints about the manhole lids popping over it, and that
will
reconcile that problem, and it will be about 30 days to actually do
the landscaping work along the medians. There will be some
interruptions to traffic from time to time as the contractor puts
all
that landscaping in there, but at least you'll be traveling that
final
course of asphalt.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we can -- we can look for
adequate lane striping then in a week or ten days so that the
danger
of side swiping diminishes itself?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yeah. Immediately after any asphalt is
laid down, he will put down some temporary striping, some regular
paint type of material. You have to wait about 30 days before
putting
the thermoset plastic striping on, the one that has the shiny
reflective surface. But there will be some striping there.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
None.
Item #882
BID NO. 96-2561 AIRPORT-PULLING ORAD GROUNDS MAINTENANCE SERVICES -
AWARDED TO ENVIRONMENTAL CARE, INC.
8(B)(2) is a contract bid number 96-2561, Airport Road
landscaping.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Morning, board members. Agenda item
8(B)(2) is a recommendation to accept the second low bid for the
landscape maintenance of the new segment of Airport Road from Pine
Ridge down to Golden Gate Parkway and also the existing down to
U.S.
41. Again, this was an item that was in our budget for the
upcoming
year. It's within the budgeted funds, and the staff is
recommending
that again the second low bid be accepted by the board and consider
the staff's recommendation to reject the low bid based upon not
conforming to the specifications.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two questions if I may. First
is, Mr. Dotrill, do we have any idea what our staff allocation and
cost to the general -- to the fund or the taxpayer was with county
doing this? In other words, what's our comparison here? Are we
sure
we're saving money?
MR. DORRILL: I -- I think that it's close. What -- and
your budget next year is predicated -- we -- I think we have one
median maintenance crew, and we're not proposing to terminate or
dissolve the crew, so this is a privatization initiative that is
being
done in recognition of increasing median beautification projects
that
have to be maintained for the avoided cost of hiring additional
crews.
So we're -- we're going to keep the one crew that we
have. But as we continue to add lane miles -- and George has
excellent data on what his costs on per lineal or per square foot,
and
he can contrast those against what this bid is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On this second bid, Mr.
Archibald, are we saving any tax dollars?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, we are. Just from a unit price
standpoint, this contract is going to be around 55 cents a square
foot
for the base service. That does not include the materials that
increase that to approximately 84 cents per square foot. So this
is
about 10 cents per square foot per year cheaper than the county's
cost.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I --
MR. ARCHIBALD: So we think it's a very, very good bid,
very competitive. Also the firm is a firm that has done work in
the
area. They're under contract with a successful track record.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And the second part of
that is who is providing the -- the scheduling of maintenance, in
other words, herbicide application, fertilizing and so forth,
because
some of the medians are less than acceptable in their appearance?
And
I wonder how much of that is an inappropriate maintenance schedule.
Who's providing that?
MR. ARCHIBALD: This contract is better than prior
contracts. We have specific dates in the contract for the
performance
of not only the regular mowing but also the performance of the
application of pesticides, insecticides, herbicides. Those are all
qualified to include pricing for trimming of all of the larger
landscaping items.
So this is going to be a forerunner, we feel, of future
maintenance contracts that cover all of those items that typically
we
did not in prior contracts.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good enough.
MR. ARCHIBALD: There's even prices in here for
replanting material by the plant species, so it's a very thorough
bid. And I believe that Val Prince really deserves a lot of credit
for putting this together along with Steve Fabiano.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. With no public speakers,
I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second for approval. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #883
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 FOR THE SOUTH REGIONAL RECLAIMED WATER STORAGE
POND
PROJECT - APPROVED
Next item is 8(B)(3), change order number 3 for south
regional reclaimed water storage pond project.
MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez, capital projects
director. This is a change order request for the south regional
reclaimed water pond project. Back in December of '95 your staff
completed the reclaimed water use master plan for the south county
area.
As part of that, we anticipate some need in the future
for extending lines from that pond south and east of there. We're
asking you to consider adding the additional 1,400 feet of ductal
iron
pipe from the northwest end of the project to the Tamiami Trail
side
to build it now, to hopefully save some cost by doing that now.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And this is for future effluent use.
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm hesitating because
it's a third change order in a short period of time. Second was
administrative. But the total of these three change orders is --
is
almost $300,000. The purpose for this third change order in a
nutshell, Mr. Gonzalez?
MR. GONZALEZ: Add 1,400 feet of pipe to have a future
connection at the Tamiami Trail end of the project instead of at
the
north end.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. This is an expansion to
give us more end users to the -- in essence the south --
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that we didn't anticipate?
Okay. I understand. Thank you.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. Two motions, two
seconds. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Let's take a quick five-minute break and finish up.
(A short break was held.)
Item #8B4
RESOLUTION 96-427 AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR A
SINGLE,
PHASED, UNIFIED HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION GRANT FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR MEDIAN LANDSCAPING OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD
- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission
meeting. Mr. Dotrill, our next item is 8(B)(4), a resolution
authorizing the county manager to apply for a single phased unified
highway beautification grant from FDOT for Davis Boulevard.
MR. DORRILL: This is consistent with prior board
direction and in strict adherence to application guidelines, and
that's what we're recommending. Mr. Gonzalez is here and can
answer
any questions that you have.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have none except for just thank
you. Keep this ball rolling.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: My only question is are we
obligating ourselves to anything with this grant that -- you know,
for
the future? I mean, this is just a pure and simple grant?
MR. GONZALEZ: (Mr. Gonzalez nodded head.)
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: And --
MR. DORRILL: This -- this is the -- the construction
end of the Davis Boulevard beautification project. And -- and yes,
we're -- we're obligating ourselves to the -- any additional costs
above the maximum grant award which I understand's $110,000.
MR. GONZALEZ: 150,000.
MR. DORRILL: $150,000. And we will be responsible for
the perpetual maintenance of any median on the state road system.
They will not maintain improved medians. And so yes, we do have
Some
obligations that come with this.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But those are obligations that
we expect to take on with any median beautification program.
MR. DORRILL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So I just want to make sure it's
not like the sheriff grants where we start adding people to the
payroll and then two years from now we either gotta let them go or
pick them up, and we're not doing this. This is a straight dollar
grant to do capital construction.
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Item #885
RESOLUTION 96-428 WITH THE FDOT FOR UNDERTAKING LANDSCAPE
IMPROVEMENTS
ON S.R. 951 AT THE MARCO RIVER BRIDGE - ADOPTED
Next item is --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Something about a truck.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: An add-on for Marco landscaping.
That's that resolution to --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Lot of landscaping today.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, agenda item 8(B)(5) is a
add-on that involves the Marco bridge gateway project, and this is
really in follow-up to the board's action on the 13th of August.
And
we're just asking the board to approve a resolution which
authorizes
the chairman to make a application for a maintenance agreement with
the FDOT.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, I think we can
save you a few more minutes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #886
PURCHASE OF A TRUCK FOR USE IN THE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH CLEANING
OPERATION - APPROVED
Next item is the former 16(B)(1), is now 8(B)(6).
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Number of questions. One,
I'm -- I'm pleased to see TD -- TDC funds paying for this sort of
thing. But two, why did we just happen to have an extra truck in
stock? Three, will we now need to replace that for parks and rec.,
meaning we'll be buying an additional truck? And why was it
$22,000?
What -- what -- what kind of a truck we driving here anyway?
MR. GONZALEZ: Hopefully I can give you answers on two
out of those four questions, and I'll ask Mr. Olliff to give you
the
other two.
Why are we buying -- why this particular truck for TDC
or for the beach project?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. That wasn't one of the
questions, but I'll throw that in. Why -- why a truck for the
beach
project?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Keep talking.
MR. GONZALEZ: I'm sorry, Commissioner. I lost count on
the first one. We are -- as far as the beach operations, that is
turning out to be a full-time job and has -- since this summer when
we
started the cleaning operations, the person assigned to the beach
operations has scrambled every day to find a truck to haul his
equipment and fuel for the beach tech. That's why we really needed
a
truck dedicated for that -- assigned to that position.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That I'm comfortable with.
The next question was the appropriate vehicle for this purpose was
recently purchased by parks and rec. and exists in their inventory.
I'm wondering why we have an excess truck in the inventory and why
what its intent was when it was purchased.
MR. GONZALEZ: As I understand it, parks and rec.
recently went to a larger sized mower, a wider mower, to have a
more
efficient mowing operation and less time. That wider mower now
requires a larger truck size to carry the mower. And they had
purchased one for that purpose. Unfortunately, when they switched
to
the wider mower, it no longer is appropriate for that. We're
fortunate enough to have one in their inventory to use for the
beach
operations.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's confusing.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So now we'll have to buy a truck
to accommodate the wider mower, Tom?
MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. With the beach cleaning operation,
you are going to need an additional vehicle. We have currently
gone
to much larger gang-reel sized mowers for our operations like
Vineyards where we have just wide open grass spaces so that we can
cut
much quicker with single -- single -- single persons. But in order
to
haul that equipment, you need a larger truck to be able to haul
larger
gang-reel mowers. So wewve got a truck in inventory currently in
parks and recreation that was used for that that is undersized
today
that we can actually transfer to the beach cleaning program, pay
for
it out of TDC funds, and then replace this in the parks department
with the size truck needed to begin with.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was a paltry $22,000
truck. Now we gotta get -- but that was undersized, and we have to
get something larger. That was my third question. Why $22,0007
What
kind of a vehicle is this?
MR. OLLIFF: Itws a -- itws a three-quarter ton with an
upsized transmission that caused it to cost that much. What we
found
in the beach operation is itws turned into a one-man operation
where
this guy has got to basically take everything hews got with him
including -- the piece of machinery actually breaks tines as it
hits
rocks, and hews got to do his own repair and replacement of beach
raking tines while hews out there. So he takes all of that
equipment
as well as his own hydraulic fluids, his own fuel. So hels sort of
a
self-contained operation. And a three-quarter size was a good size
for him to use for that as well.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the upsized truck that
parks and rec. will now require will be what and prob -- excuse me,
will be what and probably will cost how much?
MR. OLLIFF: I donlt have that information. I know that
we just -- there is a spec. already out there for the vehicle.
Itls,
I believe, the same size, three-quarter ton, with just a larger
transmission and towing package than what this vehicle currently
has.
And it was actually a budgeted truck for this year as well.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And is fleet management consulted
prior to the purchase of these vehicles to make sure that we --
that
they are consistent with our maintenance schedule, welre not
creating
an anomaly thatls going to require additional training and parts?
MR. OLLIFF: No. Absolutely. In fact, we rely on
them. As parks people, we are not the people who -- who have the
expertise to spec. out those vehicles. So they spec. them out so
that
hopefully theylre within our fleet maintenance type repair,
replacement parts inventory.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: So all we're doing today then is
authorizing the reimbursement to parks and recreation of the amount
of
money that you spent for that truck and moving that truck into the
beach cleaning operation on a full-time basis.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. The only difference would've
been any other way we would have gone out and purchased the truck
out
of TDC funds from some other dealership. We just happened to have
one
that works well inside the system.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #8C1
BCC TO RETIRE THE EXISTING ESTATES BRANCH LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION
LOAN,
BORROW $1,650,000 AGAINST FUTURE LIBRARY IMPACT FEES AND AWARD AN
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR DESIGN OF THE
ENLARGEMENT AND RENOVATION OF THE MARCO BRANCH LIBRARY - APPROVED
Next item, 8(C)(1), the library discussion. I think
it's interesting to note that every -- almost every executive
summary
that we ever see from any department, it's either one page or two
pages. The library has sent us four full pages. I thought that
would
be notable.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They're making sure we have all
the information we need.
MR. OLLIFF: For the record, Tom Olliff, your public
services administrator. I'll start by apologizing for a four-page
executive summary, but we wanted to try and make sure because there
are several issues involved with this one single request for
approval,
some of them dealing with the estates library existing commercial
paper program loan as well as some renovations to the existing
facility that are there, some expansion issues, and as well a large
issue that deals with growth management and levels of service that
we're trying to maintain.
If I could just direct your attention primarily to the
second page of the executive summary where we actually try and
provide
you some peak season branch circulation and door count information,
I
think you'll see the primary reason why we're making a
recommendation
to expand the Marco branch library.
What you see is that in the peak season which is -- we
try and design and build our facilities to meet that peak season
demand -- and you'll see that the Marco branch library, although
it's
the smallest branch in the system, has both a circulation and a
door
count that is either first or second of any branch in the system.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is smaller than the one in
Pelican Bay?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes. This is --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's like a closet.
MR. OLLIFF: It's 5,600 square feet compared to 9,000 at
the Pelican Bay branch.
So what you see is that there's just a great demand for
library services on the Marco Island area, and that is the type of
a
location where they don't have the luxury of being able to go to
the
next nearest branch to use it simply because the distance that it
is.
I mean, they would end up driving to the East Naples branch which
is a
significant drive from the Marco Island area.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't question the need.
My only question is have we in the past borrowed against future
impact
fees, and this isn't uncommon? This is not out of line with what
we've done in the past.
MR. OLLIFF: It's not uncommon. It's the practice that
we just recently completed with the estates branch library. We
borrowed the full funding for the estates branch library. And one
of
the recommendations here is that we go ahead and repay that loan
because of excess impact fees that we've realized over the course
of
the last two years.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think this is -- and I -- I
understand the pay-as-we-go argument except that what we have here
is
a timing issue of construction. We're doing a nominal or a -- a --
a
-- I guess nominal expansion here, but it's a step towards what
eventually I think Mr. Jones is trying to accomplish which is a
regional concept. And it's kind of a failed efficiency to do a
minor
amount of construction knowing full well that you're still beneath
the
demand and need in that community.
And I think in looking at this as I've discussed with
LAB members and read the memos that I think we need to go ahead and
pursue the larger regional approach down there. It may commit us
for
five or six years to funds, but then we will be ready to do the
next
regional step elsewhere in the community. And I just think there's
a
scale of efficiency here by taking it a little step at a time that
we're going to throw dollars away.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if you have
speakers on this, Mr. Chairman, but I'd like to make a motion to
approve the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have -- I've got one question
before we -- we call the vote. Mr. Olliff, the -- the committing
of
impact fees to the retirement of this bond, how is that going to
affect the purchase -- the continuing purchase of books which we
also
use impact fees for?
MR. OLLIFF: That's a good question. If -- if -- if you
look at the fiscal impact statement, what we tried to show you is -
_
and we generally always try and budget conservatively on the
revenue
side. And we've basically budgeted a revenue estimate of about
$700,000 in library impact fees sort of in a straight-line basis
from
-- from this point forward even though over the last 3 years we've
generated about $740,000 in annual revenue.
Of that we need approximately 400,000 in order to
continue to purchase new materials to meet our needs Growth
Management
Plan-wise for books and other library materials. So that left us
with
$340,000 to be able to dedicate to debt service payments. And so
that's how we've calculated this, by taking the books and materials
money off the top --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: -- and then what was left when we dedicated
for debt service. If revenues come in like they have consistently
over the last five years, we would anticipate being able to pay
this
-- this off early.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So we're already taking
care of continuing purchases of reading materials.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At an escalating scale based on
our Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If we have a motion and a
second, I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
approve it. Do you have any public speakers that want to speak
against this project?
MR. DORRILL: Speak against it? I'll let you ask them
that. Miss Dering?
MS. DERING: I'm here to speak for this project. Do you
want me to speak?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless you want to talk us out of
it.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Steers?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Also indicates for the project.
MR. DORRILL: With that, there's just one
clarification. We've never had a project that required financing
of a
term beyond six years, and this project is -- does not initially
appear to be eligible for what we would typically call your
commercial
paper program, and we're pursuing a little different instrument
because the payback term is beyond six years.
And so what you're authorizing today is the accelerated
payment of the existing loan, if you will, for the estates,
authorizing the contract for the architect to proceed with this 1.6
million dollar expansion, and we still need to resolve the
financing
issue in advance of your ever awarding a construction contract. I
don't -- I don't believe that will be a problem, but we're not
eligible under the program that historically you refer to as
commercial paper, and that will need to come back to you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that's because of the length
of the --
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, as I understand it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- payback. Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #BE1
FY 96 3RD QUARTER REVENUE REPORT - PRESENTED
Next item is 8(E)(1), third quarter revenue report.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Smykowski, I hope somebody
told you that on a television show the other night I described you
as
the brilliant budget director.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Brilliant budget director.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Brilliant.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of course, she did follow
with the word "however".
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ahhhh.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, I didn't. I just stayed
with brilliant.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're welcome.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And yes, I was informed of that.
For the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director.
What we have before you today is the third quarter revenue report,
a
comparison for major intergovernmental enterprise fund impact fee
collections and beach parking revenues as compared -- as compared
to
budget.
In general terms things are going quite well. The half
cent sales tax is projected at a slight surplus. That was the --
that
surplus, though, had already been -- had already been factored into
the development of our FY '96 forecast as well as our FY '97
revenue
-- revenue estimate for sales tax.
There is good news to report on the state revenue
sharing front. We did pick up an additional $312,100 in FY '96
this
year, so that will accrue to the benefit of the general fund. As
the
executive summary states, that will give the board some latitude to
either increase general fund reserves or reduce the millage at
tomorrow night's public hearing.
There is a proposal that will be included in the agenda
package for tomorrow night in that regard recommending a -- a
reduction to the general fund millage and pursuant to the board
direction at the first hearing.
In general terms, the -- there are some slight negative
variances within the constitutional gas taxes and the voted gas
tax.
However, they're within the 5 percent revenue reserve.
Tourist tax revenues have been relatively flat, the
collections, with the exception of the additional penny. That was
begun collections in January. However, again, this was the number
that was utilized in developing the budget, so we have taken that
into
account.
The local option gas tax, we're doing slightly better
than budget. Within the enterprise fund revenues, the only thing
of
note I guess, obviously there's a large surplus projected in
building
permit revenue as well as within the impact fee categories due to
strong continued construction growth this year as well as with the
development of the condos in Pelican Bay. Mr. Cautero indicates
that
we've had quite a spurt in the building activity over the summer.
The negative variance there is in the landfill tipping
fees in the enterprise fund revenues. And as the executive summary
indicates, that's due to less construction and demolition tonnage
being processed at the landfill sites.
As I indicated, the majority of the impact fees we're
seeing surpluses of varying degrees with the exception of water and
sewer, and those are actually fairly close. By year end we'll
probably even perhaps be a little closer to budget than we had
forecast here. The last couple weeks have shown there was a few
large
one-time permit that hits generating some additional revenue.
Beach parking fee at this point we're projecting to be
405,000 which is the dollar amount that was anticipated in the
development of our FY '96 forecast this year. Obviously it's
significantly different from the adopted budget of 938. We've
discussed that each of the previous quarters due to the delays and
the
meter installations, inclement weather, and perhaps a slightly
aggressive revenue estimate up front. But that, again, is -- that
is
what our -- our budget is predicated on in terms of our forecast,
so
we've factored that into the mix already.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One question on your beach
parking fees.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: During the third quarter --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- in which all of those factors
that caused a reduction in fees earlier this year have been fixed
and
gone away, how did our actual collections in the third quarter
compare
to the budgeted collections? These are year-to-date numbers, so
it's
difficult for me to --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- to ferret that out.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm sorry, Commissioner. I do not have
that -- the second quarter report with me, so I can't answer that
question, but I can before the day is out certainly.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd appreciate that.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Because I'd like to see if we're
-- if we're back on -- on schedule with collecting what we
anticipated.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right. And obviously too, though, it's
not the peak tourist season as well.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, you wouldn't budget the
peak --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: True.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- receipts either.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: True.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Understood. I will get an answer for
you hopefully before lunch.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: No speakers, Mr. Chairman.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Requires no action, just
acceptance?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No speakers. No action other than just to
receive it and acknowledge it.
Item #8E2
RESOLUTION 96-429 REGARDING TREELINE BOULEVARD AGREEMENT - ADOPTED
WITH
STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Next item then is item 8(E)(2),
consideration of Treeline Boulevard agreement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I sense a possible disagreement
on this item.
MR. HCNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners.
Mike HcNees from the county manager's office.
What you have before you is simply a basic agreement to
put into place the mechanics of your contribution of half a million
dollars or up to a half a million dollars to the construction of
Treeline Boulevard. It -- the agreement itself calls for your
writing
a check to the Board of Regents on October 1. It was originally
written either at the time of contract award or October 1,
whichever
was later.
As you know, the contract's already been awarded, so it
would be October 1 and then would call on the Board of Regents to
be
responsible then for reimbursing Lee County with those funds once
construction is completed.
I'll call your attention to one change that needs to be
made in the -- in the agreement. I was informed by the Lee County
folks after this was put on the agenda, it calls for substantial
completion on their part by the end of 1988 according to this
agreement. They've let me know that that will actually be by June
of
1988.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 19987
MR. MCNEES: 1998, yes, June of 1998, which would then
allow -- the agreement says that if they haven't completed by June
of
1999 that the Board of Regents would then refund your money plus
interest, and you would have the option given a six-month earlier
substantial completion of changing that to January 1, 1999, or
actually any date that you chose following that substantial
completion. And that's a minor detail, or it could remain as
written
and have really no effect. It just gives them a little more time
to
-- to complete the project. Other than that, it's a very simple
agreement and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to get out on the table
what I would be willing to vote for, what I'd be willing to support
in
this because it's not exactly what's in the packet. I -- I have a
lot
of unresolved questions about where this money is going. You know,
we
read in the newspaper that -- that the budget for the road -- the
bid
actually came in maybe something like 30 percent under what we had
been told it was going to be. We've all read about the fighting
back
and forth with the state.
I -- I want to honor our commitment. However, we have
gotten a lot of new information, and I have a lot of questions that
need to be answered that I can't today say let's write a check and
give it even to the Board of Regents.
What -- what I'm interested in -- in doing is writing a
check to the university foundation. Collier County's well
represented
on the foundation board. And those -- those members -- the Collier
County members of the foundation board could serve as our oversight
committee to report to us about, you know, dollar by dollar as
funds
are actually expended; that the $500,000 check is what's written;
that
if, in fact, the budget for the expansion of Treeline came in at 30
percent under; that our contribution to the expansion of the road
would be concomitantly reduced, that the balance of those funds
would
be -- we'd get recommendations from the Collier County members of
the
foundation board to -- recommendations to us to approve about where
the balance of those funds would be spent in support of the
university
but that the money go to the university foundation with that kind
of
oversight because there are questions continuing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I
understand what you're saying. So the -- if the road -- it appears
it
did get in somewhat underbid -- we'd have the amount going toward
that
decrease kind of pro rata.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then if there was a
amount left over, the -- the foundation would make recommendations.
Those would ultimately come back to this board.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we'd say yay or nay.
Theoretically you could say yay to anything or nay to anything.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Except for the fact that this is
gas tax money, Mr. Dotrill, so we'd have those kinds of limitations
on, you know, what that money could be spent on. And, frankly, I -
- I
hope to see that this is the beginning of, you know, Collier
County's
contribution in support of the university. And it's important to
me
that the check be written to the university with all due respect to
Lee County, not be written to Lee County, but that we write the
check
to the university foundation and have this oversight committee of -
_
of Collier County people who can watch every penny and report back
to
us.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But this agreement doesn't provide for
any of that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's why I'm putting out on
the table that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And -- and further, it says right here
in our executive summary -- it's important to you that the money go
to
the university and not Lee County. But this -- this agreement,
according to our executive summary, very clearly says that the
university is just merely going to hold it in escrow and reimburse
Lee
County upon completion of the four lane and construction of
Treeline
Boulevard.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand, and that's why I
tried -- I wanted to get out early and tell you that I'm not
willing
to vote in support of what's in the packet.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would ask that something new be
drafted along the lines of what I just described.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that that's fair
because we still end up we maintain our commitment. And that is a
certain portion of the infrastructure system for the university
which
is where the commitment originally was and that it gives us the
option
of if there are other things in the university that are
appropriate,
fine. And if there aren't, then it comes back to us ultimately
anyway. But it allows us to keep our commitment. And if that's a
smaller dollar figure, that's fine.
One -- one thing I'd request -- I know I've heard
Commissioner Norris raise some different questions in the past week
or
so, and I know you have some. And one of the things we need to be
sure in this is that our manager is communicating clearly with the
university and with Lee County and so that as all of this unfolds
that
we're clear on what issues are going on when.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that we get some kind of
reports about that, Mr. Dotrill, because I felt completely in the
dark
and, frankly, frustrated with trying to find out what's going on
with
this new partnership by reading about it in the newspaper. Sorry,
Mike, but I'd rather communicate directly with my partners than
read
in the newspaper.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Note they're providing
wonderful --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have some other board members here
that want to jump in, both of them do. We'll see what they have to
say.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before we operate on the general
assumption that the board in its entirety is -- is -- wants to move
ahead happily to just those changes, I would like to be very clear
about what my objections are.
When we originally heard this idea in what I will
characterize as a very informal discussion, it was an idea in
concept
Commissioner Constantine brought forward, and I -- I have never
stopped short of commending him for thinking and approaching that
from
a regional concept. And I will do so today.
Two of the primary elements that were important to me at
that time was that the four laning was presented as being necessary
for the university, not just two lanes. Two lanes weren't going to
do
it. We needed a four-lane road to get to the university. And the
second thing was that there would be a -- an eventual connection to
951.
The four lanes, the four laning of this road, according
to George Crawford, Lee County transportation director, is not
needed
for some ten years if you are talking specifically about the
traffic
generation from the university. Now, if you factor in the
development
along that corridor, the roadway becomes necessary much earlier.
But
the university itself, its trip generation numbers, do not require
four laning for some ten years. I understand the economics of
scale.
However, the -- the interim impact of that road is not from the
university but will be from the development along that corridor.
And
I think that tends to alter the picture that was originally
presented.
The second thing is that the concept that this would
connect to 951, if you'll take a look at our 20/20 transportation
plan, no such connection exists. So for at least the next 24
years,
951 will not connect to Treeline Drive. That element has changed
from
what the original perception I had was. And again, I'm not
accusing
anyone of misleading, but I walked away from that original concept
with those two ideas. Maybe I was mistaken, but that's -- those
elements have changed.
And the third thing that -- that concerns me maybe more
than any of these others is that during recent budget discussions,
we
walked through the entire budget, every single fund, and there was
not
one mention from anyone on this board of a $500,000 line item that
needed to be budgeted. Every single fund was reviewed; yet no one
mentioned 500,000. I made some hasty summary then that the 500,000
must not be requested or was not going to be requested in the
future
because obviously it should have been a part of our budget
discussion. It was not.
And I have to question now why we have been talking
about reducing reserves through our entire budget discussion, yet
when
I look at where these funds are supposed to come from, I see
reserves
as the dedicated source.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of gas tax reserves.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Of gas taxes. But just the same,
we've talked about reducing reserves throughout the entire county
budget, yet now we are talking about extending those reserves in
the
line item position that -- that was not discussed at all during
budget
discussions.
So I think there -- there -- there was a time and a
place for this discussion before today, and that was during budget
talks.
So those are really the crux of my objections. I don't
-- I don't think for one second I'm going to sway any of you, and I
-- I'm not pointing the -- the accusatory finger saying that anyone
has -- has done anything wrong. But those are the reservations I
have
and the reasons why I would rather see us support the university in
a
positive way that -- that benefits the students who go there as
opposed to providing additional pavement that is not immediately
necessary, palm trees and utility relocation for a roadway that
Won't
connect to a Collier road for at least 24 years. I just can't
support
that concept and -- and probably in all likelihood will not support
this -- this line item in the future.
CHAIP4vLA_N NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I -- I
commend you for bringing up the idea of the foundation, but I --
I'd
like to know what the relationship is and what controls exist be --
between the foundation and the Board of Regents and if you could
just
explain to those of us here how this $500,000 would be controlled
by
the foundation and funneled I presume through the Board of Regents
to
Lee County or to whatever other spending faction.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I expect we're going to be
hearing a lot more about the foundation because it's a -- it's a
tri-county at least entity that will be for the purpose of
funneling
contributions to the university through to the university. And,
frankly, by its charter, it has -- it is required to transmit gifts
in
the manner in which they're designated. It's for the purpose of
conveying funds to the university in support of its -- in support
of
its construction and operation and scholarships. And it has no
limitation on what funds can -- how funds can be spent but does
have
strict state regulations and other guidelines about accounting,
auditing, public access to the records. And, frankly, I'm not
suggesting that all of those questions can be answered today but
that
if we get an agreement drafted that has the funds going to the
foundation we can have some -- you know, somebody with more
information about it present that to us at that time.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Then my question becomes, Mr.
Weigel, transferring these funds to the foundation as opposed to
the
Board of Regents, what -- what's your opinion on doing that?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it can be done. Obviously we look at
the safeguards as we do with any entity or corporate entity,
putting
together assurance language and protection language. We'd look to
see
if there was any kind of specific requirement appropriate as a
guarantee looking to their fiscal efficacy to be a holding -- a
holding tank and decision making or recommendatory body to this
board
for the expenditure of monies.
Those are just kind of common sense protection
procedures we'd look to to come back and advise the board in that
regard concerning this foundation or any other entity that might be
kind of a combination escrow agent and recommendatory body to the -
to the commission.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews, I may
be able to answer that a little more too. The foundation is
designed
to specifically raise money for needs that may be unique to this
university. As Commissioner Hac'Kie said, they have certain
guidelines they need to follow. It's not uncommon. Most of the
universities, if not all of the universities, in the state system
have
their own little foundation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I know. One of the early
-- one of the early things the foundation talked about was the
county
contributing money to endow a chair. And then we -- we quickly
discovered that government money to endow a chair doesn't -- we
don't
get the matching funds. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've had a -- numerous
conversations, as you might guess, with Roy HcTarnaghan, but also
I've
spoken briefly with Jeff Fridkin back some months on the concept
when
they were first approaching us about the foundation money. And
they
can enter into agreements like any other of these groups that say
they
can only go toward X things. Or, as Commissioner Hac'Kie said, you
can have -- those excess funds that aren't going toward the road
for
our pro rata share would have to come back to us for any approval
before they could be expended. But that way the foundation knows
what
the unique needs of the university are. We'd still be the ultimate
arbiter.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But they're still limited --
those funds are still limited to the confines of gas tax money.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: (Commissioner nodded head.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- let me talk a little bit
about why I asked for a continuance today. Mr. Dotrill, it's my
understanding that we have never seen at Collier County in your
office
the bid proposals and responses, is that correct, on the road? MR. DORRILL: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have you asked for them, Mr.
Dorrill?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Let me do this, please.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I wish you would.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is why I asked for the
continuance, and I'm just trying to get -- get you to understand
why.
Have we ever seen the -- the completed contract between
Lee County and APAC?
MR. DORRILL: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any idea of the amount of
money that that contract represents?
MR. DORRILL: I was told as late as yesterday that it's
approximately nine million dollars.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But we don't know. We have never been
supplied with this information.
MR. DORRILL: They're getting that for me.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: They're getting it, but we don't have
it, and -- and that's my point. Commissioner Mac'Kie, you're an
attorney. I'm sure that you would never advise one of your clients
to
write a check before they have all contracts in hand, all the t's
crossed and all the i's dotted. We don't have anything near that
in
this instance.
Commissioner Constantine furnished us with a letter this
morning from President McTarnaghan, and I'm glad that he did
because
it says that the Lee County board of commissioners has issued the
Treeline Road contract to APAC. It's my understanding here in
Collier
County -- they may operate different up there -- but it's my
understanding that we cannot issue a contract without having funds
encumbered and in hand in reserves or wherever they happen to be.
Is
that correct?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What that means to me is that Lee
County does have the money to build the -- the road, and it says in
our executive summary it's upon completion of the four laning and
construction of Treeline Boulevard. So they have the money, have
issued the contract, and are going forward with the four laning of
Treeline Boulevard. If we write a check to them for 500,000 or
whatever it is, it amounts to nothing more than a outright gift to
Lee
County, and that's all it amounts to.
I've said from the beginning that if we're going to do
something to help the university, let's help the university. This
is
not helping the university in any way. It gives no incremental
value
to the university. The -- the contract for the four-lane road has
been issued and is under construction. You know, it's just --
ladies
and gentlemen, it's just the wrong thing to do.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I'd like an opportunity
to speak since I brought the item initially. And that's certainly
a
very clever attempt, but you know the contract is public record,
and
you've certainly known this item was going to be on today's agenda.
So if that was a legitimate concern, we've had months in which to
request that and certainly weeks since it was signed in which to
request that. So I'm sorry we don't have it in hand. And you're
right. We would be better informed if we did. But nonetheless,
it's
been available to us.
I'm going to try to answer a couple of your questions.
And I know you said you probably wouldn't sway us, and I may not
sway
you, but I want to at least try to -- try to address Commissioner
Hanoook's comments.
The two lane versus four lane, you're correct. The
university all by itself probably won't exceed that for eight to
ten
years. The anticipation is that the four lanes will be required in
the fifth or sixth year when you take everything into
consideration.
As a planner, you realize that nothing stands on its own. As
things
are built, other things happen around it. Everything influences
itself.
So I understand the university in and of itself won't
solely generate that traffic. But the fact is if you are driving
on
the roadway to get to or from that university, it becomes congested
in
the fifth or sixth year to a point where it's no longer feasible.
Secondarily --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a very brief interruption if
I may.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's where I would like someone
to address the impact fees that are going to be paid by the people
along that corridor. Where do they go? That -- that -- that --
that's the second part.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And excuse me.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll answer his question, and
then we let you finish your comments, and I want to finish mine as
well. The -- the -- it's a good comment, and -- and they're --
they
are being dedicated toward this road. And there is a huge segment
of
those impact fees of that -- it's a total of nine million or
something. The expenses, a big chunk of that, actually comes
through
the impact fees.
But the -- I was just going to say in the -- to build it
to two lane and then rebuild it five years later, we just had that
discussion earlier how sometimes it doesn't make sense -- we were
talking about the library -- to do it piecemeal, to do one part and
then do another. It makes more sense to do it all at once up
front,
and I think the same concept applies here.
You're correct as far as our 20-year plan. Our eventual
build-out, conceptual build-out plan for the county, shows the
connection from Lee -- shows about three connections throughout the
county of north-south corridors. One of those is County Road 951.
And I had joked with you when we had the hearing back a while as
your
new baby was coming that it will be just about the time your baby
is
at that university. And I think you corrected me and said it would
be
going to your alma mater up in the Tampa area instead.
As we look at the university system, I do hope we look
long term, and I realize there won't be a connection five years
from
now or eight years from now. But, you know, as -- as my children
are
going there or going --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that an announcement of
sorts?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: None -- no -- no announcement
-- but are going there, then hopefully they have a direct route to
get there from all parts of the county.
I look at who supported this thing. We have Senator
Dudley. We have State Representative Livingston. I don't know if
we
have -- Representative Saunders probably sitting quietly on this
one,
but the EDC, the chamber of southwest Florida. I handed out a
packet
to each of you with some of those. We have elementary school
principals who are understanding the grasp of us participating with
the university system, any number of private entities also in this
packet. And, I mean, Naples Area Board of Realtors, they
obviously,
you know, aren't selling real estate up in Lee County, but they see
the benefit.
And it boils down to me -- and I said this either on
radio or to the newspaper recently -- and that is I grew up in a
little town called Bangor, Maine, and 20 minutes north of me was
another city called Orono, Maine, and that's where the University
of
Maine was. And out of my high school graduating class, over --
there
was 300 kids in my graduating class. Over 100 of those went to the
University of Maine which was 20 minutes away. Wasn't in our city,
but we clearly benefitted from having it there. And a number of
those
kids could not afford to go away to school, but they could live at
home and drive the 20 minutes there. And there is a clear benefit.
So I think Collier does clearly benefit, and it all
boils down to -- I know Commissioner Norris raised the question,
gosh,
I don't know if the road benefits Collier. I think it does. I
think
if we have comfortable, easy access and we make -- play a role in
making the infrastructure of that university a reality, everybody
benefits from that. We may disagree on that, but I think the
university clearly benefits Collier County as well.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That's fine, and nobody's
arguing the fact that the university will benefit Collier County.
But
all of your arguments are rendered moot if what is said in this
executive summary is correct, and that is that the contract has
been
issued to build a four-lane road. I mean, all of your arguments
are
based on the incremental value that we -- we give the university by
completing the four-lane road. If that contract's already been let
for a four-lane road, you have no argument.
Mr. McNees, can you answer it? Can anyone answer it?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll answer that because
that's not necessarily true. We just got done approving --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No one benefits but Lee County then.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I answer it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No one has ever responded to you on that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't suggest you go outside and
talk about this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- we just approved an
item one or two items ago for Marco Island library. We don't have
the
money in hand. We're anticipating that we will collect that
through
impact fees, but we don't have the money in hand. So just because
an
item is approved doesn't necessarily mean that money is in hand,
and
the same thing is -- is true here.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I'm sorry to correct you, but
that is just erroneous because we -- we will -- we -- the item
anticipated that we would borrow the money from our commercial
paper
line. That puts the money in hand.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Borrow being the operative
word, and I think the -- I mean, your point is, gosh, Lee County
must
anticipate that money from somewhere. And we've made a commitment
twice to help pay for that, and so I think Lee County and the
university system probably anticipate some of that coming from us.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This whole thing boils down to an
issue of concept versus vehicle. We all agree conceptually that
participation of Collier in the university benefits all the
residents
of this community in one way or another.
The problem we're having now is the vehicle in which to
do that. Which $500,000 do we -- which pot does it go in? Do we
build classrooms that allow the curriculum to be expanded so that
our
-- our kids here don't have to go out of state for certain types of
programs? Do we ex -- put a wing on the library to -- to provide a
computer research center so that everyone in our community can
access
national, you know, archives information?
The vehicle that has been proposed which is Treeline
Drive has undermined the discussions I've tried to have with
members
of the foundation and with the university because they're waiting
for
this to be resolved before they're willing to sit down and talk to
me
about whether other options are out there.
You may remember I floated the idea of a science
research center. And -- and whether that was a good idea or a bad
idea, it was never able to be discussed because no one from the
foundation wanted to give up the 500,000 for Treeline Drive to
discuss
that. They wanted -- you know, this is the course that had been
taken, so all those other discussions have not taken place.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So let's get this done, and we
can do the others.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the neat thing is
Commissioner MAc'Kie's suggestion allows us to do both.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It really does, and it's -- one
of those problems with the sunshine law is that I couldn't tell you
that ahead of time, that this is what I was thinking about, because
I
do think that it affords us the opportunity to do both, and I know
it
requires us to shift thinking as we get here this morning. But it
does allow us the opportunity to do both, and I -- and I did say
and I
want to -- to reiterate that I think this is the beginning of our
support for the university, and that's why I'd like for us to
establish this relationship with the foundation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then let's do it the right way.
The only --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is the right way.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- experience we have of joint
roadway projects with Lee County is Bonita Beach Road which is
under
construction right now. The transfer of information between
transportation departments, the public presentation of that
information was all very prevalent in that process. What we have
before us is a two-page agreement that says give it in trust.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm not -- I'm not going to
vote for that either.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Even though I may not in the end
support the -- the idea for the roadway anyway, at a minimum this
should be modeled after existing agreements for roadway
construction
that benefit both counties. And if that doesn't happen, then I
think
we are not acting prudently.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's go to the public.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to the public speakers.
MR. DORRILL: We have four. Miss Pareigis.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get off the phone, Susan.
MR. MCNEES: While she's coming up, maybe I'll clarify
one issue which you're hitting on. It was staff's intent not to
enter
directly into an agreement to pay Lee County as we did in Bonita
Beach
Road. It was our intent to keep you out of any future dispute over
the construction of the road or the flow of the funds and rather
than
ask you to do anything in faith to say nobody gets a dime out of
escrow until the road is completed and in the ground. That way you
were absolutely protected that unless everything was finished not a
penny was transferred. That was staff's intent was to keep out you
out of --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's an important factor,
and I appreciate that. But in addition to that, what Commissioner
Hancock is suggesting is also necessary. And that is that -- you
know, I'm disappointed that it being a public record we haven't
asked
for the contract and we haven't seen any of the documentation. But
that's gotta be part of this. And that's, frankly, why I like it
going to the foundation. We have this oversight committee who will
then have to make reports to us about -- you know, we'll get
informed
instead of the way we've been.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I have to state something
Commissioner Constantine has said many times before. If it's
there,
they'll find a way to spend it.
CHAI~ NORRIS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's -- you know, that --
that is a concern. I'm sorry. I'm impeding the public discussion.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If the foundation has the money
using it for the university, what better way to spend it?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the university, key phrase.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and my understanding --
since she's still on the phone, my understanding is that whatever
that's left over from the pro rata share would have to come back to
us
anyway.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm in support of that, but, you
know, I don't --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go.
MS. PAREIGIS: Thank you for your indulgence. My name
is Susan Pareigis, and I'm here representing the membership and the
board of directors of the Economic Development Council.
We are here to urge you today to pass this appropriation
of dollars from Collier County for Treeline Drive. We very much
agree
that this is a benefit to the students of Collier County, to our
kids. In 24 years I will have a child going there hopefully as
well,
and hopefully it will be a self route -- a safe route for them to
follow.
In addition, during your discussion, I made a quick
phone call up to Lee County and talked to Don Stilwell. And he
said
that the contract had been let. However, it had been let on the
assumption that they would receive the half million dollars from
Collier County. So that might bring a little bit of clarity to the
issue.
But I would also tell you that the EDC came before you I
guess it was a couple months ago and urged you to create a blue
ribbon
task force to do exactly what you're talking about, figure out what
the priorities are for Collier County regarding FGCU. And let's
commit it. Let's do the 500,000, and let's explore other
opportunities where we can participate as well.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pointer.
MS. PAREIGIS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: And then Mr. Erlichman.
MR. POINTER: Good morning, commissioners. My name is
Jack Pointer. Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Hendry, Glades Counties are
in
the process of getting a facility of higher education for our adult
children students. It so happens that it has to be located --
because
it's a facility, it has to be located somewhere. It is located in
Lee
County. As such, Lee County has certain obligations that fall upon
them just because of its location even though other counties are
beneficiaries thereof.
I urge that Collier County fulfill its commitment of
$500,000 to help Lee -- Lee County with its commitments to this
university. Now, if you wish to have the $500,000 dedicated or
designated to Treeline Boulevard, fine. If you wish to have it
designated or dedicated to a building, the bricks and mortar, fine.
If you wish to have it dedicated to scholarships, fine; whatever
you
wish to have it say.
The total cost of the facility up there is going to be
some number, 50 million dollars, whatever it is. Your contribution
is
going to reduce that needed money by $500,000 for whatever it is.
Please go ahead and meet your commitment. Thank you much.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman and then Mr. Perkins.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Good morning, commissioners. Gil
Erlichman. I reside in East Naples, and I'm representing TAG.
I'd like to thank Mr. -- Mr. Hancock and Mr. Norris for
enlightening me on certain facts that I didn't even know till I
heard
them this morning concerning this $500,000 and -- and the budget.
It's not even being considered in the budget, where are we going to
get the money for the five -- for the $500,000. And then, of
course,
I know that it's supposed to come from the gas -- gas tax, the
Saunders five cent gas tax, that we are paying right now.
According to the newspaper on Sunday, they have a --
they had a column there, Treeline Avenue. And it says Collier
commission consider agreement on funding. Miss Pareigis said that
just said that the -- Lee County was counting on the $500,000 when
they -- when they entered or were considering the contract for
Treeline Drive. But according to Mr. St. Cerny when he was down
here
a few months ago, he said whether -- whether we vote the $500,000
for
Lee County or not, they would -- they would go ahead with the
Treeline
Avenue or Treeline Drive or Treeline Boulevard. They didn't need
the
$500,000 according to Mr. St. Cerny.
Now I read in the newspaper that the Lee commissioners
have stalled the vote on allowing the Collier County commissioners
to
serve as a voting member of Lee County's airport management until
after Collier votes to give the money toward Treeline Drive. In
other
words, this is a little blackmail that they're providing to get the
money.
It further goes on to say that Lee County Commissioner
Doug St. Cerny said he's confident the Collier money will be
delivered. Quote, it's a big picture type of thing. We're trying
to
do good things together, and this is just one of them, St. Cerny
said.
The additional funds -- this is the $500,000 -- are
needed to do the enhancements that are needed to be done for the
overall scheme of moving traffic and beautification. So in other
words, this $500,000 is going for beautification of the Treeline
Drive
or Treeline Boulevard, and it's not necessary for the building of
the
road because they're already contracted for it and already have the
money for it.
So I think that this $500,000 that we're talking about
coming from the gas tax -- and this gas tax is supposed to be used
for
our roads -- should not be even considered to be given to Lee
County.
If we want to give money to Lee -- to the college, fine. Let's --
let's have that as a separate issue. But I say that the $500,000
belongs to the taxpayers of Collier County who are paying the
gasoline
tax.
What we are tax -- our taxes -- our taxes, our federal
taxes, our state taxes are going to support all universities in the
in the state of Florida. And, therefore, to say that if we don't
give
this $500,000 to Lee County for the -- for the Treeline Avenue and
we're not going to support the college, that's absolutely false
because we're -- right now we're supporting all the universities in
the state of Florida through our taxes. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins and then Ms. Leinweber.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, commissioners. A1 Perkins,
Belle Meade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights.
Mr. Dotrill asked me, well, what does Belle Meade Groups
got to do with anything pertaining to Treeline Drive. For the
record,
the people of the Belle Meade Groups live here. They pay their
taxes. They sure as pay for gas taxes because most of these people
live in outlying districts and they drive pickup trucks. They got
callused hands and brown necks.
Basically what I wanted to find out is I have in my hand
right here 2020 LOS analysis, Bonita Springs traffic circulation
study
CN-96-03, 2020 LOS. It doesn't even show 951 connecting to Boca --
Bonita Grand Drive, which if you follow it on through after it
kicks
around all over the place, it becomes Treeline Drive at Corkscrew
Road.
We also -- it also shows that 951 after it gets past 848
I think that is -- it's Immokalee Road -- it has a jog in the road.
Question is why at the Lee County line, right before the Lee County
line. Then it comes to a dead end, and I don't know how -- I don't
have any mileage on this thing. You'd have to make a turn to the
west, go quite a distance to pick up Bonita Grand Drive and follow
that on through to Treeline Drive.
The questions I have is doesn't anybody believe in
straight roads and through traffic, or do we just deliberately try
to
take -- make problems in this thing? I also see that this -- this
road parallels Interstate 75. The question is where are we going
with
this.
One of the big things that I was interested in this
thing is the evacuation routes from 951 headed north to get the
people
off of Marco Island, Goodland, and all along the road because it's
all
going to be funneled north and to the east. Where are we going
with
this, people, because somebody better take and get and find out
what
the -- why are we putting these jogs in the road for builders, for
developers? Where's the money? What's happening?
Please take a good long look at this thing, but we also
take a position that we support the children and higher education,
and
I would like to have my children go to this school, but I'm a
little
old for that nonsense. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Leinweber and then Ms. Barsh.
MS. LEINWEBER: I'm Judy Leinweber, and Treeline Drive
will affect the people that live out there, me for one. I've had
experts tell me that if Treeline Drive goes in, I don't care if
it's
10 years from now, 20 years from now, but it will go in, and it
will
affect the people that live there. Glenn Simpson from the Big
Cypress
Basin Board told me Bay West better build their dikes real high.
That
was his exact words. It is going to affect the people that live
there.
Yes, our children are going to go there. Our grandchildren
are
going to go there. But what about the people that own property and
live there and is going to be living there for the next 10, 20, 30
years? What about their families, their children?
I know for a fact Wood Way Nursery right next to me on
Nursery Lane has their nursery up for sale, and they're not going
to
get the money out of it because their property has been so
devaluated
because it is a designated flood zone. I am paying taxes to flood
myself out. That's what my future is going to be. What about the
other landowners out there? The farms also, the farms do have
dikes
out there. And you put in Treeline Drive, it's a dam. It's going
to
hold back more water, and it's going to put it right on us.
I wish this panel would also consider that -- people
that are landowners out there, not just the kids that use the
university. How about taking care of the taxpayers that have been
paying money for decades and looking at our needs? We're here
first.
If Fort Myers wants a university, fine, but why do we have to be
penalized for it and the values of our land goes down? And I've
seen
it right next to me, what happened to their land with the flooding.
That's all I can say. Just show us some compassion.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Barsh. She's your final speaker.
MS. BARSH: Frances Barsh. I'm a member of TAG. I'm a
resident of Collier County and a taxpayer of Collier County.
When the present commissioners were campaigning for
office, they made a promise and a commitment, a commitment, to the
Collier County taxpayer and to the Collier County citizen to use
public funds for the benefit of the people in this county to keep
costs down and taxes down.
Today the Collier County taxpayers are facing an increase in
taxes, over 10 percent, and there's a question. Which commitment
is
secondary? That made to the citizens of Collier County and the
taxpayers of Collier County or the commitment that appears to
be made to the university or to Lee County?
We -- I hear this morning that perhaps let's give the
money as a gift or a grant to the foundation of the university.
The
foundation of the university is already tax exempt. It already
enjoys
tax benefits.
Also this morning I hear that yes, we are interested in
our children for the future. However, parents that spend
needlessly
leave debt for their children. That is not thinking constructively
nor beneficially for the children. There are other ways to
proceed.
So we ask you to honor your primary commitment to the
taxpayers of Collier County and retain this half million dollars
for
the people of Collier County. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, first let me
say I'm not sure those two commitments are mutually exclusive of
one
another. I think we can do both.
But I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we
approve -- and I'm going to ask for a little help from Commissioner
Hac'Kie here -- we approve and go ahead and keep our commitment to
the
university system; that we approve $500,000 to the university
foundation; that the pro rata share in accordance with our initial
discussions go toward the road as -- as initially discussed, go
toward
Treeline; that the remainder of that be discussed, prioritized by
the
foundation and that any suggestions they may have are required to
come
back to this board for a final and formal approval before those
expenditures are made. And I'll -- I guess as part of that, we
need
to have Mr. Weigel put that all in some sort of written form,
withhold
-- hold -- hold a resolution for that purpose.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would the motion maker be willing
to consider amendment to the motion that allows a minimum time
frame
in which the needs of the university can be reviewed by this board
and
prioritized so that we can try and best utilize those dollars to
the
benefit of the future students of the university?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. Do you have a suggested
time frame?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was thinking 30 or 60 days.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From the foundation?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like -- yeah, I'd like a
presentation from the university on what the needs are so if we're
going to spend dollars, make sure we're funneling them in the area
that will most benefit the future students of the university.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any problem with
that at all because I think we can discover in the matter of an
hour
what the pro rata share is. That's just doing math, sitting down
with
a calculator, and so we'll know what the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before you include -- before you
include my amendment, maybe you didn't understand it. What I'm
saying
is that the sole recipient or project for these dollars not be
Treeline Drive, that we have the ability to look at what the
university's needs are in a larger picture and determine whether or
not Treeline Drive is the most appropriate place for dollars.
Maybe
some of the things we cited earlier such as expanding classroom
facilities or -- or something -- you know, we've never had the
option
to look at anything other than Treeline Drive. And I really feel
that
we could get unanimous support of this board if we can address the
broader picture outside of Treeline Drive with these dollars
instead
of just making that a sole -- sole recipient.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I wouldn't for two
reasons. I won't do that amendment for two reasons -- three
reasons.
One, we made a commitment specific to Treeline Drive. Two,
Treeline
Drive deals with gas tax rather than ad valorem tax. And some of
the
others may require the ad valorem tax. And three, I think
Commissioner Hac'Kie's suggestion kind of gives us the best of both
worlds here, allows us to look at alternatives but still keep our
initial commitment on the infrastructure of the university and just
that's -- I think being able to do both is a great idea.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I -- can I as a compromise
perhaps, Commissioner Hancock, that we will get a presentation when
we're -- we will -- if this passes, we'll be charging our county
manager with getting the information about what is the budget for
this
road, what would be our contribution to this road. And certainly
we
can get that within 30 days, and certainly we would know then what
would -- and the math has to come to us, what's our pro rata share
of
that contribution toward Treeline. We have to see that dollar
amount. And at that point we'll know what other funds are
available
for these additional uses and have that presentation within 60 days
I
think would be --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do it within 30 days.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- important to do. Thirty days
would be better.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's what I thought you
initially indicated, and I was ready to agree with that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I -- I -- no. I was -- I
was basically saying there may be more important things than
Treeline
Drive out there, and that's -- that's the discussion I've wanted to
have for several months and really have been unable to have because
of
this pending agreement. And if that can't be included, then I
can't
support the motion.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion --
MR. HCNEES: Can I ask for a clarification from staff's
point of view since we're going to have to go out here and craft an
agreement? What I understand you to be saying is that we would
contribute -- still write the check for the half a million dollars
to
the foundation. That portion which is a fair percentage of what
you're calling a pro rata share -- and let me just throw some
numbers
out. If the original half a million dollars sprang from a
discussion
that said Treeline Boulevard was going to be a 12 million dollar
project, if the actual budget or project has come in at 9 million,
then you would be talking about three-fourths of the half a million
__
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct.
MR. HCNEES: -- which would be whatever that would be.
What we need to clarify then is if you're also talking about that
additional whatever that remainder, that one-fourth of the half a
million is, we need to make sure what the use of that will be
before
we talk about taking it out of gas tax funds because that half a
million dollars is represented in your fiscal '97 budget as part of
the road plan and the use of those gas taxes. So there's going to
need to be an additional step in there of figuring out 175,000 or
whatever that number is, 25 percent of the half a million, 125,000
I
guess, what -- where that money's going to come from because it
probably cannot be gas taxes with the types of things you're
talking
about. I just want to make sure all that's clear and that we
understand where you're headed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everything you described is
exactly what -- what I had in mind with the understanding that that
125, if that turns out to be the number, can only be spent for gas
tax-approved types of uses and with the desire on my part that we
may
have other recommendations from the university and from the
foundation
that might encompass expenditure of funds other than gas tax funds.
But I understand that what we have budgeted right now is 500,000
out
of gas taxes, and that's what I'm proposing to spend with the
limitations that come with it on how that money can be spent.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So -- so -- so the foundation
with the excess money, whatever that amount may be, we might as
well
put it on the record right now. They can only come back to us with
recommendations appropriate for gas tax money.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's exactly what I have in
mind.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that was part of the
motion, and obviously we have to have a final and formal approval
on
any of that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, the --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Including refusal.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. That's an option.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That the money could in all likelihood
just be returned to us simply.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's an option.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's an option.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely an option.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion that I'm sure
Mr. McNees is clear on now and a second.
MR. DORRILL: I have one question, though. You are
contemplating an actual agreement to be rewritten and then brought
back to this board because I heard as part of the discussion that
we
were just going to reserve a resolution number.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think a resolution's sufficient
because we're going to have this continuing dialogue where you're
going to tell us what the result was of the budget numbers. You're
going to, you know, have reports, make reports to us where we'll be
informed. Contribution to the foundation is a pretty simple thing
to
do.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The motion anticipates this
being a formal action, not giving direction and expecting it to
come
back again.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel --
MR. DORRILL: And my point then being there will not be
a -- an agreement. We're just going to reserve a resolution
number.
A resolution will be written by the county attorney to transfer a
half
a million dollars subject to some of the conditions that have been
suggested.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Subject to all of the
conditions that have been suggested.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But doesn't -- doesn't the foundation
have to enter into an agreement with us to -- to make this
official,
Mr. Weigel?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the resolution could -- could put the
provision in there, you know, subject to approval by the
foundation.
And we don't even know if they'll -- if they will accept the
responsibility that we're attempting to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's my point. Yeah, we can't
impose upon them.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Subject to -- and I'll amend
that to read subject to agreement with foundation. And from my
conversation with them, I'm fairly comfortable they'll do that.
But
obviously if they don't, then the point becomes moot.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We do have a motion and a
second that has been duly clarified. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next, please.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 96-430 APPOINTING LARRY HARMON TO THE TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we have -- next item is
10(A), appointment of member to the Tourist Development Council.
We
have one vacancy, one opening. So I'll move --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Sammy Hamilton.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. What name did
you --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sammy Hamilton.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sammy Hamilton, the only
applicant.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, no, no. Larry Harmon.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Larry Harmon.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, that's what I meant.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I was going to say I
started to pick this up and say I don't remember reading --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was Sammy who recommended.
I'm sorry.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Larry Harmon.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion for Larry Harmon since
Sammy's not a candidate.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I thought we voted
on.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Larry Harmon is what I -- I thought we
voted on.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct. My mistake.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. That's fine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll let someone else handle the
next one.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Simple mistake made by the
motion maker. Could happen to anybody.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 96-431 APPOINTING LILLIAN JOURDAN TO THE GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES
LAND TRUST COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 10(B) is Golden Gate Estates Land
Trust Committee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One -- one position to fill
and one applicant.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sounds easy.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we approve Lillian
Jourdan.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
There are none.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 96-432 APPOINTING FAY R. BILES, TIM SMITH AND J. P.
GUNTER-MOHR TO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
The next one we have some choices. I'll nominate from
district 1 Fay Biles.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to
throw one name out here, and I realize it's your district,
Commissioner Matthews, but I feel very strongly. Andy Clavelo I
know. He was a -- farming for over 20 years in the Miami area, and
I
would be hard pressed to think of someone with more experience than
Andy, and I just -- I'd like to see him on there.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, unfortunately Tim Smith
probably has an equal amount of experience, and it's local, not in
Hiami, and so with all due respect --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Andy's lived here the whole
time. Don't get me wrong. He's not living in Hiami.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise I -- we're going to have
four suggestions then because J. P. Gunther-Hohr has a wealth of
experience and has been here for a considerable amount of time but
again, in this area has experience, and he's also recommended by
the
EHS advisory committee so I'd like to -- not just a individual
recommendation but is strengthened by the committee recommending
him.
I'd like to see J. P. Gunther-Hohr on the -- the committee.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I would like to see Tim
Smith on the committee representing district 5.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Looks like we're going to have
to vote individually. On Tim Smith all those in favor of Tim
Smith,
Tim Smith, please say aye.
Opposed?
Three to two on Tim Smith.
Andrew Clavelo, hmm. Well --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now we're down to three so vote a
slot.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move Andrew Clavelo, J. P.
Gunther-Hohr, and Fay Biles for nomination.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But we've already installed --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've already voted.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- Tim Smith.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He passed 3 to 2, Tim Smith.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. I thought he failed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh. I thought he failed 3 to
2.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I voted for him.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He passed 3 to 2.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He passed 3 to 2.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, you voted for, Commissioner
Norris.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. I understand that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. We have J. P.
Gunther-Mohr and Fay Biles.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We still need to go one at a
time.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Continue in the same vein.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Andrew Clavelo, all in favor?
I'm sorry. All in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're just confusing the
heck out of me.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Norris, there's only one
vacancy in district 5.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've already filled it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's already been filled then.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve Fay Biles
and J. P. Gunther-Mohr.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
So we have Smith, Biles, Mohr -- Gunther-Mohr; correct?
MS. FILSON: Correct. And also I need you to confirm
the appointments from the various organizations, Roger Evans from
the
department of health, Sheld --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are these ex officio members?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. They're real.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: They're real members, four members?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, but they're slotted.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the four
folks that appear at the bottom of the page 1 of item 10(C).
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
All opposed?
Item #10D
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA - COTNINUED TO 9/24/96
Next item is D, the Health Planning Council.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wasn't there something new that
came in on that one, Miss Filson?
MS. FILSON: Yes. They had originally suggested Michael
Jernigan for appointment, and they changed their mind to William
Snapp
for a two-year period.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who is they?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Who is they?
MS. FILSON: Well, I laid the letter in front of you
from Mary Sheltis, the Health Planning Council.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure it's here somewhere,
but who's they?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The Health Planning Council.
MS. FILSON: The NCH Healthcare System. And the reason
-- the reason is Michael Jernigan is now in Tallahassee, so they
wanted to replace him with William Snapp, and then the other
appointment is Edward Oates.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The Health Planning Council
itself and NCH had a presence and was requesting Mr. Jernigan as
that
presence. He's no longer available, so Mr. Snapp is the -- the
substitute.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval of Mr. Snapp and
Mr. Oates.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there anyone besides Mr. Oates?
MS. FILSON: Those were the two names submitted to me.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There were no other names submitted?
MS. FILSON: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just so I understand the
procedure here, those are submitted to you by whom?
MS. FILSON: By the Health Planning Council of Southwest
Florida.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do they get other names and
they just make their recommendations and we don't see the other
names,
or how does that work?
MS. FILSON: Historically this is the way they've always
done this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the way? I'm asking
you how is it they do it.
MS. FILSON: They submitted names for -- I think they do
press releases. And I didn't -- I don't know if they got other
names. But historically they only submit the names that they are
requesting appointment. However, she did indicate in the -- in the
letter if you have problems with the appointments that she can do a
readvertisement.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's an interesting question
because all other boards we know everyone that has -- has asked to
be
on the council and we get a recommendation as to what the board's
preference is on that. But on this one we don't know who the pool
of
applicants is. We only are given names that are recommended. Is -
_
is that a --
MS. FILSON: No. This isn't one of the boards that the
Board of County Commissioners creates by ordinance, and I have like
five or six --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
MS. FILSON: -- that only submit names for appointment
like the Health Facilities Authority, the Health Planning Council,
the
Housing Finance Authority. I have like six other boards.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand that, but I
guess -- and -- and the chances are I would respect their
recommendations anyway. But I guess if we're being asked to
approve
them, I'm curious if there are other applicants. I'm just
uncomfortable if we don't know who those are.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can't make any determination
based on qualifications because we don't know the -- the -- but
that
sounds like something we need to change as a process.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think this is our board,
guys. I don't think we get to change this.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This isn't our board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we're being asked to
appoint them, so I ought to have the information. If I'm being
asked
to appoint, I ought to know what the other options are. If there's
no
other option, we wouldn't be asked to do this action.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Your other option, as I
understand it, is to say we do not approve of these. Please bring
us
more recommendations, but they -- they tell us --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Who they want.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- who they want, and we can
accept or reject.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's under state statute?
That's under local ordinance? That's under what, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I can't tell you at this point. I'd have
to look at it.
MS. FILSON: It's in the -- I have it in the executive
summary.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 408.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the provider category I'm --
I'm very comfortable.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I can't hear Miss
Filson.
MS. FILSON: It's -- and I have the backup in here.
It's chapter 408.022 of the Florida Statutes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that says what?
MS. FILSON: Well, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess nobody can explain.
We can make the assumption that, gosh, the statute says we don't
have
any choice other than to reject and ask for more. I don't know
that,
and our attorney can't tell us that, so I'm not comfortable doing
that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is the motion maker willing to
continue this item for one week to at least find out what the
process
is because this is a new question to me? I would appreciate a
continuance so we can find out what -- what the process -- how the
process is decided.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How -- how about let's see if Mr.
Weigel can get a copy of that subsection before we're finished --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the next ten minutes?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- if you've got one handy? I
can if he can't. We'll find out. Let's -- let's try the end of
the
meeting. If we don't have the answer, then I'd certainly agree to
continue longer.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then we need a motion --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Table the item to the end of
the meeting --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or we'll table the item?
I'll make a motion we table the item.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion to table. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Okay. Discussion regarding keep Collier --
Item #10E
EXTRA GAIN TIME FOR INMATE NO. 86305 - NO ACTION
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't there gain time in here?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. The gain time has already been
released. That's -- that's a moot point. Recommendation for the
board to declare an emergency and adopt a resolution extending the
term for --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we move on, what do
you mean "has already been released"?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He's out of jail. She is out of jail.
MS. FILSON: The release date was September 3, and we
didn't receive it until the very end of August, and I was on
vacation,
and this is the soonest --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Woops.
MS. FILSON: -- I could get it on the agenda prior to
deadlines.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do they just assume that
we're going to approve that and that's figured on their release
time?
THE BAILIFF: No, I don't believe it is. This was
submitted in August. And due to breaks and with -- the actual
release
date was September 13. They were asking for 10 days of time which
would have had her released on September 3. However, today was the
first meeting you could get it to, so it's not going to work out.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So she was probably then
released on the 13th since we didn't approve this --
THE BAILIFF: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- today. Okay.
Item #10F
EMERGENCY DECLARED. RESOLUTION 96-433 EXTENDING THE TERM FOR 3
MEMBERS
ON THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COHMISSION - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, on item 10(F), I'd
like to make a motion that we approve staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second to adopt a
resolution extending the term for three members on the planning
commission. This also declares an emergency. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #10G
DISCUSSION REGARDING KEEP COLLIER PARADISE - STAFF DIRECTED TO
PREPARE
AN ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION ON OCTOBER 8, 1996
And now we're ready for our discussion regarding Keep
Collier Paradise.
MR. BONTEMPS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Carl Bontemps, and
I
am chairman of the Keep Collier Paradise PAC committee. With me
this
morning are Mr. Butt Saunders, our legal counsel, and Dr. Fran
Stallings, our technical expert. They will provide the details. I
want to give you the overview, the rationale, if you will, that
motivates our group.
All of us appreciate the benefits of natural
landscapes. In urban areas in Collier County, there are tracks of
natural land providing essential visual relief and recreational
opportunities harboring wildlife and quietly performing many
necessary
ecological functions. We believe that most people in Collier
County
would want to preserve as many of those urban tracks as possible to
keep a balance between green space and growth, to keep our county's
defining feature, in other words, preserve our paradise. This is
what
we want. This is all we want to ensure the next generations have a
chance to enjoy what we enjoy today. That is what I -- why I like
to
say it's for the children.
People who appreciate areas --
MR. ERLICHHAN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There is no point of order. Sorry.
There is no point of order.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Reason why I'm interrupting, sir --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me.
MR. ERLICHHAN: -- is that according to this --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Erlichman. You're not
recognized.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Okay.
MR. BONTEHPS: Thank you. People who appreciate areas
where urban green space has been incorporated into development are
aware of how much the quality of life is enhanced. Moreover, those
areas attract business and tourists. They prosper.
Preserving green space just doesn't happen. It has to
be planned, and it has to be financed. An increase in the sales
tax
can raise the necessary money without painful sacrifice. The tax
will
not apply to food and medicines. The tax will not apply to more
than
the first $5,000 on big ticket items. County ordinance 96-34
requires
the tax to sunset after 4 years. On January 1, 2001, it will stop.
The tax could raise approximately 75 million dollars over 4 years.
To protect the integrity of the green space program and
to reassure voters, Keep Collier Paradise has developed a number of
safeguards. The precautions in the form of the proposed county
ordinance that we are asking this commission to accept require that
money raised by the tax must be spent for green space land
acquisition
and nothing else.
Host important, the ordinance also will empower the
formation of a land acquisition advisory board that will prioritize
all land recommended for purchase. Anyone can submit
recommendations
to the county. There are other safeguards such as purchasing only
from willing sellers, controlling land use, fair value, and land
maintenance.
We have heard and I know you have too that a great deal
of Collier County land is already protected. These are very
important
preserves, but they fill a totally different role. Our program
focuses on land in urban areas where there is minimal public
ownership. The point of the Keep Collier Paradise effort is to
preserve green space in urban areas where people live and work, to
brighten the landscape, provide variety, to maintain our heritage.
In contrast to Collier County, there are many built-over
areas in Florida and elsewhere where green space is minimal or
nonexistent. The opportunity to buy green space would be more than
welcome to residents of those areas, but for them it is too late.
It
is not too late for us in Collier County. But if we do not act
soon,
we and our children will be wishing we had. But it's really up to
the
people who have a clear choice to vote for the extra tax or against
it. And isn't that how it should be? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, members of the county
commission, I submitted a memorandum to you that outlines the basic
terms that we would like to see in an ordinance that would be
hopefully advertised for a public hearing by this county
commission.
I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to be
here to go through those terms. And what I'm going to ask you to
do,
if you will, is ask you to direct the county attorney to draft the
ordinance with those terms and conditions that are outlined in the
memorandum that each of you have. And then we're going to ask you
to
advertise that for a public hearing for your commission meeting on
October 8 because this is really the guts of the program. If we
have
this, then I think we have a very strong program that we can take
to
the voters. If we don't have this, then we have a lot of
uncertainty.
And what I'd like to do is just very quickly go through
a couple of the major provisions, and each of you has the -- the
memorandum in front of you, so I'm not going to bore you with --
with
everything that's contained in the memorandum.
In some conversations with Mr. Weigel, I was advised
that the first whereas on page 1 we should delete, and I certainly
have no problem with that because we have the operative provision
later on.
There are a couple things that are of critical
importance. One is a whereas provision and an operative paragraph
that states, whereas, it is the intention of the Board of County
Commissioners that no parcel of land shall be considered for
acquisition by the Board of County Commissioners or the city of
Naples
council unless at least 50 percent of said parcel lies within the
urban areas of Collier County as those urban areas are defined
within
this ordinance.
The -- another whereas that's very important is -- and
there's an operative provision for this -- that is the intention of
the Board of County Commissioners to provide -- to provide adequate
support, staff support, to ensure the acquisition of lands pursuant
to
the procedures and criteria established in this ordinance and for
the
purposes provided in the ballot question.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, Butt. Can you
read that part again? I just -- MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah. It is the intention of the Board
of County Commissioners to provide adequate staff to support --
staff
support to ensure the acquisition of -- acquisition of lands
pursuant
to the procedures and criteria established in -- in this program
and
for the purposes provided in the ballot question.
One of the questions raised was how do we know that the
county commission is going to make sure that the ballot question is
complied with and that appropriate lands are acquired and that
appropriate laws and regulations are -- are followed. And the way
we've covered that is simply to say this is your statement of
policy.
You're going to make sure that all of those provisions are complied
with.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any idea what --
and I don't want to get too far off here. I want to let you go --
but
what adequate is or what you anticipate being -- MR. SAUNDERS: Well --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- adequate staff time?
MR. SAUNDERS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm thinking do we hire
another person, do we hire three people, is it an hour a week or --
MR. SAUNDERS: I would presume that you would not have
to hire anybody. You have a real property department, and you have
a
legal department, and those are really the two departments that
would
be involved. And I would not anticipate that you would need
additional staff for this but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does the structure of the tax
allow that the time allotted to this green space effort be
reimbursed
from the tax collected for that staff time?
MR. SAUNDERS: That would be a legal question. My
conclusion in reading it is that it would be because that's part of
the capital expenditure, to acquire a property, is the cost
associated
with appraisal work, with legal work. All that's part of the
capital
cost. The county attorney may have a different opinion, but I
believe
that you could reimburse yourselves for any costs associated with
the
actual evaluation and acquisition.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No different than OCPM using
impact fees to pay for staff time for preparation of projects?
Similar scenario?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe I agree with Mr. Saunders.
MR. SAUNDERS: Okay. There are a couple of provisions
that are very important. One is that the property would be held by
the city of Naples and by the county commission in perpetuity.
Another very important provision is that the lands that would be
acquired would be in -- in addition to, not in substitution of, any
requirements on the county commission or the city council to
acquire
lands under federal, state, or local regulation which would also
include the local Collier County comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have it here in front
of me, but you mentioned twice there city council and be held by
the
city of Naples. What -- I was under the impression when we
initially
discussed this that the different properties would come before the
county commission and would be --
MR. SAUNDERS: We're -- we're get -- I'm going to get to
that, but there's a portion of the tax proceeds under state law
that
would go to the city of Naples. I've been told that that's
approximately 12 to 13 percent, somewhere in that range. The city
council, pursuant to the ordinance that we're asking you to adopt,
would be able to establish its own land acquisition advisory board
that would be governed by the exact same procedures and criteria
that
the county commission would be governed by, but they would control
the
acquisition of lands with the funds that would go to the city of
Naples. And that's -- that's actually contained in here --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And not --
MR. SAUNDERS: -- on my list.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- just implementing the already
existing state policy, state law about where the sales tax money
goes,
what the allocation of sales tax money is.
MR. SAUNDERS: That's correct.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: City council has control over a
portion of it. We have control over a portion.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would they only buy property
in the city of Naples, or they'd buy property --
MR. SAUNDERS: The -- the city council -- the city
council could buy properties anywhere within the urban areas as
defined in this ordinance as long as at least 50 percent of the
parcel
lies within the urban area. So theoretically they could buy
properties on the -- on the outside of the city limits. It's
unlikely
that they would. And, quite frankly, they've been involved in
looking
at different parcels of property and are quite excited about the
prospects of being able to use those funds within the city
boundaries.
The properties purchased could not be used in whole or
in part as any mitigation for any local public or private projects,
no
-- no environmental mitigation with these.
The next two provisions deal with the -- the ability of
the city council to create its own land acquisition advisory board.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Saunders, can I interrupt
you?
MR. SAUNDERS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The -- the city council could
also option to be included in the county's land acquisition board.
MR. SAUNDERS: That's correct. I do not believe -- they
could be, but I don't think they would be.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. But, I mean, there's lots
of scenarios that we could agree to -- MR. SAUNDERS: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- based -- based upon whatever
it is we choose to agree to.
MR. SAUNDERS: That's correct. This gives the city
council the ability to create its own advisory board. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. SAUNDERS: But if the city council and the county
commission decide to enter into an interlocal agreement that's
provided for in here also, that gives you both elected bodies the
flexibility to determine how you want to handle that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Am I correct -- again, I think
you stated this -- that you're asking for direction of the county
attorney to draft this to come back and the actual ordinance itself
would have a hearing later? MR. SAUNDERS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might I suggest that we're
talking a lot about the details of that particular ordinance and we
probably -- we'll probably have to relive these same discussions in
__
in a few weeks? There may be reservations and concerns here now,
but
I think it will be the actual drafting of the ordinance where those
reservations are more appropriately aired.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is anticipated to come
back before or after the election?
MR. SAUNDERS: What I've asked for is for it to come
back after being advertised for a public hearing on October 8.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's before the election.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we -- we would pass an
ordinance before the public voted yay or nay on it.
MR. SAUNDERS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Critical for them to know what
they're going to vote on.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Subject to the vote.
MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah. The ordinance provides that it
would not be effective unless the referendum is approved.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I didn't hear
what Representative Saunders said. I asked a question. Everybody
answered except him and then --
MR. SAUNDERS: The vote on the ordinance -- what we're
asking for you to do is to vote on this ordinance on October 8, to
direct staff to draft it, advertise it, bring it back for public
hearing. All of these terms and conditions you'll be rehashing on
October 8. The only other one that I've not mentioned is one that
makes it clear that this cannot be used as part of a transfer of
development rights program.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And again, rather than having the
same hearing twice, I -- I would just as soon we give that
direction
to staff and that we have this hearing at one point instead of two
separate times.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's three.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Consider staff direction
given to incorporate the -- what Mr. Saunders has presented today
into
the draft ordinance and prepare the ordinance for advertised public
hearing on October 8.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can certainly have that
hearing. I do have reservations about passing an ordinance prior
to
the public having their say on it. Just wanted that noted for the
record.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm sure you'll let us know about that
on the 8th. The -- do we have public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, you do.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'd like to let the public speakers
know that we're not making any decisions here today, and please
confine your remarks to whether or not you want this ordinance
heard.
That's what we're discussing.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman, then Miss Slaughter.
MS. SLAUGHTER: No, I'm not going to speak.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Gil Erlichman. I reside in East Naples,
and I'm representing TAG.
Mr. Chairman, I'm -- I'm -- the reason why I asked for a
point of order before, I didn't want to interrupt the meeting, but
that was the only way I could get a question to you. According to
this agenda item 10(G), it says here -- it's written from -- by
Penny
Taylor to Mr. Dotrill. It says, dear Mr. Dotrill, please let this
letter serve as a request to put Keep Collier Paradise PAC on the
agenda for September 17. We wish to ask the county commission to
consider advertising an ordinance that outlines the details of the
urban green space program.
Well, all of a sudden I was subjected to that first
speaker, Mr. Bontemps, from the Keep Collier Paradise for a whole
litany of fact -- of supposed facts not asking for any kind of an
advertise -- advertising program. That's why I was questioning
that.
Okay. I have a question for Mr. Weigel. Mr. Weigel --
is it all right, sir?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, if you have a question for our
staff, I'd prefer you do that outside of the open forum.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Oh, okay. Well, I'm gonna -- can I
address the question to you, sir? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
MR. ERLICHMAN: They're talking about amending this
ordinance. According to Mary Morgan, I think she is mailing out
the
absentee ballots tomorrow. That's the 18th. How can we amend the
ordinance when we're going to be vote -- when these absentee
ballots
are based upon the present ordinance that we have, sir?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's a question we'll have to
answer on October the 8th.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're not amending the
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is no ordinance.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're adopting a new ordinance.
We -- first we adopted a ballot question.
MR. ERLICHMAN: If you're adopting a new ordinance, how
can these absentee ballots based upon the present ordinance be
mailed
out?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because the ballot question's not
going to change. The -- the new ordinance that's proposed is the
methodology for implementing the ballot question should it be
answered
in the affirmative.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, all I -- all I can see is that
this -- this -- this program that -- this Keep Collier Paradise,
which
originally was Don't East Coast the West Coast and then Keep
Collier
Green and now it's Keep Collier Paradise, I wonder what other new
names they're going to come up with.
But the whole thing is -- it's -- it's a -- it's a
program that is being pushed by specific groups, namely the
environmentalists, environmentalist groups, the Conservancy, et
cetera. And then of course we have now Mr. Stallings who's a
technical expert as described by Mr. Bontemps, and Mr. Stallings
does
not live in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You've told us that.
MR. ERLICHMAN: He is not a resident. He is not an
elector, and I -- I resent, as I said before on many occasions, Mr.
Stallings being -- telling me and the rest of the taxpayers in
Collier
County how they should tax themselves at -- according to this Keep
Collier Paradise. I'm very, very concerned.
I wonder how many people that are going to be on this
advi -- land acquisition committee I believe it is are supposed to
be
residents of Collier County. I think that's the requirement for
any
-- any advisory com -- any advisory groups. But I know that in the
past certain people who have -- who are not residents are on these
advisory groups. And then, of course, I'm told that these are ad
hoc
advisory groups.
I don't know. I -- I'm wondering what is happening now
to our -- to the -- I've gotta get myself collected.
Okay. I have a Keep Collier -- Keep Collier Paradise --
two pages here, and on the first page it says -- I think it's the
second paragraph -- Keep Collier Paradise is a citizens' committee
composed of a cross-section of Collier County residents, Collier
County residents, businesspeople, environmentalists, and
development
professionals. But they say Collier County residents, and there's
one
person on that committee who is not a resident: Fran Stallings.
How
many other statements in this Keep Collier Paradise statement are
false?
I don't know. I just -- I cannot understand what has
happened here because of this -- of this agenda item which was
supposed to be asking for advertising. It's completely turned
around.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question, and maybe
Mr. Bontemps can answer this. Keep Collier Paradise is a -- is a
PAC,
political committee?
MR. BONTEMPS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume then you're raising
money to try to educate the public and pass --
MR. BONTEMPS: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the things that
Commissioner -- or I'm sorry. The old habit, hard to break --
Representative Saunders brought to us months ago was that this was
a
private initiative and he would like us to put this group's
initiative
on the ballot. We said, fine, we're not going to do the wording
for
you. It's a private initiative. But if you want to put it on the
ballot, we'll put it on the ballot.
The concern I have is you have a political committee
raising money. You have a private initiative. You have them --
those
same folks raising money to pass this item which is fine, but then
we're being asked to spend public tax dollars to advertise the
item.
And the public hasn't said yay or nay yet, and we've got the --
we're
saying we'll put the ordinance in. We're required to do legal
advertising for an ordinance prior to it coming before this board.
It seems if this is a private initiative and if you are
raising money to pass this, then the burden should fall on that
group
to pay for that legal advertising, not on the taxpayer at large.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much would that be? Do we
have some estimate? Gotta be you I'm asking.
MR. BONTEMPS: Are you asking me?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. I was asking Mr.
Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: To place the public legal notice for the
ad?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
MR. DORRILL: I'd say less than a hundred dollars.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I -- I -- I will make a
contribution to the PAC in that amount for that purpose.
MR. BONTEMPS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds like you might be
supportive of the ballot question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's just a principle item.
I mean, any -- any other group that comes in wanting action pays
for
their own legal notice. If there's a land use change or anything
else, they pay their own way, so thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. I think that's a good
point. I'll be glad to do that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next, please.
Mr. Bontemps, you're done.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Varner.
MR. BONTEMPS: Is that it?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're done. Yes, sir.
MR. BONTEMPS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Varner and then Mr. Perkins.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I'd like to stress we're
not discussing the issue of -- of the ordinance. We're discussing
the
direction we've given staff to prepare it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please let's -- let's --
MS. VARNER: Well, I don't know --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- confine our remarks to whether or
not --
MS. VARNER: I'm still so confused.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Excuse me.
MS. VARNER: Oh, pardon me. Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's confine our remarks to whether
or not this should come back for a hearing on October the 8th;
nothing
else, please. Okay. Go ahead.
MS. VARNER: All right. My name is Jane Varner.
probably be out of order right away.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks for the warning anyway.
MS. VARNER: I'm -- I'm just so -- I'm just confused
about like the wording. Has the wording been determined, what's
going
on the ballot?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
MS. VARNER: The wording has been determined.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes.
MS. VARNER: Does the wording make -- the Collier County
commission is not in any way tied to the wording as showing that
they
are approving this; right? Are -- is -- are -- is Collier County -
_
are the commissioners at all mentioned in the wording on the
ballot?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Commissioner shook head.)
MS. VARNER: Not at all.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am.
MS. VARNER: So it's presented as a just purely green
space, and does it talk about the amount of money raised? Does it
talk about any specifics? It just merely --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If you don't mind, I'll -- I'll
read the ballot question to you.
MS. VARNER: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Shall an additional one half of
1 percent surtax, sales tax, pursuant to ordinance number 96-34 be
levied in Collier County for a period of 4 years commencing
February
1, 1997, and ending January 31, 2001, to purchase lands primarily
in
and around the urban areas of Collier County for passive
recreation,
conservation, and protection of natural resources and to preserve
biodiversity, air and water quality, groundwater recharge, flood
control, aesthetics, and density reduction? That's the ballot
question.
MS. VARNER: That's the ballot question. So it's in and
around, so it's not really clear that it's just urban. So anybody
voting on that could assume it's outside of the urban area also.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But that's the purpose for the
second ordinance that we're talking about today.
MS. VARNER: Oh. So you're talking about rewriting some
of this? No.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A new ordinance.
MS. VARNER: A new --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The ordinance is a supporting
document for the ballot question. In other words, if you vote yes
or
no on the ballot question, the ordinance is the supporting document
or
implementing document. The discussion today is whether or not we
want
to make changes to that implementing document, and that will come
back
on the 8th, and those changes will be discussed at that time.
the
ballot question remains the same. It's the implementing ordinance
that is subject to change.
MS. VARNER: And so then it will be up to -- to those
pro and con to bring out the details to the electorate concerning
the
maintenance, the out -- all of the details of how much revenue,
lost
revenue, because people may shop in Lee County because of the half
cent and so then that -- so this is all we're discussing now. I
guess
then I have nothing to say except come back? Is that --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: August -- I'm sorry. October
the 8th.
MS. VARNER: October the 8th. Okay. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins and then Ms. Barsh.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning again, commissioners. A1
Perkins, Belle Meade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property
Rights.
This needs a real good hard look at. We have
preservation 2000 which you didn't get a chance to vote on, three
billion dollars in debt with a nine billion dollar debt service
putting a -- putting a burden on the people.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A1, A1 --
MR. PERKINS: Bring it back?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- should we -- should we bring this
back for a look on October the 8th or not?
MR. PERKINS: Yes. You should bring it back, and you
should have a very well advertised meeting and have it at night.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. PERKINS: When all of the people that can take and
be here can be here because you're putting a burden on the working
class of this county. The people who are paying --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, A1. I'm not putting a
burden on anybody. This is going to the electorate for a vote. I
don't want you to categorize it as I'm putting the burden on
anyone.
MR. PERKINS: No, I take that back.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. PERKINS: You as a person are not. But what I --
this burden is going to be put, if it goes through, on the working
class of this community. And half of them can't even speak
English,
yet they pay the price. They pay their taxes. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Barsh.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The ballot question is
multi-lingual.
MS. BARSH: Frances Barsh. I just have a question. If
the ballot question is -- cites the present ordinance as I heard
when
the question was recited by Commissioner MAtthews, then a change in
the ordinance is a change in the basis upon the -- which the
absentee
voters vote. So there is a great, great correlation in changing
the
basis upon which people vote. There is a correlation between any
change in the ordinance now because the ordinance, the original
ordinance, has been cited in the language of the ballot question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We just had this discussion, you
know, and I was speaking to Mr. Erlichman about it. We are not --
they're not proposing to change 96-34. The ordinance that is being
proposed for discussion is the implementing ordinance which is a
totally separate ordinance. If the ballot -- if no ordinance were
adopted and the ballot question were approved, this board would
have
to adopt some implementing ordinance.
MS. BARSH: Why can't that wait until after the vote?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It can, and we will discuss that
on the 8th, whether that is appropriate at that point or
afterwards.
But the point is that we're not changing the ordinance that is
cited
in the ballot question. We are reviewing the implementing
ordinance
which has to be done.
MS. BARSH: Which is an entirely different item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
MS. BARSH: Okay. But then that should wait until after
the voters have their say.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And on the 8th we'll probably
have that discussion.
MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Can we have a motion then,
please?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I move we give staff
direction to advertise the ordinance as -- with the suggestions for
change that were made by Mr. Saunders in his presentation this
morning.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bring it back on the 8th for
public hearing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
That concludes our agenda today.
Item #10D
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA - CONTINUED TO 9/24/96
MR. DORRILL: I do have one -- one question with that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, I'm sorry. That's right.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We had this one item.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm sorry, Mr. Dotrill. We had a
motion to table. Do we need a motion --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to untable the Health
Planning Council.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to
untable. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me read to you the
highlights from 408.033. It says the members of each council shall
be
appointed in an equitable manner by the county commission having
jurisdiction in the respective district. And then it describes
that
shall be representatives of healthcare providers and so on. It
does
not give sole discretion to the health council. So if there are
other
applicants, I'd like to at least be aware of that and be making an
informed choice.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's prudent under the
statement of equitable manner by the county commissioners that we
at
least know the options available.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'll be happy to continue my
motion for a week.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask -- let me ask the
board a question here. We don't seem to be involved in the process
that we're charged with.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're -- we're charged with appointing
in an equitable manner the members of each council. We don't seem
to
be involved in that process at all other than they give us a
recommendation and we -- we're supposed to rubber stamp it. So
what
I'm suggesting is that we do the advertising as we do for any other
board that we're charged with the responsibility of appointing the
members --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- and we then select the appointees
from that group of respondants.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds like what you're
discussing -- and, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I don't know if you have
difficulty with that or not -- is actually to readvertise the
position.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just don't know what the
repercussions to the council will be in the meantime.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with continuing for one
week. Let's get those questions answered in the interim, and we
ca~
discuss next Tuesday which course to take.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if we need to extend the
terms of those whom -- who are expiring like we just did with the
planning council for another month so we can advertise, maybe we
ca~
do that.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second the motion.
MS. FILSON: May I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes.
MS. FILSON: If they have other applicants and she faxes
them to me, we can include them in the executive summary and -- and
__
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Put that on for next week.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Commissioner Norris's
suggestion was that we're going to advertise.
MS. FILSON: Okay. You want me to advertise for the
vacancies.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Wait till next week. Don't do
anything till next week. We're going to re -- we're going to talk
about this some more next week.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I would like to ask you
please to find out from the council if there were other applicants
MS. FILSON: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- pursuant to their advertising.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion to continue. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Okay. Now, Mr. Dotrill, you said you had some?
MR. DORRILL: I'll hold mine till communications.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Isn't this communications?
PUBLIC COHMENT - AL PERKINS REGARDING VARIOUS FUNDING ISSUES
MR. DORRILL: We've got one public comment.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, public comment.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, Citizens
for Constitutional Property Rights.
Just a couple of things of thought. 4-H funding, the
extension agents, the reaction on the agricultural people of this
county needs a good look at. It involves not only the production
of
food but it -- also the preservation of land and the whole five
yards. It also involves the people who have orange trees in the
backyard and little gardens and all the rest of it. This
information
is available from the extension agent.
Now, we have in the past did a lot of funding on
fireworks in Lake Avalon. Needless to say, when it comes down to
4-H,
I'd rather put the money into the 4-H program than I would into a
jail. When you keep these kids busy, you keep them out of trouble.
It's just that simple, and any kid that is obligated with animals
or
with a farm or anything like that, he goes to bed early because
he's
tired out. He doesn't have time to take and get in trouble.
Change of subject. Landfill gas, gas to electric, the
use and the resale of this gas because right now we're flaring it
off
at $100,000 a month. There's also fuel for trucks right there.
There's also fuel for our -- to take and power some of our stuff
for
the county. Are we going to do anything about it, or are we just
going to burn it up because that's exactly what it was? It's no
difference than if I held a hundred dollar bill and turned and put
a
match to it. Where are we going with this? Thank you.
PUBLIC COHMENT - GIL ERLICHHAN REGARDING REINSTALLATION OF PUBLIC
SEATING AND 4-H FUNDING
MR. DORRILL: We have another one. Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Good afternoon. Gil Erlichman speaking
for myself. I reside in East Naples. I would -- I have two things
I'd like to address. Number one are the re -- the chairs that we
have
here to replace the new chairs that we had installed. I hope the
taxpayers are not going to be asked to pay again for the
reinstallation of the -- of the -- of the chairs which were
supposed
to be excellent chairs.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just setting wedding
ceremonies on the side in here. That's why we got the white --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are you charging enough for the
charges, though?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. ERLICHMAN: So I just hope that there's a -- there's
a warranty or a guarantee with the original chairs that were
installed
here and at no cost to the taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, there is, I
believe?
MR. DORRILL: There -- there is no cost to you. The
manufacturer attempted to fix the chairs, and we indicated we were
not
satisfied with the fix, and they are standing behind their product,
and they will replace them at no cost to the county commission.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Thank you. Number two, feeling the
budget crunch, this is on the 13th of September, and this is about
the
-- Collier County funding partially the 4-H programs. And it says
that Mr. Olliff said that there's a problem because this -- this
year's budget process commissioners are looking to cut and reduce
the
need for a tax -- for a tax increase. So the amount of money that
the
county gives toward this program I believe, yeah, is $152,000. The
balance comes from the state.
Well, this 4-H program -- I've -- I've known about these
4-H programs since I was a kid, and I lived in New York City, and I
I still heard about 4-H programs. It's a very worthwhile program.
It
teaches -- it teaches these children out on the farm -- in the
farming
areas, in the agricultural areas, how to budget their money, how to
raise animals. They have projects. I think it's one of the most
worthwhile programs that we have in this country.
And to say that we're going to have to charge these
children these fam -- of these families and a lot of them are
living
on a marginal -- you might say marginal income, and it would be a
hardship if they had to pay any money to partake in these pro -- in
this 4-H program.
But then I was very surprised for Mr. -- Commissioner
Mac'Kie to say that she thinks that the participants should have to
pay a minimal membership fee like the $8 county fee children who
play
in county's little league programs. Well, I don't think that's
analogous, Commissioner, because how can you compare someone -- a
child that's going out and playing baseball or -- or whatever games
they play -- they play in the -- in the county programs with a
program
like 4-H.
So I don't think that is actually an analogous issue,
and I think that the county -- I'm a member of the Taxpayer Action
Group, and here I go saying that the taxpayers should pay for this
part of this program. And I don't think it should be cut instead
of
Treeline Drive, correct. But I -- to me this is one of the most
worthwhile things that we have going in this country and in the
county, and I don't think that the -- that the children should be
charged or penalized because we have to cut back on our -- on our
budget. I would be willing to pay extra on my ad valorem tax to
support this 4-H program. Thank you.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, perhaps we need to
refresh everyone's memory. And, Mr. Dotrill, maybe before tomorrow
night's budget hearing, you'll pull out the minutes on this. But
when
we had the discussion within the extension service, the one area we
said we weren't going to touch was 4-H. And Commissioner Hancock
was
very eloquent stating all the benefits of 4-H. We talked about
cuts
in the extension service and that we shouldn't be providing free
farm
assistance to Gargiulo Farms who make -- MR. ERLICHMAN: Correct.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- millions and millions of
dollars a year, but we said we were going to leave 4-H alone. So
we
can pull those minutes out and talk about that.
MR. DORRILL: We don't need to. We -- we appear to be
the victims of a little bit of a misinformation campaign. And your
direction with respect to 4-H was to restore full funding. And, in
fact, you made an exception to your program budget policy in order
to
do that. You did encourage them to explore participant fees or
revenues that could offset the costs that are otherwise being paid.
And there's a foundation that is there that supports 4-H, and it's
my
understanding that their charge is to explore ways to raise money
to
help defray some of the costs.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unless this board has changed
its mind since a couple of months ago, 4-H is not in danger of
being
cut.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Thank you very much. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It -- it seems to me that we
restored the livestock agent because the livestock agent is --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 4-H related.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- works throughout the year.
MR. DORRILL: The little girl and her cow will be all
right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews, do you have
anything else?
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I do want to encourage them
to do --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- some fund raising as we said
in our earlier -- in our earlier workshop that those who can pay
should pay.
Item #14A
DISCUSSION BY COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS REGARDING BUDGET HEARING
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews, do you
have anything else?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I have one thing to say,
and that is tomorrow evening I do have a conflict and probably will
not be able to attend the budget hearing. And I have read where
there's going to be discussion of reducing reserves even further to
reduce the millage. And I personally would like to urge this board
not to do that. We've done a lot of work to give ourselves an
excellent fiscal position in bond ratings and so forth. I'd -- I'd
like you to consider exercising some care before we put ourselves
in a
precarious possible --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, anything else?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have nothing.
Item #14B
DISCUSSION BY COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE REGARDING WAIVER OF IMPACT
FEES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One item. 16(A)(3) which
passed on the consent agenda talks about a deferral of impact fees,
75
percent deferral.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- I don't know the
details on this, but I would ask staff, ask Mr. Dotrill to look at
this -- something about --
MR. DORRILL: Is that an affordable housing --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, affordable housing
thing. It is I'm told -- and again, this has not been confirmed.
I
got a handwritten note handed to me this morning. But it's just
over
an acre, and everything else in the area is over two and a half.
It's
an estate type lot.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One and a quarter acre?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's a question over
what's allowed on that property and what's not sizewise. And I
don't
know the answer to that. Just worth looking at I guess.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Some of the one and a quarter
acre -- acre-lots are nonconforming, but they're legal lots because
they existed prior to the change in the law.
Item #15A
DISCUSSION BY COUNTY MANAGER REGARDING CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED
BUDGET
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: I have -- I have two things. One is a
question. The proposed green tax ordinance today references two
exhibits that I think that are crucial just for good government
purposes. One of them is called the acquisition procedure, and
there's also another one called the assessment land acquisition
criteria. Are we in receipt of those? Has anyone seen those?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The criteria? Yes, it's -- if
each of you have this, it's on the back of this.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. As long as we have it and staff can
have an opportunity to review it, that's fine.
The other thing, I wanted to quickly go over with you
the proposed analysis of changes to the tentative budget for
tomorrow
evening and tell you where we are. And unless otherwise directed,
I
intend to tell the staff to make the reductions in the millages
accordingly.
The first thing that we are doing as a result of the --
the first adoption hearing is to eliminate that reserve that was
extraordinary and set aside for the first year service fee at 1.7
million dollars. We have with the assistance of the budget staff
leaned on the constitutional officers in order to get a -- a more
realistic turnback that is going to increase the turnbacks by
$600,000
which decreases then the amount of ad valorem that you need for
beginning fund balances.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, that's good.
MR. DORRILL: Between the first hearing and today, we
have received -- new revised estimates on state revenue sharing for
this year are going to increase by $312,000. And, therefore, we
are
projecting higher than initially budgeted revenue sharing for the
fiscal '97 year of $303,000.
We made one adjustment to reduce the amount for the
first-year service fee anticipating when it would actually be
adopted. And the -- the net decrease then to ad valorem taxes
would
be $2,143,000. With that number, I'm not in a position to
recommend
to you a cut in your general fund contingency beyond the 5.8
million
that was budgeted. But the net impact to the taxpayer, we go from
about a 13 percent increase in the aggregate millage rate over the
rollback to 9.5 percent increase over the rollback. That saves
approximately $12 per $100,000 of assessed value. So that average
home that we always talk about at $150,000 is going to pay about
$18
less in county commission taxes between the first and the second
hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we know what the total
aggregate millage is there under the -- that scenario?
MR. DORRILL: The general --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 3.7 something?
MR. DORRILL: The general fund millage then will
decrease to 3.724.
Item #15B
DISCUSSION BY COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING ITEM #8A1 (FINAL PLAT OF
HILLTOP ESTATES) - ITEM MAY BE BROUGHT BACK AS PUBLIC HEARING
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: One item. 16(A)(2) which was moved to
become 8(A)(1), the Hilltop Estates plat issue, the board exercised
its prerogative to deny. And Wayne Arnold had shown me in the Land
Development Code that there is a procedure there for it upon denial
to
come back as an advertised public hearing. So I just advise that
that
matter will come back either as an advertised public hearing unless
a
board member which will exercise a prerogative of reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It will or will not? I didn't
understand. It will come back?
MR. WEIGEL: It -- it -- it would appear that it will or
certainly can come back as an advertised public hearing which stems
from the board's denial of the plat proposal before it today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So whenever you deny a plat, they
can ask you again.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Maybe they'll fix that road when
it comes back.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Weigel.
Miss Filson, do you have anything else for us?
MS. FILSON: I have nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're adjourned then.
***** Commissioner Matthews moved, seconded by Commissioner
Mac'Kie,
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent
agenda be approved and/or adopted:
Item #16A1
RE-BID FOR THE "HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION CONTRACTOR",
BID
#96-2533 - PREVIOUS BIDS REJECTED
Item #16A2 - Moved to Item #8A1
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 96-422 AUTHORIZING A 75% DEFERRAL OF ROAD, LIBRARY
SYSTEM,
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
SYSTEM,
AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR A HOUSE TO BE
BUILT
BY ANN T. BROWN AT 270 SOLL STREET IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID
IMPACT FEES TO BE PAID FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND (191)
See Pages
Item #16A4
ONE (1) YEAR CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) TO CONTINUE TO PERFORM PETROLEUM
STORAGE FACILITY ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE COUNTY - NOT TO EXCEED
FUNDING
A_MOUNT OF $127,466.00
See Pages
Item #16A5
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR VILLAGE WALK, PHASE 4-
B -
WITH STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A6
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR SPORTS AUTHORITY - WITH LETTER
OF
CREDIT AND STIPULATIONS
See Pages
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 96-423 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PLAN TRANSFERRING $525.00 ORIGINALLY ALLOCATED FOR
IMPACT
FEE WAIVERS, RENTAL REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE AND CARRY FORWARD PER
AUDIT DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995, TO THE COLLIER COUNTY S.H.I.P. DOWN
PAYMENT/CLOSING COST ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
See Pages
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 96-424 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SILVER LAKES,
PHASE
TWO-A"
See Pages
Item #16B1 - Moved to Item #886
Item #1682 - This item has been deleted
Item #1683 - This item has been deleted
Item #1684
REJECT ANNUAL ORGANIC AND INORGANIC MULCH BID NO. 96-2559
Item #1685
TRANSFER FUNDS WITHIN THE GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT FUND
Item #1686
AWARD BID #96-2574, FOR STORMWATER DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE IN PINE
RIDGE
INDUSTRIAL PARK, TO THE LAKE DOCTORS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$17,722.00
Item #1687
APPROPRIATION OF THE CURRENT YEAR CDD APPLICATION FEE REVENUE TO
FUND
COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT APPLICATION PROCESSING COSTS
Item #1688
CHANGE ORDER TO WORK ORDER NO. WHBP FT-96-7 WITH WILSON, MILLER,
BARTON
AND PEEK, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL SURVEY AS PART OF THE DESIGN FOR
GOLDEN
GATE BOULEVARD BETWEEN COUNTY ROAD 951 AND WILSON BOULEVARD, CIE
NO.
62, PROJECT NO. 63041 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,410.00
See Pages
Item #1689
APPROVAL OF THE NOTICES OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
NOTICE TO PAY SEWER IMPACT FEE STATEMENT FOR THE TIMBERWOOD
SUBDIVISION
See Pages
Item #16B10
AWARD BID #96-2571 TO COASTLINE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, FOR THE PURCHASE
AND
DELIVERY OF ONE FRONT-END LOADER FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - IN THE AMOUNT OF $77,585.00
Item #16Bll - This item has been deleted
Item #16B12
ACCEPTANCE OF THE RECYCLING & EDUCATION AND WASTE TIRE GRANT
AGREEMENTS
AND APPROVAL OF ALL APPROPRIATE BUDGET AMENDMENTS
See Pages
Item #16B13
AWARD BID NO. 96-2568 TO GENERAL CARBON CORPORATION, FOR ACTIVATED
CARBON, IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $60,000.00
Item #16B14
AWARD ANNUAL CONTRACT BID NO. 96-2572, TRAFFIC SIGNAL COMPONENTS,
TO
TRAFFIC PARTS, INC., IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $6,000.00
Item #16C1
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT OF OCEAN STATE LEMONADE, A
CONCESSIONAIRE AT IHMOKALEE RECREATION/AQUATIC COMPLEX
See Pages
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 96-425 APPOINTING BOB RILEY, CYNTHIA WHETSELL AND CAROL
ZEEDYK TO THE 1996-97 INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COUNCIL (THE
COUNCIL) ON
EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES
See Pages
Item #16D1
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PCA SOLUTIONS,
INC.
AND THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COHMISSIONERS FOR GROUP HEALTH
CLAIMS
ADMINISTRATION SERVICES
See Pages
Item #16D2
AWARD BID #96-2563, TO SUNBELT MEDICAL SUPPLY, FOR THE PROVISION OF
HEDICATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE, IN THE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $40,000.00
Item #16D3
APPROVAL OF A TWO-YEAR SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH MARQUETTE
ELECTRONICS, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $10,812.00
See Pages
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 96-426, CERTIFYING THE APPLICATION FOR AND USE OF EMS
TRUST
FUND MONIES WILL IMPROVE AND EXPAND PRE-HOSPITAL EMS DEPARTMENT AND
FIRE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIES AND WILL NOT SUPPLANT EXISTING BUDGET
ALLOCATIONS; AND EXECUTION OF THE GRANT APPLICATION AND GRANT
DISTRIBUTION FORM
See Pages
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 96-549, 96-586 AND 96-590
Item #16G1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
1994
REAL PROPERTY
No. Dated
206 7/29/96
1995
REAL PROPERTY
No. Dated
250 7/29/96
Item #16G2
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #16G3
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been filed and/or directed to the
various departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE IN FUND 115 THE GRANT
HATCHING FUNDS RECEIVED FROM FUND 602
Item #16H2
CERTIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE SUBGRANT AWARD FOR THE ANTI-DRUG
ABUSE GRANT #97-CJ-6J-09-21-01-007/SERIOUS HABITUAL OFFENDER
COMPREHENSIVE ACTION PLAN (SHOP) PROGRAM OF $183,957.75 AND
APPROVAL OF
THE RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENT
See Pages
Item #16H3
COPS GRANT AWARD DOCUMENT FOR COHMUNITY POLICING TO COMBAT DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND APPROVAL OF THE RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENT
See Pages
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 12:50 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Shelly Semmler