Loading...
BCC Minutes 08/07/1996 S (Solid Waste Assessments) SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 1996, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:09 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris Bettye J. Matthews Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3A & #3B RESOLUTION 96-341 AND RESOLUTION 96-342, RESPECTIVELY, APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND ADOPTING SAME AT THE NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PURPOSES OF UTILIZING THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.3632, FLORIDA STATUTES, FOR SOLID WASTE DISTRICT NO. 1 MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT AND SOLID WASTE DISTRICT NO. 2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT, RESPECTIVELY, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 90-30, AS AMENDED - ADOPTED WITH CHANGE CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll call this public hearing to order on August the 7th, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, could you give us an invocation and a pledge, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this evening for this opportunity to discuss this important business issue for our community. As always it's our prayer that you would guide the deliberations and the decisions that are made here this evening and that the results would be beneficial to the people of Collier County and that you'd bless this time together, and we pray these things in Jesus's name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) MR. CARNELL: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of your support services division, Steve Camell, your general services director. We have two agenda items for presentation to you tonight to be presented simultaneously. They pertain to obtaining authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to approve the preliminary assessment roll and adopt it as the non-ad valorem assessment roll pursuant to Section 197.3632 of the Florida Statutes for solid waste Districts 1 and 2 respectively. This action is being taken pursuant to previous action by the board to incorporate said assessments into the annual ad valorem tax billing. The staff has notified the affected property owners -- some 55,000 -- by first class mail that this assessment will be appearing on the ad valorem bill in November. As part of implementing this new method of billing, staff has received comments from various citizens' groups regarding the billing of certain residential properties; and as such, there's an issue we do need to call to your attention tonight. Under our current practice the county bills the mandatory assessments for all residential properties that contain less than five units and all row houses. All properties containing five or more units are billed by our solid waste franchisee. The problem occurs when you have a property that has a mixed composition of property -- of units with dwellings that are less than five units and those that are more than five units and the concern here is that in those instances, where a property management association or some other type of third party that might be involved in paying the bill on behalf of the occupant does so, that under the ordinance here if the county is going to be billing those in the units of four or less, that there's a potential for double billing of people residing in those types of units. So our concern here tonight -- and we're going to try to address this. This is a two-prong approach. We have an interim strategy that we would like action from the board on tonight specifically to authorize and permit -- more specifically permit residents who are in that situation and who are potentially subject to double billing, as we've described it, to have the option to pay their assessment through their property management association who in turn will pay the county and by doing so be exempted from the roll for those purposes and enable staff to not only implement that but to also issue credits to any individual who does not learn about this prior to the tax roll being issued. With that your DOR staff is here and prepared to answer your questions, and I believe we have some registered speakers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you want to go first? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, it doesn't matter to me. I just wanted to know how many affected households are -- MR. CARNELL: I don't believe we have a definitive number, Commissioner, at this point. Part of that is because we rely on the tax roll information from the property appraiser who, by the way and for the record, has been extremely cooperative, and we're very appreciative of their help, but their data does not define for us specifically where this would occur, and what we're -- that's why we're recommending that we do this on a request basis. We'll go ahead and notify all the parties, and if somebody becomes aware of a potential for double billing, they can contact the Department of Revenue, and we'll address their situation. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have a couple of questions, probably for Mr. Yonkosky. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Yonkosky, I think there's been a little bit of misconception on some people's part about exactly what we're doing here tonight, so I thought I'd ask you a couple of questions. It might help clear some of it up. Are we putting the solid waste assessment on ad valorem taxes? MR. YONKOSKY: No, Commissioner Norris, we are not. We're putting -- we're using the tax bill as a piggyback method of collecting this assessment, but it is an assessment. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Will this in any way change the amount of assessment for solid waste that someone has to pay? MR. YONKOSKY: No, sir, it will not, not for the first time as -- as the commissioners know, this time -- we will be billing three-quarters of a year on the first time because of the change from a calendar to a fiscal year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The -- another question is the -- what is the reason that we're going from a separate mailing for solid waste to a single mailing for the solid waste and property taxes? Of course, obviously the answer is going to be to make cost-efficient savings in billing costs and administrative costs, but is there anything beyond that? MR. YONKOSKY: It makes it very easy for staff to collect the money. It allows us to control the contract, in essence, also. And as you know, as we've talked in the past, sometimes there's 4,000 or a greater number of units that do not pay that bill. By putting it on the -- without some collection procedures through the county, which is very expensive, and by putting it on the tax roll and collecting it at the same time the tax bill is collected, we will end up reaching the 97 percent collection process so that the tax roll -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So in other words, it's the same fee or the same amount of money. You'll just receive one bill instead of two bills? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where in the past you've had the option of paying it quarterly or throughout the year, by placing it on the tax bill, does that option still exist? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, Commissioner Hancock, that option still exists. As you know, you can pay your tax bill on a quarterly basis also, so you can do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But they can't separate them. They can't pay their tax bill in total now and pay their garbage bill over quarterly periods? MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct. They cannot. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if they want that 4 percent, they've got to pay it all in one shot? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir, that's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The second question I have -- and this may be one for you, Mr. Weigel. By having a mandatory collection ordinance in the county -- which I don't think anyone will argue the merits of, and it's obviously a good idea -- and a private contractor to provide the service, did the county, in fact, already place itself in a position of guaranteeing the payment to that private contractor? Because the question I had is regarding collection; how come we don't let Waste Management continue to do the billing? Shouldn't they do it anyway? Well, by having a mandatory collection ordinance and a private contractor, haven't we already interjected ourselves into the collection process since we're required to pay Waste Management their full contract amount? MR. WEIGEL: Well, the answer is yes, but I'll try to respond to, I guess, a couple of aspects of your question. The county is responsible for the billing for what are termed residential units, and the contractor, the franchisee, is responsible for the billing of all commercial properties, and those are defined in the original ordinance, 1990 ordinance, and as amended thereafter, but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: I don't know if you have any further question or not. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. That -- that more or less answered it. I was just -- you know, the question was why can't Waste Management do it. Why is it on the tax bill? Why is the county interjecting themselves? MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Back -- well, I can tell you from memory that back when the contract was negotiated in 1990, part of the elements in determining both responsibilities and ultimately the fees and charges or administrative responsibilities that both the -- the county sector and the private sector would have, took into effect that the county would be responsible for certain billing and that the other -- the private sector would be responsible for other billing. Obviously, it's a responsibility and a cost to whoever has to do it, and the county, in part, received the rates that it did back in 1990 and thereafter based upon the county assuming a certain responsibility for billing, which has been a separate billing procedure always administrated through Mr. Carlton's office, but in this case we're just changing the billing procedure that has always been a county responsibility into the tax bill procedure that's available. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And I think you hit on it. The purpose of that was a end savings to the consumer? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One of the reasons. Mr. Dotrill, do we have public speakers? MR. DORRILL: We have just a couple. I wanted to ask -- perhaps, Mr. Yonkosky, if you could elaborate just briefly on the issue involving condominium property managers. As I understand it, for some mixed-use product communities, and I'll say attached zero lot line condominiums where Building A may have three units, Building B may have five units, but they are all part of a condominium or they may be residential units, but they're under the perpetual maintenance of a condominium or homeowners' association where the bills are paid through a condominium or property-owner assessment, we will still allow the option for those to be paid either through their property or condominium or property management association or individually but at their discretion; is that correct? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, Mr. Dotrill, that's correct. And that's what we're asking the board to authorize us to do. If you take and -- take all of the billing -- that is, divide a line right down the middle, the residential billing is on one side and the residential commercial is on the other, there are units, as Mr. Dotrill said, in property management associations that go over into the county's billing sphere; and what we're asking the board tonight to do is to authorize us to take those units and take them off the roll so that they can continue to be billed through their property association. And we've talked to many of these people, and they -- property managers, and they like that process, I believe, and you'll hear from some of them, and we would like to work with them to come up with a -- a correction for this situation in the future, and staff will come back to you. MR. DORRILL: The second part of that question, though, that does not mean that the owner of a two-story rental quadplex in Golden Gate City could do the same thing where he's going to then say it's no longer my responsibility; it's my tenant's responsibility. He will be -- and receive on his tax bill a special assessment as the owner of the quadplex for all of the garbage under the mandatory scenario that you've outlined? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir, that's -- that's absolutely correct. The -- only if they're part of a large multiplex complex will they be allowed the exception. Otherwise, they'll pay as if they were a single-family residential or a quadplex or -- MR. DORRILL: My final question then for board -- and some of the people who are here from the public -- the other concern that I hear sometimes with respect to mandatory collection of residential property is, we live way out in the Golden Gate Estates, or we live on a rural, lime rock road that is not a county road, and the concern that I hear is they missed my garbage, or we don't get mandatory pickup at our location. What does our current franchise agreement say with respect to someone who may live in a single-family home and who's now going to receive a bill for solid waste collection but -- theoretically let's just say they live at the end of Rock Road, which is not a county road and it's off of 846. Are they entitled to receive service from the provider because they are now going to receive on their property tax bill the charge for that? MR. YONKOSKY: There were several of those like that, and they have been an exception in the past, and some of them have not appeared on the roll, and we plan to follow that same scenario or process right on through. MR. DORRILL: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have five speakers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Ramos. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: While the speakers are coming up, we might remind those that maybe have not been here before that we ask our speakers to keep their remarks to five minutes, please, and leave time for the next speaker. MR. DORRILL: While Mr. Ramos is coming up, Hiss Hitchell, Laurie Hitchell, you'll be next. And if I could have you just come up here and stand by, you'll follow this gentleman. MR. RAMOS: Good evening. My name is John Ramos. I live at the Orchards in North Naples. We have -- we have 15 -- potentially 15 four-unit buildings and then 15 six-unit buildings. We're all under -- present under a commercial pickup with Waste Management, also with the recycling bins. Now, if you change this over to the system that you're proposing here now, what will happen is we'll -- we'll all be required -- those 15 buildings or 60 units will be requiring individual waste bins for the recycling bins, and you will have to have somebody behind the truck picking up the individual rubbish which makes it cost ineffective for us to do, because at present we do it commercially. We go to the dumpster ourselves. We go to the recycling bins ourselves. You'll be doubling your cost in that alone. So as these people are proposing, we would like to see our units exempt from this situation, because we are paying it to Waste Management directly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, that's not the way I understood what -- the conversation was here earlier that the master condominium association could -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Continue. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- could continue to pay the entire bill for all of the -- MR. DORRILL: That's my understanding. You may -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And your operation would remain the -- MR. RAMOS: Well, the thing that I received, in any unit -- four-unit building was to be considered a residential unit. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Maybe I can clear it up for you. Mr. Yonkosky was explaining this for us, and after we do the two public hearings on the assessments rolls, the two resolutions, we're going to go ahead and authorize staff to do exactly what you're asking for. MR. RAMOS: Well, that's what -- that's what they told us we're going to do, but since you called me to say something, I -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Hiss Hitchell, you'll be next, and then I have, I believe, Mr. Wiler, James Wiler or Wilet. MS. HITCHELL: Hi. I'm Laurie Hitchell. As a third-party interest, we have a unique situation here that needs to be addressed. I live in Section 30, Township 49, Range 27 E, and at the end of the paved road there's a sign that says end of county maintenance. Well, the property owners have to maintain our private roads, and I'm not complaining. This is a continual thing at the owners' expense. We have too much garbage pickup, and he comes Tuesday and Friday. He's backing down my road, which is about a thousand feet long. He's backing it up only because there's no place for him to turn around. We think that once-a-week pickup is enough. Host of the people are single-family homes. We do have some farms out there, and if we have additional needs for garbage pickup, we can rent dumpsters. The area is prone to flooding. We think that it would reduce not only our maintenance on our road, but it would also probably reduce the maintenance of the vehicles that they're using for Waste Management, and the guy usually doesn't go any less than 40 miles an hour. And I just feel that it would be more efficient and less wear and tear on our roads and the vehicles if they could reduce the garbage pickup to once a week and keep the price the same way as it is. I guess that's about it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- this is kind of an unusual request. You want less service. I think that's great. MS. MITCHELL: Yeah. Once a week is enough, because he comes all the way out for one bottle. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would be fairly sure that if we contacted Waste Management, as long as each resident -- each and every MS. HITCHELL: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- resident on your road '- MS. HITCHELL: Well, I've done a -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- agreed to that, they would be willing to alter their pattern, and if not, I'm sure anyone on this board or the county manager would be happy to facilitate it. You're right; the price would stay the same because we '- MS. HITCHELL: Right. Once a week is enough. The maintenance on the vehicle -- the guy goes too fast. He seems to be really in a hurry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We appreciate that, and this is a little bit off the subject we're dealing with here tonight. MS. HITCHELL: I understand. I felt that this was my opportunity to -- MR. DORRILL: We can handle that administratively, and if she'll give me her phone number, we'll be happy to contact her. MS. HITCHELL: Okay. That's it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good enough. MS. HITCHELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If anyone else would like less service, please let us know. MR. DORRILL: And then, Mr. Davis, you'll follow this gentleman. MR. WILEY: Jim Wiley from the Orchards along with John Ramos on the board of directors, and all I want to say is that after receiving this notice and -- the help and the support that we got through Teresa and the staff above her right up to Leo has been great to listen to us and to understanding our situation. And one thing I do want to stress -- I know it's going our way, and I like it that way. The other thing you've got to take into consideration is that these are private roads that we have that we have to maintain. If we had to have three times a week people coming with those Waste Management trucks down our little -- our little streets, we'd have a real repair bill much sooner than we've already got money in reserves to take care of. But I want to once again stress my thanks and appreciation to Gary and to Teresa and this entire staff for listening to us and coming -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Camell, could you give this gentleman an extra five minutes, please. MR. WILEY: And thank you all. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're welcome. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Davis and then Mr. White. MR. DAVIS: Hello. I'm Angus Davis, and I'm representing Crystal Lake. I'm on the transitional board for the board of directors, and I'm -- just want to clear up the first statement that was made by the county. We have a private contract with Waste Management. It's for our development. We consist of part models, motored homes, trailers, fifth wheels, empty lots, and it's about 490 different entities in this development. We are now paying a contract on a private basis through Waste Management. It was renewed in November the 12th of last year for another three years. Does this eliminate us from this tax roll? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Can we get an answer to that from staff? MR. DAVIS: Because I'm getting calls from all over the world. See, all of these were forwarded through all these people that are not here, and they wanted answers, and that's the only reason I wanted to clear it up. MS. RIESEN: This -- this goes along -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Identify yourself, please. MS. RIESEN: -- the same thing -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your name? MS. RIESEN: Teresa Riesen for the record, Department of Revenue. This is the same sort of thing that we've been talking about. We've come into the point where we've got people paying Waste Management and people paying us, and it's a county nightmare for these people, and that is what we're asking you to do: Exempt the people off of the roll that are faced with this situation, because logically it would cost everybody too much money to say, oh, here's your credit and here's your credit and so forth. But we would like to do a study and come back to you with research and involve some of these people that have these concerns on what's the best way to bill and what's most economical for the county, and we can probably prepare that within the next six to nine months and come back to you and show you which is the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. But in the interim you're not going to change anything that they're doing now, which is this gentleman's concern. He doesn't want any changes. MS. RIESEN: That's what we're asking you to do. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. RIESEN: The ordinance does not address this. Mr. Constantine addressed it earlier when you did make a little change to it with the condominiums that could opt out, and we're just asking you can we do this administratively, but we do need these people to contact us, because I can't identify the size of a building in any system that we have in the county presently. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He brings up RV resorts, which again, we're going to have to tailor that language to include that because that's -- you know. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a lot of them. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I've got a note here to make it condominium associations, and we could amplify that with condominium and homeowner or property owner associations, something to that effect. In fact, wewll let you work that language out so that -- so that it will work -- MS. RIESEN: Wewll let the attorneys work it out. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- to facilitate everybody getting what they want. MR. DAVIS: Would it help if I would supply you with a list of names, addresses? MS. RIESEN: It would help greatly. MR. DAVIS: Iive got it all, and Iill be glad to bring it to you if I can get your card. MS. RIESEN: Okay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: And Mr. White. Mr. White will be your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, committee members, my name is Bill White. Iim the property manager at the Vineyards, and I also represent five other associations in the Greater Naples area. The proposal as it was set up to be does create a substantial problem for mixed-size properties, as you are now aware. The current method of billing where if a property has only four-unit buildings in it they do now get their bill through their special assessment bill, and they get sidewalk pickup versus commercial pickup, which under the present situation -- if therels a 4-unit building and a 2-unit building and a 20-unit building, they are only -- they only can have commercial residential pickup, dumpster pickup. So that, I think, needs to stay in place until something more has been worked out. Iid like to see this be turned over to a committee to research -- and Iim volunteering for that committee as a certified property manager and a member of the Condominium Association Institute in this area -- to get this going and get it put together properly so that everybody concerned can put it to rest and get rid of the trash. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, thank you. I believe welre aware of the problem, and welre going to try to take care of it for you here tonight. Thatls it then, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. We were on a roll, but now I see your attorney huddled up with the staff, and letls see if hels with us or against us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The kind of conference no one likes to see at this hour. MR. WEIGEL: Well, welre working and discussing to try to accommodate the recommendation that staff makes to the board and how to make it work for the affected parties, the condominiums and cjusters, four and sixplexes and things of that nature, and the question was the roll that you would be approving tonight for each -- the two rolls actually for each of these to benefit units include -- and most probably includes the properties such as the next-to-the-last gentleman who just spoke about his trailer and different arrangements of housing that they have. And so that would appear on the roll, and that would be submitted and go to the tax collector and merge with the tax collectorls regular property roll and go through and -- there are two ways to remove those properties: One would be a board direction either tonight or even to continue this hearing for two weeks so that staff could come back with a specific -- specific properties to be removed from the original roll that would be approved by the board, or the second way would be for the board to recognize the rolls tonight as they are presented to the board tonight directing staff to prepare the necessary ENI certificates that would come back and affect the roll even after it's submitted to Guy Carlton, the tax collector. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. MR. WEIGEL: And that may be the way you want to go. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Whatever's the easiest for the staff, and what we want to do is make sure that -- that the affected property owners can work easily with our staff to get this done without any headaches and without having to come back to the board, if possible. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because we're also going to have to ensure that a commercial contract is in place before removing them from the roll so that someone doesn't get by without any trash collection and has 16 burn barrels in the backyard. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And also gets properly billed for it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. MR. YONKOSKY: And staff believes that -- the latter process that the county attorney recommended to you as one of the two alternatives is the recommendation that staff would make to you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do we have a motion, then? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion. I'm not sure which to do. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do them one at a time, and then we'll go with the authorization of staff. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: All right. I would like to make a motion that Item 3(A) be approved in accordance with the recommendations Mr. Weigel has made as to the exceptions that we will consider. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that. Is that sufficient, Mr. Weigel? There's a -- MR. DORRILL: Have you closed the public hearing, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, yes, that's right. Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll repeat the motion. I'd like to move that we approve Item 3(A) as presented to us with the exception that we include the wording necessary to achieve a -- a -- an exemption for the multiplex homes and TTRVs that may be involved in this and concerned. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that sufficient, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: I think it is. I think the staff and the counsel understand exactly what you're saying. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let's put it on the record that it reflects the second option that you pointed out to us. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And that second option, for the record, is that the staff will prepare the appropriate ENI certificates that will be reviewed for legal sufficiency, signed off by the county attorney as the designee on behalf of the board by previous resolution so that the record will be complete at that point for these properties. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make the same motion for Item 3(B). COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for Item 3(B). All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? The~e's no fu~the~ business, so we'~e -- oop. The~e's fu~the~ business, I see. DISCUSSION REGARDING GREEN SPACE REFERENDUM ISSUE MR. WEIGEL: Well, this is just a comment for the board, and that is that I had communication from Mr. Butt Saunders on behalf of the green space referendum issue that's coming before the -- going to be coming before the electors in November, and the ordinance that the board adopted provided for a referendum election, and it also referenced a advisory committee, an acquisitional advisory committee to be created, and that would be created by ordinance, and the recommendation by and through Mr. Saunders is that if the board would give direction to the county attorney and, in fact, we've already drafted that ordinance, we would advertise the ordinance for a public hearing of the board on -- I think September 24th would be the public hearing date. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It sounds like you already took your direction from Representative Saunders on that since you've already drafted it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a little bit of a problem with that, this board adopting an ordinance prior to any voter referendum approval of the green space tax. It seems to be a premature endorsement of the tax, whether you agree or disagree with the tax. I'm not comfortable adopting an ordinance that has no application until after a voter referendum before the referendum Occurs. MR. WEIGEL: In fact, if I may comment, the ordinance itself would take effect only upon the success of the referendum. It would sunset at -- the advisory committee would sunset with the referendum success which means a four-year period, and if the referendum failed, then the ordinance automatically fails also. I don't mean to speak on behalf of the people or Mr. Saunders in regard to the ordinance, but I think the idea was that this ordinance would probably provide some additional information as to the type of composition to be on the landfill advisory committee, which has different people from different walks of life and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It at least sounds to me like -- it sounds to me like an effort to answer the questions that we asked. I mean, when they were here we said, go away and come back with more information, and we'll put this -- we'll agree to put this on the referendum, but you need to flush it out some. It sounds like this is an attempt to flush it out, and we need to give the public the opportunity to see that information. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If they want to list it as public information in a meeting or present it to this board for our review, that's fine. But the actual adoption of an ordinance pending a referendum outcome I think is just an improper course, and I would -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you -- I'm sorry. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: But for them to put it on the record and say if it's approved, this is the form of -- that we believe will govern this, and it will be presented to the board. I think that's great. Present that. But I'm going to stop short of supporting or adopting an ordinance that may not have applications. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I suggest that we do discuss it on the 24th? Not so much as an ordinance but as a resolution to -- that the board will consider an ordinance upon the approval of a referendum. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Frankly, I'd like for it to say COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: And let the public know that if they approve it, this is the direction we're going to go in. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine, but the -- I think the argument raised by Commissioner Hancock is that -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Old what's-his-name over there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- we will be interfering ourselves into -- interjecting ourselves into their business if we do that. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I don't like the ordinance idea either. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Commissioner Hancock's idea -- if they want to present it as a public information item -- is great, and if we want to do that on a regular agenda, I think that's even better. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If we have future reservations, we can list them at that time. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I don't think we should get into voting on a resolution or an ordinance or anything else as a board, because that does -- whether it's intended that way or not, it appears that we're trying to influence the public outcome. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't want to influence the public outcome. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me see if I understand. I thought that -- and I have had no conversations with anybody about this, so I may misunderstand. I'm just hearing it for the first time. It seems to me that the public needs to know what they're being asked to vote on, and if they're being asked to vote for a tax that will be implemented in the following way, they need to know that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, yes. But it's a matter of whose responsibility is it to do that. It's not our project; it's someone else's. It's Butt Saunders' tax. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the -- but the -- but people need to know if they're going to vote on this, here's how your county commission is going to enforce it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think the group that brought the referendum question forward does have the responsibility -- this board has the responsibility of hearing the format in which that is going to be handled so that that's a part of the public record, and then the vote can be based on that. I just don't want to take official board action approving the format before the referendum occurs. I think that's the cart before the horse. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So put it on the agenda for presentation to the board with no official board action, and I'm comfortable with it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine. That's what we'll do then. Okay. As I started to say before, we have no further business, so this meeting is adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:42 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: Barbara Drescher